31 (3)
Susana Barrios
From:jordan@gideonlaw.net
Sent:Tuesday, February 27, 2024 4:09 PM
To:Public Comment; Thomas Gorham
Cc:'Christine Miller'
Subject:\[EXTERNAL\] Item 31, CC Hearing 2/27/24: Pacific Resort Plaza Hotel Project
Attachments:2024.02.27_CCComments_Pacific Plaza Hotel_Exh attached.pdf
You don't often get email from jordan@gideonlaw.net. Learn why this is important
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Dear Hon. Mayor and Anaheim City Council:
On behalf of UNITE HERE Local 11 and four Anaheim residents Harold Roberto Honma, Belinda Ann Honma,
Antonio Rogel, and Silvia Gonzalez (collectively “Commenters”), please see attached comment letter, including
expert comments attached thereto. We apologize for the delay but these are in response to the Staff Report released
just Friday.
In short, Local 11 submitted comments back in November 2023 highlighting ?laws in the project’s MND. The Staff
Report includes a response to comments, which are unfortunately inadequate and fails to even address Local 11’s
prior comments or even expert comments submitted by other commenters. Here, the record includes multiple
comment letters, including several expert comment letters, that establish substantial evidence that the Project may
have signi?icant environmental impacts requiring further analysis and mitigation.
Commenters respectfully ask that the City not grant the project approvals until a CEQA-compliant MND is
recirculated that includes a phase 1 study (as recommended by experts), additional air quality and noise mitigation
(such as those recommended by experts), as well as mitigation that maximizes solar on all structures proposed for
the Project, and a robust, hotel-speci?ic TDM program and food/waste recycling program.
Thank you for consideration of these comments, which will be provided in hardcopy at the hearing.
Very truly yours,
Jordan R. Sisson, A?orney
Law Office of Gideon Kracov
801 S. Grand Ave., 11th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Office: 951-405-8127
Direct: 951-542-2735
jordan@gideonlaw.net
www.gideonlaw.net
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message contains informa?on from the Law Office of Gideon Kracov and is a?orney
work product confiden?al or privileged. The informa?on is intended solely for the use of the individual(s)or en?ty(ies) named
above. If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy the original transmission and its a?achments without reading
or saving in any manner.
1
February 27, 2024
VIA EMAIL & HAND DELIVERY:
Anaheim City Council, City of Anaheim (publiccomment@anaheim.net)
c/o Thomas Gorham, Contract Planner (tgorham@anaheim.net)
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, CA 92805
RE: Item No. 31 City Council Hearing (2/27/24);
Pacific Resort Plaza (125 E. Ball Road); Project No. DEV2019-00161
Dear Mayor Aitken and Honorable City Councilmembers:
On behalf of UNITE HERE Local 11 (“Local 11”) and Anaheim residents Harold Roberto
Honma, Belinda Ann Honma, Antonio Rogel, and Silvia Gonzalez (collectively “Commenters”), this
office respectfully provides the following comments1 to the City of Anaheim (“City”) regarding the
proposed demolition of an existing two-story commercial building and construction of a 5-story,
120-room hotel and a 1,200 square foot (“sf”) drive-through Starbucks restaurant with two 4-story
“Puzzle Lift” enclosed parking structures (3 stories above ground, 1 below) (“Project”) located on
a 1.57-acre site at the above-referenced address (APN Nos. 234-161-04 & 234-161-26) (“Site”).
These comments supplement our prior comment letter dated December 4, 2023, and are in
response to the recently released staff report dated February 27, 2024 (“Staff Report”).2 There,
Local 11 raised concerns with the Project’s compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (“CEQA”)3 due to flaws in the Project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”)4 analysis and
mitigation of construction-related impacts related to air quality, noise, and the potential for
exposure to hazardous materials due the Site’s prior uses. (See Staff Report, Att-5, PDF pp. 60-43.)
So too, concerns were raised about the Project’s lack of a firm commitment to installing solar
panels, including a robust ridesharing program and other Traffic Demand Management (“TDM”)
strategies, and a hotel-specific recycling/food-waste program. (Id.) Unfortunately, the MND’s
response to comments does not adequately address these concerns for all the reasons explained
below, including the expert noise report attached hereto as “Exhibit A.”
Here, the MND is subject to the less deferential “fair argument” standard, which requires the
preparation of a more comprehensive EIR whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a
fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. (See e.g., Laurel
Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v.
City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75; Pub. Res. Code §§ 21100, 21151.) Under this standard,
an MND may be used only where there is “clearly no significant effect on the environment would
1 Herein, page citations are either the stated pagination (i.e., “p. #”) or PDF-page location (i.e., “PDF p. #”).
2 Inclusive of Attachments (“ATT-#”) 1 through 11, all retrieved from City-controlled website. (See
https://local.anaheim.net/docs_agend/questys_pub/40660/40690/40693/40756/Documents.htm.)
3 Including “CEQA Guidelines” codified at 14 Cal. Code. Regs. § 15000 et seq.
4 Inclusive of all associated appendices (“APP-##”) retrieved from the City-controlled website. (See
https://www.anaheim.net/876/Environmental-Documents; see also Staff Report, ATT-4 & 4A.)
CC Comments RE: Pacific Resort Plaza Project
February 27, 2024
Page 2 of 5
occur, and [] there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency
that the project, as revised, may have a significant impact on the environment.” (Pub. Res. Code §
21064.5 [emphasis added]; see also CEQA Guidelines §§ 15070(b), 15369.5.)
Here, the record includes multiple comment letters, including several expert comment
letters, that establish substantial evidence that the Project may have significant environmental
impacts requiring further analysis and mitigation—particularly as it relates to air quality, hazards,
and noise. So too, more can be done to avoid wasteful use of energy, lessen traffic impacts, and
reduce plastic/food waste from the hotel operations—all important to Commenters. Collectively,
these errors may conceal potentially significant Project impacts and thus fail to identify additional
mitigation measures that should be incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program
(“MMRP”).
Local 11 has a significant interest in the Project. It represents more than 25,000 workers
employed in hotels, restaurants, airports, sports arenas, and convention centers throughout
Southern California and Phoenix. In particular, Local 11 has thousands of members who live and/or
work in Anaheim. The individual commenters—Anaheim residents Mr. and Ms. Honma (who are
brother and sister), Mr. Rogel, and Ms. Gonzalez, all live within approximately one-half mile of the
Project Site and have an interest in ensuring that the air quality and noise impacts, as well as the
potential for hazardous material exposure, are adequately addressed.
For these reasons and those discussed elsewhere in Local 11’s comments and the record
(incorporated herein), Commenters respectfully ask the City to stay action on the MND and various
land use entitlements (i.e., Rezone and two Conditional Use Permits) (collectively “Project
Approvals”) until their concerns are addressed in a compliant and recirculated CEQA review that
incorporates additional mitigation to the Project (via a revised MMRP). The remainder of this
document responds to the MND’s response to comments (“RTC”), located in the Staff Report,
Attachment 5 (“ATT-5”).
1. Response to Comments 5.5 & 5.7 (Air Quality & Sensitive Receptor Distances)
Local 11 previously raised concerns with the MND’s application of the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) localized significance threshold (“LST”) methodology,
primarily using more permissive thresholds based on the assumption residents are 130 feet away
from the Project Site rather than roughly 75 feet (i.e., distance from Project Site Boundary to
residential property boundary). (See ATT-5, PDF pp. 44-47.) In response, the MND repeats its
process of assuming residential uses are 130 feet away based on the building location. (Id., at PDF
pp. 61-62.) The property to the north is clearly zoned multi-family residential and includes a patio
and other outside areas where residents and children can occupy up to its property boundary 75
feet away from the Project Site, as demonstrated in the attached Noise Report. (See Exhibit A, p. 1).
Furthermore, there is no explanation for why the MND breaks from the City’s seemingly established
practice of utilizing LST thresholds based on the distance between a project site and sensitive uses’
property boundary.5 This is substantial evidence that the appropriate distance to apply is roughly
5 See e.g., KB Home Lincoln & Sunkist Townhomes Project (Nov. 2022) Checklist, PDF p. 42 (referencing
“residential uses with property lines located adjacent to the south and approximately 100 feet (~30
meters)”); https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/47028/Infill-Streamlining-Checklist-DEV2021-
00180?bidId=; Pepperwood Place Project (Nov. 2021) Class 32 Exemption, PDF pp. 11, 62 (using minimal 25
CC Comments RE: Pacific Resort Plaza Project
February 27, 2024
Page 3 of 5
75 feet, which warrants the use of a lower LST threshold of 25 meters (~80), consistent with
SCAQMD’s LST methodology and the City’s past practices, which this Project would exceed.
2. Response to Comments 5.6 (Air Quality Reporting)
Local 11 previously raised concerns about the MND’s failure to report emissions in the
hundredth of foot pounds (i.e., decimals) and during each phase, particularly given the MND-
reported emissions near the particulate matter thresholds. (See ATT-5, PDF pp. 45-46.) In response,
the MND says this is irrelevant because the Project’s emissions were not close to the threshold. (See
ATT-5, PDF p. 61.) However, as discussed above, this response is based on the improper use of
more permissive LST thresholds.
3. Response to Comments 5.8 - 5.10 (Air Quality and Construction Timeline)
Local 11 previously raised concerns about the MND’s delayed construction timeline, the
assumption that there would be no major concurrent construction (i.e., Phase 1 followed by Phase
2), including no construction during summer months, and seemingly inaccurate CalEEMod
modeling. (See ATT-5, PDF p. 47-49.) In response, the MND acknowledges the inaccurate timeline
estimates in the air modeling but suggests delay would result in the use of cleaner engines, and any
inaccuracy is insignificant given the Project’s emissions are less than half of the SCAQMD’s
significance thresholds. (Id., at PDF pp. 62-63.) However, this response relies on an inappropriate,
more permissive threshold (discussed supra) and fails to consider that delay may cause the Project
to have major concurrent phased development (i.e., Phase 1 and Phase 2), which would exacerbate
maximum construction emissions.
4. Response to Comments 5.12 (Air Quality and Overlapping Construction)
Local 11 previously raised concerns about the potential for overlapping construction of a
recently approved 249-unit multi‐family structure with a 5,500-sf restaurant development located
across the street from the Project Site. (See ATT-5, PDF pp. 50-51.) In response, the MND claims the
Project’s cumulative impacts “would not be cumulatively considerable[,]” and the property across
the street “is not currently proposed for development, and therefore would not result in
overlapping construction impacts related to the Proposed Project.” (Id., at p. 63.) However, there is
no factual basis for these conclusory claims, which do not constitute substantial evidence under
CEQA. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15384 [“speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence
which is clearly erroneous or inaccurate” is not substantial evidence].)
5. Response to Comments 3.7, 3.8 & 3.10 (Other Expert Air Quality Concerns)
Other commenters (independent of Local 11) also raised concerns about the MND’s air
quality impacts analysis, including its failure to include a health risk assessment, the use of
improper modeling data (e.g., construction length, off-road equipment, construction trips,
architectural coating emission factors, etc.). (See ATT-5, PDF pp. 14-15.) While these comments
explicitly referenced expert letters from environmental consultants (i.e., SWAPE) (id.; see also PDF
p. 77-99 [SWAPE letter dated November 22, 2023]), the MND fails to provide any response to the
SWAPE comments. Instead, the MND claims that it properly relied on the 130-foot distance and
meters for “residential uses adjacent to the site”), https://anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/41139/
DEV2019-00139-Pepperwood-Place-Class-32-Exemption;
CC Comments RE: Pacific Resort Plaza Project
February 27, 2024
Page 4 of 5
relied on the construction assumptions provided by the applicant. (Id., at PDF pp. 19-20.) As
discussed above, substantial evidence demonstrates that the appropriate distance is closer, and the
MND admits that modeling data is inaccurate in some cases (e.g., construction timeline,
underestimated cy of export material). (Id., at p. 63.)
6. Response to Comments 5.14-5.17 (Hazards Material)
Local 11 previously commented that the MND’s analysis of hazardous substances was
limited to a computerized review of regulatory databases, which identified seven sites within the
1.57-acre Site that potentially released hazardous material and, thus, warranted further review
(such as a phase 1). (See ATT-5, PDF pp. 52-57 [comments 5.14 - 5.17].) In response, the MND
referred to the response to comments 3.11 (id., at PDF p. 64), which included similar concerns from
another commenter (independent of Commenters) calling for the need for a phase 1 study—which
explicitly referenced environmental experts’ SWAPE comments. (Id. at p. 17, 77-78.) Again, the
MND failed to respond to the expert comment letter, and concludes 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 [S]ite” merely because the Site is not on the Cortese List. (Id.,
at PDF p. 21.) Notwithstanding not being on the Cortese list, there is substantial evidence of
hazardous material at the site due to multiple prior uses, which may constitute an unusual
circumstance. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(c).)
7. Response to Comments 5.18 (Solar Panels)
Local 11 previously commented that the MND failed to analyze whether solar panels—as
compared to just solar area—would be required for the Project. (See ATT-5, PDF p. 57.) In
response, the MND referred to the response to comments 3.12 (id., at PDF p. 64), which echoed
similar concerns (id., at p. 18). In response, the MND claims solar panels will be provided on the
hotel rooftop. (Id., at p. 21.) However, there is no condition of approval making this mandatory and
enforceable. CEQA bars reliance on illusory, unenforceable conditions as mitigation. (See CEQA
Guidelines §§ 15126.4(a)(2), 15097; see also Lincoln Place Tenants Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles
(2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1508 [“Mitigating conditions are not mere expressions of hope.”].)
Furthermore, there is no explanation for why solar panels are not considered for the roof of the
Puzzle Lifts.
8. Response to Comments 5.19 (Construction Noise)
Local 11 previously commented that the MND lacked an adequate noise study, including the
lack of details about the ambient noise measurements, specific construction equipment, and the
potential of extensive noise during the excavation of the Puzzle Lifts near nearby residential uses.
(See ATT-5, PDF p. 58.) In response, the MND merely reiterates the methodology used in the MND.
(Id., at p. 64.) However, as discussed in the expert noise report (attached hereto as “Exhibit A”), this
response is inadequate. As explained therein, the MND failed to consider other applicable
thresholds and assumed only minimum equipment (i.e., single bulldozer) and not simultaneous use
of all pertinent heavy construction equipment. As shown in the expert report, just the use of three
pieces of equipment could cause noise impacts to nearby residents that exceed applicable
thresholds. This is substantial evidence of potential noise impacts that warrant further mitigation,
such as those proposed in the noise expert’s attachment (e.g., avoiding simultaneous construction
equipment, adjusting staging areas, using sound control curtains, etc.)
CC Comments RE: Pacific Resort Plaza Project
February 27, 2024
Page 5 of 5
9. Response to Comments 5.20 (Vanpool and TDM Measures)
Local 11 previously commented that the Project’s proposed “rideshare and vanpooling
opportunities for employees and patrons” should be clarified with performance measures in a
hotel-specific mandatory commuter reduction (e.g., specific VMT or average daily trip reduction,
100 % employees participation level) and including specific elements (e.g., participate in guarantee
ride programs; preferential parking spaces or hotel valet service as inventive for employee
carpool/vanpool, subsidized transit passes for hotel workers and hotel patrons, dedicated shuttle
service for hotel patrons toward nearby destinations). (See ATT-5, PDF pp. 58-59.) In response, the
MND references compliance with the City’s TDM ordinance (Anaheim Municipal Code [“AMC]” §
14.60 et seq.) (id., at p. 64), which unfortunately fails to identify any meaningful performance
standard or element of a TDM program for this project.
10. Response to Comments 5.21 (Food/Plastic Waste Reduction)
Local 11 previously commented that the Project should include a hotel-specific food/plastic
waste program to address the unique waste streams applicable to the operation of hotel projects.
(See ATT-5, PDF p. 59.) In response, the MND references compliance with the City’s local waste and
recyclable laws (AMC § 10.10 et seq.). However, hotels are lumped into the generic requirements
for “commercial businesses” and considered a “tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generator” if they
exceed 200 or more rooms (inapplicable here). (See e.g., AMC 10.10.010 subds. .090 & .850.) The
City’s generic waste laws do not address the unique waste streams at issue with hotels, which can
be addressed with a hotel-specific recycling program, such as the one proposed in Local 11’s initial
comment letter.
In conclusion, there is substantial evidence—including multiple expert comment letters—
establishing a fair argument of significant air quality impacts that must be addressed in a revised
CEQA-compliant review. Local 11 has a substantial interest in this project, with thousands of
members who live or work in Anaheim, as do all four Anaheim residents Mr. and Ms. Honma, Mr.
Rogel, and Ms. Gonzalez, who all live within approximately one-half mile of the Project Site.
Commenters respectfully ask that the City not grant the Project Approvals until a CEQA-
compliant MND is recirculated that includes a phase 1 study (as recommended by experts),
additional air quality and noise mitigation (such as those recommended by experts), as well as
mitigation that maximizes solar on all structures proposed for the Project, and a robust, hotel-
specific TDM program and food/waste recycling program.
Thank you for consideration of these comments. We ask that this letter is placed in the
administrative record for the Project.
Sincerely,
_________________________________________
Jordan R. Sisson
Attorney for Local 11
ATTACHMENT: Exhibit A: Noise Expert Letter (2/26/24)
EXHIBIT A
Dale La Forest & Associates
Design, Planning & Environmental Consulting
101 E. Alma Street, Suite 100-A; Mt. Shasta, CA 96067
Phone: (530) 918-8625 E -Mail: dlaforest@gmail.com
Jordan R. Sisson, Attorney jordan@gideonlaw.net
801 South Grand Avenue, 11th Floor www.gideonlaw.net
Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (951) 405-8127
Report of Potential Noise Impacts in Mitigated Negative Declaration for
Pacific Resort Plaza Development Project at 125 Ball Road, Anaheim, CA (DEV 2019-00161)
Dear Mr. Sisson: February 26, 2024
At your request, I have prepared this report to identify serious noise impacts of the Pacific Resort Plaza
Development Project (“Project”) and the use of an Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for
it. My qualifications are attached hereto as “Attachment 2”. This report is based on my training and experience
and on the analysis of the materials I have reviewed in this matter. This report responds also to the City of
Anaheim’s misleading and inaccurate responses to public comments.
The Project’s IS/MND is inadequate because it fails to include 24-hour noise level measurements, fails to
compare the construction noise levels to the City’s noise standards, and fails to describe the noise level increases
that neighboring land uses will be exposed to. The IS/MND underestimates how loud construction equipment
noise will be. It fails to analyze and mitigate the significant noise impact that construction work will have on
neighboring residential, office and school uses. The IS/MND underestimates construction noise by inaccurately
assuming homes’ property lines are 80 feet from the construction work. But the nearest property lines for some
homes are within 75 feet of the proposed parking garage, and within about 70 feet of excavated parking garage
basement pits where noisy construction work will occur.1 At these shorter distances, construction noise will create
louder and more significant impacts.
Figure 1 – Illustration of Existing Residences Near Proposed Project Hotel
INADEQUATE RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
The City’s responses to comments about the Project’s noise impacts do not comply with CEQA’s requirement
that the City provide good faith, reasoned analysis in response, supported by factual information. The City
provided no response to the comment challenging the IS/MND’s failure to describe the exact locations where
1 Per Architect’s Sheet A101, Overall Proposed Site Plan, t parking structure would be about 75 feet from a tondo-inium’s
property line to the north. But the lower level of the puzzle-lift parking structure includes an underground “maintenance
access aisle” that would need additional excavation for its concrete pit that might be up to five feet closer to these
condominiums at about 70 feet of the condominiums’ nearest property line. See also Sheet A503, Detail - Puzzle Lifts.
Page 1
noise measurements were taken, and gave no response to the question about what construction equipment would
be used excavating and constructing the Puzzle Lift parking garage near homes. Nor did the City respond to
correct the IS/MND’s error that assumes construction work would be at the closest 80 feet from residential
property. No response was given to the request for all feasible noise mitigation to protect these residents. Instead
the response discusses irrelevant noise standards from the Federal Transit Administration while totally ignoring
that the City itself has stricter, applicable noise standards in the General Plan that were not used in the IS/MND.
THE IS/MND CONTAINS A SERIOUSLY INADEQUATE NOISE STUDY
The IS/MND’s noise study section is inadequate because it omits any analysis of the ambient noise levels and the
Project’s noise levels over a full day’s 24-hour period. The General Plan limits project noise levels based upon the
day-night weighted average noise level measured with the CNEL or Ldn descriptor. No data or analysis in the
IS/MND evaluates the Project neighborhood’s 24-hour averaged ambient noise level or the 12-hour noise levels
the Project would contribute. The IS/MND’s short 20-minute ambient noise level measurements do not reveal the
noise levels at other times of the day or night. Therefore, there is no evidence that Project noise levels, when
cumulatively averaged with existing noise levels, will comply with the General Plan’s 24-hour CNEL averaged
noise standards. Instead, the IS/MND and the Staff Report erroneously assume that the only applicable noise
standard is an 80 dBA Leq-8hr limit representing an eight-hour averaged noise level. The IS/MND ignores the
General Plan’s other noise standards.
Contrary to the IS/MND, construction noise is not exempt from the General Plan’s noise standards. The Noise
Element on page N-5 sets a noise standard of 65 dBA Ldn for housing.2 If construction noise levels exceed 70 dBA
Ldn at the property line of multi-family homes, that noise level is deemed to be normally unacceptable and
requires additional protections not mentioned in the IS/MND. (See Noise Element, p. N-7, Fig. N-2, Land Use
Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure (Exterior).)
THE IS/MND UNDERESTIMATES CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS
The IS/MND estimates that construction noise levels during excavation work will be a maximum of 75 dBA Leq at
an 80-foot distance.3 But those noise levels might be 10 dBA greater than that. The IS/MND’s calculation is
erroneously based on only the minimum equipment use (i.e. a single bulldozer), not the simultaneous use of all
pertinent heavy construction equipment.4 As shown by the U.S. EPA, during excavation work with multiple
equipment usage, a noise level of 89 dBA Leq is typically predicted at a 50-foot distance.6 At a distance of 80 feet,
such construction noise levels would diminish to 85 dBA Leq, which is 10 dB louder than the IS/MND calculated.
Heavy equipment excavation operations for the parking garage basement level might be located as close as 70 feet
to the nearest residences’ property lines. The activity areas of these homes at their property line near where
children play just 70 feet away from the Project site could be exposed to those construction noise levels of about
86.1 dBA Leq.7 With these homes’ existing 6-foot high concrete block wall on the property line, such
construction noise at ground level could be attenuated by approximately 6 dBA,8 resulting in a construction noise
level at the property line of about 80.1 dBA Leq. That noise level would exceed the assumed threshold of
significance of 80 dBA Leq used in the IS/MND and the predicted noise level of 75 dBA Leq there. It would greatly
exceed the City’s Noise Ordinance threshold of 60 dBA Leq at a residential property line.
2 This 65 dBA CNEL noise standard is also identified in the Noise Element’s Table N-3 on page N-9.
3 See IS/MND, p. 5-67, Table 18, Noise Exposure Levels for the Nearest Noise Sensitive Uses, Ground Clearing: 75 dBA Leq
4 See IS/MND’s Appendix H, Noise Calculations, PDF p. 28, “ Minimum required equipment in use”
6 See US EPA, Legal Compilation on Noise, Jan. 1973, Vol. 1, (PDF p. 246), p. 2-104, Table 2-15 (Noise levels at
Construction Sites). This is available online : https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/2001517N.PDF?Dockey=2001517N.PDF
7 Noise level attenuation due to distance is calculated as reduced by about 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a point
source. One can calculate a dB level at different distances when there is a known dB level for a known distance by the
following equation: dB2 = dB1 – 10 x A x LOG(d2/d1) where in this case, at a location 70' (d2) from the construction
equipment at residential properties, where dB1 = 89 dBA at 50' (d1), then:
dB2 = dB1 – 10 x A x LOG(d2/d1) = 89 – 10 x 2.0 x LOG(70’/50') = 89 - 20 x (0.146) = 86.1 dBA Leq.
8 See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s 2009 The Noise Guidebook, p. 28, Table 2: 6 foot high barrier,
30 dB transmission loss assumed for a hollow core cinder block wall: 6.0 dB attenuation; this guidebook is available online at
https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_16417.PDF
DL&A Noise Report re: IS/MND for Pacific Resort Plaza Project, 125 Ball Road, Anaheim, CA – Feb. 26, 2024 Page 2
THE IS/MND ITSELF DOCUMENTS A SIGNIFICANT CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACT
The calculations in the IS/MND, when applied to the General Plan’s actual noise standards, are evidence that this
Project’s construction noise levels will exceed the City’s standards. Even the IS/MND’s use of a relaxed noise
standard of 80 dBA Leq-8 hr. for 8 hours would permit excessive construction noise levels near homes. If
construction noise is as loud as 75 dBA Leq at 80 feet as the IS/MND predicts at a neighboring home’s property
from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., and is silent for the remaining 12 hours of a day, its day-night weighted average noise level
there would calculate to about 72 dBA CNEL. That construction noise level would create a significant noise
impact because the General Plan permits exterior noise levels at the property line of homes to be at most 65 dBA
CNEL because noise reduction measures were not analyzed and included for this Project.9 The actual
construction noise levels predicted with more reasonable assumptions would be much louder and more disturbing
to neighbors.
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION NEAR HOMES CAN CAUSE SIGNIFICANT NOISE IMPACTS.
Heavy construction equipment like a backhoe, bulldozer and haul trucks will be used to excavate the basement
parking level of the proposed puzzle-lift parking structure as close as about 75 feet from the neighboring
residential property line to the north. Excavating that basement pit in order to construct an underground
“maintenance access aisle” may result in excavation being done as close as 70 feet to that property line. During
this construction work, as calculated below, some of these homes’ yards could be exposed to short-term noise
levels of over 82 dBA Leq, a noise level representing an increase of 29 dB above ambient noise levels of
approximately 53 dBA Leq (per the IS/MND, p. 5-61). That much of short-term noise level increase during
construction would constitute a significant noise impact.
At 50 feet, graders and backhoes have been measured at 85 dBA Leq and dozers at 80 dBA Leq.10 But at 70 feet
away from the excavation area at the property line of the nearest homes, their individual noise levels will be about
6 dB lower.11 For this equipment, that noise level is about 82.1 or 77.1 dBA Leq respectively. During construction
of this hotel parking lot, the closest of these homes could be exposed to combined noise levels from multiple
pieces of heavy equipment when all are operating simultaneously of as much as 85.7 dBA Leq.12 These equipment
noise levels are described being added:
EQUIPMENT AVERAGE NOISE
Dozer 77.1 dBA Leq
Grader 82.1 dBA Leq
Backhoe 82.1 dBA L eq
TOTAL: 85.7 dBA Leq at 70 feet
(noise levels logarithmically added for total)
Construction noise levels at the nearest residential property line could exceed the General Plan Noise Element’s
maximum 75 dBA CNEL noise standard. If the above multiple equipment were operated at the same time,
emitting 85.7 dBA Ldn at 70 feet for just half (50%) of the 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. work day, their 24-hour average noise
9 See Noise Element, Table N-3 on page N-9, multi-family residential use: 65 dBA CNEL. Also see Table N-2 on page N-6,
multi-family residential use: 65 dBA CNEL maximum normally acceptable without detailed analysis of noise reduction
features and inclusion of such features.
10 Source: County of Ventura; See Table 2 [Typical Construction Equipment Noise] which is available online at:
https://docs.vcrma.org/images/pdf/planning/ceqa/Construction_Noise_Thresholds.pdf
11 Noise level attenuation due to distance is calculated as reduced by about 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a point
source. One can calculate a dB level at different distances when there is a known dB level for a known distance by the
following equation: dIn this case, at a location 70 feet (d2) from construction, where dB1 = 85 dBA at 50 feet (d1), then
dB2 = dB1– 10 x A x LOG(d2/d1) = 85 – 10 x 2.0 x LOG(70'/50') = 82.1 dBA at 70 feet
12 At 50 feet, graders and backhoes have been measured at 85 dBA Leq and dozers at 80 dBA Leq. (See Table 1 ) [Typical
Construction Equipment Noise] (at 50 feet distance); but using 2.9 dB less at a 70-foot distance:
Combined noise level = 10*LOG[10EXP(0.1*82.1) + 10EXP(0.1*82.1) + 10EXP(0.1*77.1)] = 85.7 dBA Leq
Source for summation calculation: California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement, 2009.
DL&A Noise Report re: IS/MND for Pacific Resort Plaza Project, 125 Ball Road, Anaheim, CA – Feb. 26, 2024 Page 3
level would be about 79.7 dBA CNEL which would exceed the City’s 75 dBA CNEL standard by nearly 5 dB.
Any exceedance above the City’s absolute maximum 75 dBA CNEL noise level represents a significant noise
impact.
NAIL GUNS USED DURING CONSTRUCTION WILL CAUSE SIGNIFICANT NOISE IMPACTS AT HOMES.
Construction noise from use of nail guns in wood-framed hotel construction would create a significant noise
impact at nearby residences. Such noise has an impulsive characteristic that can be emotionally harmful to
neighbors because it sounds like gun shots. For comparison, the City of Los Angeles penalizes nail guns’ noise by
adding 5 dBA to their predicted noise levels due to this anxiety-causing, impulsive character of the noise they
emit. The noise levels from nail guns are measured at as much as 88 dBA Lmax at 50 feet.13 At a nearby
condominium patio area about 120 feet away from the proposed hotel building, that maximum noise level during
use of a single nail gun would decrease to about 80.4 dBA Lmax.14 If a 5 dB correction factor was added, such nail
gun noise level would be analyzed as if it was 85.4 dBA Lmax at these patios. The City of Anaheim does not have a
maximum-allowed construction noise limit, so to evaluate the impact of nail gun use under CEQA’s standards,
one could reference the City of Los Angeles’ maximum construction noise standard of 75 dBA Lmax. Nail gun
noise levels of over 85 dBA Lmax at these nearby condominium patios would cause significant noise impacts.
BACKUP ALARM NOISE DURING CONSTRUCTION WILL SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT NEIGHBORS
The IS/MND fails to disclose that loud noise from heavy equipment backup warning beepers could disturb
residential and commercial neighbors near this Project site. Backup alarms or beepers are a frequent source of
complaints from neighbors. Backup alarms must generate a noise level at 5 to 10 dBA above the background
noise in the vicinity of the rear of equipment where a person would be warned by the alarm. Backup alarms
typically produce up to 112 decibels at four feet,14 which attenuates to about 82 dBA Lmax at 120 feet15 - the
distance to the nearest residential patios. The backup alarm noise impact at an adjacent commercial office at 105
E. Ball Road located only about 30 feet from the Project site could be even more annoying at up to 94 dBA Lmax.16
At those noise levels, backup alarm use would exceed the City’s maximum limit of 60 dBA Leq at property line (if
construction noise was not exempt) and a 75 dBA Lmax construction noise standard used by other California cities.
If a 5 dB penalty is included for the pure tone characteristic of backup alarms, the noise impact calculation would
be more significant yet. The IS/MND is inadequate for failing to analyze the noise impact of such backup alarms
during excavation work at least for the parking structure’s basement, parking lot and building grading activities.
CONSTRUCTION NOISE AT ADJACENT COMMERCIAL OFFICE WILL BE EXCESSIVE.
The IS/MND fails to evaluate the Project’s significant noise impact upon an existing commercial office adjacent
to the Project site. The Fiesta Auto Insurance and Tax Service, at 105 E. Ball Road, is located on property 30 feet
west of Project site. The IS/MND predicts construction noise levels of 88 dBA Leq there during demolition and
ground clearing work when minimum required equipment is used.17 However, when using the EPA’s data for “all
13 See L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide, 2006, PDF p. 316, (p. I.1:8), Exhibit I.1-1. Noise Level Ranges Of Typical
Construction Equipment, Pneumatic Impact Equipment: 83 – 88 dBA at 50 feet, available online at:
https://planning.lacity.org/eir/CrossroadsHwd/deir/files/references/A07.pdf
Also see: County of Ventura “Construction Noise Threshold Criteria,” page 4, Fig. 2, Pneumatic tool: 88 dBA Lmax at 50 feet;
available online at: https://docs.vcrma.org/images/pdf/planning/ceqa/Construction_Noise_Thresholds.pdf
14 See Figure 1 for that 120-foot distance location estimation. Calculation, where: dB1 = 88 dB(A) at 50 feet (d1) from the
nail gun’s use, then at a distance of 120 feet to the nearest home’s patio area (dB2):
dB2 = dB1– 10 x A x LOG(d2/d1) = 112 – 10 x 2.0 x LOG(120'/50') = 80.4 dBA Lmax.
14 Source of back-up alarm noise levels from alarm manufactured by Pollak, #41-761, "Manually adjustable Back-up Alarm,"
rated at 112, 107, 97 dB.
15 Noise level attenuation due to distance is calculated as reduced by about 6 dB for each doubling of distance. Calculation,
where: dB1 = 112 dB(A) at 4 feet (d1) from the backup alarm’s use, then at a distance of 120 feet to the patio:
dB2 = dB1– 10 x A x LOG(d2/d1) = 112 – 10 x 2.0 x LOG(120'/4') = 82.5 dBA Lmax.
16 Calculation, where: dB1 = 112 dB(A) at 4 feet (d1) from the backup alarm’s use, then at a distance of 30 feet to the office
at 105 E. Ball Road: dB2 = dB1– 10 x A x LOG(d2/d1) = 112 – 10 x 2.0 x LOG(30'/4') = 94 dBA Lmax.
17 See IS/MND, Attachment H, Noise Calculations, PDF p. 10, Construction Generated Noise, West Retail, Ground
Clearing/Demolition: 88 dBA Leq at 30 feet for “minimum required equipment in use.”
DL&A Noise Report re: IS/MND for Pacific Resort Plaza Project, 125 Ball Road, Anaheim, CA – Feb. 26, 2024 Page 4
pertinent heavy construction equipment” (i.e. multiple equipment18), that commercial property could be exposed
to about 93 dBA Leq of construction noise. If such noise continued for an entire work day from 7 a.m. – 7 p.m.,
with no Project noise during the remaining 12 hours of that day, the calculated day-night weighted average noise
level at that office property line would be about 90 dBA CNEL. That noise level would greatly exceed the
General Plan’s noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL at commercial uses by 25 dBA and would therefore constitute a
significant noise impact. If, instead, multiple construction equipment are assumed operating about 120 feet from
this office where a 2-story building will be demolished, the combined noise levels would total about 78 dBA Ldn.
That is still a significant noise impact because it would be 13 dB louder than the City’s 65 dBA Ldn standard. If
that construction noise occurred only during one half of a work day, its noise level would be about 75 dBA Ldn,
which is a noise level prohibited by the General Plan as “clearly unacceptable” for commercial use exposure. Yet
the IS/MND, p. 5-67, contradictorily states: “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.” (Emphasis added). The IS/MND’s failure to evaluate construction
noise at that nearby commercial business adjacent to the Project site is inconsistent with the General Plan. The
Noise Element, on page N-23, has Policy #1 to discourage construction noise exceeding stationary-source noise
standards at the property line of a commercial use.
Construction Noise Mitigations Are Available and Must be Considered.
CEQA requires that significant noise impacts as described above must be mitigated, but the IS/MND provides no
noise mitigations at all. In Attachment 1 are some possible construction noise mitigations intended to reduce the
Project’s construction noise impacts to the fullest extent feasible. The City should consider such construction
noise mitigations when it revises and recirculates its IS/MND for this Project to properly evaluate its noise
impacts.
Thank you for considering these public comments. If you have questions about these comments, you are welcome
to contact me.
Sincerely,
Dale La Forest
Professional Planner, Designer, INCE Associate (Institute of Noise Control Engineering)
Dale La Forest & Associates
Attachment 1: Possible Construction Noise Mitigations
Attachment 2: Statement of Qualifications
18 Based on calculation above for noise levels of a dozer, grader, and backhoe generating a combined 85.7 dBA Leq at 70 feet.
DL&A Noise Report re: IS/MND for Pacific Resort Plaza Project, 125 Ball Road, Anaheim, CA – Feb. 26, 2024 Page 5
ATTACHMENT 1
Possible Noise Mitigations
Require construction and demolition activities to be scheduled to avoid operating several loud pieces of
equipment simultaneously; alternatively to reduce the overall length of the construction period, combine noisy
operations to occur in the same time period if it will not be significantly greater than if operations were
performed separately.
Require the replacement of noisy equipment with quieter equipment, such as utilizing vibratory pile driver instead
of conventional pile driver (or even prohibit the use of driven (impact) pile systems altogether), using rubber-
tired equipment rather than track equipment, or using quieted and enclosed air compressors with properly
working mufflers on all engines.
Require construction contractor to avoid using vibratory rollers and packers near sensitive areas.
Require construction staging areas to be as far from sensitive receptors as reasonably possible.
Require all construction truck traffic to be restricted in hours and to truck routes approved by the Department of
Building and Safety, which shall avoid residential areas and other noise- sensitive receptors.
Require the construction of sufficiently tall noise barriers, such as temporary walls or piles of excavated material,
between noisy activities and noise-sensitive receivers.
Require flexible sound control curtains to be placed around all jackhammers when in use and more extensive
noise control barriers protecting nearby residential structures.
Require power construction equipment operated at the project site to be equipped with effective state-of-the-art
noise control devices (e.g., equipment mufflers, enclosures, and barriers) with contractors maintaining all
sound-reducing devices and restrictions throughout the construction period and keeping documentation
showing compliance.
Require contractors to use either plug-in electric or solar powered on-site generators to the extent feasible.
Require the use of smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background
noise level, or switch off back-up alarms and replace with spotters.
Require grading and construction contractors to use equipment that generates lower vibration levels such as
rubber-tired equipment rather than metal-tracked equipment, such as a combination loader/excavator for
light-duty construction operations.
Two weeks before the commencement of construction at the Project Site, require notification to be provided to the
immediate surrounding off-site properties that disclose the construction schedule, including the various types
of activities and equipment that would be occurring throughout the construction period. A noise disturbance
coordinator and hotline telephone number shall be provided to enable the public to call and address
construction-related issues.
Require all mitigation measures restricting construction activity to be posted at the Project Site and all
construction personnel shall be instructed as to the nature of the noise and vibration mitigation measures.
Require a noise monitoring/control plan that includes absolute noise limits for classes of equipment,
noise limits at lot lines of specific noise sensitive properties, specific noise control treatments to be
utilized (such as the above-mentioned measures), and a designated compliance officer to respond to
promptly respond to complaints and take immediate correction action if limits/restrictions are not
complied with.
DL&A Noise Report re: IS/MND for Pacific Resort Plaza Project, 125 Ball Road, Anaheim, CA – Feb. 26, 2024 Page 6
ATTACHMENT 2
Statement of Qualifications
EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE
I received a Bachelor of Architecture Degree with Master of Architecture studies in architecture and
planning from the University of Michigan (1966 – 1973). My university education included
architectural acoustics and the math and physics related to analysis of sound transmission. In 44 years,
I have designed hundreds of homes in California. During the last 20 years, I have also prepared expert
acoustical studies for various development projects and reviewed and commented upon dozens of
noise studies prepared by others. My expertise in environmental noise analysis comes from this formal
educational training in architecture and planning, and from many years of evaluation of acoustics as
relates to environmental analysis and challenging flawed project applications prepared by less-than
professional, industry-biased acousticians. I regularly measure and calculate noise propagation and the
effects of noise barriers and building acoustics as they apply to homes near projects and their vehicular
travel routes. I have also prepared initial environmental studies for noise-sensitive development
projects including hotel and campground projects along major highways. I have reviewed dozens of
quarry project and batch plant project environmental documents. I have designed highway noise walls,
recommended noise mitigations, and have designed residential and commercial structures to limit their
occupants' exposure to excessive exterior noise levels throughout California.
Dale La Forest
DL&A Noise Report re: IS/MND for Pacific Resort Plaza Project, 125 Ball Road, Anaheim, CA – Feb. 26, 2024 Page 7