Attachment 4 - Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND)Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Pacific Resort Plaza
Development Project No. 2019-00161
Prepared for Planning Services Division
City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, California 92805
Prepared by Psomas
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 300
Santa Ana, California 92707-8794
October 2023
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx i Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Section 1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Purpose of the Initial Study ................................................................................ 1-1
1.2 Summary of Findings ......................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Public Review ..................................................................................................... 1-1
1.4 Report Organization ........................................................................................... 1-2
Section 2.0 Project Location, Background, and Environmental Setting ......................... 2-1
2.1 Project Location .................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Existing Project Site Conditions ......................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Surrounding Land Uses ...................................................................................... 2-1
Section 3.0 Project Description .......................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Physical Characteristics ..................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.1 Hotel and Drive-Thru Fast Food Restaurant ........................................... 3-1
3.1.2 Project Access, Circulation, and Parking ................................................ 3-1
3.1.3 Utilities .................................................................................................... 3-2
3.2 Construction Activities and Project Phasing ....................................................... 3-2
3.3 Discretionary Actions .......................................................................................... 3-2
3.3.1 Project Components ............................................................................... 3-2
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist.................................................................................. 4-1
Section 5.0 Environmental Evaluation ............................................................................... 5-1
I. Aesthetics ............................................................................................... 5-1
II. Agriculture and Forest Land Resources ................................................. 5-3
III. Air Quality ............................................................................................... 5-4
IV. Biological Resources ............................................................................ 5-25
V. Cultural Resources ............................................................................... 5-27
VI. Energy .................................................................................................. 5-29
VII. Geology and Soils................................................................................. 5-34
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................. 5-38
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................... 5-52
X. Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................ 5-55
XI. Land Use and Planning ........................................................................ 5-58
XII. Mineral Resources ................................................................................ 5-59
XIII. Noise .................................................................................................... 5-59
XIV. Population and Housing ........................................................................ 5-70
XV. Public Services ..................................................................................... 5-71
XVI. Recreation ............................................................................................ 5-74
XVII. Transportation....................................................................................... 5-74
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources ..................................................................... 5-79
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................... 5-81
XX. Wildfire .................................................................................................. 5-87
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance ...................................................... 5-88
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx ii Table of Contents
Section 6.0 Preparers ........................................................................................................... 6-1
Section 7.0 References ........................................................................................................ 7-1
TABLES
Table Page
Table 1 Air Quality Levels Measured at the Anaheim Monitoring Stations ................................ 5-5
Table 2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin .......................... 5-6
Table 3 California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards .............................................. 5-12
Table 4 Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions .................................................... 5-19
Table 5 Peak Daily Operational Emissions .............................................................................. 5-20
Table 6 Localized Significance Threshold Construction Emissions ......................................... 5-22
Table 7 Localized Significance Threshold Operational Emissions .......................................... 5-23
Table 8 Energy Use During Construction (Gallons) ................................................................. 5-32
Table 9 Transportation Energy (Gallons/year) ......................................................................... 5-33
Table 10 Energy from Utilities .................................................................................................. 5-33
Table 11 Estimated GreenHouse Gas Emissions from Construction ...................................... 5-50
Table 12 Estimated Annual GreenHouse Gas Emissions from Project Operation .................. 5-50
Table 13 Estimated Total Project Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................... 5-51
Table 14 Typical Noise Levels ................................................................................................. 5-60
Table 15 Monitored Noise Levels ............................................................................................ 5-61
Table 16 ReStaurant Noise Levels at Adjacent Property Lines ............................................... 5-64
Table 17 Existing and Projected Traffic Noise Levels .............................................................. 5-66
Table 18 Construction Noise Levels at Nearby Noise Sensitive Uses ..................................... 5-67
Table 19 Vibration Levels Per Construction Equipment .......................................................... 5-68
Table 20 Vibration Annoyance Assessment at Nearby Uses .................................................. 5-69
Table 21 Building Damage Assessment at Nearby Uses ........................................................ 5-69
Table 22 Population, Housing, and Employment Forecasts: City of Anaheim ......................... 5-70
Table 23 City of Anaheim Fire Services Facilities .................................................................... 5-72
Table 57 Existing and Proposed Manhole Flow Loading ......................................................... 5-82
EXHIBITS
Exhibit Follows Page
1 Regional Location and Local Vicinity ............................................................................. 2-1
2 Aerial Photograph .......................................................................................................... 2-1
3 General Plan Land Use Map .......................................................................................... 2-1
4 Site Plan ......................................................................................................................... 3-1
5a–c Floor Plan - Hotel ........................................................................................................... 3-1
5d Floor Plan – Walk-Up/Drive Thru Fast Food Restaurant................................................ 3-1
6a–b Exterior Elevations – Hotel ............................................................................................. 3-1
6c Exterior Elevations – Walk-Up/Drive Thru Fast Food Restaurant .................................. 3-1
6d–e Exterior Elevations and Detail – Puzzle Lift ................................................................... 3-1
7 Conceptual Planting Plan ............................................................................................... 3-1
8 Valet Parking Plan .......................................................................................................... 3-1
9 Demolition Plan .............................................................................................................. 3-2
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx iii Table of Contents
APPENDICES
Appendix
A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Data
B Cultural Resources
C Energy Analysis
D Geotechnical Investigation Reports and Paleontological Resources
E EDR Report
F Water Quality Management Plan
G Drainage Study
H Noise Calculations
I Trip Generation Memo and VMT Screening Analysis
J Sewer Study
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx iv Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 1-1 Introduction
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources
Code §21000 et seq.) and its Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15000 et
seq.), this Initial Study (IS) has been prepared as documentation for a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) for the proposed La Quinta Inn & Suites by Wyndham Hotel (Proposed
Project). This IS includes a description of the Proposed Project; location of the Project Site;
evaluation of the potential environmental impacts; findings from the environmental review; and
proposed mitigation measures to lessen or avoid environmental impacts on the environment.
Pursuant to Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Anaheim (City) is the lead
agency for the Proposed Project. The lead agency is the public agency that has the principal
responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The City, as the lead agency, shall have the
authority for project approval and adoption of the accompanying environmental documentation.
The purpose of this document is to evaluate the demolition of an existing vacant two-story
commercial building and construction of the Proposed Project. Overall, the Proposed Project
would involve construction of a 120-room hotel and a walk-up/drive-thru fast food restaurant with
associated parking.
1.2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Based on the environmental checklist form prepared for the Proposed Project (included in Section
4.0, Environmental Checklist) and supporting environmental analysis (provided in Section 5.0,
Environmental Evaluation), the Proposed Project would have no impact or a less than significant
impact on the environmental impact areas: Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forest Resources, Air
Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use and
Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation,
Transportation/Traffic, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. It is noted that a mitigation
measure has been identified in the Utilities and Service Systems due to its applicability, however
this mitigation measure is not required to reduce a potentially significant impact.
The Proposed Project has the potential to have significant impacts to the environmental impact
areas: Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water
Quality, Noise, and Tribal Cultural Resources, unless the recommended mitigation measures
described herein are incorporated into the Proposed Project.
According to the State CEQA Guidelines, it is appropriate to prepare an MND for the Proposed
Project because implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would eliminate or
reduce potentially significant environmental impacts of the Proposed Project to a less than
significant level.
1.3 PUBLIC REVIEW
The public review period for the IS/MND in accordance with Section 15073(a) of the State CEQA
Guidelines is October 19, 2023 to November 8, 2023. The IS/MND is available for public review
on the City of Anaheim website (www.anaheim.net), the Anaheim Planning and Building
Department (200 South Anaheim Boulevard), and the Anaheim Central Library (500 West
Broadway). In reviewing the IS/MND, the reviewer should focus on the sufficiency of the document
in identifying and analyzing the potential impacts of the Proposed Project on the environment and
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 1-2 Introduction
the ways in which the potentially significant effects are avoided or mitigated. Comments on the
analysis contained herein may be sent to:
Mr. Thomas Gorham, Contract Planner
City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162
Anaheim, California 92805
Email: tgorham@anaheim.net
Following receipt and evaluation of comments from agencies, organizations, and/or individuals,
the City will determine whether these comments have raised any substantial new environmental
issues. If not, or if the new issues do not provide substantial evidence that the Proposed Project
will have a significant effect on the environment, the Planning Commission and City Council will
consider the approval of the Proposed Project and environmental documentation.
1.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This document has the following sections:
Section 1 – Introduction. This section provides an introduction and overview describing
the conclusions of the IS.
Section 2 – Project Location, Background, and Environmental Setting. This section
provides an overview of the Proposed Project location; a description of existing on-site
and surrounding land uses; and a statement of purpose and need.
Section 3 – Project Description. This section identifies key Project characteristics and
includes a list of anticipated discretionary actions.
Section 4 – Environmental Checklist. This section contains a completed City of
Anaheim Environmental Checklist Form provides an overview of the potential impacts that
may or may not result from Project implementation.
Section 5 – Environmental Evaluation. This section contains an analysis of
environmental impacts identified in the environmental checklist. As necessary, a mitigation
program composed of mitigation measures (MMs) and standard conditions (SCs), follows
the narrative responses. In certain instances, these MMs were developed based upon
similar MMs that the City approved in conjunction with previously certified Environmental
Impact Reports (EIRs) or previously approved MND for similar projects.
Section 6 – Preparers. This section identifies those individuals that prepared the IS/MND.
Section 7 – References. This section identifies resources used to prepare this document.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 2-1 Project Location, Background,
and Environmental Setting
SECTION 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION, BACKGROUND,
AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The Project Site (APN 234-161-04 and 234-161-26) encompasses 1.57 acres (68,554 square feet
[sf]) located at 125 East Ball Road in the City of Anaheim, Orange County. The Project Site is
bound on the south by Ball Road and on the east by Technology Circle, as shown on Exhibit 1,
Regional Location and Local Vicinity.
2.2 EXISTING PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS
Currently, the Project Site is occupied by a vacant 10,530 sf two-story commercial building,
auxiliary storage sheds, and surface parking/vehicle storage space. Vegetation is limited to
ornamental landscaping at the Project Site’s perimeters. Exhibit 2, Aerial Photograph, represents
an aerial view of the Project Site and surrounding land uses.
The Project Site is currently designated by the General Plan for General Commercial land use.
The entire property is located within the Industrial (I) Zone.
2.3 SURROUNDING LAND USES
The land uses that surround the Project Site include the following:
Multi-family residential to the north and Walmart Neighborhood Market (1120 South
Anaheim Blvd) and associated parking lot to the northwest;
East Ball Road to the south;
Technology Circle and industrial uses including BPS Supply Group – Anaheim (215 East
Ball Road), Ollin Stone (301 East Ball Road), Brownson Technical School (110 South
Technology Circle), EMD Auto (1100 South Technology Circle), and NATEC International,
Inc. (1100 South Technology Circle) to the east; and
Commercial uses including Shoe City Anaheim (101 East Ball Road), Flame Broiler (109
East Ball Road), and Fiesta Auto Insurance (105 East Ball Road) to the west.
Exhibit 2, Aerial Photograph, provides an aerial view of the Project Site and its immediate
surroundings. The General Plan designates the surrounding properties for Residential Mid-
Density, Industrial and General Commercial land use as shown on Exhibit 3, General Plan Land
Use Map.
Western Medical Center - Anaheim
Disneyland
Disneyland Convention Center
Angel Stadium of Anaheim
Anaheim High School
Katella High School
Zion Lutheran School
Ball Junior High School
Paul Revere Elementary School
Betsy Ross Elementary School
St Catherines Military School
Abraham Lincoln Elem School
Benjamin Franklin Elem School
Saint Boniface School
Jefferson II Elementary School
Theodore Roosevelt Elem School
Thomas Jefferson Elem School
Prince of Peace Elem School
Alexander J Stoddard Elem SCH
Fairmont 2 Elementary School
Sycamore Junior High School
Boysen Park
Pearson Park
Poinciana Park
Lincoln Park
Ponderosa Park
Sage Park
Citrus Park
Stoddard Park
Little Peoples Park
§¨5 Harbo
r
B
lvd
W Ball Rd
S Harbor BlvdS State College BlvdE Katella Ave
E Ball Rd
W LincolnA veE Lincoln Ave
Anaheim
WayN Anahe
im
B
lvd
Anaheim
B
lvd
S
A
nahei
mBl
vdHarborBlvdW Katella Ave
W StS Lewis StW Broadway
W Orangewood AveOrangewood Ave N Eas
t
S
t
Cerritos Ave
S Disneyland DrDisney WayDisneylandDr
S
M
a
n
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
A
v
eAnaheim BlvdCerritos Ave S Eas
t
S
t
E Broadway
E Santa Ana St
E Vermont Ave
E Sycamore St
N Wes
t
S
t
S C
i
t
ron
S
t
E South StN C
i
t
ron
S
t
W North St
Walnut StHaster StS 9th StW South St
W Santa Ana St
S Walnut StS Wes
t
S
t
Gen e Autry WayS O
l
ive
S
t
W Sycamore St
W Crone Ave W Vermont Ave
M
anch
e
sterAve
W W e s t m o n t D r
E C enter St
E Howell Ave
Magic Way SM
anchesterAve
E South StECenterStW North St
A n a h e i m
G a r d e n G r o v e
O r a n g e
Anaheim Cemetery
Bur
l
ing
ton
No
r
the
rn
San
ta
Fe
R
lwy
Union Pacific RRRailroad
Union Pacific RR
Unio
n
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
R
R
D:\Projects\3ANA\009405\MXD\MND\ex_LV_RL_20220525.mxd²
Seal Beach
§¨710
§¨605
ST1 ST73
ST19
ST241
ST90
ST261
ST142ST72
ST60
ST71
ST55
ST57
ST241
Los AngelesOrange
BeachHuntington
Buena Park
Yorba Linda
Costa Mesa
Irvine
Mission
Lakewood
Downey
Westminster
Santa Ana
Whittier
Anaheim
Regional Location and Local Vicinity
Pacific Resort Plaza
Exhibit 1
(Rev: 06/29/2023 JVR) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Graphics\MND\ex_LV_RL.pdf
2,000 0 2,0001,000 Feet
Project Boundary
Project Boundary
Union
Pac
i
f
ic
RR
W Hill Pl
Lorraine Dr
STechnologyCirS Margate PlS Petal PlS O
l
ive
S
t
E Charlotte Av
e
E Florence Ave
E Susanne St
E Narda St
W Margate Dr SMe
l
r
o
s
e
St
W Hill AveS Camb
r
idge
S
t
E Clifton Ave
SAl
l
ecStSClaremontStS Ph
i
lade
lph
ia
S
t
W Guinida Ln
W Winston Rd S Iris StS C
laud
ina
S
tSLemonSt
W Vermont Ave
E Vermont Av
e
E Ball RdW Ball Rd
Anaheim
B
lvd
D:\Projects\3ANA\009405\MXD\MND\ex_Aerial_Location_20220525.mxd²
Aerial Photograph
Pacific Resort Plaza
Exhibit 2
(Rev: 06/29/2023 JVR) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Graphics\MND\ex_Aerial_Location.pdf
400 0 400200Feet
Project Boundary Aerial Source: Esri, Maxar 2019
Union
Pac
i
f
ic
RR
W Hill Pl
Lorraine Dr
STechnologyCirS Margate PlS Petal PlS O
l
ive
S
t
E Charlotte Av
e
E Florence Ave
E Susanne St
E Narda St
W Margate Dr SMe
l
r
o
s
e
St
W Hill AveS Camb
r
idge
S
t
E Clifton Ave
SAl
l
ecStSClaremontStS Ph
i
lade
lph
ia
S
t
W Guinida Ln
W Winston Rd S Iris StS C
laud
ina
S
tSLemonSt
W Vermont Ave
E Vermont Av
e
E Ball RdW Ball Rd
Anaheim
B
lvd
I-L
C-GC
O-L
R-LM
C-GC
R-LM
R-L
P-I
C-R
P-I
OS-P
R-L
I-L
C-GC
OS
R-LM
R-M
OS-P
School
C-GC
R-L
OS
C-GC
C-GC I-L
O-L
R-M
R-M
O-L
R-L
OS-PD:\Projects\3ANA\009405\MXD\MND\ex_GP_LandUse_20220615.mxd²
General Plan Land Use Map
Pacific Resort Plaza
Exhibit 3
(Rev: 06/29/2023 MMD) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Graphics\MND\ex_GP_LandUse.pdf
400 0 400200Feet
Project Boundary
General Plan Land Use
C-GC
C-R
I-L
O-L
OS
OS-P
P-I
R-L
R-LM
R-M
School Aerial Source: Esri, Maxar 2019Data Source: City of Anaheim
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 2-2 Project Location, Background,
and Environmental Setting
This page intentionally left blank
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 3-1 Project Description
SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
3.1.1 HOTEL AND DRIVE-THRU FAST FOOD RESTAURANT
The Proposed Project consists of an approximately 67,715 sf hotel and a detached 1,200 sf walk-
up/drive-thru fast food restaurant with associated parking at 125 East Ball Road as shown on
Exhibit 4, Site Plan. The hotel component of the Proposed Project would consist of a 120-room
hotel that would be five stories, 55-feet in height. The hotel is standard stay with limited food
service (continental breakfast). The first floor of the hotel would contain the designated lobby area
with a meeting room, sales and manager’s office, shop, pantry, breakfast area, and restroom
facility. The second through fifth floor of the hotel would consist of the guest rooms which would
provide both general guest rooms and three to four designated Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) accessible guest rooms per floor (refer to Exhibits 5a through 5c, Floor Plans – Hotel and
Exhibit 5d, Floor Plan – Walk-Up/Drive Thru Fast Food Restaurant). An observation deck is
proposed on the second level for guest-viewing of fireworks at Disneyland Theme Park. Also, a
fitness center and a conference room are proposed to be located on the second floor, and an
outdoor pool would be located on ground level adjacent to the hotel building.
The single-story 1,200 sf fast food restaurant building would be 16-feet in height and free-standing
from the hotel and located adjacent to East Ball Road. The drive-thru lane would include a pre
menu board, order point, , and various directional signage. There would also be a walk-up order
window. Exhibits 6a and 6b, Exterior Elevations – Hotel and Exhibit 6c, Exterior Elevations –
Walk-Up/Drive-Through Fast Food Restaurant, and Exhibits 6d and 6e, Exterior Elevations and
Detail – Puzzle Lift show the conceptual building exterior elevations for the Proposed Project.
Landscaping for the Proposed Project would consist of trees such as Arbutus “Marina”, Red
Rocket Crape Myrtle, Queen Palm, and Mediterranean Fan Palm, shrubs consisting of Foxtail
Agave, Variegated Flax Lily, and Little Rec Flax Lily, and ground cover of Blue Chalksticks and
Trailing Rosemary as shown on Exhibit 7, Conceptual Planting Plan.
3.1.2 PROJECT ACCESS, CIRCULATION, AND PARKING
Access to the Project Site is via South Technology Circle and East Ball Road. Guests of the hotel
would be required to stop and drop off/pick up their vehicles at the valet parking kiosks as shown
on Exhibit 8, Valet Parking Plan. The Project Site would include two four-story puzzle-lift enclosed
parking structures (three stories above ground and one story below ground) totaling 3,310 sf in
building area, covered parking, electric vehicle (EV) parking, and valet parking operations to meet
parking requirements. A Minor Conditional Use Permit will be required for the valet parking and
will be processed separately once the hotel operator chooses a valet operator and prepares and
submits a detailed valet parking operations plan. This will be required as a condition of approval.
The Proposed Project would provide 100 parking spaces. For the hotel, parking would consist of
seven standard spaces, eight EV spaces, four ADA accessible spaces, and 72 puzzle lift spaces1
for a total of 92 parking spaces. For the fast food restaurant, parking includes seven standard
spaces and one ADA accessible space for a total of eight parking spaces.
1 A puzzle lift parking system is a method of storing cars in a high-density manner using a multi-tiered mechanical
parking system. Puzzle parking systems can shift their platforms vertically and horizontally in most directions.
Source: Capsone Engineering Inc, 2023(06/08/2023 SAK) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Graphics\MND\ex_Site_Plan.pdfD:\Projects\3ANA\009405\GRAPHICS\ex_Site_Plan_20230608.aiPacific Resort PlazaSite PlanExhibit 4
Source: Red Inc Architects, 2023(06/08/2023 SAK) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Graphics\MND\ex_Floor_Plan.pdfD:\Projects\3ANA\009405\GRAPHICS\ex_Floor_Plan_A_20230608.aiPacific Resort PlazaFloor Plan – HotelExhibit 5a67$,56)'$%'(&$%'(& ;:20(16;0(16;)&5;(/(96;6+23;:25.52200$1$*(56;2)),&(;6$/(6;67$,5;/2%%<;3$175<;3%;;%5($.)$676&$/(
29(5$//0$,1/(9(/)/2253/$13/$11257+758(1257+
$%$$$%$$*8(675220&2817%5($.'2:11')/225 5')/225 7+)/225127(6 67)/225 7+)/225;67$,5
Source: Red Inc Architects, 2023(06/08/2023 SAK) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Graphics\MND\ex_Floor_Plan.pdfD:\Projects\3ANA\009405\GRAPHICS\ex_Floor_Plan_B_20230608.aiPacific Resort PlazaFloor Plan – HotelExhibit 5b$%'( &.LQJ/LQHQ(OHYDWRU/REE\&RUULGRU6WDLU.LQJ.LQJ.LQJ.LQJ .LQJ.LQJ.LQJ$'$.LQJ(PSOR\HH55.LQJ$'$.LQJ'4$'$'4'4 '4'4'4'4.LQJ.LQJ.LQJ.LQJ.LQJ.LQJ'4 (OHFWULFDO%UHDN5RRP6WDLU([WHQGHG.LQJ([WHQGHG.LQJ([WHQGHG.LQJ([WHQGHG.LQJ([WHQGHG.LQJ([WHQGHG.LQJ6WDLU.LQJ.LQJ.LQJ.LQJ.LQJ.LQJ'4 '4'4'4.LQJ'4.LQJ/LQHQ'HFN&RUULGRU(OHYDWRU/REE\&RQIHUHQFH5RRP.LQJ.LQJ )LWQHVV67$,5'4 $$%'( %'(&&'4.LQJ$'$.LQJ$'$'46WRUDJH(OHFWULFDO)'*XHVW/DXQGU\([WHQGHG.LQJ([WHQGHG.LQJ([WHQGHG.LQJ([WHQGHG.LQJ([WHQGHG.LQJ([WHQGHG.LQJ$%'(&6&$/(
29(5$//7+,5'/(9(/)/2253/$16&$/(
29(5$//6(&21'/(9(/)/2253/$1
3/$11257+758(1257+3/$11257+758(1257+$%$$$$.,1*$&&(66,%/(.,1*$&&(66,%/(5($'<.,1*'28%/(48((1$&&(66,%/('28%/(48((1$&&(66,%/(5($'<'28%/(48((1727$/*8(675220&2817%5($.'2:11')/225 5')/225 7+)/225.,1*48((1127(6 67)/225 .447+)/225
%$$$%$$%
Source: Red Inc Architects, 2023(06/08/2023 SAK) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Graphics\MND\ex_Floor_Plan.pdfD:\Projects\3ANA\009405\GRAPHICS\ex_Floor_Plan_C_202230608.aiPacific Resort PlazaFloor Plan – HotelExhibit 5c$%'( &.LQJ/LQHQ(OHYDWRU/REE\&RUULGRU6WDLU.LQJ.LQJ.LQJ.LQJ .LQJ.LQJ.LQJ$'$5HDG\.LQJ.LQJ$'$5HDG\.LQJ&RUULGRU.LQJ.LQJ.LQJ.LQJ.LQJ.LQJ6WDLU.LQJ.LQJ.LQJ.LQJ.LQJ.LQJ.LQJ.LQJ.LQJ.LQJ.LQJ.LQJ.LQJ$'$5HDG\.LQJ.LQJ$%'( &'4'4'4.LQJ/LQHQ(OHYDWRU/REE\&RUULGRU6WDLU.LQJ.LQJ.LQJ.LQJ .LQJ.LQJ.LQJ$'$5HDG\.LQJ6WRUDJH.LQJ$'$.LQJ'4'4'4.LQJ.LQJ'4$'$5HDG\'4(OHFWULFDO'4 '4'4'4'4'4 .LQJ.LQJ.LQJ.LQJ6WDLU$%'(&$%'(&6&$/(
29(5$//),)7+/(9(/)/2253/$16&$/(
29(5$//)2857+/(9(/)/2253/$1
3/$11257+758(1257+3/$11257+758(1257+
$%$$$%$$$%$$$%$$.,1*$&&(66,%/(.,1*$&&(66,%/(5($'<.,1*'28%/(48((1$&&(66,%/('28%/(48((1*8(675220&2817%5($.'2:11')/225 5')/225 7+)/22567)/2257+)
Source: Red Inc Architects, 2023(06/08/2023 SAK) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Graphics\MND\ex_Floor_Plan.pdfD:\Projects\3ANA\009405\GRAPHICS\ex_Floor_Plan_D_20230608.aiPacific Resort PlazaFloor Plan - Walk Up/Drive Thu Fast Food RestaurantExhibit 5d$%'( &3/$11257+6&$/(
29(5$//522)3/$1758(1257+5'2'5'2'5'2'5'2'62/$5$5($$62/$5$5($%
7272:(5
723$5$3(7$$$$
7272:(5
723$5$3(7
723$5$3(7
723$5$3(7522)723$''5(66
723$5$3(7
723$5$3(7
723$5$3(7
Source: Red Inc Architects, 2023(06/08/2023 SAK) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Graphics\MND\ex_Building_Elevations.pdfD:\Projects\3ANA\009405\GRAPHICS\ex_Building_Elevations_1_20230608.aiPacific Resort PlazaExterior Elevations – HotelExhibit 6a
Source: Red Inc Architects, 2023(0608/2023 SAK) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Graphics\MND\ex_Building_Elevations.pdfD:\Projects\3ANA\009405\GRAPHICS\ex_Building_Elevations_2_20230608.aiPacific Resort PlazaExterior Elevations – HotelExhibit 6b
Source: Red Inc Architects, 2023(06/08/2023 SAK) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Graphics\MND\ex_Building_Elevations.pdfD:\Projects\3ANA\009405\GRAPHICS\ex_Building_Elevations_3_20230608.aiPacific Resort PlazaExterior Elevations – Walk-Up/Drive Thru Fast Food RestaurantExhibit 6c
Source: Red Inc Architects, 2023(06/08/2023 SAK) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Graphics\MND\ex_Building_Elevations.pdfD:\Projects\3ANA\009405\GRAPHICS\ex_Building_Elevations_4_20230608.aiPacific Resort PlazaExterior Elevations and Detail – Puzzle Lift Exhibit 6d
Source: Red Inc Architects, 2023(06/08/2023 SAK) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Graphics\MND\ex_Building_Elevations.pdfD:\Projects\3ANA\009405\GRAPHICS\ex_Building_Elevations_5_20230608.aiPacific Resort PlazaExterior Elevations and Detail – Puzzle Lift Exhibit 6e
Map not to scaleSource: Cal Oasis Design Associates, 2023(06/08/2023 SAK) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Graphics\MND\ex_Planting_Plan.pdfD:\Projects\3ANA\009405\GRAPHICS\ex_Planting_Plan_20230608.aiPacific Resort PlazaConceptual Planting Plan Exhibit 77(&+12/2*<'5,9(
;
/263(5$1$+(,0(1*,1((5,1*67'%38%/,&675((76 $1 $+(,0 %2 8 /(9 $5 '%$//52$'38%/,&675((73 8 %/,&6 7 5 ((7 3('(675,$1:$/.:$<5,*+72):$<3('(675,$1:$/.:$<5,*+72):$<****0(7(5:$7(5:$7(5 :$7(50(7(5:$7(50(7(5 0(7(50(7(5 :$7(50(7(5:$7(5 21/<(9&+$5*,1*/2$',1*=21((9&+$5*,1*(9&+$5*,1*21/<(9&+$5*,1*21/<21/<21/<(9&+$5*,1*(9&+$5*,1*21/<21/</2$',1*=21((9&+$5*,1*21/<(9&+$5*,1*(9&+$5*,1*21/<(9&+$5*,1*(9&+$5*,1*21/<21/<21/<(9&+$5*,1*(N)69'-0"(E)68'-0" 1/2 ULTIMATE R.O.W.1/2R.O.W.(E)30'-0" 1/2 ULTIMATE R.O.W.´%2;3/$17,1*0$7(5,$//(*(1'%27$1,&$/&200211$0(6<0%2/75((6 3$/06 /$*(56752(0,$,1',&$5('52&.(7&5$3(0<57/($5%8786
0$5,1$
´%2;´%2;6,=(6<$*586520$1=2)),$1$48((13$/0´%2;&+$0$(5236+80,/,60(',7(55$1($1)$13$/06+58%6 $*$9($77(18$7$)2;7$,/$*$9(*$/47<:$7(586$*(02'(5$7(0(',8002'(5$7(0(',80/2:/2:&25'</,1($8675$/,6
5('67$5
9$5,(*$7(')/$;/,/</2:*5281'&29(5 ',$1(//$5(92/87$
/,77/(5(9
/,77/(5(9)/$;/,/<*$/#2&75,$1*/(63$&,1*6(1(&,20$1'5$/,6&$(%/8(&+$/.67,&.6*$/#2&75,$1*/(63$&,1*5260$5,1862)),&,1$/,6
+817,1*721&$53(7
75$,/,1*526(0$5<#2&75,$1*/(63$&,1**$//2:/2:/2:32'2&$5386+(1./,,/2:*$/*$//2:
Map not to scaleSource: Red Inc Architects, 2023(06/08/2023 SAK) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Graphics\MND\ex_ValetParking_Plan.pdfD:\Projects\3ANA\009405\GRAPHICS\ex_ValetParking_Plan_20230608.aiPacific Resort PlazaValet Parking PlanExhibit 86&$/(
9$/(73$5.,1*3/$1/(*(1' (175$1&()/2:2)75$)),& (;,73$7+ '5232))/2&$7,21 9$/(73$7+ 3,&.83/2&$7,219$/(7&$56,1/,)7*$5$*(9$/(7&$56,1/,)7*$5$*(9$/(73$5.,1*.,26.3/($6('5232))+(5(9$/(73$5.,1*.,26.3/($6(3,&.83+(5( ( 3523(57</,1( /
( 3523(57</,1( /
/$48,17$%<:<1'+$0$31 )((3$5&(/ 6725,(6%8,/',1*)22735,17 6)67$5%8&.6'5,9(7+586725<%8,/',1*)22735,17 6)75$6+(1&/2685(%$//52$'7(&+12/2*<&,56$1$+
(
,
0
%
/
9
'38%/,&675((738%/,&675((738%/,&
6
7
5
(
(
7$31 /($6(3$5&(/ ( 6+2(&,7<3/$=$$31 ( 3523(57</,1(1
(
( 3523(57</,1( ( 3523
(
5
7
<
/
,
1
( ( 3523(57</,1( ( 3523(57</,1( ( 3523(57</,1( ( 3523
(
5
7
<
/
,
1
(
1
:
( 3523(57</,1(5
/
( 3523(57</,1(5
/
1
:/
1
:/
1
(
1
(
1
(
1
:
1
(
( 352
3
(
5
7
<
/
,
1
(
1
:
( 3523(57</,1(1
(
( 352
3
(
5
7
<
/
,
1
(
1
:
( 3523(57</,1( ( 3523(
57</,
1
( ( 3523(57</,1(1
:
1
(
( 3523(57</,1(1
(
( 3523(57</,1( ( 352
3
(
5
7
<
/
,
1
(
1
:
( 3523
(
5
7
<
/
,
1
( 1 3523(57</,1(1
:
1
:
1 3523(57</,1(1
(
1
(
( 3523(57</,1( 1 3523(57</,1(1
(
1 3523(57</,1(1
:
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 3-2 Project Description
3.1.3 UTILITIES
The Proposed Project would be served by an on-site water distribution system and a sanitary
sewer system that would connect to existing off-site water and sewer lines. The Proposed Project
would connect to an existing 10-inch potable water line located east of the Project Site. Proposed
sewer lines would connect to the existing 8-inch (in) vitrified clay pipe (VCP) that is located east
of the Project Site. Additionally, the Proposed Project would connect to off-site electrical and gas
lines located west of the Project Site. The on-site electrical and natural gas distribution system
would be sized to serve the Proposed Project.
3.2 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND PROJECT PHASING
Project construction would be divided into two phases with the fast food restaurant building and
site area being constructed during Phase One, and the hotel building and site area to be
constructed during Phase Two, as identified on Exhibit 4, Site Plan. Phase One includes new
asphalt paving, concrete curbs and walkways, landscaping, striping, signage, trash enclosure
structure, fast food restaurant building, monument sign, sidewalk, and parkway improvements
along East Ball Road and part of South Technology Circle. Phase Two includes new asphalt
paving, curbs and walkways, landscaping, outdoor pool, striping, signage, trash enclosure
structure, puzzle lift structures, hotel building, sidewalk, and parkway improvements along East
Ball Road and part of Technological Circle.
Phase One (walk-up/drive-thru fast food restaurant) includes the demolition of the existing 10,530
sf, two-story commercial building which is expected to occur over a two-week period beginning
shortly after Project approval. Site preparation would occur for approximately one week,
grading/excavation would occur approximately for one week, building construction would occur
for approximately 16 weeks (four months), paving would occur for approximately one week, and
architectural decoration and coating would occur approximately for three weeks (Refer to
Exhibit 9, Demolition Plan).
Demolition activities associated with Phase Two (hotel) would include the demolition of the
existing wood carport and sheet metal garage which is expected to occur over a one-day period.
Site preparation would occur for approximately one week, grading/excavation would occur
approximately for one week, building construction would occur for approximately 15 months,
paving would occur for approximately three weeks, and architectural decoration and coating
would occur approximately for four weeks (one month).
Typical heavy equipment used during construction would include an excavator, track loader,
motor grader, skip loader, scraper, compacter, backhoe, concrete machine, large bulldozer, small
bulldozer, and loaded trucks. Construction activities are anticipated to occur for eight-hours a day,
five-days a week. Construction staging and parking would occur on-site. Construction access
would be available from an existing driveway on East Ball Road.
3.3 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
3.3.1 PROJECT COMPONENTS
The following discretionary actions would be required:
Rezone APN 234-161-04 from Industrial (I) to General Commercial (C-G).
A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to permit a hotel with a detached fast food restaurant with
a drive-thru component.
0204080FTSource: Capstone Engineering Inc. Civil Engineering & Land Surveying, 2023(06/08/2023 SAK) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Graphics\MND\ex_Demolition_Plan.pdfD:\Projects\3ANA\009405\GRAPHICS\ex_Demolition_Plan_20230608.aiPacific Resort PlazaDemolition PlanExhibit 9 /$48,17$,11 68,7(6'(02/,7,213/$1$1$+(,03/$=$//&(%$//52$'$QDKHLP&$ 9,&,1,7<0$3176
*5$3+,&6&$/(
/(*(1'(;,67,1*&217285&(17(5/,1(5,*+72):$<6(7%$&.'85,1*7+(&216785&7,213+$6(2)7+,6352-(&77+(,1),/75$7,216<67(06+$//%(3+<6,&$//<6(3$5$7('3527(&7(')5205812))$1'25$1<27+(50$7(5,$//,48,''(%5,6&/$8',$675((7%$//52$'/(021675((7$1$+(,0%/9'7(&+12/2*<&,5&/(352-(&76,7(5(029($3352;6)2)&21&5(7(6,'(:$/.'5,9($3352$&+5(029($3352;6)2)%8,/',1*65(029($3352;6)2)$&685)$&(5(029(/)2)
0(7$/)(1&(,1&/8',1**$7(5(029( /)2)675((76,'(&21&5(7(& *5(029(/)2)
&08:$//:,7+
0(7$/)(1&(723,1&/8',1**$7(5(029(/)2)
0(7$/)(1&,1*:,7+&21&5(7(32676,1&/8',1**$7(5(029($3352;6)2)/$1'6&$3('$5($ 5(029(/)2)&21&5(7(&85%87,/,7<%2;725(0$,1 5(029($3352;6)2)$&52$'685)$&(72&/2)7(&+12/2*<'5,9( 352326('675((75(3$9,1*3(5&,7<67'$'',7,21$/5(6725$7,21$/21*7(&+12/2*<'5,9(0$<%(5(48,5('%$6('217+(&21',7,212)7+(675((7$1'$6'(7(50,1(',17+(),(/'%<7+(38%/,&:25.6,163(&725
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 3-3 Project Description
A CUP to allow for a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.97. The current maximum FAR is 0.50
per Municipal Code Section 18.08.045 Floor Area Ratio Table 8-E.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 4-1 Environmental Checklist
SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
CITY OF ANAHEIM
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Form Revision Date: 1/16/2019
PROJECT AND CASE NUMBERS:
Project number: DEV2019-00161
Case Numbers: CUP2020-06055; and RCL2020-00330
SITE ADDRESS:
125 East Ball Road, Anaheim, California 92805
PROJECT NAME:
Pacific Resort Plaza
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS:
City of Anaheim, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162, Anaheim, California 92805
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER:
Mr. Thomas Gorham, Contract Planner
City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162
Anaheim, California 92805
Phone: 714.765.4947
Email: tgorham@anaheim.net
PROJECT LOCATION:
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 4-2 Environmental Checklist
PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS:
David Chu
Pacific Resort Group, Inc.
3000 East Coast Highway
Corona Del Mar, California 92625
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
General Commercial
ZONING:
Commercial General and Industrial
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The Proposed Project would include the construction of a 120-room hotel and a walk-up/drive-
thru fast food restaurant with associated parking.
PROJECT SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES:
The Project Site encompasses 1.47 acres and is located at 125 East Ball Road in the City of
Anaheim in Orange County. The Project Site is occupied by a vacant approximately 10,530 sf
two-story commercial building. Surrounding land uses include multi-family residential to the north
and commercial uses to the northwest, East Ball Road to the south, industrial uses to the east,
and commercial uses to the west.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact
that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetic
Agricultural & Forestry Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems
Wildfire
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described
on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is
required.
10/13/23
Signature of City of Anaheim Representative Date
Thomas Gorham, Contract Planner 714-765-4947
Printed Name/Title Phone No.
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 4-3 Environmental Checklist
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 4-2 Environmental Checklist
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
2) A list of “Supporting Information Sources” must be attached and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the Narrative Summary for each section.
3) Response Column Heading Definitions:
a) Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries
when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant
Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact”. The mitigation measures must be
described, along with a brief explanation of how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level.
c) Less Than Significant Impact applies where the project creates no significant impacts,
only Less Than Significant impacts.
d) No Impact applies where a project does not create an impact in that category. A “No
Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that
the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one proposed (e.g., the project falls
outside of a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not
expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
4) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to a tiering, program EIR, Master EIR, or other
CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration (Section 15062(c)(3)(D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the
following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
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.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 4-3 Environmental Checklist
Environmental Issues Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less 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 or local scenic expressway, scenic highway, or eligible scenic
highway?
c) 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?
II. AGRICULTURE & FOREST 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?
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?
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 4-4 Environmental Checklist
Environmental Issues Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of people?
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?
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 US 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?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
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?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries?
VI. ENERGY -- 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?
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 4-5 Environmental Checklist
Environmental Issues Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. 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?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Section 1803.5.3 of the
California Building Code (2010), creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
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?
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:
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?
IX. HAZARDS 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?
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 Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 4-6 Environmental Checklist
Environmental Issues Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 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?
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 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?
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?
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?
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 4-7 Environmental Checklist
Environmental Issues Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. 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 (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton
Municipal Airport), would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
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?
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES -- 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?
XVI. RECREATION --
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) 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?
XVII. TRANSPORTATION -- Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 4-8 Environmental Checklist
Environmental Issues Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
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?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
XVIII. TRIBAL 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 criterial set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section §5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native American tribe.
XIX. 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 (including large-scale developments as defined by
Public Resources Code Section 21151.9 and described in Question No.
20 of the Environmental Information Form)?
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?
f) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations
related to electricity?
g) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations
related to natural gas?
h) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations
related to telephone service?
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 4-9 Environmental Checklist
Environmental Issues Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
i) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations
related to television service/reception?
XX. 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?
XXI. 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?
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 4-10 Environmental Checklist
This page intentionally left blank
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-1 Environmental Evaluation
SECTION 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. AESTHETICS
Question A: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Question B: Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State
scenic highway or local scenic expressway, scenic highway, or eligible
scenic highway?
No Impact. The Project Site is located within an area that is highly urbanized and developed with
industrial uses. The Project Site includes a vacant two-story commercial building. According to
the Green Element of the City’s General Plan, the contours of the Hill and Canyon Area of the
City, as well as the Santa Ana Mountains are visible scenic vistas. Other scenic amenities such
as golf courses and the Santa Ana River also provide visual relief and are important visual
amenities and landmarks. The Project Site is not located within the City’s Hill and Canyon Area
nor are there any visible scenic resources nearby such as golf courses, the Santa Ana River, or
views of the Santa Ana Mountains.
According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the City of Anaheim
General Plan, none of the roadways in the vicinity of the Project Site are designated as scenic
roadways, nor is the Project Site located within the City’s Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone (Caltrans
2022; Anaheim 2004a). The Riverside (SR-91) Freeway, between SR-55 and Weir Canyon Road
is an officially designated Scenic Highway located approximately 4.3 miles east of the Project
Site. Additionally, the portion of SR-91 east of Weir Canyon is designated as an eligible Scenic
Highway approximately 9.8 miles northeast of the Project site. The Project area has relatively flat
topography, and there are no natural landscape features, visual resources, or vistas located on
the Project Site or in the Project vicinity, nor are any visible from the Project Site. Therefore,
although implementation of the Proposed Project would modify the visual appearance of the
Project Site, development of the Proposed Project would not impact a scenic vista or damage
scenic resources within a State scenic highway or local scenic expressway, or eligible scenic
highway. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
Question 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 area, as defined by
Section 21071 of the CEQA Statute; therefore, the analysis for this threshold focuses on whether
the Proposed Project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic
quality. The City of Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Ordinance defines the permitted land uses
and the corresponding development standards within the City. The Project Site is currently
designated General Commercial and zoned Industrial. Currently, hotel with a walk-up/drive-thru
is not permitted within the Industrial zone or the General Commercial land use designation. Thus,
the Proposed Project would include approval of a CUP to permit the hotel with a walk-up/drive-
through fast food restaurant and a reclassification to re-zone the site from Industrial to General
Commercial. As part of the City’s design review process and approval of the discretionary actions
noted above for the Project site, the Proposed Project has been reviewed by the City to ensure
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-2 Environmental Evaluation
compliance with applicable regulations related to scenic quality, including maximum building
heights, setbacks, landscaping, and architectural design. Given that the Project would not conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, the Project would result in
less than significant impacts related to this threshold, and no mitigation is required.
Visual Changes from the Proposed Project
Implementation of the Proposed Project would represent a change to the existing visual character
of the Project Site through demolition of on-site structures, debris removal, and vegetation
clearing and construction of a 120-room hotel and walk-up/drive-thru fast food restaurant with
associated parking. During demolition and construction, there would be views of construction
equipment; ongoing demolition and construction activities; short-term stockpiles of building
materials and debris; and haul trucks to deliver building materials and remove debris. This visual
change would be temporary in nature and typical of construction sites in an urban environment;
therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Buildout of the Proposed Project would alter the visual character of the Project Site through the
construction of a hotel and walk-up/drive-thru fast food restaurant on a site that is currently
occupied by a vacant two-story commercial building. The hotel would be five stories (55-feet in
height) and would incorporate an exterior design of wood colored paneling along with grey, white,
and tan stucco elements with glass wall elements on the bottom floor of the building. As a result,
surrounding commercial, industrial, and residential uses would have views of the Proposed
Project, as well as motorists and pedestrians traveling along East Ball Road and South Anaheim
Boulevard.
While the Proposed Project would alter the existing visual character of the Project Site and views
from surrounding vantage points, this change is not considered a degradation of the Project Site
or its surroundings. This change includes the introduction of a new hotel and walk-up/drive-thru
fast food restaurant, site improvements, and landscaping, which would be visually compatible with
the existing commercial and industrial uses and landscaping in the surrounding area.
Question D: Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is located in an area that is subject to nighttime
lighting from surrounding uses, including streetlights along East Ball Road, lighting from passing
vehicles along East Ball Road and South Anaheim Boulevard, and lighting from commercial and
industrial uses located northwest, south, east, and west of the Project Site.
The Proposed Project would include exterior light sources typical to a hotel development,
including decorative exterior lights, light standards in the surface parking areas, and pedestrian
lighting along walkways. Additionally, an observation deck is proposed on the second level for
guest-viewing of fireworks at Disneyland Theme Park. Proposed light sources would be consistent
with the lighting levels at the existing hotels surrounding the Project Site. All light fixtures would
be shielded to direct light down and to minimize light spillover on surrounding properties.
Furthermore, all proposed lighting would be consistent with the City’s building code requirements.
Therefore, impacts associated with new lighting from the Proposed Project would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.
Glare is caused by light reflections from pavement, vehicles, and building materials such as
reflective glass and polished surfaces. During daylight hours, the amount of glare depends on
intensity and direction of sunlight. Glare can create hazards to motorists and nuisances for
pedestrians and other viewers. Potentially reflective surfaces in the vicinity of the Proposed
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-3 Environmental Evaluation
Project include windows (including automobile and truck windows) at the Project Site and adjacent
buildings, and on automobiles traveling and parked on streets in the vicinity of the Project Site.
Based on the proposed building materials, the Proposed Project would incorporate non-reflective
textured surfaces such as wood, board and batten, fiber cement siding, and cement plaster and
non-reflective glass, which would minimize the potential for glare. With the use of non-reflective
glass, the Proposed Project would minimize the potential to create noticeable glare from sunlight
or vehicle lights that would pose a hazard to motorists traveling in the vicinity of Proposed Project
or that could affect surrounding uses. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur, and
no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Program
No mitigation is required.
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST LAND RESOURCES
Question A: Would the project 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?
Question B: Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
Question 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 in Public Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104(g))?
Question D: Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
Question E: Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to
non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. According to a review of mapping from the State of California Department of
Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (2016), the Project Site does not
contain any land designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique
Farmland or Farmland of Local Importance, nor is it zoned by the City for agricultural use. The
Project Site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land. No other designated farmland exists in
the vicinity of the Proposed Project, and the Project Site is not subject to any California Land
Conservation Act (Williamson Act) contracts. According to a review of aerial imagery, no current
agricultural operations exist within or near the Project Site.
The Project Site is not defined as forest land according to Section 12220(g) of the California Public
Resources Code, which defines forest land as “land that can support 10 percent native tree cover
of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management
of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water
quality, recreation, and other public benefits”, nor is it zoned for Timberland Production as defined
by Section 51104(g) of the California Government Code.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-4 Environmental Evaluation
Since the Project Site is in an urban area, Project-related changes would not result in conversion
of farm or forest land to non-agricultural or non-forest uses. No impacts related to agricultural and
forest land resources would occur, and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Program
No mitigation is required.
III. AIR QUALITY
The following analysis is based on Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Modeling Data, prepared for the proposed Project by Psomas (2023).
The Project Site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), which includes all of Orange
County and the urbanized portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The
SoCAB is arid, with virtually no rainfall and abundant sunshine during the summer months. It has
light winds and poor vertical mixing compared to the other large urban areas in the United States.
The combination of poor dispersion and abundant sunshine, which drives the photochemical
reactions that form pollutants (such as ozone [O3]), provide conditions especially favorable to the
formation of smog. The SoCAB is bound to the north and east by mountains with maximum
elevations exceeding 10,000 feet. The unfavorable combination of meteorology, topography, and
emissions from the nation’s second largest urban area results in the SoCAB having some of the
worst air quality in the United States.
Sensitive Air Quality Receptors
Sensitive receptors include, but are not limited to, children, the elderly, persons with preexisting
respiratory or cardiovascular illness, and athletes and others who engage in frequent exercise.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) defines structures that house these
persons or places where they gather (i.e., residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers,
convalescent centers, retirement homes, and athletic fields) as “sensitive receptors” (SCAQMD
1993). Existing sensitive receptors proximate to the Project Site include multi-family residential
uses approximately 110 feet to the north and single-family residential uses approximately 450
feet to the north of the Project Site.
Ambient Air Quality
The SCAQMD measures criteria air pollutant concentrations at several monitoring stations in
Orange County. The closest station to the Project Site is the Anaheim Monitoring Station, located
at 1630 Pampas Lane in Anaheim, approximately 2 miles northwest of the Project site. The
Anaheim Monitoring Station is also identified as Source Receptor Area (SRA) 17, Central Orange
County. Equipment at the station measures O3, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10), and particulate matter 2.5 microns or
less in diameter (PM2.5) levels. As this monitoring station does not monitor sulfur dioxide (SO2),
data was supplemented from the Costa Mesa Station for this pollutant. Data from 2019 to 2021
from these stations are summarized in Table 1. The data show violations of the federal and State
O3, PM10, and PM2.5 standards.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-5 Environmental Evaluation
TABLE 1
AIR QUALITY LEVELS MEASURED
AT THE ANAHEIM MONITORING STATIONS
Pollutant
California
Standard
National
Standard Year Max. Levela
State
Standard
Days Exceededb
National
Standard
Days Exceededb, c
O3
(1 hour) 0.09 ppm None
2019 0.096 1 0
2020 0.142 1 0
2021 .089 0 0
O3
(8 hour) 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
2019 0.082 1 1
2020 0.098 1 1
2021 .068 0 0
PM10
(24 hour) 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3
2019 127.6 12.0 0
2020 74.8 24.4 0
2021 63.6 5.7 0
PM10 (AAM) 20 µg/m3 None
2019 24.6 N/A N/A
2020 30.8 N/A N/A
2021 23.4 N/A N/A
NO2
(1 hour) 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm
2019 0.059 0 0
2020 0.070 0 0
2021 0.067 0 0
NO2
(AAM) 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm
2019 0.013 – –
2020 0.013 – –
2021 0.012 – –
CO
(8 hour) 20 ppm 35 ppm 2019 2.4 0 0
2020 2.3 0 0
2021 N/A NA NA
CO
(8 hour) 9 ppm 9 ppm
2019 1.3 0 0
2020 1.7 0 0
2021 N/A NA NA
PM2.5
(24 Hour) None 35 µg/m3
2019 37.1 NA 4
2020 64.8 NA 12
2021 54.4 NA 10
PM2.5
(AAM) 12 µg/m3 15 µg/m3
2019 9.4 NA NA
2020 12.4 NA NA
2021 11.6 NA NA
O3: ozone; ppm: parts per million; PM10: particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; µg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter; NO2:
nitrogen dioxide; CO: carbon monoxide; PM2.5: particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; NA: Not Available.
Source: CARB 2022.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Carcinogenic risks (i.e., cancer risks) are estimated as the incremental probability that an
individual will develop cancer over a lifetime as a direct result of exposure to potential
carcinogens. The estimated risk is expressed as a probability (e.g., 10 in 1 million). A risk level of
1 in 1 million implies a likelihood that up to 1 person out of 1 million equally exposed people would
contract cancer if exposed continuously (24 hours per day) to the specific concentration over 70
years (an assumed lifetime). This would be in addition to those cancer cases that would normally
occur in an unexposed population of one million people (USEPA 2009). The Hazard Index (HI)
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-6 Environmental Evaluation
expresses the potential for chemicals to result in non-cancer-related health impacts. HIs are
expressed using decimal notation (e.g., 0.001). A calculated HI exposure less than 1.0 will likely
not result in adverse non-cancer-related health effects over a lifetime of exposure. However, an
HI greater than 1.0 does not necessarily mean that adverse effects will occur (USEPA 2009).
Pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 1401(d)(1), the risks associated with potential exposure to emissions
from a source equipped with the best available control technology for toxics (T-BACT) and from
all emissions sources included within a “project” are acceptable if the incremental cancer risk (1)
is less than 10 in 1 million and (2) is less than 1 in 1 million for sources not equipped with T-BACT.
The Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study V (MATES V) is a monitoring and evaluation study
conducted in the SoCAB. According to the MATES V Study, the carcinogenic risk from air toxics
in the Basin has improved from the past. While toxic air pollutants decreased by more than 54
percent from 2012 to 2018, the cancer risk for residents of the SoCAB was 455 in one million in
the year 2018 (SCAQMD 2021). The results of this study indicate that diesel exhaust is the
primary contributor to air toxics risk within the SoCAB.
Attainment Status
Based on monitored air pollutant concentrations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) designate an area’s status in attaining
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality
Standards (CAAQS), respectively, for selected criteria pollutants. These attainment designations
for the SoCAB are shown in Table 2. As shown, the SoCAB is a nonattainment area for PM10
(State), PM2.5 (State and federal), and O3 (State and federal).
TABLE 2
ATTAINMENT STATUS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
Pollutant State Federal
O3 (1 hour) Nonattainment No Standards
O3 (8 hour) Nonattainment Extreme Nonattainment
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment/Maintenance
PM2.5 Nonattainment Serious Nonattainment
CO Attainment Attainment/Maintenance
NO2 Attainment Attainment
SO2 Attainment Attainment
Lead No Standard Attainment/Nonattainment*
All others Attainment/Unclassified No Standards
O3: ozone; PM10: particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in
diameter; CO: carbon monoxide; NO2: nitrogen dioxide; SO2: sulfur dioxide.
* The Los Angeles County portion of the SoCAB is designated nonattainment for lead; the remainder of the SoCAB is
designated attainment.
Source: SCAQMD 2022; USEPA 2022.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-7 Environmental Evaluation
A. Regulatory Framework
Air Pollutants
Criteria Pollutants
Air quality regulations were first promulgated with the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970. Air
quality is defined by ambient air concentrations of seven “criteria air pollutants”, which are a group
of common air pollutants identified by the USEPA to be of concern with respect to the health and
welfare of the general public. Federal and State governments regulate criteria air pollutants by
using ambient standards based on criteria regarding the health and/or environmental effects of
each pollutant. The criteria pollutants are defined as NO2, O3, PM10 and PM2.5), CO, SO2, and
lead. A description of each criteria air pollutant, including source types and health effects, is
provided below.
Nitrogen Dioxide
Nitrogen gas, normally relatively inert (nonreactive), comprises about 80 percent of the air. At high
temperatures (e.g., in a combustion process) and under certain other conditions, nitrogen can
combine with oxygen to form several different gaseous compounds collectively called nitrogen
oxides (NOx). Nitric oxide (NO), NO2, and nitrous oxide (N2O) are important constituents of NOx.
NO is converted to NO2 in the atmosphere. Motor vehicle emissions are the main source of NOx
in urban areas.
NO2 is a red-brown pungent gas and is toxic to various animals and to humans because of its
ability to form nitric acid with water in the eyes, lungs, mucus membranes, and skin. In animals,
long-term exposure to NOx increases susceptibility to respiratory infections, lowering resistance
to such diseases as pneumonia and influenza. Laboratory studies show that susceptible humans,
such as asthmatics, who are exposed to high concentrations of NO2 can suffer lung irritation and,
potentially, lung damage. Epidemiological studies have also shown associations between NO2
concentrations and daily mortality from respiratory and cardiovascular causes and with hospital
admissions for respiratory conditions.
While the NAAQS only address NO2, NO and NO2 are both precursors in the formation of O3 and
PM2.5, as discussed below. Because of this, and the fact that NO emissions largely convert to
NO2, NOx emissions are typically examined when assessing potential air quality impacts.
Ozone
O3 is a secondary pollutant, meaning that it is not directly emitted. It is a gas that is formed when
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (also referred to as reactive organic gases) and NOx undergo
photochemical reactions that occur only in the presence of sunlight. The primary source of VOC
emissions is unburned hydrocarbons in motor vehicle and other internal combustion engine
exhaust. NOx forms as a result of the combustion process, most notably due to the operation of
motor vehicles. Sunlight and hot weather cause ground-level O3 to form;2 as a result, ozone is
known as a summertime air pollutant. Ground-level O3 is the primary constituent of smog.
Because O3 formation occurs over extended periods of time, both O3 and its precursors are
transported by wind and high O3 concentrations can occur in areas well away from sources of its
constituent pollutants.
2 Ground-level O3 is not to be confused with atmospheric O3 or the “ozone layer”, which occurs very high in the
atmosphere and shields the planet from some ultraviolet rays.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-8 Environmental Evaluation
People with lung disease, children, older adults, and people who are active can be affected when
O3 levels exceed ambient air quality standards. Numerous scientific studies have linked
ground-level O3 exposure to a variety of problems, including the following:
lung irritation that can cause inflammation much like a sunburn;
wheezing, coughing, pain when taking a deep breath, and breathing difficulties during
exercise or outdoor activities;
permanent lung damage to those with repeated exposure to O3 pollution; and
aggravated asthma, reduced lung capacity, and increased susceptibility to respiratory
illnesses like pneumonia and bronchitis.
Ground-level O3 can have detrimental effects on plants and ecosystems. These effects include
the following:
interfering with the ability of sensitive plants to produce and store food, making them more
susceptible to certain diseases, insects, other pollutants, competition, and harsh weather;
damaging the leaves of trees and other plants; and
reducing crop yields and forest growth, potentially impacting species diversity in
ecosystems.
Particulate Matter
Particulate matter includes both aerosols and solid particles of a wide range of size and
composition. Of particular concern are PM10 and PM2.5. Particulate matter size refers to the
aerodynamic diameter of the particle. Smaller particles are of greater concern because they can
penetrate deeper into the lungs than large particles.
PM10 is generally emitted directly as a result of mechanical processes that crush or grind larger
particles or from the resuspension of dust, most typically through construction activities and
vehicular travel. PM10 generally settles out of the atmosphere rapidly and is not readily
transported over large distances.
PM2.5 is directly emitted in combustion exhaust and is formed in atmospheric reactions between
various gaseous pollutants, including NOx, sulfur oxides (SOx), and VOCs. PM2.5 can remain
suspended in the atmosphere for days and/or weeks and can be transported long distances.
The principal health effects of airborne particulate matter are on the respiratory system.
Short-term exposure to high PM2.5 and PM10 levels are associated with premature mortality and
increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits; a decline in respiratory function is also
associated with short-term exposure to high PM10 levels. Long-term exposure to high PM2.5
levels is associated with premature mortality and development of chronic respiratory disease.
According to the USEPA, some people are much more sensitive than others to breathing PM10
and PM2.5. People with influenza, chronic respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and the
elderly may suffer worse illnesses; people with bronchitis can expect aggravated symptoms; and
children may experience decline in lung function due to breathing in PM10 and PM2.5. Other
groups considered sensitive include smokers and people who cannot breathe well through their
noses. Exercising athletes are also considered sensitive because many breathe through their
mouths.
Particulate matter tends to occur primarily in the form of fugitive dust. This dust appears to be
generated by both local sources and by region-wide dust during moderate- to high-wind episodes.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-9 Environmental Evaluation
These regional episodes tend to be multidistrict and sometimes interstate in scope. The principal
sources of dust in urban areas are from grading, construction, disturbed areas of soil, and dust
entrained by vehicles on roadways.
Carbon Monoxide
CO is a colorless and odorless gas which, in the urban environment, is associated primarily with
the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels in motor vehicles. CO combines with hemoglobin in the
bloodstream and reduces the amount of oxygen that can be circulated through the body. High CO
concentrations can cause headaches, aggravate cardiovascular disease, and impair central
nervous system functions. CO concentrations can vary greatly over comparatively short
distances. Relatively high CO concentrations are typically found near crowded intersections;
along heavily used roadways carrying slow-moving traffic; and at or near ground level. Even under
the most severe meteorological and traffic conditions, concentrations of CO are limited to
locations within a relatively short distance (i.e., up to 600 feet or 185 meters) of heavily traveled
roadways. Overall, CO emissions are decreasing as a result of the Federal Motor Vehicle Control
Program, which has mandated increasingly lower emission levels for vehicles manufactured since
1973. CO levels in the SoCAB are in compliance with the State and federal one-hour and
eight-hour standards.
Sulfur Dioxide
SOx is a class of compounds of which SO2 and sulfur trioxide (SO3) are of greatest importance.
Ninety-five percent of pollution-related SOx emissions are in the form of SO2. SOx emissions are
typically examined when assessing potential air quality impacts of SO2. The primary contributor
of SOx emissions is fossil fuel combustion for generating electric power. Industrial processes,
such as nonferrous metal smelting, also contribute to SOx emissions. SOx is also formed during
combustion of motor fuels; however, most of the sulfur has been removed from fuels, greatly
reducing SOx emissions from vehicles.
SO2 combines easily with water vapor, forming aerosols of sulfurous acid (H2SO3), a colorless,
mildly corrosive liquid. This liquid may then combine with oxygen in the air, forming the even more
irritating and corrosive sulfuric acid (H2SO4). Peak levels of SO2 in the air can cause temporary
breathing difficulty for people with asthma who are active outdoors. Longer-term exposures to
high levels of SO2 gas and particles cause respiratory illness and aggravate existing heart
disease. SO2 reacts with other chemicals in the air to form tiny sulfate particles that are measured
as PM2.5.
Lead
Lead is a stable compound, which persists and accumulates both in the environment and in
animals. In humans, it affects the body’s blood-forming (or hematopoletic), nervous, and renal
systems. In addition, lead has been shown to affect the normal functions of the reproductive,
endocrine, hepatic, cardiovascular, immunological and gastrointestinal systems, although there
is significant individual variability in response to lead exposure. Since 1975, lead emissions have
been in decline due, in part, to the introduction of catalyst-equipped vehicles and the decline in
the production of leaded gasoline. In general, an analysis of lead is limited to projects that emit
significant quantities of the pollutant (i.e., lead smelters) and are not applied to transportation
sources of emissions.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-10 Environmental Evaluation
Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are a diverse group of air pollutants 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. TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances that may be emitted
from a variety of common sources, including motor vehicles, gasoline stations, dry cleaners,
industrial operations, painting operations, and research and teaching facilities.
TACs are different than the “criteria” pollutants previously discussed in that ambient air quality
standards have not been established for them. TACs occurring at extremely low levels may still
cause health effects, and it is typically difficult to identify levels of exposure that do not produce
adverse health effects. TAC impacts are described by carcinogenic risk and chronic (i.e., of long
duration) and acute (i.e., severe but of short duration) adverse effects on human health.
Diesel engines emit a complex mixture of air pollutants composed of gaseous and solid material.
The solid emissions in diesel exhaust are known as diesel particulate matter (diesel PM). In 1998,
California identified diesel PM as a TAC based on its potential to cause cancer, premature death,
and other health problems (e.g., asthma attacks and other respiratory symptoms). Those most
vulnerable are children (whose lungs are still developing) and the elderly (who may have other
serious health problems). Overall, diesel engine emissions are responsible for the majority of
California’s known cancer risk from outdoor air pollutants. Diesel engines also contribute to
California’s PM2.5 air quality problems.
Carcinogenic risks (i.e., cancer risks) are estimated as the incremental probability that an
individual will develop cancer over his/her lifetime as a direct result of exposure to potential
carcinogens. The estimated risk is expressed as a probability (e.g., 10 in 1 million). A risk level of
1 in 1 million implies a likelihood that up to 1 person out of 1 million equally exposed people would
contract cancer if exposed continuously (24 hours per day) to the specific concentration over
70 years (an assumed lifetime). This would be in addition to those cancer cases that would
normally occur in an unexposed population of 1 million people. The HI expresses the potential for
chemicals to result in non-cancer-related health impacts. HIs are expressed using decimal
notation (e.g., 0.001). A calculated HI exposure of less than 1.0 will likely not result in adverse
non-cancer-related health effects over a lifetime of exposure. Although a value of 1.0 is a
commonly accepted CEQA significance threshold, an HI greater than 1.0 does not necessarily
mean that adverse effects will occur.
The Project Site is located in the SoCAB. The SoCAB comprises all of Orange County and parts
of San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Riverside Counties. Air quality in the SoCAB is regulated
by the USEPA, CARB, and the SCAQMD. Each of these agencies develops rules, regulations,
policies, and/or goals to comply with applicable legislation. Although USEPA regulations may not
be superseded, both State and local regulations may be more stringent. The Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) is an important partner to the SCAQMD and produces
estimates of anticipated future growth and vehicular travel in the basin that are used for air quality
planning. The federal, State, regional, and local regulations for criteria air pollutants and TACs
are discussed below.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-11 Environmental Evaluation
Federal
United States Environmental Protection Agency
The USEPA is responsible for implementing the CAA, which was first enacted in 19553 and
amended numerous times thereafter. The CAA established federal air quality standards known
as the NAAQS. These standards identify levels of air quality for criteria pollutants that are
considered the maximum levels of ambient (background) air pollutants considered safe (with an
adequate margin of safety) to protect the public’s health and welfare. The USEPA is responsible
for setting and enforcing the NAAQS for criteria pollutants. The NAAQS are shown in Table 3.
The USEPA regulates emission sources that are under the exclusive authority of the federal
government, such as aircraft, ships, and certain locomotives. The USEPA requires each State with
federal nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP
must integrate federal, State, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific
measures to reduce pollution and thereby attain or maintain federal standards by using a
combination of performance standards and market-based programs within the SIP-identified time
frame.
3 The Air Pollution Control Act, the predecessor to the Clean Air Act, was enacted in 1955.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-12 Environmental Evaluation
TABLE 3
CALIFORNIA AND NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Pollutant Averaging Time
California
Standards
Federal Standards
Primarya Secondaryb
O3
1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3) – –
8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137
µg/m3) 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3) Same as Primary
PM10 24 Hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 Same as Primary
AAM 20 µg/m3 – –
PM2.5 24 Hour – 35 µg/m3 Same as Primary
AAM 12 µg/m3 12.0 µg/m3 15.0 µg/m3
CO 1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) –
8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) –
NO2
AAM 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3) Same as Primary
1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3) 0.100 ppm (188 µg/m3) –
SO2
24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3) – –
3 Hour – – 0.5 ppm
(1,300 µg/m3)
1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3) 0.075 ppm (196 µg/m3) –
Lead
30-day Avg. 1.5 µg/m3 – –
Calendar Quarter – 1.5 µg/m3 Same as Primary Rolling 3-month Avg. – 0.15 µg/m3
Visibility
Reducing
Particles
8 Hour
Extinction coefficient
of 0.23 per km –
visibility ≥ 10 miles
No
Federal
Standards
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3
Hydrogen
Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3)
Vinyl
Chloride 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3)
O3: ozone; ppm: parts per million; µg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter; –: No Standard; PM10: respirable particulate matter
with a diameter of 10 microns or less; AAM: Annual Arithmetic Mean; PM2.5: fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5
microns or less; CO: carbon monoxide; mg/m3: milligrams per cubic meter; NO2: nitrogen dioxide; SO2: sulfur dioxide; km:
kilometer.
a National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, within an adequate margin of safety, to protect the
public health.
b National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or
anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
Note: More detailed information in the data presented in this table can be found at the CARB website (www.arb.ca.gov).
Source: CARB 2016.
State
California Air Resources Board
CARB, as part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), is responsible for
coordinating and administering both the federal and State air pollution control programs in
California. In this capacity, CARB establishes the CAAQS, as shown in Table 3, which are
generally more stringent and apply to more pollutants than the NAAQS. In addition to the criteria
pollutants, CAAQS have been established for visibility-reducing particulates, sulfates, hydrogen
sulfide, and vinyl chloride.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-13 Environmental Evaluation
In addition, CARB conducts research, compiles emissions inventories, develops suggested
control measures, provides oversight of local programs, and prepares the SIP. CARB requires
the air districts in regions that do not attain the CAAQS to prepare plans for attaining the
standards. These plans are then integrated into the State SIP. CARB establishes emissions
standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (e.g., hair spray, aerosol
paints, and barbecue lighter fluid), and various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel
specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions.
The California Clean Air Act, which was approved in 1988, requires that each local air district
prepare and maintain an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to achieve compliance with
CAAQS. The AQMP for the SoCAB is discussed below.
Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards
The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (CCR, Title 24, Part
6) were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy
consumption. The current applicable standards are the 2022 Standards, effective January 1,
2023. The requirements of the energy efficiency standards result in the reduction of natural gas
and electricity consumption. Since using natural gas produces criteria pollutant emissions, a
reduction in natural gas consumption results in a related reduction in air quality emissions.4
Additional discussion of the Title 24 energy efficiency standards is included in Sections 5.4,
Energy and 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The California Energy Commission (CEC) updates
the standards typically every three years.
Title 24 Green Building Standards
The 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CCR, Title 24, Part 11), also known as the
“CALGreen Code,” contains mandatory requirements and voluntary measures for new residential
and nonresidential buildings (including buildings for retail uses, office uses, public schools, and
hospitals) throughout California (CBSC 2022). Development of the CALGreen Code is intended
to (1) cause a reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from buildings; (2) promote
environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live and work; (3) reduce energy
and water consumption; and (4) respond to the directives by the Governor. The CALGreen Code
was established to reduce construction waste; make buildings more efficient in the use of
materials and energy; and reduce environmental impact during and after construction. The City
has adopted the CALGreen Code in Anaheim Municipal Code Section 15.
The CALGreen Code provides standards for bicycle parking, carpool/vanpool/electric vehicle
spaces, light and glare reduction, grading and paving, energy-efficient appliances, renewable
energy, graywater systems, water efficient plumbing fixtures, recycling and recycled materials,
pollutant controls (including moisture control and indoor air quality), acoustical controls, storm
water management, building design, insulation, flooring, and framing, among others.
Implementation of the CALGreen Code measures reduces energy consumption and vehicle trips
and encourages the use of alternative-fuel vehicles which, in turn, reduces pollutant emissions.
Additional discussion of the CALGreen Code is included in Sections 5.4, Energy, and 5.7,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
4 Because electricity is not generated on the Project Site, the emissions associated with electricity generation are
not included in the emissions calculations.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-14 Environmental Evaluation
Regional
South Coast Air Quality Management District
In the SoCAB, the SCAQMD is the agency responsible for protecting public health and welfare
through the administration of federal and State air quality laws, regulations, and policies. Included
in the SCAQMD’s tasks are the monitoring of air pollution, the preparation of the AQMP for the
SoCAB, and the promulgation of rules and regulations.
SCAG is the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization and the State-designated
transportation planning agency for six counties: Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles,
Ventura, Imperial, and Orange.
The SCAQMD and SCAG are jointly responsible for formulating and implementing the AQMP for
the SoCAB. SCAG’s Regional Mobility Plan and Growth Management Plan form the basis for the
land use and transportation control portion of the AQMP.
Air Quality Management Plan
The current regional plan applicable to the Project is the SCAQMD’s 2022 AQMP. The SCAQMD
is responsible for ensuring that the SoCAB meets the NAAQS and CAAQS by reducing emissions
from stationary (area and point), mobile, and indirect sources. To accomplish this goal, the
SCAQMD prepares AQMPs in conjunction with the SCAG, County transportation commissions,
and local governments; develops rules and regulations; establishes permitting requirements for
stationary sources; inspects emissions sources; and enforces such measures through
educational programs or fines, when necessary.
The 2022 AQMP was adopted on December 2, 2022, by the SCAQMD Governing Board. The
2022 AQMP evaluates integrated strategies and measures to meet the following NAAQS
(SCAQMD 2022):
8-hour O3 target of 80 parts per billion (ppb) by 2024, 75 ppb by 2032, 70 ppb by 2038;
Annual PM2.5 (12 micrograms per cubic meter [µg/m3]) by 2025;
1-hour O3 (120 ppb) by 2023; and
24-hour PM2.5 (35 micrograms per cubic meter [µg/m3]) by 2023.
South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules
The Project would be required to comply with existing SCAQMD rules for the reduction of fugitive
dust and criteria pollutant emissions. The following rules are most relevant to the Project.
SCAQMD Rule 201 requires a “Permit to Construct” prior to the installation of any equipment “the
use of which may cause the issuance of air contaminants . . .” and Regulation II provides the
requirements for the application for a Permit to Construct. Rule 203 similarly requires a Permit to
Operate. Rule 219, Equipment not Requiring a Written Permit Pursuant to Regulation II, identifies
“equipment, processes, or operations that emit small amounts of contaminants that shall not
require written permits . . .”.
SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance states that a project shall not “discharge from any source
whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment,
nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-15 Environmental Evaluation
endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause,
or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.”
SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust requires actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate fugitive
particulate matter emissions. These actions include applying water or chemical stabilizers to
disturbed soils; managing haul road dust by applying water; covering all haul vehicles before
transporting materials; restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph);
and sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways used by construction vehicles. In
addition, Rule 403 requires that vegetative ground cover be established on disturbance areas that
are inactive within 30 days after active operations have ceased. Alternatively, an application of
dust suppressants can be applied in sufficient quantity and frequency to maintain a stable surface.
Rule 403 also requires grading and excavation activities to cease when winds exceed 25 mph.
SCAQMD Rule 445 has been adopted to reduce the emissions of particulate matter from
wood-burning devices and prohibits the installation of such devices in any new development.
SCAQMD Rule 1113 governs the sale of architectural coatings and limits the VOC content in
paints and paint solvents. Although this rule does not directly apply to the proposed Project, it
does dictate the VOC content of paints available for use during building construction and ongoing
maintenance.
SCAQMD Rule 1401 under Regulation XIV requires new source review of any new, relocated, or
modified permit units that emit TACs. The rule establishes allowable risks for permit units requiring
permits pursuant to Rules 201 and 203 discussed above.
SCAQMD Rule 1403, Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities, specifies
work practice requirements to limit asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation
activities, including the removal and associated disturbance of asbestos-containing materials. All
operators are required to maintain records, including waste shipment records, and are required
to use appropriate warning labels, signs, and markings.
Southern California Association of Governments
SCAG is the regional planning agency for Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Riverside, San
Bernardino, and Imperial Counties and serves as a forum for regional issues relating to
transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG serves as the
federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Southern California
region. On June 5, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the 2020–2045 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect Socal). The Regional
Transportation Plans/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) is a long-range visioning
plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public
health goals. The RTP/SCS includes a strong commitment to reduce emissions from
transportation sources in order to improve public health, to meet the NAAQS as set forth by the
CAA.
Local
City of Anaheim
There are no City of Anaheim regulations applicable to the Project’s potential impacts on air
quality. However, the City of Anaheim General Plan’s Green Element, adopted in 2004, contains
goals that focus on the reduction of vehicle trips and vehicle emissions (Anaheim 2004a). The
Green Element comprehensively addresses topics concerning conservation, open space, parks
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-16 Environmental Evaluation
and recreation, trails, and public landscaping. Applicable goals and policies from the Green
Element that are related to the Project being located in a Transit Priority Area which would assist
in the reduction of vehicle trips and vehicle emissions.
PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. Methodology
Construction and Operations Mass Daily Emissions
The Project’s construction and operations phase emissions were calculated by using California
Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1.1.6 (CAPCOA 2023). CalEEMod is a
computer program accepted by the SCAQMD that can be used to estimate criteria pollutant and
GHG emissions associated with land development projects in California. CalEEMod has separate
databases for specific counties and air districts. The Orange County database was used for the
Project. The model calculates emissions of CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and the O3 precursors VOC
and NOx. For this analysis, the results are expressed in pounds per day (lbs/day) and are
compared with the SCAQMD mass daily thresholds described in Table 4 below to determine
potential air quality and GHG impacts for Project-related construction and operations phase
emissions.
Specific inputs to CalEEMod include land uses and acreages. Construction input data include but
are not limited to: (1) the anticipated start and finish dates of each construction activity (e.g.,
grading, building, and paving); (2) inventories of construction equipment to be used during each
Project activity; (3) areas to be graded for development; (4) volume of materials to be imported to
and exported from the Project Site; (5) areas to be paved; and (6) areas to be painted. The input
data and assumptions are discussed in Section 5.2.4 below and are shown in notes on the
CalEEMod data in Appendix A. The CalEEMod model has the capability to calculate reductions
in construction emissions from the effects of dust control, off-road diesel-engine classifications,
low-emission paints, and other selected measures.
Operational inputs to CalEEMod include the following: (1) the specific year for project operations,
(2) vehicle trip generation rates, and (3) project criteria for energy use. Output operational
emissions data are separated into energy use, area sources, and mobile sources. The area
sources are landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products, and architectural coatings
used for routine maintenance. Consumer products (e.g., household cleaners, air fresheners,
automotive products, and personal care products) emit VOCs. Mobile sources are the vehicles
used by employees, residents, visitors, and vendors at the Project Site. CalEEMod also includes
data to calculate emissions reductions based on project-specific characteristics and results from
the implementation of MMs.
Local Concentrations of Criteria Pollutants from On-Site Sources
The SCAQMD has developed an assessment method to evaluate local air quality conditions
related to the exposure of persons to criteria pollutants generated on a project site. The SCAQMD
developed localized significance threshold (LST) methodology and mass rate look-up tables that
public agencies can use to determine whether or not a project may generate significant adverse
localized air quality impacts. In addition to the mass daily emissions for regional thresholds, the
SCAQMD established CEQA significance thresholds for ambient air quality to address localized
impacts. The localized impact analysis is based on the concentration of a pollutant at a receptor
site. The concentration standard is either the same as the NAAQS or CAAQS or is based upon a
health-based standard. It is possible for a pollutant to have a significant impact regionally and a
less than significant impact locally or vice versa.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-17 Environmental Evaluation
The LST methodology addresses NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions for construction and
operational emissions. SO2 and lead are not included because these pollutants are not generated
or produced in negligible amounts in development projects. Ozone is not included because it is a
secondary pollutant and local concentrations cannot be estimated from precursor emissions. For
NO2 and CO, the one-hour standards are used and receptors that could be exposed for one hour
are considered. For PM10 and PM2.5, the 24-hour standards are used, and the receptors of
interest are those where persons could be exposed for 24 hours, such as residences. Because
emissions are based on the AAQS, exceedance of the LST represents a potential health impact.
The LST methodology translates the concentration standards into emissions thresholds. The LST
methodology is generally recommended to be limited to projects of five acres or less. Due to the
size of the Project Site, detailed dispersion modeling was conducted as part of the human health
risk assessment for the Project.
CO Hotspots
The analysis of potential CO hotspots for the Project will involve a discussion of ambient
measurement data of CO concentrations relative to the ambient air quality standards, emissions
rates associated with current automobile legislation and electric vehicle adoption, and vehicle trips
attributable to the Project.
Question A: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
Less than Significant Impact.
Pursuant to the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, a project would be inconsistent with the
AQMP if it would (SCAQMD 1993):
Create an increase in the frequency or severity of air quality violations; cause or contribute
to new violations; delay attainment of air quality standards; or
Exceed the assumptions of the AQMP.
Both of these criteria are evaluated for the Proposed Project, as shown below.
With respect to the first criterion, based on the air quality modeling analysis conducted for the
Proposed Project (see the discussion provided below under Questions III.B and III.C),
construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s CEQA
thresholds of significance and consequently would not result in an increase in the frequency or
severity of existing air quality violations nor cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely
attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions in the AQMP. Therefore,
the Proposed Project is consistent with the first criterion.
With respect to the second criterion, the Proposed Project was assessed as to whether it would
exceed the assumptions in the AQMP. The SCAQMD’s current air quality planning document is
the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (2022 AQMP). The 2022 AQMP is a regional and
multi-agency effort among the SCAQMD, CARB, SCAG, and USEPA. The 2022 AQMP includes
an analysis of emissions, meteorology, atmospheric chemistry, regional growth projections, and
the impact of existing control measures. The purpose of the 2022 AQMP is to set forth a
comprehensive program that would promote reductions in criteria pollutants, GHGs, and toxic risk
and efficiencies in energy use, transportation, and goods movement. The 2022 AQMP
incorporates the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-18 Environmental Evaluation
SCAG’s 2020–2045 RTP/SCS; updated emission inventory methods for various source
categories; and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts (SCAQMD 2022). The 2022 AQMP includes
strategies and measures necessary to meet the NAAQS. The AQMP is based on projections of
energy usage and vehicle trips from land uses within the SoCAB.
The City of Anaheim General Plan (adopted in May 2004) designates the Project Site as General
Commercial) and the entire property is within the Industrial (I) Zone. As stated previously, the
Project Site is currently developed with a vacant, two-story commercial building. Implementation
of the Project includes approval of a CUP to permit the hotel with a walk-up/drive- thru fast food
restaurant and a reclassification to re-zone the site from Industrial (I) to General Commercial (C-
G). The Project proposes hotel uses in a Transit Priority Area. The Orange County Transportation
Authority (OCTA) and Anaheim Resort Transportation (ART) all operate bus lines within the area
of the Project Site. Line 46 and 47 of the OCTA lines and Line 8 and Line 17 of the ART Lines
are proximate to the Project Site. ART would provide service at 20- to 40-minute headways for
the Project while OCTA lines provide 15- to 40-minute headways. The Proposed Project is located
immediately adjacent to bus stops on Anaheim Boulevard. As detailed in the Project’s vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) Screening Memorandum, the Project would be consistent with the applicable
SCS as the Project’s land uses are consistent with the General Plan land use designation. The
development of a mix of uses at the site would likewise reduce vehicular trips. The developer
intends to include rideshare and vanpooling opportunities for employees and patrons. In addition,
the Project would also be developed consistent with the stringent energy efficiency requirements
detailed in the 2022 Title 24 Building Standards. Because the Project would replace less energy
efficient land uses with buildings that meet the latest energy efficiency measures and would
develop uses within a Transit Priority Area (TPA).
The Proposed Project would be consistent with the goals of the General Plan which was used to
develop the 2022 AQMP. In addition, the Proposed Project would result in emissions which are
less than the significance thresholds adopted by the SCAQMD (as detailed in the following
emissions analyses) and consequently is not considered to be a substantial source of air pollutant
emissions. As such, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP assumptions
for the Project Site and is found consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion. Therefore, the
Proposed Project would not result in an inconsistency with the SCAQMD’s 2022 AQMP. Less
than significant impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required.
Question B: 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. To determine the significance of the Project’s air quality impacts,
emissions associated with construction and operation activities have been calculated using
CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.6.
Regional Construction Emissions
Air pollutant emissions would occur from construction equipment exhaust; fugitive dust from
demolition and site grading; exhaust from trucks hauling demolition debris, soil, and materials and
from vehicles trips by construction workers; and VOCs from painting and asphalt paving operations.
Project construction rules such as SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, which requires watering of
active grading areas, have been incorporated into the Project and are included in the emissions
calculations.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-19 Environmental Evaluation
Regional Emissions Thresholds – Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
Table 4 presents the estimated unmitigated maximum daily emissions during construction of the
Project and compares the estimated emissions with the SCAQMD’s daily regional emission
thresholds. As shown in this table, Project-related emissions would be substantially below the
construction emissions thresholds adopted by the SCAQMD and consequently would not result
in a significant air quality impact related the Project’s contribution to air pollutant emissions in the
region.
TABLE 4
ESTIMATED MAXIMUM DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Year
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
2023 3 29 24 <1 6 3
2024 25 48 42 <1 10 5
2025 13 2 2 <1 <1 <1
Maximum Construction Emissions 25 48 42 <1 10 5
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds SCAQMD Thresholds? No No No No No No
lbs/day: pounds per day; VOC: volatile organic compound; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SOx: sulfur oxides; PM
10: respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter;
SCAQMD: South Coast Air Quality Management District.
Source: SCAQMD 2019 (thresholds); see Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Data, for CalEEMod
model outputs.
Cumulative Construction Impacts
Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would result in less than significant
construction-related regional and localized air quality impacts, as quantified above in Table 4,
Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions, and Table 6, Localized Significance
Threshold Construction Emissions (discussed under Threshold III.C), respectively. SCAQMD’s
policy with respect to cumulative impacts associated with the above-referenced pollutants and
their precursors is that impacts that would be directly less than significant on a project level would
also be cumulatively less than significant (SCAQMD 2003a). Because the Proposed Project’s
construction emissions are below the SCAQMD’s regional and local significance thresholds, local
construction emissions would not be cumulatively considerable, and the impact would be less
than significant. No mitigation would be required.
Operational Impacts
The following section provides an analysis of potential long-term air quality impacts to regional air
quality with the long-term operation of the Proposed Project. The potential operations-related air
emissions have been analyzed below for regional and localized criteria pollutant emissions and
cumulative impacts.
Operations-Related Regional Impacts
Operational emissions are comprised of area, energy, mobile, off-road equipment, and stationary
source emissions. The principal source of all long-term criteria pollutant emissions except PM10
associated with the Project would result from emergency generator test operations. The principal
source of PM10 emission would be vehicle trips. Area and energy source emissions are based
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-20 Environmental Evaluation
on CalEEMod assumptions for the specific land uses and size. Mobile source emissions are
based on estimated Project-related trip generation forecasts, as contained in the Project trip
generation memorandum. The Proposed Project would generate 135 new AM peak hour trips,
101 new PM peak hour trips, and 1,317 new weekday daily trips (Iteris 2022a). The peak daily
operational emissions for VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions that would be created
from the Proposed Project’s long-term operation have been calculated and are summarized below
in Table 5, Peak Daily Operational Emissions.
TABLE 5
PEAK DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Source
Emissions (lbs/day)*
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Area sources 2 <1 4 <1 <1 <1
Energy sources <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Mobile sources 5 4 40 <1 4 1
Total Operational Emissions* 7 5 44 <1 4 1
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
lbs/day: pounds per day; VOC: volatile organic compound; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SOx: sulfur oxides; PM10:
respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter;
SCAQMD: South Coast Air Quality Management District.
* Some totals do not add due to rounding.
Source: SCAQMD 2019 (thresholds); see Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Data, for CalEEMod
model outputs.
The data provided in Table 5 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would not exceed
the regional emissions operational thresholds. Therefore, a less than significant regional air
quality impact would occur from operation of the Proposed Project. No mitigation is required.
Cumulative Operational Impacts
As shown in Table 5, Peak Daily Operational Emissions, operational emissions of VOC, NOx, CO,
SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 would be below the SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds. Consistent
with the approach described above (under Cumulative Construction Impacts), SCAQMD’s policy
with respect to cumulative impacts associated with the above-referenced pollutants and their
precursors is that impacts that would be directly less than significant on a project level would also
be cumulatively less than significant. Therefore, because the Proposed Project’s operational
emissions are less than the respective SCAQMD daily operational thresholds, the Proposed
Project’s operations phase activities would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable increase
of a pollutant for which the SoCAB is in nonattainment. Emissions of nonattainment pollutants or
their precursors would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant; no
mitigation would be required.
Cumulative Health Impacts
The SoCAB is designated as nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, which means that the
background levels of those pollutants are, at times, higher than the ambient air quality standards.
The air quality standards were set to protect public health, including the health of sensitive
individuals (the elderly, children, and the sick). Therefore, when the concentrations of those
pollutants exceed the standard, it is likely that some sensitive individuals in the population would
experience health effects. These health effects are not identified for specific individual receptors
nor does the analysis identify the magnitude of health effects. The regional analysis detailed
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-21 Environmental Evaluation
above found that the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for
VOC and NOx (ozone precursors), PM10, and PM2.5. As such, the Project would result in a less
than significant cumulative health impact.
Question C: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur when a project would generate
pollutant concentrations to a degree that would significantly affect sensitive receptors, which
include populations that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the population at
large. Exposure of sensitive receptors is addressed for construction and operation of the
Proposed Project. To address construction activities, the analysis below includes the following
analyses: localized air quality impacts from construction and TACs, specifically diesel particulate
matter (DPM) from on-site construction. To address operational emissions exposure to sensitive
receptors, the analysis below discusses local air quality impacts from on-site operations; exposure
to off-site TAC emissions; and CO hotspots. Operational, long-term TACs may be generated by
some industrial land uses; commercial land uses (e.g., gas stations and dry cleaners); and diesel
trucks on freeways. TAC emissions associated with the operation of the proposed warehouse
would involve diesel truck exhaust related to deliveries of supplies and to a lesser extent diesel
fueled passenger vehicles. In addition, there would be onsite fueling activities and a standby
diesel generator.
Construction
Localized Criteria Pollutants from On-Site Construction
In addition to the mass daily emissions thresholds established by the SCAQMD, short-term local
impacts to nearby sensitive receptors from on-site emissions of NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 are
examined based on SCAQMD LST methodology. To assess local air quality impacts for
development projects without complex dispersion modeling, the SCAQMD developed screening
(lookup) tables to assist lead agencies in evaluating impacts.
The LST method is limited to projects that are five acres or less. For the purposes of an LST
analysis, the SCAQMD considers receptors where it is possible that an individual could remain
for 1 hour for NO2 and CO exposure and 24 hours for PM10 and PM2.5 exposure. The emissions
limits in the lookup tables are based on the SCAQMD’s Air Quality Significance Thresholds and
CARB’s 1-hour NO2 AAQS. (SCAQMD 2008a). The closest off-site sensitive receptors to the
Project Site are residential uses located approximately 130 feet to the north of the Project
boundary. The emissions thresholds are for receptors within 40 meters (130 feet) of the Project
Site which account for worker exposure at residential uses proximate to the Project Site. The
thresholds for receptors farther away would be higher and the Proposed Project emissions would
be a smaller fraction of the thresholds.
Table 6, Localized Significance Threshold Construction Emissions, shows the maximum daily
on-site emissions for construction activities compared with the SCAQMD LSTs with receptors
within 40 meters for a Project Site disturbance area of 1 acre per day. The Proposed Project’s
maximum daily on-site emissions of NOx and CO would occur during the paving phase; the
maximum on-site emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 would occur during the grading phase. As shown
in Table 6, the local emissions from the Proposed Project would be below the thresholds, and no
significant impacts would result. No mitigation is required.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-22 Environmental Evaluation
TABLE 6
LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Emissions and Thresholds
Emissions (lbs/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Project maximum daily on-site emissions 29 24 5 3
SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholda 82 642 9 4
Exceed threshold? No No No No
lbs/day: pounds per day; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; PM10: respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in
diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter.
a Data is for SCAQMD Source Receptor Area 17, Central Orange County.
Source: SCAQMD 2009 (thresholds); see Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Data, for
CalEEMod outputs.
Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions from On-Site Construction
Construction activities would result in short-term, project-generated emissions of DPM from the
exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment used for site preparation (e.g., excavation, and
grading); paving; building construction; and other miscellaneous activities. CARB identified DPM
as a TAC in 1998. The dose to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to
determine health risk. Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the
environment and the duration of exposure to the substance. Thus, the risks estimated for a
maximally exposed individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer time period.
According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, health risk assessments—
which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to TAC emissions—should be based on a
40-year exposure period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of
activities associated with the Proposed Project.
There would be relatively few pieces of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment in operation, and
the total construction period would be relatively short when compared to a 40-year exposure
period. Combined with the highly dispersive properties of DPM and the nearest sensitive uses
located approximately 130 feet away as well as additional reductions in particulate emissions from
newer construction equipment, as required by USEPA and CARB regulations, construction
emissions of TACs would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial emissions of TACs. The
impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Operational
Localized Criteria Pollutants from On-site Operations
Project-related air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and federal air quality
standards in the vicinity of the Proposed Project even though these pollutant emissions may not
be significant enough to create a regional impact to the SoCAB. Project-related air emissions from
on-site sources such as landscaping equipment, vehicle usage (cars and trucks), may have the
potential to generate emissions that exceed the State and federal air quality standards in the
vicinity of the Proposed Project even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant
enough to create a regional impact to the SoCAB.
The local air quality emissions from on-site operations were analyzed using the SCAQMD’s Mass
Rate LST Look-up Tables and the LST Methodology. Table 7, Localized Significance Threshold
Operational Emissions, shows the on-site operational emissions from area sources, energy
usage, vehicles operating on-site, and the calculated emissions thresholds.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-23 Environmental Evaluation
TABLE 7
LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
On-Site Emission Source
Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources <1 4 <1 <1
Energy Sources 1 <1 <1 <1
Mobile Sourcesa <1 <1 <1 <1
Total Emissions <1 4 <1 <1
SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholdb 82 642 2 1
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
lbs/day: pounds per day; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; PM10: respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in
diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter.
a Onsite vehicle emissions based on 5% of the gross vehicular emissions, which is the estimated portion of vehicle emissions
occurring within a quarter mile of the Project Site.
b Data is for SCAQMD Source Receptor Area 17, Central Orange County, with a source receptor distance of 25-meters.
According to LST methodology, for any receptor closer than 25 meters, the 25-meter threshold should be used at a
minimum. A 5-acre Project Site was used.
Source: SCAQMD 2009 (thresholds); see Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Data, for
CalEEMod outputs.
The data provided in Table 7 shows that the ongoing operations of the Proposed Project would
not exceed the local NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 thresholds of significance. Therefore, operation
of the Proposed Project would create a less than significant impact to local air quality due to on-
site emissions, and no mitigation would be required.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspot
In an urban setting, vehicle exhaust is the primary source of CO. Consequently, the highest CO
concentrations generally are found close to congested intersections. Under typical meteorological
conditions, CO concentrations tend to decrease as the distance from the emissions source (e.g.,
congested intersection) increases. Therefore, for purposes of providing a conservative worst-case
impact analysis, CO concentrations typically are analyzed at congested intersection locations. If
impacts are less than significant close to congested intersections, impacts also would be less
than significant at more distant sensitive-receptor and other locations. An initial screening
procedure is provided in the Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol
(CO Protocol) to determine whether a project poses the potential to generate a CO hotspot (UCD
ITS 1997). The key criterion is whether the Proposed Project would worsen traffic congestion at
signalized intersections operating at level of service (LOS) E or F. If a project poses a potential
for a CO hotspot, a quantitative screening is required. Per the Trip Generation Memo prepared
for the Proposed Project, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in 135 AM and 101
PM peak hour trips. This quantity of peak hour trips is a minimal increase in traffic volumes at
intersections local to the Project site.
The 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (SCAQMD 2003b)
evaluated numerous intersections for the potential to result in CO hotspots and found that the
1-hour CO standard (20.0 parts per million [ppm]) would likely not be exceeded until the daily
traffic at the intersection exceeded more than 400,000 vehicles per day. Ball Road has less than
40,000 average daily trips and Anaheim Boulevard has less than 30,000 average daily trips under
existing and opening year with and without the Proposed Project conditions. Because the
roadways proximate to the Project Site have substantially less traffic than 400,000 trips per day,
CO concentrations at nearby roadway intersections are anticipated to be substantially less than
the CO ambient air quality standards. Moreover, vehicle standards have become increasingly
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-24 Environmental Evaluation
more stringent since 1992 and background CO concentrations are less than in 1992. As such,
existing CO concentrations would be less than the ambient air quality concentration standards
and the small contribution of Project related traffic would likewise not result in CO concentrations
that would exceed either the State or federal ambient air quality standards. The Project would
result in less than significant impacts related to CO hotspots, and no mitigation is required.
Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions from Project Operations
The Proposed Project involves the development of hotel and drive-thru fast food restaurant uses.
These uses do not generate substantial levels of toxic air contaminants due to the nature of their
uses. The Project does include the installation of a standby diesel-powered power generator. Prior
to installation, the Project Applicant would need to obtain a permit from the SCAQMD consistent
with the requirements detailed in SCAQMD Rules 1110.2 and 1470. All stationary internal
combustion engines greater than 50 brake horsepower are quired to obtain a permit to construct
and operate. After the permit application is received by the SCAQMD, the SCAQMD will
determine whether the proposed generator will result in substantial health effects at nearby
receptors. The SCAQMD will only grant a permit to construct/operate if the proposed generator
will not result in substantial health effects. As such, the proposed generator will not result in
significant air quality impacts to nearby receptors. As such, the Project would not result in
substantial emissions of TACs that would result in a significant air quality impact relative to
localized exposure to nearby sensitive uses nor contribute significantly to the region.
Question D: Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact. Project construction would use equipment and activities that could
result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors). However, these odors would be typical
during construction and not extraordinarily objectionable. Potential construction odors include
on-site construction equipment’s diesel exhaust emissions as well as roofing, painting, and paving
operations. There may be situations where construction activity odors could be noticed. However,
these odors would be temporary and would dissipate rapidly from the source with an increase in
distance. Therefore, the impacts would be short-term; would not affect a substantial number of
people; and would be less than significant.
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically
include agricultural uses, sewer treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants,
composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding (SCAQMD 1993). The Project
does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors, and
therefore, would not likely produce objectionable odors. During long-term Project operations,
activities occurring at both the hotel and walk-up/drive thru fast food restaurant would not involve
activities which result in the generation of odors that constitute a public nuisance. In addition, the
Project uses are regulated from nuisance odors or other objectionable emissions by SCAQMD
Rule 402, Nuisance. Rule 402 prohibits discharge from any source of air contaminants or other
material which would cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to people or the public.
Overall, there would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Program
No mitigation is required.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-25 Environmental Evaluation
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The information and analysis in this section is derived from a desktop assessment of the Project
Site and vicinity. The desktop assessment involves a detailed review of current and historical
aerial photography, recent site photographs, and biological resource databases, including the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database.
Question A: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The Project Site is located on a fully developed site within a developed urban area.
Scattered, ornamental, or invasive plant species occur in planters and other unpaved areas
intended for landscaping. Plant species identified as occurring onsite are predominantly
ornamental shrubs, ruderal herbaceous grasses and forbs, and low-growing date palms (Phoenix
sp.). One mature street tree occurs in a sidewalk planter on East Ball Road. No native plant
species or vegetation types occur on or adjacent to the Project Site. Additionally, no open space
areas or native habitat types occur on or adjacent to the Project Site. Therefore, the Project Site
does not provide suitable habitat for any special status plant or wildlife species, and none are
expected to occur on or adjacent to the Project Site. No impact would occur, and no mitigation
would be required.
Question B: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US
Fish and Wildlife Service?
Question C: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. The Project Site is fully developed, and no native plants or associated habitats
(riparian or otherwise) occur. Therefore, no riparian habitat or sensitive communities identified in
local or regional plans or policies by the CDFW or by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are located
on or adjacent to the Project Site. Additionally, the Project Site does not support any federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; therefore, the Proposed
Project would not impact any marsh, vernal pool, or coastal habitats. No impact would occur, and
no mitigation would be required.
Question 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is located within a developed, urban context,
surrounded by major roadways and buildings and lacks connectivity to natural open space areas.
Therefore, the Project Site does not function as a wildlife movement corridor and no impact would
occur.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-26 Environmental Evaluation
The mature ornamental tree located on East Ball Road has potential to support bird nesting. The
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code §§3503 and 3513 protects active
bird nests. Potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation
of RR 4-1, which requires that vegetation be removed outside of the nesting bird season if
feasible, nesting bird surveys, and avoidance of active nests.
Question E: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would require vegetation removal, including the
removal of approximately five palm trees. The Proposed Project would comply with Section
13.12.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code related to replacement of street trees that need to be
removed. The Project Site is not located within a Scenic Corridor overlay area and would not be
subject to any additional applicable policies or ordinances related to the protection of biological
resources on the Project Site. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur, and no
mitigation is required.
Question F: Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. The Project Site is not located within a designated or proposed Natural Community
Conservation Plan area. Additionally, development of the Proposed Project would not conflict with
the provisions of any local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. No impact would occur,
and no mitigation is required.
Regulatory Requirement
RR 4-1 The Project Applicant shall have site clearing (specifically tree removal and the
building demolition) conducted outside of the nesting bird season to the extent
practicable. The nesting bird season extends from February 15 to August 31. If site
clearing would occur between February 15 and August 31, the Project Applicant
shall have a qualified biologist conduct a survey for active bird nests within three
days prior to initiating site clearing activity. Should an active nest of a bird protected
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or California Fish and Game Code be
identified, restrictions may be placed on construction activities in the vicinity of the
nest observed until the nest is no longer active, as determined by a qualified
Biologist. The size of the protective buffer will be determined by the Biologist based
on the location of the nest; the type of construction activities; the existing human
activity in the vicinity of the nest; and the sensitivity of the nesting species. Once
the nest is no longer active, construction can proceed in the buffer area.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-27 Environmental Evaluation
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Information in this section is based on the 2022 results from records searches and literature
reviews of information available from the South-Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), the
Citywide Historic Preservation Plan, and the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Due
to the previously disturbed nature of the Project site, a field survey was not warranted. All
documentation is compiled as Appendix B to this IS/MND.
Citywide Program
On May 18, 2010, the City Council approved the Citywide Historic Preservation Plan and a list of
contributors in the historic districts, and a complete list of citywide historic structures. The list
includes properties within Anaheim’s four existing historic districts: the Colony District, the Five
Points District, The Historic Palm District, and the Hoskins District as well as other properties
located throughout the City. A review of the Citywide Structures of Historical Interest did not
identify any built environment resources within the proposed Project site. The nearest resource is
located at 222 West Ball Road approximately ¼-mile southwest of the Project site. The structure
is estimated to have been built in 1935 and has not been surveyed.
South-Central Coastal Information Center Cultural Resources Records and Literature
Review
A cultural resources records search was conducted on July 6, 2022, by the SCCIC at California
State University. The SCCIC is a designated branch of the California Historical Resources
Information System (CHRIS) and houses records regarding archaeological and historic resources
recorded in San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Orange, and Ventura Counties. The 2022 review
consisted of an examination of the U.S. Geological Survey’s 7.5-minute Anaheim Quadrangle to
determine if any sites are recorded or if any cultural resources studies have been conducted on
or within a ½-mile radius of the Project Site. Data sources consulted at the SCCIC include
archaeological records, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, historic maps, and the
Historic Property Data File (HPDF) maintained by the Office of Historic Preservation. The HPDF
contains listings for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and/or the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of
Historical Interest.
The records search and literature review conducted for the Proposed Project revealed that six
cultural resource studies have been conducted within ½-mile of the Project Site; none of which
are located within the Project area. Additionally, a review of the CHRIS Built Environment
Resource Directory (BERD) did not identify built environment resources within the proposed
Project site or in the vicinity of the proposed Project site.
Therefore, no cultural resources were identified within the ½-mile search radius of the Proposed
Project.
Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Search
Psomas submitted a request to the NAHC on May 3, 2022, to review the Sacred Lands File (SLF)
database regarding the possibility of Native American cultural resources and/or sacred places in
the Project vicinity that are not documented on other databases. The results from the NAHC were
received on June 20, 2022. The SLF search did not identify any known resources or sacred lands
within the Project Site. However, the NAHC recommends that the lead agency contact tribes that
are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area. The City contacted the tribes
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-28 Environmental Evaluation
listed on their consultation list on May 18, 2022. The consultation results are discussed in Section
XVIII, Tribal Cultural Resources.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
Question A: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
No Impact. A significant impact could occur if the Project were to disturb historic resources that
presently exist within the Project Site. Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines generally defines
a historic resource as a resource that is (1) listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical Resources (California Register); (2) included in a local register of
historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code); or (3) identified
as significant in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the
Public Resources Code). Additionally, any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or
manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the
architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military,
or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead
agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.
Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the
resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register. The California Register
automatically includes all properties listed in the NRHP and those formally determined to be
eligible for listing in the National Register.
As stated above, the records search did not identify cultural resources within the ½-mile search
radius of the Proposed Project. No other historic resources were identified within ½-mile of the
Project Site, and no on-site structures meet the 50-year construction age criterion for evaluation.
Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
Question B: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. A significant impact could occur if grading or
excavation activities associated with the Project were to disturb archaeological resources that
presently exist within the Project Site. There are no known archaeological sites on the Project
Site. The SCCIC record search and literature review did not identify cultural resources within the
½-mile search radius of the Proposed Project. However, there is always the possibility that
undiscovered intact archaeological resources may be present below the surface in native (alluvial)
sediments. These potential effects would be mitigated to a less than significant level with the
implementation of MM 5-1, which requires archaeological monitoring when excavating in native
sediment.
Question C: Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Less than Significant Impact. A Project-related significant adverse effect could occur if grading
or excavation activities associated with the Project were to disturb previously interred human
remains. The Project Site is located within a developed area that has been subject to earth-moving
activities in the past, and no known burial sites are located on or adjacent to the Project Site. In
the unlikely event of an unanticipated encounter with human remains in Project Site, the California
Health and Safety Code and the California Public Resources Code require that any activity in the
area of a potential find be halted and the Orange County Coroner be notified, as described in RR
5-1. Implementation of RR 5-1 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-29 Environmental Evaluation
Regulatory Requirement
RR 5-1 If human remains are found during ground-disturbing activities, no further
excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to
overlie adjacent remains shall occur, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the
California Health and Safety Code. The County Coroner shall be notified of the
discovery immediately. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are or
believed to be Native American, s/he shall notify the NAHC in Sacramento within
24 hours of the discovery. In accordance with Section 5097.98 of the California
Public Resources Code, the NAHC must immediately notify those persons it
believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The
descendants shall complete their inspection within 48 hours of being granted
access to the site by the City. The City would meet and confer with the most likely
descendant regarding their recommendations prior to disturbing the site by further
construction activity.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measure
The following mitigation measure is required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels and
will be incorporated into the Mitigation Program for this IS/MND.
MM 5-1 Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall provide written
evidence to the City that the applicant has retained an Orange County-certified
archaeologist to observe grading activities and salvage and catalogue
archaeological resources as necessary. The archaeologist shall be present at the
pre-grade conference, shall establish procedures for archaeological resource
surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the applicant, procedures for
temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and
evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. If archaeological resources are
inadvertently unearthed during excavation activities, the contractor shall
immediately cease all earth-disturbing activities within a 100-foot radius of the area
of discovery and the archaeologist and City shall be notified immediately. If the
archaeological resources are found to be significant, the archeologist, in
consultation with the City, shall determine appropriate actions for exploration and
salvage. After the find has been appropriately avoided or mitigated, work in the
area may resume.
VI. ENERGY
Energy efficiency is a priority for both the State of California and the City of Anaheim. The following
are regulatory targets and requirements that have been adopted at the State and local level.
State
The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6 of
the CCR) were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s
energy consumption. The current 2022 Standards, effective January 1, 2023, encourages
efficient electric-ready requirements for new homes, expands solar photovoltaic and battery
storage standards, strengthens ventilation standards, and more (CEC 2021a).
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-30 Environmental Evaluation
The State of California has also adopted efficiency design standards within the Title 24 Building
Standards and CALGreen requirements. Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR,
specifically, Part 6) is California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential
Buildings. Title 24 was established by the CEC in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to
create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy consumption and to provide energy
efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings.
The 2022 Energy Code focuses on four key areas in newly constructed homes and businesses:
1. Encouraging electric heat pump technology for space and water heating, which
consumes less energy and produces fewer emissions than gas-powered units.
2. Establishing electric-ready requirements for single-family homes to position owners to
use cleaner electric heating, cooking, and electric vehicle (EV) charging options
whenever they choose to adopt those technologies.
3. Expanding solar photovoltaic (PV) system and battery storage standards to make
clean energy available onsite and complement the State’s progress toward a 100
percent clean electricity grid.
4. Strengthening ventilation standards to improve indoor air quality.
The 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11), also known as the
CALGreen Code, contains mandatory requirements for new residential and nonresidential
buildings throughout California. The development of the CALGreen Code is intended to (1) cause
a reduction in GHG emissions from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible,
cost-effective, healthier places to live and work; (3) reduce energy and water consumption; and
(4) respond to the directives by the Governor. In short, the Code is established to reduce
construction waste; make buildings more efficient in the use of materials and energy; and reduce
environmental impact during and after construction. The regulation of energy efficiency for
residential and nonresidential structures is established by the CEC and its California Energy
Code.
City of Anaheim
General Plan
The following policies of the City of Anaheim’s General Plan are relevant to energy efficiency and
generation.
Green Element
Policy 12.1: Continue to be a county leader in the use of electric and alternative fuel
vehicles.
Policy 15.1.1: Continue to maintain and update energy conservation programs and
information provided on the City’s website.
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).
Policy 15.2.2: Encourage energy-efficient retrofitting of existing buildings throughout the City.
Policy 15.2.3: Continue to provide free energy audits for the public.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-31 Environmental Evaluation
Policy 17.1.1: Encourage designs that incorporate solar and wind exposure features such as
daylighting design, natural ventilation, space planning, and thermal massing.
Public Services and Facilities Element
Policy 3.1.1: Encourage the development and use of renewable energy resources.
Municipal Code
The 2022 California Energy Code (CCR Title 24 Part 6), which includes the Energy Efficiency
Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, is adopted, with specified amendments,
as Anaheim Municipal Code Section 15.03.10.080. The 2022 California Green Building Standards
Code (CCR Title 24 Part 11) is adopted, with specified amendments, as Anaheim Municipal Code
Section 15.03.100.
Anaheim Public Utilities Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
The Anaheim Public Utilities Department (APUD)’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GHGRP),
approved in 2015, and updated in 2020, identifies renewable energy and energy conservation
targets for APUD for the years 2020, 2030, and 2045. The GHGRP identifies renewables portfolio
targets for increasing the APUD power supply generated from renewable sources up to 33 percent
by year 2020, 60 percent by year 2030, and 100 percent by 2045. In 2020, 34,000 kilowatt (kW)
of photovoltaic systems were installed, and 50,000 kW of photovoltaic systems installed by 2030
and 75,000 kW by 2045. The GHG Reduction Plan also establishes transportation-related goals
for APUD to convert its fleet vehicles to result in emissions reductions of 500 metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) in 2020, 1,200 MTCO2e in 2030, and 32,000 MTCO2e in 2045
(APUD 2020). APUD also encourages customers to utilize electric vehicles to reduce GHG
emissions.
Anaheim Public Utilities Integrated Resources Plan
On October 7, 2015, Governor Brown signed the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of
2015 – Senate Bill (SB) 350 into law. Among its requirements, SB 350 mandates an increase in
the procurement of renewables from 33 percent to 50 percent by 2030, and requires certain
publicly-owned utilities, including Anaheim, to adopt and file an Integrated Resources Plan (IRP)
by January 1, 2019. An IRP is a comprehensive planning strategy and long-term road map for
meeting State GHG reduction goals, while balancing the need for reliable and affordable electric
service to customers (APU 2023).
The IRP provides a roadmap for the energy future of Anaheim by 2030. It highlights significant
reductions in GHG levels and is projected to be at least 70 percent below the 1990 baseline
through the divestiture of coal resources and increasing renewable supplies. It also recognizes
the role of energy efficiency and customer-installed solar in keeping overall demand at
zero-growth. SB 100, enacted on September 10, 2018, expanded the renewable
procurement target from 50 percent to 60 percent by 2030. Anaheim has performed an initial
assessment of the new requirement and will incorporate the full-scale portfolio analysis into the
next update to the IRP, which is due in 2023.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-32 Environmental Evaluation
Question 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. Energy consumption related to the Project would occur during the
construction and operations phases, as described in more detail below.
Construction Energy Use
Project construction would require the use of construction equipment for grading, hauling, and
building activities. Construction would also include the vehicles of construction workers and
vendors traveling to and from the Project Site and on-road haul trucks for the import of soil for
grading.
Off-road construction equipment use was calculated from the equipment data (vehicle types,
hours per day, horsepower, load factor) provided in the CalEEMod construction output files
included in Appendix C. The total horsepower hours for construction equipment used for the
Project was then multiplied by fuel usage rates to obtain the total fuel usage for off-road
equipment.
Fuel consumption from construction worker, vendor, and delivery/haul trucks was calculated using
the trip rates and distances provided in the CalEEMod construction output files. Total VMT was
then calculated for each type of construction-related trip and divided by the fuel consumption
factor from CARB’s EMission FACtors (EMFAC) 2017 model. EMFAC provides the total annual
VMT and fuel consumed for each vehicle type. Construction vendor and delivery/haul trucks were
assumed to be heavy-duty diesel trucks. As shown in Table 8, the Project would consume a total
of 14,130 gallons of gasoline fuel and 9,557 gallons of diesel during construction.
TABLE 8
ENERGY USE DURING CONSTRUCTION (GALLONS)
Source Gasoline Diesel Fuel
Off-road Construction Equipment 8,185 7,906
Worker commute 4,783 23
Vendors 1,160 19
On-road haul 2 1,609
Total 14,130 9,557
Sources: Psomas 2023 based on data from CalEEMod, Offroad, and EMFAC2017.
Fuel energy consumed during construction would be temporary in nature and would not represent
a significant demand on energy resources. Furthermore, there are no unusual Project
characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less
energy-efficient than comparable equipment at construction sites in other parts of the State.
Energy used in the construction of the Project would enable the development of buildings that
meet the latest energy efficiency standards, as detailed in California’s Title 24 building standards
and provide hotel and restaurant facilities within a Transit Priority Area. Therefore, the proposed
construction activities would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-33 Environmental Evaluation
Operations Phase Energy Use
Energy consumption associated with the operations phase of the Project consists of electricity for
lighting and electronic devices and transportation fuels. Electricity consumption estimates were
calculated by the CalEEMod model. Transportation related energy consumption of gasoline and
diesel fuel was calculated based on the quantity of vehicles, average travel distance, vehicle
class, and fuel efficiency of each vehicle class as provided by the EMFAC model. Energy
consumption calculations are included in Appendix C.
Project related transportation fuels would be used for worker commute trips as well as truck
deliveries. It is estimated that 126,253 gallons of gasoline fuel and 2,439 gallons of diesel per
year, as shown in Table 9, below.
TABLE 9
TRANSPORTATION ENERGY
(GALLONS/YEAR)
Source Gasoline Fuel Diesel Fuel
Project 126,253 2,439
Sources: Psomas 2023 based on data from CalEEMod and EMFAC2017.
For building energy usage, the Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential
Buildings (Title 24, Part 6 of the CCR) were established in 1978 in response to a legislative
mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The current applicable standards are the
2022 Standards.
As discussed above, the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11), also
known as the CALGreen code, contains mandatory requirements and voluntary measures for new
residential and nonresidential buildings. The development of the CALGreen Code is intended to
improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of
buildings through the following construction practices: (1) planning and design; (2) energy
efficiency; (3) water efficiency and conservation; (4) material conservation and resource
efficiency; and (5) environmental quality (CBSC 2022). In short, the CALGreen Code was adopted
to reduce construction waste, make buildings more efficient in the use of materials and energy,
and reduce environmental impact during and after construction. The City’s Municipal Code adopts
the mandatory provisions of the CALGreen Code by reference for all buildings and structures.
The Project would promote building energy efficiency through compliance with energy efficiency
standards (Title 24 and CALGreen). The Project would follow the 2022 Title 24 standards, which
would result in less electricity and natural consumption than presented in Table 10. Development
of buildings that comply with the latest energy efficiency standards adopted by the State California
would not result in inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy.
TABLE 10
ENERGY FROM UTILITIES
Source Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Electricity (kWh/yr)
Project 2,159,177 1,095,701
kBTU/yr: kilobtus per year; kWh/yr: kilowatt-hours per year.
Sources: Psomas 2023 based on data from CalEEMod.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-34 Environmental Evaluation
Because the Project would develop hotel and restaurant uses that incorporate the latest energy
efficiency standards, develop alternative energy (solar PV), provide EV parking and charging
infrastructure, and meet local hotel and restaurant needs in a Transit Priority Area, energy
consumption associated with the Project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or
unnecessary. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Question B: Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency?
Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would be developed consistent with
numerous goals and policies in the City’s Green Element of the General Plan.
Goal 10.1: Improve the efficiency and ridership of public transit within the City — The
Project is located within a Transit Priority Area which has multiple bus lines which provides
options for mass transit which will improve transportation related energy efficiency.
Goal 15.2: Continue to encourage site design practices that reduce and conserve
energy — The Project will comply with the State of California’s Title 24 Building Standards.
Green Element Policy 15.2.1: The Project will develop solar PVc panels which will provide
renewable energy to the Site which is consistent with Green Element Policy 15.2.1, which
encourages active solar design, and Policy 3.1.1, which encourages the development of
renewable energy sources.
Policy 12.1 and GHGRP: Additionally, the Project will also include EV charging and
parking spaces. The Project encourages the use of EV by providing EV charging
infrastructure which supports Policy 12.1 and GHGRP, which promotes electric vehicle
usage.
Because the Project would comply with the latest State of California energy efficiency standards
and would be consistent with goals and polices established within the Green Element of the
General Plan, the Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or City of Anaheim
plan or policy for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts would be less than significant,
and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Program
No mitigation is required.
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The following analysis is based on Appendix D1, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report
of Proposed 4-Story Hotel and Food Court at 125 East Ball Road, Anaheim, California prepared
for the proposed Project by ABI Engineering Consultants, Inc (2020a) and Appendix D2,
Responses to Comments Made by CEM Laboratory Corporation on Behalf of City of Anaheim
Building and Safety Division, Dated February 18, 2020, La Quinta Inn Hotel, 125 East Ball Road,
Anaheim, California. ABI Project No. 20108 prepared for the Proposed Project by ABI Engineering
Consultants (2022b).
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-35 Environmental Evaluation
Question A: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
(i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site, as with the entire Southern California region, is
subject to secondary effects from earthquakes. As stated in Appendix D1, Preliminary
Geotechnical Investigation Report of Proposed 4-Story Hotel and Food Court at 125 East Ball
Road, Anaheim, California, earthquakes along regional faults can impact the Project Site, and
vicinity, with ground shaking. California Division of Mines and Geology’s “Fault Map of California”
plots the following regional faults, having Recent/Holocene movements: unnamed fault at La
Habra, San Jacinto Fault, and San Andreas Fault to be, respectively, 7.1 miles north, 38 miles
northeast, and 41 miles northeast, of the Project Site (CDMG 1975). Additionally, the following
faults, with Quaternary age movements: Whittier Fault, Newport-Inglewood Fault, Palos Verdes
Fault, Sierra Madre Fault, and Santa Monica/Raymond Fault are plotted at, respectively, 7.9 miles
northeast, 11.3 miles southwest, 19 miles southwest, 21.4 miles north, and 22.6 miles north of
the property. The Project Site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Special Study Fault Zone.
Additionally, no faults are mapped, or inferred, through the Project Site. Due to the distance from
the closest active fault, ground rupture is not considered a significant hazard at the Project Site.
Implementation of the Proposed Project would be consistent with existing codes and regulations,
including the Uniform Building Code, the Anaheim Municipal Code, and the requirements of the
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act (California Public Resources Code §§2621 et seq.).
Therefore, development of the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact
related to rupture of a known earthquake fault, and no mitigation is required.
Question A: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
(ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The Project Site is situated in a seismically
active area that has historically been affected by generally moderate to occasionally high levels
of ground motion. Ground shaking associated with seismic activity along regional faults is the
most probable seismic hazard for the Project Site and vicinity. California Geological Survey’s
(CGS) “Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Assessment Index Map” suggests the degree of
Preliminary Ground Acceleration at the Project Site and vicinity, due to an earthquake, would be
30 percent to 40 percent of gravity (ABI 2020a). The Project Site is located proximate to several
active faults; therefore, during the life of the Proposed Project, the property would likely
experience similar moderate to occasionally high ground shaking from these fault zones as well
as some background shaking from other seismically active areas in the Southern California
region.
Implementation of the Project would not change the intensity of ground shaking that would occur
on the Project site during a seismic event, but it would increase exposure to people through the
addition of a hotel and walk-up/drive-thru fast food restaurant. Design and construction in
accordance with current California Building Code (CBC) requirements is anticipated to address
the issues related to potential ground shaking. Implementation of MM 6-1 requires review and
approval showing that the proposed structure has been analyzed for earthquake loading and
designed according to the most recent seismic standards in the CBC. Implementation of MM 6-2
requires all grading operations to be conducted in conformance with the recommendations
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-36 Environmental Evaluation
contained in the Proposed Project’s geotechnical investigation. With implementation of MM 6-1
and MM 6-2, the Proposed Project would have less than significant impacts related to strong
seismic ground shaking.
Question A: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
(iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(iv) Landslides?
Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction involves sudden loss in strength of a saturated,
cohesionless soil (predominantly sand) caused by the build-up of pore water pressure during
cyclic loading, such as that produced by an earthquake. This increase in pore water pressure can
temporarily transform the soil into a fluid mass, resulting in vertical settlement and can also cause
lateral ground deformations. Typically, liquefaction occurs in areas where there are loose sands
and the depth to groundwater is less than 50 feet from the surface. Seismic shaking can also
cause soil compaction and ground settlement without liquefaction occurring, including settlement
of dry sands above the water table. Per the CGS’s “Zones of Required Investigation, Anaheim
Quadrangle”, the Project Site does not occur in an area of potential liquefaction (ABI 2020a).
Additionally, groundwater is not anticipated within a depth of 50 feet below ground surface.
Therefore, liquefaction potential at the Project Site is considered low to none. Additionally, the
Project Site is not located within a zone of required investigation for earthquake-induced Landslide
Hazards on State of California Seismic Hazard Zones. The Project Site is relatively level and there
are no slopes near the Project Site that could pose a landslide risk. Therefore, permanent ground
displacement due to seismic activities is considered low at the Project Site. Impacts would be less
than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Question B: Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less Than Significant Impact. As stated in Appendix F, Preliminary Water Quality Management
Plan (WQMP), La Quinta Inn & Suites, 125 East Ball Road, APN: 234-161-4, 26, prepared by
Capstone Engineering, Inc. (2022a), the majority of the Project Site exists as an impervious
surface area. The entire Project Site which includes a two-story commercial building in the
southeast corner of the Site has an impervious percentage of 97.63 percent. With implementation
of the Proposed Project, the surface of the Site would be modified to decrease the impervious
condition from approximately 97.63 percent to approximately 78 percent, thus creating more
pervious surfaces through an increase in landscaped areas (refer to Exhibit 7, Conceptual
Planting Plan). Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would be required to
comply with standard construction practices as published by the California Stormwater Quality
Association. The Proposed Project would comply with the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit through the development and
implementation of a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). As part of the SWPPP,
erosion and sediment-control Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be required and are
discussed in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality. Once construction is complete, the Project
Site would comply with BMPs identified in the Proposed Project’s Preliminary WQMP to reduce
erosion effects to less than significant levels (for further discussion, see Section IX, Hydrology
and Water Quality). No significant impacts related to erosion on the Project Site are anticipated.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-37 Environmental Evaluation
Question 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. As stated in Appendix D1, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Report of Proposed 4-Story Hotel and Food Court at 125 East Ball Road, Anaheim, California,
the Project Site currently has a 4-inch-thick asphalt pavement. The subsurface primarily consists
of fine to medium grained non-plastic light gray Sand (SP) in medium dense to dense condition.
Thin lenses of low plastic Silt (ML) in medium stiff condition were encountered in borings B-1 and
B-2. The soils were encountered in dry to moist conditions. As stated previously, the Project Site
is not located within the State-designated zone liquefaction potential. The historical groundwater
depth is reported to be greater than 50 feet below ground surface; therefore, the depth of the
water table and the overlying dense, earthen materials make the potential for liquefaction very
low. Potential impacts related to ground stability, including landslides, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse, would be less than significant for the Project Site, and no
mitigation is required.
Question D: Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Section
1803.5.3 of the California Building Code (2010), creating substantial risks to
life or property?
Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils contain significant amounts of clay particles that
swell considerably when wetted and shrink when dried. Foundations constructed on these soils
are subject to uplifting forces caused by the swelling. Without proper construction methods,
heaving and cracking of both building foundations and slabs-on-grade could result. As stated in
Appendix D1, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report of Proposed 4-Story Hotel and Food
Court at 125 East Ball Road, Anaheim, California, the subsurface soils beneath the Project Site
are mainly layers of Sand (SP/SW). A laboratory test performed on a representative fine-grained
soil sample indicate that the soil has a plasticity index in order of 14. Therefore, the expansion
potential of subsurface soils is anticipated to be low to none. Therefore, implementation of the
Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to creating substantial risks
to life or property due to expansive soils.
Question E: Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are
not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact. The Proposed Project would not involve the use of septic tanks or any alternative
wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required.
Question F: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. A paleontological records search was requested
from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Vertebrate Paleontology Department
and results were received on July 17, 2022. The results indicate that there are no fossil localities
that lie directly within the Proposed Project area; however, there are fossil localities nearby from
the same sedimentary deposits that occur in the Proposed Project area, either at the surface or
at depth. Therefore, the Project would not impact known paleontological resources; however,
surface sediments at and surrounding the Project site consist of Alluvium (Pleistocene), Terrace
deposits (Pleistocene), Terrace deposits (silty sandstone), La Habra Formation (Pleistocene;
sandy silt shot through with caliche), and Unknown formations (Pleistocene). Deep excavation
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-38 Environmental Evaluation
that involves disturbance of native soils could result in the disturbance and/or destruction of
paleontological resources that may be present in deeper Pleistocene alluvial deposits that
underlie the Project Site. Implementation of MM 6-3 related to paleontological resources would
reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Program
MM 6-1 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall
submit plans to the Planning Department, Building Services Division for review and
approval showing that the proposed structure has been analyzed for earthquake
loading and designed according to the most recent seismic standards in the
California Building Code adopted by the City of Anaheim.
MM 6-2 Prior to issuance of building or grading permits, the property owner/developer shall
submit to the Planning and Building Department, Building Services Division
geologic and geotechnical investigations in areas of potential seismic or geologic
hazards and provide a note on plans that all grading operations will be conducted
in conformance with the recommendations contained in the applicable
geotechnical investigation.
MM 6-3 Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall provide written
evidence to the City that the applicant has retained an Orange County-certified
paleontologist. In the event that paleontological resources are inadvertently
unearthed during excavation activities, the contractor shall immediately cease all
earth-disturbing activities within a 100-foot radius of the area of discovery and the
contractor shall contact the City immediately. The City shall retain a qualified
professional paleontologist to evaluate the significance of the find, and in
consultation with the City, determine an appropriate course of action. If the
paleontological resources are found to be significant, the paleontologist, in
consultation with the City, shall determine appropriate actions for exploration and
salvage. After the find has been appropriately avoided or mitigated, work in the
area may resume.
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The following analysis is based on Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Modeling Data, prepared for the Proposed Project by Psomas (2023).
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Background Information
Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (e.g., average
temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns) over a period of time. Climate change may result
from natural factors, natural processes, and human activities that change the composition of the
atmosphere and alter the surface and features of the land. Significant changes in global climate
patterns have recently been associated with global warming, which is an average increase in the
temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth’s surface; this is attributed to an accumulation of
GHG emissions in the atmosphere. GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere which, in turn, increases
the Earth’s surface temperature. Some GHGs occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere
through natural processes, while others are created and emitted solely through human activities.
The emission of GHGs through fossil fuel combustion in conjunction with other human activities
appears to be closely associated with global warming.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-39 Environmental Evaluation
GHGs, as defined under California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 32, include carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and
sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). General discussions on climate change often include water vapor,
atmospheric ozone, and aerosols in the GHG category. Water vapor and atmospheric ozone are
not gases that are formed directly in the construction or operation of development Projects, nor
can they be controlled in these Projects. Aerosols are not gases. While these elements have a
role in climate change, they are not considered by either regulatory bodies, such as CARB, or
climate change groups, such as the California Climate Action Registry, as gases to be reported
or analyzed for control. Therefore, no further discussion of water vapor, atmospheric ozone, or
aerosols is provided.
Regulatory Background
Federal
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Findings
On December 7, 2009, the USEPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding GHGs
under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.
Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected
concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere — CO2,
CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 threaten the public health and welfare of current and
future generations.
Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of
these well-mixed GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines
contribute to the GHG pollution which threatens public health and welfare.
The findings do not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities. However,
this action was a prerequisite for implementing GHG emissions standards for vehicles (USEPA
2021). A light-duty vehicle is defined any motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight of 6,000
pounds or less (CARB 2021a).
Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Corporate Average Fuel
Economy Standards
The USEPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) have been working together on developing a National Program of
regulations to reduce GHG emissions and to improve the fuel economy of light-duty vehicles. On
April 1, 2010, the USEPA and NHTSA announced a joint Final Rulemaking establishing standards
for 2012 through 2016 model year vehicles. On October 15, 2012, the agencies issued a Final
Rulemaking with standards for model years 2017 through 2025. The rules require these vehicles
to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 295 grams of CO2 per mile by 2012,
decreasing to 250 grams per mile by 2016, and finally to an average industry fleet-wide level of
163 grams per mile in model year 2025. The 2016 standard is equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon
(mpg) and the 2025 standard is equivalent to 54.5 mpg if the levels were achieved solely through
improvements in fuel efficiency. The agencies expect, however, that a portion of these
improvements will occur due to air conditioning technology improvements (i.e., they will leak less)
and due to the use of alternative refrigerants, which would not contribute to fuel economy. These
standards would cut GHG emissions by an estimated 2 billion metric tons and 4 billion barrels of
oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program (model years 2017–2025). The
combined USEPA GHG standards and NHTSA Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-40 Environmental Evaluation
standards resolve previously conflicting requirements under both federal programs and the
standards of the State of California and other States that have adopted the California standards
(USEPA and NHTSA 2019).
On September 19, 2019, NHTSA and the USEPA issued a final action entitled the “One National
Program Rule” (SAFE-1) to enable the federal government to provide nationwide uniform fuel
economy and GHG emission standards for automobile and light duty trucks. This action finalized
critical parts of the Safer, Affordable, Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule that was first proposed
in August 2018. In this proposal, the agencies proposed new and amended GHG and CAFE
standards for model year 2021 to 2026 light duty vehicles (USEPA and NHTSA 2019).
In this action, USEPA withdrew the Clean Air Act waiver that had been granted to the State of
California in January 2013 for the State’s Advanced Clean Car program with respect to GHG and
Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) elements. In November 2019, California, 21 other states, the District
of Columbia, and four California cities filed a petition for the USEPA to reconsider SAFE-1. A
petition for reconsideration was also filed by several environmental groups.
On April 28, 2021, USEPA published a Notice of Reconsideration: California State Motor Vehicle
Pollution Control Standards; Advanced Clean Car Program; Reconsideration of a Previous
Withdrawal of a Waiver of Preemption; Opportunity for Public Hearing and Public Comment. The
public comment period closed July 6, 2021 (USEPA 2021).
On March 14, 2022, the USEPA determined that the actions taken as a part of SAFE-1 were
decided in error and are now entirely rescinded. With this action California’s authority under the
Clean Air Act (CAA) to implement its own GHG emission standards and ZEV sales mandate is
restored (USEPA 2022).
State
Assembly Bill 1493 (Mobile Source Reductions)
AB 1493, adopted September 2002, also known as Pavley I, requires the development and
adoption of regulations to achieve the maximum feasible reduction of GHGs emitted by
noncommercial passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks, and other vehicles used primarily for
personal transportation in the State. The emission standards have become increasingly more
stringent through the 2016 model year. California committed to further strengthening these
standards beginning in 2017 to obtain a 45 percent GHG reduction from 2020 model year vehicles
(CARB 2021b). Regulations to make California emissions standards for model year 2017 and
beyond consistent with federal standards were adopted in 2012 and are discussed further below.
California Air Resources Board’s Advanced Clean Cars Program
In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars Program, an emissions-control
program for model year 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot,
and GHGs with requirements for greater numbers of ZEVs. By 2025, when the rules will be fully
implemented, the new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer global warming gases and 75
percent fewer smog-forming emissions. The program also requires car manufacturers to offer for
sale an increasing number of ZEVs each year, including battery electric, fuel cell, and plug-in
hybrid electric vehicles. In March 2017, CARB adopted GHG standards for 2022 through 2025
model years and directed staff to begin rule development for 2026 and subsequent model years
(CARB 2021c).
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-41 Environmental Evaluation
Executive Order S-3-05 (Statewide GHG Targets)
On June 1, 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order (EO) S-3-05, which
proclaims that California is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. It declares that increased
temperatures could reduce snowpack in the Sierra Nevada Mountains; could further exacerbate
California’s air quality problems; and could potentially cause a rise in sea levels. In an effort to
avoid or reduce the impacts of climate change, Executive Order S-3-05 calls for a reduction in
GHG emissions to the year 2000 level by 2010, to year 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent
below 1990 levels by 2050.
However, executive orders do not have the same status as a law because under California’s
constitution, it is the Legislature, not the Governor, who is entrusted with the role of making
statewide laws. The Legislature declined to include the EO’s 2050 goal in AB 32 (discussed
below), and again declined to use the EO’s 2050 goal in adopting SB 375 (discussed below) and
has not incorporated it in any implementing legislation or applicable plans. Additionally, although
CARB has the requisite authority to adopt whatever regulations are necessary beyond the AB 32
horizon year 2020 to meet the target set forth in S-3-05, the agency has not done so. Since the
Legislature has never enacted EO S-3-05’s 2050 target, and no expert agency has interpreted
CEQA to require it, the 2050 target has only the force and effect of an EO issued by a former
Governor. If the Legislature has delegated any of its authority to define CEQA’s requirements, it
delegated that authority to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR).
Senate Bill 97 and the CEQA Guidelines
Pursuant to SB 97, OPR developed and California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) adopted
proposed amendments to the CEQA Guidelines (CEQA Amendments) for the feasible mitigation
of GHG emissions and their effects. The CEQA Amendments became effective on March 18,
2010.
The CEQA Amendments for GHG Emissions state in Section 15064.4(a) that lead agencies
should “make a good faith effort, to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe,
calculate or estimate” GHG emissions. The CEQA Amendments note that an agency may identify
emissions by either selecting a “model or methodology” to quantify the emissions or by relying on
“qualitative analysis or other performance based standards” (CNRA 2009). Section 15064.4(b) of
the CEQA Guidelines provides that the lead agency should consider the following when assessing
the significance of impacts from GHG emissions on the environment (CNRA 2009):
The extent a project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the
environmental setting;
Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency
determines applies to the project; and
The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to
implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG
emissions.
All of these are considered in the impact analysis presented in this section. The revisions to
Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, of the CEQA Guidelines, which is often used as a
basis for lead agencies’ selection of significance thresholds, do not prescribe specific thresholds.
Rather, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines asks whether the project would conflict with a plan,
policy, or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions or would generate GHG emissions that
would significantly affect the environment, indicating that the determination of what is a significant
effect on the environment should be left to the lead agency. Accordingly, the CEQA Amendments
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-42 Environmental Evaluation
do not prescribe specific methodologies for performing an assessment; they do not establish
specific thresholds of significance; and they do not mandate specific mitigation measures. Rather,
the CEQA Amendments emphasize the lead agency’s discretion to determine the appropriate
methodologies and thresholds of significance consistent with the manner in which other impact
areas are handled in CEQA (CNRA 2009).
The CEQA Amendments indicate that lead agencies should consider all feasible means,
supported by substantial evidence and subject to monitoring and reporting, of mitigating the
significant effects of GHG emissions. As pertinent to the Project, these potential mitigation
measures, set forth in Section 15126.4(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, may include (1) measures in
an existing plan or mitigation program for the reduction of GHG emissions that are required as
part of the lead agency’s decision; (2) reductions in GHG emissions resulting from a project
through implementation of project design features; (3) off-site measures, including offsets, to
mitigate a project’s emissions; and (4) carbon sequestration measures (CNRA 2009).
Among other things, the CNRA noted in its Public Notice for these changes that impacts of GHG
emissions should focus on the cumulative impact on climate change. The Public Notice states
(CNRA 2009):
While the Proposed Amendments do not foreclose the possibility that a single
project may result in greenhouse gas emissions with a direct impact on the
environment, the evidence before [CNRA] indicates that in most cases, the impact
will be cumulative. Therefore, the Proposed Amendments emphasize that the
analysis of greenhouse gas emissions should center on whether a project’s
incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions is cumulatively
considerable.
Thus, the CEQA Amendments continue to make clear that the significance of GHG emissions is
most appropriately considered on a cumulative level.
Assembly Bill 32 (Statewide GHG Reductions)
In furtherance of the goals established in EO S-3-05, the California Legislature adopted the public
policy position that global warming is “a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health,
natural resources, and the environment of California” (California Health and Safety Code, Section
38501). The public policy statements became law with the enactment of the California Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) in September 2006, after considerable study and expert
testimony before the Legislature. The law instructs CARB to develop and enforce regulations for
the reporting and verifying of statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 directed CARB to set a GHG
emission limit based on 1990 levels, to be achieved by 2020. The bill set a timeline for adopting
a scoping plan for achieving GHG reductions in a technologically and economically feasible
manner. The scoping plan is described further below.
Executive Order B-30-15 (Statewide Interim GHG Targets)
California EO B-30-15 (2015) set an “interim” statewide emission target to reduce GHG emissions
to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and directed State agencies with jurisdiction over GHG
emissions to implement measures pursuant to statutory authority to achieve this 2030 target and
the 2050 target of 80 percent below 1990 levels. Specifically, the EO directed CARB to update
the Scoping Plan to express this 2030 target in metric tons.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-43 Environmental Evaluation
Senate Bill 32/Assembly Bill 197
SB 32, signed September 8, 2016, implements a goal of EO B-30-15. Under SB 32, in “adopting
rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective
greenhouse gas emissions reductions,” CARB must ensure that statewide GHG emissions are
reduced to 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030. SB 32’s findings state that CARB will
“achieve the state’s more stringent greenhouse gas emission reductions in a manner that benefits
the state’s most disadvantaged communities and is transparent and accountable to the public and
the Legislature.” AB 197, a companion to SB 32, adds two members to the CARB and requires
measures to increase transparency about GHG emissions, climate policies, and GHG reduction
actions.
California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan
On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted the Scoping Plan to achieve the goals of AB 32. The
Scoping Plan establishes an overall framework for the measures that will be adopted to reduce
California’s GHG emissions. CARB determined that achieving the 1990 emission level would
require a reduction of GHG emissions of approximately 28.5 percent below what would otherwise
occur in 2020 in the absence of new laws and regulations (referred to as “business as usual”).
The Scoping Plan evaluates opportunities for sector-specific reductions; integrates all CARB and
Climate Action Team early actions and additional GHG reduction measures by both entities;
identifies additional measures to be pursued as regulations; and outlines the role of a
cap-and-trade program.
First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan
CARB approved the final “First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan” on May 22, 2014.
The first update describes California’s progress towards AB 32 goals, stating that “California is on
track to meet the near-term 2020 GHG limit and is well positioned to maintain and continue
reductions beyond 2020 as required by AB 32”. Specifically, “if California realizes the expected
benefits of existing policy goals (such as 12,000 megawatts [MW] of renewable distributed
generation by 2020, net zero energy homes after 2020, existing building retrofits under AB 758,
and others) it could reduce emissions by 2030 to levels squarely in line with those needed in the
developed world and to stay on track to reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by
2050” (CARB 2014). Reducing the “business as usual” condition of 509 metric tons carbon dioxide
equivalent (MMTCO2e) to the 1990 emissions level of 431 MMTCO2e will require a reduction of
78 MMTCO2e, or approximately a 15.3 percent reduction (compared to a 28.5 percent reduction
as set forth in the original Scoping Plan but not directly comparable because of the change in
methodology).
Second Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan
CARB prepared a second update to the Scoping Plan to reflect the 2030 target established in
EO B-30-15 and in SB 32 (discussed above). The Final Proposed 2017 Scoping Plan was
published in November 2017, and the third public Board Meeting for the Proposed Scoping Plan
was held on December 14, 2017, where the Final Proposed 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan
(Second Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan, or 2017 Scoping Plan Update) was
adopted.
The 2017 Scoping Plan Update includes new statutory GHG reduction requirements that were
not included in the current Scoping Plan, including SB 32 (discussed below) which sets a 40
percent GHG reduction target below 1990 GHG levels to be achieved by 2030; SB 350 (which
sets a 50 percent reduction in GHG emissions from electricity generation and other energy uses
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-44 Environmental Evaluation
in existing structures, and a 50 percent renewable energy portfolio requirement); and SB 650
(which establishes priority GHG reduction targets for designated types of GHG such as methane).
The key elements of the 2017 Scoping Plan Update proposal call for further GHG reductions from
the refinery sector specifically, further reductions from other stationary sources through either a
renewed and expanded cap and trade or carbon tax program, further reductions from other
sectors such as transportation technologies and services, water and solid waste conservation and
management, and land uses in both open space and urban areas (CARB 2017).
2022 Scoping Plan Update
The 2022 Scoping Plan assesses progress towards achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier
through the reduction of emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels. The Scoping Plan takes an
aggressive approach to decreasing fossil fuel use and decarbonization of every sector of
emissions. Measures include moving to zero-emission transportation, phasing out the use of fossil
fuel gas used for heating, reduction in the use of chemicals and refrigerants with high global
warming potential, development of sustainable infrastructure that provides opportunities for
walking, biking and public transit to reduce reliance on automobiles, and development of
renewable energy (CARB 2022).
Senate Bill 375 (Land Use Planning)
Signed September 30, 2008, SB 375 provides for a new planning process to coordinate land use
planning and RTPs and funding priorities in order to help California meet the GHG reduction goals
established in AB 32. SB 375 requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations, including SCAG, to
incorporate an SCS in their regional transportation plans that will achieve GHG emission reduction
targets set by CARB. There are two mutually important facets to SB 375: reducing vehicle miles
traveled and encouraging more compact, complete, and efficient communities for the future. SB
375 also includes provisions for exemptions from or streamlined CEQA review for projects
classified as transit priority projects (SCAG 2016). See additional discussion of the SCAG plan
under “Regional” regulations below.
Senate Bills 1078, 107, and SBX1-2 (Renewable Portfolio Standards)
Established in 2002 under SB 1078, accelerated in 2006 under SB 107, and again in 2011 under
SBX1-2, California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requires retail sellers of electric
services to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total
retail sales by 2020. Initially, the RPS provisions applied to investor-owned utilities, community
choice aggregators, and electric service providers. SBX1-2 added, for the first time, publicly
owned utilities to the entities subject to RPS.
Senate Bill 350
SB 350, signed October 7, 2015, is the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015. SB
350 is the implementation of some of the goals of EO B-30-15. The objectives of SB 350 are as
follows:
(1) To increase from 33 percent to 50 percent, the procurement of our electricity from
renewable sources; and
(2) To double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas final end uses of
retail customers through energy efficiency and conservation (CEC 2021a).
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-45 Environmental Evaluation
Senate Bill 100
On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown signed SB 100, the 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of
2018. SB 100 requires renewable energy and zero-carbon resources to supply 100 percent of
electric retail sales to end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve state
agencies by December 31, 2045. This policy requires the transition to zero-carbon electric
systems that do not cause contributions to increase of GHG emissions elsewhere in the western
electricity grid (CEC 2021b). SB 100 also creates new standards for the RPS goals established
by SB 350 in 2015. Specifically, the bill increases required energy from renewable sources for
both investor-owned utilities and publicly owned utilities from 50 percent to 60 percent by 2030.
Executive Order B-55-18
On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown also signed California EO B-55-18, which sets a new
statewide goal of carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve net
negative emissions thereafter. EO B-55-18 was added to the existing Statewide targets of
reducing GHG emissions, including the targets previously established by Governor Brown of
reducing emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (EO B-30-15 and SB 32), and by
Governor Schwarzenegger of reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2040
(EO S-3-05).
Executive Order N-79-20
On September 23, 2021, Governor Newsom announced that California will phase out the sale of
new gasoline and diesel-powered cars to reduce GHG emissions. The EO directs the State to
require that, by 2035, all new cars and passenger trucks sold in California be ZEVs. This would
aid in reducing CO2 emissions, half of which are from the transportation sector.
Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards
The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (24 CCR, Part 11)
were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy
consumption. The currently applicable standards are the 2022 Standards, effective January 1,
2023 (CBSC 2022). The 2022 standards focus on four key areas: smart residential PV systems,
updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to exterior and
vice versa), residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements, and nonresidential lighting
requirements. Nonresidential changes to the standards for hotel/motel buildings and other
nonresidential uses include new photovoltaic (PV) and energy storage system requirements, a
prescriptive heat pump space-conditioning baseline for certain climate zones, and electric vehicle
charging.
The 2022 Energy Code goals include:
o Increase building energy efficiency cost-effectively
o Contribute to California’s GHG reduction goals
o Enable pathways for all-electric buildings
o Reduce residential building impacts on the electricity grid
o Promote demand flexibility and self-utilization of PV
o Provide tools for local government reach codes
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-46 Environmental Evaluation
The requirements of the energy efficiency standards result in the reduction of natural gas and
electricity consumption, development of electric vehicle charging infrastructure and parking
spaces as well as renewable energy generation for nonresidential uses. These requirements will
reduce energy consumption, promote energy efficiency and reduce the reliance on fossil fuels as
an energy source for utilities as well as transportation.
California Green Building Standards Code
The 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11), also known as the
CALGreen Code, contains mandatory requirements and voluntary measures for new residential
and nonresidential buildings (including buildings for retail, office, public schools and hospitals)
throughout California) (CBSC 2022). The development of the CALGreen Code is intended to
improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of
buildings through the following construction practices: (1) planning and design; (2) energy
efficiency; (3) water efficiency and conservation; (4) material conservation and resource
efficiency; and (5) environmental quality. In short, the code is established to reduce construction
waste; make buildings more efficient in the use of materials and energy; and reduce
environmental impact during and after construction.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) is the association of
Air Pollution Control Officers representing all 35 local air quality agencies throughout California.
CAPCOA is not a regulatory body but has been an active organization in providing guidance in
addressing the CEQA significance of GHG emissions and climate change as well as other air
quality issues. The August 2010 CAPCOA publication entitled “Quantifying Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation Measures, A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures”, provides guidance on the quantification of project-level
mitigation of GHGs associated with land use, transportation, energy use, and other related project
areas. The guidance includes detailed procedures about the approaches to assessing and
calculating the GHG emissions reductions associated with project design features and mitigation
measures (CAPCOA 2010). This publication’s methods are used in the CalEEMod computer
model that is used to calculate GHG emissions.
Regional
Southern California Association of Governments
As previously discussed, SB 375 specifically required Metropolitan Planning Organizations,
including SCAG, to incorporate an SCS in their RTPs that will achieve GHG emission reduction
targets set by CARB. SCAG’s current SCS is included in its 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Connect SoCal
(SCAG 2020).5 The 2020 RTP/SCS combines the need for mobility with a “sustainable future”
through a reduction in the emissions produced from transportation sources. The document was
adopted by SCAG on September 3, 2020. The 2020–2045 RTP/SCS is expected to reduce per
capita transportation emissions by 19 percent by 2035 relative to 2005.
South Coast Air Quality Management District
As previously discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of this IS/MND, air quality in Orange County
is regulated by the SCAQMD, the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution
control in the SoCAB, which includes Orange County. To that end, the SCAQMD, a regional
5 The 2020–2045 RTP/SCS succeeds the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-47 Environmental Evaluation
agency, works directly with SCAG, County transportation commissions, and local governments
and cooperates actively with all federal and State government agencies. The SCAQMD develops
rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources, inspects
emissions sources, and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when
necessary.
Beginning in April 2008, the SCAQMD convened a Working Group to provide guidance to local
lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents. The
Working Group was scheduled to meet once per month. On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD
Governing Board adopted its staff proposal for an interim CEQA GHG significance threshold of
10,000 MTCO2e per year (MTCO2e/yr)6 for industrial projects where the SCAQMD is the lead
agency. In September 2010, the Working Group presented a revised tiered approach to
determining GHG significance for residential and commercial projects (SCAQMD 2010). These
proposals have not yet been considered by the SCAQMD Board.
At Tier 1, GHG emissions impacts would be less than significant if the proposed Project qualifies
under a categorical or statutory CEQA exemption. At Tier 2, for projects that do not meet the Tier 1
criteria, the GHG emissions impact would be less than significant if the proposed Project is
consistent with a previously adopted GHG reduction plan that meets specific requirements.7 At
Tier 3, the Working Group proposes extending the 10,000 MTCO2e/yr screening threshold currently
applicable to industrial projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency, described above, to other
lead agency industrial projects. For residential and commercial projects (that is, non-industrial
projects), the Working Group proposes the following Tier 3 screening values: either (1) a single
3,000 MTCO2e/yr threshold for all land use types or (2) separate thresholds of 3,500 MTCO2e/yr for
residential projects, 1,400 MTCO2e/yr for commercial projects, and 3,000 MTCO2e/yr for mixed-use
projects. These screening values were developed from a survey of CEQA projects. It is estimated
that projects with emissions above these values would produce 90 percent of the anticipated GHG
emissions from residential/commercial projects and projects below the screening level would
contribute 10 percent or less of the regional GHG emissions from land development. Therefore,
a project with emissions less than the applicable screening value would be considered to have less
than significant GHG emissions. Projects with emissions greater than the Tier 3 screening values
would be analyzed at Tier 4 by one of three methods:
1. A Percent Emission Reduction Target. This method is used by the Sacramento
Metropolitan and San Joaquin Valley Air Districts and the City of San Diego. The SCAQMD
Working Group made no recommendation relative to this method.
2. Early Implementation of Applicable AB 32 Scoping Plan Measures. The Working
Group assumes implementation of AB 32 measures would be incorporated in method 3
below.
3. Efficiency Targets. On the project level, 2020 GHG emissions should not exceed 4.8
MTCO2e/year per service population (SP) where SP is project residents plus employees.
6 GHG emissions are commonly expressed as MTCO2e. Larger quantities of emissions, such as on the world or
State scale, are expressed in MMTCO2e.
7 The plan must (a) quantify GHG emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from
activities within a defined geographic area; (b) establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the
contribution to GHG emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable;
(c) identify and analyze the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated
within the geographic area; (d) specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that
substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the
specified emissions level; (e) establish a mechanism to monitor the plan’s progress toward achieving the level and
to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels; and (f) be adopted in a public process following
environmental review (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15183.5).
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-48 Environmental Evaluation
Further, 2035 GHG emissions should not exceed 3.0 MTCO2e/year per SP (SCAQMD
2010).
Projects with GHG emissions not meeting the Tier 4 targets would be required to provide
mitigation in the form of real, quantifiable, and verifiable offsets to achieve the target thresholds.
The offsets may be achieved through project design features, other on-site methods, or by off-site
actions, such as energy efficiency upgrade of existing buildings.
In summary, to date, the SCAQMD Board has adopted an interim CEQA significance threshold
for GHGs for industrial projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency and continues to consider
screening levels under CEQA for residential, commercial, and mixed-use projects. This proposed
screening and mitigation proposal from SCAQMD remains a work in progress; the Working Group
has not convened since the fall of 2010. The proposal has not been considered or approved for
use by the SCAQMD Board. Thus, no GHG significance thresholds are approved for use in the
SoCAB for non-industrial projects.
City of Anaheim
General Plan Green Element
The General Plan for the City of Anaheim was adopted in May 2004. While the City of Anaheim
General Plan’s Green Element does not specifically address GHG emissions or climate change,
it does address topics concerning conservation of natural resources, including vehicle emissions
reduction; vehicle work trip reduction; expansion of transit trips; sound land use planning; efficient,
clean-burning public transit; energy conservation; and building performance standards.
Green Connection
The APUD has established the Green Connection which functions as a centralized resource for
Anaheim residents and businesses interested in conservation of energy and water resources. The
Green Connection includes information regarding the City’s Green Resolution and Green Building
Program, both of which are discussed below, as well as tips for energy and water savings.
Green Resolution
In August 2006, the City adopted Resolution 2006-187, “. . .authorizing and directing the General
Manager of the APUD to establish the green connection that accommodates the principles of
environmental soundness and sustainability.” The resolution sets the following goals to achieve
environmental soundness and sustainable development:
Increase purchases of renewable energy resources to 10 percent by 2010 and 20 percent
by 2015;
Develop a plan to reduce power plant and fleet emissions in accordance with California
Environmental Protection Agency mandates;
All City-owned projects over 10,000 square feet in building area that enter the design and
construction phase shall meet U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEEDTM) registration and certification, provided that the project is
cost-effective over the life of the building;
Encourage developers and builders to receive LEEDTM registration and certification;
First acquire all cost effective, reliable, and feasible energy efficiency and demand
reduction resources before procuring other energy resources;
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-49 Environmental Evaluation
Achieve an overall citywide goal of 20 percent reduction in energy use and 15 percent in
water use by 2015;
Accelerate the rate of fleet vehicle replacement with Alternative Fuel Vehicles so that
90 percent of Utilities light and medium vehicles are Alternative Fuel Vehicles by 2020;
Replace 10 percent of the City’s light, non-emergency vehicles with preferred low emission
technologies as the vehicles are scheduled for normal replacement; and
Provide community leadership as well as education in the principles of environmental
soundness and sustainability to increase community awareness, responsibility, and
participation.
Green Building Program
APUD has developed the Green Building Program, which encourages achievement of the goals
established by the Green Resolution through incentives and reward programs. Specifically, the
Green Building Program identifies numerous ways to certify a building project as green, qualify
for rebates and savings, and take advantage of other benefits including accelerated plan approval,
waived plan check fees, and free technical assistance.
City of Anaheim Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
The most recent version of the City of Anaheim’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, developed
by APUD, was adopted in May 2020. The City’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan is a vision for
the future of Anaheim’s electric and water resources to be sustainable and
environmentally-friendly, while continuing to be affordable and reliable for the benefit of
APUD’s residential and business customers. The plan outlines baseline metrics and goals for
GHG reduction, and establishes timelines that are consistent with state policies and SB 100.
Question A: Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. Based on the proposed construction activities described in
Section 3.0 Project Description and Section 5.0, III, Air Quality, the principal source of construction
GHG emissions would be internal combustion engines of construction equipment, on-road
construction vehicles, and workers’ commuting vehicles. GHG emissions from construction
activities were obtained from the CalEEMod model, described in section III, Air Quality. The
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-50 Environmental Evaluation
estimated construction GHG emissions for the Proposed Project would be 391 MTCO2e, as
shown in Table 11, Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Construction.
TABLE 11
ESTIMATED GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS FROM CONSTRUCTION
Year
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
2023 137
2024 253
2025 <1
Total 391
30-Year Amortized Total 13
MTCO2e: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
Notes:
Detailed calculations in Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Modeling Data.
Operational GHG emissions would come primarily from vehicle trips. Other sources include
electricity and water consumption, solid waste disposal, and gasoline-powered landscaping and
maintenance equipment. Table 12, Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Project
Operation, shows the annual GHG emissions from Proposed Project’s operations.
TABLE 12
ESTIMATED ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS FROM PROJECT OPERATION
Source
Emissions
(MTCO2e/yr)
Mobile 1,309
Area 30
Energy 493
Water 13
Waste 24
Refrigeration 18
Stationary 9
Total Operational Emissions 1,896
MTCO2e/yr: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year
Notes:
Totals may not add due to rounding variances.
Detailed calculations in Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Modeling Data.
Because impacts from construction activities occur over a relatively short period of time, they
contribute a relatively small portion of the overall lifetime project GHG emissions. In addition, GHG
emission reduction measures for construction equipment are relatively limited. The SCAQMD
recommends that construction emissions be amortized over a 30-year project lifetime so that
GHG reduction measures address construction GHG emissions as part of the operational GHG
reduction strategies (SCAQMD 2008b). Therefore, construction and operational emissions are
combined by amortizing the construction and operations over an assumed 30-year project
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-51 Environmental Evaluation
lifetime. This combination is shown in Table 13, Estimated Total Project Annual Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, using the Proposed Project’s amortized construction and operational emissions.
TABLE 13
ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT ANNUAL
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Source
Emissions
(MTCO2e/yra)
Construction (Amortized) 13
Operations (Table 12) 1,896
Totalb 1,909
SCAQMD-Adopted Threshold 3,000
Exceeds Threshold? No
MTCO2e/yr: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year
a Total derived by dividing construction emissions by 30.
b Total annual emissions are the sum of amortized construction emissions
and operational emissions.
As described above, construction and operational GHG emissions are combined by amortizing
the construction operations over a 30-year period. As shown in Table 13, Estimated Total Project
Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions, with consideration of amortized construction emissions, the
total annual estimated GHG emissions for the proposed Project is 1,909 MTCO2e/yr. This value
is less than the proposed SCAQMD Tier 3 screening threshold (e.g., 3,000 MTCO2e/yr for all land
use types) that is being applied in this analysis. Because the Proposed Project’s GHG emissions
would be less than 3,000 MTCO2e/yr, the emissions would not be cumulatively considerable.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in less than significant GHG emissions.
Question B: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. There are numerous State plans, policies, and regulations
adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The principal overall State plan and policy
is AB 32. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 20208.
This goal is further supplemented by SB 32, which established a reduction target of at least 40
percent below 1990 emissions by 2030, and by EO B-30-15 and EO S-3-05, which sets an 80
percent reduction below 1990 emissions by 2050.
The 2022 Scoping Plan seeks to reduce GHG emissions through a number of measures including
the development of energy efficiency for buildings, reduced emissions associated with vehicular
travel, and development of renewable energy generation. The Project would incorporate the latest
energy efficiency measures required under the Title 24 Building Standards. This includes
renewable energy generation from rooftop solar panels, on-demand electric tankless water
heaters, and an energy management system for the hotel. For vehicular travel associated with
the Project, the Project develops options for non-single occupancy travel by including bicycle
parking and storage, a mixed-use development that encourages vehicle trip reduction and
pedestrian travel, provision of parking spaces and charging for electric vehicles, as well as being
located along bus line and within a Transit Priority Area. This is consistent with the 2022 Scoping
Plan’s goal of reducing GHG emissions by using public transit, promoting nonvehicular forms of
8 The initial target date of 2020 has passed, but remains the initial target of AB 32 and is followed-up by other
identified targets so remains relevant.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-52 Environmental Evaluation
transportation, reduction in traffic congestion, in addition to energy efficiency and renewable
energy generation. Thus, the Project is consistent with AB 32 and the associated Scoping Plan.
Statewide plans and regulations such as GHG emissions standards for vehicles (AB 1493) and
the Low Carbon Fuel Standard are being implemented at the statewide level; therefore,
compliance at the level of individual development projects is not addressed. Therefore, the Project
does not conflict with those plans and regulations.
SB 375 is being addressed at the State and regional level; therefore, compliance at the level of
individual development projects is not addressed. Additionally, the Project is representative of the
compact and efficient land use development envisioned by SB 375. The Project would not,
therefore, conflict with SB 375.
The regulations, plans, and polices adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions that are
directly applicable to the Project include the Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential
and Nonresidential Buildings and the Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code.
Adherence to standard requirements would ensure that the Project would comply with both of
these regulations.
Locally, the City of Anaheim’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan is applicable to the Project. The
plan, adopted in May 2020, is a vision for the future of Anaheim’s electric and water resources.
The plan outlines baseline metrics and goals for GHG reduction and establishes timelines that
are consistent with state policies and SB 100. As discussed previously, the Project entails a
number of GHG reducing elements associated with building energy efficiency, renewable energy
generation, development of electric vehicle and bicycle infrastructure, trip reduction from a
mixed-use development as well as mass transit options. Therefore, the Project would not conflict
with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of State, regional, or local agencies with
implementation of mitigation.
Mitigation Program
No mitigation is required.
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The information in this section is partly derived from the Environmental Data Resources (EDR)
Radius Map Report with GeoCheck® that was prepared for the Project by EDR in 2022
(Appendix E).
Question A: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
Question B: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. Demolition and construction activities for the Proposed Project
would require the transport and use of standard construction equipment and materials, some of
which may include a hazardous component such as transport and storage of fuels. These
activities would be associated with construction activities and would, therefore, be temporary.
These activities would be conducted in accordance with existing federal, State, and local
regulations.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-53 Environmental Evaluation
Long-term, operational hazards to the environment or the public through the transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials are typically associated with operation of nonresidential uses,
such as industrial and some commercial uses. Once the Project is constructed, use of hazardous
materials would be limited to normal household chemicals such as paint, pesticides, cleansers,
and solvents and would be limited in quantities. The Proposed Project would not utilize, store, or
generate hazardous materials or wastes in quantities that may pose a significant hazard to the
public. Furthermore, the hazardous materials that would be generated used by the Proposed
Project, such as those indicated above, would be disposed of at the appropriate landfills that
accept those types of waste. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Question C: Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?
No Impact. There are no schools within ¼-mile of the Project Site. The nearest schools are Paul
Revere Elementary School at 140 West Guinida Lane (0.3 miles south of the Project Site), Olive
Street Elementary School at 890 South Olive Street (0.4 miles north of the Project Site), Orange
Grove Elementary School at 1000 South Harbor Boulevard (0.4 miles northwest of the Project
Site), and Westminster High School at 853 South Lemon Street (0.5 miles northwest of the Project
Site). The Proposed Project includes a hotel and walk-up/drive-thru fast food restaurant that would
not involve any uses that would emit or require the handling of hazardous materials in measurable
quantities (refer to the discussion provided in Threshold “a” above). No impacts to nearby schools
are anticipated, and no mitigation is required.
Question D: Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
No Impact. Based on review of the Cortese List data resources, the Project Site is not located on
the State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List published by the California
Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the
California Government Code (referred to as the Cortese List) (CalEPA 2023). The site is not
known or anticipated to have been contaminated with hazardous materials, and no hazardous
material storage facilities are known to exist on site. For these reasons, the Project is not located
on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5.
Based on a review of the EDR Radius Map with Geocheck® prepared for the Project Site by EDR
in 2022, a total of 23 sites are located within ¼-mile of the Project Site. Search parameters were
based on a one-mile radius of the Project Site and consisted of a search of federal, State, local,
tribal, and other databases. The complete list of databases and additional information regarding
the identified site can be found in Appendix E. According to the EDR Radius Map, one listing,
which includes a cluster of seven sites, was identified within the boundaries of the Project Site:
ETA TRANS INC located at 125 East Ball Road. This site was identified on the following
databases: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act non generators, Facility Index System,
Hazardous Waste Tracking System, Hazardous Waste Information System, Enforcement and
Compliance History Online, California Hazardous Materials Incident Report System, and
Registered Hazardous Waste Transporter Database. According to the CHMIRS database, an
incident was reported on March 9, 2011, stating that “material has been stored in a barrel for the
last 5 months, recent rain caused it to overflow, material flowed onto asphalt, contractor will be
handling containment and clean up” (EDR 2022). No additional violations were found.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-54 Environmental Evaluation
Of the known hazardous materials sites identified in the Project vicinity, none of the identified sites
pose a hazard to the Project Site. There would be no impact, and no mitigation is required.
Question 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?
No Impact. The Project Site is not located within an adopted Airport Land Use Plan or in the
vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport, or helistop. The nearest airport is Fullerton Municipal Airport
located in the City of Fullerton, approximately 5.4 miles northwest of the Project Site. The Los
Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center is located approximately 7 miles to the west of the Project
Site. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not impact the airport facilities or their
operation; no mitigation would be required.
Question F: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. A public review draft of the City of Anaheim’s Local Hazards
Mitigation Plan was published on April 1, 2022. This plan provides guidance during emergency
situations associated with wildfires and urban fires, earthquakes, severe weather (wind, heat,
drought), landslides, floods, climate change, vector and pest issues, public health emergencies,
hazardous materials spills, terrorism, and civil unrest. The Project Site is located along East Ball
Road and South Anaheim Boulevard, both primary arterials in the City of Anaheim. During
construction of the Proposed Project, construction activities would not require the complete
closure of local roadways and would be temporary in nature. The Proposed Project does not
include characteristics that would physically impair or otherwise interfere with emergency
response or evacuation in the vicinity of the Proposed Project. As detailed in Section XVII,
Transportation/Traffic, any impacts related to the addition of traffic related to the Proposed Project
would be less than significant; therefore, the Proposed Project would not interfere with the
movement of emergency vehicles along local roadways. Therefore, these conditions preclude the
possibility of the Proposed Project conflicting with an emergency response or evacuation plan.
Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Question 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. Based on review of the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility
Areas (LRAs) and State and Federal Responsibility Areas (SRAs) map, the Project Site is not
located within or near a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CalFire 2023). No impact would
occur, and no mitigation is required.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-55 Environmental Evaluation
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The information in this section is derived from Appendix F, Preliminary Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP), La Quinta Inn & Suites, 125 East Ball Road, APN: 234-161-4, 26
prepared for the Proposed Project by Capstone Engineering, Inc. (2022a) and Appendix G,
Preliminary Drainage Study for La Quinta Inns and Suites, 125 East Ball Road in the City of
Anaheim prepared by Capstone Engineering, Inc. (2022b).
Question A: Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water
quality?
Question D: Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to Appendix F, Preliminary Water Quality Management
Plan (WQMP), La Quinta Inn & Suites, 125 East Ball Road, APN: 234-161-4, 26, potential
pollutant sources associated with the construction and operation of the Proposed Project may
include suspended-solid/sediment, nutrients, pathogens (bacteria/virus), pesticides, oil and
grease, toxic organic compounds, and trash and debris. Construction and operation of the
Proposed Project would increase the potential for storm water runoff to transport these pollutants
into the storm drain system, thus contributing to the degradation of water quality and the potential
violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
With implementation of RR 10-1, short-term construction impacts from the Proposed Project
would be minimized through compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit. This
permit—which requires filing a notice of intent (NOI) with the State Water Resources Control
Board—requires the development and implementation of an SWPPP, which must include
(1) erosion and sediment-control BMPs that meet or exceed measures required by the
Construction General Permit and (2) BMPs that control other potential construction-related
pollutants. An SWPPP would be developed as required by, and in compliance with, the NPDES
Construction General Permit. In addition to the requirements of the NPDES General Construction
Permit, the California Building Code and grading permit requirements include provisions that
require reduction of erosion and sedimentation impacts during construction. Full compliance with
applicable local, State, and federal regulations and implementation of RR 10-1 would ensure that
water quality impacts associated with construction would be less than significant.
As indicated in Appendix F, Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), La Quinta Inn
& Suites, 125 East Ball Road, APN: 234-161-4, 26, the structural source control BMPs listed
below would achieve long-term water quality enhancement through proposed drainage and
treatment systems: provide storm drain stenciling and signage; design and construct trash and
waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction; use efficient irrigation systems and
landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control; and wash water
control for food preparation areas. Non-structural BMPs (also identified in the Preliminary WQMP)
would also reduce pollutant loading into storm water runoff. Therefore, compliance with the
recommendations set forth in the Appendix F, Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP), La Quinta Inn & Suites, 125 East Ball Road, APN: 234-161-4, 26, as well as
implementation of RR 10-1 and RR 10-2 related to cleaning of all paved areas not maintained by
the City of Anaheim would reduce potential impacts related to storm water to less than significant
levels.
The Project Site is not located within the 100-year hazard flood zone area. The Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) rate map Number
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-56 Environmental Evaluation
06059C0133J, revised December 3, 2009, indicates that the site is located within Zone X – “0.2
percent Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1 percent annual chance flood with average depth
less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than 1 square mile” (FEMA 2009). Therefore,
the Project Site is not in a flood hazard zone. General Plan Safety Element Figures S-6 and S-7
depict flood hazard areas and dam failure inundation areas for Prado Dam, Carbon Canyon Dam,
and the Walnut Canyon Reservoir, respectively. Figures S-6 and S-7 indicate the Project Site is
outside of the flood hazard area and the inundation zones associated with dam failure.
The Project Site is located approximately 12 miles east of the Pacific Ocean and approximately
two miles west of the Santa Ana River Channel; therefore, there is no potential for inundation of
the Project Site by seiche. Additionally, the Project Site is located within a relatively flat, developed
area of the city and would not be subject to mudflows.
Question B: 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. Under existing conditions, the Project Site is currently 97.63
percent impervious and does not contribute significantly to groundwater recharge due to the small
amount of pervious surfaces that allow for surface water infiltration. As identified in Appendix F,
Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), La Quinta Inn & Suites, 125 East Ball
Road, APN: 234-161-4, 26, the surface of the Project Site would be modified to decrease the
impervious condition to approximately 78 percent. Additionally, the Project Site is not located in
the City’s designated Groundwater Protection Zone, as depicted on Figure G-2 of the City of
Anaheim General Plan (Anaheim 2004a). Because of this and due to the decrease in impervious
surface area, development of the Proposed Project would not interfere with groundwater recharge
through the elimination of surface water infiltration.
The Proposed Project would not withdraw directly from the groundwater basin; rather, water
resources would be provided by the APUD (refer to Section XIX, Utilities and Service Systems).
The Proposed Project would connect to the City’s water system. Anaheim’s water supply comes
primarily from groundwater pumped from local wells, with the balance coming from purchases of
imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). Therefore, the
related increase in demand for water would indirectly impact groundwater supplies. However, the
amount of water required for this Proposed Project would be minor when compared to the overall
water supply managed by the APUD. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have less than
significant impacts related to this threshold, and no mitigation is required.
Question C: Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river 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 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?
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-57 Environmental Evaluation
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is located within the Anaheim Bay-Huntington
Harbor Watershed. The Project Site drains to the south to the Anaheim Barber City Channel. As
described in Section 3.0, Project Description, the Proposed Project involves demolition of an
existing two-story commercial building and construction of a 120-room hotel and walk-up/drive-
thru fast food restaurant.
According to Appendix F, Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), La Quinta Inn &
Suites, 125 East Ball Road, APN: 234-161-4, 26, development of the Proposed Project would not
alter the course of a stream or river. The Proposed Site would follow the pattern of the existing
site. The Proposed Site would form two drainage areas, similar to existing characteristics. A
northerly area would sheet flow and drain via a v-gutter into a drop inlet in an advanced drainage
system (ADS) stormtech system just west of the hotel. The system is designed to fully retain two
times the 85 percent system on site to address pretreatment. If flows overcome the retention
volume, water would overflow and travel overland to the curb and gutter on the west side of
Technology Circle, thus following the pattern of drainage area (DA) 1. A southerly area would
sheet flow and drain via a v-gutter into a drop inlet in an ADS stormtech system just west of the
fast food restaurant. The system is designed to fully retain two times the 85 percent system on
site to address pretreatment. If flows overcome the retention volume, water would overflow and
travel overland to a sidewalk drain which discharges on the north side of East Ball Road, thus
following the pattern of DA 2. The catch basin drains to an existing storm drain line in the north
side of Ball Road would drain to the Anaheim Barber City Channel, in the City of Anaheim’s MS4.
From there it drains to the Bolsa Chica Channel, to the Sunset-Huntington Harbour to the Pacific
Ocean.
According to Appendix G, Preliminary Drainage Study for La Quinta Inns and Suites, 125 East
Ball Road in the City of Anaheim prepared by Capstone Engineering, Inc. (2022b), the existing
peak flow for the 100-year storm is 6.47 cubic feet per second (cfs); however, this volume would
decrease by 0.03 cfs to 6.44 cfs with the Proposed Project. Since the Proposed Project would
result in less stormwater flows, there be no adverse impact to the capacity of the storm water
drainage system. Implementation of RR 10-1 and RR 10-2, and compliance with the WQMP
(Appendix F, Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), La Quinta Inn & Suites, 125
East Ball Road, APN: 234-161-4, 26), would reduce any erosion-related impacts to less than
significant levels.
Question E: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the UWMP methodology, the Proposed Project would
generate a water demand of 3,045 gallons per day (GPD) or approximately 3.4 acre-feet per year
(AFY) (Anaheim 2020). According to the UWMP, the total water supply for the City is
approximately 62,302 AFY. The Proposed Project’s additional water demand constitutes
approximately 0.01 percent of the total demand.
The City’s main source of water supply is groundwater from the OC Basin. Historically, the City’s
water supply primarily came from a mixture of groundwater (70 percent) and imported water (30
percent) from MWD; however, the City has taken many of its wells off-line as of March 2020 and
is operating closer to a 60/40 split. As of April 2021, there are only four active wells, while the
remaining wells have been taken off-line due to either mechanical issues or a group of chemicals
referred to as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Over the next several years, the City
would construct groundwater treatment facilities to remove PFAS to acceptable State-mandated
levels after which groundwater usage would meet or exceed historical levels consistent with
increased groundwater supplies due to the expansion of Orange County Water District’s (OCWD)
Groundwater Replenishment System. The City does not have its own Groundwater Management
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-58 Environmental Evaluation
Plan; however, the OCWD maintains a Groundwater Management Plan, which was most recently
updated in 2015 (OCWD 2023). According to the OCWD Groundwater Management Plan, OCWD
regulates groundwater levels in the OC Basin by regulating the annual amount of pumping
(OCWD 2015). The primary mechanism used by OCWD to manage pumping is the Basin
Production Percentage BPP. The BPP is a percentage of each producer’s water supply that
comes from groundwater pumped from the basin. The BPP is set on an annual basis and is
uniform for all Producers. Groundwater pumping above the BPP is assessed an additional charge
that creates a disincentive for over-producing.
According to the UWMP, by 2025 the BPP for the City would be 82 percent. However, the City’s
2025 water supply and demand forecast in the UWMP projected the local groundwater supply as
the amount needed to meet projected demands after subtracting the available supply from
Metropolitan (14,000 AFY) and recycled water supply (120 AFY), rather than using the amount of
groundwater available to the City based on the BPP. The City would utilize local groundwater
supplies first and supplement with imported water as needed to meet demands. Given this
information, water supply from groundwater is expected to be approximately 48,182 AFY in 2025,
which is approximately 77 percent of the total water supply for the City, which approximately
62,302 AFY. For the same year, the City’s total demand is expected to be 58,878 AFY. The
Proposed Project would create an additional demand of approximately 3.4 AFY, which is
approximately 0.01 percent of the total demand. Thus, there is excess groundwater supply
available for the City, and the water supply demanded by the Proposed Project would be
negligible. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Regulatory Requirements
RR 10-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit for sites that disturb more than one (1) acre
of soil, the property owner/developer shall obtain coverage under the NPDES
Statewide Industrial Stormwater Permit for General Construction Activities from
the State Water Resources Control Board. The applicant shall prepare and
implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A copy of the current
SWPPP shall be kept at the Project Site and be available for City review on
request. Evidence of permit attainment shall be submitted to the Planning and
Building Department, Building Services Division.
RR 10-2 Ongoing during project operations, the property owner/developer shall provide for
the following: cleaning of all paved areas not maintained by the City of Anaheim
on a monthly basis, including, but not limited to, private streets and parking lots.
The use of water to clean streets, paved areas, parking lots, and other areas and
flushing the debris and sediment down the storm drains shall be prohibited.
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Question A: Would the project physically divide an established community?
No Impact. As shown in the aerial photograph provided in Exhibit 2, Aerial Photograph, the
Project Site is 1.5 acres and is currently occupied by a vacant two-story building. The Project Site
is bound by multi-family residential uses to the north and a Walmart Neighborhood Market and
associated parking lot to the northwest, East Ball Road to the south, industrial uses to the east,
and commercial uses to the west. Implementation of the Proposed Project would redevelop the
Project Site with a hotel and walk-up/drive-thru fast food restaurant, which would be similar to
existing land uses surrounding the Project Site to the northwest, south, and west. Therefore, the
Proposed Project would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur,
and no mitigation is required.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-59 Environmental Evaluation
Question 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 City of Anaheim General Plan (adopted in May 2004)
designates the Project Site as General Commercial and the entire property is within the Industrial
Zone. As stated previously, the Project Site is currently developed with a vacant two-story
commercial building. Implementation of the Project includes approval of a CUP to permit the hotel
with a walk-up/drive through fast food restaurant and a reclassification to re-zone the site from
Industrial to General Commercial. With implementation of these discretionary approvals, impacts
would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Program
No mitigation is required.
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
Question A: 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?
Question 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. According to Figure G-3 of the City of Anaheim General Plan’s Green Element, the
Project Site is not designated as a regionally significant aggregate resource area or a Mineral
Resources Zone (MR-Z) (Anaheim 2004a). Therefore, development of the Proposed Project
would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan, or other land use plan as there are no known mineral resources or mineral
resource recovery sites on or near the Project Site. No impacts would occur related to this topic,
and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Program
No mitigation is required.
XIII. NOISE
Introduction
Noise is typically defined as unwanted sound and is described in terms of a sound’s intensity or
loudness, pitch, and duration. The ambient noise environment is comprised of stationary and
mobile noise sources. Stationary noise sources occur in a single location and may be constant or
short-term in nature; mobile noise sources are typically transportation-related and are generally
not considered a constant noise source.
The physical measure of sound, or sound level, is measured in decibels (dB), which are based
on a logarithmic scale. Therefore, a doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as doubling of
traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dB; a halving of the energy would result in a
3 dB decrease. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dB (very quiet) to 100 dB (very loud).
The A-weighted decibel scale relates noise to human sensitivity. Common noise levels are
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-60 Environmental Evaluation
measured in terms of the “A-weighted decibel”, abbreviated dBA. Table 14, Typical Noise Levels,
provides examples of various noises and their typical A-weighted noise level.
TABLE 14
TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS
Common Outdoor Activities
Noise Level
(dBA) Common Indoor Activities
110 Rock Band
Jet fly-over at 300 m (1,000 ft) 100
Gas Lawn Mower at 1 m (3 ft) 90
Diesel Truck at 15 m (50 ft), at 80 km/hr
(50 mph) 80 Food Blender at 1 m (3 ft)
Noisy Urban Area, Daytime Gas Lawn
Mower at 30 m (100 ft) 70 Vacuum Cleaner at 3 m (10 ft)
Commercial Area Heavy Traffic at 90 m
(300 ft) 60 Normal speech at 1 m (3 ft)
Quiet Urban Daytime 50 Large Business Office Dishwasher in Next
Room
Quiet Urban Nighttime 40 Theater, Large Conference Room
Quiet Suburban Nighttime 30 Library
Quiet Rural Nighttime 20 Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall
10 Broadcast/Recording Studio
Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing 0 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing
dBA: A-weighted decibels; m: meter; ft: feet; km/hr: kilometers per hour; mph: miles per hour.
Source: Caltrans 2013.
Although human perception of sound is somewhat subjective, it is widely accepted that the
average healthy ear (1) can barely perceive an increase or decrease of 3 dBA; (2) can generally
perceive a change of 5 dBA in outdoor environments; and (3) perceives noise sources that are
10 dBA greater as twice as loud.
Noise, or sound over a period of time, can be measured using a number of methods. The two
most common methods are the community noise equivalent (CNEL) and the equivalent sound
level (Leq). The average noise levels over a period of minutes or hours is expressed as dBA Leq.
Leq can be measured for any time period. The CNEL scale represents the average of 24-hour
noise measurements and adjusts the noise level to account for increased noise sensitivity during
the evening and nighttime periods. The evening time period (7:00 PM to 10:00 PM) adds 5 dBA,
while nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) noises are increased by 10 dBA to account for heightened
sensitivity to noise occurring during periods when people are generally asleep. The addition of
noise levels to the evening and nighttime periods results in a higher reported noise level that may
need to be mitigated to maintain a quiet indoor noise environment.
From the source to the receiver, noise changes both in the level and frequency spectrum. The
most obvious change is the decrease in noise level as the distance from the source increases.
Sound from a small localized source (approximating a “point” source) radiates uniformly outward
as it travels away from the source in a spherical pattern. For point sources, such as heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units or construction equipment, the sound level
attenuates (or drops off) at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of distance (i.e., if the noise level is
70 dBA at 25 feet, it is 64 dBA at 50 feet). Vehicle traffic on a road makes the source of the sound
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-61 Environmental Evaluation
appear to emanate from a line (line source). The sound level attenuates or drops off at a rate of
3 dBA per doubling of distance for line sources.
Existing Noise Levels
The existing noise environment in and near the Project Site is primarily influenced by traffic noise
on East Ball Road and South Anaheim Boulevard. For the purpose of this noise analysis, the
study area includes the Project Site, the areas immediately adjacent to the Project Site, and the
land uses adjacent to the roadway segments where the Project adds vehicular trips to the roadway
system.
Psomas conducted ambient noise monitoring at the Project Site on February 15, 2023. Noise
level measurements were taken using a Larson Davis Laboratories Model LXT integrating sound
level meter (LD LXT). The sound level meter was placed proximate to each of the Project Site’s
property lines, approximately 5 feet above the ground. The Leq, maximum noise level (Lmax), and
minimum noise level (Lmin) values taken at each ambient noise measurement location are shown
in Table 15 below. Noise levels at the southern Project Site boundaries are due to vehicle traffic
along local roadways and are considered to result in high levels of noise exposure.
TABLE 15
MONITORED NOISE LEVELS
Noise Monitoring Locations Minimum Leq (Average) Maximum
Southern Project Boundary along E. Ball Road 53 68 82
Eastern Project Boundary along Technology Drive 52 61 79
Northern Project Boundary 45 53 73
Western Project Boundary 48 59 72
Leq: energy average
Regulatory Setting
City of Anaheim
The following sections of the City of Anaheim’s Municipal Code apply to the Proposed Project:
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
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-62 Environmental Evaluation
(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 sources 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 sound 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 AM to 7:00 PM. 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.)
6.72.020 REGULATION OF AMPLIFIED SOUND.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 6.70 of this code, it shall be unlawful for any
person to use or operate, or cause to be used or operated, within the City of Anaheim any
sound-amplifying equipment in a fixed or movable position, or mounted upon any vehicle,
except when used or operated in compliance with the following provisions:
.010 In all residential zones and within two hundred feet of any boundary thereof, no
sound-amplifying equipment shall be operated or used for commercial purposes, except
sound-amplifying equipment may be used for commercial purposes upon a moving vehicle
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. to announce the presence of such vehicle
in an area or location for commercial purposes; provided that such sound-amplifying
equipment shall not be used during periods that the vehicle is stopped, parked or
otherwise in a stationary position..
.020 In all residential zones and within two hundred feet of any boundary thereof, no
sound-amplifying equipment shall be operated or used for noncommercial purposes
between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. of the following day.
.030 In all nonresidential zones, except such portions thereof as may be included within
two hundred feet of the boundary of any residential zone, the operation or use of sound-
amplifying equipment for commercial purposes is prohibited between the hours of 9:00
p.m. and 8:00 a.m. of the following day.
.040 In all nonresidential zones, except such portions thereof as may be included within
two hundred feet of the boundary of any residential zone, the operation or use of sound-
amplifying equipment for noncommercial purposes is prohibited between the hours of
10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of the following day.
.050 Sound emanating from sound-amplifying equipment shall not be audible to a
person of normal hearing acuity within an enclosed building (other than a building within
which the sound emanate) at a distance in excess of two hundred feet from the sound-
amplifying equipment.
.060 In no event shall the sound-amplifying equipment be unreasonably loud, raucous,
jarring or disturbing to a person of normal sensitiveness within the area of audibility, or
disturb the peace or quiet of any neighborhood.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-63 Environmental Evaluation
.070 It shall be unlawful for any person to operate or use any sound-amplifying
equipment within, upon or adjacent to the premises of any hospital, school, or publicly
owned or operated arena, stadium, convention center or auditorium, while in use, in a
manner which disturbs, disrupts or interferes with the conduct of any event, business or
activity of any nature then occurring within such building or premises. Nothing contained
in this subsection shall be deemed to prohibit any conduct which is otherwise prohibited
by California Penal Code Sections 302 or 403, or any other provision of State law. (Ord.
4059 § 1 (part); October 9, 1979; Ord. 5781 § 1; September 25, 2001; Ord. 5941 § 1 (part);
September 14, 2004.)
The Noise Element of the General Plan also establishes the following policies associated
with Goal 3.1:
Prohibit new industrial uses from exceeding commercial or residential
stationary-source noise standards at the most proximate land uses, as appropriate.
(Industrial noise may spill over to proximate industrial uses so long as the combined
noise does not exceed the appropriate industrial standards.)
Impact Analysis
Question 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?
Long-term (Permanent) Impacts
Impacts to Off-Site Land Uses
Less Than Significant Impact. Daily operation of the Proposed Project has the potential to result
in an increased ambient noise level in the vicinity of the Proposed Project through the addition of
stationary sources of noise as well as vehicular trips associated with the Proposed Project.
Stationary sources of noise include HVAC equipment, onsite truck loading/unloading activities,
landscape maintenance equipment, parking lot activities, trash collection activities, and restaurant
drive-thru speaker.
HVAC units would ductless individual units that each serve 4 rooms. The units are quiet and
energy efficient and would be located at least 300 feet from the nearest residential uses north of
the Site. The Project’s stationary sources of noise are required to comply with the noise limits
established under Title 7, Noise Control of the Anaheim Municipal Code, as previously discussed.
The Anaheim Noise Ordinance states that noise generated on a site shall not exceed 60 dBA
Leq.at adjacent property lines. Noise from the HVAC units would not result in noise levels which
exceed this limit due to the low magnitude of noise produced by these units as well as the
substantial distance between these units and the property lines of offsite uses. In addition,
activities, such as from amplified sound gatherings or special events, occurring on the observation
deck are subject to the 60 dBA noise limit identified in the Municipal Code. The observation deck
is over 300 feet from the nearest residential property line to the north. Compliance with this noise
limit will result in less than significant noise exposure impacts from hotel activities at offsite uses.
Noise would also occur related to the proposed parking areas, automated parking structure and
drive-thru for the fast food restaurant. Noise associated with parking lot activities consists of
vehicle engines, door slams, engine starts, people talking, and a parking lift system. Noise
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-64 Environmental Evaluation
associated with parking lot activities were quantified based on methods recommended by the U.S.
Department of Transportation’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2018).
Noise level exposure at the nearest noise sensitive use were calculated based on peak hourly
traffic conditions with 135 automobiles per hour. Noise associated with parking lot activities are
shown in Table 16 below. Noise associated with the parking lift system will occur from intermittent
operation of the mechanical system used for vertical and horizontal positioning of vehicles within
the proposed automated parking structure for the hotel. This parking structure will be operated
with 3-5 horsepower electric motors for vertical lift and lateral movement. Noise produced from
this mechanical system has been estimated by the manufacturer as up to 50-52 dBA at 6 feet
from inside the building (Parkmatic 2023). The nearest property line to the parking structures is
29 feet based on the architectural drawings. Noise levels from the parking facilities would be
approximately 41 dBA, which is below the City’s noise limit. The parking structure’s façade would
further attenuate noise levels. Noise levels from the proposed parking lift facility is included with
the other stationary sources associated with the Project in Table 16.
Other noise sources from the Proposed Project include a drive-thru window and a menu board
with an amplified speaker in addition to nonamplified speech. To assess noise associated with
the Project’s drive-thru window and menu board, noise levels of 66 dBA was used for the drive-
thru window based on a “Raised Speaking” noise level, while noise levels of 72 dBA was based
on a “Loud Speaking” noise level (Lazarus 1986). Project related off-site noise is limited by the
City to 60 dBA Leq (30 min.). Noise levels associated with the parking lot, parking lift facility, drive-
thru window and menu board are shown below in Table 16. As shown in Table 16, noise
associated with the Project’s on-site noise generating activities are below the City’s noise limits
for nearby land uses.
TABLE 16
RESTAURANT NOISE LEVELS AT ADJACENT PROPERTY LINES
Noise Levels at Adjoining Property Lines (Leq dBA)
Residences to
the North of the
Project Site
Commercial to
the West of the
Project Site
Commercial
Uses to the
South of the
Project Site
Commercial
Uses to the
East of the
Project Site
Drive-Through Window 23 36 47 38
Menu Board 26 44 55 47
Parking Lot Activity 38 48 39 49
Lift Parking Facility 33 41 23 31
Total Noise Levels 40 50 56 51
City Noise Limit 60 60 60 60
Exceeds Noise Limit? No No No No
Leq: energy average; dBA: A-weighted decibels.
Source: Psomas 2023. Calculations within Attachment A of this Report.
Noise is also associated with truck loading/unloading activities, trash removal, and operation of
the proposed hotel and walk-up/drive-thru restaurant use. Section 18.32.130 of the Municipal
Code limits noise from trash collection, routine deliveries, or late-night activity. No use shall
produce continual loading or unloading of heavy trucks at the site between the hours of 8 PM and
6 AM. The Proposed land uses require periodic truck trips related to resupplying of products to
support the operations and do not require continuous loading or unloading of heavy trucks. As
such, compliance with the noise limits within the Municipal Code would result in noise levels that
are acceptable to the City and would result in less than significant impacts related to these
stationary sources of noise.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-65 Environmental Evaluation
In community noise assessments, a 3-dBA increase is considered “barely perceptible,” and
increases over 5 dBA are generally considered “readily perceptible” (Caltrans 2013a,b). Operation
of the Proposed Project would displace traffic generated by existing uses. The Project would result
in an increase of 1,317 trips per day and 135 trips during the AM peak hour and 101 additional
trips in the PM peak hour. The corresponding increase in off-site traffic noise would range from
0.2 to 2.4 dBA for the analyzed roadway segments proximate to the Project Site. Table 17,
Existing and Projected Traffic Noise Levels, depict the noise increase from the proposed Project.
Thus, the traffic noise increases are below the 5 dBA noise increase threshold and would also
not be perceptible or substantial. The impact on traffic noise levels would be less than significant,
and no mitigation is required.
Pacific Resort Plaza Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-66 Environmental Evaluation TABLE 17 EXISTING AND PROJECTED TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS Roadways Existing Traffic Future No Project Future With Project Project Noise Increase Cumulative Plus Project Noise Increase ADT dBA CNEL ADT dBA CNEL ADT dBA CNEL dBA CNEL dBA CNEL Ball Road w/o Anaheim Blvd 36,300 75.0 39,000 75.3 41,500 75.5 0.6 0.3 e/o Anaheim Blvd 34,300 75.7 36,800 76.0 39,600 76.3 0.6 0.3 Anaheim Boulevard n/o Ball Rd 21,400 72.6 22,700 72.8 23,800 73.1 0.5 0.2 s/o Ball Rd 23,100 73.0 25,900 73.5 28,500 73.9 0.9 0.4 s/o Cerritos Ave 32,400 74.5 36,300 75.0 39,800 75.4 0.9 0.4 s/o 5 freeway 25,100 73.4 28,100 73.8 30,800 74.2 0.9 0.4 ADT: average daily traffic volume; dBA: A-weighted decibels; CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level. Note: Noise levels calculated from the Federal Highway Administration’s RD-77-108 Traffic Noise Prediction Model (Calculations can be found in Attachment B of this report). Source: Psomas 2023.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-67 Environmental Evaluation
Short-Term Construction Impacts
Less Than Significant Impact. Short-term construction noise would be generated on-site by
construction equipment during demolition, excavation, site preparation, and building construction
activities. Noise sensitive residential uses are located proximate to the Project Site to the north.
Commercial and industrial uses to the east, south (across Ball Road) and west of the Project site.,
which are not considered to be noise sensitive by the City and are not evaluated for noise
exposure from construction activities. The degree to which receptors are affected by construction
activities depends heavily on their proximity to the varying equipment use for each construction
phase. Estimated noise levels attributable to the development of the Project are shown in
Table 18, Construction Noise Levels at Nearby Noise Sensitive Uses, and calculations are
included in Appendix H, Noise Calculations.
TABLE 18
CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS AT NEARBY NOISE SENSITIVE USES
Construction Phase
Noise Exposure Levels for the Nearest Noise Sensitive Uses
(Leq dBA)
Maximum
(80 ft)
Average
(265 ft)
Daytime Noise
Threshold
(dBA Leq)
Exceeds Noise
Threshold?
Ground Clearing/Demolition 75 65 80 No
Excavation 70 60 80 No
Foundation Construction 69 59 80 No
Building Construction 66 56 80 No
Paving and Site Cleanup 66 56 80 No
Leq dBA: Average noise energy level; Max: maximum; ft: feet; avg: average.
Source: USEPA 1971.
Table 18, Construction Noise Levels at Nearby Noise Sensitive Uses, shows both the maximum
average and typical average noise levels. Maximum noise levels represent the noise levels from
construction occurring near the property boundary closest to the noise sensitive use/receptor.
Average noise levels represent the noise exposure to sensitive uses based on the distance to the
center of all components of the Proposed Project. Noise levels from general construction activities
related to the Proposed Project are evaluated against the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA)
Detailed Analysis Construction Noise Criteria. These criteria include thresholds of 80 dBA Leq for
an 8 hour daytime period, a 70 dBA Leq nighttime limit, and a 75 dBA day/night average sound
level (Ldn) 30-day average. Since the Project will only involve daytime construction activities, the
applicable significance threshold is 80 dBA Leq. As shown in Table 18, Project related construction
noise exposure levels at the nearest off-site residential use is below the FTA’s noise threshold.
Short-term construction noise also would also be generated on local roadways by workers
commuting to and from the job site and delivering construction materials. Under the phase with
the most traffic generation, it is estimated that a maximum of approximately 40 truckloads of
demolition material would occur over an approximate two-week period. That would amount to 80
truck trips distributed over ten workdays which results in approximately eight truck trips per day.
Truck trips would also occur from transporting building materials and construction vehicles to the
site. Considering that Ball Road currently has over 30,000 average daily trips and E Ball Road
has over 20,000 average daily trips, the addition of approximately eight truck trips per day would
result in traffic noise level increases of less than 1 dBA Leq. Changes in noise levels of less than
1 dBA Leq are not discernable by human hearing in outdoor environments. Because construction
would only occur during the least noise sensitive portion of the day (daytime hours) within the
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-68 Environmental Evaluation
hours prescribed by the Municipal Code, and would result in noise levels that are below the FTA’s
significance threshold, the impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be
required.
Question B: Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact. Groundborne vibration, expressed as peak particle velocity (ppv)
in inches per second (in/sec), consists of oscillatory waves that propagate from the source through
the ground to adjacent structures. Vibration of building components can also take the form of an
audible, low-frequency rumbling noise, which is referred to as groundborne noise. Vibration
energy spreads out as it travels through the ground, causing the vibration level to decrease with
the distance from the source.
Groundborne vibration and noise can be generated during construction activities and is generally
highest during impact pile driving, blasting, and demolition-related activities. With the exception
of demolition activities, none of these activities are anticipated for the Proposed Project. Because
the City of Anaheim does not have regulatory standards for construction or operational vibration
sources, thresholds for potential structural damage and human annoyance associated with
vibration are based on Caltrans’ vibration limits. For purposes of this analysis, a threshold of 0.9
ppv in/sec is used as the threshold of significance for human annoyance because this level of
vibration represents a level that is strongly perceptible. A building damage vibration level of 0.3
ppv in/sec is used for the assessment of commercial/industrial buildings and a vibration level of
0.2 ppv in/sec for residential buildings (Caltrans 2020). Table 19, Vibration Levels for Construction
Equipment, summarizes typical vibration levels measured during construction activities for
various vibration-inducing pieces of equipment at a distance of 25 feet.
TABLE 19
VIBRATION LEVELS PER CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Equipment ppv at 25 ft (in/sec)
Vibratory roller 0.210
Caisson drill 0.089
Large bulldozer 0.089
Small bulldozer 0.003
Jackhammer 0.035
Loaded trucks 0.076
ppv: peak particle velocity; ft: feet; in/sec: inches per second.
Source: FTA 2018.
As shown in Table 20, Vibration Annoyance Assessment at Nearby Uses, vibration ppv levels
would not exceed the criteria threshold under maximum conditions when activities are closest to
affected uses. The nearest residential buildings are 125 feet to the north, with
commercial/industrial buildings located to the east, south, and west. Table 20 shows that the
vibration levels from Project related construction activities would be less than vibration annoyance
criteria. As such, vibration generated by the Proposed Project’s construction equipment would not
result in a significant impact related to vibration induced annoyance.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-69 Environmental Evaluation
TABLE 20
VIBRATION ANNOYANCE ASSESSMENT AT NEARBY USES
Equipment
Vibration Level (ppv)
Residential Uses
to the North
Commercial Uses
to the West
Commercial Uses
to the South
Commercial/Industr
ial Uses
to the East
(ppv @ 125 ft) (ppv @ 38 ft) (ppv @ 165 ft) (ppv @ 95 ft)
Vibratory roller 0.019 0.112 0.012 0.028
Large bulldozer 0.008 0.047 0.005 0.012
Small bulldozer 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000
Jackhammer 0.003 0.019 0.002 0.005
Loaded trucks 0.007 0.041 0.004 0.010
Criteria 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Exceeds Criteria? No No No No
ppv: peak particle velocity; ft: feet.
Source: Psomas 2023.
Table 21, Building Damage Assessment at Nearby Uses, shows the vibration levels relative to
building damage from vibration generating construction activities.
TABLE 21
BUILDING DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AT NEARBY USES
Equipment
Vibration Levels (ppv)
Residential Uses
to the North
Commercial Uses
to the West
Commercial Uses
to the South
Commercial Uses
to the East
(ppv @ 125 ft) (ppv @ 38 ft) (ppv @ 165 ft) (ppv @ 95 ft)
Vibratory roller 0.019 0.112 0.012 0.028
Large bulldozer 0.008 0.047 0.005 0.012
Small bulldozer 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000
Jackhammer 0.003 0.019 0.002 0.005
Loaded trucks 0.007 0.041 0.004 0.010
Criteria 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Exceeds
Criteria? No No No No
ppv: peak particle velocity; ft: feet.
Source: Psomas 2023.
As shown in Table 21, vibration levels would be below the building damage threshold and no
building damage is anticipated related to construction activities associated with the Proposed
Project. The impact would be less than significant.
The nature of daily operation of the proposed hotel and restaurant uses do not involve activities
that would create significant operational vibration impacts. Therefore, there would be no long-term
vibration-related impacts, and no mitigation is required.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-70 Environmental Evaluation
Question C: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land
use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal
Airport), would the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The Project Site is not located within an adopted Airport Land Use Plan or in the
vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport, or helistop. The nearest airport is Fullerton Municipal Airport,
which is located within the city of Fullerton approximately 5.4 miles northwest of the Site. The Los
Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center is located approximately 7 miles to the west of the Project
Site. The Project Site would not be subject to excessive noise levels related to aircraft or airport
operations from either facility. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Program
No mitigation is required.
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Question A: Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly
(for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant Impact. Population, housing, and employment forecasts for the City of
Anaheim are shown below in Table 22.
TABLE 22
POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS:
CITY OF ANAHEIM
2016 2045
Difference,
2035–2015
Percent Difference,
2035–2015
Population 356,693 416,789 60,096 16.8%
Housing Units 107,027 128,160 21,133 19.7%
Employment (Jobs) 197,153 250,544 53,391 27.1%
Source: Orange County Projections 2018.
As stated previously, the Project proposes 120 hotel rooms and a walk-up/drive-thru fast food
restaurant. The Proposed Project would generate approximately 14 hotel employees and 12 fast
food restaurant employees. The Proposed Project would not include development of dwelling
units; therefore, it would not result in a direct increase in population. The generation of new
employment positions has the potential to indirectly result in new households, thereby indirectly
increasing population. However, employees would likely be from the surrounding area and would
not exceed the planned growth in population. Additionally, these nominal increases are not
expected to create a major demand for goods and services in the City or to induce additional
growth. The Proposed Project does not involve the extension of roads or other infrastructure
which would induce indirect growth. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no
mitigation is required.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-71 Environmental Evaluation
Question B: Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. As stated in Section 2.2, Existing Project Site Conditions, the Project Site would
demolish an existing, vacant two-story building. There are no residents that would be displaced
by the Proposed Project. Furthermore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not require
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation
is required.
Mitigation Program
No mitigation is required.
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Question 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. Anaheim Fire and Rescue is a full-service organization designed
to provide essential public safety and emergency services to the community and its visitors.
Please refer to Table 23, City of Anaheim Fire Services Facilities, for a summary of the Fire
Protection resources in the City of Anaheim.
Anaheim Fire and Rescue has adopted and follows the expectations of the National Incident
Management System, a program used in the United States to coordinate emergency
preparedness and incident management among various federal, State, and local agencies (Young
2021).
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-72 Environmental Evaluation
TABLE 23
CITY OF ANAHEIM FIRE SERVICES FACILITIES
Station Station Address Equipment
Downtown Station 1 500 East Broadway Street Paramedic Engine 1, Truck 1, Type-3301 and
Ambulance 1, Rehab 1
Brookhurst Station 2 2141 West Crescent Avenue Paramedic Engine 2 and US&R 2 Ambulance 2
Resort Station 3 1717 South Clementine Street
Paramedic Engine 3, Truck 3, Type 3-309
Paramedic 3 (Disney), and Ambulance 3, Light Air
3
Orange Station 4 2736 West Orange Avenue Paramedic Engine 4
La Palma Station 5 2540 La Palma Paramedic Engine 5 Type 3-305, MMRS 1 and
Ambulance 5
Euclid Station 6 1330 South Euclid Street Paramedic Engine 6, Truck 6, Battalion 2,
Ambulance 6, and Hazmat 6 Paramedic 6 (Disney)
Stadium Station 7 2222 East Ball Road Paramedic Engine 7
Riverdale Station 8 4555 East Riverdale Avenue Battalion 1, Paramedic Engine 8, Truck 8, Type
6-601, and Type 3-308
Anaheim Hills Station 9 6300 East Nohl Ranch Road Paramedic Engine 9, Type 6-602 Water Tender 1,
and Ambulance 9
Weir Canyon Station 10 8270 East Monte Vista Road Paramedic Engine Truck 10, Type 3-310
Twila Reid Station 11 3078 West Orange Avenue Paramedic Engine 11 OES Engine 414 and
Ambulance 11, OES Type 3-1211
US&R: Urban Search and Rescue; Hazmat: hazardous materials unit.
Source: Young 2021.
Fire stations are strategically located to ensure an efficient demand response to all risk hazards
and to maintain recommendations for response times (Anaheim 2004a). The nearest station to
the Project Site is Stadium Station 7, located approximately 1.3 miles to the east of the Project
Site.
The Proposed Project would comply with the required development fees and all codes and
standards, and the Project site is currently serviced by Anaheim Fire and Rescue via the existing
infrastructure. In addition, the Proposed Project would not require the construction of new
facilities, the expansion of existing facilities, or additional personnel or equipment to maintain
acceptable response times (Young 2021). Impacts would be less than significant, and no
mitigation is required.
Question 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:
Police Protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. Law enforcement and crime prevention services are provided by
the Anaheim Police Department (APD). Officers operate out of four stations and patrol an area of
49.7 square miles, divided into three districts (West, Central, and East). The police stations are
located as follows: Main Station, located at 425 South Harbor Boulevard; East Station, located at
8201 East Santa Ana Canyon Road; and West Station, located at 320 South Beach Boulevard.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-73 Environmental Evaluation
Police services provided include patrol, investigations, traffic enforcement, traffic control, vice and
narcotics enforcement, airborne patrol, crime suppression, community policing, tourist-oriented
policing, and detention facilities. Based on consultation with the APD (Berger 2021), the Proposed
Project would not generate demand for additional staffing. However, funding for any new
personnel needed to maintain acceptable service levels would come from the City of Anaheim’s
General Fund. Property taxes and other fees assessed for the Project Site would contribute to
the General Fund revenues. Existing Police Department facilities would be sufficient to serve the
additional demand associated with the Proposed Project along with the existing demand of the
area; therefore, a significant impact would not occur related to the construction of law enforcement
facilities, and no mitigation is required.
Question 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:
Schools?
Less Than Significant Impact. As previously stated, the Proposed Project does not involve the
construction of new dwelling units; therefore, it would not result in a direct increase in population.
The generation of new employment positions has the potential to indirectly result in new
households, thereby indirectly increasing population. However, employees would likely be from
the surrounding area and would not exceed the planned growth in population. Therefore, direct
impacts on the Anaheim Elementary School District (AESD) or the Anaheim Union High School
District (AUHSD) are not expected to occur as a result of the Proposed Project. the property
owner/developer would be required to provide payment of impact fees as adopted by the Board
of Trustees of the AESD and AUHSD, in compliance with SB 50 and CEC 17620. Therefore, the
developer would reduce the potential impacts to the AESD and the AUHSD to less than significant
levels, and no mitigation is required.
Question 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:
Parks?
Less Than Significant Impact. The nearest park is Magnolia Park, located at 905 South
Anaheim Boulevard, approximately 0.3 miles northwest of the Project Site. As discussed above,
the Proposed Project does not involve the construction of new dwelling units. Any increase in
population attributed to the new jobs is nominal and would not result in a significant increase in
demand for park facilities in the City. The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation
is required.
Question 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
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-74 Environmental Evaluation
acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives
for any of the public services:
Other Public Facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. Local public services include libraries. The Anaheim Public
Library system includes a network of seven library branches serving the City of Anaheim and
surrounding communities, a Mobile Library (Bookmobile), a book vending machine at the ARTIC
transportation center and the Anaheim Heritage Center. The closest library branch to the Project
Site is the Sunkist Branch located at 901 South Sunkist Street (Anaheim 2022). The Proposed
Project could result in an incremental increase in demand for such services; however, these
increases would not represent a significant impact. Less than significant impacts would occur,
and no mitigation would be required.
Mitigation Program
No mitigation is required.
XVI. RECREATION
Question 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?
Question 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. As discussed above in Section XV, Public Services, no direct
increase in demand for City parklands or recreational facilities would result from implementation
of the Proposed Project because the Proposed Project would function as a commercial use. While
the Project has the potential to indirectly increase the residential base of the City (as detailed
above in Section XIV, Population and Housing), the number of potential new residents associated
with the increase in employment positions would be so minor that related impacts to recreational
facilities would be less than significant. Further, employees would likely be from the surrounding
area and would not exceed the planned growth in population. The Proposed Project would not
create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
effects. A less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation would be required.
Mitigation Program
No mitigation is required.
XVII. TRANSPORTATION
The analysis contained in this section is partially based on the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
prepared by Iteris, Inc. in December 2022, and the VMT Analysis prepared by Iteris, Inc. included
in Appendix I1 and I2, respectively.
Changes to the CEQA Guidelines were adopted in December 2018 to implement SB 743. CEQA
Guideline 15064.3, which describes criteria for evaluating a project's transportation impacts,
provides that VMT is generally "the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts," and that
except for roadway capacity projects, a project's effect on traffic delays "shall not constitute a
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-75 Environmental Evaluation
significant environmental impact." These provisions went into effect July 1, 2020. The VMT
Analysis evaluated the applicable City of Anaheim screening thresholds to determine whether the
proposed project would be expected to create impacts related to VMT. Although LOS is no longer
a CEQA issue, LOS is discussed in the City’s Congestion Management Program (CMP) and is
provided here as an impact analysis for consistency with the City’s CMP requirements.
Question A: Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Orange County Congestion Management Plan Criteria
The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) adopted the Congestion Management
Program (CMP) for Orange County. The CMP Highway System (CMPHS) consists of the Orange
County smart street network plus the State highway system. Since none of the identified study
intersection or roadway segments are part of CMP Highway System, a CMP analysis was not
conducted as part of the TIA.
Transit Operations
OCTA and Anaheim Resort Transportation (ART) all operate bus lines within the area of the
Project Site. Descriptions of the transit services are as follows:
OCTA Lines
Line 46 – This line operates between Los Alamitos and Orange County. Within the study
area, the line travels east-west along Ball Road. Service is provided at 30-minute
headways solely during weekdays peak periods and 40-minute headways during the
weekends.
Line 47 – This line operates between Fullerton to Balboa. Within the study area, the line
travels north south along Anaheim Boulevard. Service is provided at 15-minute headways
during weekday peak periods. Weekends and holiday service is also provided.
ART Lines
Lines 8 – These lines operate between the Disneyland Transportation Center and the
hotels along the GardenWalk. Within the study area, these lines travel north-south along
Anaheim Boulevard between Ball Road and Disney Way. Service is provided at 20-minute
headways during weekdays and weekends.
Line 17 – These lines operate between the Disneyland Transportation Center and Canyon
Metrolink Station on Tustin Avenue. Within the study area, these lines travel east-west on
Ball Road. Service is provided at an approximate of 40-minute headways during weekdays
and weekends.
The developer intends to include rideshare and vanpooling opportunities for employees and
patrons. ART would provide service at 20- to 40-minute headways for the Project.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-76 Environmental Evaluation
Bikeway Configurations
The City of Anaheim existing and proposed configurations of the bike routes within the study area
per the 2017 Bicycle Master Plan are described below:
Class II Bike Lane – Class II bikeway provide a restricted right-of-way for use of bicycles
alongside motor vehicles traveling through. There are 49.42 miles of existing Class II
bikeway within City of Anaheim. Within the study area, Class II bike path exist along
Anaheim Boulevard traveling north-south from Ball Road to Cerritos Avenue and along
Ball Road traveling east-west from Anaheim Boulevard to Claudina Street. Class II bike
path is proposed to be extended along Anaheim Boulevard past Ball Road to the north,
south of Cerritos Avenue, and along Ball Road, east of Lemon Street.
Due to the proposed bikeways connecting to the Proposed Project, it is recommended that the
developer provide visible and adequate bike and bike parking facilities for both employees and
patrons. Also, the developer should coordinate with the City of Anaheim with any proposed bicycle
and pedestrian pathway improvement as part of the Project.
Conclusion
As discussed above, the Project would not conflict with any circulation-related programs, plans,
ordinances, or policies. The Project would result in less than significant impacts relative to this
threshold and no mitigation is required.
Question B: Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less Than Significant Impact. CEQA analysis requires an evaluation of project impacts related
to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts for various land use projects. In accordance with the
project screening methodologies listed in the City of Anaheim Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
for California Environmental Quality Act Analysis (June 2020), a series of analytical steps for SB
743 compliance should be conducted for land use projects as deemed necessary by the
Transportation Department. A project-level VMT analysis is required as part of the City’s Traffic
Impact Analysis (TIA) process to fulfill CEQA requirements for identifying impacts for land use
projects. However, the City’s TIA Guidelines for CEQA analysis allow for three types of project
screening that can be applied to effectively screen projects from project-level assessment. The
Project only needs to fulfill one of the screening types to qualify for screening. The three screening
types are:
1. Transit Priority Areas Screening;
2. Low VMT-generating Areas Screening; and
3. Project Type Screening.
Analysis for each of the screening types is discussed below.
Type 1: Transit Priority Area (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. The Proposed Project is located within half a mile of a stop for a
high-quality bus route, as identified in Attachment A of the City of Anaheim TIA Guidelines for
CEQA.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-77 Environmental Evaluation
Based on the City Guidelines, the Proposed Project’s proximity to high quality transit is one of the
screening thresholds that could be used for determining if a VMT analysis is required. CEQA
Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1) states that lead agencies should generally presume that
certain projects, including residential, will have a less than significant impact on VMT within one
half mile of a fixed stop along a high-quality transit corridor. The Public Resources Code 21155
defines a high-quality transit corridor as a fixed route bus corridor with headways of 15 minutes
or less during peak commute hours. The City Guidelines states that this presumption would not
apply if any of the following is true:
Has a FAR 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 SCS (as determined by the lead agency, with input from
the Metropolitan Planning Organization); or
Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high-income
residential units.
The Proposed Project is located immediately adjacent to bus stops on Anaheim Boulevard. The
peak hour headways are 15 minutes or less on Anaheim Boulevard. The Proposed Project’s FAR
is 0.98, so the FAR exceeds 0.75. The Proposed Project meets but does not exceed the parking
required by the City. Additionally, the Project is consistent with the applicable SCS as the Project’s
mix of land uses is consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation. There are no
existing residential units on the Project Site, so no affordable units are being removed or replaced.
Therefore, the Project could be screened from a VMT analysis based on the criteria for Type 1:
TPA Screening, and would be considered a less than significant impact on VMT, per the City of
Anaheim TIA Guidelines for CEQA Analysis.
Type 2: Low VMT Area Screening
Residential and office projects located within a low VMT-generating area may be presumed to
have a less than significant impact. Low VMT-generating areas are defined in the City of Anaheim
TIA Guidelines for CEQA as traffic analysis zones in the Orange County Transportation Authority
Model (OCTAM) travel forecasting model which produce VMT per service population that is 15
percent below the County average. The Type 2: Low VMT Area Screening cannot be applied to
this Proposed Project because it is a hotel and neither a residential nor office project. Because
the Proposed Project is neither residential nor office land use, the criteria for Type 2: Low-VMT
Area Screening is not met.
Type 3: Project Type Screening
Some project types are presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact as their
uses are local serving in nature. The TIA Guidelines for CEQA list the land uses that can be
screened from project-level assessment, as they are presumed to have less than significant
impact due to their local serving nature. The exempt land uses are:
Local-serving K-12 schools;
Pocket, neighborhood, and community parks as defined by the General Plan;
Day care centers; and
Local-serving retail uses less than 50,000 square feet.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-78 Environmental Evaluation
The Proposed Project is a hotel land use and is not described by any of the exempt land uses
above. Because the Proposed Project is not local-serving in nature, the Type 3: Project Type
Screening is not met.
In summary, the VMT-screening analysis showed that VMT analysis is not required as part of the
TIA for the Proposed Project because the Project is within a TPA (transit priority area), making it
exempt from project-level CEQA VMT assessment. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have
a less than significant impact related to VMT, and no mitigation is required.
Question C: Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses?
Less Than Significant Impact. Access to the Project Site would be through the existing driveway
along Ball Road and Technology Circle. The Proposed Project driveway and internal roadways
would be developed to comply with the City Building Division, Public Works Department, and Fire
& Rescue Department standards. The proposed Project located at 125 East Ball Road is a 5-story
hotel with 120 rooms and a detached 1,200 square feet walk-in/drive-thru fast food restaurant and
would not include the use of any incompatible vehicles or equipment.
As part of the TIA, a queueing and stacking analysis was performed. The proposed on-site drive-
thru fast food restaurant provides a storage of 16 vehicles. The drive-thru stacking analysis results
suggest that the Project fast food drive-thru would be able to accommodate the anticipated vehicle
queueing during peak hours and throughout the day.
The results of the TIA indicate that the proposed Project would create a project-level impact at
the following intersection:
Technology Circle and Ball Road
The intersection is projected to operate deficiently under existing with project, Opening Year
(2024), and Opening Year (2024) with project conditions due to long delays projected for the stop-
controlled minor approach (Technology Circle) and the eastbound left-turn movement from Ball
Road. The following measure can be considered as an option to address the intersection
deficiency:
Restripe SB approach to 1 left-turn lane and 1 right-turn lane.
The Proposed Project is surrounded by commercial, multi-family residential, and industrial uses.
Therefore, the proposed development would be compatible with surrounding uses. Thus, the
Proposed Project would not substantially increase hazards due to design or incompatible uses,
impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Question D: Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact.
The Proposed Project would provide emergency access via the existing driveway along Ball Road
and Technology Drive. The Proposed Project would have a minimum 20-foot-wide fire access
lanes throughout the Project Site with turning radiuses that are compliant with City Building
Division and Fire & Rescue Department standards. This compliance includes that the Proposed
Project driveway and internal circulation would accommodate standard fire lane turning radiuses.
To ensure compliance, the Anaheim Fire & Rescue would review project plans for final approval
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-79 Environmental Evaluation
prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Further, construction activities would not require the
complete closure of local roadways and would be temporary in nature. Temporary construction
activities would not impede the use of the road for emergencies or access for emergency
response vehicles. Thus, impacts are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is
required.
Mitigation Program
No mitigation is required.
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
The following analysis addresses the potential for the discovery of tribal cultural resources (TCR)
and the implementation of mitigation measures to reduce impacts to such discoveries to a less
than significant level.
METHODOLOGY
As discussed in Section V of this IS/MND, the NAHC conducted a SLF search for the Proposed
Project. The search results were negative. Consistent with requirements AB 52 (required for
projects subject to CEQA analyses), the City sent letters to tribes that have expressed an interest
in being consulted regarding Native American resources for the projects being undertaken by the
City.
Letters were sent to interested tribal organizations on May 18, 2022. One Tribe, the Gabrieleno
Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, requested consultation with the City regarding the
Proposed Project and consultation was subsequently held on June 16, 2022.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
Question 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:
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).
No Impact. For purposes of impact analysis, a tribal cultural resource is considered a site, feature,
place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object which is of cultural value to a California Native
American Tribe and is either eligible for the CRHR or a local register. As indicated in Section V of
this IS/MND, based on a 2022 SCCIC record search results, there are no resources on the Project
Site that are currently listed on the CRHR. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have an
impact on a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing on the CRHR or a local
register. The Proposed Project would have no impact related to this topic, and no mitigation is
required.
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 Resources Code
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-80 Environmental Evaluation
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native American tribe.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The second component of this threshold is if the
Proposed Project would impact a tribal cultural 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, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a Native American tribe. Subdivision (c) states:
A resource may be listed as an historical resource in the California Register if it meets any
of the following CRHR criteria:
(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.
Based on information available through the record searches at the SCCIC and the NAHC, and
the long-term past use of the Project area, there is no information available that indicates there
are significant tribal resources within the Project area that would be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1. However, as noted in Section
above, the City requested consultation with tribes that notified the City of a desire to be consulted
with regarding the Project.
Consultation between the City and tribal representatives did not identify tribal cultural resources
within the Project site. However, it was identified that this area of Orange County was settled by
the ancestors of the Juaneño and Gabrieleno/Tongva. Therefore, there is a potential that
undiscovered intact cultural resources, including tribal cultural resources eligible for the CRHR or
a local register, may be present below the surface in native sediments. In consultation with the
Tribes, MM 18-1 has been incorporated as part of the Project, which requires Native American
monitoring during Project grading and ground disturbance. With implementation of MM 18-1, the
Project would have less than significant impacts related to potential tribal cultural resources
encountered during Project construction.
Mitigation Program
The following mitigation measure is required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels and
they will be incorporated into the Mitigation Program for this IS/MND.
MM 18-1 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit in which native soil, as identified by the
geotechnical report prepared for the project, is disturbed, the property owner/developer or
contractor as designee shall provide evidence in the form of an executed Agreement to the City
of Anaheim Planning and Building department that they have retained a qualified Native American
tribal monitor to provide third-party monitoring during excavation and grading activities in native
sediment and to recover and catalogue tribal resources as necessary. The tribal monitor shall be
from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The agreement shall
include (i) professional qualifications of Native American monitor; (ii) detailed scope of services
to be provided including but not limited to pre-construction education, observation, evaluation,
protection, salvage, notification, and/or curation requirements, as applicable, with final
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-81 Environmental Evaluation
documentation/report to Public Works Inspector; (iii) contact information; (iv) communication
protocols between Contractor and Monitor for scheduling to facilitate timely performance; (v)
acknowledgment that if the tribal monitor is unavailable or unresponsive based on terms stipulated
in the agreement, property owner/developer or contractor as designee may contract with another
qualified tribal monitor acceptable to the City. The selection of the qualified professional(s) shall
be subject to City acceptance based on generally accepted professional qualifications and
certifications, as applicable. The cover sheet of the grading plans shall include a note to identify
that third party tribal monitoring is required during excavation and grading activities in accordance
the with City-approved Agreement. Contact information for approved tribal monitor shall be
provided by the contractor to the City inspector at the pre-construction meeting.
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Question A: Would the project require or result in the 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?
Question C: 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 City of Anaheim provides water and wastewater services to
the Project Site as described in more detail below.
Water
Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project consists of a 120-room hotel and a walk-
up/drive-thru fast food restaurant with associated parking on a Project Site that is currently
developed with a vacant two-story building. The Proposed Project would connect to existing water
mains that are serviced by the APUD. APUD has indicated that there is adequate water capacity
to serve the Proposed Project and that the Project would need to connect to an existing 10-inch
cast iron pipe main along Technology Circle (APUD 2022). No new or expanded facilities would
be required. Therefore, impacts related to existing water infrastructure would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.
Wastewater
Less Than Significant Impact. The wastewater analysis is based on Appendix J, Sewer Study
– 125 E. Ball Road City Project Tracking No: OTH2020-01254, (July 2020), prepared by Psomas.
According to the Central Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers (CAMPSS) dated
December 2017 and the updated modeling from the South-Central Anaheim Sewer Study
(SCASS) dated May 2020, sewer generation from the site and adjacent parcels to the west and
north in the Existing and Buildout System computer model scenarios were loaded as commercial
use based on acreage to the existing 8-inch VCP sewer running north of the Project Site.
Sewage from the Project Site is proposed to discharge at manhole SW085418 on Technology
Circle to be conservative. Based on the SCASS computer model, the existing commercial sites
were all loaded to one manhole, SW085426, north of the Project Site. The existing commercial
load of 1.47 gallons per minute (gpm), or about 2,125 gallons per day (gpd), for the Project Site
of 1.25 acres would be removed from manhole SW085426. The 120-room hotel would add a load
of 10.42 gpm or 15,000 gpd and the fast food restaurant would add 2.08 gpm or 3,000 gpd to
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-82 Environmental Evaluation
manhole SW085418. The existing and proposed manhole loading with flow generation is
summarized in Table 57. Flow factors are in gpd/acre, gpd/hotel room, and gpd/thousand square
feet (ksf).
Based on the SCASS, the Existing System Scenario included the flows shown in Table 57, with
this table also showing the average flow increases due to the Proposed Project. The existing flow
factor for hotel land uses from the SCASS and CAMPSS was 150 gpd/room. This more
conservative flow factor used in master plan studies is meant to include ancillary uses such as
meeting space and restaurants. For this detailed Sewer Study, the proposed flow factor for hotel
rooms is a more realistic 125 gpd/room, but since more detail is typically known for these studies,
the ancillary uses for restaurants, etc., are added. The proposed hotel is planned to have a 1,200
sf walk-up/drive-through fast food restaurant. The flow factor used for this ancillary use was 500
gpd/ksf. As shown in Table 57, the total average daily flow increase to the sewer collection system
is 15,875 gpd with the new hotel project and fast food restaurant. It should be noted that the
Proposed Project includes a long-term lease of a 0.26-acre parcel (APN 234-161-26) just west of
the Site for parking but since no structures are currently located on that parcel, and to be
conservative, proportional flow from that acreage is not being removed from the model.
TABLE 24
EXISTING AND PROPOSED MANHOLE FLOW LOADING
Manhole Number
Existing/
Proposed
Units Flow
Factor
(gpd/unit)
Existing
Flow Rate
(gpd)
Proposed
Flow Rate
(gpd) Acres Rooms ksf
Existing Manhole Flow Loading
SW085426
Commercial Existing 4.73 1,700 8,045
Total Flow to SW085426 8,045
Proposed Manhole Flow Loading
SW085426
Commercial To Remain 3.48 1,700 – 5,920
Total Flow to SW085426 – 5,920
Average Flow Difference
SW085418
Hotel Proposed 120 125 – 15,000
Food Court Proposed 6.0 500 – 3,000
Total Flow to SW085418 – 18,000
Average Flow Increase 15,875
ksf: thousand square feet; gpd: gallons per day.
Source: Psomas 2020
The Existing Condition Scenario plus the peak project flow over a 24-hour simulation period and
the maximum depth-to-Diameter (d/D) ratios for the sewer collection system from the latest
hydraulic model are shown in Table 2 of Appendix J. The sewer system manholes are shown in
detail in the immediate vicinity of the Project on Figure 1 of Appendix J with manhole numbers
corresponding to the Upstream and Downstream IDs in Table 2 of Appendix J. The entire
downstream sewer collection system is shown graphically on Figure 2 of Appendix J with manhole
numbers at key locations shown. There are two large diameter, parallel sewers in Ball Road west
of Lemon Street. The current model reflects changes made in the recent SCASS. Flow is diverted
to the southerly Ball Road sewer with a 21-inch siphon on Lemon Street. Downstream of Lemon
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-83 Environmental Evaluation
Street, the northerly line is 18-inches in diameter increasing to 24-inches at Harbor Boulevard and
then connecting to the southerly line at manhole SW075202. The southerly line is 24-inches from
Lemon Street to Walnut Street where it increases to 33-inches and eventually discharges to the
Orange County Sanitation District trunk sewer system in Euclid Street. The Project area is
tributary to the southerly Ball Road pipeline, connecting at Lemon Street.
As shown on Table 2 in Appendix J, Existing Scenario, the existing condition shows no
deficiencies in the southerly Ball Road line. There is a maximum d/D of 0.38, well below the d/D
criteria of 0.75 for lines 12 inches in diameter and larger and 0.67 for lines 10 inches and smaller.
Based on this analysis, the system does not have any capacity deficiencies in the downstream
collection system from the Proposed Project.
The Buildout Condition Scenario plus the flows from the Proposed Project and d/D ratios for the
sewer collection system from the hydraulic model are shown in Table 3 of Appendix J. As seen in
Table 3 of Appendix J, Buildout Scenario, there are no deficiencies present in the southerly Ball
Road line. The same parallel system in Ball Road described above in the Existing Scenario
applies to the Buildout Scenario as well. In the Buildout Scenario, the corresponding southerly
Ball Road sewer reach has a maximum d/D value of 0.41 on Walnut Street which is acceptable
for that section of pipe, which is 33-inches.
In summary, no sewer system improvements are required to accommodate the Proposed Project.
Therefore, less than significant impacts would result and no mitigation is required.
Stormwater
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed previously in Section X, Hydrology and Water
Quality, based on Appendix F, Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), La Quinta
Inn & Suites, 125 East Ball Road, APN: 234-161-4, 26 prepared by Capstone Engineering, Inc.
(2022), the Project Site which includes an existing two-story commercial building in the southeast
corner of the Site is approximately 97.63 percent impervious.
As discussed previously in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Proposed Project would
result in a 0.03 cfs decrease in storm water flow when compared to the existing condition. The
Proposed Project would generally maintain the same drainage pattern as the pre-development
condition. Therefore, because the Proposed Project would follow the same drainage pattern as
under existing conditions and due to the reduction in anticipated storm water flow from the Project
Site, the Proposed Project would not result in an impact to the capacity of the storm water
drainage system.
Electricity
Less Than Significant Impact. The APUD’s Electrical Services would provide electricity for the
Proposed Project. The APUD’s distribution system consists of aboveground and underground
transmission and distribution lines. APUD has confirmed that current facilities and supply are
capable of meeting the future demands generated by the Proposed Project (Nguyen 2021).
Therefore, a significant impact related to the need for new systems or supplies or substantial
alterations related to electricity would not occur, and no mitigation is required.
Natural Gas
Less Than Significant Impact. The Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) currently
provides natural gas service to the City of Anaheim, including the Project Site (SCGC 2022). The
service would be provided in accordance with SCGC’s policies and extension rules on file with
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-84 Environmental Evaluation
the California Public Utilities Commission. Therefore, a significant impact related to the need for
new systems or supplies or substantial alterations related to natural gas would not occur, and no
mitigation is required.
Telecommunications Facilities
Less Than Significant Impact. AT&T currently provides telephone service to the City of
Anaheim, including the Project Site (AT&T 2022). Development of the Proposed Project would
create an increase in the demand on the telephone service system. Telephone conduits would be
installed in joint trenches on the Project Site. AT&T would provide joint trench design once specific
development plans become available. Impacts related to telecommunication facilities would be
less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Question B: Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry
and multiple dry years (including large-scale developments as defined by
Public Resources Code Section 21151.9 and described in Question No. 20 of
the Environmental Information Form)?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed previously, the City relies on a combination of
imported water, local groundwater, and a small amount of recycled water to meet its water needs.
The City works together with two primary agencies, MWD and OCWD to ensure a safe and
reliable water supply that would continue to serve the community in periods of drought and
shortage. The City’s main source of water supply is groundwater from the OC Basin. The City has
historically relied on approximately 70 percent groundwater (previous 10-year average) and 30
percent imported water from MWD to supply its customers, although the City has taken many of
its wells off-line as of March 2020 to address concentrations of PFAS in the groundwater. Over
the next several years, the City will construct groundwater treatment facilities to remove PFAS to
acceptable State-mandated levels after which groundwater usage would meet or exceed historical
levels consistent with increased groundwater supplies due to the expansion of OCWD’s
Groundwater Replenishment System, reducing the percentage imported from MWD. MWDs
principal sources of water are the Colorado River via the Colorado River Aqueduct and the Lake
Oroville watershed in Northern California through the State Water Project. Storage is also a major
component of MWD dry year resource management strategy. MWDs likelihood of having
adequate supply capability to meet projected demands is highly dependent on its storage
resources. Based on a conservative estimate that does not account for the current water demand
of the Project Site, the Proposed Project would generate a water demand of 3,045 GPD or
approximately 3.4 AFY, which is approximately 0.01 percent of the total demand. Thus, there is
water supply available for the City, and the water supply demanded by the Proposed Project can
be accommodated by the existing supply. Impacts would be less than significant, and no
mitigation is required.
Question D: 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. Based on a generation factor of 155 pounds per sf (ppsf) for
nonresidential demolition debris, demolition of the existing 10,530 sf building would generate
approximately 1,550 tons of demolition debris. To determine construction debris, an average
generation rate of 3.89 ppsf was applied to the proposed building sf of 70,000 sf, resulting in
approximately 136 tons of construction debris. Using a solid waste generation rate of 4 pounds
per room per day for hotel use, the Proposed Project would generate approximately 480 pounds
of solid waste per day during operation (CalRecycle 2013). OC Waste & Recycling has indicated
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-85 Environmental Evaluation
that solid waste generated by the Proposed Project would go to the Olinda Alpha Landfill located
at 1942 North Valencia Avenue in the City of Brea and that adequate capacity is available within
the Orange County landfill system to serve the Proposed Project (Halligan 2022). Therefore, a
significant impact related to landfill capacity would not result from implementation of the Proposed
Project, and no mitigation is required.
Question E: Would the project comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City complies with all federal, State, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste. Regulations specifically applicable to the Proposed Project
include the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), SB 2202, SB 1016,
2019 CALGreen Section 4.408, and AB 341, which requires multiple-family residential
development and commercial uses to implement recycling programs.
In 1989, the Legislature adopted the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB
939), in order to “reduce, recycle, and re-use solid waste generated in the State to the maximum
extent feasible.” AB 939 established a waste management hierarchy and required that each
county prepare a new Integrated Waste Management Plan and each city prepare a Source
Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) by July 1, 1991. The SRRE is required to identify how
each jurisdiction would meet the mandatory State waste diversion goal of 50 percent by and after
the year 2000.
SB 2202 made a number of changes to the municipal solid waste diversion requirements under
AB 939. These changes included a revision to the statutory requirement for 50 percent diversion
of solid waste to clarify that local governments shall continue to divert 50 percent of all solid waste
on and after January 1, 2000.
SB 1016 introduced a per capita disposal measurement system that measures the 50 percent
diversion requirement using a disposal measurement equivalent. The Bill repealed the State
Water Board 2-year process, requiring instead that the State Water Board make a finding whether
each jurisdiction was in compliance with the Act’s diversion requirements for calendar year 2006
and to determine compliance for the 2007 calendar year and beyond, based on the jurisdiction’s
change in its per capita disposal rate. The State Water Board is required to review a jurisdiction’s
compliance with those diversion requirements in accordance with a specified schedule, which is
conditioned upon the State Water Board finding that the jurisdiction complies with those
requirements or has implemented its SRRE and household hazardous waste element. The Bill
requires the State Water Board to issue an order of compliance if the State Water Board finds
that the jurisdiction has failed to make a good faith effort to implement its SRRE or its household
hazardous waste element, pursuant to a specified procedure. The per capita disposal rate is a
jurisdiction-specific index, which is used as one of several “factors” in determining a jurisdiction’s
compliance with the intent of AB939 and allows CalRecycle and jurisdictions to set their primary
focus on successful implementation of diversion programs.
SB 1383 requires counties to take the lead collaborating with the jurisdictions located within the
county in planning for the necessary organic waste recycling and food recovery capacity needed
to divert organic waste from landfills into recycling activities and food recovery organizations.
California has a 2025 goal to redirect to people in need 20 percent of edible food currently thrown
away (CalRecycle 2023).
CALGreen Section 4.408 requires preparation of a Construction Waste Management Plan that
provides an overview of ways in which the applicant would recycle and/or salvage for reuse a
minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition debris. During the
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-86 Environmental Evaluation
construction phase, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with CALGreen through
the recycling and reuse of at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition
debris from the Project Site.
Participation in the City’s recycling programs during project construction and operation, including
CalRecycle’s requirements, would ensure that the Proposed Project would not conflict with
federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Additionally, solid waste
would be disposed of at existing Orange County Waste and Recycling landfills. Disposal of solid
waste would comply with all federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste. During operation, the Proposed Project would include receptacles for recyclables and
garbage. Thus, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Question F: Would the project result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations related to electricity?
Less Than Significant Impact. The APUD’s Electrical Services would provide electricity for the
Proposed Project. The APUD’s distribution system consists of aboveground and underground
transmission and distribution lines. APUD has confirmed that current facilities and supply are
capable of meeting the future demands generated by the Proposed Project (APUD 2021).
Therefore, a significant impact related to the need for new systems or supplies or substantial
alterations related to electricity would not occur, and no mitigation is required.
Question G: Would the project result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations related to natural gas?
Less Than Significant Impact. The SCGC currently provides natural gas service to the City of
Anaheim, including the Project Site (SCGC 2022). The service would be provided in accordance
with SCGC’s policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission.
Therefore, a significant impact related to the need for new systems or supplies or substantial
alterations related to natural gas would not occur, and no mitigation is required.
Question H: Would the project result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations related to telephone service?
Less Than Significant Impact. AT&T currently provides telephone service to the City of
Anaheim, including the Project Site (AT&T 2022). Development of the Proposed Project would
create an increase in the demand on the telephone service system. Telephone conduits would be
installed in joint trenches on the Project Site. AT&T would provide joint trench design once specific
development plans become available. Impacts related to telephone service provider facilities
would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Question I: Would the project result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations related to television service/reception?
Less Than Significant Impact. Spectrum currently provides cable television, high speed internet,
and digital telephone service to the Project Site (Spectrum 2022). Development of the Proposed
Project would create an increase in the demand on the cable television service system. Within
the Project Site, telephone conduits would be installed in joint trenches. Joint trench design would
be provided by Spectrum once specific development plans become available. Impacts related to
television service/reception would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-87 Environmental Evaluation
Mitigation Program
No mitigation is required.
XX. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:
Question A: Would the project Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. Based on review of the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility
Areas and State and Federal Responsibility Areas map, the Project Site is not located in or near
a Moderate, High, or Very High fire hazard zone (CalFire 2023). Therefore, no impact would occur,
and no mitigation is required.
Question B: Would the project 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?
No Impact. As discussed in Section XX ”A” above, the Project Site is not in or near a Moderate,
High, or Very High fire hazard zone. The Project Site and surrounding properties are relatively flat
with no significant topographic relief that would expose Project occupants to wildfire risks. Santa
Ana winds could expose Project occupants to smoke and other pollutants associated with wildfires
located east of the City. However, that exposure would not be site specific because much of the
City and general geographic area would be exposed and not the Project specifically. The Project
would not expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire due to slope,
prevailing winds, or other factors. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
Question 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 Proposed Project would not be required to install and maintain any roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities to protect the Project and the
immediate area from a wildfire because the Project is not located in or near a Moderate, High, or
Very High fire hazard zone. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
Question 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. As discussed in XX “A” above, the Project is not located in or near a Moderate, High,
or Very High fire hazard zone. As also discussed in XIX “B” above, the Project Site and
surrounding properties are generally flat with no significant topographic relief that would expose
structures or Project occupants to significant risks due to downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides. Because the Project is not located in a fire hazard zone or downstream of any hillsides
of areas of topographic relief, the Project would not expose either Project residents or proposed
structures to significant risks due to downstream or downstream flooding or landslides due to
post-fire slope instabilities. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-88 Environmental Evaluation
Mitigation Program
No mitigation is required.
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Question 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. There are no sensitive biological resources,
habitats, or species on the Project Site that would be affected by the Proposed Project. Migratory
birds that may nest on the Project Site would be protected by compliance with RR 4-1. Impacts
on migratory birds would be less than significant.
Due to the location of the Project Site in a developed, urban area that has been subjected to
previous disturbance related to urban development, the potential for discovery of archaeological
resources, disturbances of human resources, or paleontological resources is low and
development of the Proposed Project is not expected to uncover any archaeological resources,
human resources, or paleontological. However, mitigation is incorporated into the Proposed
Project and outlines steps to take if archaeological resources (MM 5-1) or paleontological
resources (MM 6-3) are discovered during construction. In addition, a Native American monitor
would be retained to observe grading activities in native sediment and to recover and catalogue
tribal cultural resources as necessary (MM 18-1). Implementation of MM 5-1 (archaeological
resources), MM 6-3 (paleontological resources) and MM 18-1 (tribal cultural resources) would
reduce potential impacts to less than significant.
Question B: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects
of probable future projects)?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. As identified in the preceding analysis provided
in Section 5 of this IS/MND, all project-level impacts have been determined to be less than
significant or mitigated to a level considered less than significant. Specifically, the following
mitigation measures as previously identified throughout this document would apply to reduce the
Proposed Project’s impacts to less than significant levels: MM 5-1 previously identified in Section
V, Cultural Resources; MMs 6-1 through 6-3 previously identified in Section VII, Geology and
Soils; ; and MM 18-1 previously identified in Section XVIII, Tribal Cultural Resources. Thus, the
Proposed Project’s impacts would be limited and its contribution to cumulative impacts would not
be cumulatively considerable.
Question 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. Based on the preceding analysis provided in
Section 5.0, Environmental Evaluation, of this IS/MND, implementation of the Proposed Project,
as described in Section 3.0, Project Description, with adherence to applicable regulatory
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-89 Environmental Evaluation
requirements, the Project would have no impact or less than significant impacts for the following
environmental issue areas: aesthetics; agriculture and forestry resources; air quality; biological
resources; energy; greenhouse gas emissions; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and
water quality; land use and planning; mineral resources; population and housing; public services;
noise; recreation; transportation/traffic; utilities and service systems; and wildfire.
The Proposed Project’s impacts on the following issue areas would be less than significant with
the implementation of project-specific mitigation measures: cultural resources; geology and soils;
and tribal cultural resources. All impacts would be less than significant after mitigation.
Thus, the Proposed Project would not result in environmental effects which would cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation
of mitigation measures. All impacts would be less than significant after mitigation.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 5-90 Environmental Evaluation
This page intentionally left blank
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 6-1 Preparers
SECTION 6.0 PREPARERS
City of Anaheim, Planning and Building Department
Principal Planner ........................................................................................... Heather Allen
Contract Planner ..................................................................................... Thomas Gorham
Associate Transportation Planner ............................................................... David Kennedy
Psomas (Environmental Document Preparation)
Senior Project Manager .............................................................................. Jennifer Marks
Assistant Project Manager ............................................................................ Megan Larum
Environmental Planner ........................................................................ Jordan Werkmeister
Air Quality/Noise/Greenhouse Gas Analysis .................................................... Tin Cheung
GIS/Graphics .................................................................................................... Mike Deseo
Technical Editor ........................................................................................ Danaé Overman
Word Processor ............................................................................................. Sheryl Kristal
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 6-2 Preparers
This page is intentionally left blank
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 7-1 References
SECTION 7.0 REFERENCES
Anaheim, City of. 2022 (May 11, date accessed). About Anaheim Public Library. Anaheim, CA:
https://www.anaheim.net/1222/About.
———. 2020. Urban Water Management Plan. Anaheim, CA:
https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/37199/Anaheim-2020-UWMP?bidId=.
———. 2004a (May). City of Anaheim General Plan. Anaheim, CA: the City.
———. 2004b (May). Final Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update – EIR No. 330.
Anaheim, CA: the City.
ABI Engineering Consultants, Inc. 2020a (February 4). Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Report of Proposed 4-Story Hotel and Food Court at 125 East Ball Road, Anaheim, CA.
Santa Ana, CA ABI Consultants, Inc.
———. 2020b (April 2). Responses to Comments Made by CEM Laboratory Corporation on
Behalf of City of Anaheim Building and Safety Division, Dated February 18, 2020, La
Quinta Inn Hotel, 125 East Ball Road, Anaheim, California. ABI Project No. 20108. Santa
Ana, CA: ABI Consultants, Inc.
Anaheim Public Utilities (APUD). 2023 (March 30, date accessed). Integrated Resource Plan.
Anaheim, CA: https://www.anaheim.net/4864/Integrated-Resource-Plan.
———. 2022 (June 21). Personal Communication. Email correspondence from A. Uk (City of
Anaheim) and M. Larum (Psomas).
———.. 2021 (January 7). Personal Communication. Email correspondence between N. Nguyen
(City of Anaheim) and A. Uk (City of Anaheim).
———. 2020 (May). Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. Anaheim, CA: APU.
https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/7987/Greenhouse-Gas-Reduction-
Plan?bidId=.
AT&T. 2022. AT&T Coverage Viewer. San Antonio, TX: AT&T.
https://www.att.com/maps/wireless-coverage.html.
Berger, M. 2021. (January 6). Personal Communication. Email correspondence between M.
Berger (Anaheim Police Department) and A. Uk (City of Anaheim).
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2023. California Emission
Estimator Model (CalEEMod)TM Version 2022.1.1.6, Developed by ICF in collaboration
with the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. Sacramento, CA:
CAPCOA.
———. 2010 (August). Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local
Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures.
Sacramento, CA: CAPCOA. http://www.capcoa.org/wp-
content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2023 (March 30, las accessed). EMFAC2017 Web
Database Web (v1.0.0). Sacramento, Ca: https://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/2017/.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 7-2 References
———. 2022. (March, last accessed). Top 4 Summary: Anaheim—Pampas Lane Monitoring
Station. Sacramento, CA: CARB.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfourdisplay.php.
———. 2017. AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan. California's 2017 Climate Change Scoping
Plan. Sacramento, CA: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-
scoping-plan.
———. 2016 (May 4). Ambient Air Quality Standards. Sacramento, CA: CARB.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/aaqs2.pdf.
———. 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. Sacramento, CA: CARB
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_updat
e_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf.
California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). 2022. 2022 California Green Building
Standards Code: California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. Washington, DC:
https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAGBC2022P1/copyright.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection. 2016. Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) Farmland Map: Orange County, California.
Sacramento, CA: FMMP.
California Department of Forestry And Fire Protection. 2023 (May 23, last accessed). Fire Hazard
Severity Zone (FHSZ) Mapper. Sacramento, CA: CALFIRE.
https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2013 (April 28, date
accessed). Estimated Solid Waste Generation and Disposal Rates. Sacramento, CA:
CalRecycle. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates.
Sacramento, CA: CalRecycle.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2022 (April 27, date accessed). California
Scenic Highway Mapping System. Sacramento, CA: Caltrans.
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-
livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways.
———. 2013a (September) Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual.
Sacramento, CA: Caltrans. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TCVGM_
Sep13_FINAL.pdf
———.2013b (September) Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol.
Sacramento, CA: Caltrans.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TeNS_Sept_2013A.pdf.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2021a. Senate Bill 350. Sacramento, CA: CEC.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/rules-and-regulations/energy-suppliers-reporting/clean-
energy-and-pollution-reduction-act-sb-350
———. 2021b. Senate Bill 100. Sacramento, CA: CEC. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sb100
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 7-3 References
———. 2021c. Building Energy Efficiency Standards – Title 24. Sacramento, CA: CEC.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-
standards
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2023 (May 23, last accessed). Cortese
List Data Resources. Sacramento, CA: CalEPA.
https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2023 (May 23, date
accessed). Capacity Planning. Sacramento, CA:
https://calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/slcp/capacityplanning/.
Capstone Engineering, Inc. 2022a (September 21, revised). Preliminary Drainage Study for La
Quinta Inns and Suites, 125 East Ball Road in the City of Anaheim. Bakersfield, CA:
Capstone.
———. 2022b (September 21, 5th Submittal). Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP), La Quinta Inns & Suites, 125 East Ball Road, APN: 234-161-4, 26. Bakersfield,
CA: Capstone.
California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA). 2009 (December 30). CEQA Guidelines.
http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/.California Office of the Governor. 2009. Executive
Order S-3-05. Sacramento, CA: the State. http://gov.ca.gov/executive-order/1861/.
EDR. 2022 (April 26). EDR Radius Map™ Report with GeoCheck® for the La Quinta Hotel &
Suites, 125 East Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92805, Inquiry Number: 6955692.2s. Shelton,
CT: EDR.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018 (September). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment Manual. Washington, D.C.; FTA.
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-
innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-
0123_0.pdf.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009 (December 3). Flood Map Number
06059C0133J.
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=125%20East%20Ball%20Road%2C
%20Anaheim%2C%20CA#searchresultsanchor.
Halligan, A. 2022. (May 12). Personal Communication. Email correspondence between A.
Halligan (OC Waste & Recycling) and M. Larum (Psomas).
Iteris, Inc. 2022a. City of Anaheim 125 East Ball Road Hotel Traffic Impact Study. Santa Ana, CA.
———. 2022b. VMT Screening Analysis for Project at 125 East Ball Road (2022 Update). Santa
Ana, CA: Iteris. Santa Ana, CA.
Lazarus, H. 1986. “Prediction of verbal communication in noise – a review: Part 1”, Applied
Acoustics, Volume 19, pp. 439-464.Natural History Museum of Los Angeles. 2022 (July
17). Re: Paleontological resources for Psomas Project 3ANA009405. Los Angeles, CA:
LACM.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 7-4 References
Center for Demographic Research. 2018. Orange County Projections 2018.
https://www.fullerton.edu/cdr/_resources/pdf/ocp/OCP2018TOC.pdf
Orange County Water District (OCWD). 2023 (May 24, date accessed). Groundwater
Management Plan, SGMA Alternative Plan, Santa Ana River Watermaster, & Imported
Water Recharge Report. Fountain Valley, CA: https://www.ocwd.com/what-we-
do/groundwater-management/groundwater-management-plan/.
———. 2015. Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update. Fountain Valley, CA:
https://www.ocwd.com/wp-
content/uploads/groundwatermanagementplan2015update_20150624.pdf.
Oskoui, J. 2010 (April 14). Personal communication. Email correspondence from J. Oskoui,
Director of Planning, Design and Construction (AUHSD) and A. Armanino (BonTerra
Consulting).
Parkmatic, 2023. Internet website.
https://www.parkmatic.com/faqs/#:~:text=The%20noise%20level%20of%20the,the%20s
ystem%20is%20virtually%20noiseless
Pidgen, K. 2010 (April 14). Personal communication. Email correspondence between K. Pidgen
(Facilities Technician ACSD) and A. Armanino (BonTerra Consulting).
Psomas. 2023. Energy calculations based on fuel consumption values provided within CalEEMod,
Offroad and EMFAC2017.
———. 2020 (July 22). Sewer Study – 125 E. Ball Road City Project Tracking No.: OTH2020-
01254. Santa Ana, CA: Psomas.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2022 (December). 2022 Air Quality
Management Plan. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2022-air-quality-management-
plan/final-2022-aqmp/final-2022-aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=10.
———. 2021 (March, last accessed). Historical Data by Year—2016-2018. Diamond Bar, CA:
SCAQMD. https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/historical-air-quality-data/historical-
data-by-year.
———. 2010 (September 28). Minutes for the GHG Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working
Group #15. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD.
———. 2009. Localized Significance Thresholds. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD.
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-
handbook/localized-significance-thresholds
———. 2008a (July, as revised). Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. Diamond
Bar, CA: South Coast AQMD. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-
quality-analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds
———. 2008b (December 5). PROPOSAL: Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for
Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. http://www.aqmd.
gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-
thresholds/ghgboardsynopsis.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 7-5 References
———. 2003a (August). White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative
Impacts from Air Pollution. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD.
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Environmental-Justice/cumulative-
impacts-working-group/cumulative-impacts-white-paper.pdf
———. 2003b. 2003 Air Quality Management Plan. https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-
quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/2003-aqmp
———. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD.
South Central Coastal Information Center. 2022 (July 6). Re: Records Search Results for the
Psomas Project 3ANA009405. Fullerton, CA: SCCIC.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. The 2016-2040 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy: A Plan for Mobility, Accessibility,
Sustainability, and a High Quality of Life. Los Angeles, CA: SCAG.
https://scag.ca.gov/post/2020-2045-rtpscs-connect-socal-transportation-conformity-
determination.
Southern California Gas Company (SCGC). 2022. Company Profile.
http://www.socalgas.com/about-us/company-info.shtml. San Diego, CA: Sempra Energy.
Spectrum. 2022 (April 28, date accessed). Spectrum Availability Map.
https://www.cabletv.com/spectrum/availability-map.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2023 (March 23, date accessed). Prado Dam.
https://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Missions/Asset-Management/Prado-Dam/.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2023 (February 28, current as of).
Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants (Green Book). Research Triangle Park, NC:
https://www.epa.gov/green-book.
———. 2022. (Accesses March 1). Criteria Air Pollutants. Sacramento, CA: USEPA.
https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants.
———. 2021 (March 12). Status of SIP Requirements for Designated Areas, California Areas by
Pollutant. Washington, DC:
https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/reports/ca_areabypoll.html.
———. 2009. Risk Assessment for Carcinogenic Effects. Washington, DC: USEPA.
https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-carcinogenic-effects
———. 1971 (December 31). Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building
Equipment, and Home Appliances. Washington, D.C.: USEPA.
USEPA and NHTSA. 2019. The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient ‘SAFE’ Vehicles Rule.
Washington, DC: https://www.nhtsa.gov/corporate-average-fuel-economy/safe.
Young, L. 2021 (April 8). Personal Communication. Email correspondence between L. Young
(Interim Fire Marshal, Anaheim Fire Department) and A. Uk (Associate Planner, City of
Anaheim).
Pacific Resort Plaza
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009405\Environmental Documentation\MND\Pacific_Resort_Plaza_MND-101023.docx 7-6 References
This page intentionally left blank