The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 2010/09/13H:\TOOLS\PC Admin\PC Agendas\(091310).doc City of Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda Monday, September 13, 2010 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California • Chairman: Stephen Faessel • Chairman Pro-Tempore: Peter Agarwal • Commissioners: Todd Ament, Joseph Karaki, Harry Persaud Victoria Ramirez, John Seymour • Call To Order - 5:00 p.m. • Pledge Of Allegiance • Public Comments • Consent Calendar • Public Hearing Items • Commission Updates • Discussion • Adjournment For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card in advance and submit it to the secretary. A copy of the staff report may be obtained at the City of Anaheim Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. A copy of the staff report is also available on the City of Anaheim website www.anaheim.net/planning on Thursday, September 9, 2010, after 5:00 p.m. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda (other than writings legally exempt from public disclosure) will be made available for public inspection in the Planning Department located at City Hall, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, during regular business hours. You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following e-mail address: planningcommission@anaheim.net 09/13/10 Page 2 of 10 Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 5:00 P.M. Public Comments: This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. Consent Calendar: The items on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff, or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Minutes ITEM 1A Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of August 2, 2010. These minutes have been provided to the Planning Commission and are available for review at the Planning Department. Motion 09/13/10 Page 3 of 10 Public Hearing Items ITEM NO. 2 VARIANCE NO. 2010-04813* (DEV2010-00084) Owner/ Applicant: Paul and Sandra Frattone 3 Hughes Irvine, CA 92618 Location: 611 East Adele Street The applicant proposes to construct a metal industrial building with a side yard setback area that is smaller than required by Code. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Class 3 (Small Structures). *Advertised as Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-04813 Continued from the August 30, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting. Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood vnorwood@anaheim.net 09/13/10 Page 4 of 10 ITEM NO. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2010-00343 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2010-00480 (DEV2010-00043) Owners: City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street Orange, CA 92863 Applicant: Public Works Department Jamie Lai, Transit Manager City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: The total project area for the Environmental Impact Report is approximately 19 acres, with the majority of the project area (16 acres) located south of Katella Avenue, east of Douglass Road, north of the Orange (SR-57) Freeway and west of the Anaheim City Limits. The proposed General Plan Amendment pertains to Douglass Road, south of Katella Avenue and north of SR-57. The applicant requests certification of an environmental impact report analyzing the proposed construction and operation of the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) and an amendment of the General Plan Circulation Element Figure C-1: Planned Roadway Network to reclassify Douglass Road, south of Katella Avenue from a local street to a secondary arterial. Environmental Determination: Environmental Impact Report No. 2010-00343. Continued from the August 30, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting. Resolution No. ______ Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Susan Kim skim@anaheim.net 09/13/10 Page 5 of 10 ITEM NO. 4 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2010-00092 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05518 (DEV2010-00128) Owner: John Knaak Knakk Family Trust 4016 Crown Rch. Road Corona, CA 92881 Applicant: Law Office of Rick Blake Mike Ayaz 2107 North Broadway, Suite 106 Santa Ana, CA 92706 Location: 2162 West Lincoln Avenue The applicant proposes a zoning code amendment to allow the expansion of a legal non-use within the Brookhurst Commercial Corridor (BCC) Overlay Zone and approval of a conditional use permit to allow the expansion of an existing legal non-conforming bar. Environmental Determination: CEQA Categorical Exemption, Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Request for continuance to September 27, 2010 Project Planner: Della Herrick dherrick@anaheim.net 09/13/10 Page 6 of 10 ITEM NO. 5 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2010-00238 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17387 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05515 VARIANCE NO. 2010-04815 (DEV2010-00087) Owner: Donovan Anaheim, LLC Chad Brown, Development Manager 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Applicant: Melia Homes Chad Brown, Development Manager 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Location: 851 & 905 South Western Avenue The applicant proposes to rezone this property from the Transition (T) zone to Single Family Residential (RS-4) zone designation; establish a 32-lot residential subdivision; permit 32 single-family residences with certain lots having rear yard setback areas measuring 13-feet, 6-inches in depth; and, to allow certain lots to maintain driveway lengths smaller than required by code. Environmental Determination: A Negative Declaration has been determined to serve as the appropriate environmental impact determination for this request. Request for continuance to September 27, 2010 Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood vnorwood@anaheim.net 09/13/10 Page 7 of 10 ITEM NO. 6 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2010-109 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05500 (DEV2010-00063) Owner: HD Development of Maryland, Inc. 3800 West Chapman Avenue Orange, CA 92868 Applicant: Burger King Jay Shin 1301 Glendale Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90026 Location: 800-814 North Brookhurst Street The applicant proposes to establish a 2-lot commercial subdivision and permit a drive-through, fast food restaurant. Environmental Determination: CEQA Categorical Exemption, Class 15 (Minor Land Divisions and Class 32 In-Fill Development Projects). Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood vnorwood@anaheim.net ITEM NO. 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05511 PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2010-00069 (DEV2010-00101) Owner: Zohreh Jadali 3901 East Riverdale Avenue Anaheim, CA 92807 Applicant: Western State Engineering, Inc. Milad Oueijan 4887 East La Palma Avenue, Suite 707 Anaheim, CA 92807 Location: 3901 East Riverdale Avenue The applicant proposes to permit the expansion of an existing service station convenience store and to permit the sales of beer and wine for off-site consumption. Environmental Determination: CEQA Categorical Exemption, Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Resolution No. ______ Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood vnorwood@anaheim.net 09/13/10 Page 8 of 10 ITEM NO. 8 VARIANCE NO. 2010-04810* (DEV2010-00048) Owner: Susan Hawker, Administrator Estate of John Lee 517 South Broadway Santa Ana, CA 92701 Applicant: Durant Construction, Inc. James Shecter 1306 East 29th Street Signal Hill, CA 90755 Location: 942 North Claudina Street The applicant proposes to construct a two-story, single family residence with smaller front and rear yard setbacks, greater lot coverage and less parking spaces than required by code. *A previously-noticed variance request related to maximum permitted lot coverage has been deleted. Environmental Determination: CEQA Categorical Exemption, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood vnorwood@anaheim.net Adjourn to Monday, September 27, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. 09/13/10 Page 9 of 10 CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: 4:30 p.m. September 8, 2010_ (TIME) (DATE) LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK SIGNED: If you challenge any one of these City of Anaheim decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in a written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. RIGHTS OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Any action taken by the Planning Commission this date regarding Reclassifications, Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps will be final 10 days after Planning Commission action unless a timely appeal is filed during that time. This appeal shall be made in written form to the City Clerk, accompanied by an appeal fee in an amount determined by the City Clerk. The City Clerk, upon filing of said appeal in the Clerk's Office, shall set said petition for public hearing before the City Council at the earliest possible date. You will be notified by the City Clerk of said hearing. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION The City of Anaheim wishes to make all of its public meetings and hearings accessible to all members of the public. The City prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. If requested, the agenda and backup materials will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. Any person who requires a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, in order to participate in the public meeting may request such modification, accommodation, aid or service by contacting the Planning Department either in person at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, or by telephone at (714) 765-5139, no later than 10:00 a.m. one business day preceding the scheduled meeting. 09/13/10 Page 10 of 10 S C H E D U L E 2010 September 27 October 11 October 25 November 8 November 22 December 6 December 20 I D E V 2 0 1 0 -0 0 0 8 4 V A C A N T R S -3 A P T S 9 D U I I N D U S T R I A L R M -4 S Y C A M O R E A P T S 1 6 D U R M -4 A P T S 1 6 D U R S -3 F O U R P L E X R S -3 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R S -3 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E I I N D U S T R I A L R M -4 T R I P L E X R M -4 F O U R P L E X R M -4 A P T S 1 6 D U R M -4 A P T S 1 6 D U R M -4 A P T S 9 D U R M -4 S Y C A M O R E M A N O R A P T S 1 6 D U I O F F I C E S R S -2 S F R R S -2 S F R R S -2 S F R I R E T A I L R M -4 T R I P L E X R M -4 T R I P L E X R S -3 S F R R M -2 S F R R S -3 S F R R M -2 S F R R S -3 S F R I I N D U S T R I A L R M -4 A P T S 2 7 D U R M -4 F O U R P L E X RM-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCERS-3INDUSTRIALS P 9 0 -2 P C L 2 2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R S -2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R M -4 A P T S 1 6 D U ||4 2 ' 1 5 8 '!!N PAULINE STE S Y C A M O R E S T E A D E L E S T N VINE STE C Y P R E S S S TN SABINA STN BUSH STE C Y P R E S S S TN VINE STE A F T O N L N N PAULINE STE. LA PALMA AVE E . B R O A D W A Y E . L I N C O L N A V EN. EAST STS. EAST STW . B R O A D W A YW. L I N C O L N A V E W. LA PALMA AVE S. STATE COLLEGE BLVDN. HARBOR BLVDN. ANAHEIM BLVDS. ANAHEIM BLVD11004611 East Adele Street DEV2010-00084 Subject Property APN: 035-173-15 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 N PAULINE STE S Y C A M O R E S T E A D E L E S T N VINE STE C Y P R E S S S TN SABINA STN BUSH STN VINTAGE LNE C Y P R E S S S TN VINE STE A F T O N L N N PAULINE STE. LA PALMA AVE E . B R O A D W A Y E . L I N C O L N A V EN. EAST STS. EAST STW . B R O A D W A YW. L I N C O L N A V E W. LA PALMA AVE S. STATE COLLEGE BLVDN. HARBOR BLVDN. ANAHEIM BLVDS. ANAHEIM BLVD11004611 East Adele Street DEV2010-00084 Subject Property APN: 035-173-15 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2010-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT A CLASS 3 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION IS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2010-04813 (DEV2010-00084) (611 EAST ADELE STREET) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission (hereinafter referred to as "Planning Commission") did receive a verified Petition for Variance for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the petitioner requests a variance from side yard setback adjacent to a residentially zoned property to construct a 1,760 square foot metal industrial building in the Industrial (I) zone and the Anaheim General Plan designates this property for Low Medium Density Residential land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on September 13, 2010, at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60 “Procedures”, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed variance and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. That the applicant requests to deviate from the following to construct a 19-foot high, metal industrial building: SECTION NO. 18.10.060.030 Minimum side yard setback adjacent to a residential zone (36 feet required; 21 feet proposed) 2. The requested variance is hereby approved because there are special circumstances applicable to the property because of the narrowness of this lot. 3. Strict application of the Code would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under the identical zoning classification in the vicinity because the lot is so narrow that the height of the building would be limited to a maximum of ten feet which would deprive the owner of reasonable use of the property.. - 2 - PC2010-*** WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15301, Class 3 (Small Structures) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve Variance No. 2010-04813 subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition (s), (ii) the modification complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Variance is approved without limitations on the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application. - 3 - PC2010-*** THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of September 13, 2010. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on September13, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 13th day of September, 2010. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2010-*** - 5 - PC2010-*** EXHIBIT “B” VARIANCE NO. 2010-04813 (DEV2010-00084) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT 1 All backflow equipment shall be located above ground outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans and approved by water Engineering and Cross Connection Control Inspector before submittal for Building permits. Water Engineering 2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner shall irrevocable offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim an easement 30-feet in width from the centerline of Adele Street and 10-feet in width from the centerline of the alley for road and other public purposes. Public Works, Traffic Engineering PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 3 All requests for new water services or fire lines, as well as any modification, relocations, or abandonments of existing water services and fire lines, shall be coordinated through Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department. Water Engineering 4 A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), as described in the Drainage Area Management Plan for Orange County, shall be submitted to the Public Works/Development Services Division for review and approval. Said WQMP shall: • Addresses Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as minimizing impervious areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating reduced or “zero discharge” areas, and conserving natural areas. • Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs. Public Works, Development Services - 6 - PC2010-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY • Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs. • Describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs. • Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs, and describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs. PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTIONS 5 The WQMP shall: • Demonstrate that all structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications. • Demonstrate that the applicant is prepared to implement all non-structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP. • Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Projects WQMP are available onsite. • Submit for review and approval by the City an Operation and Maintenance Plan for all structural BMPs. Public Works, Development Services GENERAL 6 That ongoing and during project operation, no required parking or vehicular accessways shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage uses. Code Enforcement 7 Trash storage areas shall be maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from Planning, Public Works - 7 - PC2010-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY adjacent streets or highways. 8 That curbs adjacent to the drive aisles shall be painted red to prohibit parallel parking in the drive aisles. Red curb locations shall be clearly labeled on building plans. Code Enforcement 9 The property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion through the provision of regular landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within two business days from the time of discovery. Code Enforcement 10 The subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1 (Site Plan) as conditioned herein. Planning Division ATTACHMENT NO. 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ADELESTREETSYCAMORE STREETALLEYPAULINE STREET ENGINEER'S STATEMENT: APPLICANT: PAUL & SANDRA FRATTONE PREPARED BY: LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 12, BLOCK 3, OLIVE STREET TRACT, M.M. 5/31, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE. VICINITY MAP TRASH ENCLOSURE DETAIL SINGLE TRASH ENCLOSURE ATTACHMENT NO. 5 8" HARDIPLANK SELECT CEDARMILL FINISHPARAPET UPGRADED STREET FACADEMETAL BUILDING 611 EAST ADELEE STREET LINE OF ROOF BEYOND 21'-8"21'-0" 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. ANAHEIM CITY BOUNDARYORANGE CITY BOUNDARYS SPORTSTOWNE K A TELLA A V ES DOUGLASS RDS SUNKIST STE HOWELL AVE S SINCLAIR STS PAGE CTE H O W ELL A V E S STADIUM VIEW AVE5 57 E. KATELLA AVES. LEWIS STE. CERRITOS AVE E. ORANGEWOOD AVES. STATE COLLEGE BLVDS. SUNKIST STS. DOUGLASS RD11006ARTIC DEV2010-00043 Subject Property APN: Multiple ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 150 300 Feet Aerial Photo: April 200957 FREEWAYS SPORTSTOWNS DOUGLASS RD ANAHEIM CITY BOUNDARYORANGE CITY BOUNDARYE K A T E L L A A V E S DOUGLASS RDS SUNKIST STE HOWELL AVE S SINCLAIR STS PAGE CTE H O W ELL A V E S STADIUM VIEW AVE5 57 E. KATELLA AVES. LEWIS STE. CERRITOS AVE E. ORANGEWOOD AVES. STATE COLLEGE BLVDS. SUNKIST STS. DOUGLASS RD11006ARTIC DEV2010-00043 APN: Multiple ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 150 300 Feet Aerial Photo: April 200957 FREEWAYS SPORTSTOWNS DOUGLASS RDNot a part of the project site Subject Property 579155575591BEACHBOULEVARDMAGNOLIAAVENUEKNOTTAVENUEBROOKHURSTSTREETEUCLIDSTREETHASTERSTREETKRAEMERBLVD.TUSTINAVENUELA PALMAAVENUELINCOLNAVENUEBALLROADKATELLAAVENUECHAPMANAVENUEST.COLLEGEBLVD.HARBORBLVD.BEACHBOULEVARDWESTSTREETMAGNOLIAAVENUEKNOTTAVENUEORANGETHORPEAVENUEBROOKHURSTSTREETEUCLIDSTREETHARBORBLVD.EASTSTREETST. COLLEGEBOULEVARDWESTERNAVENUEWESTERNAVENUEDALEAVENUEDALEAVENUEGILBERTSTREETCRESCENTAVENUEORANGEAVENUECERRITOSAVENUEORANGEWOODAVENUENINTHSTREETLEWISSTREETACACIASTREETANAHEIMBOULEVARDGILBERTSTREETNUTWOODSTREETBLUE GUMSTREETBLUE GUMSTREETTUSTINAVENUEGLASSELLSTREETBROADWAY!CIRCULATION ELEMENTGeneral Plan Amendment No. 2010-00480Vicinity Location MapFigure 13186.Subject Property Location!ATTACHMENT NO. 2a 57 Anaheim City LimitsOrange City LimitsORANGE FREEWAY (SR-57)CERRITOS AVE (SECONDARY)STATE COLLEGE BLVD (MAJOR)K A T E L L A A V E (S T A D IU M A R E A S M A R T S T R E E T )DOUGLASS RD(SECONDARY)SUNKIST ST(SECONDARY)HOWELL AVE (SECONDARY) 3186 Existing Designation - No Existing Designation Figure 2a Proposed Designation - Secondary Arterial Figure 2b General Plan Amendment No. 2010-00480 Circulation Element Douglass Rd Mileage - 0.28 N DOUGLASS RD (No Existing Designation) 57 Anaheim City LimitsOrange City LimitsORANGE FREEWAY (SR-57)CERRITOS AVE (SECONDARY)STATE COLLEGE BLVD (MAJOR)K A T E L L A A V E (S T A D IU M A R E A S M A R T S T R E E T )DOUGLASS RD(SECONDARY)SUNKIST ST(SECONDARY)HOWELL AVE (SECONDARY) N DOUGLASS RD (Secondary - 4 Lanes) ATTACHMENT NO. 2b [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 3 -1- PC2010-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2010-00343 FOR THE ANAHEIM REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION INTERMODAL CENTER (ARTIC). WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim ("City"), in partnership with the Orange County Transportation Authority ("OCTA"), is proposing to relocate the existing Metrolink/Amtrak station from the current location south of Katella Avenue and west of State Route (SR) 57. The new station, known as the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center ("ARTIC"), will be located south of Katella Avenue, east of SR 57 and Douglass Road, and west of the Santa Ana River. The new location will be approximately one quarter (0.25) mile east along the existing OCTA railroad right-of-way (ROW). The OCTA railroad ROW is part of the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) Corridor; and WHEREAS, ARTIC is proposed to include about 16 acres owned by OCTA and the City. There are anticipated improvements to approximately 2 acres of OCTA and City ROW and less than an acre of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) ROW between the Santa Ana River and Katella Avenue. The total project area is approximately 19 acres including the roads and ROW. The 405 parking spaces at the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station are not a part of the project construction site as no improvements are anticipated but will continue to be utilized as parking for the project. ARTIC includes the development of an Intermodal Terminal, Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area, the Stadium Pavilion, the Tracks/Platforms, Douglass Road Improvements, Katella Avenue improvements, and Surface Parking/Access. In addition to the surface access points, improvements envisioned for ARTIC include a pedestrian bridge to be constructed over Katella Avenue connecting the project site and the Honda Center, and a trail easement, adjacent to the Santa Ana River Trail along the east side of ARTIC between the railroad ROW and Katella Avenue. The ARTIC Intermodal Terminal is envisioned to include space up to 310,000 square feet, Platforms up to 86,000 square feet, and a Stadium Pavilion up to 12,000 square feet. For the purpose of the Draft EIR these are the maximum sizes and the impacts are the “worst case”. The construction analysis is based on the worst case scenario of a 26-month construction period. The size and timing of construction will depend on available funding; and WHEREAS, the City is the lead agency for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for the ARTIC project, as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended ("CEQA") and the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA Guidelines"); and WHEREAS, the City submitted a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for ARTIC on February 4, 2010 for a 30-day review. The scoping period identified in the NOP was from February 4, 2010 until March 8, 2010; and -2- PC2010-*** WHEREAS, interested parties were invited to attend a public scoping meeting held on February 24, 2010, in the Anaheim West Tower, Gordon Hoyt Conference Center, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California 92805. The purpose of the scoping meeting was to provide members of the public with an opportunity to learn about the project, ask questions, and provide comments about the scope and content of the information addressed in the EIR; and WHEREAS, on July 19, 2010, the Draft EIR (EIR2010-00343) was sent to the State Clearinghouse, State and local agencies, special districts, public libraries and other known interested parties, and was made available to the general public, thereby commencing a 45-day period, from July 19, 2010 until September 3, 2010, for public review and comment on the Draft EIR in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City has evaluated the comments received from the public agencies and persons who reviewed said Draft EIR and has prepared, or caused to be prepared, responses to the comments received during the public review period; and WHEREAS, in conformance with Sections 15132 and 15362(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the Final EIR shall consist of the Draft EIR; comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary; a list of persons, organizations and public agencies that submitted comments on the Draft EIR; and the responses of the City, as Lead Agency, to significant points raised in the review and consultation process; and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan prepared for the ARTIC project. A copy of the Final EIR (EIR2010-00343) is on file in the Anaheim Planning Department; and WHEREAS, on September 13, 2010, the Anaheim City Planning Commission (hereinafter referred to as "Planning Commission") did hold a public hearing, notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60, to hear and consider evidence for and against EIR2010-0343 and to investigate and make findings in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, the Planning Commission did receive evidence and reports, including all written and verbal comments received during the 45-day public review period, concerning the contents and sufficiency of the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, to the extent authorized by law, the City desires and intends to use said Final EIR as the environmental documentation required by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines for the ARTIC project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on the information and evidence received concerning EIR2010-00343, does hereby find and determine as follows: That EIR2010-00343 has been presented to and independently reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission; That EIR2010-00343 reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission; and -3- PC2010-*** That EIR2010-00343 has been processed and completed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA, and all applicable CEQA Guidelines. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on the information and evidence received concerning EIR2010-00343, does further find and determine that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or feasible mitigation measures have been identified that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment; or changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency, as follows: Transportation and Traffic. Projected traffic impacts can be avoided or substantially lessened to a level less than significant through the implementation of the Mitigation Measures identified in Table ES-1(Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures), pages ES-8 through ES-11, Mitigation Measures TT-1 through TT-17; Subsection 3.2.9, Mitigation Measures TT-1 through TT- 17; and Section 14 of Appendix B (Traffic Impact Analysis Report (ARTIC) Anaheim, California, July 16, 2010) of the Draft EIR. With completion of the improvements described in the mitigation, the significant impacts associated with ARTIC would be fully mitigated with the exception of the intersections identified impacts located outside of Anaheim and the improvements to State highway facilities. However, inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with agencies other than the City of Anaheim (i.e., Caltrans); there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim’s control. Should that occur, the Project’s traffic impact would remain significant. The City is committed to working with Caltrans to identify the most appropriate improvement strategies for their facilities and acknowledges the fair- share cost of improvements to those facilities, however, Caltrans has full jurisdiction toward implementing the identified improvements. This, notwithstanding the fact that the City is imposing feasible mitigation measures in the form of collecting fair share fees for impacted state facilities, because the City does not control the State facilities, it cannot assure that the mitigation measures will mitigate the identified 2030 with project impacts to less than significant levels. Air Quality. Existing or projected air quality impacts can be avoided or substantially lessened to a level less than significant through the implementation of the Mitigation Measures identified in Table ES-1(Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures), pages ES-11 and ES-12, Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5; Subsection 3.3.8, Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5; and Section 8 of Appendix C (Air Quality Impact Assessment for the proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) Anaheim, California) of the Draft EIR. The mitigation measures identified above will reduce potential impacts associated with air quality to a level that is less than significant. Noise. Projected noise impacts can be avoided or substantially lessened to a level less than significant through the implementation of the Mitigation Measures identified in Table ES-1 (Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures), page ES-13, Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-3; Subsection 3.4.8, Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-3; and Section 7 of Appendix D (Noise Technical Report Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) Anaheim, California) of the Draft EIR. The mitigation measures identified above will reduce potential impacts associated with noise to a level that is less than significant. -4- PC2010-*** Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Projected hazards and hazardous materials impacts can be avoided or substantially lessened to a level less than significant through the implementation of the Mitigation Measures identified in Table ES-1 (Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures), page ES-14, Mitigation Measure HHM-1; and Subsection 3.7.8, Mitigation Measure HHM-1 of the Draft EIR . The mitigation measure identified above will reduce potential impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials to a level that is less than significant. Cultural Resources. Projected impacts to cultural or historical resources can be avoided or substantially lessened to a level less than significant through the implementation of the Mitigation Measures identified in Table ES-1 (Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures), pages ES-14 through ES-17, Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-3; and Subsection 3.10.8, Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-3 of the Draft EIR. The mitigation measures identified above will reduce potential impacts associated with cultural resources to a level that is less than significant. Biological Resources. Projected impacts to biological resources can be avoided or substantially lessened to a level less than significant through the implementation of the Mitigation Measures identified in Table ES-1 (Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures), pages ES-17 and ES-18, Mitigation Measure BR-1; and Subsection 3.11.8, Mitigation Measure BR-1 of the Draft EIR. The mitigation measures identified above will reduce potential impacts associated with biological resources to a level that is less than significant. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on the information and evidence received concerning EIR2010-00343, does further find and determine that the ARTIC project will have no environmental impacts in the following issue areas: Land Use and Planning. ARTIC is located in an area of the City known as the Platinum Triangle. The properties that surround ARTIC are primarily designated as mixed use, which accommodates a variety of uses (Figure 3.1-5 provides an overview of land uses within and adjacent to ARTIC). The evaluation of potential environmental consequences associated with land use reveals consistency with existing and future land uses at ARTIC. City and local land use plans anticipate and support ARTIC. ARTIC will be compatible with planned land uses and is consistent with the City’s policies and regulations concerning land use, zoning ordinances, and codes. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. Geology and Soils. No known active faults are mapped crossing ARTIC, and ARTIC is not located within a California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007). Because of the low annual precipitation, limited presence of clay soils, and relatively level topography, and implementation of BMPs, the ARTIC project is at a low risk overall for landslides, and impacts will be less than significant for soil erosion. ARTIC elements including track, bridges, and structures will be designed in accordance with appropriate industry standards, including established engineering and construction practices and methods per the CBC, the National Engineering Handbook, current American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) guidance documents, and existing SCRRA standards. ARTIC will have a less than significant impact associated with geology and soils. No significant impacts were identified. -5- PC2010-*** Utilities and Service Systems. ARTIC is expected to create approximately 71,600 gallons per day of wastewater. This represents approximately 0.02 percent of the current available combined capacity of 348 mgd between Plants 1 and 2 for the City. This is considered a negligible increase in wastewater flow going into the existing treatment facilities. ARTIC will include wastewater reduction strategies, such as water recycling, within its design goals that will further reduce wastewater created on-site. The existing 8-inch sewer line at Douglass Road, south of Katella Avenue, that currently serves the Industrial property and Ayers Hotel will remain and will not be disturbed by ARTIC. A new 18-inch sanitary line will be installed to serve ARTIC and will connect with the existing OCSD sanitary line at Katella Avenue. Other than the installation of a new 16-inch water transmission main in Douglass Road, ARTIC will not require or result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities because the projected use of the volume of water at ARTIC will not exceed existing or projected water uses presented in the Platinum Triangle Water Supply Assessment (WSA) and the City’s 2005 UWMP. The project site is covered with impervious surfaces and the rate or volume of stormwater generated by ARTIC will not be greater than the existing conditions. The WSA for the expansion of the Platinum Triangle has found that there will be sufficient water supply to provide water to ARTIC and the rest of the Platinum Triangle. ARTIC will comply with all federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Due to the availability of natural gas and the limited impact to supply that ARTIC is anticipated to have, ARTIC will not result in the need for new systems, supplies, or alterations of current systems related to natural gas. ARTIC will not result in the need for new systems, supplies, or alterations of current systems related to cable/telephone. ARTIC will have a less than significant impact associated with utilities and service systems. No significant impacts were identified (see Geotechnical Feasibility Study Proposed ARTIC Phase 1 Project Anaheim, California, dated October 23, 2009). Hydrology and Water Quality. The RWQCB criteria to control the discharge of construction related pollutants will be met through the implementation of BMPs. BMPs will be in compliance with the current municipal stormwater permit and will be implemented to control sediment erosion and other pollutants. Permanent BMPs addressing potential and anticipated pollutants during project operation will be identified in the WQMP. ARTIC will receive its water from municipal supply and will not exceed existing or projected water uses presented in the Platinum Triangle WSA and the City’s 2005 UWMP. ARTIC will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater resources. ARTIC components will not create an additional surface that could change the existing drainage area. ARTIC will be designed to direct local drainage into the existing storm drainage system with discharge to the Santa Ana River. With the WQMP and planned BMPs in place, the construction and operation of ARTIC will not create or contribute runoff water which will exceed the capacity of existing or planned drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. ARTIC will have a less than significant impact on hydrology and water quality. Aesthetics. ARTIC will be built adjacent to the west side of the Santa Ana River and Trail. ARTIC will not obstruct the view of the Santa Ana River from the Trail and will not block views of other scenic resources from the Trail. ARTIC is located to the east of the Avalon Anaheim Stadium condominiums and will not impact views of the San Bernardino Mountain range to the north. The Stadium Pavilion will be located west of SR-57. The structure will be lower in height than SR-57 and built along the existing rail line. Views of the Santiago Hills from the complex will not be significantly impacted by ARTIC. ARTIC will not obstruct views of scenic resources from the City of Orange. ARTIC is planned to be consistent with the planned architecture and landscape environment -6- PC2010-*** envisioned for the Platinum Triangle. Though ARTIC will change the visual character of the area, it will be a well-landscaped facility that will be an aesthetic improvement from the existing visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings. The pedestrian bridge connecting the site to the Honda Center over Katella Avenue will also be consistent with the planned architecture envisioned for the Platinum Triangle. It too will contribute to the enhancement of aesthetic quality and overall visual character of the site vicinity. Light, glare, and shadows as a result of ARTIC will be consistent with existing sources in the area and will not significantly impact day or nighttime views in the area. ARTIC will have a less than significant impact on aesthetics. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. GHG emissions for ARTIC are the result of the use of electricity, natural gas combustion, and increased vehicles exhaust. URBEMIS and RCEM were used to quantify the GHG emissions from the operational on-site sources and mobile sources of ARTIC, including the Intermodal Terminal, the emergency generator, and the temporary construction emissions. CO2e was calculated based on the total operational emissions plus construction emissions amortized over 30 years (per SCAQMD guidance). The emissions shown in Table 3.12-3 demonstrate that ARTIC is below the GHG significance thresholds. The location of ARTIC relative to major event and destination centers within the Platinum Triangle increases availability of current and future mass transit systems to occupants and visitors. The result will be reduced motor vehicle traffic on local roadways and freeways, and a general reduction in motor vehicle travel throughout the region. Since motor vehicle traffic is the primary source of air pollution in the region, reduced traffic will result in lower GHG emissions regionally. ARTIC will have a less than significant impact on GHG. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on the information and evidence received concerning EIR2010-00343, does further find and determine that the ARTIC project will have no environmental impacts in the following issue areas: Agricultural and Forest Resources; Mineral Resources; Recreation; Public Service; and Population and Housing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on the information and evidence received concerning EIR2010-00343, does further find and determine that EIR2010-00343 analyses a reasonable range of project alternatives, including the Reduced Building Size alternative; No Project alternative; and Proposed Project alternative. The Reduced Building Size alternative would have fewer construction impacts due to the shorter construction schedule and reduced grading and excavation activities. Operational impacts as a result of the Reduced Building Size alternative would be comparable to the Proposed Project. This alternative would meet all objectives. Though most No Project alternative impacts on environmental issue areas would be less than the Proposed Project for construction, mitigation measures for the Proposed Project construction and operations would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Construction impacts associated with the No Project alternative would not be substantially lower than the Proposed Project impacts or the Reduced Building Size alternative with mitigation. With respect to operations, the No Project alternative would have greater impacts to air quality, GHG and transportation and traffic. Table 5.5-1 presents a comparison between the Reduced Building Size alternative, the No Project alternative, and the Proposed Project alternative. The Proposed Project and the Reduced Building Size alternative would have similar operational environmental impacts and no impacts are significant with incorporation of recommended mitigation measures. The Proposed Project meets all the project objectives where the Reduced Building Size alternative meets some of the objectives and the No Project alternative does not meet the objectives. The No Project alternative has potentially significant air quality, traffic and transportation, and GHG environmental impacts for operations as the demand for parking exceeds the supply; and -7- PC2010-*** WHEREAS, in addition to EIR2010-00343, an Environmental Assessment is being prepared for ARTIC as a separate document. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is the lead agency for the Environmental Assessment, prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and FTA guidelines. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the environmental information contained in EIR2010-00343 and does hereby recommend that the City Council certify EIR2010-00343, and determine that said EIR fully complies with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and is adequate to serve as the environmental documentation for the ARTIC project. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of September 13, 2010. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 “Procedures” of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures. _____________________________________________ CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: ______________________________________________________ SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission held on September 13, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 13th day of September, 2010. ______________________________________________________ SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 4 -1- PC2010-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2010-00480 PERTAINING TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT. WHEREAS, on May 25, 2004, the City Council of the City of Anaheim, by its Resolution No. 2004-95, adopted a comprehensive update to the General Plan for the City of Anaheim; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 18.68 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, provisions of the General Plan may be amended whenever the public necessity and convenience and the general welfare require such amendment when adopted by a resolution of the City Council in the manner prescribed by law; and WHEREAS, the City has initiated an amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan to reclassify Douglas Road from a local street to a Secondary Arterial, and amend Figure C-1 "Planned Roadway Network" in the Circulation Element of the General Plan as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission (hereinafter referred to as "Planning Commission") did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on September 13, 2010, at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against said amendment to the General Plan, designated as General Plan Amendment No. 2010-00480, and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in conjunction therewith; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. That the proposed amendment to change the designation of Douglas Road from a local street to a Secondary Arterial maintains the internal consistency of the General Plan. Specifically, the proposed amendment is needed to (i) accommodate current development and future growth established by the Land Use Element and necessary to maintain appropriate levels of service; (ii) ensure that the provision of City services and infrastructure keeps pace with new development and subsequent changes in population and employment; (iii) facilitate the efficient movement of employees, visitors, residents and goods throughout the City; and (iv) maintain consistency with County and regional transportation plans. -2- PC2010-*** 2. The proposed amendment to the planned roadway network will maintain the balance of land uses within the City by accommodating current development and future growth established by the Land Use Element while preserving appropriate levels of service and consistency with County and regional transportation plans. 3. That no one indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to the proposed amendment. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan to reclassify Douglas Road from a local street to a Secondary Arterial, designated as General Plan Amendment No. 2010-00480, and does recommend that the City Council, based on its independent review of Environmental Impact Report No. 343 prepared in connection with the Anaheim Regional Intermodal Center, and the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), unless additional or contrary information is received during the public meeting, find and determine that Environmental Impact Report No. 343 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for said proposed General Plan Amendment and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA; and that no further environmental documentation need be prepared for the proposed General Plan Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that pursuant to the above findings, the Planning Commission does hereby adopt and recommend to the City Council of the City of Anaheim adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 2010-00480 relating to the Circulation Element of the General Plan, as described above. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of September 13, 2010. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60, “Procedures” of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. ___________________________________________________ CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: _____________________________________________________________ SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION -3- PC2010-*** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on September 13, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 13th day of September, 2010. ____________________________________________________________ SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Exhibit A GPA No 2010 00480 4 PC2010 Appendix A ATTACHMENT NO. 5 Scoping Summary The City of Anaheim submitted a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for ARTIC on February 4, 2010 for a 30-day review. The scoping period identified in the NOP was from February 4, 2010 until March 8, 2010. The scoping period allows interested parties to comment on the ARTIC Project before environmental documents were written. Interested parties were invited to attend a public scoping meeting held on February 24, 2010 at the City offices. The meeting was advertised in the Orange County Register on Friday, February 19 and Saturday, February 20, and in the Anaheim Bulletin and Orange City News on Thursday, February 18. Posters in English and Spanish advertising the meeting were placed around the existing station site and the proposed ARTIC site. In addition, an email distribution was sent to a City-generated email list of interested members of the public. The meeting format included tables and displays arranged by topical issues for planning and environmental, supported by maps of the project study area. Project staff members and resource specialists were available to answer questions and public participants were invited to fill out comment cards expressing their concerns. A Spanish translator was also available. There were approximately forty members of the public that attended the scoping meeting and eleven written comments received from the meeting. Two emails were received during the scoping period as well. The main issues identified by the public included: air quality, noise, traffic, and aesthetic impacts to the surrounding area. In addition to comments received during the scoping meeting, written comments were received from the following four agencies: City of Orange - Department of Community Development (March 8, 2010) Potential aesthetic, land use compatibility, and noise issues are of concern to the City of Orange, in addition to traffic impacts. The City of Orange also requested that the EIR address construction and operational traffic impacts, and that the traffic technical report include an analysis of twelve specific intersections. Orange County Department of Public Works (March 8, 2010) The Orange County Department of Public Works expressed concern with potential cumulative traffic impacts, as well as water quality, floodplain, and recreational issues. The County requested that the EIR include a description of applicable water quality and floodplain regulations and permits. The Santa Ana River Trail was identified as a recreational resource and the County stated that any proposed impact must be reviewed and approved by Orange County Flood Control District. Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (March 8, 2010) Since the ARTIC site is not located within the local airport planning areas, the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission had no comments regarding land use, noise, or safety issues. They did emphasize that the project must be filed with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) if the project included the construction of a structure more than 200 feet above ground level. Caltrans – District 12 (March 8, 2010) Caltrans requested early coordination to discuss potential traffic impacts, hydrology/h ydraulic report and plans, and applicable permits. In addition, a previous scoping meeting was held in 2009. Letters were received from the City of Orange and Caltrans and no new issue areas were identified. The NOP and all comments are attached. Notice of Preparation (NOP) Notice of Preparation DATE: February 4, 2010 TO: Interested Parties FROM: City of Anaheim SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) SCH # A SCH number will be assigned by the State Clearinghouse. The City of Anaheim (City) is the Lead Agency responsible for preparing the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for construction and operation of the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC). We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency’s statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. The City is proposing to relocate the existing Metrolink/Amtrak station from the current location south of Katella Avenue and west of State Route (SR) 57. The new station, known as ARTIC, will be located south of Katella Avenue, east of SR 57 and Douglass Road, and west of the Santa Ana River on an approximately 16 acre site. The site is partially, 13.5 acres exclusive of the railroad right-of way (ROW), owned by Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). The remaining portion of the project site, 2.2 acres south of railroad ROW, is owned by the City. Access to ARTIC will be via Douglass Road, Katella Avenue, and the Santa Ana River Trail. ARTIC is proposed to include a three level terminal building of approximately 220,000 square feet that is comprised of approximately 135,000 square feet above grade and approximately 85,000 square feet below the building. The above grade uses will include terminal operations, passenger-oriented retail/restaurants, and civic space/public plaza. The below the building uses will include bus waiting and service areas. The facility will include an underground concourse with access to Metrolink/Amtrak and a parking lot south of the railroad ROW. The project will also include a new stub end track reaching from the existing station to just west of the Santa Ana River. Two, 1,000 foot long, platforms (varying in width from 21 feet to 38 feet) will be constructed for ARTIC. A replacement rail bridge will be constructed over Douglass Road to accommodate the three track/two platform alignment. Douglass Road will be lowered for the new bridge and widen from the stadium parking lot to Katella Avenue. These roadway improvements will include pedestrian circulation and relocation of utilities to service the project site. ARTIC also includes an exterior civic space/public plaza of approximately 30,000 square feet. Construction is anticipated to last approximately twenty-six (26) months. A copy of the Initial Study is not attached and will be included in the DEIR. The City has determined that air quality, noise, and traffic are the key issues to be addressed in the DEIR. Responses: In accordance with the time limits mandated by State law, if you have any comments about the proposed project and the scope and content of the information addressed in the DEIR, please send your written response to the City of Anaheim at the address below at the earliest possible date but not later than Monday March 8, 2010 at 5:00 pm. Responses may also be submitted by fax to (714) 765-5225 or by email to JLai@anaheim.net Jamie Lai, Transit Manager City of Anaheim, Department of Public Works 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 276 Anaheim, CA 92805 Scoping Meeting: The City will hold a public scoping meeting at 4:30 pm to 6:30 pm on Wednesday, February 24, 2010 in the Anaheim West Tower, Gordon Hoyt Conference Center, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California 92805, to provide members of the public with an opportunity to learn about the project, ask questions, and provide comments about the scope and content of the information addressed in the DEIR. Parking will be available at the City of Anaheim parking structure located across Anaheim Boulevard at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard. Questions: Please contact Jamie Lai, Transit Manager, at (714) 765-5049 or JLai@anaheim.net Project Title: DEIR for the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) project Project Applicant: City of Anaheim, Department of Public Works Summary of Comments Summary of Comments Issue Raised Response 2010 Scoping Period Scoping Meeting Comments – February 24, 2010 1. Inquiry regarding the possibility of a trolley service utilizing ARTIC. The Project Description describes the anticipated uses of the facility. 2. Inquiry regarding the potential for ARTIC to impact the Kimco Staffing office. The Project Description and Figure 2.2-3 illustrate the ARTIC Project boundaries, which will not encroach on the Kimco Staffing office. 3. Inquiry presenting traffic concerns and public transportation needs to and from ARTIC. Section 2.3, Statement of Objectives, discusses public transportation needs and how ARTIC meets those needs. Traffic issues are discussed in Section 3.2, Transportation and Traffic. 4. Inquiry presenting two concerns: (1) Moving forward with ARTIC when California High-Speed Rail is not finalized (2) Public and private funding sources for ARTIC. (1) Section 2.1, Other Relevant Projects, states that California High-Speed Rail is a related but separate and distinct project that is independent from ARTIC. (2) Section 1.5, Project Background, identifies the funding sources. 5. Inquiry presenting concerns regarding traffic, noise, aesthetic, and air quality impacts to the City of Orange. These issue areas are addressed in the following sections of the EIR, respectively: 3.2, Transportation and Traffic; 3.4, Noise; 3.9, Aesthetics; and 3.3 Air Quality. 6. Inquiry regarding funding sources. Section 1.5, Project Background, identifies funding sources for the ARTIC Project. City of Orange Department of Community Development – March 8, 2010 This letter addresses the following concerns: (1) Traffic – The City requests that specific intersections are analyzed, that the traffic report address construction and operational traffic impacts, and that cumulative projects are considered. Additionally, if there are effects that could impact the City of Orange, the City requests notification and coordination with the City of Anaheim regarding mitigation measures. (2) Aesthetics – the City requests that the EIR address visual and land use compatibility issues in relation to the Katella Avenue corridor in Orange, that a photo simulation is created, and that general aesthetic issues are analyzed. (1) These concerns are addressed in the Traffic Impact Analysis Report and Section 3.2, Transportation and Traffic, within the EIR. Cumulative impacts are discussed individually under each environmental issue area. Additionally, the City of Anaheim will coordinate with the City of Orange if impacts may occur. (2) These concerns are addressed in Section 3.9, Aesthetics. (3) Noise impacts are addressed in Section 3.4, Noise. (3) Noise – the City requests that the EIR analyze noise and vibration impacts to the surrounding area. Orange County Public Works – March 8, 2010 This letter addresses the following concerns: (1) Traffic – The County requests that specific intersections are anal yzed, cumulative traffic impacts with existing and proposed uses in the Platinum Triangle are addressed, and a long-term analysis that includes High-Speed Rail and California- Nevada Maglev project is considered. (2) Water Quality – The County discusses requirements regarding a fourth term MS4 permit adopted by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and requests the opportunity to review and comment on the ARTIC Water Quality Management Plan. Additionally, the County states that a Construction General Permit is required as well. (3) Flood Control– The County requests that a project boundary map is included in the EIR, that County and/or OCFCD facilities in the vicinity of ARTIC are identified and discussed, that any impacts to OCFCD right-of-way are analyzed, and that local drainage facilities and floodplain regulations are identified and/or analyzed. Additionally, the County requests that the EIR identify and address impacts to groundwater monitoring wells and groundwater recharge operations. (4) Recreational Trails – The County requests that impacts to the Santa Ana River Trail are addressed and given to the County for review. Additionally, the County states that ARTIC could cause an introduction of new users to the Trail. (5) Greenhouse Gases – The County requests that ARTIC analyzes compliance with AB 32 and SB 375. (1) The Traffic Impact Analysis Report is in compliance with the Platinum Triangle. The analysis adds onto the base data provided in the Platinum Triangle documents. Both High-Speed Rail and California-Nevada Maglev projects are discussed in Section 2.1, Other Relevant Projects, and are considered in the cumulative analysis presented in each environmental issue area. (2) As discussed in Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, a fourth term MS4 permit and a Construction General Permit will be obtained. The Water Quality Management Plan is not a CEQA issue, but is a City responsibility and will be complied post construction. (3) No Orange County or OCFCD facilities or right-of-way will be impacted by ARTIC. Figure 2.2-3 illustrates project boundaries. Section 3.6, Utilities and Service Systems, and Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, address drainage issues and floodplain regulations. (4) As discussed in Section 4.0, Issue Areas Found Not to be Significant, no impacts to the Santa Ana River Trail will occur. As discussed in Section 2.4.8, Surface Parking/Access, there will be no direct access or connection to the Trail. (5) Section 3.12, Greenhouse Gases, addresses this issue area. Airport Land Use Commission – March 8, 2010 This letter addresses the following concerns: (1) As addressed in Section 2.4.1, Intermodal Terminal, the height of the (1) Building height – if proposed structures for ARTIC will be more than 200 feet above ground level, it must be filed with the Federal Aviation Administration. Project elevations should be identified using NAVD88 elevations. (2) If the project includes heliports, additional procedures must be followed. building will be less than 200 feet above ground level. (2) ARTIC does not include the development of heliports. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)District 12 – March 8, 2010 This letter addresses the following concerns: (1) Traffic - Caltrans requests that the City of Anaheim coordinate with Caltrans,that the traffic analysis is based on Highway Capacity Manual, and that traffic impacts are analyzed. (2) Permits– Caltrans lists several permits that may need to be obtained or requirements that may need to be adhered to. (3) Noise – Caltrans states that attenuation of freeway traffic noise is the responsibility of ARTIC. (1) The City of Anaheim will continue to coordinate with Caltrans. (2) The project will comply with Caltrans permits. (3) Noise impacts are discussed in Section 3.4, Noise. 2009 Scoping Period California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 12 – August 18, 2009 No additional issues were raised. City of Orange Department of Community Development– August 14, 2009 No additional issues were raised. Public Comments Received during February 24, 2010 Scoping Meeting COMMENT FORM Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) Public Scoping Meeting February 24,2010 4:30pm to 6:30pm Anaheim West Tower,Gordon Hoyt Conference Center 2nd floor Do you wish to be contacted in the future regarding this project (circle one)?No Comments: i o ///‘ 2 Ar n//1ei A/1)---V I U74/55//e —— ir/<.f .Lrvnie, 3.V2 //J ,/J //rtn ‘//‘ -p Name D L4//,’ Aibi Rigioi1 Tiipron rmdi1 ur Address O5 tYe(c -eet /41t /(7 V A/ V COMMENT FORM Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) Public Scoping Meeting February 24,2010 4:30pm to 6:30pm Anaheim West Tower,Gordon Hoyt Conference Center 2’floor kii.i JiLa k*n,oron rmcdsI c.r Name Address Email Do you wish to be contacted in the future regarding this project (circle one)?No Comments: d ( D S - \4 Ac n S C J (. COMMENT FORM Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) Public Scoping Meeting February 24,2010 4:30pm to 6:30pm Anaheim West Tower,Gordon Hoyt Conference Center 2d floor kib.egiot iiron frj)rma4i Ce,,rir Name Address Email J1I V?L(Vt—i 4LO CL/&,,7. Do you wish to be contacted in the future regarding this project (circle one)?No Comments: 1’;t ‘1’4t4 6 “/f’M.:’r C ,A’ó-¼sc #LY€/i-ZA //A--g’j .// Comments: I -—-————<___•/b /‘4 &5 V //J A Oviu Lji A L I F/J-r P’/4jJV I?i j ui2j+i i DT4iLE[-Pisr q V/Ez /,i 7j )iT F3t /7i,1i4CL-/f+S )12rrS 7 -z- )z +( Pi PasL !!7 D /i ((L7 J /J A (j (1)ZJ /SjiC ‘ /1D ( T 4CLi 9T /ttA o I1t&//J/J4 /)-j J(3 /jL-’!;3’-r /-ia )L J2lS --<,2i)(/7Z frL / COMMENT FORM Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) Public Scoping Meeting February 24,2010 4:30pm to 6:30pm Anaheim West Tower,Gordon Hoyt Conference Center 2nd floor Address /L/fri4ki 4H7/k Mib.Am Ragwna(oreon lcear Do you wish to be contacted in the future regarding this project (circle one)? COMMENT FORM Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) Public Scoping Meeting February 24,2010 4:30pm to 6:30pm Anaheim West Tower,Gordon Hoyt Conference Center 2nd floor k,itiim Trran c.ir Name Address Email r°1L i Ck) __________________________ GT Do you wish to be contacted in the future regarding this project (circle one)?No Comments: \YyThJ --c-u\\6J -\s iF 7GLyr tHU?J UcL pc PrU PD@LV FL)’\))cJE))‘WS s EG-)PUPR-t-. \c-\Z)P(LS )1T iJT 1C I 1i\ncr Ln-4N \C4S SQ)ftE I# C)033CDDCi)I:3-CDCD(I)-I.-0CDoci.,0-D3z.0<0)OcDoDCDDC)CDC-)CDD-4.CDrJci-h00-‘zCD3CD00)-I-nc-CD=O)j%30CCD.-CDCDC00.0)C)mt.*.CD-I-IC)0mz-I‘10ç;Nj‘ni COMMENT FORM Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) Public Scoping Meeting February 24,2010 4:30pm to 6:30pm Anaheim West Tower,Gordon Hoyt Conference Center 2nd floor Name Address Email .“-4-’-’s ‘j-L 9O7 Do you wish to be contacted in the future regarding this project (circle one)?No Comments: D(e c v-i.1 cJ €,.,‘-L,‘‘C-c7? +L’5 lug w uá )‘Cc 1p’ecP 5C I :1 ‘55 COMMENT FORM Anaheim Regional Transportation lntermodal Center (ARTIC) Public Scoping Meeting February 24,2010 4:30pm to 6:30pm Anaheim West Tower,Gordon Hoyt Conference Center 2nd floor djjh..gWijJ m.iãI r,izyic Name Address Email rvv-J€Ink4ICMI4 ‘---‘ 2Q 1,AJ..5#. 2L 66Q7 Do you wish to be contacted in the future regarding this project (circle one)?No Comments: PJ&e.CoiC--L17 yq &t-w/ty J-te pCoeC,L.iJ1L5L &r5-44 15 -.J P’e5 pc-‘y 7ppcdc 1-5 thcy Ma/)r (e.a/ —L.4 Th .9(e -/Te-’/pr)ec,’ a’ COMMENT FORM Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) Public Scoping Meeting February 24,2010 4:30pm to 6:30pm Anaheim West Tower,Gordon Hoyt Conference Center 2nd floor Jur Name Address Email hrin lyi AnkL,o? Do you wish to be contacted in the future regarding this project (circle one)?(Y)No Comments: COMMENT FORM Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) Public Scoping Meeting February 24,2010 4:30pm to 6:30pm Anaheim West Tower,Gordon Hoyt Conference Center 2’floor Ais Rwnii thflfhan prm’dI C.,ftr mirc Name Address Email /O//)/tJi #&;*eet 4p/(7 c4 Do you wish to be contacted in the future regarding this project (circle one)?No Comments: tij fc nd/c rnreS o re ar Ih ()1JIJ o -‘A 4 2 — JJ 2 - •• E v...2 0 x .I z i”4 >kç1- C.)1)0) .2 A .4-2 \-o Co (1)(1 ci)3 4.’-4-, ____ >-0’ ci) C.)C-)) &4 0 Cs.. 0 3 ‘) 0 G)L •3 N .IC.) I-tr 4-,C.)z ‘4:Lii J1 )1 -%\_‘ I.O(i)Dc1.2 4 L -C)0 •DoCThjO04 - Vs5<-C3) -‘2 .5 I F-c’- Co “fl—a)ki . 4-, c) U)— 1D .2D E 2 4-, D .4- U) (‘5 I,(u .1 .V C -2 ?-U) 4-,C-) (‘5 L. c. uIzI 4-, C ‘4:V 0 C) — Zr:-L) o -I-’..2 .C Cl)-2 4(4-, .s c a).4- E E o C.) 0 E Cu zi’ 14J -4 Agency Comment Letters Comments received via email during 2010 Scoping Period -----Original Message----- From: David.H.Sulouff@uscg.mil [mailto:David.H.Sulouff@uscg.mil] Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:48 AM To: myanez-forgash@arellanoassociates.com Cc: rruiz@anaheim.net Subject: ARTIC INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, ANAHEIM, CA Greetings: Under the provisions of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1982, the Coast Guard has determined this project does not require Coast Guard involvement for bridge permit purposes. It appears the subject project will not involve bridges, in/over/on navigable waters of the U.S. Therefore, a federal bridge permit under the provisions of the General Bridge Act 1946, as amended will not be required. David H. Sulouff Chief, Bridge Section Eleventh Coast Guard District 50-2 Coast Guard Island Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 437-3516 Office (510) 219-4366 cel (510) 437-5836 fax -----Original Message----- From: Sylvia Vega [mailto:sylvia_vega@dot.ca.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:04 AM To: myanez-forgash@arellanoassociates.com Subject: Re: ARTIC - Notice of Public Scoping Meeting Feb. 24 I attended a Scoping Meeting last fall. Is this a second scoping meeting? Or is this a public hearing? Sylvia Vega, District 12 Deputy District Director Environmental Division (949) 724-2018 Note: Starting August 2009, Caltrans will be closed the first, second and third Friday of every month due to the mandated Furlough Program through June 2010. Thank you for your patience and understanding. The ARTIC Project <myanez-forgash@a rellanoassociates To .com> sylvia.vega@dot.ca.gov cc 02/17/2010 04:06 PM Subject ARTIC - Notice of Public Scoping Meeting Feb. 24 Please respond to myanez-forgash@ar ellanoassociates. com Notice of Public Scoping Meeting Feb. 24, 2010 Where: Anaheim West Tower Gordon Hoyt Conf. Ctr., 2nd Fl. 201 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 (Embedded image moved to file: pic22702.gif)Driving Directions When: February 24, 2010 at 4:30 p.m. Visit anytime between 4:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. Parking: Parking for the meeting will be at: City of Anaheim Parking Structure 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Notice of Public Scoping Meeting For the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) Draft Environmental Impact Report The City of Anaheim is responsible for preparing the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for construction/ operation of the proposed ARTIC Project. ARTIC will be an intermodal transportation facility that will replace the existing Metrolink/Amtrak station currently located south of Katella Avenue and west of the Orange Freeway (SR-57). The proposed ARTIC site is located on a 16-acre site south of Katella Avenue, east of SR-57 and Douglass Road, and west of the Santa Ana River. (Embedded image moved to file: pic04144.jpg) AnaheimlogoARTIC will be an iconic transportation facility where people will seamlessly move between transit services to reach Southern California activity centers and business districts. The station will accommodate passenger arrivals, departures and transfers with supporting retail, restaurants and passenger services within the building. Your Input Counts Interested individuals, organizations, and agencies are invited to participate to learn more about the project and provide comments on what issues you would like to see addressed in the environmental document. Can't Attend? Comments may be submitted by March 8, 2010 Contact: Ruth Ruiz, Public Information Specialist, City of Anaheim Office: (714) 765-5060 Email: rruiz@anaheim.net 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 Register Now! Additional information may be found at: www.articinfo.com Haga click aqui para ver este aviso público en español Page2of3E-mail:gjsner(pbworld.comWeb:www.pbworld.comFrom:trigal@aol.com[mailto:trigal@aol.com]Sent:Thursday,April15,20109:41PMTo:Glessner,RobertSubject:Re:100415--ARTIC--QuestiononBikeandHiking?Iusethebike/multi-usetrailthroughthecityonaregularbasis.IknowthatthePlatinumTriangledevelopmentalongwithARTICwillbringalotofnewuserstothearea.Ihaveaconcernandasuggestion.MyconcernisthatbikethroughtrafficintheareawillbeimpactedbytheincreaseinvisitorstoARTIC,aspeopleseekawaytogetsomeexercise,perhapswhilewaitingforatrainorbus...andwillwanderoutontothebikepath.Currentlythebikepathinthatareahassteepclimbsandblindcurves.Theincreasedtrafficonthepath,withoutasafealternateforwalkers/hikers/strollers,willleadtoanincreaseinbike-pedestrianaccidentsandpossiblymorefatalities.MysuggestionisthatthereisasortofparallelpromonadeareadesignedintotheprojectthatconnectswiththeplannedregionalhikingpaththatwillparallelthebikepathfromKatellanorthandthetraintrackssouth.Perhapsthepromonadecanhaveseatsorviewingareasalongtheedge,orkioskretailnearby.Itwouldbeawaytoshowcasetheriverareawhilekeepingpedestrians(strollers,walkers,etc)safelyseparatefromthebikeway.Iwouldalsoliketoseebikelockersandfacilitiestoencouragepeopletoridetothetrainstation,utilizetheretailarea,secureabike,andthentakethetraintotheirdestination.Weneedsomegreenalternativesbuiltintothisplan,sinceallIseeislotsofroomforparking,taxis,trains,buses,butnopedestrianorbike-friendlyreferences.Thankssomuch.Pleasedoforwardmysuggestionstothedesignteam.CarolynBryantOriginalMessageFrom:Glessner,Robert<Glessner@pbworld.com>To:trigal@aol.comSent:Thu,Apr15,20104:25pmSubject:100415--ARTIC--QuestiononBikeandHiking?GreetingsMs.Bryant,,LauraMuna-Landaforwardedyourcontactinformation.Iunderstandthatyourinterestisinbikingandhiking.PleaseforwardyourcommentstomeandIwillbegladtoforwardthemontothedesignteam.Respectfully,RobertK.Glessner,AICPSupervisingPlannerInordertobemoreproductiveIchecke-mailsattimeofarrival(30-minutes),lunchhour,and30minutesbeforeIleaveattheendofday.Callmeifyouhaveanimmediateneed.ParsonsBrinckerhoff505SMainStreet,Suite900Orange,CA92868Direct:I-714-973-4880xt713Mobile:I-714-390-9631E-mail:glessner@pbworld.comWeb:www.pbworld.comfile://C:\DocumentsandSettings\EFigari\LocalSettings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4BC852ECKA...4/16/2010 2009 Scoping Period Comments DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATIONDistitt23337MichelsonSuite380SQfàtjC3i&4C’I4W0€rrQtIrvine,CA926124894Post-IC’FaxNote7671J0ate._.Ii8’sL.f1TeI(949)724-2241)ecrTQ,-promrc’oØ..iIF8x:(949)724-2592iDoptpcTçCo.S4rr&Phone#..kD5qPorno1l]p-L4FX1IAcn1iov1a.d.lcFcercAugust18,2009JenniferBergenerFile:IOR/CEQAOrangeCountyTransportationAuthoritySCH#:2009071071600SouthMainStreetJORLog:2324OrangeCalilbrnia928631-5,SR-22,SR-57Subject:AnaheimRegionalTransportationIntermodalCenter(ARTIC)DearMs.Bergener,ThankyoufortheopportunitytoreviewandcommentontheNoticeofPreparationfbrDraflEnvironmentalImpactReportfortheAnaheimRegionalTransportationIntermodalCenter(ARTIC).ARTICwouldrelocatetheexistingAiaheimStation(MetroliukandAmtrak)toanewlocationsouthwestoftheexistinglocationon.theoppositesideofSR-Si.Developmentoftheproposedprojectisnecessaryduetoincreasingrailpassengerdemand,theinabilitytosustainablyexpandtheexistingMetrolinkStationparking,limitedaccesstotheexistingMetrolinksite,andtheneedforconnectionsenablingtravelerstotransferfromonemodeoftransitservicetoanotheraregionalhub.ARTIC’sdevelopmentisanintegralelementofOCTA’sgatewaytoregionalrailprogram.ARTICalsofitswellintheRenewedMeasureMproject“T’programthatwillprovidefundingLuuuverLMetwliuktatiunsLuzegionalgatewaysthatwillconnectOrangeCountywithhighspeedrailsystems.TheproposedARTICsiteisplannedtobetheonlyOrangeCountyMetrolinkstationsitedesignatedasadestinationstopbytheCaliforniaHighSpeedRailAuthority.TheprojectsiteislocatedintheCityofAnaheimandisboundedbySR-Si,KatellaAvenue,DouglasStreet,theSantaMaRiver,andtheLOSSANrailcorridor.TheCaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation(Department),District12isacommentingagencyonthisprojectandhasthetbllowingcomments:1.TheEshouldacknowledgetheDepartments’standardofmaintainingatargetLcvclofService(LOS)atthetransitionbetweenLOSCandLOSDonStatehighwayfacilitiesincludingbutnotlimitedtofreewaysegments,intersectionc,andon/nflranip(weaving,queuing,merging,anddiverging).TheDepartmentacknowledgesthatthismaynotalwaysbefeasibleandrecommendsthattheleadagencyconsultwiththeDepartmenttodeterminetheappropriatetargetLOS.IfanexistingStatehighwayfacilityisoperatingatlessthantheappropriatetargetLOS,theexistingMOEshouldbemaintained,F1yotrpr,wr13ecnergy4fficlenhi“CafrrrzisImprove:mobllftyacrossCofornIa‘ 2.TheDepai-trnent’sTrafficOperationsBranchrequestsalltrafficanalysi5bebasedonthemethodoutlinedinthelatestversionoftheHighwayCapacityManual(HCM)whenanalyzingtralcimpactsonStateTransportationFacilitiesindudIngbutnotlimitedtofreewaysegments,highwaysegments,intersections,onorofframps(weaving,queuing,merginganddiverging.TheuseofHCMispreferredbytheDepartmentbecauseitisonoperationalanalysisasopposedtotheIntersectionCapacityUtilization(ICU)method,whichisaplanninganalysis.InthecaseofprojectsthathavedirectimpactsonStateFacilities,theDepartmentrecnmmendthatthetrafficimpactanalysisbebasedonHCMmethod.Shouldtheprojectrequireanencroachmentpermit,TrafficOperationsmayfindtheTrafcImpactStudybasedonICUmethodologyinadequateresultinginpossibledelayordenialofapermitbytheDepartment.Allinputsheets,assumptionsandvolumesonStateFacilitiesincludingrampsandintersectionanalysisshouldbesubmittedtotheDeparLzuentforreviewandapproval.Allenvironmentaldocumentsshouldincludeappropriatemitigationmeasurestooffsetanypotentialimpacts.ThetrafficimpactonthestatetransportationsystemshouldbeevaluatedbasedonthcDepartment’sGuideforthePreparationofTrafficImpactStudieswhichisavailableat:http:J/www.dot.ca.ovJbQ/trafXoDsfdevelopservJo.p..erationalsystemWrepprts/fjsujdc,pdf.3.Thisprojecthasthepotentialtosignificantlyimpactthe1-5,SR-57,andSR-22,freewaysmainlineandinterchanges,rampsandntersections.Impactsofdevelopmentcausingoperatingconditionstodeterioratetodeficientlevelsofservice,orimpactsaddingtoanexistingdeficientlevelofscrviccconditionrequiremitigation.4.TheDepartmenthasint&etinworkingconptrtive.lytoestablishaTracimpactFee(TIF)programtomitigatesuchimpactsona“fairshare”basis.Localdevelopmentprojectapplicantswouldpaytheir“fairshare”toanestablishedfindforfuturetransportationimprovementsonthestatehighwaysystem.ifthereisanedstingTIPprogram,itcanbeamendedtoincludemitigationforthestatehighwaysystemoranewTIPprogrammaybeconsidered.TheDepartmentrequeststheopportunitytoparticipateintheTIEforstatehighwayimprovementsdevelopmentprocess.5.TheDepartmenthasanestablishedmethodologystandardusedtoproperly,calculateequitableprojectsharecontrhution.ThscanbefoundinAppendixRoftheDepnrtment’.C’itiideforthePreparationofTrafficImpactStudieswhichisavailableathttp://www.dot.ca.ov/hqItraffop/deve1oDserv/operationa1systemLre.pprtsLtis,ggJi&e.,p.df.6.Theprojectisincloseproximityto1-5,SR-57,andSR-22,therefore,theprojectEIRshouldincludealternativesforcommuterstoeasilyaccessARTICbymeansotherthanthesingleoccupantvehicle.TheDepartmentrecognizesthatnon-motorizedtravelisavitalelementofthetransportationsystemandtherefore,encouragescommunitiestomakepedestrianandbicycleactivitypossible,thusexpandingtransportationoptions,andcreatingastreetscapethatbetterservesarangeofusers:.pedestrians,bicyclists,transitriders..rideshareandautomobiles.7.ForCEQApurposes,theDepartmentdoesnotconsidertheCongestionManagementPlan(CMP)signilicancethresholdofanincreaseinv/cmorethan1%rampsor3%formainlineappropriatc.ForanalysisofintersectionsconnectingtoStatefh.ci1ities.rampsandfreewaymainjinc,werccommcndcadycoordinationoccurtoduscusslove]ofsignlfIcanccthresholdsrelatedtotrafficandcirculation.‘Ca1rans(mprt7’es,nobthryacrossChfornia 8,SubmitfinalHydrologyIlElydraulicreportandplanstotheL)epartmentforreviewandcommentsforanypotentiaiimpactstotheDepartment’srightofway.IntheeventofanyactivityinDepartment’sright-of-way,anencroachmcntpcrmitwillberequired.Applidantsaterequiredtoplanforsufficientpermitprocessingtime,whichmayincludeengineeringstudiesandenvironmentaldocumentation.9.ifanyprojectwork(e.g,storageofmaterials,streetwidening,emergencyaccessimprovements,sewerconnections,soundwalls,stormdrainconstruction,streetconnections,etc.)willoccurinthevicinityoftheDepartmentRightofWay,anencroachmentpermitisi:equiiedpriortocommencementofwork.Pleaseallow2to4weeksforacompletesubmittaltobereviewedandforapermittobeissued.WhenapplyingforanEncroachmentPermit,pleaseincorporateEnvironmcntalDocumentation,SWPPP/WPCP,HydniuiicCalculations,TrailcControlPlans,GeotechnicalAnalysis,RightofWaycerti&ationandallrelevantdesigndetailsincludingdesignexceptionapprovaicForspecificdetailsontheDepartmentEncroachmentPermitsprocedure,pleaserefertotheDepartmentEncroachmentPermitsManual.Thelatesteditionofthemanualisavailableonthewebsite:http:I/wwwd.ot.ca.ovthg/traffDps/develoDservipennits/10.AllworkwithintheStateRightofWaymustconformtoTheDepartmentStandardPlansandStandardSpecificationsforWaterPollutionControl,includingproductionofaWaterPollutionControlProgram(WPCP)orStormWaterPollutionPreventionPlan(SWPI?P)a.rcquired.AnyrunoffdrainingintoTheDepartmentRightofWayfromconstructionoperations,orfromtheresultingproject,cannotbeapprovedbyDistrict12EnvironmentalPlanning.MeasureRmustbeincorporatedtocontainallvehicleloadsandavoidanytrackingofmaterials,whichmaytllorblowontoTheDepartmentroadwaysorfacilities.Pleasenotethatallprojectsinvolvingsoildisturbanceactivitiesshouldpayextraattentiontostormwaterpollutioncontrolduringthe“RainySeason”(Octoberl—April30th)andfollowtheWaterPollutionControlI3MPstontinirnizeimpacttothereceivingwttters.ii.Iftrafficnoiseimpactsarepredicted,noiseabetmentshouldbeconsidered.Anyattenuationoffreewaytrafficnoiseistheresponsibilityofthedevelopersoftheproject.TheDepartmentwillnotparticipateinanynoiseattenuationmeasures.PleasecontinuetokeepusinformedofthisprojectandanyfuturedevelopmentsthatcouldpotentiallyimpactStatetransportationfacilities.Ifyouhaveanyquestionsorneedtocontactus,pleasedonothesitatetocallMarya.mMolaviat(949)724-2267.Sincerely,ChristopherHerre,BranchChiefLocalDevelopmentllntergovernmentalReviewC:TerryRoberts,OfficeofPlanningandRcscarchCairranxmprove.mo1r’ro.eCa1for&a ENVTRONMENTALREVIEWREQUmEMENTSFOREN(OACHMENTPERMrrsAnyParty,outsideofCalteans,thatdoesworkonaStateI-lighwayorIater.stateHighwayinCalifornianeedstoapplyfoxaneeczoachmentpermit.Toacquireanyencroachmentpermit,environmentalconcernsmustbeaddressed.Environmental-evicwofencroachmentpermitapplicationsmaytake3weeksiftheø.pp1i*Picrirnmpleteorifibonpplicntionitincomplete.Forsoildisturbingactivities(e.g.gcotecbxiicalborings,gtacling,usageoftnsevcdroadsfromwhichdirtandothermaterialsmaybetrackedontotheState/Interstatehighways,etc.),compliancewithWaterQualifyandCulturalResourcesProvisionsarcemphasized.Surveysmay)maynOthr’.n1-titbn8acsit’in,dondingOntLw,itocnnecy,n.ct]zoaAcompleteapplicationforenvironmentalreviewincludesthefollowing:IfanowOcumcnt(CE,EIRJEISND.ctcjhasbeerconictcdfortheproject,copyoftheFinal.approveddocumentmustbesubmittedwiththeapplication.WtctQualityProvlojl;AllweakwithintheStateRightofWaymustconformtoCahxansStandardPlansandStandardSpeci4catonforWt.rPollutionControlincludingproductionofaWatci?ulluticniCunirexiProgramorStormWaterPollutionPrcvcntiooPlanasrequired.TheapplicantmustprovideoschnarotswithacopyoftheStormWaterPoflutionPreventionPlan(SWPPPIindudrngBestManagementPractices(BMPs)tobeiniplementedfoxconstructionactiviliesimpachngCaltransRightofWay,preparedforthisasrequiredbytheNPDESStatewideStormWntctPermitforGeneralComstxutionActivities.IfnoSWPPPhasbeenpreparedforthisproject,thentheapplicantmustfollowtherequirementsdescribedintheattachedWaterPollutienContxlProvisions(pleasesecattachment).3.CulturalRcspiiceeProvisione;jfnotincludedintheativironnmentaldocument,beforepermitapprovalandprojectconstruction,theencrcachmcntpermitapplir.sntmiiatcompleteaCrdttr&RanourcoAccomenpurauiwtttoCaltranaEnvironmentalHandbook,Volume2,AppendixB-i,andExhibit1,asamended.TheCulturalResourcesAssessmentascertainsthepresenceorabsenceofculturalresourceswithinaone-mileradiusoftheprojectareaandevsluatcsthetoizsytoried/cu1rurelr.seurce.Cu(tvwalRcaoarccsindude“thesexcwurcc,iign.icuntinAmenc,ujhimury,architecture,archaeology,andetilture.includingNativeAmericanResources”(CaltransEnvironmentalHandbookVolume2,Chapterl,asamended)).TheCulturalResourceAssessmentmusticludca)aclearproecrdescriptionandmapindicatingprolectwotk,stagngareas,siteaccess,etc.;b)aRecordSearchconductedattheSouthCentralCoastalInformationCenter(SCCIC)locatedatCaliforniaStateUniversity,Fullerton.Forinformationcall(714)278-5395;c)proofofNativeAmericanconsultation.ConsultationinvolvescontactingtheNsl±treAmericanHeritageComnussinn(NAHq.r$uestingasearchoftheirSacredLandsFile,andfollowingtherecommendationsprovidedbytimeN.AHC.Totinformationcall(91£.)6.4flRd)docrmientalionofanyhistoricproperties-(e.g.prehistoricandhistoricsites,iuildings,txueturcs,objects,ordistrictslistedoat,eligiblefor,orpotentiallyeligibleforlistingontheNationalRegisterofHtoricPlaces)a4thinacnnutileradiumoftheprojeerarea;a)snelasurveybyqualiFiedarchaeologistforallareasthathereriotbeampreviouslyraaarchedTheSCCILandNAHChaz’eartcippraamatetwitcuowidtameof2weeks.4.BiokgicatenoiatcesJ?rovlsions_WorkconductedwithinCskransRightofWayshouldhovetheappropriateplantandwildlifesurveyscompletedbyaqualifiedbiologistIftheinformationisnotindudedintheenvironmentaldocument,EnvironmentalPlanningrequeststhattheapplicantsubmitacopyofthebiologicalstudy,survey,ortechnicalreportbyqualifiedbiologistthatprovidesdetailsontheexistingvegetationandwildlifeattheprojectsiteandanyvegetationthatistoberemovedduringprojectactivities.OfficiallistsariddatabasesshouldalsobeconsultedforsesmsativespeciessuchastheCaliforniaNaturalDiversityDatabasearidlistsprovidedbytheU.S.FishandWildlifeServiceandtheCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame.Anyimpactsthataffectwaterwaysanddrainagesend/oropenspaceduringconstruction.orthatoccurindirectlyasarceult0ftheprojectmustbecoordinatedwiththeappropriateresourceagencies.Asguidance,weaskthattimeapplicantindudea)cleardescriptionofprojectactivitiesandtheprojectsiteb)completedenvironmentalsignificancechecklist(notjustyesandnoanswers,butadescriptionshouldbegivenastothereasonfortheresponse),c)staging/storageareasnotedonprojectplans,d)proposedtreeofyearforworkanddurationofactivities(withinforrxtaiionavailable),a)anyproposedmitigation(ifapplicabletotheproject),f)andarecordofartypriorresourceagencycorrespondence(ifapplicabletctlteproject). *ó..i.flCITYOFORANGEItt.DEPARTMENTOFCOMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTwww.cityo1orange.orADMINISTRATIONPLANNINGDIVISIONRIJILDINGDIViSIONCODEENFORCEMENTDIVISION(714)744-7240(714)744-7220(714)744-7200(714)744-7244fax:(714)744-7222fax:(714)744-7222fax:(714)744-7245fax:(714)7447245August14,2009Ms.JenniferBergener#22-09RailProgramManagerOCTA600SouthMainStreetOrange,California92868Subject:NoticeofPreparation(NOP)ofaDraftEnvironmentalImpactReport/EnvironmentalImpactStatement(EIRIEIS)fortheAnaheimRegionalTransportationIntermodalCenter(ARTIC)project.DearMs.Bergener,TheCityofOrange(City)hasreceivedtheNOPforanEW/EISfortheARTICproject,locatedintheCityofAnaheim.TheprojectsiteislocatedonaI5-acresite,boundbySR-57,theSantaAnaRiver,andKatellaAvenueandisadjacenttotheOrangeCityboundary.TheprojectinvolvesphaseddevelopmentofARTIC,withPhaseIcompletionin2013andPhaseIIandITTcompletionby2030.Generally,PhaseIincludesremovaloftheexistingAnaheimstation,constructionoftheARTICterminal(includingtrackwork,platforms,andpedestrianunderorovercrossings),streetimprovements(forexample,thewideningandloweringofDouglasAvenue),supportingbuildings(includinga13,000squarefootterminal,30,000squarefeetofcivicspace,and23,000squarefeetofretailuses),aid1,255+parkingspaces.TheinitialARTICcomplexwouldaccommodateexistingMetrolinkandAmtrakServicesincludingtheMetroiinkServiceExpansionProgram,aswellasservicessuchasBusRapidTransitandotherrubber-tirefixedrouteandshuttleservices.PhaseIIandIIIincludeconnectionstoothertransportationservicessuchastheAnaheimFixedGuidewayprojectandtheHighSpeedTrain,aswellasadditionalmixedusedevelopment(whichcouldincludecivicspace,retail,commercial,office,entertainment,hotel,andlorresidentialuses)inaccordancewiththePlatinumTriangleSpecificPlan.TheCityunderstandsthattheAnaheimFixedGuidewayproject,thehighSpeedTrainproject(fromLosAngelestoAnaheim),andthePlatinumTriangleSpecificPlanUpdatearerelatedprojectsandareundergoingenvironmentalreviewseparatelybutconcurrentlywiththeARTICproject.TheCitysupportsARTICasaregionaltransitfacility.However,becausetheART1Csiteislocateddirectlyadjacenttoourjurisdictionalboundary,theCityalsohasaninterestinensuringthatimpactstoourcommunityandinfrastructureareadequatelyanalyzedandmitigated.Inaddition,ifmitigationmeasuresorotherimprovementsrequiredtosupportthefacilityareproposedwithinourORANGECIVICCENTER300E.CHAPMANAVENUE•ORANGE,CA92866-1508.‘PNTEDCNRE’VCIE3‘APER August14,2009Page2jurisdiction,Cityapprovalswillbenecessaryinthefuture,potentiallymakingtheCityaresponsibleagencyunderCEQA,Assuch,theCitywouldappreciateconsiderationofthefollowingcomments:1.TheNOP’sInitialStudy,QuestionsXV(e)thruXV(g),statethat“Adetailedtrafficandcirculationstudywillbepreparedtodeterminethepotentialtrafficimpactsresultingfromtheimplementationoftheproposedproject...”.TheCityanticipatesthattheprojectwillgeneratetraffictripsthatwillusestreetsandintersectionswithinOrangejurisdiction.Therefore,theCityrequestsana.m.andp.m.intersectionanalysisintheTrafficsectionoftheEIR/EISforthefollowingintersectionslocatedinOrange:•MainStreetandTaftAvenue•MainStreetandKatellaAvenue•MainStreetandCollinsAvenue•MainStreetandOrangewoodAvenue•MainStreetandChapmanAvenue•EckhoffStreetandOrangewoodAvenue•BataviaStreetandTaftAvenueaBataviaStreetandKatellaAvenue••StruckAvenueandKatellaAvenue•TheCityDriveandChapmanAvenue••RampartStreetandChapmanAvenue••StateCollegeandOrangeCenterDriveeTheCityexpectsthatthetrafficanalysiswillincludeexistingconditionsandPhaseI,PhaseIIandPhaseIIIopeningyearanalyses,withandwithoutproject.IfmitigationsuchasaphysicalimprovementtoaroadwayorintersectioninOrangeisrequired,theCityrequestsabriefevaluationoffeasibility,aswellasacalculationoftheproject’sfairshareproportionofanyrecommendedcirculationimprovements.2.TheNOPstatesthatPhaseIoftheprojectwillbestudiedata“ProjectLevel”,whilebothPhasesIIandIllaretobeanalyzedata“ProgramLevel”.ThisapproachisofconcerntotheCity(particularlyintheareaoftrafficimpacts)ifitmeansthatdetailedtrafficinformation(sufficienttoidentifyprojectimpactsandmitigationforOrangeintersections)willnotbegeneratedforPhaseIIandIIIoftheARTICproject.ThisissueisfurthercomplicatedbyprojectssuchastheAnaheimFixedGuideway,HighSpeedTrain,andPlatinumTriangleSpecificPlanUpdatewhichinvolveimprovementstotheARTICsite,butareundergoingseparateandconcurrentenvironmentalreviewprocesses.TheCityisconcernedthatbecausethereisoverlapbetweenthevariousprojects,theARTICEIR/EISmaydeferanalysistoanotherEIR,suchthattheCitywillnotreasonablybeabletodetermineimpactsoftheARTICprojectbeyondPhaseI.Toaddressthisconcernandinorderformeaningfulenvironmentalreviewtooccur,theCityrequeststhattheARTICtrafficanalysisincludetripgeneration,distribution,andICU/LOSanalysisforeachintersectiorilroadwaysegmentaffectedbyprojecttrips,foreachphaseoftheproject.Totheextentthatimpactsareanalyzedinaseparateenvironmentaldocument(for August14,2009Page3example,impactsoftheHighSpeedTraincomponentofARTIC,orimpactsresultingfromlanduseallowedpursuanttotheupdatedPlatinumTriangleSpecificPlan),theCityrequeststheimpactinformationspecifictotheARTICsitebeincorporatedintotheARTICEIRIEIS‘sPhaseIIandPhaseIIIanalyses.3.TheCityiscurrentlyinthepublichearingphaseofitsComprehensiveGeneralPlanupdate.TheDraftEIRwascirculatedforpublicreviewinFebruaryandMarch2009.TheGeneralPlanUpdateproposeschangesinlandusedesignationsalongKatellaAvenueandinUptownOrange(theCityCenterarea),potentiallyresultinginhigherfuturetrafficvolumesonCitystreets.TheproposedlandusescenariofortheWestKatellaCorridorincorporatesamixed-usescenariothatwouldaccommodateanadditional383multi-familydwellingunits,andanadditional2,751,000squarefeetofnon-residential(retailandoffice)developmentoverourcurrentGeneralPlanbuildoutcondition.InthecaseofUptownOrange,amixed-uselandusescenarioisalsoproposed,whichwouldaccommodate4,110additionalhousingunitsand2,312,000squarefeetofnon-residentialdevelopment.TheGeneralPlanUpdateshouldbeconsideredasacumulativeprojectforintersectionsinOrangefortheARTICbuildoutanalysisscenario.TrafficimpactswereanalyzedwithinourGeneralPlanUpdateEIRformanyoftheintersectionslistedabove.Assuch,totheextentpossiblepleaseusetrafficvolumesfromtheGeneralPlanUpdateTrafficAnalysisandtheResponsetoComments/FinalEWforintersectionsinOrange.DougKeysat(714)744-5643maybecontactedformoredetailedinforniation.4.BasedontheinformationobtainedattheARTICscopingmeeting,theARTICcomplexisenvisionedasaregionallandmarkandwillconsist(initially)ofa66,000squarefootstructure,withpotentially1.5millionsquarefeetofmixedusedevelopmentatbuildout.TheCityrequeststheEIR/EISaddressvisualandlandusecompatibilityissuesparticularlyinrelationtotheKatellacorridorareainOrangewherefuturemixeduse/multifamilyresidentialdevelopmentisenvisioned.Specifically,theCityrequestsaphotosimulationofatypicalviewfromOrange’sKatellacorridorandalsoananalysisofbulkandmass,buildingheight,shade/shadoweffects,etc.5.TheARTICsiteisseparatedfromtheCity’sKatellacorridoronlybythewidthoftheSantaAnaRiver.ConsideringtheproximityofARTICtofuturemultifamilyresidentialusesalongKatellaAvenue,theCityrequeststheEIRJEISaddressnoiseandvibrationimpactsfromconstructionandoperationoftheARTICfacility.Trafficnoiseandrailoperationsnoiseareofparticularconcern.ProjectednoisecontoursforeachphaseoftheprojectalongtheKatellacorridorareofparticularinterest.6.TheCityrequestsnotificationandcoordinationattheearliestpossibledateduringthedevelopmentoftheEIRJEISifanyprojectdesignfeature,mitigationmeasureoralternativeinvolvesanychangestothecirculationnetworkintheCityofOrange(forexample,roadwaywideningorextensions).ThankyoufortheopportunitytorespondtotheNOPfortheARTICproject.TheCitylooksforwardtoasuccessfulworkingrelationshipwithOCTAandAnaheimonthisproject. August14,2009Page4Sincerely,CommunityDevelopmentDirectorCityofOrangecc:JohnSibley,CityManagerJoeDefrancesco,ActingPublicWorksDirectorFrankSunCityEngineerArnirFarahani,TrafficEngineerDougKeys,TransportationAnalystAnnaPehoushek,PrincipalPlannerJenniferLe,SeniorPlanner/EnvironmentalReviewCoordinator LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc i TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... xii 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Study Area ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Traffic Impact Analysis Scenarios .................................................................................... 4 1.3 Study Area - City of Orange .............................................................................................. 4 2.0 Project Description and Location ............................................................................................. 5 2.1 Site Access ........................................................................................................................ 5 3.0 Analysis Methodology ................................................................................................................ 7 3.1 Existing Street Network .................................................................................................... 7 3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................. 9 3.3 Capacity Analysis Methodologies ..................................................................................... 9 3.3.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Method of Analysis (Signalized Intersections)..................................................................................... 9 3.3.2 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Method of Analysis (Unsignalized Intersections) .............................................................................. 10 3.3.3 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Method of Analysis (Signalized Intersections)................................................................................... 10 3.3.4 Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio Method of Analysis (Roadway Segments) ... 11 3.3.5 Freeway Mainline and Ramp Merge/Diverge Points ......................................... 12 3.3.6 Freeway Weaving Analysis ............................................................................... 12 3.4 Impact Criteria and Thresholds ....................................................................................... 12 3.4.1 Intersections ....................................................................................................... 13 3.4.2 Arterial Segments............................................................................................... 13 3.4.3 Caltrans Facilities ............................................................................................... 14 4.0 Traffic Forecasting Methodology ........................................................................................... 22 5.0 Project Traffic Characteristics ............................................................................................... 23 5.1 Project Traffic Generation Forecast ................................................................................ 23 5.2 Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment .................................................................. 26 5.2.1 Existing Project Traffic Volumes ...................................................................... 26 5.2.2 Proposed Project Traffic Volumes ..................................................................... 26 6.0 Future Traffic Conditions ....................................................................................................... 27 6.1 Existing With Project Traffic Volumes ........................................................................... 27 6.2 Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Volumes .................................................................. 27 6.3 Year 2013 With Project Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 27 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) SECTION PAGE 6.4 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Volumes .................................................................. 28 6.5 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 29 7.0 Existing Conditions Traffic Impact Analysis ........................................................................ 32 7.1 Existing Conditions Intersection Capacity Analysis ....................................................... 32 7.1.1 Existing Traffic Conditions................................................................................ 32 7.1.2 Existing With Project Traffic Conditions .......................................................... 32 7.2 Existing Conditions Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis ............................................ 35 7.2.1 Existing Traffic Conditions................................................................................ 35 7.2.2 Existing With Project Traffic Conditions .......................................................... 35 8.0 Year 2013 Traffic Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 38 8.1 Year 2013 Intersection Capacity Analysis ...................................................................... 38 8.1.1 Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions .................................................. 38 8.1.2 Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions ....................................................... 38 8.2 Year 2013 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis ........................................................... 41 8.2.1 Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions .................................................. 41 8.2.2 Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions ....................................................... 41 9.0 Year 2030 Traffic Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 46 9.1 Year 2030 Intersection Capacity Analysis ...................................................................... 46 9.1.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions .................................................. 46 9.1.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions ....................................................... 46 9.2 Year 2030 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis ........................................................... 50 9.2.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions .................................................. 50 9.2.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions ....................................................... 50 10.0 Congestion Management Program (CMP) Analysis ............................................................ 55 10.1 Existing With Project CMP Intersection Peak Hour Capacity Analysis ......................... 55 10.2 Existing With Project CMP Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis ...................... 56 10.3 Year 2013 With Project CMP Intersection Peak Hour Capacity Analysis ..................... 60 10.4 Year 2013 With Project CMP Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis .................. 60 10.5 Year 2030 With Project CMP Intersection Peak Hour Capacity Analysis ..................... 64 10.6 Year 2030 With Project CMP Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis .................. 64 11.0 Year 2013 Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology).............................................. 69 11.1 Year 2013 Intersection Capacity Analysis ...................................................................... 70 11.1.1 Existing Traffic Conditions................................................................................ 70 11.1.2 Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions .................................................. 70 11.1.3 Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions ....................................................... 71 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) SECTION PAGE 11.2 Year 2013 Freeway Ramp Analysis (Merge/Diverge Analysis) ..................................... 73 11.2.1 Existing Traffic Conditions................................................................................ 73 11.2.2 Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions .................................................. 73 11.2.3 Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions ....................................................... 73 11.3 Year 2013 Freeway Ramp Analysis (Weaving Analysis) ............................................... 75 11.3.1 Existing Traffic Conditions................................................................................ 75 11.3.2 Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions .................................................. 75 11.3.3 Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions ....................................................... 75 11.4 Year 2013 Freeway Segment Analysis ........................................................................... 78 11.4.1 Existing Traffic Conditions................................................................................ 78 11.4.2 Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions .................................................. 78 11.4.3 Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions ....................................................... 78 12.0 Year 2030 Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology).............................................. 81 12.1 Year 2030 Intersection Capacity Analysis ...................................................................... 81 12.1.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions .................................................. 81 12.1.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions ....................................................... 81 12.2 Year 2030 Freeway Ramp Analysis (Merge/Diverge Analysis) ..................................... 83 12.2.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions .................................................. 83 12.2.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions ....................................................... 83 12.3 Year 2030 Freeway Ramp Analysis (Weaving Analysis) ............................................... 85 12.3.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions .................................................. 85 12.3.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions ....................................................... 85 12.4 Year 2030 Freeway Segment Analysis ........................................................................... 88 12.4.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions .................................................. 88 12.4.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions ....................................................... 88 13.0 Site Access and Internal Circulation Analysis ...................................................................... 90 13.1 Site Access Evaluation .................................................................................................... 90 13.1.1 Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions ....................................................... 90 13.2 Driveway Stacking/Storage and Queuing Analysis ........................................................ 91 13.2.1 Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions ....................................................... 91 13.3 Internal Circulation Evaluation ....................................................................................... 91 13.4 Intersection of Douglass Road and Katella Avenue Operations Analysis (HCM Methodology) ........................................................................................ 92 14.0 Proposed Mitigation And Improvement Strategies .............................................................. 94 14.1 Traffic Fee Program ........................................................................................................ 94 14.2 Steps for Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................ 94 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) SECTION PAGE 14.3 Existing With Project Improvements .............................................................................. 95 14.3.1 Intersections Improvements ............................................................................... 95 14.3.2 Roadway Segments Improvements .................................................................... 95 14.4 Year 2013 With Project Improvements ........................................................................... 95 14.4.1 Intersections Improvements ............................................................................... 96 14.4.2 Roadway Segments Improvements .................................................................... 96 14.4.3 Caltrans Ramp Intersections Improvements ...................................................... 96 14.4.4 Caltrans Ramp Locations Improvements (Merge/Diverge Analysis) ................ 96 14.4.5 Caltrans Ramp Locations Improvements (Weaving Analysis) .......................... 96 14.4.6 Caltrans Freeway Segments Improvements ....................................................... 96 14.5 Year 2030 With Project Improvements ........................................................................... 99 14.5.1 Intersections Improvements ............................................................................... 99 14.5.2 Roadway Segments Improvements .................................................................... 99 14.5.3 Caltrans Ramp Intersections Improvements ...................................................... 99 14.5.4 Caltrans Ramp Locations Improvements (Merge/Diverge Analysis) .............. 100 14.5.5 Caltrans Ramp Locations Improvements (Weaving Analysis) ........................ 100 14.5.6 Caltrans Freeway Segments Improvements ..................................................... 100 14.6 Caltrans Ramps and Freeway Improvements ................................................................ 102 14.6.1 Caltrans Freeway Segments ............................................................................. 103 14.6.2 Caltrans Freeway Ramps and Weaving Segments ........................................... 105 14.7 Other Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................ 106 14.7.1 Project Level Impact Analysis ......................................................................... 106 14.7.2 Transportation Fee Program ............................................................................ 106 14.8 Unavoidable Impacts and Statement of Overriding Considerations ............................. 107 14.9 City of Orange Improvements ....................................................................................... 107 14.9.1 Intersections Improvements ............................................................................. 107 14.9.2 Roadway Segments Improvements .................................................................. 107 15.0 Summary of Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 108 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc v APPENDICES APPENDIX A. Existing Traffic Count Data A-I Intersection Count Data A-II Roadway Segment Count Data B. Existing Freeway Segment and Ramp Traffic Volumes C. Existing With Project Traffic Volumes C-I Intersection Traffic Volumes C-II Roadway Segment Traffic Volumes C-III Freeway Segment and Ramp Traffic Volumes D. Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Volumes D-I Intersection Traffic Volumes D-II Roadway Segment Traffic Volumes D-III Freeway Segment and Ramp Traffic Volumes E. Year 2030 With Project Traffic Volumes E-I Intersection Traffic Volumes E-II Roadway Segment Traffic Volumes E-III Freeway Segment and Ramp Traffic Volumes F. Existing Traffic Conditions Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets F-I Existing Traffic Conditions G. Existing With Project Traffic Conditions Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets G-I Existing With Project Traffic Conditions G-II Existing With Project With Mitigation Traffic Conditions H. Year 2013 Traffic Conditions Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets H-I Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions H-II Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions H-III Year 2013 With Project With Mitigation Traffic Conditions I. Year 2030 Traffic Conditions Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets I-I Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions I-II Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions I-III Year 2030 With Project With Mitigation Traffic Conditions LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc vi APPENDICES (CONTINUED) APPENDIX J. Existing Traffic Conditions Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets – Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology) J-I Existing Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Intersection Analysis (HCM Methodology) K. Existing Traffic Conditions Freeway Ramp Level of Service Calculation Worksheets – Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology) K-I Existing Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Ramp Analysis (HCM Methodology) L. Existing Traffic Conditions Freeway Segment Level of Service Calculation Worksheets – Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology) L-I Existing Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Segment Analysis (HCM Methodology) M. Year 2013 Traffic Conditions Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets – Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology) M-I Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Intersection Analysis (HCM Methodology) M-II Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Intersection Analysis (HCM Methodology) M-III Year 2013 With Project With Mitigation Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Intersection Analysis (HCM Methodology) N. Year 2013 Traffic Conditions Freeway Ramp Level of Service Calculation Worksheets – Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology) N-I Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Ramp Analysis (HCM Methodology) N-II Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Ramp Analysis (HCM Methodology) N-III Year 2013 With Project With Mitigation Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Ramp Analysis (HCM Methodology) O. Year 2013 Traffic Conditions Freeway Segment Level of Service Calculation Worksheets – Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology) O-I Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Segment Analysis (HCM Methodology) O-II Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Segment Analysis (HCM Methodology) O-III Year 2013 With Project With Mitigation Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Segment Analysis (HCM Methodology) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc vii APPENDICES (CONTINUED) APPENDIX P. Year 2030 Traffic Conditions Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets – Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology) P-I Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Intersection Analysis (HCM Methodology) P-II Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Intersection Analysis (HCM Methodology) P-III Year 2030 With Project With Mitigation Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Intersection Analysis (HCM Methodology) Q. Year 2030 Traffic Conditions Freeway Ramp Level of Service Calculation Worksheets – Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology) Q-I Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Ramp Analysis (HCM Methodology) Q-II Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Ramp Analysis (HCM Methodology) Q-III Year 2030 With Project With Mitigation Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Ramp Analysis (HCM Methodology) R. Year 2030 Traffic Conditions Freeway Segment Level of Service Calculation Worksheets – Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology) R-I Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Segment Analysis (HCM Methodology) R-II Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Segment Analysis (HCM Methodology) R-III Year 2030 With Project With Mitigation Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Segment Analysis (HCM Methodology) S. Site Access and Project Driveway Level of Service Calculation Worksheets S-I Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions T. Project Related Fair-Share Calculation T-I Intersection Fair-Share Calculation T-II Roadway Segment Fair-Share Calculation T-III Caltrans Ramp Fair-Share Calculation (Merge/Diverge Analysis) T-IV Caltrans Ramp Fair-Share Calculation (Weaving Analysis) T-V Caltrans Freeway Segment Fair-Share Calculation LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc viii LIST OF FIGURES SECTION – FIGURE # FOLLOWING PAGE 1–1 Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................................. 4 1–2 Regional Map ................................................................................................................................. 4 2–1 Existing Site Plan ........................................................................................................................... 6 2–2 Proposed Site Plan ......................................................................................................................... 6 3–1 Existing Roadway Conditions and Intersection Controls .....................................................14 3–2 Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................................................ 14 3–3 Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................................................. 14 3–4 Existing Daily Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................. 14 5–1 Existing Project Trip Distribution Pattern ............................................................................26 5–2 Proposed Project Trip Distribution Pattern ...........................................................................26 5–3 AM Peak Hour Existing Project Traffic Volumes ................................................................... 26 5–4 PM Peak Hour Existing Project Traffic Volumes .................................................................... 26 5–5 Daily Existing Project Traffic Volumes .................................................................................... 26 5–6 AM Peak Hour Proposed Project Traffic Volumes .................................................................. 26 5–7 PM Peak Hour Proposed Project Traffic Volumes .................................................................. 26 5–8 Daily Proposed Project Traffic Volumes .................................................................................. 26 6–1 Existing With Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .......................................................... 31 6–2 Existing With Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................................................... 31 6–3 Existing With Project Daily Traffic Volumes .......................................................................... 31 6–4 Year 2013 Without Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................. 31 6–5 Year 2013 Without Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................. 31 6–6 Year 2013 Without Project Daily Traffic Volumes ................................................................. 31 6–7 Year 2013 With Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...................................................... 31 6–8 Year 2013 With Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ....................................................... 31 6–9 Year 2013 With Project Daily Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 31 6–10 Year 2030 Without Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................. 31 6–11 Year 2030 Without Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................. 31 6–12 Year 2030 Without Project Daily Traffic Volumes ................................................................. 31 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc ix LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED) SECTION – FIGURE # FOLLOWING PAGE 6–13 Year 2030 With Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...................................................... 31 6–14 Year 2030 With Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ....................................................... 31 6–15 Year 2030 With Project Daily Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 31 7–1 Existing Vs. Existing With Project Peak Hours Level of Service Results Comparison ......... 34 8-1 Year 2013 Without Project Vs. Year 2013 With Project Peak Hours Level of Service Results Comparison ......................................................................................... 40 9–1 Year 2030 Without Project Vs. Year 2013 With Project Peak Hours Level of Service Results Comparison ......................................................................................... 49 13-1 Project Driveway Lane Configurations ....................................................................................... 93 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc x LIST OF TABLES SECTION-TABLE# PAGE 3-1 Level of Service Criteria For Signalized Intersections (ICU Methodology) ................... 15 3-2 Level of Service Criteria For Unsignalized Intersections (HCM) ................................... 16 3-3 Level of Service Criteria For Signalized Intersections (HCM) ....................................... 17 3-4 Daily Roadway Segment Capacities ................................................................................ 18 3-5 Caltrans Freeway Mainline and Ramp Level of Service Criteria (HCM) ....................... 19 3-6 Caltrans Freeway Weaving Level of Service Criteria (HCM) ......................................... 20 3-7 Significant Impact Criteria ............................................................................................... 21 5-1 Project Traffic Trip Generation Rates and Forecast ............................................................. 25 6-1 Related Projects Summary ...................................................................................................... 30-31 7-1 Existing With Related Projects With Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary ................................................................................................................... 33-34 7-2 Existing With Related Projects With Project Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service Summary ..................................................................................................................... 36-37 8-1 Year 2013 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary ....................................... 39-40 8-2 Year 2013 Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service Summary ..................................... 42-43 8-3 Year 2013 Roadway Segment Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary ............................ 44-45 9-1 Year 2030 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary ....................................... 48-49 9-2 Year 2030 Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service Summary ..................................... 51-52 9-3 Year 2030 Roadway Segment Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary ............................ 53-54 10-1 Existing With Related Projects With Project Peak Hour CMP Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary ............................................................................................ 57 10-2 Existing With Related Projects With Project CMP Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service Summary ................................................................................... 58-59 10-3 Year 2013 Peak Hour CMP Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary ........................... 61 10-4 Year 2013 CMP Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service Summary ......................... 62-63 10-5 Year 2030 Peak Hour CMP Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary ........................... 65 10-6 Year 2030 CMP Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service Summary ......................... 66-67 10-7 Year 2030 CMP Roadway Segment Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary ................. 68 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc xi LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) SECTION-TABLE# PAGE 11-1 Year 2013 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) ........................................................................................... 72 11-2 Year 2013 Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – Merge/Diverge Analysis (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) .................................................................................. 74 11-3 Year 2013 Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – Weaving Analysis (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) .................................................................................................. 77 11-4 Year 2013 Peak Hour Freeway Segment Capacity Analysis Summary (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) .................................................................................................. 80 12-1 Year 2030 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) ........................................................................................... 82 12-2 Year 2030 Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – Merge/Diverge Analysis (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) .................................................................................. 84 12-3 Year 2030 Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – Weaving Analysis (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) .................................................................................................. 87 12-4 Year 2030 Peak Hour Freeway Segment Capacity Analysis Summary (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) .................................................................................................. 89 13-1 Driveway Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary ............................................................... 93 14-1 Year 2013 with Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis, Improvements And Project Fair-Share Percentage Summary ............................................. 98 14-2 Year 2030 with Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis, Improvements And Project Fair-Share Percentage Summary ............................................. 101 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc xii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ¾ The proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) project is located in the City of Anaheim, California, in an area of the City referred to as the Platinum Triangle. The Project site is bounded by Katella Avenue to the north, the Orange Freeway (SR-57) to the south, the Santa Ana River to the east and Douglass Road to the west, with the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) rail corridor bisecting the site. The scope of the Project is to replace and enlarge the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak station and will include a nominal amount of passenger-oriented retail uses. Construction of ARTIC is estimated to be completed in 2013. The Project would provide improvements to convert the site from a former County of Orange maintenance facility to a fully functioning regional transportation facility. Along with the Metrolink Service Expansion Program currently underway, the site would accommodate existing transit services and future services such as Bus Rapid Transit and other rubber-tired fixed route and shuttle services. The proposed ARTIC site includes the 13.58-acre Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) parcel and an adjacent 2.2-acre parcel owned by the City of Anaheim. The proposed Project will replace the existing Metrolink station located to the west of the Project site along the northern edge of the Anaheim Angels Stadium parking area. While there are industrial buildings on the proposed Project site, the buildings are vacant and will be demolished as part of the Project development. This study analyzes the relocation of the existing rail station to the ARTIC site with the facilities necessary to support existing transit services (rail and non-rail), as well as to accommodate future transit services such as the planned OCTA’s Metrolink Service Expansion Program (MSEP) currently underway, OCTA’s proposed Bravo service and other fixed route services. ARTIC will also include passenger-oriented retail and civic space. A total parking supply of up to 960 parking spaces will be provided within three parking lots, ARTIC North Parking Lot, ARTIC South Parking Lot and the existing Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot, with a parking supply of approximately 323 parking spaces, 232 parking spaces and 405 parking spaces, respectively. Access to the Project site and parking lots would be provided via driveways located along Douglass Road, Katella Avenue and at the existing Sportstown access on Katella west of the 57 Freeway. ¾ The proposed Project is forecast to generate 4,714 daily trips (one half arriving and one half departing), with 805 trips (642 inbound, 163 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 662 trips (144 inbound, 518 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. ¾ The existing Project (Metrolink Station) generates 1,015 daily trips (one half arriving and one half departing), with 183 trips (119 inbound, 64 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc xiii and 223 trips (86 inbound, 137 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. ¾ After taking credit for the existing Metrolink land use, the proposed Project is forecast to generate 3,699 net daily trips (one half arriving and one half departing), with 622 net trips (523 inbound, 99 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 439 net trips (58 inbound, 381 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. ¾ The Project study area covers twelve (12) existing key study intersections and seven (7) future Project driveways. The key study intersections and Project driveways are: 1. Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 3. Lewis Street at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 4. State College Boulevard at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 5. Sportstown at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 6. Howell Avenue at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 9. Douglass Road at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 10. Struck Avenue at Katella Avenue (City of Orange) 11. Main Street at Katella Avenue (City of Orange) 12. Batavia Street at Katella Avenue (City of Orange) 13. Douglass Road at Driveway 1 (Future) 14. Douglass Road at Driveway 2 (Future) 15. Douglass Road at Driveway 3 (Future) 16. Douglass Road at Driveway 4 (Future) 17. Douglass Road at Driveway 5 (Future) 18. Douglass Road at Driveway 6 (Future) 19. Driveway 7 at Katella Avenue (Future) ¾ The Project study area covers eight (8) key study roadway segments. The key roadway segments are: 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way (City of Anaheim) 2. Katella Avenue between Anaheim Way and Lewis Street (City of Anaheim) 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard (City of Anaheim) 4. Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown (City of Anaheim) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc xiv 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue (City of Anaheim) 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway (City of Anaheim) 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street (Cities of Anaheim/Orange)1 8. Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street (City of Orange) Existing Conditions ¾ All twelve (12) key study intersections under the Existing peak hour service level calculations based on existing traffic volumes and current street geometry are currently operating at an acceptable LOS B or better. ¾ All eight (8) key study roadway segments under Existing service level calculations based on existing daily traffic volumes and current roadway geometry are currently operating at acceptable LOS B or better. Existing With Project Conditions ¾ All twelve (12) key study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS B or better for the Existing With Project traffic conditions when compared to the LOS standards defined in this report. ¾ All eight (8) of the key study roadway segments are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS B on a daily basis under Existing With Project traffic conditions based on the LOS impact criteria outlined in this report. Year 2013 With Project Conditions ¾ None of the key study intersections under the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions are significantly impacted by the addition of Project traffic per the impact criteria outlined in this report. ¾ None of the key study roadway segments under the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions are significantly impacted by the addition of Project traffic per the impact criteria outlined in this report. Year 2030 With Project Conditions ¾ Two (2) key study intersections will be significantly impacted based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted intersections to acceptable Level of Service. 1 The segment from the SR-57 Freeway to Santa Ana River is in the City of Anaheim and the segment from the Santa Ana River to Main Street is in the City of Orange. Since the roadway segment count was collected in the City of Anaheim, this segment has been analyzed as a City of Anaheim segment. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc xv ¾ One (1) study roadway segment is significantly impacted by Year 2030 With Project traffic based on the LOS impact criteria outlined in this report. The segment of Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way will be mitigated by widening Katella Avenue from six (6) to eight (8) lanes. It should be noted that this improvement has been determined to be feasible through the Platinum Triangle Implementation Plan. The recommended mitigation measure will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted roadway segment to an acceptable Level of Service. Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) Analysis Existing With Project ¾ All four (4) CMP intersections operate at acceptable LOS A for both the Existing and Existing With Project traffic conditions based on the CMP criteria which stipulates maintaining LOS E at all CMP locations. ¾ All eight (8) CMP roadway segments operate at acceptable LOS B or better for both the Existing and Existing With Project traffic conditions. Year 2013 Conditions ¾ All four (4) CMP intersections operate at acceptable LOS B or better for both the Year 2013 Without Project and Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions. ¾ All eight (8) of the CMP roadway segments operate at acceptable LOS E or better for both the Year 2013 Without Project and Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions. Year 2030 Conditions ¾ All four (4) CMP intersections operate at acceptable LOS D or better after the implementation of the recommended improvements for both the Year 2030 Without Project and Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. ¾ One (1) CMP roadway segment is significantly impacted. The segment of Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way will be mitigated by widening Katella Avenue from six (6) to eight (8) lanes. It should be noted that this improvement has been determined to be feasible through the Platinum Triangle Implementation Plan. With the implementation of this planned improvement, this roadway segment is forecast to operate at acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours and is consistent with the 2009 Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) requirement. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc xvi Caltrans Facilities Analysis Existing Conditions ¾ All Caltrans intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Year 2013 With Project Conditions ¾ None of the four (4) Caltrans ramp intersections operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. All four (4) Caltrans ramp intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions. ¾ None of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations (Merge/Diverge Analysis) operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. All four (4) Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions. ¾ Three (3) of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations (Weaving Analysis) operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining one (1) Caltrans ramp location is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp -- -- 36.59 E 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp -- -- 43.04 F 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 37.10 E 38.44 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report will offset the impact of the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted ramp locations to acceptable Level of Service. ¾ Two (2) Caltrans freeway segments operate at adverse levels of service with addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining two (2) Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc xvii AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 3. SR-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road -- -- -- 8,380 OVRFL F 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue -- -- -- 7,603 38.4 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report will offset the impact of the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted freeway segments to acceptable Level of Service. Year 2030 With Project Conditions ¾ Two (2) Caltrans study intersections will operate at adverse levels of service under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The locations operating at an adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Intersection Delay (s/v) LOS Delay (s/v) LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at Katella Ave 59.0 E 70.9 E 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at Katella Avenue -- -- 81.7 F It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report will offset the impacts of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted intersections to acceptable Level of Service. ¾ None of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations (Merge/Diverge Analysis) operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. All four (4) Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. ¾ Three (3) of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations (Weaving Analysis) operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining one (1) Caltrans ramp location is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp -- -- 38.20 E LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc xviii 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp 36.17 E 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 40.79 E 38.63 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted ramp locations to acceptable Level of Service. ¾ One (1) Caltrans freeway segment operates at an adverse level of service with addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining three (3) Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue 8,490 40.4 E 8,360 39.0 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted freeway segments to acceptable Level of Service. Site Access & On-Site Circulation ¾ All the Project driveways are forecast to operate at an acceptable service level of LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours for Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions. As such, Project access will be adequate. Motorists entering and exiting the Project site will be able to do so comfortably, safely and without undue congestion. ¾ The maximum number of inbound vehicle queue calculated during the Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions occurs on the inbound southbound left-turn movement from Douglass Road into Driveway 3 during the AM peak hour. The queue on Douglass Road is forecast to have a maximum queue of six (6) vehicles. This vehicle queue length translates to 132 feet in queuing (assuming an average car length of 22 feet). The maximum number of outbound vehicle queue calculated during the Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions occurs on the outbound westbound right-turn movement from Driveway 2 onto Douglass Road during the PM peak hour. The queue on Driveway 2 is forecast to have a maximum queue of three (3) vehicles. This vehicle queue length translates to 66 feet in queuing (assuming an average car length of 22 feet). All of the other Project driveways are forecast to operate with a maximum queue of one (1) vehicle during the AM and PM peak hours. ¾ Based on the Driveway Stacking/Storage and Queuing Analysis, adequate vehicle storage is provided at all of the driveways and review of the proposed site plan indicates that all Project LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc xix driveways have sufficient stacking to accommodate the forecast vehicle queues. Based on the above, no changes to the proposed configuration of the Project driveways are necessary. ¾ The on-site circulation was evaluated in terms of vehicle-pedestrian conflicts. Based on our review of the preliminary site plan, the overall layout does not create any unsafe vehicle- pedestrian conflict points and the driveway throating is sufficient such that access to parking spaces is not impacted by internal vehicle queuing/stacking. Curb return radii have been confirmed and are adequate for passenger cars, buses, shuttles, service/delivery trucks and trash trucks. Project traffic is not anticipated to cause significant queuing/stacking on the Project driveways. The on-site circulation is very good based on our review of the proposed site plan, whereas the alignment, spacing and throating of the Project driveways is adequate. The circulation around the buildings is adequate with sufficient sight distance along the drive aisles. ¾ To supplement the operations analysis for the site access evaluation, the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue has been analyzed using the HCM 2000 Methodology to determine the appropriate northbound approach lane geometry for the Year 2013 Project opening condition. As a result of the HCM analysis, the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue is recommended to consist of a northbound lane configuration of two NBL turn lanes, one NBTR lane and one NBR turn lane for the Year 2013 Project opening condition. The intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue operates at acceptable LOS D or better based on the HCM 2000 Methodology and the lane configuration mentioned above. Proposed Mitigation and Improvement Strategies Existing With Project Intersection Improvements: ¾ Since there were no impacted intersections under the Existing With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Existing With Project Roadway Segments Improvements: ¾ Since there were no impacted roadway segments under the Existing With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Year 2013 With Project Intersection Improvements: ¾ Since there were no impacted intersections under the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. It should be noted that the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue assumes a northbound lane configuration of two NBL, one NBTR and one NBR for the “with” Project scenario as identified in the Project Description of the ARTIC EIR. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc xx Year 2013 With Project Roadway Segments Improvements: ¾ Since there were no impacted roadway segments under the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Year 2013 With Project Caltrans Ramp Intersections Improvements: ¾ Since there were no impacted ramp intersections under the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Year 2013 With Project Caltrans Ramp Locations (Merge/Diverge Analysis) Improvements: ¾ Since there were no impacted ramp locations based on the merge/diverge analysis under the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Year 2013 With Project Caltrans Ramp Locations (Weaving Analysis) Improvements: ¾ The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans ramp locations significantly impacted by the Year 2013 With Project traffic: SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off- Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. This improvement is funded by Measure M and is estimated to be completed in Year 2013. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off- Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. Year 2013 With Project Caltrans Freeway Segments Improvements: ¾ The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans freeway segments significantly impacted by the Year 2013 With Project traffic: SR-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. This improvement is funded by Measure M and is estimated to be completed by Year 2013. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. Year 2030 With Project Intersection Improvements: ¾ The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the intersections significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic: LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc xxi Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re- stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 5th westbound through lane. Modify existing traffic signal. Douglass Road at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Douglass Road to provide two left turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right turn lane in both the northbound and southbound directions. Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 4th westbound through lane. Modify existing traffic signal. Year 2030 With Project Roadway Segments Improvements: ¾ The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at this roadway segment significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic: Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue to Anaheim Way: Widen Katella Avenue from six (6) to eight (8) lanes between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way. It should be noted that this improvement has been determined to be feasible through the Platinum Triangle Implementation Plan. Year 2030 With Project Caltrans Ramp Intersections Improvements: ¾ The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans ramp intersections significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic: Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to construct a pedestrian refuge island on the west leg of intersection with pedestrian buttons. Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 4th westbound through lane. Modify the existing traffic signal and install eastbound right-turn overlap phase on Katella Avenue. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re- stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 5th westbound through lane. Modify existing traffic signal. Year 2030 With Project Caltrans Ramp Locations (Merge/Diverge Analysis) Improvements: ¾ Since there were no impacted ramp locations based on the merge/diverge analysis under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Year 2030 With Project Caltrans Ramp Locations (Weaving Analysis) Improvements: ¾ The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans ramp locations significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic: SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc xxii SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off- Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off- Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. Year 2030 With Project Caltrans Freeway Segments Improvements: ¾ The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans freeway segments significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic: SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. Caltrans Ramps and Freeway Improvements: ¾ For improvements to the Caltrans facilities, the City of Anaheim, lead agency for this project, will have to decide whether (1) changes, alterations, or mitigation measures are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency such as Caltrans and not the City of Anaheim. It must determine if such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency and/or (2) whether any further mitigation to the impacted State Highway System are feasible, and if not, whether specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable cumulative traffic impacts caused by the Project. ¾ With completion of the improvements described in the mitigation, the significant impacts associated with the proposed Project would be fully mitigated with the exception of the improvements to State highway facilities. However, inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with agencies other than the City of Anaheim (i.e., City of Orange and Caltrans); there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim’s control. Should that occur, the Project’s traffic impact would remain significant. The City is committed to working with the City of Orange and Caltrans to identify the most appropriate improvement strategies for their facilities and acknowledges the fair-share cost of improvements to those facilities, however, the City of Orange and Caltrans have full jurisdiction toward implementing the identified improvements under their jurisdiction. Unavoidable Impacts and Statement of Overriding Considerations ¾ Although every effort was made through site analyses and aerial imagery evaluation to ensure that all recommended improvements are physically feasible, there are improvements identified in this study that may not be feasible due to high Project cost, the inability to undertake right-of-way acquisitions as a matter of policy to preserve existing businesses, environmental constraints, or jurisdictional considerations. For these improvements, including Caltrans facilities, including freeway ramps, mainline segments, and weaving LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc xxiii segments, a Statement of Overriding Considerations will document why a particular improvement is infeasible as mitigation. ¾ With implementation of the improvements presented previously, the significant Project related or cumulative impacts associated with the proposed Project would be fully mitigated. However, inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with agencies other than the City of Anaheim (i.e., Caltrans), there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim’s control (e.g., the City of Anaheim cannot undertake or require improvements outside of Anaheim’s jurisdiction or the City cannot construct improvements in the Caltrans right-of-way without Caltrans Approval). Should that occur, the Project’s traffic impact would remain significant. City of Orange Improvements ¾ As shown in the analysis, no intersections or roadway segments in the City of Orange are impacted by ARTIC; no improvements have been recommended. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 1 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT ARTIC Anaheim, California July 16, 2010 (Update of the April 29, 2010 Report) 1.0 INTRODUCTION This traffic impact study addresses the potential traffic impacts and circulation needs associated with the proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) project (hereinafter referred to as Project) in the City of Anaheim, California, in an area of the City referred to as the Platinum Triangle. The Project site is bounded by Katella Avenue to the north, the Orange Freeway (SR-57) to the south, the Santa Ana River to the east and Douglass Road to the west, with the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) rail corridor bisecting the site. The scope of the Project is to replace and enlarge the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak station and will include a nominal amount of passenger-oriented retail uses. Construction of ARTIC is estimated to be completed in 2013. The Project would provide improvements to convert the site from a former County of Orange maintenance facility to a fully functioning regional transportation facility. Along with the Metrolink Service Expansion Program currently underway, the site would accommodate existing transit services and future services such as Bus Rapid Transit and other rubber-tired fixed route and shuttle services. The proposed ARTIC site includes the 13.58-acre Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) parcel and an adjacent 2.2-acre parcel owned by the City of Anaheim. The proposed Project will replace the existing Metrolink station located to the west of the Project site along the northern edge of the Anaheim Angels Stadium parking area. While there are industrial buildings on the proposed Project site, the buildings are vacant and will be demolished as part of the Project development. This study analyzes the relocation of the existing rail station to the ARTIC site with the facilities necessary to support existing transit services (rail and non-rail), as well as to accommodate future transit services such as the planned OCTA’s Metrolink Service Expansion Program (MSEP) currently underway, OCTA’s proposed Bravo service and other fixed route services. ARTIC will also include passenger-oriented retail and civic space. A total parking supply of up to 960 parking spaces will be provided within three parking lots, ARTIC North Parking Lot, ARTIC South Parking Lot and the existing Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot, with a parking supply of approximately 323 parking spaces, 232 parking spaces and 405 parking spaces, respectively. Access to the Project site and parking lots would be provided via driveways located along Douglass Road, Katella Avenue and at the existing Sportstown access on Katella west of the 57 Freeway. This report documents the findings and recommendations of a traffic impact analysis conducted by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) to determine the potential impacts the Project may have on the local and/or regional network in the vicinity of the Project site. The traffic impact LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 2 analysis evaluates the existing operating conditions at twelve (12) key study intersections within the Project vicinity, estimates the trip generation potential of the proposed Project and forecasts future (near-term and long-term) operating conditions without and with the proposed Project. It should be noted that seven (7) Project driveways were also analyzed for the near-term “with” Project scenarios. This traffic impact analysis report satisfies the City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies and is consistent with the requirements and procedures outlined in the 2009 Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP). The Project site has been visited and an inventory of adjacent area roadways and intersections was performed. Existing (i.e. baseline) peak hours and daily traffic information has been collected at twelve (12) key study intersections and eight (8) key study roadway segments, respectively, on a “typical” weekday for use in the preparation of intersection and roadway segment level of service calculations. This traffic report analyzes existing (i.e. baseline) and future (near-term and long-term) weekday AM and PM peak hour and daily traffic conditions for Existing (i.e. baseline), Year 2013 and Year 2030 traffic conditions without and with the proposed Project. Peak hour and daily traffic volumes for the Existing, Year 2013 Without Project and Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions were provided by the City of Anaheim. 1.1 Study Area The study intersections listed below are locations that could potentially be impacted by the proposed Project. Twelve (12) existing key study intersections and seven (7) future Project driveways listed below were selected based on location of Project and “51 or more peak hour trips threshold” criteria outlined in the City of Anaheim Criteria For Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies as well as discussions with the City of Anaheim staff. The key study intersections are: 1. Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 3. Lewis Street at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 4. State College Boulevard at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 5. Sportstown at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 6. Howell Avenue at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 9. Douglass Road at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 10. Struck Avenue at Katella Avenue (City of Orange) 11. Main Street at Katella Avenue (City of Orange) 12. Batavia Street at Katella Avenue (City of Orange) 13. Douglass Road at Driveway 1 (Future) 14. Douglass Road at Driveway 2 (Future) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 3 15. Douglass Road at Driveway 3 (Future) 16. Douglass Road at Driveway 4 (Future) 17. Douglass Road at Driveway 5 (Future) 18. Douglass Road at Driveway 6 (Future) 19. Driveway 7 at Katella Avenue (Future) In addition, the study roadway segments listed below are locations that could potentially be impacted by the proposed Project. The eight (8) roadway segments listed below were selected based on the arterial network within the study area: 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way (City of Anaheim) 2. Katella Avenue between Anaheim Way and Lewis Street (City of Anaheim) 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard (City of Anaheim) 4. Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown (City of Anaheim) 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue (City of Anaheim) 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway (City of Anaheim) 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street (Cities of Anaheim/Orange)2 8. Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street (City of Orange) Figure 1-1 presents a Vicinity Map, which illustrates the general location of the Project and depicts the study locations and surrounding street system. Figure 1-2 presents a Regional Map, which illustrates the general location of the Project, surrounding cities and the regional freeway system. The ICU/HCM Delay and Level of Service (LOS) calculations at these key locations were used to evaluate the potential traffic-related impacts associated with area growth, related projects and the proposed Project. When necessary, this report recommends intersection improvements that may be required to accommodate future traffic volumes and restore/maintain an acceptable Level of Service and/or addresses the impact of the Project. Included in this Traffic Impact Analysis are: Existing traffic counts, Estimated Project traffic generation/distribution/assignment for the existing and proposed Project, AM and PM peak hours and Daily capacity analyses for existing (i.e. baseline) conditions, AM and PM peak hours and Daily capacity analyses for Existing (i.e. baseline) conditions with Project traffic, 2 The segment from the SR-57 Freeway to Santa Ana River is in the City of Anaheim and the segment from the Santa Ana River to Main Street is in the City of Orange. Since the roadway segment count was collected in the City of Anaheim, this segment has been analyzed as a City of Anaheim segment. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 4 AM and PM peak hours and Daily capacity analyses for near-term (Year 2013) conditions without and with Project traffic, AM and PM peak hours and Daily capacity analyses for long-term (Year 2030) conditions without and with Project traffic, Congestion Management Program (CMP) Analysis, Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology), Site Access and On-Site Circulation Analysis, and Project-Specific Traffic Improvements. 1.2 Traffic Impact Analysis Scenarios The following scenarios are those for which ICU/HCM Delay LOS and V/C calculations have been performed at the key intersections and key roadway segments and for existing, near-term and long- term traffic conditions: A. Existing (i.e. baseline) Traffic Conditions, B. Existing (i.e. baseline) With Projects Traffic Conditions, C. Scenario B with Recommended Improvements, if any, D. Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions, E. Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions, F. Scenario E With Recommended Improvements, G. Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions, H. Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions, and I. Scenario H With Recommended Improvements. 1.3 Study Area - City of Orange The study area that could potentially be impacted by the proposed Project was selected based on location of Project and “51 or more peak hour trips threshold” criteria outlined in the City of Anaheim Criteria For Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. The City of Orange uses the same methodology to determine intersections to be analyzed in Traffic Impact Studies. The City of Orange sent a letter requesting the analysis of 12 intersections within the City of Orange. In response, this traffic report analyzed all 12 requested intersections to see if they met the minimum peak hour trip threshold. Those City of Orange intersections that were forecast to receive 51 or more peak hour trips from the Project were further scrutinized to determine whether or not the Project-generated traffic created significant impacts in connection with the identified City of Orange intersections. For those City of Orange intersections that were forecast to receive less than 51 peak hour Project- generated trips, the report has determined that the Project will not create any significant impacts with respect to those identified City of Orange intersections. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 5 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION This traffic impact study addresses the potential traffic impacts and circulation needs associated with the proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) project (hereinafter referred to as Project) in the City of Anaheim, California, in an area of the City referred to as the Platinum Triangle. The Project site is bounded by Katella Avenue to the north, the Orange Freeway (SR-57) to the south, the Santa Ana River to the east and Douglass Road to the west, with the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) rail corridor bisecting the site. The scope of the Project is to replace and enlarge the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak station, and will include a nominal amount of passenger-oriented retail uses. Construction of ARTIC is estimated to be completed in 2013. The Project would provide improvements to convert the site from a former County of Orange maintenance facility to a fully functioning regional transportation facility. Along with the Metrolink Service Expansion Program currently underway, the site would accommodate existing transit services and future services such as Bus Rapid Transit and other rubber-tired fixed route and shuttle services. The proposed ARTIC site includes the 13.58-acre OCTA parcel and an adjacent 2.2-acre parcel owned by the City of Anaheim. The proposed Project will replace the existing Metrolink station located to the west of the Project site along the northern edge of the Anaheim Angels Stadium parking area. While there are industrial buildings on the proposed Project site, the buildings are vacant and will be demolished as part of the Project development. This study analyzes the relocation of the existing rail station to the ARTIC site with the facilities necessary to support existing transit services (rail and non-rail), as well as to accommodate future transit services such as the planned OCTA’s Metrolink Service Expansion Program (MSEP) currently underway, OCTA’s proposed Bravo service and other fixed route services. ARTIC will also include passenger-oriented retail and civic space. A total parking supply of up to 960 parking spaces will be provided within three parking lots, ARTIC North Parking Lot, ARTIC South Parking Lot and Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot, with a parking supply of approximately 323 parking spaces, 232 parking spaces and 405 parking spaces, respectively. Access to the Project site and parking lots would be provided via driveways located along Douglass Road, Katella Avenue and Sportstown. Figure 2-1 presents the existing site plan for the Project. Figure 2-2 presents the proposed site plan for the Project, prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff. 2.1 Site Access As shown in Figure 2-2, vehicular access to the Project site will be provided via the existing intersection of Sportstown and Katella Avenue as well as via six (6) driveways located on Douglass Road and one (1) driveway located on Katella Avenue. The existing intersection of Sportstown and Katella Avenue is a full-access, signalized intersection that provides access to the Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot. Driveway 1 along Douglass Road is a one-way stop-controlled, right-in/right-out only driveway providing access to the ARTIC North LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 6 Parking Lot. Driveway 2 along Douglass Road is a right-out only, signalized intersection providing egress from the ARTIC North Parking Lot, Kiss and Ride area and taxi stand. Driveway 3 along Douglass Road is a signalized intersection that provides inbound-only access to the ARTIC North Parking Lot, Kiss and Ride area and taxi stand. It should be noted that the proposed traffic signals at Driveway 2 and Driveway 3 will essentially operate one traffic signal with a common controller. Driveway 4 along Douglass Road is a one-way stop-controlled, right-out only driveway providing egress from the buses and shuttles area. Driveway 5 along Douglass Road is a signalized intersection that provides inbound-only access to the buses and shuttles area. Driveway 6 along Douglass Road is a one-way stop-controlled, full-access driveway providing access to the ARTIC South Parking Lot. Driveway 7 along Katella Avenue is a one-way stop-controlled driveway that provides right-in/right- out only access to the ARTIC North Parking Lot, Kiss and Ride area, taxi stand as well as to the buses and shuttles area. It should be noted that the ARTIC patrons parking in the Sportstown parking lot would access the train platforms through the Stadium Pavilion which will be constructed on the west end of the platforms. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 7 3.0 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 3.1 Existing Street Network The Orange Freeway (SR-57) provides primary regional access to the proposed Project. The SR-57 Freeway bisects the Project site. The principal local network of streets serving the Project site consists of Katella Avenue, Cerritos Avenue, Struck Avenue, Collins Avenue, Orangewood Avenue, Haster Street, Manchester Avenue, Anaheim Way, Lewis Street, State College Boulevard, Howell Avenue, Douglass Road, Eckhoff Street, Main Street and Batavia Street. The following discussion provides a brief synopsis of the key area streets. Cerritos Avenue is an east-west roadway located north of the Project site. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the Project vicinity. Cerritos Avenue is a four-lane roadway divided by a two-way left-turn lane. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph). Katella Avenue is an east-west roadway that borders the Project site on the north. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the Project vicinity. Katella Avenue is a six- lane roadway divided by a raised median. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph). The intersections of Katella Avenue at Manchester Avenue/I-5 SB Ramps, Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps, Lewis Street, State College Boulevard, Sportstown, Howell Avenue, SR-57 SB Ramps, SR-57 NB Ramps, Douglass Road, Struck Avenue, Main Street and Batavia Street are controlled by traffic signals. Struck Avenue is an east-west roadway located east of the Project site. On-street parking is not permitted on the south side of the roadway, but is permitted on the north side of the roadway, within the Project vicinity. Struck Avenue is a two-lane roadway divided by a double-yellow line. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph). Collins Avenue is an east-west roadway located east of the Project site. West of Main Street, Collins Avenue is a four lane undivided roadway with on-street parking permitted on both sides of the roadway. East of Main Street, Collins Avenue is a four lane roadway divided by a two-way left turn lane. On-street parking is not permitted east of Main Street. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph). Orangewood Avenue is an east-west roadway located south of the Project site. On-street parking is generally not permitted on both sides of the roadway within the Project vicinity. Orangewood Avenue is primarily a four-lane roadway divided by a two-way left-turn lane. Between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard, Orangewood Avenue is a six-lane roadway divided by a raised median, with on-street parking restricted on both sides of the roadway. West of Eckhoff Street, the posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph). East of Eckhoff Street, the posted speed limit is 35 mph. Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street is a north-south roadway located west of the Project site. On- street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the Project vicinity. South of Katella Avenue, Haster Street is a four-lane roadway divided by a two-way left-turn lane. North of LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 8 Katella Avenue, Anaheim Boulevard is a six-lane roadway divided by a raised median. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph). Manchester Avenue is a one-way roadway located west of the Project site trending in a southeast direction. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the Project vicinity. Manchester Avenue is a three-lane undivided roadway. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph). Anaheim Way is a one-way roadway located west of the Project site trending in a northwest direction. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the Project vicinity. Anaheim Way is a three-lane undivided roadway. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph). Lewis Street is a north-south roadway located west of the Project site. On-street parking is generally prohibited in the study area except between Katella Avenue and Anaheim Way where on-street parking is permitted on both sides of the roadway. North of Katella Avenue, Lewis Street is a four lane roadway divided by a two-way left turn lane. South of Katella Avenue, Lewis Street is a two- lane undivided roadway. North of Anaheim Way, the posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph). South of Orangewood Avenue, the posted speed limit is 45 mph. State College Boulevard is a north-south roadway located west of the Project site. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the Project vicinity. State College Boulevard is primarily a six-lane divided roadway. South of Orangewood Avenue, State College Boulevard is an eight-lane divided roadway. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph). Howell Avenue is an east-west roadway located north-west of the Project site. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the Project vicinity. Howell Avenue is a two-lane roadway divided by a two-way left-turn lane. Douglass Road is a north-south roadway that borders the Project site on the west. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the Project vicinity. North of Katella Avenue, Douglass Road is a four-lane roadway divided by a two-way left turn lane, and south of Katella Avenue, Douglass Road is a four-lane undivided roadway. Eckhoff Street is a north-south roadway located south-east of the Project site. On-street parking is permitted on both sides of the roadway within the Project vicinity. South of Orangewood Avenue, Eckhoff Street is a two-lane undivided roadway with a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph). North of Orangewood Avenue, Eckhoff Street is a two-lane roadway divided by a two-way left turn lane with a posted speed limit of 40 mph. Main Street is a north-south roadway located east of the Project site. South of Collins Street, on- street parking is not permitted on the west side of the roadway, but is permitted on the east side of the roadway, within the Project vicinity. North of Collins Avenue, on-street parking is generally permitted. Main Street is a four-lane roadway divided by a two-way left-turn lane. North of LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 9 Orangewood Avenue, the posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph). South of Orangewood Avenue, the posted speed limit is 35 mph. Batavia Street is a north-south roadway located east of the Project site. On-street parking is generally permitted on both sides of the roadway within the Project vicinity. Batavia Street is a four- lane undivided roadway. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph). Figure 3-1 presents an inventory of the existing roadway conditions within the study area evaluated in this report. The number of travel lanes and intersection controls for the key area study intersections are identified. 3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes Existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the twelve (12) key study intersections evaluated in this report, along with existing daily two-way traffic volumes for the eight (8) key roadway segments, were provided by the City of Anaheim. Figures 3-2 and 3-3 present the existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, respectively, for the twelve (12) key study intersections. Figure 3-4 presents the existing daily traffic volumes for the eight (8) key study roadway segments. Appendix A contains the raw existing intersection turning movement and roadway segment traffic count data which was collected by Transportation Studies Inc. in Year 2008 and 2009 and was provided by the City of Anaheim. Appendix B contains the freeway segment and ramp existing traffic volumes. 3.3 Capacity Analysis Methodologies Existing AM and PM peak hour operating conditions for the twelve (12) key study intersections were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Methodology for signalized intersections and the methodology outlined in Chapter 17 of the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) for unsignalized intersections. It should be noted that the methodology outlined in Chapter 16 of the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) for signalized intersections was utilized for Caltrans controlled intersections. Freeway mainline, ramp merge and diverge and weaving segments are also analyzed using Chapters 22-25 of the HCM 2000. 3.3.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Method of Analysis (Signalized Intersections) In conformance with the City of Anaheim requirements, existing AM and PM peak hour operating conditions for the key signalized study intersections were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method. The ICU technique is intended for signalized intersection analysis and estimates the volume to capacity (V/C) relationship for an intersection based on the individual V/C ratios for key conflicting traffic movements. The ICU numerical value represents the percent signal (green) time and thus capacity, required by existing and/or future traffic. It should be noted that the ICU methodology assumes uniform traffic distribution per intersection approach lane and optimal signal timing. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 10 Per City of Anaheim requirements, the ICU calculations use a lane capacity of 1,700 vehicles per hour (vph) for through and all turn lanes. A clearance adjustment factor of 0.05 was added to each Level of Service calculation. The analysis methodologies used by the City of Anaheim for signalized intersections are also consistent with the methodology used by the City of Orange, as are the LOS thresholds. Therefore, the same assumptions were applied for both jurisdictions. The ICU value translates to a Level of Service (LOS) estimate, which is a relative measure of the intersection performance. The ICU value is the sum of the critical volume to capacity ratios at an intersection; it is not intended to be indicative of the LOS of each of the individual turning movements. The six qualitative categories of Level of Service have been defined along with the corresponding ICU value range and are shown in Table 3-1. 3.3.2 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Method of Analysis (Unsignalized Intersections) The 2000 HCM unsignalized methodology was utilized in the analysis of stop-controlled intersections. For all-way stop-controlled intersections, this methodology estimates the average control delay for each of the subject movements and determines the level of service for each movement. The overall average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle and level of service is then calculated for the entire intersection. The HCM control delay value translates to a Level of Service (LOS) estimate, which is a relative measure of the intersection performance. For one-way and two-way stop-controlled (minor street stop-controlled) intersections, this methodology estimates the worst side street delay, measured in seconds per vehicle and determines the level of service for that approach. The HCM delay value translates to a Level of Service (LOS) estimate, which is a relative measure of the intersection performance. The six qualitative categories of Level of Service have been defined along with the corresponding HCM control delay value range, as shown in Table 3-2. 3.3.3 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Method of Analysis (Signalized Intersections) Based on the HCM operations method of analysis, level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of control delay, which is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption and lost travel time. The delay experienced by a motorist is made up of a number of factors that relate to control, geometries, traffic and incidents. Total delay is the difference between the travel time actually experienced and the reference travel time that would result during ideal conditions: in the absence of traffic control, in the absence of geometric delay, in the absence of any incidents and when there are no other vehicles on the road. In Chapter 16 of the HCM, only the portion of total delay attributed to the control facility is quantified. This delay is called control delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay and final acceleration delay. In contrast, in previous versions of the HCM (1994 and earlier), delay included only stopped delay. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 11 Specifically, LOS criteria for traffic signals are stated in terms of the average control delay per vehicle. The six qualitative categories of Level of Service that have been defined along with the corresponding HCM control delay value range for signalized intersections are shown in Table 3-3. 3.3.4 Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio Method of Analysis (Roadway Segments) The arterial roadway criteria for the City of Anaheim involve the use of average daily traffic (ADT) volume to capacity (V/C) ratios. LOS C (V/C not to exceed 0.80) is the performance standard that has been adopted for the study area circulation system by the City of Anaheim. The City of Orange has utilized LOS D as the performance standard for arterials. Although the arterial segment V/C analysis provides a general assessment of overall system performance, the performance is measured on the ability to serve peak hour traffic demands. To identify deficient arterial segments, the segments that are identified as deficient under daily conditions are evaluated under peak hour conditions to evaluate the capability of serving forecast peak hour throughput. Arterial segments that operate deficiently under peak hour conditions are candidates for mitigation improvements. Note that the City of Orange does not provide provisions for peak hour segment analysis but rather uses daily V/C analysis as the basis for improvement requirements. The City of Anaheim applies the Urban Streets analysis identified in Chapter 15 of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) to determine level of service under peak hour traffic volumes on deficient daily segments. The peak hour link analysis determines directional AM and PM peak hour V/C ratios for each link that exceeds the daily LOS threshold. The peak hour capacity is determined by using Equation 15-7 of the HCM, multiplying the mid-block number of lanes for each direction by a lane capacity of 1,900 vehicles per hour, then multiplied by the percentage of green time at the controlling signalized intersection for that arterial segment. The percentage of green time is estimated by dividing the directional V/C ratios by the total V/C ratio at signalized intersections along the arterial segment. The highest resulting percentage is the estimated percentage of green time for that arterial segment. If the V/C ratio of the arterial segment under peak hour conditions is LOS E or F, improvements should be considered to improve the segment to an acceptable LOS. LOS analysis of forecast daily traffic volumes was applied for the arterial segments throughout the study area. The segment analysis assumes roadway capacities for each jurisdiction as applied in the current General Plans for each City and Orange County Highway Design Manual (September 1991) as noted in Table 3-4. The capacities reflect LOS E capacities and are consistent with those that are applied in daily V/C analysis consistent with methodologies adopted for each jurisdiction. Note that the City of Orange takes advantage of a capacity enhancement for Smart Streets as designated by the Orange County Transportation Authority. For Katella Avenue, Orange increases daily capacity by five percent to account for Smart Street related improvements that enhance throughput along these key corridors. The City of Anaheim does not currently account for capacity enhancements to Smart Streets. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 12 3.3.5 Freeway Mainline and Ramp Merge/Diverge Points The freeway mainline and freeway ramp criteria are based on peak hour HCM 2000 density analysis. The capacities are based on information contained in the HCM 2000 and the Caltrans Ramp Meter Design Manual. Existing traffic count data was provided by Caltrans. Ramp merge and diverge analysis was carried out by applying Highway Capacity Software (HCS), the electronic version of the HCM 2000 for freeway-to-arterial interchanges. According to HCM 2000 methodology, the ramp merge and diverge areas focus on an influential area of 1,500 feet, including the acceleration or deceleration lane and adjacent freeway lanes. The methodology incorporates three fundamental steps: Determination of the traffic entering the freeway lanes upstream of the merge or at the beginning of the deceleration lane at diverge; Determination of the capacity for the segment; and Determination of the density of traffic flow within the ramp influence area and its level of service. The level of service (LOS) for freeway ramps is determined by traffic density based on criteria outlined in the HCM 2000. Freeway mainline levels of service are similarly determined from segment density. Table 3-5 presents the correlation between LOS and density in terms of passenger cars per mile per lane (pc/mi/ln) for both freeway ramps and basic freeway segments. 3.3.6 Freeway Weaving Analysis Freeway weaving is defined as the crossing of two streams of traffic traveling in the same direction along a significant length of highway without the aid of traffic control devices. Typically, weaving segments are formed when merge areas are followed by diverge areas within 2,500 feet of the merge area. Auxiliary lanes do not need to be present to be defined a weaving area. Weaving analysis uses the most current version of the HCM 2000 and provides a density for the weaving area within the freeway segment and corresponding LOS. Freeway weaving analysis was carried out by applying HCS software to weaving areas. According to HCM 2000, the weaving analysis supersedes ramp merge/diverge analysis and therefore were not analyzed for identified weaving segments. Table 3-6 specifies the LOS for associated freeway weaving densities. 3.4 Impact Criteria and Thresholds For intersections and arterial segments, significant impacts are determined using the City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. Under the General Plan Build-out scenarios, these locations are governed by the City’s Growth Management Element. All State owned facilities are analyzed consistent with the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies for all scenarios. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 13 3.4.1 Intersections According to the City’s Circulation Element and stated in the City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained during the morning and evening peak commute hours on all City intersections. The City of Orange has utilized LOS D as the performance standard for intersections. The relative impact of the added Project traffic volumes generated by the proposed Project during the AM and PM peak hours was evaluated based on analysis of future operating conditions at the key study intersections, without, then with, the proposed Project. The previously discussed capacity analysis procedures were utilized to investigate the future delay or volume-to-capacity relationships and service level characteristics at each study intersection. The significance of the potential impacts of the Project at each key intersection is determined based on the sliding scale criteria presented in Table 3-7. As mentioned previously, LOS D [> 0.81 and ≤ 0.90 (signalized) & > 25.0 s/v and ≤ 35.0 s/v (unsignalized)] is an established level of service standard for intersections in the City of Anaheim. As indicated in Table 3-7, the Project-related increase in ICU value that defines a significant impact at signalized intersections varies with LOS. Per the City’s guidelines, a change in ICU value, within LOS C, equal to or greater than 0.05 is an impact and within LOS D, a change in ICU equal to or greater than 0.03 is also an impact. With LOS E or F, a change in ICU equal to or greater than 0.01 is considered an impact. For the unsignalized intersections, this report defines a significant impact as a decrease in LOS by one level or more for those locations operating at LOS D, E, or F (LOS delay values shown in Table 3-2). For General Plan Build-out analysis, consistent with the City’s Growth Management Element, a project is deemed to have a significant impact if the project results in deterioration of the LOS to an unacceptable LOS or an increase in the ICU value of 0.01 if the intersection currently operates at LOS E or F under without project conditions. Mitigation measures, discussed later in the report are required to bring deficient intersections and roadway segments to an acceptable LOS. 3.4.2 Arterial Segments In addition, the relative impact of the added Project traffic volumes generated by the proposed Project on a daily basis was evaluated based on analysis of future operating conditions at the key roadway segments. The previously discussed capacity analysis procedures were utilized to investigate the future volume-to-capacity relationships and service level characteristics at each roadway segment. For City of Anaheim segments, a project is deemed to have a significant impact if the project results in deterioration of the daily LOS to an unacceptable LOS (LOS D, E, or F) coupled with a continued deficiency under peak hour conditions. A significant impact is also determined by an increase in the daily ICU value of 0.01 if the segment currently operates at LOS E or F under daily without project conditions and the segment is found to be deficient under peak hour conditions. For City of Orange segments, a project is deemed to have a significant impact if the project results in deterioration of the daily LOS to an unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F) or causes an LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 14 increase in the daily ICU value of 0.01 if the segment currently operates at LOS E or F under daily without project conditions. 3.4.3 Caltrans Facilities Caltrans District 12 has established that LOS D is the operating standard for all Caltrans facilities. Caltrans has determined that all state owned facilities that operate below LOS D should be identified and improved to an acceptable LOS although specific criteria to identify project related impacts is not specified in the Caltrans Traffic Impact Study Guidelines. Analysis of Caltrans facilities is conducted in Sections 11.0 and 12.0 of this report. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 15 TABLE 3-1 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (ICU METHODOLOGY)3 Level of Service (LOS) Intersection Capacity Utilization Value (V/C) Level of Service Description A ≤ 0.60 EXCELLENT. No vehicle waits longer than one red light and no approach phase is fully used. B 0.61 – 0.70 VERY GOOD. An occasional approach phase is fully utilized; many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles. C 0.71 – 0.80 GOOD. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red light; backups may develop behind turning vehicles. D 0.81 – 0.90 FAIR. Delays may be substantial during portions of the rush hours, but enough lower volume periods occur to permit clearing of developing lines, preventing excessive backups. E 0.91 – 1.00 POOR. Represents the most vehicles intersection approaches can accommodate; may be long lines of waiting vehicles through several signal cycles. F > 1.00 FAILURE. Backups from nearby locations or on cross streets may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approaches. Potentially very long delays with continuously increasing queue lengths. 3 Source: Transportation Research Board Circular 212 - Interim Materials on Highway Capacity. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 16 TABLE 3-2 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (HCM) 4 Level of Service (LOS) Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Delay Value (sec/veh) Level of Service Description A ≤ 10.0 Little or no delay B > 10.0 and ≤ 15.0 Short traffic delays C > 15.0 and ≤ 25.0 Average traffic delays D > 25.0 and ≤ 35.0 Long traffic delays E > 35.0 and ≤ 50.0 Very long traffic delays F > 50.0 Severe congestion 4 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Chapter 17 (Unsignalized Intersections). LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 17 TABLE 3-3 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (HCM)5 Level of Service (LOS) Control Delay Per Vehicle (seconds/vehicle) Level of Service Description A < 10.0 This level of service occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. B > 10.0 and < 20.0 This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. C > 20.0 and < 35.0 Average traffic delays. These higher delays may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping. D > 35.0 and < 55.0 Long traffic delays At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. E > 55.0 and < 80.0 Very long traffic delays This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. -F ≥ 80.0 Severe congestion This level, considered to be unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with over saturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing factors to such delay levels. 5 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Chapter 16 (Signalized Intersections). LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 18 TABLE 3-4 DAILY ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITIES6 Type of Arterial Lane Configuration LOS E Capacity (VPD) Major 6-Lanes Divided 56,300 Major 8-Lanes Divided 75,000 Notes: VPD = Vehicles per day 6 Source: Orange County Highway Design Manual, September 1991. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 19 TABLE 3-5 CALTRANS FREEWAY MAINLINE AND RAMP LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA (HCM)7 LOS Freeway Ramp Density (pc/mi/ln) Basic Freeway Segment Density (pc/mi/ln) A ≤ 10.0 0-11.0 B > 10.0 and ≤ 20.0 11.0 – 18.0 C > 20.0 and ≤ 28.0 18.0 – 26.0 D > 28.0 and ≤ 35.0 26.0 – 35.0 E > 35.0 35.0 – 45.0 F Exceeds Capacity >45.0 7 Source: HCM 2000, Exhibits 23-2 and 25-4. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 20 TABLE 3-6 CALTRANS FREEWAY WEAVING LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA (HCM)8 LOS Freeway Weaving Area Density (pc/mi/ln) A ≤ 10.0 B > 10.0 and ≤ 20.0 C > 20.0 and ≤ 28.0 D > 28.0 and ≤ 35.0 E ≤ 43.0 F >43.0 8 Source: HCM 2000 Exhibit 25-7. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 21 TABLE 3-7 SIGNIFICANT IMPACT CRITERIA9 Level of Service (LOS) Final V/C Ratio Project-Related Increase in V/C C > 0.700 – 0.800 Equal to or greater than 0.05 D > 0.800 – 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.03 E, F > 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.01 9 Source: City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 22 4.0 TRAFFIC FORECASTING METHODOLOGY In order to estimate the traffic impact characteristics of the Project, a multi-step process has been utilized. The first step is traffic generation, which estimates the total arriving and departing traffic on a peak hour and daily basis. The traffic generation potential is forecast by applying the appropriate vehicle trip generation equations and/or rates to the Project development tabulation. The second step of the forecasting process is traffic distribution, which identifies the origins and destinations of inbound and outbound Project traffic. These origins and destinations are typically based on demographics and existing/expected future travel patterns in the study area. The third step is traffic assignment, which involves the allocation of Project traffic to study area streets and intersections. Traffic assignment is typically based on minimization of travel time, which may or may not involve the shortest route, depending on prevailing operating conditions and travel speeds. Traffic distribution patterns are indicated by general percentage orientation, while traffic assignment allocates specific volume forecasts to individual roadway segments and intersection turning movements throughout the study area. With the forecasting process complete and Project traffic assignments developed, the impact of the Project is isolated by comparing operational (LOS) conditions at selected key intersections using expected future traffic volumes with and without forecast Project traffic. If necessary, the need for site-specific and/or cumulative local area traffic improvements can then be evaluated. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 23 5.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS 5.1 Project Traffic Generation Forecast The daily trip generation rate for the Project was developed based on the estimation of the numbers of originating passengers at ARTIC and the necessary infrastructure required to meet that demand. The needs for ARTIC were first analyzed in the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Transit and Parking Facility Description Report (Carter and Burgess, October 2007). The Needs Assessment Update and Validation Technical Memorandum (Cordoba Corporation, August 2009) updated the analysis with updated information from the various providers of service at ARTIC. Originating passenger information was provided by the various service providers that will utilize ARTIC (Metrolink, Amtrak, OCTA, etc). The analysis conducted for these reports considered all originating passengers for each service provider at ARTIC. The mode of access for each originating passenger was then determined from the planned service levels for each provider – some arrive by car (driver or passenger), others transferring from another transit mode, others walking or bicycling to ARTIC. The daily vehicle trips were then compiled by adding the parking vehicles, drop off vehicles, taxis, buses and shuttles. The number of parking spaces were calculated based on the total number of parking vehicles for each service provider. The daily trip generation rate was then calculated by taking these total vehicle trips and dividing by the number of parking spaces, as calculated in the Needs Assessment Update and Validation Technical Memorandum. Trip Generation for the AM and PM peak hours was derived using the factors provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation, 7th Edition, Land Use codes 090 and 093. The trip rate includes buses, taxis and shuttles. Table 5-1 summarizes the trip generation rates used in forecasting the vehicular trips generated by the proposed Project and presents the forecast daily and peak hour Project traffic volumes for a "typical" weekday. Review of row (A) of Table 5-1 shows that the development of the proposed Project is forecast to generate 4,714 daily trips (one half arriving and one half departing), with 805 trips (642 inbound, 163 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 662 trips (144 inbound, 518 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. Review of row (B) of Table 5-1 shows that the existing Project generates 1,015 daily trips (one half arriving and one half departing), with 183 trips (119 inbound, 64 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 223 trips (86 inbound, 137 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. As shown in row (C) of Table 5-1, the Project upon completion is forecast to generate 3,699 net daily trips (one half arriving and one half departing), with 622 net trips (523 inbound, 99 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 439 net trips (58 inbound, 381 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 24 It should be noted that the anticipated increase in ridership at this station based on the Orange County Transportation Authority’s (OCTA) Metrolink Service Expansion Project (MSEP) report was accounted for in the Needs Assessment report and that document was the basis for the trip generation. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 25 TABLE 5-1 PROJECT TRAFFIC TRIP GENERATION RATES AND FORECAST Project Description Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Trip Generation Factors10: ARTIC (TE/PS) 4.91 0.67 0.17 0.84 0.15 0.54 0.69 Proposed Project Trip Generation Forecast: ARTIC North Parking Lot - (323 Spaces) 1,586 216 55 271 48 174 222 ARTIC South Parking Lot - (232 Spaces) 1,139 155 39 194 35 125 160 Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot - (405 Spaces) 1,989 271 69 340 61 219 280 Proposed Project Trip Generation Forecast (A): 4,714 642 163 805 144 518 662 Existing Project Trip Generation10: Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot 1,015 119 64 183 86 137 223 Existing Project Trip Generation (B): 1,015 119 64 183 86 137 223 Net Project Traffic Generation Forecast (C) = (A) - (B) 3,699 523 99 622 58 381 439 Notes: • TE/PS = Trip ends per Parking Space. 10 Source: City of Anaheim. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 26 5.2 Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment The directional traffic distribution patterns at the key study intersections, for the existing Project and proposed Project are presented in Figures 5-1 and 5-2, respectively. Traffic volumes, both entering and exiting the site, have been distributed and assigned to the adjacent street system based on the following considerations: Anaheim Metrolink Station Trip Access Distribution Survey, the site's proximity to major traffic carriers (i.e. SR-57 Freeway, Katella Avenue, etc.), expected localized traffic flow patterns based on adjacent street channelization and presence of traffic signals, the traffic-carrying capacity and travel speed available on roadways serving the Project site, existing intersection traffic volumes, ingress/egress availability at the Project site and input from City of Anaheim staff. The Project trip distribution pattern was submitted to the City staff for their review and approval prior to proceeding with further analyses. 5.2.1 Existing Project Traffic Volumes The directional traffic distribution pattern for the existing Project is presented in Figure 5-1. The anticipated AM and PM peak hour existing Project trips at the key study intersections are presented in Figures 5-3 and 5-4, respectively. In addition, Figure 5-5 presents the Daily existing Project trips at the key study roadway segments. The existing Project trips assignment presented in the above mentioned figures reflect the traffic distribution characteristics shown in Figure 5-1 and the existing Project trips forecast presented in the row (B) portion of Table 5-1. 5.2.2 Proposed Project Traffic Volumes The directional traffic distribution pattern for the proposed Project is presented in Figure 5-2. The anticipated AM and PM peak hour proposed Project trips at the key study intersections and future Project driveways are presented in Figures 5-6 and 5-7, respectively. In addition, Figure 5-8 presents the Daily proposed Project trips at the key study roadway segments. The proposed Project trips assignment presented in the above mentioned figures reflect the traffic distribution characteristics shown in Figure 5-2 and the proposed Project trips forecast presented in the row (A) portion of Table 5-1. Consequently, the net ARTIC Project trips, as shown in row (C) are reflected in the future traffic conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 27 6.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 6.1 Existing With Project Traffic Volumes The estimates of Project-generated traffic volumes were added to the Existing traffic conditions to develop traffic projections for the Existing With Project traffic conditions. The anticipated Existing With Project traffic conditions AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the twelve (12) key study intersections and seven (7) Project driveways are presented in Figures 6-1 and 6-2, respectively. In addition, Figure 6-3 presents the Daily Existing With Project traffic volumes at the eight (8) key study roadway segments. The traffic volumes presented in the above mentioned figures were provided by City of Anaheim. Appendix C contains the detailed Existing With Project traffic volume data. 6.2 Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Volumes In order to make a realistic estimate of future on-street conditions prior to implementation of the proposed Project, anticipated Year 2013 traffic volumes are calculated by interpolation of model growth. Background ambient traffic growth estimates have been calculated by interpolating between the existing volumes and the Year 2030 With Project volumes. The status of other known development projects (related projects) in the area has been researched at the City of Anaheim, and have been included as part of the cumulative background settings for the near-term (Year 2013) traffic conditions. Based on information provided by the City of Anaheim, there are twenty-five (25) related projects located in the City of Anaheim that have either been built, but not yet fully occupied, or are being processed for approval. These twenty-five (25) related projects have been included as part of the cumulative background settings. Table 6-1 provides a brief description for each of the twenty-five (25) related projects. These related projects are expected to generate vehicular traffic, which may affect the operating conditions of the key study intersections and roadway links. The anticipated Year 2013 Without Project traffic conditions AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the twelve (12) key study intersections are presented in Figures 6-4 and 6-5, respectively. In addition, Figure 6-6 presents the Daily Year 2013 Without Project traffic volumes at the eight (8) key study roadway segments. The traffic volumes presented in the above mentioned figures were provided by the City of Anaheim. Appendix D contains the detailed Year 2013 Without Project traffic volume data. 6.3 Year 2013 With Project Traffic Volumes The estimates of Project-generated traffic volumes were added to the Year 2013 Without Project traffic conditions to develop traffic projections for the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions. The anticipated Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the twelve (12) key study intersections and seven (7) Project driveways are presented in Figures 6-7 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 28 and 6-8, respectively. In addition, Figure 6-9 presents the Daily Year 2013 With Project traffic volumes at the eight (8) key study roadway segments. 6.4 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Volumes The Year 2030 traffic volume forecasts were obtained from the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM). ATAM is the traffic forecasting tool for the City of Anaheim and has been certified by the Orange County Transportation Authority to be consistent with the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM). ATAM relies upon OCTAM for the regional traffic component. OCTAM is based on and is consistent with the Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG’s) regional transportation model, incorporating adopted regional growth projections. In addition, the General Plan Buildout highway network is assumed in the Cities of Anaheim and Orange for Year 2030 analysis and all other facilities are consistent with the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) buildout. As a subarea model, ATAM incorporates the City of Anaheim General Plan within the City limits. As General Plan Amendments are processed, ATAM is updated to reflect any changes to the General Plan. Therefore ATAM contains every adopted project within the City’s limits. There are also a number of projects which are currently under various stages of analysis, and have been incorporated into ATAM for the purposes of this project. The following projects listed below are some of the projects relevant to ARTIC but are separate, distinct, and independent from ARTIC in terms of funding, lead agency status, purpose and need and regulatory requirements. A complete list of all projects included in ATAM is included in the ARTIC EIR Section 6.2. Each relevant project listed below has undergone or is currently undergoing their own separate project clearance process, including but not limited to CEQA and NEPA and are included in the long-term cumulative analysis of this study. These projects are: Anaheim Rapid Connection California High-Speed Rail California-Nevada Super Speed Train (CNSST) Desert Express Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Amendment to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan City of Orange General Plan Update Orange Center Specific Plan It should be noted that the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion includes ARTIC. As a result, the Year 2030 forecast volumes from ATAM are considered the Year 2030 With Project volumes. Therefore, to obtain the without Project volumes, the Project trips were subtracted from the “with” Project volumes. The anticipated Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the twelve (12) key study intersections are presented in Figures 6-10 and 6-11, respectively. In LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 29 addition, Figure 6-12 presents the Daily Year 2030 Without Project traffic volumes at the eight (8) key study roadway segments. The traffic volumes presented in the above mentioned figures were provided by the City of Anaheim. 6.5 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Volumes The anticipated Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the twelve (12) key study intersections were generated from the Anaheim Transportation Analysis Model (ATAM) for the City of Anaheim General Plan Buildout and includes related projects that are listed in Section 6.4 of this report. The anticipated Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the twelve (12) key study intersections and seven (7) Project driveways are presented in Figures 6-13 and 6-14, respectively. In addition, Figure 6-15 presents the Daily Year 2030 With Project traffic volumes at the eight (8) key study roadway segments. The traffic volumes presented in the above mentioned figures were provided by the City of Anaheim. Appendix E contains the detailed Year 2030 With Project traffic volume data. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 30 TABLE 6-1 RELATED PROJECTS SUMMARY11 Related Project Description Units/Square Footage City of Anaheim 1. Trendwest Resorts Timeshare Timeshare 275 Rooms 2. Anaheim GardenWalk Retail, Restaurants, Entertainment Hotel 569,750 SF 1,628 Rooms 3. Grand Californian Hotel Expansion Hotel 280 Rooms 4. Springhill Suites Hotel 120 Rooms 5. Manchester/Orangewood Affordable Apartments 68 DU 6. Walnut Manor Retirement Community Skilled Nursing Facility 156 DU 99 Beds 7. Avalon Bay “2100 at Platinum Triangle” Apartments Commercial 251 DU 11,807 SF 8. The Hanover Company “Element” Apartments 265 DU 9. Integral Partners “Anavia” Apartments 250 DU 10. “Archstone Gateway” Apartments 884 DU 11. Platinum Triangle Condominiums Condominiums Commercial 336 DU 1,248 SF 12. BRE Properties “Stadium Park” & “Stadium Club” Apartments Condominiums 320 DU 534 DU 13. Lennar “A-Town Metro” Residential Commercial 2,681 SF 229,800 SF 14. Platinum Tower Office Commercial 590,000 SF 10,000 SF 15. Orangewood Condominiums Condominiums 341 DU 16. Lennar “A-Town Stadium” Condominiums 878 DU 17. Platinum Vista/Mr. Stox Condominiums Quality Restaurant 315 DU 9,500 SF Notes DU = Dwelling Units SF = Square-Feet 11 Source: City of Anaheim, Public Works/Traffic Engineering Department. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 31 TABLE 6-1 (CONTINUED) RELATED PROJECTS SUMMARY12 Related Project Description Units/Square Footage 18. “Gene Autry Experience” Condominiums Office Commercial 1,208 DU 100,000 SF 50,000 SF 19. “Alexan Orangewood” Apartments 690 DU 20. “Platinum Gateway” Apartments Office Hotel 328 DU 207,275 SF 138 Rooms 21. Convention Center Hotel Convention Space Retail 795 Rooms 200,000 SF 20,000 SF 22. Stadium Lofts Mixed Use Development -- 23. D.R. Horton Mixed Use Apartments Retail Restaurant 261 DU 2,740 SF 10,000 SF 24. Integral Partners Apartments 1818 S. State College Boulevard Apartments 266 DU 25. Integral Partners Apartments 2045 S. State College Boulevard Apartments 265 DU Notes DU = Dwelling Units SF = Square-Feet 12 Source: City of Anaheim, Public Works/Traffic Engineering Department. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 32 7.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS The existing conditions analysis establishes the basis for the future forecasts for the Project. This analysis was based on existing intersection and roadway segment counts collected in Year 2008 and provided by the City of Anaheim. The existing conditions analysis reflects these counts as well as existing lane configurations for all analyzed intersections and roadway segments. 7.1 Existing Conditions Intersection Capacity Analysis Table 7-1 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the key study intersections for existing traffic conditions with and without the Project. The first column (1) of ICU/LOS values in Table 7-1 presents a summary of existing AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions. The second column (2) in Table 7-1 presents forecast Existing With Project traffic conditions. The third column (3) of Table 7-1 shows whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. The fourth column (4) of Table 7-1 presents the Level of Service with the implementation of traffic mitigation improvements, if necessary. 7.1.1 Existing Traffic Conditions Review of Column (1) of Table 7-1 indicates that all of the twelve (12) key study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS B or better for the Existing traffic conditions. Appendix F presents the ICU/LOS calculation worksheets for the key study intersections for the Existing Traffic Conditions. 7.1.2 Existing With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (2) of Table 7-1 indicates that all of the twelve (12) key study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS B or better for the Existing With Project traffic conditions when compared to the LOS standards defined in this report. To supplement the level of service results as presented in Table 7-1, Figure 7-1 graphically represents the comparison between Existing and Existing With Project traffic conditions level of service results for the AM and PM peak hours. Appendix G contains the ICU/LOS level of service calculation worksheets for the Existing With Project Traffic Conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 33TABLE 7-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY13 Key Intersection Time Period (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Existing With Project Traffic Conditions (3) Significant Impact14 (4) Existing With Project With Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No ICU LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 0.583 A 0.584 A 0.001 No -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.524 A 0.528 A 0.004 No -- -- 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 0.493 A 0.503 A 0.010 No -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.496 A 0.497 A 0.001 No -- -- 3. Lewis Street at AM 0.484 A 0.485 A 0.001 No -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.646 B 0.653 B 0.007 No -- -- 4. State College Boulevard at AM 0.426 A 0.446 A 0.020 No -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.531 A 0.540 A 0.009 No -- -- 5. Sportstown at AM 0.333 A 0.329 A -0.004 No -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.461 A 0.460 A -0.001 No -- -- 6. Howell Avenue at AM 0.377 A 0.378 A 0.001 No -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.551 A 0.555 A 0.004 No -- -- 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at AM 0.402 A 0.441 A 0.039 No -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.407 A 0.429 A 0.022 No -- -- Notes: LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Table 3-1 for the LOS definitions. 13 Appendices F and G contain ICU/LOS calculation worksheets for all study intersections. 14 See Table 3-7 for significant impact criteria. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 34TABLE 7-1 (CONTINUED) EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY15 Key Intersection Time Period (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Existing With Project Traffic Conditions (3) Significant Impact16 (4) Existing With Project With Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No ICU LOS 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 0.363 A 0.440 A 0.077 No -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.401 A 0.433 A 0.032 No -- -- 9. Douglass Road at AM 0.408 A 0.437 A 0.029 No -- -- Katella Avenue17 PM 0.492 A 0.685 B 0.193 No -- -- 10. Struck Avenue at AM 0.280 A 0.284 A 0.004 No -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.344 A 0.349 A 0.005 No -- -- 11. Main Street at AM 0.501 A 0.512 A 0.011 No -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.495 A 0.504 A 0.009 No -- -- 12. Batavia Street at AM 0.534 A 0.544 A 0.010 No -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.500 A 0.506 A 0.006 No -- -- Notes: LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Table 3-1 for the LOS definitions. 15 Appendices F and G contain ICU/LOS calculation worksheets for all study intersections. 16 See Table 3-7 for significant impact criteria. 17 The intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue assumes a northbound lane configuration of two NBL, one NBTR and one NBR for the “with” Project scenario. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 35 7.2 Existing Conditions Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis Table 7-2 summarizes the Daily level of service results at the key eight (8) study roadway segments during a “typical” weekday for the existing traffic conditions with and without the Project. The first column (1) of LOS E Capacity values in Table 7-2 presents the daily roadway segment capacities from the Orange County Highway Design Manual (September 1991). The second column (2) lists the number of travel lanes and the third column (3) indicates the Existing Daily traffic volumes, volume to capacity ratio (V/C) and LOS. The fourth column (4) in Table 7-2 forecasts the Existing With Project traffic conditions. 7.2.1 Existing Traffic Conditions Review of column (3) of Table 7-2 shows that all eight (8) of the key study roadway segments are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS A or B on a daily basis under Existing traffic conditions based on the LOS impact criteria outlined in this report. 7.2.2 Existing With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (4) of Table 7-2 shows that all eight (8) of the key study roadway segments are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS A or B on a daily basis under Existing With Project traffic conditions based on the LOS impact criteria outlined in this report. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 36 TABLE 7-2 EXISTING CONDITIONS ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial (1) LOS E Capacity (VPD) (2) Lanes (3) Existing Traffic Conditions (4) Existing With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 35,260 0.626 B 2. Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 35,410 0.629 B 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard Major 56,300 6D 30,260 0.537 A 30,630 0.544 A 4. Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown Major 56,300 6D 32,800 0.583 A 33,433 0.594 A 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue Major 56,300 6D 34,240 0.608 B 34,623 0.615 B Notes: VPD = Vehicles Per Day V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio D = Divided LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 37TABLE 7-2 (CONTINUED) EXISTING CONDITIONS ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial (1) LOS E Capacity (VPD) (2) Lanes (3) Existing Traffic Conditions (4) Existing With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway Major 56,300 6D 37,990 0.675 B 38,373 0.682 B 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street Major 56,300 6D 29,610 0.526 A 30,349 0.539 A 8. Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street Major 59,11518 6D 30,280 0.512 A 30,686 0.519 A Notes: VPD = Vehicles Per Day V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio D = Divided 18 City of Orange uses 5% capacity increase for Smart Streets. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 38 8.0 YEAR 2013 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS In order to make a realistic estimate of future on-street conditions prior to implementation of the proposed Project, anticipated Year 2013 traffic volumes are calculated by interpolation of model growth. Background ambient traffic growth estimates have been calculated by interpolating between the existing volumes and the Year 2030 With Project volumes. 8.1 Year 2013 Intersection Capacity Analysis Table 8-1 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the key study intersections for Year 2013 traffic conditions. The first column (1) of ICU/LOS values in Table 8-1 presents a summary of existing AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions (which were also presented in Table 7-1). The second column (2) lists Year 2013 Without Project traffic conditions. The third column (3) in Table 8-1 presents forecast Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions. The fourth column (4) of Table 8-1 shows whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. The fifth column (5) of Table 8-1 presents the Level of Service with the implementation of improvements, if necessary. 8.1.1 Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (2) of Table 8-1 indicates that all of the twelve (12) key study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS D or better for the Year 2013 Without Project traffic conditions. 8.1.2 Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (3) of Table 8-1 indicates that all of the twelve (12) key study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS D or better for the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions, when compared to the LOS standards defined in this report. To supplement the level of service results as presented in Table 8-1, Figure 8-1 graphically represents the comparison between Year 2013 Without Project and Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions level of service results for the AM and PM peak hours. Appendix H contains the ICU/LOS level of service calculation worksheets for the Year 2013 Traffic Conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 39TABLE 8-1 YEAR 2013 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY19 Key Intersection Time Period (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions (4) Significant Impact20 (5) Year 2013 With Project With Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No ICU LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 0.583 A 0.684 B 0.685 B 0.001 No -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.524 A 0.660 B 0.664 B 0.004 No -- -- 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 0.493 A 0.590 A 0.600 A 0.010 No -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.496 A 0.697 B 0.698 B 0.001 No -- -- 3. Lewis Street at AM 0.484 A 0.656 B 0.658 B 0.002 No -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.646 B 0.829 D 0.831 D 0.002 No -- -- 4. State College Boulevard at AM 0.426 A 0.639 B 0.648 B 0.009 No -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.531 A 0.804 D 0.811 D 0.007 No -- -- 5. Sportstown at AM 0.333 A 0.433 A 0.429 A -0.004 No -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.461 A 0.610 B 0.609 B -0.001 No -- -- 6. Howell Avenue at AM 0.377 A 0.465 A 0.476 A 0.011 No -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.551 A 0.699 B 0.703 C 0.004 No -- -- 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at AM 0.402 A 0.496 A 0.545 A 0.049 No -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.407 A 0.589 A 0.627 B 0.038 No -- -- Notes: LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Table 3-1 for the LOS definitions. 19 Appendices F and H contain ICU/LOS calculation worksheets for all study intersections. 20 Please refer to Table 3-7 for significant impact criteria. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 40TABLE 8-1 (CONTINUED) YEAR 2013 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY 21 Key Intersection Time Period (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions (4) Significant Impact22 (5) Year 2013 With Project With Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No ICU LOS 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 0.363 A 0.414 A 0.491 A 0.077 No -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.401 A 0.475 A 0.508 A 0.033 No -- -- 9. Douglass Road at AM 0.408 A 0.442 A 0.441 A -0.001 No -- -- Katella Avenue23 PM 0.492 A 0.524 A 0.585 A 0.061 No -- -- 10. Struck Avenue at AM 0.280 A 0.304 A 0.308 A 0.004 No -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.344 A 0.380 A 0.385 A 0.005 No -- -- 11. Main Street at AM 0.501 A 0.523 A 0.535 A 0.012 No -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.495 A 0.520 A 0.529 A 0.009 No -- -- 12. Batavia Street at AM 0.534 A 0.560 A 0.570 A 0.010 No -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.500 A 0.523 A 0.529 A 0.006 No -- -- Notes: LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Table 3-1 for the LOS definitions. 21 Appendices F and H contain ICU/LOS calculation worksheets for all study intersections. 22 Please refer to Table 3-7 for significant impact criteria. 23 The intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue assumes a northbound lane configuration of two NBL, one NBTR and one NBR for the “with” Project scenario. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 41 8.2 Year 2013 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis Table 8-2 summarizes the Daily level of service results at the key eight (8) study roadway segments during a “typical” weekday for the Year 2013 traffic conditions. The first column (1) of LOS E Capacity values in Table 8-2 presents the daily roadway segment capacities from the Orange County Highway Design Manual (September 1991). The second column (2) lists the number of travel lanes and the third column (3) indicates the Existing Daily traffic volumes, volume to capacity ratio (V/C) and LOS. The fourth column (4) forecasts Year 2013 Without Project traffic conditions. The fifth column (5) in Table 8-2 forecasts the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions. 8.2.1 Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (4) of Table 8-2 shows that five (5) of the key study roadway segments are forecast to operate at adverse LOS on a daily basis under Year 2013 Without Project traffic conditions based on the LOS impact criteria outlined in this report. 8.2.2 Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (5) of Table 8-2 shows that the same five (5) key study roadway segments are forecast to continue to operate at adverse worse on a daily basis under Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions based on the LOS impact criteria outlined in this report. To determine if the project creates a significant impact, these segments are analyzed under peak hour conditions to determine if there are any peak hour deficiencies. As presented in Table 8-3, these study roadway segments are forecast to operate at LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours. As a result, the study roadway segments are not significantly impacted by Year 2013 With Project traffic and therefore no improvements are required. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 42TABLE 8-2 YEAR 2013 ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial (1) LOS E Capacity (VPD) (2) Lanes (3) Existing Traffic Conditions (4) Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions (5) Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 53,229 0.945 E 53,449 0.949 E 2. Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 53,195 0.945 E 53,565 0.951 E 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard Major 56,300 6D 30,260 0.537 A 45,127 0.802 D 45,497 0.808 D 4. Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown Major 56,300 6D 32,800 0.583 A 43,779 0.778 C 44,412 0.789 C 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue Major 56,300 6D 34,240 0.608 B 47,287 0.840 D 47,670 0.847 D Notes: VPD = Vehicles Per Day V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio D = Divided LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 43TABLE 8-2 (CONTINUED) YEAR 2013 ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial (1) LOS E Capacity (VPD) (2) Lanes (3) Existing Traffic Conditions (4) Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions (5) Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway Major 56,300 6D 37,990 0.675 B 52,195 0.927 E 52,578 0.934 E 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street Major 56,300 6D 29,610 0.526 A 38,732 0.688 B 39,471 0.701 C 8. Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street Major 59,11524 6D 30,280 0.512 A 36,039 0.610 B 36,445 0.617 B Notes: VPD = Vehicles Per Day V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio D = Divided 24 City of Orange uses 5% capacity increase for Smart Streets. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 44TABLE 8-3 YEAR 2013 ROADWAY SEGMENT PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial Time Period (1) Approach (2) Lanes (3) Total Link Capacity (VPH) (4) Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions Peak Hour Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way Major AM EB 3 3,192 1,691 0.530 A WB 3 2,736 1,680 0.614 B PM EB 3 3,249 1,732 0.533 A WB 3 3,363 2,453 0.729 C 2. Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street Major AM EB 3 3,192 2,022 0.633 B WB 3 2,964 1,274 0.430 A PM EB 3 3,249 1,711 0.527 A WB 3 3,192 2,200 0.689 B 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Blvd Major AM EB 3 3,705 1,524 0.411 A WB 3 2,679 1,105 0.412 A PM EB 3 2,679 1,498 0.559 A WB 3 2,964 1,842 0.621 B Notes: VPH = Vehicles Per Hour V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 45TABLE 8-3 (CONTINUED) YEAR 2013 ROADWAY SEGMENT PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial Time Period (1) Approach (2) Lanes (3) Total Link Capacity (VPH) (4) Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions Peak Hour Volume V/C Ratio LOS 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue Major AM EB 3 3,876 1,264 0.326 A WB 3 4,218 1,178 0.279 A PM EB 3 3,762 1,430 0.380 A WB 3 3,648 1,698 0.465 A 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway Major AM EB 3 3,876 1,415 0.365 A WB 3 4,218 1,660 0.394 A PM EB 3 3,933 1,780 0.453 A WB 3 3,933 1,978 0.503 A Notes: VPH = Vehicles Per Hour V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 46 9.0 YEAR 2030 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS This analysis was performed with the application of the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM) to obtain Year 2030 traffic volumes. Future trip activity is estimated and assigned throughout the study area. 9.1 Year 2030 Intersection Capacity Analysis Table 9-1 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the key study intersections for Year 2030 traffic conditions. The first column (1) of ICU/LOS values in Table 9-1 presents a summary of existing AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions (which were also presented in Table 7-1). The second column (2) lists Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. The third column (3) in Table 9-1 presents forecast Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. The fourth column (4) of Table 9-1 shows whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. The fifth column (5) of Table 9-1 presents the Level of Service with the implementation of improvements, if necessary. 9.1.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (2) of Table 9-1 indicates that six (6) of the key study intersections are forecast to operate at adverse LOS E or worse for the Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at an adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at Katella Avenue 0.936 E -- -- 3. Lewis Street at Katella Avenue -- -- 1.269 F 4. State College Boulevard at Katella Avenue 0.928 E 0.978 E 5. Sportstown at Katella Avenue -- -- 1.003 F 6. Howell Avenue at Katella Avenue -- -- 0.945 E 9. Douglass Road at Katella Avenue 0.973 E 1.052 F 9.1.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (3) of Table 9-1 indicates that the same six (6) key study intersections are forecast to operate at adverse LOS E or worse for the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions, when compared to the LOS standards defined in this report. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at Katella Avenue 0.946 E -- -- 3. Lewis Street at Katella Avenue -- -- 1.275 F 4. State College Boulevard at Katella Avenue 0.937 E 0.985 E 5. Sportstown at Katella Avenue -- -- 0.975 E LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 47 6. Howell Avenue at Katella Avenue -- -- 0.949 E 9. Douglass Road at Katella Avenue 1.035 F 1.077 F Out of the six (6) key study intersections operating at adverse LOS listed above, only two (2) key study intersections (shown in bold and italic above) will be significantly impacted based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. Three of the remaining four intersections have cumulative impacts due to the increase in the ICU values. The intersection of Sportstown/Katella Avenue has improved level of service with the project. Mitigation measures will be identified for all six intersections. It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted intersections to acceptable Level of Service. To supplement the level of service results as presented in Table 9-1, Figure 9-1 graphically represents the comparison between Year 2030 Without Project and Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions level of service results for the AM and PM peak hours. Appendix I contains the ICU/LOS level of service calculation worksheets for the Year 2030 Traffic Conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 48TABLE 9-1 YEAR 2030 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY25 Key Intersection Time Period (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions (4) Significant Impact26 (5) Year 2030 With Project With Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No ICU LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 0.583 A 0.761 C 0.768 C 0.007 No -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.524 A 0.803 D 0.804 D 0.001 No -- -- 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 0.493 A 0.936 E 0.946 E 0.010 Yes 0.815 D Katella Avenue PM 0.496 A 0.896 D 0.897 D 0.001 No 0.776 C 3. Lewis Street at AM 0.484 A 0.849 D 0.850 D 0.001 No 0.699 B Katella Avenue PM 0.646 B 1.269 F 1.275 F 0.006 No 0.831 D 4. State College Boulevard at AM 0.426 A 0.928 E 0.937 E 0.009 No 0.900 D Katella Avenue PM 0.531 A 0.978 E 0.985 E 0.007 No 0.852 D 5. Sportstown at AM 0.333 A 0.773 C 0.775 C 0.002 No 0.654 B Katella Avenue PM 0.461 A 1.003 F 0.975 E -0.028 No 0.737 C 6. Howell Avenue at AM 0.377 A 0.611 B 0.622 B 0.011 No 0.622 B Katella Avenue PM 0.551 A 0.945 E 0.949 E 0.004 No 0.845 D 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at AM 0.402 A 0.702 C 0.712 C 0.010 No -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.407 A 0.690 B 0.691 B 0.001 No -- -- Notes: LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Table 3-1 for the LOS definitions. 25 Appendices F and I contain ICU/LOS calculation worksheets for all study intersections. 26 Please refer to Table 3-7 for significant impact criteria. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 49TABLE 9-1 (CONTINUED) YEAR 2030 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY27 Key Intersection Time Period (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions (4) Significant Impact28 (5) Year 2030 With Project With Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No ICU LOS 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 0.363 A 0.602 B 0.679 B 0.077 No -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.401 A 0.694 B 0.726 C 0.032 No -- -- 9. Douglass Road at AM 0.408 A 0.973 E 1.035 F 0.062 Yes 0.840 D Katella Avenue29 PM 0.492 A 1.052 F 1.077 F 0.025 Yes 0.868 D 10. Struck Avenue at AM 0.28 A 0.669 B 0.673 B 0.004 No -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.344 A 0.806 D 0.809 D 0.003 No -- -- 11. Main Street at AM 0.501 A 0.791 C 0.803 D 0.012 No -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.495 A 0.805 D 0.815 D 0.010 No -- -- 12. Batavia Street at AM 0.534 A 0.757 C 0.766 C 0.009 No -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.5 A 0.765 C 0.771 C 0.006 No -- -- Notes: LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Table 3-1 for the LOS definitions. 27 Appendices F and I contain ICU/LOS calculation worksheets for all study intersections. 28 Please refer to Table 3-7 for significant impact criteria. 29 The intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue assumes a northbound lane configuration of two NBL, one NBTR and one NBR for the “with” Project scenario. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 50 9.2 Year 2030 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis Table 9-2 summarizes the Daily level of service results at the key eight (8) study roadway segments during a “typical” weekday for the Year 2030 traffic conditions. The first column (1) of LOS E Capacity values in Table 9-2 presents the daily roadway segment capacities from the Orange County Highway Design Manual (September 1991). The second column (2) lists the number of travel lanes and the third column (3) indicates the Existing Daily traffic volumes, volume to capacity ratio (V/C) and LOS. The fourth column (4) forecasts Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. The fifth column (5) in Table 9-2 forecasts the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. 9.2.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (4) of Table 9-2 shows that five (5) of the key study roadway segments are forecast to operate at adverse LOS on a daily basis under Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions based on the LOS impact criteria outlined in this report. 9.2.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (5) of Table 9-2 shows that the same five (5) key study roadway segments are forecast to continue to operate at adverse LOS on a daily basis under Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions based on the LOS impact criteria outlined in this report. However, as presented in Table 9-3, these study roadway segments are forecast to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours, except for the following one (1) roadway segment as listed below: Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue to Anaheim Way As a result, one (1) of the five (5) adversely operating study roadway segments is significantly impacted by Year 2030 With Project traffic based on the LOS impact criteria outlined in this report. The segment of Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way will be mitigated by widening Katella Avenue from six (6) to eight (8) lanes. It should be noted that this improvement has been determined to be feasible through the Platinum Triangle Implementation Plan. The recommended mitigation measure will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted roadway segment to an acceptable Level of Service. . LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 51TABLE 9-2 YEAR 2030 ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial (1) LOS E Capacity (VPD) (2) Lanes (3) Existing Traffic Conditions (4) Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions (5) Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio30 LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 70,870 1.259 F 71,090 1.263 F 2. Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street Major 75,000 8D 35,040 0.622 B 70,720 0.943 E 71,090 0.948 E 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard Major 75,000 8D 30,260 0.537 A 57,490 0.767 C 57,860 0.771 C 4. Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown Major 75,000 8D 32,800 0.583 A 51,287 0.684 B 51,920 0.692 B 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue Major 56,300 6D 34,240 0.608 B 61,927 1.100 F 62,310 1.107 F Notes: VPD = Vehicles Per Day V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio D = Divided 30 V/C ratio based on existing number of lanes and LOS E capacity. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 52TABLE 9-2 (CONTINUED) YEAR 2030 ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial (1) LOS E Capacity (VPD) (2) Lanes (3) Existing Traffic Conditions (4) Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions (5) Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio31 LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway Major 56,300 6D 37,990 0.675 B 70,807 1.258 F 71,190 1.264 F 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street Major 56,300 6D 29,610 0.526 A 62,161 1.104 F 62,900 1.117 F 8. Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street Major 59,11532 6D 30,280 0.512 A 51,164 0.865 D 51,570 0.872 D Notes: VPD = Vehicles Per Day V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio D = Divided 31 V/C ratio based on existing number of lanes and LOS E capacity. 32 City of Orange uses 5% capacity increase for Smart Streets. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 53TABLE 9-3 YEAR 2030 ROADWAY SEGMENT PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial Time Period (1) Approach (2) Lanes (3) Total Link Capacity (VPH) (4) Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Peak Hour Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way Major AM EB 3 3,192 2,720 0.852 D WB 3 2,736 2,620 0.958 E PM EB 3 3,249 3,580 1.102 F WB 3 3,363 3,690 1.097 F 2. Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street Major AM EB 4 4,256 3,310 0.778 C WB 4 3,952 2,350 0.595 A PM EB 4 4,332 3,730 0.861 D WB 4 4,256 3,780 0.888 D 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue Major AM EB 3 3,876 2,170 0.560 A WB 3 4,218 1,870 0.443 A PM EB 3 3,762 2,510 0.667 B WB 3 3,648 2,740 0.751 C 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway Major AM EB 3 3,876 2,430 0.627 B WB 3 4,218 2,310 0.548 A PM EB 3 3,933 2,770 0.704 C WB 3 3,933 3,190 0.811 D Notes: VPH = Vehicles Per Hour V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 54TABLE 9-3 (CONTINUED) YEAR 2030 ROADWAY SEGMENT PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial Time Period (1) Approach (2) Lanes (3) Total Link Capacity (VPH) (4) Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Peak Hour Volume V/C Ratio LOS 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street Major AM EB 3 3,705 2,960 0.799 C WB 3 3,705 2,240 0.605 B PM EB 3 4,161 2,260 0.543 A WB 3 4,161 3,620 0.870 D Notes: VPH = Vehicles Per Hour V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 55 10.0 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) ANALYSIS The goals of 2009 Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) are to support regional mobility and air quality objectives by reducing traffic congestion; provide a mechanism for coordinating land use and development decisions that support the regional economy; and determine gas tax fund eligibility. To meet these goals, the CMP contains a number of policies designed to monitor and address system performance issues. OCTA developed the policies that makeup Orange County’s CMP with local jurisdictions, the California Department of Transportation, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. As Orange County’s Congestion Management Agency (CMA), Orange County Transportation Agency (OCTA) is responsible for the administration of the CMP, as well as providing data and models that are consistent with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region, and developing the deficiency plan processes. The 2009 Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) stipulates the requirements for maintaining LOS E at CMP intersections and roadway segments. The following four (4) Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersections are located within the study area: 1. Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue The following eight (8) study area arterial segments are included in the CMP network 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way 2. Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard 4. Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street 8. Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street 10.1 Existing With Project CMP Intersection Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Table 10-1 provides a comparison between the ICU values and the corresponding LOS for the Existing traffic conditions and Existing With Project traffic conditions. As presented in Table 10-1, none of the CMP intersections are impacted by the addition of the Project traffic based on the CMP criteria which stipulates maintaining LOS E at all CMP locations. All four (4) CMP intersections operate at acceptable LOS A for both the Existing and Existing With Project traffic conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 56 10.2 Existing With Project CMP Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis Table 10-2 provides a comparison between the V/C values and the corresponding LOS for the Existing traffic conditions and Existing With Project traffic conditions. As presented in Table 10-2, all eight (8) CMP roadway segments operate at acceptable LOS B or better for both the Existing and Existing With Project traffic conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 57TABLE 10-1 EXISTING WITH PROJECT PEAK HOUR CMP INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY33 Key Intersection Time Period (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Existing With Project Traffic Conditions (3) Existing With Project With Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 0.583 A 0.584 A -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.524 A 0.528 A -- -- 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 0.493 A 0.503 A -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.496 A 0.497 A -- -- 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at AM 0.402 A 0.441 A -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.407 A 0.429 A -- -- 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 0.363 A 0.440 A -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.401 A 0.433 A -- -- Notes: LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Table 3-1 for the LOS definitions. 33 Appendix G contains ICU/LOS calculation worksheets for all study intersections. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 58TABLE 10-2 EXISTING WITH PROJECT CMP ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial (1) LOS E Capacity (VPD) (2) Lanes (3) Existing Traffic Conditions (4) Existing With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 35,260 0.626 B 2. Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 35,410 0.629 B 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard Major 56,300 6D 30,260 0.537 A 30,630 0.544 A 4. Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown Major 56,300 6D 32,800 0.583 A 33,433 0.594 A 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue Major 56,300 6D 34,240 0.608 B 34,623 0.615 B Notes: VPD = Vehicles Per Day V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio D = Divided LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 59TABLE 10-2 (CONTINUED) EXISTING WITH PROJECT CMP ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial (1) LOS E Capacity (VPD) (2) Lanes (3) Existing Traffic Conditions (4) Existing With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway Major 56,300 6D 37,990 0.675 B 38,373 0.682 B 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street Major 56,300 6D 29,610 0.526 A 30,349 0.539 A 8. Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street Major 59,11534 6D 30,280 0.512 A 30,686 0.519 A Notes: VPD = Vehicles Per Day V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio D = Divided 34 City of Orange uses 5% capacity increase for Smart Streets. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 60 10.3 Year 2013 With Project CMP Intersection Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Table 10-3 provides a comparison between the ICU values and the corresponding LOS for the Year 2013 Without Project traffic conditions and Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions. As presented in Table 10-3, none of the CMP intersections are impacted by the addition of the Project traffic based on the CMP criteria which stipulates maintaining LOS E at all CMP locations. All four (4) CMP intersections operate at acceptable LOS B or better for both the Year 2013 Without Project and Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions. 10.4 Year 2013 With Project CMP Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis Table 10-4 provides a comparison between the V/C values and the corresponding LOS for the Year 2013 Without Project traffic conditions and Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions. As presented in Table 10-4, all eight (8) of the CMP roadway segments operate at acceptable LOS E or better for both the Year 2013 Without Project and Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 61TABLE 10-3 YEAR 2013 PEAK HOUR CMP INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY35 Key Intersection Time Period (1) Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions (2) Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2013 With Project With Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 0.684 B 0.685 B -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.660 B 0.664 B -- -- 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 0.590 A 0.600 A -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.697 B 0.698 B -- -- 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at AM 0.496 A 0.545 A -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.589 A 0.627 B -- -- 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 0.414 A 0.491 A -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.475 A 0.508 A -- -- Notes: LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Table 3-1 for the LOS definitions. 35 Appendix H contains ICU/LOS calculation sheets for all study intersections. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 62TABLE 10-4 YEAR 2013 CMP ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial (1) LOS E Capacity (VPD) (2) Lanes (3) Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions (4) Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way Major 56,300 6D 53,229 0.945 E 53,449 0.949 E 2. Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street Major 56,300 6D 53,195 0.945 E 53,565 0.951 E 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard Major 56,300 6D 45,127 0.802 D 45,497 0.808 D 4. Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown Major 56,300 6D 43,779 0.778 C 44,412 0.789 C 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue Major 56,300 6D 47,287 0.840 D 47,670 0.847 D Notes: VPD = Vehicles Per Day V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio D = Divided LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 63TABLE 10-4 (CONTINUED) YEAR 2013 CMP ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial (1) LOS E Capacity (VPD) (2) Lanes (3) Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions (4) Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway Major 56,300 6D 52,195 0.927 E 52,578 0.934 E 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street Major 56,300 6D 38,732 0.688 B 39,471 0.701 C 8. Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street Major 59,11536 6D 36,039 0.610 B 36,445 0.617 B Notes: VPD = Vehicles Per Day V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio D = Divided 36 City of Orange uses 5% capacity increase for Smart Streets. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 64 10.5 Year 2030 With Project CMP Intersection Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Table 10-5 provides a comparison between the ICU values and the corresponding LOS for the Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions and Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. As presented in Table 10-5, none of the CMP intersections are impacted by the addition of the Project traffic based on the CMP criteria which stipulates maintaining LOS E at all CMP locations. All four (4) CMP intersections operate at acceptable LOS D or better after the implementation of the recommended improvements for both the Year 2030 Without Project and Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. 10.6 Year 2030 With Project CMP Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis Table 10-6 provides a comparison between the V/C values and the corresponding LOS for the Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions and Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. As presented in Table 10-6, four (4) CMP roadway segments operate at LOS F for both the Year 2030 Without Project and Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. These four segments were analyzed under peak hour conditions to determine if there are any capacity deficiencies on these segments. As presented in Table 10-7, three (3) of the CMP roadway segments are forecast to operate at LOS E or better during the AM and PM peak hours. As a result, these three (3) study roadway segments are not significantly impacted by Year 2030 With Project traffic and therefore no improvements are required at these locations. The one (1) significantly impacted CMP roadway segment, the segment of Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way will be mitigated by widening Katella Avenue from six (6) to eight (8) lanes. It should be noted that this improvement has been determined to be feasible through the Platinum Triangle Implementation Plan. The recommended mitigation measure will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted roadway segment to an acceptable Level of Service and is consistent with the 2009 Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) requirement. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 65 TABLE 10-5 YEAR 2030 PEAK HOUR CMP INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY37 Key Intersection Time Period (1) Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions (2) Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2030 With Project With Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 0.761 C 0.768 C -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.803 D 0.804 D -- -- 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 0.936 E 0.946 E 0.815 D Katella Avenue PM 0.896 D 0.897 D 0.776 C 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at AM 0.702 C 0.712 C -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.690 B 0.691 B -- -- 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 0.602 B 0.679 B -- -- Katella Avenue PM 0.694 B 0.726 C -- -- Notes: LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Table 3-1 for the LOS definitions. 37 Appendix I contains ICU/LOS calculation sheets for all study intersections. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 66TABLE 10-6 YEAR 2030 CMP ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial (1) LOS E Capacity (VPD) (2) Lanes (3) Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions (4) Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way Major 56,300 6D 70,870 1.259 F 71,090 1.263 F 2. Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street Major 75,000 8D 70,720 0.943 E 71,090 0.948 E 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard Major 75,000 8D 57,490 0.767 C 57,860 0.771 C 4. Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown Major 75,000 8D 51,287 0.684 B 51,920 0.692 B 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue Major 56,300 6D 61,927 1.100 F 62,310 1.107 F Notes: VPD = Vehicles Per Day V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio D = Divided LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 67TABLE 10-6 (CONTINUED) YEAR 2030 CMP ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial (1) LOS E Capacity (VPD) (2) Lanes (3) Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions (4) Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway Major 56,300 6D 70,807 1.258 F 71,190 1.264 F 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street Major 56,300 6D 62,161 1.104 F 62,900 1.117 F 8. Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street Major 59,11538 6D 51,164 0.865 D 51,570 0.872 D Notes: VPD = Vehicles Per Day V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio D = Divided 38 City of Orange uses 5% capacity increase for Smart Streets. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 68TABLE 10-7 YEAR 2030 CMP ROADWAY SEGMENT PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial Time Period (1) Approach (2) Lanes (3) Total Link Capacity (VPH) (4) Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Peak Hour Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way Major AM EB 3 3,192 2,720 0.852 D WB 3 2,736 2,620 0.958 E PM EB 3 3,249 3,580 1.102 F WB 3 3,363 3,690 1.097 F 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue Major AM EB 3 3,876 2,170 0.560 A WB 3 4,218 1,870 0.443 A PM EB 3 3,762 2,510 0.667 B WB 3 3,648 2,740 0.751 C 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway Major AM EB 3 3,876 2,430 0.627 B WB 3 4,218 2,310 0.548 A PM EB 3 3,933 2,770 0.704 C WB 3 3,933 3,190 0.811 D 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street Major AM EB 3 3,705 2,960 0.799 C WB 3 3,705 2,240 0.605 B PM EB 3 4,161 2,260 0.543 A WB 3 4,161 3,620 0.870 D Notes: VPH = Vehicles Per Hour V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 69 11.0 YEAR 2013 CALTRANS FACILITIES ANALYSIS (HCM METHODOLOGY) While the City of Anaheim requires the use of the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Methodology for analyzing Project impacts, Caltrans requires the use of methods provided in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) for the analysis of signalized ramp intersections, freeway ramps and freeway segments. The four (4) intersections listed below are Caltrans’ ramp intersections and have been analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM) Methodology: 1. Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue It is expected that the results obtained from using the ICU methodology and the HCM methodology will be compatible and lead to similar conclusions. However, the two methods measure and analyze different travel flow characteristics, which leads to results that are not identical. The minimum required level of service to be maintained at Caltrans ramp intersections is LOS D as identified by Caltrans District 12 staff. In addition, Freeway Ramp Analysis for merge/diverge/weaving was also conducted using the methods provided in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) for the following eight (8) Caltrans ramps: Merge/Diverge Analysis 1. I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from Katella Avenue 2. I-5 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue 3. SR-57 Northbound On-Ramp from Eastbound Katella Avenue 4. SR-57 Southbound On-Ramp from Westbound Katella Avenue Weaving Analysis 1. SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp Similarly, Freeway Segment Analysis was also conducted using the methods provided in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) for the following four (4) Caltrans freeway segments: 1. SR-57 Northbound from Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue 2. SR-57 Southbound from Katella Avenue to Orangewood Avenue LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 70 3. SR-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue Caltrans currently does not have any additional improvements identified or planned for the identified impacted and deficient segments. Outside of the additional northbound lane which will be constructed on the Northbound SR-57 freeway in the next few years, there are not planned or programmed improvements to the surrounding freeways. In addition, the City does not have jurisdiction over the State Highway System and, therefore, cannot directly implement mitigation measures associated with project related impacts on mainline segments. Section 14.0 will discuss State Highway System impacts and mitigation strategies in further detail, including the potential for inclusion in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Since freeway merge, diverge and weaving segment operations are dependent upon mainline and ramp capacities, reducing congestion on these facilities contributes to higher speeds and could lead to an improved LOS. Improving merge, diverge and weaving facilities through the addition of auxiliary lanes within the area could provide additional capacity and reduce the segment density. Operational improvements through improved signage or other ITS measures may also be developed in consultation with Caltrans in order to improve the LOS. 11.1 Year 2013 Intersection Capacity Analysis Table 11-1 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the four (4) Caltrans study intersections for Year 2013 traffic conditions. The first column (1) of HCM Delay/LOS values in Table 11-1 presents a summary of existing AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions. The second column (2) lists Year 2013 Without Project traffic conditions based on existing intersection geometry, but without any traffic generated from the proposed Project. The third column (3) presents forecast Year 2013 Without Project traffic conditions with the addition of Project traffic. The fourth column (4) of Table 11-1 shows whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. The fifth column (5) of Table 11-1 presents the Level of Service with the implementation of improvements, if necessary. 11.1.1 Existing Traffic Conditions Review of column (1) indicates that all Caltrans intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. 11.1.2 Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (2) indicates that all Caltrans study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2013 Without Project traffic conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 71 11.1.3 Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (3) of Table 11-1 shows that all Caltrans study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours with addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. Appendices J and M contain the HCM Delay/LOS calculation worksheets for Existing and Year 2013 Traffic Conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 72TABLE 11-1 YEAR 2013 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY39 (CALTRANS FACILITIES ANALYSIS) Key Ramp Intersection Time Period (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions (4) Significant Impact (5) Year 2013 With Project With Improvements Delay (s/v) LOS Delay (s/v) LOS Delay (s/v) LOS Yes/No Delay (s/v) LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 16.6 B 22.1 C 21.5 C No -- -- Katella Avenue PM 15.2 B 19.9 B 19.5 B No -- -- 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 14.4 B 14.4 B 13.0 B No -- -- Katella Avenue PM 17.8 B 24.2 C 25.4 C No -- -- 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at AM 10.2 B 11.6 B 13.1 B No -- -- Katella Avenue PM 8.1 A 16.0 B 15.5 B No -- -- 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 9.5 A 13.9 B 15.5 B No -- -- Katella Avenue PM 10.4 B 11.2 B 12.1 B No -- -- Notes: s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay). LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Table 3-3 for the LOS definitions. Bold HCM Delay values indicate adverse service levels based on the Caltrans LOS Criteria. 39 Appendices J and M contain HCM Delay/LOS calculation worksheets for all study intersections. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 73 11.2 Year 2013 Freeway Ramp Analysis (Merge/Diverge Analysis) Table 11-2 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations for the merge/diverge analysis for the Year 2013 traffic conditions. The first column (1) of Table 11- 2 indentifies the type of analysis, i.e., merge or diverge. The second column (2) lists time period. The third column (3) lists Existing traffic conditions. The fourth column (4) lists Year 2013 Without Project traffic conditions and the fifth column (5) presents forecast Year 2013 Without Project traffic conditions with the addition of Project traffic. The sixth column (6) of Table 11-2 shows whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. 11.2.1 Existing Traffic Conditions Review of column (3) indicates that none of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an adverse service level under the Existing traffic conditions. All four (4) Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Existing traffic conditions. 11.2.2 Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (4) indicates that none of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an adverse service level under the Year 2013 Without Project traffic conditions. All four (4) Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2013 Without Project traffic conditions. 11.2.3 Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (5) of Table 11-2 shows that none of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. All four (4) Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions. Appendices K and N contain the Merge and Diverge Analysis Calculation worksheets for all ramp locations for the Existing and Year 2013 traffic conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 74TABLE 11-2 YEAR 2013 PEAK HOUR FREEWAY RAMP ANALYSIS SUMMARY – MERGE/DIVERGE ANALYSIS40 (CALTRANS FACILITIES ANALYSIS) Key Freeway Ramp (1) Analysis Type (2) Time Period (3) Existing Traffic Conditions (4) Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions (5) Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions (6) Significant Impact Peak Hour Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Yes/No 1. I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from Merge Analysis AM 4,710 200 18.9 B 4,828 213 19.3 B 4,828 217 19.3 B No Katella Avenue PM 7,230 280 26.8 C 7,471 306 27.5 C 7,471 321 27.4 C No 2. I-5 Off-Ramp Southbound to Diverge Analysis AM 5,590 540 1.7 A 5,735 626 2.6 A 5,735 647 2.8 A No Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue PM 6,930 200 1.2 A 7,121 247 2.0 A 7,121 250 2.0 A No 3. SR-57 Northbound On-Ramp from Merge Analysis AM 4,010 300 17.3 B 4,087 326 17.6 B 4,087 311 17.5 B No Eastbound Katella Avenue PM 7,230 450 27.0 C 7,498 467 27.7 C 7,498 444 27.8 C No 4. SR-57 Southbound On-Ramp from Merge Analysis AM 5,490 240 21.7 C 5,922 237 23.1 C 5,922 268 23.1 C No Westbound Katella Avenue PM 6,690 460 25.4 C 6,890 449 26.0 C 6,890 547 25.9 C No Notes: pc/mi/ln = Passenger cars per mile per lane (density). LOS = Level of Service. Bold Volume/Density/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Caltrans LOS Criteria. 40 Appendices K and N contain the merge/diverge and calculation worksheets for all ramp locations. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 75 11.3 Year 2013 Freeway Ramp Analysis (Weaving Analysis) Table 11-3 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations for the weaving analysis for the Year 2013 traffic conditions. The first column (1) of Table 11-3 lists time period. The second column (2) lists Existing traffic conditions. The third column (3) lists Year 2013 Without Project traffic conditions and the fourth column (4) presents forecast Year 2013 Without Project traffic conditions with the addition of Project traffic. The fifth column (5) of Table 11-3 shows whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. The sixth column (6) of Table 11-3 presents the Level of Service with the implementation of improvements, if necessary. 11.3.1 Existing Traffic Conditions Review of column (2) indicates that two (2) of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at adverse service levels under the Existing traffic conditions. The remaining two (2) Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Existing traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp -- -- -- -- -- -- 7,050 10 660 230 39.28 E 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp -- -- -- -- -- -- 6,190 30 660 500 37.03 E 11.3.2 Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (3) indicates that three (3) of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at adverse service levels under the Year 2013 Without Project traffic conditions. The remaining one (1) Caltrans ramp location is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2013 Without Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp -- -- -- -- -- -- 6,923 22 753 353 35.83 E 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp -- -- -- -- -- -- 7,350 15 726 258 41.72 E 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 5,313 30 850 609 35.32 E 6,376 30 680 511 38.26 E 11.3.3 Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (4) of Table 11-2 shows that three (3) of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 76 Caltrans criteria. The remaining one (1) Caltrans ramp location is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp -- -- -- -- -- -- 6,923 22 753 437 36.59 E 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp -- -- -- -- -- -- 7,350 15 726 396 43.04 F 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 5,313 30 1,038 609 37.10 E 6,376 30 701 511 38.44 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in Chapter 14.0 of this report will offset the impact of the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted ramp locations to acceptable Level of Service. Appendices K and N contain the Weaving Analysis Calculation worksheets for all ramp locations for the Existing and Year 2013 traffic conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 77TABLE 11-3 YEAR 2013 PEAK HOUR FREEWAY RAMP ANALYSIS SUMMARY – WEAVING ANALYSIS41 (CALTRANS FACILITIES ANALYSIS) Key Freeway Ramp (1) Time Period (2) Existing Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions (4) Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions (5) Significant Impact (6) Year 2013 With Project With Improvements Traffic Conditions Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Yes/No Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C A-C B-D A-D B-C A-C B-D A-D B-C A-C B-D A-D B-C 1. SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Ave AM 3,860 10 730 150 18.66 B 3,899 12 754 189 19.24 B 3,899 12 869 189 20.02 C No -- -- -- -- -- -- On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp PM 6,960 10 550 270 30.62 D 7,140 15 590 359 32.33 D 7,140 15 602 359 32.42 D No -- -- -- -- -- -- 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave AM 5,490 10 700 150 26.59 C 5,820 10 736 150 28.44 D 5,820 10 736 172 28.62 D No 4,850 8 613 143 22.93 C On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp42 PM 6,680 20 710 340 34.09 D 6,923 22 753 353 35.83 E 6,923 22 753 437 36.59 E Yes 5,769 18 628 364 29.09 D 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave AM 3,600 10 840 140 22.80 C 3,691 10 854 152 23.46 C 3,691 10 854 188 23.76 C No 3,691 10 854 188 18.50 B On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp PM 7,050 10 660 230 39.28 E 7,350 15 726 258 41.72 E 7,350 15 726 396 43.04 F Yes 7,350 15 726 396 33.42 D 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd AM 4,890 30 840 600 32.99 D 5,313 30 850 609 35.32 E 5,313 30 1,038 609 37.10 E Yes 5,313 30 1,038 609 28.65 D On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp PM 6,190 30 660 500 37.03 E 6,376 30 680 511 38.26 E 6,376 30 701 511 38.44 E Yes 6,376 30 701 511 29.88 D Notes: pc/mi/ln = Passenger cars per mile per lane (density). LOS = Level of Service. Bold Volume/Density/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Caltrans LOS Criteria. 41 Appendices K and N contain the weaving analysis calculation worksheets for all ramp locations. 42 HCM software allows a maximum input of 5 lanes. The volumes have been manually adjusted to account for 6 lanes with the recommended improvements. The Year 2013 With Project traffic volumes have been multiplied by a factor of 5/6 to obtain the Year 2013 With Project With Improvements traffic volumes. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 78 11.4 Year 2013 Freeway Segment Analysis Table 11-4 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the four (4) Caltrans freeway segments for the Year 2013 traffic conditions. The first column (1) lists time period. The second column (2) lists Existing traffic conditions. The third column (3) lists Year 2013 Without Project traffic conditions and the fourth column (4) presents forecast Year 2013 Without Project traffic conditions with the addition of Project traffic. The fifth column (5) of Table 11-4 shows whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. The sixth column (6) of Table 11-4 presents the Level of Service with the implementation of improvements, if necessary. 11.4.1 Existing Traffic Conditions Review of column (2) indicates that two (2) Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an adverse service level under the Existing traffic conditions. The remaining two (2) Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Existing traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 3. SR-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road -- -- -- 7,950 42.7 E 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue -- -- -- 7,380 36.1 E 11.4.2 Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (3) indicates that two (2) Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an adverse service level under the Year 2013 Without Project traffic conditions. The remaining two (2) Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2013 Without Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 3. SR-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road -- -- -- 8,243 OVRFL F 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue -- -- -- 7,582 38.2 E 11.4.3 Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (4) of Table 11-4 shows that two (2) Caltrans freeway segments operate at adverse levels of service with addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining two (2) Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 79 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 3. SR-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road -- -- -- 8,380 OVRFL F 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue -- -- -- 7,603 38.4 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in Chapter 14.0 of this report will offset the impact of the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted freeway segments to acceptable Level of Service. Appendices L and O contain the Basic Freeway Segment Analysis Calculation worksheets for all freeway segments for the Existing and Year 2013 traffic conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 80TABLE 11-4 YEAR 2013 PEAK HOUR FREEWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY43 (CALTRANS FACILITIES ANALYSIS) Key Freeway Segment (1) Time Period (2) Existing Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions (4) Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions (5) Significant Impact (6) Year 2013 With Project With Improvements Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Yes/No Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1. SR-57 Northbound from AM 4,750 16.1 B 4,765 16.1 B 4,880 16.5 B No -- -- -- Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue PM 7,790 27.4 D 8,093 28.9 D 8,106 29.0 D No -- -- -- 2. SR-57 Southbound from AM 6,350 21.5 C 6,698 22.8 C 6,720 22.9 C No -- -- -- Katella Avenue to Orangewood Avenue PM 7,750 27.2 D 7,986 28.4 D 8,070 28.8 D No -- -- -- 3. SR-57 Northbound from AM 4,590 19.4 C 4,679 19.8 C 4,715 20.0 C No 4,715 15.9 B Katella Avenue to Ball Road PM 7,950 42.7 E 8,243 OVRFL F 8,380 OVRFL F Yes 8,380 30.5 D 4. SR-57 Southbound from AM 6,360 28.2 D 6,656 30.1 D 6,844 31.5 D No 6,844 23.4 C Ball Road to Katella Avenue PM 7,380 36.1 E 7,582 38.2 E 7,603 38.4 E Yes 7,603 26.5 D Notes: pc/mi/ln = Passenger cars per mile per lane (density). LOS = Level of Service. Bold Volume/Density/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Caltrans LOS Criteria. OVRFL = Exceeds analysis model capabilities (Overflow conditions). 43 Appendices L and O contain the HCM Density/LOS calculation worksheets for all study freeway segments. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 81 12.0 YEAR 2030 CALTRANS FACILITIES ANALYSIS (HCM METHODOLOGY) 12.1 Year 2030 Intersection Capacity Analysis Table 12-1 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the four (4) Caltrans study intersections for Year 2030 traffic conditions. The first column (1) of HCM Delay/LOS values in Table 12-1 presents a summary of existing AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions. The second column (2) lists Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. The third column (3) presents forecast Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions with the addition of Project traffic. The fourth column (4) of Table 12-1 shows whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. The fifth column (5) of Table 12-1 presents the Level of Service with the implementation of improvements, if necessary. 12.1.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (2) indicates that two (2) Caltrans study intersections are forecast to operate at adverse service levels under the Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. The remaining two (2) Caltrans study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at an adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Intersection Delay (s/v) LOS Delay (s/v) LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at Katella Ave 55.4 E 71.1 E 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at Katella Avenue -- -- 79.6 E 12.1.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (3) of Table 12-1 shows that the same two (2) Caltrans study intersections will continue to operate at adverse levels of service with addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The locations operating at an adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Intersection Delay (s/v) LOS Delay (s/v) LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at Katella Ave 59.0 E 70.9 E 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at Katella Avenue -- -- 81.7 F It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in Chapter 14.0 of this report will offset the impacts of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted intersections to acceptable Level of Service. Appendix P contains the HCM Delay/LOS calculation worksheets for Year 2030 Traffic Conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 82TABLE 12-1 YEAR 2030 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY44 (CALTRANS FACILITIES ANALYSIS) Key Ramp Intersection Time Period (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions (4) Significant Impact (5) Year 2030 With Project With Improvements Delay (s/v) LOS Delay (s/v) Yes/No Delay (s/v) Yes/No Yes/No Delay (s/v) LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 16.6 B 55.4 E 59.0 E Yes 33.7 C Katella Avenue PM 15.2 B 71.1 E 70.9 E Yes 22.6 C 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 14.4 B 19.0 B 19.2 B No 16.4 B Katella Avenue PM 17.8 B 79.6 E 81.7 F Yes 54.0 D 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at AM 10.2 B 16.6 B 17.6 B No -- -- Katella Avenue PM 8.1 A 12.0 B 12.3 B No -- -- 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 9.5 A 12.0 B 15.4 B No -- -- Katella Avenue PM 10.4 B 14.2 B 15.6 B No -- -- Notes: s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay). LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Table 3-3 for the LOS definitions. Bold HCM Delay values indicate adverse service levels based on the Caltrans LOS Criteria. 44 Appendices J and P contain HCM Delay/LOS calculation worksheets for all study intersections. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 83 12.2 Year 2030 Freeway Ramp Analysis (Merge/Diverge Analysis) Table 12-2 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations for the merge/diverge analysis for the Year 2030 traffic conditions. The first column (1) of Table 12- 2 indentifies the type of analysis, i.e., merge or diverge. The second column (2) lists time period. The third column (3) lists Existing traffic conditions. The fourth column (4) lists Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions and the fifth column (5) presents forecast Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions with the addition of Project traffic. The sixth column (6) of Table 11-2 shows whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. 12.2.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (4) indicates that none of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an adverse service level under the Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. All four (4) Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. 12.2.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (5) of Table 12-2 shows that none of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. All four (4) Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. Appendix Q contains the Merge and Diverge Analysis Calculation worksheets for all ramp locations for the Year 2030 traffic conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 84TABLE 12-2 YEAR 2030 PEAK HOUR FREEWAY RAMP ANALYSIS SUMMARY – MERGE/DIVERGE ANALYSIS45 (CALTRANS FACILITIES ANALYSIS) Key Freeway Ramp (1) Analysis Type (2) Time Period (3) Existing Traffic Conditions (4) Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions (5) Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions (6) Significant Impact Peak Hour Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Yes/No 1. I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from Merge Analysis AM 4,710 200 18.9 B 5,230 256 19.8 B 5,230 260 19.8 B No Katella Avenue PM 7,230 280 26.8 C 8,290 395 28.5 D 8,290 410 28.5 D No 2. I-5 Off-Ramp Southbound to Diverge Analysis AM 5,590 540 1.7 A 6,230 919 4.8 A 6,230 940 5.0 A No Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue PM 6,930 200 1.2 A 7,770 407 3.5 A 7,770 410 3.5 A No 3. SR-57 Northbound On-Ramp from Merge Analysis AM 4,010 300 17.3 B 4,350 415 14.8 B 4,350 400 14.8 B No Eastbound Katella Avenue PM 7,230 450 27.0 C 8,410 523 22.3 C 8,410 500 22.3 C No 4. SR-57 Southbound On-Ramp from Merge Analysis AM 5,490 240 21.7 C 7,390 229 25.8 C 7,390 260 25.8 C No Westbound Katella Avenue PM 6,690 460 25.4 C 7,570 412 26.2 C 7,570 510 26.1 C No Notes: pc/mi/ln = Passenger cars per mile per lane (density). LOS = Level of Service. Bold Volume/Density/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Caltrans LOS Criteria. 45 Appendices K and Q contain the merge/diverge and calculation worksheets for all ramp locations. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 85 12.3 Year 2030 Freeway Ramp Analysis (Weaving Analysis) Table 12-3 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations for the weaving analysis for the Year 2030 traffic conditions. The first column (1) of Table 12-3 lists time period. The second column (2) lists Existing traffic conditions. The third column (3) lists Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions and the fourth column (4) presents forecast Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions with the addition of Project traffic. The fifth column (5) of Table 12-3 shows whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. The sixth column (6) of Table 12-3 presents the Level of Service with the implementation of improvements, if necessary. 12.3.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (3) indicates that three (3) of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at adverse service levels under the Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. The remaining one (1) Caltrans ramp location is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp -- -- -- -- -- -- 7,750 30 900 396 37.49 E 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp -- -- -- -- -- -- 8,370 30 950 352 35.25 E 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 6,750 30 882 640 39.13 E 7,010 30 749 550 38.46 E 12.3.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (4) of Table 12-3 shows that three (3) of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining one (1) Caltrans ramp location is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp -- -- -- -- -- -- 7,750 30 900 480 38.20 E 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp -- -- -- -- -- -- 8,370 30 950 490 36.17 E 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 6,750 30 1,070 640 40.79 E 7,010 30 770 550 38.63 E LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 86 It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in Chapter 14.0 of this report will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted ramp locations to acceptable Level of Service. Appendix Q contains the Weaving Analysis Calculation worksheets for all ramp locations for the Year 2030 traffic conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 87TABLE 12-3 YEAR 2030 PEAK HOUR FREEWAY RAMP ANALYSIS SUMMARY – WEAVING ANALYSIS46 (CALTRANS FACILITIES ANALYSIS) Key Freeway Ramp (1) Time Period (2) Existing Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions (4) Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions (5) Significant Impact (6) Year 2030 With Project With Improvements Traffic Conditions Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Yes/No Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C A-C B-D A-D B-C A-C B-D A-D B-C A-C B-D A-D B-C 1. SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Ave AM 3,860 10 730 150 18.66 B 4,030 20 835 320 19.22 B 4,030 20 950 320 19.95 B No -- -- -- -- -- -- On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp PM 6,960 10 550 270 30.62 D 7,750 30 728 660 34.71 D 7,750 30 740 660 34.79 D No -- -- -- -- -- -- 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave AM 5,490 10 700 150 26.59 C 6,940 10 860 148 31.33 D 6,940 10 860 170 31.50 D No 5,783 8 717 142 25.19 C On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp47 PM 6,680 20 710 340 34.09 D 7,750 30 900 396 37.49 E 7,750 30 900 480 38.20 E Yes 6,458 25 750 400 30.33 D 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave AM 3,600 10 840 140 22.80 C 4,000 10 900 194 18.14 B 4,000 10 900 230 18.34 B No 3,333 8 750 192 15.00 B On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp47 PM 7,050 10 660 230 39.28 E 8,370 30 950 352 35.25 E 8,370 30 950 490 36.17 E Yes 6,975 25 792 408 29.44 D 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd AM 4,890 30 840 600 32.99 D 6,750 30 882 640 39.13 E 6,750 30 1,070 640 40.79 E Yes 6,750 30 1,070 640 31.54 D On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp PM 6,190 30 660 500 37.03 E 7,010 30 749 550 38.46 E 7,010 30 770 550 38.63 E Yes 7,010 30 770 550 30.02 D Notes: pc/mi/ln = Passenger cars per mile per lane (density). LOS = Level of Service. Bold Volume/Density/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Caltrans LOS Criteria. 46 Appendices K and Q contain the weaving analysis calculation worksheets for all ramp locations. 47 HCM software allows a maximum input of 5 lanes. The volumes have been manually adjusted to account for 6 lanes with the recommended improvements. The Year 2030 With Project traffic volumes have been multiplied by a factor of 5/6 to obtain the Year 2030 With Project With Improvements traffic volumes. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 88 12.4 Year 2030 Freeway Segment Analysis Table 12-4 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the four (4) Caltrans freeway segments for the Year 2030 traffic conditions. The first column (1) lists time period. The second column (2) lists Existing traffic conditions. The third column (3) lists Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions and the fourth column (4) presents forecast Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions with the addition of Project traffic. The fifth column (5) of Table 12-4 shows whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. The sixth column (6) of Table 12-4 presents the Level of Service with the implementation of improvements, if necessary. 12.4.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (3) indicates that one (1) Caltrans freeway segment is forecast to operate at an adverse service level under the Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. The remaining three (3) Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. The location operating at adverse LOS is listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue 8,302 38.4 E 8,339 38.8 E 12.4.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (4) of Table 12-4 shows that one (1) Caltrans freeway segment operates at an adverse level of service with addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining three (3) Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue 8,490 40.4 E 8,360 39.0 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in Chapter 14.0 of this report will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted freeway segments to acceptable Level of Service. Appendix R contains the Basic Freeway Segment Analysis Calculation worksheets for all freeway segments for the Year 2030 traffic conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 89TABLE 12-4 YEAR 2030 PEAK HOUR FREEWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY48 (CALTRANS FACILITIES ANALYSIS) Key Freeway Segment (1) Time Period (2) Existing Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions (4) Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions (5) Significant Impact (6) Year 2030 With Project With Improvements Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Yes/No Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1. SR-57 Northbound from AM 4,750 16.1 B 5,205 16.1 B 5,320 16.5 B No -- -- -- Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue PM 7,790 27.4 D 9,167 30.5 D 9,180 30.6 D No -- -- -- 2. SR-57 Southbound from AM 6,350 21.5 C 7,958 25.2 C 7,980 25.2 C No -- -- -- Katella Avenue to Orangewood Avenue PM 7,750 27.2 D 9,076 30.1 D 9,160 30.5 D No -- -- -- 3. SR-57 Northbound from AM 4,590 19.4 C 5,104 15.8 B 5,140 15.9 B No -- -- -- Katella Avenue to Ball Road PM 7,950 42.7 E 9,703 33.6 D 9,840 34.5 D No -- -- -- 4. SR-57 Southbound from AM 6,360 28.2 D 8,302 38.4 E 8,490 40.4 E Yes 8,490 27.3 D Ball Road to Katella Avenue PM 7,380 36.1 E 8,339 38.8 E 8,360 39.0 E Yes 8,360 26.8 D Notes: pc/mi/ln = Passenger cars per mile per lane (density). LOS = Level of Service. Bold Volume/Density/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Caltrans LOS Criteria. 48 Appendices L and R contain the HCM Density/LOS calculation worksheets for all study freeway segments. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 90 13.0 SITE ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION ANALYSIS 13.1 Site Access Evaluation As shown in Figure 13-1, vehicular access to the Project site will be provided via the intersection of Katella Avenue at Sportstown as well as via six (6) driveways located on Douglass Road and one (1) driveway located on Katella Avenue. The existing intersection of Sportstown and Katella Avenue is a full-access, signalized intersection that provides access to the Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot. Driveway 1 along Douglass Road is a one-way stop-controlled, right-in/right-out only driveway providing access to the ARTIC North Parking Lot. Driveway 2 along Douglass Road is a right-out only, signalized intersection providing egress from the ARTIC North Parking Lot, Kiss and Ride area and taxi stand. Driveway 3 along Douglass Road is a signalized intersection that provides inbound-only access to the ARTIC North Parking Lot, Kiss and Ride area and taxi stand. It should be noted that the proposed traffic signals at Driveway 2 and Driveway 3 will essentially operate one traffic signal with a common controller. Driveway 4 along Douglass Road is a one-way stop-controlled, right-out only driveway providing egress from the buses and shuttles area. Driveway 5 along Douglass Road is a signalized intersection that provides inbound-only access to the buses and shuttles area. Driveway 6 along Douglass Road is a one-way stop-controlled, full-access driveway providing access to the ARTIC South Parking Lot. Driveway 7 along Katella Avenue is a one-way stop-controlled driveway that provides right-in/right- out only access to the ARTIC North Parking Lot, Kiss and Ride area, taxi stand as well as to the buses and shuttles area. 13.1.1 Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions Table 13-1 summarizes the intersection operations at the seven (7) Project driveways for Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions for the proposed Project. The operations analysis for the Project driveways is based on the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) methodology for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Review of Table 13-1 shows that all the Project driveways are forecast to operate at an acceptable service level of LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours for Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions. As such, Project access will be adequate. Motorists entering and exiting the Project site will be able to do so comfortably, safely and without undue congestion. Appendix S presents the Year 2013 With Project Delay/LOS calculation worksheets for the seven (7) Project driveways. A driveway analysis was not performed for Year 2030. Between Year 2013 and Year 2030, several new services will be provided at ARTIC, as stated in Section 6.4. The access and parking requirements for these services have not been defined. It is uncertain how many of these services will use the proposed ARTIC access points, and if the parking lot will be expanded or modified to serve the future uses at ARTIC. As stated in Section 6.4, the projects that will utilize ARTIC will be LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 91 undergoing their own environmental analyses and these projects will do their own site access evaluation based on their project proposals. 13.2 Driveway Stacking/Storage and Queuing Analysis A stacking/storage analysis was performed at all seven (7) Project driveways. The queuing evaluation was conducted based on projected Year 2013 With Project peak hour driveway traffic volumes and the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM) signalized and unsignalized methodology. 13.2.1 Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions Based on the HCM service level calculations, which calculates a critical (95th percentile) queue value in number of vehicles per lane, the maximum number of inbound vehicle queue calculated during the Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions occurs on the inbound southbound left-turn movement from Douglass Road into Driveway 3 during the AM peak hour. The queue on Douglass Road is forecast to have a maximum queue of six (6) vehicles. This vehicle queue length translates to 132 feet in queuing (assuming an average car length of 22 feet). The maximum number of outbound vehicle queue calculated during the Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions occurs on the outbound westbound right-turn movement from Driveway 2 onto Douglass Road during the PM peak hour. The queue on Driveway 2 is forecast to have a maximum queue of three (3) vehicles. This vehicle queue length translates to 66 feet in queuing (assuming an average car length of 22 feet). All of the other Project driveways are forecast to operate with a maximum queue of one (1) vehicle during the AM and PM peak hours. Based on the analysis, adequate vehicle storage is provided at all of the driveways and review of the proposed site plan indicates that all Project driveways have sufficient stacking to accommodate the forecast vehicle queues. Based on the above, no changes to the proposed configuration of the Project driveways are necessary. 13.3 Internal Circulation Evaluation The on-site circulation was evaluated in terms of vehicle-pedestrian conflicts. Based on our review of the preliminary site plan, the overall layout does not create any unsafe vehicle-pedestrian conflict points and the driveway throating is sufficient such that access to parking spaces is not impacted by internal vehicle queuing/stacking. Curb return radii have been confirmed and are adequate for passenger cars, buses, shuttles, service/delivery trucks and trash trucks. Project traffic is not anticipated to cause significant queuing/stacking on the Project driveways. The on-site circulation is very good based on our review of the proposed site plan, whereas the alignment, spacing and throating of the Project driveways is adequate. The circulation around the buildings is adequate with sufficient sight distance along the drive aisles. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 92 13.4 Intersection of Douglass Road and Katella Avenue Operations Analysis (HCM Methodology) To supplement the operations analysis for the site access evaluation, the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue has been analyzed using the HCM 2000 Methodology to determine the appropriate northbound approach lane geometry for the Year 2013 Project opening condition without requiring the need for any roadway improvements to Douglass Road on the north side of the intersection. As a result of the HCM analysis, the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue is recommended to consist of a northbound lane configuration of two NBL turn lanes, one NBTR lane and one NBR lane for the Year 2013 Project opening condition. As presented in Table 13-1, the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue operates at acceptable LOS D or better based on the HCM 2000 Methodology and the lane configuration mentioned above. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 93 TABLE 13-1 DRIVEWAY PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY49 Key Driveway Control Type Time Period Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions Delay (s/v) LOS A. Douglass Road at One-Way AM 8.6 A Driveway 1 Stop PM 9.3 A B. Douglass Road at 2∅ Traffic AM 4.0 A Driveway 2 Signal PM 10.7 A C. Douglass Road at 3∅ Traffic AM 9.7 A Driveway 3 Signal PM 9.1 A D. Douglass Road at One-Way AM 8.7 A Driveway 4 Stop PM 9.6 A E. Douglass Road at 2∅ Traffic AM 7.9 A Driveway 5 Signal PM 5.7 A F. Douglass Road at One-Way AM 8.5 A Driveway 6 Stop PM 8.9 A G. Driveway 7 at One-Way AM 10.8 B Katella Avenue Stop PM 11.4 B 9. Douglass Road at 8 ∅ Traffic AM 34.6 C Katella Avenue50 Signal PM 36.7 D Notes: s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay) LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Tables 3-2 and 3-3 for the LOS definitions. Bold LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City of Anaheim LOS standards. 49 Appendix S contains the Delay/LOS calculation worksheets for all Project Driveways and the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue. 50 The intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue has been analyzed using the HCM 2000 Methodology to supplement the operations analysis for the site access evaluation. The intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue assumes a northbound lane configuration of two NBL turn lanes, one NBTR lane and one NBR turn lane for the operations analysis for the Year 2013 Project opening condition. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 94 14.0 PROPOSED MITIGATION AND IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES 14.1 Traffic Fee Program The City of Anaheim has historically utilized a variety of strategies to provide improvements to the citywide circulation system. The City currently has a traffic fee program in place to fund General Plan improvements required under 2030 No Project and With Project conditions. The City has a long-standing policy that as development occurs throughout the City, traffic studies are prepared to demonstrate the need for implementation of the improvements identified in the General Plan and developer fees and other local dedicated taxes will contribute to those improvements as needed. The fee, initially developed in 1993 and updated periodically provides a proper nexus between increased development in the City and associated traffic impacts to the citywide circulation system. Developers contribute fees to the City, which uses the fund to implement circulation improvements in the City or as the City of Anaheim’s local match for leveraging funding from OCTA and Caltrans for circulation system improvements. Hence, the improvements assumed in the build-out of the General Plan, prior to the approval of the Proposed Project are expected to be paid for and implemented through the City’s existing traffic impact fee program. Additionally, the City of Anaheim currently has a Community Facilities District (CFD) in place associated with development in the Platinum Triangle. The CFD is expected to contribute funds to all infrastructure needs in the Platinum Triangle including transportation. The City has proposed improvement strategies that return all intersections to an acceptable LOS under the 2030 With Project scenario. The fair-share calculations, presented later on in the report, identify the proposed Project’s fair-share percentage based on Project trips to study area intersections. The proposed Project would be expected to contribute that percentage toward the costs of the recommended improvements. Intersection and arterial segment improvements in the City of Orange, in addition to State Highway System facility improvements throughout the study area will have fees contributed to them by the proposed Project, commensurate with the fair-share analysis. Although these improvements will be overridden in the EIR as Anaheim does not have jurisdiction over the facilities, the project will be responsible for contributions for the appropriate fair-share toward the recommended improvements. Those specific improvements and fair-shares for facilities in the City of Orange and Caltrans facilities are discussed later in this chapter. 14.2 Steps for Mitigation Measures As a general rule, mitigation measures for intersections or arterials begin with identification of any measures that might have been recommended as part of other traffic studies in the area, particularly those contained in the traffic study prepared for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project (DSEIR No. 339). These mitigation measures are then applied to determine whether they result in intersection or roadway segment operation within acceptable thresholds. If mitigation measures were not previously identified either as part of a traffic study or planned future improvements, mitigation is achieved by identifying new improvements that will provide LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 95 adequate capacity for the critical movement for an intersection or for arterial segments. Critical movements are conflicting intersection turning movements that are identified to have the highest ICU for opposing movements; i.e. each of the approaches at a four-legged intersection will contain a critical movement that conflicts with an opposing movement. Since the combination of the ICU values for each critical movement defines the ICU, providing additional through lanes or turning lanes is dependent upon whether the critical movement is a through or turn (left or right) movement. The decision of whether additional lanes should be auxiliary lanes that just add capacity to the intersection without widening the street segment or extended to adjacent intersections is dependent upon the performance, proximity and improvement needs of adjacent intersections. Mitigation measures are further analyzed for feasibility. A preliminary feasibility assessment is reliant upon potential cost-effectiveness and right-of-way acquisition. Right-of-way acquisitions are least preferred as they incur relocation and compensation cost for displaced residences and businesses which are additional burdens to the community, hence wherever feasible additional capacity for through movements or turn movements are facilitated through re-striping or widening, provided the intersection has sufficient receiving lanes as vehicles pass through the intersection. For those intersections, roadway segments, freeway ramps and freeway segments where projected traffic volumes are expected to result in unacceptable operating conditions, this report recommends traffic mitigation improvements that change the intersection and/or roadway geometry to increase capacity. These capacity improvements involve roadway widening and/or re-striping to reconfigure (add lanes) roadways to specific approaches of a key intersection. The identified improvements are expected to: Address the impact of existing traffic, Project traffic and future non-project (ambient traffic growth and related projects) traffic and Improve Levels of Service to an acceptable range and/or to pre-project conditions. 14.3 Existing With Project Improvements 14.3.1 Intersections Improvements Since there were no impacted intersections under the Existing With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. 14.3.2 Roadway Segments Improvements Since there were no impacted roadway segments under the Existing With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. 14.4 Year 2013 With Project Improvements Table 14-1 presents a summary of the Year 2013 With Project improvements with the resulting levels of service. In addition, it also lists the Project related fair-share percentages for the impacted locations for the worse impacted time period. Appendix T contains the Project Related Fair-Share Calculation Tables for all the intersections, roadway segments, Caltrans ramp locations and Caltrans freeway segments analyzed in this report. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 96 14.4.1 Intersections Improvements Since there were no impacted intersections under the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. It should be noted that the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue assumes a northbound lane configuration of two NBL, one NBTR and one NBR for the “with” Project scenario as identified in the Project Description of the ARTIC EIR. 14.4.2 Roadway Segments Improvements Since there were no impacted roadway segments under the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. 14.4.3 Caltrans Ramp Intersections Improvements Since there were no impacted ramp intersections under the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. 14.4.4 Caltrans Ramp Locations Improvements (Merge/Diverge Analysis) Since there were no impacted ramp locations based on the merge/diverge analysis under the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. 14.4.5 Caltrans Ramp Locations Improvements (Weaving Analysis) The results of the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions level of service analysis indicate that the proposed Project will significantly impact three (3) of the of the four (4) key study Caltrans ramp locations based on the weaving analysis. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans ramp locations significantly impacted by the Year 2013 With Project traffic: SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off- Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. This improvement is funded by Measure M and is estimated to be completed by Year 2013. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. 14.4.6 Caltrans Freeway Segments Improvements The results of the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions level of service analysis indicate that the proposed Project will significantly impact two (2) of the of the four (4) key study Caltrans freeway segments. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans freeway segments significantly impacted by the Year 2013 With Project traffic: SR-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. This improvement is funded by Measure M and is estimated to be completed by Year 2013. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 97 SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 98TABLE 14-1 YEAR 2013 WITH PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS, IMPROVEMENTS AND PROJECT RELATED FAIR-SHARE PERCENTAGE SUMMARY (1) (2) (3) (4) Key Impacted Location Type of Location Time Period Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions Year 2013 With Project Recommend Improvement Year 2013 With Project With Improvements Project Fair-Share Percentage Delay / Density LOS Delay / Density LOS W-2. SR-57 SB between Katella On-Ramp Weaving Segment AM 28.62 p/m/l D Add a 6th lane. 22.93 p/m/l C 6.47% and Orangewood Off-Ramp PM 36.59 p/m/l E 29.09 p/m/l D W-3. SR-57 NB between Katella Ave Weaving Segment AM 23.76 p/m/l C Add a 5th lane. 18.50 p/m/l B 8.34% On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp PM 43.04 p/m/l F 33.42 p/m/l D W-4. SR-57 SB between Ball Rd Weaving Segment AM 37.10 p/m/l E Add a 5th lane. 28.65 p/m/l D 9.31% On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp PM 38.44 p/m/l E 29.88 p/m/l D F-3. SR-57 Northbound from Freeway Segment AM 20.0 p/m/l C Add a 5th lane. 15.9 p/m/l B 8.28% Katella Avenue to Ball Road PM OVRFL F 30.5 p/m/l D F-4. SR-57 Southbound from Freeway Segment AM 31.5 p/m/l D Add a 5th lane. 23.4 p/m/l C 3.38% Ball Road to Katella Avenue PM 38.4 p/m/l E 26.5 p/m/l D Notes: s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay). p/m/l = Passenger cars per mile per lane (density). LOS = Level of Service. Bold Delay/Density values indicate adverse service levels based on the LOS Criteria outlined in this report. OVRFL = Exceeds analysis model capabilities (Overflow conditions). LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 99 14.5 Year 2030 With Project Improvements Table 14-2 presents a summary of the Year 2030 With Project improvements with the resulting levels of service. In addition, it also lists the Project related fair-share percentages for the impacted locations for the worse impacted time period. Appendix T contains the Project Related Fair-Share Calculation Tables for all the intersections, roadway segments, Caltrans ramp locations and Caltrans freeway segments analyzed in this report 14.5.1 Intersections Improvements The results of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions level of service analysis indicate that the proposed Project will significantly impact two (2) of the of the twelve (12) key study intersections. While mitigation measures required for Project related significant impacts, the Project will also contribute fair share costs for cumulative impacts under buildout conditions. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the intersections significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic: Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 5th westbound through lane. Modify existing traffic signal. Douglass Road at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Douglass Road to provide two left turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right turn lane in both the northbound and southbound directions. Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 4th westbound through lane. Modify existing traffic signal. 14.5.2 Roadway Segments Improvements The results of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions level of service analysis indicates that one (1) roadway segment will be significantly impacted based on the LOS impact criteria outlined in this report. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at this roadway segment significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic: Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue to Anaheim Way: Widen Katella Avenue from six (6) to eight (8) lanes between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way. It should be noted that this improvement has been determined to be feasible through the Platinum Triangle Implementation Plan. 14.5.3 Caltrans Ramp Intersections Improvements The results of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions level of service analysis indicate that the proposed Project will significantly impact two (2) of the of the four (4) key study Caltrans ramp intersections. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans ramp intersections significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic: Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to construct a pedestrian refuge island on the west leg of intersection with pedestrian buttons. Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 100 through lane and a 4th westbound through lane. Modify the existing traffic signal and install eastbound right-turn overlap phase on Katella Avenue. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 5th westbound through lane. Modify existing traffic signal. It should be noted that the additional eastbound and westbound through lanes for both intersections are included as part of the roadway segment improvement to widen Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way and that this improvement has been determined to be feasible through the Platinum Triangle Implementation Plan. 14.5.4 Caltrans Ramp Locations Improvements (Merge/Diverge Analysis) Since there were no impacted ramp locations based on the merge/diverge analysis under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. 14.5.5 Caltrans Ramp Locations Improvements (Weaving Analysis) The results of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions level of service analysis indicate that the proposed Project will significantly impact three (3) of the of the four (4) key study Caltrans ramp locations based on the weaving analysis. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans ramp locations significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic: SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off- Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. 14.5.6 Caltrans Freeway Segments Improvements The results of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions level of service analysis indicate that the proposed Project will significantly impact one (1) of the of the four (4) key study Caltrans freeway segments. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans freeway segments significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic: SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 101TABLE 14-2 YEAR 2030 WITH PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS, IMPROVEMENTS AND PROJECT RELATED FAIR-SHARE PERCENTAGE SUMMARY (1) (2) (3) (4) Key Impacted Location Type of Location Time Period Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Year 2030 With Project Recommend Improvement Year 2030 With Project With Improvements Project Fair-Share Percentage ICU/Delay/ V/C/Density LOS ICU/Delay/ V/C/Density LOS I-2. Intersection AM 0.946 E Provide a 4th EBT and 5th WBT. Modify signal. 0.815 D 2.93% Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at PM 0.897 D 0.776 C Katella Avenue AM 19.2 s/v B 16.4 s/v B PM 81.7 s/v F 54.0 s/v D I-9. Douglass Road at Intersection AM 1.035 F Widen/Restripe to provide 2NBL, 2NBT, 1 NBR, 2SBL, 2 SBT, and 1 SBR; Provide 4th EBT and 4th WBT. Modify signal. 0.840 D 13.57% Katella Avenue PM 1.077 F 0.868 D RS-1. Roadway Segment EB AM 0.852 D Widen Katella Avenue from six (6) to eight (8) lanes. 0.639 B 0.95% Katella Avenue between Manchester WB PM 0.958 E 0.718 C Avenue and Anaheim Way EB AM 1.102 F 0.826 D WB PM 1.097 F 0.823 D I-1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at Ramp Intersection AM 59.0 s/v E Construct a pedestrian island with buttons on the west leg. Provide a 4th EBT and 4th WBT. Modify signal and install EB right-turn overlap phase. 33.7 s/v C 2.14% Katella Avenue PM 70.9 s/v E 22.6 s/v C W-2. SR-57 SB between Katella On-Ramp Weaving Segment AM 31.50 p/m/l D Add a 6th lane. 25.19 p/m/l C 6.47% and Orangewood Off-Ramp PM 38.20 p/m/l E 30.33 p/m/l D W-3. SR-57 NB between Katella Ave Weaving Segment AM 18.34 p/m/l B Add a 6th lane. 15.00 p/m/l B 8.34% On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp PM 36.17 p/m/l E 29.44 p/m/l D W-4. SR-57 SB between Ball Rd Weaving Segment AM 40.79 p/m/l E Add a 5th lane. 31.54 p/m/l D 9.31% On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp PM 38.63 p/m/l E 30.02 p/m/l D F-4. SR-57 Southbound from Freeway Segment AM 40.4 p/m/l E Add a 5th lane. 27.3 p/m/l D 9.31% Ball Road to Katella Avenue PM 39.0 p/m/l E 26.8 p/m/l D Notes: • s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay). • p/m/l = Passenger cars per mile per lane (density). • LOS = Level of Service. • Bold Delay/Density values indicate adverse service levels based on the LOS Criteria outlined in this report. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 102 14.6 Caltrans Ramps and Freeway Improvements As identified in the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions, there are three (3) freeway ramp locations (weaving segments) and two (2) freeway mainline segment deficiencies. For the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions, there are three (3) freeway ramp locations (weaving segments) and one (1) freeway mainline segment deficiencies. For the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions, the traffic volume on all freeway segments within the study area increases when compared with Existing traffic conditions. The proposed Project forecast volumes are generally consistent with the No Project scenario forecast volumes, with some segments and ramps experiencing a slight increase in the peak hour. Improvements beyond the planned system improvements will be required to maintain an acceptable LOS for the State Highway System. Potential improvement measures would include the addition of one lane to freeway mainline segments. However, capacity improvements to the freeway mainline are not feasible improvement options. The rationale is that Caltrans has not identified any further improvements through a Corridor Study beyond those already assumed in the build-out analysis for SR-57 and the City has no control over State facilities. Additional capacity improvements are infeasible due to physical, right-of-way, and other environmental constraints. For example, the expansion of the identified freeway segments would involve significant right-of- way acquisition, which would involve either the acquisition of residences and/or businesses, or this would involve bringing the freeway facilities close to such residences and businesses. It is not a legal prerogative or policy of the City to support further freeway widening when such widening would have negative impacts on adjacent businesses and residences. State facilities located within the City have been significantly expanded over the past several years and City businesses and areas which were subject to an acquisition or which were located near acquisitions have not fully recovered from the acquisition activities. As an example, remnant residential and commercial parcels exist along I-5 at the Euclid Street exit. Other examples also exist. In addition, bringing State facilities closer to residences and businesses is also not a social or legal prerogative of the City. The City does not desire to further exacerbate these land use and air quality incompatibility issues by encouraging the expansion of freeway facilities adjacent to suburban-style tract houses. As a result of these policy prerogatives and identified constraints, the Project is not expected to mitigate the freeway mainline segments to an acceptable LOS. As part of the proposed Project approval and certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the City will develop a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the capacity improvements of freeway weaving, ramp merge and diverge, and mainline facilities. Impacts to freeway ramp facilities are the result of high forecast volumes on the ramps themselves coupled with high forecast volumes on the freeway mainline adjacent to the ramp facilities. The utilization of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and signage improvements could potentially improve the flow and operational capacity of Caltrans facilities, but would not reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. Thus, the impact will remain significant and unavoidable. Since the major freeway facilities within the study area, I-5 and SR-57 have reached their design capacity or will have reached it by Year 2030 and the required physical improvements are largely the result of background regional traffic, consultation between the City of Anaheim and Caltrans will be LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 103 necessary to reach consensus on any potential operational improvement measures. The improvement measures could consist of ITS improvements, enhanced signage, or other operational improvements. The City of Anaheim has no jurisdiction to implement the physical improvements on the Caltrans facilities and a statement of overriding considerations will be discussed in the EIR identifying the potential operational improvements to Caltrans facilities. Pursuant to Caltrans’ Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (December 2002), consultation between the City of Anaheim and Caltrans will be necessary to reach consensus on any potential operational improvement measures that can be implemented in the study area to assist in mitigation of traffic increases related to implementation of the proposed Project. 14.6.1 Caltrans Freeway Segments State highway facilities within the study area are not within the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim. Rather, those improvements are planned, funded, and constructed by the State of California through a legislative and political process involving the State Legislature; the California Transportation Commission (CTC); the California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency; the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); and OCTA. In California, most State Highway System improvements are programmed through two documents, the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) or the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP). State and federal fuel taxes generate most of the funds used to pay for these improvements. Funds expected to be available for transportation improvements are identified through a Fund Estimate prepared by Caltrans and adopted by the CTC. These funds, along with other fund sources, are deposited in the State Highway Account to be programmed and allocated to specific project improvements in both the STIP and SHOPP by the CTC. The STIP is developed from Regional Transportation Improvement Programs (RTIPs) proposed by Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs/MPOs) throughout California and the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) proposed by Caltrans. Of the funds made available by the CTC for the STIP, 25 percent is made available for Caltrans to propose expansion and capacity-enhancing improvements on the statutorily designated Interregional Road System while 75 percent of the funds are made available to the RTPAs/MPOs to propose all types of improvements on all other State Highway System Roads, other non-State highway roads eligible to use federal funds, and on the Interregional Road System. Transportation funds generally come from a variety of sources including National Highway System funds; State fuel taxes; federal fuel taxes; sales taxes on fuel; truck weight fees; roadway and bridge tolls; user fares; local sales tax measures; development fees, where applicable; bond revenues; and State and local general and matching funds. Improvements to State Highway Systems are deemed to be matters of federal, State, regional, and local concern. On the federal level, the City, through its Congressional delegation, has aggressively sought federal monies for regional roadway improvements. Within the study area, relatively recent projects have provided improvements to the freeway facilities. Interstate 5 within the study area was LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 104 widened in the late 1990’s under the OCTA Measure M. Additionally, the I-5 and SR-57 interchange to the south of the study area was recently upgraded to improve flow on all facilities. The State Highway System I-5 freeway and ramps that are cumulatively deficient under 2030 conditions are at their recommended build-out, according to the Route Concept Report (RCR) for the Interstate 5 facility approved by Caltrans in Year 2000. On I-5, the RCR identifies a concept facility of eight general-purpose lanes and two high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes for the segment between the SR-22/57 interchange, south of the Study Area, to SR-91, north of the Study Area. On SR-57, the RCR identifies an eight-lane existing facility with two HOV lanes for the segment between the I-5/SR-22 interchange, south of the study area to SR- 91, north of the study area. For the 2030 analysis, the concept build-out facility of five general- purpose lanes and two HOV lanes was assumed, although there is still ongoing study for the funding and timeline for implementation of these improvements. State and local funding sources, including Renewed Measure M funding through OCTA, is currently assessing improvements on SR-57. In an attempt to further increase capacity and reduce congestion on SR-57, a feasibility study was conducted by OCTA to examine alternatives for adding an additional lane in each direction between the Los Angeles County line and the I-5/SR-22/SR-57 interchange. This study concluded that due of extensive right-of-way impacts and expanded traffic at the I-5/SR-22/SR-57 interchange, any consideration of capacity improvements should be deferred until the SR-57 is extended southward to the I-405 freeway. The following improvements are currently in the design and environmental stages with dedicated funding from OCTA through the Measure M Program. SR-57 Northbound between Orangethorpe Avenue to Lambert Road: Addition of one general-purpose freeway lane from north of the SR-91 near Orangethorpe Avenue in Placentia to Lambert Road in Brea (The project is currently in the design phase and construction is scheduled to begin in fall Year 2010). SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue Off-Ramp to Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp: Addition of auxiliary lane capacity (entered the environmental phase in Year 2008 and construction is scheduled to follow approximately one year after the Orangethorpe Avenue to Lambert Road segment begins construction in late Year 2010 if project is approved) (Source: OCTA). For improvements to the Caltrans facilities, the City of Anaheim, lead agency for this project, will have to decide whether (1) changes, alterations, or mitigation measures are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency such as Caltrans and not the City of Anaheim. It must determine if such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency and/or (2) whether any further mitigation to the impacted State Highway System are feasible, and if not, whether specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable cumulative traffic impacts caused by the Project. The City of Anaheim has already taken steps to alleviate most of the impacts of increased development of the Platinum Triangle. The Gene Autry Extension Project and recent capacity LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 105 improvements to State College Boulevard and Katella Avenue are just some of the examples of the City of Anaheim’s commitment to an effective circulation system within the Platinum Triangle. The City of Anaheim has an existing CFD program that outlines its strategy toward implementing many of the improvements necessitated by increased development in the Platinum Triangle, including ARTIC. With completion of the improvements described in the mitigation, the significant impacts associated with the proposed Project would be fully mitigated with the exception of the improvements to State highway facilities. However, inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with agencies other than the City of Anaheim (i.e., City of Orange and Caltrans); there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim’s control. Should that occur, the Project’s traffic impact would remain significant. The City is committed to working with the City of Orange and Caltrans to identify the most appropriate improvement strategies for their facilities and acknowledges the fair-share cost of improvements to those facilities, however, the City of Orange and Caltrans have full jurisdiction toward implementing the identified improvements under their jurisdiction. 14.6.2 Caltrans Freeway Ramps and Weaving Segments Neither the State or any other agency, such as OCTA, currently has a program in place for construction of the mainline, ramp, and weaving segment improvements at the Year 2030 time horizon to satisfy baseline congested conditions; nor is there currently any mechanism in place that would ensure that funds contributed to Caltrans or to the State to ameliorate impacts on freeway mainlines will be used for their intended purpose. In addition, because the I-5 and SR-57 are exclusively controlled by the State, there is no mechanism by which the City can construct or guarantee the construction of any improvements to I-5 or SR-57. Thus, a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be developed for the deficient Caltrans facilities in the Environmental Documentation. Proposed Project fair-share percentages have been computed for all the Caltrans Facilities under Year 2030 With Project conditions. The fair-share percentages have been computed per the methodology outlined in the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. Appendix “B” of the guidelines directs users to use a formula to calculate equitable share responsibility for the traffic impacts of proposed Project. The guidelines are not intended to establish a legal standard for determining equitable responsibility, but rather to provide a starting point for discussions with Caltrans to address the traffic mitigation and fair-share responsibilities. The traffic on the State Highway System is regional in nature and the deficiencies are the result of expected regional growth. Caltrans has not entered into an agreement with the City and Caltrans has not adopted a program by which Caltrans can ensure that developer fair-share will assist in the funding of potential capacity or operational improvements on the study area State Highway System. Because I-5 is at its Conceptual Buildout, and OCTA and State funding is committed to the planned LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 106 widening of SR-57, there is no guarantee that impact fees from the proposed Project will be dedicated to the improvements of the study area State Highway System. Standard capacity improvements, through the addition of one or more lanes on the freeway ramps, will not necessarily result in acceptable ramp operations for ramps that are forecast to operate deficiently. The density of the ramps is influenced by both the mainline and ramp volume, therefore, the traffic on the mainline must be reduced or the capacity of the mainline facility must be enhanced through the addition of an auxiliary lane to improve freeway ramp performance. The weaving analysis revealed that several weaving areas operate at deficient levels of service under Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions as a result of high mainline forecast volumes and cumulative growth. Potential improvements include the implementation of an auxiliary lane within the weaving area to improve operations although this does not satisfy the capacity needs of the corresponding and adjacent mainline segment. 14.7 Other Mitigation Measures In order to address the proposed measures in the previous sections, a series of mitigation measures will be drafted and incorporated into the EIR. These mitigation measures, once finalized, will apply to any owner or developer of real property within the boundaries of the ARTIC. This section will generally describe the mitigation measures that will be developed for the EIR in regards to transportation and traffic. 14.7.1 Project Level Impact Analysis The payment of transportation impact fees is required per the Anaheim Municipal Code. These fees go towards the funding of the implementation of improvements addressed by the City of Anaheim Circulation Element. As set forth below, the City shall sufficiently fund required Project related improvements. Prior to the approval of the final subdivision map or issuance of a Building Permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall pay the identified fair- share responsibility identified in the traffic analysis for this project as determined by the City. Prior to approval of the first final subdivision map or issuance of the first building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall irrevocably offer for dedication (with subordination of easements), including necessary construction easements, the ultimate arterial highway right(s)-of-way adjacent to their property as shown in the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan. 14.7.2 Transportation Fee Program The payment of transportation impact fees is required per the Anaheim Municipal Code. These fees go towards the funding of the implementation of improvements addressed by the City of Anaheim Circulation Element. As set forth below, the City shall sufficiently fund required Project related improvements. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 107 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for each building, the property owner/developer shall pay the appropriate Transportation Impact and Improvement Fees to the City of Anaheim in amounts determined by the City Council Resolution in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit with credit given for City- authorized improvements provided by the property owner/developer. The property owner shall also participate in all applicable reimbursement or benefit districts, which have been established. 14.8 Unavoidable Impacts and Statement of Overriding Considerations Although every effort was made through site analyses and aerial imagery evaluation to ensure that all recommended improvements are physically feasible, there are improvements identified in this study that may not be feasible due to high Project cost, the inability to undertake right-of-way acquisitions as a matter of policy to preserve existing businesses, environmental constraints, or jurisdictional considerations. For these improvements, including Caltrans facilities, including freeway ramps, mainline segments, and weaving segments, a Statement of Overriding Considerations will document why a particular improvement is infeasible as mitigation. With implementation of the improvements presented previously, the significant Project related or cumulative impacts associated with the proposed Project would be fully mitigated. However, inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with agencies other than the City of Anaheim (i.e., Caltrans), there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim’s control (e.g., the City of Anaheim cannot undertake or require improvements outside of Anaheim’s jurisdiction or the City cannot construct improvements in the Caltrans right-of-way without Caltrans Approval). Should that occur, the Project’s traffic impact would remain significant. 14.9 City of Orange Improvements 14.9.1 Intersections Improvements As shown in the analysis, no intersections in the City of Orange are impacted by ARTIC; no improvements have been recommended. 14.9.2 Roadway Segments Improvements As shown in the analysis, no roadway segments in the City of Orange are impacted by ARTIC; no improvements have been recommended. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 108 15.0 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS ¾ The proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) project is located in the City of Anaheim, California. The Project will be integrated into the Platinum Triangle, a joint mixed-use development in the City of Anaheim, California. The Project site is bounded by Katella Avenue to the north, the Orange Freeway (SR-57) to the south, the Santa Ana River to the east and Douglass Road to the west, with the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) rail corridor bisecting the site. ¾ The Project is to replace and enlarge the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak station and will include a nominal amount of commercial/mixed use development to serve visitors of the transit facility. Construction of ARTIC is estimated to be completed in 2013. The Project would provide improvements to convert the site from a former County of Orange maintenance facility to a fully functioning regional transportation facility. Along with the Metrolink Service Expansion Program currently underway, the site would accommodate existing transit services and future services such as Bus Rapid Transit and other rubber-tired fixed route and shuttle services. The proposed ARTIC site includes the 13.58-acre Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) parcel and an adjacent 2.2-acre parcel owned by the City of Anaheim. The proposed Project will replace the existing Metrolink station located to the west of the Project site along the northern edge of the Anaheim Angels Stadium parking area. While there are industrial buildings on the proposed Project site, the buildings are vacant and will be demolished as part of the Project development. ¾ After taking credit for the existing Metrolink land use, the proposed Project is forecast to generate 3,699 net daily trips (one half arriving and one half departing), with 622 net trips (523 inbound, 99 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 439 net trips (58 inbound, 381 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. Existing Conditions ¾ All twelve (12) key study intersections under the Existing peak hour service level calculations based on existing traffic volumes and current street geometry are currently operating at an acceptable LOS B or better. ¾ All eight (8) key study roadway segments under Existing service level calculations based on existing daily traffic volumes and current roadway geometry are currently operating at acceptable LOS B or better. Existing With Project Conditions ¾ All of the twelve (12) key study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS B or better for the Existing With Project traffic conditions when compared to the LOS standards defined in this report. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 109 ¾ All eight (8) of the key study roadway segments are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS B on a daily basis under Existing With Project traffic conditions based on the LOS impact criteria outlined in this report. Year 2013 With Project Conditions ¾ None of the key study intersections under the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions are significantly impacted by the addition of Project traffic per the impact criteria outlined in this report. ¾ None of the key study roadway segments under the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions are significantly impacted by the addition of Project traffic per the impact criteria outlined in this report. Year 2030 With Project Conditions ¾ Two (2) key study intersections will be significantly impacted based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted intersections to acceptable Level of Service. ¾ One (1) study roadway segment is significantly impacted by Year 2030 With Project traffic based on the LOS impact criteria outlined in this report. The segment of Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way will be mitigated by widening Katella Avenue from six (6) to eight (8) lanes. It should be noted that this improvement has been determined to be feasible through the Platinum Triangle Implementation Plan. The recommended mitigation measure will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted roadway segment to an acceptable Level of Service. Caltrans Facilities Analysis Existing Conditions ¾ All Caltrans intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Year 2013 With Project Conditions ¾ None of the four (4) Caltrans ramp intersections operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. All four (4) Caltrans ramp intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions. ¾ None of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations (Merge/Diverge Analysis) operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 110 criteria. All four (4) Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions. ¾ Three (3) of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations (Weaving Analysis) operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining one (1) Caltrans ramp location is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp -- -- 36.59 E 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp -- -- 43.04 F 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 37.10 E 38.44 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report will offset the impact of the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted ramp locations to acceptable Level of Service. ¾ Two (2) Caltrans freeway segments operate at adverse levels of service with addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining two (2) Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 3. SR-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road -- -- -- 8,380 OVRFL F 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue -- -- -- 7,603 38.4 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report will offset the impact of the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted freeway segments to acceptable Level of Service. Year 2030 With Project Conditions ¾ Two (2) Caltrans study intersections will operate at adverse levels of service under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The locations operating at an adverse LOS are listed below: LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 111 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Intersection Delay (s/v) LOS Delay (s/v) LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at Katella Ave 59.0 E 70.9 E 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at Katella Avenue -- -- 81.7 F It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report will offset the impacts of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted intersections to acceptable Level of Service. ¾ None of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations (Merge/Diverge Analysis) operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. All four (4) Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. ¾ Three (3) of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations (Weaving Analysis) operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining one (1) Caltrans ramp location is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp -- -- 38.20 E 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp 36.17 E 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 40.79 E 38.63 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted ramp locations to acceptable Level of Service. ¾ One (1) Caltrans freeway segment operates at an adverse level of service with addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining three (3) Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 112 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue 8,490 40.4 E 8,360 39.0 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted freeway segments to acceptable Level of Service. Proposed Mitigation and Improvement Strategies Existing With Project Intersection Improvements: ¾ Since there were no impacted intersections under the Existing With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Existing With Project Roadway Segments Improvements: ¾ Since there were no impacted roadway segments under the Existing With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Year 2013 With Project Intersection Improvements: ¾ Since there were no impacted intersections under the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. It should be noted that the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue assumes a northbound lane configuration of two NBL, one NBTR and one NBR for the “with” Project scenario since it is a planned and funded improvement and will be built to Project description standards. Year 2013 With Project Roadway Segments Improvements: ¾ Since there were no impacted roadway segments under the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Year 2013 With Project Caltrans Ramp Intersections Improvements: ¾ Since there were no impacted ramp intersections under the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Year 2013 With Project Caltrans Ramp Locations (Merge/Diverge Analysis) Improvements: ¾ Since there were no impacted ramp locations based on the merge/diverge analysis under the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Year 2013 With Project Caltrans Ramp Locations (Weaving Analysis) Improvements: ¾ The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans ramp locations significantly impacted by the Year 2013 With Project traffic: LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 113 SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off- Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. This improvement is funded by Measure M and is estimated to be completed in Year 2013. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off- Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. Year 2013 With Project Caltrans Freeway Segments Improvements: ¾ The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans freeway segments significantly impacted by the Year 2013 With Project traffic: SR-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. This improvement is funded by Measure M and is estimated to be completed in Year 2013. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. Year 2030 With Project Intersection Improvements: ¾ The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the intersections significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic: Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re- stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 5th westbound through lane. Modify existing traffic signal. Douglass Road at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Douglass Road to provide two left turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right turn lane in both the northbound and southbound directions. Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 4th westbound through lane. Modify existing traffic signal. Year 2030 With Project Roadway Segments Improvements: ¾ The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at this roadway segment significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic: Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue to Anaheim Way: Widen Katella Avenue from six (6) to eight (8) lanes. It should be noted that this improvement has been determined to be feasible through the Platinum Triangle Implementation Plan. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 114 Year 2030 With Project Caltrans Ramp Intersections Improvements: ¾ The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans ramp intersections significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic: Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to construct a pedestrian refuge island on the west leg of intersection with pedestrian buttons. Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 4th westbound through lane. Modify the existing traffic signal and install eastbound right-turn overlap phase on Katella Avenue. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re- stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 5th westbound through lane. Modify existing traffic signal. Year 2030 With Project Caltrans Ramp Locations (Merge/Diverge Analysis) Improvements: ¾ Since there were no impacted ramp locations based on the merge/diverge analysis under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Year 2030 With Project Caltrans Ramp Locations (Weaving Analysis) Improvements: ¾ The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans ramp locations significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic: SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off- Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off- Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. Year 2030 With Project Caltrans Freeway Segments Improvements: ¾ The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans freeway segments significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic: SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. Caltrans Ramps and Freeway Improvements: ¾ For improvements to the Caltrans facilities, the City of Anaheim, lead agency for this project, will have to decide whether (1) changes, alterations, or mitigation measures are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency such as Caltrans and not the City of LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 07-16-10.doc 115 Anaheim. It must determine if such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency and/or (2) whether any further mitigation to the impacted State Highway System are feasible, and if not, whether specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable cumulative traffic impacts caused by the Project. ¾ With completion of the improvements described in the mitigation, the significant impacts associated with the proposed Project would be fully mitigated with the exception of the improvements to State highway facilities. However, inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with agencies other than the City of Anaheim (i.e., City of Orange and Caltrans); there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim’s control. Should that occur, the Project’s traffic impact would remain significant. The City is committed to working with the City of Orange and Caltrans to identify the most appropriate improvement strategies for their facilities and acknowledges the fair-share cost of improvements to those facilities, however, the City of Orange and Caltrans have full jurisdiction toward implementing the identified improvements under their jurisdiction. Unavoidable Impacts and Statement of Overriding Considerations ¾ Although every effort was made through site analyses and aerial imagery evaluation to ensure that all recommended improvements are physically feasible, there are improvements identified in this study that may not be feasible due to high Project cost, the inability to undertake right-of-way acquisitions as a matter of policy to preserve existing businesses, environmental constraints, or jurisdictional considerations. For these improvements, including Caltrans facilities, including freeway ramps, mainline segments, and weaving segments, a Statement of Overriding Considerations will document why a particular improvement is infeasible as mitigation. ¾ With implementation of the improvements presented previously, the significant Project related or cumulative impacts associated with the proposed Project would be fully mitigated. However, inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with agencies other than the City of Anaheim (i.e., Caltrans), there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim’s control (e.g., the City of Anaheim cannot undertake or require improvements outside of Anaheim’s jurisdiction or the City cannot construct improvements in the Caltrans right-of-way without Caltrans Approval). Should that occur, the Project’s traffic impact would remain significant. City of Orange Improvements ¾ As shown in the analysis, no intersections or roadway segments in the City of Orange are impacted by ARTIC; no improvements have been recommended. Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder All Rights Reserved Only the client or its designated representatives may use this document and only for the specific project for which this report was prepared. 109528/CSP10R057 Page i of x Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED AN AHEIM REGIONAL TRANSPORT ATION INTERMODAL CENTER (ARTIC) AN AHEIM, CALIFORNIA Kleinfelder, Inc. 2 Ada, Suite 250 Irvine, California 92618 April 20, 2010 Revised July 9, 2010 109528/CSP10R057 Page ii of x Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder This page left blank intentionally 109528/CSP10R057 Page iii of x Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder CEQA Air Quality Analysis for The Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 276 Anaheim, California 92805 Kleinfelder Job No: 109528-012 Prepared by: Estee Lafrenz, PE Air Quality Engineer and Jim Dill, PE Principal Engineer Reviewed by: Russell E. Erbes, CCM Senior Principal KLEINFELDER, INC. 2 Ada, Suite 250 Irvine, California 92618 April 20, 2010 109528/CSP10R057 Page iv of x Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder This page left blank intentionally TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 109528/CSP10R057 Page iv of x Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................1-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................1-1 1.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND PROPOSED PROJECT LOCATION .1-1 1.3 PROPOSED PROJECT EMISSIONS .....................................................1-2 1.4 NEARBY AND REGIONAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ...............................1-4 1.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ........................................................................1-4 1.6 MITIGATION MEASURES ......................................................................1-5 1.7 EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH A NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE .....1-5 1.8 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE .............................................................1-5 2.0 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION ..............................................................2-1 3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ..............................................................................3-1 3.1 PROPOSED PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING..........................3-1 3.2 REGIONAL CLIMATE .............................................................................3-1 3.3 REGIONAL AIR QUALITY ......................................................................3-2 3.3.1 Area Designations and Pollutant Descriptions .............................3-4 3.3.2 Regulatory Settings ......................................................................3-9 3.4 PROPOSED PROJECT AREA AIR QUALITY ......................................3-11 3.4.1 Local Air Quality .........................................................................3-11 3.5 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE .....................................................3-14 3.5.1 South Coast Air Quality Management District Thresholds .........3-14 3.5.2 SCAQMD Interim Greenhouse Gas Threshold of Significance ..3-15 4.0 PROPOSED PROJECT EMISSIONS ...............................................................4-1 4.1 OPERATIONAL PLANS..........................................................................4-1 4.2 BASELINE EMISSIONS .........................................................................4-1 4.3 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS ..............................................................4-2 4.3.1 Construction of New Intermodal Terminal ....................................4-2 4.3.2 Construction of New Rail Siding Tracks .......................................4-3 4.3.3 Roadway Improvement Activities .................................................4-3 4.3.4 Utility Relocation and Modification ...............................................4-4 4.3.5 Total Construction Emissions .......................................................4-4 4.4 ON-SITE OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ..................................................4-6 4.4.1 On-Site Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions .........................4-6 4.4.2 On-Site Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................4-8 4.5 ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC EMISSIONS .....................................................4-9 5.0 AIR QUALITY REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AFFECTING OPERATIONS AND EMISSIONS .....................................................................5-1 5.1 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS ..............................................................5-1 5.2 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS .................................................................5-2 5.2.1 New Source Review .....................................................................5-2 5.2.2 New Source Performance Standards ...........................................5-2 5.2.3 AB2588 Hot Spots Program .........................................................5-3 5.2.4 CARB Diesel Regulations ............................................................5-3 5.2.5 GHG Regulations .........................................................................5-4 5.2.6 Transportation Conformity............................................................5-6 5.2.7 General Conformity ......................................................................5-7 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page 109528/CSP10R057 Page vi of x Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder 5.2.8 SCAQMD Rules ...........................................................................5-7 6.0 LOCAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT OF PROPOSED PROJECT...........................6-1 6.1 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS .....................6-1 6.2 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ..................................................................6-2 6.3 WORST CASE CRITERIA POLLUTANT IMPACTS ...............................6-2 6.3.1 Onsite Operational Impacts..........................................................6-2 6.3.2 CO Hot Spot Assessment from On-Road Vehicles ......................6-2 6.4 AIR TOXIC IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................6-4 7.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ..................................................................................7-1 7.1 EXISTING AND FUTURE NON-PROJECT EMISSIONS AND IMPACTS IN THE PROJECT AREA........................................................................7-1 7.1.1 Future Projects .............................................................................7-1 7.1.2 Future Traffic ..............................................................................7-15 7.1.3 Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emissions....................................7-15 8.0 POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES AND EFFECT .....................................8-1 8.1 MITIGATION MEASURES REQUIRED BY REGULATION AND VOLUNTARILY CONDUCTED BY ARTIC..............................................8-1 8.1.1 Construction Phase Mitigation Measures .....................................8-1 8.1.2 Operational Phase Mitigation Measures ......................................8-4 8.2 EFFECT OF MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................8-4 9.0 EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH A NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ..............9-1 10.0 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE .....................................................................10-1 10.1 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ALONE10-1 10.2 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ALONE10-1 10.3 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS, TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS, AND ODOR IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ALONE .......10-1 10.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND OTHER FUTURE PROJECTS ...........................................................................10-2 10.5 GREENHOUSE GASES .......................................................................10-2 11.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................11-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 109528/CSP10R057 Page vii of x Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder TABLES Table 1-1 Maximum Proposed Project Construction Emissions..............................1-3 Table 1-2 Maximum Proposed Project Daily Operational Emissions Increase .......1-3 Table 3-1 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards ...........................3-3 Table 3-2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in SCAB ....................................3-5 Table 3-3 Air Quality Monitoring Summary 2004-2008 ...........................................3-5 Table 3-4 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds .......................................................3-14 Table 4-1 ARTIC Construction Worst-Case Daily Emissions ..................................4-5 Table 4-2 Total Proposed Project Construction Daily Emissions ............................4-5 Table 4-3 ARTIC Operational Daily Emissions .......................................................4-7 Table 4-4 Proposed Project Operations Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................4-9 Table 6-1 CEQA Ambient Air Quality Emission Significance Thresholds for Criteria Pollutants .................................................................................6-18 Table 6-2 CEQA Ambient Air Quality Impact Significance Thresholds for Criteria Pollutants .................................................................................6-18 Table 6-3 Maximum CO Impacts of Traffic at the Katella Avenue and Douglas Road Intersection......................................................................6-4 Table 7-1 Possible Future Projects Near the Proposed Project ..............................3-5 FIGURES Figure 1-1 Proposed Project Location ......................................................................1-7 Figure 1-2 Proposed Project Vicinity ........................................................................1-8 Figure 2-1 Proposed ARTIC Site Plan .....................................................................2-3 Figure 3-1 Location of Anaheim Air Quality Monitor ...............................................3-12 APPENDICES Appendix A Construction Emissions of Criteria Pollutants Appendix B Operational Emissions of Criteria Pollutants Appendix C CO Hot Spot Impact Assessment 109528/CSP10R057 Page viii of x Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder This page left blank intentionally LIST OF ACRONYMS 109528/CSP10R057 Page iv of x Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards AB 32 California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 AQIA Air Quality Impact Analysis AQMP Air Quality Management Plan ARTIC Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center BACT Best Available Control Technology CAA Clean Air Act CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CAL3QHC Dispersion model CARB California Air Resources Board CCR Code of California Regulations CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHSR California High-Speed Rail CNSST California-Nevada Superspeed Train CO Carbon monoxide CO2 Carbon dioxide CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalents EMFAC Mobile source emissions model USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency FHW A Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transit Authority GHG Greenhouse Gas GW P Global W arming Potential KW Kilowatt lb/day Pound per day LOSSAN Los Angeles to San Diego mph Miles per hour MT/yr Metric tons per year MUD Mixed Use Development NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards N2O Nitrous oxide NO Nitric oxide NO2 Nitrogen dioxide NOx Oxides of nitrogen NSPS New Source Performance Standards LIST OF ACRONYMS (Continued) 109528/CSP10R057 Page x of x Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder NSR New Source Review OCTA Orange County Transit Authority OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OPR California Office of Planning and Research PM10 Respirable particulate matter less than 10 micron mean aerodynamic diameter PM2.5 Fine particulate matter less than 2.5 micron mean aerodynamic diameter PMI Point of Maximum Impact ppm parts per million (by volume) PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration PTC Permit to construct RCEM Road Construction Emissions Model ROG Reactive Organic Gases ROW Right-of-way SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SIP State Implementation Plan SO2 Sulfur dioxide SOx Oxides of sulfur sqft Square feet SR State Route ug/m3 micrograms per cubic meter (of air) URBEMIS Urban Emissions Model U.S. United States VOC Volatile Organic Compound 109528/012 1-1 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 INTRODUCTION The City of Anaheim (City) in collaboration with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), is proposing to relocate the existing Metrolink/Amtrak Anaheim Station (located within the Angels Stadium parking lot), approximately one quarter (0.25) mile east along the existing OCTA rail right-of-way (ROW). The proposed project would be known as the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC). The OCTA ROW is also known as the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) Corridor. Construction is scheduled to begin in the spring of 2011 with operation to begin in the fall of 2013. 1.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND PROPOSED PROJECT LOCATION The proposed location of the new Metrolink/Amtrak facility is approximately 0.25 miles east of the existing station. This location is south of Katella Avenue, on an approximately 16 acre site which is partially owned by OCTA (13.5 acres exclusive of the ROW) and the remaining by the City (2.2 acres). In addition to the two main parcels there are anticipated improvements to approximately 0.50 acre of rail ROW between the Santa Ana River and Katella Avenue, and improvements to Douglass Road as well. The new facility would be known as the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) and will be integrated into the Platinum Triangle, a joint mixed-use development in the City. Access to the ARTIC will be via Douglass Road from Katella Avenue, which also serves as an entry and exit during events occurring at Angel Stadium. The site location and surrounding area is shown in Figures 1-1 and 1-2. The proposed project site is currently developed land and was previously a working maintenance yard for the County of Orange. After the transfer to OCTA, the facilities on-site were closed and their functions were transferred to other County facilities. The site is comprised of six (6) industrial buildings and is completely paved, including some ornamental landscaping along Douglass Road. The proposed project site is located west of the Orange Freeway (State Route [SR]-57) freeway, north of the Anaheim Stadium, and south of Katella Avenue within the City of Anaheim. The City of Anaheim is part of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB or Basin), a 6,600 square-mile area encompassing all of Orange County and the non-desert parts of 109528/012 1-2 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The ambient air quality within the SCAB is better than state and Federal ambient air quality standards (California Ambient Air Quality Standards [CAAQS] and National Ambient Air Quality Standards [NAAQS]) for all pollutants except ozone and particulate matter. Ambient air quality monitoring data obtained from a monitoring location relatively near the proposed project site (within about six miles) are consistent with the overall SCAB ambient air quality conditions. 1.3 PROPOSED PROJECT EMISSIONS Emissions associated with the proposed project include emitting activities of construction, operation, and traffic changes. Construction emissions include fugitive dust and equipment exhaust. Phases of construction activities that will yield emissions include demolition, mass site grading, fine site grading, excavation and soil hauling offsite, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Several different types of equipment will be used throughout the construction phases, including loaders, graders, scrapers, generators, and water trucks, among others. Construction emissions were assessed using the Urban Emissions Model, 2007, version 9.2.4 (URBEMIS), which is used by SCAQMD to estimate emissions for land use development projects. A detailed description of the construction equipment and the emissions by year is provided in Appendix A. Road improvement projects are also included in the proposed project. Road improvements include widening of Douglass Road and elevation lowering, as well as bridge lowering and reconstruction and the addition of a widened sidewalk. Also included is an additional right turn lane at Katella Avenue. The placement of stub end rail tracks is also included and considered similar to road construction. Table 1-1 provides a summary of the daily emissions associated with construction of the proposed project. A more detailed discussion of construction emissions is provided in Section 4.3 of this AQIA. Construction emissions are less than the significance thresholds for each of the criteria pollutants. (The significance thresholds are discussed in Section 3.5 of this AQIA.) NOx emissions would be considered potentially significant without the proposed required mitigation measures discussed in Section 8. 109528/012 1-3 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder Table 1-1 Proposed Project Construction Emissions Pollutant Daily Construction Emissions (lb/day) Maximum Emission Year SCAQMD Significance Thresholds (lb/day) Exceeds Significance Threshold? NOx 98.01 2012 100 No ROG 55.0 2013 75 No CO 89.2 2012 550 No PM10 53.1 2012 150 No PM2.5 15.6 2012 55 No SOx 0.1 2012 150 No CO2e 18,784.1 2012 - - 1 Mitigation required to reduce emissions below significance thresholds; see Section 8 Emissions associated with operation of the ARTIC facility will include typical building operations, such as heating and electricity usage. Emitting activities will also include a backup emergency generator and an increase in vehicle traffic. Operational emissions assessed for the proposed project will be shown as an increase in emissions from the existing Metrolink/Amtrak station to the proposed ARTIC facility. Table 1-2 provides a summary of the operational emissions associated with the proposed project. A more detailed discussion of operational emissions is provided in Section 4.4 with the modeling details provided in Appendix B of this AQIA. Operational emissions are less than the significance thresholds for each of the criteria pollutants. Table 1-2 Maximum Proposed Project Daily Operational Emissions Increase Pollutant Daily Operation Emissions Increase (lb/day) SCAQMD Significance Thresholds (lb/day) Exceeds Significance Threshold? NOx 42.40 55 No ROG 26.45 55 No CO 269.00 550 No PM10 3.36 150 No PM2.5 2.19 55 No SOx 0.84 150 No CO2e 5,530.8 MT/yr 10,000 MT/yr(1) No Notes: 1. SCAQMD CEQA interim GHG Significance Threshold is 10,000 MT/yr CO2e. The threshold is compared to the total increase in operational emissions and the construction activity averaged over 30 years. 109528/012 1-4 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder 1.4 NEARBY AND REGIONAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT The proposed project is located in an area of existing and planned urban development, including a number of new housing units and expansion of existing businesses as discussed in Section 7.0 of this AQIA. The area is also a gateway area for three future possible additional major transportation projects: Anaheim Fixed Guideway Transit Corridor, California High-Speed Rail, and the California-Nevada Super Speed Train. These projects are relevant to ARTIC but are separate, distinct, and independent from ARTIC in terms of funding, lead agency status, purpose and need, and regulatory requirements. Each project has undergone or is currently undergoing their own separate project clearance process, including but not limited to CEQA and NEPA. The proposed project emissions and potential ambient air quality impact will be considered in combination with the existing and future development. Potential ambient air quality impacts within existing development is assessed by evaluating the existing ambient air quality and comparing proposed project emissions to SCAQMD significance thresholds as discussed in previous sections of this AQIA. Potential ambient air quality impacts within future development is discussed in the following sections. 1.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Construction emissions are not considered cumulatively considerable since various construction projects are not likely to occur at the same time and in close proximity to each other. Construction emissions are highly variable and localized, such that even if there are more than one construction projects occurring in close proximity to each other, it is not likely for the combination of emissions to exceed the significance thresholds as long as the individual construction project emissions do not exceed the thresholds. An improved transportation center and other nearby development projects will result in increased traffic within the regional area. Development of a transportation center, that will increase the availability of mass transit alternatives, will help reduce the number of vehicles on the road regionally, which is consistent with the AQMP and other regional plan strategies. A CO Hotspot analysis was also performed to show that the increased traffic levels will not result in CO impacts above the State and Federal ambient air quality standards. In addition, more stringent regulation of vehicle emissions will help to mitigate the air quality issues associated with additional development projects to some 109528/012 1-5 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder extent. The regional cumulative impact due to operations of the proposed project and nearby development projects is not considered cumulatively considerable. 1.6 MITIGATION MEASURES The proposed project will incorporate a number of mitigation measures that are discussed in Section 8.0 of this AQIA. These mitigation measures result in an insignificant ambient air quality impact for all emissions. 1.7 EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH A NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE If the proposed project is not constructed, there will be increased traffic congestion in the area (since mass transit will be less available), and other planned future projects will continue to be built. The ambient air quality impact of the No Project Alternative is potentially greater than the proposed project. 1.8 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE Section 10 summarizes air quality significance of the proposed project and nearby future projects. Only NOx emissions potentially exceed the thresholds with all stages of construction considered. Construction emissions from ARTIC will not be considered significant as shown in Table 1-1 through the use of mitigation measures that include schedule and equipment controls for NOx. None of the emissions of the proposed project, as shown in Table 1-1, exceed SCAQMD significance levels, and the remaining pollutant emissions are less than about thirty percent of the significance levels. It is not likely that ARTIC could cause or contribute to a local or regional exceedance of the ambient air quality standards. Operational emissions of ARTIC are less than about fifteen percent of SCAQMD significance levels, and are not likely to cause or contribute to an exceedance of ambient air quality standards. The cumulative effect of construction of the proposed project and other future projects in the area is not considered cumulatively considerable or significant because construction is temporary, highly variable, and localized. Cumulative impacts of ARTIC operational emissions and future projects are also not considered significant since the proposed project emissions are relatively low and other projects in the area would have similar or lower emissions. There is no anticipated cumulative exceedance of the ambient air quality standards caused by the proposed project. 109528/012 1-6 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder The operational emissions of greenhouse gases are less than the SCAQMD greenhouse gas interim significance threshold. ARTIC’s location relative to major event and destination centers within the Platinum Triangle creates availability of current and future mass transit systems to occupants and visitors. The result will be less motor vehicle traffic on local roadways and freeways and a general reduction in motor vehicle travel throughout the region. Since motor vehicle traffic is the primary source of air pollution in the region, plans to reduce traffic will result in lower GHG emissions regionally. ARTIC’s greenhouse gas emissions are relatively small compared to the significance threshold, and ARTIC should reduce regional traffic so ARTIC should not have a significant impact with effect to greenhouse gas. 109528/012 1-7 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder Figure 1-1 Proposed Project Location Map 109528/012 1-8 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder Figure 1-2 Proposed Project Vicinity 109528/012 2-1 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder 2.0 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION The City of Anaheim (City) in collaboration with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), is proposing to relocate the existing Metrolink/Amtrak Anaheim Station (located within the Angels Stadium parking lot), approximately one-quarter (0.25) mile east along the existing OCTA rail right-of-way (ROW). The OCTA ROW is also known as the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) corridor. The proposed project would be known as the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC), which is bound by Angel Stadium to the east, the Honda Center to the north, the Santa Ana River to the west, and the LOSSAN corridor to the south. The facility will incorporate the following public transportation services: • Metrolink • Amtrak • OCTA local bus • OCTA Bravo! BRT • Anaheim Resort Transit shuttles and circulators • Anaheim Go Local rubber tired mixed-flow shuttles • “Fly-Away” airport shuttles • Connection to offsite private intercity buses • Private tourism buses • Taxi Services The project includes a new 322,000 square feet (sqft), three level intermodal terminal building, with 30,000 sqft public plaza/drop off space. The below building level will include the Bus Transit Center, the Metrolink/Amtrak Concourse, and Program Space. The at-grade and above-grade levels will include the Public Hall/W aiting Area and Program Space. The remainder of the 16-acre parcel will be graded for roadways, parking areas, and open civic space. Figure 2-1 shows the ARTIC site plan. The ARTIC project includes the following tasks to be completed: • Demo of existing 16-acre site; • Building of new intermodal terminal and open space surrounding the facility; • Creation of surface parking area to the north and south of new terminal. • Adding a third track, or a single-ended siding track (stub-end track), to accommodate the construction of the other two tracks; • Widening/Improvements to Douglass Road south of Katella Avenue, including relocation of utilities; 109528/012 2-2 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder • Widening and lengthening of the existing railroad bridge over Douglass Road; and • Adding right turn lane to Katella Avenue; 109528/012 2-3 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder Figure 2-1 ARTIC Site Plan 109528/012 3-1 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder 3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT 3.1 PROPOSED PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is located within the City of Anaheim, which is part of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB or Basin), a 6,600 square-mile area encompassing all of Orange County and the non-desert parts of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The Basin is an area of high air pollution potential, particularly from June through September. Light winds and shallow vertical atmospheric mixing frequently reduce pollutant dispersion and cause elevated air pollution levels. Pollutant concentrations in the Basin vary with location, season and time of day. Ozone concentrations, for example, tend to be lower along the coast, higher in the near inland valleys, and lower in the far inland areas of the Basin and adjacent desert. SCAB is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality District (SCAQMD). The air quality assessment for the proposed project includes estimating emissions associated with short-term construction and long-term operation of the proposed project. A number of air quality modeling tools are available to assess air quality impacts of projects. In addition, certain air districts, such as SCAQMD, have created guidelines and requirements to conduct air quality analyses. SCAQMD’s current guidelines, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook, 1993, and updated through March, 2010, were adhered to in the assessment of air quality impacts for the proposed project. 3.2 REGIONAL CLIMATE ARTIC is located in Anaheim, which is southeast of Los Angeles, about 15 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean in Southern California. The elevation is approximately 160 feet above mean sea level. The climate in the region is Mediterranean, with low humidity and an average of 328 days of sunshine each year. The average annual rainfall is 14 inches per year, with an annual average temperature of 73°F. Climate in the SCAB is determined by its terrain and geographical location. The Basin is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills. The Pacific Ocean forms the southwestern border, and high mountains surround the rest of the SCAB. SCAB lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific; the resulting climate is 109528/012 3-2 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder mild and tempered by cool ocean breezes. This climatological pattern is rarely interrupted. Periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana wind conditions do occur. Santa Ana condition describes a dry and warm wind in southwestern California that blows westward from the desert through the canyons and towards coastal areas. This seasonal phenomenon typically occurs from October through March. The climate and topography are highly conducive to the formation and transport of air pollution. The local wind is generally light and the dominant wind pattern is a daytime on-shore breeze and nighttime offshore breezes. Air stagnation may occur during the early evening and early morning during periods of transition between day and night wind patterns. Santa Ana wind conditions occasionally occur to disrupt this pattern. If the Santa Ana winds are strong, they can surpass the sea breeze and carry suspended dust and pollutants from the desert into the SCAB and off the coast. If they are weak, they are opposed by the sea breeze and cause air stagnation, resulting in high pollution events. The combination of topography, low mixing height, abundant sunshine, and emissions from the second largest urban area in the United States gives the SCAB the worst air pollution problem in the nation. 3.3 REGIONAL AIR QUALITY Over the past 30 years, the South SCAQMD has made substantial progress in reducing air pollution levels in southern California. The area was previously designated nonattainment for all of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), except for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and lead. The area is now defined as in attainment for nitrogen dioxide (NO2), SO2, lead, and carbon monoxide (CO). Levels of particulate matter and ozone, while reduced substantially from their peak levels, are still far from attainment in the Basin. Both the state of California and the federal government have established health-based ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for six air pollutants. As shown in Table 3-1, these pollutants include ozone, CO, NO2, SO2, respirable particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), and lead. In July 1997, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) adopted new standards for eight-hour ozone and for fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). The 109528/012 3-3 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder State has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. Typically, the California AAQS (CAAQS), which have been adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), are more stringent than the Federal AAQS (NAAQS). Table 3-1 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (All standards expressed in ug/m3 except as noted.) Pollutant Averaging Time CAAQS (1) (ug/m3) NAAQS (2) (ug/m3) Most Stringent Standard (ug/m3) 1-hour 90 ppb (180 ug/m3) No separate standard 90 ppb Ozone 8-hour 70 ppb (137 ug/m3) 75 ppb (147 ug/m3) 70 ppb 24-hour 50 150 50 PM10 Annual 20 No separate standard 20 24-hour No separate standard 35 35 PM2.5 Annual 12 15 12 1-hour 23,000 35 ppm (40,000 ug/m3) 23,000 CO 8-hour 10,000 9 ppm (10,000 ug/m3) 10,000 1-hour 339 0.100 ppm (3) (189 ug/m3) 189 NO2 Annual 57 0.053 ppm (100 ug/m3) 57 1-hour 655 No separate standard 655 3-hour No separate standard 1,300 1,300 24-hour 105 365 105 SO2 Annual No separate standard 80 80 30-day 1.5 No separate standard 1.5 Lead Quarterly No separate standard 1.5 1.5 Sulfates 24-hour 25 No separate standard 25 Visibility Reducing Particulate 8-hour bext <0.23 km-1 No separate standard <0.23 km-1 109528/012 3-4 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder Pollutant Averaging Time CAAQS (1) (ug/m3) NAAQS (2) (ug/m3) Most Stringent Standard (ug/m3) Hydrogen sulfide 1-hour 42 No separate standard 42 Vinyl chloride 24-hour 26 No separate standard 26 Notes: 1. California standards for ozone, CO (except Lake Tahoe), SO2 (1 and 24 hour), NO2, PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles, are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. 2. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest eight hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 g/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24 hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact USEPA for further clarification and current federal policies. 3. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.100 ppm (effective January 22, 2010). N/A = standard is not applicable ppm = parts per million by volume AAM = annual arithmetic mean µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter km = kilometer Source: CARB, March 2010 3.3.1 Area Designations and Pollutant Descriptions The SCAB fails to meet national standards for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10 and is considered a federal nonattainment area for these pollutants. Nonattainment designations are categorized into four levels of severity: (1) moderate, (2) serious, (3) severe and (4) extreme. The following are descriptions of the attainment classifications: • Unclassified: a pollutant is designated unclassified if the data are incomplete and do not support a designation of attainment or nonattainment. • Attainment: a pollutant is designated attainment if the state AAQS for that pollutant was not violated at any site in the area during a three year period. • Nonattainment: a pollutant is designated nonattainment if there was at least one violation of a state AAQS for that pollutant in the area. • Nonattainment/Transitional: is a subcategory of the nonattainment designation. An area is designated nonattainment/transitional to signify that the area is close to attaining the AAQS for that pollutant. 109528/012 3-5 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder All air pollution control districts have been formally designated as attainment or nonattainment for each CAAQS. Table 3-2 lists the criteria pollutants and their relative attainment status. Serious or worse nonattainment areas are required to prepare air quality management plans (AQMPs) to include specified emission reduction strategies in an effort to meet clean air goals. Brief descriptions of the various regulated pollutants and others of concern follow the table. Table 3-2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in SCAB Pollutant California State Standards Federal Standards Ozone – 1-hour 1 Extreme Nonattainment Extreme Nonattainment1 Ozone – 8 hour Extreme Nonattainment Severe-17 Nonattainment2 PM10 Serious Nonattainment Serious Nonattainment3 PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment CO Attainment Attainment4 SO2 Attainment Attainment NO2 Attainment Attainment/Maintenance Lead Attainment Attainment All Others Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Source: CARB; changes to State Area Designations became effective July 26, 2007; changes to National Area Designations current as of February 2009 (http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm). 1 National 1-hour ozone standard was revoked in June 2005. 2 CARB may petition for Extreme designation. 3 Annual Standard Revoked September 2006. 4 USEPA granted the request to redesignate the SCAB from nonattainment to attainment for the CO NAAQS on May 11, 2007 (Federal Register Volume 71, No.91), which became effective as of June 11, 2007. Ozone Ozone (smog) is formed by photochemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROG, or volatile organic compounds [VOC]) rather than being directly emitted. Ozone is a pungent, colorless gas typical of Southern California smog. Elevated ozone concentrations result in reduced lung function, particularly during vigorous physical activity. This health problem is particularly acute in sensitive receptors 109528/012 3-6 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder such as the sick, the elderly, and young children. Ozone levels peak during summer and early fall. USEPA has classified the SCAB as an “extreme” nonattainment area for both Federal and State one-hour ozone standards, however USEPA revoked the one-hour ozone standard, effective June 2005. USEPA had officially designated the status for the SCAB regarding the eight-hour ozone standard as “Severe 17.” SCAQMD formally requested CARB to submit a request to USEPA for a voluntary reclassification of the SCAB from “Severe-17” to “Extreme” nonattainment for ozone with the submission of their 2007 AQMP on June 15, 2007. Through this request, the ozone attainment date for SCAB will be extended until June 15, 2024. Particulate Matter Less than 10 Microns Particulate matter is the term used for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air (e.g., soot, dust, smoke, fumes, and aerosols). Coarse particles (i.e., PM10) derive from a variety of sources, including windblown dust and grinding operations. PM10 can accumulate in the respiratory system and aggravate health problems such as asthma. PM10 also causes visibility reduction. The entire SCAB is a nonattainment area for the Federal and State PM10 standards. Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Microns Fine particulate matter (i.e., PM2.5) is primarily the result of fuel combustion and exhaust from power plants, diesel buses, and trucks. Primary gas emissions, including SO2 releases from power plants and industrial facilities and NOX releases from power plants, automobiles and other types of combustion sources, chemically react in the atmosphere to form PM2.5. USEPA’s scientific review concluded that PM2.5, which penetrates deeply into the lungs, is more likely than PM10 to contribute to the health effects listed in a number of recently published community epidemiological studies at concentrations that extend well below those allowed by the current PM10 standards. These health effects include premature death and increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits (primarily the elderly and individuals with cardiopulmonary disease); increased respiratory symptoms and disease (children and individuals with cardiopulmonary disease such as asthma); decreased lung functions (particularly in children and individuals with asthma); and alterations in lung tissue and structure and in respiratory tract defense mechanisms. The entire SCAB is a nonattainment area for the Federal and State PM2.5 standards. 109528/012 3-7 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder Carbon Monoxide CO is formed by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, almost entirely from automobiles. It is a colorless, odorless gas that can cause dizziness, fatigue, and impairments to central nervous system functions. Orange County has been designated by CARB to be an attainment area for State CO standards. The SCAB was formerly in nonattainment with federal CO standards. Effective June 11, 2007, USEPA designated the SCAB as attainment with federal CO standards. Sulfur Dioxide SO2 is a colorless irritating gas formed primarily from incomplete combustion of fuels containing sulfur. Industrial facilities also contribute to gaseous SO2 levels. SO2 irritates the respiratory tract, can injure lung tissue when combined with fine particulate matter, and reduces visibility and the level of sunlight. The entire SCAB is in attainment with both Federal and State SO2 standards. Nitrogen Oxides NO2, a reddish-brown gas, and nitric oxide (NO), a colorless, odorless gas, are formed from fuel combustion under high temperature or pressure. These compounds are referred to collectively as NOx. NOx is a primary component of and the photochemical smog (or ozone) reaction. It also contributes to other pollution problems, including a high concentration of fine particulate matter, poor visibility, and acid deposition (i.e., acid rain). NO2 decreases lung function and may reduce resistance to infection. SCAB is designated as a maintenance area under the Federal standards and an attainment area under the State standards. Lead Lead is found in old paints and coatings, plumbing, and a variety of other materials. Once in the bloodstream, lead can cause damage to the brain, nervous system, and other body systems. Children are highly susceptible to the effects of lead. In the past, the primary source of lead in the air was emissions from vehicles burning leaded gasoline. As a result of the removal of lead from gasoline, there have been no violations at any of SCAQMD’s regular air monitoring stations since 1982. The entire SCAB is in attainment for the Federal and State standards for lead. 109528/012 3-8 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder Reactive Organic Gases/ Volatile Organic Compounds Both ROG and volatile organic compounds (VOC) are precursors in forming ozone. ROG consist of compounds containing methane, ethane, propane, butane, and longer chain hydrocarbons, which are typically the result of some type of combustion/decomposition process. VOCs are hydrocarbon compounds (i.e., any compound containing various combinations of hydrogen and carbon atoms) that exist in the ambient air. Smog is formed when ROG and NOx react through atmospheric photochemical reactions. ROG and VOCs often have an odor and can also, in some cases, be classified as a toxic air contaminant (TAC). ROGs are typically found in vehicle exhaust. VOCs may be found in products such as gasoline, alcohol, degreasers, and solvent-based paints. Toxic Air Contaminants TACs refer to a diverse group of air pollutants that can affect human health, however there are no ambient air quality standards adopted for TACs. With relation to the proposed project, the primary TACs of concern includes diesel particulate matter. In 1998, CARB identified diesel engine particulate matter as a TAC. Although there are no published ambient air quality standards for TACs, there are significance levels established as discussed in Section 3.5 of this AQIA. Greenhouse Gases GHGs have the potential to adversely affect the environment because such emissions contribute, on a cumulative basis, to global climate change. Atmospheric GHG, such as CO2, plays a role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters earth’s atmosphere from space, and a portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface. Earth re-radiates this energy back toward space, but the properties of the radiation change from high-frequency solar radiation to lower-frequency infrared radiation. GHGs, which are transparent to solar radiation, are effective in absorbing infrared radiation. This radiation (that otherwise would have escaped back into space) is now retained in the atmosphere, and results in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Since each GHG absorbs radiation at different rates, emissions of each GHG must be normalized based on a standard global warming potential. Equivalent carbon dioxide (or CO2e) describes how much global warming a given type and amount of greenhouse 109528/012 3-9 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder gas may cause, using the functionally equivalent amount or concentration of CO2 as the reference. 3.3.2 Regulatory Settings Federal Regulations/Standards USEPA established NAAQS for six major pollutants, termed “criteria” pollutants pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970. Criteria pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the Federal and State governments have established AAQS, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations in order to protect public health (see Table 3-1). USEPA has designated SCAG as the Metropolitan Planning Organization responsible for ensuring compliance with the requirements of the CAA for the SCAB. These standards were set as primary standards to protect human health and as secondary standards to protect property. The standards are based on pollution concentrations averaged over specified time periods. Regulation towards attainment of these standards is conducted through USEPA, State and regional Air Districts. State Regulations/Standards Based on the CAA, state agencies are empowered to enforce the federal standards and develop additional standards as deemed necessary to protect public health and the environment. CARB was formed for this purpose and established the CAAQS, many of which are more stringent than the corresponding NAAQS (see Table 3.1). CARB and the regional air districts operate numerous air quality monitoring stations throughout the state to collect data used to measure regional pollutant concentrations to determine the level of attainment with the standards. CARB develops a State Implementation Plan (SIP) which incorporates local nonattainment plans developed by air districts for regions found to be in nonattainment with the standards. The attainment plans are required to achieve a minimum five percent annual reduction in the emissions of nonattainment pollutants unless all feasible measures have been implemented. The air districts are responsible for assuring that both federal and state standards are attained and maintained within their regions. 109528/012 3-10 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder Regional Air Quality Planning Framework The 1976 Lewis Air Quality Management Act established SCAQMD and other air districts throughout the State. The Federal CAA Amendments of 1977 required that each state adopt an implementation plan outlining pollution control measures to attain the Federal standards in nonattainment areas of the state. CARB coordinates and oversees both State and Federal air pollution control programs in California. CARB oversees activities of local air quality management agencies and is responsible for incorporating AQMPs for local air basins into a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for USEPA approval. CARB maintains air quality monitoring stations throughout the State in conjunction with local air districts. Data collected at these stations are used by CARB to classify air basins as “attainment” or “nonattainment” with respect to each pollutant and to monitor progress in attaining air quality standards. CARB has divided the State into 15 air basins. Significant authority for air quality control within them has been given to local air districts that regulate stationary source emissions and develop local nonattainment plans. SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan SCAQMD is required to promulgate an AQMP that will bring the area into attainment for all nonattainment pollutants. The most recent plan was approved by SCAQMD Governing Board on June 1, 2007. The AQMP included attainment plans for both annual and 24-hour PM2.5 as well as 8-hour ozone. In subsequent meetings with CARB, AQMD Board Members and staff recommended more aggressive actions to reduce emissions from mobile sources, which contribute over 80 percent of the particulate matter pollution in the SCAB. CARB staff worked closely with SCAQMD to strengthen the plan to further reduce emissions. As a result of this joint effort, CARB staff identified several mobile source control strategies that could be strengthened together with local, federal and AQMP measures that resulted in NOx reductions to assure attainment of the PM2.5 standard in 2015. CARB Board adopted the State Strategy for the 2007 SIP and the 2007 South Coast AQMP as part of the SIP on September 27, 2007. 109528/012 3-11 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder 3.4 PROPOSED PROJECT AREA AIR QUALITY 3.4.1 Local Air Quality SCAQMD, together with CARB, maintain ambient air quality monitoring stations in the SCAB. The air quality monitoring station closest to the site is the Anaheim Loara School (Pampas Lane) station, and its air quality trends are representative of the ambient air quality in the proposed project area. The pollutants monitored are CO, ozone, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. The Anaheim Loara School Station is located at 1630 Pampas Lane in Anaheim. The Anaheim monitoring station at Pampas Lane began operation in 2001, as its original location was off Harbor Boulevard in Anaheim. The location of the Anaheim air quality monitoring station with respect to the ARTIC facility is shown in Figure 3-1. 109528/012 3-12 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder Figure 3-1 Location of Anaheim Air Quality Monitor 109528/012 3-13 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder Table 3-3 shows the most recent five years of monitoring data, from 2004 through 2008. The ambient air quality data shows that NO2 and CO levels are below the relevant State and Federal standards at the Anaheim Pampas Lane Station. Ozone and particulate matter levels show exceedances of both the state and federal standards. Table 3-3 – Air Quality Monitoring Summary 2004-2008 Anaheim Pampas Lane Monitoring Station Days Exceeding Pollutant/ Averaging Period Standard Year Maximum Concentration (ppm) State Standard Federal Standard Ozone 1-hour State: 0.09 ppm Federal: revoked 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 0.120 0.095 0.113 0.127 0.105 14 1 6 2 2 - - - - - Ozone 8-hour State: 0.070 ppm Federal: 0.075 ppm 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 0.098 0.078 0.089 0.100 0.086 50 8 5 7 10 29 2 3 1 5 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8-hour State: 9.0 ppm Federal: 9 ppm 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 4.09 3.27 2.90 2.91 3.44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 24-hour State: 50 ug/m3 Federal: 150 ug/m3 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 74.0 65.0 104.0 489.0 61.0 7 3 7 6 3 0 0 0 1 0 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 24-hour State: N/A Federal: 35 ug/m3 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 58.9 54.7 56.2 79.4 67.8 - - - - - 20 13 7 14 13 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1-hour State: 0.18 ppm Federal: 0.100 ppm (98th percentile) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 0.122 0.089 0.114 0.086 0.093 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - Source: CARB Air Quality Data Statistics, data after 2008 is considered preliminary. ppm: parts per million; g/m3: micrograms per cubic meter Monitor Location: Anaheim Loara School Station, 1630 Pampas Ln, Anaheim CA 92802 109528/012 3-14 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder 3.5 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. • Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. • Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. 3.5.1 South Coast Air Quality Management District Thresholds CEQA allows for the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district to be used to assess impacts of a project on air quality. SCAQMD has established emission quantity thresholds of significance for air quality for construction activities and project operation as shown in Table 3-4. Table 3-4 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds (Pounds per Day) Air Pollutant Construction Phase Operational Phase Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 75 55 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 100 55 Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 150 150 Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 150 Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 55 55 In addition to the daily emission thresholds listed above, projects are also subject to the ambient air quality standards. These are addressed though an analysis of localized CO impacts. The California 1-hour and 8-hour CO standards are: 109528/012 3-15 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder • 1-hour = 20 parts per million • 8-hour = 9 parts per million The significance of localized project impacts depends on whether ambient CO levels in the vicinity of the project are above or below State and Federal CO standards. If ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have significant impacts if project emissions results exceed one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a State or Federal standard, then project emissions are considered significant if they increase ambient concentrations by a measurable amount. SCAQMD defines a measurable amount as 1.0 ppm or more for the 1-hour CO concentration or 0.45 ppm or more for the 8-hour CO concentration. For TACs, SCAQMD has established an ambient impact threshold of not causing more than 10 in a million increased cancer risk or non-cancer health effects with a hazard index greater than 1.0. 3.5.2 SCAQMD Interim Greenhouse Gas Threshold of Significance SCAQMD has established an interim GHG Significance Threshold on December 5, 2008 for projects in which they are the lead agency for CEQA. The threshold is 10,000 metric tones per year (MT/yr) of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). The threshold is compared to the total increase in operational emissions and the construction activity averaged over 30 years. Although this threshold is used for comparison purposes in this project, the threshold does not apply to CEQA projects where the lead agency is not SCAQMD. 109528/012 4-1 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder 4.0 PROPOSED PROJECT EMISSIONS 4.1 OPERATIONAL PLANS Potential emitting activities at ARTIC include the following: • Construction; • Onsite Operations with Increased Vehicle Trips; and • Intersection and Traffic Flow Changes. A baseline, no build scenario, was used to assess the current emissions from the existing Metrolink/Amtrak station. The difference in emissions from the no build scenario to ARTIC will be shown as the increase in emissions for the proposed project. The following sections include a detailed description of the emitting activities that will occur during the proposed project. 4.2 BASELINE EMISSIONS Baseline emissions for the no build scenario would include the emissions associated with the existing Metro station located west of the SR-57 freeway, north of the Stadium, and south of Katella Avenue, with The Grove to the west. The existing Metro station consists of a 6,814 square foot (sqft) facility, currently providing 405 parking spaces for passengers using automobiles to access the station site. The station parking demand approaches the allocated number of spaces. Facility emissions were assessed using the Urban Emissions Model, 2007, version 9.2.4 (URBEMIS), which is used by SCAQMD to estimate emissions for land use development projects. The model uses CARB's Emission Factors, 2007 (EMFAC2007) model for on-road vehicle emissions and CARB’s OFFROAD2007 model for off-road vehicle emissions. The Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station was modeled using the blank land use category, with user inputs to define the project. A 6,820 sqft Metro station was added to the model and used with the 405 parking spaces to calculate the daily trip rate, assuming two trip endpoints for arrival and departure. The calculated trip rate of 118.77 trips, per 1,000 sqft, per day was used for the model assessment. Emissions for the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station are summarized in Table 4-3, with the detailed URBEMIS model results provided in Appendix B. 109528/012 4-2 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder 4.3 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Construction of ARTIC is scheduled to begin in the spring of 2011, with final construction scheduled to conclude in the fall of 2013. Construction emissions were estimated using URBEMIS and the Road Construction Emissions Model, July 2009, Version 6.3.2 (RCEM) provided by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. The following sections define the construction sequences with included activities and the anticipated schedule. 4.3.1 Construction of New Intermodal Terminal The main construction for the new intermodal terminal will include demolition, mass grading, fine grading, excavation, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. The URBEMIS model will be used to assess the construction emissions based on the land use data entered, the duration on each construction sequence and the equipment used. The detailed model inputs and results are provided in Appendix A. Demolition of the existing buildings and parking area will occur first. This will include 2.2 acres of parking area south of the LOSSAN corridor and the remaining 13.8 acres reserved for the intermodal terminal, civic space, drop-off areas, and parking. The demolition sequence is scheduled to occur over a period of four months. Emissions from demolition will include heavy equipment tailpipe emissions, worker trip emissions, and fugitive dust emissions. Excavation for the terminal building will include removal of approximately 80,000 cubic yards of soil. The excavation phase will occur over a five-month period. Emissions from excavation include heavy equipment tailpipe emissions, worker trip emissions, truck travel to haul soil offsite, and fugitive dust emissions. The grading phase will encompass the entire 16-acre site and is scheduled to occur over a six-month period. Emissions from grading include heavy equipment tailpipe emissions, worker trip emissions, and fugitive dust emissions. Construction for ARTIC includes a 310,000 square-foot Intermodal Terminal, 86,000 sqft of platforms, and 12,000 sqft for a Stadium Pavilion. The Intermodal Terminal includes operations, bus waiting and boarding areas, and convenience retail and food 109528/012 4-3 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder services. The construction sequence will occur over a period of fourteen months. Emissions from construction include heavy equipment tailpipe emissions, worker trip emissions, landscaping emissions, and architectural coating. Site finishing, hardscape, and paving for ARTIC includes the remainder of the site area. Finish grading and preparation of the site will occur for two months. Paving will occur over a three-month period. Emissions from paving and landscape finishing include worker trips, paving equipment emissions, pavement off-gas emissions, and landscaping equipment emissions. 4.3.2 Construction of New Stub-End Track The main construction sequences for the new sub-end track and platform will include minor track demolition, grading or site clearing, new tracks, and berms. RCEM will be used to assess emissions from the railway track construction, since the construction of the foundation for railway tracks is similar to the construction of roads. Improvements to the track will include a new 2,500-ft stub-end track reaching from the current station to just west of the Santa Ana River. Construction of the railway tracks and platforms is scheduled to occur over at last seven months. Emissions from this construction activity include worker trips, heavy equipment emissions, utility modification, soil placement and fugitive dust. During construction, a modular temporary station will be used that will not have any impact on air emissions. 4.3.3 Roadway Improvement Activities Several roadway construction/improvement activities are included in the proposed project assessment. These include lowering of Douglass Road by eight feet, widening of Douglass Road to eight lanes, construction of a sidewalk along Douglass Road, construction of a new Douglass Road rail bridge, and the addition of a right turn lane on Katella Avenue. The RCEM will be used to assess these project emissions. The Douglass Road vertical profile will be lowered by eight feet from the existing roadway surface to provide additional clearance necessary for the widened railroad bridge. Regrading of approximately 1,100 feet north and south of the railroad bridge along Douglass Road will be necessary to meet the grade requirements. Douglass Road will remain four lanes wide from Angels Stadium to the bridge and will be widened to eight lanes as it approaches the intersection at Katella Avenue. Road widening will 109528/012 4-4 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder include demolition of two existing buildings near the intersection and some rework of the adjacent parking area for the remaining business area. Improvements to Douglass Road are anticipated to occur over a two-month period. Emissions from the Douglass Road improvement will include worker trips, roadway regrading, heavy equipment emissions, paving emissions, and fugitive dust. These emissions were assessed using the road widening project type in the RCEM model. An 800-foot long pedestrian sidewalk will be constructed along one side of Douglass Road under the SR-57 overpass. Construction of the sidewalk is anticipated to occur over a one-month period. Emissions from the sidewalk construction will include minimal equipment, concrete placement, and fugitive dust. The Douglass Road Bridge will be demolished and reconstructed in three sequences over a thirteen-month period. The new bridge will be three tracks wide to accommodate the new rail stub-end track. Emissions from the bridge reconstruction will include worker trips, demolition and heavy equipment emissions, paving emissions, and fugitive dust. The bridge construction project type was used to model the emissions in the RCEM model. Katella Avenue will be widened by five feet to add a right turn lane in the east-bound lanes for traffic turning into ARTIC. Improvements to Katella Avenue are anticipated to occur over a two-month period. Emissions from the Katella Avenue improvement projects will include worker trips, heavy equipment emissions, paving emissions, and fugitive dust. 4.3.4 Utility Relocation and Modification Construction along Douglass Road and within the project area will require some reconfiguration of underground utilities. Utilities, drainage, and sub-grade trenching activities are included and calculated concurrently with each construction activity using either URBEMIS or RCEM. 4.3.5 Total Construction Emissions Total construction emissions for the development of the project site and intermodal terminal were assessed using URBEMIS for each year that construction activities would occur. Road, sidewalk, bridge, and railroad track construction projects were assessed using RCEM for each specific sequence. Intermodal terminal construction will occur in 109528/012 4-5 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder 2011, 2012, and 2013, while road construction projects are anticipated to occur mainly in 2012 and 2013. The construction year with the worst case (or maximum) emissions for all projects is 2012. Emissions for the intermodal terminal construction are shown in Table 4-1. Table 4-1 Intermodal Terminal Construction Worst-Case Daily Emissions Intermodal Terminal Construction NOx (lb/day) ROG (lb/day) CO (lb/day) SOx (lb/day) PM10 (lb/day) PM2.5 (lb/day) CO2 (lb/day) 2011 Max Emissions 70.7 7.6 31.7 0.02 44.4 11.4 8,741.7 2012 Max Emissions 86.5 9.7 57.1 0.1 45.0 12.0 12,977.8 2013 Max Emissions 47.5 51.8 47.9 0.05 43.8 10.8 9,212.3 Note: The emission calculations and URBEMIS model results are shown in Appendix A. The total proposed project emissions will include both the intermodal terminal construction and the road improvement projects. The total project emissions were used in comparison to SCAQMD significance thresholds for project construction. The total project emissions are shown in Table 4-2 and further details are provided in Appendix A. Table 4-2 Total Proposed Project Construction Emissions from All Stages – Unmitigated Construction Activity NOx (lb/day) ROG (lb/day) CO (lb/day) SOx (lb/day) PM10 (lb/day) PM2.5 (lb/day) CO2 (lb/day) Intermodal Terminal 86.5 51.8 57.1 0.1 45.0 12.0 12,977.8 Stub-end Track 10.5 1.4 7.6 <1 2.6 1.0 1,258.3 Douglass Road Bridge 19.9 2.4 10.7 <1 1.9 1.1 2,284.0 Douglass Road Widening 17.5 2.5 11.7 <1 3.0 1.3 2,012.5 Douglass Road Sidewalk 1.4 0.4 2.1 <1 0.6 0.2 251.5 Katella Ave Right Turn Lane 15.2 1.8 7.8 <1 1.6 0.8 1,541.60 Total Proposed Project – All Stages 151.0 60.3 96.9 <1 54.7 16.4 20,325.7 Significance Thresholds 100 75 550 150 150 55 - 109528/012 4-6 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder Construction Activity NOx (lb/day) ROG (lb/day) CO (lb/day) SOx (lb/day) PM10 (lb/day) PM2.5 (lb/day) CO2 (lb/day) Significant? Potentially No No No No No No Notes: 1. The construction URBEMIS model and RCEM calculation results are shown in Appendix A. 2. This represents a worst case where all stages of construction occur simultaneously for comparison to significance thresholds. The summary table in Appendix A provides the breakout by year. 3. RCEM model does not calculate SOx emissions; assumed to be <1 lb/day based on URBEMIS results. The total project emissions do not exceed the significance thresholds for construction, with the exception of NOx. Maximum unmitigated NOx emissions from all construction sequences was estimated at 151 lbs/day, which potentially exceeds the threshold. Mitigation of NOx emissions below the significance thresholds can occur through considerations of schedule and the addition of controls as discussed in Section 8.0. 4.4 ON-SITE OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS 4.4.1 On-Site Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions Operational emissions were assessed to included criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases. The details of the calculations are shown in Appendix B. On-Site Operational Emissions include: • ARTIC operations; • An increase in vehicle trips per day; and • A emergency backup generator ARTIC operation emissions were also assessed using URBEMIS, using SCAQMD database for vehicle emission factors (i.e., EMFAC). ARTIC was modeled using the “blank land use” category, as a 322,000 sqft building. The platforms were also modeled using the “blank land use” category, as a 42,000 sqft structure. Within the terminal building, a 5,000 sqft “convenience market” category was included to represent the retail area located and an 18,000 sqft “fast food restaurant” category was used to model the food and concessions area. The 30,000 sqft civic area was modeled using the “city park land use” category. Potential emission sources modeled include electricity and natural gas usage for building heat and power, and convenience retail and food services. Emissions from these land use sources include criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases. 109528/012 4-7 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder The vehicle trip rates for both the existing station and the proposed ARTIC facility were provided by the traffic study performed for the project (Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers, 2010) and included in the URBEMIS model runs. Based on the traffic study, users of the existing Metrolink/Amtrak station average 1,015 daily trips, and 4,714 daily trips are expected for the new ARTIC facility. Emissions for the proposed ARTIC operations are summarized in Table 4-3, with the detailed URBEMIS model results provided in Appendix B. Table 4-3 ARTIC Operational Daily Emissions Operational Activity NOx (lb/day) ROG (lb/day) CO (lb/day) SOx (lb/day) PM10 (lb/day) PM2.5 (lb/day) Stationary Source (Electricity, Natural Gas Usage, Landscaping) 2.75 1.25 9.96 0.00 0.03 0.03 Emergency Backup Generator(2) 1.54 0.93 8.02 0.57 0.22 0.17 Mobile Sources 46.43 29.69 323.78 0.37 3.96 2.54 Total ARTIC Operational 50.72 31.87 341.76 0.94 4.21 2.74 Baseline Operations – Existing Metrolink/Amtrak Station -8.32 -5.42 -72.76 -0.10 -0.85 -0.55 Difference in Emissions (ARTIC – Existing Station) 42.40 26.45 269.00 0.84 3.36 2.19 SCAQMD Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significant? No No No No No No Note: 1. Detailed emission calculations are shown in Appendix B. 2. Emergency generator modeled conservatively at one hour per day Additionally, a 1,000-kW emergency power backup generator will be available. Daily emissions conservatively assumed testing would occur for a maximum of one hour on a given day, although typical testing and maintenance operations are anticipated to be 15 minutes per week. Emissions from the emergency generator were assessed using emission factors based on CARB Off-Road Diesel Engine Standards for criteria pollutants and AP-42 emission factors for greenhouse gases. Using PM10 emissions as 109528/012 4-8 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder a surrogate indicator for diesel particulate matter, TAC emissions are considered negligible and insignificant. 4.4.2 On-Site Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions GHG emissions for the proposed project are the result of the use of electricity, natural gas combustion, and increased vehicles exhaust. URBEMIS and RCEM were used to quantify the GHG emissions from the operational on-site sources of the proposed ARTIC facility, including the terminal building and the emergency generator, as well as the temporary construction emissions. CO2e was calculated based on the total operational emissions plus construction emissions amortized over 30 years (per SCAQMD guidance). The emissions shown in Table 4-4 demonstrate that the proposed project is below the GHG significance thresholds. Table 4-4 Proposed Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Operational Activity CO2 (lb/day) CO2e (MT/yr) Stationary Source (Electricity, Natural Gas Usage, Landscaping) 3,178.8 526.3 Emergency Backup Generator 1,624.0 38.3 Mobile Sources 39,434.8 6,528.9 Construction(1) – 197.3 Total Proposed Project Operational 44,237.6 7,093.5 Existing Metrolink/ Amtrak Station -9,438.3 -1,562.6 Difference in Emissions (Proposed Project – Existing Station) 34,799.3 5,530.8 SCAQMD Significance Threshold – 10,000(1) Significant? – No 1. Per SCAQMD CEQA interim GHG guidance, emissions from construction activity is averaged over 30 years. 109528/012 4-9 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder 4.5 ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC EMISSIONS The proposed project will increase the number of parking spaces available for persons utilizing the transportation services. In addition, there may be increased traffic flow and possible congestion at various intersections near the proposed project site. The potential for increased traffic flow and possible congestion to cause an adverse ambient air quality impact was assessed as described in Section 6.3.2 of this AQIA. 109528/012 5-1 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder 5.0 AIR QUALITY REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AFFECTING OPERATIONS AND EMISSIONS ARTIC is located in SCAQMD. ARTIC is subject locally to SCAQMD rules and regulations. The applicable CARB and USEPA regulations must be followed. The applicability of the various rules and regulations to the proposed project will be discussed in this section. 5.1 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Construction activities are required to comply with applicable SCAQMD prohibitions (Regulation IV) and the following source-specific standards: Rule 401 – Visible Emissions prohibits the emission of air contaminants that result in exceedances of the opacity limits for more than three minutes in any one hour. Diesel soot from un-tuned construction equipment and vehicles or excessive fugitive dust from the site may cause visibility issues. Rule 402 – Nuisance states that air contaminant emissions from a given source shall not cause “injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance” to any large number of people or create an endangerment to “comfort, repose, health or safety” of any such people. Excessive emissions of regulated pollutants or odors from equipment or construction activities such as asphalt paving and architectural coating are typical examples of nuisance air contaminants Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust targets excessive amounts of local atmospheric dust created from activities on man-made, unpaved areas, such as an active construction site. Dust can originate from large exposed areas where work is occurring or from vehicles driven through the site. Several dust control measures are listed in the rule, including the following: • No visible dust emissions beyond the property line • No dust emissions exceeding 20% opacity anywhere on the property • No off-site increase in ambient PM10 concentrations greater than 50 ug/m3 • No track-out exceeding 25 feet from the property • Wheel washing or paving to eliminate track out • Employment of a dust control supervisor who has the authority to expeditiously employ sufficient dust mitigation measures to ensure compliance • Watering to maintain soil moisture at 12% on haul roads and other active unpaved surfaces that are not chemically stabilized 109528/012 5-2 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder • Watering to prevent visible dust more than 100 feet from any earth moving or mining activity • Watering, dust suppressants, and/or re-vegetation of inactive disturbed areas to prevent wind driven dust • Daily watering and 15 mph speed limit on unpaved roads • Chemical stabilization, watering, covering, and/or enclosing storage piles. 5.2 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS 5.2.1 New Source Review The purpose of New Source Review (NSR) is to prevent emissions from new, modified or relocated facilities from causing an exceedance in the region’s attainment of the NAAQs. In SCAQMD, Regulation XIII, which implements NSR, governs projects that result in an emissions increase of any nonattainment air pollutant associated with a stationary source of emissions. If certain thresholds are exceeded, projects may be required to mitigate emissions using controls or obtain emission offsets. For the proposed project, relocation of the intermodal to a new location within the air district will primarily result in increases to air emissions associated with mobile sources. The only permitted source of emissions expected will be a 1000 kilowatt (KW ) emergency backup generator with an USEPA Certified Tier 4 engine, whose planned operation typically will be one hour per month for maintenance and testing purposes. 5.2.2 New Source Performance Standards New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) refer to technology-based standards that were developed for specific categories of stationary sources. These standards found in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 60 are intended to promote use of the best air pollution control technologies by comparing available technologies based on cost of incremental pollution reduction and any other non-air quality, health, and environmental impact and energy requirements. Since the proposal of NSPS, USEPA has promulgated 88 standards for new, modified and reconstructed affected facilities in specific source categories such as manufacturers of glass, cement, rubber tires and wool fiberglass. The NSPS for compression ignition internal combustion engines will be applicable to the emergency generator planned for ARTIC. ARTIC will include a 1,000 KW diesel-fueled emergency generator. This engine (termed a compression ignition internal combustion 109528/012 5-3 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder engine) will be regulated by the NSPS promulgated at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart IIII (40 CFR 4200 et seq.). Subpart IIII specifies emission limits for emissions from the compression ignition internal combustion engine of 1.2 grams per horsepower hour NOx and 0.11 grams per horsepower hour PM10 (40 CFR 4205(d)) with recordkeeping and labeling requirements. The manufacturer of the engine is required to certify that the engine does not exceed the emission limits required by this regulation. 5.2.3 AB2588 Hot Spots Program In 1987, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 2588, the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act. AB 2588 requires stationary sources of air pollutants to periodically report the type and quantities of specified TACs that are routinely or intermittently released. The collected data is used by CARB to assess potential health risks caused by certain facilities on the surrounding population. Facilities subject to AB 2588 are those that emit more than ten tons per year of criteria pollutants other than carbon monoxide. The only device at ARTIC that would potentially be subject to AB 2588 is the emergency generator. Emissions from this generator are much less than the applicable thresholds and AB 2588 requirements would not apply. 5.2.4 CARB Diesel Regulations In 1998, after a 10-year scientific assessment process, CARB identified diesel exhaust particulate as a TAC. To follow up the listing of diesel exhaust particulate, CARB approved a “Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel- Fueled Engines and Vehicles” (“the Plan”) in 2000 that leads toward control measure requirements. CARB’s regulatory goal is to make diesel engines as clean as possible by establishing state-of-the-art technology requirements or emission standards to reduce diesel particulate emissions. The goal of the Plan is to reduce diesel particulate matter emissions and the associated health risk by 75 percent by 2010 and 85 percent by 2020. CARB only has authority to regulate equipment and vehicles that operate within California as USEPA has not granted authority to regulate mobile sources that cross state lines. CARB has promulgated several regulations with the objective of reducing diesel particulate matter and other criteria pollutants from diesel equipment and commercial vehicles. Much of the construction equipment that will be operated for this project is 109528/012 5-4 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder diesel powered and would be governed by the Off-Road Diesel or the On-Road Heavy- Duty Diesel Vehicle regulations. The Off-Road Diesel regulation pertains to equipment with engines 25 brake horsepower or greater that are not licensed to be driven on road. Heavy-Duty Diesel regulations pertain to licensed vehicles that are rated greater than 14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating. The equipment owner is responsible for managing this equipment such that emissions meet specified fleet averages required by CARB. For ARTIC, the equipment owner would be the construction contractor(s). 5.2.5 GHG Regulations This subsection reviews the pertinent greenhouse gas regulations that affect ARTIC. Regulations plus additional actions by the California Attorney General’s office, the California Public Utilities Commission, the Governor, and other California legislative activities are aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. CEQA guidance requires projects to consider both direct emissions (those associated with the project itself) and indirect emissions (those emissions that result from the facility, but which are not immediately generated on site). Direct emissions for the proposed project would include natural gas combustion from heating, diesel exhaust emissions from transit vehicles, the emergency generator, and increased exhaust due to commuter vehicles. Indirect emissions would primarily be due to electricity usage. Federal In October 1993, President Clinton announced his "Climate Change Action Plan," with the goal of returning GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. This was to be accomplished through 50 initiatives, relying on innovative voluntary partnerships between the private sector and government aimed at producing cost-effective reductions in GHG emissions. Although USEPA has historically maintained that it did not have authority to regulate such emissions, more recently, on March 10, 2009, it released a proposed rule that would create a comprehensive national system for reporting emissions of CO2 and other GHGs produced by major sources in the United States. This reporting system would create the first comprehensive inventory of GHG emissions in the United States. 109528/012 5-5 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder State California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 6 California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings was first established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. The standards, located in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Part 6, are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity. Overall GHG emissions will decrease as energy efficiency is increased. California Assembly Bill 1493 Enacted on July 22, 2002, California Assembly Bill 1493 required CARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHG emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks. Regulations adopted by CARB would apply to 2009 and later model year vehicles. When implemented, Assembly Bill 1493 will result in substantial reductions in transportation-based emissions throughout the State. California Assembly Bill 32 In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 focuses on reducing GHG emissions from stationary sources in California. AB 32 requires CARB to adopt rules and regulations that would reduce GHG emissions, equivalent to the statewide levels existing in 1990, by 2020. As a result, CARB published a list of discrete early action GHG emission reduction measures that can be implemented by 2010. The law further required that measures achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in GHGs from sources or categories of sources to achieve the statewide GHG emissions goal for 2020. Senate Bill 97 Senate Bill 97, enacted in August 2007, directs the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to propose CEQA Guidelines advising local agencies how to mitigate the impacts of GHG emissions. OPR released its preliminary draft CEQA guideline amendments in January 2009. The proposed Guidelines directs lead agencies to adopt their own 109528/012 5-6 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder individual standards of significance provided those standards and conclusions as to the significance of a project’s cumulative climate change impacts are supported by substantial evidence and are consistent with available guidance and current CEQA practice. Local SCAQMD Interim GHG Significance Threshold SCAQMD established an interim GHG Significance Threshold on December 5, 2008 for projects in which SCAQMD is the lead agency for CEQA. The threshold is 10,000 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). The threshold is compared to the total increase in operational emissions as a result of the proposed project and the construction emissions from the proposed project averaged over 30 years. 5.2.6 Transportation Conformity The concept of transportation conformity was introduced in the 1977 amendments to the CAA, which includes a provision to ensure that transportation investments conform to the SIP in meeting the NAAQS. Conformity requirements were made substantially more rigorous in the federal CAA amendments of 1990, and the transportation conformity regulation that details implementation of the conformity requirements was first issued in November 1993, with a number of subsequent amendments. The most recent complete set of amendments to the Transportation Conformity Rule is found at 40 CFR Part 51 (Subparts T and W ) and Part 93 (Subpart A). Transportation conformity is considered the project level (as opposed to a transportation plan or similar process), unless exempted by regulation. A project is subject to the transportation conformity regulations if it is located in a federal nonattainment or maintenance area and is either (a) funded, approved, or implemented by the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) or Federal Transit Authority (FTA) or it is (b) “regionally significant.” A regionally significant project means “a transportation project (other than an exempt project) that is on a facility which serves regional transportation needs (such as access to and from the area outside of the region, major activity centers in the region, major planned developments such as new retail malls, sports complexes, etc., 109528/012 5-7 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder or transportation terminals as well as most terminals themselves) and would normally be included in the modeling of a metropolitan area's transportation network, including at a minimum all principal arterial highways and all fixed guideway transit facilities that offer an alternative to regional highway travel” (40 CFR 93.101). Exempt projects are specified in 40 CFR 93.126, and include reconstruction or renovation of transit buildings and structures and rehabilitation or reconstruction of track structures, track, and track bed in existing rights of ways. The proposed project is a rehabilitation/reconstruction of existing transportation facilities and thus is exempt from federal transportation conformity. 5.2.7 General Conformity General conformity applies to any project (whether or not transportation related) that is located in a federal nonattainment or maintenance area and (a) is not funded, approved, or implemented by FHWA or FTA, (b) involves a “federal action”, and (c) emits more than threshold quantities of nonattainment pollutants (40 CFR 51.853). In SCAQMD, the threshold quantities of federal nonattainment pollutants are 10 tons per year of VOC or NOx for ozone nonattainment, 70 tons per year PM10 for PM10 nonattainment, and 100 tons per year of PM2.5, NO2, SO2, or VOC for PM2.5 nonattainment. Emissions from the proposed project are less than these thresholds and General Conformity does not apply. 5.2.8 SCAQMD Rules SCAQMD regulates emissions from stationary sources through the permitting process and, pursuant to SCAQMD Rules 201 and 212, requires permits to construct (PTC) and a permit to operate for all stationary equipment that has the potential to release air contaminants. Most of the activities associated with ARTIC do not require a PTC, as PTCs are not required for mobile sources. Any new or modified sources are subject to SCAQMD NSR, Regulation XIII for criteria pollutants. The major NSR requirements include modeling, emission offsets, and installation of best available control technology (BACT). The NSR requirements for toxics and non-criteria pollutants emissions are enforced through Regulation XIV. SCAQMD Rule 1401 requires that the maximum increase of 109528/012 5-8 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder individual cancer risk due to TAC emissions from a new, relocated, or modified stationary source permit unit be less than one in a million (1 x 10-6) at any residential or worker receptors, or 10 in a million (1 x 10-5) if the permit unit is installed with BACT for toxics. The increase in total chronic hazard index and total acute hazard index because TAC emissions must be less than one. The new facility will have a new 1000 kW emergency backup generator that will be regulated by Rule 1470. For a new stationary emergency generator, the rule requires diesel particulate matter emissions to meet the specified Off-Road Compression Ignition Engine Standard for off-road engines with the same maximum rated power (Title 13 CCR Section 2423). For generator engines greater than 750 brake horsepower, the engine must have PM10 emissions less than or equal to 0.7 grams per brake horsepower-hour, or the engine must be certified to USEPA Tier 4 Interim standards. In addition to the regulations discussed above, the ongoing operations are required to comply with applicable SCAQMD prohibitions per Regulation IV. See Section 5.1 for a detailed discussion on the applicable source-specific standards. 109528/012 6-1 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder 6.0 LOCAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT OF PROPOSED PROJECT 6.1 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS SCAQMD provides both emissions and ambient air quality impact significance thresholds for criteria pollutants under CEQA. The emission thresholds are shown in Table 6-1, and the ambient air quality impact thresholds are shown in Table 6-2. Specific ambient air quality impact thresholds are published only for NO2, PM10, PM2.5, sulfate, and CO. Table 6-1 CEQA Ambient Air Quality Emission Significance Thresholds for Criteria Pollutants Air Pollutant Construction Sequence Operational Phase Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 75 55 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 100 55 Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 150 150 Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 150 Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 55 55 Source: SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (SCAQMD, 1993) Table 6-2 CEQA Ambient Air Quality Impact Significance Thresholds for Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Averaging Time Ambient Air Quality Threshold NO2 1-hour Annual 0.18 ppm 0.03 ppm PM10 24-hour (construction) 24-hour (operation) Annual 10.4 ug/m3 2.5 ug/m3 1.0 ug/m3 PM2.5 24-hour (construction) 24-hour (operation) 10.4 ug/m3 2.5 ug/m3 Sulfate 24-hour 1 ug/m3 CO 1-hour 8-hour 20 ppm 9.0 ppm Source: SCAQMD Rule 1303 and SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, 1993 109528/012 6-2 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder For TACs and odor, SCAQMD significance thresholds are an incremental (i.e., an increase solely related to the proposed project) potential cancer risk of more than 10 in a million, a potential cancer burden of more than 0.5 excess cancer cases in areas that have over 1 million exposed persons, and a hazard index for non-cancer effects of more than 1.0. Significant odors are those that pose a nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402. The potential for the proposed project emissions and ambient air quality impact to exceed these significance thresholds is discussed in the following sections. 6.2 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS Construction activities from the proposed project will yield criteria pollutant emissions, as shown in Section 4.3 of this AQIA. Emissions for all of the criteria pollutants will be less than the significance thresholds with mitigation measures in affect (to be discussed in Section 8). Since construction is a temporary operation and emissions are less than significant for particulate matter and CO, ambient air quality impacts were not modeled. It is not anticipated that ambient air quality thresholds from construction activities will be exceeded. 6.3 WORST CASE CRITERIA POLLUTANT IMPACTS 6.3.1 Onsite Operational Impacts Operations of the proposed project will yield criteria pollutant emissions, as shown in Section 4.4 of this AQIA. Emissions for all of the criteria pollutants will be less than the significance thresholds. Potential onsite operational impacts were not modeled, since the maximum daily emissions do not exceed the significance thresholds. Since emissions are less than the significance thresholds for the proposed project, ambient air quality thresholds are not anticipated to be exceeded. 6.3.2 CO Hot Spot Assessment from On-Road Vehicles An analysis was conducted to assess the potential ambient air quality impacts of CO from traffic affected by the project. The City (David Kennedy, 2010) is referenced as the basis for traffic data used for identifying affected intersections and evaluating CO Hotspots. Based on the Traffic Data, and access to the proposed project, the 109528/012 6-3 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder intersection of Katella Avenue and Douglass Road was identified as having the greatest increase in trip generation due to the project. The contribution to the volume of vehicles due to the project is greatest at this intersection. The level of service (LOS) for this intersection was shown to degrade to LOS F by 2030 (which is shown to be mostly due to area growth regardless of the project). The project would not cause CO Hotspots at other intersections based on traffic data if the CO impacts at the Katella Avenue and Douglass Road intersection are not significant. Consistent with the traffic study data, the assessment included a scenario for conditions of the ARTIC in year 2013 and a scenario for full additional ARTIC services in year 2030 with mixed use development. The CO Hotspots analysis was conducted using the CAL3QHC modeling program in accordance with SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (CO Protocol) and EPA CAL3QHC user guide. The assumptions, model input and model output files are provided in Appendix C. Emission factors were derived from the EMFAC2007 program, which used default parameters with the following program inputs: • Geography: Orange County • Average Temperature: 73ºF • Relative Humidity: 65% A speed of two miles per hour (mph) was included in the EMFAC analysis in order to obtain representative CO emission factors for queuing vehicles, including light autos (i.e., taxis), and urban buses. The EMFAC program predicts zero emission for these vehicles types if a speed of zero mph is used. Because taxis and busses are a significant portion of the vehicle types that would access the site, utilizing a speed of two mph is considered more representative of the average fleet vehicle emission factors. The EMFAC input and output files are also provided in Appendix C. CAL3QHC calculates only a 1-hour average concentration, assuming worst case hypothetical meteorology. The 1-hour concentration was converted to an 8-hour concentration by multiplying the 1-hour concentration by a persistence factor of 0.7, as recommended by SCAQMD for nonattainment areas. The area is currently designated as attainment for CO, and the recommended persistence factor is 0.6. As a 109528/012 6-4 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder conservative approach, the nonattainment 1-hour to 8-hour persistence factor was chosen. The maximum modeled CO impacts are summarized in Table 6-3. The impacts from the traffic are a small fraction of the overall impacts with background included. The project impacts at Year 2030 are lower than the no project impacts due to configuration of the intersection to accommodate the project. The resulting cumulative impacts with the project and background are less than 50% of the CAAQS. The project is therefore considered to have insignificant affects on CO impacts from traffic. Table 6-3 Maximum CO Impacts of Traffic at the Katella Avenue and Douglass Road Intersection Scenario Maximum CAL3QHC Result (ppmv) Ave. Time Max Impact (ppmv) Background1 (ppmv) Total with Background (ppmv) CAAQS (ppmv) Percent of CAAQS w/o Background Percent of CAAQS with Background 1-hr 0.30 5.8 6.1 20 1.5% 31% 2013 no project 0.30 8-hr 0.21 3.9 4.1 9.0 2.3% 46% 1-hr 0.60 5.8 6.4 20 3.0% 32% 2013 w/ ARTIC 0.60 8-hr 0.42 3.9 4.3 9.0 4.7% 48% 1-hr 0.30 5.8 6.1 20 1.5% 31% 2030 No Project 0.30 8-hr 0.21 3.9 4.1 9.0 2.3% 46% 1-hr 0.20 5.8 6.0 20 1.0% 30% 2030 w/ ARTIC 0.20 8-hr 0.14 3.9 4.0 9.0 1.6% 44% 1) Future background CO concentrations obtained from SCAQMD CEQA guidance at: http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/CO/CO.html 6.4 AIR TOXIC IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The most significant TAC emission related to construction is diesel exhaust particulate from construction equipment. Modeling shows that for the maximum year (i.e., 2012), PM10 from engine exhaust is 6.29 lbs per day, or less than five percent of the significance threshold. Construction is a temporary activity and the potential incremental cancer risk from construction activities is very small. (Potential cancer risks are large only when there is very long continuous exposure, on the order of tens of years). The incremental cancer risk that could be caused by construction activities is not expected to exceed the cancer risk significance thresholds. Likewise, the hazard indices are not expected to be exceeded. 109528/012 6-5 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder Diesel particulate matter is also expected to be the most significant TAC emission related to the operations of buses and other diesel-fueled vehicles that will approach the facility on public roads and use the facility for loading and unloading passengers. Currently, buses use the existing streets and the Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink Station. Although ridership will increase as a result of the proposed project, there is no large increase in the number of buses or mileage traveled by the buses. There are no sensitive receptors within about 0.4 miles of the proposed site, which is about the same distance to sensitive receptors as currently exists. Potential diesel particulate impacts drop off rapidly with distance from roadways. Since no large increases in the number and mileage of diesel fueled vehicles are anticipated and there are no sensitive receptors close to the proposed site, exceedance of the incremental TAC significance thresholds are not anticipated. 109528/012 7-1 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder 7.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 7.1 EXISTING AND FUTURE NON-PROJECT EMISSIONS AND IMPACTS IN THE PROJECT AREA SCAB currently does not meet the air quality standards for ozone (including NO2 and VOC) and particulate matter (including PM10, and PM2.5). NO2, VOC, PM10, and PM2.5 are considered nonattainment pollutants. The remaining criteria pollutants (CO, SO2, lead) are attainment pollutants. The following logic is used to assess the potential for cumulatively considerable or significant air quality impacts. 1. Construction emissions are not considered cumulatively considerable since various construction projects are not likely to occur at the same time and in close proximity to each other. Construction emissions are highly variable and localized. It is not likely for the combination of emissions to exceed the significance thresholds as long as the individual construction project emissions do not exceed the thresholds even if there are more than one construction projects occurring in close proximity to each other. 2. For the nonattainment pollutants, if the emissions from the proposed project alone are about 55 percent of the significance thresholds, as long as there are no planned future projects in the vicinity of the proposed project that would individually likely have relatively large emissions (e.g., a proposed electrical generating station or major new hospital or sports arena), the emissions are not considered cumulatively considerable. If there are some major projects in the vicinity that could have relatively large emissions, then the proposed project emissions and nearby projects would be considered cumulatively considerable and potentially cumulatively significant. 3. If emissions of attainment pollutants from the proposed project are less than the significance thresholds, the emissions are not considered cumulatively considerable unless there are a number of nearby projects that could cause the combination of emissions to exceed the significance thresholds. 7.1.1 Future Projects Table 7-1 provides a list of anticipated future projects in the proposed project area. Several of the nearby future development projects involve construction associated with 109528/012 7-2 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder expansion of existing business or building of new housing units in accordance with the adopted City of Anaheim General Plan. The emissions during construction from these development projects and the proposed project are primarily from fugitive dust emissions and construction equipment exhaust. Considering the temporary, highly variable, and localized nature of construction emissions, the proposed project emissions and potential emissions from other construction projects are not considered cumulatively significant. Table 7-1 Possible Future Projects Near the Proposed Project Name Project Description Potential Cumulative Impacts CITY OF ANAHEIM The Platinum Triangle The Platinum Triangle Project Location: southeastern section of the City Site Size: 820 acres General Summary: expand the PTMU Overlay Zone and increase permitted development intensities. Status: Draft Subsequent EIR to be circulated and public hearings to be held in Summer/Fall 2010. • Air Quality • Traffic Stadium Lofts Location: 1801 East Katella Avenue Site Size: 6.3 acres General Summary: 390 condominium units; 7,839 square foot restaurant and 2,820 square feet of retail, 61.9-units/acre. Status: Completed in January 2007. None; development is complete. Archstone Gateway Location: 2150 South State College Boulevard Site Size: 8.44 acres General Summary: 884 apartments on 20.81 acres; of which 352 units are on 8.44 acres in Anaheim and 532 units on 12.37 acres in the City of Orange. Status: Leasing/partially occupied. None; development is complete. Stadium Towers Retail Center Location: 2430 East Katella Avenue Site Size: 2.02 acres General Summary: 14,185 square foot retail center Status: Completed in December 2006. None; development is complete. Stadium Park Apartments Location: 1551 East W right Circle Site Size: 4.25 acres General Summary: 250 apartments Status: Redesign to increase the number of units approved. • Air Quality • Traffic 109528/012 7-3 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder Name Project Description Potential Cumulative Impacts 1818 (Former Element Pt) Location: 1818 South State College Boulevard Site Size: 3.35 acres General Summary: 265 apartments Status: Completed. None; development is complete. Park Viridian Location: 1515 East Katella Avenue Site Size: 3.37 acres General Summary: 320 apartments. Status: Completed. None; development is complete. Stadium Club Condos Location: 1761 and 1781 South Campton Avenue Site Size: 3.21 acres General Summary: 196 condominiums. Status: Redesign to increase the number of units pending. • Air Quality • Traffic Anavia Location: 2045 South State College Boulevard Site Size: 3.85 acres General Summary: 250 condominiums. Status: Completed. None; development is complete. Platinum Triangle Condominium Development Location: 1331 East Katella Avenue Site Size: 4.45 acres General Summary: 336 condominiums and one 1,248 square foot retail tenant space. Status: Completed. None; development is complete. Avalon Angel Stadium (Formerly Anaheim Stadium) Location: 2100 East Katella Avenue Site Size: 3.5 acres General Summary: 251 apartments and 11,807 square feet of retail and restaurant uses. Status: Completed. None; development is complete. Lennar’s A-Town Metro Location: 1404 East Katella Avenue Site Size: 40.6 acres General Summary: A Master Site Plan that will include two public parks, 2,681 residential units and up to 229,800 square feet of commercial/retail use. Status: The Final Master Tract Map has been recorded and various off-site and on- site improvements, including backbone streets, have been completed. A Final Site Plan for Development Area C has also been approved. Project is currently on hold. • Air Quality • Traffic 109528/012 7-4 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder Name Project Description Potential Cumulative Impacts The Experience At Gene Autry Way Location: 1969 South State College Boulevard Site Size: 17.58 acres General Summary: A Master Site Plan for 1,208 residential units, 50,000 square feet of commercial space, 100,000 square feet of office space and a 1.7-acre public park. Status: Approved by City Council on August 21, 2007. Demolition of existing buildings completed. Redesign of site configuration pending. • Air Quality • Traffic Lennar’s A-Town Stadium Location: 2115, 2125, 2025 East Orangewood Avenue and 2050 South State College Boulevard Site Size: 12.48 acres General Summary: 878 condominiums. Status: City Council approval on December 11, 2007. Construction schedule to be determined. • Air Quality • Traffic Orangewood Condominiums Location: 2211 East Orangewood Avenue Site Size: 3.8 acres General Summary: 370 condominiums. Status: City Council approval on June 5, 2007. Construction schedule to be determined. • Air Quality • Traffic Platinum Tower Location: 2210-2220 East Orangewood Avenue and 2231 and 2130 East Dupont Drive Site Size: 3.83 acres General Summary: 20-story building containing 590,000 square feet of office area, 10,000 square feet of commercial area and a 2,001 space parking structure. Status: City Council approval on August 21, 2007. Construction pending. • Air Quality • Traffic Platinum Vista Location: 1015 and 1105 East Katella Avenue Site Size: 4.6 acres General Summary: 327 residential units and 9,500 square feet of commercial space. Status: Approved by City Council December 18, 2007. • Air Quality • Traffic 109528/012 7-5 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder Name Project Description Potential Cumulative Impacts Platinum Gateway Location: 915 East Katella Avenue Site Size: 8.7 acres General Summary: 320 residential units, an 11-story office building (192,000 square feet) and a 130-room hotel with a 7-story parking structure. Status: Approved by City Council June 10, 2008. • Air Quality • Traffic Fire Station No. 12 Location: 1050 Stanford Court Site Size: 1.03 acres General Summary: 15,000 square feet. Status: Construction plans under review. • Air Quality • Traffic The Anaheim Resort Amendment to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Location: Area that surrounds the Disneyland Resort and Anaheim GardenWalk and includes the Anaheim Convention Center. Site Size: 581 acres General Summary: Modifications to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan to update the document and associated Master EIR and allow for expansion of the Anaheim Convention Center. Status: Draft Supplemental EIR to be circulated and public hearings to be held in Fall/Winter 2010. • Air Quality • Traffic Anaheim Gardenwalk Location: 321 W est Katella Avenue Site Size: 29.1 acres General Summary: The project includes: 569,750 square feet of retail, restaurants, and entertainment uses; 1,628 hotel rooms and 278,817 square feet of hotel accessory uses. Status: Grand opening of retail concourse in May 2008. Hotel and timeshare construction ongoing. • Air Quality • Traffic Trendwest Resorts Timeshare Location: 201 W est Katella Avenue Site Size: 2.06 acres General Summary: 14-story, 247-unit timeshare resort. Status: Completed in August 2008. None; development is complete. 109528/012 7-6 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder Name Project Description Potential Cumulative Impacts Anaheim Convention Center Expansion Location: 800 W est Katella Avenue Site Size: 4 acres General Summary: A public/private partnership to expand the Anaheim Convention Center and provide an opportunity for additional hotels and recreation uses. Status: Ongoing. • Air Quality • Traffic Grand Californian Hotel Expansion Location: 1600 South Disneyland Drive Site Size: 2.50 acres General Summary: Add 280 hotel rooms including 25 2-bedroom timeshare units. Status: Completed in W inter 2009/2010. None; development is complete. Doubletree Hotel (Phase 1) Location: 2065 South Harbor Boulevard Site Size: 2,500 square-foot restaurant, 3,760 square-foot meeting/banquet facilities and 4,189 square-foot retail area. General Summary: A two-phase hotel project. Phase I includes a 252-room hotel and Phase II includes a 292-room hotel. Status: Completed in March 2007. None; development is complete. Springhill Suites Marriott Location: 1240 South Walnut Site Size: 5.59 acres General Summary: A 120-unit hotel in addition to an existing Holiday Inn. Status: Ongoing. • Air Quality • Traffic Hermosa Village Phase IV Location: Southwest corner W alnut St. and Cerritos Ave. Site Size: 5 acres General Summary: Comprehensive neighborhood revitalization of an existing apartment complex to add 36 low income units. Status: Completed in January 2008. None; development is complete. Lake Hotel Development Location: 1820 South Harbor Boulevard General Summary: A 252-room hotel with retail and restaurant space. Status: Approved by City Council on March 31, 2009. • Air Quality • Traffic Ruth Chris Steak House Location: 2041 South Harbor Boulevard General Summary: An 8,517 square-foot restaurant. Status: Completed in April 2007. None; development is complete. Morton’s Steak House Location: 1855 South Harbor Boulevard General Summary: An 8,000 square-foot restaurant. Status: Completed in March 2007. None; development is complete. 109528/012 7-7 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder Name Project Description Potential Cumulative Impacts Battle of the Dance (Development Case #: DEV2009- 0083) Location: 2230 South Harbor Boulevard General Summary: A 42,360 square-foot dinner/dance theater. Status: Ongoing • Air Quality • Traffic Other Anaheim Projects SR-57 Northbound Widening between Katella Avenue and Lincoln Avenue This project will widen the northbound side of SR-57 from 0.31 mile south of Katella Avenue to 0.31 mile north of Lincoln Avenue. • Air Quality • Traffic Relocation of a Portion of the Orange County Feeder SCH #: 2009108081 MW D proposes to enter into a mutual agreement with Extron Electronics to relocate a portion of the Orange County Feeder, within the City. The agreement will include funds for final design, materials procurement, inspection, pipeline construction and relocation, and documentation for the new easement. None. Anaheim Public Utilities Pilot Storm Water Infiltration Project SCH #: 2009088239 This project will include constructing a pre- treatment system for stormwater runoff, installing an infiltration well down-gradient of the pre-treatment system, installing groundwater monitoring wells up and down- gradient of the infiltration system, and installing lysimeters to collect soil pore water below the infiltration system. None. CITY OF ORANGE City of Orange General Plan Update The Orange City Council adopted the 2010 General Plan on March 9, 2010. The General Plan provides the City of Orange with a multi-disciplinary strategy for achieving the vision in the context of the land use, circulation and mobility, housing, open space, conservation, public safety, noise, cultural resources and historic preservation, growth management, economic development, infrastructure and urban design elements. None. 109528/012 7-8 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder Name Project Description Potential Cumulative Impacts Orange Transportation Center Parking Structures A proposal to construct two parking structures wrapped with liner (commercial/residential) uses- one structure is proposed on the “West Chapman lot” and one on the “Lemon Street lot”. The West Chapman lot is located immediately west of the Orange Transportation Center (between Palm Avenue and Chapman Avenue). 509 parking spaces (406 in the proposed structure and 103 surface parking spaces) and 7,500 square feet of restaurant/retail uses are proposed on this lot. The Lemon Street lot is located on West Chapman Avenue and Lemon Street. 679 parking spaces in the proposed structure, 27 residential units and 23,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses are proposed on this lot. This project is in the planning and design phase. • Air Quality • Traffic Main Street Widening Project A proposal to widen Main Street between Chapman Avenue and Culver Avenue to add a NB and SB through lane, and restriping between Culver and La Veta Avenue to add a NB through lane. This project is approved and construction is scheduled for Spring 2011. • Air Quality The Block Expansion Project 20 The City Blvd. W est. (Reference Application Nos. MJSP No. 558-09, CUP No. 2725-08 & DRC No. 4370-08) Proposed expansion to The Block consisting of 105,000 sq ft. Phase I would entail of the construction of the proposed 35,000 square foot major tenant building. Modifications would be made to the existing parking area and landscaping surrounding the proposed 35,000 square foot building, to adjust traffic flow. Phase I would also entail the creation of a new parking area on the out-parcels on the southeastern corner of the project site. A portion of this new parking area would be used for valet parking. Phase II would involve the construction of the remaining 70,000 square feet of building space and reconfiguration of parking spaces and drop- off areas near the new buildings. This project is approved. • Air Quality 109528/012 7-9 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder Name Project Description Potential Cumulative Impacts Orange Gateway Located at the southeast corner of West Chapman Avenue & I-5. (Reference Application Nos. ENV 1804-08, ZC 1251-08, CUP -2724-08, MJSP 0557-08, DRC 4368- 08.) A proposal to develop a new commercial center with a Jack in the Box drive thru restaurant, and two commercial buildings with various retail services. 75,652 sq ft. subject parcel is currently un-zoned and also needs a General Plan designation. Applicant also proposes to utilize and obtain two remnant properties owned by the City of Orange. This project is approved and is in the building plan check process. • Air Quality Coca-Cola Warehouse Expansion 700 West Grove Avenue. (Reference Application Nos. ENV 1817-09, MJSP No 0594-09, DRC No. 4412-09) Proposal to add 51, 045 sq. ft to the west elevation of an existing Coca-Cola distribution warehouse facility. This project is approved and awaiting building plancheck submittals. • Air Quality Main Medical Plaza 396 South Main Street. (Reference Application No. MNSP 535-07). Request to construct a 7,981 SF medical office building with 38 parking spaces. This project is approved and awaiting building plancheck submittals. • Air Quality 109528/012 7-10 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder Name Project Description Potential Cumulative Impacts CHOC Hospital Expansion- 455 South Main Street. (Reference Application Nos. ZC No. 1252-08, MJSP No. 0504-07, CUP No. 2726-08, DRC No. 4209- 07, TM No. 0024-08 (TPM 2008-162) & ENV No. 1805-08.) A proposal to expand the existing hospital facilities and associated medical offices through multi-phased demolition, remodeling, and new construction. Project milestones are scheduled for 2012, 2015 and 2020. The primary focus of the project is to increase the number of hospital beds from 202 to 404, through the addition of 425,524 square feet and remodel of 54,250 square feet of the hospital towers. The existing 91,000 square foot medical offices and related parking structure at the northwest corner of La Veta and Pepper would be demolished. Approximately 85,600 square feet of general office space would be converted into medical offices in the existing building at the southeast corner of Main and La Veta. A new 175,000 square foot, with accompanying 875-space parking structure, is proposed at the northeast corner of Main and SR-22. This project is approved and under construction. • Air Quality Projects W ithin the Western Area of the City of Orange City of Orange 2006-2014 Housing Element SCH #: 2010011009 The Housing Element contains policies and actions to accommodate the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) growth needs through vacant land and the General Plan mixed-use land use designations. The quantified objective summary for the 2006- 2014 planning period includes 5,079 new construction units, 260 rehabilitation units, and 75 conservation and/or preservation units. None. 109528/012 7-11 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder Name Project Description Potential Cumulative Impacts Five Coves Bypass Pipeline Project SCH #: 2009121067 This proposed project involves the construction and operation of a 62-inch diameter bypass pipeline that will extend through Upper Five Coves Basin, Lower Five Coves Basin, and into the northern end of Burris Basin. The bypass pipeline will allow the individual isolation of Upper Five Coves Basin, Lower Five Coves Basin and Lincoln Basin while maintaining flow to the rest of the system. The project will increase storm water capture, improve groundwater recharge capability of the basins and provide greater operational flexibility of OCWD groundwater management system. None. Application to Appropriate Santa Ana River Water Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report SCH #: 2002081024 OCW D seeks to divert 505,000 acre-feet per annum of water from the Santa Ana River after it is released from Prado Dam by the USACE. OCW D will use the water to replenish the Basin through 26 recharge facilities. The recharge facilities were originally constructed for the purpose of flood control by USACE and the OCW D. OCW D proposes to collect the water to store year- round for the purpose of irrigation, domestic, recreation, municipal, industrial, fish and wildlife preservation and/or enhancement uses. The proposed project is an addendum to the Program Final EIR amending the program- level location of where a future surface water recharge basin could be constructed. None. 109528/012 7-12 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder Name Project Description Potential Cumulative Impacts Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan Update SCH #: 2009101033 The proposed Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan Update (SFDSPU) project area is 101.6 acres. 21.8 acres of the project area are currently within the existing Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan boundary. The SFDSPU will expand the boundary of the existing Santa Fe Depot Specific, which is centered on the Santa Fe Depot and the block in the immediate area, to add 79.8 acres. The majority of the SFDSPU area is developed with a mixture of residential, commercial, industrial and institutional uses. Build-out of the SFDSPU area under the current zoning will yield up to 770,510 square feet of development and a total of 448 residential units. Under the proposed SFDSPU, the uses will be reorganized and will yield up to 740,234 square feet of development and 506 residential units. None. City of Orange Focus Areas West Katella Avenue Corridor The proposed W est Katella Avenue Corridor is immediately west of ARTIC, across the Santa Ana River. Implementation of West Katella Avenue Corridor will result in the establishment of an active, mixed use residential gateway to the City of Orange. It will feature high-density residential uses that capitalize on development of expanded entertainment uses and housing across the Santa Ana River in the City; enhance retail options and convenience throughout west Orange; and maintain Katella Avenue’s commercial character with neighborhood- scale mixed use developments that transition into adjacent residential areas. Implementation of the West Katella Avenue Corridor urban mixed use corridor will increase the number of dwelling units per acre from 30 to 60, with a maximum floor area ratio of 3.0. None. 109528/012 7-13 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder Name Project Description Potential Cumulative Impacts Eckhoff Street/Collins Avenue The Eckhoff Street/Collins Avenue focus area encompasses the area north of Orangewood Avenue and south of Collins Channel (City of Orange, 2010). This area largely consists of professional offices, commercial uses, warehouses, and distribution centers. It has historically been planned and zoned for industrial use. Properties have been allowed to develop as offices, and areas adjacent to the offices have been allowed to develop as industrial parks. Demand for industrial and office use in this area has been strong, and the City of Orange seeks to provide options for lower- scale office uses and business-park oriented light industrial uses, as well as warehouse and distribution uses. None. Industrial Area The Industrial focus area is located immediately west of the Eckhoff Street focus area and north of the West Katella Corridor. The area’s land use is currently designated as industrial, and the General Plan discourages professional office uses in favor of true industrial uses within this area located west of Batavia Street and generally south of Grove Avenue. The General Plan encourages the expansion of current businesses and infill of vacant properties by increasing the maximum allowed development intensity. Primary uses permitted within the Industrial designation generally involve the manufacture, processing and distribution of goods. Wholesale activities, as well as small- scale, support retail, service commercial and offices may be established. Over time, market forces may create a demand for more office space, a category that is also permitted in this land use. Implementation of projects in the industrial focus area will result in higher traffic associated with the mobilization of goods, merchandise and workers. None. OTHER TRANSIT PROJECTS 109528/012 7-14 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder Name Project Description Potential Cumulative Impacts Anaheim Rapid Connection The project is envisioned to operate as a high-capacity system, providing convenient and efficient transfers to/from Metrolink, Amtrak, BRT, local bus, and future high- speed train services connecting at ARTIC. • Air Quality • Traffic California High- Speed Rail A high-speed train service for travel between major metropolitan areas in California. A program-level EIS/EIR was completed in 2005, which studied the environmental impacts of a proposed state-wide high-speed rail system connecting the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento in the north, through the Central Valley, to Los Angeles and San Diego in the south. CHSRA anticipates releasing a Draft EIR/EIS for the Los Angeles-Anaheim section in 2010. • Air Quality • Traffic CNSST CNSST is a proposal to connect southern California with southern Nevada. Recently this project did not receive stimulus funds and lost support for earmark funds from the 2005 transportation bill for Maglev. None. Desert Express The Desert Express is a privately funded high-speed rail project and is in the final stages of the EIR/EIS process. Construction could begin this year and begin operations in 2014. Expansion to Anaheim will be through Los Angeles County with an anticipated connection to the California High Speed Rail system. No date has been stated for the expansion. None. 109528/012 7-15 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder 7.1.2 Future Traffic An improved transportation center and other nearby development projects will result in increased traffic within the area. Development of a transportation center that will increase the availability of mass transit alternatives will help reduce the number of vehicles on the road regionally, which is consistent with the 2007 AQMP, the 2006 Regional Transportation Improvement Program, and other regional plan strategies. A CO hotspot analysis performed for the intersection most affected by the proposed project (i.e., Douglass Rd. and Katella Ave.) using the City of Anaheim’s traffic analysis model to predict traffic impacts from future development projects. The results showed that increased traffic levels in 2013 (with ARTIC) and in 2030 will not result in CO impacts above the State and Federal ambient air quality standards. The year 2013 and 2030 traffic analysis includes potential traffic from the nearby future projects. In addition, more stringent regulation of vehicle emissions will help to mitigate the air quality issues associated with additional development projects to some extent. The regional cumulative impact of the proposed project and nearby development projects is not considered cumulatively considerable. 7.1.3 Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emissions SCAQMD has released an interim significance threshold of 10,000 MT/yr, which was used as a point of comparison for the proposed project (see Table 4-4). ARTIC’s location relative to major event and destination centers within the Platinum Triangle creates availability of current and future mass transit systems to occupants and visitors. The result is less motor vehicle traffic on local roadways and freeways and a general reduction in motor vehicle travel throughout the region. Since motor vehicle traffic is the primary source of air pollution in the region, plans to reduce traffic, and thus GHG emissions, are consistent with the intent of the AQMP. Potential GHG emissions are not considered cumulatively considerable. 109528/012 8-1 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder 8.0 MITIGATION MEASURES AND EFFECT 8.1 MITIGATION MEASURES REQUIRED BY REGULATION AND VOLUNTARILY CONDUCTED BY ARTIC Any significant environmental impact of a proposed project must be identified and mitigated. The analysis of significant effects must include both direct project impacts and indirect impacts that may exceed significance thresholds or may potentially result in violations of ambient air quality standards. Construction activities from the proposed project (Table 4-2) will yield criteria pollutant emissions that will be less than the significance thresholds, with the exception of NOx. Operational emissions, both for criteria pollutants (Table 4-3) and TACS, are below significance thresholds. Since emissions of NOx during construction exceed the significance thresholds, there is a possibility that the construction activities could result in an exceedance of the ambient air quality standards on a local, temporary basis. 8.1.1 Construction Phase Mitigation Measures Mitigation of NOx emissions can occur through considerations of schedule and the addition of controls. Several of the road improvement stages will not occur simultaneously. The worst case emissions for the construction of the intermodal terminal occurs during the excavation activities. Excavation of the building basement and lowering of Douglass Road will be occurring along with the installation of the building piles and foundation. Work will also be occurring on the Douglass Road bridge and the stub-end track. Construction activities to widen Douglass Road, add the sidewalk, and add the turn lane to Katella Avenue will occur following this sequence. Greater mitigation can be achieved by the addition of diesel oxidation catalysts to large construction equipment. Diesel oxidation catalysts can achieve 20 percent reduction or more in NOx emissions when applied to mobile equipment greater than 150 brake horsepower, such as dozers, loaders, and water trucks. Table 8-1 shows that when mitigation measures of schedule and NOx controls are implemented, NOx emissions from the proposed construction project are less than the significance threshold. 109528/012 8-2 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder Table 8-1 Proposed Project Construction Daily Emissions with NOx Mitigation Construction Activity NOx (lb/day) ROG (lb/day) CO (lb/day) SOx (lb/day) PM10 (lb/day) PM2.5 (lb/day) CO2 (lb/day) Intermodal Terminal 73.6 9.7 57.0 0.1 45.0 12.0 12,977.8 Stub-end Track 8.4 1.4 7.6 <1 2.6 1.0 1,258.3 Douglass Road Bridge 16.1 2.4 10.7 <1 1.9 1.1 2,284.0 Total Proposed Project 98.1 13.5 75.3 <1 49.5 14.1 16,520.7 Significance Thresholds 100 75 550 150 150 55 - Significant? No No No No No No No Mitigation Measures: Consideration of scheduled construction sequences and addition of diesel oxidation catalyst with 20% NOx reduction. In order to ensure NOx mitigation as described above, mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce NOx emissions below the level of significance. Mitigation measures are presented below: AQ1 Excavation of the soil for the Intermodal Terminal shall precede excavation of Douglass Road under the bridge, and both activities shall occur in sequence. The sequencing of grading/excavation activities shall be noted on the grading plans submitted to the Anaheim Public W orks Department for review and approval and in the contractor’s specifications. AQ2 Exporting of soil during the excavation stage of the project shall be limited to 25 on-road truck trips per day during excavation and grading. An export plan showing quantities and identified haul route shall be shown on grading plans submitted to the Anaheim Public Works Department for review and approval and in the contractor’s specifications. AQ3 Road widening and sidewalk improvement projects shall occur following the completion of the excavating activities. Street improvement plans submitted to the Anaheim Public Works Department for review and approval shall indicate sequencing of the street improvements. AQ4 Construction off-road equipment with engines greater than or equal to 150 brake horsepower shall meet or exceed USEPA Tier 2 engine standards and shall be required to have diesel oxidation catalysts installed that meet or exceed 20 percent reduction in NOx. A complete list of construction equipment to be used at the project site shall be submitted to the contractor to confirm compliance with USEPA Tier 2 standards. AQ5 Diesel or gasoline power generators shall be limited to less than two hours of use per day. This restriction shall be clearly noted on the 109528/012 8-3 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder grading/excavation and building plans submitted to the Anaheim Public Works Department and Building Division for review and approval. This information shall also be included in the contractor’s specifications. BMPs will be implemented during construction activities to further minimize potential NOx emissions and potential ambient air quality impacts. BMPs: AQBMP1 Prohibit all diesel trucks from idling in excess of five minutes, both onsite and offsite. AQBMP2 Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. AQBMP3 Provide temporary traffic controls such as a flag person, during all sequences of construction to maintain smooth traffic flow. AQBMP4 Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on and offsite. AQBMP5 Schedule construction activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial system to off-peak hour to the extent practicable. AQBMP6 Reroute construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptor areas. AQBMP7 Improve traffic flow by signal synchronization. AQBMP8 Ensure that all vehicles and equipment will be properly tuned and maintained according to manufacturers’ specifications. Although potential fugitive emissions during construction do not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds, SCAQMD Rule 403 specifies BMPs to control dust during the construction portion of the project. AQBMP9 No visible dust emissions beyond the property line. AQBMP10 No dust emissions exceeding 20 percent opacity anywhere on the property. AQBMP11 No offsite increase in ambient PM10 concentrations greater than 50 µg/m3. AQBMP12 No track-out exceeding 25 feet from the property. AQBMP13 Implement wheel washing or paving to eliminate track out. AQBMP14 Employment of a dust control supervisor who has the authority to expeditiously employ sufficient dust mitigation measures to ensure compliance. AQBMP15 Use of watering to maintain soil moisture at 12 percent on haul roads and other active unpaved surfaces that are not chemically stabilized. AQBMP16 Use of watering to prevent visible dust more than 100 feet from any earth moving activity. 109528/012 8-4 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder AQBMP17 Use of watering, dust suppressants, covering with larger aggregate, and re-vegetation of inactive disturbed areas to prevent wind driven dust. AQBMP18 Implement daily watering and 15 mph speed limit on unpaved roads. AQBMP19 Use chemical stabilization, watering, covering, and enclosing methods for storage piles. AQBMP20 Cover, wet, and or maintain at least two free of freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials off-site. AQBMP21 Sweep streets hourly if visible soil material has been carried onto adjacent public paved roads (reclaim water shall be used if available). AQBMP22 Water active areas at least twice daily. AQBMP23 Cease grading activities that result in dust generation second stage smog alerts and periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 25 miles per hour [mph]) if dust is being transported to offsite locations and cannot be controlled by watering. 8.1.2 Operational Phase Mitigation Measures The facility will be designed to minimize emissions of all pollutants, including greenhouse gases as much as feasible. ARTIC’s location relative to major event and destination centers within the Platinum Triangle creates availability of current and future mass transit systems to occupants and visitors. The result will be less motor vehicle traffic on local roadways and freeways, and a general reduction in motor vehicle travel throughout the region. Since motor vehicle traffic is the primary source of air pollution in the region, plans to reduce traffic will result in lower emissions. No mitigation measures are required. 8.2 EFFECT OF MITIGATION MEASURES The required mitigation measures during construction will reduce potential emissions during construction below the level of significance. The planned operational mitigation measures will reduce emissions. 109528/012 9-1 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder 9.0 EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH A NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE If the proposed project is not constructed, there will be increased traffic congestion in the area (since mass transit will be less available), and other planned future projects will continue to be built. The potential ambient air quality impact of the No Project Alternative is greater than the proposed project. 109528/012 10-1 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder 10.0 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE 10.1 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ALONE With all sequences of construction considered, only NOx emissions potentially exceed the thresholds. With mitigation measures, which include schedule and equipment controls, construction emissions from ARTIC will be less than significant. 10.2 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ALONE None of the emissions from the proposed project exceed SCAQMD emission thresholds and thus the operational emissions are less than significant. 10.3 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS, TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS, AND ODOR IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ALONE Since the operational emissions of the proposed project are less than the SCAQMD emissions thresholds, it is not likely that the proposed project will cause or contribute to an exceedance of the ambient air quality standards. After the required mitigation measures are implemented, construction emissions will not cause or contribute to a localized exceedance of the ambient air quality standards for NOx and regionally for ozone (as NOx contributes to ozone formation). The remaining construction emissions are less than about 30 percent of the significance thresholds. Since construction activities are highly variable and there are a number of mitigation measures required, construction emissions for the other pollutants are not expected to cause an exceedance of an ambient air quality standard. Future traffic from the proposed project will not result in significant impacts of CO at the intersection most affected by the proposed project (i.e., Douglass Rd. and Katella Ave.) as shown in a CO Hotspots analysis. The proposed project will not create meaningful emissions of TACs other than diesel exhaust particulate. Other than during construction, there are no meaningful increases in emissions of diesel exhaust particulate (i.e., the diesel-fueled buses and trains already come into the area and the proposed project will not cause a meaningful increase in the number of buses and trains). Construction emissions of diesel exhaust particulate are of a relatively short term nature (few years) and would not contribute to a 109528/012 10-2 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder significant health risk since such risks occur only over relatively long term exposures (forty to seventy years). Potential TAC impacts are not significant. Potential odors from operations will not be distinguishable from the current uses of the areas surrounding the project location. Potential odors from construction activities would include vehicle exhaust, asphalt paving, and architectural coating. Nuisance odors from these activities would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the activity itself. Receptors immediately off-site may occasionally smell diesel exhaust from construction equipment. Any odors outside of the immediate area would be sufficiently diluted well below any objectionable levels. In either case, such exposure may result in brief periods of noticeable, yet not objectionable, odor from a minimal number of people. Therefore potential odor impacts are not considered significant. 10.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND OTHER FUTURE PROJECTS There are no future projects that alone would have meaningfully large emissions such that when combined with the operational emissions of the proposed project would likely cause or contribute to an exceedance of the ambient air quality standards. The proposed project operational emissions are below the SCAQMD significance thresholds. The emissions from the future proposed projects in the area would be similarly small or much smaller than the proposed project. Emissions are not considered cumulatively significant. Since construction emissions are highly variable, are of a short term nature, and do not occur at the same time as other projects, the construction emissions are not considered cumulatively significant. 10.5 GREENHOUSE GASES SCAQMD interim significance threshold of 10,000 MT/yr was used as a point of comparison for the proposed project. GHG emissions for the proposed project are the result of the use of electricity, natural gas combustion, and increased vehicle exhaust. The operational emissions from ARTIC (2030) were determined to be 5,531 MT/yr CO2e, which is about 55 percent of SCAQMD GHG significance threshold. The location of ARTIC relative to major event and destination centers within the Platinum Triangle creates availability of current and future mass transit systems to occupants and visitors. The result will be less motor vehicle traffic on local roadways 109528/012 10-3 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder and freeways, and a general reduction in motor vehicle travel throughout the region. Since motor vehicle traffic is the primary source of air pollution in the region, plans to reduce traffic will result in lower GHG emissions regionally. GHG emissions from the project would not have a significant impact on the environment. 109528/012 11-1 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder 11.0 REFERENCES California Air Resources Board, EMFAC2007 Computer Model, Version 2.3, November 2006. Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers, Traffic Impact Analysis Report ARTIC, April 2010 (updated 4/29). Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, Road Construction Emissions Model (RCEM), Version 6.3.2, July 2009. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Draft 2007 Air Quality Management Plan, November 2006. South Coast Air Quality Management District, SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rules and Regulations, March 2010. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Urban Emissions Model (URBEMIS) Computer Model, version 9.2.4, June 2007 USEPA, CAL3QHC Computer Model, MCB#6, September 2004. University of California, Davis, Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol, December 1997. APPENDIX A Construction Emissions of Criteria Pollutants A-1: Construction Emissions Summary A-2: Road Construction Emission Model – Douglas Road Bridge Reconstruction A-3: Road Construction Emission Model – Douglas Road 800 ft Sidewalk A-4: Road Construction Emission Model – Widen Douglas Road A-5: Road Construction Emission Model – Katella Avenue Right Turn Lane A-6: Road Construction Emission Model – Stub End Track A-7: Combined Summer Emission Report A-8: Combined Winter Emission Report A-1: Construction Emission Summary ARTIC Construction Emissions Summary - No Mitigation Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust ROG (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) SO2 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) CO2 (lbs/day) Urbemis Site & Building Construction 7.64 31.74 70.72 0.02 44.40 3.02 41.38 11.43 2.78 8.65 8,741.73 Stub-End Track (multiple stages)----------- Douglass Road Sidewalk ----------- Douglass Road Bridge 2.4 10.7 19.9 -1.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.2 2,284.00 Douglass Road Widening (S. of Katella)----------- Katella Road Widening (Rt. Turn Lane)----------- 2011 Total 10.04 42.44 90.62 0.02 46.30 3.92 42.38 12.53 3.68 8.85 11,025.73 Urbemis Site & Building Construction 9.69 57.1 86.5 0.08 44.98 3.59 41.63 11.95 3.3 8.74 12,977.76 Stub-End Track (multiple stages)1.4 7.6 10.5 -2.6 0.6 2.0 1 0.6 0.4 1,258.30 Douglass Road Sidewalk 0.4 2.1 1.4 -0.6 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 251.50 Douglass Road Bridge 2.4 10.7 19.9 -1.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.2 2,284.00 Douglass Road Widening (S. of Katella) 2.5 11.7 17.5 -3 1.1 2 1.3 1 0.4 2,012.50 Katella Road Widening (Rt. Turn Lane)----------- 2012 Total 16.39 89.2 135.8 0.08 53.08 6.29 47.13 15.55 5.9 9.84 18,784.06 Urbemis Site & Building Construction 51.76 47.88 47.51 0.05 43.78 2.50 41.49 10.79 2.29 8.69 9,212.30 Stub-End Track (multiple stages)1.4 7.6 10.5 -2.6 0.6 2.0 1 0.6 0.4 1,258.30 Douglass Road Sidewalk ----------- Douglass Road Bridge ----------- Douglass Road Widening (S. of Katella)----------- Katella Road Widening (Rt. Turn Lane)1.8 7.8 15.2 -1.6 0.9 1 0.8 0.8 0.2 1,541.60 2013 Total 54.96 63.28 73.21 0.05 47.98 4.00 44.49 12.59 3.69 9.29 12,012.20 54.96 89.20 135.80 0.08 53.08 6.29 47.13 15.55 5.90 9.84 18,784.06 Significance Threshold 75 550 100 150 150 --55 -- See Note. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary Construction Year CO2e (lb/day) CO2e (MT/yr) CO2e (MT/30-yrs) 2011 11,025.73 1,560.37 - 2012 18,784.06 2,658.34 - 2013 12,012.20 1,699.98 - Total 41,821.99 5,918.68 197.29 30-yr average CO2e (MT/30-yrs): (41,822.0 lb CO2/day) x (312 days/yr) / (2000 lb/ton) / (1.1023 ton/MT) / (30 yrs) = 197.3 MT/yr CO2e for construction Total "Worst Case", by Pollutant by Year Note: The SCAQMD in December 2008 published an "interim" threshold for GHG significance for stationary sources for which SCAQMD is the lead agency (only) of 10,000 metric tonnes (MT) of CO2 2011 2012 2013 ARTIC Emissions Summary_041910.xls, Construction Kleinfelder 4/20/2010 A-2: Road Construction Emission Model – Douglas Road Bridge Reconstruction Road Construction Emissions ModelVersion 6.3.2Data Entry WorksheetOptional data input sections have a blue background. Only areas with a yellow or blue background can be modified. Program defaults have a white background. The user is required to enter information in cells C10 through C25.Input TypeProject NameC - Douglass Rd Bridge ReconstructionConstruction Start Year 2012Enter a Year between 2005 and 2025 (inclusive)Project Type1 New Road Construction2 Road Widening3 Bridge/Overpass ConstructionProject Construction Time 9.0 monthsPredominant Soil/Site Type: Enter 1, 2, or 3 1. Sand Gravel2. Weathered Rock-Earth3. Blasted RockProject Length 0.019 milesTotal Project Area 0.3 acresMaximum Area Disturbed/Day 0.1 acresWater Trucks Used? 11. Yes 2. NoSoil Importedyd3/daySoil Exported 10.0yd3/dayAverage Truck Capacity 20.0yd3 (assume 20 if unknown)To begin a new project, click this button to clear data previously entered. This button will only workif you opted not to disable macros when loading this spreadsheet.Note: Required data input sections have a yellow background.31 Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 6.3.2 Emission Estimates for ->Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive DustProject Phases (English Units)ROG (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) CO2 (lbs/day)Grubbing/Land Clearing2.2 10.3 19.8 1.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.2 2,015.4 Grading/Excavation2.4 10.7 19.9 1.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.2 2,284.0 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 2.2 9.0 14.5 1.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.2 1,586.0 Paving- - - - - - - - - - Maximum (pounds/day)2.4 10.7 19.9 1.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.2 2,284.0 Total (tons/construction project)0.2 1.0 1.8 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 207.4 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2012Project Length (months) -> 9Total Project Area (acres) -> 0Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 0Total Soil Imported/Exported (yd3/day)->0Emission Estimates for ->Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive DustProject Phases (Metric Units)ROG (kgs/day) CO (kgs/day) NOx (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) CO2 (kgs/day)Grubbing/Land Clearing1.0 4.7 9.0 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.1 916.1 Grading/Excavation1.1 4.9 9.0 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.1 1,038.2 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 1.0 4.1 6.6 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.1 720.9 Paving- - - - - - - - - - Maximum (kilograms/day)1.1 4.9 9.0 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.1 1,038.2 Total (megagrams/construction project)0.2 0.9 1.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 188.1 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2012Project Length (months) -> 9Total Project Area (hectares) -> 0Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (hectares) -> 0Total Soil Imported/Exported (meters3/day)->0Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns H and I. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column J are the sume of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns K and L.ARTIC - Douglass Rd Bridge ReconstructionARTIC - Douglass Rd Bridge ReconstructionPM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns H and I. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column J are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns K and L. Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 6.3.2With NOx Mitigation Emission Estimates for ->Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive DustProject Phases (English Units)ROG (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) CO2 (lbs/day)Grubbing/Land Clearing16.1 Grading/Excavation16.1 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 12.0 Paving- Maximum (pounds/day)16.1 Total (tons/construction project)1.5 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2012Project Length (months) -> 9Total Project Area (acres) -> 0Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 0Total Soil Imported/Exported (yd3/day)->0Emission Estimates for ->Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive DustProject Phases (Metric Units)ROG (kgs/day) CO (kgs/day) NOx (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) CO2 (kgs/day)Grubbing/Land Clearing- - 7.3 - - - - - - - Grading/Excavation- - 7.3 - - - - - - - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade - - 5.5 - - - - - - - Paving- - - - - - - - - - Maximum (kilograms/day)- - 7.3 - - - - - - - Total (megagrams/construction project)- - 1.4 - - - - - - - Notes: Project Start Year -> 2012Project Length (months) -> 9Total Project Area (hectares) -> 0Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (hectares) -> 0Total Soil Imported/Exported (meters3/day)->0PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns H and I. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column J are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns K and L.PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns H and I. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column J are the sume of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns K and L.ARTIC - Douglass Rd Bridge ReconstructionARTIC - Douglass Rd Bridge Reconstruction A-3: Road Construction Emission Model – Douglas Road 800 ft Sidewalk Road Construction Emissions ModelVersion 6.3.2Data Entry WorksheetOptional data input sections have a blue background. Only areas with a yellow or blue background can be modified. Program defaults have a white background. The user is required to enter information in cells C10 through C25.Input TypeProject NameARTIC - Doug Rd. 800 ft SidewalkConstruction Start Year 2012Enter a Year between 2005 and 2025 (inclusive)Project Type1 New Road Construction2 Road Widening3 Bridge/Overpass ConstructionProject Construction Time 2.0 monthsPredominant Soil/Site Type: Enter 1, 2, or 3 1. Sand Gravel2. Weathered Rock-Earth3. Blasted RockProject Length 0.15 milesTotal Project Area 0.1 acresMaximum Area Disturbed/Day 0.1 acresWater Trucks Used? 11. Yes 2. NoSoil Importedyd3/daySoil Exportedyd3/dayAverage Truck Capacity 20.0yd3 (assume 20 if unknown)To begin a new project, click this button to clear data previously entered. This button will only workif you opted not to disable macros when loading this spreadsheet.Note: Required data input sections have a yellow background.12 Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 6.3.2 Emission Estimates for ->Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive DustProject Phases (English Units)ROG (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) CO2 (lbs/day)Grubbing/Land Clearing- - - - - - - - - - Grading/Excavation0.4 2.1 1.4 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 251.5 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.1 1.1 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 164.3 Paving- - - - - - - - - - Maximum (pounds/day)0.4 2.1 1.4 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 251.5 Total (tons/construction project)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2012Project Length (months) -> 2Total Project Area (acres) -> 0Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 0Total Soil Imported/Exported (yd3/day)->0Emission Estimates for ->Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive DustProject Phases (Metric Units)ROG (kgs/day) CO (kgs/day) NOx (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) CO2 (kgs/day)Grubbing/Land Clearing- - - - - - - - - - Grading/Excavation0.2 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 114.3 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 74.7 Paving- - - - - - - - - - Maximum (kilograms/day)0.2 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 114.3 Total (megagrams/construction project)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2012Project Length (months) -> 2Total Project Area (hectares) -> 0Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (hectares) -> 0Total Soil Imported/Exported (meters3/day)->0Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns H and I. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column J are the sume of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns K and L.ARTIC - Doug Rd. 800 ft SidewalkARTIC - Doug Rd. 800 ft SidewalkPM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns H and I. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column J are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns K and L. Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 6.3.2With NOx Mitigation Emission Estimates for ->Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive DustProject Phases (English Units)ROG (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) CO2 (lbs/day)Grubbing/Land Clearing- - - - - - - - - - Grading/Excavation1.1 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.4 Paving- Maximum (pounds/day)1.1 Total (tons/construction project)0.0 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2012Project Length (months) -> 2Total Project Area (acres) -> 0Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 0Total Soil Imported/Exported (yd3/day)->0Emission Estimates for ->Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive DustProject Phases (Metric Units)ROG (kgs/day) CO (kgs/day) NOx (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) CO2 (kgs/day)Grubbing/Land Clearing- - - - - - - - - - Grading/Excavation- - 0.5 - - - - - - - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade - - 0.2 - - - - - - - Paving- - - - - - - - - - Maximum (kilograms/day)- - 0.5 - - - - - - - Total (megagrams/construction project)- - 0.0 - - - - - - - Notes: Project Start Year -> 2012Project Length (months) -> 2Total Project Area (hectares) -> 0Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (hectares) -> 0Total Soil Imported/Exported (meters3/day)->0PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns H and I. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column J are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns K and L.PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns H and I. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column J are the sume of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns K and L.ARTIC - Doug Rd. 800 ft SidewalkARTIC - Doug Rd. 800 ft Sidewalk A-4: Road Construction Emission Model – Widen Douglas Road Road Construction Emissions ModelVersion 6.3.2Data Entry WorksheetOptional data input sections have a blue background. Only areas with a yellow or blue background can be modified. Program defaults have a white background. The user is required to enter information in cells C10 through C25.Input TypeProject Name - Widen Douglass Road (S. of Katella)Construction Start Year 2012Enter a Year between 2005 and 2025 (inclusive)Project Type1 New Road Construction2 Road Widening3 Bridge/Overpass ConstructionProject Construction Time 2.0 monthsPredominant Soil/Site Type: Enter 1, 2, or 3 1. Sand Gravel2. Weathered Rock-Earth3. Blasted RockProject Length 0.34 milesTotal Project Area 2.2 acresMaximum Area Disturbed/Day 0.2 acresWater Trucks Used? 11. Yes 2. NoSoil Importedyd3/daySoil Exportedyd3/dayAverage Truck Capacity 20.0yd3 (assume 20 if unknown)To begin a new project, click this button to clear data previously entered. This button will only workif you opted not to disable macros when loading this spreadsheet.Note: Required data input sections have a yellow background.22 Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 6.3.2 Emission Estimates for ->TotalExhaust Fugitive Dust TotalExhaust Fugitive DustProject Phases (English Units)ROG (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) CO2 (lbs/day)Grubbing/Land Clearing- - - - - - - - - - Grading/Excavation2.5 11.7 17.5 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.3 0.9 0.4 2,012.5 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 2.1 8.9 13.4 2.9 0.9 2.0 1.2 0.8 0.4 1,441.6 Paving2.3 8.9 12.9 1.1 1.1 - 1.0 1.0 - 1,240.2 Maximum (pounds/day)2.5 11.7 17.5 3.0 1.1 2.0 1.3 1.0 0.4 2,012.5 Total (tons/construction project)0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.1 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2012Project Length (months) -> 2Total Project Area (acres) -> 2Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 0Total Soil Imported/Exported (yd3/day)->0Emission Estimates for ->TotalExhaust Fugitive Dust TotalExhaust Fugitive DustProject Phases (Metric Units)ROG (kgs/day) CO (kgs/day) NOx (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) CO2 (kgs/day)Grubbing/Land Clearing- - - - - - - - - - Grading/Excavation1.1 5.3 7.9 1.4 0.4 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.2 914.8 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 1.0 4.0 6.1 1.3 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.2 655.3 Paving1.1 4.0 5.9 0.5 0.5 - 0.5 0.5 - 563.7 Maximum (kilograms/day)1.1 5.3 7.9 1.4 0.5 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.2 914.8 Total (megagrams/construction project)0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.7 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2012Project Length (months) -> 2Total Project Area (hectares) -> 1Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (hectares) -> 0Total Soil Imported/Exported (meters3/day)->0Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns H and I. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column J are the sume of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns K and L.ARTIC - Widen Douglass Road (S. of Katella)ARTIC - Widen Douglass Road (S. of Katella)PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns H and I. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column J are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns K and L. Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 6.3.2With NOx Mitigation Emission Estimates for ->Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive DustProject Phases (English Units)ROG (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) CO2 (lbs/day)Grubbing/Land Clearing- - - - - - - - - - Grading/Excavation14.2 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 11.7 Paving12.9 Maximum (pounds/day)14.2 Total (tons/construction project)0.3 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2012Project Length (months) -> 2Total Project Area (acres) -> 2Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 0Total Soil Imported/Exported (yd3/day)->0Emission Estimates for ->Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive DustProject Phases (Metric Units)ROG (kgs/day) CO (kgs/day) NOx (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) CO2 (kgs/day)Grubbing/Land Clearing- - - - - - - - - - Grading/Excavation- - 6.5 - - - - - - - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade - - 5.3 - - - - - - - Paving- - 5.9 - - - - - - - Maximum (kilograms/day)- - 6.5 - - - - - - - Total (megagrams/construction project)- - 0.3 - - - - - - - Notes: Project Start Year -> 2012Project Length (months) -> 2Total Project Area (hectares) -> 1Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (hectares) -> 0Total Soil Imported/Exported (meters3/day)->0PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns H and I. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column J are the sume of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns K and L.ARTIC - Widen Douglass Road (S. of Katella)PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns H and I. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column J are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns K and L.ARTIC - Widen Douglass Road (S. of Katella) A-5: Road Construction Emission Model – Katella Avenue Right Turn Lane Road Construction Emissions ModelVersion 6.3.2Data Entry WorksheetOptional data input sections have a blue background. Only areas with a yellow or blue background can be modified. Program defaults have a white background. The user is required to enter information in cells C10 through C25.Input TypeProject NameRTIC - Katella Ave Right Turn LaneConstruction Start Year 2012Enter a Year between 2005 and 2025 (inclusive)Project Type1 New Road Construction2 Road Widening3 Bridge/Overpass ConstructionProject Construction Time 1.0 monthPredominant Soil/Site Type: Enter 1, 2, or 3 1. Sand Gravel2. Weathered Rock-Earth3. Blasted RockProject Length 0.019 milesTotal Project Area 0.1 acresMaximum Area Disturbed/Day 0.1 acresWater Trucks Used? 11. Yes 2. NoSoil Importedyd3/daySoil Exportedyd3/dayAverage Truck Capacity 20.0yd3 (assume 20 if unknown)To begin a new project, click this button to clear data previously entered. This button will only workif you opted not to disable macros when loading this spreadsheet.Note: Required data input sections have a yellow background.22 Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 6.3.2 Emission Estimates for ->Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive DustProject Phases (English Units)ROG (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) CO2 (lbs/day)Grubbing/Land Clearing1.8 7.8 15.2 1.6 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.2 1,541.6 Grading/Excavation1.5 7.6 10.9 1.6 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.2 1,260.7 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade - - - 0.0 0.0 - - - - - Paving1.6 6.4 9.6 0.9 0.9 - 0.8 0.8 - 936.6 Maximum (pounds/day)1.8 7.8 15.2 1.6 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.2 1,541.6 Total (tons/construction project)0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.6 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2012Project Length (months) -> 1Total Project Area (acres) -> 0Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 0Total Soil Imported/Exported (yd3/day)->0Emission Estimates for ->Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive DustProject Phases (Metric Units)ROG (kgs/day) CO (kgs/day) NOx (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) CO2 (kgs/day)Grubbing/Land Clearing0.8 3.6 6.9 0.7 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.1 700.7 Grading/Excavation0.7 3.5 5.0 0.7 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.1 573.0 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade - - - 0.0 0.0 - - - - - Paving0.7 2.9 4.4 0.4 0.4 - 0.4 0.4 - 425.7 Maximum (kilograms/day)0.8 3.6 6.9 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.1 700.7 Total (megagrams/construction project)0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.3 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2012Project Length (months) -> 1Total Project Area (hectares) -> 0Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (hectares) -> 0Total Soil Imported/Exported (meters3/day)->0Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns H and I. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column J are the sume of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns K and L.ARTIC - Katella Ave Right Turn LaneARTIC - Katella Ave Right Turn LanePM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns H and I. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column J are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns K and L. A-6: Road Construction Emission Model – Stub End Track Road Construction Emissions ModelVersion 6.3.2Data Entry WorksheetOptional data input sections have a blue background. Only areas with a yellow or blue background can be modified. Program defaults have a white background. The user is required to enter information in cells C10 through C25.Input TypeProject Name ARTIC - Stub End TrackConstruction Start Year 2012Enter a Year between 2005 and 2025 (inclusive)Project Type1 New Road Construction2 Road Widening3 Bridge/Overpass ConstructionProject Construction Time 13.0 monthsPredominant Soil/Site Type: Enter 1, 2, or 3 1. Sand Gravel2. Weathered Rock-Earth3. Blasted RockProject Length 0.4735 milesTotal Project Area 1.1 acresMaximum Area Disturbed/Day 0.2 acresWater Trucks Used? 11. Yes 2. NoSoil Imported 0.0yd3/daySoil Exported 0.0yd3/dayAverage Truck Capacity 20.0yd3 (assume 20 if unknown)To begin a new project, click this button to clear data previously entered. This button will only workif you opted not to disable macros when loading this spreadsheet.Note: Required data input sections have a yellow background.12 Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 6.3.2 Emission Estimates for ->Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive DustProject Phases (English Units)ROG (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) CO2 (lbs/day)Grubbing/Land Clearing- - - - - - - - - - Grading/Excavation1.4 7.6 10.5 2.6 0.6 2.0 1.0 0.6 0.4 1,258.3 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 1.3 5.5 8.5 2.5 0.5 2.0 0.9 0.5 0.4 1,054.6 Paving- - - - - - - - - - Maximum (pounds/day)1.4 7.6 10.5 2.6 0.6 2.0 1.0 0.6 0.4 1,258.3 Total (tons/construction project)0.2 1.0 1.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 166.5 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2012Project Length (months) -> 13Total Project Area (acres) -> 1Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 0Total Soil Imported/Exported (yd3/day)->0Emission Estimates for ->Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive DustProject Phases (Metric Units)ROG (kgs/day) CO (kgs/day) NOx (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) CO2 (kgs/day)Grubbing/Land Clearing- - - - - - - - - - Grading/Excavation0.7 3.5 4.8 1.2 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.2 572.0 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.6 2.5 3.9 1.1 0.2 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.2 479.4 Paving- - - - - - - - - - Maximum (kilograms/day)0.7 3.5 4.8 1.2 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.2 572.0 Total (megagrams/construction project)0.2 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 151.0 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2012Project Length (months) -> 13Total Project Area (hectares) -> 0Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (hectares) -> 0Total Soil Imported/Exported (meters3/day)->0Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns H and I. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column J are the sume of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns K and L.ARTIC - Stub End TrackARTIC - Stub End TrackPM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns H and I. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column J are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns K and L. Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 6.3.2With NOx Mitigation Emission Estimates for ->Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive DustProject Phases (English Units)ROG (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) CO2 (lbs/day)Grubbing/Land Clearing- - - - - - - - - - Grading/Excavation8.4 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 7.6 Paving- Maximum (pounds/day)8.4 Total (tons/construction project)1.1 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2012Project Length (months) -> 13Total Project Area (acres) -> 1Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 0Total Soil Imported/Exported (yd3/day)->0Emission Estimates for ->Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive DustProject Phases (Metric Units)ROG (kgs/day) CO (kgs/day) NOx (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) CO2 (kgs/day)Grubbing/Land Clearing- - - - - - - - - - Grading/Excavation- - 3.8 - - - - - - - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade - - 3.4 - - - - - - - Paving- - - - - - - - - - Maximum (kilograms/day)- - 3.8 - - - - - - - Total (megagrams/construction project)- - 1.0 - - - - - - - Notes: Project Start Year -> 2012Project Length (months) -> 13Total Project Area (hectares) -> 0Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (hectares) -> 0Total Soil Imported/Exported (meters3/day)->0PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns H and I. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column J are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns K and L.PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns H and I. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column J are the sume of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns K and L.ARTIC - Stub End TrackARTIC - Stub End Track A-7: Combined Summer Emission Report A-8: Combined Winter Emission Report APPENDIX B Proposed Project Operational Emissions of Criteria Pollutants B-1: Operational Emissions Summary B-2: Combined Emissions Report – Existing Operations B-3: Combined Emissions Report – Operations B-1: Combined Winter Emission Report ARTIC Operations - Pounds per Day ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CO2e (MT/yr) 0.64 2.65 2.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,178.80 526.29 0.93 1.54 8.02 0.57 0.22 0.17 1,624.00 38.30 29.69 46.43 323.78 0.37 3.96 2.54 39,434.75 6,528.87 31.26 50.62 334.03 0.94 4.18 2.71 44,237.55 7,093.46 5.55 8.39 74.35 0.10 0.86 0.56 9,438.29 1,562.61 25.71 42.23 259.68 0.84 3.32 2.15 34,799.26 5,530.84 55 55 550 150 150 55 -- 10,000 MT/yr Note: CEQA interim GHG Sig Threshold is 10,000 metric tonnes per year (MT/yr) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). CO2e calculation assumes 365 working days per year, except for emergency generator run once per week (i.e., 52 days/yr) Total: 5,530.84 MT/yr CO2e (Operational) + 197.3 MT/yr CO2e (Construction) = 5,728.14 MT/yr CO2e. (Less than Sig Level). New ARTIC Building New Emergency Generator Existing Metrolink/AMTRAK Station Significance Threshold (lb/day) Delta (New - Existing) New Vehicle Traffic Total ARTIC Operational ARTIC Emissions Summary_070910.xls, Operations Kleinfelder 7/9/2010 Rating: 1000 kW hours: 1 hr/test 1400 hp VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 EF (g/bhp-hr)0.3 0.5 2.6 0.07 EF (lb/hp-hr)0.000661 0.001102 0.005732 0.000405 0.000154 0.000122 1.16 Emissions (lb/day)0.93 1.54 8.02 0.57 0.22 0.17 1624.00 Notes: 1. Emission Factor Source for SO2, PM2.5, & CO2: AP-42 5th Ed., Chapter 3.4 Tables 3.4-1 and 3.4-2, dated October 1996 4.78E-02 lb/MMBtu Large Gen PM2.5 EF (lb/hp-hr) = PM2.5 EF (lb/MMBtu) / .000393 (hp-hr/Btu) / 1,000,000 (Btu/MMBtu) = 1.22E-04 (lb/hp-hr) 3. Emission factor for SOx = 0.00809 x S, where S = sulfur content of the fuel (% by weight) = 0.05 % Large Gen SOx EF (lb/hp-hr) = 0.00809 * 0.05 2. Based on PM2.5 Emission Factor (AP-42 Section 3.4) = 4. Emission Factor Source for VOC (NMHC), NOx, CO, & PM10: CARB and USEPA Off-Road Compression-Ignition (Diesel) Engine Standards, Tier 4 Standards for engines >1200 hp. ARTIC Emissions Summary_070910.xls, Gen Kleinfelder 7/9/2010 B-2: Combined Winter Emission Report – Existing Operations B-3: Combined Winter Emission Report – Operations APPENDIX C CAL3QHC Model Input and Output CO Hot Spots C-1: EMFAC Input and Output Files C-2: CAL3QHC Input Detail and Summary Results C-3: CAL3QHC Input and Output Files (Available on CD) C-1: EMFAC Input and Output Files ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds Emfac2007-Header Version 2 30 3 501 Scenario-Count 1 End-Header Begin-Scenario 1 Title ARTIC_Emfac2007_Orange County_2009-2013-2035_EMAC Mode_CO Program-Mode Emfac Area-Method One-County Area-Type County Area-Number 30 [Orange County] HC-Mode ROG PM-Mode PM10 CYr 2009 2013 2035 MYr All Vehicles All Season Annual Emfac-Reports RTS RTL Emfac-Speed 0 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 10. 15. 20. 25. 30. 35. 40. 45. 50. 55. 60. 65. Emfac-RH 65. Emfac-Temp 73. End-Scenario Page 1 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts Title : ARTIC_Emfac2007_Orange County_2009-2013-2035_EMAC Mode_CO Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date : 2010/04/07 16:10:26 Scen Year: 2009 -- All model years in the range 1965 to 2009 selected Season : Annual Area : Orange ************************************************************************************ ***** Year: 2009 -- Model Years 1965 to 2009 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006 County Average Orange County Average Table 1: Running Exhaust Emissions (grams/mile; grams/idle-hour) Pollutant Name: Reactive Org Gases Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: 65% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0 0.000 0.000 3.364 8.058 0.000 0.000 0.698 1 0.452 0.506 0.798 5.213 4.102 4.862 0.685 2 0.452 0.506 0.798 5.213 4.102 4.862 0.685 3 0.431 0.483 0.771 5.213 4.102 4.862 0.663 4 0.392 0.440 0.721 5.213 4.102 4.862 0.622 5 0.358 0.401 0.676 5.213 4.102 4.862 0.587 10 0.234 0.263 0.443 3.070 2.794 3.766 0.378 15 0.161 0.182 0.305 1.676 1.982 3.060 0.251 20 0.117 0.132 0.221 1.015 1.464 2.608 0.179 25 0.090 0.101 0.167 0.798 1.126 2.332 0.140 30 0.073 0.082 0.133 0.640 0.901 2.189 0.114 35 0.062 0.070 0.111 0.528 0.751 2.157 0.098 40 0.056 0.062 0.098 0.455 0.650 2.231 0.089 45 0.053 0.059 0.090 0.414 0.586 2.422 0.086 50 0.053 0.058 0.087 0.405 0.549 2.758 0.087 55 0.055 0.061 0.089 0.424 0.535 3.292 0.093 60 0.061 0.067 0.096 0.471 0.542 4.119 0.105 65 0.071 0.077 0.109 0.547 0.571 5.396 0.125 Pollutant Name: Carbon Monoxide Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: 65% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0 0.000 0.000 20.685 42.021 0.000 0.000 4.076 1 4.972 6.050 8.093 23.332 34.412 32.077 6.480 2 4.972 6.050 8.093 23.332 34.412 32.077 6.480 3 4.890 5.953 7.985 23.332 34.412 32.077 6.392 4 4.733 5.768 7.780 23.332 34.412 32.077 6.225 5 4.585 5.593 7.589 23.332 34.412 32.077 6.068 10 3.965 4.851 6.089 16.078 22.565 26.545 5.052 15 3.493 4.279 5.080 11.482 15.662 23.054 4.328 20 3.123 3.827 4.372 8.608 11.504 20.996 3.798 25 2.827 3.463 3.858 6.918 8.942 20.049 3.403 30 2.588 3.168 3.477 5.768 7.353 20.082 3.100 35 2.394 2.927 3.195 4.996 6.398 21.118 2.869 40 2.239 2.734 2.990 4.511 5.888 23.343 2.700 Page 1 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts 45 2.120 2.582 2.854 4.268 5.732 27.159 2.589 50 2.036 2.472 2.786 4.253 5.902 33.296 2.539 55 1.991 2.404 2.793 4.480 6.427 43.052 2.562 60 1.992 2.389 2.894 4.992 7.403 58.737 2.683 65 2.057 2.440 3.128 5.882 9.019 84.565 2.950 Pollutant Name: Oxides of Nitrogen Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: 65% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0 0.000 0.000 3.696 69.981 0.000 0.000 2.499 1 0.318 0.555 1.003 18.772 26.433 0.879 1.053 2 0.318 0.555 1.003 18.772 26.433 0.879 1.053 3 0.313 0.546 0.993 18.772 26.433 0.879 1.046 4 0.303 0.528 0.972 18.772 26.433 0.879 1.033 5 0.295 0.512 0.953 18.772 26.433 0.879 1.021 10 0.257 0.440 0.824 13.840 20.494 0.893 0.813 15 0.229 0.388 0.732 10.763 16.727 0.911 0.676 20 0.208 0.349 0.668 9.442 14.353 0.933 0.604 25 0.193 0.321 0.625 8.967 12.928 0.960 0.566 30 0.182 0.301 0.599 8.668 12.203 0.989 0.541 35 0.175 0.288 0.586 8.530 12.055 1.021 0.527 40 0.171 0.281 0.586 8.550 12.455 1.056 0.525 45 0.170 0.280 0.600 8.736 13.457 1.093 0.533 50 0.172 0.284 0.627 9.111 15.214 1.133 0.552 55 0.177 0.294 0.671 9.715 18.020 1.175 0.585 60 0.186 0.311 0.736 10.614 22.395 1.221 0.636 65 0.198 0.336 0.829 11.914 29.251 1.269 0.711 Pollutant Name: Carbon Dioxide Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: 65% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0 0.000 0.000 840.088 4509.884 0.000 0.000 245.001 1 1179.570 1460.693 2004.852 2493.054 2560.202 237.713 1417.830 2 1179.570 1460.693 2004.852 2493.054 2560.202 237.713 1417.830 3 1144.351 1417.075 1955.877 2493.054 2560.202 237.713 1379.278 4 1078.313 1335.288 1864.044 2493.054 2560.202 237.713 1306.989 5 1017.689 1260.207 1779.740 2493.054 2560.202 237.713 1240.627 10 764.213 946.911 1313.372 2092.561 2406.322 201.492 935.677 15 597.584 740.864 1014.360 1800.119 2315.451 174.358 735.405 20 486.034 602.884 818.244 1600.060 2260.121 153.999 601.759 25 410.900 509.925 688.273 1514.381 2225.734 138.837 513.416 30 360.926 448.081 602.890 1450.701 2204.311 127.801 454.607 35 329.269 408.892 549.298 1404.008 2191.420 120.188 417.236 40 311.855 387.323 520.036 1371.555 2184.635 115.576 396.512 45 306.481 380.650 511.156 1351.994 2182.761 113.786 389.859 50 312.346 387.886 521.313 1344.963 2185.481 114.878 396.361 55 329.887 409.579 551.465 1350.988 2193.258 119.183 416.564 60 360.875 447.929 605.107 1371.631 2207.475 127.392 452.604 65 408.798 507.263 689.117 1409.968 2230.848 140.715 508.682 Pollutant Name: Sulfur Dioxide Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: Page 2 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts 65% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.043 0.000 0.000 0.002 1 0.011 0.014 0.019 0.024 0.025 0.003 0.014 2 0.011 0.014 0.019 0.024 0.025 0.003 0.014 3 0.011 0.014 0.019 0.024 0.025 0.003 0.013 4 0.010 0.013 0.018 0.024 0.025 0.003 0.013 5 0.010 0.012 0.017 0.024 0.025 0.003 0.012 10 0.007 0.009 0.013 0.020 0.023 0.002 0.009 15 0.006 0.007 0.010 0.017 0.022 0.002 0.007 20 0.005 0.006 0.008 0.015 0.022 0.002 0.006 25 0.004 0.005 0.007 0.015 0.021 0.002 0.005 30 0.004 0.004 0.006 0.014 0.021 0.002 0.004 35 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.013 0.021 0.002 0.004 40 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.013 0.021 0.002 0.004 45 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.013 0.021 0.002 0.004 50 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.013 0.021 0.002 0.004 55 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.013 0.021 0.002 0.004 60 0.003 0.004 0.006 0.013 0.021 0.002 0.004 65 0.004 0.005 0.007 0.014 0.021 0.003 0.005 Pollutant Name: PM10 Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: 65% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0 0.000 0.000 0.039 1.067 0.000 0.000 0.036 1 0.062 0.122 0.121 1.245 0.733 0.056 0.124 2 0.062 0.122 0.121 1.245 0.733 0.056 0.124 3 0.059 0.117 0.116 1.245 0.733 0.056 0.120 4 0.054 0.106 0.107 1.245 0.733 0.056 0.113 5 0.049 0.097 0.098 1.245 0.733 0.056 0.106 10 0.032 0.064 0.065 0.878 0.531 0.044 0.072 15 0.022 0.044 0.045 0.612 0.398 0.037 0.050 20 0.016 0.032 0.033 0.451 0.309 0.032 0.036 25 0.012 0.024 0.026 0.378 0.249 0.029 0.029 30 0.010 0.020 0.021 0.323 0.207 0.027 0.024 35 0.008 0.017 0.018 0.286 0.179 0.027 0.021 40 0.007 0.015 0.016 0.263 0.160 0.028 0.019 45 0.007 0.014 0.015 0.256 0.148 0.030 0.018 50 0.007 0.014 0.014 0.262 0.142 0.034 0.018 55 0.007 0.014 0.015 0.282 0.141 0.041 0.019 60 0.008 0.016 0.016 0.315 0.145 0.050 0.021 65 0.009 0.018 0.018 0.361 0.155 0.066 0.024 Pollutant Name: PM10 - Tire Wear Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: 65% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.020 0.009 0.004 0.008 2 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.020 0.009 0.004 0.008 3 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.020 0.009 0.004 0.008 Page 3 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts 4 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.020 0.009 0.004 0.008 5 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.020 0.009 0.004 0.008 10 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.020 0.009 0.004 0.008 15 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.020 0.009 0.004 0.008 20 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.020 0.009 0.004 0.008 25 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.020 0.009 0.004 0.008 30 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.020 0.009 0.004 0.008 35 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.020 0.009 0.004 0.008 40 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.020 0.009 0.004 0.008 45 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.020 0.009 0.004 0.008 50 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.020 0.009 0.004 0.008 55 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.020 0.009 0.004 0.008 60 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.020 0.009 0.004 0.008 65 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.020 0.009 0.004 0.008 Pollutant Name: PM10 - Brake Wear Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: 65% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.018 0.013 0.006 0.013 2 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.018 0.013 0.006 0.013 3 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.018 0.013 0.006 0.013 4 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.018 0.013 0.006 0.013 5 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.018 0.013 0.006 0.013 10 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.018 0.013 0.006 0.013 15 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.018 0.013 0.006 0.013 20 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.018 0.013 0.006 0.013 25 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.018 0.013 0.006 0.013 30 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.018 0.013 0.006 0.013 35 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.018 0.013 0.006 0.013 40 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.018 0.013 0.006 0.013 45 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.018 0.013 0.006 0.013 50 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.018 0.013 0.006 0.013 55 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.018 0.013 0.006 0.013 60 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.018 0.013 0.006 0.013 65 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.018 0.013 0.006 0.013 Pollutant Name: Gasoline - mi/gal Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: 65% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 7.451 5.989 4.253 3.373 3.207 29.173 6.644 2 7.451 5.989 4.253 3.373 3.207 29.173 6.644 3 7.680 6.173 4.369 3.373 3.207 29.173 6.840 4 8.150 6.551 4.606 3.373 3.207 29.173 7.241 5 8.634 6.941 4.850 3.373 3.207 29.173 7.656 10 11.489 9.235 6.541 5.070 4.821 34.698 10.177 15 14.683 11.801 8.468 7.214 6.862 40.183 12.998 20 18.042 14.500 10.533 9.715 9.245 45.325 15.970 25 21.333 17.145 12.589 12.385 11.791 49.785 18.883 30 24.283 19.517 14.455 14.944 14.235 53.202 21.495 35 26.620 21.397 15.948 17.067 16.268 55.223 23.563 40 28.115 22.600 16.905 18.450 17.597 55.537 24.880 Page 4 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts 45 28.623 23.010 17.223 18.877 18.017 53.930 25.316 50 28.104 22.594 16.870 18.280 17.460 50.337 24.834 55 26.630 21.408 15.897 16.755 16.014 44.912 23.497 60 24.361 19.583 14.421 14.535 13.901 38.070 21.454 65 21.520 17.297 12.601 11.934 11.421 30.472 18.907 Pollutant Name: Diesel - mi/gal Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: 65% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 27.922 29.024 19.715 4.986 3.921 0.000 10.177 2 27.922 29.024 19.715 4.986 3.921 0.000 10.177 3 27.922 29.024 19.715 4.986 3.921 0.000 10.177 4 27.922 29.024 19.715 4.986 3.921 0.000 10.177 5 27.922 29.024 19.715 4.986 3.921 0.000 10.177 10 27.922 29.024 19.715 5.222 3.921 0.000 10.335 15 27.922 29.024 19.715 5.516 3.921 0.000 10.531 20 27.922 29.024 19.715 5.824 3.921 0.000 10.736 25 27.922 29.024 19.715 5.957 3.921 0.000 10.825 30 27.922 29.024 19.715 6.085 3.921 0.000 10.911 35 27.922 29.024 19.715 6.201 3.921 0.000 10.988 40 27.922 29.024 19.715 6.299 3.921 0.000 11.054 45 27.922 29.024 19.715 6.373 3.921 0.000 11.103 50 27.922 29.024 19.715 6.419 3.921 0.000 11.133 55 27.922 29.024 19.715 6.431 3.921 0.000 11.142 60 27.922 29.024 19.715 6.411 3.921 0.000 11.128 65 27.922 29.024 19.715 6.358 3.921 0.000 11.093 Title : ARTIC_Emfac2007_Orange County_2009-2013-2035_EMAC Mode_CO Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date : 2010/04/07 16:10:26 Scen Year: 2009 -- All model years in the range 1965 to 2009 selected Season : Annual Area : Orange ************************************************************************************ ***** Year: 2009 -- Model Years 1965 to 2009 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006 County Average Orange County Average Table 2: Starting Emissions (grams/trip) Pollutant Name: Reactive Org Gases Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: ALL Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.071 0.065 0.140 0.400 0.271 1.110 0.105 Page 5 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts 10 0.115 0.110 0.251 0.568 0.411 1.165 0.168 20 0.199 0.195 0.460 0.882 0.671 1.293 0.286 30 0.276 0.273 0.647 1.168 0.906 1.444 0.393 40 0.345 0.343 0.815 1.425 1.115 1.619 0.489 50 0.406 0.406 0.962 1.654 1.298 1.817 0.575 60 0.458 0.459 1.086 1.832 1.442 1.931 0.647 120 0.602 0.622 1.401 2.116 1.678 2.098 0.833 180 0.623 0.645 1.471 2.254 1.785 2.253 0.870 240 0.660 0.684 1.558 2.388 1.889 2.418 0.922 300 0.697 0.722 1.642 2.518 1.990 2.581 0.973 360 0.732 0.759 1.724 2.645 2.089 2.744 1.023 420 0.767 0.795 1.804 2.769 2.184 2.905 1.071 480 0.801 0.831 1.882 2.889 2.276 3.065 1.119 540 0.834 0.866 1.959 3.005 2.366 3.223 1.165 600 0.867 0.900 2.033 3.118 2.452 3.381 1.210 660 0.898 0.934 2.105 3.227 2.536 3.537 1.254 720 0.929 0.966 2.175 3.333 2.617 3.691 1.297 Pollutant Name: Carbon Monoxide Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: ALL Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.657 0.677 1.506 5.031 3.113 5.052 1.057 10 1.084 1.178 2.703 7.150 5.024 4.878 1.717 20 1.898 2.130 4.963 11.150 8.614 4.610 2.969 30 2.654 3.017 7.044 14.833 11.898 4.449 4.128 40 3.355 3.839 8.947 18.198 14.874 4.395 5.197 50 4.000 4.597 10.670 21.247 17.544 4.448 6.174 60 4.588 5.289 12.214 23.979 19.906 4.609 7.059 120 6.712 7.777 16.710 31.511 25.865 7.574 9.969 180 6.848 7.963 17.242 33.335 26.981 9.322 10.283 240 7.289 8.483 18.099 35.088 28.080 11.032 10.892 300 7.692 8.957 18.907 36.768 29.164 12.559 11.457 360 8.059 9.385 19.667 38.376 30.232 13.903 11.977 420 8.389 9.767 20.380 39.912 31.284 15.065 12.454 480 8.682 10.104 21.044 41.377 32.320 16.044 12.886 540 8.938 10.395 21.661 42.769 33.341 16.840 13.274 600 9.158 10.639 22.229 44.089 34.345 17.453 13.619 660 9.341 10.838 22.750 45.337 35.334 17.883 13.919 720 9.487 10.991 23.223 46.513 36.308 18.131 14.174 Pollutant Name: Oxides of Nitrogen Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: ALL Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.219 0.366 0.801 0.662 0.710 0.208 0.384 10 0.253 0.410 0.971 0.983 1.064 0.234 0.459 20 0.313 0.489 1.270 1.548 1.686 0.282 0.590 30 0.363 0.555 1.517 2.008 2.192 0.322 0.699 40 0.402 0.608 1.710 2.364 2.584 0.355 0.784 50 0.432 0.647 1.851 2.616 2.861 0.381 0.847 60 0.450 0.673 1.938 2.764 3.023 0.400 0.886 120 0.471 0.712 2.008 2.778 3.038 0.402 0.920 180 0.470 0.711 2.002 2.766 3.026 0.394 0.917 240 0.467 0.706 1.989 2.749 3.008 0.383 0.911 Page 6 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts 300 0.462 0.698 1.970 2.726 2.985 0.370 0.902 360 0.455 0.687 1.944 2.698 2.955 0.355 0.889 420 0.446 0.673 1.912 2.664 2.919 0.337 0.874 480 0.436 0.657 1.874 2.624 2.877 0.316 0.855 540 0.423 0.637 1.829 2.578 2.829 0.292 0.834 600 0.410 0.615 1.779 2.527 2.776 0.266 0.809 660 0.394 0.590 1.722 2.470 2.716 0.238 0.781 720 0.377 0.563 1.659 2.407 2.650 0.207 0.751 Pollutant Name: Carbon Dioxide Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: ALL Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 11.166 13.946 17.429 7.899 4.000 25.430 13.003 10 13.495 16.566 22.209 11.455 5.807 28.048 15.907 20 18.506 22.285 32.267 18.491 9.382 33.149 22.103 30 23.985 28.644 42.991 25.425 12.906 38.071 28.817 40 29.933 35.643 54.380 32.257 16.377 42.815 36.050 50 36.349 43.281 66.435 38.988 19.797 47.381 43.801 60 43.234 51.559 79.155 45.616 23.166 51.768 52.070 120 90.820 111.134 160.493 74.554 37.870 72.062 107.831 180 103.840 126.911 184.706 85.948 43.664 73.895 123.424 240 116.603 142.443 208.248 96.671 49.116 75.622 138.672 300 129.111 157.729 231.120 106.721 54.227 77.244 153.575 360 141.364 172.769 253.321 116.100 58.996 78.761 168.133 420 153.360 187.563 274.851 124.806 63.423 80.173 182.346 480 165.101 202.111 295.710 132.841 67.509 81.479 196.214 540 176.587 216.413 315.899 140.203 71.252 82.680 209.738 600 187.817 230.469 335.416 146.894 74.655 83.776 222.916 660 198.791 244.279 354.263 152.913 77.715 84.766 235.750 720 209.509 257.843 372.439 158.259 80.434 85.651 248.238 Pollutant Name: Sulfur Dioxide Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: ALL Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 20 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 30 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 40 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.000 50 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.001 60 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 120 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 180 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 240 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.002 300 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.002 360 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.002 420 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.002 480 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.002 540 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.002 600 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.002 660 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.003 720 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.003 Page 7 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts Pollutant Name: PM10 Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: ALL Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.014 0.001 10 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.013 0.002 20 0.002 0.004 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.010 0.003 30 0.003 0.006 0.006 0.002 0.001 0.008 0.005 40 0.004 0.008 0.007 0.003 0.002 0.006 0.006 50 0.005 0.010 0.009 0.003 0.002 0.005 0.007 60 0.006 0.011 0.010 0.004 0.002 0.004 0.008 120 0.009 0.017 0.015 0.005 0.003 0.010 0.012 180 0.009 0.018 0.016 0.006 0.003 0.015 0.013 240 0.010 0.019 0.016 0.006 0.004 0.020 0.014 300 0.011 0.020 0.017 0.006 0.004 0.024 0.014 360 0.011 0.021 0.018 0.006 0.004 0.028 0.015 420 0.011 0.022 0.019 0.007 0.004 0.031 0.016 480 0.012 0.023 0.019 0.007 0.004 0.033 0.016 540 0.012 0.024 0.020 0.007 0.004 0.035 0.017 600 0.012 0.024 0.020 0.007 0.004 0.036 0.017 660 0.013 0.025 0.021 0.008 0.004 0.037 0.017 720 0.013 0.025 0.021 0.008 0.005 0.038 0.018 Title : ARTIC_Emfac2007_Orange County_2009-2013-2035_EMAC Mode_CO Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date : 2010/04/07 16:10:26 Scen Year: 2009 -- All model years in the range 1965 to 2009 selected Season : Annual Area : Orange ************************************************************************************ ***** Year: 2009 -- Model Years 1965 to 2009 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006 County Average Orange County Average Table 4: Hot Soak Emissions (grams/trip) Pollutant Name: Reactive Org Gases Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: ALL Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.061 0.050 0.035 0.012 0.067 0.146 0.052 10 0.114 0.093 0.064 0.023 0.123 0.271 0.096 20 0.195 0.160 0.112 0.039 0.210 0.468 0.165 30 0.252 0.208 0.146 0.051 0.270 0.610 0.215 40 0.274 0.227 0.159 0.056 0.292 0.666 0.233 Hot soak results are scaled to reflect zero emissions for trip lengths of less than Page 8 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts 5 minutes (about 25% of in-use trips). Title : ARTIC_Emfac2007_Orange County_2009-2013-2035_EMAC Mode_CO Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date : 2010/04/07 16:10:26 Scen Year: 2009 -- All model years in the range 1965 to 2009 selected Season : Annual Area : Orange ************************************************************************************ ***** Year: 2009 -- Model Years 1965 to 2009 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006 County Average Orange County Average Table 5a: Partial Day Diurnal Loss Emissions (grams/hour) Pollutant Name: Reactive Org Gases Temperature: ALL Relative Humidity: ALL Temp degF LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 73 0.136 0.112 0.086 0.010 0.004 0.338 0.126 Title : ARTIC_Emfac2007_Orange County_2009-2013-2035_EMAC Mode_CO Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date : 2010/04/07 16:10:26 Scen Year: 2009 -- All model years in the range 1965 to 2009 selected Season : Annual Area : Orange ************************************************************************************ ***** Year: 2009 -- Model Years 1965 to 2009 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006 County Average Orange County Average Table 5b: Multi-Day Diurnal Loss Emissions (grams/hour) Pollutant Name: Reactive Org Gases Temperature: ALL Relative Humidity: ALL Temp degF LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 73 0.011 0.009 0.007 0.000 0.001 0.029 0.010 Page 9 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts Title : ARTIC_Emfac2007_Orange County_2009-2013-2035_EMAC Mode_CO Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date : 2010/04/07 16:10:26 Scen Year: 2009 -- All model years in the range 1965 to 2009 selected Season : Annual Area : Orange ************************************************************************************ ***** Year: 2009 -- Model Years 1965 to 2009 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006 County Average Orange County Average Table 6a: Partial Day Resting Loss Emissions (grams/hour) Pollutant Name: Reactive Org Gases Temperature: ALL Relative Humidity: ALL Temp degF LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 73 0.055 0.048 0.038 0.005 0.002 0.119 0.051 Title : ARTIC_Emfac2007_Orange County_2009-2013-2035_EMAC Mode_CO Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date : 2010/04/07 16:10:26 Scen Year: 2009 -- All model years in the range 1965 to 2009 selected Season : Annual Area : Orange ************************************************************************************ ***** Year: 2009 -- Model Years 1965 to 2009 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006 County Average Orange County Average Table 6b: Multi-Day Resting Loss Emissions (grams/hour) Pollutant Name: Reactive Org Gases Temperature: ALL Relative Humidity: ALL Temp degF LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 73 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.004 Page 10 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts Title : ARTIC_Emfac2007_Orange County_2009-2013-2035_EMAC Mode_CO Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date : 2010/04/07 16:10:26 Scen Year: 2009 -- All model years in the range 1965 to 2009 selected Season : Annual Area : Orange ************************************************************************************ ***** Year: 2009 -- Model Years 1965 to 2009 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006 County Average Orange County Average Table 7: Estimated Travel Fractions Pollutant Name: Temperature: ALL Relative Humidity: ALL LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL %VMT 0.506 0.319 0.140 0.028 0.001 0.006 1.000 %TRIP 0.489 0.278 0.177 0.048 0.000 0.008 1.000 %VEH 0.530 0.300 0.122 0.020 0.000 0.028 1.000 Title : ARTIC_Emfac2007_Orange County_2009-2013-2035_EMAC Mode_CO Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date : 2010/04/07 16:10:26 Scen Year: 2009 -- All model years in the range 1965 to 2009 selected Season : Annual Area : Orange ************************************************************************************ ***** Year: 2009 -- Model Years 1965 to 2009 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006 County Average Orange County Average Table 8: Evaporative Running Loss Emissions (grams/minute) Pollutant Name: Reactive Org Gases Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: ALL Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 1 0.021 0.307 0.280 0.197 0.464 0.080 0.155 Page 11 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts 2 0.025 0.159 0.146 0.107 0.251 0.116 0.088 3 0.029 0.112 0.103 0.078 0.180 0.135 0.068 4 0.032 0.090 0.083 0.063 0.145 0.145 0.059 5 0.035 0.076 0.071 0.054 0.124 0.153 0.054 10 0.039 0.053 0.049 0.038 0.082 0.170 0.046 15 0.041 0.047 0.044 0.032 0.068 0.177 0.044 20 0.042 0.046 0.043 0.030 0.062 0.182 0.044 25 0.043 0.047 0.044 0.029 0.058 0.186 0.045 30 0.042 0.047 0.043 0.029 0.058 0.184 0.044 35 0.042 0.046 0.043 0.028 0.057 0.182 0.044 40 0.042 0.045 0.042 0.028 0.057 0.181 0.043 45 0.041 0.045 0.042 0.028 0.057 0.179 0.043 50 0.040 0.044 0.041 0.028 0.056 0.175 0.042 55 0.039 0.044 0.041 0.028 0.056 0.171 0.042 60 0.039 0.044 0.041 0.027 0.055 0.167 0.041 Title : ARTIC_Emfac2007_Orange County_2009-2013-2035_EMAC Mode_CO Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date : 2010/04/07 16:10:26 Scen Year: 2013 -- All model years in the range 1969 to 2013 selected Season : Annual Area : Orange ************************************************************************************ ***** Year: 2013 -- Model Years 1969 to 2013 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006 County Average Orange County Average Table 1: Running Exhaust Emissions (grams/mile; grams/idle-hour) Pollutant Name: Reactive Org Gases Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: 65% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0 0.000 0.000 3.321 7.350 0.000 0.000 0.679 1 0.260 0.357 0.602 3.798 3.831 4.732 0.477 2 0.260 0.357 0.602 3.798 3.831 4.732 0.477 3 0.247 0.340 0.580 3.798 3.831 4.732 0.462 4 0.224 0.309 0.540 3.798 3.831 4.732 0.435 5 0.204 0.281 0.505 3.798 3.831 4.732 0.411 10 0.131 0.181 0.329 2.216 2.608 3.605 0.262 15 0.089 0.124 0.226 1.199 1.850 2.885 0.172 20 0.064 0.089 0.163 0.733 1.367 2.427 0.122 25 0.049 0.068 0.124 0.584 1.051 2.147 0.096 30 0.039 0.055 0.098 0.474 0.841 1.997 0.079 35 0.033 0.046 0.082 0.394 0.701 1.953 0.068 40 0.029 0.041 0.072 0.340 0.607 2.010 0.062 45 0.028 0.039 0.066 0.308 0.547 2.173 0.059 50 0.027 0.038 0.064 0.298 0.513 2.470 0.060 55 0.029 0.040 0.066 0.306 0.499 2.948 0.065 60 0.032 0.044 0.071 0.334 0.506 3.691 0.074 65 0.037 0.050 0.080 0.381 0.533 4.847 0.088 Page 12 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts Pollutant Name: Carbon Monoxide Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: 65% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0 0.000 0.000 20.580 40.855 0.000 0.000 4.069 1 3.193 4.546 6.195 16.132 31.116 26.383 4.609 2 3.193 4.546 6.195 16.132 31.116 26.383 4.609 3 3.149 4.481 6.118 16.132 31.116 26.383 4.556 4 3.063 4.357 5.970 16.132 31.116 26.383 4.453 5 2.982 4.240 5.832 16.132 31.116 26.383 4.355 10 2.631 3.729 4.769 10.978 20.395 22.144 3.672 15 2.351 3.322 4.038 7.718 14.150 19.394 3.177 20 2.122 2.991 3.513 5.746 10.390 17.697 2.808 25 1.931 2.719 3.123 4.647 8.073 16.819 2.529 30 1.772 2.491 2.825 3.904 6.637 16.663 2.310 35 1.638 2.301 2.598 3.411 5.773 17.242 2.138 40 1.526 2.143 2.425 3.108 5.312 18.689 2.007 45 1.433 2.014 2.302 2.965 5.170 21.288 1.914 50 1.359 1.911 2.226 2.971 5.323 25.560 1.860 55 1.304 1.836 2.201 3.135 5.797 32.431 1.854 60 1.271 1.791 2.240 3.484 6.677 43.552 1.911 65 1.265 1.785 2.366 4.076 8.134 61.934 2.060 Pollutant Name: Oxides of Nitrogen Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: 65% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0 0.000 0.000 3.734 74.300 0.000 0.000 2.721 1 0.207 0.405 0.758 13.071 24.387 0.932 0.768 2 0.207 0.405 0.758 13.071 24.387 0.932 0.768 3 0.204 0.398 0.750 13.071 24.387 0.932 0.763 4 0.198 0.386 0.734 13.071 24.387 0.932 0.754 5 0.192 0.374 0.720 13.071 24.387 0.932 0.745 10 0.167 0.322 0.622 9.727 18.911 0.915 0.595 15 0.148 0.283 0.553 7.596 15.437 0.909 0.495 20 0.134 0.255 0.504 6.615 13.248 0.910 0.440 25 0.124 0.234 0.471 6.234 11.935 0.918 0.410 30 0.116 0.219 0.451 5.983 11.267 0.933 0.391 35 0.111 0.209 0.441 5.850 11.131 0.953 0.380 40 0.108 0.203 0.441 5.833 11.501 0.978 0.376 45 0.107 0.202 0.450 5.938 12.425 1.009 0.381 50 0.108 0.204 0.470 6.181 14.046 1.045 0.395 55 0.111 0.211 0.503 6.591 16.634 1.087 0.420 60 0.116 0.223 0.551 7.212 20.669 1.135 0.457 65 0.123 0.240 0.622 8.120 26.992 1.191 0.513 Pollutant Name: Carbon Dioxide Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: 65% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL Page 13 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts 0 0.000 0.000 862.969 4616.954 0.000 0.000 256.718 1 1169.635 1463.615 2005.392 2541.044 2542.069 253.168 1415.424 2 1169.635 1463.615 2005.392 2541.044 2542.069 253.168 1415.424 3 1134.718 1419.892 1956.715 2541.044 2542.069 253.168 1377.125 4 1069.248 1337.909 1865.441 2541.044 2542.069 253.168 1305.311 5 1009.146 1262.648 1781.650 2541.044 2542.069 253.168 1239.384 10 757.674 948.539 1313.927 2134.453 2365.562 212.610 934.951 15 592.382 741.963 1014.247 1833.929 2261.329 183.224 734.903 20 481.738 603.631 817.804 1627.189 2197.863 161.987 601.389 25 407.219 510.437 687.677 1540.453 2158.420 146.929 513.317 30 357.660 448.438 602.222 1475.290 2133.847 136.787 454.669 35 326.268 409.152 548.597 1427.033 2119.060 130.808 417.383 40 309.004 387.530 519.321 1393.127 2111.277 128.636 396.691 45 303.680 380.841 510.439 1372.315 2109.128 130.279 390.032 50 309.501 388.095 520.602 1364.262 2112.248 136.130 396.493 55 326.898 409.842 550.780 1369.456 2121.169 147.060 416.623 60 357.626 448.285 604.485 1389.353 2137.476 164.617 452.552 65 405.139 507.761 688.631 1426.814 2164.285 191.376 508.470 Pollutant Name: Sulfur Dioxide Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: 65% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.044 0.000 0.000 0.003 1 0.011 0.014 0.019 0.024 0.025 0.003 0.014 2 0.011 0.014 0.019 0.024 0.025 0.003 0.014 3 0.011 0.014 0.019 0.024 0.025 0.003 0.013 4 0.010 0.013 0.018 0.024 0.025 0.003 0.013 5 0.010 0.012 0.017 0.024 0.025 0.003 0.012 10 0.007 0.009 0.013 0.020 0.023 0.002 0.009 15 0.006 0.007 0.010 0.018 0.022 0.002 0.007 20 0.005 0.006 0.008 0.016 0.021 0.002 0.006 25 0.004 0.005 0.007 0.015 0.021 0.002 0.005 30 0.003 0.004 0.006 0.014 0.020 0.002 0.004 35 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.014 0.020 0.002 0.004 40 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.013 0.020 0.002 0.004 45 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.013 0.020 0.002 0.004 50 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.013 0.020 0.002 0.004 55 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.013 0.020 0.002 0.004 60 0.003 0.004 0.006 0.013 0.020 0.002 0.004 65 0.004 0.005 0.007 0.014 0.021 0.003 0.005 Pollutant Name: PM10 Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: 65% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0 0.000 0.000 0.038 0.839 0.000 0.000 0.030 1 0.065 0.140 0.142 0.818 0.681 0.042 0.122 2 0.065 0.140 0.142 0.818 0.681 0.042 0.122 3 0.062 0.133 0.136 0.818 0.681 0.042 0.118 4 0.056 0.121 0.125 0.818 0.681 0.042 0.110 5 0.051 0.111 0.115 0.818 0.681 0.042 0.103 10 0.033 0.072 0.075 0.586 0.493 0.033 0.069 15 0.023 0.050 0.052 0.417 0.369 0.027 0.048 20 0.017 0.036 0.038 0.314 0.287 0.024 0.035 Page 14 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts 25 0.013 0.027 0.029 0.265 0.231 0.021 0.027 30 0.010 0.022 0.024 0.229 0.192 0.020 0.023 35 0.009 0.019 0.020 0.205 0.166 0.020 0.019 40 0.008 0.017 0.018 0.193 0.149 0.021 0.018 45 0.007 0.016 0.017 0.190 0.138 0.022 0.017 50 0.007 0.015 0.016 0.197 0.132 0.025 0.017 55 0.007 0.016 0.017 0.213 0.131 0.030 0.018 60 0.008 0.018 0.018 0.238 0.135 0.038 0.020 65 0.009 0.020 0.021 0.272 0.144 0.049 0.023 Pollutant Name: PM10 - Tire Wear Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: 65% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.021 0.009 0.004 0.008 2 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.021 0.009 0.004 0.008 3 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.021 0.009 0.004 0.008 4 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.021 0.009 0.004 0.008 5 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.021 0.009 0.004 0.008 10 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.021 0.009 0.004 0.008 15 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.021 0.009 0.004 0.008 20 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.021 0.009 0.004 0.008 25 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.021 0.009 0.004 0.008 30 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.021 0.009 0.004 0.008 35 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.021 0.009 0.004 0.008 40 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.021 0.009 0.004 0.008 45 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.021 0.009 0.004 0.008 50 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.021 0.009 0.004 0.008 55 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.021 0.009 0.004 0.008 60 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.021 0.009 0.004 0.008 65 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.021 0.009 0.004 0.008 Pollutant Name: PM10 - Brake Wear Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: 65% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.018 0.013 0.006 0.013 2 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.018 0.013 0.006 0.013 3 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.018 0.013 0.006 0.013 4 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.018 0.013 0.006 0.013 5 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.018 0.013 0.006 0.013 10 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.018 0.013 0.006 0.013 15 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.018 0.013 0.006 0.013 20 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.018 0.013 0.006 0.013 25 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.018 0.013 0.006 0.013 30 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.018 0.013 0.006 0.013 35 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.018 0.013 0.006 0.013 40 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.018 0.013 0.006 0.013 45 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.018 0.013 0.006 0.013 50 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.018 0.013 0.006 0.013 55 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.018 0.013 0.006 0.013 60 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.018 0.013 0.006 0.013 65 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.018 0.013 0.006 0.013 Page 15 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts Pollutant Name: Gasoline - mi/gal Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: 65% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 7.535 5.998 4.260 3.423 3.270 28.605 6.700 2 7.535 5.998 4.260 3.423 3.270 28.605 6.700 3 7.766 6.183 4.375 3.423 3.270 28.605 6.897 4 8.241 6.561 4.611 3.423 3.270 28.605 7.302 5 8.731 6.952 4.855 3.423 3.270 28.605 7.719 10 11.622 9.251 6.550 5.146 4.916 34.204 10.265 15 14.856 11.823 8.485 7.321 6.997 39.719 13.114 20 18.259 14.529 10.559 9.860 9.426 44.810 16.115 25 21.593 17.182 12.624 12.568 12.020 49.114 19.056 30 24.581 19.560 14.500 15.163 14.510 52.266 21.692 35 26.947 21.444 16.001 17.315 16.579 53.942 23.777 40 28.459 22.649 16.964 18.716 17.931 53.893 25.103 45 28.969 23.058 17.282 19.147 18.355 51.985 25.538 50 28.439 22.639 16.927 18.539 17.785 48.245 25.046 55 26.942 21.448 15.947 16.991 16.309 42.892 23.694 60 24.642 19.617 14.463 14.738 14.155 36.352 21.631 65 21.765 17.326 12.633 12.099 11.627 29.230 19.061 Pollutant Name: Diesel - mi/gal Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: 65% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 28.106 29.038 19.670 4.882 3.953 0.000 9.245 2 28.106 29.038 19.670 4.882 3.953 0.000 9.245 3 28.106 29.038 19.670 4.882 3.953 0.000 9.245 4 28.106 29.038 19.670 4.882 3.953 0.000 9.245 5 28.106 29.038 19.670 4.882 3.953 0.000 9.245 10 28.106 29.038 19.670 5.132 3.953 0.000 9.422 15 28.106 29.038 19.670 5.444 3.953 0.000 9.641 20 28.106 29.038 19.670 5.771 3.953 0.000 9.872 25 28.106 29.038 19.670 5.912 3.953 0.000 9.972 30 28.106 29.038 19.670 6.047 3.953 0.000 10.067 35 28.106 29.038 19.670 6.171 3.953 0.000 10.154 40 28.106 29.038 19.670 6.275 3.953 0.000 10.227 45 28.106 29.038 19.670 6.354 3.953 0.000 10.283 50 28.106 29.038 19.670 6.402 3.953 0.000 10.317 55 28.106 29.038 19.670 6.415 3.953 0.000 10.326 60 28.106 29.038 19.670 6.393 3.953 0.000 10.311 65 28.106 29.038 19.670 6.337 3.953 0.000 10.271 Title : ARTIC_Emfac2007_Orange County_2009-2013-2035_EMAC Mode_CO Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Page 16 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts Run Date : 2010/04/07 16:10:26 Scen Year: 2013 -- All model years in the range 1969 to 2013 selected Season : Annual Area : Orange ************************************************************************************ ***** Year: 2013 -- Model Years 1969 to 2013 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006 County Average Orange County Average Table 2: Starting Emissions (grams/trip) Pollutant Name: Reactive Org Gases Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: ALL Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.037 0.042 0.103 0.251 0.242 0.874 0.067 10 0.065 0.075 0.190 0.389 0.378 0.967 0.114 20 0.119 0.137 0.354 0.647 0.629 1.156 0.200 30 0.168 0.195 0.502 0.878 0.855 1.352 0.280 40 0.212 0.247 0.636 1.083 1.056 1.554 0.351 50 0.251 0.293 0.754 1.263 1.230 1.762 0.415 60 0.285 0.334 0.856 1.405 1.369 1.898 0.469 120 0.391 0.470 1.150 1.635 1.596 2.124 0.624 180 0.404 0.486 1.206 1.739 1.697 2.253 0.651 240 0.429 0.516 1.277 1.839 1.795 2.408 0.690 300 0.452 0.544 1.347 1.937 1.891 2.561 0.728 360 0.475 0.573 1.416 2.032 1.984 2.712 0.765 420 0.498 0.600 1.483 2.125 2.073 2.860 0.802 480 0.521 0.628 1.549 2.214 2.160 3.007 0.838 540 0.543 0.655 1.613 2.300 2.245 3.151 0.873 600 0.564 0.681 1.676 2.384 2.326 3.294 0.907 660 0.585 0.707 1.737 2.464 2.404 3.434 0.940 720 0.605 0.732 1.797 2.542 2.480 3.573 0.973 Pollutant Name: Carbon Monoxide Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: ALL Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.379 0.473 1.086 3.195 2.829 4.087 0.699 10 0.683 0.868 2.004 5.029 4.676 4.214 1.211 20 1.263 1.620 3.743 8.480 8.145 4.497 2.184 30 1.805 2.323 5.352 11.639 11.315 4.816 3.087 40 2.307 2.977 6.831 14.506 14.185 5.173 3.920 50 2.772 3.582 8.180 17.082 16.755 5.566 4.684 60 3.197 4.138 9.399 19.365 19.027 5.997 5.379 120 4.765 6.192 13.201 25.169 24.672 9.161 7.702 180 4.868 6.352 13.642 26.315 25.682 10.368 7.941 240 5.196 6.790 14.405 27.439 26.683 11.757 8.425 300 5.493 7.185 15.112 28.540 27.676 13.011 8.870 360 5.760 7.539 15.763 29.619 28.659 14.131 9.276 420 5.996 7.850 16.358 30.676 29.634 15.115 9.643 480 6.201 8.120 16.898 31.711 30.599 15.965 9.972 540 6.377 8.347 17.381 32.724 31.555 16.679 10.262 Page 17 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts 600 6.521 8.531 17.808 33.714 32.503 17.259 10.513 660 6.635 8.674 18.180 34.682 33.441 17.703 10.725 720 6.719 8.775 18.495 35.628 34.370 18.013 10.899 Pollutant Name: Oxides of Nitrogen Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: ALL Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.165 0.301 0.781 0.539 0.693 0.183 0.332 10 0.185 0.331 0.907 0.805 1.040 0.214 0.386 20 0.221 0.386 1.129 1.274 1.649 0.270 0.482 30 0.251 0.431 1.313 1.656 2.145 0.317 0.561 40 0.275 0.468 1.459 1.951 2.529 0.355 0.624 50 0.293 0.496 1.566 2.160 2.800 0.383 0.670 60 0.305 0.515 1.635 2.282 2.958 0.403 0.700 120 0.323 0.549 1.712 2.293 2.973 0.404 0.732 180 0.322 0.548 1.708 2.284 2.961 0.398 0.730 240 0.320 0.544 1.696 2.271 2.944 0.390 0.725 300 0.316 0.538 1.679 2.253 2.921 0.379 0.718 360 0.311 0.529 1.655 2.230 2.892 0.366 0.707 420 0.305 0.518 1.625 2.203 2.857 0.351 0.695 480 0.298 0.505 1.590 2.171 2.817 0.333 0.679 540 0.289 0.490 1.548 2.135 2.770 0.314 0.661 600 0.279 0.472 1.501 2.093 2.718 0.292 0.641 660 0.268 0.452 1.447 2.048 2.659 0.268 0.618 720 0.256 0.430 1.387 1.998 2.595 0.242 0.592 Pollutant Name: Carbon Dioxide Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: ALL Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 11.398 14.326 18.749 5.448 3.818 20.233 13.324 10 13.335 16.671 22.861 8.720 5.867 22.676 15.835 20 17.626 21.896 31.711 15.202 9.923 27.451 21.317 30 22.476 27.835 41.398 21.599 13.924 32.078 27.414 40 27.882 34.486 51.922 27.912 17.870 36.556 34.125 50 33.847 41.851 63.283 34.141 21.761 40.887 41.451 60 40.369 49.929 75.481 40.286 25.598 45.070 49.391 120 88.967 110.833 159.762 67.007 42.305 64.190 106.551 180 101.472 126.344 183.123 78.101 49.113 67.071 121.702 240 113.828 141.689 206.015 88.539 55.520 69.784 136.617 300 126.034 156.868 228.437 98.324 61.525 72.329 151.295 360 138.090 171.880 250.390 107.453 67.128 74.706 165.737 420 149.996 186.727 271.873 115.929 72.330 76.916 179.943 480 161.752 201.407 292.887 123.750 77.130 78.958 193.912 540 173.359 215.920 313.431 130.916 81.529 80.832 207.645 600 184.815 230.268 333.506 137.428 85.526 82.538 221.141 660 196.122 244.450 353.111 143.285 89.121 84.077 234.401 720 207.279 258.465 372.246 148.488 92.315 85.447 247.424 Pollutant Name: Sulfur Dioxide Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: ALL Page 18 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 20 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 30 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 40 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 50 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.000 60 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 120 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 180 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 240 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 300 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 360 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.002 420 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.002 480 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.002 540 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.002 600 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.002 660 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.002 720 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.003 Pollutant Name: PM10 Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: ALL Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.011 0.001 10 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.010 0.002 20 0.002 0.005 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.008 0.003 30 0.003 0.007 0.006 0.002 0.002 0.006 0.005 40 0.004 0.009 0.008 0.003 0.002 0.005 0.006 50 0.005 0.011 0.010 0.003 0.002 0.004 0.007 60 0.006 0.013 0.011 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.009 120 0.009 0.020 0.017 0.005 0.004 0.008 0.013 180 0.010 0.022 0.018 0.006 0.004 0.012 0.014 240 0.011 0.023 0.019 0.006 0.004 0.016 0.016 300 0.011 0.025 0.020 0.006 0.004 0.019 0.016 360 0.012 0.026 0.021 0.006 0.004 0.022 0.017 420 0.012 0.027 0.022 0.006 0.004 0.024 0.018 480 0.013 0.028 0.023 0.007 0.004 0.026 0.019 540 0.013 0.029 0.024 0.007 0.005 0.028 0.019 600 0.013 0.029 0.024 0.007 0.005 0.029 0.020 660 0.014 0.030 0.025 0.007 0.005 0.029 0.020 720 0.014 0.030 0.025 0.007 0.005 0.030 0.020 Title : ARTIC_Emfac2007_Orange County_2009-2013-2035_EMAC Mode_CO Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date : 2010/04/07 16:10:26 Scen Year: 2013 -- All model years in the range 1969 to 2013 selected Season : Annual Area : Orange ************************************************************************************ ***** Page 19 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts Year: 2013 -- Model Years 1969 to 2013 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006 County Average Orange County Average Table 4: Hot Soak Emissions (grams/trip) Pollutant Name: Reactive Org Gases Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: ALL Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.053 0.052 0.036 0.008 0.056 0.119 0.048 10 0.099 0.097 0.067 0.016 0.104 0.221 0.090 20 0.169 0.166 0.115 0.027 0.178 0.383 0.154 30 0.218 0.215 0.149 0.035 0.228 0.501 0.198 40 0.237 0.233 0.162 0.038 0.247 0.547 0.215 Hot soak results are scaled to reflect zero emissions for trip lengths of less than 5 minutes (about 25% of in-use trips). Title : ARTIC_Emfac2007_Orange County_2009-2013-2035_EMAC Mode_CO Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date : 2010/04/07 16:10:26 Scen Year: 2013 -- All model years in the range 1969 to 2013 selected Season : Annual Area : Orange ************************************************************************************ ***** Year: 2013 -- Model Years 1969 to 2013 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006 County Average Orange County Average Table 5a: Partial Day Diurnal Loss Emissions (grams/hour) Pollutant Name: Reactive Org Gases Temperature: ALL Relative Humidity: ALL Temp degF LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 73 0.099 0.098 0.080 0.007 0.004 0.323 0.101 Title : ARTIC_Emfac2007_Orange County_2009-2013-2035_EMAC Mode_CO Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Page 20 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts Run Date : 2010/04/07 16:10:26 Scen Year: 2013 -- All model years in the range 1969 to 2013 selected Season : Annual Area : Orange ************************************************************************************ ***** Year: 2013 -- Model Years 1969 to 2013 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006 County Average Orange County Average Table 5b: Multi-Day Diurnal Loss Emissions (grams/hour) Pollutant Name: Reactive Org Gases Temperature: ALL Relative Humidity: ALL Temp degF LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 73 0.008 0.008 0.006 0.000 0.001 0.029 0.008 Title : ARTIC_Emfac2007_Orange County_2009-2013-2035_EMAC Mode_CO Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date : 2010/04/07 16:10:26 Scen Year: 2013 -- All model years in the range 1969 to 2013 selected Season : Annual Area : Orange ************************************************************************************ ***** Year: 2013 -- Model Years 1969 to 2013 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006 County Average Orange County Average Table 6a: Partial Day Resting Loss Emissions (grams/hour) Pollutant Name: Reactive Org Gases Temperature: ALL Relative Humidity: ALL Temp degF LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 73 0.044 0.047 0.040 0.003 0.002 0.113 0.045 Title : ARTIC_Emfac2007_Orange County_2009-2013-2035_EMAC Mode_CO Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date : 2010/04/07 16:10:26 Page 21 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts Scen Year: 2013 -- All model years in the range 1969 to 2013 selected Season : Annual Area : Orange ************************************************************************************ ***** Year: 2013 -- Model Years 1969 to 2013 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006 County Average Orange County Average Table 6b: Multi-Day Resting Loss Emissions (grams/hour) Pollutant Name: Reactive Org Gases Temperature: ALL Relative Humidity: ALL Temp degF LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 73 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.004 Title : ARTIC_Emfac2007_Orange County_2009-2013-2035_EMAC Mode_CO Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date : 2010/04/07 16:10:26 Scen Year: 2013 -- All model years in the range 1969 to 2013 selected Season : Annual Area : Orange ************************************************************************************ ***** Year: 2013 -- Model Years 1969 to 2013 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006 County Average Orange County Average Table 7: Estimated Travel Fractions Pollutant Name: Temperature: ALL Relative Humidity: ALL LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL %VMT 0.508 0.316 0.139 0.030 0.001 0.006 1.000 %TRIP 0.485 0.278 0.180 0.048 0.000 0.008 1.000 %VEH 0.526 0.301 0.124 0.020 0.000 0.028 1.000 Title : ARTIC_Emfac2007_Orange County_2009-2013-2035_EMAC Mode_CO Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Page 22 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts Run Date : 2010/04/07 16:10:26 Scen Year: 2013 -- All model years in the range 1969 to 2013 selected Season : Annual Area : Orange ************************************************************************************ ***** Year: 2013 -- Model Years 1969 to 2013 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006 County Average Orange County Average Table 8: Evaporative Running Loss Emissions (grams/minute) Pollutant Name: Reactive Org Gases Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: ALL Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 1 0.014 0.319 0.301 0.200 0.551 0.028 0.157 2 0.016 0.164 0.156 0.105 0.290 0.065 0.085 3 0.019 0.114 0.109 0.074 0.203 0.084 0.064 4 0.022 0.091 0.087 0.059 0.160 0.095 0.055 5 0.024 0.077 0.074 0.050 0.134 0.102 0.049 10 0.028 0.052 0.050 0.032 0.083 0.117 0.039 15 0.030 0.045 0.044 0.026 0.066 0.122 0.037 20 0.030 0.043 0.042 0.024 0.058 0.124 0.036 25 0.031 0.043 0.041 0.022 0.053 0.126 0.037 30 0.031 0.042 0.041 0.022 0.053 0.124 0.036 35 0.030 0.042 0.040 0.022 0.053 0.123 0.036 40 0.030 0.042 0.040 0.022 0.052 0.121 0.035 45 0.030 0.041 0.040 0.022 0.052 0.120 0.035 50 0.029 0.041 0.039 0.022 0.052 0.118 0.035 55 0.029 0.040 0.039 0.021 0.051 0.116 0.034 60 0.028 0.040 0.039 0.021 0.051 0.114 0.034 Title : ARTIC_Emfac2007_Orange County_2009-2013-2035_EMAC Mode_CO Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date : 2010/04/07 16:10:26 Scen Year: 2035 -- All model years in the range 1991 to 2035 selected Season : Annual Area : Orange ************************************************************************************ ***** Year: 2035 -- Model Years 1991 to 2035 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006 County Average Orange County Average Table 1: Running Exhaust Emissions (grams/mile; grams/idle-hour) Pollutant Name: Reactive Org Gases Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: 65% Page 23 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0 0.000 0.000 3.197 6.082 0.000 0.000 0.719 1 0.051 0.103 0.144 1.189 1.243 4.650 0.148 2 0.051 0.103 0.144 1.189 1.243 4.650 0.148 3 0.049 0.098 0.137 1.189 1.243 4.650 0.144 4 0.044 0.087 0.124 1.189 1.243 4.650 0.136 5 0.039 0.078 0.113 1.189 1.243 4.650 0.130 10 0.024 0.047 0.070 0.681 0.867 3.485 0.080 15 0.016 0.032 0.048 0.362 0.630 2.749 0.052 20 0.012 0.023 0.035 0.232 0.476 2.283 0.038 25 0.009 0.017 0.026 0.199 0.373 1.996 0.031 30 0.007 0.014 0.021 0.171 0.304 1.839 0.026 35 0.006 0.011 0.018 0.149 0.258 1.785 0.023 40 0.005 0.010 0.016 0.131 0.227 1.825 0.021 45 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.118 0.207 1.966 0.021 50 0.005 0.009 0.014 0.107 0.196 2.229 0.021 55 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.101 0.193 2.659 0.023 60 0.006 0.011 0.016 0.097 0.197 3.333 0.027 65 0.007 0.013 0.018 0.097 0.209 4.389 0.033 Pollutant Name: Carbon Monoxide Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: 65% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0 0.000 0.000 20.070 37.299 0.000 0.000 4.477 1 0.907 1.597 2.145 4.761 9.542 21.596 1.575 2 0.907 1.597 2.145 4.761 9.542 21.596 1.575 3 0.898 1.581 2.126 4.761 9.542 21.596 1.563 4 0.881 1.551 2.090 4.761 9.542 21.596 1.539 5 0.865 1.522 2.055 4.761 9.542 21.596 1.516 10 0.788 1.385 1.814 3.080 6.213 18.470 1.314 15 0.720 1.265 1.623 2.032 4.284 16.355 1.160 20 0.660 1.159 1.467 1.487 3.129 14.962 1.043 25 0.606 1.064 1.336 1.251 2.420 14.132 0.953 30 0.559 0.981 1.224 1.099 1.982 13.801 0.878 35 0.516 0.906 1.128 1.006 1.718 13.973 0.816 40 0.479 0.840 1.045 0.957 1.576 14.731 0.764 45 0.445 0.781 0.973 0.945 1.531 16.259 0.724 50 0.415 0.728 0.911 0.965 1.573 18.895 0.694 55 0.388 0.681 0.858 1.019 1.711 23.240 0.678 60 0.363 0.638 0.813 1.111 1.970 30.368 0.680 65 0.342 0.601 0.778 1.250 2.400 42.241 0.708 Pollutant Name: Oxides of Nitrogen Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: 65% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0 0.000 0.000 3.674 81.434 0.000 0.000 3.734 1 0.053 0.102 0.189 3.617 11.362 0.990 0.253 2 0.053 0.102 0.189 3.617 11.362 0.990 0.253 3 0.052 0.101 0.187 3.617 11.362 0.990 0.251 4 0.050 0.098 0.184 3.617 11.362 0.990 0.249 Page 24 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts 5 0.049 0.095 0.181 3.617 11.362 0.990 0.247 10 0.043 0.083 0.157 2.793 8.802 0.946 0.200 15 0.038 0.073 0.140 2.210 7.178 0.916 0.166 20 0.034 0.066 0.127 1.860 6.154 0.898 0.145 25 0.032 0.061 0.119 1.693 5.539 0.890 0.133 30 0.030 0.057 0.113 1.566 5.225 0.891 0.124 35 0.028 0.054 0.110 1.477 5.161 0.900 0.118 40 0.027 0.052 0.110 1.426 5.332 0.917 0.115 45 0.027 0.051 0.112 1.414 5.762 0.942 0.116 50 0.026 0.051 0.116 1.445 6.517 0.975 0.119 55 0.027 0.052 0.124 1.525 7.725 1.016 0.126 60 0.028 0.053 0.135 1.665 9.608 1.067 0.137 65 0.029 0.056 0.152 1.881 12.561 1.130 0.155 Pollutant Name: Carbon Dioxide Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: 65% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0 0.000 0.000 887.050 4741.404 0.000 0.000 318.696 1 1144.346 1466.838 2010.604 2737.865 2390.960 266.372 1442.721 2 1144.346 1466.838 2010.604 2737.865 2390.960 266.372 1442.721 3 1110.189 1423.003 1962.200 2737.865 2390.960 266.372 1404.738 4 1046.144 1340.807 1871.440 2737.865 2390.960 266.372 1333.516 5 987.350 1265.352 1788.121 2737.865 2390.960 266.372 1268.134 10 741.173 950.081 1317.173 2274.614 2100.173 222.040 957.437 15 579.381 742.784 1015.739 1926.435 1928.454 190.713 752.743 20 471.092 603.992 818.316 1685.098 1823.896 168.741 616.064 25 398.166 510.500 687.631 1586.668 1758.915 153.810 526.866 30 349.669 448.310 601.857 1511.606 1718.432 144.488 467.345 35 318.954 408.910 548.058 1455.267 1694.072 139.978 429.387 40 302.065 387.231 518.702 1415.109 1681.249 139.987 408.197 45 296.860 380.532 509.807 1389.881 1677.709 144.686 401.202 50 302.560 387.818 520.021 1379.249 1682.849 154.765 407.488 55 319.587 409.635 550.320 1383.699 1697.545 171.576 427.610 60 349.652 448.190 604.243 1404.680 1724.410 197.426 463.711 65 396.133 507.827 688.759 1445.038 1768.578 236.098 520.016 Pollutant Name: Sulfur Dioxide Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: 65% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.045 0.000 0.000 0.003 1 0.011 0.014 0.019 0.026 0.023 0.003 0.014 2 0.011 0.014 0.019 0.026 0.023 0.003 0.014 3 0.011 0.014 0.019 0.026 0.023 0.003 0.014 4 0.010 0.013 0.018 0.026 0.023 0.003 0.013 5 0.009 0.012 0.017 0.026 0.023 0.003 0.012 10 0.007 0.009 0.013 0.022 0.020 0.003 0.009 15 0.006 0.007 0.010 0.018 0.018 0.002 0.007 20 0.005 0.006 0.008 0.016 0.017 0.002 0.006 25 0.004 0.005 0.007 0.015 0.017 0.002 0.005 30 0.003 0.004 0.006 0.014 0.016 0.002 0.004 35 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.014 0.016 0.002 0.004 40 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.014 0.016 0.002 0.004 45 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.013 0.016 0.002 0.004 Page 25 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts 50 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.013 0.016 0.002 0.004 55 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.013 0.016 0.002 0.004 60 0.003 0.004 0.006 0.013 0.016 0.002 0.004 65 0.004 0.005 0.007 0.014 0.017 0.003 0.005 Pollutant Name: PM10 Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: 65% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0 0.000 0.000 0.037 0.337 0.000 0.000 0.019 1 0.070 0.160 0.168 0.182 0.386 0.030 0.119 2 0.070 0.160 0.168 0.182 0.386 0.030 0.119 3 0.067 0.152 0.160 0.182 0.386 0.030 0.114 4 0.061 0.138 0.146 0.182 0.386 0.030 0.105 5 0.056 0.126 0.134 0.182 0.386 0.030 0.096 10 0.036 0.081 0.087 0.147 0.278 0.024 0.063 15 0.024 0.055 0.060 0.121 0.207 0.019 0.044 20 0.018 0.040 0.043 0.102 0.161 0.017 0.032 25 0.013 0.030 0.033 0.089 0.129 0.015 0.025 30 0.011 0.024 0.026 0.081 0.107 0.014 0.020 35 0.009 0.020 0.022 0.076 0.092 0.014 0.018 40 0.008 0.018 0.020 0.074 0.082 0.014 0.016 45 0.008 0.017 0.018 0.074 0.076 0.016 0.015 50 0.007 0.017 0.018 0.077 0.073 0.018 0.015 55 0.008 0.018 0.019 0.082 0.072 0.021 0.016 60 0.009 0.020 0.021 0.089 0.074 0.026 0.017 65 0.010 0.023 0.024 0.097 0.079 0.034 0.020 Pollutant Name: PM10 - Tire Wear Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: 65% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.023 0.009 0.004 0.009 2 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.023 0.009 0.004 0.009 3 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.023 0.009 0.004 0.009 4 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.023 0.009 0.004 0.009 5 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.023 0.009 0.004 0.009 10 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.023 0.009 0.004 0.009 15 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.023 0.009 0.004 0.009 20 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.023 0.009 0.004 0.009 25 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.023 0.009 0.004 0.009 30 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.023 0.009 0.004 0.009 35 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.023 0.009 0.004 0.009 40 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.023 0.009 0.004 0.009 45 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.023 0.009 0.004 0.009 50 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.023 0.009 0.004 0.009 55 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.023 0.009 0.004 0.009 60 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.023 0.009 0.004 0.009 65 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.023 0.009 0.004 0.009 Pollutant Name: PM10 - Brake Wear Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: 65% Page 26 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.020 0.013 0.006 0.013 2 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.020 0.013 0.006 0.013 3 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.020 0.013 0.006 0.013 4 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.020 0.013 0.006 0.013 5 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.020 0.013 0.006 0.013 10 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.020 0.013 0.006 0.013 15 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.020 0.013 0.006 0.013 20 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.020 0.013 0.006 0.013 25 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.020 0.013 0.006 0.013 30 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.020 0.013 0.006 0.013 35 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.020 0.013 0.006 0.013 40 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.020 0.013 0.006 0.013 45 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.020 0.013 0.006 0.013 50 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.020 0.013 0.006 0.013 55 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.020 0.013 0.006 0.013 60 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.020 0.013 0.006 0.013 65 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.020 0.013 0.006 0.013 Pollutant Name: Gasoline - mi/gal Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: 65% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 7.732 6.028 4.274 3.515 3.483 28.114 6.678 2 7.732 6.028 4.274 3.515 3.483 28.114 6.678 3 7.970 6.214 4.389 3.515 3.483 28.114 6.877 4 8.457 6.594 4.624 3.515 3.483 28.114 7.283 5 8.961 6.987 4.868 3.515 3.483 28.114 7.703 10 11.934 9.303 6.573 5.283 5.235 33.777 10.260 15 15.262 11.895 8.521 7.516 7.448 39.317 13.128 20 18.766 14.624 10.611 10.121 10.030 44.362 16.152 25 22.200 17.299 12.694 12.899 12.783 48.527 19.118 30 25.276 19.696 14.587 15.559 15.421 51.448 21.778 35 27.709 21.593 16.101 17.764 17.608 52.825 23.882 40 29.260 22.804 17.071 19.195 19.029 52.460 25.219 45 29.778 23.210 17.390 19.633 19.465 50.295 25.656 50 29.222 22.781 17.027 19.005 18.845 46.429 25.158 55 27.672 21.574 16.036 17.413 17.268 41.137 23.794 60 25.300 19.725 14.536 15.101 14.976 34.856 21.716 65 22.337 17.415 12.690 12.395 12.293 28.144 19.132 Pollutant Name: Diesel - mi/gal Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: 65% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 29.156 29.156 19.452 4.458 4.333 0.000 7.144 2 29.156 29.156 19.452 4.458 4.333 0.000 7.144 3 29.156 29.156 19.452 4.458 4.333 0.000 7.144 4 29.156 29.156 19.452 4.458 4.333 0.000 7.144 Page 27 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts 5 29.156 29.156 19.452 4.458 4.333 0.000 7.144 10 29.156 29.156 19.452 4.767 4.333 0.000 7.390 15 29.156 29.156 19.452 5.151 4.333 0.000 7.694 20 29.156 29.156 19.452 5.554 4.333 0.000 8.015 25 29.156 29.156 19.452 5.729 4.333 0.000 8.153 30 29.156 29.156 19.452 5.896 4.333 0.000 8.286 35 29.156 29.156 19.452 6.048 4.333 0.000 8.406 40 29.156 29.156 19.452 6.176 4.333 0.000 8.508 45 29.156 29.156 19.452 6.273 4.333 0.000 8.585 50 29.156 29.156 19.452 6.333 4.333 0.000 8.632 55 29.156 29.156 19.452 6.349 4.333 0.000 8.645 60 29.156 29.156 19.452 6.322 4.333 0.000 8.624 65 29.156 29.156 19.452 6.253 4.333 0.000 8.569 Title : ARTIC_Emfac2007_Orange County_2009-2013-2035_EMAC Mode_CO Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date : 2010/04/07 16:10:26 Scen Year: 2035 -- All model years in the range 1991 to 2035 selected Season : Annual Area : Orange ************************************************************************************ ***** Year: 2035 -- Model Years 1991 to 2035 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006 County Average Orange County Average Table 2: Starting Emissions (grams/trip) Pollutant Name: Reactive Org Gases Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: ALL Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.003 0.006 0.026 0.043 0.110 0.595 0.014 10 0.006 0.013 0.052 0.083 0.214 0.738 0.026 20 0.012 0.025 0.101 0.157 0.406 1.014 0.047 30 0.018 0.037 0.148 0.223 0.576 1.273 0.068 40 0.024 0.048 0.194 0.280 0.723 1.517 0.087 50 0.029 0.059 0.237 0.328 0.848 1.744 0.105 60 0.034 0.070 0.278 0.368 0.951 1.911 0.122 120 0.056 0.120 0.474 0.435 1.124 2.223 0.191 180 0.058 0.124 0.492 0.461 1.192 2.324 0.199 240 0.062 0.132 0.523 0.487 1.259 2.470 0.211 300 0.066 0.140 0.554 0.512 1.323 2.613 0.224 360 0.069 0.147 0.586 0.536 1.385 2.753 0.236 420 0.073 0.155 0.616 0.559 1.445 2.890 0.248 480 0.076 0.163 0.647 0.581 1.503 3.024 0.260 540 0.080 0.171 0.678 0.603 1.558 3.155 0.272 600 0.084 0.179 0.709 0.623 1.612 3.283 0.284 660 0.087 0.186 0.739 0.643 1.663 3.408 0.295 720 0.091 0.194 0.769 0.662 1.712 3.529 0.307 Page 28 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts Pollutant Name: Carbon Monoxide Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: ALL Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.058 0.110 0.349 0.620 1.160 2.868 0.177 10 0.114 0.217 0.690 1.214 2.273 3.404 0.337 20 0.223 0.425 1.349 2.327 4.357 4.433 0.643 30 0.327 0.624 1.978 3.339 6.253 5.407 0.933 40 0.426 0.812 2.575 4.251 7.960 6.323 1.206 50 0.520 0.992 3.143 5.062 9.479 7.183 1.462 60 0.608 1.161 3.679 5.773 10.809 7.986 1.701 120 0.987 1.887 5.943 7.423 13.898 11.499 2.644 180 1.030 1.971 6.228 7.640 14.305 11.989 2.759 240 1.122 2.150 6.787 7.864 14.724 12.975 2.982 300 1.204 2.306 7.278 8.095 15.157 13.887 3.180 360 1.274 2.441 7.702 8.334 15.604 14.726 3.353 420 1.332 2.554 8.057 8.579 16.064 15.491 3.501 480 1.380 2.646 8.345 8.832 16.537 16.184 3.624 540 1.416 2.715 8.564 9.092 17.024 16.803 3.722 600 1.441 2.763 8.716 9.359 17.524 17.349 3.795 660 1.455 2.789 8.801 9.633 18.037 17.821 3.843 720 1.458 2.793 8.817 9.914 18.564 18.221 3.866 Pollutant Name: Oxides of Nitrogen Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: ALL Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.030 0.074 0.565 0.168 0.525 0.150 0.158 10 0.031 0.077 0.589 0.254 0.791 0.189 0.169 20 0.034 0.082 0.633 0.403 1.258 0.257 0.189 30 0.036 0.087 0.671 0.525 1.639 0.314 0.206 40 0.038 0.091 0.705 0.620 1.933 0.359 0.220 50 0.039 0.095 0.732 0.686 2.141 0.391 0.231 60 0.041 0.097 0.754 0.725 2.262 0.412 0.239 120 0.044 0.107 0.825 0.729 2.273 0.414 0.258 180 0.044 0.107 0.824 0.726 2.265 0.409 0.257 240 0.044 0.106 0.818 0.722 2.252 0.403 0.255 300 0.044 0.104 0.807 0.716 2.235 0.395 0.252 360 0.043 0.102 0.792 0.710 2.213 0.386 0.248 420 0.042 0.100 0.773 0.701 2.187 0.375 0.242 480 0.040 0.097 0.750 0.691 2.157 0.362 0.236 540 0.039 0.093 0.723 0.680 2.122 0.347 0.228 600 0.037 0.089 0.691 0.668 2.083 0.331 0.219 660 0.035 0.085 0.656 0.654 2.039 0.313 0.209 720 0.033 0.079 0.616 0.638 1.991 0.294 0.197 Pollutant Name: Carbon Dioxide Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: ALL Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 12.036 15.428 22.026 2.817 3.300 13.097 14.540 10 13.464 17.268 24.761 5.619 6.581 15.288 16.426 Page 29 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts 20 16.815 21.582 31.130 11.175 13.089 19.590 20.783 30 20.829 26.744 38.699 16.669 19.524 23.785 25.920 40 25.503 32.752 47.468 22.101 25.886 27.875 31.839 50 30.840 39.609 57.437 27.470 32.175 31.858 38.538 60 36.838 47.312 68.607 32.777 38.390 35.736 46.017 120 86.247 110.691 159.590 55.749 65.296 53.141 106.221 180 97.847 125.588 181.184 65.863 77.142 57.411 120.658 240 109.441 140.475 202.736 75.380 88.289 61.430 135.048 300 121.027 155.350 224.245 84.301 98.737 65.198 149.389 360 132.606 170.214 245.712 92.624 108.485 68.716 163.682 420 144.178 185.067 267.137 100.350 117.535 71.983 177.928 480 155.743 199.909 288.520 107.480 125.885 75.000 192.125 540 167.301 214.739 309.860 114.012 133.536 77.766 206.275 600 178.852 229.558 331.158 119.948 140.488 80.281 220.376 660 190.396 244.365 352.414 125.286 146.741 82.546 234.430 720 201.933 259.162 373.628 130.028 152.294 84.560 248.436 Pollutant Name: Sulfur Dioxide Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: ALL Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 20 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 30 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 40 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 50 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 60 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 120 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 180 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 240 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 300 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 360 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 420 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 480 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.002 540 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.002 600 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.002 660 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.002 720 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.002 Pollutant Name: PM10 Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: ALL Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.007 0.001 10 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.006 0.002 20 0.002 0.005 0.004 0.001 0.002 0.005 0.003 30 0.003 0.007 0.006 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 40 0.004 0.009 0.008 0.003 0.004 0.003 0.006 50 0.005 0.011 0.009 0.003 0.004 0.003 0.007 60 0.006 0.013 0.011 0.004 0.005 0.003 0.009 120 0.009 0.021 0.018 0.005 0.007 0.006 0.014 180 0.011 0.023 0.020 0.005 0.007 0.008 0.016 240 0.012 0.026 0.022 0.005 0.007 0.010 0.017 300 0.013 0.027 0.024 0.005 0.007 0.012 0.019 Page 30 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts 360 0.013 0.029 0.025 0.005 0.007 0.014 0.020 420 0.014 0.031 0.026 0.006 0.008 0.015 0.021 480 0.014 0.032 0.027 0.006 0.008 0.017 0.021 540 0.015 0.032 0.028 0.006 0.008 0.018 0.022 600 0.015 0.033 0.028 0.006 0.008 0.018 0.022 660 0.015 0.033 0.029 0.006 0.009 0.019 0.023 720 0.015 0.033 0.029 0.006 0.009 0.019 0.023 Title : ARTIC_Emfac2007_Orange County_2009-2013-2035_EMAC Mode_CO Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date : 2010/04/07 16:10:26 Scen Year: 2035 -- All model years in the range 1991 to 2035 selected Season : Annual Area : Orange ************************************************************************************ ***** Year: 2035 -- Model Years 1991 to 2035 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006 County Average Orange County Average Table 4: Hot Soak Emissions (grams/trip) Pollutant Name: Reactive Org Gases Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: ALL Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.022 0.037 0.029 0.003 0.018 0.126 0.027 10 0.041 0.068 0.053 0.006 0.033 0.234 0.051 20 0.070 0.117 0.090 0.009 0.056 0.403 0.087 30 0.091 0.150 0.116 0.012 0.071 0.525 0.111 40 0.098 0.162 0.126 0.013 0.077 0.572 0.120 Hot soak results are scaled to reflect zero emissions for trip lengths of less than 5 minutes (about 25% of in-use trips). Title : ARTIC_Emfac2007_Orange County_2009-2013-2035_EMAC Mode_CO Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date : 2010/04/07 16:10:26 Scen Year: 2035 -- All model years in the range 1991 to 2035 selected Season : Annual Area : Orange ************************************************************************************ ***** Year: 2035 -- Model Years 1991 to 2035 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Page 31 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts County Average Orange County Average Table 5a: Partial Day Diurnal Loss Emissions (grams/hour) Pollutant Name: Reactive Org Gases Temperature: ALL Relative Humidity: ALL Temp degF LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 73 0.021 0.057 0.059 0.002 0.001 0.350 0.044 Title : ARTIC_Emfac2007_Orange County_2009-2013-2035_EMAC Mode_CO Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date : 2010/04/07 16:10:26 Scen Year: 2035 -- All model years in the range 1991 to 2035 selected Season : Annual Area : Orange ************************************************************************************ ***** Year: 2035 -- Model Years 1991 to 2035 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006 County Average Orange County Average Table 5b: Multi-Day Diurnal Loss Emissions (grams/hour) Pollutant Name: Reactive Org Gases Temperature: ALL Relative Humidity: ALL Temp degF LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 73 0.002 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.003 Title : ARTIC_Emfac2007_Orange County_2009-2013-2035_EMAC Mode_CO Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date : 2010/04/07 16:10:26 Scen Year: 2035 -- All model years in the range 1991 to 2035 selected Season : Annual Area : Orange ************************************************************************************ ***** Year: 2035 -- Model Years 1991 to 2035 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006 County Average Orange County Page 32 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts Average Table 6a: Partial Day Resting Loss Emissions (grams/hour) Pollutant Name: Reactive Org Gases Temperature: ALL Relative Humidity: ALL Temp degF LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 73 0.013 0.041 0.043 0.001 0.001 0.127 0.028 Title : ARTIC_Emfac2007_Orange County_2009-2013-2035_EMAC Mode_CO Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date : 2010/04/07 16:10:26 Scen Year: 2035 -- All model years in the range 1991 to 2035 selected Season : Annual Area : Orange ************************************************************************************ ***** Year: 2035 -- Model Years 1991 to 2035 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006 County Average Orange County Average Table 6b: Multi-Day Resting Loss Emissions (grams/hour) Pollutant Name: Reactive Org Gases Temperature: ALL Relative Humidity: ALL Temp degF LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 73 0.001 0.003 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.002 Title : ARTIC_Emfac2007_Orange County_2009-2013-2035_EMAC Mode_CO Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date : 2010/04/07 16:10:26 Scen Year: 2035 -- All model years in the range 1991 to 2035 selected Season : Annual Area : Orange ************************************************************************************ ***** Year: 2035 -- Model Years 1991 to 2035 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006 County Average Orange County Average Page 33 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts Table 7: Estimated Travel Fractions Pollutant Name: Temperature: ALL Relative Humidity: ALL LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL %VMT 0.472 0.333 0.150 0.039 0.002 0.004 1.000 %TRIP 0.452 0.289 0.200 0.052 0.000 0.006 1.000 %VEH 0.494 0.322 0.137 0.027 0.001 0.020 1.000 Title : ARTIC_Emfac2007_Orange County_2009-2013-2035_EMAC Mode_CO Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date : 2010/04/07 16:10:26 Scen Year: 2035 -- All model years in the range 1991 to 2035 selected Season : Annual Area : Orange ************************************************************************************ ***** Year: 2035 -- Model Years 1991 to 2035 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006 County Average Orange County Average Table 8: Evaporative Running Loss Emissions (grams/minute) Pollutant Name: Reactive Org Gases Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: ALL Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 1 0.010 0.188 0.207 0.049 0.268 0.005 0.101 2 0.008 0.096 0.106 0.025 0.135 0.037 0.053 3 0.009 0.068 0.075 0.018 0.091 0.054 0.039 4 0.010 0.056 0.061 0.014 0.070 0.064 0.033 5 0.012 0.048 0.052 0.012 0.058 0.070 0.030 10 0.014 0.034 0.036 0.008 0.034 0.082 0.024 15 0.015 0.030 0.032 0.007 0.027 0.085 0.023 20 0.015 0.029 0.030 0.007 0.025 0.086 0.022 25 0.015 0.028 0.029 0.007 0.024 0.086 0.022 30 0.015 0.028 0.029 0.007 0.024 0.085 0.021 35 0.015 0.028 0.029 0.007 0.023 0.083 0.021 40 0.015 0.027 0.029 0.007 0.023 0.082 0.021 45 0.015 0.027 0.028 0.007 0.023 0.081 0.021 50 0.015 0.027 0.028 0.007 0.022 0.080 0.021 55 0.015 0.027 0.028 0.007 0.022 0.079 0.021 60 0.014 0.026 0.028 0.007 0.022 0.078 0.020 Page 34 ARTIC_Emfac07_OC_2009-2013-2035_Emfact Mode_All Speeds.rts Page 35 C-2: CAL3QHC Input Detail and Summary Results Table C-2a-1: TRAFFIC VOLUMES (AM and PM) FOR ALL VEHICLES at KATELLA-DOUGLASS INTERSECTION CASE: 2013 No Project Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM 409 980 58 20 989 100 36 17 7 108 12 57 2793 0.5 0.493 A PM 122 1022 44 31 1248 162 166 25 15 151 5 418 3409 0.59 0.57 A Notes CASE: 2013 with ARTIC Phase 1 Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM 409 980 685 151 989 100 169 45 58 108 103 57 3854 0.57 0.673 B PM 122 1022 179 67 1224 159 650 109 129 151 20 418 4250 0.95 0.674 B Notes 2. ICU and LOS values are sourced from Table 14 of Comprehensive Traffic Study (ARTIC Phase 1 - ACE Comprehensive Traffic Study), prepared by Cordoba Corp. September 4, 2009 Total Intersection VolumePEAK DURATION 1. Total vehicle volumes and HCM V/C ratios reported in Appendix J1 (Signalized Intersection Worksheets – 2013 No Project) of Comprehensive Traffic Study (ARTIC Phase 1 - ACE Comprehensive Traffic Study), prepared by Cordoba Corp. September 4, 2009 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound HCM V/C ICU LOS PEAK DURATION Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Total Intersection Volume HCM V/C 2. ICU and LOS values are sourced from Table 16 of Comprehensive Traffic Study (ARTIC Phase 1 - ACE Comprehensive Traffic Study), prepared by Cordoba Corp. September 4, 2009 ICU LOS 1. Total vehicle volumes and HCM V/C ratios reported in Appendix J2 (Signalized Intersection Worksheets – 2013 with ARTIC Phase 1) of Comprehensive Traffic Study (ARTIC Phase 1 - ACE Comprehensive Traffic Study), prepared by Cordoba Corp. September 4, 2009 Table C-2a-2: TRAFFIC VOLUMES (AM and PM) FOR ALL VEHICLES at KATELLA-DOUGLASS INTERSECTION CASE: 2035 No Project Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM 430 2000 1628 663 1270 320 420 135 229 900 512 130 8637 1.16 1.146 F PM 260 1540 423 350 2190 850 1595 439 561 530 233 400 9371 1.31 1.385 F Notes CASE: 2035 with Buildout of ARTIC and Mixed Use Development Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM 470 2050 2018 953 1270 320 650 267 449 900 762 130 10239 2.1 1.939 F PM 270 1540 803 670 2230 850 2245 789 931 530 343 400 11601 2.57 1.601 F Notes 2. ICU and LOS values are sourced from Table 21 of Comprehensive Traffic Study (ARTIC Phase 1 - ACE Comprehensive Traffic Study), prepared by Cordoba Corp. September 4, 2009 Total Intersection VolumePEAK DURATION 1. Total vehicle volumes and HCM V/C ratios reported in Appendix J3 (Signalized Intersection Worksheets – 2035 No Project) of Comprehensive Traffic Study (ARTIC Phase 1 - ACE Comprehensive Traffic Study), prepared by Cordoba Corp. September 4, 2009 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound HCM V/C ICU LOS PEAK DURATION Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Total Intersection Volume HCM V/C 2. ICU and LOS values are sourced from Table 29 of Comprehensive Traffic Study (ARTIC Phase 1 - ACE Comprehensive Traffic Study), prepared by Cordoba Corp. September 4, 2009 ICU LOS 1. Total vehicle volumes reported on Figure 33; HCM V/C ratio reported in Appendix J4 (Signalized Intersection Worksheets – 2035 With ARTIC Buildout) of Comprehensive Traffic Study (ARTIC Phase 1 - ACE Comprehensive Traffic Study), prepared by Cordoba Corp. September 4, 2009 TABLE C-2b: QUEUING TRAFFIC SIGNALIZATION DATA 2013 With Artic Phase I - Peak PM Traffic Queue Link Signal Cycle Length (sec)Green/Cycle Green Time Length (sec) Red Time Length (sec) Clearance Lost Time (sec) EBLQ 110 0.05 6 105 4 EBTQ 110 0.27 30 80 4 EBRQ 110 1 110 0 4 WBLQ 110 0.04 4 106 4 WBTQ 110 0.26 29 81 4 WBRQ 110 0.26 29 81 4 NBLQ 110 0.4 44 66 4 NBTQ 110 0.38 42 68 4 NBRQ 110 0.38 42 68 4 SBLQ 110 0.16 18 92 4 SBTQ 110 0.15 17 94 4 SBRQ 110 0.15 17 94 4 INTERSECTION: Katella Ave and Douglass Rd Title : ARTIC_Emfac2007_Orange County_2009-2013-2035_EMAC Mode_CO Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date : 2010/03/29 17:09:49 Scen Year: 2013 -- All model years in the range 1969 to 2013 selected Season : Annual Area : Orange ***************************************************************************************** Year: 2013 -- Model Years 1969 to 2013 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006 County Average Orange County Average Table 1: Running Exhaust Emissions (grams/mile; grams/idle-hour) Pollutant Name: Carbon Monoxide Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: 65% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0 0.000 0.000 20.580 40.855 0.000 0.000 4.256 1 3.193 4.546 6.195 16.132 31.116 26.383 4.609 2 3.458 4.619 6.195 16.132 31.116 26.383 4.821* 3 3.149 4.481 6.118 16.132 31.116 26.383 4.556 4 3.063 4.357 5.970 16.132 31.116 26.383 4.453 5 3.230 4.308 5.832 16.132 31.116 26.383 4.555 10 2.850 3.789 4.769 10.978 20.395 22.144 3.841 15 2.546 3.376 4.038 7.718 14.150 19.394 3.322 20 2.298 3.040 3.513 5.746 10.390 17.697 2.937 25 2.092 2.762 3.123 4.647 8.073 16.819 2.645 30 1.919 2.531 2.825 3.904 6.637 16.663 2.416 35 1.774 2.338 2.598 3.411 5.773 17.242 2.236 40 1.652 2.178 2.425 3.108 5.312 18.689 2.099 45 1.552 2.046 2.302 2.965 5.170 21.288 2.002 50 1.471 1.942 2.226 2.971 5.323 25.560 1.946 55 1.412 1.865 2.201 3.135 5.797 32.431 1.940 60 1.376 1.820 2.240 3.484 6.677 43.552 1.999 65 1.370 1.814 2.366 4.076 8.134 61.934 2.154 Title : ARTIC_Emfac2007_Orange County_2009-2013-2035_EMAC Mode_CO Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date : 2010/03/29 17:09:49 Scen Year: 2035 -- All model years in the range 1991 to 2035 selected Season : Annual Area : Orange ***************************************************************************************** * Chosen for Idle Emission Factor since not all vehicle classes have factors at 0 mph and this is the highest value from 0 and 3 mph. Year: 2035 -- Model Years 1991 to 2035 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006 County Average Orange County Average Table 1: Running Exhaust Emissions (grams/mile; grams/idle-hour) Pollutant Name: Carbon Monoxide Temperature: 73F Relative Humidity: 65% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0 0.000 0.000 20.070 37.299 0.000 0.000 4.642 1 0.907 1.597 2.145 4.761 9.542 21.596 1.575 2 0.970 1.621 2.145 4.761 9.542 21.596 1.633* 3 0.898 1.581 2.126 4.761 9.542 21.596 1.563 4 0.881 1.551 2.090 4.761 9.542 21.596 1.539 5 0.925 1.545 2.055 4.761 9.542 21.596 1.572 10 0.842 1.406 1.814 3.080 6.213 18.470 1.362 15 0.770 1.284 1.623 2.032 4.284 16.355 1.203 20 0.705 1.176 1.467 1.487 3.129 14.962 1.082 25 0.648 1.080 1.336 1.251 2.420 14.132 0.988 30 0.597 0.995 1.224 1.099 1.982 13.801 0.911 35 0.552 0.920 1.128 1.006 1.718 13.973 0.846 40 0.512 0.853 1.045 0.957 1.576 14.731 0.792 45 0.476 0.793 0.973 0.945 1.531 16.259 0.750 50 0.443 0.739 0.911 0.965 1.573 18.895 0.720 55 0.414 0.691 0.858 1.019 1.711 23.240 0.703 60 0.388 0.648 0.813 1.111 1.970 30.368 0.705 65 0.365 0.610 0.778 1.250 2.400 42.241 0.734 *Chosen for Idle Emission Factor since not all vehicle classes have factors at 0 mph and this is the highest value from 0 and 3 mph. Table C-2d: CAL3QHC Summary ResultsUnits as ug/m3 Scen 1 Year 2009 - Existing Conditions0.0 23,000 10,000Scen 4 Year 2013- No project342.90 6670 7013 23,000 240.03 4485 4725 10,000Scen 5 Year 2013 - with ARTIC Phase 1685.70 6670 7356 23,000 479.99 4485 4965 10,000Scen 6 Year 2035- No project342.90 6670 7013 23,000 240.03 4485 4725 10,000Scen 8 Year 2035- with ARTIC Buildout and Mixed Use228.60 6670 6899 23,000 160.02 4485 4645 10,000Units as ppmYear 2009 - Existing Conditions5.80 5.8 20 3.9 9.0Year 2013 - No project0.30 5.8 6.1 20 0.21 3.9 4.1 9.0Year 2013 - with ARTIC Phase 10.60 5.8 6.4 20 0.42 3.9 4.3 9.0Year 2035 - No project0.30 5.8 6.1 20 0.21 3.9 4.1 9.0Year 2035 - with ARTIC Buildout and Mixed Use0.20 5.8 6.0 20 0.14 3.9 4.0 9.0(1) 1-Hour Background = 6670ug/m3(5.8 ppm)(2) Highest 1-Hour CO Concentration = Highest Direct Model Output + 1-Hour Background(3) CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standards(4) 8-Hour Background = 4485ug/m3(3.9 ppm)(5) Highest 8- Hour CO Concentration = (Highest 1-Hour Modeled CO Concentration x 0.7) + (8- Hour Background)where, 0.7 = SCAQMD Recommended Persistence Factor for CO Non-Attainment Areas.1-Hour CAAQS (ppm) (3)8-hr Background (ppm) (4)Highest 8-Hour CO Concentrations (ppm)(5)8-Hour CAAQS (ppm) (3)8-hour CO from 1-hr model output (ppm)ScenarioHighest 1-hr Model CO Output (ppm)1-hr Background (ppm) (1)Highest 1-Hour CO Concentrations (ppm)(2)8-hr Background (ug/m3) (4)Scenario8-Hour CAAQS (ug/m3) (3)Highest 8-Hour CO Concentrations (ug/m3) (5)1-Hour CAAQS (ug/m3) (3)Highest Direct Model CO Output (ug/m3)Highest 1-Hour CO Concentrations (ug/m3) (2)1-hr Background (ug/m3) (1)8-hour CO from 1-hr model output (ug/m3) C-3: CAL3QHC Input and Output Files (see folder Appendix C-3) Noise Technical Report Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) Prepared For: Kleinfelder, Inc. 2 Ada, Suite 50 Irvine, CA 92618 July 2010 Prepared By: 43410 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 (951) 506-0055 Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Table of Contents Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) i Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................3 2.0 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................4 3.0 Noise and Vibration Fundamentals .......................................................................................7 4.0 Regulatory Requirements ....................................................................................................13 5.0 Methodology ........................................................................................................................22 6.0 Existing Environment ..........................................................................................................32 7.0 Impacts and Mitigations Measures ......................................................................................36 8.0 References ...........................................................................................................................43 Appendices Noise Monitoring Locations ..........................................................................44 Noise Calculations .........................................................................................50 List of Figures Figure 2-1. Project Vicinity Map.....................................................................................................1 Figure 3-1. Typical A-weighted Sound Levels .............................................................................10 Figure 5-1. Recommended Microphone Locations for Existing Noise Measurements.................24 Figure 5-2. Field Measurement Locations.......................................................................................1 Figure 5-3. Noise Impact Criteria for Transit Projects ..................................................................29 Figure 5-4. Allowable Transit Noise Level Increases (Ldn and Leq in dBA).................................30 Figure 5-5. Simultaneous Interior and Exterior Noise Meter Setup ..............................................31 Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Table of Contents Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) ii List of Tables Table 3-1. Typical Range of Ldn in Populated Areas.......................................................................8 Table 3-2: Summary of Human Effects in Areas Exposed to 55 dBA Ldn ....................................9 Table 3-3. Human Reaction to Typical Vibration Levels .............................................................11 Table 3-4: Typical Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment....................................12 Table 4-1. Summary of EPA/FRA Railroad Noise Standards.......................................................14 Table 4-2: Federal Transit Administration Construction Vibration Impact Criteria .....................14 Table 4-3. Construction Vibration Damage Criteria Thresholds ..................................................15 Table 4-4. FTA Vibration Impact Criteria Thresholds ..................................................................15 Table 4-5. Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments ....................................17 Table 4-6. State of California Interior and Exterior Noise Standards (CNEL).............................19 Table 4-7. City of Orange Municipal Code Residential Noise Levels ..........................................19 Table 4-8. Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure – Transportation Sources ................................20 Table 4-9. County of Orange Municipal Code Residential Noise Levels .....................................21 Table 5-1. Land Use Categories and Metrics for Transit Noise Impact Criteria ...........................28 Table 6-1. Existing Project Area Cumulative CNEL Values ........................................................33 Table 6-2. Existing Traffic Noise Levels ......................................................................................34 Table 7-1. Typical Construction Equipment Noise .......................................................................36 Table 7-2. Opening Year (2013) Traffic Noise Levels .................................................................38 Table 7-3. 2030 Cumulative Traffic Noise Levels ........................................................................39 Table 7-4. Opening Year (2013) With Project Sound Levels .......................................................40 Table 7-5. Ayres Hotel Interior and Exterior Sound Levels for Opening Year (2013) With Project .......................................................................................................................................................41 Table 7-6. 2030 With Project Noise Levels ..................................................................................41 Table 7-7. Ayres Hotel Interior and Exterior Sound Levels for 2030 With Project ......................41 Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Introduction Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 3 1.0 Executive Summary This noise impact report has been prepared to assess the potential noise impacts associated with the proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) project. This report uses the data collected during the field noise measurement survey of three long-term measurement sites to document the ambient noise levels of the existing noise environment of the project site. These measurements documented the ambient noise levels from noise sources in the project vicinity including traffic and train noise sources. The current Community Noise Levels (CNEL) at noise sensitive receiving properties in the project area range from 67 to 73 dBA. The major noise sources that contribute to these noise levels are vehicular traffic on local highways and roadways. The current CNEL is 60 dBA at the existing Metrolink station. Traffic noise levels along roadway segments in the project vicinity were also calculated using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD-77- 108) for existing conditions, without project and with project conditions for the opening year (2013) and without project and with project conditions for the year 2030. Project-related traffic noise levels would result in a less than significant increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity compared to noise levels without the project. Similarly cumulative traffic impacts associated with the multiple projects combined with the ARTIC project show a negligible increase in ambient noise levels. The ARTIC project will have a less than significant cumulative traffic noise impact. The new location will be approximately one quarter (0.25) miles east along the existing OCTA railroad right-of-way (ROW) in a larger facility. The relocation of the Metrolink station will bring noise and vibration impacts slightly closer to the Ayres Hotel. However, the dominate noise source at the Ayers Hotel is SR57. The existing CNEL at the Ayres Hotel is 67 dBA. Train traffic is not expected to increase significantly in 2013, increases are expected over a long period of time. Therefore, it is anticipated that 2013 noise levels will be similar to those currently. The existing CNEL is 60 dBA. Therefore, no perceptible noise increases will occur over existing ambient noise levels. Further, FTA impact criteria require noise sensitive receivers to be within 200 feet of the centerline of the project to be evaluated for vibration effects. The Ayres Hotel is outside of this impact screening distance; therefore no perceptible change in vibration will occur associated with the ARTIC project. From a cumulative perspective anticipated train increase are expected to increase by 26 percent throughout Orange County. According to FTA, a noticeable increase occurs at 40 percent which would provide a 2 dBA increase at a reference distance of 50 feet. Project increases in train traffic are below this level, therefore no perceptible noise increase will occur resulting in a less than significant cumulative impact. Temporary increases in noise levels will occur during the construction of the project. However, noise sensitive receivers are beyond the FTA screening distance of 200 feet be influence by temporary increase in vibration from construction equipment. General construction noise will cause temporary increases in ambient noise levels. Construction noise mitigation measures should be followed according to local ordinances were applicable where staging areas are located near noise sensitive land uses. Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Introduction Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 4 2.0 Introduction The City of Anaheim is proposing to relocate the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station from the current location south of Katella Avenue and west of State Route (SR) 57. The new station, the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC), will accommodate existing transportation services, as well as anticipated future growth. Transit projects of this type require an evaluation of noise impacts as required under the Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 771 (23 CFR 771) “Environmental Impact and Related Procedures.” 23 CFR 771 provides procedures for preparing operational and construction noise studies and evaluating noise abatement considered for federal and federal-aid highway and mass transit projects. According to 23 CFR 771, all highway and mass transit projects that are developed in conformance with this regulation are deemed to be in conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Further, the project is subject to CEQA Threshold requirements which require the evaluation of whether the project poses any significant noise impacts. If noise impacts are found from the implementation and construction of the proposed project appropriate mitigation methods will be considered. This report is intended to satisfy the City of Anaheim, the City of Orange and the County of Orange local land use compatibility guidelines and ordinances for protecting sensitive land use categories in the project area as well as comply with CEQA Thresholds and guidelines from the Federal Transit Agency (FTA) by examining the noise impacts from the proposed project and evaluating the mitigation measures incorporated as part of the project design. Construction and operation of the proposed transit center has the potential to generate substantial temporary and/or permanent increases in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project area, expose people to excessive noise levels, groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The evaluation of these potential noise impacts associated with the proposed project includes documenting existing noise conditions in the vicinity of the project site; describing the criteria for determining the significance of noise impacts; and determining the likely noise impacts that would result from construction activities, vehicular traffic, rail line activity, aircraft, and other noise sources. Where appropriate, mitigation measures are recommended to reduce project-related noise impacts to a less-than-significant level. Project Background The City of Anaheim (City) in collaboration with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) is proposing to relocate the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station that is south of Katella Avenue and adjacent to The Grove of Anaheim. The new location will be approximately one quarter (0.25) mile east along the existing OCTA railroad right-of-way (ROW) in a larger (310,000 square feet) facility (Figure 1). The OCTA railroad ROW is part of the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) Corridor. The 310,000 square feet structure includes the gross building floor space, Metrolink/Amtrak concourse, and an under-building bus transit center. The selected design concept of the iconic ARTIC Intermodal Terminal is not an expandable structure, so the Bus Transit Center, the Metrolink/Amtrak Concourse, the Public Hall/Waiting Area, and the Program Space are designed to accommodate current needs and not preclude services that need to be provided in the future. The Metrolink/Amtrak Concourse is being planned to connect to the future transit modes. These future projects include California High Speed Rail, Anaheim Rapid Connector, and the California-Nevada Super Speed Train. Program Spaces are being planned to accommodate the passenger services of ticketing and related activities for the future transit modes. The final build-out of tenant improvements will be completed by other project teams for theses future transit modes in approximately five to ten years or later. Purpose and Need ARTIC is necessary because of the anticipated increase in rail passenger demand and the need to provide convenient intermodal connections. The existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak station will not Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Introduction Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 5 be able to meet the future demand for services because of physical and contractual constraints (Cordoba Corporation, 2009). In addition the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak station has restricted access and does not facilitate a seamless transfer of travelers from one mode of transit service to another at a regional center. ARTIC intended to provide improved and safe pedestrian access to two major sports and entertainment centers within the City. ARTIC is also intended to provide opportunities for Transit Oriented Development (TOD) as identified within the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. Project Description ARTIC will include the development of an Intermodal Terminal, Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area, the Stadium Pavilion, the Tracks/Platforms, Douglass Road Improvements, Katella Avenue improvements, and Surface Parking/Access. The Intermodal Terminal is proposed to be a three-level building of approximately 310,000 gross square feet that is comprised of approximately 140,000 square feet at-grade or above-grade and approximately 170,000 square feet below the building. There will be two levels at-grade or above-grade and one level below the building. The above grade uses will include terminal operations, passenger-oriented retail/restaurants, and civic space/public plaza. The below the building uses will include bus waiting and service areas. The facility will include an underground concourse with access to Metrolink/Amtrak and a parking lot south of the railroad ROW. The project will also include a new stub end track that will be constructed south of the existing tracks. Two, 1,200 foot long, platforms (varying in width from 21 feet to 40 feet) will be constructed for ARTIC. A replacement rail bridge will be constructed over Douglass Road to accommodate the three track/two platform alignment. Douglass Road will be widened to an eight lane configuration as it approaches Katella Avenue. These roadway improvements will include pedestrian circulation and relocation of utilities to service the project site. Construction is anticipated to last approximately twenty-six (26) to thirty-six (36) months. Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Introduction Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 6 Figure 2-1. Project Vicinity Map Not to Scale Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Noise and Vibration Fundamentals Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 7 3.0 Noise and Vibration Fundamentals Noise, otherwise known as unwanted sound, is what humans hear when our ears are exposed to small pressure fluctuations in the air (FTA, 2006). Noise is generated by a source and the magnitude of the noise depends on the type of source and its operating characteristics. In the case of the ARTIC Project, cars, buses, and freight and commuter rail will be the primary sources of noise. Measurement of Sound Noise consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, and sleep. To the human ear, sound has two significant characteristics: pitch and loudness. A specific pitch can be an annoyance, while loudness can affect our ability to hear. Pitch is the number of complete vibrations or cycles per second of a wave that results in the range of tone from high to low. Loudness is the strength of a sound that describes a noisy or quiet environment, and it is measured by the amplitude of the sound wave. Loudness is determined by the intensity of the sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the human ear. Sound intensity refers to how hard the sound wave strikes an object, which in turn produces the sound’s effect. When excessive noise interrupts ongoing activities, such as sleeping, conversing, and watching TV, it can create annoyance in communities, especially residential areas. In order to quantify and measure this noise annoyance in the environment, beginning in the 1970s, the EPA undertook a number of research and synthesis studies relating to community noise of all types. As a result of this research, the EPA developed descriptors, noise impact criteria, and methods of noise assessment. Noise is measured using several descriptors: • Decibel (dB) - The logarithmic unit used to measure sound and indicates the relative intensity of a sound. The 0 point on the dB scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Changes of 3.0 dB or less are only perceptible in laboratory environments. • A-weighting Sound Level (dBA) –The basic noise unit that measures sound audible to humans. Noises contain sound energy at different frequencies whose range depends on the individual noise source. Human hearing does not register the sound levels of all noise frequencies equally, and can reduces the impression of the magnitude of high and low pitched sounds. dBA units are sound levels measured through a process that filters noise levels to predominantly include sounds that are audible to humans. This process reduces the strength of very low and very high pitched sounds, such as low-frequency seismic disturbances and dog whistles, to more accurately measure sounds that affect humans. Normally occurring sounds lie in the range of 40 to 120 dBA. A sample of the dBA of common transit-related and other noise sources is shown on Figure 3-1. • Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) – A single value of sound level that quantifies the amount of noise in a specific environment for a particular period of time. • Hourly Equivalent Sound Level (Leq (h)) - A value that accounts for all levels of sound that occur in a particular location for one hour. For example, as a train approaches, passes by, and recedes into the distance, the dBA will rise, reach a maximum level, and eventually fade. The Leq (h) for this event would be a value that measures the cumulative impact of each level of sound that resulted from the train’s passing, in addition to any other sounds that occurred during one hour. It is particularly useful when measuring the cumulative noise impact for communities. Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Noise and Vibration Fundamentals Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 8 • Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn) - A value that accounts for all levels of sound that occur in a particular location for 24 hours. This cumulative value also includes a ten dB penalty imposed on any noise that occurs between 10 PM and 7 AM. Ldn is used to measure the cumulative noise impact at residential areas primarily because it takes into account the increased sensitivity to noise at night, which is when most people are sleeping. Typical ranges for community noise in various settings are shown in Table 3-1. • CNEL - Similar to Ldn, CNEL is the energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring over a 24-hour period, with a 10 dB penalty applied to A-weighted sound levels occurring during the nighttime hours between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., and a 5 dB penalty applied to the A-weighted sound levels occurring during evening hours between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Table 3-1. Typical Range of Ldn in Populated Areas Area Ldn, dBA Downtown City 75–85 “Very Noisy” Urban Residential Areas 65-75 “Quiet” Urban Residential Areas 60-65 Suburban Residential Areas 55-60 Small Town Residential Areas 45-55 Notes: Ldn= cumulative noise exposure Source: FTA (2006) A few general relationships may be helpful in understanding the dB scale: • An increase of one dBA cannot be perceived by the human ear. • A three dBA increase is normally the smallest change in sound levels that is perceptible to the human ear. • A ten dBA increase in noise level corresponds to tenfold increase in noise energy, but a listener would only judge a ten dBA increase as being twice as loud. • A 20 dBA increase would result in a dramatic change in how a listener would perceive the sound. Noise impacts can be described as inaudible, potentially audible and audible. Inaudible impacts are less than 1.0 dB and are not detectable by the human ear. Potentially audible refers to changes in noise levels ranging between 1.0 and 3.0 dB. This range has only been found to be noticeable in laboratory environments. Lastly, the audible impacts generally refer to a change of 3.0 dB or greater which refers to increases in noise levels noticeable to humans. However a change in 3.0 dB or less has been found to be barely perceptible in exterior environments. As noise spreads from a source, it loses energy so that the farther away the noise receiver is from the noise source, the lower the perceived noise level would be. Geometric spreading causes the sound level to attenuate or be reduced, resulting in a 6 dB reduction in the noise level for each doubling of distance from a single point source of noise to the noise sensitive receptor of concern. There are many ways to rate noise for various time periods, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound. Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Noise and Vibration Fundamentals Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 9 Physiological Effects of Noise Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA. Exposure to high noise levels affects our entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tension, and thereby affecting blood pressure, functions of the heart, and the nervous system. In comparison, extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA would result in permanent cell damage. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human ear even with short term exposure. This level of noise is called the threshold of feeling. As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation is replaced with the feeling of pain in the ear. This is called the threshold of pain. It is not only exposure to extremely high noise levels that can lead to hearing loss. Irreversible hearing damage can occur with long-term cumulative exposure to levels as low as 70 dBA. This 70 dBA threshold is not for singular or peak events; rather it is the average environmental sound level a person is exposed to over weeks and years that is critical in preventing hearing loss. So, if enough “quiet times” are also experienced, this threshold can be surpassed without significant damage occurring. Table 3-2 lists a Summary of Human Effects in Areas Exposed to 55 dBA Ldn. The ambient or background noise problem is widespread and generally more concentrated in urban areas than in outlying, less developed areas. Table 3-2: Summary of Human Effects in Areas Exposed to 55 dBA Ldn Type of Effects Magnitude of Effect Speech – Indoors 100 percent sentence intelligibility (average) with a 5 dB margin of safety. Speech – Outdoors 100 percent sentence intelligibility (average) at 0.35 meters. 99 percent sentence intelligibility (average) at 1.0 meters. 95 percent sentence intelligibility (average) at 3.5 meters. Average Community Reaction None evident; 7 dB below level of significant complaints and threats of legal action and at least 16 dB below “vigorous action.” Complaints 1 percent dependent on attitude and other non-level related factors. Annoyance 17 percent dependent on attitude and other non-level related factors. Attitude Towards Area Noise essentially the least important of various factors. Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety.” March 1974. Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Noise and Vibration Fundamentals Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 10 Figure 3-1. Typical A-weighted Sound Levels Source: FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (May, 2006) Vibration Vibration is a trembling or oscillating motion of the earth. Like noise, vibration is transmitted in waves, but in this case through the earth or solid objects. Unlike noise, vibration is typically of a frequency that is felt rather than heard. Vibration can be either natural, as in the form of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides, etc., or man-made as from explosions, the action of heavy machinery or heavy vehicles such as trains or construction equipment. Both natural and man-made vibration may be continuous such as from operating machinery, or transient as from an explosion. As with noise, vibration can be described by both its amplitude and frequency. Amplitude may be characterized in three ways including displacement, velocity and acceleration. Particle displacement is a measure of the distance that a vibrated particle travels from its original position and for the purposes of soil displacement is typically measured in inches or millimeters. Particle velocity is the rate of Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Noise and Vibration Fundamentals Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 11 speed at which soil particles move in inches per second or millimeters per second. Particle acceleration is the rate of change in velocity with respect to time and is measured in inches per second or millimeters per second. Typically, particle velocity (measured in inches or millimeters per second) and/or acceleration (measured in gravities) are used to describe vibration. Table 3-3 presents the human reaction to various levels of peak particle velocity. Table 3-3. Human Reaction to Typical Vibration Levels Vibration Level Peak Particle Velocity (in/sec) Human Reaction Effect on Buildings 0.006-0.019 Threshold of perception, possibility of intrusion Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of any type 0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible Recommended upper level of vibration to which ruins and ancient monuments should be subjected 0.10 Level at which continuous vibration begins to annoy people Threshold at which there is a risk to “architectural” damage to normal buildings 0.20 Vibrations annoying people in buildings Threshold at which there is a risk “architectural” damage to normal dwelling-houses with plastered walls and ceilings 0.4-0.6 Vibrations considered unpleasant by people subjected to continuous vibrations and unacceptable to some people walking on bridges Vibrations at a greater level than normally expected from traffic, but would cause “architectural” damage and possible minor structural damage Vibrations also vary in frequency and this affects perception. Typical construction vibrations fall in the 10 to 30 Hertz (Hz) range and usually occur around 15 Hz. Traffic vibrations exhibit a similar range of frequencies. However, due to their suspension systems, buses often generate frequencies around 3 Hz at high vehicle speeds. It is more uncommon, but possible, to measure traffic frequencies above 30 Hz. The way in which vibration is transmitted through the earth is called propagation. Propagation of earthborne vibrations is complicated and difficult to predict because of the endless variations in the soil through which waves travel. There are three main types of vibration propagation: surface, compression, and shear waves. Surface waves, or Rayleigh waves, travel along the ground’s surface. These waves carry most of their energy along an expanding circular wave front, similar to ripples produced by throwing a rock into a pool of water. P-waves, or compression waves, are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding spherical wave front. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal (i.e., in a “push-pull” fashion). P-waves are analogous to airborne sound waves. S-waves, or shear waves, are also body waves that carry energy along an expanding spherical wave front. However, unlike P-waves, the particle motion is transverse or “side-to-side and perpendicular to the direction of propagation. As vibration waves propagate from a source, the energy is spread over an ever-increasing area such that the energy level striking a given point is reduced with the distance from the energy source. This geometric spreading loss is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Wave energy is also reduced with distance as a result of material damping in the form of internal friction, soil layering, and void spaces. The amount of attenuation provided by material damping varies with soil type and condition, as well as the frequency of the wave. Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Noise and Vibration Fundamentals Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 12 When assessing annoyance from groundborne noise, vibration is typically expressed as root mean square (rms) velocity in units of decibels of 1 micro-inch per second. To distinguish vibration levels from noise levels, the unit is written as “VdB.” Human perception to vibration starts at levels as low as 67 VdB and sometimes lower. Annoyance due to vibration in residential settings starts at approximately 70 VdB. Groundborne vibration is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors. Although the motion of the ground may be perceived, without the effects associated with the shaking of the building, the motion does not provoke the same adverse human reaction. In extreme cases, excessive groundborne vibration has the potential to cause structural damage to buildings. Common sources of groundborne vibration include trains and construction activities such as blasting, pile driving and operating heavy earthmoving equipment. Typical vibration source levels from construction equipment are shown in Table 3-4. There are significant differences in the vibration characteristics when the source is underground compared to at the ground surface. In addition, soil conditions are known to have a strong influence on the levels of groundborne vibration. Among the most important factors are the stiffness and internal damping of the soil and the depth to bedrock. Soft, loose, sandy soils tend to attenuate more vibration energy than hard, rocky materials. Vibration propagation through groundwater is more efficient than through sandy soils. Table 3-4: Typical Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment Approximate VdB at 25 feet Upper range 112 Pile Driver (impact) Typical 104 Upper range 105 Pile Driver (sonic) Typical 93 Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 94 In soil 66 Hydromill (slurry wall) In rock 75 Vibratory roller 94 Hoe ram 87 Large bulldozer 87 Caisson drilling 87 Loaded truck 86 Jackhammer 79 Small bulldozer 58 Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May. Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Regulatory Requirements Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 13 4.0 Regulatory Requirements A project will normally have a significant effect on the environment related to noise if it will substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community in which it is located, including noise land use compatibility guidelines. The applicable noise standards governing the project site include federal and state standards as well as the standards found in the City of Anaheim, City of Orange and the County of Orange Municipal Noise Codes which establish exterior noise acceptability thresholds for identifying impacts to future residents of new development in areas with existing ambient noise. This section further describes these established guidelines. Federal Policies and Regulations Noise Control Act of 1972 and Quiet Communities Act of 1978 The Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 USC) and the Quiet Communities Act of 1978 (42 USC 4913) were established by the U.S. EPA to set performance standards for noise emissions from major sources, including transit sources. Though these acts are still in effect, the enforcement of the stated noise emission standards shifted to state and local governments in 1981. Federal Railroad Administration The FRA adopted the USEPA railroad noise standards as its noise regulations (49 CFR 11, part 210) for the purpose of enforcement. The standards provide specific noise limits for stationary and moving locomotives, moving railroad cars, and associated railroad operations in terms of A-weighted sound level at a specified measurement location. The standards are shown in Table 4-1. Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Regulatory Requirements Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 14 Table 4-1. Summary of EPA/FRA Railroad Noise Standards Operating Conditions Measured Distance (Feet) Standard (dBA) Non-Switcher Locomotives1 built on or before 12/31/79 Stationary4 100 73 Idle Stationary5 100 93 Non-Idle Moving6 100 95 Switcher Locomotives2 plus Non-Switcher Locomotives built after 12/31/79 Stationary 100 70 Idle Stationary 100 87 Non-Idle Moving 100 90 Rail Cars3 Speed less than 45 mph 100 88 Speed greater than 45 mph 100 93 Coupling 50 92 Notes: 1) Non-Switcher Locomotives - A road engine that is used in long-haul railcar movement. 2) Switcher Locomotives - A smaller engine that is used in shuttling railcars. 3) Railcar - The car(s) pulled by a train engine. 4) Stationary - Sitting at idle and measured 100 feet from the center line of the track where the train is idling. 5) Idle Stationary - Sitting at idle. 6) Non-Idle Moving - Moving along the rails. Source: City of Perris General Plan Noise Element, 2005. Federal Transit Authority Federal Transit Administration Construction Vibration Criteria. Groundborne vibration has the potential to disturb people as well as to damage buildings. Although it is rare for transit- induced groundborne vibration to cause even cosmetic building damage, it is not uncommon for construction processes such as blasting and pile driving to cause vibration of sufficient amplitude to damage nearby buildings. The FTA guideline for construction vibration impact criteria are shown in Table 4-2 for various structural categories. Construction vibration Damage Criteria Thresholds are shown in Table 4.3. Table 4-2: Federal Transit Administration Construction Vibration Impact Criteria Building Category Vibration Level Damage Impact Criteria (VdB) Reinforced-concrete, steel or timber (no plaster) 102 Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 98 Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 94 Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 90 Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May. Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Regulatory Requirements Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 15 Table 4-3. Construction Vibration Damage Criteria Thresholds Building Category Type of Building Vibration Level (in/sec) Approximate Lv1 Category I Reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 102 Category II Engineered concrete and masonry buildings 0.3 98 Category III Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94 Category IV Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90 Notes: 1) RMS velocity in decibels (VdB) re 1 micro-inch/second. Source: Acoustical Impact Analysis South Perris Industrial, City of Perris. URS Corporation. May 2009 (Appendix I). Federal Transit Administration Train Related Activity Noise and Vibration Criteria FTA has established guidelines for evaluating noise exposure levels and vibration impacts from train related activity in their Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA-VA-90-1003- 06, May 2006). The thresholds are displayed in Table 4-4. This policy document outlines different levels of detail for impact analysis for both noise and vibration; a screening procedure, a general impact assessment, and a detailed analysis. Noise impact criteria for construction and operation of passenger rail facilities are based on the change in outdoor noise exposure using a sliding scale with three receptor categories and three degrees of impact. These criteria apply to various surface transportation modes, including heavy rail. The criteria respond to heightened community annoyance caused by late-night or early morning service and they respond to varying sensitivity of communities to noise from projects during different ambient noise conditions. Table 4-4. FTA Vibration Impact Criteria Thresholds Groundborne Vibration (GBV) (VdB re: 1 micro-inch/sec) Groundborne Noise (GBN) (dB re: 20 micro-Pascal’s) Vibration Category Frequent Events1 Occasional Events2 Infrequent Events3 Frequent Events Occasional Events Infrequent Events Category 1 65 VdB4 65 VdB4 65 VdB4 NA4 NA4 NA4 Category 2 72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB 35 VdB 38 VdB 43 VdB Category 3 75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB 40 VdB 43 VdB 48 VdB Notes: Vibration-sensitive equipment is generally not sensitive to groundborne noise. 1) "Frequent Events" is defined as more than 70 events of the same source per day. Most rapid transit projects fall into this category. 2) "Occasional Events" is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. Most commuter trunk lines have this many operations. 3) "Infrequent Events" is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day. This category includes most commuter rail branch lines. 4) This criterion limit is based upon levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes. Vibration-sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels. Ensuring lower vibration levels in a building often requires special design of the HVAC systems and stiffened floors. Source: Acoustical Impact Analysis South Perris Industrial, City of Perris. URS Corporation, May 2009 (Appendix I) Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Regulatory Requirements Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 16 State Policies and Regulations California Noise Control Act of 1973 The California Health and Safety Code established the California Noise Control Act of 1973 (§46000 et seq.) to “establish and maintain a program on noise control.” This act mirrors the federal Noise Control Act of 1972 and also defers the enforcement of noise emission standards to local county and city agencies. California Government Code Section 65302 (f) California Government Code Section 65302 (f) states that general plans must include a noise element section which identifies and appraises noise problems in the community, and recognizes the guidelines established by the Office of Noise Control. The adopted noise element should serve as a guideline for compliance with the state’s noise standards. The Office has prepared a land use compatibility chart for community noise as shown in Table 4-5. It identifies normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable and clearly unacceptable noise levels for various land uses. These standards identify normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, and clearly unacceptable noise levels for various land uses. A conditionally acceptable designation implies new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements for each land use is made and needed noise insulation features are incorporated in the design. By comparison, a normally acceptable designation indicates that standard construction can occur with no special noise reduction requirements. Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Regulatory Requirements Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 17 Table 4-5. Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Land Use Category Community Noise Exposure Level Ldn or CNEL, dBA 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Residential-Low Density Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes Residential-Multiple Family Transient Lodging-Motels, Hotels Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries Office Buildings, Business, Commercial, and Professional Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture Normally Acceptable: Normally Unacceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made with needed noise insulation features included in the design. Outdoor areas must be shielded. Conditionally Acceptable: Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the no ise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulat ion features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air condit ioning will normally suffice. Outdoor environment may seem noisy. New construction or development should generally not be undertake. Construction costs to make the indoor environment acceptable would be prohibitive and the outdoor environment would not be usable. Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Regulatory Requirements Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 18 Local Policies and Regulations Cities and counties in California are preempted by federal law from controlling noise generated from most mobile sources, including noise generated by vehicles and trucks on the roadway, trains on the railroad, and airplanes. Therefore, the states of California’s land use compatibility guidelines are adopted as a tool to gauge the compatibility of new development in the noise environment generated by mobile sources. City of Anaheim General Plan and Noise Ordinance The Noise Element of the City of Anaheim’s General Plan indicates that noise levels are to be attained in habitable exterior areas and need not encompass the entirety of the property, and that special consideration should be given in the case of infill residential development located along the City’s arterial corridors or railroad lines in order to achieve an appropriate balance between providing a quality living environment and attractive project design. The City of Anaheim adopted, as part of the Noise Element, the State of California standards as described previously. Exterior noise levels at residential locations should not exceed a CNEL of 65 dB while interior levels shall not exceed a CNEL of 45 dB in any habitable room as shown in Table 4-6. City of Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 6.70, Sound Pressure Levels. Section 6.70. Stationary sources of noise are governed under the local Municipal Code, Chapter 6.70, Sound Pressure Levels. Section 6.70.010 simply states that “No person shall, within the City, create any sound, radiated for extended periods from any premises which produces a sound pressure level at any point on the property in excess of 60 dB (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 section goes on to state, “Traffic sounds, sound created by emergency activities and sound created by governmental units shall be exempt from the applications of this chapter. Sound created by construction or building repair of any premises within the City shall be exempt from the applications of this chapter during the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.” City of Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 6.70 To minimize disturbance by construction noise, the City restricts noise intensive construction activities to the hours specified under Chapter 6.70 of the City of Anaheim Municipal Code (i.e., 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.). These hours shall also apply to any servicing of equipment and to the delivery of materials to or from the site. In addition, construction shall be restricted to weekdays and Saturdays between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Construction shall not be allowed any time on Sundays or Federally recognized holidays. Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Regulatory Requirements Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 19 Table 4-6. State of California Interior and Exterior Noise Standards (CNEL) Land Use CNEL (dBA) Categories Uses Interior1 Exterior2 Single- and Multi-family 453 65 Residential Mobile homes -- 654 H0otel, motel, transient housing 45 -- Commercial retail, bank, restaurant 55 -- Office building, research and development, professional offices 50 -- Amphitheater, concert hall, auditorium 45 -- Gymnasium (multi-purpose) 50 -- Sports Club 55 -- Manufacturing, warehousing, wholesale, utilities 65 -- Commercial Movie theaters 45 -- Hospitals, school classrooms, playgrounds 45 65 Institution/Public Church, library 45 -- Open Space Parks -- 65 1 Indoor environment including kitchens, bathrooms, toilets, closets and corridors. 2 Outdoor environment limited to: private yard of single-family dwellings; multiple-family patios or balconies accessed from within the dwelling (balconies 6 feet deep of less are exempt); mobile home parks; park picnic areas; school playgrounds; and hospital patios. 3 Noise level requirements with closed windows, mechanical ventilation or other means of natural ventilation shall be provided as per Chapter 12, Section 1205 of the Uniform Building Code. 4 Exterior noise levels should be such that interior noise levels will not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. City of Orange Municipal Code, Chapter 8.24, Noise Control Interior and exterior noise levels for residential land uses in the City of Orange are governed by the City’s Municipal Code, Chapter 8.24, Noise Control. The code states that, “It is unlawful for any person at any location within the City to create any noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other residential property to exceed” the noise levels displayed in Table 4-7. Table 4-7. City of Orange Municipal Code Residential Noise Levels Noise Zone Noise Level (dBA) Time Period 55 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. Exterior 50 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. 55 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. Interior None Given 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. Source: City of Orange, Municipal Code, Section 8.24 City of Orange, General Plan Noise Element The City of Orange has adopted a mandatory Noise Element required by California’s Health and Safety Code Section 46050.01. The goal of the Noise Element is to identify problems and noise sources threatening community safety and comfort and to establish policies and programs that will limit the community’s exposure to excessive noise levels. Standards within the Noise Element state Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Regulatory Requirements Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 20 that transportation sources not exceed an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL at residential locations while interior levels shall not exceed a CNEL of 45 dBA in any habitable room. Table 4-8 displays standards for other land uses found within the City of Orange. Table 4-8. Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure – Transportation Sources Land Use CNEL (dBA) Designations Uses Interior1,3 Exterior2 Single-family, duplex, and multiple- family 45 65 Estate Low Density Low Density Residential Low Medium Density Residential Mobile home park N/A 65 Single-family 45 65 Mobile home park N/A 65 Multiple-family, mixed-use 45 654,5 Transient lodging—motels, hotels 45 65 Sports arenas, outdoor spectator sports N/A N/A Auditoriums, concert halls, amphitheaters 45 N/A Medium Density Residential Neighborhood Mixed-use Neighborhood Office Professional Old Towne Mixed-use General Commercial Yorba Commercial Overlay Urban Mixed-use Urban Office Professional Office buildings, business, commercial and professional 50 N/A Light Industrial Industrial Manufacturing, utilities, agriculture N/A N/A Schools, nursing homes, day care facilities, hospitals, convalescent facilities, dormitories 45 65 Government Facilities—offices, fire stations, community buildings 45 N/A Places of Worship, Churches 45 N/A Libraries 45 N/A Utilities N/A N/A Public Facilities and Institutions Cemeteries N/A N/A Playgrounds, neighborhood parks N/A 70 Recreation Commercial Open Space Open Space—Park Open Space—Ridgeline Resource Area Golf courses, riding stables, water recreation, cemeteries N/A N/A Notes: (1) Interior habitable environment excludes bathrooms, closets and corridors. (2) Exterior noise level standard to be applied at outdoor activity areas; such as private yards, private patio or balcony of a multi-family residence. Where the location of an outdoor activity area is unknown or not applicable, the noise standard shall be applied inside the property line of the receiving land use. (3) Interior noise standards shall be satisfied with windows in the closed position. Mechanical ventilation shall be provided per Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements. (4) Within the Urban Mixed-Use, Neighborhood Mixed-Use, Old Towne Mixed-use, and Medium Density Residential land use designations, exterior space standards apply only to common outdoor recreational areas. (5) Within Urban Mixed-Use and Medium Density Residential land use designations, exterior noise levels on private patios or balconies located within 250 feet of freeways (I-5, SR-57, SR-55, SR-22, or SR-241) and Smart Streets and Principal Arterials identified in the Circulation & Mobility Element that exceed 70 dB should provide additional common open space. N/A=Not Applicable to specified land use category or designation Source: Alliance Acoustical Consultants, modified by EDAW, 2008 Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Regulatory Requirements Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 21 County of Orange Municipal Code, Section 4-6, Noise Control In order to control unnecessary, excessive and annoying sounds emanating from unincorporated areas in Orange County, the County has developed Section 4-6, Noise Control, of the Municipal Code to prohibit such sounds generated from all sources. This section of the County’s Municipal Code has specific standards established for interior and exterior noise levels for residential areas within the County. Table 4-9 displays the County’s standards for interior and exterior noise levels for residential land uses. Table 4-9. County of Orange Municipal Code Residential Noise Levels Noise Zone Noise Level (dBA) Time Period 55 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. Exterior 50 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. 55 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. Interior 45 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. Source: County of Orange, Municipal Code, Section 4-6 Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Methodology Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 22 5.0 Methodology A general noise assessment was performed to evaluate impacts from the proposed relocation of the transit center. Evaluation of noise impacts associated with the proposed project involved: • Identifying applicable regulatory requirements and threshold levels at noise sensitive land use areas; • Identifying noise sensitive land uses in the project area; • Obtaining field measurements of sensitive land uses subject to federal, state and local threshold levels; • Determining the long-term noise impacts, including vehicular traffic and stationary noise sources, on noise sensitive land uses; • Determining the short-term construction noise impacts on noise sensitive land; and uses • Determining the required mitigation measures to reduce long-term noise impacts from all sources. The approach for assessing project noise impacts stem from the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual (FTA-VA-90-1003-06, May, 2006) as well as other applicable local noise ordinances that apply to the construction and operation of the transit center and community noise levels at sensitive land use categories. A noise monitoring program was conducted to establish a baseline for determining existing noise levels within the proposed project area as well as from the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station. Noise computations were performed utilizing the field measurement data, traffic data, and Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Prediction Model Methodology (FHWA-RD-77-108) to assess changes in traffic noise levels in the project area. The predicted future noise levels were then compared to the existing conditions, FTA, and local regulations to determine potential impacts generated from the proposed project. Further discussion of the field procedures and computation methods utilized in the noise assessment are presented below. Field Survey A field investigation was conducted to identify land uses that could be subject to traffic, train movement, and construction noise impacts from the proposed project. Land uses in the proposed project area were categorized by land use type, as defined in Table 5-1. Accordingly, this impact analysis focuses on locations with potential impacts from the implementation and construction of the proposed project. Field measurement locations were selected to represent the existing conditions of the proposed project area. Field Measurement Procedures The three long-term measurements taken within the project area were completed in accordance with the FTA guidelines for conducting noise measurements. FTA recommends that full one-hour measurements are the most precise way to determine ambient noise exposure for nonresidential receivers. For residential receivers, full 24-hour measurements are most precise. Such full-duration measurements are preferred over other options, where time and study funds allow. The duration of the study allowed for three long-term measurements to be conducted. The following procedures apply to full-duration measurements: Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Methodology Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 23 • Measure a full 24-hours’ Ldn at the receiver of interest, for a single weekday (generally between noon Monday and noon Friday). • Use judgment in positioning the measurement microphone. Location of the microphone at the receiver depends upon the proposed location of the transit noise source. If, for example, a new rail line will be in front of the house, do not locate the microphone in the back yard. Figure 5- 1 illustrates recommended measurement positions for various locations of the project, with respect to the house and the existing source of ambient noise. • Undertake all measurements in accordance with good engineering practice following guidelines given in American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards. Field Measurement Instruments The following instruments were used for field noise measurements: • Sound Level Meter – A Larson Davis (LD) 824 System sound level meter was used to measure existing noise levels. This sound level meter and its microphone conform to the Institute of Electronic and Electric Engineers and the ANSI standards for Type 1 instruments. • Microphone System – LD Model 2560 1.27-centimeter (0.5-inch) pressure microphone; LD Model 900 microphone preamplifier. • Acoustic Field Calibrator – LD Model CA250 Precision Acoustic Calibrator. Sony DSC-W50 Cybershot 6.0 Mega Pixel MPEG camera. Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Methodology Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 24 Figure 5-1. Recommended Microphone Locations for Existing Noise Measurements *Source: FTA 2006 Long-Term Measurement Three long-term measurements were conducted at three locations: the Ayres Hotel of Anaheim, the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station, and the closest location to the border of the City of Anaheim and the City of Orange, as shown in Figure 5-2. No additional long-term measurements were conducted in the project area, as other sensitive land uses were located outside the FTA screening distance. The purpose of this measurement was to describe variations in sound levels throughout the day and to determine the existing cumulative CNEL and Ldn values for each of the three locations within the project area. The long-term measurements were conducted using a Larson-Davis Model 824 Type 1 (Serial No. 824A3609) sound level meter. Long-term sound level data was collected over 24-hour Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Methodology Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 25 periods. The long-term measurement at the Ayres Hotel of Anaheim was started on April 15, 2010 at 4:20 p.m. and ended on April 16, 2010 at 4:20 p.m. The long-term measurement at the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station was started on April 13, 2010 at 6:20 p.m. and ended on April 14, 2010 at 6:20 p.m. The long-term measurement at the border of the City of Anaheim and the City of Orange was started on April 7, 2010 at 12:30 p.m. and ended on April 8, 2010 at 12:30 p.m. Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Methodology Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 26 Legend: Project Limits Not Part of Project City of Anaheim/City of Orange Boundary Figure 5-2. Field Measurement Locations Anaheim Train Station Ayres Hotel City of Orange Not to Scale Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Methodology Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 27 Traffic Noise Levels Prediction Methods The proposed project includes the relocation of a transit center and local roadway improvements that will alter traffic patterns. The noise analysis considered the noise effects of the transit center on existing noise sensitive land uses identified in the project area. Future noise impacts resulting from vehicular traffic on roadways were modeled using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) which includes the California specific vehicle noise curves (CALVENO). The noise computations use a series of regression formulas to calculate an energy average noise level for the different classes of vehicles (automobiles, medium truck, heavy trucks) average daily traffic volumes (ADT), vehicle speed, and the percentage of vehicles on the road during the three time periods of the day. Traffic inputs were obtained for roadway segments evaluated in the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (Linscott, Law, and Greenspan Engineers, 2010). Automobiles were assumed to be traveling at 40 miles per hour (mph) and medium and heavy trucks were assumed to be traveling at 40 mph. Truck percentages of ADT were assumed to be at 5 percent for medium trucks and 3 percent for heavy trucks. The noise computations also calculated the CNEL value which applies an appropriate penalty for evening and nighttime hours. Traffic noise was evaluated under existing conditions, opening year (2013) and design year (2030) without project and with project conditions. Describe the Process for Evaluating Noise Abatement The implementation of the proposed project can potentially impact any sensitive receivers identified within the project area. Therefore, procedures outlined in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment were utilized as a guideline for determine if the proposed project will cause noise impacts to the surrounding area or exceed federal, state or local standards. It was determined that a General Noise Assessment would be appropriate to utilize for this project. The procedures for this level of assessment provided by the FTA are as follows: 1. Tabulate existing ambient noise exposure at all identified receivers. 2. Tabulate project noise exposure at these receivers from the analytical procedures provided in the FTA guidelines. 3. Determine the level of noise impact (No Impact, Moderate Impact or Severe Impact) following the procedures in Chapter 3 of the FTA guidelines. 4. Document the results in noise-assessment inventory tables. 5. Illustrate the areas of Moderate Impact and Severe Impact on maps or aerial photographs. 6. Discussion of the magnitude of the impacts is an essential part of the assessment. The magnitude of noise impact is defined by the two threshold curves delineating onset of Moderate Impact and Severe Impact. For operational rail noise, FTA has identified noise sensitive land uses to assess potential impacts of transit projects, as shown in Table 5-1. These criteria were developed based on the research done by the USEPA that identified environments particularly sensitive to annoying noises. These environments are known as “noise sensitive land uses” or “sensitive receptors.” Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Methodology Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 28 Table 5-1. Land Use Categories and Metrics for Transit Noise Impact Criteria Land Use Category Noise Metric (dBA) Description of Land Use Category 1 Outdoor Leq (h)* Tracts of land where quiet is an essential element in their intended purpose. This category includes lands set aside for serenity and quiet, and such land uses as outdoor amphitheaters and concert pavilions, as well as National Historic Landmarks with significant outdoor use. Also included are recording studios and concert halls. 2 Outdoor Ldn Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This category includes homes, hospitals and hotels where a nighttime sensitivity to noise is assumed to be of utmost importance. 3 Outdoor Leq (h)* Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This category includes schools, libraries, theaters, and churches where it is important to avoid interference with such activities as speech, meditation and concentration on reading material. Places for meditation or study associated with cemeteries, monuments, museums, campgrounds and recreational facilities can also be considered to be in this category. Certain historical sites and parks are also included. *Leq for the noisiest hour of transit–related activity during hours of noise sensitivity. For Categories 1 and 3, the Leq noise descriptor is used, while Category 2 properties are assessed utilizing the Ldn descriptor. In most cases, these three categories are the only land uses that would be negatively impacted by high noise levels because industrial or commercial areas are generally compatible with high noise levels. FTA provides criteria for three degrees of impact: “No Impact,” “Moderate Impact,” and “Severe Impact” which correlate well with CEQA impact terminology (i.e., no impact, less than significant impact and potentially significant impact), as shown in Figure 5-3. • No Impact - The project, on average, will result in an insignificant increase in the number of instances where people are “highly annoyed” by new noise. • Moderate Impact - The change in cumulative noise is noticeable to most people, but may not be sufficient to cause strong, adverse community reactions. • Severe Impact - A significant percentage of people would be highly annoyed by the noise, perhaps resulting in vigorous community reaction. The Severe Impact criterion complies with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) definition of “significant adverse impact of effect”. All three degree of impact categories also correspond to the CEQA impact terminology. Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Methodology Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 29 Figure 5-3. Noise Impact Criteria for Transit Projects The criterion for each degree of impact is on a sliding scale dependent on the existing noise exposure and the increase in noise exposure due to the project. Noise impacts to these three categories as a result of a proposed project are assessed by comparing the existing and future project-related outdoor noise levels. As the existing level of ambient noise increases, the allowable level of transit noise also increases; however, the total amount by which that community’s noise can increase without an impact is reduced. As shown in Figure 5-4, as existing and allowable combined total noise levels increase, the allowable change in noise level decreases. Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Methodology Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 30 Figure 5-4. Allowable Transit Noise Level Increases (Ldn and Leq in dBA) Hotel Room Noise Measurements Local ordinances in the project vicinity require determining the potential noise impacts of a project on building interiors. The FTA guidance does not provide direction on determining the attenuation of a building, therefore, the method used to determine the attenuation of the Ayres Hotel building was similar to the guidelines outlined in the Caltrans TeNS manual (Caltrans, 2009) for performing simultaneous interior and exterior noise measurement. For each measurement, a microphone is located outside, approximately the same distance from the highway as the center of each room. The second microphone is located in the center of the room. The microphones should be set up far enough away from the building to avoid shielding by the corners of the building. This can be accomplished by maintaining at least a 70-degree angle between a perpendicular line to the highway and a line to the corner of the building, as shown in Figure 5-5. Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Methodology Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 31 Figure 5-5. Simultaneous Interior and Exterior Noise Meter Setup Source: Caltrans’ TeNS Manual HOTEL Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Impacts and Mitigaiton Measures Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 32 6.0 Existing Environment Overview of Existing Noise Sources There are a myriad of noise sources in the City of Anaheim that contribute to the existing noise environment. The major source of noise is vehicular traffic traveling throughout the City on its various roadways and freeways. In addition, several passenger and freight trains run throughout the City of Anaheim. The City also includes a variety of stationary noise sources. These are primarily associated with industrial land uses, but also include fireworks displays put on at Disneyland on a regular basis and at Angel Stadium of Anaheim for special events. While the noises from these stationary sources are audible, they are of short duration and as such, do not add substantially to the existing CNEL, which is based on a 24-hour, time-weighted average. Sensitive Land Uses in the Project Vicinity The project area consists of mainly commercial land uses including office buildings, restaurants, retail businesses, and one hotel. FTA guidance recommends a screening distance of 1,200 feet from the centerline of the noise-generating activity. Sensitive receivers identified within this screen distance are the Ayres Hotel of Anaheim and the Avalon Anaheim Stadium Apartments, identified within Category 2 of the FTA Land Use Categories. An Extended Stay Hotel was also identified in the City of Orange approximately 1000 feet from the border of the City of Anaheim and the City of Orange border. However, it resides beyond the FTA screening distance; therefore it is not expected to experience noise impacts from the proposed project. A property immediately east of the Santa A n a River is d esignated "Urb an Mix ed Use" in the C ity o f O ran g e General P lan Land Use Plan, and therefore allows and could accommodate residential development in the future. However, currently there are no future plans for such development. Although noise sensitive land uses in the City of Orange are outside of the FTA screening, existing 24-hour noise measurement was take at the closet location to the project site near the City of Anaheim and the City of Orange border to characterize the existing environment. Ambient Noise Levels A field survey was conducted taking three long-term (24-hour) measurements to determine the current noise environment the Ayres Hotel of Anaheim, the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station and a location near the border of the City of Anaheim and the City of Orange at the cross streets of W. Katella Avenue and Main Street. Field monitoring was performed on April 6 through April 16, 2010 for these three locations. The purpose of long-term monitoring was to document the existing noise environment and capture the noise levels associated with operations or activities in the project vicinity. The three long-term measurements were also used to determine the existing cumulative CNEL and Ldn values for each of the three locations within the project area. To calculate the average CNEL for each area an average hourly Leq was calculated from the 24-hour measurement period. Then a 10 dB penalty was applied to the A-weighted sound levels occurring during the nighttime hours between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., and a 5 dB penalty applied to the A-weighted sound levels occurring during evening hours between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. These values were then averaged to determine the CNEL value for each location. Ldn is determined utilizing the same methods in determining the CNEL values, however, a 5 dBA penalty is not added to the evening hours between 7:00 p.m. and 10 p.m. A summary of the long-term results at each of the locations are presented in Table 6-1. The CNEL and Ldn calculations can be found in Appendix B. Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Methodology Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 33 Table 6-1. Existing Project Area Cumulative CNEL Values Location Description CNEL (dBA) Ldn (dBA) Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station 60 59 Ayres Hotel 67 67 City of Orange 73 72 Currently, the Ayres Hotel location experiences noise levels that exceed 65 dBA CNEL. According to the California Office of Noise Control’s land use compatibility chart for community noise, the Ayres Hotel is within the “conditionally acceptable” category. This is attributed to the hotel being located near the SR57 freeway, the dominate noise source during field monitoring. A “conditionally acceptable” designation implies new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements for each land use is made and needed noise insulation features are incorporated in the design. Existing Traffic Noise Noise from motor vehicles is generated by engine vibrations, the interaction between tires and the road, and the exhaust system. Reducing the average motor vehicle speed reduces the noise exposure of receptors adjacent to the road. Each reduction of five miles per hour reduces noise by about 1 dBA. In order to assess the potential for mobile-source noise impacts, it is necessary to determine the noise currently generated by vehicles traveling through the project area. Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were based on the existing daily traffic volumes provided Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (April 2010). The results of this modeling indicate that average noise levels along arterial segments currently range from approximately 75 dBA to 76 dBA CNEL as calculated at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the road. Noise levels for existing conditions along analyzed roadways are presented in Table 6-2. Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Methodology Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 34 Table 6-2. Existing Traffic Noise Levels Segment ADT CNEL (dBA @ a reference distance of 50 feet) Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way 35,040 75.0 Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street 35,040 75.6 Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard 30,260 75.0 Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown 32,800 75.3 Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue 34,240 75.5 Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway 37,990 75.9 Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street 29,610 74.9 Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street 30,280 75.0 Rail Noise Noise from trains is generated by crossing bells, engines, exhaust noise, air turbulence generated by cooling fans, and other gear noise. The interaction of steel wheels with rails generates three types of noise: (1) rolling noise; (2) impact noise when a wheel encounters a discontinuity in the running surfaces, such as a rail joint, turnout, or crossover; and (3) squeals generated by friction on tight curves. Noise generated by the event of a single train passing is dominated primarily by the train horn and secondarily by the train engines and cars. Train horns are required by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to sound at a minimum of 103 dBA as measured from 100 feet from the train. To determine the existing noise environment with the operation of the current train traffic three long- term measurements were taken in the surrounding proposed project area. Factors that influence the overall impact of railroad noise on adjacent uses include the distance of Buildings from the tracks, the intermittent nature of train noise (engine, horns, tracks), and the lack of sound walls or other barriers between the tracks and adjacent uses. Long-term noise measurements at the project site documented the noise levels from the existing Metrolink and Amtrak train operations through the current Metrolink station. The hourly Leq values documented by the long-term noise measurement were weighted and summed to calculate the day-night 24-hour weighted average noise level for all noise sources on the project site. The resulting weekday measured ambient noise level the project site is 59 dBA Ldn. Stationary Noise Sources. Stationary noise mentioned earlier in this section influence the ambient noise levels at the project site. These sources include noise from parking lot activities on the project site from the project site. Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Methodology Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 35 As was observed during the time of the noise measurements, noise from vehicular traffic and train operations were the dominant noise sources influencing the ambient noise levels on the project site. Noise from any existing or future fixed equipment in the project vicinity, or proposed as part of the project, is regulated by the City’s Stationary Equipment Noise Ordinance. This ordinance restricts fixed equipment (such as air conditioners, pool filters, compressors, and industrial machinery) from exceeding 55 dBA when measured at any location on a neighboring residential property. Any plans submitted for a building permit must include documentation that proposed equipment meets this standard. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose persons in the project vicinity to excessive noise levels from stationary noise sources. Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Methodology Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 36 7.0 Impacts and Mitigations Measures This section identifies the noise impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. Mitigation measures are recommended, as appropriate, for significant impacts to eliminate or reduce them to a less-than-significant level. Short-Term Impacts and Mitigation Construction-Related Noise Impacts Temporary noise impacts are impacts associated with demolition, site preparation, grading and construction of the proposed land uses. Two types of short-term noise impacts are likely to occur during construction. First, the transport of workers and movement of materials to and from the site could incrementally increase noise levels along local roads. The second type of short-term noise impact is noise generated by construction equipment at the job site during demolition, site preparation, grading and/or building construction. Construction is performed on a distinct schedule, each phase of which has its own mix of equipment noise characteristics. However, despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table 7-1 lists typical construction equipment noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments as based on a distance of 50 feet, the recommended reference distance provided by FTA guidance, between the equipment and a noise receiver. Table 7-1. Typical Construction Equipment Noise Equipment Maximum Noise Level (dBA Leq at 50 feet) Scrapers 89 Bulldozers 85 Heavy Trucks 88 Backhoe 80 Pneumatic Tools 85 Concrete Pump 82 Source: Federal Transit Administration, May 2006. dBA = A-weighted decibels Leq = equivalent sound level The Platinum Triangle Subsequent EIR Number 332 cited construction noise characterized by Bolt, Beranek and Newman (City of Anaheim, 2005). In their study, construction noise for commercial and industrial development is shown as 89 dBA Leq when measured at a reference distance of 50 feet from the construction site. It is assumed that this noise level would be representative of construction noise levels associated with ARTIC construction activities. This value takes into account the number of pieces and spacing of heavy equipment used in during construction. In later phases of construction, noise levels are typically reduced from these values and the physical structures that have been assembled further break up line-of-sight from the nearby receivers. Based on the 89 dBA Leq value and assuming that construction were to occur for eight hours a day, the CNEL is calculated at 84 dBA at 50 feet. The location of construction for the relocation of the proposed project would potentially expose noise sensitive receivers such as the Ayres Hotel to significant levels of short-term noise exposure from construction activities. As stated previously, the Extended Stay Hotel in the City of Orange is located over 1,200 feet from the proposed project location and construction activities for ARTIC are not expected to cause impacts are the hotel. Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Methodology Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 37 Further, due to the daytime schedule of the Metrolink and Amtrak trains nighttime construction is expected to occur along the railroad tracks. Nighttime construction may generate potential noise impacts on the Ayres Hotel and the Avalon Anaheim Stadium Apartments. Mitigation Measures Implementation of the proposed project is expected to result in a temporary and periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing noise levels. All other thresholds of significance are not expected to be impacted with the implementation of the proposed project. During construction of the proposed project, noise from construction activities may intermittently dominate the noise environment in the immediate area of construction. Noise from project construction would be regulated through the City of Anaheim Municipal Codes. On-going and during grading, demolition, and construction, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to limit construction-related noise: • N-1: Noise generated by construction shall be limited to 60 dBA along Douglass Road, Katella Avenue, and the tracks before 7 AM and after 7 PM, as governed by Chapter 6.70, Sound Pressure Levels, of the Anaheim Municipal Code. If 60 dBA is exceeded during these hours, noise attenuation features (i.e. temporary noise barriers, sound curtains, etc.) shall be installed to reduce noise levels to below 60 dBA at the exterior of the affected building. These noise attenuation features may be removed if a qualified noise specialist determines that noise levels are not significantly impacted by nighttime construction; • N-2: When excessive noise during construction is anticipated before 7 AM and after 7 PM the contractor shall request an exception to the requirements of Chapter 6.70 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. The request shall be submitted in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter 6.70 and shall include a construction schedule and a list of equipment to be used during that time frame. This information shall be provided to the Director of Public Works or Chief Building Official for consideration; and • N-3: Construction equipment and supplies shall be located in staging areas that shall create the greatest distance possible between construction-related noise sources and noise sensitive receivers nearest the project area. This information shall be specified on all grading, excavation and construction plans." The mitigation measures identified above will reduce potential impacts associated with noise to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, no significant impacts relating to noise have been identified. Construction-Related Groundborne Vibration Impacts Construction activities, especially those associated with excavation or the use of impact equipment such as used in pile driving, are a known source of groundborne noise and vibration. Construction of the proposed project would require the use of heavy excavation equipment. Pile driving can result in typical groundborne vibration levels of 104 VdB at a distance of 25 feet from the operating equipment. The FTA construction vibration damage thresholds are shown in Table 4-3 of this report. The damage threshold for buildings considered particularly fragile structures is approximately 90 VdB; while the damage threshold for structures made of engineered concrete and masonry is 98 VdB. The nearest sensitive receiver found within the proposed project area is the Ayres Hotel a Category 2 Land Use, the hotel is located approximately 800 feet from the proposed project location. The maximum FTA screening distance for Category 2 Land Uses is 200 feet. Furthermore, the Extended Stay Hotel in the City of Orange is located over 1,200 feet from the proposed project location. Both locations are located outside the FTA recommended screening distance, therefore, no vibration Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Methodology Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 38 impacts are likely to occur. As a result, no mitigation would be required to reduce noise impacts from pile driving to a less-than-significant level. Long term Impacts Opening Year (2013) Traffic Impacts Due to the relocation of the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station, vehicular will be rerouted to ARTIC. To identify any potential traffic noise impacts as a result of the project, the FHWA-RD-77- 108 noise calculations were utilized as discussed earlier to estimate without project and with project conditions for the opening year (2013) of the proposed project. As shown in Table 7-2, on-site traffic noise levels along roadway segments adjacent to the project site at a reference distance of 50 feet have negligible increases in noise levels from without project to with project conditions. Therefore, it was determine that the changes in local traffic patterns and improvements to local roads would not have a perceptible increase in ambient noise levels in the project area. As a result, project related traffic noise impacts associated with vehicular traffic would have a less than significant impact. Table 7-2. Opening Year (2013) Traffic Noise Levels 2013 Without Project 2013 With Project Segment ADT CNEL ADT CNEL Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way 53,229 76.8 53,449 76.8 Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street 53,195 77.4 53,565 77.4 Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard 45,127 76.7 45,497 76.7 Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown 43,779 76.6 44,412 76.6 Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue 47,287 76.9 47,670 76.9 Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway 52,195 77.3 52,578 77.4 Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street 38,732 76.0 39,471 76.1 Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street 36,039 75.7 36,445 75.8 2030 Cumulative Traffic Impacts Cumulative traffic impacts can occur when multiple projects combine and operate concurrently. Future projects will be completed and operating by the year 2030. Therefore, 2030 traffic impacts will be analyzed for the proposed project in conjunction with other future planned projects operating within the proposed project area during this future date. To identify cumulative traffic noise impacts as a result of the project in combination with other project sources, the FHWA-RD-77-108 noise calculations were utilized as discussed earlier to estimate 2030 without project and with project conditions. As shown in Table 7-3, on-site traffic noise levels along roadway segments adjacent to the project site at a reference distance of 50 feet have negligible Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Methodology Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 39 increases in noise levels from without project to with project conditions. Therefore, it was determine that the changes in local traffic patterns and improvements to local roads would not have a perceptible increase in ambient noise levels in the project area. As a result, project related traffic noise impacts associated with vehicular traffic would have a less than significant impact. Table 7-3. 2030 Cumulative Traffic Noise Levels 2030 Without Project 2030 With Project Segment ADT CNEL ADT CNEL Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way 70,870 78.1 71,090 78.1 Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street 70,720 78.6 71,090 78.7 Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard 57,490 77.7 57,860 77.8 Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown 51,287 77.2 51,920 77.3 Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue 61,927 78.1 62,310 78.1 Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway 70,807 78.6 71,190 78.7 Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street 62,161 78.1 62,900 78.1 Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street 51,164 77.2 51,570 77.3 Opening Year (2013) Rail Impacts The new location will be approximately one quarter (0.25) mile east along the existing OCTA railroad right-of-way (ROW) in a larger facility. The only difference occurs when the trains stop 0.25 mile east of their current location, which brings the noise closer to a sensitive receiver, the Ayres Hotel. Therefore, Metrolink and Amtrak trains arriving and departing from ARTIC are expected to cause a periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without ARTIC. There are approximately 22 Amtrak trains and 19 Metrolink trains that arrive and depart from this station. Train trips are projected to increase by 26 percent by the year 2030 for Orange County Transit Centers. At each arrival and departure there will be a periodic increase in ambient noise levels that will be audible. However, this increase is expected to last no longer than one minute and will be short in duration. Nearby sensitive land uses were identified within the project area such as the Avalon Anaheim Stadium Apartments and the Extended Stay Hotel in the City of Orange that fall outside of the FTA noise impact criteria screen distance of 1,200 feet. Therefore, the future impact analysis will focus on the Ayres Hotel of Anaheim, which is the closest receiver that would experience changes in noise levels. This receiver location is approximately 800 feet away from the centerline of the platform of ARTIC, placing the station closer to the hotel than its current location. The existing CNEL and Ldn values at the Ayres Hotel were found to be 67 dBA, with the dominate noise source in project area being the traffic traveling along SR-57 and the SR-57 northbound exit. The CNEL and Ldn values for the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station were found to be 60 dBA and 59 dBA, respectively. Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Methodology Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 40 Following FTA guidance, a 40 percent change in the number of trains per day or per hour would produce an approximate 2 dBA change in noise experience at a reference distance of 50 feet from the noise source. According to the Final EIR for the OCTA Long-Range Transportation Plan, transit trips in Orange County are expected to increase by 26 percent by the year 2030. However, for the opening year, 2013, transit trips will increase by a negligible amount. Therefore the project train traffic increases from existing conditions to 2013 are not anticipated to create a noticeable increase over existing sound levels. The opening year, 2013, CNEL and Ldn values found at ARTIC are well below the CNEL and Ldn values found at the Ayres Hotel. Existing and future Ldn values of 67 dBA and 59 dBA respectively, were compared utilizing Figure 5-3. According to the FTA Noise Impact Criteria for Transit Projects if the existing noise levels at the Ayres Hotel are 67 dBA and the future noise levels for the proposed project are 59 dBA than the implementation of the proposed project will have no future impact on the Ayres Hotel or the surrounding area. When comparing the existing CNEL value at the hotel to the 2013 with project CNEL value at ARTIC, as shown in Table 7-4, it is anticipated that no increase in CNEL would occur. Therefore, future noise levels at ARTIC would be less than the noise levels already experienced at the Ayres Hotel. No noticeable change will occur in the exterior noise environment near the hotel. Furthermore, at the border between the City of Anaheim and the City of Orange the existing CNEL is near 73 dBA. Future noise levels from ARTIC are expected to be far less than the 73 dBA; therefore, noise levels from the relocation of the station will not be noticeable in this area. Therefore, no project impacts are expected in the City of Orange. Table 7-4. Opening Year (2013) With Project Sound Levels Location CNEL (dBA) Ldn (dBA) Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station 60 59 Ayres Hotel 67 67 City of Orange 73 73 The existing noise level in the project area is within the “conditionally acceptable” noise level ranges for the hotel location. Future noise levels will remain within the same range for this Land Use Compatibility noise level. Opening Year (2013) Interior Noise Impact In order to satisfy local and state standards for interior sound levels, a simultaneous interior and exterior measurement was taken at the Ayres Hotel to determine the building attenuation. The interior measurement was taken in Room 135 of the hotel and an exterior measurement was taken at the hotel pool area, results are shown in Table 7-5. The interior measurement was 34 dBA and the exterior measurement was 65 dBA, therefore, the building attenuation for the hotel is 31 dB. The CNEL for the Ayres Hotel was found to be 67 dBA. By applying the building attenuation of 31 dBA to the exterior CNEL of 67 dBA, the interior sound level is expected to be 36 dBA, as shown in Table 7-5. The future noise levels will remain below the state and local standards interior noise standards. Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Methodology Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 41 Table 7-5. Ayres Hotel Interior and Exterior Sound Levels for Opening Year (2013) With Project Location Interior Sound Level, dBA Exterior Sound Level, dBA Building Attenuation, dB Ayres Hotel 36 67 31 2030 Cumulative Rail Impacts As stated previously transit trip are expected to increase by 26 percent throughout Orange County. FTA guidance states that with a 40 percent change in trains per day or hour can produce an approximate 2 dBA change in noise exposure at a reference distance of 50 feet from the noise source. The 26 percent increase will occur throughout the County of Orange, not just the City of Anaheim. Therefore, it is assumed that the 2030 noise levels will increase by a maximum of 1 dBA from existing noise levels at the ARTIC station. However, sound level attenuates or drops off at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of the distance. (Caltrans, 2009) The Ayres Hotel is located approximately 800 feet from the ARTIC station location and the Extended Stay Hotel is located over 1,200 feet from the station. Therefore, the increase in noise levels from the relocation of the station and the estimated increase in transit trip will have no impact on the Ayres Hotel or the Extended Stay Hotel. Noise levels for the 2030 design year condition are shown in Table 7-6. Table 7-6. 2030 With Project Noise Levels Location CNEL (dBA) Ldn (dBA) Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station 61 60 Ayres Hotel 67 67 City of Orange 73 72 The existing noise level in the project area is within the “conditionally acceptable” noise level ranges for the hotel location. Future noise levels will remain within the same range for this Land Use Compatibility noise level. 2030 Cumulative Interior Noise Impact Noise levels for the 2030 conditions are expected to be similar to the 2013 and existing conditions. As stated previously the building attenuation of the Ayres Hotel was found to be 31 dBA. Therefore, because 2030 noise levels are expected to remain the same as 2013 and existing conditions the interior sound levels for the hotel rooms will be 36 dBA, as shown in Table 7-7. The future noise levels will remain below the state and local standards interior noise standards. Table 7-7. Ayres Hotel Interior and Exterior Sound Levels for 2030 With Project Location Interior Sound Level, dBA Exterior Sound Level, dBA Building Attenuation, dB Ayres Hotel 36 67 31 Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Methodology Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 42 Rail Groundborne Vibration Impacts for Opening Year (2013) and 2030 Future vibration levels and potential vibration impacts are determined according to the FTA Vibration Screening and the General Vibration Assessment procedures, outlined in Chapter 9 and 10, respectively, of the FTA guidance. The Vibration Screening procedure provides reference distances for sensitive receivers identified within the proposed project area. The Ayres Hotel was identified as the nearest sensitive receiver within the proposed project area which is categorized as a Category 2 Land Use. The screening distance for Category 2 Land Uses is 200 feet from the project right-of-way. The Ayres Hotel is approximately 800 feet from the proposed project location. Therefore, according to the FTA guidance no vibration impacts are likely to occur at the Ayres Hotel. Metrolink and Amtrak Trains currently pass through the project area. For purposes of this analysis, future project activity at the year of opening, 2013, is expected to remain equivalent to existing conditions. Therefore, no changes in vibration noise levels will occur. Therefore, groundborne vibration and groundborne noise impacts would be less than significant. The project vicinity could include impacts from the proposed California High-Speed Train (HST) project. The California High-Speed Rail Authority has identified the Caltrans right-of-way along the north side of West Evelyn Avenue as a potential corridor for the HST. Impacts from this possible future project could contribute to cumulative noise and vibration impacts to the proposed Downtown Family Development Project. However, while the programmatic EIR/EIS identifies corridor areas with potential noise and vibration impacts, site-specific impacts will be determined and evaluated in the project level environmental analysis that will be required for the HST project. Based on the existing level of detail available for the HST, it is not possible at this time to evaluate site-specific impacts for purposes of this project’s environmental review. Mitigation measures, including possible construction of sound-walls and/or grade-separated crossings may be required as part of the HST project to reduce these potential impacts at all sensitive receptors along the project corridor to less than-significant levels. Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project References Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 43 8.0 References Caltrans 2009 California Department of Transportation. Technical Noise Supplement- Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. November 2009. City of Anaheim Municipal Code of Ordinances Title 6, Section 7. April 2010. City of Anaheim The Platinum Triangle Subsequent EIR Number 332. May 2005. City of Orange Noise Element of the General Plan. March 2010. City of Orange Municipal Code of Ordinances Title 8, Section 24. July 2010. County of Orange Municipal Code of Ordinances Title 4, Section 5. April 2010. EPA 1971 Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. December 1971. FHWA Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Prediction Model Methodology (FHWA-RD-77-108) FHWA 2004 United States Department of Transportation, FHWA Traffic Noise Model. TNM 2.5. February 2004. FTA 2006 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006. Linscott, Law & Greenspan 2010 City of Anaheim, Traffic Impact Analysis Report. April 2010. OCTA Orange County Transit Authority. Final EIR for the Long Range Transportation Plan. July 2006. Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 44 Noise Monitoring Locations Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 45 Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 46 Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 47 Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 48 Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 49 Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 50 Noise Calculations Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 51 Table B-1. CNEL and Ldn Calculations for the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station Date Time Leq CNEL Applied Penalty, dB CNEL Ldn Applied Penalty, dB Ldn 4/13/10 6:20 PM 56.9 0 56.9 0 56.9 4/13/10 7:00 PM 54 5 59 0 54 4/13/10 8:00 PM 53.9 5 58.9 0 53.9 4/13/10 9:00 PM 54.1 5 59.1 0 54.1 4/13/10 10:00 PM 53.7 10 63.7 10 63.7 4/13/10 11:00 PM 52.9 10 62.9 10 62.9 4/14/10 12:00 AM 52.2 10 62.2 10 62.2 4/14/10 1:00 AM 50.7 10 60.7 10 60.7 4/14/10 2:00 AM 51.1 10 61.1 10 61.1 4/14/10 3:00 AM 51.6 10 61.6 10 61.6 4/14/10 4:00 AM 55.1 10 65.1 10 65.1 4/14/10 5:00 AM 58.2 10 68.2 10 68.2 4/14/10 6:00 AM 59.9 10 69.9 10 69.9 4/14/10 7:00 AM 59.8 0 59.8 0 59.8 4/14/10 8:00 AM 57.5 0 57.5 0 57.5 4/14/10 9:00 AM 55.3 0 55.3 0 55.3 4/14/10 10:00 AM 55.3 0 55.3 0 55.3 4/14/10 11:00 AM 55.4 0 55.4 0 55.4 4/14/10 12:00 PM 55.9 0 55.9 0 55.9 4/14/10 1:00 PM 55.8 0 55.8 0 55.8 4/14/10 2:00 PM 53.9 0 53.9 0 53.9 4/14/10 3:00 PM 55.9 0 55.9 0 55.9 4/14/10 4:00 PM 56.8 0 56.8 0 56.8 4/14/10 5:00 PM 57.4 0 57.4 0 57.4 4/14/10 6:00 PM 58.4 0 58.4 0 58.4 Average -- -- 59.5 -- 58.9 Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 52 Figure B-1: Summary of Long-Term Measurement for the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 53 Table B-2. CNEL and Ldn Calculations for the Ayres Hotel Date Time Leq CNEL Applied Penalty, dB CNEL Ldn Applied Penalty, dB Ldn 4/15/10 4:20 PM 64.3 0 64.3 0 64.3 4/15/10 5:00 PM 61.5 0 61.5 0 61.5 4/15/10 6:00 PM 64.7 0 64.7 0 64.7 4/15/10 7:00 PM 67 5 72 0 67 4/15/10 8:00 PM 63.2 5 68.2 0 63.2 4/15/10 9:00 PM 63.3 5 68.3 0 63.3 4/15/10 10:00 PM 62.4 10 72.4 10 72.4 4/15/10 11:00 PM 61.1 10 71.1 10 71.1 4/16/10 12:00 AM 58.2 10 68.2 10 68.2 4/16/10 1:00 AM 57.5 10 67.5 10 67.5 4/16/10 2:00 AM 56.4 10 66.4 10 66.4 4/16/10 3:00 AM 55.9 10 65.9 10 65.9 4/16/10 4:00 AM 57.8 10 67.8 10 67.8 4/16/10 5:00 AM 63.8 10 73.8 10 73.8 4/16/10 6:00 AM 64.4 10 74.4 10 74.4 4/16/10 7:00 AM 63.1 0 63.1 0 63.1 4/16/10 8:00 AM 64.8 0 64.8 0 64.8 4/16/10 9:00 AM 66.5 0 66.5 0 66.5 4/16/10 10:00 AM 65.7 0 65.7 0 65.7 4/16/10 11:00 AM 66.5 0 66.5 0 66.5 4/16/10 12:00 PM 68.3 0 68.3 0 68.3 4/16/10 1:00 PM 66.8 0 66.8 0 66.8 4/16/10 2:00 PM 67.8 0 67.8 0 67.8 4/16/10 3:00 PM 64.9 0 64.9 0 64.9 4/16/10 4:00 PM 64.5 0 64.5 0 64.5 Average -- -- 67.4 -- 66.8 Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 54 Figure B-2: Summary of Long-Term Measurement for the Ayres Hotel . Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 55 Table B-3. CNEL and Ldn Calculations for the City of Orange Date Time Leq CNEL Applied Penalty, dB CNEL Ldn Applied Penalty, dB Ldn 4/7/10 12:30 PM 71.9 0 71.9 0 71.9 4/7/10 1:00 PM 68.7 0 68.7 0 68.7 4/7/10 2:00 PM 68 0 68 0 68 4/7/10 3:00 PM 67.1 0 67.1 0 67.1 4/7/10 4:00 PM 68.2 0 68.2 0 68.2 4/7/10 5:00 PM 68.2 0 68.2 0 68.2 4/7/10 6:00 PM 68.6 0 68.6 0 68.6 4/7/10 7:00 PM 70.8 5 75.8 0 70.8 4/7/10 8:00 PM 69.6 5 74.6 0 69.6 4/7/10 9:00 PM 67.2 5 72.2 0 67.2 4/7/10 10:00 PM 65.7 10 75.7 10 75.7 4/7/10 11:00 PM 67.4 10 77.4 10 77.4 4/8/10 12:00 AM 69.2 10 79.2 10 79.2 4/8/10 1:00 AM 68.7 10 78.7 10 78.7 4/8/10 2:00 AM 69.2 10 79.2 10 79.2 4/8/10 3:00 AM 67.7 10 77.7 10 77.7 4/8/10 4:00 AM 68.6 10 78.6 10 78.6 4/8/10 5:00 AM 72 10 82 10 82 4/8/10 6:00 AM 75.7 10 85.7 10 85.7 4/8/10 7:00 AM 71.5 0 71.5 0 71.5 4/8/10 8:00 AM 68.8 0 68.8 0 68.8 4/8/10 9:00 AM 67.8 0 67.8 0 67.8 4/8/10 10:00 AM 67.5 0 67.5 0 67.5 4/8/10 11:00 AM 66.6 0 66.6 0 66.6 4/8/10 12:00 PM 67.2 0 67.2 0 67.2 Average -- -- 73.1 -- 72.5 Noise Technical Report for ARTIC Project Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) 56 Figure B-2: Summary of Long-Term Measurement for the City of Orange Jamie Lai, P.E. July 19, 2010 Project Manager Department of Public Works Transit Planning Division 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 276 Anaheim, California 92805 Re: Cultural Resources Letter Report for the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC). Dear Ms. Lai, This letter report includes a summary of the Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report (November, 2009) and examines the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 form completed for the Big “A” Scoreboard at Angel Stadium. The DPR 523 form is confidential and is not attached to this report. Additional information presented in this report is based on numerous site visits and literary searches conducted by Kleinfelder. The Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report discusses the ARTIC project description, regulatory setting, cultural and paleontological background, survey methodology, and study findings and conclusions. The study findings are as follows: • No new surficial cultural resources were observed within the ARTIC site during the Phase I archaeological resources survey for ARTIC. • ARTIC is located in an area that may contain the presence of cultural and paleontological resources. • Archaeological and paleontological monitoring by a qualified archaeologist and paleontologist is recommended for all initial ground disturbing construction- related activities. The DPR 523 form for the Big “A” Scoreboard provides a detailed description and historical background of the potential resource. A summary of the information presented in this form is included below: • The Big “A” Scoreboard was completed in 1966 and stood 230 feet tall, the tallest structure in Orange County. • In 1979, the Big “A” Scoreboard was relocated to its present location in the eastern portion of the stadium parking lot adjacent to SR-57. • Aside from its relocation, alterations include a replaced electronic marquee with metal panel infilling occurring around its edges, the covering over of a digital temperature readout originally centered below the marquee, the addition of a metal ladder at the inner face of the west structural member; the addition of light standards to the back of the marquee box, and paint colors; the structure itself repainted from white to red, with the halo repainted from gold to silver. • The period of significance for the Big “A” Scoreboard, 1966-1979, ends with its relocation. • The Big “A” Scoreboard may be eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) under Criterion 1, 2, and 3. The DPR 523 form for the Big “A” Scoreboard did not include the current environmental setting surrounding the scoreboard. The Big “A” Scoreboard is currently located in a parking lot between Angel Stadium of Anaheim and SR-57. Cars, trucks, and other machinery drive past the scoreboard at various times of day, as well as park underneath and around it. On game days, the Big “A” Scoreboard is surrounded and the entire parking lot is packed with people wandering around and cars lined up one next to the other. Fireworks are set off around Angel Stadium of Anaheim and the Big “A” Scoreboard on game days as well. Please let me know if you have additional questions. Sincerely, Robert Motschall, Ph. D. DRAFT PHASE 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project City of Anaheim, Orange County, California Prepared for: Jennifer Bergener Rail Program Manager Orange County Transportation Authority 600 South Main Street Orange, CA 92868 Prepared by: ICF Jones & Stokes 811 West 7th Street, Suite 800 Los Angeles, California 90017 Contact: Catharine M. Wood, RPA 213/627-5376 NADB Data: USGS 7.5-minute Anaheim, CA Quadrangle Map, T4S, R10W, Sec 25, Cajon de Santa Ana and USGS 7.5-minute Orange, CA Quadrangle Map, T4S, R10W, Sec 25 Resources: 30-176663/30-176664 and 30-100402 Keywords: ARTIC November 2009 This document should be cited as: ICF Jones & Stokes 2009 Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report for the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, CA. Draft. November. (ICF J&S 305.09.) Los Angeles, CA. Prepared for: Orange County Transportation Authority, Orange, CA. Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project iii Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 Contents SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .......................................................................................................vii CHAPTER 1.INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................1 CHAPTER 2.PROJECT DESCRIPTION/UNDERTAKING.................................................3 Definition of the Project Alternatives ....................................................................3 No-Build Alternative .......................................................................................3 Build Alternative 1: Proposed ARTIC Project ...............................................5 Build Alternative 2: ARTIC At Existing Station Site ..................................11 Build Alternative 3: Reduced Development Alternative..............................13 CHAPTER 3.REGULATORY SETTING ..............................................................................14 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)..................................................14 Archaeological Resources....................................................................................14 Historic Resources.........................................................................................14 State Health And Safety Code Section 7050.5 ....................................................16 City of Anaheim Regulations ..............................................................................16 CHAPTER 4.CULTURAL BACKGROUND .........................................................................17 Physical Environment ..........................................................................................17 Prehistoric Background........................................................................................17 Ethnography Background ....................................................................................18 Historical Background .........................................................................................19 Orange County ..............................................................................................19 City of Anaheim ............................................................................................20 CHAPTER 5.SURVEY METHODOLOGY ...........................................................................25 Records Search Results........................................................................................25 Summary of Native American Consultation ........................................................26 Summary of the Paleontological Records Search ................................................26 Field Survey .........................................................................................................27 CHAPTER 6.STUDY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................28 CEQA Significance Thresholds ...........................................................................28 Archaeological Resources .............................................................................28 Paleontological Resources.............................................................................28 Summary of Results .............................................................................................29 Recommendations................................................................................................29 CHAPTER 7.REFERENCES CITED .....................................................................................31 Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project iv Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 Appendices APPENDIX A. NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION APPENDIX B. PALEONTOLOGICAL RECORDS SEARCH APPENDIX C. CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY LIST Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project v Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 Figures Follows Page 1 Regional Vicinity Map........................................................................................................1 2 Project Location Map..........................................................................................................1 3 Proposed Project Map .........................................................................................................5 Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project vi Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 Acronyms ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ARTIC Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe CCR California Code of Regulations CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CRHR California Register of Historical Resources I-5 Interstate 5 LOSSAN corridor Los Angeles-to-San Diego rail corridor NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NRHP National Register of Historic Places OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority PRC Public Resources Code SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center SR-55 State Route 55 SR-57 State Route 57 U.S. 101 U.S. Highway 101 USGS U.S. Geological Survey Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project vii Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 Summary of Findings ICF Jones & Stokes completed a Phase 1 archaeological resources survey for a regional multi-modal transportation center, the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC), proposed by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the City of Anaheim. OCTA and the City of Anaheim propose to construct ARTIC on a 15-acre site located in Anaheim and bounded by Katella Avenue, Douglass Road, State Route 57 (SR-57), and the Santa Ana River, and bisected b y the Los Angeles-to-San Diego rail corridor (LOSSAN corridor). (See Figure 1, Regional Vicinit y Map) This study was conducted in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to identify the presence of potentially significant cultural resources (prehistoric and/or historic-era archaeological resources) that may be adversel y affected by the proposed project. Prior to field investigations, ICF Jones & Stokes archaeologist Catharine Wood conducted a literature and records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), located at California State Universit y, Fullerton. The records search included a review of all available cultural resource reports and site records for an area within a 1-mile radius of the project area. The results of this literature and records search indicated that two cultural resources have been recorded within a 1-mile radius of the project area: a granite mano (30-100402) and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway alignment features (formerly the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway) (30-176663/30-176664). The survey assessment completed in 2002 of the existing railroad tracks and associated features found a lack of historical integrit y in the property and therefore concluded that it was ineligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (Ballester and Tang 2002a and 2002b). ICF Jones & Stokes also contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a review of the sacred lands files. The NAHC responded on September 10, 2009, stating that a search of their sacred lands database did not yield any sacred lands or traditional cultural properties within the immediate project area. The NAHC provided a list of twelve Native American contacts in Orange County. Letters describing the project area and indicating the project location were sent to these Native American representatives on September 11, 2009. No responses have been received as of November 13, 2009. In addition, Catharine Wood also performed a Phase I archaeological resources pedestrian survey of the project area on September 16, 2009. The results of the archaeological survey were negative; no new surficial cultural resources were observed within the project area. However, even though the project area is currently urbanized, it is located in an alluvial outwash plain of the Santa Ana River that forms the eastern boundary of the project site. The project area in the past had been open land used for agricultural purposes. Before the channelization of the Santa Ana River, the project area was crossed by many tributaries and smaller creeks flowing Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project viii Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 from the canyons in a meandering northeast-to-southwest direction down to the coast. These abundant sources of water represent an ideal location for prehistoric and historic use. The flow of water and accumulation of sediments over time may have buried evidence of past occupations in the project area. Therefore, there is a potential for buried cultural resource deposits to exist beneath previously disturbed and developed land surfaces. Furthermore, previous archaeological studies conducted less than 1/8 mile from the project site have determined the vicinity to be sensitive for archaeological resources. Archaeological monitoring by a qualified archaeologist is recommended for all initial ground-disturbing construction-related activities. If cultural materials (prehistoric or historic artifacts) are encountered during construction, work will stop in the vicinity of the find until a qualified archaeologist can assess the material and recommend further action, if necessary. Design of a treatment plan and consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer may be required to appropriately mitigate any unanticipated discoveries. Treatment measures typically include development of avoidance strategies, capping with fill material, or mitigation of impacts through data recovery programs, such as excavation or detailed documentation, or other mitigation measures, following standard archaeological procedures. During cultural resources monitoring, if the qualified archaeologist determines that the sediments being excavated are previously disturbed or unlikely to contain significant cultural materials, the archaeologist can specify that monitoring be reduced or eliminated. In accordance with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if human remains are exposed during construction, no further disturbance will occur until the county coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) 5097.98. Construction must halt in the area of the discovery of human remains, the area must be protected, and consultation and treatment should occur as prescribed by law. The results of the paleontological records search indicated that the study area/project site is located in an area that may contain the presence of such resources. Paleontological resources have been unearthed in the nearby area; therefore, mitigations are recommended to implement the proposed project. A qualified paleontological monitor will be on call during construction activities. If paleontological resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work will stop within 50 feet of the find until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures. Treatment measures may include full-time monitoring by a qualified paleontologist during construction-related ground-disturbing activities. The qualified paleontological monitor will retain the option of reducing monitoring if, in his or her professional opinion, the sediments being monitored were previously disturbed. Monitoring may also be reduced if potentially fossiliferous units are not present or, if present, are determined by qualified paleontological personnel to have a low potential to contain fossil resources. The monitor will be equipped to salvage fossils and samples of sediments as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and will be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Recovered specimens will be prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation, which would include the washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Specimens will be curated into a professional, accredited museum repository with permanent retrievable storage. A report Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project ix Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 of findings, with an appended itemized inventory of specimens, will be prepared; this report will signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts on paleontological resources. Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project 1 Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 Chapter 1. Introduction The proposed ARTIC project is on a 15-acre site within the city of Anaheim. The project site is bounded by Katella Avenue to the north, Douglass Road to the west, SR-57 to the south, and the Santa Ana River to the east, and is bisected by the LOSSAN corridor (see Figures 1 and 2). OCTA, in partnership with the City of Anaheim, proposes to design and construct the ARTIC project. This transit center would replace the existing Metrolink/Amtrak station that was built in 1982. In 2005, OCTA initiated its Regional Gateways Program. The purpose of this program is to convert key Metrolink stations into regional gateways. The program aims to upgrade station infrastructure where feasible to accommodate high-speed train service, expand stations for regional travel, and modify stations for improved access to other transportation systems, such as bus and shuttle systems. Also in 2005, the OCTA Board of Directors approved a program to increase Metrolink service in Orange County. Simultaneously, the state identified Anaheim as the southern terminus for the first phase of the California High-Speed Train1 and the only Orange County stop. The projected increased ridership, implementation of the rail expansion programs, limited ability to expand the existing Anaheim Station, and the need for connections enabling travelers to transfer from one mode of transit service to another at a regional hub prompted the ARTIC project. OCTA and the City of Anaheim entered into to an agreement to jointly design and environmentally clear the ARTIC project. In 2006, OCTA purchased 13.5 acres of land as a potential future site for ARTIC. This Phase 1 archaeological resources survey report was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA, the NEPA, and the California Office of Historic Preservation 1990 guidelines and presents the following information: description of the proposed project; project location and setting; regulatory setting; background information regarding the environmental, cultural, and historical setting of the project site; field methods; findings, conclusions, and recommendations; and the sources used in the identification of archaeological, ethnographic, and paleontological resources. 1 High-speed rail service connecting southern California to Sacramento and San Francisco Bay area in northern California. Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project 2 Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 This assessment was prepared by ICF Jones & Stokes archaeologist Catharine M. Wood, RPA, and was reviewed and edited by senior archaeologists Mark Robinson and Michael Beaver, PhD. These ICF Jones & Stokes archaeologists are qualified under the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards. The report was edited by Jan Ostashay, Cultural Resources Team Leader, and Elizabeth Irvin, Technical Editor. Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project 3 Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 Chapter 2. Project Description/Undertaking DEFINITION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES This report anal yzes the following alternatives: the No-Build Alternative, Build Alternative 1: Proposed ARTIC Project, Build Alternative 2: ARTIC at Existing Station Site, and Build Alternative 3: Reduced Development Alternative. These alternatives are described in detail below. No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative assumes that the proposed ARTIC project would not be constructed and that the expansion and addition of transportation services planned to occur after Phase 1 of the ARTIC project would be accommodated at the existing Anaheim Station. Tracks and Platforms At the existing Anaheim Station there are two tracks separated by approximately 20 feet, and two 800-foot-long, 16-foot-wide side platforms. The station complies with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards, providing concrete ramps and an underpass for safe access to the platforms. The track and platforms would not be altered or improved under the No-Build Alternative. These platforms would not be adequate to handle the increased ridership expected on Metrolink and Amtrak, especially when the station becomes a transfer point to other modes of transportation. The access to Anaheim Station would not be altered or improved under the No- Build Alternative. Terminal Facilities At the existing Anaheim Station, there is an Amtrak terminal building with station amenities and luggage facilities south of the tracks. A small communications building, extensive landscaping, and electric vehicle charging stations are also located in this area. Stairs, ramps, and an underpass provide access to the platforms. Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project 4 Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 The terminal facilities would not be altered or improved under the No-Build Alternative. Station Area Access Access to the station is from the intersection of Katella Avenue at Sportstown, adjacent to The Grove of Anaheim. The intersection is controlled by a traffic signal. A two-lane internal roadway within the Angel Stadium parking area wraps around The Grove’s designated parking area and continues to the station parking area. The access to Anaheim Station would not be altered or improved under the No-Build Alternative. Surrounding Roadway System Katella Avenue provides the primary arterial access to the existing station. It also provides access for Angel Stadium and the Honda Center. From west of Interstate 5 (I-5) to State Route 55 (SR-55), Katella Avenue currently carries approximately 49,000 vehicles per day between State College Boulevard and SR-57 (in the vicinity of the existing Anaheim Station), and approximately 26,000 to 31,100 vehicles between SR-57 and Main Street (in the vicinity of the proposed ARTIC site). Katella Avenue is classified in the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways as a Smart Street with six to eight lanes. The surrounding roadway system would not be altered or improved under the No-Build Alternative. While Katella Avenue does experience some congestion during peak commute periods, it is a high-capacity, regionally significant arterial. Before and after events at Angel Stadium or the Honda Center (or both), Katella Avenue is subject to congestion localized to the area surrounding these facilities’ access locations. Events are intermittent, and the duration of congestion associated with these events is usually brief. The City of Anaheim implements event management strategies to streamline the entry and discharge of vehicles to and from the facilities to minimize impacts to traffic flow along affected arterials, including Katella Avenue. Pedestrian Access There are no defined pedestrian routes from south, east, or west of the existing Anaheim Station. Pedestrians can use sidewalks along Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard to the boundaries of the Angel Stadium parking area. From there, pedestrians must make their way through the parking area to the station, located along the northern edge of the Angel Stadium parking area. North of the station, there is a pedestrian walkway connecting Katella Avenue and the adjacent commercial and office development to the station. Pedestrians cross the railroad tracks via a pedestrian tunnel. Under the No-Build Alternative, pedestrian access would not be altered or improved. Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project 5 Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 Parking The existing Anaheim Station has approximately 408 parking spaces, which are currently over 90% occupied on a typical weekday. This parking is provided for in the lease agreement between the City of Anaheim and Angel Stadium. Under the No-Build Alternative, no additional parking would be provided. Build Alternative 1: Proposed ARTIC Project ARTIC is envisioned to be a regional transportation gateway for Orange County. The City of Anaheim and OCTA are working collaboratively on this three-phase facilit y, which would be built over a 20-year period. ARTIC would be integrated into a joint mixed-use development as part of the Platinum Triangle redevelopment area. The proposed ARTIC site is bounded b y Katella Avenue on the north, the Santa Ana River on the east, SR-57 on the south, and Douglass Road on the west. The LOSSAN rail corridor crosses the site near its southern limits. The project area also includes Douglass Road, from just north of Katella Avenue to the Angel Stadium entrance, small portions of Katella Avenue at the Douglass Road intersection, the LOSSAN rail corridor between approximately Katella Avenue and the Santa Ana River (including the Douglass Road bridge), and the existing Anaheim Station (see Figure 3). Development of the ARTIC facility is anticipated as an opportunity for potential joint development and other private sector cost sharing and/or revenue sharing arrangements. New and expanded transportation services would be incorporated into ARTIC in the following three phases: Phase 1: Initial Transit Facility (2010–2013) Phase 2: 2020 Buildout (2014–2020) Phase 3: Ultimate Buildout (2021–2030) This Phase I archaeological resources survey report anal yzes Phase 1 at the project level, and Phases 2 and 3 at the program level, with additional or supplemental environmental documents required to complete the NEPA and CEQA compliance process. Phase 1 would include the initial transit facility and is anticipated to be completed in 2013. This phase would convert the 13.58-acre OCTA-owned site and the 2.2-acre cit y-owned site into a fully functioning regional transportation hub on the east side of SR-57, southeast of the existing Anaheim Station. Phase 2 would provide incremental improvements corresponding with transportation services coming on line, increased demand at the facility, and possible expansion of transit- oriented retail, mixed-use commercial development, civic space, and transit-supporting facilities. This phase anticipates that the California High-Speed Train and Anaheim Fixed Guideway will become operational, using and/or connecting with the ARTIC facility. Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project 6 Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 Phase 3 represents the buildout of the ARTIC site through joint development and other private-sector cost sharing and/or revenue sharing arrangements. During Phase 2 or 3, OCTA may choose to locate a regional transportation communication center at ARTIC as part of the mixed-use development. Tracks and Platforms The proposed ARTIC project would include realignment of the existing LOSSAN corridor mainline tracks and relocation of the platforms. ARTIC would provide a center platform (25.83 feet wide), serving two tracks spaced 35.5 feet apart. There would also be a side platform (25.83 feet wide) serving one track on the south side of the corridor. The additional track would serve as a storage/layover track, provide additional capacity during special events, or serve as a mainline track to meet future Metrolink/Amtrak capacity. The existing mainline tracks would be realigned under the SR-57 overpass to provide for the new platform location. All tracks would have train-boarding capacity at the platforms. Passenger amenities on the platforms would likely include, but not be limited to, wayfinding signage and graphics, transit system information, regulatory signs, public address system, close-circuit television, canopies, public art, and benches. Terminal Facilities The proposed ARTIC project includes a terminal building and supporting facilities area that would be approximately 380 feet by 220 feet, with the shorter side paralleling the rail corridor. An approximately 39,000-square foot grand plaza would be located directly north of the terminal building. A bus drop off would be located beneath the transit center, providing a minimum of eight bus bays. The bay layout would be in a circular roadway configuration, to allow the drop off to be into a central bus plaza. The bus plaza would be centered under the public hall of the terminal building, which would be accessed by stairs and elevators. Access to the bus plaza would be by an exclusive elevated road. The terminal building would be an urban-scaled signature structure and the primary contributor to ARTIC’s ability to become a recognizable landmark and transportation gateway. The structure would be sized to accommodate Phase 1 operational demand and make reasonable accommodations in anticipation of the spatial requirements of transportation-related operational needs related to expanded services in Phases 2 and 3. The terminal building would be the tallest structure on the site. The arching roof structure is planned to be approximately 190 feet above the finish floor elevation of the public hall and curbside passenger drop-off/pick-up area. Building height is tied to and constrained by the existing and planned top-of-rail elevation along the LOSSAN rail corridor. A passenger concourse is planned to provide pedestrian connections between the terminal building and the rail platforms. The top-of-floor elevation of the concourse would be determined by the operational geometric requirements of fright rail service, Metrolink/Amtrak service, and the planned California High-Speed Train criteria, including the clearances for overhead catenaries. Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project 7 Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 In general, the materials used for the ARTIC terminal building would be similar to those typically associated with major transportation facilities and other civic structures, where buildings are expected to be low maintenance and have a lifespan longer than typical commercial development (i.e., more than 25 years). The exterior enclosure may include curtain wall glass systems, metal panels, and standard roofing materials. The structure over the terminal building would likely include materials that would have the capability to transmit filtered natural light, collect sunlight to generate electricity, and insulate the space. In general, the finish material color palette would avoid strong color and result in a timeless character and feel. Brightly colored surfaces would be limited to signage and wayfinding graphics, intended to catch the attention of ARTIC users. Retail signage in the terminal building would be of similar character. Public Hall The public hall would function as the primary gathering and processional space through ARTIC and is planned to be located at the intersection of pedestrian pathways that connect rail platforms, bus loading areas, the curbside passenger drop-off/pick-up area, and parking areas. It would be ARTIC’s front door and would form the civic face of the building, as viewed from Katella Avenue. Civic Plaza Adjacent to the north side of the terminal building would be a civic plaza. It would be integrated with and connected to onsite pedestrian pathways and include functions associated with passenger arrival/departure, such as curbside drop-off/pick-up. Concourse The concourse would function as an above-grade (i.e., above street level) pedestrian connector between the public hall and the rail platforms. Generally, the concourse would be directly connected to and an extension of the terminal building. It would extend out over the existing LOSSAN corridor. In Phase 1, the concourse would extend to the southernmost edge of the southbound passenger platform shared by Metrolink and Amtrak. It could be extended to the south in later phases to accommodate California High-Speed Train platforms. The concourse would include vertical circulation elements (stairs, escalators, elevators). It may also include passenger waiting areas, retail, and concessions. Bus Loading Areas In order to increase passenger/pedestrian safety and economize the ARTIC site area, terminal building functions would be stacked vertically. Passengers’ connecting with buses Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project 8 Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 would board and alight from platforms that would have direct vertical circulation access to other parts of the terminal building. Locating the bus bays under the main floor of the terminal building would also reduce walking distance and encourage bus-rail transfers. Angel Stadium Entrance A secondary station entrance would provide passenger access to Angel Stadium and connections between rail platforms. A pedestrian promenade would be developed to safely accommodate pedestrian movements between the stadium and ARTIC. Landscape and Hardscape The ARTIC site would include a landscape area along the eastern boundary, beside the bike trail along the Santa Ana River. This landscape area would preserve a future rail alignment perpendicular to the LOSSAN corridor in the event that a north/south rail or other transportation mode is eventually constructed. (This mode could include the Las Vegas-Anaheim Maglev project. However, at this point, the Maglev project has not identified a funding source, so it is speculative and not included in the project- or program-level analysis.) The landscape area may include onsite pedestrian pathways and could provide pedestrian and bicycle connections between the existing bike trail and ARTIC. With the exception of accommodating bicycle access, lockers, and racks, no recreational uses are envisioned for this space. Public Art Public art would be a part of ARTIC and has the potential to beautify and enhance the quality of the overall passenger experience, aid wayfinding, and contribute to the perception of ARTIC as an important civic structure and regional transportation hub. Station Area Access Access to the ARTIC station under Build Alternative 1 would include one below-grade (i.e., below street level) access point for the underground parking area and one at-grade (i.e., street-level) driveway for passenger drop off. For the parking structure, drivers would be in the far right (outside) lane on southbound Douglass Road. This lane would descend and cross under Douglass Road directly into the underground parking structure. Drivers who are dropping off passengers would use the far left lane from southbound Douglass Road, turning left and pulling to the north side of the terminal building. In addition, the second lane from the right on southbound Douglass Road would be for buses only and would connect to an overhead busway that would cross over Douglass Road and pull directly into the bus plaza under the terminal building. This access plan would require some adjustments to existing driveways for the commercial development on both sides of Douglass Road, but access to all properties would be maintained. Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project 9 Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 Surrounding Roadway System To accommodate the traffic generated by increase transit use of the ARTIC site, the surrounding roadway system would be enhanced. Douglass Road Generally, Douglass Road would be widened toward the east in order to minimize impacts to existing business on the west side of the street. This widening would result in the loss of five to ten existing parking spaces and the relocation of two driveways for west side properties. Douglass Road would also be lowered to allow it to pass under the railroad bridge. On the south end of Douglass Road, between the Angel Stadium entrance and the railroad bridge, four lanes would be maintained, two northbound and two southbound. The sidewalk on the west side of the street would be eliminated, and the eastern sidewalk would be adjacent to the Douglass Road curb and widened to 15 feet. From the railroad bridge to the ARTIC main entrance, Douglass Road would continue as four lanes, two northbound and two southbound. A southbound left-turn pocket, located approximately 50 feet north of the Douglass Road underpass of SR-57, would be provided for auxiliary entrance to ARTIC lower-level parking. A bus-only flyover would cross over Douglass Road from the outside southbound lane, curving to the east and entering the ARTIC bus plaza. A bus-only driveway would exit the bus plaza to northbound Douglass Road, north of the ARTIC main entrance. From the ARTIC main entrance to Katella Avenue, Douglass Road would include up to seven lanes: two northbound lanes; one southbound left-turn lane into the ARTIC main entrance for passenger drop off and pick up; two southbound through lanes; one bus-only lane (connecting to the elevated busway); and one southbound lane connecting to the lower-level undercrossing into the parking garage. Douglass Road/Katella Avenue Intersection Configuration At the Douglass Road/Katella Avenue intersection, Douglass Road would be widened south and north of Katella Avenue. This would require acquisition of the buildings and property closest to Douglass Road on the southeast corner of the intersection (but the largest business, J.T. Schmid’s Restaurant & Brewery, would remain. Some parking spaces would be eliminated, as well as one driveway. North of Katella Avenue, Douglass Road would be widened toward the Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project 10 Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 east, affecting sidewalk and landscaping areas but not Honda Center parking. This intersection would result in the following lanes: Northbound Douglass Road south of Katella Avenue: three through, two left-turn, one right-turn Northbound Douglass Road north of Katella Avenue: two through, one left-turn, one right-turn Southbound Douglass Road north of Katella Avenue: one through, one left-turn, one right-turn, one shared through/right-turn Southbound Douglass Road south of Katella Avenue: three through Katella Avenue No widening of Katella Avenue would be necessary for Phase 1 of the ARTIC project. Pedestrian Access Pedestrian walkways are proposed to connect Angel Stadium, ARTIC transit services, parking, Katella Avenue, and the Honda Center. A sidewalk along the east side of Douglass Road would connect the bus plaza, passenger drop-off/pick-up area, and ARTIC parking to the supporting facilities, the civic plaza, Angel Stadium, and the Honda Center. A sidewalk on the west side of Douglass Road would extend from Katella Avenue to Angel Stadium. Parking ARTIC Phase 1 would require 1,255 parking spaces. The parking spaces would be provided as a combination of surface parking and structured parking. The structured parking would be underground, under the terminal building and the civic plaza. As the ARTIC site is built out in future phases, it is assumed that surface parking would be replaced with buildings with underground parking. Build Alternative 2: ARTIC at Existing Station Site Build Alternative 2 assumes that ARTIC and its proposed facilities would be constructed on the site of the existing Anaheim Station. A new terminal and supporting facilities would be constructed to replace the existing terminal, and the existing terminal would remain in service during the construction of the new ARTIC terminal facilities. The new facilities would be located adjacent to and approximately 110 feet south of the LOSSAN corridor in order to accommodate future tracks for the California High-Speed Train. As for Build Alternative 1, parking would be a combination of surface parking and structured parking. There are two Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project 11 Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 options for the layout of the station under this alternative, depending on where primary access would occur. This alternative is contingent on renegotiation of the station area lease and execution of agreements between OCTA, the City of Anaheim, and Angel Stadium. Under Build Alternative 2, the project would be phased similarly to the proposed ARTIC project. Phase 1 would include the transit center and associated facilities, as described below. Phase 2 would include additional transportation-related development to accommodate other modes, such as California High-Speed Train and Anaheim Fixed Guideway. Under Phase 3, the ultimate mixed-use buildout would occur on the ARTIC site (the OCTA-owned parcel east of SR-57), separated from the station itself. Tracks and Platforms Build Alternative 2 would provide two 15-foot-wide side platforms approximately 1,000 feet in length serving two tracks spaced 21 feet apart. There would be no need to modify the existing tracks in Build Alternative 2. The existing platforms would be extended approximately 200 feet to the east. New pedestrian access to the platforms would be provided under Build Alternative 2, similar to Build Alternative 1. Pedestrian access would be provided b y overpass or underpass structure. However, accommodation of the California High-Speed Train access would need to be considered because it would be located between the Metrolink/Amtrak platforms and the terminal building. Pedestrian access to and from the Honda Center, the office development along Douglass Road, and future development on the ARTIC site would be accommodated at the east end of the platforms. Pedestrian access at the west end of the platforms would accommodate passengers between the platforms and the terminal building, and pedestrians from the development north of the LOSSAN corridor would access the transit center via the existing pedestrian tunnel and walkway. Terminal Facilities Build Alternative 2 assumes development of ARTIC to include the same facilities and amenities as proposed in Build Alternative 1, including the terminal building, the public hall, the civic plaza, and the concourse. Under this alternative, the civic plaza would not necessarily align with the public hall, but would be at either end of the terminal building, depending on which option was selected. The concourse would need to span the future California High-Speed Train corridor and accommodate future vertical access to these tracks. Under Build Alternative 2, the bus loading areas would be surface lots at either end of the terminal building. A separate Angel Stadium entrance would not be required. Some form of landscape and hardscape would be incorporated into the design, but it would not be necessary to reserve a transit corridor for future north/south transportation. Incorporation of public art would occur at this location, as under Build Alternative 1. Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project 12 Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 Station Area Access Access to the ARTIC station under Build Alternative 2 would vary depending on which option was selected. Design Option 1 Primary access to ARTIC under Build Alternative 2, Option 1, would be via Douglass Road. The main entrance to ARTIC would be provided immediately west of the SR-57 overpass and approximately 200 feet east of the gated entrance to Angel Stadium. Secondary access would be at the intersection of Katella Avenue and Sportstown, using the existing two-lane internal circulation roadway, which would be improved and aligned as needed. Design Option 2 For Build Alternative 2, Option 2, primary access to the site would be from Katella Avenue at Sportstown. An additional entrance only (no exit) would provide direct access to the bus plaza and provide a circulation loop for buses and shuttles to enter from Katella Avenue, circulate through the bus plaza, and return to Katella Avenue. A single internal roadway would continue east of the bus plaza to the parking structure. Ancillary access to the parking structure and the site would be provided via Douglass Road. Surrounding Roadway System Douglass Road would be improved to provide two southbound lanes and three northbound lanes. West of the SR-57 overpass structure, southbound Douglass Road would be widened to provide a dedicated right-turn lane into ARTIC. At its intersection with Katella Avenue, Douglass Road would provide two northbound left-turn lanes, one shared through/right- turn lane, and one right-turn lane. There southbound receiving lanes would be provided, transitioning to two southbound lanes in the vicinity of the railroad bridge and under the SR-57 overpass. Pedestrian Access As in Build Alternative 1, pedestrian walkways are proposed with Build Alternative 2 to connect Angel Stadium, ARTIC transit services, parking, Katella Avenue, and the Honda Center. A sidewalk along the east side of Douglass Road would connect the Honda Center and the office development along the west side of Douglass Road with the bus plaza and passenger drop- off/pick-up area, the civic plaza, and the terminal building and its supporting facilities. A pedestrian corridor would be developed through the Angel Stadium parking area to connect with the ARTIC terminal area. A pedestrian walkway would be provided between Katella Avenue and the terminal area, parallel to the LOSSAN corridor. Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project 13 Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 Parking Depending on the terms of a development agreement with Angel Stadium, parking at ARTIC may be provided exclusively in a parking structure or could include short-term surface parking. Build Alternative 2 would provide approximately 1,100 parking spaces, less than with Build Alternative 1 because it would be unnecessary to provide Honda Center overflow parking. Build Alternative 3: Reduced Development Alternative This alternative would include only the transportation-related aspects of the ARTIC project, without some or all of the opportunities for potential joint development and other private-sector cost-sharing and/or revenue-sharing arrangements. Build Alternative 3 would be identical to the proposed ARTIC project for Phase 1, but later phases would only include transportation-related elements, with minimal supporting commercial development within the terminal building. Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project 14 Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 Chapter 3. Regulatory Setting CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) Two requirements have been established for addressing impacts to archaeological resources; they are PRC Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1. These two sections operate independentl y of each other to ensure that potential effects on archaeological resources are considered as part of the environmental review process. Section 21083.2 applies to “unique” archaeological resources while Section 21084.1 applies to archaeological sites that are listed in eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Under Section 21083.2 a unique archaeological resource is an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it: 1. contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; 2. has a special or particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or 3. is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person. Section 21083.2 also provides guidance for mitigating impacts to unique archaeological resources that may be damaged by a project. This may be achieved by planning construction to avoid the resource(s); deeding the resource into conservation easements; capping archaeological sites with a layer of soil prior to construction; and/or planning parks, greenspace, etc. to preserve archaeological sites in situ. Historic Resources According to CEQA (PRC Section 21084.1), historical resources include any resource listed, or determined eligible for listing, in the CRHR. Properties listed, or determined eligible for listing, in the NRHP, such as those identified in the Section 106 process, are automatically listed in the CRHR. Therefore, all “historic properties” under federal preservation law are automatically “historical resources” under state preservation law. Historical resources are also presumed to be significant if they are included in a local register of historical resources or identified as significant in a qualified historical resource survey. Section 21084.1 of CEQA states that a project has a significant adverse environmental impact if the project causes a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project 15 Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 As defined under state law in Title 14, California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 4850, the term “historical resource” means “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or which is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural history of California.” For the purposes of CEQA, “historical resource” is further defined under PRC Section15064.5 as a “resource listed in, or determined eligible for listing in the California Register.” Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines sets forth the criteria and procedures for determining significant historical resources and the potential effects of a project on such resources. Generally, a cultural resource shall be considered by the lead state agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets any of the following criteria for listing in the CRHR: 1. the resource is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; 2. the resource is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; 3. the resource 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; or 4. the resource has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The cited statutes and guidelines specify how cultural resources are to be managed in the context of projects such as the proposed project. Briefly, archival and field surveys must be conducted, and identified cultural resources must be inventoried and evaluated in prescribed ways. Prehistoric and historical resources deemed “historically significant” must be considered in project planning and development. Significant paleontological resources are defined as fossils or assemblages of fossils that are unique, unusual, rare, uncommon, or important to define a particular time frame or geologic strata, or add to an existing body of knowledge in specific areas, in local formations or regionally. Paleontological remains are accepted as non-renewable resources significant to our culture and, as such, are protected under provisions of the Antiquities Act of 1906 and subsequent related legislation, policies, and enacting responsibilities. In California, fossil remains are considered to be limited, nonrenewable, and sensitive scientific resources. These resources are afforded protection under the following State of California legislation (California Office of Historic Preservation 1983): CEQA; 13 PRC, Section 21000 et seq., which requires public agencies and private interests to identify the potential adverse impacts and/or environmental consequences of their proposed project(s) to any object or site important to the scientific annals of California (Division 1, PRC: 5020.1[b]); Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA (as amended 1 January 1999); and Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project 16 Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3), which provides protection for historical (or paleontological) resources by requiring that they be identified and mitigated as historical resources under CEQA. The State CEQA Guidelines define historical resources broadly to include any object, site, area, or place that a lead agency determines to be historically significant. STATE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 7050.5 Human remains are also sometimes associated with archaeological sites. According to CEQA, “archaeological sites known to contain human remains shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5.” State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that if human remains are exposed during construction no further disturbance shall occur until the county coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition, pursuant to PRC 5097.98. Construction must halt in the area of the discovery of human remains, the area must be protected, and consultation and treatment should occur as prescribed by law. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the coroner must contact the NAHC within 24 hours. If Native American human remains are discovered during project construction, it will be necessary to comply with state laws relating to the disposition of Native American burials that are under the jurisdiction of the NAHC (PRC Section 5097). For remains of Native American origin, no further excavation or disturbance shall take place until: the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American(s) has made a recommendation to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work regarding means of treating or disposing of the human remains and any associated grave goods, with appropriate dignity, as provided in the PRC Section 5097.98; or the NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendant or the descendant fails to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the NAHC. In consultation with the most likely descendant, the project archaeologist and the project proponent will determine a course of action regarding preservation or excavation of Native American human remains, and this recommendation will be implemented expeditiously. If a most likely descendent cannot be located or does not make a recommendation, the project archaeologist and the project proponent will determine a course of action regarding preservation or excavation of Native American human remains, which will be submitted to the NAHC for review prior to implementation. CITY OF ANAHEIM REGULATIONS The City of Anaheim has no specific mechanisms, such as a historic preservation ordinance or preservation element as part of its general plan, for the recognition and preservation of cultural resources within its boundaries. In addition, the city’s general plan does not contain any goals or policies that specifically address archaeological and paleontological resources. Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project 17 Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 Chapter 4. Cultural Background PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT The project area is located on the coastal side of the cismontane portion of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province that extends from Los Angeles County to Baja California. The Santa Ana Range, uplifted along the Whittier-Elsinore fault, is a prominent feature of the skyline between Orange and Riverside Counties. The highest point, at 5,678 feet above mean sea level, is Santiago Peak. This peak and its near neighbor, Modjeska Peak, form a saddle-shaped prominence known as Saddleback (Schoenerr 1992). The project area is located within the Central Block portion of the Los Angeles Basin. The Central Block is a trough filled with thousands of feet of Quaternary and Tertiary sediments. The project area was formed by stream deposits primarily derived from the meandering of the Santa Ana River (Brown 2003). The project area is located in Township 4 South, Range 10 West, Section 25 of the Anaheim, CA 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map at an elevation of 150 feet above mean sea level. The surficial sediments where the project site is located were identified as Quaternary Younger Alluvium that is Holocene in age (10,000 to recent). Holocene deposits are too geologically recent to contain fossils and have thus been assigned a low paleontological sensitivity level. However, fossiliferous older Quaternary sediments potentially underlie the Holocene deposits at various depths in the area, as part of the floodplain deposits from the Santa Ana River adjacent the project site to the east. Though these deposits do not usually contain significant vertebrate fossils, at least in the uppermost layers, there has been the recovery of a vertebrate fossil locality in the general vicinity. Therefore, deep excavation work may encounter vertebrate fossils. PREHISTORIC BACKGROUND The prehistoric occupation of southern California is divided chronologically into four temporal phases or horizons (Moratto 1984). Horizon I, or the Early Man Horizon, began at the first appearance of people in the region approximately 12,000 years ago, and continued until about 5,000 B.C. Although little is known about these people, it is assumed that they were semi-nomadic and subsisted primarily on game. Horizon II, also known as the Millingstone Horizon or Encinitas Tradition, began around 5,000 B.C. and continued until about 1,500 B.C. The Millingstone Horizon is characterized by widespread use of milling stones (manos and metates), core tools, and few projectile points or bone and shell artifacts. This horizon appears to represent a diversification of subsistence Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project 18 Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 activities and a more sedentary settlement pattern. Archaeological evidence suggests that hunting became less important and that reliance on collecting shellfish and vegetal resources increased (Moratto 1984). Horizon III, the Intermediate Horizon or Campbell Tradition, began around 1,500 B.C. and continued until about A.D. 600–800. Horizon III is defined by a shift from the use of milling stones to increased use of mortar and pestle, indicating a greater reliance on acorns as a food source. Projectile points become more abundant and, together with faunal remains, indicate increased use of both land and sea mammals (Moratto 1984). Horizon IV, the Late Horizon, which began around A.D. 600–800 and terminated with the arrival of Europeans, is characterized by dense populations; diversified hunting and gathering subsistence strategies, including intensive fishing and sea mammal hunting; extensive trade networks; use of the bow and arrow; and a general cultural elaboration (Moratto 1984). ETHNOGRAPHY BACKGROUND The project area lies within the territory of the Gabrielino Native American people (Bean and Smith 1978). The Gabrielino are characterized as one of the most complex societies in native southern California, second perhaps only to the Chumash, their coastal neighbors to the northwest. This complexity derives from their overall economic, ritual, and social organization (Bean and Smith 1978:538; Kroeber 1925:621). The Gabrielino, a Uto-Aztecan (or Shoshonean) group, may have entered the Los Angeles Basin as recently as 1,500 B.P. In early protohistoric times, the Gabrielino occupied a large territory, including the entire Los Angeles Basin. This region encompasses the coast from Malibu to Aliso Creek, parts of the Santa Monica Mountains, the San Fernando Valley, the San Gabriel Valley, the San Bernardino Valley, the northern parts of the Santa Ana Mountains, and much of the middle to the lower Santa Ana River. They also occupied the islands of Santa Catalina, San Clemente, and San Nicolas. Within this large territory were more than 50 residential communities with populations ranging from 50 to 150 individuals. The Gabrielino had access to a broad and diverse resource base. This wealth of resources, coupled with an effective subsistence technology, well developed trade network, and ritual system, resulted in a society that was among one of the most materially wealthy and culturally sophisticated cultural groups in California at the time of contact. The Gabrielino, Juaneño, and Luiseño (of whom the Juaneño are a subgroup) have a history of interaction and border one another’s territories at Aliso Creek (Bean and Shipek 1978; Bean and Smith 1978). The Gabrielino and Juaneño are linguistically related as well, forming separate languages under the Cupan group of the Takic language family (Shipley 1978). In addition, the intrusion of Spanish missionaries and subsequent forced relocations of southern California Indians resulted in polyethnic native communities (Bean and Smith 1978). One such community, Genga, was located in the Upper Newport Bay vicinity, according to San Juan Capistrano Mission records (Strudwick 1996). The community of Genga was occupied by Gabrielinos, Juaneños, and Luiseños (Altschul, Gregory, and Doolittle 1998). Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project 19 Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Spanish occupation of California began in 1769, at San Diego. Mission San Gabriel was established in the Los Angeles Basin in 1771, and the Los Angeles Pueblo was established as a civilian settlement on September 4, 1781. The Spanish colonization effort of present-day California in the mid-18th century focused on three institutions: the “presidio,” the “pueblo,” and the mission. The presidio was a military base. The Spanish government sent military expeditions to California to explore the region for harbors that could provide secure sites for the presidios. The first recorded contact between the Spanish and the Gabrielino in the Orange County area was during Gaspar de Portola’s expedition to Monterey in 1769. The presidios were important for the colonization of an area and the protection of settlers. Pueblos were civil settlements that supplied agricultural products and provided an example of proper Spanish society to the natives. The missions were the central economic units of the colonial system. The goal of the mission system was to convert the native peoples to Catholicism, gain control of the native population, and establish self-sufficient communities. The military presence of the presidios supported the missions with a force of arms that helped control the native people. Despite a high death rate among the native population, the combination of the mission priests and the military worked to make the missions productive institutions for many years. In 1776, Franciscan missionaries established Mission San Juan Capistrano, though construction of the mission did not begin until 1797; completion was in 1806. By the earl y 1800s, Spanish army officers and veterans began receiving large land grants and established cattle ranches or ranchos. In 1809, Jose Antonio Yorba and Juan Pablo Peralta were granted land east of the Santa Ana River, titled Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana. The Yorba and Peralta families raised cattle on their land for a half-century. In 1821, Mexico won independence from Spain and subsequently became a republic of states. In 1833, the Mexican government secularized the missions and began to redistribute the mission land holdings. The land was redistributed in the form of land grants to individuals who promised to work the land, primarily by raising cattle. Although secularization was intended to distribute the mission lands to the settlers and native population, the large-scale cattle ranchers or rancheros claimed the bulk of the resources, and few Native Americans received land grants. These cattle ranches became the driving force in the economy and the dominant culture of California, including in present Orange County. At the end of the war between Mexico and the United States in 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed, giving control of California to the United States. In 1850, California was admitted as a state of the Union. Orange County California counties were delineated in 1850. The 500 residents located in the Santa Ana Valley, of what is now known as Orange County, were included at the time within the Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project 20 Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 boundaries of Los Angeles County. But as the population and wealth of the Santa Ana Valley began to grow, so too did the sentiment for the formation of a separate and distinct county. A trip to the Los Angeles County seat took many hours over uncertain dirt roads, and there was a growing resentment that the taxes being sent to Los Angeles were not being returned in a fair share of public works (Gass 1988). In 1870, Maximilian Strobel, a resident of the town of Anaheim, introduced to the state legislature a proposal for all the territory south of the San Gabriel River to separate from Los Angeles and become Anaheim County. The proposal was approved by the assembly but died in the senate. However, the concept had so much local support and appeal it would not go away. Over the next 15 years there were half a dozen other attempts to organize a coalition for separation. Names suggested for the new county included Santa Ana, Anaheim, and Orange. These proposals met with opposition in Sacramento, primarily from Los Angeles, which did not want to lose a part of its tax base. In the next round of proposals for county formation, the northern boundary was lowered from the San Gabriel River to Coyote Creek, and in 1889 the proposal was approved for the creation of Orange County. In the same year, the City of Santa Ana was selected by vote as the Orange County seat (Gass 1988). City of Anaheim The colony of Anaheim was originally within the southeast portion Los Angeles County before Orange County became its own entity in 1889. The project of fellow Germans Otto Weyse, John Frohling, and George Hansen, Anaheim was founded in 1857 as a German cooperative colony with most of its original settlers relocating, like its three founders, from San Francisco. The land on which the colony was made was originally part of the San Juan Cajon de Santa Ana rancho belonging to Don Bernardo Yorba, who later sold it to Don Pacifico Ontiveras. The 1,165-acre land was purchased by Hansen from Ontiveras for $2,330, $2.00 per acre. Along with an earlier similar colony established in San Bernardino by Mormons, Anaheim was considered one the most successful Southern California start-up colonies of the 19th century (Dickson 1918). Although initially the colony was centered on grapes and winemaking, only one farmer was of the fifty original settlers, which included watch makers, a poet, a musician, a book binder, and a shoe maker, among others (Dickson 1918:30; Merrit 1921). George Hansen was a civil engineer and had surveyed the land on which the colony would be constructed. The city’s name is a composition of “Ana” from the nearby Santa Ana River and “heim,” German for home. An early distinguishing feature of the colony was a fence that wrapped its entire perimeter made of 40,000 willow poles spaced 2 feet apart from one another that had taken root to become a living wall and was laterally woven to give the appearance of a stockade (Merrit 1921). As settlers first arrived, Anaheim’s first buildings included a 40-foot by 25-foot two- story adobe that may have been pre-existing and was used as a school and assembly hall, the house and office of George Hansen, a store owned by fellow original settler August Langenberger, and a shed used for a butcher shop (Dickson 1918). The Anaheim Colony was accessed by four gates set within the surrounding willow wall at each of the four cardinal points. The North Gate is still preserved today at 775 N. Anaheim Boulevard and has been designated as a California State Landmark (The Planning Center 2003). Today this area of the original colony Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project 21 Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 comprises the city’s downtown and surrounding historic neighborhoods bound by North, South, East, and West Streets. In its early years, the Anaheim Colony was considered a significant regional wine- growing district, and its vineyard business was called “The Los Angeles Vineyard Company” (Merrit 1921). The company acquired an irrigation easement over Bernardo Yorba’s Rancho Canon de Santa Ana that included water rights from the Santa Ana River, and the vineyards were irrigated by a 7.1-mile-long zanja connecting the colony to the river (Schultz 1988 and Merritt 1921). The zanja was dug by fift y Native American Indians, who called the colony “Camp Aleman” (“German Camp”). Hansen divided the community-owned land into vineyard and town lots, devised an irrigation system, and supervised the planting of 400,000 grape vines and many fruit trees (Schultz 1988). The vineyard societ y conveyed its water rights and irrigation ditches, including the easement from the Santa Ana River, to the Anaheim Water Company. However, this eventuall y led to hostility and litigation over the use of the water for agricultural purposes. The problems were solved in 1884 with the formation of the Anaheim Union Water Company, incorporating the companies involved in the litigation. The Anaheim Lighters Company was formed in 1864 and was Orange County’s first commercial port at Anaheim Landing, now in Seal Beach, where coastal steamers made weekly stops. By 1869, the Anaheim Wine Growers Association had established depots in San Francisco and New York City to market their product (Schultz 1988). An 1881 plague decimated the vineyards and in their place almond, walnut, fig, lemon, and notably orange trees were planted (Dickson 1918). The first commercially grown oranges in Orange County were grown in Anaheim, where the growers attributed their success to the local hills, which protected the fruit against the cold winds coming down from the mountains (The Planning Center 2003). The Southern Pacific Railroad arrived in Anaheim in January of 1875, and the city was incorporated on December 6 of the following year with a population of 881. It was with the appearance of the Santa Fe Railroad in 1887 that Anaheim would see some of the growth experienced by other regions of the southland resulting from the competition between Santa Fe and the Southern Pacific railroad (Merritt 1921). In 1887, the Santa Fe Railroad began plans for the “Surf Line,” which would connect Los Angeles to San Diego, running along the Pacific Coast much of the way, and serve as Santa Fe’s primary line between these two cities. The line, a portion of which today is located near Angel Stadium, was completed on August 12, 1888 (Duke and Kister 1963). By 1900, Anaheim had a population of 1,568 people and was a closely knit agricultural community (Westcott 1990). Of all of its various crops, including the chili pepper, which had been grown in abundance in the city from 1890 onward, it was the Valencia Orange that became the city’s primary export during this time and throughout the remainder of the twentieth century’s first half. The Santa Fe railroad used another of its Orange County lines through the Santa Ana Canyon to San Bernardino and points eastward to ship out oranges grown in Anaheim Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project 22 Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 and the rest of Orange County (Westcott 1990). Vehicle access from Anaheim to Los Angeles and San Diego was greatly improved with the single-lane paving of the El Camino Real and its designation as U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101) in 1926. By the 1940s, Anaheim’s biggest claim was the calling of its name in an oft-repeated skit on the nationally broadcast Jack Benny radio show where Mel Blanc played a Union Station conductor announcing a train leaving for “Anaheim, Azusa, and Cucamonga!” The Post World War II period was a remarkable boom time for the history of Anaheim. Keenly sensing that a massive wave of transplants was just about to move westward, Anaheim city leaders acted fast in the immediate post-war years to maximize the city’s growth potential. In 1945 the City of Anaheim hired Earnest “Earne” Moeller as the manager of its chamber of commerce and in 1950 hired Keith Murdock as city administrator; Murdock later became city manager from 1956 to 1976. Together with Charles Pearson, who served as mayor from 1936 to 1959, these three men are credited with the massive growth of the city, which at one time was the fastest in the United States (Westcott 1990). To facilitate rapid development, the City of Anaheim created various measures including a “super stamp” system in which developers could begin work immediately without plan checks, subject to fixing deficiencies that may be found in later inspections. Aided by the super stamp system, developers constructed numerous housing tracts in the city with thousands of single-family homes, predominately of the Ranch style. Anaheim city leaders aggressively pursued industry during the post-war era and set aside 20% of the city’s land for it (Westcott 1990). The city’s first major industrial employer in the post-war era was Kitset locks, which brought 600 jobs to the area beginning in 1948 (Westcott 1990). Northrop became the first aerospace company to establish an electronics division anywhere in southern California when it opened Nortronics Anaheim Division off of Orangethorpe Avenue in 1951 on land that city had only recently annexed (Scott 1993). The four-lane I-5 freeway was completed in 1954 on what was U.S. 101 through Anaheim, and, like U.S. 101 once did before, it facilitated exposure and easier travel between Anaheim and other major cities. The following year, the crowning moment of Anaheim’s post World War II history came on July 18, 1955 when Disneyland theme park, which would become a world-renowned tourist attraction, opened its doors to the public. Only seven weeks after it opened, the park would record its one millionth visitor. The facilitation of Disneyland’s construction in Anaheim—it was almost built in Burbank—is largely credited to Earne Moeller and a team under him, who sold Disney on Anaheim and who also helped facilitate the simultaneous selling of numerous citrus and other farms upon which Disneyland would be constructed (Reoyan 2008). Of its five sister resorts and eleven theme parks between them, Disneyland is the only park entirely within the limits of one city (Reoyan 2008). Anaheim and Disney have long had a consistently close relationship over time. Throughout the 1950s Anaheim boomed and the citrus and other agriculture that previously defined the city began to disappear. Aggressive annexation increased the size of Anaheim from 2,750 acres in 1947 to 20,000 acres by 1960 (Westcott 1990). From 1950 to 1960, the population of Anaheim skyrocketed 615.7% from 14,556 to 104,184 (Center for Demographic Research 2002). Throughout the 1950s Anaheim and the rest of north Orange County saw a vast expansion of the electronics industry. Hughes opened a major plant in Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project 23 Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 Fullerton in 1957, and Rockwell opened an electronics plant in Anaheim in 1959. Associated suppliers and related manufacturers opened in conjunction with these companies. By the 1960s and 1970s Orange County had become one of the “[g]reat high technology industrial districts” (Center for Demographic Research 2002). Primarily because of Disneyland, tourism became a significant economic generator for the city. By 1961 Anaheim was hosting 5 million visitors per year (Luskey 1960). In 1966, Anaheim Stadium, a 45,000-seat ballpark largely funded by the City of Anaheim, became home to the California Angels major league baseball team. An expansion team began in 1961 and was owned by cowboy singer Gene Autry. Prior to calling Anaheim home, the Angels shared Chavez Ravine with the Los Angeles Dodgers—an arrangement that was less than appealing for Autry. Anaheim Stadium was built on 150 acres of former citrus and walnut groves (Westcott 1990). The Angels played their first game in the park on April 9, 1966—an exhibition game that they lost to the San Francisco Giants. Shortly after its opening, the ballpark would become popularly known as “The Big A” for the 230-foot-tall A-shaped scoreboard behind the park’s left field area. The scoreboard, which is topped by a 70-foot-diameter halo, mimics the team logo. The Big A scoreboard was the tallest scoreboard ever made and, at 1 million dollars, was one of the most expensive (Anaheim Bulletin 1966). Relocated to a site adjacent the 57 freeway, the sign is a familiar icon for Anaheim and Orange County. To further capitalize on the local tourism base, in July 1967 the city opened the Anaheim Convention Center across the street from and to the south of Disneyland. Designed by Adrian Wilson Associates, the Anaheim Convention Center was one of the largest such facilities in the country. The complex featured a sculpted, space-age, circular arena with stylized brackets on its roof, each forming the letter A. Like the Big A sign and Disneyland’s Matterhorn Mountain, which is readily visible from Interstate 5, the Anaheim Convention Center arena serves as a readily visible landmark associated with Anaheim’s post-war boom period. Throughout the 1970s Anaheim continued its annexations, largely eastward into the Santa Ana Canyon, where the upscale planned community of Anaheim Hills was constructed beginning in 1971. By the 1970s, as in many other major cities, Anaheim’s inner city was struggling. Two urban renewal projects—Project Alpha (1973) and Project Omega (1975)— achieved varying degrees of both success and community resistance (Westcott 1990). Though beginning much earlier, a rapid influx of Hispanic immigrants into Anaheim occurred throughout the 1970s. As of the 2000 census, Hispanic immigrants comprised 47% of the city’s population, which was larger than any other racial group (Center for Demographic Research 2000). The majority of Anaheim’s Hispanic immigrants are from Mexico. Among these are many from the village (rancho) of El Cargadero located in Jerez de Garcia Salinas, Zacatecas, Mexico (Arellano 2008). The majority of this rancho’s descendants relocated to Anaheim in a migration that first began in 1918 by individuals fleeing the Mexican Revolution (Arellano 2008). Many initially worked in the citrus fields and then later work in the city’s industrial corridor. In 1993, the new Disney-owned Mighty Ducks hockey team began playing in a newly completed arena called the Arrowhead Pond of Anaheim (today called the Honda Center), and in 2001 Disney opened a second theme park just below Disneyland called Disney’s California Adventure. The opening of this park coordinated with the renovation and rebranding of the Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project 24 Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 immediate vicinity, which is today called the Disneyland Resort, around the two adjacent parks. In the recent past, Anaheim has continued an upward trend in population growth. From 1990 to 2000—the year of the last U.S. census, of cities with populations over 300,000, Anaheim was the number one city in California and number eight nationally in population growth, with an increase of 23.1% (Center for Demographic Research 2000). Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project 25 Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 Chapter 5. Survey Methodology As part of the Phase 1 archaeological resources survey work, ICF Jones & Stokes conducted the following: an archaeological records search at the SCCIC; a review of the sacred lands files maintained by the NAHC; Native American consultation; a paleontological records search at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Vertebrate Paleontology Section; and a field survey of the project area. These tasks are described below. RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS On September 16, 2009, an archaeological records search was conducted at the SCCIC, located at California State University, Fullerton, for the proposed project area. This search included a review of the following sources: all available cultural resources surveys and site records recorded at the SCCIC, the NRHP, the CRHR, the California Inventory of Historic Resources, California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest. Historic maps and historic aerial photographs of the project area were reviewed as well. The results of the records search indicate that 35 surveys have been conducted within a 1-mile radius of the project site limits. Only one of these, a study conducted in 1975, was located within the project site. Two cultural resources (30-100402 and 30-176663/176664) have been recorded within a 1-mile radius. The BNSF Railway line (30-176663/176664) is within the project site boundaries. 30-100402: An isolated granite mano (Jones 2007). Not considered a historic or unique archaeological resource. 30-176663/176664: BNSF Railway (Formerly Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe). The rail line was recorded in 2002 and, despite the majority of the rail line dating back to the 1880s, it was found that due to more than 100 years of continuous operation, the Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project 26 Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 rail line retained very little of the characteristics that reflect its historic origin. It was therefore found to be ineligible for listing on the NRHP (Tang and Ballester 2002a and 2002b). The site would not be eligible for listing on the CRHR for these same reasons. Two archaeological monitoring projects were conducted less than 1/8 mile north of the current project site. In 2002, during archaeological monitoring of construction activities, a large fragment of a Late Prehistoric era mortar or bowl was recovered. The artifact was found in fill material, and its original context was unknown (Kelly, Corsetti, and Brown 2002). During this same monitoring project skeletal remains of a horse were identified buried under approximately one foot of dirt. It was determined that the remains were recent and may have been associated with stables located nearby (Kelly, Corsetti, and Brown 2002). Based on the results of the monitoring project, archaeological monitoring of future excavations was recommended as well as a reevaluation of the sensitivity of the sediments by a qualified paleontologist (Kelly, Corsetti, and Brown 2002). In 2003, archaeological monitoring for the Westwood College project was conducted. No cultural resources were identified during the monitoring program, but the report stated that due to “the archaeological sensitivity of the area, it is recommended that future ground disturbing activities be monitored by a qualified archaeologist” (Brown 2003). SUMMARY OF NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION ICF Jones & Stokes contacted the NAHC and requested a review of the sacred lands files. The NAHC responded on September 10, 2009, stating that a search of their sacred lands database did not yield any sacred lands or traditional cultural properties within the immediate project area. The NAHC provided a list of twelve Native American contacts in Orange County. Letters describing the project area and indicating the project location were sent to these Native American representatives on September 11, 2009. No responses have been received as of November 13, 2009. SUMMARY OF THE PALEONTOLOGICAL RECORDS SEARCH A paleontological records search was conducted by Dr. Samuel McLeod of the Vertebrate Paleontology Section of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. According to Dr. McLeod, surficial sediments at the project site and in the surrounding area consist of younger terrestrial Quaternary Alluvium, with older terrestrial Quaternary sediments occurring at various depths, as part of the floodplain deposits from the Santa Ana River that flows adjacent to east of the project area. These deposits typically do not contain significant vertebrate fossils in the uppermost layers. However, there is a vertebrate fossil locality, LACM 1652, along Rio Vista Avenue, south of Lincoln Avenue and just east of the project area that produced a fossil specimen of sheep, Ovis. The closest fossil locality in older Quaternary sediments is LACM 4943, situated almost due east of LACM 1652 along Fletcher Avenue east of Glassell Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project 27 Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 Street and east of the Santa Ana River. This locality produced a specimen of fossil horse, Equus, at a depth of 8–10 feet below the surface (McLeod 2009). FIELD SURVEY An archaeological reconnaissance survey of the project area was conducted by an ICF Jones & Stokes qualified archaeologist on September 16, 2009. The project area is developed with existing roads, SR-57, the Metrolink railroad and the BNSF railway alignment, commercial and industrial complexes, the Angel Stadium complex, and landscape vegetation. The Santa Ana River, which forms the eastern boundary of the project site, has been channelized. Ground surface visibility was poor to non-existent, with the majority of the project area being paved and heavily disturbed from development activities. Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project 28 Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 Chapter 6. Study Findings and Conclusions CEQA SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS Archaeological Resources Historic resources, which include prehistoric and historic archaeological resources, may be affected by land use changes and by visual, noise, or atmospheric intrusions beyond the project site. The CEQA Guidelines state that there would be a “substantial adverse change” in the significance of a historical resource when there is physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired. The significance of a historical resource is materially impaired when a project: demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the CRHR, as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA; or demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to PRC Section 5020.1(k) or its identification in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g), unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant. PRC Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 also address impacts to archaeological resources. These two codes operate independently to ensure that potential effects on archaeological resources are considered as part of the environmental review process. Section 21083.2 applies to “unique” archaeological resources, while Section 21084.1 applies to archaeological resources that are listed on or eligible for listing on the CRHR. Paleontological Resources Paleontological resources are nonrenewable scientific and educational resources. The legislative framework that covers paleontological resources includes PRC Section 5097.5 and Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form) of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 5097.5 prohibits the removal or destruction of vertebrate paleontological sites, or any other paleontological feature situated on public lands without prior approval of the public agency in control of those lands. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines includes paleontological resources under the general “Cultural Resources” heading. Projects subject to CEQA must determine whether the project would “directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource.” Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project 29 Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 SUMMARY OF RESULTS An archaeological records search was conducted at the SCCIC, located at California State University, Fullerton. A Phase I archaeological resources survey of the project area was conducted on September 16, 2009. No new surficial cultural resources were observed within the project area. However, even though the project area is currently urbanized, it is located in an alluvial outwash plain of the Santa Ana River that forms the eastern boundary of the project site. The project area in the past had been open land used for agricultural purposes. Before the channelization of the Santa Ana River, the project area was crossed by many tributaries and smaller creeks flowing from the canyons in a meandering northeast-to-southwest direction down to the coast. These abundant sources of water represent an ideal location for prehistoric and historic use. The flow of water and accumulation of sediments over time may have buried evidence of past occupations in the project area. Therefore, there is a potential for buried cultural resource deposits to exist beneath previously disturbed and developed land surfaces. Furthermore, previous archaeological studies conducted less than 1/8 mile from the project site have determined the vicinity to be sensitive for archaeological resources. The results of the paleontological records search indicated that the study area/project site is located in an area that may contain the presence of such resources. Paleontological resources have been unearthed in the nearby area; therefore, mitigations are recommended to implement the proposed project. RECOMMENDATIONS Archaeological monitoring by a qualified archaeologist is recommended for all initial ground-disturbing construction-related activities. If cultural materials (prehistoric or historic artifacts) are encountered during construction, work will stop in the vicinity of the find until a qualified archaeologist can assess the material and recommend further action if necessary. Design of a treatment plan and consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer may be required to appropriately mitigate any unanticipated discoveries. Treatment measures typically include development of avoidance strategies, capping with fill material, or mitigation of impacts through data recovery programs, such as excavation or detailed documentation, or other mitigation measures, following standard archaeological procedures. During cultural resources monitoring, if the qualified archaeologist determines that the sediments being excavated are previously disturbed or unlikely to contain significant cultural materials, the archaeologist can specify that monitoring be reduced or eliminated. In accordance with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if human remains are exposed during construction, no further disturbance will occur until the county coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC 5097.98. Construction must halt in the area of the discovery of human remains, the area must be protected, and consultation and treatment should occur as prescribed by law. A qualified paleontological monitor will be on call during construction activities. If paleontological resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work will stop within 50 feet of the find until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures. Treatment measures may include Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project 30 Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 full-time monitoring by a qualified paleontologist during construction-related ground-disturbing activities. The qualified paleontological monitor will retain the option of reducing monitoring if, in his or her professional opinion, the sediments being monitored were previously disturbed. Monitoring may also be reduced if potentially fossiliferous units are not present or, if present, are determined by qualified paleontological personnel to have a low potential to contain fossil resources. The monitor will be equipped to salvage fossils and samples of sediments as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and will be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Recovered specimens will be prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation, which would include the washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Specimens will be curated into a professional, accredited museum repository with permanent retrievable storage. A report of findings, with an appended itemized inventory of specimens, will be prepared; this report will signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts on paleontological resources. Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project 31 Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 Chapter 7. References Cited Altschul, J.H., T.L. Gregory, and C.J. Doolittle. 1998 Cultural Setting and Previous Research. In House Pits and Middens: A Methodological Study of Site Structure and Formation Processes at CA-ORA-16, Newport Bay, Orange County, California, edited by D.R. Grenda, C.J. Doolittle, and J.H. Altschul, pp. 13-27. Technical Series No. 69. Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson, Arizona. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. Anaheim (CA) Bulletin 1966 “Big Aggie”. April 8. Arellano, G. 2008 Orange County: A Personal History. New York: Scribner, 2008 Bean, L. J., and F.C. Shipek. 1978 Luiseño. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 550-563. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Bean, L. J., and C. R. Smith. 1978 Gabrielino. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, California, R. F. Heizer (ed.), pp. 538–549. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Brown, J. C. 2003 Archaeological Monitoring During Excavations for the Westwood College Project, Anaheim, California. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. Center for Demographic Research. 2002 [City of Anaheim, CA.], Census 2000 Demographic Profile I: Public Law Summary File. Fullerton, CA: Center for Demographic Research, January. Dickson, L. E. 1918 “The Founding and Early History of Anaheim, California.” The Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly 11: Pp 26-37. Duke, D., and S. Kister. 1963 Santa Fe: Steel Rails through California. San Marino, CA: Golden West Books. Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project 32 Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 Gass, M. 1988. The Formation of Orange County. In A Hundred Years of Yesterdays: A Centennial History of the People of Orange County and Their Communities. Esther R. Cramer, Keith A. Dixon, Diann Marsh, Phil Brigandi and Clarice A. Blamer, editors, pp. 36-37. The Orange County Centennial, Inc., Santa Ana, CA. Jones, W. 2007. Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record for 30-100402. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. Kelly, B, C. Corsetti, and J. C. Brown. 2002 Revised Archeological and Paleontological Monitoring Report for Arena Corporate Center Project, Orange County, California. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. Kao, K. “Orange County Freeways Information.” History of Orange County, California. http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~kennyk/oc/articles/freeways.html. Kroeber, A. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bulletin 78, American Bureau of Ethnology. Reprinted in 1976, Dover Publications, Inc., New York. Luskey Brothers. 1960 Luskey’s 1961 Anaheim Yellow Book. Anaheim, CA: Luskey Brothers, c.1960. McLeod, S. A., Ph.D. Vertebrate Paleontology, 2009 Paleontological Resources for the Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC), in the City of Anaheim, Orange County. September 14. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. Merritt, E.B. 1921 “The City of Anaheim” in Armor, Samuel. History of Orange County, CA with biographical sketches of the leading men and women of the county, who have been identified with the growth and development from the early days to the present time. Los Angeles: Historic Record Company. Moratto, M. J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando, FL. Reoyan, A. 2008 “Theme Park in the City: Disneyland and the Aesthetic of the ‘Anaheim Resort’.” Honors Thesis, Stanford University. Orange County Transportation Authority Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Project 33 Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report November 2009 ICF J&S 305.09 Schoenherr, A. A. 1992 A Natural History of California. California Natural History Guides No. 56. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California. Schultz, E. J. 1988 “Anaheim” in A Hundred Years of Yesterdays: A Centennial History of the People of Orange County and Their Communities. Esther R. Cramer, Keith A. Dixon, Diann Marsh, Phil Brigandi and Clarice A. Blamer, editors, pp. 70-73. The Orange County Centennial, Inc., Santa Ana, CA. Scott, A. J. 1993 Technopolis: High-Technology Industry and Regional Development in Southern California. Berkeley: University of California Press. Shipley, W.F. 1978 Native Languages of California. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, California, R. F. Heizer (ed.), pp. 80-90. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Strudwick, I. 1996 Department of Parks and Recreation Archaeological Site Record Update for 30- 000196. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. Tang, T.B., and D. Ballester. 2002a Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record for 30-176663. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. 2002b Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record for 30-176664. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. The Planning Center. 2003 Anaheim General Plan/ Zoning Code Update EIR. Costa Mesa, CA: The Planning Center. Westcott, J. 1990 Anaheim: City of Dreams. Chatsworth, CA: Windsor Publications. Appendix A. Native American Consultation Appendix B. Paleontological Records Search Appendix C. California Historical Resource Inventory List Jamie Lai, P.E. July 19, 2010 Project Manager Department of Public Works Transit Planning Division 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 276 Anaheim, California 92805 Re: Biological Letter Report for the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC). Dear Ms. Lai, This letter report includes a summary of the Draft Biological Resources Technical Report (November, 2009) prepared by ICF. This draft Biological Resources Technical Report (BRTR) was prepared for the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and provided to Kleinfelder for review. The BRTR identifies an irregularly shaped approximate 13.5 acre project site within the City of Anaheim near the intersection of SR-57, Douglass Road and the LOSSAN. The project site is bounded on the east by the Santa Ana River. The study area for BRTR includes the project site and a 500 foot buffer. A traditional evaluation designed to determine the potential value of the study area to biological and habitat resources was conducted using a combination of records review, database review, and site reconnaissance conducted by a biologist on two occasions in September and October 2009. The BRTR contains a description of the methods utilized, existing conditions encountered (as they relate to biological resources), findings with respect to the potential for biological resources to be present that may constrain the ARTIC project, conclusions and recommendations. The report findings provide a discussion regarding special status plants and animals, raptor habitat, native nesting birds, naturally occurring vegetative communities, wildlife corridors, jurisdictional waters and wetlands, federal critical habitat and any draft or final conservation plans that may be affected by the proposed project. The BRTR finds: • The project is located within an entirely developed urban landscape void of natural vegetative communities or ecosystems; • The Santa Ana River lies within the study area but outside the project site. Within the study area, the River is mechanically altered and managed for groundwater recharge; • There are no federal waters, wetlands or California Department of Fish and Game streambeds within the project area; • Special status plants were not detected or expected within the project area; • Three special status animals including the white-tailed kite, northern harrier and the western mastiff bat may use the project site to forage, but not for nesting habitat. Potential forage by these species does not constitute a project constraint as these animals forage over large areas with an abundant food source. • The Santa Ana River provides low wildlife corridor value for urban predators and other small mammals, but does not pose a constraint to the project because the River is adjacent to but not inside the project area; • No federally proposed or designated critical habitat was identified within the study area; • There are no draft or final conservation plans within the study area; and • There is a recognizable potential for disruption of nesting native birds that are afforded protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the state equivalent. Disruption during the nesting season between January 15 and September 1may jeopardize individuals or more broadly, nesting success, resulting in a project constraint. The constraint may be mitigated to an acceptable level by avoiding construction during the nesting season, or by performing one or more nesting bird surveys within the study area immediately (within 14 days) prior to commencement of construction. In the event active nests are located, they can be flagged for protection until the nesting attempt has been completed as determined by a qualified biologist. Based upon the methodologies employed, the sources evaluated and the report provided by ICF, it appears the ARTIC project presents a single constraint to the biological resources identified to be present or likely present within the study area. This constraint, being the possible adverse impact of construction on nesting native birds, may be mitigated using techniques commonly employed by qualified biologist to protect active nest sites. Kleinfelder recommends implementation of this mitigation measure during the construction period to protect nesting individuals and improve nesting success during the time period of January 15 to September 1. By doing so, potential adverse affects will be mitigated to an acceptable level. Please let me know if you have additional questions. Sincerely, Robert Motschall, Ph. D. 103567/LBE9R023 Page 1 of 1 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder July 17, 2009Project No. 103567/ENV Jones and Stokes1 Ada, Suite 100Irvine, California 92618 Attention:Mr. David Feytag Subject:Draft Phase I Environmental Site AssessmentProposedAnaheim Regional TransportationIntermodal Center (ARTIC)–Phase 1Anaheim, California Dear Mr. Feytag: Enclosed are two copies of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the above-referenced property. We trust the information presented in this report meets your need at this time. An executive summary is provided; however, we recommend that the report be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained therein. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services for Jones and Stokes. Should you require additional information, have questions regarding this report, or wish to discuss the recommendations provided, please contact Michael Counte at (949)727-4466. Respectfully submitted, KLEINFELDER WEST, INC. Michael A. Counte, REA I, RBP Herbert (Bert) A.Vogler III, PGEnvironmental Group Manager Senior Hydrogeologist 103567/ LBE9R023 Page i of iv July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFTPHASE I ENVIRONMENTALSITE ASSESSMENTANAHEIM REGIONAL TRANSPORTATIONINTERMODAL CENTER (ARTIC)–PHASE 1ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA July 17, 2009 This document was prepared for use only by the client, only for the purposes stated, and within a reasonable time from issuance. Non-commercial, educational and scientific use of this report by regulatory agencies is regarded as a "fair use" and not a violation of copyright. Regulatory agencies may make additional copies of this document for internal use. Copies may also be made available to the public as required by law. The reprint must acknowledge the copyright and indicate that permission to reprint has been received. 103567 LBE9R023 Page ii of v July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder A Report Prepared for: Jones and Stokes1 Ada, Suite 100Irvine, California 92618 DRAFT PHASE I ENVIRONMENTALSITE ASSESSMENTPROPOSED ANAHEIM REGIONAL TRANSPORTATIONINTERMODAL CENTER (ARTIC)–PHASE 1ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA Kleinfelder Job No. 103567/ENV Prepared by: Margaret R. CarrollEnvironmental Project Professional Reviewed by: _____________________Herbert (Bert) A. Vogler III, PGSenior Hydrogeologist KLEINFELDER WEST, INC.620 West 16th Street, Unit FLong Beach, California 90813(562) 432-1696FAX: (562) 432-1796 July 17, 2009 DRAFT 103567 LBE9R023 Page iii of v July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................1 2 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................11 2.1.PURPOSE ...............................................................................................11 2.2.DETAILED SCOPE-OF-SERVICES.........................................................12 2.3.ADDITIONAL SERVICES.........................................................................13 2.4.SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................14 2.5.LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS...........................................................14 2.6.SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS .....................................................15 3 SITE DESCRIPTION ..........................................................................................16 3.1.LOCATION AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION.................................................16 3.2.CURRENT/PROPOSED USE OF THE PROPERTY ...............................18 3.3.DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURES/IMPROVEMENTS ............................18 3.4.CURRENT USES OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES ...................................19 4 RECORDS REVIEW ..........................................................................................21 4.1.PURPOSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS REVIEW .......................21 4.2.STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES ..........................21 4.2.1.Federal Agency Records Review .............................................21 4.2.2.State/Local Lists .......................................................................24 4.2.3.Orphan List ...............................................................................33 4.3.OTHER RECORDS REVIEW ED/AGENCIES CONTACTED ...................34 4.4.PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE(S)..........................................................48 4.5.USER PROVIDED INFORMATION..........................................................53 4.5.1.Title Records.............................................................................54 4.5.2.Environmental Liens and Usage Limitations ............................54 4.5.3.Value Reduction .......................................................................55 4.5.4.Other Information/Documents Provided ...................................55 5 HISTORY OF THE SITE.....................................................................................56 5.1.AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS .......................................................................56 5.1.1.Site ...........................................................................................57 5.1.2.Surrounding Areas ....................................................................59 5.2.SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS .....................................................61 5.3.CITY DIRECTORIES ................................................................................61 5.4.HISTORICAL TOPOGRAPHIC MAP REVIEW ........................................61 5.4.1.Site ...........................................................................................62 5.4.2.Surrounding Areas ....................................................................63 5.5.BUILDING DEPARTMENT RECORDS ....................................................64 5.6.PREVIOUS ASSESSMENTS ..................................................................64 6 SITE RECONNAISSANCE .................................................................................68 6.1.METHODOLOGY AND LIMITING CONDITIONS ......................................68 DRAFT 103567 LBE9R023 Page iv of v July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 6.2.GENERAL SITE SETTING .......................................................................68 6.3.SITE OBSERVATIONS ............................................................................68 6.4.RESULTS OF SITE RECONNAISSANCE ...............................................73 7 INTERVIEWS .....................................................................................................78 7.1.INTERVIEW WITH OWNER/MANAGER.................................................78 7.2.INTERVIEW WITH OCCUPANTS ...........................................................80 7.3.INTERVIEWS WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ......................80 7.4.INTERVIEW WITH CLIENT/OTHERS......................................................80 8 EVALUATION.....................................................................................................81 8.1.BACKGROUND .......................................................................................81 8.2.FINDINGS AND OPINIONS .....................................................................81 8.3.DEVIATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES ..........................................89 8.4.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................89 9 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................91 STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS ...........................................................................A-1 TABLES 3-1 Location and Legal Description3-2 Parcel Information3-3 Current/Proposed Uses3-4 Structures/Improvements3-5 Adjoining Properties4-1 Records Reviewed and Search Distances4-2 Physical Setting4-3 Regional Geology and Hydrogeology4-4 Owner/Occupant Information5-1 Historical Information Sources5-2 Historical Aerial Photographs Reviewed5-3 Historical Topographic Maps Reviewed6-1 Site Observations PLATES 1 Site Location Map2Site and Vicinity Map3Partial Site Map (1750 South Douglass Road)4-7 Site Photographs DRAFT 103567 LBE9R023 Page v of v July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Section APPENDICES A Qualifications of Environmental ProfessionalsBRegulatory Agency Database ReportCInterview and Regulatory Agency DocumentationDHistorical Research DocumentationEPrevious Assessments DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 1 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ________________________________________________________________________________ A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was performed for Jones and Stokes (Client)of the proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC)- Phase 1 project site (Site) generally located at the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and Douglass Road in the City of Anaheim, Orange County, California (see Plate 1, Site Location Map). This report was prepared consistent with the ASTM International (ASTM, formerly known as the American Society for Testing and Materials) Designation E 1527-05,Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessm ent Process (referred to herein as the ASTM Standard). The Site is an irregularly-shaped area of land consisting of nine parcels or portions thereof, which are occupied by commercial buildings, a former operations and maintenance facility, a lumber facility, a portion of the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) Railroad Corridor, and the Anaheim Stadium Metrolink/Amtrak Station or are vacant land (see Plate 2). The vacant parcels are small areas along the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor and do not have associated addresses. The addresses of the remaining parcels are discussed below: 2600 East Katella Avenue –The building located at 2600 East Katella Avenue is situated on the western portion of a larger parcel of land (Orange County Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN]232-07-005) that totals approximately 1.67 acres of land. This portion of the Site was historically vacant land until 1978, when the existing structure was constructed. Currently, one commercial structure consisting of two tenant suites is located on the western portion of this larger parcel. A fireplace retail store occupies one tenant suite and the other is vacant. No evidence of hazardous materials usage or storage was observed at the time of our Site reconnaissance. This Site address was not listed in the regulatory agency databases searched by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). No evidence of a recognized environmental condition (REC) was noted at this property. 1730 South Douglass Road –The building located at 1730 South Douglass Road is situated at the southwestern corner of a larger parcel of land (APN 232-07-005) that totals approximately 1.67 acres of land. This portion of the Site was historically vacant land until 1973, when the existing building was DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 2 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder constructed. Currently, the building at this location is a vacant office. No evidence of hazardous materials usage or storage was observed at the time of our Site reconnaissance. This Site address was not listed in databases searched by EDR. No evidence of a REC was noted at this property. 1750 South Douglass Road (formerly 10852 Douglass Road)–This portion of the Site comprises one parcel of land (APN 232-07-003) that is bounded generally by Katella Avenue on the north, the Santa Ana River on the east, the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor on the south, and Douglass Road and APN 232-07-005 on the west. For purposes of this report, the parcel will be discussed with reference to its northern portion (approximately the northern one third of the parcel) and the southern portion (approximately the southern two thirds of the parcel). This Site parcel was historically vacant land that appeared to be part of the adjacent Santa Ana River (to the east) until at least 1968. Based on a review of historical aerial photographs performed as part of a geotechnical assessment performed by Kleinfelder, and documented in our Draft Technical Memorandum,Preliminary Geotechnical Data Report dated June 3, 2009, quarry excavation activities occurred on the southern portion of this parcel between 1955 and 1959.Development of this parcel began in the early 1970s. A summary of the Site observations concerning this parcel during this Phase I ESA is as follows: Northern Portion: The northern portion of this parcel consists of an asphalt-paved parking lot with area light posts throughout. Two structures are located on the northern portion of the property. The first structure is a vacant office building (labeled as an Agricultural Commissioner’s office) located near the property’s southwest corner. Concrete curbs were observed to the west of this building. Based on Kleinfelder’s review of available ALTA Survey maps, two modular buildings were formerly situated to the west of the building, and the curbs apparently were used as the base for the modular buildings.The second structure is a canopy covering a concrete-paved area near the southeast corner of the property. A gravel-filled pit was observed beneath the canopy. Based on information obtained during this Phase I ESA, the pit was the location of a former clarifier. A chain-link fence separates the northern portion of the parcel from the southern portion of the parcel, discussed below. Southern Portion: The southern portion of this parcel includes the following structures: Two brick office buildings are located on the northwestern portion of the property. These buildings are partially occupied by offices, with the remaining areas vacant. Evidence of a laboratory (i.e., labels on cabinets indicating storage of neutralizing reagents, caustics, abrasives, alkalines, acids, bases, and mercury-containing substances) was observed within the northeastern part of this building. A pad-mounted electrical transformer was observed to the east of the buildings. No leakage or staining was observed on or in the vicinity of the DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 3 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder transformer. Several mobile storage containers were observed to the south of the buildings, in the southern-most of which were containers of lubricants, striping paint, and asphalt emulsion, along with gasoline cans, portable generators, and small cans of oil and spray paint. There were no individual containers with a capacity greater than 5 gallons observed. Access to the remaining storage containers was not provided to Kleinfelder. No evidence of leakage or staining was observed on the asphalt or immediately adjacent to the storage containers. Portable lights, railroad crossing equipment, and other miscellaneous pieces of equipment were observed adjacent to the storage containers. A mobile trailer was observed to the east of the storage containers and appeared to be used for office purposes. A concrete tilt-up building is located at the approximate center of the southern portion of the parcel and is currently vacant. The majority of the building is a warehouse. Smaller bay areas, accessed by roll-up doors, are along the southern and eastern sides of the building. The southwestern bays are being used for miscellaneous storage by the occupants of the office buildings, and the remaining bay areas are empty. Kleinfelder observed concrete patches within the floor of the bay located at the southeastern corner of the building. Based on information reviewed as part of this Phase I ESA, the concrete patches are at the former locations of in-ground hydraulic hoists. A raised concrete pad surrounded by ballasts was observed outside the southeastern corner of the building. It is unknown to Kleinfelder what was in this area. No evidence of staining was observed at this location. A canopy is to the east of the concrete tilt-up building at the eastern boundary of the parcel. The canopy covers a concrete slab with a gravel-filled pit. Based on information reviewed as part of this Phase I ESA, the pit is the location of another former clarifier. A concrete ramp leading up to a raised concrete area was observed immediately south of the canopy. Kleinfelder understands this ramp was associated with a modular building that was formerly located in this area of the Site. A wooden building is to the north of the above-noted canopy at the eastern boundary of the parcel. This structure was being used to store a recreational vehicle and boat. A concrete ramp immediately south of this building leads to a locked gate at the bike path. No evidence of hazardous materials use or storage was observed within this building. A corrugated metal building, which is open along the northern and southern sides, is located to the south of the concrete tilt-up building. Concrete floor slabs were observed within the building. A rectangular pit filled with gravel was observed within the building, but its former use is unknown to Kleinfelder. No evidence of staining was observed within this building. A fenced area outside the western side of the building appears to have been a former outside storage area. A gravel-filled pit was observed beneath a canopy outside the eastern end DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 4 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder of the building. Based on information reviewed as part of this Phase I ESA, this pit is the location of a former clarifier. A canopy is located to the east of the corrugated metal building at the eastern boundary of the parcel. The canopy covers a concrete slab that contains a gravel-filled pit. Based on information reviewed as part of this Phase I ESA, the pit is the location of a former clarifier. A canopy is also located to the west of the corrugated metal building, and was associated with a former fueling area. Concrete and asphalt patches in the area of the former fueling facility are at the areas of former underground storage tanks (USTs). Evidence of past subsurface assessments (i.e., patched holes indicative of boring locations) was observed in this area. Another canopy is to the south of the corrugated metal building at the southern boundary of the parcel. The canopy covers a concrete slab. The area beneath the canopy is divided into smaller areas by chain-link fencing, and each of these areas was bordered by a concrete berm. A floor drain was observed within the area at the eastern end. In addition, evidence of possible former paint storage (i.e., the presence of paint stains with circular shapes like 1-gallon size cans) was observed beneath this canopy. Another area beneath the canopy was labeled as an area for absorbent materials. A brick building is located at the southeastern corner of the parcel. This building was formerly used as a hazardous materials storage building, as evidenced by a sign on the door labeled “PFRD/Transportation Fleet Management Hazmat Storage.” Labels on the interior walls indicated the building was used for the storage of various oils and greases. Minor staining was observed on the floor within the building. Small cracks were also observed in the concrete floor. A concrete berm area outside the northern side of the building appeared to be stained with paint, and the asphalt appeared to be etched. To the east of this building a vault lid labeled “monitoring well” was observed immediately off-Site, adjacent to the southeastern corner of the parcel between the Site and off-Site bike path. Kleinfelder did not identify the owner or purpose of this monitoring well, but based on information obtained during this Phase I ESA, it does not appear this well is associated with previous assessments performed on the Site. Ninyo & Moore reported in its December 1, 2006 Supplemental Environmental Evaluation pertaining to the Site that this well was part of a regional groundwater monitoring program and not used to monitor local impacts, but Kleinfelder found no other information concerning the well during our performance of this Phase I ESA. The well was not considered to be an environmental concern by Ninyo & Moore. This Site parcel formerly contained a fueling facility that consisted of two 10,000-gallon gasoline USTs, one 10,000-gallon diesel UST, two 5,000-gallon diesel USTs, and associated fuel dispensers. During pipe modification activities a release was discovered in the vicinity of the fuel dispensers. Subsurface DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 5 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder assessments were conducted by others between 1989 and 1998, which included the collection of soil samples and the installation and sampling of three groundwater monitoring wells to assess the vertical and lateral extent of petroleum hydrocarbons. These USTs, along with 280-gallon and 300-gallon waste oil USTs, were removed from the Site in March 1998. At the time of removal the gasoline and diesel USTs were replaced with two new 20,000- gallon gasoline and diesel USTs. The Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) issued a Remedial Action Completion Certification dated June 19, 1998 for the Site investigation and remedial action for the USTs formerly located at the Site. Once closure was granted, the groundwater monitoring wells were reportedly abandoned in September 1998. In October 2006 Ninyo & Moore performed an Environmental Evaluation and a Supplemental Environmental Evaluation of the Site parcel designated as 1750 South Douglass Road, based upon its review of a previous May 16, 2005 Hazardous Materials Assessment [Environmental Site Assessment]report prepared by Public Facilities and Resources Department, Environmental Resources Section for this parcel. Based on its review of this previous report Ninyo & Moore concluded that the report did not meet then-current industry standards for preparation of a Phase I ESA. Ninyo & Moore identified deficiencies that included lack of review of building department and other agency records. Additionally, in absence of the additional information from these agencies, Ninyo & Moore recommended sampling and analysis of soil and groundwater in the vicinity of former and current USTs, hydraulic lifts, clarifiers, recent pavement patches near one of the wash areas, and near a sealed drain inlet. An updated environmental database review and agency records reviews were performed by Ninyo & Moore and reported in its December 1, 2006 report entitled Supplemental Environmental Evaluation. In addition Ninyo & Moore performed soil and groundwater sampling in those areas it identified as concerns, with the exception of the hydraulic lift areas. Based on the results, Ninyo & Moore indicated that additional sampling was not recom mended. However, Ninyo & Moore recommended assessment in the area of the hydraulic lifts once the County of Orange ceased operations at the facility. At the time of fuel dispenser island modifications within this part of the Site in November 2003, soil samples were collected by Tait Environmental Management, Inc. (Tait) and analyzed. A total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as diesel (TPH-d) concentration of 7,400 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) was detected in the soil sample collected beneath the eastern end of the southern dispenser island (Sample DISP 1). A December 5, 2003 letter to the Anaheim Public Utilities Department (APUD) from the Anaheim Fire Department (AFD) required submittal of an Unauthorized Release Report for the Site, which was not identified during Kleinfelder’s agency file review. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 6 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder In July 2008 the two 20,000-gallon gasoline and diesel USTs and five dispensers were removed from the Site under the oversight of AFD and APUD. No detectable concentrations of TPH as gasoline (TPH-g), TPH-d, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes (BTEX), or fuel oxygenates were detected in soil samples (Samples D1 and D2) collected from beneath the northern dispensers to maximum depths of 15 feet below the ground surface (bgs). Petroleum impacted soil was discovered in two soil samples (D3 and D4) collected beneath the southern dispenser island at a depth of 5 feet bgs. However, soil samples collected at 10 feet bgs at the location of Sample D3 and 10 and 14 feet bgs at the location of Sample D4 contained no detected TPH-g, TPH-d, BTEX, or fuel oxygenates. Impacted soil was subsequently excavated and removed from the Site. One sample (D5) was collected beneath an additional dispenser located adjacent to the east of the southern dispenser island at a depth of 3 feet bgs. A deeper sample could not be collected due to the presence of a high-voltage electric line at this location. No TPH-g, TPH-d, BTEX, or fuel oxygenates were detected in the 3-foot bgs sample. In addition, soil samples were also collected from each end of the former USTs at depths of 18 and 19 feet bgs and were analyzed for TPHg, TPH-d, BTEX, and fuel oxygenates, which were not detected in the samples. Based on the results of this assessment, it was concluded that no release had occurred in the UST area. The excavation of impacted soil beneath the dispensers was deemed successful because results of samples collected after excavating indicated no petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in the deeper samples. A March 4, 2009 letter with subject “No Further Action for Diesel Fuel and Gasoline Contaminated Soil” was issued by APUD (for Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board [SARWQCB]Case Number [No.] 083003990T) to Orange County Public Works (OCPW) indicating that the investigation and remedial action of the contaminated soil found during upgrades to the UST system on December 2, 2003 and subsequent removal of the USTs in July 2008 had been completed. Hydraulic lifts and associated equipment and piping were removed from this part of the Site in September and October 2008 under the oversight of OCHCA. Three in-ground hydraulic hoists, approximately 300 linear feet of hydraulic oil service lines, and a 100-gallon hydraulic oil tank were removed. Four wastewater clarifiers and associated sewer piping systems were also removed in October 2008. Based on analytical results for soil samples collected beneath the hoists and clarifiers, concentrations of TPH, Title 22 Metals, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in soil were deemed at acceptable concentrations by OCHCA, which issued a November 21, 2008 Closure Letter (OCHCA Case No. 08IC027) confirming completion of remedial action after removal of the three hydraulic lifts and four wastewater clarifiers. Facilities with addresses of 1750 South Douglass Road or 10852 Douglass Road, the former address associated with this parcel, were listed in databases searched by EDR, including the Orange County Industrial Site Database, AST Database, UST Database, HAZNET Database, Leaking Underground Storage DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 7 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Tank (LUST) Database, and HIST CORTESE Database. Each listing apparently pertained to operations and maintenance activities performed at this Site location. The LUST cases associated with the Site have been closed by the regulatory agencies and represent a historical REC to the Site. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 8 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 1790 South Douglass Road –This portion of the Site consists of one parcel (APN 386-52-017) and is occupied by Sullivan & Mann Lumber Company. This Site parcel was historically vacant land and part of the Santa Ana River until approximately 1972. Sometime between 1972 and 1976 this Site parcel apparently began to be used for storage of lumber. The existing buildings on this parcel were apparently constructed sometime between 1976 and 1990. Currently, the northern portion of the parcel is an unpaved area. Lumber is stored on asphalt generally on the central portion of the parcel. Two plastic, 300-gallon ASTs were observed within the lumber storage area and had labels indicating they contained Sodium Silicate Grade 40,although at least one of the ASTs appeared to be empty. However, according to Mr. Matt Smith of Sullivan & Mann Company, these ASTs contain water. A wooden building is located at the southern corner of the parcel and is used for storage of weight equipm ent. A covered storage area and corrugated metal building beyond it are located immediately north of the wooden building. The covered area is used for parking and storage. A 55-gallon drum containing redwood stain, which contains kaolin and red/yellow oxide, was observed beneath the covered area on a wooden pallet. No staining was observed on the ground beneath the drum. In addition, five 5-gallon buckets of exterior acrylic wood stain and masonry flat paint were observed beneath the canopy. A portable generator was also observed in this area. The corrugated metal building is used for storage purposes. Four 55- gallon drums stored on wooden pallets were observed in the southern portion of this building. The drums were labeled as containing Dyed Diesel No. 2. Mr. Smith indicated that the diesel is used to fuel the generator, on an as-needed basis. No running water or electricity is provided to this parcel. A machine shop and welding area were observed in the northeastern portion of the corrugated metal building. Moderate to heavy oil staining was observed on the equipment and on the ground beneath it in this area of the building. Mr. Smith indicated that his truck drivers use this area for storage of parts, and have used this area occasionally to assemble parts. A work area was observed by Kleinfelder to the north of the corrugated metal building. A rectangular dipping tank (vat) in this area was observed to be filled with a blue-green liquid. At the time of the Site reconnaissance a worker was dipping wooden stakes into the tank and dyeing the wood prior to being stored in the lumber storage area. Heavy blue-green staining was observed in this work area. A concrete drainage swale was observed to the north of the work area, leading to a drain to the east near the bike path. The concrete swale was also observed to traverse to the south (and west of the corrugated metal building) and then southeast (south of the wooden building), leading to a drain at the southeastern corner of the parcel. Blue-green staining was observed within the concrete swale. Two unlabeled 55-gallon drums were observed in the work area. Mr. Smith indicated that the blue-green dye is a water–based paint that is supplied by Dunn & Edwards Paints. He reported no other chemical usage or previous chemical usage at the property. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 9 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Reports of previous assessments were not available for this Site parcel during performance of this Phase I ESA. This Site parcel is not listed in databases searched by EDR. 2150 East Katella Avenue –This part of the Site consists of a portion of a larger parcel (APN 232-01-040) at its northern boundary where it meets the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor. Historically the area along the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor was used for agricultural purposes (apparent orchards) until at least 1952, and then was vacant land until at least 1976. Currently, the larger parcel is used as a parking lot associated with the Anaheim Stadium Metrolink/Amtrak Station and adjoining Anaheim Stadium. The Anaheim Stadium Metrolink/Amtrak Station is part of the Site and consists of a passenger ticket sales building and passenger loading/unloading area. A small concrete structure is located to the west of the passenger ticket sales building. Access to this building was not available at the time of our Site reconnaissance. An electric vehicle charging station is located to the east of the building. No evidence of hazardous materials use or storage was observed by Kleinfelder on this portion of the Site. However, according to Mr. Ben Lamas, an employee of the Anaheim Stadium Metrolink/Amtrak Station from 1976 to 1994 and again since 2002, the station was operated by Santa Fe Railroad from 1976 to 1994. Mr. Lamas informed Kleinfelder that from 1976 to 1994 oil was “poured”in the area of the railroad tracks and on the gravel areas adjacent to the tracks, for weed control. He indicated that a plant sample was collected from the base of the gravel area and was sent to a laboratory for analysis. A copy of the laboratory report has not been m ade available to Kleinfelder for review as of the date of publication of this report, so the analyses performed and results are unknown to Kleinfelder. However, Mr. Lamas indicated that “Borron” was detected in the sample. The reported “pouring” of oil from 1976 to 1994 represents a REC to the Site. LOSSAN Railroad Corridor –The LOSSAN Railroad Corridor consists of railroad tracks situated at an elevation approximately 10 feet higher than the adjoining immediate area. It traverses the Site in an east-west direction, separating the Site parcels designated as 1750 South Douglass Road (to the north) and 1790 South Douglass Road (to the south), then continuing west through the Anaheim Stadium Metrolink/Amtrak Station to Katella Avenue at the western-most end of the Site. Railroad tracks were present at this approximate location by 1898 according to historical topographic maps reviewed as part of this Phase I ESA. A small concrete structure is located at the western end of the Site portion of the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor, along Katella Avenue. Access to this structure was not provided to Kleinfelder. According to Ms. Jamie Lai with the City of Anaheim, this structure reportedly houses a domestic water well. Other Areas –The remaining areas/parcels of the Site consist of vacant land. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 10 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder In summary, Kleinfelder’s assessment revealed evidence of the following RECs: Observed blue-green dye staining near the dipping vat and within the concrete drainage swale at the Sullivan & Mann Lumber Company at 1790 South Douglass Road. Kleinfelder has not been able to obtain a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for this blue-green dye. An MSDS is needed to confirm whether this dye is hazardous or non-hazardous. Former “pouring” of oil along the railroad tracks at/near the Anaheim Stadium Metrolink/Amtrak Station. A gravel-filled pit beneath the corrugated metal building on the southern portion of the Site property at 1750 South Douglass Road. The former use of this pit is unknown to Kleinfelder and previous sampling in this area was not identified by this Phase I ESA. This pit represents a potential REC to the Site. Reported undocumented fill material in a former quarry beneath the Site parcel with address 1750 South Douglass Road. Kleinfelder’s review of regulatory agency databases indicated there are several upgradient facilities where releases are known to, or may, have impacted shallow groundwater, and these releases may have impacted Site groundwater. In addition to these RECs, deviations, historical environmental conditions, and de minimus findings are discussed in Section 8 of this report. This report is subject to the limitations in Section 2.5. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 11 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 2 INTRODUCTION ________________________________________________________________________________ The following report is a summary of work performed using the guidelines set forth in ASTM Designation E 1527-05,Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (the ASTM Standard). This report also generally conforms to the ASTM Standard’s suggested table of contents. Minor format modifications have been made to the ASTM Standard’s suggested table of contents by Kleinfelder to assist in better reading and understanding the report findings. 2.1.PURPOSE The purpose of this Phase I ESA is to identify, to the extent feasible pursuant to the scope of services defined in Kleinfelder’s Proposal Number 5805PROP/IRV9P031, dated February 25, 2009,and limitations discussed in this report, RECs and other environmental issues related to the Site.As defined in the ASTM Standard a REC is: The presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, ground water, or surface water of the property. The term includes hazardous substances or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance with laws. The term is not intended to include de minimus conditions that generally do not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. Conditions determined to be de minimus are not recognized environmental conditions. This report describes Kleinfelder’s assessment methodology and documents our assessment findings, subject to the limitations presented in Section 2.5 of this report. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 12 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 2.2.DETAILED SCOPE-OF-SERVICES The following sections describe Kleinfelder’s detailed scope of services: Section 2,Introduction, includes a discussion of the purpose/reason for performing the Phase I ESA, additional services requested by the Client (e.g., an evaluation of business environmental risk factors associated with the Site if part of the agreed scope), significant assumptions (i.e., property boundaries if not marked in the field), limitations, exceptions, and special terms and conditions (i.e., contractual), and user reliance parameters. Section 3,Site Description, is a c ompilation of information concerning the Site location, legal description (if provided), current and proposed use of the Site, description of structures and improvements on Site at the time of Kleinfelder’s assessment, and adjoining property uses. Section 4,Records Review, is a compilation of Kleinfelder’s review of several databases available from federal, state, and local regulatory agencies regarding hazardous substance use, storage, or disposal at the Site; and for off-Site facilities within the search distance specified in the ASTM Standard. Records provided by the Client are summarized and copies of relevant documents are included in the appendices of this report. Physical setting sources (including topography and soil and groundwater conditions) and typical Client-provided information (i.e., title records, environmental liens, specialized knowledge, valuation reduction for environmental issues, and owner, property manager, and occupant information) are also summarized in this section. Other interviews with people knowledgeable about the Site (including the Client) are included in Section 7. Section 5,History of the Site, summarizes the history of the Site and adjoining properties. This Site history is based on various sources which may include review of historical aerial photographs, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, city or suburban directories, historical topographic maps, building department records, and reports of previous site assessments. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 13 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Section 6,Site Reconnaissance, describes Kleinfelder’s observations during the Site reconnaissance.The methodology used and limiting conditions are described. Section 7,Interviews, is a summary of telephone and personal interviews performed with “Key Site Managers” that may include the facility owner/manager,occupants/tenants, local government officials, and the Client. Additional interview sources may be contacted if “Key Site Managers” are not available prior to production of this report, and may include adjoining landowners and people with historical knowledge of the area. Section 8,Evaluation, is a presentation of our findings and opinions regarding the information in Sections 3 through 7, and presents our conclusions regarding the presence of RECs connected with the Site, and recommendations. Section 9,References, is a summary of some of the resources used to compile this report. Pertinent documentation regarding the Site is included in the appendices of this report. 2.3.ADDITIONAL SERVICES An evaluation of business environmental risk associated with the Site was not included in Kleinfelder’s scope of services. The scope of this Phase I ESA does not incorporate ASTM Standard non-scope considerations, such as asbestos-containing materials, radon, lead-based paint, lead in drinking water, wetlands, regulatory compliance, cultural and historical resources, industrial hygiene, health and safety, ecological resources, endangered species, indoor air quality, and high-voltage power lines. Kleinfelder is performing an asbestos -containing materials (ACM) and lead-based paint (LBP) survey of the Site concurrently with this Phase I ESA. The results of the ACM and LBP survey will be included in a report submitted under separate cover. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 14 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 2.4.SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS Kleinfelder assumes the accuracy of the subcontracted regulatory agency database search report, attached. Kleinfelder also assumes the property owner and Client provided all applicable and available environmental records and specialized knowledge regarding the Site. Kleinfelder has not made other significant assumptions during the performance of this Phase I ESA. 2.5.LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS Phase I ESAs are non-comprehensive by nature and may not identify all environmental problems, and will not eliminate all risk. This report is a qualitative assessment. Kleinfelder offers a range of investigative and engineering services to suit the needs of our clients, including more quantitative investigations. Although risk can never be eliminated, more detailed and extensive investigations yield more information, which may help the Client understand and better manage risks. Since such detailed services involve greater expense, we ask our clients to participate in identifying the level of service, which will provide them with an acceptable level of risk. Please contact the signatories of this report if you would like to discuss this issue of risk further. Kleinfelder performed this Phase I ESA in general accordance with the guidelines set forth in the ASTM Standard, and the proposed scope subsequently approved by our Client. No warranty, either expressed or implied, is made. Environmental issues not specifically addressed in this report were beyond the scope of our services and not included in our evaluation. This report may be used only by the Client and only for the purposes stated within a reasonable time from its issuance,but in no event later than 1 year from the date of the report.Land or facility use, on-and off-site conditions, regulations, or other factors may change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time. Since site activities and regulations beyond our control could change at any time after the completion of this report, our observations, findings, and opinions can be considered valid only as of the date of the site visit.This report should not be relied upon after 180 days from the date of its issuance (ASTM Standard, Section 4.6). Any party other than the Client who wishes to use this report shall notify Kleinfelder of such DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 15 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder intended use. Based on the intended use of the report, Kleinfelder may require that additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these requirements by the Client or anyone else will release Kleinfelder from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized party, and Client agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Kleinfelder from any claim or liability associated with such unauthorized use or non-compliance. 2.6.SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS No special terms and conditions in addition to those discussed previously were agreed to by the Client and Kleinfelder or in our Proposal Number 5805PROP/IRV9P031 dated February 25, 2009. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 16 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 3 SITE DESCRIPTION ________________________________________________________________________________ The Site description is presented in this section and describes the condition of the Site at the time of the Phase I ESA. The Site location is shown on Plate 1. Tables 3-1 through 3-5 summarize the physical characteristics of the Site and adjoining properties. 3.1.LOCATION AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION The information presented in Table 3-1 describes the physical location and legal description of the Site. This information was obtained from review of various maps (such as topographic maps and tax assessor maps), aerial photographs, public records at city and/or county offices, interviews, and/or information provided by the Client. TABLE 3-1LOCATION AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION Parameter Information/Comments ADDRESS The Site consists of portions or all of nine parcels with various addresses. See Table 3-2 for further information regarding the Site addresses. LOCATION The Site is generally located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Katella Avenue and Douglass Road in the City of Anaheim, California (see Plate 1). TOWNSHIP & RANGE Township 4 South, Range 10 West, Sections 24 and 25, San Bernardino Baseline and Principal Meridian. ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO. A list of APNs associated with the Site is included in Table 3-2. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Legal descriptions are provided in EDR’s Environmental LienSearch™Report provided in Appendix D. ZONING Zoning information is provided in Table 3-2. Table 3-2 provides parcel information, including the owner/tenant, APN, street address (if applicable), zoning, and current use. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 17 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder TABLE 3-2PARCEL INFORMATION Owner/Tenant APN Street Address Zoning Current Use Orange County Transportation Authority 232-072-03 1750 South Douglass Road (formerly 10852 Douglass Road) Transition (T)Two partially-occupied office buildings and other vacant structures associated with former transportation, operations, and maintenance activities. Orange County Transportation Authority 232-072-04 No address assigned General Plan Land Use: Public- Institutional (P-I); Railroad (RR) Vacant land adjoining the LOSSAN railroad tracks to the north. Orange County Transportation Authority Western portion of 232-072-05 1730 South Douglass Road 2600 East Katella Avenue* Industrial (I)Single-story vacant building. Single-story structure containing a fireplace retail store and a vacant tenant suite. Orange County Transportation Authority Northern portion of 232-011-35 No address assigned Public Recreational (PR) Street easement at southern terminus of Douglass Road south of State Route 57, encroaching into parking area associated with Anaheim Stadium. Orange County Transportation Authority Portion of 232-011-40 2150 East Katella Avenue Public Recreational (PR) Anaheim Stadium (Metrolink/Amtrak) Station. Orange County Transportation Authority 386-521-14 No address assigned General Plan Land Use: Open Space (OS); Public Institutional (P-I); Railroad (RR) Vacant parcel associated with the LOSSAN railroad tracks. Orange County Transportation Authority 386-521-15 No address assigned General Plan Land Use: Open Space (OS); Public Institutional (P-I) Vacant parcel associated with the LOSSAN railroad tracks. Orange County Transportation Authority 386-521-16 No address assigned Industrial (I)Vacant land immediately north of Sullivan & Mann Lumber Company. Orange County Transportation Authority 386-521-17 1790 South Douglass Road Industrial (I)Sullivan & Mann Lumber Company. *Other addresses are also associated with this large parcel, of which only the western portion is part of the Site. Only addresses associated with the Site are shown. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 18 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 3.2.CURRENT/PROPOSED USE OF THE PROPERTY Land use on Site and in the general vicinity appeared to be commercial at the time of Kleinfelder’s assessment. Current and proposed Site uses are described in Table 3-3. TABLE 3-3CURRENT/PROPOSED USES Parameter General Observations CURRENT USE Current uses of the Site parcels are listed in Table 3-2. PROPOSED USE Re-development as a major transportation center with a mixed-use activity center. 3.3.DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURES/IMPROVEMENTS Structures and/or improvements observed on Site at the time of Kleinfelder’s Site reconnaissance are described in Table 3-4. TABLE 3-4STRUCTURES/IMPROVEMENTS Parameter General Observations STRUCTURES 2600 East Katella Avenue –Single-story commercial building. 1730 South Douglass Road –Single-story office building. 1750 South Douglass Road (formerly 10852 Douglass Road)–Vacant single story stucco office building, two partly-occupied single-story brick office buildings, vacant single-story wood building, vacant single-story concrete tilt-up building, vacant single-story corrugated metal building, vacant single-story brick building, four canopy-covered vacant work areas, and canopy covering a former fueling area. 1790 South Douglass Road –Single-story corrugated metal building and single-story wooden building. 2150 East Katella Avenue –Single-story passenger ticket sales building located at the existing Anaheim Stadium (Metrolink/Amtrak) Station, and concrete structure to the west of the passenger ticket building. A small shed-like concrete structure is located at the western end of the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor near Katella Avenue. Access to this structure has not been provided to Kleinfelder. According to Ms. Jamie Lai with the City of Anaheim, this structure reportedly houses a domestic water well. OTHER IMPROVEMENTS The LOSSAN Railroad Corridor traverses the Site in an east-west direction, separating the Site parcels designated as 1750 South Douglass Road (to the north) and 1790 South Douglass Road (to the south), then continuing west through the Anaheim Stadium Metrolink/Amtrak Station to Katella Avenue at the western-most end of the Site. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 19 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 3.4.CURRENT USES OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES Kleinfelder performed brief drive-by surveys of the properties immediately adjoining to the Site on June 10, 2009 and June 23, 2009. A summary of our observations concerning the surrounding properties is presented in Table 3-5. TABLE 3-5ADJOINING PROPERTIES Direction Land Use Description NORTH Katella Avenue bounds the eastern portion of the Site occupied by 2600 East Katella Avenue and 1750 South Douglass Road, beyond which are the Honda Center and associated parking. To the west of State Route 57, office buildings (2300 and 2400 East Katella Avenue) bound the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor. SOUTH The Grove of Anaheim and the Anaheim Stadium and associated parking adjoin the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor (west of State Route 57) to the south. A narrowstrip of vacant land adjoins Sullivan & Mann Lumber Company to the southwest, with State Route 57 beyond it. To the south beyond the freeway is a narrowstrip of vacant land and the Angel Stadium and its associated parking. EAST A bike path and the Santa Ana River adjoin the Site to the east. WEST Douglass Road bounds the Site north of the LOSSAN Corridor, and east of Douglass Road. Buildings associated with a commercial office park (1725- 1751 South Douglass Road) and Ayers Hotel (2550 East Katella Avenue) adjoin Douglass Road to the west of 2600 East Katella Avenue and 1730 and 1750 South Douglass Road, followed by vacant land and State Route 57. Katella Avenue bounds the westernmost portion of the Site (the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor) to the west, beyond which are commercial facilities. Hazardous materials and petroleum products were not observed to be stored outside the buildings or elsewhere on the properties located adjoining to the Site. A vault cover labeled “monitoring well” was observed on the property adjoining the southeastern corner of the Site parcel at 1750 South Douglass Road, between this Site parcel and the off-Site bike path.Kleinfelder did not identify the owner and use of this well, but based on information obtained during this Phase I ESA, it does not appear this well is associated with previous assessments performed on the Site. Ninyo & Moore reported in its December 1, 2006 Supplemental Environm ental Evaluation pertaining to the Site that this well was part of a regional groundwater monitoring program and not used to DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 20 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder monitor local impacts. Therefore, Ninyo & Moore did not consider this well to be an environmental concern. No other indications of environmental conditions were apparent on the adjoining properties at the time of Kleinfelder’s Site reconnaissance. Based on our observations, current activities at the adjoining properties do not appear likely to have adversely affected the Site. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 21 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 4 RECORDS REVIEW ________________________________________________________________________________ 4.1.PURPOSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS REVIEW The purpose of the records review is to obtain and review records that would help to evaluate RECs of potential concern in connection with the Site and adjoining properties. Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies publish databases or "lists" of businesses and properties that handle hazardous materials or hazardous waste, or are the known location of a release of hazardous substances to soil and/or groundwater. These databases are available for review and/or purchase at the regulatory agencies, or the information may be obtained through a commercial database service. Kleinfelder contracted a commercial database service, EDR, of Milford, Connecticut, to perform the government database search for listings within the appropriate ASTM Standard’s minimum search distance of the Site for each database. A description of the types of information contained in each of the databases reviewed and the agency responsible for compiling the data is included in The EDR Radius Map™Report with Geocheck® presented in Appendix B. The records review included the databases summarized in Table 4-1. 4.2.STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES The following sections include summary tables presenting the results of EDR’s record search.Databases with listings identified by EDR are discussed further, following each of the summary tables. The EDR Radius MapTM Report in Appendix A has a discussion of the databases that contained no listings. 4.2.1.Federal Agency Records Review The results of the Federal agency records review are summarized in Table 4-1 and the text that follows. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 22 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder TABLE 4-1FEDERAL RECORDS REVIEWED AND SEARCH DISTANCES Database Searched Distance Searched by EDR Site Listing Adjoining Listings Other Listings within 0.25-Mile Listings within 0.25-0.50- Mile Listings within 0.5-1.0 Mile NPL 1.0 Mile No No No No No Proposed NPL 1.0 Mile No No No No No Delisted NPL 1.0 Mile No No No No No NPL Liens Target Property No N/A N/A N/A N/A CERCLIS 0.5 Mile No No No 1 N/A NFRAP 0.5 Mile No No 1 No N/A CORRACTS 1.0 Mile No No No No 1 RCRA-TSD 0.5 Mile No No No No N/A RCRA-LQG 0.25 Mile No No No N/A N/A RCRA-SQG 0.25 Mile No 1 12 N/A N/A RCRA-CESQG 0.25 Mile No No No N/A N/A RCRA-Non-Gen 0.25 Mile No No 4 N/A N/A ERNS Target Property No N/A N/A N/A N/A HMIRS Target Property No N/A N/A N/A N/A US ENG CONTROLS 0.5 Mile No No No No N/A US INST CONTROLS 0.5 Mile No No No No N/A DOD 1.0 Mile No No No No No FUDS 1.0 Mile No No No No No US Brownfields 0.5 Mile No No No No N/A CONSENT 1.0 Mile No No No No No ROD 1.0 Mile No No No No No UMTRA 0.5 Mile No No No No N/A ODI 0.5 Mile No No No No N/A TRIS Target Property No N/A N/A N/A N/A TSCA Target Property No N/A N/A N/A N/A FTTS Target Property No N/A N/A N/A N/A SSTS Target Property No N/A N/A N/A N/A HIST FTTS Target Property No N/A N/A N/A N/A ICIS Target Property No N/A N/A N/A N/A LUCIS 0.5 Mile No No No No N/A RADINFO Target Property No N/A N/A N/A N/A LIENS 2 Target Property No N/A N/A N/A N/A DOT OPS Target Property No N/A N/A N/A N/A CDL Target Property No N/A N/A N/A N/A PADS Target Property No N/A N/A N/A N/A MLTS Target Property No N/A N/A N/A N/A DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 23 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder TABLE 4-1 (continued)FEDERAL RECORDS REVIEWED AND SEARCH DISTANCES Database Searched Distance Searched by EDR Site Listing Adjoining Listings Other Listings within 0.25-Mile Listings within 0.25-0.50- Mile Listings within 0.5-1.0 Mile MINES 0.25 Mile No No No N/A N/A FINDS Target Property No No N/A N/A N/A RAATS Target Property No N/A N/A N/A N/A Note:N/A indicates not applicable (i.e., search distance in column exceeds the ASTM Standard search distance for the database). The Site was not listed in Federal databases searched by EDR. Offsite facilities listed within the ASTM Standard search distances are summarized as follows: CERCLIS Database –This database is a compilation of facilities reported to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) that have been investigated or are under investigation for a release or potential release of hazardous materials. One facility, “Neville Chemical Company” at 2201 East Cerritos Avenue, is located approximately 0.4 mile north, and potentially upgradient, of the Site. The listing indicates discovery was completed at this facility in November 1987,a Preliminary Assessment was performed in March 1989, and Site Reassessments were completed in February 2003 and April 2006. The facility is considered a low priority for further assessment. Based on the distance of this facility from the Site and its “low priority” status, it is Kleinfelder’s opinion that this facility is not an environmental concern that represents a REC to the Site. CERCLIS NFRAP Database –As of February 1995, CERCLIS facilities designated “No Further Remedial Action Planned” (NFRAP)have been removed from CERCLIS. NFRAP facilities may be properties where, following an initial investigation, no contamination was found, contamination was removed quickly without the need for the facility to be placed on the NPL, or the contamination was not serious enough to require Federal Superfund action or NPL consideration. One facility, “Inland Specialty Chemical Corp” at 2023 West Collins Avenue, is located approximately 0.1 mile east-southeast and cross-gradient from the Site. Discovery was com pleted at this facility in December 1987 and a Preliminary Assessment was performed and completed in November 1988, at which time the case was archived. Based on the distance and direction of this facility from the Site and its status, it is Kleinfelder’s opinion that this facility is not an environmental concern that represents a REC to the Site. RCRA CORRACTS Database –This database identifies hazardous waste handlers with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 24 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder action activity. One facility, “Data Circuits Systems Inc” at 1607 West Orange Grove, is located approximately 0.5 mile east-southeast and cross-to downgradient from the Site. Discovery was completed at this facility in August 1990, a Preliminary Assessment was completed in March 1991, and the case was deferred. Based on the distance and direction of this facility from the Site, it is Kleinfelder’s opinion that this facility is not an environmental concern that represents a REC to the Site. RCRA GEN Database –RCRIS also includes the RCRA Generator (GEN) List that includes facilities where hazardous wastes are generated on the premises as part of the companies’ business practices. No large quantity generators were listed. A total of 13 off-Site small quantity generator (SQG)facilities were listed, but only one of the 13 facilities was listed within the prescribed ASTM Standard search distance, which is Site and adjoining properties. “Stadium Motors Inc” at 2225 East Katella Avenue is located northwest of the westernmost portion of the Site (LOSSAN Railroad corridor) beyond Katella Avenue. This facility is listed as a SQG of hazardous waste with no reported violations. Based on this listing alone, it is Kleinfelder’s opinion that this facility is not an environmental concern that represents a REC to the Site. RCRA NON-GEN Database –RCRIS also includes the RCRA Non-generator (NON-GEN) List that includes facilities that do not presently generate hazardous waste. Four off-Site RCRA NON-GEN facilities were listed. Of the four listed NON-GEN facilities, one is listed within the prescribed ASTM search distance (Site and adjoining properties). “Stadium Motors Inc” at 2225 East Katella Avenue adjoins the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor portion of the Site to the northwest. This facility was listed as a private, non-generator of hazardous waste. No violations were reported. Based on this listing alone, it is Kleinfelder’s opinion that this facility is not an environmental concern that represents a REC to the Site 4.2.2.State/Local Lists The results of the state and local agency, tribal, and EDR proprietary records review are summarized below in Table 4-2 and the text that follows. TABLE 4-2STATE AND LOCAL AGENCY, TRIBAL, AND EDR PROPRIETARYRECORDS REVIEWED AND SEARCH DISTANCES Database Searched Distance Searched Site Listing Adjoining Listings Other Listings within 0.25-Mile Listings within 0.25-0.50-Mile Listings within 0.5-1.0 Mile HIST CAL-SITES 1.0 Mile No No No No No DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 25 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Database Searched Distance Searched Site Listing Adjoining Listings Other Listings within 0.25-Mile Listings within 0.25-0.50-Mile Listings within 0.5-1.0 Mile BEP 1.0 Mile No No No No No DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 26 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder TABLE 4-2 (continued)STATE AND LOCAL AGENCY, TRIBAL, AND EDR PROPRIETARYRECORDS REVIEWED AND SEARCH DISTANCES Database Searched Distance Searched Site Listing Adjoining Listings Other Listings within 0.25-Mile Listings within 0.25-0.50-Mile Listings within 0.5-1.0 Mile SCH 0.25 Mile No No No N/A N/A TOXIC PITS 1.0 Mile No No No No No STATE LANDFILL 0.5 Mile No No No No N/A CA WDS Target Property No N/A N/A N/A N/A WMUDS/SWAT 0.5 Mile No No 1 No N/A CORTESE 0.5 Mile No No No No N/A HIST CORTESE 0.5 Mile 1 1 5 3 N/A SWRCY 0.5 Mile No No No No N/A LUST 0.5 Mile 2 3 3 8 N/A CA FID UST 0.25 Mile No 3 1 N/A N/A SLIC 0.5 Mile No No 4 4 N/A UST 0.25 Mile 1 5 1 N/A N/A HIST UST 0.25 Mile No 1 6 N/A N/A AST 0.25 Mile 1 No No N/A N/A LIENS Target Property No N/A N/A N/A N/A SWEEPS UST 0.25 Mile No 4 1 N/A N/A CHMIRS Target Property No N/A N/A N/A N/A NOTIFY 65 1.0 Mile No No No No No Orange Co. Ind. Site Target Property 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A DEED 0.5 Mile No No No No N/A VCP 0.5 Mile No No No No N/A DRYCLEANERS 0.25 Mile No No 1 N/A N/A WIP 0.25 Mile No No No N/A N/A CDL Target Property No N/A N/A N/A N/A RESPONSE 1.0 Mile No No 1 No No HAZNET Target Property 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A AIRS Target Property No N/A N/A N/A N/A ENVIROSTOR 1.0 Mile No No 2 1 9 HAULERS Target Property No N/A N/A N/A N/A INDIAN RESERV 1.0 Mile No No No No No INDIAN LUST 0.5 Mile No No No No N/A INDIAN UST 0.25 Mile No No No N/A N/A Manufac. Gas Plants 1.0 Mile No No No No No Note: N/A indicates not applicable (i.e., search distance in column exceeds the ASTM Standard search distance for the database). DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 27 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder The Site’s 1750 Douglass Road address is listed in the EDR report under various facility names, including “OC Public Works Katella Yard” (EDR Map ID A1), “Cnty of Orange RDMD Trans Fleet” (EDR Map ID A2), “County of Orange GSA Transportation” (EDR Map ID A3), “County of Orange/RDMD Katella Yard” (EDR Map ID A4), and “Katella Yard” (EDR Map ID 5). Additionally, the Site’s 10852 Douglass Road former address was listed in two databases. Each of these listings is discussed below: Orange Co. Industrial Site Database –This database consists of a list of industrial clean-up sites that had petroleum and non-petroleum spills. “OC Public Works Katella Yard” was listed as having a release of waste oil. A closure certification was issued and the case was closed on November 24, 2008. No additional information was provided by the listing. AST Database –This database is a State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) listing of facilities that are aboveground petroleum storage tank facilities. “Cnty of Orange RDMD Trans Fleet” was listed with an AST total capacity of 2,100 gallons. No additional information was provided by the listing. UST Database –This database is a list of registered USTs within California that has been commonly known as the SWEEPS Report. “County of Orange GSA Transportation” is listed as a UST facility. No additional information is provided by the listing. HAZNET Database –This database is extracted from the copies of hazardous waste manifests received each year by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). “County of Orange/RDMD Katella Yard” is listed as a HAZNET facility. Waste categories reported at this facility include “off-speciation, aged, or surplus organic wastes,” “other organic solids,” “laboratory waste chemicals,” and “unspecific organic liquid mixture.” LUST Database –The LUST Database is the State of California’s list of LUST locations. “Katella Yard” at the Site’s 10852 Douglass Road former address is listed twice as having a reported release of diesel fuel (Case No. 93UT058), which affected soil. The case received closure on June 19, 1998 by the lead regulatory agency. HIST CORTESE –Sites in this list have been designated by the SWRCB’s LUST Database, the Integrated Waste Board, and DTSC. “Katella Yard” at the Site’s 10852 Douglass Road former address is listed due to its listing in the LUST Database. Offsite facilities were listed in the following databases: DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 28 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder RESPONSE Database –The Response Database identifies confirmed release sites where the DTSC is involved in remediation, either in a lead or oversight capacity. These confirmed release sites are generally high priority and high potential risk. One facility (facility name not reported) at 2201 East Cerritos Avenue is located approximately 2,000 feet northwest of and potentially upgradient from the Site. This facility is an industrial plant that is being assessed by SARWQCB. A Site Screening was performed in May 1987, a Preliminary Assessment Report completed in June 1988, and a Site Inspection Report was completed in May 1989. Additional Site Screening was completed in April 2006. Assessment at this facility appears to be ongoing. Based on the distance and upgradient location of this facility from the Site, it is Kleinfelder’s opinion that this facility could potentially have impacted groundwater in the Site vicinity, and this listing therefore represents a potential REC to the Site. ENVIROSTOR Database –The DTSC’s Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program (SMBRP) maintains the ENVIROSTOR Database, which identifies sites that have known contamination or sites for which there may be reasons to investigate further. The database includes Federal Superfund (NPL), State Response (including Military Facilities and State Superfund), Voluntary Cleanup, and School sites. ENVIROSTOR provides similar information to the information that was formerly maintained in the Cal-Sites Database, and provides additional information including identification of formerly-contaminated properties that have been released for reuse, properties where environmental deed restrictions have been recorded to prevent inappropriate land uses, and risk characterization information that is used to assess potential impacts to public health and the environment at contaminated sites. A total of 12 off-Site facilities are listed within the prescribed ASTM Standard search distance (1 mile). Of the 12 facilities, nine are located greater than 0.5 mile from the Site and/or located in a crossgradient or downgradient location from the Site. The remaining three facilities are located within 0.5 miles of the Site. The nearest of the three facilities “Inland Specialties Chemical Co.” at 2023 West Collins Avenue is located approximately 580 feet east of and crossgradient from the Site. This facility is listed as a historical ENVIROSTOR facility. According to the listing no further action was required by DTSC and the case was referred to SARWQCB as the lead agency, and additional characterization is underway. “Itasco” at 2211 East Howell Street is located approximately 950 feet northwest of and upgradient from the Site. This facility is listed as a historical ENVIROSTOR facility. According to the listing information the facility has been hazard–mitigated, clean-up is complete, and approximately 294 tons of contaminated soil was removed from the facility. A facility (name not reported) at 2201 East Cerritos Avenue is located approximately 2,000 feet northwest of and potentially upgradient from the Site. This facility is currently being assessed, with SARWQCB as the lead agency. Based on their distance and direction from the Site, it is Kleinfelder’s opinion that the “Itasco” facility and unnamed facility at 2201 East Cerritos Avenue could potentially have impacted groundwater in the Site vicinity, and these listings therefore represent a potential DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 29 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder REC to the Site. Based on the distance and direction of the remaining facility, in our opinion it is not an environmental concern that represents a REC to the Site. LUST Database –The LUST Database is the State of California’s list of LUST locations. There are 14 off-Site LUST listings, for 10 off-Site facility locations. “Stadium Motors” at 2225 East Katella Avenue (upgradient) is located adjoining to the north (upgradient) of the western portion of the Site (the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor). This facility had a reported release of waste, motor, hydraulic, and lubricating oil that affected soil, but the case was closed on August 1, 1991 by the lead regulatory agency. “Shell Oil Products US” at 2331 Katella Avenue is approximately 380 feet northwest of and upgradient from the Site. According to the listing, this facility had a reported release of gasoline that affected groundwater, but the case was subsequently closed by the regulatory agency. “Stadium Towers, L.L.C.” at 2400 Katella Avenue adjoins to the north of the western portion of the Site (the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor). This facility had a diesel release that affected soil but the case was closed by the regulatory agency. “Malibu Grand Prix” at 2430 East Katella Avenue is approximately 430 feet northeast of the Site and upgradient from the Site. This facility had a reported release of gasoline that affected a drinking water supply but the case was subsequently closed by the lead regulatory agency. “Certron” at 1701 State College Boulevard is located approximately 1,500 feet west of and crossgradient from the Site. This facility had a release of solvents or non-petroleum hydrocarbons but the case was subsequently closed by the regulatory agency on April 3, 1986. “Arco #6220” at 1801 State College Boulevard is approximately 1,400 feet southwest of and downgradient of the Site. This facility had a gasoline release that affected soil. Contaminated soil was excavated and removed from the facility and the case was closed by the lead regulatory agency on October 19, 1994. “Neville Chemical” at 2201 Cerritos Avenue is located approximately 2,000 feet northwest of and upgradient of the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor. This facility had a release of solvents that affected soil but the case was closed by the regulatory agency on November 29, 1987. This facility had another reported release, from piping, discovered on August 25, 1998. A Remediation Plan is in place for the facility and the listing indicates the case remains open. “Roadway Express” at 1130 N. Main Street is located approximately 2,500 feet east of and crossgradient from the Site. This facility had a diesel release but the case has been closed. “Norco Delivery Service, Inc. at 1500 Babbitt Street is located approximately 2,500 feet northwest of and upgradient from the Site. This facility had a release of gasoline and diesel that affected the drinking water supply. The facility is undergoing pollution characteristics and the case remains open with the regulatory agency. “Del Piso Brick Company” at 1635 State College is located approximately 1,500 feet northwest of and upgradient of the Site. This facility had a reported release of gasoline, which affected soil only, and the case was closed by the regulatory agency on August 8, 1990. Based on their upgradient locations and distance from the Site, in Kleinfelder’s opinion several of these DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 30 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder facilities could potentially have impacted groundwater in the Site vicinity, and these listings therefore represent a potential REC to the Site. Based on the distance, direction, affected media (i.e., soil only), and/or case closure status for the remaining properties, it is Kleinfelder’s opinion that those facilities are not environmental concerns that represent RECs to the Site. SLIC Database –The CA SLIC Database, maintained by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, includes contaminated sites that impact groundwater or have the potential to impact groundwater. There are eight listings, for four facility locations, in the SLIC Database. “Inland Specialty Chemical Co.” at 2023 Collins Avenue is located approximately 580 feet east of and crossgradient from the Site and had three listings. The listings indicate that this facility had a soil and groundwater case that has been closed by the regulatory agency, another closed case, and an open case, with no additional details provided in the listings for the latter two cases. “Itasco” at 2211 Howell Street is located approximately 950 feet northwest of and upgradient of the Site. In this one listing for “Itasco,” there are two SLIC cases reported. The listing indicates this facility had a SLIC case which involved a release to soil and the “Facility Status” is indicated to be closed. No other details are provided by the listing. The other SLIC case indicates a “Facility Status” of open with the regulatory agency, with no additional details provided by the listing. “Neville Chemical Company”at 2201 Cerritos Avenue is approximately 2,000 feet northwest of and upgradient from the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor portion of the Site and had two listings. The first is an open SLIC case involving a release that affected soil, and the listing indicates the facility is undergoing site assessment. The second SLIC case is listed to be a soil and groundwater case but no information on its closure status is indicated. “Yellow Freight System, Inc.” at 700 North Eckhoff Street is located approximately 1,400 feet southeast of and downgradient from the Site and also has two listings. This facility is listed as having an open SLIC case and also a closed SLIC case for a release that affected groundwater. No other information was provided by the listing. Based on the distance and upgradient locations of the “Itasco” and “Neville Chemical Company” facilities, it is Kleinfelder’s opinion that they could potentially have impacted groundwater in the Site vicinity, and these listings therefore represent a potential REC to the Site. Based on the distance and/or direction of the two remaining facilities from the Site, it is Kleinfelder’s opinion that these facilities are not environmental concerns that represent RECs to the Site. UST Database –The California UST Database is a list of active UST facilities gathered by SWRCB from local regulatory agencies. Six off-Site UST facilities are listed within the ASTM Standard search distance (Site and adjoining). “Arrowhead Pond-City of Anaheim” at 2695 East Katella Avenue adjoins to the north of the eastern portion of the Site. Specific information concerning the USTs at the facility is not provided in the listing. “Stadium Motors Inc” at 2225 East Katella Avenue adjoins the Site to the northwest of the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor in the western portion of the Site. Details concerning the USTs at the DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 31 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder facility are not provided in the listing, but additional information is provided for this facility in the SWEEPS Database (discussed on the next page), indicating a total of six USTs, including a 250-gallon tank with “unknown use” , a 250-gallon fuel UST, a 2,000-gallon gasoline UST, a 250-gallon jet fuel UST, a 1,000-gallon waste oil UST, and a 550-gallon fuel UST. This facility is also listed in the previously-described LUST Database as having received case closure by the regulatory agency. “Bleckerts Diesel Repair Inc” at 1654 South Douglass Road is north of Katella Avenue in the vicinity of the present-day Honda Center, which adjoins to the north of the eastern portion of the Site. Details concerning the USTs at the facility are not provided in the listing, but additional information is provided for this facility in the SWEEPS Database, which indicates a 500-gallon waste oil UST is at the facility. No releases were reported at this facility in the other databases listed in the EDR report. “Trucparco” at 1650 South Douglass Road is located north of Katella Avenue in the vicinity of the present-day Honda Center, which adjoins to the north of the eastern portion of the Site. This facility is reported to have a UST. Details concerning the UST are not provided in the listing, but the SWEEPS Database indicates this facility has a total of two USTs, including a 550-gallon waste oil UST and a 1,000 gallon gasoline UST. “Stadium Towers Plaza/Spieker Properties” at 2400 East Katella Avenue adjoins the Site to the north of the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor in the western portion of the Site and is listed without additional details. This facility is also listed in the LUST Database and reported to have a closed case. Based on the proximity to the Site and upgradient locations of the ”Arrowhead Pond-City of Anaheim,” “Stadium Motors Inc,” “Stadium Towers Plaza/Spieker Properties,“ “Bleckerts Diesel Repair Inc”, and “Trucparco,” if groundwater at these properties has been affected by the USTs, then it is possible that groundwater beneath the Site has been affected, which represents a potential REC to the Site. Based on the distance, direction, and/or case-closed status of the remaining facilities, it is Kleinfelder’s opinion that those facilities are not environmental concerns that represent RECs to the Site. HIST UST Database –The HIST UST Database contains historical UST locations. Of the seven listed HIST UST facilities, one is listed within the prescribed ASTM search distance (Site and adjoining). “Stadium Motors Inc” at 2225 East Katella Avenue adjoins the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor portion of the Site to the northwest in the western portion of the Site. The listing indicates the facility had a gasoline UST (capacity not reported), a 510 gallon waste oil UST, and another waste oil UST (capacity not reported). No additional information is provided in the listing. This facility is also listed in the LUST Database, which indicates the facility received case closure by the regulatory agency. Based on the proximity to the Site and upgradient location of the “Stadium Motors Inc” facility, if groundwater at this property has been affected by the historical USTs, then it is possible that groundwater beneath the Site has been affected, which represents a potential REC to the Site. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 32 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder SWEEPS Database –The Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System (SWEEPS) was a UST listing updated and maintained by a company contacted by SWRCB in the early 1990s, but is no longer updated or maintained. Five off-Site facilities are listed, but only four of the five facilities are listed within the ASTM Standard search distance, which is Site and adjoining. “Stadium Motors Inc” at 2225 East Katella Avenue adjoins the Site to the northwest of the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor in the western portion of the Site. This facility was listed in the SWEEPS Database as having a total of six USTs, including a 250-gallon tank with “unknown” contents, a 250-gallon fuel UST, a 2,000-gallon gasoline UST, a 250-gallon jet fuel UST, a 1,000-gallon waste oil UST, and a 550-gallon fuel UST. This facility is also listed in the LUST Database, which indicates the facility received case closure by the regulatory agency. “Bleckerts Diesel Repair Inc” at 1654 South Douglass Road is north of Katella Avenue in the vicinity of the present-day Honda Center, which adjoins to the north of the eastern portion of the Site. The EDR listing indicates a 500- gallon waste oil UST at the facility. No releases were reported at this facility in the other databases listed in the EDR report. “Trucparco” at 1650 South Douglass Road is located north of Katella Avenue in the vicinity of the present- day Honda Center, which adjoins to the north of the eastern portion of the Site. The EDR listing indicates this facility has a total of two USTs, including a 550- gallon waste oil UST and a 1,000 gallon gasoline UST. “Anaheim Arena” at 1621 South Douglass Road is north of Katella Avenue in the vicinity of the present-day Honda Center, which adjoins to the north of the eastern portion of the Site. This facility is listed as having a 1,000-gallon waste oil UST. No other information is provided by the listing. This facility was not reported as having an unauthorized release in the other databases listed in the EDR report. Based on the proximity to the Site and upgradient locations of the “Stadium Motors Inc,” “Bleckerts Diesel Repair Inc,” “Trucparco,” and “Anaheim Arena” if groundwater at these properties has been affected by the USTs, then it is possible that groundwater beneath the Site has been affected, which represents a potential REC to the Site. WMUDS/SWAT Databases –The CIWMB maintains the Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) Database of information regarding active, inactive, and closed landfills, and transfer and composting stations. The database is published annually. SWIS is also known as SWF/LF. WMUDS is used by the State for program tracking and inventory of waste management units. One off-Site WMUDS facility is listed. “Anaheim No. 6 Transfer Station” is mapped at the northwest corner of Katella and Douglass Road, approximately 200 feet northwest of the eastern portion of the Site, and no additional information is provided in the listing.Based on the distance and upgradient location of this facility relative to the Site, and absent additional information, it is Kleinfelder’s opinion that this facility may have impacted the Site and represents a REC to the Site. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 33 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder CA FID UST –The CA FID contains active and inactive UST locations. The source is the SWRCB. Of the four listed CA FID facilities, three are listed within the prescribed ASTM search distance (Site and adjoining). “Stadium Motors Inc” at 2225 East Katella Avenue adjoins the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor portion of the Site to the northwest. This facility is listed as an active CA FID UST location. No other information is provided for by the EDR listing. “Bleckerts Diesel Repair Inc” at 1654 South Douglass Road and “Trucparco” at 1650 South Douglass Road are located north of Katella Avenue in the vicinity of the present- day Honda Center, which adjoins to the north of the eastern portion of the Site. The EDR listings indicate these facilities are inactive CA FID UST facilities. Based on the proximity to the Site and upgradient locations of the ”Stadium Motors Inc,” “Bleckerts Diesel Repair Inc.,” and “Trucparco,” if groundwater at these properties has been affected by the USTs, then it is possible that groundwater beneath the Site has been affected, which represents a potential REC to the Site. HIST CORTESE Database–The sites for the HIST CORTESE list are designated by the SWRCB (LUST Database), the Integrated Waste Board (SWF/LS Database), and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (CALSITES Database). Nine off-Site facilities are listed within the ASTM search distance. Eight of the facilities are listed because of their listings in the LUST Database (which was previously discussed in the LUST section). The remaining facility is unnamed, but is listed as “VOC investigation” and concerns 2033 Collins Avenue, located beyond the Santa Ana River approximately 580 feet east of and crossgradient from the Site. Based on the distance and direction of this facility from the Site, it is Kleinfelder’s opinion that this facility is not an environmental concern that represents a REC to the Site. DRYCLEANERS –This database contains information about the locations of dry-cleaning facilities that have EPA ID numbers. The source for this list is DTSC. One facility was listed in the ASTM Standard search distance, which is 0.25 miles. “ThyssenKrupp Elevator” at 1601 Sunkist is located approximately 1,200 feet north of the Site. This facility has a NAICS description of “Other Personal and Household Goods Repair and Maintenance”. No other information is provided by the EDR listing and this facility is not listed in other databases as having had a release. Based on the proximity and upgradient location of the “ThyssenKrupp Elevator”, if groundwater at this property has been affected by facility operations, then it is possible that groundwater beneath the Site has been affected, which represents a potential REC to the Site. 4.2.3.Orphan List Sites not plotted by EDR due to poor or inadequate address information are referred to as orphan sites. There are 32 unmapped sites in the EDR report. The orphan summary/unmapped sites report was reviewed to assess the potential for off-Site DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 34 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder properties that might pose a REC to the Site. Based on our review, these orphan sites appear to be on other database listings already discussed above, are outside of the ASTM search distances, or are located hydrogeologically down-or cross-gradient relative to the Site, and do not represent a REC to the Site. 4.3.OTHER RECORDS REVIEWED/AGENCIES CONTACTED The following additional sources of environmental records were reviewed during this Phase I ESA for the purposes of meeting the ASTM Standard.Local regulatory agencies were contacted for reasonably ascertainable and practically reviewable documentation regarding RECs present at the Site and adjoining facilities (Interview documentation is included in Appendix C). Interviews with local regulatory agency representatives are included in Section 7 of this report. The following agencies were contacted for documentation (if marked with an X): ......South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) ......County of Orange, Department of Building and Safety ......City of Anaheim Building and Planning Departments ......Orange County Health Care Agency eHH ......City of Anaheim Fire Department ......City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department ......Office of the State Fire Marshal (SFM), Pipeline Safety Division ......SARWQCB ......State of California, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) ......DTSC DOGGR was not contacted because information concerning oil and gas fields was obtained from published maps available for download on its internet web site (http://www.consrv.ca.gov). Map findings are discussed in Table 4-2. Information received from the contacted agencies is presented below: South Coast Air Quality Management District Kleinfelder reviewed the SCAQMD web site (www.aqmd.gov) to obtain information regarding permits, equipment type, and notice of violations (NOVs) for the Site DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 35 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder addresses. Based on Kleinfelder’s review of information in the SCAQMD Facility Information Module, the identified SCAQMD records for the Site are summarized as follows: 1750 South Douglass Road –According to SCAQMD records, “Orange County RDMD, Facilities Operations” occupied this Site address. Permits pertaining to an on-Site gasoline service station were issued between May 1989 and April 2005. Each of the permits was listed as inactive. A NOV was issued on July 13, 2004 because the monthly throughput of gasoline exceeded the m aximum allowed by the permit. The facility came into compliance as of December 22, 2004 and the case was closed. A Notice to Comply was issued on July 13, 2004 for the facility to clean the spill containment area for the gasoline fill tank, replace a torn faceplate on one of the gasoline nozzles, and to provide 2003 monthly throughput of gasoline report. The facility came into compliance as of December 22, 2004. 10852 Douglass Road –According to SCAQMD records, “Orange County, GSA” occupied this Site address. No equipment was listed and no NOVs were issued. Several permits were issued for the use of spray equipment associated with pavement striping of curbs, berms, driveways, and parking lots, and a permit was issued for fueling equipment. County of Orange, Department of Building and Safety Kleinfelder visited the County of Orange, Department of Building and Safety on July 2, 2009 and requested information pertaining to the Site. The following building permits were on file for the former maintenance facility under its former address of 10852 Douglass Road (prior to its incorporation into the City of Anaheim): Application for a Building Permit and Certificate of Use & Occupancy, dated April 9, 1970, filed by the Orange County Flood Control District.The permit was for the construction of a new 10,800-square foot equipment storage building. Application for a Building Permit and Certificate of Use & Occupancy, dated September 30, 1970, filed by the Orange County Flood Control District. The permit was for the construction of a new 720-square foot oil storage building. Application for a Building Permit and Certificate of Use & Occupancy, dated July 27, 1988, filed by the County of Orange. The permit was for the construction of a new 1,230 square foot warehouse building for file storage. Application for a Building Permit and a Certificate of Use & Occupancy, dated June 14, 1983, filed by the Environmental Management Agency. The permit DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 36 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder was for the construction of a new 13,866-square foot office building, and for alterations of 3,837 square feet of space in an unspecified building. Non-Residential Building Permit Summary issued February 18, 1992 to the Orange County Flood Control District. The permit was for the construction of a new 500-square foot detached garage. Non-Residential Building Permit Summary issued March 21, 1996 to the Orange County Flood Control District. The permit was for the construction of a free- standing roof structure to cover a paint storage area. Non-Residential Building Permit Summary issued October 6, 1999 to the County of Orange, PFRD. The permit was for use of a trailer (Trailer C) for office purposes at the existing Katella Yard. Non-Residential Building Permit Summary issued October 6, 1999 to the County of Orange, PFRD. The permit was for use of a trailer (Trailer B) for office purposes at the existing Katella Yard. Copies of the building permits are included in Appendix C. City of Anaheim Building and Planning Departments Kleinfelder visited the City of Anaheim Building and Planning Departments on June 23, 2009. A representative indicated that information was available online through the Anaheim Public Utilities online records service. The following is a summary of the available information. 1730 South Douglass Road –Application for a Building Permit dated August 9, 1973, issued for the construction of a new 1,390-square foot office building. 2600 East Katella Avenue –Application for a Building Permit dated January 31, 1978 for the construction of a 5,980 square foot building shell; sign permit dated June 22, 1978 for Pacific Video Productions; plumbing permit dated August 30, 1978 for lawn sprinklers; plumbing permit dated February 16, 1978 for plumbing services associated with the new building; and building permit dated May 23, 1996 for the remodel façade of the existing building by Schmidt Development, Inc. 2148 East Katella Avenue –Electrical Permit dated December 6, 1995 for temporary power to construct a canopy at the railroad station (Anaheim Stadium Metrolink/Amtrak Station). DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 37 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 2150 East Katella Avenue –Electrical Permit dated November 5, 1996 for an electrical meter panel at the train station (Anaheim Stadium Metrolink/Amtrak Station), and Electrical Permit dated December 17, 1996 for the addition of platform lighting. 2150 ½ East Katella Avenue –Electrical Permit dated March 2, 2000 to install 4 electric volt chargers at the Amtrak Parking Lot. Orange County Health Care Agency The following documents and reports were reviewed by Kleinfelder and pertain to the former maintenance facility at 1750 South Douglass Road (formerly 10852 Douglass Road): Orange County Environmental Health, Underground Tank Cleanup Form, dated July 28, 1989 –This form states the Site maintained two 10,000-gallon gasoline USTs, a 10,000-gallon diesel UST, and two 5,000-gallon diesel USTs. During an upgrade to the UST piping, a release of petroleum hydrocarbons was discovered. A completed “Underground Storage Tank Unauthorized Release (Leak)/Contamination Site Report” was dated July 13,1989. Report of Findings, Subsurface Investigation for Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contamination, dated May 10, 1990 –Tait performed a subsurface investigation to assess the extent of petroleum hydrocarbons detected at the Site during previous subsurface investigations by others. Tait advanced 10 soil borings in the vicinity of the USTs during two separate drilling events. Borings B-1 through B-4 were advanced in February 1990 using hollow-stem auger drilling methods to depths ranging between 20 and 30 feet bgs. Borings B-5 through B-10 were advanced in March 1990 using hand-auger methods to depths ranging between 8 to 18 feet bgs. Soil samples were analyzed for TPH and BTEX using modified US EPA Method 8015, referred to herein as US EPA 8015(M), and US EPA Method 8020, respectively. Soil samples collected in the vicinity of the diesel USTs were further analyzed for total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH) using US EPA Method 418.1. Laboratory results indicated the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons in samples collected from seven of 10 borings. Based on the results of the investigation, Tait concluded that subsurface contamination of soil had occurred and could be ongoing (as of the time of the assessment). Tait indicated TPH and BTEX were detected at concentrations above State action levels within Borings B-3 and B-4 at depths to at least 30 feet bgs, and recommended additional subsurface investigation be completed to define the vertical and lateral extent of contamination. Additionally, Tait recom mended that at least three groundwater monitoring wells be installed to assess the potential impact to groundwater. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 38 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Site Assessment Report and Feasibility Study/Remediation Plan for the Orange County GSA Katella Yard, 10852 Douglass Road, Anaheim, CA 92806, dated October 6, 1993 –Unitech Engineering, Inc. (Unitech) performed an assessment to identify and characterize petroleum hydrocarbons in the vicinity of the USTs formerly on this part of the Site. At the time of the assessment the Site had two 10,000-gallon gasoline USTs, two 10,000-gallon diesel USTs, and one 5,000-gallon diesel UST. Unitech reported that, prior to its investigation, Geological Audit Services, Inc. (GAS) collected two shallow soil samples (S1 and S2) in the vicinity of the UST piping. Sample S1 was collected at 7 feet bgs near the diesel dispenser and contained 12,100 mg/kg of TPH-d. Sample S2 was collected at 7 feet bgs near the gasoline UST fill port and contained 15,130 mg/kg of TPH-g. Tait subsequently performed its investigation to assess the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons by advancing a total of 10 soil borings (B-1 through B-10), and reported its findings in its May 10, 1990 report as previously summarized. Unitech performed its investigation to define the vertical and lateral extent of petroleum hydrocarbons identified during the GAS and Tait investigations. A total of eight soil borings (B11 through B18) were advanced on July 30, 1993 to a depth of 30 feet bgs using hollow-stem auger drilling methods. Soil samples were collected at 5-foot intervals and samples were analyzed for TPH and BTEX using US EPA Methods 8015(M) and 8020, respectively. Samples were also analyzed for total lead using US EPA Method 7420. Groundwater was not encountered during Unitech’s investigation, but was estimated to be at an approximate depth of 40 feet bgs. Unitech indicated based on the analytical results of its investigation that no evidence of petroleum -impacted soil was found in the samples from Borings B-14 through B-18. Unitech indicated these borings identified the lateral extent of hydrocarbon migration to the east, northeast, and southeast of the USTs. Unitech reported that samples from Borings B-11, B-12, and B-13 contained low concentrations of BTEX at 15 feet bgs but BTEX was not detected in samples collected at depths of 20, 25, or 30 feet bgs from these same borings. The benzene concentrations ranged from 5.4 to 9.8 parts per billion, which lead Unitech to conclude that Borings B-11, B-12, and B-13 represented the vertical extent of petroleum hydrocarbon contamination. Unitech concluded, based on the investigations by GAS and Tait and its investigation, that two plumes existed. The first plume consisted of a shallow gasoline plume that was localized around the gasoline fill port. The second plume was near the east side of the USTs bounded by Borings B-1 and B-18 to the north, Borings B-2, B-15, and B-16 to the east, Borings B-7 and B-14 to the south, and Boring B-8 to the west. The plume was estimated at approximately 50 feet long and 20 feet wide with a depth of at least 13 feet. Based on these dimensions, approximately 500 cubic yards of soil was estimated to be impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons. Site Assessment Report and Feasibility Study/Remediation Plan, Prepared for: The Orange County General Services Agency, Katella Yard, 10852 DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 39 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Douglass Road, Anaheim, CA 92806, dated July 1994 –Unitech performed a subsequent subsurface investigation that consisted of drilling three soil borings (B19 through B21) in the vicinity of previous borings B5, B6, and S2 (advanced by GAS and Tait) to further define the vertical extent of petroleum hydrocarbon contamination detected in this area. This new report presents the work performed during Unitech’s previous October 6, 1993 assessment (discussed in the previous paragraph), but additionally discusses the drilling, sampling, and sample analytical results from three additional borings (B19 through B21) during this assessment.Borings B19 through B21 were advanced and sampled to a total depth of 35 feet bgs and the samples were analyzed for TPH, BTEX, and total lead using US EPA Methods 8015(M), 8020, and 7420, respectively. Unitech concluded that the shallow plume identified by its 1993 investigation appeared to remain localized, which was further supported based on no evidence of significant contamination in soil samples collected from Boring B- 21. Unitech indicated that, because no borings were drilled between Borings B- 5 and B-12, and between Borings B-6 and B-20, it was unclear as to whether the two previously identified plumes were separate or connected into one larger plume. Under a “worst case scenario” Unitech estimated approximately 750 cubic yards of TPH-d-impacted soil was present in one large plume, but indicated if the plumes were separate the volume of TPH-d impacted soil would be significantly less. Unitech concluded that excavation and aboveground bioremediation would be the most economical option for treating TPH-impacted soils at the Site. Tank Closure Report, OCGSA Katella Yard, 10852 Douglas Road, Anaheim, California, dated March 20, 1998 –Block Environmental (Block) prepared a Tank Closure Report summarizing the removal of one 10,000-gallon and two 5,000-gallon diesel USTs, two 10,000-gallon gasoline USTs, and 280-gallon and 300-gallon waste oil USTs. Following removal of these USTs, two new 20,000- gallon USTS containing gasoline and diesel were installed. Additional details concerning this report are included in the APUD records section that follows in a few pages. Supplemental Site Assessment Report, OCGSA Katella Yard, 10852 Douglas Road, Anaheim, California, OCHCA Case No. 93UT58, dated March 24, 1998 –Block prepared this report summarizing the November 1997 installation of three groundwater monitoring wells and collection of soil and groundwater samples. The purpose was to define the vertical and lateral extent of diesel-and gasoline-impacted soil beneath the southern dispenser island, and to determine if groundwater was impacted. Three 4-inch diameter groundwater monitoring wells (MW -1 through MW -3) were installed to a depth of approximately 96 feet bgs and screened from approximately 64 to 94 feet bgs. Free product was not observed in the wells. The groundwater surface was measured at an approximate depth of 81 feet bgs and the direction of flow was toward the southeast. Analytical results indicated that petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations were not present in soil or groundwater samples collected from DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 40 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder the wellbores/wells. Based on the results of this assessment and previous assessments, Block concluded that diesel and gasoline-range petroleum hydrocarbons were released in the vicinity of the southern dispenser island and were present in soil to a depth as deep as 25 feet bgs. The reported maximum TPH-d concentration in soil was 37,817 parts per million (ppm) at a depth of 5 feet bgs, the maximum TPH-g concentration in soil was 360 ppm at 13 feet bgs, and the maximum benzene concentration in soil was 0.275 ppm at 5 feet bgs. The vertical and lateral extent of petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted soil was concluded to be defined. Block concluded that this facility met the criteria for the definition of a Low Risk Soils Case as defined by SARWQCB, and recommended that, following performance of one additional quarterly groundwater sampling event, the Site be reviewed for regulatory case closure. Quarterly Fluid-Level Monitoring and Groundwater Sampling Report, January 1-March 31, 1998, OCGSA Katella Yard, 10852 Douglas Road, Anaheim, California, OCHCA Case No. 93UT58, dated April 17, 1998 –Block performed groundwater monitoring activities on March 16, 1998. Groundwater was measured at an average depth of approximately 72 feet bgs and groundwater flow was to the east. Free product was not observed in the three groundwater monitoring wells. Groundwater samples were analyzed for TPH-g, TPH-d, BTEX, and metyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), which were not detected in the samples. Based on the results, Block recommended the case be reviewed for closure. Remedial Action Completion Certification, Underground Storage Tank (UST) Case, Katella Yard, 10852 Douglas Road, Anaheim, CA, OCHCA Case # 93UT58, dated June 19, 1998 –OCHCA issued a Remedial Action Completion Certification for OCHCA Case No. 93UT58, for the Site investigation and remedial action concerning the UST formerly located at this facility. Letter with Subject:Report of Well Abandonment, Orange County Katella Yard, 10852 Douglas Road, Anaheim, California, dated November 25, 1998 – Block obtained a well destruction permit from OCHCA, and supervised the September 30, 1998 abandonment of Wells MW -1, MW -2, and MW -3. The wells were abandoned by pressure-grouting a bentonite slurry through the polyvinyl chloride (PVC) casing. The top 5 feet of the casing and annular space was then excavated and removed by overdrilling with a 10-inch diameter hollow stem auger, and disposed as construction waste. City of Anaheim Fire Department Kleinfelder reviewed records at AFD on June 16, 2009. The following is a summary of the pertinent documents reviewed. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 41 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder A record of an October 24, 2003 AFD inspection indicated violations were found, which included failure to submit waste manifests to DTSC, the waste oil tank not being labeled with its accumulation start date, and two drums used for draining oil at the service rack not being labeled. A record of an October 14, 2004 AFD inspection indicated violations were found, which included failure to indicate accumulation time on drums, an eyewash and emergency shower that was obstructed, and a secondary containment pallet for waste lead acid batteries that contained a liquid with a pH reading of 0. A Hazardous Waste Generator Inspection Report dated September 22, 2005 indicated that two violations were reported, including failure to show accumulation time on drums and failure to properly label the drums. In a re- inspection on April 4, 2006 the violations were found to have been abated. A record of an October 3, 2005 inspection indicated violations were found, which included failure to have a written ergency response plan/contingency plan to address the hazardous waste storage area, and 5-gallon paint containers observed in a trash bin with approximately 2 inches of paint in the containers on four separate days. An Underground Storage Tank Inspection Report dated October 13, 2006 reported violations, including failure to obtain or show proof of current financial responsibility and facility to comply with the designated operator requirements. Liquid in a diesel turbine sump was also observed, and was requested to be removed on the date of the inspection. A CUPA Consolidated Permit dated July 1, 2007 for a Hazardous Materials Business Plan, Hazardous Waste Generator, and Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank was issued to the County of Orange RDMD Transportation Fleet Management facility. The facility was listed as having a 20,000-gallon regular unleaded UST, a 20,000-gallon diesel UST, and one AST (contents and capacity not listed). The permit was listed as being obsolete. A Hazardous Materials Inventory form for the calendar year 2007 indicated the County of Orange, RDMD Transportation Fleet Management facility maintained a 55-gallon drums of lubricant, grease, lubricating base oil, torque fluid, hydraulic oil, machine oil, waste oil (steel drums,AST), antifreeze, AST of Chevron ATF oil, waste coolant (250-gallon AST), windshield washer fluid, acetylene (cylinder), oxygen, diesel (20,000-gallon UST), and gasoline (20,000- gallon UST). A record of a September 10, 2007 UST inspection indicated the faciity was issued a NOV for failure to perform annual testing of the montioring system and submit results. In a re-inspection on October 25, 2007 the violation had been abated. However, additional violations were issued for failure to obtain or show DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 42 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder proof of current financial responsibility and failure to comply with the designated operator requirements. An October 25, 2007 Hazardous Waste Generator Inspection Report indicated the facility generated waste oil, waste filters, waste pads, waste absorbent, waste parts washers, waste rags, and waste lead acid batteries. No violations were reported at the time of this inspection. Two Unified Program Forms dated July 7, 2008 indicated that two 20,000-gallon USTs containing gasoline and diesel had been removed from the Site. The USTs were reportedly installed in 1997. City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department Kleinfelder reviewed available information at APUD on June 23, 2009. The available information pertained to the facility at 1750 South Douglass Road (formerly 10852 Douglass Road). The following is a summary of the pertinent documents reviewed: Tank Closure Report, OCGSA Katella Yard, 10852 Douglas Road, Anaheim, California, dated March 20, 1998 –Block prepared a Tank Closure Report on behalf of the Orange County GSA. According to this report, in September and October 1997 a 280-gallon waste oil UST, 300-gallon waste oil UST, two 5,000- gallon and one 10,000-gallon diesel USTs, and two 10,000-gallon gasoline USTs were removed from the Site (the former Katella Yard at 10852 Douglass Road). Confirmation soil samples were collected from the bottom of the gasoline and diesel UST excavations at a depth of approximately 12 feet bgs, from the bottom of the waste oil UST excavations at approximate depths of 6 to 8 feet bgs, and from beneath the former product dispensers at an approximate depth of 3 feet bgs. Samples were also collected from the stockpiled soil. Soil samples collected beneath the gasoline and diesel USTs, associated dispensers, and stockpiled soil were analyzed for TPH-g using US EPA Method 8015, TPH-d using US EPA Method 8015, and BTEX and MTBE using US EPA Method 8020. Soil samples collected from the waste oil UST excavation and associated stockpiled soil were analyzed for TRPH using US EPA Method 418.1, BTEX and MTBE using US EPA Method 8020, and halogenated VOCs using US EPA Method 8010. Results indicated the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons beneath the southern dispenser island at concentrations up to 37,817 ppm TPH -d, 221 ppm TPH-g, and 0.275 ppm benzene at a depth of 5 feet bgs. MTBE was not detected in the soil samples. TPH-d was detected at concentrations up to 923 ppm in two stockpiles (identified as Stockpiles I and II). TRPH and tetrachloroethylene (PCE) were detected at concentrations of up to 20,040 ppm and 0.993 ppm, respectively, in samples from Stockpiles II and IV. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 43 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder The samples from Stockpile V did not contain detectable concentrations of the analyzed contaminants. Approximately 500 tons of impacted soil was transported off-Site to the Landmark Materials facility in Irwindale, California. Based on the analytical results, Stockpile V was found to be unimpacted by hydrocarbons and was used to backfill the former tank cavities. Based on the results of the assessment, it was concluded that a release of diesel and gasoline occurred beneath the southern dispenser island extending to depths of greater than 5 feet bgs. Block indicated that the lateral and vertical extent of the release had been defined, and although TPH-g and TPH-d were detected in the soil excavated from the diesel and gasoline tank cavity, no detectable hydrocarbons were present in samples collected following the excavation subsequent to the initial excavation. Oil range hydrocarbons and PCE were detected in soils excavated from the waste oil tank cavity, but no detectable hydrocarbons appeared to remain in place in the excavation. Evidence of groundwater contamination was not observed during the tank removal activites. Block indicated that, because of the concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons that remained in soil in the area of the southern dispenser island and due to the proximity of the Site to the Santa Ana River, OCHCA requested that three groundwater monitoring wells be installed at the Site. December 5, 2003 letter with subject “Soil Samples Taken At 1750 S. Douglas Rd.,” submitted to APUD by Grant Miner, Hazardous Materials Specialist of AFD Environmental Protection Section –According to a December 1, 2003 laboratory report submitted by Tait to AFD,and summarized in Tait’s January 15, 2004 letter to APUD, soil samples were collected to the south of the southern dispensers at the time of modifications to the dispenser islands in November 2003, although soil samples were not collected in the vicinity of the northern dispensers because native soil was not exposed during repairs. Soil samples were collected at approximately 3 feet bgs and analyzed for TPH-g, TPH-d, and VOCs including BTEX and MTBE. A 7,400-mg/kg TPH-d concentration was detected in the soil sample collected from beneath the easternmost dispenser (DISP 1).This letter required submittal of an Unauthorized Release Report for the facility, which was not identified during Kleinfelder’s agency file review. A report dated January 15, 2004 summarizing the soil sampling was prepared by Tait, however, as discussed below. January 15, 2004 letter report with subject “Report for Environmental Services at County of Orange (PFRD) Transportation Gas Station #4 Located at 1750 South Douglas Road, in the City of Anaheim, California,” submitted by Tait to APUD –Tait was requested to perform soil sampling beneath the dispensers at the Site because integrity testing of the UST piping and dispensers failed. On November 24, 2003, Tait made repairs to the fuel dispensers and performed soil sampling beneath the dspenser sumps. Mr. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 44 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Grant Miner with AFD directed three soil samples (Samples Disp-1, Disp-2, and Disp-3/4) be collected at 2 feet bgs beneath the dispenser sumps and product piping. The samples were analyzed for BTEX and MTBE. Samples Disp-1 and Disp-2 collected beneath the diesel dispensers were also analyzed for TPH-d) and Sample Disp-3/4, collected beneath the gasoline dispenser, was also analyzed for TPH-g. BTEX and MTBE were not detected in the samples. TPH-g was not detected in Disp-3/4. TPH-d was detected in Sample Disp-1 at a concentration of 7,400 mg/kg, but was not detected in Sample Disp-2. Tait presented a summary of previous assessments performed at the property and concluded that based on an investigation conducted by Block in 1997 and 1998, the diesel contamination below the dispenser had been adequately characterized at that time. They also indicated that during previous assessments, groundwater had not been impacted. Site closure was issued by OCHCA on June 19, 1998. Tait therefore recommended no further action.. Sampling and Analysis Related to Underground Storage Tank Removal and Removal of Hydrocarbon Impacted Soil –County of Orange RDMD, 1750 S. Douglass Road, Anaheim,California, dated August 27, 2008 –Advanced GeoEnvironmental, Inc. submitted this report summarizing soil sampling and analytical results following the removal of two, 20,000-gallon USTs and five dispensers at the Site. TDE Construction and Consulting Services (TDE) removed the USTs on July 24, 2008 under the oversight of AFD and APUD. Soil beneath each dispenser was initially screened for VOCs using a photoionization detector (PID). Volatile organic vapors were detected by the PID in soil beneath dispensers D1, D2, and D5 with concentrations greater than 1,999 mg/kg. No volatile organic vapors were detected by the PID beneath dispensers D3 or D4. Soil samples were collected beneath Dispensers D3 and D4 at a depth of 3 feet bgs and analyzed for TPH-g,TPH-d, and VOCs including fuel oxygenates. Results of the sample from beneath Dispenser D3 indicated 670 mg/kg of TPH- d and 0.025 mg/kg of naphthalene. TPH-g, TPH -d, and naphthalene were detected in the sample from beneath Dispenser D4 at respective concentrations of 0.20 mg/kg, 6,100 mg/kg, and 0.007 mg/kg. Impacted soil at these locations was then excavated and removed on July 29, 2008. Soil samples were subsequently collected from each end of the former USTs at depths of 18 to 19 feet bgs and were analyzed for TPH-g, TPH-d, BTEX, and fuel oxygenates. No detectable concentrations were detected in the soil samples. Additional excavation in the vicinity of the dispenser islands was performed and soil samples were collected from the excavations beneath former Dispensers D1 and D2 (the northern dispensers) at depths of 5, 10, and 15 feet bgs and analyzed for TPH-g, TPH-d, BTEX, and fuel oxygenates, which were not detected. Soil samples were also collected beneath Dispensers D3 and D4 (the southern dispensers). The 5-foot sample collected from Dispenser D3 contained a TPH-g concentration of 860 mg/kg and a TPH-d concentration of 3,500 mg/kg. Ethylbenzene and xylenes were detected at concentrations of 0.4 mg/kg and 44 mg/kg, respectively. The 10-foot bgs sample beneath Dispenser DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 45 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder D3 did not contain detectable concentrations of TPH-g, TPH-d, BTEX, or fuel oxygenates. The 5-foot bgs sample collected from beneath Dispenser D4 contained a TPH-g concentration of 220 mg/kg, a TPH-d concentration of 1,300 mg/kg,an ethylbenzene concentration of 0.65 mg/kg, and a xylenes concentration of 7.2 mg/kg. However, no detectable concentrations of TPH-g, TPH-d, BTEX or fuel oxygenates were detected in the 10-and 14-foot bgs samples beneath Dispenser D4.One sample (D5)was collected beneath an additional dispenser located adjacent to the east of the southern dispenser island at a depth of 3 feet bgs. A deeper sample could not be collected due to the presence of a high-voltage electric line at this location. No TPH-g, TPH-d, BTEX, or fuel oxygenates were detected in the 3-foot bgs sample. Based on the results of this assessment it was concluded that no release had occurred in the UST area. The excavation of impacted soil beneath the dispensers was deemed successful because results of samples collected after additional excavating indicated no petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in the deeper samples. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 46 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Letter with Subject: No Further Action for Diesel Fuel and Gasoline Contaminated Soil, PFRD Transportation Facility –Gas Station #4, 1750 S. Douglas Road, Anaheim, CA 92806, Regional Board Case Number 083003990T, dated March 4, 2009 –APUD issued a No Further Action letter indicating that the Site investigation and remedial action of the contaminated soil found during upgrades to the UST system on December 2, 2003 and subsequent removal of the USTs in July 2008 had been completed. APUD received concurrence with this closure from the SARWQCB on November 13, 2008. Letter with Subject:Summary of Activities & Analytical Results –Katella Yard, Request for Closure of Automotive, Hydraulic Lifts and Clarifier Excavations, dated November 11, 2008 –Haley & Aldrich submitted this report to OCHCA summarizing the removal of three hydraulic lifts and four waste water clarifiers at the Katella Yard. The hydraulic lifts and associated equipment and piping were removed in September and October 2008 and consisted of three in- ground hydraulic hosits, approximately 300 linear feet of hydraulic oil service lines, and a 100-gallon hydraulic oil tank. Soil samples were collected initially from each end of the hydraulic lift excavations at approximately 10 feet bgs and beneath each hydraulic oil pipe run at approximately 2 feet bgs. Composite soil samples were also collected from each of three soil stockpiles generated during the excavation activities. Soil samples were analyzed for TPH, which was detected at concentrations greater than 1,000 mg/kg in the samples collected from the north side of Hydraulic Lift No. 2 (5,210 mg/kg) and from the west side of Hydraulic Lift No. 3 (1,920 mg/kg). The remaining samples, collected in the vicinity of the hoists, pipe runs, and stockpiles, contained TPH concentrations ranging from 10 to 597 mg/kg. OCHCA requested further excavation and additional soil sampling in the vicinity of the north side of Hydraulic Lift No. 2 and the west side of Hydraulic Lift No.3. Analytical results of these samples indicated a TPH concentration of 4,220 mg/kg at Hydraulic Lift No. 2 and no detected TPH at Hydraulic Lift No. 3. A composite sample from the stockpiled soil indicated a TPH concentration of 4,943 mg/kg. Further soil sampling was performed on the north side of Hydraulic Lift No. 2 at depths of 20 and 30 feet bgs, and 2 feet east of the north side of Hydraulic Lift No. 2 at depths of 10, 15, 20, and 30 feet bgs. Each of these soil samples contained no detectable concentrations of TPH. Four wastewater clarifiers and associated sewer piping systems were removed from this part of the Site in October 2008. Soil sampling was performed from each of the clarifier excavations as follows, and the samples were analyzed for TPH and Title 22 Metals. o Clarifier No. 1 –Soil samples were collected from the north and south sides at approximately 5 feet bgs and from the sewer line offset beneath the pipe elbow at approximately 3 feet bgs. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 47 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder o Clarifier No. 2 –Soil samples were collected from the north and south sides of the clarifier excavation at approximately 5 feet bgs and from beneath the pipe elbow at approximately 3 feet bgs. o Clarifiers Nos. 3 and 4 –Soil samples were collected from the north and south sides of the clarifier at approximately 6 feet bgs; there was no sewer line offset with these clarifiers. Based on the results OCHCA requested further soil analysis for the samples collected within the Clarifier No.1 excavation at 5 feet bgs to classify the organic compounds identified as TPH by carbon chain indicating the presence of volatile, organic compounds or non-volatile compounds in the soil. The samples were analyzed further for TPH and VOCs. Analytical results indicated TPH was detected at concentrations ranging from 0.04 to 79 mg/kg but VOCs were not detected. Haley & Aldrich concluded that soil at two of the hydraulic lift excavations contained elevated TPH concentrations exceeding OCHCA’s allowable threshold of 1,000 mg/kg. Further excavation and soil sampling was performed until acceptable concentrations below 1,000 mg/kg were achieved. Soil within the stockpile exceeding concentrations of 1,000 mg/kg was disposed off Site as non-hazardous waste. Haley & Aldrich concluded that results of remedial activities following removal of the clarifiers indicated that soil concentrations of TPH, Title 22 Metals, and VOCs were at acceptable concentrations and no further action was required. Haley & Aldrich requested written confirmation of closure of these remedial activities from OCHCA. Letter with Subject: Case Closure, OC Public Works Katella Yard, 1750 Douglass Road, Anaheim, CA 92806, OCHCA Case #08IC027 dated November 21, 2008 –The OCHCA isued a Case Closure letter (OCHCA Case #08IC027) confirming completion of remedial action at the Site after removal of three hydraulic lifts and four waste water clarifiers. California Office of the State Fire Marshal, Pipeline Safety Division Kleinfelder submitted a request to the SFM Pipeline Safety Division for information concerning pipelines in the vicinity of the Site. According to SFM’s response letter there are no pipelines jurisdictional to the SFM in the Site vicinity. A copy of the response letter is including in Appendix C. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Kleinfelder submitted requests to SARWQCB to review available files for the Site addresses. According to SARWQCB no records are on file with its Well Investigation DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 48 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Program (WIP), SLIC, or UST Divisions. Copies of the telephone conversation logs documenting this information are included in Appendix C. State of California, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources Kleinfelder reviewed DOGGR’s Regional Wildcat Map W1-6, dated August 17, 2005. According to the map, there are no oil or gas wells on or in the immediate vicinity of the Site. State Department of Toxic Substances Control Kleinfelder contacted DTSC for information pertaining to the Site addresses. DTSC’s response letters indicated no records are available for the Site. Copies of the response letters are included in Appendix C. The site is located within the APUD municipal water service area. A copy of the 2009 Water Quality Report was obtained from APUD’s internet site (http://www.anaheim.net/utilities/waterservices/WQR_09.pdf). In summary, the water supply quality for 2008 met federal and state drinking water standards, although average aluminum concentrations in 2008 exceeded the secondary Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), which is a secondary standard to maintain aesthetic qualities (i.e., taste, odor, and color). The City of Anaheim has since implemented proper adjustments to maintain the aluminum concentrations within the secondary acceptable level. 4.4.PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE(S) Table 4-2 presents information about the physical setting of the site. This information was obtained from published maps. During preparation of this Phase I ESA Kleinfelder concurrently prepared a Draft Technical Memorandum,Preliminary Geotechnical Data Report, dated June 3, 2009.Geotechnical investigation reports prepared by others were not provided for Kleinfelder to review. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 49 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder TABLE 4-2 PHYSICAL SETTING Data Source General Information USGS TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE U.S. Geological Survey, Anaheim Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic), 1965, (photo- revised 1981). The Site ranges in elevation between approximately 165 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) at its northeast corner near Katella Avenue to approximately 155 feet MSL at the Site’s southern end along the toe of the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor and at the Sullivan & Mann Lumber Company facility. The LOSSAN Railroad Corridor is at an elevation of approximately 166 feet MSL, which is about 10 feet above the adjoining Site area. To the east of the Site is the Santa Ana River, which if dry has an estimated elevation of approximately 140 to 145 feet. The river is separated from the Site by a levee or berm, which rises to an elevation of approximately 165 to 168 feet MSL. Five structures associated with the existing maintenance facility, and the existing structure at 1730 South Douglass Road, were shown on the map. There were no wells, or other features shown on Site. Land use in the vicinity of the Site was depicted as commercial. SOIL TYPE Morton, et al., 2004 OCWD, 2004 Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), 1994. The Site is located adjacent to the Santa Ana River, a braided stream system that has had significant flood control measures constructed along its course over the past 100 years. However, prior to flood control deposition and erosion, primarily during flood events, contributed to the general geology of the Site and vicinity. The surficial deposits in the vicinity of the Site consist of alluvial fan material and alluvium deposited by the Santa Ana River over the last few thousand years. These unconsolidated alluvial sediments are generally composed of flat-lying, non-marine deposits of sand and a minor amount of silt (Morton et al., 2004). South of Ball Road these sandy deposits become interbedded with clayey layers in the subsurface, generally at a depth of approximately 50 to 55 feet (OCWD, 2004; Southern California Regional Rail Authority [SCRRA], 1994). However, due to quarrying activities and bank sloughing, most of the Site is not underlain by alluvium, but rather DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 50 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder an undetermined thickness of undocumented artificial fill. The Site was filled in to current grades during its development in the ear ly 1970s. Although the bottom elevation of the fill is most likely equal to the river’s elevation in the northern part of the Site (at the former maintenance facility), in the southern part of this facility (a former quarry area) review of historical aerial photography suggests that fill depth may be about 5 to 10 feet deeper than the river’s bottom elevation. The source and composition of the fill material is not known. Alluvial sand to silty sand underlies the undocumented fill. OIL AND GAS FIELDS DOGGR, Regional Wildcat Map W1-6, Los Angeles & Orange Counties, Southern Los Angeles Basin, dated August 16, 2005. Oil and gas fields were not depicted on the map. Information about the regional geology is presented in Table 4-3. This information was obtained from published data and maps, interviews with public agencies, and/or from previous investigations performed by Kleinfelder in the vicinity of the Site. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 51 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder TABLE 4-3 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY Physical Parameter Information/Comments REGIONAL GEOLOGY (Sources: Schoellhamer et al., 1981; Metropolitan Water District of Southern California [MWDSC], 2007; OCWD, 2004) The Site is located in the southern part of the Los Angeles Basin within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. The Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province extends approximately 900 miles southward from the Los Angeles Basin to the tip of Baja California and is characterized by elongate northwest-trending mountain ranges separated by sediment-floored valleys (California Geological Survey, 2002). The most dominant structural features of the province are the northwest-trending fault zones, most of which die out, merge with, or are terminated by steep reverse faults at the southern margin of the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province. Several miles east of the Site are the northwest-trending Santa Ana Mountains, a large range which has been uplifted on its eastern side along the Whittier-Elsinore Fault Zone, producing a tilted, irregular highland sloping westward toward the ocean (Schoellhamer et al., 1981). The area south and west of the Santa Ana Mountains is generally characterized as a broad, complex, alluvial fan, which receives sediments from the Santa Ana River and its tributaries draining the Santa Ana Mountains and Puente Hills,and to a lesser extent the San Bernardino Mountains. These sediments are relatively flat-lying, unconsolidated to loosely consolidated, clastic deposits that are approximately 1,700 feet thick beneath the Site (MWDSC, 2007, and OCWD, 2004). REGIONAL HYDROGEOLOGY AND DEPTH TO REGIONAL GROUNDWATER (Sources: MWD, 2007; DWR, 2004; OCWD, 2004; Poland, 1956; SCRRA, 1994; Coleman Geotechnical, 1999; and Greenwood and Pridmore, 2001) The Site is located in the forebay area of the Orange County Basin (MWDSC, 2007; DWR, 2004; and OCWD, 2004). The forebay is an area consisting of coarser, interconnected deposits that allows surface water to percolate down and ultimately recharge the County’s principal aquifer about 800 feet deep (DWR, 2004). In other areas, the aquifer is under hydrostatic pressure and recharge from the surface is not possible. Most of the basin’s recharge occurs north of Ball Road in lakes, ponds, pits and the river’s main channel bottom. Here the alluvial deposits are sandier with few clay/silt layers to impede the downward movement of the recharge water. South of Ball Road clay layers become present and are interbedded with the sandy deposits. The clay layers are laterally discontinuous, thereby slowing, but not restricting, recharge from the surface. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 52 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder TABLE 4-3 (continued) REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY Physical Parameter Information/Comments REGIONAL HYDROGEOLOGY AND DEPTH TO REGIONAL GROUNDWATER (continued) Adjacent to the Site sand levees are constructed in the bottom of the Santa Ana River to capture and contain river water and allow it to percolate into the groundwater system (OCWD, 2004). The shallowest aquifer beneath the Site is the Talbert aquifer and it extends to a depth of approximately 150 feet bgs below the Site (Poland,1956). Near the Site groundwater levels in the Talbert aquifer can fluctuate substantially, depending on rainfall conditions and recharge activities in the river. In 1994, wet soil samples (indication of groundwater) were logged adjacent to the Site (near the former maintenance area and the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor) at a depth of approximately 50 feet bgs (SCRRA, 1994), and in 1999 groundwater was measured at a depth of about 34 feet bgs near the intersection of Katella Avenue and Douglass Road (Coleman Geotechnical, 1999). In June 2006 OCWD mapped groundwater levels near the Site at a depth of approximately 60 feet bgs. However, in 2001 an evaluation of the historically-shallowest groundwater levels was performed by the California Geological Survey (CGS) for an area that included the Site (Greenwood and Pridmore, 2001), and the highest historical groundwater level for the Site was determined to be approximately 20 feet bgs. Groundwater monitoring wells were installed at the former maintenance facility at the Site’s 1750 South Douglass Road property during an assessment by Block and summarized in its March 24, 1998 Supplemental Site Assessment report. Groundwater beneath the facility was measured in November 1997 at a depth of approximately 80 feet bgs.In a subsequent March 1998 groundwater monitoring event groundwater was measured at a depth of 72 feet bgs. Fluctuations of the groundwater level, localized zones of perched water, and soil moisture content should be anticipated during and following the rainy season. Irrigation of landscaped areas on or immediately adjacent to the site can also cause a fluctuation of local groundwater levels. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 53 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder TABLE 4-3 (continued) REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY Physical Parameter Information/Comments DIRECTION OF ANTICIPATED FLOW 1 (Sources: Block, Supplemental Site Assessment Report, OCGSA Katella Yard, 10852 Douglas Road, Anaheim, California, OCHCA Case No. 93UT58, dated March 24, 1998; and Block, Quarterly Fluid-Level Monitoring and Groundwater Sampling Report,January 1 – March 31, 1998, OCGSA Katella Yard, 10852 Douglas Road, Anaheim, California, OCHCA Case No. 93UT58, dated April 17, 1998) During Block’s assessments in 1997 and 1998, based on groundwater monitoring beneath the Site’s former maintenance facility, groundwater was estimated to flowin a southeasterly direction in 1997, and in an easterly direction in March 1998. Therefore, groundwater is estimated by Kleinfelder to flow in a south-southeast direction beneath the Site. REGIONAL GROUNDWATER QUALIT Y PROBLEMS (Source: APUD, 2008 Water Quality Report) Based on Kleinfelder’s review of APUD’s 2008 Water Quality Report and other available information, regional groundwater quality problems and impairments to water quality are not evident. However, as previously discussed in Section 4, Kleinfelder’s review of regulatory agency databases indicated there are several upgradient facilities where releases are known to, or may, have impacted shallow groundwater, and these releases may have impacted Site groundwater. WATER SUPPLY (Source: EDR,The EDR Radius Map with Geocheck®, beginning on p. A-10 [EDR, 2009]) The well search performed by EDR revealed there were no Federal or State supply wells located within ¼ mile of the Site. The search indicated several water supply wells are located within ½ to 1 mile northeast, northwest, west, and southwest of the Site. FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION (Source: EDR, 2009) Most of the Site is located within a 100-year flood zone, but the western Site portion of the LOSSAN Rail Corridor is instead within a 500-year flood zone. 1 Groundwater flow direction is based on regional information sources. Site-specific conditions may vary due to a variety of factors including geologic anomalies, utilities, nearby pumping wells (if present), and other factors 4.5.USER PROVIDED INFORMATION According to the Client, the purpose for performing this Phase I ESA is to satisfy the Client’s requirements in anticipation of planned redevelopment of the Site.Information regarding current Site owners/occupants is listed in Table 4-4. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 54 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder TABLE 4-4OWNER/OCCUPANT INFORMATION Entity Name OWNER Orange County Transportation Authority PROPERTY MANAGER Mr. Bill Mock, OCTA Right-of-Way Administrator, for the property at 1750 South Douglass Road. Mr. Jason Schmid for the property at 2600 East Katella Avenue. Mr. Matt Smith of Sullivan & Mann Lumber at 1790 South Douglass Road. OCCUPANT Occupants of the Site are listed in Table 3-2. Interviews of key individuals (“Key Site Managers”) are provided in Section 7.The remainder of this section presents a summary of information provided by the Client. 4.5.1.Title Records A Preliminary Title Report or Chain-of-Title Report was not provided to Kleinfelder for review prior to production of this report. These documents may provide information about land including ownership and other interests in the land, easements, and liens. Not all liens, defects, and encumbrances affecting title to the land may be included in the Preliminary Title Report. 4.5.2.Environmental Liens and Usage Limitations According to information provided in the EDR regulatory agency database search report (EDR, 2009), there are no liens listed in the US EPA’s Federal Superfund Liens List, and no known recorded land-use environmental deed restrictions pertaining to the Site listed in the State liens database. A questionnaire was provided to the Client inquiring as to their knowledge of whether there are current limitations on either activity or use of the Site. The questionnaire has not yet been returned. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 55 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 4.5.3.Value Reduction As part of the ASTM E 1527-05 process, information must be gathered regarding the prospective purchase price of the property relative to the fair market value of the subject site. If there appears to be a value reduction, that reduction must be identified with respect to whether the difference could be attributed to environmental degradation of the property. A questionnaire was provided to the Client, inquiring whether it was the Client’s opinion that the offered price of the property is/is not lower than the appraised value. A completed questionnaire has not yet been returned to Kleinfelder. 4.5.4.Other Information/Documents Provided No other information or documents were provided by the Client. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 56 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 5 HISTORY OF THE SITE ________________________________________________________________________________ The history of the Site was researched to identify obvious uses. Historical land use was researched to the first developed use, or back to 1940, whichever is earlier or readily available. Table 5-1 summarizes the availability of information reviewed during this assessment. TABLE 5-1HISTORICAL INFORMATION SOURCES Historical Record Years Available AvailabilityThrough AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS 1938, 1947, 1952, 1968, 1976, 1990, 1995, 2002, and 2005 EDR SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS Not available.EDR CITY DIRECTORIES 1920 through 2002 EDR HISTORICAL TOPOGRAPHIC MAP REPORT 1898, 1901, 1902, 1935, 1950, 1965, 1972, and 1981 EDR BUILDING DEPARTMENT Various County of Orange Department of Building and Safety and Anaheim Building Department PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT(S)Various OCTA, AFD, and OCHCA 5.1.AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS A review of historical aerial photography may indicate past activities at a property that may not be observed during a site visit or documented by other means. The effectiveness of this technique depends on the scale and quality of the photographs and the available coverage. Aerial photographs were obtained from several historical photograph collections through EDR. Aerial photographs spanning 67 years were available during the frame that this report was being prepared. A tabulation of the aerial photographs reviewed is presented in Table 5-2. Copies of the reviewed aerial photographs are included in Appendix D. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 57 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder TABLE 5-2HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS REVIEWED Date Approximate Scale Type Source Quality 1938 1” = 555’Black and White Monoscopic Laval Good 1947 1” = 666’Black and White Monoscopic Fairchild Fair 1952 1” = 555’Black and White Monoscopic Pacific Air Fair 1968 1” = 480’Black and White Monoscopic Teledyne Good 1976 1” = 666’Black and White Monoscopic Teledyne Fair 1990 1” = 666’Black and White Monoscopic USGS Good 1995 1” = 666’Black and White Monoscopic USGS Good 2002 1” = 666’Black and White Monoscopic USGS Fair 2005 1” = 484’Color EDR Good Note:Aerial photographs only provide information on indications of land use and no conclusions regarding the release of hazardous substances or petroleum products can be drawn from the review of photographs alone. The Site boundaries had to be approximated in the review of the older photographs because readily-identifiable physical features were not always apparent. A summary of the review of aerial photographs provided by EDR for the Site follows: 5.1.1.Site 1938 –The eastern portion of the Site (east of approximate present-day location of State Route 57) appears to be part of the Santa Ana River. Railroad tracks are apparent traversing the Site at the approximate present-day location of the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor. Orchards are along the railroad to the west of present-day State Route 57, including in the area of the present-day Anaheim Stadium Metrolink/Amtrak Station, which had not been constructed in 1938. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 58 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 1947 –The Site appears generally similar to in the 1938 photograph. An apparent unimproved road (Collins Avenue) bisecting the Site parcel designated as 1750 South Douglass Road is evident. 1952 –The Site appears generally similar to in the 1947 photograph. However, Collins Avenue is more prominent in the 1952 photograph, from present-day Douglass Road through the Site parcel designated 1750 South Douglass Road and toward the Santa Ana River to the east. 1968 –The orchards previously apparent on earlier photographs are no longer apparent in the 1968 photograph. The Site appears to be vacant land. 1976 –The Site has been partially developed east of Douglass Road. The present-day structure at 1730 South Douglass Road is apparent. The northern portion of 1750 South Douglass Road appears to be vacant land except for some vehicle parking. The southern portion of this parcel is developed with at least four structures, including one of the present-day brick office buildings and the existing concrete tilt-up warehouse building, corrugated metal building south of the warehouse building, and hazardous materials building. In addition, the fueling canopy and two mobile-type structures are apparent on the Site. No structures are apparent at the 2600 East Katella Avenue, 2150 East Katella Avenue, or 1790 South Douglass Road Site properties. 1990, 1995, 2002, and 2005 –The Site appears similar to that observed during the Site reconnaissance visit for this Phase I ESA. The structures apparent at that time are evident on each of the photographs. In addition to the aerial photographs provided by EDR, Kleinfelder reviewed aerial photographs in stereo as part of a geotechnical investigation for the property located at 1750 South Douglass Road. A summary of the history of the property based on aerial photographs reviewed as part of the geotechnical investigation, as presented in Kleinfelder’s Draft Technical Memorandum, Preliminary Geotechnical Data Report, dated June 3, 2009, follows: Historical aerial photography and vintage topographic maps show that the property and general vicinity was largely undeveloped or minimally developed agricultural land in the DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 59 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder early 1900s. Although it appears that levee construction along the Santa Ana River had begun by the 1920s, the river’s west bank adjacent to the property was still in a natural condition and bank erosion and sloughing was apparent. In 1938, a year of heavy rains and extensive flooding throughout southern California, the property was stripped of its vegetation. In 1939, on the property’s western boundary, diagonal levees or berm -like structures were apparent north and south of the railroad tracks (i.e., LOSSAN Railroad Corridor). The 1939 levee was approximately 50 feet wide and appeared to restrict the bank sloughing to its river-side, thus protecting orchards located to the west. Collins Avenue crossed the river from the east, bisecting the property, and turned northward to join a road that would become present-day Douglass Road. Between 1955 and 1959 quarry excavation activities had begun on the property between the railroad tracks and Collins Avenue-Douglass Road alignment. The quarry was open toward the Santa Ana River and its bottom appeared to be slightly below the river’s bottom. The approximate extent of the quarry is shown on Plate 2. Also during this time, bank erosion and sloughing of the property north of Collins Avenue had migrated westward to the 1939 levee. The Collins Avenue-Douglass Road alignment and railroad tracks were largely unaffected by the quarry excavation or the sloughing of the river bank. By the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Santa Ana River’s current levee system had been constructed between the river and the Site property. The Site property behind the current river levee (including the quarry) was filled and, by the mid- 1970s, the property had been developed and the current alignment of Douglass Road was completed. By the late 1970s, State Route 57 was constructed. The quarry appears to have been filled in with undocumented fill material, which represents a REC to the Site. 5.1.2.Surrounding Areas 1938 –Katella Avenue and Douglass Road are not apparent in the 1938 photograph. The Santa Ana River is visible but no to minimal flood control improvements are evident. The adjoining areas north and south of the eastern portion of the Site appear to be part of the Santa Ana River. Orchards are shown adjoining to the north and south of the existing LOSSAN Railroad Corridor (west of present-day State Route 57). No structures are apparent in the Site vicinity. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 60 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 1947 –The Site vicinity appears generally similar to in the 1938 photograph. Douglass Road appears to be an unimproved road from approximately the Site location 1730 South Douglass Road and north through the intersection with Katella Avenue. 1952 –The Site vicinity appears generally similar to in the 1947 photograph. 1968 –Katella Avenue appears to have been improved and is evident north of the eastern portion of the Site, and intersecting the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor at the Site’s approximate western end. Structures are visible to the north of Katella Avenue (at the present-day location of the Honda Center) where it intersects Douglass Road. Douglass Road has been improved and extends south from Katella Avenue and terminates south of the railroad tracks (the present-day LOSSAN Railroad Corridor) into the parking lot of the Angel Stadium, which is now visible in this photograph. Orchards remain to the north of the railroad tracks (LOSSAN Railroad Corridor) and west of present-day State Route 57, which is not visible in this photograph). A structure is apparent to the north of the Site’s western end (where it intersects Katella Avenue). Beyond Katella Avenue, to the northwest of the Site’s western end, three structures with the configuration of a typical gasoline station are evident. 1976 –Increased development is apparent north of Katella Avenue at the location of the present-day Honda Center. The Santa Ana River appears to be in the process of being channelized, and State Route 57 has been constructed. No structures are evident between Douglass Road and State Route 57. Development of the property north of the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor (west of State Route 57) appears to be underway. Structures are visible southwest of the Site at the present-day location of the Grove of Anaheim. Structures further to the southeast appear to be in the configuration of a typical gasoline station. 1990, 1995, 2002, and 2005 –The Site vicinity appears similar to that observed during our Phase I ESA Site reconnaissance. The structures apparent at that time are evident on each of the photographs. Based on a review of historical aerial photographs, no environmental concerns were observed on the surrounding properties, other than the possible gasoline stations noted northwest of the Site’s western end and south of the present-day Grove of Anaheim, of which the presence of the gasoline station to the north of the western end of the Site DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 61 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder suggests evidence of a potential REC for the Site. Based on Kleinfelder’s review of EDR’s environmental regulatory database report (EDR, 2009), a Shell gasoline station was located to the northwest of the Site at one of the possible gasoline station locations, which had a release. Case closure was granted by the regulatory agency. It is Kleinfelder’s opinion that this facility may remain an environmental concern that represents a potential REC to the Site.The gasoline station facility south of The Grove of Anaheim is not considered an environmental concern based on its distance and downgradient location from the Site. 5.2.SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps provide historical land use inform ation for some metropolitan areas and small established towns. Kleinfelder requested a search of Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps by EDR, which indicated Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps were not available for the Site (see Appendix D). 5.3.CITY DIRECTORIES City Directories provide information regarding property occupants by address. These directories were reviewed by EDR and summarized in a report contained in Appendix D. The review was performed in approximate 5-year increments. In summary, only the 1730 South Douglass Road Site address was listed, in the 1975 and 1986 directories, and listed occupants were “Lockridge Anne Realty” and “Calif Practice Sales,” respectively. Other Site addresses were not listed in the City Directories researched by EDR. Listed adjoining properties consisted primarily of commercial facilities, from approximately 1975 through the present. Based on our review of City Directories, there was no indication that off-Site businesses are likely to have handled large quantities of hazardous m aterials. 5.4.HISTORICAL TOPOGRAPHIC MAP REVIEW Kleinfelder obtained information regarding historical topographic maps of the Site vicinity from EDR. The topographic maps reviewed for this assessment are listed below in Table 5-3. Copies of the maps are included in Appendix D. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 62 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder TABLE 5-3 HISTORICAL TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS REVIEWED Year Quadrangle Series Scale 1898 Anaheim 15 minute 1:62,500 1901 Southern CA Sheet 1 60 minute 1:250,000 1902 Corona 30 minute 1:125,000 1935 Garden Grove 7.5 minute 1:31,680 1950 Anaheim 7.5 minute 1:24,000 1965 Anaheim 7.5 minute 1:24,000 1972 (photorevised from 1965) Anaheim 7.5 minute 1:24,000 1981 (photorevised from 1965) Anaheim 7.5 minute 1:24,000 5.4.1.Site 1898, 1901, and 1902 –The Santa Ana River is depicted as a river adjoining the Site to the east, with no apparent flood control improvements indicated. Douglass Road and Katella Avenue are not shown on these maps and no structures are depicted. 1935 –The Site is depicted with no structures and appears to be vacant land.The easternmost portion of the Site is part of the adjoining Santa Ana River to the east. An unimproved road is shown bisecting the Site parcel presently designated as 1750 South Douglass Avenue. No structures are depicted on the Site. 1950 and 1965 –The area of the eastern portion of the Site (approximately east of present-day Douglass Road) is shown as part of the Santa Ana River. An unimproved road (Collins Road) is shown bisecting the Site parcel presently designated as 1750 South Douglass Avenue.No structures are depicted on the site on the 1950 and 1965 maps. 1972 –The southern portion of the Site property at 1750 South Douglass Road is developed with three structures. The remaining areas of the Site are depicted without structures, suggesting they are vacant land. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 63 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 1981 –The Site is depicted generally similar as on the 1972 map. However, two additional structures are depicted on the southern portion of the Site property at 1750 South Douglass Road, and the present-day buildings at 1730 South Douglass Road and 2600 East Katella Avenue are shown. 5.4.2.Surrounding Areas 1898, 1901, and 1902 –The Site vicinity is depicted without structures and appears to be vacant land. The Santa Ana River is evident on each of these maps 1935 and 1950 –The Site vicinity appears to remain vacant land. Douglass Road is shown adjoining to that portion of the Site occupied by 1730 South Douglass Road and 2600 East Katella Avenue. 1965 –Katella Avenue is depicted to the north of the Site and where it intersects the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor at the Site’s western end. The Anaheim Stadium is depicted to the south of the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor. Several structures are shown north of Katella Avenue where it intersects Douglass Road. Orchards are depicted to the north of the western Site portion of the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor and the present- day Amtrak/Metrolink Station location. 1972 –Katella Avenue is depicted adjoining to the north of the Site property at 1750 South Douglass Road, with commercial structures and a trailer park depicted beyond. Increased development is depicted northwest of the Site’s western end, beyond Katella Avenue. 1981 –Douglass Road is depicted adjoining the properties at 1730 and 1750 South Douglass Road, and 2600 East Katella Avenue, beyond which are depicted numerous structures at the present-day business park and Ayers Hotel locations. Katella Avenue adjoins the Site to the north, where it intersects Douglass Road, with commercial structures depicted beyond. Increased development is depicted north and northwest of Katella Avenue at the Site’s western end. The topographic map review identified no environmental concerns on the Site or surrounding properties that suggest evidence of a REC to the Site. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 64 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 5.5.BUILDING DEPARTMENT RECORDS Records for the Site were reviewed online at the APUD web site (http://gis.anaheim.net/ParcelInfo) and copies were provided by the County of Orange Department of Building and Safety. A summary of documents available for each Site parcel is included in Section 4.3. Zoning information for the Site parcels is included in Table 3-2. Copies of available documents and associated maps are included in Appendix D. 5.6.PREVIOUS ASSESSMENTS Reports summarizing previous environmental assessments of the Site were provided by Mr. Bill Mock, Right of Way Administrator for OCTA. A summary of these assessments follows: Hazardous Materials Assessment (Environmental Site Assessment) for Katella Yard Facility, 1750 South Douglass Road in the City of Anaheim, dated May 16, 2005 –PFRD, Environmental Resources Section performed a Phase I ESA for the Katella Yard portion of the Site. At the time of the assessment the Katella Yard included three buildings containing offices and a laboratory associated with the RDMD, Agricultural Commissioner, Public Works/Operations and Maintenance, and Watershed and Coastal Resources Division/Environmental Resources; one building containing warehouse storage and maintenance shops; one cinderblock building for storage of hazardous paint materials; four covered vehicle and heavy equipment parking areas; two covered vehicle cleaning areas with drains to the sanitary sewer; one covered materials storage area; and mobile office trailers for office storage overflow. The northern portion of the property consisted of an irregularly-shaped asphalt parking area. Based on the findings of the assessment, it was concluded that a petroleum release had occurred on the Site, but was issued case closure by the regulatory agency. The release was considered a historical REC and found not to be an environmental concern. An off-Site LUST case (Inland Specialty Chemical Corporation and CA Centrifugal Pump Inc.) east of the Site beyond the Santa Ana River was found to be a contributor of chlorinated solvent contamination affecting groundwater. However, because the plume was found paralleling the eastern side of the Santa Ana River, it was concluded not to be an environmental concern to the Site. Based on the results of the ESA, no evidence of contamination was found associated with the Site. Although not considered a REC by the ASTM Standard, an asbestos survey was recommended for the property based on the construction date of the on-Site buildings. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 65 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Environmental Evaluation, Katella Yard/ARTIC Site, 1750 South Douglass Road, Anaheim, California, dated October 26, 2006 –Ninyo & Moore performed an environmental review of the RDMD HMA report (summarized above), and performed a reconnaissance of the Site to compare the report to the current ASTM E 1527-05 Standard and recommend sampling and analysis of Site soil, groundwater, or other media. Based on its review Ninyo & Moore concluded that the report did not meet current industry standards for preparation of a Phase I ESA. Ninyo & Moore identified deficiencies, which included lack of review of building department and other agency records. Additionally, in absence of the additional information from these agencies, Ninyo & Moore recommended sampling and analysis of soil and groundwater in the vicinity of the former and current USTs and in the vicinity of the hydraulic lifts and clarifiers, recent pavement patches near one of the wash areas, and a sealed drain inlet. Supplemental Environmental Evaluation dated December 1, 2006 –Ninyo & Moore prepared a Supplemental Environmental Evaluation to evaluate the areas of concern noted in its October 26, 2006 Environmental Evaluation report (summarized above). As part of this evaluation Ninyo & Moore obtained an updated environmental database report, reviewed agency records, and performed soil and groundwater sampling. Based on its review of the updated environmental database, two LUST cases associated with the Site were identified. LUST Case No. 93UT058 was opened in 1993 pertaining to a fuel leak near the USTs. The USTs were removed and case closure was issued on June 19, 1998. A second LUST Case, No. 083003990T, was opened in December 2003 due to the discovery of a diesel fuel release to soil. The case was listed as an open case,but OCHCA and AFD records did not show an open case at the Site. In addition, three upgradient, off- Site facilities were listed in the LUST Database. One of the three was listed with an open case, the Shell Oil Products facility located at 2331 Katella Avenue. However, Ninyo & Moore indicated, based on the distance from the Site, that there was a low likelihood that that the environmental condition of the Site had been adversely affected. Ninyo & Moore reviewed records at OCHCA related to Site LUST Case No.93UT058 and determined that the Site received case closure by SARWQCB in 1998 but the case remained open with OCHCA. OCHCA required the installation of a soil vapor extraction system and three groundwater monitoring wells. OCHCA subsequently issued case closure for the Site in 2003, after which the groundwater monitoring wells were abandoned. Ninyo & Moore reviewed AFD records, which revealed hazardous materials commonly used/stored at the Site included industrial cleaners, welding gases, calcium chloride, cold mix asphalt, concrete, pesticides, and herbicides. Records also revealed that two USTS were located on the Site, west of the dispenser islands. No violations were reported concerning the USTs. A review of Orange County Department of Building and Safety records revealed various building, DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 66 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder mechanical, electrical, and plumbing permits, but the records contained no information deemed to be significant to the environmental evaluation. The City of Anaheim Planning and Building Departments reportedly had no records on file for the Site. As part of the Supplemental Environmental Evaluation, Ninyo & Moore performed soil sampling at the Site in the vicinity of the USTs, sealed floor drain, clarifier outlets, and hazardous waste storage area. Groundwater samples were collected from two locations near the clarifiers. Soil samples collected from the UST area were analyzed for VOCs and TPH. The remaining soil samples and the two groundwater samples were analyzed for VOCs, TPH, and Title 22 Metals. No VOCs were detected in soil or groundwater samples And no TPH was detected in groundwater samples. TPH concentrations in two soil samples collected from the UST area at a depth of 15 feet bgs were below Maximum Soil Screening Levels established by the “LARWQCB”. Metals detected in soil were below US EPA’s Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for Title 22 Metals in Industrial Soil with the exception of arsenic detected at a concentration of 2.3 mg/kg in one soil sample collected at 10 feet bgs near a clarifier. However, the arsenic concentration was below published regional background concentrations for arsenic. Title 22 Metals concentrations in groundwater exceeding US EPAs PRGs for tap water included molybdenum, selenium, and vanadium, and total chromium concentrations exceeded the California Department of Health Service’s Drinking Water MCL. However, Ninyo & Moore concluded, based on historic and current Site uses, that the metals in groundwater were not related to the Site operations and/or a Site release and were instead indicative of the regional character of groundwater within the Lower Santa Ana River Basin. Based on the findings of the Supplemental Environmental Evaluation, Ninyo & Moore indicated that additional sampling was not recommended. However, it recommended assessment in the area of the hydraulic lifts once the County of Orange ceased operations. Facility Closure Report, County of Orange Katella Yard, dated November 2008 –Haley & Aldrich prepared this report as a Post-Closure Report summarizing the closure of three hydraulic lifts and four wastewater clarifiers under the oversight of OCHCA, the removal of two USTs, and the closure of an open case (Regional Board Case No. 83001056T) related to the previous removal of two USTs. Hazardous materials that were removed from the facility included a 500-gallon waste oil AST; 100-gallon hydraulic oil AST; 55-gallon drums of antifreeze, lubricating oil, machine oil, and window wash solution; 5-gallon buckets of paint; 1-gallon containers of “Habitat and Reward”; and cylinders of acetylene, nitrogen, and oxygen. Past Site activities related to the operation and maintenance areas included storage areas for paints, pesticides and other consumables; four equipment wash down areas and associated clarifiers;a wood shop; welding shop; sign shop; and paint-mixing areas. Haley DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 67 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder & Aldrich noted that pesticides were not mixed within the shop areas of the facility, but rather were mixed within the vehicle delivery systems. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 68 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 6 SITE RECONNAISSANCE ________________________________________________________________________________ Kleinfelder’s assessment activities included a Site reconnaissance. This section summarizes the findings from the Site reconnaissance. 6.1.METHODOLOGY AND LIMITING CONDITIONS Ms. Margaret Carroll of Kleinfelder performed Site reconnaissance visits on June 10 and 23, 2009. The Site reconnaissance visits included a visual inspection of the Site to assist in identifying the presence or likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum hydrocarbons under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or threat of release into structures, soil, groundwater, or surface water at the Site (i.e., RECs). Observations of readily apparent environmental conditions are summarized in Table 6-1, and color photographs of the Site are presented on Plates 4 through 7. The approximate Site boundaries are shown on Plate 2, “Site and Vicinity Map.” 6.2.GENERAL SITE SETTING The Site is located generally at the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and Douglass Road in the city of Anaheim, California. The Site is an irregularly-shaped area of land consisting of portions or all of nine parcels of land that are occupied by commercial buildings, a former operation and maintenance facility, a lumber facility, a portion of the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor, and the Anaheim Stadium Metrolink/Am trak Station (see Plate 2). 6.3.SITE OBSERVATIONS Site observations are further described in Table 6-1. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 69 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder TABLE 6-1 SITE OBSERVATIONS General Observations Remarks Observed Not Observed Current use(s)See Table 3-2.X Current use likely to indicate RECs Potential chemical use at the Sullivan & Mann Lumber Company at 1790 South Douglass Road. X Past use Parts of Site used for agricultural purposes (orchards) and quarrying activities. X Past use likely to indicate RECs Potential residual pesticides in the orchard areas, and undocumented fill material in the former quarry area located on the southern portion of the property at 1750 South Douglass Road. X Structures See Table 3-3.X Roads/Railways A portion of the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor traverses the Site in an east-west direction from the bike path on the east to Katella Avenue on the west. X Topography of Site and surrounding area The Site slopes generally to the south-southeast.X AST Two ASTs were observed at the Sullivan & Mann Lumber Company facility at 1790 South Douglass Road. The ASTs were labeled as containing Sodium Silicate Grade 40. One of the ASTs appeared to be empty. According to Mr. Matt Smith of Sullivan & Mann Lumber, the ASTs contain water. X DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 70 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder TABLE 6-1 (continued) SITE OBSERVATIONS General Observations Remarks Observed Not Observed Asbestos and lead Based on the construction date of the on-Site buildings asbestos and lead may be present. Kleinfelder is concurrently performing an ACM and LBP survey for the on-Site structures and will submit the results under separate cover. X Belowgrade vaults X Burned or buried debris X Chemical storage Chemicals were observed to be stored in a mobile storage container at 1750 South Douglass Road and at the Sullivan & Mann Lumber Company facility at 1790 South Douglass Road. X Chemical mixing areas X Discolored soil or water X Ditches, streams X Drains and piping (e.g., floor drains, floor trenches, bay drains, sand traps, or grease traps) A drain was observed beneath a canopy on the southern portion of the facility located at 1750 South Douglass Road. No staining was observed in the immediate vicinity of the drain. X Drums A 55-gallon drum was observed at the Sullivan & Mann Company facility at 1790 South Douglass Road. The drum was labeled as containing a redwood stain, consisting of kaolin and red/yellow oxide. In addition, four 55-gallon drums labeled to contain Dyed Diesel #2 were observed at this Site location. Further details are included in Section 6.4. X Electrical or hydraulic equipment (polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs]) Pad-mounted electrical transformers were observed on the Site. No leaking or staining was observed on the ground surrounding the transformers. Therefore, the local utility company was not contacted for additional information. X DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 71 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder TABLE 6-1 (continued) SITE OBSERVATIONS Interior and exterior observations or environmental conditions that mayinvolve the use, storage, disposal or generation of hazardous substances or petroleum products. Observed Not Observed Fill dirt from an unknown source Although not observed, undocumented fill material has been placed in the former quarry located on the southern portion of the property at the 1750 South Douglass Road parcel, based on a geotechnical assessment performed by Kleinfelder. X Fill dirt from a known source X Hazardous chemical and petroleum products in connection with known use Four 55-gallon drums of dyed diesel were observed at the Sullivan & Mann Lumber Company facility. These drums contain diesel to provide fuel for an on-Site portable generator. X Hazardous chemical and petroleum products in connection with unknown use X Non-hazardous containers with contents X Hazardous waste storage X Heating and cooling system and fuel source Provided by local utility companies.X Industrial waste treatment equipment X Loading and unloading areas X Odors X Pits, ponds, or lagoons X Pools of liquid X Process waste water X Sanitary sewer system Provided by local utility company.X Septic system (e.g. tank and leach fields) X Soil piles X DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 72 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder TABLE 6-1 (continued) SITE OBSERVATIONS Interior and exterior observations or environmental conditions that mayinvolve the use, storage, disposal or generation of hazardous substances or petroleum products. Observed Not Observed Solid waste/evidence of unauthorized dumping X Stained pavement, soil, or concrete Staining was observed at the Sullivan & Mann Lumber Company facility at 1790 South Douglass Road and the property at 1750 South Douglass Road. Further details are discussed in Section 6.4. X Stains or corrosion (interior, non-water) See above.X Storm drains/catch basins Storm drains were observed within the parking lot areas of the Site facility at 1750 South Douglass Road. X Stressed vegetation X Sumps and clarifiers X Surface water X Underground storage tank(s) (including heating oil tanks) X Unidentified substance containers Two unlabeled 55-gallon drums were observed in a work area at the Sullivan & Mann Lumber Company facility at 1790 South Douglass Road. X Waste water discharge X Water supplies (potable and process) Provided by the local utility company. X DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 73 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder TABLE 6-1 (continued) SITE OBSERVATIONS Interior and exterior observations or environmental conditions that mayinvolve the use, storage, disposal or generation of hazardous substances or petroleum products. Observed Not Observed Wells (irrigation, monitoring, or domestic) None on Site. A monitoring well was observed just off-Site, however, near the southeastern corner of the former maintenance facility at 1750 South Douglass Road. This well does not appear to be associated with previous assessments performed at the Site. The owner and use of the well are unknown to Kleinfelder. According to Ninyo & Moore’s Supplemental Environmental Evaluation report dated December 1, 2006, however, this well is part of a regional groundwater monitoring program and not used to monitor local impacts. X Wells (dry)X Wells (oil and gas )X 6.4.RESULTS OF SITE RECONNAISSANCE A summary of the results of the Site reconnaissance at the individual Site locations follows: 2600 East Katella Avenue –The building located at 2600 East Katella Avenue is situated on the western portion a larger parcel of land (APN 232-07-005) that totals approximately 1.67 acres. The structure consists of two tenant suites and is located on the western portion of this larger parcel. One of the suites is currently vacant and the other is currently occupied by a fireplace retail store. No evidence of hazardous materials usage or storage was observed at the time of our Site reconnaissance. 1730 South Douglass Road –The building located at 1730 South Douglass Road is situated at the southwestern corner of a larger parcel of land (APN 232-07-005) that totals approximately 1.67 acres. The building at this location is currently vacant and appears to have been a residence that was converted into an office. No evidence of hazardous materials usage or storage was observed at the time of our Site reconnaissance. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 74 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 1750 South Douglass Road (formerly 10852 Douglass Road)–This portion of the Site comprises one parcel of land (APN 232-07-003) that is bounded generally by Katella Avenue on the north, the Santa Ana River on the east, the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor on the south, and Douglass Road on the west. For purposes of discussion, the parcel will be discussed with reference to its northern portion (approximately the northern one third of the parcel) and the southern portion (approximately the southern two thirds of the parcel). Northern Portion: The northern portion of this parcel consists of an asphalt-paved parking lot with area light posts throughout. Two structures are located on the northern portion of the property.The first is a vacant office building, labeled to be an Agricultural Commissioner’s office, located near the property’s southwestern corner. Concrete curbs were observed to the west of this building. Based on Kleinfelder’s review of available ALTA Survey maps, two modular buildings were formerly situated to the west of the building, and the curbs apparently were used as the base for the modular buildings. The second building is a canopy covering a concrete-paved area near the southeastern corner of the property. A rectangular, gravel-filled pit was observed beneath the canopy. Based on information obtained during this Phase I ESA, the pit was the location of a former clarifier. A chain-link fence separates the northern portion of the parcel from the southern portion of the parcel, discussed below. Southern Portion: The southern portion of this parcel includes the following structures: Two brick office buildings are located on the northwestern portion of the property. These buildings are partially occupied by offices, with the remaining areas vacant. Evidence of a laboratory (i.e., labels on cabinets indicating storage of neutralizing reagents, caustics, abrasives, alkalines, acids, bases, and mercury-containing substances) was observed within the northeastern portion of this building. A pad-mounted electrical transformer was observed to the east of the buildings. No leakage or staining was observed on or in the vicinity of the transformer. Several mobile storage containers were observed to the south of the buildings. The southern-most had various containers of lubricants, striping paint, asphalt emulsion, gasoline cans, portable generators, and small cans of oil and spray paint. There were no individual stored containers with a capacity greater than 5 gallons observed. Access to the remaining storage containers was not provided to Kleinfelder. No evidence of leakage or staining was observed on the asphalt or immediately adjacent to the storage containers. Portable lights, railroad crossing equipm ent, and other miscellaneous pieces of equipment were observed adjacent to the storage containers. A mobile trailer was observed to the east of the storage containers and appeared to be used for office purposes. A concrete tilt-up building is located at the approximate center of the southern portion of the parcel and is currently vacant. The majority of the building is an DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 75 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder open warehouse. Smaller bay areas, accessed by roll-up doors, are along the southern and eastern sides of the building. The southwestern bays are being used for miscellaneous storage by the occupants of the office buildings, and the remaining bays are empty. Kleinfelder observed concrete patches within the floor of the bay located at the southeastern corner of the building. Based on information reviewed as part of this Phase I ESA, the concrete patches are at the locations of former in-ground hydraulic hoists. A raised concrete pad surrounded by ballasts was observed outside the southeastern corner of the building. This area was form erly the location of an AST. No evidence of staining was observed at this location. A canopy is to the east of the concrete tilt-up building at the eastern boundary of the parcel. The canopy covers a concrete slab with a gravel-filled pit. Based on information reviewed as part of this Phase I ESA, the pit is the location of another former clarifier. A concrete ramp leading up to a raised concrete area was observed immediately south of the canopy. Kleinfelder understands this ramp was associated with a modular building that was formerly located in this area of the Site. A wooden building is to the north of the above-noted canopy at the eastern boundary of the parcel. This structure was being used to store a recreational vehicle and boat. A concrete ram p immediately south of this building leads to a locked gate at the bike path. No evidence of hazardous materials use or storage was observed within this building. A corrugated metal building, which is open along the northern and southern sides, is located to the south of the concrete tilt-up building. Concrete floor slabs were observed within the building. A rectangular gravel-filled pit was observed within the building, but its former use is unknown to Kleinfelder. No evidence of staining was observed within this building. A fenced area outside the western side of the building appears to have been a former storage outside storage area. A gravel-filled pit was observed beneath a canopy outside the eastern end of the building. Based on information reviewed as part of this Phase I ESA, this pit is the location of a former clarifier. A canopy is located to the east of the corrugated metal building at the eastern boundary of the parcel. The canopy covers a concrete slab that contains a gravel-filled pit.Based on information reviewed as part of this Phase I ESA, the pit is the location of a former clarifier. A canopy is also located to the west of the corrugated metal building, and was associated with a former fueling area. Concrete and asphalt patches in the area of the former fueling facility are at the former locations of USTs. Evidence of past subsurface assessments (i.e., patched holes indicative of boring locations) was observed in this area. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 76 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Another canopy is to the south of the corrugated metal building at the southern boundary of the parcel. The canopy covered a concrete slab. The area beneath the canopy is divided into smaller areas by chain-link fencing, and each of these areas is bordered by a concrete berm. A floor drain was observed within the area at the eastern end. In addition, evidence of possible former paint storage (i.e., the presence of paint stains with circular shapes like 1-gallon size cans) was observed beneath this canopy. Another area beneath the canopy was labeled on the floor as an area for absorbent materials. A brick building is located at the southeastern corner of the parcel. This building was formerly used as a hazardous materials storage building, as evidenced by a sign on the door labeled “PFRD/Transportation Fleet Management Hazmat Storage.” Labels on the interior walls indicated the building was used for the storage of various oils and grease. Minor staining was observed on the floor within the building. Small cracks were also observed in the concrete floor. A concrete berm area outside the northern side of the building appeared to be stained with paint, and the asphalt appeared to be etched. A monitoring well vault was observed immediately off-Site to the east of this building, adjacent to the southeastern corner of the parcel between the Site and off-Site bike path. It is unknown what the monitoring well is used for. Kleinfelder did not identify the owner or purpose of this monitoring well, but based on information obtained during this Phase I ESA, it does not appear this well is associated with previous assessments performed on the Site. 1790 South Douglass Road –This portion of the Site consists of one parcel (APN 386-52-017) presently occupied by Sullivan & Mann Lumber Company. The northern portion of the parcel is an unpaved area. Lumber is stored on asphalt generally on the central portion of the parcel. Two 300-gallon ASTs were observed within the lumber storage area and at least one of the ASTs was empty. The ASTs were labeled to contain Sodium Silicate Grade 40. According to Mr. Matt Smith, of Sullivan & Mann Lumber Company, these ASTs contain water. A wooden building is located at the southern corner of the parcel and is used for storage of weight equipment. A covered storage area and corrugated metal building beyond it are located immediately north of the wooden building. The covered area is used for parking and storage. A 55-gallon drum containing redwood stain, which contains kaolin and red/yellow oxide, was observed beneath the covered area on a wooden pallet. No staining was observed on the ground beneath the drum. In addition, five 5-gallon buckets of exterior acrylic wood stain and masonry flat paint were observed beneath the canopy. A portable generator was also observed in this area. The corrugated metal building is used for storage purposes. Four 55-gallon drums stored on wooden pallets were observed in the southern portion of this building. The drums were labeled as containing Dyed Diesel No. 2. Mr. Smith indicated that the diesel is used to fuel the generator, on an as -needed basis. No running water or electricity is provided to this Site parcel. A machine shop and welding area were observed in the northeastern portion of the corrugated metal building. Mr. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 77 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Smith indicated that his truck drivers use this area for storage of parts, and have used this area occasionally to assemble parts. Moderate to heavy oil staining was observed on the equipment and on the ground beneath it in this area of the building. A work area was observed to the north of the corrugated metal building. A rectangular dipping tank was observed to be filled with a blue-green liquid, which Mr. Smith indicated is a vat used for dyeing posts with a water-based paint. At the time of the Site reconnaissance a worker was observed dipping wooden stakes into the tank and dyeing the wood prior to it being stored in the lumber storage area. Heavy blue-green staining was observed in this work area. A concrete drainage swale was observed to the north of the work area, leading to a drain to the east near the bike path. The concrete swale was also observed to traverse to the south (and west of the corrugated metal building) and then southeast (south of the wooden building), leading to a drain at the southeastern corner of the parcel. Blue-green staining was observed within the concrete swale. Two unlabeled 55-gallon drums were observed in the work area. 2150 East Katella Avenue –This part of the Site consists of a portion of a larger parcel (APN 232-01-040) at its northern boundary where it meets the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor. The remainder of the larger parcel is a parking lot associated with the Anaheim Stadium Metrolink/Amtrak Station and adjoining Anaheim Stadium. The Anaheim Stadium Metrolink/Amtrak Station is part of the Site and consists of a passenger ticket sales building and passenger loading/unloading area. A small concrete structure was observed to the west of the passenger ticket sales building. Access to this Site building was not available at the tim e of our Site reconnaissance. An electric vehicle charging station was observed to the east of the building. No evidence of hazardous materials use or storage was observed on this portion of the Site. LOSSAN Railroad Corridor –The LOSSAN Railroad Corridor is situated at an elevation approximately 10 feet higher than the adjoining immediate area and traverses the Site in an east-west direction, separating the 1750 South Douglass Road Site parcel (to the north) from the 1790 South Douglass Road Site parcel (to the south), then continuing west through the Anaheim Stadium Metrolink/Amtrak Station to Katella Avenue at the west end of the Site. A small concrete structure is located at the western end of the Site portion of the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor, along Katella Avenue. Access to this structure was not provided to Kleinfelder, but according to Ms. Jamie Lai with the City of Anaheim, this structure reportedly contains a domestic . DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 78 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 7 INTERVIEWS ________________________________________________________________________________ The names of “Key Site Managers” were provided to Kleinfelder by Jones & Stokes. Key Site Managers are contacted to obtain current and historical environmental information concerning the Site. Kleinfelder interviewed Mr. Bill Mock of OCTA at the time of the Site visit and subsequently by telephone. Kleinfelder also interviewed Mr. Matt Smith of Sullivan & Mann Lumber Company. The following sections highlight information revealed during the interviews. 7.1.INTERVIEW WITH OWNER/MANAGER Mr. Bill Mock, Right of Way Administrator for OCTA, who is the property owner of the Site’s 1750 South Douglass Road parcel, completed an Interview Questionnaire provided to him by Kleinfelder on June 22, 2009. According to Mr. Mock, the property at 1750 South Douglass Road was used for transportation operations and maintenance activities from 1977 to December 2008. Occupants have included the Orange County Flood Control District, Orange County Resources and Development Management Department, and other associated agencies. Mr. Mock indicated that there were three structures that contained offices and a laboratory, warehouse and storage areas, vehicle maintenance shops, four covered vehicle and heavy equipment parking areas, two covered vehicle washing areas, one building used for storage of paint materials, one covered materials storage area, and several mobile office trailers. Each of the structures was used in connection with transportation operations and maintenance from 1977 to December 2008. Specific information pertaining to hazardous materials was included in environmental reports that Mr. Mock provided, and that information is summarized in Section 5.6. Mr. Matt Smith of Sullivan & Mann Company was interviewed regarding the property at 1790 South Douglass Road. Mr. Smith has been with Sullivan & Mann Lumber Company for approximately 15 years. He indicated that the County formerly owned the property, and Sullivan & Mann Lumber Company has occupied this Site parcel for approximately 7 or 8 years. The existing buildings were present when it took occupancy of the property. No running water or electricity has been provided to this DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 79 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder parcel since Sullivan & Mann Lumber Company has occupied it. Mr. Smith indicated Sullivan & Mann Lumber Company has not performed wood treating, but performs dyeing of wooden posts and provides finished products wholesale to plant nurseries and commercial facilities. He indicated that other chemicals or solvents have not been used at the facility. He indicated the 55-gallon drums at this property contain dyed diesel to fuel a portable generator, which is used on an as-needed basis when electricity is necessary. He said the machine shop in the northeast corner of the warehouse building is used by his truck drivers to occasionally assemble parts. Mr. Smith indicated the blue-green dye is mixed with water and is used in a vat to stain the wood a blue-green color prior to shipping it. He said that the dye is water based. Ms. Tarisa Calato with the City of Anaheim obtained information from former employees of the Anaheim Stadium Metrolink/Amtrak Station. Ms. Susan Brown, employee of the Station since February 1996, did not have information relevant to the historical operations at the property or the use of hazardous materials. Mr. Ben Lamas, an employee of the Station from 1976 through 1994, and again in 2002, indicated that the station was operated by Santa Fe Railroad from 1976 to 1994. Prior to that time, the area was occupied by orange groves owned by Anaheim City Councilperson and Mayor Adolph J. Schutte. Mr. Lamas indicated the property was vacant for approximately 18 months prior to the construction of the Anaheim Stadium and he oversaw the landscaping of the station during this time. He indicated Santa Fe Railroad dumped an oil-like substance on the rail ties and raised gravel slope area for weed abatement purposes, and that daisies that grew at the bottom of the slope began dying. Mr. Lama indicated that Mr. Leo Kole, a consultant to the “Convention Center and Stadium,” suggested that he collect a sample of the plant and submit it for laboratory testing. Mr. Lama wrote on the questionnaire that the results indicated the presence of the chemical “borron.” Mr. Lama also reported that a pre-emergent (“Ron Star”) was used on the landscaping in the area prior to the State’s new mandate to cease using pre-emergents out of concern that they may affect groundwater. He said the facility changed to use of the “post-emergent” Round Up, as suggested by the Orange County Agricultural Department. Mr. Jason Schmid, owner of the property at 2600 through 2620 East Katella Avenue, also completed an Interview Questionnaire that was provided to him by Kleinfelder. Based on Mr. Schmid’s responses to the questionnaire, the structures on the parcel DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 80 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder were formerly occupied by electrical distribution, video equipm ent sales, and medical offices. No hazardous materials or wastes were reportedly used at this Site location. 7.2.INTERVIEW WITH OCCUPANTS Other than interviews of Mr. Bill Mock and Mr. Matt Smith (discussed above), Site occupants were not interviewed as part of this assessment. 7.3.INTERVIEWS WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS Local government officials were interviewed to obtain further information about environmental enforcement actions pending or ongoing at the Site and adjacent facilities, or relevant permits (e.g. building, air quality, well abandonment, etc.) for the site and adjoining facilities. The information obtained has been incorporated elsewhere in the text of this report. 7.4.INTERVIEW WITH CLIENT/OTHERS Interviews with the Client or others were not deemed necessary, based on the information received from/provided by others as part of this Phase I ESA. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 81 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 8 EVALUATION ________________________________________________________________________________ Kleinfelder performed this Phase I ESA of the Site in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-05. The following sections describe Kleinfelder’s findings and provide general background information about the Site. Findings include RECs, historical RECs, and notation of de minimus quantities, as applicable to the site. Business environmental risk issues are discussed in Section 8.3, Deviations. In summary, Kleinfelder’s assessment revealed the following information about the Site: 8.1.BACKGROUND The Site is an irregularly-shaped area of land consisting of nine parcels of land, or portions thereof, that are occupied by commercial buildings, a former operations and maintenance facility, a lumber facility, a portion of the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor, the Anaheim Stadium Metrolink/Amtrak Station, and vacant land (see Plate 2). The vacant parcels are small areas along the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor and are not associated with an address. A summary of the findings and opinions is discussed in Section 8.2. 8.2.FINDINGS AND OPINIONS Based on the results of this Phase I ESA, the following is a summary of our findings and opinions: 2600 East Katella Avenue –The building located at 2600 East Katella Avenue is situated on the western portion of a larger parcel of land (APN 232-07-005) that totals approximately 1.67 acres of land. This portion of the Site was historically vacant land until 1978, when the existing structure was constructed. Currently, one commercial structure consisting of two tenant suites is located on the western portion of this larger parcel. A fireplace retail store occupies one tenant suite and the other is vacant. No evidence of hazardous materials usage or storage was observed at the time of our Site reconnaissance. This Site address was not listed in the regulatory agency databases searched by EDR. No evidence of a REC was noted at this property. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 82 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 1730 South Douglass Road –The building located at 1730 South Douglass Road is situated at the southwestern corner of a larger parcel of land (APN 232-07-005) that totals approximately 1.67 acres of land. This portion of the Site was historically vacant land until 1973, when the existing building was constructed. Currently, the building at this location is a vacant office. No evidence of hazardous materials usage or storage was observed at the time of our Site reconnaissance. This Site address was not listed in databases searched by EDR. No evidence of a REC was noted at this property. 1750 South Douglass Road (formerly 10852 Douglass Road)–This portion of the Site comprises one parcel of land (APN 232-07-003) that is bounded generally by Katella Avenue on the north, the Santa Ana River on the east, the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor on the south, and Douglass Road and APN 232-07-005 on the west. For purposes of this report, the parcel will be discussed with reference to its northern portion (approximately the northern one third of the parcel) and the southern portion (approximately the southern two thirds of the parcel). This Site parcel was historically vacant land that appeared to be part of the adjacent Santa Ana River (to the east) until at least 1968. Based on a review of historical aerial photographs performed as part of a geotechnical assessment performed by Kleinfelder, and documented in our Draft Technical Memorandum,Preliminary Geotechnical Data Report dated June 3, 2009, quarry excavation activities occurred on the southern portion of this parcel between 1955 and 1959. Development of this parcel began in the early 1970s. A summary of the Site observations concerning this parcel during this Phase I ESA is as follows: Northern Portion: The northern portion of this parcel consists of an asphalt-paved parking lot with area light posts throughout. Two structures are located on the northern portion of the property. The first structure is a vacant office building (labeled as an Agricultural Commissioner’s office) located near the property’s southwest corner. Concrete curbs were observed to the west of this building. Based on Kleinfelder’s review of available ALTA Survey maps, two modular buildings were formerly situated to the west of the building, and the curbs apparently were used as the base for the modular buildings. The second structure is a canopy covering a concrete-paved area near the southeast corner of the property. A gravel-filled pit was observed beneath the canopy. Based on information obtained during this Phase I ESA, the pit was the location of a former clarifier. A chain-link fence separates the northern portion of the parcel from the southern portion of the parcel, discussed below. Southern Portion: The southern portion of this parcel includes the following structures: Two brick office buildings are located on the northwestern portion of the property. These buildings are partially occupied by offices, with the remaining areas vacant. Evidence of a laboratory (i.e., labels on cabinets indicating DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 83 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder storage of neutralizing reagents, caustics, abrasives, alkalines, acids, bases, and mercury-containing substances) was observed within the northeastern part of this building. A pad-mounted electrical transformer was observed to the east of the buildings. No leakage or staining was observed on or in the vicinity of the transformer. Several mobile storage containers were observed to the south of the buildings, in the southern-most of which were containers of lubricants, striping paint,and asphalt emulsion, along with gasoline cans, portable generators, and small cans of oil and spray paint. There were no individual containers with a capacity greater than 5 gallons observed. Access to the remaining storage containers was not provided to Kleinfelder. No evidence of leakage or staining was observed on the asphalt or immediately adjacent to the storage containers. Portable lights, railroad crossing equipment, and other miscellaneous pieces of equipment were observed adjacent to the storage containers. A mobile trailer was observed to the east of the storage containers and appeared to be used for office purposes. A concrete tilt-up building is located at the approximate center of the southern portion of the parcel and is currently vacant.The majority of the building is a warehouse. Smaller bay areas, accessed by roll-up doors, are along the southern and eastern sides of the building. The southwestern bays are being used for miscellaneous storage by the occupants of the office buildings, and the remaining bay areas are empty. Kleinfelder observed concrete patches within the floor of the bay located at the southeastern corner of the building. Based on information reviewed as part of this Phase I ESA, the concrete patches are at the form er locations of in-ground hydraulic hoists. A raised concrete pad surrounded by ballasts was observed outside the southeastern corner of the building. It is unknown to Kleinfelder what was in this area. No evidence of staining was observed at this loc ation. A canopy is to the east of the concrete tilt-up building at the eastern boundary of the parcel. The canopy covers a concrete slab with a gravel-filled pit. Based on information reviewed as part of this Phase I ESA, the pit is the location of another former clarifier. A concrete ramp leading up to a raised concrete area was observed immediately south of the canopy. Kleinfelder understands this ramp was associated with a modular building that was formerly located in this area of the Site. A wooden building is to the north of the above-noted canopy at the eastern boundary of the parcel. This structure was being used to store a recreational vehicle and boat. A concrete ramp immediately south of this building leads to a locked gate at the bike path.No evidence of hazardous materials use or storage was observed within this building. A corrugated metal building, which is open along the northern and southern sides, is located to the south of the concrete tilt-up building. Concrete floor slabs were observed within the building. A rectangular pit filled with gravel was DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 84 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder observed within the building, but its former use is unknown to Kleinfelder. No evidence of staining was observed within this building. A fenced area outside the western side of the building appears to have been a former outside storage area. A gravel-filled pit was observed beneath a canopy outside the eastern end of the building. Based on information reviewed as part of this Phase I ESA, this pit is the location of a former clarifier. A canopy is located to the east of the corrugated metal building at the eastern boundary of the parcel. The canopy covers a concrete slab that contains a gravel-filled pit. Based on information reviewed as part of this Phase I ESA, the pit is the location of a former clarifier. A canopy is also located to the west of the corrugated metal building, and was associated with a former fueling area. Concrete and asphalt patches in the area of the former fueling facility are at the areas of former USTs. Evidence of past subsurface assessments (i.e., patched holes indicative of boring locations) was observed in this area. Another canopy is to the south of the corrugated metal building at the southern boundary of the parcel. The canopy covers a concrete slab.The area beneath the canopy is divided into smaller areas by chain-link fencing, and each of these areas was bordered by a concrete berm. A floor drain was observed within the area at the eastern end. In addition, evidence of possible former paint storage (i.e., the presence of paint stains with circular shapes like 1-gallon size cans) was observed beneath this canopy. Another area beneath the canopy was labeled as an area for absorbent materials. A brick building is located at the southeastern corner of the parcel. This building was formerly used as a hazardous materials storage building, as evidenced by a sign on the door labeled “PFRD/Transportation Fleet Management Hazmat Storage.” Labels on the interior walls indicated the building was used for the storage of various oils and greases. Minor staining was observed on the floor within the building. Small cracks were also observed in the concrete floor. A concrete berm area outside the northern side of the building appeared to be stained with paint, and the asphalt appeared to be etched. To the east of this building a vault lid labeled “monitoring well” was observed immediately off-Site, adjacent to the southeastern corner of the parcel between the Site and off-Site bike path. Kleinfelder did not identify the owner or purpose of this monitoring well, but based on information obtained during this Phase I ESA, it does not appear this well is associated with previous assessments performed on the Site. Ninyo & Moore reported in its December 1, 2006 Supplemental Environmental Evaluation pertaining to the Site that this well was part of a regional groundwater monitoring program and not used to monitor local impacts, but Kleinfelder found no other information concerning the well during our performance of this Phase I ESA. The well was not considered to be an environmental concern by Ninyo & Moore. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 85 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder This Site parcel formerly contained a fueling facility that consisted of two 10,000-gallon gasoline USTs, one 10,000-gallon diesel UST, two 5,000-gallon diesel USTs, and associated fuel dispensers. During pipe modification activities a release was discovered in the vicinity of the fuel dispensers. Subsurface assessments were conducted by others between 1989 and 1998, which included the collection of soil samples and the installation and sampling of three groundwater monitoring wells to assess the vertical and lateral extent of petroleum hydrocarbons. These USTs, along with 280-gallon and 300-gallon waste oil USTs, were removed from the Site in March 1998. At the time of removal the gasoline and diesel USTs were replaced with two new 20,000- gallon gasoline and diesel USTs. The OCHCA issued a Remedial Action Completion Certification dated June 19, 1998 for the Site investigation and remedial action for the USTs formerly located at the Site. Once closure was granted, the groundwater monitoring wells were reportedly abandoned in September 1998. In October 2006 Ninyo & Moore performed an Environmental Evaluation and a Supplemental Environmental Evaluation of the Site parcel designated as 1750 South Douglass Road, based upon its review of a previous May 16, 2005 Hazardous Materials Assessment [Environmental Site Assessment]report prepared by Public Facilities and Resources Department, Environmental Resources Section for this parcel. Based on its review of this previous report Ninyo & Moore concluded that the report did not meet then-current industry standards for preparation of a Phase I ESA. Ninyo & Moore identified deficiencies that included lack of review of building department and other agency records. Additionally, in absence of the additional information from these agencies, Ninyo & Moore recommended sampling and analysis of soil and groundwater in the vicinity of former and current USTs, hydraulic lifts, clarifiers, recent pavement patches near one of the wash areas, and near a sealed drain inlet. An updated environmental database review and agency records reviews were performed by Ninyo & Moore and reported in its December 1, 2006 report entitled Supplemental Environmental Evaluation. In addition Ninyo & Moore performed soil and groundwater sampling in those areas it identified as concerns, with the exception of the hydraulic lift areas. Based on the results, Ninyo & Moore indicated that additional sampling was not recommended. However, Ninyo & Moore recommended assessment in the area of the hydraulic lifts once the County of Orange ceased operations at the facility. At the time of fuel dispenser island modifications within this part of the Site in November 2003, soil samples were collected by Tait and analyzed. A TPH-d concentration of 7,400 mg/kg was detected in the soil sample collected beneath the eastern end of the southern dispenser island (Sample DISP 1). A December 5, 2003 letter to the APUD from the AFD required submittal of an Unauthorized Release Report for the Site, which was not identified during Kleinfelder’s agency file review. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 86 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder In July 2008 the two 20,000-gallon gasoline and diesel USTs and five dispensers were removed from the Site under the oversight of AFD and APUD. No detectable concentrations of TPH-g, TPH-d, BTEX, or fuel oxygenates were detected in soil samples (Samples D1 and D2) collected from beneath the northern dispensers to maximum depths of 15 feet bgs. Petroleum impacted soil was discovered in two soil samples (D3 and D4) collected beneath the southern dispenser island at a depth of 5 feet bgs. However, soil samples collected at 10 feet bgs at the location of Sample D3 and 10 and 14 feet bgs at the location of Sample D4 contained no detected TPH-g, TPH-d, BTEX, or fuel oxygenates. Impacted soil was subsequently excavated and removed from the Site. One sample (D5) was collected beneath an additional dispenser located adjacent to the east of the southern dispenser island at a depth of 3 feet bgs. A deeper sample could not be collected due to the presence of a high-voltage electric line at this location. No TPH-g, TPH-d, BTEX, or fuel oxygenates were detected in the 3-foot bgs sample. In addition, soil samples were also collected from each end of the former USTs at depths of 18 and 19 feet bgs and were analyzed for TPHg, TPH-d, BTEX, and fuel oxygenates, which were not detected in the samples. Based on the results of this assessment, it was concluded that no release had occurred in the UST area. The excavation of impacted soil beneath the dispensers was deemed successful because results of samples collected after excavating indicated no petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in the deeper samples. A March 4, 2009 letter with subject “No Further Action for Diesel Fuel and Gasoline Contaminated Soil” was issued by APUD (for SARWQCB Case No. 083003990T) to OCPW indicating that the investigation and remedial action of the contaminated soil found during upgrades to the UST system on December 2, 2003 and subsequent removal of the USTs in July 2008 had been completed. Hydraulic lifts and associated equipment and piping were removed from this part of the Site in September and October 2008 under the oversight of OCHCA. Three in-ground hydraulic hoists, approximately 300 linear feet of hydraulic oil service lines, and a 100-gallon hydraulic oil tank were removed. Four wastewater clarifiers and associated sewer piping systems were also removed in October 2008. Based on analytical results for soil samples collected beneath the hoists and clarifiers, concentrations of TPH, Title 22 Metals, and VOCs in soil were deemed at acceptable concentrations by OCHCA, which issued a November 21, 2008 Closure Letter (OCHCA Case No. 08IC027) confirming completion of remedial action after removal of the three hydraulic lifts and four wastewater clarifiers. Facilities with addresses of 1750 South Douglass Road or 10852 Douglass Road, the former address associated with this parcel, were listed in databases searched by EDR, including the Orange County Industrial Site Database, AST Database, UST Database, HAZNET Database, LUST Database, and HIST CORTESE Database. Each listing apparently pertained to operations and maintenance activities performed at this Site location. The LUST cases DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 87 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder associated with the Site have been closed by the regulatory agencies and represent a historical REC to the Site. 1790 South Douglass Road –This portion of the Site consists of one parcel (APN 386-52-017) and is occupied by Sullivan & Mann Lumber Company. This Site parcel was historically vacant land and part of the Santa Ana River until approximately 1972. Sometime between 1972 and 1976 this Site parcel apparently began to be used for storage of lumber. The existing buildings on this parcel were apparently constructed sometime between 1976 and 1990. Currently, the northern portion of the parcel is an unpaved area. Lumber is stored on asphalt generally on the central portion of the parcel. Two plastic, 300-gallon ASTs were observed within the lumber storage area and had labels indicating they contained Sodium Silicate Grade 40, although at least one of the ASTs appeared to be empty. However, according to Mr. Matt Smith of Sullivan & Mann Company, these ASTs contain water. A wooden building is located at the southern corner of the parcel and is used for storage of weight equipment. A covered storage area and corrugated metal building beyond it are located immediately north of the wooden building. The covered area is used for parking and storage. A 55-gallon drum containing redwood stain, which contains kaolin and red/yellow oxide, was observed beneath the covered area on a wooden pallet. No staining was observed on the ground beneath the drum. In addition, five 5-gallon buckets of exterior acrylic wood stain and masonry flat paint were observed beneath the canopy. A portable generator was also observed in this area. The corrugated metal building is used for storage purposes. Four 55- gallon drums stored on wooden pallets were observed in the southern portion of this building. The drums were labeled as containing Dyed Diesel No. 2. Mr. Smith indicated that the diesel is used to fuel the generator, on an as-needed basis. No running water or electricity is provided to this parcel. A machine shop and welding area were observed in the northeastern portion of the corrugated metal building. Moderate to heavy oil staining was observed on the equipment and on the ground beneath it in this area of the building. Mr. Smith indicated that his truck drivers use this area for storage of parts, and have used this area occasionally to assemble parts. A work area was observed by Kleinfelder to the north of the corrugated metal building. A rectangular dipping tank (vat) in this area was observed to be filled with a blue-green liquid. At the time of the Site reconnaissance a worker was dipping wooden stakes into the tank and dyeing the wood prior to being stored in the lumber storage area. Heavy blue-green staining was observed in this work area. A concrete drainage swale was observed to the north of the work area, leading to a drain to the east near the bike path. The concrete swale was also observed to traverse to the south (and west of the corrugated metal building) and then southeast (south of the wooden building), leading to a drain at the southeastern corner of the parcel. Blue-green staining was observed within the concrete swale. Two unlabeled 55-gallon drums were observed in the work area. Mr. Smith indicated that the blue-green dye is a water–based paint that is DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 88 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder supplied by Dunn & Edwards Paints. He reported no other chemical usage or previous chemical usage at the property. Reports of previous assessments were not available for this Site parcel during performance of this Phase I ESA. This Site parcel is not listed in databases searched by EDR. 2150 East Katella Avenue –This part of the Site consists of a portion of a larger parcel (APN 232-01-040) at its northern boundary where it meets the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor. Historically the area along the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor was used for agricultural purposes (apparent orchards) until at least 1952, and then was vacant land until at least 1976. Currently, the larger parcel is used as a parking lot associated with the Anaheim Stadium Metrolink/Amtrak Station and adjoining Anaheim Stadium. The Anaheim Stadium Metrolink/Amtrak Station is part of the Site and consists of a passenger ticket sales building and passenger loading/unloading area. A small concrete structure is located to the west of the passenger ticket sales building. Access to this building was not available at the time of our Site reconnaissance. An electric vehicle charging station is located to the east of the building. No evidence of hazardous materials use or storage was observed by Kleinfelder on this portion of the Site. However, according to Mr. Ben Lamas, an employee of the Anaheim Stadium Metrolink/Amtrak Station from 1976 to 1994 and again since 2002, the station was operated by Santa Fe Railroad from 1976 to 1994. Mr. Lamas informed Kleinfelder that from 1976 to 1994 oil was “poured”in the area of the railroad tracks and on the gravel areas adjacent to the tracks, for weed control. He indicated that a plant sample was collected from the base of the gravel area and was sent to a laboratory for analysis. A copy of the laboratory report has not been made available to Kleinfelder for review as of the date of publication of this report, so the analyses performed and results are unknown to Kleinfelder.However, Mr. Lamas indicated that “Borron” was detected in the sample. The reported “pouring” of oil from 1976 to 1994 represents a REC to the Site. LOSSAN Railroad Corridor –The LOSSAN Railroad Corridor consists of railroad tracks situated at an elevation approximately 10 feet higher than the adjoining immediate area. It traverses the Site in an east-west direction, separating the Site parcels designated as 1750 South Douglass Road (to the north) and 1790 South Douglass Road (to the south), then continuing west through the Anaheim Stadium Metrolink/Amtrak Station to Katella Avenue at the western-most end of the Site. Railroad tracks were present at this approximate location by 1898 according to historical topographic maps reviewed as part of this Phase I ESA. A small concrete structure is located at the western end of the Site portion of the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor, along Katella Avenue. Access to this structure was not provided to Kleinfelder. According to Ms. Jamie Lai with the City of Anaheim, this structure reportedly houses a domestic water well. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 89 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Other Areas –The remaining areas/parcels of the Site consist of vacant land. 8.3.DEVIATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES An evaluation of business environmental risk associated with the parcel(s) was not included in Kleinfelder’s scope of services. The ESA does not incorporate non-scope considerations, such as asbestos-containing materials testing, radon, lead-based paint testing, lead in drinking water testing, wetlands, regulatory compliance, cultural and historical resources, industrial hygiene, health and safety, ecological resources, endangered species, indoor air quality, and high voltage power lines. 8.4.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We have performed a Phase I ESA in conformance with the scope of services required by ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-05 and our Proposal Number 5805PROP/IRV9P031, dated February 25, 2009, for the property located generally at the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and Douglass Road, and including nine parcels of land. Any exceptions to, or deviations from, this practice are described in Section 8.3 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of RECs in connection with the Site, except for the following: Observed blue-green dye staining near the dipping vat and within the concrete drainage swale at the Sullivan & Mann Lumber Company at 1790 South Douglass Road. Kleinfelder has not been able to obtain a MSDS for this blue- green dye. An MSDS is needed to confirm whether this dye is hazardous or non-hazardous. Former “pouring” of oil along the railroad tracks at/near the Anaheim Stadium Metrolink/Amtrak Station. A gravel-filled pit beneath the corrugated metal building on the southern portion of the Site property at 1750 South Douglass Road. The former use of this pit is unknown to Kleinfelder and previous sampling in this area was not identified by this Phase I ESA. This pit represents a potential REC to the Site. Reported undocumented fill material in a former quarry beneath the Site parcel with address 1750 South Douglass Road. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 90 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Kleinfelder’s review of regulatory agency databases indicated there are several upgradient facilities where releases are known to, or may, have impacted shallow groundwater, and these releases may have impacted Site groundwater. The previous LUST cases associated with 1750 South Douglass Road (10852 Douglass Road) are considered historical RECs to the Site. The LUST cases have received case closure from the regulatory agencies. Observed paint staining at 1750 South Douglass Road near and within the former hazardous materials building is considered a de minimus condition. Based on the information reported herein, although not considered a REC, the area of the Site occupied by the Anaheim Stadium Metrolink/Amtrak Station appears to have been used for agricultural purposes (orchards) from at least 1938 through at least 1952. No indications of structures suggestive of agricultural pesticide or herbicide storage on this portion of the Site were evident in the historical aerial photographs. In addition, although not considered a REC, based on the construction date of the on-Site buildings, ACMs and LBP may be present. Kleinfelder is concurrently preparing an ACM and LBP survey report summarizing the surveys conducted for the Site. Based on the findings of the ESA, it is Kleinfelder’s opinion that further environmental investigation is required for the Site. Kleinfelder recommends a subsurface investigation be completed to assess those areas identified as concerns. Although Kleinfelder attempted to obtain reasonably ascertainable information regarding the Site, some information was either not received or not readily available at the time of this report. Therefore, consistent with ASTM Designation E 1527-05, the following data failures (data gaps) have been identified: Kleinfelder was not provided access to the small concrete structure at the western end of the Site, along Katella Avenue. The Client/User Questionnaire has not been returned to Kleinfelder. User/Manager Questionnaires pertaining to the Schmidt Property or the Anaheim Stadium Metrolink/Amtrak Station have not been returned Based on a review of the data gaps presented above, it is Kleinfelder’s opinion that the data failure is not likely to have affected the evaluation of RECs at the Site. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 91 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 9 REFERENCES ________________________________________________________________________________ California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2004, Bulletin 118, California’s Groundwater, Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin, February 27. Coleman Geotechnical, 1999, Geotechnical Investigation, Country Suites by Ayres Hotel, 2560 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Job No. 1798, August 26. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), 2009, The EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck, 1750 S Douglass Road, Anaheim, CA 92806, Inquiry Number: 2502198.2s, May 26. Greenwood, R.B. and Pridmore, C.L, 1997 (revised 2001), Liquefaction zones in the Anaheim and Newport Beach 7.5-minute quadrangles, Orange County, California, in Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Anaheim and Newport Beach 7.5-minute quadrangles, Orange County,California: California Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Zone Report 03, pp. 5-18; Plates 1.1 and 1.2. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 2007, Chapter IV –Groundwater Basin Reports, Orange County Basins,in A Status Report on the use of Groundwater in the Service Area of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Report No. 1308, pp. IV-10-1 –IV-10-26, available at: www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/yourwater/supply/groundwater/GWAS.html Morton, D.M., K.R. Bovard and R.M. Alvarez, 2004, Preliminary digital geologic map of the Santa Ana 30’x60’ Quadrangle, southern California, version 2.0: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-172. Orange County Water District, 2004, Groundwater Management Plan, dated March 2004, available at:http://www.ocwd.com . Poland, J.F., Piper, A.M., and others, 1956, Ground-water Geology of the Coastal Zone Long Beach-Santa Ana Area, California: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1109, pp. 44-52, and Plate 7. Schoellhamer, J.E., Vedder, J.G, Yerkes, R.F., and Kinney, D.M., 1981, Geology of the Northern Santa Ana Mountains, California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 420-D, 109 p. Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), 1994, Anaheim to Santa Ana, Second Main Track Addition, Bridge 170.8-Douglass Road Underpass, Log of Test Borings, Sheet No. 62, February 15. DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 Page 92 of 92 July 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder State of California, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), 2005, Regional Wildcat Map W1-6, Los Angeles & Orange Counties, Southern Los Angeles Basin, August 16. U.S. Geological Survey, 1965 (photorevised 1981), 7.5-minute Topographic Map of the Anaheim, California Quadrangle,scale 1:24,000. Additional sources are referenced separately in the report text. DRAFT PLATES 02,0002,0001,000APPROXIMATESCALE(feet)SOURCE:U.S.G.S.7.5'topographicseries,AnaheimandOrange,Californiaquadrangledated1965(1964),photorevised1981.ATTACHED XREFS:ATTACHED IMAGES: Images: Topo-plate1_1.JPG Images: Topo-plate1_2.JPG FILENAME:103567p1_ENV.dwgDRAWNBY:CHECKEDBY:DRAWN:PROJECTNO.CAD FILE: L:\2009\CADD\103567\07-15-09_ENV\ LAYOUT: 1 PLOTTED: 17 Jul 2009, 11:41am, dfahrney www.kleinfelder.comTheinformationincludedonthisgraphicrepresentationhasbeencompiledfromavarietyofsourcesandissubjecttochangewithoutnotice.Kleinfeldermakesnorepresentationsorwarranties,expressorimplied,astoaccuracy,completeness,timeliness,orrightstotheuseofsuchinformation.Thisdocumentisnotintendedforuseasalandsurveyproductnorisitdesignedorintendedasaconstructiondesigndocument.Theuseormisuseoftheinformationcontainedonthisgraphicrepresentationisatthesoleriskofthepartyusingormisusingtheinformation.DIAMOND BAR, CA PROPOSEDANAHEIMREGIONALTRANSPORTATIONINTERMODALCENTER(ARTIC)-PHASE1ANAHEIM,CALIFORNIAPLATE1MRGMRC7/15/09103567SITELOCATIONMAP 0200 200100 APPROXIMATE SCALE (feet)REFERENCE:BASEMAPSISTOPOGRAPHICSURVEYPROVIDEDBYRBF.DIAMONDBAR,CAPROPOSEDANAHEIMREGIONALTRANSPORTATIONINTERMODALCENTER(ARTIC)-PHASE1ANAHEIM,CALIFORNIAPLATE2MRGMRC7/15/09103567SITEANDVICINITYMAPSHELL GASOLINE STATION 2331 E. KATELLA AVENUE OFFICE BUILDINGS 2300 E. KATELLA AVENUE ANGEL STADIUM LOSSANRAILROADCORRIDOR E. KATELLA AVENUE S.DOUGLASSROADSANTAANARIVERSTATEROUTE57ANGEL STADIUM PARKING LOT P A R K IN G S TR U C TU R E VACANT LAND PARKING LOT HONDA CENTER 2695 E. KATELLA AVENUE ANAHEIM STADIUM METROLINK / AMTRAK STATION (2150 E. KATELLA AVENUE)VACANTLANDVACANTLANDCONCRETE SHED (WATER WELL) THE GROVE OF ANAHEIM 2200 E. KATELLA AVENUE OFFICE BUILDING 2400 E. KATELLA AVENUE 2600E.KATELLAAVENUE1730 S. DOUGLASS ROADAYERSHOTEL(2550E.KATELLAAVENUE)OFFICEPARK(1751-1725S.DOUGLASSROAD)LUMBERSTORAGEDIPPING TANK 55-GALLON DRUMS SULLIVAN&MANNLUMBERCOMPANY (1790S.DOUGLASROAD) SITE BOUNDARY LEGEND COMMERCIAL BUILDING 2225 E. KATELLA AVENUE FORMERMAINTENANCEFACILITY1750S.DOUGLASSROAD(FORMERLY10852DOUGLASSROAD)NOTAPART CADFILE:L:\2009\CADD\103567\07-15-09_ENV\LAYOUT:3PLOTTED:17Jul2009,1:29pm,dfahrneyATTACHEDXREFS:XRef:108816JMPR1:XRef:108816JAT01ATTACHEDIMAGES:Images:IMAGE-Plate2.JPGFILE NAME: 103567p3_ENV.dwg DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO. www.kleinfelder.com The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.DIAOMNDBAR,CAPROPOSED ANAHEIM REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION INTERMODAL CENTER (ARTIC) - PHASE 1 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA PLATE 3MRG MRC 7/15/09 103567 PARTIAL SITE MAP1750 S. DOUGLASS ROAD0120 12060 APPROXIMATE SCALE (feet)APPROXIMATELOCATIONOFFORMERCOLLINSAVE.-DOUGLASSROADAPPROXIMATE QUARRY EXTENT S A N T A A N A R I V E R D O U G L A S S R O A D KATELLAAVENUEA.T.&S.F.RAILROAD DRAFT APPENDIX A QUALIFICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS DRAFT 103567/ LBE9R023 A-1 June 30, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS We declare that to the best of our professional knowledge and belief, we meet thedefinition of Environmental Professional as defined in Section 312.10 of 40 CFR 312.We have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience toassess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the subject property. We havedeveloped and performed the all appropriate inquiries in conformance with thestandards and practices set forth in CFR Part 312. _____________________Margaret R. CarrollEnvironmental Project Manager _____________________Herbert (Bert) A. Vogler III, PGSenior Hydrogeologist The resumes of above-listed environmental professionals performing thisenvironmental site assessment are on file at the Kleinfelder office and are available onrequest. DRAFT APPENDIX B REGULATORY AGENCY DATABASE REPORT FORM-PRM-COU ®kcehCoeG htiw tropeR ™paM suidaR RDE ehT 440 Wheelers Farms RoadMilford, CT 06461Toll Free: 800.352.0050 www.edrnet.com 1750 S Douglass Road 1750 S Douglass Road Anaheim, CA 92806 Inquiry Number: 2502198.2s May 26, 2009 SECTION PAGE Executive Summary ES1 Overview Map 2 Detail Map 3 Map Findings Summary 4 Map Findings 7 Orphan Summary 136 Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking GR-1 GEOCHECK ADDENDUM Physical Setting Source Addendum A-1 Physical Setting Source Summary A-2 Physical Setting SSURGO Soil Map A-6 Physical Setting Source Map A-11 Physical Setting Source Map Findings A-12 Physical Setting Source Records Searched A-31 TC2502198.2s Page 1 Thank you for your business.Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050 with any questions or comments. Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist fromother sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for anyproperty. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice. Copyright 2009 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in wholeor in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission. EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All othertrademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TC2502198.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR). The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA’s Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-05) or custom requirements developed for the evaluation of environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate. TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION ADDRESS 1750 S DOUGLASS ROAD ANAHEIM, CA 92806 COORDINATES 33.803700 - 33˚ 48’ 13.3’’Latitude (North): 117.878200 - 117˚ 52’ 41.5’’Longitude (West): Zone 11Universal Tranverse Mercator: 418711.0UTM X (Meters): 3740543.8UTM Y (Meters): 158 ft. above sea levelElevation: USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY 33117-G8 ANAHEIM, CATarget Property Map: 1981Most Recent Revision: 33117-G7 ORANGE, CAEast Map: 1981Most Recent Revision: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN THIS REPORT 2005Photo Year: USDASource: TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS The target property was identified in the following records. For more information on this property see page 7 of the attached EDR Radius Map report: EPA IDDatabase(s)Site OC PUBLIC WORKS KATELLA YARD 1750 DOUGLASS RD ANAHEIM, CA 92806 N/AOrange Co. Industrial Site CNTY OF ORANGE RDMD TRANS FLEET 1750 S DOUGLASS RD (WAS 10852S.DOUGLASS ANAHEIM, CA N/AAST COUNTY OF ORANGE GSA TRANSPORTATI 1750 S DOUGLASS RD ANAHEIM, CA 92806 N/AUST COUNTY OF ORANGE/RDMD KATELLA YAR 1750 S DOUGLASS RD ANAHEIM, CA 92806 N/AHAZNET EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TC2502198.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES No mapped sites were found in EDR’s search of available ("reasonably ascertainable ") government records either on the target property or within the search radius around the target property for the following databases: STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS Federal NPL site list NPL National Priority List Proposed NPL Proposed National Priority List Sites NPL LIENS Federal Superfund Liens Federal Delisted NPL site list Delisted NPL National Priority List Deletions Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list RCRA-TSDF RCRA - Transporters, Storage and Disposal Federal RCRA generators list RCRA-LQG RCRA - Large Quantity Generators RCRA-CESQG RCRA - Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator Federal institutional controls / engineering controls registries US ENG CONTROLS Engineering Controls Sites List US INST CONTROL Sites with Institutional Controls Federal ERNS list ERNS Emergency Response Notification System State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists SWF/LF Solid Waste Information System State and tribal leaking storage tank lists INDIAN LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land State and tribal registered storage tank lists INDIAN UST Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program Properties EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TC2502198.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 INDIAN VCP Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS Local Brownfield lists US BROWNFIELDS A Listing of Brownfields Sites Local Lists of Landfill / Solid Waste Disposal Sites DEBRIS REGION 9 Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations ODI Open Dump Inventory SWRCY Recycler Database HAULERS Registered Waste Tire Haulers Listing INDIAN ODI Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites US CDL Clandestine Drug Labs HIST Cal-Sites Historical Calsites Database SCH School Property Evaluation Program Toxic Pits Toxic Pits Cleanup Act Sites CDL Clandestine Drug Labs Local Land Records LIENS 2 CERCLA Lien Information LUCIS Land Use Control Information System LIENS Environmental Liens Listing DEED Deed Restriction Listing Records of Emergency Release Reports HMIRS Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System CHMIRS California Hazardous Material Incident Report System LDS Land Disposal Sites Listing MCS Military Cleanup Sites Listing Other Ascertainable Records DOT OPS Incident and Accident Data DOD Department of Defense Sites FUDS Formerly Used Defense Sites CONSENT Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees ROD Records Of Decision UMTRA Uranium Mill Tailings Sites MINES Mines Master Index File TRIS Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act FTTS FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) HIST FTTS FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing SSTS Section 7 Tracking Systems ICIS Integrated Compliance Information System EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TC2502198.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 PADS PCB Activity Database System MLTS Material Licensing Tracking System RADINFO Radiation Information Database FINDS Facility Index System/Facility Registry System RAATS RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System CA BOND EXP. PLAN Bond Expenditure Plan CA WDS Waste Discharge System NPDES NPDES Permits Listing Cortese "Cortese" Hazardous Waste & Substances Sites List Notify 65 Proposition 65 Records WIP Well Investigation Program Case List EMI Emissions Inventory Data INDIAN RESERV Indian Reservations SCRD DRYCLEANERS State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS EDR Proprietary Records Manufactured Gas Plants EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants EDR Historical Auto Stations EDR Proprietary Historic Gas Stations EDR Historical Cleaners EDR Proprietary Historic Dry Cleaners SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS Surrounding sites were identified in the following databases. Elevations have been determined from the USGS Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated on a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity should be field verified. Sites with an elevation equal to or higher than the target property have been differentiated below from sites with an elevation lower than the target property. Page numbers and map identification numbers refer to the EDR Radius Map report where detailed data on individual sites can be reviewed. Sites listed in bold italics are in multiple databases. Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis. STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS Federal CERCLIS list CERCLIS: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System contains data on potentially hazardous waste sites that have been reported to the USEPA by states, municipalities, private companies and private persons, pursuant to Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). CERCLIS contains sites which are either proposed to or on the National Priorities List (NPL) and sites which are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. A review of the CERCLIS list, as provided by EDR, and dated 01/09/2009 has revealed that there is 1 CERCLIS site within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TC2502198.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ ________ ___________________ _____ _____ NEVILLE CHEMICAL COMPANY 2201 E. CERRITOS AVE. N 1/4 - 1/2 (0.423 mi.) M61 96 Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site List CERC-NFRAP: Archived sites are sites that have been removed and archived from the inventory of CERCLIS sites. Archived status indicates that, to the best of EPA’s knowledge, assessment at a site has been completed and that EPA has determined no further steps will be taken to list this site on the National Priorities List (NPL), unless information indicates this decision was not appropriate or other considerations require a recommendation for listing at a later time. This decision does not necessarily mean that there is no hazard associated with a given site; it only means that, based upon available information, the location is not judged to be a potential NPL site. A review of the CERC-NFRAP list, as provided by EDR, and dated 12/03/2007 has revealed that there is 1 CERC-NFRAP site within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property. PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ ________ ___________________ _____ _____ INLAND SPECIALTY CHEMICAL CORP 2023 W COLLINS AVE ESE 0 - 1/8 (0.124 mi.) F31 41 Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list CORRACTS: CORRACTS is a list of handlers with RCRA Corrective Action Activity. This report shows which nationally-defined corrective action core events have occurred for every handler that has had corrective action activity. A review of the CORRACTS list, as provided by EDR, and dated 03/25/2009 has revealed that there is 1 CORRACTS site within approximately 1 mile of the target property. PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Lower Elevation ____________________ ________ ___________________ _____ _____ DATA CIRCUITS SYSTEMS INC 1607 WEST ORANGE GROVE ESE 1/2 - 1 (0.570 mi.) 64 103 Federal RCRA generators list RCRA-SQG: RCRAInfo is EPA’s comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Small quantity generators (SQGs) generate between 100 kg and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per month. A review of the RCRA-SQG list, as provided by EDR, and dated 11/12/2008 has revealed that there are 13 RCRA-SQG sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property. PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ ________ ___________________ _____ _____ STADIUM MOTORS INC 2225 E KATELLA AVE NW 0 - 1/8 (0.018 mi.) B10 13 SHELL SERVICE STATION 2331 E KATELLA AVE NNE 0 - 1/8 (0.060 mi.) C13 19 MALIBU GRAND PRIX 2430 E KATELLA NNE 0 - 1/8 (0.101 mi.) E26 30 BENTLEY LABORATORIES INC 2118 W COLLINS AVE ESE 0 - 1/8 (0.123 mi.) 28 34 CA CENTRIFUGAL PUMP INC 2023 W COLLINS ESE 0 - 1/8 (0.124 mi.) F30 36 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TC2502198.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ ________ ___________________ _____ _____ INLAND SPECIALTY CHEMICAL CORP 2023 W COLLINS AVE ESE 0 - 1/8 (0.124 mi.) F31 41 SHAMROCK OF CA 957 N ECKHOFF ST ESE 1/8 - 1/4 (0.137 mi.) F33 48 SUMITOMO MACHINERY 1645 S SINCLAIR NNE 1/8 - 1/4 (0.173 mi.) G35 51 BENGE TRUMPET CO 1640 S SINCLAIR NNE 1/8 - 1/4 (0.182 mi.) 39 58 NIEDWICK MACHINE ORANGE C A 1928 W BUSINESS CENTER ESE 1/8 - 1/4 (0.208 mi.) 41 60 NORTHROP CORPORATION 1541 PAGE CT NNW 1/8 - 1/4 (0.221 mi.) 44 64 SCORE RIGHT PUBLISHING CO 1746 W KATELLA STE 4 ENE 1/8 - 1/4 (0.244 mi.) I46 66 PRECISION ENVIRONMENTAL LABS 1742 W KATELLA AVE STE ENE 1/8 - 1/4 (0.245 mi.) I48 68 State- and tribal - equivalent NPL RESPONSE: Identifies confirmed release sites where DTSC is involved in remediation, either in a lead or oversight capacity. These confirmed release sites are generally high-priority and high potential risk. A review of the RESPONSE list, as provided by EDR, and dated 02/23/2009 has revealed that there is 1 RESPONSE site within approximately 1 mile of the target property. PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ ________ ___________________ _____ _____ Not reported 2201 EAST CERRITOS AVE N 1/4 - 1/2 (0.419 mi.) L56 83 State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS ENVIROSTOR: The Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC’s) Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program’s (SMBRP’s) EnviroStor database identifes sites that have known contamination or sites for which there may be reasons to investigate further. The database includes the following site types: Federal Superfund sites (National Priorities List (NPL)); State Response, including Military Facilities and State Superfund; Voluntary Cleanup; and School sites. EnviroStor provides similar information to the information that was available in CalSites, and provides additional site information, including, but not limited to, identification of formerly-contaminated properties that have been released for reuse, properties where environmental deed restrictions have been recorded to prevent inappropriate land uses, and risk characterization information that is used to assess potential impacts to public health and the environment at contaminated sites. A review of the ENVIROSTOR list, as provided by EDR, and dated 02/23/2009 has revealed that there are 12 ENVIROSTOR sites within approximately 1 mile of the target property. PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ ________ ___________________ _____ _____ INLAND SPECIALTIES CHEMICAL CO 2023 WEST COLLINS AVENU ESE 0 - 1/8 (0.124 mi.) F32 45 Status: Refer: RWQCB ITASCO 2211 EAST HOWELL STREET NNW 1/8 - 1/4 (0.180 mi.) H37 55 Status: Refer: RWQCB Not reported 2201 EAST CERRITOS AVE N 1/4 - 1/2 (0.419 mi.) L56 83 Status: Refer: Other Agency PAMARCO GLOBAL GRAPHICS 1101 W. STRUCK AVE E 1/2 - 1 (0.668 mi.) 65 108 Status: Refer: 1248 Local Agency IMPRESSION POLISHING AND PLATI 1223 NORTH BATAVIA STRE E 1/2 - 1 (0.796 mi.) 68 117 Status: Active COMMUNITY COLLEGE 1465 N. BATAVIA STREET ENE 1/2 - 1 (0.837 mi.) 69 120 Status: Inactive - Needs Evaluation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TC2502198.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ ________ ___________________ _____ _____ ORANGE COUNTY ELECTRIC 811 WEST BARKLEY AVENUE ESE 1/2 - 1 (0.895 mi.) 70 122 Status: Refer: Other Agency ORANGE COUNTY PLATING CO INC 950-960 N PARKER ST E 1/2 - 1 (0.905 mi.) O71 124 Status: Refer: RCRA DUNHAM METAL PROCESSING 936 N PARKER ST E 1/2 - 1 (0.908 mi.) O72 127 Status: Refer: Other Agency COSDEN OIL AND CHEMICAL COMPAN 534 WEST STRUCK AVENUE E 1/2 - 1 (0.979 mi.) 73 133 Status: Refer: Other Agency PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Lower Elevation ____________________ ________ ___________________ _____ _____ KENS BOAT CENTER INC 1016 E KATELLA AVE W 1/2 - 1 (0.683 mi.) N66 109 Status: Active ORANGE EMPIRE HEAT TREATING 1000 E KATELLA ST W 1/2 - 1 (0.695 mi.) N67 114 Status: Refer: Other Agency State and tribal leaking storage tank lists LUST: The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident Reports contain an inventory of reported leaking underground storage tank incidents. The data come from the State Water Resources Control Board Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System. A review of the LUST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 04/08/2009 has revealed that there are 16 LUST sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property. PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ ________ ___________________ _____ _____ KATELLA YARD 10852 DOUGLASS RD 0 - 1/8 (0.000 mi.) 5 9 STADIUM MOTORS 2225 E KATELLA AVE NW 0 - 1/8 (0.017 mi.) B7 9 Status: Completed - Case Closed STADIUM MOTORS, INC 2225 KATELLA AVE NW 0 - 1/8 (0.018 mi.) B8 10 SHELL OIL PRODUCTS US 2331 KATELLA AVE., E. NNE 0 - 1/8 (0.060 mi.) C12 17 Status: Completed - Case Closed STADIUM TOWERS, L.L.C. 2400 KATELLA AVE. E. NNE 0 - 1/8 (0.091 mi.) E23 29 Status: Completed - Case Closed MALIBU GRAND PRIX CORPORATION 2430 E KATELLA AVE NNE 0 - 1/8 (0.098 mi.) E25 30 Status: Completed - Case Closed MALIBU GRAND PRIX 2430 E KATELLA NNE 0 - 1/8 (0.101 mi.) E26 30 DEL PISO BRICK COMPANY 1635 STATE COLLEGE WNW 1/4 - 1/2 (0.290 mi.) 54 79 Status: Completed - Case Closed KATELLA YARD 10852 DOUGLASS N 1/4 - 1/2 (0.342 mi.) 55 81 Status: Completed - Case Closed NEVILLE CHEMICAL 2201 CERRITOS AVE N 1/4 - 1/2 (0.419 mi.) L59 93 NEVILLE CHEMICAL 2201 E CERRITOS AVE N 1/4 - 1/2 (0.422 mi.) M60 95 Status: Completed - Case Closed ROADWAY EXPRESS 1130 N MAIN ST E 1/4 - 1/2 (0.481 mi.) 62 101 Status: Completed - Case Closed PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Lower Elevation ____________________ ________ ___________________ _____ _____ CERTRON 1701 STATE COLLEGE WNW 1/4 - 1/2 (0.261 mi.) 49 69 Status: Completed - Case Closed EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TC2502198.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8 PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Lower Elevation ____________________ ________ ___________________ _____ _____ ARCO #6220 1801 STATE COLLEGE BLVD WSW 1/4 - 1/2 (0.261 mi.) J50 71 ARCO #6220 1801 S STATE COLLEGE BL WSW 1/4 - 1/2 (0.264 mi.) J51 72 Status: Completed - Case Closed NORCO DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. 1500 BABBITT ST WNW 1/4 - 1/2 (0.483 mi.) 63 101 Status: Open - Site Assessment SLIC: SLIC Region comes from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. A review of the SLIC list, as provided by EDR, and dated 04/08/2009 has revealed that there are 8 SLIC sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property. PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ ________ ___________________ _____ _____ INLAND SPECIALTY CHEMICAL CO. 2023 COLLINS AVNUE ESE 0 - 1/8 (0.124 mi.) F29 36 INLAND SPECIALTY CHEMICAL CORP 2023 W COLLINS AVE ESE 0 - 1/8 (0.124 mi.) F31 41 Facility Status: Completed - Case Closed INLAND SPECIALTIES CHEMICAL CO 2023 WEST COLLINS AVENU ESE 0 - 1/8 (0.124 mi.) F32 45 Facility Status: Open Facility Status: Open - Site Assessment ITASCO 2211 HOWELL NNW 1/8 - 1/4 (0.180 mi.) H38 57 Facility Status: Open NEVILLE CHEMICAL COMPANY 2201 CERRITOS AVENUE E N 1/4 - 1/2 (0.419 mi.) L57 91 Facility Status: Open - Site Assessment NEVILLE CHEMICAL CO. 2201 E CERRITOS AVE N 1/4 - 1/2 (0.419 mi.) L58 91 PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Lower Elevation ____________________ ________ ___________________ _____ _____ YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC. 700 ECKHOFF STREET N ESE 1/4 - 1/2 (0.278 mi.) K52 73 Facility Status: Open YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEM INC 700 NORTH ECKHOFF ST ESE 1/4 - 1/2 (0.278 mi.) K53 73 State and tribal registered storage tank lists UST: The Underground Storage Tank database contains registered USTs. USTs are regulated under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The data come from the State Water Resources Control Board’s Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database. A review of the UST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 04/08/2009 has revealed that there are 6 UST sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property. PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ ________ ___________________ _____ _____ ARROWHEAD POND-CITY OF ANAHEIM 2695 E KATELLA AVE NNE 0 - 1/8 (0.013 mi.) 6 9 STADIUM MOTORS INC 2225 E KATELLA AVE NW 0 - 1/8 (0.018 mi.) B10 13 STADIUM SHELL 2331 E KATELLA AVE NNE 0 - 1/8 (0.060 mi.) C17 25 BLECKERTS DIESEL REPAIR INC 1654 DOUGLASS S N 0 - 1/8 (0.066 mi.) D19 26 TRUCPARCO 1650 DOUGLASS S N 0 - 1/8 (0.070 mi.) D21 28 STADIUM TOWERS PLAZA/SPIEKER P 2400 E KATELLA AVE NNE 0 - 1/8 (0.091 mi.) E24 29 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TC2502198.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9 ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS Local Lists of Landfill / Solid Waste Disposal Sites WMUDS/SWAT: The Waste Management Unit Database System is used for program tracking and inventory of waste management units. The source is the State Water Resources Control Board. A review of the WMUDS/SWAT list, as provided by EDR, and dated 04/01/2000 has revealed that there is 1 WMUDS/SWAT site within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property. PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ ________ ___________________ _____ _____ ANAHEIM NO.6 TRANSFER STATION NW OF KATELLA / DOUGL NNW 0 - 1/8 (0.089 mi.) 22 28 Local Lists of Registered Storage Tanks CA FID UST: The Facility Inventory Database contains active and inactive underground storage tank locations. The source is the State Water Resource Control Board. A review of the CA FID UST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 10/31/1994 has revealed that there are 4 CA FID UST sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property. PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ ________ ___________________ _____ _____ STADIUM MOTORS INC 2225 E KATELLA AVE NW 0 - 1/8 (0.018 mi.) B9 12 SHELL (0222-2705) 2331 E KATELLA AVE NNE 0 - 1/8 (0.060 mi.) C14 22 BLECKERTS DIESEL REPAIR INC 1654 S DOUGLASS RD N 0 - 1/8 (0.066 mi.) D18 26 TRUCPARCO 1650 DOUGLASS RD N 0 - 1/8 (0.070 mi.) D20 27 HIST UST: Historical UST Registered Database. A review of the HIST UST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 10/15/1990 has revealed that there are 7 HIST UST sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property. PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ ________ ___________________ _____ _____ STADIUM MOTORS INC 2225 E KATELLA AVE NW 0 - 1/8 (0.018 mi.) B10 13 LEO F. DOUGLASS 10611 S. DOUGLASS N 0 - 1/8 (0.027 mi.) 11 17 STADIUM SHELL 2331 E KATELLA AVE NNE 0 - 1/8 (0.060 mi.) C15 22 MALIBU GRAND PRIX 2430 E KATELLA NNE 0 - 1/8 (0.101 mi.) E26 30 CA CENTRIFUGAL PUMP INC 2023 W COLLINS ESE 0 - 1/8 (0.124 mi.) F30 36 CRANE RENTAL SERVICE, INC. 1901 W COLLINS AVE ESE 1/8 - 1/4 (0.195 mi.) 40 59 COVE DEVELOPERS 800 N ECKHOFF ST ESE 1/8 - 1/4 (0.215 mi.) 42 61 SWEEPS UST: Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System. This underground storage tank listing was updated and maintained by a company contacted by the SWRCB in the early 1990’s. The listing is no longer updated or maintained. The local agency is the contact for more information on a site on the SWEEPS list. A review of the SWEEPS UST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 06/01/1994 has revealed that there are EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TC2502198.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 10 5 SWEEPS UST sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property. PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ ________ ___________________ _____ _____ STADIUM MOTORS INC 2225 E KATELLA AVE NW 0 - 1/8 (0.018 mi.) B10 13 STADIUM SHELL 2331 E KATELLA AVE NNE 0 - 1/8 (0.060 mi.) C16 23 BLECKERTS DIESEL REPAIR INC 1654 S DOUGLASS RD N 0 - 1/8 (0.066 mi.) D18 26 TRUCPARCO 1650 DOUGLASS RD N 0 - 1/8 (0.070 mi.) D20 27 ANAHEIM ARENA 1621 S DOUGLASS RD N 0 - 1/8 (0.106 mi.) 27 34 Other Ascertainable Records RCRA-NonGen: RCRAInfo is EPA’s comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Non-Generators do not presently generate hazardous waste. A review of the RCRA-NonGen list, as provided by EDR, and dated 11/12/2008 has revealed that there are 4 RCRA-NonGen sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property. PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ ________ ___________________ _____ _____ STADIUM MOTORS, INC 2225 KATELLA AVE NW 0 - 1/8 (0.018 mi.) B8 10 MAC GLASHAN ENT DIV OF BV DIST 1641 S SINCLAIR NNE 1/8 - 1/4 (0.177 mi.) G36 54 SMT DYNAMICS CORP 1621B S SINCLAIR ST NNE 1/8 - 1/4 (0.216 mi.) 43 62 ADVANCED TECH AXLES 1744 W KATELLA AVE STE ENE 1/8 - 1/4 (0.244 mi.) I47 67 HIST CORTESE: The sites for the list are designated by the State Water Resource Control Board [LUST], the Integrated Waste Board [SWF/LS], and the Department of Toxic Substances Control [CALSITES]. A review of the HIST CORTESE list, as provided by EDR, and dated 04/01/2001 has revealed that there are 10 HIST CORTESE sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property. PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ ________ ___________________ _____ _____ STADIUM MOTORS, INC 2225 KATELLA AVE NW 0 - 1/8 (0.018 mi.) B8 10 MALIBU GRAND PRIX 2430 E KATELLA NNE 0 - 1/8 (0.101 mi.) E26 30 INLAND SPECIALTY CHEMICAL CORP 2023 W COLLINS AVE ESE 0 - 1/8 (0.124 mi.) F31 41 VOC INVESTIGATION 2033 COLLINS ESE 1/8 - 1/4 (0.149 mi.) 34 51 ITASCO 2211 HOWELL NNW 1/8 - 1/4 (0.180 mi.) H38 57 DEL PISO BRICK COMPANY 1635 STATE COLLEGE WNW 1/4 - 1/2 (0.290 mi.) 54 79 KATELLA YARD 10852 DOUGLASS N 1/4 - 1/2 (0.342 mi.) 55 81 NEVILLE CHEMICAL 2201 CERRITOS AVE N 1/4 - 1/2 (0.419 mi.) L59 93 PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Lower Elevation ____________________ ________ ___________________ _____ _____ CERTRON 1701 STATE COLLEGE WNW 1/4 - 1/2 (0.261 mi.) 49 69 ARCO #6220 1801 STATE COLLEGE BLVD WSW 1/4 - 1/2 (0.261 mi.) J50 71 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TC2502198.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 11 DRYCLEANERS: A list of drycleaner related facilities that have EPA ID numbers. These are facilities with certain SIC codes: power laundries, family and commercial; garment pressing and cleaners’ agents; linen supply; coin-operated laundries and cleaning; drycleaning plants except rugs; carpet and upholster cleaning; industrial launderers; laundry and garment services. A review of the DRYCLEANERS list, as provided by EDR, and dated 05/06/2009 has revealed that there is 1 DRYCLEANERS site within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property. PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ ________ ___________________ _____ _____ THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 1601 S SUNKIST ST N 1/8 - 1/4 (0.233 mi.) 45 65 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TC2502198.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 12 Due to poor or inadequate address information, the following sites were not mapped: Site Name Database(s)____________ ____________ SHELL SERVICE STATION HIST CORTESE STADIUM TOWERS PLAZA SWEEPS UST CMACC RACING/C-MACCO INC DRYCLEANERS 3 X CLEANERS DRYCLEANERS BURRIS SAND PIT CERC-NFRAP PLACENTA STREET SWEEPER TRANDFER S SWF/LF METREX RESEARCH CORP. SWF/LF SHELL OIL PRODUCTS US LUST SHELL #201 LUST CAC INDUSTRIAL LUST TEXACO SERVICE STATION LUST UNOCAL #6220 LUST MOBIL #18-K3Q LUST TEXACO SERVICE STATION LUST CHEVRON #9-0456 LUST THRIFTY OIL CO #367 LUST, HIST UST UNOCAL #5698 UST UNOCAL #5869 UST UNOCAL #6220 UST S. FUKUDA HIST UST STATION 114 HIST UST WELL 45 AST K H S & S CONTRACTOR’S HAZNET A L S CORP (G P S DIV) HAZNET 1X S & R INDUSTRIAL SHEET METAL HAZNET 225 S. MANCHESTER AVE HMIRS S AND C TIRE INC (R.HEMSTEDT) ERNS N/B I-5 S OF MAGNOLIA ERNS TRANSITION ROAD FROM WEST STATE HW ERNS UNOCAL SERVICE STATION 1818 S LEWI ERNS BALL ROAD BASIN SLIC S.R. BRAY DEVELOPMENT CORP EMI EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc. 230 kV230 kV 230 kV 230 kV230 kV 230 kV 230 kV 230 kV 230 kV160 1 6 0 16 0 1 6 0 160160160160160 160 EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc. 1 60160160160 MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY Search Target Distance Total Database Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS Federal NPL site list 0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000NPL 0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000Proposed NPL 0 NR NR NR NR NR TPNPL LIENS Federal Delisted NPL site list 0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000Delisted NPL Federal CERCLIS list 1 NR NR 1 0 0 0.500CERCLIS Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site List 1 NR NR 0 0 1 0.500CERC-NFRAP Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list 1 NR 1 0 0 0 1.000CORRACTS Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500RCRA-TSDF Federal RCRA generators list 0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250RCRA-LQG 13 NR NR NR 7 6 0.250RCRA-SQG 0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250RCRA-CESQG Federal institutional controls / engineering controls registries 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500US ENG CONTROLS 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500US INST CONTROL Federal ERNS list 0 NR NR NR NR NR TPERNS State- and tribal - equivalent NPL 1 NR 0 1 0 0 1.000RESPONSE State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS 12 NR 9 1 1 1 1.000ENVIROSTOR State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500SWF/LF State and tribal leaking storage tank lists 16 NR NR 9 0 7 0.500LUST 8 NR NR 4 1 3 0.500SLIC 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500INDIAN LUST TC2502198.2s Page 4 MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY Search Target Distance Total Database Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted State and tribal registered storage tank lists 6 NR NR NR 0 6 0.250 XUST 0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250 XAST 0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250INDIAN UST State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500VCP 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500INDIAN VCP ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS Local Brownfield lists 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500US BROWNFIELDS Local Lists of Landfill / Solid Waste Disposal Sites 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500DEBRIS REGION 9 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500ODI 1 NR NR 0 0 1 0.500WMUDS/SWAT 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500SWRCY 0 NR NR NR NR NR TPHAULERS 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500INDIAN ODI Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites 0 NR NR NR NR NR TPUS CDL 0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000HIST Cal-Sites 0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250SCH 0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000Toxic Pits 0 NR NR NR NR NR TPCDL Local Lists of Registered Storage Tanks 4 NR NR NR 0 4 0.250CA FID UST 7 NR NR NR 2 5 0.250HIST UST 5 NR NR NR 0 5 0.250SWEEPS UST Local Land Records 0 NR NR NR NR NR TPLIENS 2 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500LUCIS 0 NR NR NR NR NR TPLIENS 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500DEED Records of Emergency Release Reports 0 NR NR NR NR NR TPHMIRS 0 NR NR NR NR NR TPCHMIRS 0 NR NR NR NR NR TPLDS 0 NR NR NR NR NR TPMCS 0 NR NR NR NR NR TP XOrange Co. Industrial Site Other Ascertainable Records 4 NR NR NR 3 1 0.250RCRA-NonGen TC2502198.2s Page 5 MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY Search Target Distance Total Database Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted 0 NR NR NR NR NR TPDOT OPS 0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000DOD 0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000FUDS 0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000CONSENT 0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000ROD 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500UMTRA 0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250MINES 0 NR NR NR NR NR TPTRIS 0 NR NR NR NR NR TPTSCA 0 NR NR NR NR NR TPFTTS 0 NR NR NR NR NR TPHIST FTTS 0 NR NR NR NR NR TPSSTS 0 NR NR NR NR NR TPICIS 0 NR NR NR NR NR TPPADS 0 NR NR NR NR NR TPMLTS 0 NR NR NR NR NR TPRADINFO 0 NR NR NR NR NR TPFINDS 0 NR NR NR NR NR TPRAATS 0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000CA BOND EXP. PLAN 0 NR NR NR NR NR TPCA WDS 0 NR NR NR NR NR TPNPDES 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500Cortese 10 NR NR 5 2 3 0.500HIST CORTESE 0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000Notify 65 1 NR NR NR 1 0 0.250DRYCLEANERS 0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250WIP 0 NR NR NR NR NR TP XHAZNET 0 NR NR NR NR NR TPEMI 0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000INDIAN RESERV 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500SCRD DRYCLEANERS EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS EDR Proprietary Records 0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000Manufactured Gas Plants 0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250EDR Historical Auto Stations 0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250EDR Historical Cleaners NOTES: TP = Target Property NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance Sites may be listed in more than one database TC2502198.2s Page 6 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation WASTE (OR SLOP) OILReleased Chemical: Closure certification issuedClosure Type: CLOSED 11/24/2008Current Status: RO0003500Record ID: ORANGERegion: 08IC027Case ID: Orange Co. Industrial Site: Site 1 of 4 in cluster A Actual: 158 ft. Property ANAHEIM, CA 92806 Target 1750 DOUGLASS RD N/A A1 Orange Co. Industrial SiteOC PUBLIC WORKS KATELLA YARD S109348897 Not reportedComments: 2100Total Gallons: CNTY OF ORANGE RDMD TRANS FLEETOwner: AST: Site 2 of 4 in cluster A Actual: 158 ft. Property ANAHEIM, CA Target 1750 S DOUGLASS RD (WAS 10852S.DOUGLASS N/A A2 ASTCNTY OF ORANGE RDMD TRANS FLEET A100323462 -117.87847Longitude: 33.80328Latitude: 3771Global ID: UST: Site 3 of 4 in cluster A Actual: 158 ft. Property ANAHEIM, CA 92806 Target 1750 S DOUGLASS RD N/A A3 USTCOUNTY OF ORANGE GSA TRANSPORTATION U003778819 OrangeFacility County: 0.04Tons: H14Disposal Method: Off-specification, aged, or surplus organicsWaste Category: SacramentoTSD County: CAD980884183TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: ANAHEIM, CA 928066050Mailing City,St,Zip: 1750 S DOUGLASS RDMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 7149736690Telephone: DUC NGUYENContact: CAL000284126Gepaid: HAZNET: Site 4 of 4 in cluster A Actual: 158 ft. Property ANAHEIM, CA 92806 Target 1750 S DOUGLASS RD N/A A4 HAZNETCOUNTY OF ORANGE/RDMD KATELLA YARD S108745438 TC2502198.2s Page 7 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation H061Disposal Method: Laboratory waste chemicalsWaste Category: SacramentoTSD County: CAD980884183TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: ANAHEIM, CA 928066050Mailing City,St,Zip: 1750 S DOUGLASS RDMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 7149736690Telephone: DUC NGUYENContact: CAL000284126Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: 0Tons: H141Disposal Method: Laboratory waste chemicalsWaste Category: SacramentoTSD County: CAD980884183TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: ANAHEIM, CA 928066050Mailing City,St,Zip: 1750 S DOUGLASS RDMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 7149736690Telephone: DUC NGUYENContact: CAL000284126Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: 0.04Tons: H061Disposal Method: Off-specification, aged, or surplus organicsWaste Category: SacramentoTSD County: CAD980884183TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: ANAHEIM, CA 928066050Mailing City,St,Zip: 1750 S DOUGLASS RDMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 7149736690Telephone: DUC NGUYENContact: CAL000284126Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: 0.8Tons: H141Disposal Method: Other organic solidsWaste Category: SacramentoTSD County: CAD980884183TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: ANAHEIM, CA 928066050Mailing City,St,Zip: 1750 S DOUGLASS RDMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 7149736690Telephone: DUC NGUYENContact: CAL000284126Gepaid: COUNTY OF ORANGE/RDMD KATELLA YARD (Continued) S108745438 TC2502198.2s Page 8 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation 2 additional CA_HAZNET: record(s) in the EDR Site Report. Click this hyperlink while viewing on your computer to access OrangeFacility County: 0.03Tons: COUNTY OF ORANGE/RDMD KATELLA YARD (Continued) S108745438 RO0002382Record ID: Soil OnlyCase Type: 06/19/1998Date Closed: Diesel fuel oil and additives, Nos.1-D, 2-D,2-4Released Substance: Certification (Case Closed)Current Status: 93UT058Facility Id: ORANGERegion: LUST: 1 ft. Relative: Higher Actual: 159 ft. < 1/8 ANAHEIM, CA 92806 10852 DOUGLASS RD N/A 5 LUSTKATELLA YARD S102432119 -117.87547Longitude: 33.80619Latitude: 4151Global ID: UST: 71 ft. 0.013 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 162 ft. < 1/8 ANAHEIM, CA 92806 NNE 2695 E KATELLA AVE N/A 6 USTARROWHEAD POND-CITY OF ANAHEIM U003779062 Not reportedSite History: Waste Oil / Motor / Hydraulic / LubricatingPotential Contaminats of Concern: SoilPotential Media Affect: Not reportedFile Location: Not reportedLOC Case Number: 083001785TRB Case Number: ANAHEIM, CITY OFLocal Agency: Not reportedCase Worker: ANAHEIM, CITY OFLead Agency: 1991-08-01 00:00:00Status Date: Completed - Case ClosedStatus: LUST Cleanup SiteCase Type: -117.885836Longitude: 33.8041801Latitude: T0605901337Global Id: STATERegion: LUST: 92 ft. Site 1 of 4 in cluster B 0.017 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 158 ft. < 1/8 ANAHEIM, CA 92806 NW 2225 E KATELLA AVE N/A B7 LUSTSTADIUM MOTORS S109284603 TC2502198.2s Page 9 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation -117.885836Longitude: 33.8041801Latitude: LUSTOversite Program: Not reportedInterim: Not reportedFacility Contact: Not reportedOperator: Not reportedSoil Qualifies: Not reportedGW Qualifies: 3/1/1991Enter Date: Not reportedMonitoring: Not reportedRemed Action: Not reportedRemed Plan: Not reportedPollution Char: Not reportedWorkplan: 8/1/1991Close Date: Not reportedEnforcement Date: 1/22/1991Discover Date: Not reportedPrelim Assess: 1/22/1991Review Date: 3/1/1991Enter Date: Not reportedHow Stopped Date: T0605901337Global ID: Not reportedLeak Source: Not reportedLeak Cause: Not reportedHow Stopped: Subsurface MonitoringHow Discovered: Not reportedFunding: Not reportedEnf Type: Not reportedCross Street: Not reportedAbate Method: Not reportedQty Leaked: Waste OilSubstance: Soil onlyCase Type: Not reportedLocal Case Num: 083001785TCase Number: Case ClosedFacility Status: Santa Ana RegionRegional Board: OrangeCounty: 8Region: LUST REG 8: corrective action activities required under RCRA. program staff to track the notification, permit, compliance, and and treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo allows RCRA events and activities related to facilities that generate, transport, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program through the tracking of RCRAInfo is a national information system that supports the Resource 110002710451Registry ID: Other Pertinent Environmental Activity Identified at Site FINDS: 95 ft. Site 2 of 4 in cluster B 0.018 mi.HIST CORTESE Relative: Higher Actual: 158 ft. < 1/8 RCRA-NonGenANAHEIM, CA 92806 NW LUST2225 KATELLA AVE CAD981447949 B8 FINDSSTADIUM MOTORS, INC 1000189689 TC2502198.2s Page 10 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OperatorOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (415) 555-1212Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: NOT REQUIRED, ME 99999 NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator address: NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator name: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OwnerOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (415) 555-1212Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: NOT REQUIRED, ME 99999 NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator address: R MCCLUREOwner/operator name: Owner/Operator Summary: Handler: Non-Generators do not presently generate hazardous wasteDescription: Non-GeneratorClassification: 09EPA Region: Not reportedContact email: (714) 385-1919Contact telephone: USContact country: ANAHEIM, CA 92806 2225 KATELLA AVEContact address: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGERContact: ANAHEIM, CA 92806 KATELLA AVEMailing address: CAD981447949EPA ID: ANAHEIM, CA 92806 2225 KATELLA AVEFacility address: STADIUM MOTORS, INCFacility name: 03/04/1986Date form received by agency: RCRA-NonGen: Not reportedSummary: Not reportedWork Suspended: Not reportedCleanup Fund Id: Not reportedPriority: Not reportedBeneficial: COASTAL PLAIN OF ORAHydr Basin #: 30011Local Agency: Local AgencyLead Agency: UNKStaff Initials: CABStaff: *MTBE Class: Not Required to be Tested.MTBE Tested: 0MTBE Fuel: Not reportedMax MTBE Soil: 0MTBE Concentration: Not reportedMax MTBE GW: Not reportedMTBE Date: STADIUM MOTORS, INC (Continued) 1000189689 TC2502198.2s Page 11 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation 083001785TReg Id: LTNKAReg By: 30Facility County Code: CORTESERegion: CORTESE: No violations foundViolation Status: Commercial status unknownOff-site waste receiver: NoUsed oil transporter: NoUsed oil transfer facility: NoUsed oil Specification marketer: NoUsed oil fuel marketer to burner: NoUser oil refiner: NoUsed oil processor: NoUsed oil fuel burner: UnknownFurnace exemption: UnknownOn-site burner exemption: NoUnderground injection activity: NoTreater, storer or disposer of HW: NoTransporter of hazardous waste: NoRecycler of hazardous waste: UnknownMixed waste (haz. and radioactive): UnknownU.S. importer of hazardous waste: Handler Activities Summary: STADIUM MOTORS, INC (Continued) 1000189689 SCAir District Name: 41212Facility ID: SCAir Basin: 30County Code: 1987Year: EMI: ActiveStatus: Not reportedComments: Not reportedEPA ID: Not reportedNPDES Number: Not reportedDUNs Number: Not reportedContact Phone: Not reportedContact: ANAHEIM 92805Mailing City,St,Zip: Not reportedMailing Address 2: 2225 E KATELLA AVEMailing Address: Not reportedMail To: 7143851919Facility Phone: Not reportedSIC Code: Not reportedCortese Code: Not reportedRegulated ID: UTNKARegulated By: 30001129Facility ID: CA FID UST: 95 ft. Site 3 of 4 in cluster B 0.018 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 158 ft. < 1/8 ANAHEIM, CA 92805 NW EMI2225 E KATELLA AVE N/A B9 CA FID USTSTADIUM MOTORS INC S101589049 TC2502198.2s Page 12 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation 0Part. Matter 10 Micrometers & Smllr Tons/Yr: 0Particulate Matter Tons/Yr: 0SOX - Oxides of Sulphur Tons/Yr: 0NOX - Oxides of Nitrogen Tons/Yr: 0Carbon Monoxide Emissions Tons/Yr: 5Reactive Organic Gases Tons/Yr: 5Total Organic Hydrocarbon Gases Tons/Yr: Not reportedConsolidated Emission Reporting Rule: Not reportedCommunity Health Air Pollution Info System: SOUTH COAST AQMDAir District Name: 5511SIC Code: STADIUM MOTORS INC (Continued) S101589049 PrivateLegal status: (415) 555-1212Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: NOT REQUIRED, ME 99999 NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator address: NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator name: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OwnerOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (415) 555-1212Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: NOT REQUIRED, ME 99999 NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator address: GERALD GRECOOwner/operator name: Owner/Operator Summary: hazardous waste at any time waste during any calendar month, and accumulates more than 1000 kg of hazardous waste at any time; or generates 100 kg or less of hazardous waste during any calendar month and accumulates less than 6000 kg of Handler: generates more than 100 and less than 1000 kg of hazardousDescription: Small Small Quantity GeneratorClassification: 09EPA Region: Not reportedContact email: (714) 385-1919Contact telephone: USContact country: ANAHEIM, CA 92806 2225 E KATELLA AVEContact address: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGERContact: ANAHEIM, CA 92806 E KATELLA AVEMailing address: CAD981978547EPA ID: ANAHEIM, CA 92806 2225 E KATELLA AVEFacility address: STADIUM MOTORS INCFacility name: 04/21/1987Date form received by agency: RCRA-SQG: 95 ft. Site 4 of 4 in cluster B 0.018 mi.SWEEPS UST Relative: Higher Actual: 158 ft. < 1/8 HIST USTANAHEIM, CA 92806 NW UST2225 E KATELLA AVE CAD981978547 B10 RCRA-SQGSTADIUM MOTORS INC 1000189690 TC2502198.2s Page 13 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Not reportedTank Construction: WASTE OILType of Fuel: WASTETank Used for: 00000510Tank Capacity: Not reportedYear Installed: 1Container Num: 002Tank Num: NoneLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: REGULARType of Fuel: PRODUCTTank Used for: 00000000Tank Capacity: Not reportedYear Installed: 3Container Num: 001Tank Num: ANAHEIM, CA 92806Owner City,St,Zip: 2225 E. KATELLAOwner Address: STADIUM MOTORS, INC.Owner Name: 7143851919Telephone: DON RICHMONDContact Name: 0003Total Tanks: AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIOther Type: OtherFacility Type: 00000033366Facility ID: STATERegion: HIST UST: -117.88491Longitude: 33.8047Latitude: 5264Global ID: UST: No violations foundViolation Status: Commercial status unknownOff-site waste receiver: NoUsed oil transporter: NoUsed oil transfer facility: NoUsed oil Specification marketer: NoUsed oil fuel marketer to burner: NoUser oil refiner: NoUsed oil processor: NoUsed oil fuel burner: UnknownFurnace exemption: UnknownOn-site burner exemption: NoUnderground injection activity: NoTreater, storer or disposer of HW: NoTransporter of hazardous waste: NoRecycler of hazardous waste: UnknownMixed waste (haz. and radioactive): UnknownU.S. importer of hazardous waste: Handler Activities Summary: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OperatorOwner/Operator Type: STADIUM MOTORS INC (Continued) 1000189690 TC2502198.2s Page 14 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Not reportedActv Date: 30-011-001925-000015Swrcb Tank Id: 853Owner Tank Id: ATank Status: 12-31-88Created Date: 03-18-92Act Date: 03-18-92Ref Date: Not reportedBoard Of Equalization: 9Number: 1925Comp Number: AStatus: Not reportedNumber Of Tanks: JET FUELContent: WStg: M.V. FUELTank Use: 250Capacity: Not reportedActv Date: 30-011-001925-000014Swrcb Tank Id: 853Owner Tank Id: ATank Status: 12-31-88Created Date: 03-18-92Act Date: 03-18-92Ref Date: Not reportedBoard Of Equalization: 9Number: 1925Comp Number: AStatus: 6Number Of Tanks: OTHERContent: WStg: UNKNOWNTank Use: 250Capacity: Not reportedActv Date: 30-011-001925-000003Swrcb Tank Id: 853Owner Tank Id: ATank Status: 12-31-88Created Date: 03-18-92Act Date: 03-18-92Ref Date: Not reportedBoard Of Equalization: 9Number: 1925Comp Number: AStatus: SWEEPS UST: NoneLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: Not reportedType of Fuel: WASTETank Used for: 00000000Tank Capacity: Not reportedYear Installed: 2Container Num: 003Tank Num: NoneLeak Detection: STADIUM MOTORS INC (Continued) 1000189690 TC2502198.2s Page 15 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Not reportedNumber Of Tanks: Not reportedContent: WStg: M.V. FUELTank Use: 550Capacity: Not reportedActv Date: 30-011-001925-000018Swrcb Tank Id: 853Owner Tank Id: ATank Status: 12-31-88Created Date: 03-18-92Act Date: 03-18-92Ref Date: Not reportedBoard Of Equalization: 9Number: 1925Comp Number: AStatus: Not reportedNumber Of Tanks: WASTE OILContent: WStg: M.V. FUELTank Use: 1000Capacity: Not reportedActv Date: 30-011-001925-000017Swrcb Tank Id: 853Owner Tank Id: ATank Status: 12-31-88Created Date: 03-18-92Act Date: 03-18-92Ref Date: Not reportedBoard Of Equalization: 9Number: 1925Comp Number: AStatus: Not reportedNumber Of Tanks: JET FUELContent: WStg: M.V. FUELTank Use: 250Capacity: Not reportedActv Date: 30-011-001925-000016Swrcb Tank Id: 853Owner Tank Id: ATank Status: 12-31-88Created Date: 03-18-92Act Date: 03-18-92Ref Date: Not reportedBoard Of Equalization: 9Number: 1925Comp Number: AStatus: Not reportedNumber Of Tanks: REG UNLEADEDContent: WStg: M.V. FUELTank Use: 2000Capacity: STADIUM MOTORS INC (Continued) 1000189690 TC2502198.2s Page 16 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Stock InventorLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: REGULARType of Fuel: PRODUCTTank Used for: 00000500Tank Capacity: Not reportedYear Installed: 1Container Num: 001Tank Num: ANAHEIM, CA 92806Owner City,St,Zip: 10611 S. DOUGLASSOwner Address: LEO F. DOUGLASSOwner Name: 7145386683Telephone: Not reportedContact Name: 0001Total Tanks: RANCHOther Type: OtherFacility Type: 00000023610Facility ID: STATERegion: HIST UST: 144 ft. 0.027 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 162 ft. < 1/8 ANAHEIM, CA 92806 North 10611 S. DOUGLASS N/A 11 HIST USTLEO F. DOUGLASS U001578862 Other ground water affectedCase Type: Not reportedLocal Case Num: 083003967TCase Number: Preliminary site assessment underwayFacility Status: Santa Ana RegionRegional Board: OrangeCounty: 8Region: LUST REG 8: Not reportedSite History: BenzenePotential Contaminats of Concern: Other Groundwater (uses other than drinking water)Potential Media Affect: Not reportedFile Location: Not reportedLOC Case Number: 083003967TRB Case Number: ANAHEIM, CITY OFLocal Agency: Not reportedCase Worker: ANAHEIM, CITY OFLead Agency: 2008-08-26 00:00:00Status Date: Completed - Case ClosedStatus: LUST Cleanup SiteCase Type: -117.884092Longitude: 33.805754Latitude: T0605919150Global Id: STATERegion: LUST: 315 ft. Site 1 of 6 in cluster C 0.060 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 159 ft. < 1/8 ANAHEIM, CA 92806 NNE 2331 KATELLA AVE., E. N/A C12 LUSTSHELL OIL PRODUCTS US S105850480 TC2502198.2s Page 17 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Not reportedSummary: Not reportedWork Suspended: Not reportedCleanup Fund Id: Not reportedPriority: Not reportedBeneficial: Not reportedHydr Basin #: 30011Local Agency: Local AgencyLead Agency: SWStaff Initials: CABStaff: *MTBE Class: MTBE Detected. Site tested for MTBE & MTBE detectedMTBE Tested: 0MTBE Fuel: 34Max MTBE Soil: 0MTBE Concentration: 1Max MTBE GW: 10/26/2004MTBE Date: 0Longitude: 0Latitude: LUSTOversite Program: Not reportedInterim: Not reportedFacility Contact: Not reportedOperator: =Soil Qualifies: NDGW Qualifies: Not reportedEnter Date: Not reportedMonitoring: Not reportedRemed Action: Not reportedRemed Plan: Not reportedPollution Char: Not reportedWorkplan: Not reportedClose Date: Not reportedEnforcement Date: 4/2/2003Discover Date: 11/3/2003Prelim Assess: Not reportedReview Date: Not reportedEnter Date: Not reportedHow Stopped Date: T0605919150Global ID: UNKLeak Source: UNKLeak Cause: Not reportedHow Stopped: SASHow Discovered: Not reportedFunding: Not reportedEnf Type: STATE COLLEGE BLVD.Cross Street: Not reportedAbate Method: Not reportedQty Leaked: BenzeneSubstance: SHELL OIL PRODUCTS US (Continued) S105850480 TC2502198.2s Page 18 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Commercial status unknownOff-site waste receiver: NoUsed oil transporter: NoUsed oil transfer facility: NoUsed oil Specification marketer: NoUsed oil fuel marketer to burner: NoUser oil refiner: NoUsed oil processor: NoUsed oil fuel burner: UnknownFurnace exemption: UnknownOn-site burner exemption: NoUnderground injection activity: NoTreater, storer or disposer of HW: NoTransporter of hazardous waste: NoRecycler of hazardous waste: UnknownMixed waste (haz. and radioactive): UnknownU.S. importer of hazardous waste: Handler Activities Summary: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OwnerOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (713) 241-5036Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: HOUSTON, TX 77252 P O BOX 2648Owner/operator address: EQUILON ENT LLC DBA S O P USOwner/operator name: Owner/Operator Summary: hazardous waste at any time waste during any calendar month, and accumulates more than 1000 kg of hazardous waste at any time; or generates 100 kg or less of hazardous waste during any calendar month and accumulates less than 6000 kg of Handler: generates more than 100 and less than 1000 kg of hazardousDescription: Small Small Quantity GeneratorClassification: 09EPA Region: Not reportedContact email: (713) 241-5036Contact telephone: USContact country: HOUSTON, TX 772522648 P O BOX 2648Contact address: SONDRA BIENVENUContact: HOUSTON, TX 772522648 P O BOX 2648Mailing address: CAR000115956EPA ID: ANAHEIM, CA 928066017 S A P NO 135047 2331 E KATELLA AVEFacility address: SHELL SERVICE STATIONFacility name: 08/14/2002Date form received by agency: RCRA-SQG: 315 ft. Site 2 of 6 in cluster C 0.060 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 159 ft. < 1/8 HAZNETANAHEIM, CA 92806 NNE FINDS2331 E KATELLA AVE CAR000115956 C13 RCRA-SQGSHELL SERVICE STATION 1005441144 TC2502198.2s Page 19 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Other organic solidsWaste Category: Los AngelesTSD County: CAD008364432TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: Houston, TX 770672508Mailing City,St,Zip: 12700 NORTHBOROUGH DR MFT 240-GMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 2818742224Telephone: N CORTEZ/ENVT’L DATA ANALYSTContact: CAR000115956Gepaid: Not reportedFacility County: 0.69Tons: Treatment, TankDisposal Method: Tank bottom wasteWaste Category: Los AngelesTSD County: Not reportedTSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: Houston, TX 772522648Mailing City,St,Zip: PO BOX 2648Mailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 7132415036Telephone: Sondra BienvenuContact: CAR000115956Gepaid: HAZNET: corrective action activities required under RCRA. program staff to track the notification, permit, compliance, and and treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo allows RCRA events and activities related to facilities that generate, transport, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program through the tracking of RCRAInfo is a national information system that supports the Resource California - Hazardous Waste Tracking System - Datamart 110012546502Registry ID: Other Pertinent Environmental Activity Identified at Site FINDS: No violations foundViolation Status: BENZENEWaste name: D018Waste code: WHICH WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS IGNITABLE HAZARDOUS WASTE. MATERIAL. LACQUER THINNER IS AN EXAMPLE OF A COMMONLY USED SOLVENT WHICH CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE MANUFACTURER OR DISTRIBUTOR OF THE FLASH POINT OF A WASTE IS TO REVIEW THE MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET, CLOSED CUP FLASH POINT TESTER. ANOTHER METHOD OF DETERMINING THE LESS THAN 140 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT AS DETERMINED BY A PENSKY-MARTENS IGNITABLE HAZARDOUS WASTES ARE THOSE WASTES WHICH HAVE A FLASHPOINT OFWaste name: D001Waste code: Hazardous Waste Summary: SHELL SERVICE STATION (Continued) 1005441144 TC2502198.2s Page 20 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation 4 additional CA_HAZNET: record(s) in the EDR Site Report. Click this hyperlink while viewing on your computer to access OrangeFacility County: 2.5Tons: Not reportedDisposal Method: Other empty containers 30 gallons or moreWaste Category: OrangeTSD County: CAD982484933TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: Houston, TX 770672508Mailing City,St,Zip: 12700 NORTHBOROUGH DR MFT 240-GMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: S A P No 135047Facility Addr2: 2818742224Telephone: N CORTEZ/ENVT’L DATA ANALYSTContact: CAR000115956Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: 6.75Tons: Disposal, OtherDisposal Method: Other empty containers 30 gallons or moreWaste Category: OrangeTSD County: CAD982484933TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: Houston, TX 770672508Mailing City,St,Zip: 12700 NORTHBOROUGH DR MFT 240-GMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: S A P No 135047Facility Addr2: 2818742224Telephone: N CORTEZ/ENVT’L DATA ANALYSTContact: CAR000115956Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: 1.25Tons: RecyclerDisposal Method: Aqueous solution with less than 10% total organic residuesWaste Category: OrangeTSD County: CAT080013352TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: Houston, TX 770672508Mailing City,St,Zip: 12700 NORTHBOROUGH DR MFT 240-GMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: S A P No 135047Facility Addr2: 2818742224Telephone: N CORTEZ/ENVT’L DATA ANALYSTContact: CAR000115956Gepaid: Not reportedFacility County: 0.01Tons: Transfer StationDisposal Method: SHELL SERVICE STATION (Continued) 1005441144 TC2502198.2s Page 21 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation ActiveStatus: Not reportedComments: Not reportedEPA ID: Not reportedNPDES Number: Not reportedDUNs Number: Not reportedContact Phone: Not reportedContact: ANAHEIM 92806Mailing City,St,Zip: Not reportedMailing Address 2: 2331 E KATELLA AVEMailing Address: Not reportedMail To: 7149982298Facility Phone: Not reportedSIC Code: Not reportedCortese Code: Not reportedRegulated ID: UTNKARegulated By: 30003200Facility ID: CA FID UST: 315 ft. Site 3 of 6 in cluster C 0.060 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 159 ft. < 1/8 ANAHEIM, CA 92806 NNE 2331 E KATELLA AVE N/A C14 CA FID USTSHELL (0222-2705)S101589201 Sensor InstrumentLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: REGULARType of Fuel: PRODUCTTank Used for: 00010000Tank Capacity: 1983Year Installed: 2Container Num: 002Tank Num: Vapor Sniff Well, Pressure TestLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: UNLEADEDType of Fuel: PRODUCTTank Used for: 00010000Tank Capacity: 1983Year Installed: 1Container Num: 001Tank Num: ANAHEIM, CA 92806Owner City,St,Zip: 2331 E KATELLAOwner Address: MICHAEL KURKDJIANOwner Name: 7146348208Telephone: DEALERContact Name: 0003Total Tanks: Not reportedOther Type: Gas StationFacility Type: 00000011558Facility ID: STATERegion: HIST UST: 315 ft. Site 4 of 6 in cluster C 0.060 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 159 ft. < 1/8 ANAHEIM, CA 92806 NNE 2331 E KATELLA AVE N/A C15 HIST USTSTADIUM SHELL U001578885 TC2502198.2s Page 22 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Sensor InstrumentLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: WASTE OILType of Fuel: WASTETank Used for: 00005000Tank Capacity: 1983Year Installed: 3Container Num: 003Tank Num: STADIUM SHELL (Continued)U001578885 ATank Status: 12-31-88Created Date: 05-09-94Act Date: 01-28-93Ref Date: 44-000074Board Of Equalization: 2Number: 2426Comp Number: AStatus: 7Number Of Tanks: LEADEDContent: PStg: M.V. FUELTank Use: 10000Capacity: 02-03-93Actv Date: 30-011-002426-000001Swrcb Tank Id: UNKNOWNOwner Tank Id: ATank Status: 12-31-88Created Date: 05-09-94Act Date: 01-28-93Ref Date: 44-000074Board Of Equalization: 2Number: 2426Comp Number: AStatus: SWEEPS UST: OrangeFacility County: 0.41Tons: H135Disposal Method: Oil/water separation sludgeWaste Category: Los AngelesTSD County: CAT080013352TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: ANAHEIM, CA 928066017Mailing City,St,Zip: 2331 E KATELLA AVEMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 7146348208Telephone: MICHAEL KURKJIAN/OWNERContact: CAL000091563Gepaid: HAZNET: 315 ft. Site 5 of 6 in cluster C 0.060 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 159 ft. < 1/8 ANAHEIM, CA 92806 NNE SWEEPS UST2331 E KATELLA AVE N/A C16 HAZNETSTADIUM SHELL U003799329 TC2502198.2s Page 23 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation WStg: M.V. FUELTank Use: 10000Capacity: Not reportedActv Date: 30-011-002426-000006Swrcb Tank Id: 149Owner Tank Id: ATank Status: 12-31-88Created Date: 05-09-94Act Date: 01-28-93Ref Date: 44-000074Board Of Equalization: 2Number: 2426Comp Number: AStatus: Not reportedNumber Of Tanks: WASTE OILContent: WStg: OILTank Use: 550Capacity: 02-03-93Actv Date: 30-011-002426-000004Swrcb Tank Id: SHELL-OILOwner Tank Id: ATank Status: 12-31-88Created Date: 05-09-94Act Date: 01-28-93Ref Date: 44-000074Board Of Equalization: 2Number: 2426Comp Number: AStatus: Not reportedNumber Of Tanks: PRM UNLEADEDContent: PStg: M.V. FUELTank Use: 10000Capacity: 02-03-93Actv Date: 30-011-002426-000003Swrcb Tank Id: SHELL-OILOwner Tank Id: ATank Status: 12-31-88Created Date: 05-09-94Act Date: 01-28-93Ref Date: 44-000074Board Of Equalization: 2Number: 2426Comp Number: AStatus: Not reportedNumber Of Tanks: REG UNLEADEDContent: PStg: M.V. FUELTank Use: 10000Capacity: 02-04-93Actv Date: 30-011-002426-000002Swrcb Tank Id: 20402222754Owner Tank Id: STADIUM SHELL (Continued)U003799329 TC2502198.2s Page 24 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Not reportedNumber Of Tanks: LEADEDContent: WStg: M.V. FUELTank Use: 10000Capacity: Not reportedActv Date: 30-011-002426-000008Swrcb Tank Id: 149Owner Tank Id: ATank Status: 12-31-88Created Date: 05-09-94Act Date: 01-28-93Ref Date: 44-000074Board Of Equalization: 2Number: 2426Comp Number: AStatus: Not reportedNumber Of Tanks: REG UNLEADEDContent: WStg: M.V. FUELTank Use: 10000Capacity: Not reportedActv Date: 30-011-002426-000007Swrcb Tank Id: 149Owner Tank Id: ATank Status: 12-31-88Created Date: 05-09-94Act Date: 01-28-93Ref Date: 44-000074Board Of Equalization: 2Number: 2426Comp Number: AStatus: Not reportedNumber Of Tanks: DIESELContent: STADIUM SHELL (Continued)U003799329 -117.8841Longitude: 33.8053Latitude: 6994Global ID: UST: 315 ft. Site 6 of 6 in cluster C 0.060 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 159 ft. < 1/8 ANAHEIM, CA 92806 NNE 2331 E KATELLA AVE N/A C17 USTSTADIUM SHELL U003780704 TC2502198.2s Page 25 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation 1Number Of Tanks: WASTE OILContent: WASTEStg: OILTank Use: 500Capacity: Not reportedActv Date: 30-011-003410-000001Swrcb Tank Id: Not reportedOwner Tank Id: Not reportedTank Status: Not reportedCreated Date: Not reportedAct Date: Not reportedRef Date: 44-016043Board Of Equalization: Not reportedNumber: 3410Comp Number: Not reportedStatus: SWEEPS UST: InactiveStatus: Not reportedComments: Not reportedEPA ID: Not reportedNPDES Number: Not reportedDUNs Number: Not reportedContact Phone: Not reportedContact: ANAHEIM 92806Mailing City,St,Zip: Not reportedMailing Address 2: 1650 S DOUGLASS RDMailing Address: Not reportedMail To: 7146344475Facility Phone: Not reportedSIC Code: Not reportedCortese Code: Not reportedRegulated ID: UTNKIRegulated By: 30013101Facility ID: CA FID UST: 346 ft. Site 1 of 4 in cluster D 0.066 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 164 ft. < 1/8 ANAHEIM, CA 92806 North SWEEPS UST1654 S DOUGLASS RD N/A D18 CA FID USTBLECKERTS DIESEL REPAIR INC S101589457 -117.87802Longitude: 33.80402Latitude: 9362Global ID: UST: 346 ft. Site 2 of 4 in cluster D 0.066 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 164 ft. < 1/8 ANAHEIM, CA 92806 North 1654 DOUGLASS S N/A D19 USTBLECKERTS DIESEL REPAIR INC U003782385 TC2502198.2s Page 26 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Not reportedNumber Of Tanks: REG UNLEADEDContent: PRODUCTStg: M.V. FUELTank Use: 1000Capacity: Not reportedActv Date: 30-011-006106-000004Swrcb Tank Id: Not reportedOwner Tank Id: Not reportedTank Status: Not reportedCreated Date: Not reportedAct Date: Not reportedRef Date: Not reportedBoard Of Equalization: Not reportedNumber: 6106Comp Number: Not reportedStatus: 2Number Of Tanks: WASTE OILContent: WASTEStg: OILTank Use: 550Capacity: Not reportedActv Date: 30-011-006106-000002Swrcb Tank Id: Not reportedOwner Tank Id: Not reportedTank Status: Not reportedCreated Date: Not reportedAct Date: Not reportedRef Date: Not reportedBoard Of Equalization: Not reportedNumber: 6106Comp Number: Not reportedStatus: SWEEPS UST: InactiveStatus: Not reportedComments: Not reportedEPA ID: Not reportedNPDES Number: Not reportedDUNs Number: Not reportedContact Phone: Not reportedContact: ANAHEIM 92806Mailing City,St,Zip: Not reportedMailing Address 2: 1650 DOUGLASS RDMailing Address: Not reportedMail To: 7146341650Facility Phone: Not reportedSIC Code: Not reportedCortese Code: Not reportedRegulated ID: UTNKIRegulated By: 30005188Facility ID: CA FID UST: 371 ft. Site 3 of 4 in cluster D 0.070 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 164 ft. < 1/8 ANAHEIM, CA 92806 North SWEEPS UST1650 DOUGLASS RD N/A D20 CA FID USTTRUCPARCO S101589295 TC2502198.2s Page 27 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation -117.87801Longitude: 33.80404Latitude: 12971Global ID: UST: 371 ft. Site 4 of 4 in cluster D 0.070 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 164 ft. < 1/8 ANAHEIM, CA 92806 North 1650 DOUGLASS S N/A D21 USTTRUCPARCO U003783734 Not reportedThreat to Water Quality: CITY OF ANAHEIMSolid Waste Assessment Test Program: FalseDepartment of Defence: FalseResource Conservation Recovery Act: FalseToxic Pits Cleanup Act Program: TrueSolid Waste Assessment Test Program: FalseWaste Discharge System: Not reportedLast Facility Editors: Not reportedComments: Not reportedSecondary SIC: Not reportedPrimary SIC: ANAHEIM NO.6 TRANSFER STATIONSWAT Facility Name: Not reportedFacility Telephone: Not reportedFacility Description: Not reportedFacility Type: 8Region: Not reportedLand Owner Phone: Not reportedLand Owner Contact: CALand Owner City,St,Zip: Not reportedLand Owner Address: Not reportedLand Owner Name: Not reportedAgency Telephone: FRANK BOWERMANAgency Contact: Not reportedAgency City,St,Zip: Not reportedAgency Address: ORANGE CO INTEGRATED WASTE MGTAgency Department: CITY OF ANAHEIMAgency Name: Not reportedAgency Type: FalseWaste List: FalseOpen To Public: FalseSuperorder: FalseMunicipal Solid Waste: Not reportedRegional Board ID: 0Tonnage: Not reportedNPID: Not reportedBase Meridian: Not reportedSecondary Waste Type: Not reportedSecondary Waste: Not reportedPrimary Waste Type: Not reportedPrimary Waste: Not reportedComplexity: Not reportedEdit Date: WMUDS/SWAT: 468 ft. 0.089 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 164 ft. < 1/8 ORANGE, CA NNW NW OF KATELLA / DOUGLAS N/A 22 WMUDS/SWATANAHEIM NO.6 TRANSFER STATION S103320674 TC2502198.2s Page 28 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Not reportedSolid Waste Information ID: 8 300035NURWaste Discharge System ID: Not reportedSelf-Monitoring Rept. Frequency: Not reportedWaste Discharge Requirements: Not reportedRCRA Facility: Not reportedSection Range: 1Number of WMUDS at Facility: GSRRegional Board Project Officer: FalseSub Chapter 15: ANAHEIM NO.6 TRANSFER STATION (Continued) S103320674 Not reportedSite History: DieselPotential Contaminats of Concern: SoilPotential Media Affect: Not reportedFile Location: Not reportedLOC Case Number: 083004018TRB Case Number: ANAHEIM, CITY OFLocal Agency: Not reportedCase Worker: ANAHEIM, CITY OFLead Agency: 2007-02-21 00:00:00Status Date: Completed - Case ClosedStatus: LUST Cleanup SiteCase Type: -117.881535Longitude: 33.80418Latitude: T0605921602Global Id: STATERegion: LUST: 478 ft. Site 1 of 4 in cluster E 0.091 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 161 ft. < 1/8 ANAHEIM, CA 92806 NNE 2400 KATELLA AVE. E. N/A E23 LUSTSTADIUM TOWERS, L.L.C.S106874283 -117.8833Longitude: 33.8056Latitude: 3988Global ID: UST: 478 ft. Site 2 of 4 in cluster E 0.091 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 161 ft. < 1/8 ANAHEIM, CA 92806 NNE 2400 E KATELLA AVE N/A E24 USTSTADIUM TOWERS PLAZA/SPIEKER PROPERTIES U003996907 TC2502198.2s Page 29 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Not reportedSite History: GasolinePotential Contaminats of Concern: Aquifer used for drinking water supplyPotential Media Affect: Not reportedFile Location: Not reportedLOC Case Number: 083000236TRB Case Number: ANAHEIM, CITY OFLocal Agency: Not reportedCase Worker: SANTA ANA RWQCB (REGION 8)Lead Agency: 1993-08-26 00:00:00Status Date: Completed - Case ClosedStatus: LUST Cleanup SiteCase Type: -117.8818679Longitude: 33.8064251Latitude: T0605900181Global Id: STATERegion: LUST: 517 ft. Site 3 of 4 in cluster E 0.098 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 161 ft. < 1/8 ANAHEIM, CA 92806 NNE 2430 E KATELLA AVE N/A E25 LUSTMALIBU GRAND PRIX CORPORATION S109284270 Not reportedOwner/operator country: NOT REQUIRED, ME 99999 NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator address: NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator name: Owner/Operator Summary: hazardous waste at any time waste during any calendar month, and accumulates more than 1000 kg of hazardous waste at any time; or generates 100 kg or less of hazardous waste during any calendar month and accumulates less than 6000 kg of Handler: generates more than 100 and less than 1000 kg of hazardousDescription: Small Small Quantity GeneratorClassification: 09EPA Region: Not reportedContact email: Not reportedContact telephone: Not reportedContact country: Not reported Not reportedContact address: Not reportedContact: WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91367 21300 CALIFA STMailing address: CAD982501546EPA ID: ANAHEIM, CA 92806 2430 E KATELLAFacility address: MALIBU GRAND PRIXFacility name: 09/01/1996Date form received by agency: RCRA-SQG: HIST CORTESE NPDES 535 ft.EMISite 4 of 4 in cluster E 0.101 mi.HIST UST Relative: Higher Actual: 161 ft. < 1/8 LUSTANAHEIM, CA 92806 NNE FINDS2430 E KATELLA CAD982501546 E26 RCRA-SQGMALIBU GRAND PRIX 1000246327 TC2502198.2s Page 30 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation 8Region: LUST REG 8: corrective action activities required under RCRA. program staff to track the notification, permit, compliance, and and treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo allows RCRA events and activities related to facilities that generate, transport, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program through the tracking of RCRAInfo is a national information system that supports the Resource 110002834069Registry ID: Other Pertinent Environmental Activity Identified at Site FINDS: No violations foundViolation Status: Large Quantity GeneratorClassification: MALIBU GRAND PRIXFacility name: 12/19/1989Date form received by agency: Historical Generators: Commercial status unknownOff-site waste receiver: NoUsed oil transporter: NoUsed oil transfer facility: NoUsed oil Specification marketer: NoUsed oil fuel marketer to burner: NoUser oil refiner: NoUsed oil processor: NoUsed oil fuel burner: UnknownFurnace exemption: UnknownOn-site burner exemption: NoUnderground injection activity: NoTreater, storer or disposer of HW: NoTransporter of hazardous waste: NoRecycler of hazardous waste: UnknownMixed waste (haz. and radioactive): UnknownU.S. importer of hazardous waste: Handler Activities Summary: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OwnerOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (415) 555-1212Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: NOT REQUIRED, ME 99999 NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator address: MALIBU GRAND PRIX CORPOwner/operator name: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OperatorOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (415) 555-1212Owner/operator telephone: MALIBU GRAND PRIX (Continued)1000246327 TC2502198.2s Page 31 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation TO VE. THE MONITOR-ING WILL CATCH ANY OF THIS CONTAMINATION THAT HITS GW. EXTRACTION WAS RECOVERED. A ZONE OF CONTAMINATION EXISTS THAT IS ACCESSIBLE 04-08-91: IN MONITORING MODE. ALL CONTAMINATION THAT WAS REMOVEABLE BY VAPORSummary: Not reportedWork Suspended: Not reportedCleanup Fund Id: Not reportedPriority: Not reportedBeneficial: COASTAL PLAIN OF ORAHydr Basin #: 30011Local Agency: Regional BoardLead Agency: UNKStaff Initials: CABStaff: *MTBE Class: Site NOT Tested for MTBE.Includes Unknown and Not Analyzed.MTBE Tested: 1MTBE Fuel: Not reportedMax MTBE Soil: 0MTBE Concentration: Not reportedMax MTBE GW: Not reportedMTBE Date: -117.8818679Longitude: 33.8064251Latitude: LUSTOversite Program: Not reportedInterim: Not reportedFacility Contact: Not reportedOperator: Not reportedSoil Qualifies: Not reportedGW Qualifies: 5/13/1987Enter Date: 3/7/1991Monitoring: 1/1/1988Remed Action: 4/1/1987Remed Plan: 10/14/1986Pollution Char: Not reportedWorkplan: 8/26/1993Close Date: Not reportedEnforcement Date: 7/15/1987Discover Date: Not reportedPrelim Assess: Not reportedReview Date: 5/13/1987Enter Date: Not reportedHow Stopped Date: T0605900181Global ID: PipingLeak Source: Other CauseLeak Cause: Not reportedHow Stopped: Inventory ControlHow Discovered: Not reportedFunding: Not reportedEnf Type: HOWELLCross Street: Vapor ExtractionAbate Method: Not reportedQty Leaked: GasolineSubstance: Aquifer affectedCase Type: Not reportedLocal Case Num: 083000236TCase Number: Case ClosedFacility Status: Santa Ana RegionRegional Board: OrangeCounty: MALIBU GRAND PRIX (Continued)1000246327 TC2502198.2s Page 32 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Not reportedOrder No Of General Order: Not reportedOrder No: 285249Regulatory Measure Id: 8Region: 263615Agency Id: ActiveFacility Status: Not reportedNpdes Number: NPDES: 0Part. Matter 10 Micrometers & Smllr Tons/Yr: 0Particulate Matter Tons/Yr: 0SOX - Oxides of Sulphur Tons/Yr: 0NOX - Oxides of Nitrogen Tons/Yr: 0Carbon Monoxide Emissions Tons/Yr: 0Reactive Organic Gases Tons/Yr: 0Total Organic Hydrocarbon Gases Tons/Yr: Not reportedConsolidated Emission Reporting Rule: Not reportedCommunity Health Air Pollution Info System: SOUTH COAST AQMDAir District Name: 9511SIC Code: SCAir District Name: 57050Facility ID: SCAir Basin: 30County Code: 1990Year: EMI: Stock InventorLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: REGULARType of Fuel: PRODUCTTank Used for: 00010000Tank Capacity: 1975Year Installed: 2Container Num: 002Tank Num: Visual, Stock Inventor, 10Leak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: REGULARType of Fuel: PRODUCTTank Used for: 00010000Tank Capacity: 1975Year Installed: 1Container Num: 001Tank Num: WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91367Owner City,St,Zip: 21300 CALIFA STREETOwner Address: MALIBU GRAND PRIX CORPORATIONOwner Name: 7146340303Telephone: DAVID COTHERMANContact Name: 0002Total Tanks: FAMILY AMUSEMENTOther Type: OtherFacility Type: 00000038574Facility ID: STATERegion: HIST UST: MALIBU GRAND PRIX (Continued)1000246327 TC2502198.2s Page 33 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation 083000236TReg Id: LTNKAReg By: 30Facility County Code: CORTESERegion: CORTESE: Not reportedDischarge Zip: Not reportedDischarge State: Not reportedDischarge City: Not reportedDischarge Address2: Not reportedDischarge Address: Shops at Stadium Towers LPDischarge Name: Not reportedTermination Date Of Regulatory Measure: Not reportedExpiration Date Of Regulatory Measure: 9/20/2005Effective Date Of Regulatory Measure: Not reportedAdoption Date Of Regulatory Measure: CONSTWProgram Type: 8 30C336690WDID: 622764Place Id: Storm water constructionRegulatory Measure Type: MALIBU GRAND PRIX (Continued)1000246327 1Number Of Tanks: WASTE OILContent: WASTEStg: PETROLEUMTank Use: 1000Capacity: Not reportedActv Date: 30-011-000040-000001Swrcb Tank Id: Not reportedOwner Tank Id: Not reportedTank Status: Not reportedCreated Date: Not reportedAct Date: Not reportedRef Date: 44-016128Board Of Equalization: Not reportedNumber: 40Comp Number: Not reportedStatus: SWEEPS UST: 558 ft. 0.106 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 165 ft. < 1/8 ANAHEIM, CA 92806 North 1621 S DOUGLASS RD N/A 27 SWEEPS USTANAHEIM ARENA S106922659 ORANGE, CA 92867 2118 W COLLINS AVEFacility address: BENTLEY LABORATORIES INCFacility name: 09/01/1996Date form received by agency: RCRA-SQG: 652 ft. 0.123 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 160 ft. < 1/8 ORANGE, CA 92867 ESE FINDS2118 W COLLINS AVE CAD091933523 28 RCRA-SQGBENTLEY LABORATORIES INC 1000414757 TC2502198.2s Page 34 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Commercial status unknownOff-site waste receiver: NoUsed oil transporter: NoUsed oil transfer facility: NoUsed oil Specification marketer: NoUsed oil fuel marketer to burner: NoUser oil refiner: NoUsed oil processor: NoUsed oil fuel burner: UnknownFurnace exemption: UnknownOn-site burner exemption: NoUnderground injection activity: NoTreater, storer or disposer of HW: NoTransporter of hazardous waste: NoRecycler of hazardous waste: UnknownMixed waste (haz. and radioactive): UnknownU.S. importer of hazardous waste: Handler Activities Summary: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OperatorOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (415) 555-1212Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: NOT REQUIRED, ME 99999 NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator address: NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator name: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OwnerOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (415) 555-1212Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: NOT REQUIRED, ME 99999 NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator address: BENTLEY LABORATORIES INCOwner/operator name: Owner/Operator Summary: hazardous waste at any time waste during any calendar month, and accumulates more than 1000 kg of hazardous waste at any time; or generates 100 kg or less of hazardous waste during any calendar month and accumulates less than 6000 kg of Handler: generates more than 100 and less than 1000 kg of hazardousDescription: Small Small Quantity GeneratorClassification: 09EPA Region: Not reportedContact email: Not reportedContact telephone: Not reportedContact country: Not reported Not reportedContact address: Not reportedContact: IRVINE, CA 92714 17502 ARMSTRONG AVEMailing address: CAD091933523EPA ID: BENTLEY LABORATORIES INC (Continued) 1000414757 TC2502198.2s Page 35 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation corrective action activities required under RCRA. program staff to track the notification, permit, compliance, and and treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo allows RCRA events and activities related to facilities that generate, transport, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program through the tracking of RCRAInfo is a national information system that supports the Resource 110008263404Registry ID: Other Pertinent Environmental Activity Identified at Site FINDS: No violations foundViolation Status: Large Quantity GeneratorClassification: BENTLEY LABORATORIES INCFacility name: 09/17/1981Date form received by agency: Historical Generators: BENTLEY LABORATORIES INC (Continued) 1000414757 MGCThomas Bros Code: MGCLocation Code: MGCLead Agency: MGCSubstance: MGCStaff: 8Region: ClosedFacility Status: Soil and GroundwaterType: SLIC: 656 ft. Site 1 of 5 in cluster F 0.124 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 161 ft. < 1/8 ORANGE, CA ESE 2023 COLLINS AVNUE N/A F29 SLICINLAND SPECIALTY CHEMICAL CO.S108542992 Small Small Quantity GeneratorClassification: 09EPA Region: Not reportedContact email: (714) 898-9625Contact telephone: USContact country: ORANGE, CA 92667 2023 W COLLINSContact address: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGERContact: CAD981981087EPA ID: ORANGE, CA 92867 2023 W COLLINS AVEFacility address: CA CENTRIFUGAL PUMP INCFacility name: 04/06/1987Date form received by agency: RCRA-SQG: 656 ft. Site 2 of 5 in cluster F 0.124 mi.HIST UST Relative: Higher Actual: 161 ft. < 1/8 HAZNETORANGE, CA 92867 ESE FINDS2023 W COLLINS CAD981981087 F30 RCRA-SQGCA CENTRIFUGAL PUMP INC 1000168881 TC2502198.2s Page 36 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation events and activities related to facilities that generate, transport, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program through the tracking of RCRAInfo is a national information system that supports the Resource California - Hazardous Waste Tracking System - Datamart 110008273563Registry ID: Other Pertinent Environmental Activity Identified at Site FINDS: No violations foundViolation Status: Commercial status unknownOff-site waste receiver: NoUsed oil transporter: NoUsed oil transfer facility: NoUsed oil Specification marketer: NoUsed oil fuel marketer to burner: NoUser oil refiner: NoUsed oil processor: NoUsed oil fuel burner: UnknownFurnace exemption: UnknownOn-site burner exemption: NoUnderground injection activity: NoTreater, storer or disposer of HW: NoTransporter of hazardous waste: NoRecycler of hazardous waste: UnknownMixed waste (haz. and radioactive): UnknownU.S. importer of hazardous waste: Handler Activities Summary: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OperatorOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (415) 555-1212Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: NOT REQUIRED, ME 99999 NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator address: NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator name: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OwnerOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (415) 555-1212Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: NOT REQUIRED, ME 99999 NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator address: CA CENTRIFUGAL PUMP INCOwner/operator name: Owner/Operator Summary: hazardous waste at any time waste during any calendar month, and accumulates more than 1000 kg of hazardous waste at any time; or generates 100 kg or less of hazardous waste during any calendar month and accumulates less than 6000 kg of Handler: generates more than 100 and less than 1000 kg of hazardousDescription: CA CENTRIFUGAL PUMP INC (Continued) 1000168881 TC2502198.2s Page 37 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation 2023 W COLLINS AVEMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 7146397771Telephone: GARY PETHOUDContact: CAD981981087Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: 6.2000Tons: RecyclerDisposal Method: Other organic solidsWaste Category: Los AngelesTSD County: CAT080033681TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: ORANGE, CA 928670000Mailing City,St,Zip: 2023 W COLLINS AVEMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 7146397771Telephone: GARY PETHOUDContact: CAD981981087Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: .6255Tons: Transfer StationDisposal Method: Waste oil and mixed oilWaste Category: Los AngelesTSD County: CAD089446710TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: ORANGE, CA 928670000Mailing City,St,Zip: 2023 W COLLINS AVEMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 7146397771Telephone: GARY PETHOUDContact: CAD981981087Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: 4.6Tons: H132Disposal Method: Other inorganic solid wasteWaste Category: 99TSD County: NVT330010000TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: ORANGE, CA 928670000Mailing City,St,Zip: 2023 W COLLINS AVEMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 7146397771Telephone: EVA MARIE MARTINEZ-SAFETY DIRContact: CAD981981087Gepaid: HAZNET: corrective action activities required under RCRA. program staff to track the notification, permit, compliance, and and treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo allows RCRA CA CENTRIFUGAL PUMP INC (Continued) 1000168881 TC2502198.2s Page 38 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation NoneLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: Not reportedType of Fuel: PRODUCTTank Used for: 00000000Tank Capacity: Not reportedYear Installed: 2Container Num: 002Tank Num: NoneLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: Not reportedType of Fuel: PRODUCTTank Used for: 00000000Tank Capacity: Not reportedYear Installed: 1Container Num: 001Tank Num: ORANGE, CA 92667Owner City,St,Zip: 2023 W. COLLINS AVE.Owner Address: CALIFORNIA CENTRIFUGAL PUMP, IOwner Name: 7146397771Telephone: GEORGE PETERSONContact Name: 0013Total Tanks: PUMP REPAIROther Type: OtherFacility Type: 00000042237Facility ID: STATERegion: HIST UST: 32 additional CA_HAZNET: record(s) in the EDR Site Report. Click this hyperlink while viewing on your computer to access OrangeFacility County: 21.0459Tons: RecyclerDisposal Method: Unspecified oil-containing wasteWaste Category: Los AngelesTSD County: CAT080013352TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: ORANGE, CA 928670000Mailing City,St,Zip: 2023 W COLLINS AVEMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 7146397771Telephone: GARY PETHOUDContact: CAD981981087Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: 2.0000Tons: Not reportedDisposal Method: Other organic solidsWaste Category: Los AngelesTSD County: CAT080033681TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: ORANGE, CA 928670000Mailing City,St,Zip: CA CENTRIFUGAL PUMP INC (Continued) 1000168881 TC2502198.2s Page 39 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Not reportedYear Installed: 9Container Num: 009Tank Num: NoneLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: Not reportedType of Fuel: PRODUCTTank Used for: 00000000Tank Capacity: Not reportedYear Installed: 8Container Num: 008Tank Num: NoneLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: Not reportedType of Fuel: PRODUCTTank Used for: 00000000Tank Capacity: Not reportedYear Installed: 7Container Num: 007Tank Num: NoneLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: Not reportedType of Fuel: PRODUCTTank Used for: 00000000Tank Capacity: Not reportedYear Installed: 6Container Num: 006Tank Num: NoneLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: Not reportedType of Fuel: PRODUCTTank Used for: 00000000Tank Capacity: Not reportedYear Installed: 5Container Num: 005Tank Num: NoneLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: Not reportedType of Fuel: PRODUCTTank Used for: 00000000Tank Capacity: Not reportedYear Installed: 4Container Num: 004Tank Num: NoneLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: Not reportedType of Fuel: PRODUCTTank Used for: 00000000Tank Capacity: Not reportedYear Installed: 3Container Num: 003Tank Num: CA CENTRIFUGAL PUMP INC (Continued) 1000168881 TC2502198.2s Page 40 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation NoneLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: Not reportedType of Fuel: PRODUCTTank Used for: 00000000Tank Capacity: Not reportedYear Installed: 13Container Num: 013Tank Num: NoneLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: Not reportedType of Fuel: PRODUCTTank Used for: 00000000Tank Capacity: Not reportedYear Installed: 12Container Num: 012Tank Num: NoneLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: Not reportedType of Fuel: PRODUCTTank Used for: 00000000Tank Capacity: Not reportedYear Installed: 11Container Num: 011Tank Num: NoneLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: Not reportedType of Fuel: PRODUCTTank Used for: 00000000Tank Capacity: Not reportedYear Installed: 10Container Num: 010Tank Num: NoneLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: Not reportedType of Fuel: PRODUCTTank Used for: 00000000Tank Capacity: CA CENTRIFUGAL PUMP INC (Continued) 1000168881 WEST LAFAYETTE, IN 479060200 P O BOX 2200Contact address: TIMOTHY KELLEYContact: CAD086095908EPA ID: ORANGE, CA 92867 2023 W COLLINS AVEFacility address: INLAND SPECIALTY CHEMICAL CORPFacility name: 02/15/1995Date form received by agency: RCRA-SQG: HIST CORTESE 656 ft.CERC-NFRAPSite 3 of 5 in cluster F 0.124 mi.SLIC Relative: Higher Actual: 161 ft. < 1/8 HAZNETORANGE, CA 92867 ESE FINDS2023 W COLLINS AVE CAD086095908 F31 RCRA-SQGINLAND SPECIALTY CHEMICAL CORP 1000151895 TC2502198.2s Page 41 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation 110008263235Registry ID: Other Pertinent Environmental Activity Identified at Site FINDS: No violations foundViolation Status: Commercial status unknownOff-site waste receiver: NoUsed oil transporter: NoUsed oil transfer facility: NoUsed oil Specification marketer: NoUsed oil fuel marketer to burner: NoUser oil refiner: NoUsed oil processor: NoUsed oil fuel burner: UnknownFurnace exemption: UnknownOn-site burner exemption: NoUnderground injection activity: NoTreater, storer or disposer of HW: NoTransporter of hazardous waste: NoRecycler of hazardous waste: UnknownMixed waste (haz. and radioactive): UnknownU.S. importer of hazardous waste: Handler Activities Summary: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OperatorOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (714) 997-5880Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: CITY NOT REPORTED, CA 99999 2023 WEST COLLINS AVEOwner/operator address: INLAND SPECIALTY CHEMICAL CORPORATIONOwner/operator name: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OwnerOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (317) 497-6100Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: WEST LAFAYETTE, IN 47906 P O BOX 2200Owner/operator address: ISCI INCOwner/operator name: Owner/Operator Summary: hazardous waste at any time waste during any calendar month, and accumulates more than 1000 kg of hazardous waste at any time; or generates 100 kg or less of hazardous waste during any calendar month and accumulates less than 6000 kg of Handler: generates more than 100 and less than 1000 kg of hazardousDescription: Small Small Quantity GeneratorClassification: 09EPA Region: Not reportedContact email: (317) 497-6100Contact telephone: USContact country: INLAND SPECIALTY CHEMICAL CORP (Continued) 1000151895 TC2502198.2s Page 42 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation OrangeFacility County: 62.3672Tons: Disposal, Land FillDisposal Method: Contaminated soil from site clean-upsWaste Category: KingsTSD County: CAT000646117TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: ORANGE, CA 926670000Mailing City,St,Zip: 2023 W COLLINS AVEMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 7149975880Telephone: INLAND SPECIALTY CHEMICAL CORPContact: CAD086095908Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: .7500Tons: Treatment, IncinerationDisposal Method: Not reportedWaste Category: 99TSD County: AZD982441263TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: ORANGE, CA 926670000Mailing City,St,Zip: 2023 W COLLINS AVEMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 7149975880Telephone: INLAND SPECIALTY CHEMICAL CORPContact: CAD086095908Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: 2.0000Tons: Treatment, IncinerationDisposal Method: etc.) Halogenated solvents (chloroform, methyl chloride, perchloroethylene,Waste Category: 99TSD County: AZD982441263TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: ORANGE, CA 926670000Mailing City,St,Zip: 2023 W COLLINS AVEMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 7149975880Telephone: INLAND SPECIALTY CHEMICAL CORPContact: CAD086095908Gepaid: HAZNET: corrective action activities required under RCRA. program staff to track the notification, permit, compliance, and and treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo allows RCRA events and activities related to facilities that generate, transport, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program through the tracking of RCRAInfo is a national information system that supports the Resource California - Hazardous Waste Tracking System - Datamart INLAND SPECIALTY CHEMICAL CORP (Continued) 1000151895 TC2502198.2s Page 43 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Not a Federal FacilityFederal Facility: 0903195Site ID: CERC-NFRAP: Not reportedSite History: Not reportedPotential Contaminants of Concern: Not reportedPotential Media Affected: Not reportedFile Location: SLT8R143RB Case Number: Not reportedLocal Agency: Not reportedCase Worker: Cleanup Program SiteCase Type: -117.87325Longitude: 33.802429Latitude: Not reportedLead Agency Case Number: Not reportedLead Agency: SLT8R1434141Global Id: 2005-04-07 00:00:00Status Date: Completed - Case ClosedFacility Status: STATERegion: SLIC: 2 additional CA_HAZNET: record(s) in the EDR Site Report. Click this hyperlink while viewing on your computer to access OrangeFacility County: 2.125Tons: Treatment, IncinerationDisposal Method: etc.) Halogenated solvents (chloroform, methyl chloride, perchloroethylene,Waste Category: 99TSD County: AZD982441263TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: ORANGE, CA 926670000Mailing City,St,Zip: 2023 W COLLINS AVEMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 7149975880Telephone: INLAND SPECIALTY CHEMICAL CORPContact: CAD086095908Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: .6000Tons: RecyclerDisposal Method: etc.) Halogenated solvents (chloroform, methyl chloride, perchloroethylene,Waste Category: 99TSD County: WAD009477175TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: ORANGE, CA 926670000Mailing City,St,Zip: 2023 W COLLINS AVEMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 7149975880Telephone: INLAND SPECIALTY CHEMICAL CORPContact: CAD086095908Gepaid: INLAND SPECIALTY CHEMICAL CORP (Continued) 1000151895 TC2502198.2s Page 44 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation 30280305Reg Id: CALSIReg By: 30Facility County Code: CORTESERegion: CORTESE: NFRAP (No Futher Remedial Action PlannedPriority Level: 11/10/1988Date Completed: Not reportedDate Started: PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENTAction: Not reportedPriority Level: 11/10/1988Date Completed: Not reportedDate Started: ARCHIVE SITEAction: Not reportedPriority Level: 12/01/1987Date Completed: Not reportedDate Started: DISCOVERYAction: CERCLIS-NFRAP Assessment History: Not reportedSite Description: Site Assessment Manager (SAM)Contact Title: (415) 972-3811Contact Tel: Nuria MunizContact Name: Site Assessment Manager (SAM)Contact Title: (415) 972-3096Contact Tel: Matt MitguardContact Name: CERCLIS-NFRAP Site Contact Name(s): NFRAPNon NPL Status: Not on the NPLNPL Status: INLAND SPECIALTY CHEMICAL CORP (Continued) 1000151895 Not reportedPotential Media Affected: Not reportedFile Location: SL188013847RB Case Number: Not reportedLocal Agency: Not reportedCase Worker: Cleanup Program SiteCase Type: -117.87325Longitude: 33.802429Latitude: Not reportedLead Agency Case Number: SANTA ANA RWQCB (REGION 8)Lead Agency: SL188013847Global Id: 1965-01-01 00:00:00Status Date: OpenFacility Status: STATERegion: SLIC: 656 ft. Site 4 of 5 in cluster F 0.124 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 161 ft. < 1/8 ORANGE, CA 92668 ESE ENVIROSTOR2023 WEST COLLINS AVENUE N/A F32 SLICINLAND SPECIALTIES CHEMICAL CORPORATION S101481425 TC2502198.2s Page 45 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation CENTIFUGAL PUMPS OWN THE PROPERTY A NO OF UNDERGROUND WAS REMOVED REQ’D.PRELIM ASSESS DONE INLAND SPECIALTIES CO NO LONGER IN BUSINESS VERIFY THAT SITE IS CONTAMINATEDSITE SCREENING DONE CERCLA GRANT PA FROM PREVIOUS EMPLOYEES FILES.SITE SCREENING DONE SI LOW NEEDED TO DONE E&E REVIEW OF DHS PA RECOMMENDS NFA FOR EPAFACILITY IDENTIFIED characterization is midway. (status 5). NFA for DTSC.SITE SCREENING RWQCB’s SLIC list indicates that the Board is the lead and additional additional characterization is underway (Status 5). NFA for DTSC.SA SA RWQCB’S SLIC list indicates that the Board is the lead andComments: Not reportedAPN Description: NONE SPECIFIEDAPN: Envirostor ID NumberAlias Type: 30280305Alias Name: Alternate NameAlias Type: CALIFORNIA CENTRIFUGAlias Name: -117.874383474326Longitude: 33.8031591337221Latitude: Not reportedFunding: NORestricted Use: 1995-06-01 00:00:00Status Date: Refer: RWQCBStatus: * CERC2Special Program: 33Senate: 72Assembly: Not reportedSite Code: 30280305Facility ID: CypressDivision Branch: * MMONROYSupervisor: Not reportedProgram Manager: NONE SPECIFIEDLead Agency: NONE SPECIFIEDRegulatory Agencies: NONPL: Not reportedAcres: * HistoricalSite Type Detailed: HistoricalSite Type: ENVIROSTOR: Not reportedSite History: Trichloroethylene (TCE), 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (TCA), Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)Potential Contaminants of Concern: Under InvestigationPotential Media Affected: Not reportedFile Location: Not reportedRB Case Number: Not reportedLocal Agency: Not reportedCase Worker: Cleanup Program SiteCase Type: -117.874464Longitude: 33.803166Latitude: Not reportedLead Agency Case Number: SANTA ANA RWQCB (REGION 8)Lead Agency: SL0605945280Global Id: 1996-06-01 00:00:00Status Date: Open - Site AssessmentFacility Status: STATERegion: Not reportedSite History: Trichloroethylene (TCE), 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (TCA), Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)Potential Contaminants of Concern: INLAND SPECIALTIES CHEMICAL CORPORATION (Continued) S101481425 TC2502198.2s Page 46 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation * Sludge -Potenital Description: * ALKALINEPotenital Description: * ACID SOLPotenital Description: * CONTAMINPotenital Description: * OXYGENATPotenital Description: * HALOGENAPotenital Description: 10003, 10067, 10097, 10119, 10124, 10179, 10198Potential: Not reportedManagement Required Desc: NONE SPECIFIEDManagement Required: Management: Not reportedMedia Affected Desc: NONE SPECIFIEDMedia Affected: Not reportedFuture Due Date: Not reportedFuture Document Type: Not reportedFuture Sub Area Name: Not reportedFuture Area Name: Not reportedConfirmed Description: NONE SPECIFIEDConfirmed: 1982-07-01 00:00:00Completed Date: * DiscoveryCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 1987-05-04 00:00:00Completed Date: Site ScreeningCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 1988-04-15 00:00:00Completed Date: Site ScreeningCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 1988-05-04 00:00:00Completed Date: Preliminary Assessment ReportCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 1988-09-19 00:00:00Completed Date: Site ScreeningCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 1995-05-02 00:00:00Completed Date: Site ScreeningCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 1995-06-01 00:00:00Completed Date: Site ScreeningCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: Completed Info: ACTIVITY UNDER THE DIRECTION OF FIRE DEPT NO RECORDS REGARDING ANY CLEAN UP INLAND SPECIALTIES CHEMICAL CORPORATION (Continued) S101481425 TC2502198.2s Page 47 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation NONE SPECIFIEDPastUse: Not reportedSchedule Revised Date: Not reportedSchedule Due Date: Not reportedSchedule Document Type: Not reportedSchedule Sub Area Name: Not reportedSchedule Area Name: * UNSPECIFPotenital Description: INLAND SPECIALTIES CHEMICAL CORPORATION (Continued) S101481425 Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OwnerOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (415) 555-1212Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: NOT REQUIRED, ME 99999 NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator address: CORP ENTITYOwner/operator name: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OperatorOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (415) 555-1212Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: NOT REQUIRED, ME 99999 NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator address: NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator name: Owner/Operator Summary: hazardous waste at any time waste during any calendar month, and accumulates more than 1000 kg of hazardous waste at any time; or generates 100 kg or less of hazardous waste during any calendar month and accumulates less than 6000 kg of Handler: generates more than 100 and less than 1000 kg of hazardousDescription: Small Small Quantity GeneratorClassification: Facility is not located on Indian land. Additional information is not known.Land type: 09EPA Region: Not reportedContact email: Not reportedContact telephone: Not reportedContact country: Not reported Not reportedContact address: Not reportedContact: CAD980880660EPA ID: ORANGE, CA 92867 957 N ECKHOFF STFacility address: SHAMROCK OF CAFacility name: 09/01/1996Date form received by agency: RCRA-SQG: 723 ft. Site 5 of 5 in cluster F 0.137 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 162 ft. 1/8-1/4 HAZNETORANGE, CA 92867 ESE FINDS957 N ECKHOFF ST CAD980880660 F33 RCRA-SQGSHAMROCK OF CA 1000302996 TC2502198.2s Page 48 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation OrangeGen County: ORANGE, CA 928670000Mailing City,St,Zip: 957 N ECKHOFF STMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 7146395444Telephone: CAROL GIBBS, PLANT MANAGERContact: CAD980880660Gepaid: HAZNET: corrective action activities required under RCRA. program staff to track the notification, permit, compliance, and and treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo allows RCRA events and activities related to facilities that generate, transport, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program through the tracking of RCRAInfo is a national information system that supports the Resource California - Hazardous Waste Tracking System - Datamart 110008264564Registry ID: Other Pertinent Environmental Activity Identified at Site FINDS: State Contractor/GranteeEvaluation lead agency: Not reportedDate achieved compliance: Not reportedArea of violation: COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION ON-SITEEvaluation: 05/02/1994Evaluation date: Evaluation Action Summary: No violations foundViolation Status: Large Quantity GeneratorClassification: SHAMROCK OF CAFacility name: 10/10/1983Date form received by agency: Historical Generators: Commercial status unknownOff-site waste receiver: NoUsed oil transporter: NoUsed oil transfer facility: NoUsed oil Specification marketer: NoUsed oil fuel marketer to burner: NoUser oil refiner: NoUsed oil processor: NoUsed oil fuel burner: UnknownFurnace exemption: UnknownOn-site burner exemption: NoUnderground injection activity: NoTreater, storer or disposer of HW: NoTransporter of hazardous waste: NoRecycler of hazardous waste: UnknownMixed waste (haz. and radioactive): UnknownU.S. importer of hazardous waste: Handler Activities Summary: SHAMROCK OF CA (Continued)1000302996 TC2502198.2s Page 49 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation -1 additional CA_HAZNET: record(s) in the EDR Site Report. Click this hyperlink while viewing on your computer to access OrangeFacility County: 0.07Tons: Transfer StationDisposal Method: Not reportedWaste Category: Los AngelesTSD County: CAT000613893TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: ORANGE, CA 928670000Mailing City,St,Zip: 957 N ECKHOFF STMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 7146395444Telephone: CAROL GIBBS, PLANT MANAGERContact: CAD980880660Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: .2290Tons: Transfer StationDisposal Method: Unspecified organic liquid mixtureWaste Category: Los AngelesTSD County: CAD050806850TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: ORANGE, CA 928670000Mailing City,St,Zip: 957 N ECKHOFF STMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 7085479005Telephone: MICHAEL GRECOContact: CAD980880660Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: 0.03Tons: H141Disposal Method: Liquids with pH <UN-> 2Waste Category: 99TSD County: TXD077603371TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: ORANGE, CA 928670000Mailing City,St,Zip: 957 N ECKHOFF STMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 7146395444Telephone: CAROL GIBBS, PLANT MANAGERContact: CAD980880660Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: 0.12Tons: H132Disposal Method: Not reportedWaste Category: 99TSD County: NVT330010000TSD EPA ID: SHAMROCK OF CA (Continued)1000302996 TC2502198.2s Page 50 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation 8 302777N01Reg Id: WBC&DReg By: 30Facility County Code: CORTESERegion: CORTESE: 789 ft. 0.149 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 160 ft. 1/8-1/4 ORANGE, CA ESE 2033 COLLINS N/A 34 HIST CORTESEVOC INVESTIGATION S105025366 Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OperatorOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (415) 555-1212Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: NOT REQUIRED, ME 99999 NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator address: NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator name: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OwnerOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (415) 555-1212Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: NOT REQUIRED, ME 99999 NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator address: NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator name: Owner/Operator Summary: hazardous waste at any time waste during any calendar month, and accumulates more than 1000 kg of hazardous waste at any time; or generates 100 kg or less of hazardous waste during any calendar month and accumulates less than 6000 kg of Handler: generates more than 100 and less than 1000 kg of hazardousDescription: Small Small Quantity GeneratorClassification: 09EPA Region: Not reportedContact email: (714) 978-1361Contact telephone: USContact country: ANAHEIM, CA 92806 1645 S SINCLAIRContact address: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGERContact: CAD982446403EPA ID: ANAHEIM, CA 92806 1645 S SINCLAIRFacility address: SUMITOMO MACHINERYFacility name: 03/06/1991Date form received by agency: RCRA-SQG: 914 ft. Site 1 of 2 in cluster G 0.173 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 162 ft. 1/8-1/4 HAZNETANAHEIM, CA 92806 NNE FINDS1645 S SINCLAIR CAD982446403 G35 RCRA-SQGSUMITOMO MACHINERY 1000593504 TC2502198.2s Page 51 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation OrangeGen County: CORONA, CA 917205411Mailing City,St,Zip: 2375 RAILROAD STMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 8044853355Telephone: SUMITOMO MACHINERY CORP OF AMEContact: CAD982446403Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: .2293Tons: Transfer StationDisposal Method: Unspecified oil-containing wasteWaste Category: Los AngelesTSD County: CAD000088252TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: CORONA, CA 917205411Mailing City,St,Zip: 2375 RAILROAD STMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 8044853355Telephone: SUMITOMO MACHINERY CORP OF AMEContact: CAD982446403Gepaid: HAZNET: corrective action activities required under RCRA. program staff to track the notification, permit, compliance, and and treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo allows RCRA events and activities related to facilities that generate, transport, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program through the tracking of RCRAInfo is a national information system that supports the Resource 110002814875Registry ID: Other Pertinent Environmental Activity Identified at Site FINDS: No violations foundViolation Status: Commercial status unknownOff-site waste receiver: NoUsed oil transporter: NoUsed oil transfer facility: NoUsed oil Specification marketer: NoUsed oil fuel marketer to burner: NoUser oil refiner: NoUsed oil processor: NoUsed oil fuel burner: UnknownFurnace exemption: UnknownOn-site burner exemption: NoUnderground injection activity: NoTreater, storer or disposer of HW: NoTransporter of hazardous waste: NoRecycler of hazardous waste: UnknownMixed waste (haz. and radioactive): UnknownU.S. importer of hazardous waste: Handler Activities Summary: SUMITOMO MACHINERY (Continued) 1000593504 TC2502198.2s Page 52 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation 2 additional CA_HAZNET: record(s) in the EDR Site Report. Click this hyperlink while viewing on your computer to access OrangeFacility County: .2293Tons: Transfer StationDisposal Method: Unspecified oil-containing wasteWaste Category: Los AngelesTSD County: CAD000088252TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: CORONA, CA 917205411Mailing City,St,Zip: 2375 RAILROAD STMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 8044853355Telephone: SUMITOMO MACHINERY CORP OF AMEContact: CAD982446403Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: .0720Tons: Transfer StationDisposal Method: Oxygenated solvents (acetone, butanol, ethyl acetate, etc.)Waste Category: OrangeTSD County: CAT000613976TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: CORONA, CA 917205411Mailing City,St,Zip: 2375 RAILROAD STMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 8044853355Telephone: SUMITOMO MACHINERY CORP OF AMEContact: CAD982446403Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: .3250Tons: Transfer StationDisposal Method: Other organic solidsWaste Category: Los AngelesTSD County: CAD000088252TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: CORONA, CA 917205411Mailing City,St,Zip: 2375 RAILROAD STMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 8044853355Telephone: SUMITOMO MACHINERY CORP OF AMEContact: CAD982446403Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: .2293Tons: Not reportedDisposal Method: Other organic solidsWaste Category: Los AngelesTSD County: CAD000088252TSD EPA ID: SUMITOMO MACHINERY (Continued) 1000593504 TC2502198.2s Page 53 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OperatorOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (415) 555-1212Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: NOT REQUIRED, ME 99999 NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator address: NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator name: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OwnerOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (415) 555-1212Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: NOT REQUIRED, ME 99999 NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator address: NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator name: Owner/Operator Summary: Handler: Non-Generators do not presently generate hazardous wasteDescription: Non-GeneratorClassification: 09EPA Region: Not reportedContact email: (714) 634-8877Contact telephone: USContact country: ANAHEIM, CA 92806 1641 S SINCLAIRContact address: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGERContact: ANAHEIM, CA 92806 S SINCLAIRMailing address: CAD050747088EPA ID: ANAHEIM, CA 92806 1641 S SINCLAIRFacility address: MAC GLASHAN ENT DIV OF BV DIST COFacility name: 08/18/1980Date form received by agency: RCRA-NonGen: corrective action activities required under RCRA. program staff to track the notification, permit, compliance, and and treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo allows RCRA events and activities related to facilities that generate, transport, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program through the tracking of RCRAInfo is a national information system that supports the Resource 110002648109Registry ID: Other Pertinent Environmental Activity Identified at Site FINDS: 933 ft. Site 2 of 2 in cluster G 0.177 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 162 ft. 1/8-1/4 ANAHEIM, CA 92806 NNE RCRA-NonGen1641 S SINCLAIR CAD050747088 G36 FINDSMAC GLASHAN ENT DIV OF BV DIST CO 1000116025 TC2502198.2s Page 54 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation No violations foundViolation Status: Commercial status unknownOff-site waste receiver: NoUsed oil transporter: NoUsed oil transfer facility: NoUsed oil Specification marketer: NoUsed oil fuel marketer to burner: NoUser oil refiner: NoUsed oil processor: NoUsed oil fuel burner: UnknownFurnace exemption: UnknownOn-site burner exemption: NoUnderground injection activity: NoTreater, storer or disposer of HW: NoTransporter of hazardous waste: NoRecycler of hazardous waste: UnknownMixed waste (haz. and radioactive): UnknownU.S. importer of hazardous waste: Handler Activities Summary: MAC GLASHAN ENT DIV OF BV DIST CO (Continued) 1000116025 tons of contaminated soil was removed.Site Inspection Done: EPA RA Soil. Site has been hazard mitigated. Clean-up complete. 294Comments: Not reportedAPN Description: NONE SPECIFIEDAPN: EPA Identification NumberAlias Type: CAD982359879Alias Name: Envirostor ID NumberAlias Type: 30280129Alias Name: Alternate NameAlias Type: MICHAEL-RAND PLATINGAlias Name: -117.885710257684Longitude: 33.8073563639921Latitude: Not reportedFunding: NORestricted Use: 1993-12-16 00:00:00Status Date: Refer: RWQCBStatus: * CERC2Special Program: 33Senate: 69Assembly: Not reportedSite Code: 30280129Facility ID: CypressDivision Branch: Referred - Not AssignedSupervisor: Not reportedProgram Manager: NONE SPECIFIEDLead Agency: NONE SPECIFIEDRegulatory Agencies: NONPL: Not reportedAcres: * HistoricalSite Type Detailed: HistoricalSite Type: ENVIROSTOR: 948 ft. Site 1 of 2 in cluster H 0.180 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 158 ft. 1/8-1/4 ANAHEIM, CA 92804 NNW 2211 EAST HOWELL STREET N/A H37 ENVIROSTORITASCO S101541102 TC2502198.2s Page 55 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation PolychloriPotenital Description: * ACID SOLPotenital Description: * OXYGENATPotenital Description: * OTHER ORPotenital Description: 10064, 10067, 10119, 30018Potential: Not reportedManagement Required Desc: NONE SPECIFIEDManagement Required: Management: Not reportedMedia Affected Desc: NONE SPECIFIEDMedia Affected: Not reportedFuture Due Date: Not reportedFuture Document Type: Not reportedFuture Sub Area Name: Not reportedFuture Area Name: Not reportedConfirmed Description: NONE SPECIFIEDConfirmed: 1981-05-28 00:00:00Completed Date: * DiscoveryCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 1983-11-08 00:00:00Completed Date: Removal Action Completion ReportCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 1987-05-06 00:00:00Completed Date: Site ScreeningCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 1988-01-08 00:00:00Completed Date: Preliminary Assessment ReportCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 1989-09-26 00:00:00Completed Date: *Site Inspection (SI) ReportCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: Completed Info: unlined sump.and TLC. 1200ppm of TCE would remain within 8 feet of the surface in an backfilled with clean soil. It is not reasonable to believe that depth. No sampling was done below the 8 feet that was excavated and grant Preliminary Assessment required.ted at a maximum if 8 ft. - firm acid rinse goes into manhole.Site Screening Done: CERCLA TTLCFacility identified via tip from Orange County Sanitary District soil removed to BKK. Soil sample levels (11/04/83) below contamination. Site excavated to depth of eight feet; 409 tons of of waste, removed to BKK (04/15/83). Samples (05/11/83) show solvent or samp- les collecPreliminary Assessment Done: Twenty yards, three samples collected during cleanup in 1983 were either surface samples Reasons for recommend- ation of further work at the site: Soil recommends Listing Site Inspec- tion; DHS recommends hazard ranking. ITASCO (Continued)S101541102 TC2502198.2s Page 56 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation NONE SPECIFIEDPastUse: Not reportedSchedule Revised Date: Not reportedSchedule Due Date: Not reportedSchedule Document Type: Not reportedSchedule Sub Area Name: Not reportedSchedule Area Name: ITASCO (Continued)S101541102 30280129Reg Id: CALSIReg By: 30Facility County Code: CORTESERegion: CORTESE: MGCThomas Bros Code: MGCLocation Code: MGCLead Agency: MGCSubstance: MGCStaff: 8Region: ClosedFacility Status: SoilType: SLIC: Not reportedSite History: Not reportedPotential Contaminants of Concern: Not reportedPotential Media Affected: Not reportedFile Location: SLT8R146RB Case Number: Not reportedLocal Agency: Not reportedCase Worker: Cleanup Program SiteCase Type: -117.886132Longitude: 33.806987Latitude: Not reportedLead Agency Case Number: SANTA ANA RWQCB (REGION 8)Lead Agency: SLT8R1464091Global Id: 1965-01-01 00:00:00Status Date: OpenFacility Status: STATERegion: SLIC: 948 ft. Site 2 of 2 in cluster H 0.180 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 158 ft. 1/8-1/4 ANAHEIM, CA NNW HIST CORTESE2211 HOWELL N/A H38 SLICITASCO 1000378335 TC2502198.2s Page 57 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation UnknownFurnace exemption: UnknownOn-site burner exemption: NoUnderground injection activity: NoTreater, storer or disposer of HW: NoTransporter of hazardous waste: NoRecycler of hazardous waste: UnknownMixed waste (haz. and radioactive): UnknownU.S. importer of hazardous waste: Handler Activities Summary: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OperatorOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (415) 555-1212Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: NOT REQUIRED, ME 99999 NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator address: NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator name: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OwnerOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (415) 555-1212Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: NOT REQUIRED, ME 99999 NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator address: XCOR INTERNATIONAL INCOwner/operator name: Owner/Operator Summary: hazardous waste at any time waste during any calendar month, and accumulates more than 1000 kg of hazardous waste at any time; or generates 100 kg or less of hazardous waste during any calendar month and accumulates less than 6000 kg of Handler: generates more than 100 and less than 1000 kg of hazardousDescription: Small Small Quantity GeneratorClassification: 09EPA Region: Not reportedContact email: Not reportedContact telephone: Not reportedContact country: Not reported Not reportedContact address: Not reportedContact: ANAHEIM, CA 92806 S SINCLAIRMailing address: CAD064442536EPA ID: ANAHEIM, CA 92806 1640 S SINCLAIRFacility address: BENGE TRUMPET COFacility name: 09/01/1996Date form received by agency: RCRA-SQG: 960 ft. 0.182 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 162 ft. 1/8-1/4 ANAHEIM, CA 92806 NNE FINDS1640 S SINCLAIR CAD064442536 39 RCRA-SQGBENGE TRUMPET CO 1000233418 TC2502198.2s Page 58 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation corrective action activities required under RCRA. program staff to track the notification, permit, compliance, and and treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo allows RCRA events and activities related to facilities that generate, transport, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program through the tracking of RCRAInfo is a national information system that supports the Resource 110002653959Registry ID: Other Pertinent Environmental Activity Identified at Site FINDS: No violations foundViolation Status: Commercial status unknownOff-site waste receiver: NoUsed oil transporter: NoUsed oil transfer facility: NoUsed oil Specification marketer: NoUsed oil fuel marketer to burner: NoUser oil refiner: NoUsed oil processor: NoUsed oil fuel burner: BENGE TRUMPET CO (Continued)1000233418 Not reportedTank Construction: REGULARType of Fuel: PRODUCTTank Used for: 00010000Tank Capacity: Not reportedYear Installed: 1Container Num: 002Tank Num: NoneLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: DIESELType of Fuel: PRODUCTTank Used for: 00010000Tank Capacity: Not reportedYear Installed: 2Container Num: 001Tank Num: ORANGE, CA 92667Owner City,St,Zip: 1901 W. COLLINSOwner Address: CRANE RENTAL SERVICE, INC.Owner Name: 7149973100Telephone: Not reportedContact Name: 0002Total Tanks: RENTAL SERVICEOther Type: OtherFacility Type: 00000028386Facility ID: STATERegion: HIST UST: 1032 ft. 0.195 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 161 ft. 1/8-1/4 ORANGE, CA 92667 ESE 1901 W COLLINS AVE N/A 40 HIST USTCRANE RENTAL SERVICE, INC.U001577563 TC2502198.2s Page 59 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation NoneLeak Detection: CRANE RENTAL SERVICE, INC. (Continued) U001577563 Commercial status unknownOff-site waste receiver: NoUsed oil transporter: NoUsed oil transfer facility: NoUsed oil Specification marketer: NoUsed oil fuel marketer to burner: NoUser oil refiner: NoUsed oil processor: NoUsed oil fuel burner: UnknownFurnace exemption: UnknownOn-site burner exemption: NoUnderground injection activity: NoTreater, storer or disposer of HW: NoTransporter of hazardous waste: NoRecycler of hazardous waste: UnknownMixed waste (haz. and radioactive): UnknownU.S. importer of hazardous waste: Handler Activities Summary: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OwnerOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (714) 771-9999Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: ORANGE, CA 92867 1928 W BUSINESS CENTER DROwner/operator address: TED NIEDWICKOwner/operator name: Owner/Operator Summary: hazardous waste at any time waste during any calendar month, and accumulates more than 1000 kg of hazardous waste at any time; or generates 100 kg or less of hazardous waste during any calendar month and accumulates less than 6000 kg of Handler: generates more than 100 and less than 1000 kg of hazardousDescription: Small Small Quantity GeneratorClassification: 09EPA Region: Not reportedContact email: (714) 771-9999Contact telephone: USContact country: ORANGE, CA 928677906 1928 W BUSINESS CENTER DRContact address: BLANE BOCKHACKERContact: CAR000087866EPA ID: ORANGE, CA 928677906 1928 W BUSINESS CENTER DRFacility address: NIEDWICK MACHINE ORANGE C AFacility name: 12/06/2000Date form received by agency: RCRA-SQG: 1099 ft. 0.208 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 162 ft. 1/8-1/4 ORANGE, CA 92867 ESE FINDS1928 W BUSINESS CENTER DR CAR000087866 41 RCRA-SQGNIEDWICK MACHINE ORANGE C A 1004676652 TC2502198.2s Page 60 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation corrective action activities required under RCRA. program staff to track the notification, permit, compliance, and and treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo allows RCRA events and activities related to facilities that generate, transport, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program through the tracking of RCRAInfo is a national information system that supports the Resource 110012204319Registry ID: Other Pertinent Environmental Activity Identified at Site FINDS: No violations foundViolation Status: TETRACHLOROETHYLENEWaste name: D039Waste code: Hazardous Waste Summary: NIEDWICK MACHINE ORANGE C A (Continued) 1004676652 1974Year Installed: AB1Container Num: 003Tank Num: VisualLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: Not reportedType of Fuel: WASTETank Used for: 00012000Tank Capacity: 1974Year Installed: BContainer Num: 002Tank Num: VisualLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: Not reportedType of Fuel: WASTETank Used for: 00030000Tank Capacity: 1974Year Installed: AContainer Num: 001Tank Num: ORANGE, CA 92668Owner City,St,Zip: 800 NORTH ECKHOFF STREETOwner Address: COVE DEVELOPERSOwner Name: 7149781900Telephone: G.J. BECKERContact Name: 0007Total Tanks: MFG. OIL DRILLING EQOther Type: OtherFacility Type: 00000059189Facility ID: STATERegion: HIST UST: 1133 ft. 0.215 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 159 ft. 1/8-1/4 ORANGE, CA 92668 ESE 800 N ECKHOFF ST N/A 42 HIST USTCOVE DEVELOPERS U001577650 TC2502198.2s Page 61 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation VisualLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: DIESELType of Fuel: PRODUCTTank Used for: 00010000Tank Capacity: 1979Year Installed: FContainer Num: 007Tank Num: NoneLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: REGULARType of Fuel: PRODUCTTank Used for: 00002500Tank Capacity: 1974Year Installed: EContainer Num: 006Tank Num: NoneLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: WASTE OILType of Fuel: WASTETank Used for: 00001000Tank Capacity: 1980Year Installed: DContainer Num: 005Tank Num: NoneLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: WASTE OILType of Fuel: WASTETank Used for: 00001000Tank Capacity: 1980Year Installed: CContainer Num: 004Tank Num: VisualLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: Not reportedType of Fuel: WASTETank Used for: 00010000Tank Capacity: COVE DEVELOPERS (Continued)U001577650 program staff to track the notification, permit, compliance, and and treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo allows RCRA events and activities related to facilities that generate, transport, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program through the tracking of RCRAInfo is a national information system that supports the Resource 110002833943Registry ID: Other Pertinent Environmental Activity Identified at Site FINDS: 1143 ft. 0.216 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 163 ft. 1/8-1/4 ANAHEIM, CA 92806 NNE RCRA-NonGen1621B S SINCLAIR ST CAD982501181 43 FINDSSMT DYNAMICS CORP 1000111357 TC2502198.2s Page 62 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation NoUsed oil Specification marketer: NoUsed oil fuel marketer to burner: NoUser oil refiner: NoUsed oil processor: NoUsed oil fuel burner: UnknownFurnace exemption: UnknownOn-site burner exemption: NoUnderground injection activity: NoTreater, storer or disposer of HW: NoTransporter of hazardous waste: NoRecycler of hazardous waste: UnknownMixed waste (haz. and radioactive): UnknownU.S. importer of hazardous waste: Handler Activities Summary: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OwnerOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (415) 555-1212Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: NOT REQUIRED, ME 99999 NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator address: GABOR TOTH & J WOODLEYOwner/operator name: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OperatorOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (415) 555-1212Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: NOT REQUIRED, ME 99999 NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator address: NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator name: Owner/Operator Summary: Handler: Non-Generators do not presently generate hazardous wasteDescription: Non-GeneratorClassification: 09EPA Region: Not reportedContact email: (714) 938-0133Contact telephone: USContact country: ANAHEIM, CA 92806 1551 S HARRIS CTContact address: STEVEN WITTENBERGContact: ANAHEIM, CA 92806 S HARRIS CTMailing address: CAD982501181EPA ID: ANAHEIM, CA 92806 1621B S SINCLAIR STFacility address: SMT DYNAMICS CORPFacility name: 11/17/1994Date form received by agency: RCRA-NonGen: corrective action activities required under RCRA. SMT DYNAMICS CORP (Continued)1000111357 TC2502198.2s Page 63 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation No violations foundViolation Status: Commercial status unknownOff-site waste receiver: NoUsed oil transporter: NoUsed oil transfer facility: SMT DYNAMICS CORP (Continued)1000111357 UnknownMixed waste (haz. and radioactive): UnknownU.S. importer of hazardous waste: Handler Activities Summary: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OperatorOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (415) 555-1212Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: NOT REQUIRED, ME 99999 NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator address: NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator name: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OwnerOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (415) 555-1212Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: NOT REQUIRED, ME 99999 NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator address: NORTHROP CORPORATIONOwner/operator name: Owner/Operator Summary: hazardous waste at any time waste during any calendar month, and accumulates more than 1000 kg of hazardous waste at any time; or generates 100 kg or less of hazardous waste during any calendar month and accumulates less than 6000 kg of Handler: generates more than 100 and less than 1000 kg of hazardousDescription: Small Small Quantity GeneratorClassification: 09EPA Region: Not reportedContact email: Not reportedContact telephone: Not reportedContact country: Not reported Not reportedContact address: Not reportedContact: ANAHEIM, CA 92801 500 EAST ORANGETHORPE AVEMailing address: CAD052837531EPA ID: ANAHEIM, CA 92806 1541 PAGE CTFacility address: NORTHROP CORPORATIONFacility name: 09/01/1996Date form received by agency: RCRA-SQG: 1167 ft. 0.221 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 158 ft. 1/8-1/4 ANAHEIM, CA 92806 NNW FINDS1541 PAGE CT CAD052837531 44 RCRA-SQGNORTHROP CORPORATION 1000409981 TC2502198.2s Page 64 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation corrective action activities required under RCRA. program staff to track the notification, permit, compliance, and and treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo allows RCRA events and activities related to facilities that generate, transport, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program through the tracking of RCRAInfo is a national information system that supports the Resource 110002649108Registry ID: Other Pertinent Environmental Activity Identified at Site FINDS: No violations foundViolation Status: Large Quantity GeneratorClassification: NORTHROP CORPORATIONFacility name: 08/14/1980Date form received by agency: Historical Generators: Commercial status unknownOff-site waste receiver: NoUsed oil transporter: NoUsed oil transfer facility: NoUsed oil Specification marketer: NoUsed oil fuel marketer to burner: NoUser oil refiner: NoUsed oil processor: NoUsed oil fuel burner: UnknownFurnace exemption: UnknownOn-site burner exemption: NoUnderground injection activity: NoTreater, storer or disposer of HW: NoTransporter of hazardous waste: NoRecycler of hazardous waste: NORTHROP CORPORATION (Continued) 1000409981 1601 S SUNKIST STOwner Address: THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORPOwner Name: 4Region Code: 928065812Mailing Zip: CAMailing State: Not reportedMailing Address 2: 1601 S SUNKIST STMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: Not reportedInactive Date: YesFacility Active: 7/25/2007 11:44:00 AMCreate Date: 7219SIC Code: Other Personal and Household Goods Repair and MaintenanceNAICS Description: 81149NAICS Code: CAL000322652EPA Id: CLEANERS: 1232 ft. 0.233 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 160 ft. 1/8-1/4 ANAHEIM, CA 92806 North 1601 S SUNKIST ST N/A 45 DRYCLEANERSTHYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR S109520823 TC2502198.2s Page 65 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Not reportedSIC Description: 7149390884Contact Telephone: Not reportedContact Address 2: 1601 S SUNKIST STContact Address: GEORGE COUTSContact Name: 7149390884Owner Telephone: Not reportedOwner Address 2: THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR (Continued) S109520823 NoUser oil refiner: NoUsed oil processor: NoUsed oil fuel burner: UnknownFurnace exemption: UnknownOn-site burner exemption: NoUnderground injection activity: NoTreater, storer or disposer of HW: NoTransporter of hazardous waste: NoRecycler of hazardous waste: UnknownMixed waste (haz. and radioactive): UnknownU.S. importer of hazardous waste: Handler Activities Summary: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OwnerOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (714) 997-1951Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: ORANGE, CA 92667 1746 W KATELLA STE 4Owner/operator address: BERNARD LONGOOwner/operator name: Owner/Operator Summary: hazardous waste at any time waste during any calendar month, and accumulates more than 1000 kg of hazardous waste at any time; or generates 100 kg or less of hazardous waste during any calendar month and accumulates less than 6000 kg of Handler: generates more than 100 and less than 1000 kg of hazardousDescription: Small Small Quantity GeneratorClassification: 09EPA Region: Not reportedContact email: (714) 997-1951Contact telephone: USContact country: ORANGE, CA 92667 1746 W KATELLA STE 4Contact address: MICHAEL MUSTAFAContact: CAD983647231EPA ID: ORANGE, CA 92867 1746 W KATELLA AVE STE 4Facility address: SCORE RIGHT PUBLISHING COFacility name: 09/03/1992Date form received by agency: RCRA-SQG: 1287 ft. Site 1 of 3 in cluster I 0.244 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 163 ft. 1/8-1/4 ORANGE, CA 92867 ENE FINDS1746 W KATELLA STE 4 CAD983647231 I46 RCRA-SQGSCORE RIGHT PUBLISHING CO 1000818810 TC2502198.2s Page 66 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation corrective action activities required under RCRA. program staff to track the notification, permit, compliance, and and treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo allows RCRA events and activities related to facilities that generate, transport, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program through the tracking of RCRAInfo is a national information system that supports the Resource California - Hazardous Waste Tracking System - Datamart 110008284105Registry ID: Other Pertinent Environmental Activity Identified at Site FINDS: No violations foundViolation Status: Commercial status unknownOff-site waste receiver: NoUsed oil transporter: NoUsed oil transfer facility: NoUsed oil Specification marketer: NoUsed oil fuel marketer to burner: SCORE RIGHT PUBLISHING CO (Continued) 1000818810 Non-GeneratorClassification: 09EPA Region: Not reportedContact email: (714) 530-1129Contact telephone: USContact country: GARDEN GROVE, CA 92843 10462 TRASK AVE UNIT AContact address: NANCY NGUYENContact: GARDEN GROVE, CA 92843 10462 TRASK AVE UNIT AMailing address: CAR000011031EPA ID: ORANGE, CA 92867 1744 W KATELLA AVE STE 2Facility address: ADVANCED TECH AXLESFacility name: 12/12/2000Date form received by agency: RCRA-NonGen: corrective action activities required under RCRA. program staff to track the notification, permit, compliance, and and treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo allows RCRA events and activities related to facilities that generate, transport, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program through the tracking of RCRAInfo is a national information system that supports the Resource 110008286069Registry ID: Other Pertinent Environmental Activity Identified at Site FINDS: 1287 ft. Site 2 of 3 in cluster I 0.244 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 163 ft. 1/8-1/4 ORANGE, CA 92867 ENE RCRA-NonGen1744 W KATELLA AVE STE 2 CAR000011031 I47 FINDSADVANCED TECH AXLES 1001085775 TC2502198.2s Page 67 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation No violations foundViolation Status: Commercial status unknownOff-site waste receiver: NoUsed oil transporter: NoUsed oil transfer facility: NoUsed oil Specification marketer: NoUsed oil fuel marketer to burner: NoUser oil refiner: NoUsed oil processor: NoUsed oil fuel burner: UnknownFurnace exemption: UnknownOn-site burner exemption: NoUnderground injection activity: NoTreater, storer or disposer of HW: NoTransporter of hazardous waste: NoRecycler of hazardous waste: UnknownMixed waste (haz. and radioactive): UnknownU.S. importer of hazardous waste: Handler Activities Summary: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OwnerOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (714) 289-0054Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: ORANGE, CA 92667 1744 W KATELLA AVE STE 2Owner/operator address: DAVID LE AND FRANCIS WINNOwner/operator name: Owner/Operator Summary: Handler: Non-Generators do not presently generate hazardous wasteDescription: ADVANCED TECH AXLES (Continued) 1001085775 hazardous waste at any time waste during any calendar month, and accumulates more than 1000 kg of hazardous waste at any time; or generates 100 kg or less of hazardous waste during any calendar month and accumulates less than 6000 kg of Handler: generates more than 100 and less than 1000 kg of hazardousDescription: Small Small Quantity GeneratorClassification: 09EPA Region: Not reportedContact email: (714) 744-4599Contact telephone: USContact country: ORANGE, CA 92667 1742 W KATELLA AVE STE 4Contact address: RONALD BELANGERContact: CAR000002022EPA ID: ORANGE, CA 92867 1742 W KATELLA AVE STE 4Facility address: PRECISION ENVIRONMENTAL LABSFacility name: 04/13/1995Date form received by agency: RCRA-SQG: 1296 ft. Site 3 of 3 in cluster I 0.245 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 163 ft. 1/8-1/4 ORANGE, CA 92867 ENE FINDS1742 W KATELLA AVE STE 4 CAR000002022 I48 RCRA-SQGPRECISION ENVIRONMENTAL LABS 1000985091 TC2502198.2s Page 68 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation corrective action activities required under RCRA. program staff to track the notification, permit, compliance, and and treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo allows RCRA events and activities related to facilities that generate, transport, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program through the tracking of RCRAInfo is a national information system that supports the Resource California - Hazardous Waste Tracking System - Datamart 110008285630Registry ID: Other Pertinent Environmental Activity Identified at Site FINDS: No violations foundViolation Status: Commercial status unknownOff-site waste receiver: NoUsed oil transporter: NoUsed oil transfer facility: NoUsed oil Specification marketer: NoUsed oil fuel marketer to burner: NoUser oil refiner: NoUsed oil processor: NoUsed oil fuel burner: UnknownFurnace exemption: UnknownOn-site burner exemption: NoUnderground injection activity: NoTreater, storer or disposer of HW: NoTransporter of hazardous waste: NoRecycler of hazardous waste: UnknownMixed waste (haz. and radioactive): UnknownU.S. importer of hazardous waste: Handler Activities Summary: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OwnerOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (714) 786-6328Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: IRVINE, CA 92714 39 FOXBOROOwner/operator address: GERRY MAZUROwner/operator name: Owner/Operator Summary: PRECISION ENVIRONMENTAL LABS (Continued) 1000985091 -117.8893552Longitude: 33.807958Latitude: T0605900725Global Id: STATERegion: LUST: 1377 ft. 0.261 mi. Relative: Lower Actual: 157 ft. 1/4-1/2 ANAHEIM, CA 92805 WNW HIST CORTESE1701 STATE COLLEGE N/A 49 LUSTCERTRON S105022515 TC2502198.2s Page 69 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Not reportedMax MTBE Soil: 0MTBE Concentration: Not reportedMax MTBE GW: Not reportedMTBE Date: -117.8893552Longitude: 33.807958Latitude: LUSTOversite Program: Not reportedInterim: Not reportedFacility Contact: Not reportedOperator: Not reportedSoil Qualifies: Not reportedGW Qualifies: Not reportedEnter Date: Not reportedMonitoring: Not reportedRemed Action: Not reportedRemed Plan: Not reportedPollution Char: Not reportedWorkplan: 4/3/1986Close Date: Not reportedEnforcement Date: 1/1/1965Discover Date: Not reportedPrelim Assess: Not reportedReview Date: Not reportedEnter Date: 9/9/9999How Stopped Date: T0605900725Global ID: UnknownLeak Source: UnknownLeak Cause: Close TankHow Stopped: Tank ClosureHow Discovered: Not reportedFunding: Not reportedEnf Type: Not reportedCross Street: Not reportedAbate Method: 0Qty Leaked: 76,78933Substance: UndefinedCase Type: 85UT095Local Case Num: Not reportedCase Number: Case ClosedFacility Status: Santa Ana RegionRegional Board: OrangeCounty: 8Region: LUST REG 8: Not reportedSite History: Other Solvent or Non-Petroleum HydrocarbonPotential Contaminats of Concern: Not reportedPotential Media Affect: Local AgencyFile Location: 85UT095LOC Case Number: Not reportedRB Case Number: ORANGE COUNTY LOPLocal Agency: Not reportedCase Worker: ORANGE COUNTY LOPLead Agency: 1986-04-03 00:00:00Status Date: Completed - Case ClosedStatus: LUST Cleanup SiteCase Type: CERTRON (Continued)S105022515 TC2502198.2s Page 70 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation 083000912TReg Id: LTNKAReg By: 30Facility County Code: CORTESERegion: CORTESE: Not reportedSummary: Not reportedWork Suspended: Not reportedCleanup Fund Id: Not reportedPriority: MUNBeneficial: Not reportedHydr Basin #: 30000LLocal Agency: Local AgencyLead Agency: WJStaff Initials: PAHStaff: *MTBE Class: Not Required to be Tested.MTBE Tested: 0MTBE Fuel: CERTRON (Continued)S105022515 Not reportedRemed Action: Not reportedRemed Plan: Not reportedPollution Char: Not reportedWorkplan: 10/19/1994Close Date: Not reportedEnforcement Date: 9/28/1993Discover Date: Not reportedPrelim Assess: 10/4/1993Review Date: 12/22/1993Enter Date: 9/28/1993How Stopped Date: T0605900941Global ID: UNKLeak Source: UNKLeak Cause: Not reportedHow Stopped: Tank ClosureHow Discovered: Not reportedFunding: CLOSEnf Type: KATELLACross Street: spreading or land farming) Excavate and Treat - remove contaminated soil and treat (includesAbate Method: Not reportedQty Leaked: Unleaded GasolineSubstance: Soil onlyCase Type: Not reportedLocal Case Num: 083001205TCase Number: Case ClosedFacility Status: Santa Ana RegionRegional Board: OrangeCounty: 8Region: LUST REG 8: 1380 ft. Site 1 of 2 in cluster J 0.261 mi. Relative: Lower Actual: 152 ft. 1/4-1/2 ANAHEIM, CA 92805 WSW HIST CORTESE1801 STATE COLLEGE BLVD N/A J50 LUSTARCO #6220 S102424429 TC2502198.2s Page 71 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation 083001205TReg Id: LTNKAReg By: 30Facility County Code: CORTESERegion: CORTESE: Not reportedSummary: Not reportedWork Suspended: Not reportedCleanup Fund Id: Not reportedPriority: Not reportedBeneficial: COASTAL PLAIN OF ORAHydr Basin #: 30011Local Agency: Local AgencyLead Agency: ROWStaff Initials: VJJStaff: *MTBE Class: Site NOT Tested for MTBE.Includes Unknown and Not Analyzed.MTBE Tested: 1MTBE Fuel: Not reportedMax MTBE Soil: 0MTBE Concentration: Not reportedMax MTBE GW: Not reportedMTBE Date: -117.8893416Longitude: 33.80320623Latitude: LUSTOversite Program: Not reportedInterim: Not reportedFacility Contact: Not reportedOperator: Not reportedSoil Qualifies: Not reportedGW Qualifies: 12/22/1993Enter Date: Not reportedMonitoring: ARCO #6220 (Continued)S102424429 Not reportedSite History: GasolinePotential Contaminats of Concern: SoilPotential Media Affect: Not reportedFile Location: Not reportedLOC Case Number: 083001205TRB Case Number: ANAHEIM, CITY OFLocal Agency: Not reportedCase Worker: ANAHEIM, CITY OFLead Agency: 1994-10-19 00:00:00Status Date: Completed - Case ClosedStatus: LUST Cleanup SiteCase Type: -117.8893416Longitude: 33.803206233Latitude: T0605900941Global Id: STATERegion: LUST: 1396 ft. Site 2 of 2 in cluster J 0.264 mi. Relative: Lower Actual: 152 ft. 1/4-1/2 ANAHEIM, CA 92805 WSW 1801 S STATE COLLEGE BLVD N/A J51 LUSTARCO #6220 S109284506 TC2502198.2s Page 72 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Not reportedSite History: Not reportedPotential Contaminants of Concern: Not reportedPotential Media Affected: Not reportedFile Location: SLT8R274RB Case Number: Not reportedLocal Agency: Not reportedCase Worker: Cleanup Program SiteCase Type: -117.87325Longitude: 33.802429Latitude: Not reportedLead Agency Case Number: SANTA ANA RWQCB (REGION 8)Lead Agency: SLT8R2744153Global Id: 1965-01-01 00:00:00Status Date: OpenFacility Status: STATERegion: SLIC: 1466 ft. Site 1 of 2 in cluster K 0.278 mi. Relative: Lower Actual: 156 ft. 1/4-1/2 ORANGE, CA ESE 700 ECKHOFF STREET N N/A K52 SLICYELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC.S106487020 NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator address: NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator name: Owner/Operator Summary: hazardous waste at any time waste during any calendar month, and accumulates more than 1000 kg of hazardous waste at any time; or generates 100 kg or less of hazardous waste during any calendar month and accumulates less than 6000 kg of Handler: generates more than 100 and less than 1000 kg of hazardousDescription: Small Small Quantity GeneratorClassification: Facility is not located on Indian land. Additional information is not known.Land type: 09EPA Region: Not reportedContact email: Not reportedContact telephone: Not reportedContact country: Not reported Not reportedContact address: Not reportedContact: ORANGE, CA 92667 P O BOX 5392Mailing address: CAD056591423EPA ID: ORANGE, CA 92867 700 N ECKHOFF STFacility address: YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEM INCFacility name: 09/01/1996Date form received by agency: RCRA-SQG: CA WDS NPDES HIST UST 1466 ft.CA FID USTSite 2 of 2 in cluster K 0.278 mi.SLIC Relative: Lower Actual: 156 ft. 1/4-1/2 HAZNETORANGE, CA 92867 ESE FINDS700 NORTH ECKHOFF ST CAD056591423 K53 RCRA-SQGYELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEM INC 1000291248 TC2502198.2s Page 73 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation California - Hazardous Waste Tracking System - Datamart 110008262281Registry ID: Other Pertinent Environmental Activity Identified at Site FINDS: State Contractor/GranteeEvaluation lead agency: Not reportedDate achieved compliance: Not reportedArea of violation: COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION ON-SITEEvaluation: 05/10/1994Evaluation date: Evaluation Action Summary: No violations foundViolation Status: Large Quantity GeneratorClassification: YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEM INCFacility name: 09/12/1985Date form received by agency: Historical Generators: Commercial status unknownOff-site waste receiver: NoUsed oil transporter: NoUsed oil transfer facility: NoUsed oil Specification marketer: NoUsed oil fuel marketer to burner: NoUser oil refiner: NoUsed oil processor: NoUsed oil fuel burner: UnknownFurnace exemption: UnknownOn-site burner exemption: NoUnderground injection activity: NoTreater, storer or disposer of HW: NoTransporter of hazardous waste: NoRecycler of hazardous waste: UnknownMixed waste (haz. and radioactive): UnknownU.S. importer of hazardous waste: Handler Activities Summary: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OperatorOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (415) 555-1212Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: NOT REQUIRED, ME 99999 NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator address: NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator name: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OwnerOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (415) 555-1212Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: NOT REQUIRED, ME 99999 YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEM INC (Continued) 1000291248 TC2502198.2s Page 74 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation 9133443000Telephone: YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEMS INCContact: CAD056591423Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: .3708Tons: Transfer StationDisposal Method: Hydrocarbon solvents (benzene, hexane, Stoddard, etc.)Waste Category: OrangeTSD County: CAT000613976TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: SHAWNEE MISSION, KS 662111213Mailing City,St,Zip: 10990 ROE AVEMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 9133443000Telephone: YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEMS INCContact: CAD056591423Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: .0498Tons: Transfer StationDisposal Method: Unspecified solvent mixture WasteWaste Category: FresnoTSD County: CAD093459485TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: SHAWNEE MISSION, KS 662111213Mailing City,St,Zip: 10990 ROE AVEMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 9133443000Telephone: YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEMS INCContact: CAD056591423Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: .0208Tons: Transfer StationDisposal Method: Off-specification, aged, or surplus organicsWaste Category: Los AngelesTSD County: CAD028409019TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: SHAWNEE MISSION, KS 662111213Mailing City,St,Zip: 10990 ROE AVEMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 9133443000Telephone: YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEMS INCContact: CAD056591423Gepaid: HAZNET: corrective action activities required under RCRA. program staff to track the notification, permit, compliance, and and treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo allows RCRA events and activities related to facilities that generate, transport, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program through the tracking of RCRAInfo is a national information system that supports the Resource YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEM INC (Continued) 1000291248 TC2502198.2s Page 75 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Not reportedEPA ID: Not reportedNPDES Number: Not reportedDUNs Number: Not reportedContact Phone: Not reportedContact: ORANGE 92667Mailing City,St,Zip: Not reportedMailing Address 2: 10990 ROEMailing Address: Not reportedMail To: 7149786221Facility Phone: Not reportedSIC Code: Not reportedCortese Code: 00045828Regulated ID: UTNKARegulated By: 30001976Facility ID: CA FID UST: XXXThomas Bros Code: XXXLocation Code: XXXLead Agency: XXXSubstance: XXXStaff: 8Region: ClosedFacility Status: GroundwaterType: SLIC: 18 additional CA_HAZNET: record(s) in the EDR Site Report. Click this hyperlink while viewing on your computer to access OrangeFacility County: .6255Tons: RecyclerDisposal Method: Tank bottom wasteWaste Category: Los AngelesTSD County: CAT080013352TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: SHAWNEE MISSION, KS 662111213Mailing City,St,Zip: 10990 ROE AVEMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 9133443000Telephone: YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEMS INCContact: CAD056591423Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: .0498Tons: Transfer StationDisposal Method: Aqueous solution with less than 10% total organic residuesWaste Category: Los AngelesTSD County: CAT000613893TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: SHAWNEE MISSION, KS 662111213Mailing City,St,Zip: 10990 ROE AVEMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEM INC (Continued) 1000291248 TC2502198.2s Page 76 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation 4/2/1992Effective Date Of Regulatory Measure: Not reportedAdoption Date Of Regulatory Measure: INDSTWProgram Type: 8 30I003120WDID: 274451Place Id: Storm water industrialRegulatory Measure Type: 97-03-DWQOrder No Of General Order: Not reportedOrder No: 208337Regulatory Measure Id: 8Region: 52247Agency Id: ActiveFacility Status: Not reportedNpdes Number: NPDES: NoneLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: Not reportedType of Fuel: WASTETank Used for: 00001400Tank Capacity: 1972Year Installed: # 3Container Num: 003Tank Num: Stock InventorLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: REGULARType of Fuel: PRODUCTTank Used for: 00010000Tank Capacity: 1972Year Installed: # 2Container Num: 002Tank Num: Stock InventorLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: DIESELType of Fuel: PRODUCTTank Used for: 00010000Tank Capacity: 1972Year Installed: # 1Container Num: 001Tank Num: OVERLAND PARK, KS 66207Owner City,St,Zip: 10990 ROE AVE.Owner Address: YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC.Owner Name: 7149786221Telephone: ROBERT E. CARPENTERContact Name: 0003Total Tanks: TRUCKING COMPANYOther Type: OtherFacility Type: 00000045828Facility ID: STATERegion: HIST UST: ActiveStatus: Not reportedComments: YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEM INC (Continued) 1000291248 TC2502198.2s Page 77 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation dairy waste ponds. dischargers having waste storage systems with land disposal such as disposal systems, such as septic systems with subsurface disposal, or management practices, facilities with passive waste treatment and cooling water dischargers or thosewho must comply through best Category C - Facilities having no waste treatment systems, such asComplexity: represent no threat to water quality. Level. A Zero (0) may be used to code those NURDS that are found to considered a minor threat to water quality unless coded at a higher to a major or minor threat. Not: All nurds without a TTWQ will be should cause a relatively minor impairment of beneficial uses compared Minor Threat to Water Quality. A violation of a regional board orderTreat To Water: Not reportedPOTW: Not reportedReclamation: 0Baseline Flow: 0Design Flow: Not reportedSecondary Waste Type: Not reportedSecondary Waste: Not reportedPrimary Waste Type: Not reportedPrimary Waste: Not reportedSIC Code 2: 0SIC Code: PrivateAgency Type: 9133443409Agency Telephone: STEVE TRAVISAgency Contact: OVERLAND PARK 66207Agency City,St,Zip: 10990 ROE AVEAgency Address: YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEM INC.Agency Name: STEVE SHINNERSFacility Contact: 9133443409Facility Telephone: 8Subregion: are assigned by the Regional Board CAS000001 The 1st 2 characters designate the state. The remaining 7NPDES Number: under Waste Discharge Requirements. Active - Any facility with a continuous or seasonal discharge that isFacility Status: pumping. repairing, oil production, storage and disposal operations, water washing, geothermal operations, air conditioning, ship building and processing operation of whatever nature, including mining, gravel semisolid wastes from any servicing, producing, manufacturing or Industrial - Facility that treats and/or disposes of liquid orFacility Type: Santa Ana River 30I003120Facility ID: CA WDS: 44310Discharge Zip: OHDischarge State: AkronDischarge City: Not reportedDischarge Address2: 1077 Gorge BlvdDischarge Address: YRC Enterprise Services IncDischarge Name: Not reportedTermination Date Of Regulatory Measure: Not reportedExpiration Date Of Regulatory Measure: YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEM INC (Continued) 1000291248 TC2502198.2s Page 78 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Not reportedOperator: Not reportedSoil Qualifies: Not reportedGW Qualifies: Not reportedEnter Date: Not reportedMonitoring: Not reportedRemed Action: Not reportedRemed Plan: Not reportedPollution Char: Not reportedWorkplan: 8/8/1990Close Date: Not reportedEnforcement Date: 3/26/1990Discover Date: Not reportedPrelim Assess: Not reportedReview Date: Not reportedEnter Date: 9/9/9999How Stopped Date: T0605900097Global ID: UnknownLeak Source: UnknownLeak Cause: Close TankHow Stopped: Tank ClosureHow Discovered: Not reportedFunding: Not reportedEnf Type: Not reportedCross Street: Not reportedAbate Method: 0Qty Leaked: GasolineSubstance: Soil onlyCase Type: 90UT080Local Case Num: 083000125TCase Number: Case ClosedFacility Status: Santa Ana RegionRegional Board: OrangeCounty: 8Region: LUST REG 8: Not reportedSite History: GasolinePotential Contaminats of Concern: Not reportedPotential Media Affect: Local AgencyFile Location: 90UT080LOC Case Number: 083000125TRB Case Number: ORANGE COUNTY LOPLocal Agency: Not reportedCase Worker: ORANGE COUNTY LOPLead Agency: 1990-08-08 00:00:00Status Date: Completed - Case ClosedStatus: LUST Cleanup SiteCase Type: -117.8893602Longitude: 33.808553Latitude: T0605900097Global Id: STATERegion: LUST: 1532 ft. 0.290 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 158 ft. 1/4-1/2 HIST CORTESEANAHEIM, CA 92806 WNW CA FID UST1635 STATE COLLEGE N/A 54 LUSTDEL PISO BRICK COMPANY S101589203 TC2502198.2s Page 79 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation 083000125TReg Id: LTNKAReg By: 30Facility County Code: CORTESERegion: CORTESE: ActiveStatus: Not reportedComments: Not reportedEPA ID: Not reportedNPDES Number: Not reportedDUNs Number: Not reportedContact Phone: Not reportedContact: ANAHEIM 92806Mailing City,St,Zip: Not reportedMailing Address 2: 1635 S STATE COLLEGE BLVDMailing Address: Not reportedMail To: 7146344676Facility Phone: Not reportedSIC Code: Not reportedCortese Code: Not reportedRegulated ID: UTNKARegulated By: 30003225Facility ID: CA FID UST: Not reportedSummary: Not reportedWork Suspended: Not reportedCleanup Fund Id: Not reportedPriority: MUNBeneficial: Not reportedHydr Basin #: 30000LLocal Agency: Local AgencyLead Agency: WJStaff Initials: PAHStaff: *MTBE Class: Site NOT Tested for MTBE.Includes Unknown and Not Analyzed.MTBE Tested: 1MTBE Fuel: Not reportedMax MTBE Soil: 0MTBE Concentration: Not reportedMax MTBE GW: Not reportedMTBE Date: -117.8893602Longitude: 33.808553Latitude: LUSTOversite Program: Not reportedInterim: Not reportedFacility Contact: DEL PISO BRICK COMPANY (Continued) S101589203 TC2502198.2s Page 80 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Not reportedOperator: Not reportedSoil Qualifies: Not reportedGW Qualifies: Not reportedEnter Date: Not reportedMonitoring: Not reportedRemed Action: Not reportedRemed Plan: Not reportedPollution Char: Not reportedWorkplan: 6/19/1998Close Date: Not reportedEnforcement Date: 7/14/1993Discover Date: Not reportedPrelim Assess: Not reportedReview Date: Not reportedEnter Date: 9/9/9999How Stopped Date: T0605900834Global ID: UnknownLeak Source: UnknownLeak Cause: Close TankHow Stopped: Tank ClosureHow Discovered: Not reportedFunding: Not reportedEnf Type: Not reportedCross Street: Not reportedAbate Method: 0Qty Leaked: 12034,800661Substance: Soil onlyCase Type: 93UT058Local Case Num: 083001056TCase Number: Case ClosedFacility Status: Santa Ana RegionRegional Board: OrangeCounty: 8Region: LUST REG 8: Not reportedSite History: Diesel, GasolinePotential Contaminats of Concern: Not reportedPotential Media Affect: Local AgencyFile Location: 93UT058LOC Case Number: 083001056TRB Case Number: ORANGE COUNTY LOPLocal Agency: Not reportedCase Worker: ORANGE COUNTY LOPLead Agency: 1998-06-19 00:00:00Status Date: Completed - Case ClosedStatus: LUST Cleanup SiteCase Type: -117.8776088Longitude: 33.8060702Latitude: T0605900834Global Id: STATERegion: LUST: 1804 ft. 0.342 mi.HIST CORTESE Relative: Higher Actual: 170 ft. 1/4-1/2 EMIANAHEIM, CA 92806 North CA FID UST10852 DOUGLASS N/A 55 LUSTKATELLA YARD U002096316 TC2502198.2s Page 81 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation 0NOX - Oxides of Nitrogen Tons/Yr: 0Carbon Monoxide Emissions Tons/Yr: 7Reactive Organic Gases Tons/Yr: 8Total Organic Hydrocarbon Gases Tons/Yr: Not reportedConsolidated Emission Reporting Rule: Not reportedCommunity Health Air Pollution Info System: SOUTH COAST AQMDAir District Name: 4463SIC Code: SCAir District Name: 4536Facility ID: SCAir Basin: 30County Code: 1987Year: EMI: ActiveStatus: Not reportedComments: Not reportedEPA ID: Not reportedNPDES Number: Not reportedDUNs Number: Not reportedContact Phone: Not reportedContact: ANAHEIM 92806Mailing City,St,Zip: Not reportedMailing Address 2: 1143 E FRUIT ST ATN: DEAN HMailing Address: Not reportedMail To: 7145677706Facility Phone: Not reportedSIC Code: Not reportedCortese Code: Not reportedRegulated ID: UTNKARegulated By: 30000856Facility ID: CA FID UST: Not reportedSummary: Not reportedWork Suspended: Not reportedCleanup Fund Id: Not reportedPriority: MUNBeneficial: Not reportedHydr Basin #: 30000LLocal Agency: Local AgencyLead Agency: ADStaff Initials: NOMStaff: *MTBE Class: Not Required to be Tested.MTBE Tested: 0MTBE Fuel: Not reportedMax MTBE Soil: 0MTBE Concentration: Not reportedMax MTBE GW: Not reportedMTBE Date: -117.8776088Longitude: 33.8060702Latitude: LUSTOversite Program: Not reportedInterim: Not reportedFacility Contact: KATELLA YARD (Continued)U002096316 TC2502198.2s Page 82 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation 083001056TReg Id: LTNKAReg By: 30Facility County Code: CORTESERegion: CORTESE: 0Part. Matter 10 Micrometers & Smllr Tons/Yr: 0Particulate Matter Tons/Yr: 0SOX - Oxides of Sulphur Tons/Yr: 0NOX - Oxides of Nitrogen Tons/Yr: 0Carbon Monoxide Emissions Tons/Yr: 17Reactive Organic Gases Tons/Yr: 53Total Organic Hydrocarbon Gases Tons/Yr: Not reportedConsolidated Emission Reporting Rule: Not reportedCommunity Health Air Pollution Info System: SOUTH COAST AQMDAir District Name: 9621SIC Code: SCAir District Name: 4536Facility ID: SCAir Basin: 30County Code: 1995Year: 0Part. Matter 10 Micrometers & Smllr Tons/Yr: 0Particulate Matter Tons/Yr: 0SOX - Oxides of Sulphur Tons/Yr: 0NOX - Oxides of Nitrogen Tons/Yr: 0Carbon Monoxide Emissions Tons/Yr: 30Reactive Organic Gases Tons/Yr: 85Total Organic Hydrocarbon Gases Tons/Yr: Not reportedConsolidated Emission Reporting Rule: Not reportedCommunity Health Air Pollution Info System: SOUTH COAST AQMDAir District Name: 9621SIC Code: SCAir District Name: 4536Facility ID: SCAir Basin: 30County Code: 1990Year: 1Part. Matter 10 Micrometers & Smllr Tons/Yr: 1Particulate Matter Tons/Yr: 0SOX - Oxides of Sulphur Tons/Yr: KATELLA YARD (Continued)U002096316 Not reportedDate Completed: Not reportedIncident Date: Not reportedOES Time: Not reportedOES Date: 6/17/199908:40:42 AMOES notification: 99-2565OES Incident Number: CHMIRS: 2211 ft. Site 1 of 4 in cluster L 0.419 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 162 ft. 1/4-1/2 ENVIROSTORANAHEIM, CA 92806 North RESPONSE2201 EAST CERRITOS AVE N/A L56 CHMIRS S101126234 TC2502198.2s Page 83 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation 0Pounds: 0Grams: 100Gallons: 0CUFT: 0Cups: 0BBLS: Not reportedQuantity Released: Resin SolutionSubstance: Not reportedE Date: Industrial PlantSite Type: YesContained: Not reportedAmount: Anaheim Fire DepartmentAdmin Agency: 6/17/199912:00:00 AMIncident Date: Neville Chemical CoAgency: 1999Year: Not reportedDate/Time: Not reportedOther: Not reportedMeasure: Not reportedType: Not reportedWhat Happened: Not reportedContainment: Reporting PartyCleanup By: Not reportedSpill Site: Not reportedWaterway: NoWaterway Involved: Not reportedFacility Telephone: Not reportedComments: Not reportedReport Date: Not reportedReporting Officer Name/ID: Not reportedCompany Name: Not reportedCA/DOT/PUC/ICC Number: Not reportedVehicle Id Number: Not reportedVehicle State: Not reportedVehicle License Number: Not reportedVehicle Make/year: Not reportedOthers Number Of Fatalities: Not reportedOthers Number Of Injuries: Not reportedOthers Number Of Decontaminated: Not reportedResponding Agency Personel # Of Fatalities: Not reportedResponding Agency Personel # Of Injuries: Not reportedResp Agncy Personel # Of Decontaminated: Not reportedMore Than Two Substances Involved?: Not reportedSpecial Studies 6: Not reportedSpecial Studies 5: Not reportedSpecial Studies 4: Not reportedSpecial Studies 3: Not reportedSpecial Studies 2: Not reportedSpecial Studies 1: Not reportedProperty Management: Not reportedEstimated Temperature: Not reportedSurrounding Area: Not reportedTime Completed: Not reportedTime Notified: Not reportedAgency Incident Number: Not reportedAgency Id Number: Not reportedProperty Use: (Continued)S101126234 TC2502198.2s Page 84 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Reporting PartyCleanup By: Not reportedSpill Site: Not reportedWaterway: NoWaterway Involved: Not reportedFacility Telephone: Not reportedComments: Not reportedReport Date: Not reportedReporting Officer Name/ID: Not reportedCompany Name: Not reportedCA/DOT/PUC/ICC Number: Not reportedVehicle Id Number: Not reportedVehicle State: Not reportedVehicle License Number: Not reportedVehicle Make/year: Not reportedOthers Number Of Fatalities: Not reportedOthers Number Of Injuries: Not reportedOthers Number Of Decontaminated: Not reportedResponding Agency Personel # Of Fatalities: Not reportedResponding Agency Personel # Of Injuries: Not reportedResp Agncy Personel # Of Decontaminated: Not reportedMore Than Two Substances Involved?: Not reportedSpecial Studies 6: Not reportedSpecial Studies 5: Not reportedSpecial Studies 4: Not reportedSpecial Studies 3: Not reportedSpecial Studies 2: Not reportedSpecial Studies 1: Not reportedProperty Management: Not reportedEstimated Temperature: Not reportedSurrounding Area: Not reportedTime Completed: Not reportedTime Notified: Not reportedAgency Incident Number: Not reportedAgency Id Number: Not reportedProperty Use: Not reportedDate Completed: Not reportedIncident Date: Not reportedOES Time: Not reportedOES Date: 3/1/199911:14:57 AMOES notification: 99-0962OES Incident Number: caught within secondary containment.Tank oveerflowed the hot substance was introduces causing boiling and overflow. All investigationA tank overflow caused by water being in the tank when Overflow of non hazardous substance. The incident is underDescription: 0Number of Fatalities: 0Number of Injuries: 0Evacuations: Not reportedDescription: 0Unknown: 0Tons: 0Sheen: 0Quarts: 0Pints: 0Ounces: 0Liters: (Continued)S101126234 TC2502198.2s Page 85 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Not reportedSpecial Studies 5: Not reportedSpecial Studies 4: Not reportedSpecial Studies 3: Not reportedSpecial Studies 2: Not reportedSpecial Studies 1: Not reportedProperty Management: Not reportedEstimated Temperature: Not reportedSurrounding Area: Not reportedTime Completed: Not reportedTime Notified: Not reportedAgency Incident Number: Not reportedAgency Id Number: Not reportedProperty Use: Not reportedDate Completed: Not reportedIncident Date: Not reportedOES Time: Not reportedOES Date: 9/17/200012:53:41 AMOES notification: 00-4193OES Incident Number: caught within secondary containment.Tank oveerflowed the hot substance was introduces causing boiling and overflow. All investigationA tank overflow caused by water being in the tank when Overflow of non hazardous substance. The incident is underDescription: 0Number of Fatalities: 0Number of Injuries: 0Evacuations: Not reportedDescription: 0Unknown: 0Tons: 0Sheen: 0Quarts: 0Pints: 0Ounces: 0Liters: 0Pounds: 0Grams: 375Gallons: 0CUFT: 0Cups: 0BBLS: Not reportedQuantity Released: Hydro Carbon DistillateSubstance: Not reportedE Date: Industrial PlantSite Type: YesContained: Not reportedAmount: Anaheim Fire DepartmentAdmin Agency: 2/27/199912:00:00 AMIncident Date: Nebille Chemical CoAgency: 1999Year: Not reportedDate/Time: Not reportedOther: Not reportedMeasure: Not reportedType: Not reportedWhat Happened: Not reportedContainment: (Continued)S101126234 TC2502198.2s Page 86 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation investigationA tank overflow caused by water being in the tank when Overflow of non hazardous substance. The incident is underDescription: 0Number of Fatalities: 0Number of Injuries: 0Evacuations: Not reportedDescription: 0Unknown: 0Tons: 0Sheen: 0Quarts: 0Pints: 0Ounces: 0Liters: 0Pounds: 0Grams: 200Gallons: 0CUFT: 0Cups: 0BBLS: Not reportedQuantity Released: resin and oil solutionSubstance: Not reportedE Date: Industrial PlantSite Type: YesContained: Not reportedAmount: Anaheim Fire DepartmentAdmin Agency: 9/16/200012:00:00 AMIncident Date: Neville Chem. Comp.Agency: 2000Year: Not reportedDate/Time: Not reportedOther: Not reportedMeasure: Not reportedType: Not reportedWhat Happened: Not reportedContainment: Reporting PartyCleanup By: Not reportedSpill Site: Not reportedWaterway: NoWaterway Involved: Not reportedFacility Telephone: Not reportedComments: Not reportedReport Date: Not reportedReporting Officer Name/ID: Not reportedCompany Name: Not reportedCA/DOT/PUC/ICC Number: Not reportedVehicle Id Number: Not reportedVehicle State: Not reportedVehicle License Number: Not reportedVehicle Make/year: Not reportedOthers Number Of Fatalities: Not reportedOthers Number Of Injuries: Not reportedOthers Number Of Decontaminated: Not reportedResponding Agency Personel # Of Fatalities: Not reportedResponding Agency Personel # Of Injuries: Not reportedResp Agncy Personel # Of Decontaminated: Not reportedMore Than Two Substances Involved?: Not reportedSpecial Studies 6: (Continued)S101126234 TC2502198.2s Page 87 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation 2006-04-12 00:00:00Completed Date: Site ScreeningCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 1987-05-29 00:00:00Completed Date: Site ScreeningCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 1988-06-27 00:00:00Completed Date: Preliminary Assessment ReportCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 1989-05-10 00:00:00Completed Date: *Site Inspection (SI) ReportCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: Completed Info: PENDING STATUS BASED ON OUTCOME OF SITE INSPECTION. CompletedSITE SCREENING DONE MORE INFO NEEDEDPRELIM ASSESS DONE CONTAMINATION ISSUES, THEREFORE, DHS STATUS IS PENDING.Site Screening SITE INSP DONE SANTA ANA RWQCB IS CURRENTLY ADDRESSINGComments: Not reportedAPN Description: NONE SPECIFIEDAPN: EPA Identification NumberAlias Type: CAD008364150Alias Name: Envirostor ID NumberAlias Type: 30280120Alias Name: -117.885277777778Longitude: 33.8105555555556Latitude: Not reportedFunding: NORestricted Use: 1995-04-25 00:00:00Status Date: Refer: Other AgencyStatus: * CERC2Special Program Status: 33Senate: 69Assembly: Not reportedSite Code: CypressDivision Branch: * MMONROYSupervisor: Not reportedProject Manager: Not reportedLead Agency Description: NONE SPECIFIEDLead Agency: NONE SPECIFIEDCleanup Oversight Agencies: NONational Priorities List: 18.6Acres: State Response or NPLSite Type Detail: State ResponseSite Type: 30280120Facility ID: RESPONSE: caught within secondary containment.Tank oveerflowed the hot substance was introduces causing boiling and overflow. All (Continued)S101126234 TC2502198.2s Page 88 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation CAD008364150Alias Name: Envirostor ID NumberAlias Type: 30280120Alias Name: -117.885277777778Longitude: 33.8105555555556Latitude: Not reportedFunding: NORestricted Use: 1995-04-25 00:00:00Status Date: Refer: Other AgencyStatus: * CERC2Special Program: 33Senate: 69Assembly: Not reportedSite Code: 30280120Facility ID: CypressDivision Branch: * MMONROYSupervisor: Not reportedProgram Manager: NONE SPECIFIEDLead Agency: NONE SPECIFIEDRegulatory Agencies: NONPL: 18.6Acres: State Response or NPLSite Type Detailed: State ResponseSite Type: ENVIROSTOR: NONE SPECIFIEDPastUse: Not reportedSchedule Revised Date: Not reportedSchedule Due Date: Not reportedSchedule Document Type: Not reportedSchedule Sub Area Name: Not reportedSchedule Area Name: * TETRAETHPotenital Description: * OTHER PEPotenital Description: * UNSPECIFPotenital Description: * TANK BOTPotenital Description: * ACID SOLPotenital Description: * CONTAMINPotenital Description: * OTHER ORPotenital Description: * ORGANICPotenital Description: * ORGANICPotenital Description: * HYDROCARPotenital Description: * HALOGENAPotenital Description: * HALOGENAPotenital Description: 20012, 20028 10002, 10003, 10009, 10061, 10063, 10064, 10097, 10119, 10185, 10196,Potential: Not reportedManagement Required Desc: NONE SPECIFIEDManagement Required: Management: Not reportedMedia Affected Desc: NONE SPECIFIEDMedia Affected: Not reportedFuture Due Date: Not reportedFuture Document Type: Not reportedFuture Sub Area Name: Not reportedFuture Area Name: Not reportedConfirmed Description: NONE SPECIFIEDConfirmed: (Continued)S101126234 TC2502198.2s Page 89 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Not reportedSchedule Sub Area Name: Not reportedSchedule Area Name: * TETRAETHPotenital Description: * OTHER PEPotenital Description: * UNSPECIFPotenital Description: * TANK BOTPotenital Description: * ACID SOLPotenital Description: * CONTAMINPotenital Description: * OTHER ORPotenital Description: * ORGANICPotenital Description: * ORGANICPotenital Description: * HYDROCARPotenital Description: * HALOGENAPotenital Description: * HALOGENAPotenital Description: 20012, 20028 10002, 10003, 10009, 10061, 10063, 10064, 10097, 10119, 10185, 10196,Potential: Not reportedManagement Required Desc: NONE SPECIFIEDManagement Required: Management: Not reportedMedia Affected Desc: NONE SPECIFIEDMedia Affected: Not reportedFuture Due Date: Not reportedFuture Document Type: Not reportedFuture Sub Area Name: Not reportedFuture Area Name: Not reportedConfirmed Description: NONE SPECIFIEDConfirmed: 2006-04-12 00:00:00Completed Date: Site ScreeningCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 1987-05-29 00:00:00Completed Date: Site ScreeningCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 1988-06-27 00:00:00Completed Date: Preliminary Assessment ReportCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 1989-05-10 00:00:00Completed Date: *Site Inspection (SI) ReportCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: Completed Info: PENDING STATUS BASED ON OUTCOME OF SITE INSPECTION. CompletedSITE SCREENING DONE MORE INFO NEEDEDPRELIM ASSESS DONE CONTAMINATION ISSUES, THEREFORE, DHS STATUS IS PENDING.Site Screening SITE INSP DONE SANTA ANA RWQCB IS CURRENTLY ADDRESSINGComments: Not reportedAPN Description: NONE SPECIFIEDAPN: EPA Identification NumberAlias Type: (Continued)S101126234 TC2502198.2s Page 90 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation NONE SPECIFIEDPastUse: Not reportedSchedule Revised Date: Not reportedSchedule Due Date: Not reportedSchedule Document Type: (Continued)S101126234 Not reportedSite History: Not reportedPotential Contaminants of Concern: SoilPotential Media Affected: Regional BoardFile Location: PCA#20852RB Case Number: ANAHEIM, CITY OFLocal Agency: Not reportedCase Worker: Cleanup Program SiteCase Type: -117.885118Longitude: 33.811701Latitude: Not reportedLead Agency Case Number: SANTA ANA RWQCB (REGION 8)Lead Agency: SL0605956547Global Id: 2007-02-22 00:00:00Status Date: Open - Site AssessmentFacility Status: STATERegion: SLIC: 2211 ft. Site 2 of 4 in cluster L 0.419 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 162 ft. 1/4-1/2 ANAHEIM, CA 92806 North 2201 CERRITOS AVENUE E N/A L57 SLICNEVILLE CHEMICAL COMPANY S106487163 PITTSBURG, PA 15225Owner City,St,Zip: NEVILLE ISLANDOwner Address: NEVILLE CHEMICAL COMPANYOwner Name: 7145357296Telephone: THOMAS A PRADETTOContact Name: 0007Total Tanks: MANUFACTUREROther Type: OtherFacility Type: 00000003365Facility ID: STATERegion: HIST UST: MGCThomas Bros Code: MGCLocation Code: MGCLead Agency: MGCSubstance: MGCStaff: 8Region: 6Facility Status: Soil and GroundwaterType: SLIC: 2211 ft. Site 3 of 4 in cluster L 0.419 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 162 ft. 1/4-1/2 ANAHEIM, CA 92806 North HIST UST2201 E CERRITOS AVE N/A L58 SLICNEVILLE CHEMICAL CO.1000254478 TC2502198.2s Page 91 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation 1980Year Installed: NAUC 7Container Num: 007Tank Num: VisualLeak Detection: 5.5 inchesTank Construction: Not reportedType of Fuel: WASTETank Used for: 00000000Tank Capacity: 1958Year Installed: NAUC 6Container Num: 006Tank Num: VisualLeak Detection: 0.5 inchesTank Construction: Not reportedType of Fuel: PRODUCTTank Used for: 00000000Tank Capacity: 1980Year Installed: NAUC 5Container Num: 005Tank Num: VisualLeak Detection: 8 inchesTank Construction: Not reportedType of Fuel: WASTETank Used for: 33000000Tank Capacity: 1971Year Installed: NAUC 4Container Num: 004Tank Num: VisualLeak Detection: 0000025 inchesTank Construction: Not reportedType of Fuel: WASTETank Used for: 00000240Tank Capacity: Not reportedYear Installed: NAUC 3Container Num: 003Tank Num: VisualLeak Detection: 5 inchesTank Construction: Not reportedType of Fuel: WASTETank Used for: 00000000Tank Capacity: 1958Year Installed: NAUC 2Container Num: 002Tank Num: VisualLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: Not reportedType of Fuel: WASTETank Used for: 00010000Tank Capacity: 1958Year Installed: NAUC 1Container Num: 001Tank Num: NEVILLE CHEMICAL CO. (Continued) 1000254478 TC2502198.2s Page 92 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation VisualLeak Detection: .375 inchesTank Construction: Not reportedType of Fuel: WASTETank Used for: 00000458Tank Capacity: NEVILLE CHEMICAL CO. (Continued) 1000254478 Not Required to be Tested.MTBE Tested: 0MTBE Fuel: Not reportedMax MTBE Soil: 0MTBE Concentration: Not reportedMax MTBE GW: Not reportedMTBE Date: -117.8854541Longitude: 33.810717Latitude: LUSTOversite Program: Not reportedInterim: Not reportedFacility Contact: Not reportedOperator: Not reportedSoil Qualifies: Not reportedGW Qualifies: 10/15/1987Enter Date: Not reportedMonitoring: Not reportedRemed Action: Not reportedRemed Plan: 10/15/1987Pollution Char: Not reportedWorkplan: 11/29/1987Close Date: Not reportedEnforcement Date: Not reportedDiscover Date: Not reportedPrelim Assess: Not reportedReview Date: 10/15/1987Enter Date: Not reportedHow Stopped Date: T0605900528Global ID: Not reportedLeak Source: Not reportedLeak Cause: Not reportedHow Stopped: Not reportedHow Discovered: Not reportedFunding: Not reportedEnf Type: Not reportedCross Street: Not reportedAbate Method: Not reportedQty Leaked: SolventsSubstance: Soil onlyCase Type: Not reportedLocal Case Num: 083000667TCase Number: Case ClosedFacility Status: Santa Ana RegionRegional Board: OrangeCounty: 8Region: LUST REG 8: 2211 ft. Site 4 of 4 in cluster L 0.419 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 162 ft. 1/4-1/2 ANAHEIM, CA 92806 North HIST CORTESE2201 CERRITOS AVE N/A L59 LUSTNEVILLE CHEMICAL S101541105 TC2502198.2s Page 93 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Not Required to be Tested.MTBE Tested: 0MTBE Fuel: Not reportedMax MTBE Soil: 0MTBE Concentration: Not reportedMax MTBE GW: Not reportedMTBE Date: -117.885261Longitude: 33.810737Latitude: LUSTOversite Program: Not reportedInterim: Not reportedFacility Contact: Not reportedOperator: Not reportedSoil Qualifies: Not reportedGW Qualifies: 11/3/1999Enter Date: Not reportedMonitoring: Not reportedRemed Action: 11/3/1998Remed Plan: Not reportedPollution Char: Not reportedWorkplan: Not reportedClose Date: Not reportedEnforcement Date: 8/25/1998Discover Date: Not reportedPrelim Assess: 11/3/1998Review Date: 11/3/1999Enter Date: 9/22/1998How Stopped Date: T0605902328Global ID: PipingLeak Source: UNKLeak Cause: Not reportedHow Stopped: Tank ClosureHow Discovered: Not reportedFunding: Not reportedEnf Type: STATE COLLEGECross Street: Not reportedAbate Method: Not reportedQty Leaked: HydrocarbonsSubstance: Aquifer affectedCase Type: Not reportedLocal Case Num: 083003566TCase Number: Remediation PlanFacility Status: Santa Ana RegionRegional Board: OrangeCounty: 8Region: Not reportedSummary: Not reportedWork Suspended: Not reportedCleanup Fund Id: Not reportedPriority: Not reportedBeneficial: COASTAL PLAIN OF ORAHydr Basin #: 30011Local Agency: Local AgencyLead Agency: UNKStaff Initials: PAHStaff: *MTBE Class: NEVILLE CHEMICAL (Continued)S101541105 TC2502198.2s Page 94 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation 8 302606N01Reg Id: WBC&DReg By: 30Facility County Code: CORTESERegion: 083000667TReg Id: LTNKAReg By: 30Facility County Code: CORTESERegion: CORTESE: Not reportedSummary: NoWork Suspended: Not reportedCleanup Fund Id: Not reportedPriority: Not reportedBeneficial: COASTAL PLAIN OF ORAHydr Basin #: 30011Local Agency: Regional BoardLead Agency: UNKStaff Initials: MGCStaff: *MTBE Class: NEVILLE CHEMICAL (Continued)S101541105 Not reportedSite History: * SolventsPotential Contaminats of Concern: SoilPotential Media Affect: Not reportedFile Location: Not reportedLOC Case Number: 083000667TRB Case Number: ANAHEIM, CITY OFLocal Agency: Not reportedCase Worker: ANAHEIM, CITY OFLead Agency: 1987-11-29 00:00:00Status Date: Completed - Case ClosedStatus: LUST Cleanup SiteCase Type: -117.8854541Longitude: 33.810717Latitude: T0605900528Global Id: STATERegion: LUST: 2230 ft. Site 1 of 2 in cluster M 0.422 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 163 ft. 1/4-1/2 ANAHEIM, CA 92806 North 2201 E CERRITOS AVE N/A M60 LUSTNEVILLE CHEMICAL S109284216 TC2502198.2s Page 95 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Low priority for further assessmentPriority Level: 04/12/2006Date Completed: Not reportedDate Started: SITE REASSESSMENTAction: Low priority for further assessmentPriority Level: 02/12/2003Date Completed: 09/26/2001Date Started: SITE REASSESSMENTAction: Low priority for further assessmentPriority Level: 09/19/1989Date Completed: Not reportedDate Started: SITE INSPECTIONAction: Low priority for further assessmentPriority Level: 03/15/1989Date Completed: Not reportedDate Started: PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENTAction: Not reportedPriority Level: 11/01/1987Date Completed: Not reportedDate Started: DISCOVERYAction: CERCLIS Assessment History: DHS STATUS IS PENDING. DONE SANTA ANA RWQCB IS CURRENTLY ADDRESSING CONTAMINATION ISSUES, THEREFORE, OUTCOME OF SITE INSPECTION. SI SITE INSPECTION REPORT 5/10/1989 SITE INSP ASSESSMENT REPORT 6/27/1988 PRELIM ASSESS DONE PENDING STATUS BASED ON SCREENING 5/29/1987 SITE SCREENING DONE MORE INFO NEEDED PA PRELIMINARY 2005.10/07: EnvirostorTYPE TITLE COMPLETION DATE COMPLETION COMMENT SITE lead oversight for the site and a phase II is planned. the facility closed in The California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana Region) has theSite Description: Site Assessment Manager (SAM)Contact Title: (415) 972-3814Contact Tel: Carl BricknerContact Name: Site Assessment Manager (SAM)Contact Title: (415) 972-3095Contact Tel: Jeff InglisContact Name: Site Assessment Manager (SAM)Contact Title: (415) 972-3219Contact Tel: Karen JuristContact Name: CERCLIS Site Contact Name(s): Other Cleanup Activity: State-Lead CleanupNon NPL Status: Not on the NPLNPL Status: Not a Federal FacilityFederal Facility: 0901083Site ID: CERCLIS: 2235 ft. Site 2 of 2 in cluster M 0.423 mi.HAZNET Relative: Higher Actual: 163 ft. 1/4-1/2 FINDSANAHEIM, CA 92806 North RCRA-SQG2201 E. CERRITOS AVE.CAD008364150 M61 CERCLISNEVILLE CHEMICAL COMPANY 1000254477 TC2502198.2s Page 96 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation NoUser oil refiner: NoUsed oil processor: NoUsed oil fuel burner: NoFurnace exemption: NoOn-site burner exemption: NoUnderground injection activity: NoTreater, storer or disposer of HW: NoTransporter of hazardous waste: NoRecycler of hazardous waste: NoMixed waste (haz. and radioactive): NoU.S. importer of hazardous waste: Handler Activities Summary: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: 01/01/1958Owner/Op start date: OwnerOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: Not reportedOwner/operator telephone: USOwner/operator country: PITTSBURGH, PA 15225 2800 NEVILLE RDOwner/operator address: NEVILLE CHEMICAL COMPANYOwner/operator name: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: 01/01/1958Owner/Op start date: OperatorOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: Not reportedOwner/operator telephone: USOwner/operator country: Not reported Not reportedOwner/operator address: NEVILLE CHEMICAL COMPANYOwner/operator name: Owner/Operator Summary: hazardous waste at any time waste during any calendar month, and accumulates more than 1000 kg of hazardous waste at any time; or generates 100 kg or less of hazardous waste during any calendar month and accumulates less than 6000 kg of Handler: generates more than 100 and less than 1000 kg of hazardousDescription: Small Small Quantity GeneratorClassification: PrivateLand type: 09EPA Region: JFERGUSON@NEVCHEM.COMContact email: (412) 777-4253Contact telephone: Not reportedContact country: Not reported Not reportedContact address: JOHN H FERGUSONContact: PITTSBURGH, PA 15225 2800 NEVILLE RDMailing address: CAD008364150EPA ID: ANAHEIM, CA 90670 2201 E. CERRITOS AVENUEFacility address: NEVILLE CHEMICAL COMPANYFacility name: 03/01/2006Date form received by agency: RCRA-SQG: NEVILLE CHEMICAL COMPANY (Continued) 1000254477 TC2502198.2s Page 97 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Not reported Proposed penalty amount: Not reported Enforcement lead agency: Not reported Enf. disp. status date: Not reported Enf. disposition status: Not reported Enforcement action date: Not reported Enforcement action: StateViolation lead agency: 08/09/1994Date achieved compliance: 01/05/1993Date violation determined: Generators - GeneralArea of violation: FR - 262.10-12.ARegulation violated: Facility Has Received Notices of Violations: Large Quantity GeneratorClassification: NEVILLE CHEM COSite name: NEVILLE CHEMICAL COMPANYFacility name: 08/18/1980Date form received by agency: Large Quantity GeneratorClassification: NEVILLE CHEMICAL COMPANY#Site name: NEVILLE CHEMICAL COMPANYFacility name: 04/19/1990Date form received by agency: Large Quantity GeneratorClassification: NEVILLE CHEMICAL COMPANY#Site name: NEVILLE CHEMICAL COMPANYFacility name: 02/27/1992Date form received by agency: Large Quantity GeneratorClassification: NEVILLE CHEMICAL COSite name: NEVILLE CHEMICAL COMPANYFacility name: 03/28/1994Date form received by agency: Large Quantity GeneratorClassification: NEVILLE CHEMICAL COMPANYFacility name: 02/13/1996Date form received by agency: Large Quantity GeneratorClassification: NEVILLE CHEM COSite name: NEVILLE CHEMICAL COMPANYFacility name: 09/01/1996Date form received by agency: Large Quantity GeneratorClassification: NEVILLE CHEMICAL COMPANYFacility name: 03/04/1999Date form received by agency: Large Quantity GeneratorClassification: NEVILLE CHEMICAL COMPANYFacility name: 03/01/2006Date form received by agency: Historical Generators: Commercial status unknownOff-site waste receiver: NoUsed oil transporter: NoUsed oil transfer facility: NoUsed oil Specification marketer: NoUsed oil fuel marketer to burner: NEVILLE CHEMICAL COMPANY (Continued) 1000254477 TC2502198.2s Page 98 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation ANAHEIM, CA 928065710Mailing City,St,Zip: 2201 E CERRITOS STMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 4123314200Telephone: NEVILLE CHEMICAL COMPANYContact: CAD008364150Gepaid: HAZNET: and financial information. including an inventory of sites, planned and actual site activities, system contains information on all aspects of hazardous waste sites, to support management in all phases of the Superfund program. The Liability Information System) is the Superfund database that is used CERCLIS (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and corrective action activities required under RCRA. program staff to track the notification, permit, compliance, and and treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo allows RCRA events and activities related to facilities that generate, transport, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program through the tracking of RCRAInfo is a national information system that supports the Resource their precursors, as well as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). on stationary and mobile sources that emit criteria air pollutants and The NEI (National Emissions Inventory) database contains information transported off-site. these facilities release directly to air, water, land, or that are facilities on the amounts of over 300 listed toxic chemicals that TRIS (Toxics Release Inventory System) contains information from California - Hazardous Waste Tracking System - Datamart Not reported 110000480998Registry ID: Other Pertinent Environmental Activity Identified at Site FINDS: State Contractor/GranteeEvaluation lead agency: 08/09/1994Date achieved compliance: Generators - GeneralArea of violation: COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION ON-SITEEvaluation: 01/05/1993Evaluation date: State Contractor/GranteeEvaluation lead agency: Not reportedDate achieved compliance: Not reportedArea of violation: COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION ON-SITEEvaluation: 08/09/1994Evaluation date: Evaluation Action Summary: Not reported Paid penalty amount: Not reported Final penalty amount: NEVILLE CHEMICAL COMPANY (Continued) 1000254477 TC2502198.2s Page 99 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Not reportedFacility Addr2: 4123314200Telephone: NEVILLE CHEMICAL COMPANYContact: CAD008364150Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: 23.8500Tons: Disposal, Land FillDisposal Method: Polymeric resin wasteWaste Category: KingsTSD County: CAT000646117TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: ANAHEIM, CA 928065710Mailing City,St,Zip: 2201 E CERRITOS STMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 4123314200Telephone: NEVILLE CHEMICAL COMPANYContact: CAD008364150Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: .8340Tons: RecyclerDisposal Method: Waste oil and mixed oilWaste Category: KernTSD County: CAD980883177TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: ANAHEIM, CA 928065710Mailing City,St,Zip: 2201 E CERRITOS STMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 4123314200Telephone: NEVILLE CHEMICAL COMPANYContact: CAD008364150Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: .2700Tons: Disposal, Land FillDisposal Method: Asbestos-containing wasteWaste Category: Los AngelesTSD County: CAD067786749TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: ANAHEIM, CA 928065710Mailing City,St,Zip: 2201 E CERRITOS STMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 4123314200Telephone: NEVILLE CHEMICAL COMPANYContact: CAD008364150Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: 12.4275Tons: Treatment, IncinerationDisposal Method: Gas scrubber wasteWaste Category: 99TSD County: AZD982441263TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: NEVILLE CHEMICAL COMPANY (Continued) 1000254477 TC2502198.2s Page 100 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation 71 additional CA_HAZNET: record(s) in the EDR Site Report. Click this hyperlink while viewing on your computer to access OrangeFacility County: 19.8000Tons: Not reportedDisposal Method: Polymeric resin wasteWaste Category: KingsTSD County: CAT000646117TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: ANAHEIM, CA 928065710Mailing City,St,Zip: 2201 E CERRITOS STMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: NEVILLE CHEMICAL COMPANY (Continued) 1000254477 Not reportedSite History: DieselPotential Contaminats of Concern: SoilPotential Media Affect: Not reportedFile Location: Not reportedLOC Case Number: 083003075TRB Case Number: ORANGE, CITY OFLocal Agency: Not reportedCase Worker: ORANGE, CITY OFLead Agency: 1997-10-29 00:00:00Status Date: Completed - Case ClosedStatus: LUST Cleanup SiteCase Type: -117.8672715Longitude: 33.8062672Latitude: T0605902095Global Id: STATERegion: LUST: 2542 ft. 0.481 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 169 ft. 1/4-1/2 ORANGE, CA 92867 East 1130 N MAIN ST N/A 62 LUSTROADWAY EXPRESS S109284700 083000298TRB Case Number: ANAHEIM, CITY OFLocal Agency: Not reportedCase Worker: SANTA ANA RWQCB (REGION 8)Lead Agency: 2002-12-05 00:00:00Status Date: Open - Site AssessmentStatus: LUST Cleanup SiteCase Type: -117.8916263Longitude: 33.808494063Latitude: T0605900234Global Id: STATERegion: LUST: 2548 ft. 0.483 mi. Relative: Lower Actual: 157 ft. 1/4-1/2 ANAHEIM, CA 92805 WNW 1500 BABBITT ST N/A 63 LUSTNORCO DELIVERY SERVICE, INC.S101299244 TC2502198.2s Page 101 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation 30011Local Agency: Regional BoardLead Agency: UNKStaff Initials: CABStaff: CMTBE Class: MTBE Detected. Site tested for MTBE & MTBE detectedMTBE Tested: 1MTBE Fuel: 0Max MTBE Soil: 1MTBE Concentration: 43Max MTBE GW: 2/24/2003MTBE Date: -117.8916263Longitude: 33.80849406Latitude: LUSTOversite Program: Not reportedInterim: Not reportedFacility Contact: Not reportedOperator: NDSoil Qualifies: =GW Qualifies: 5/21/1987Enter Date: 10/4/1994Monitoring: 2/4/1991Remed Action: 6/21/1990Remed Plan: 12/5/2002Pollution Char: Not reportedWorkplan: Not reportedClose Date: Not reportedEnforcement Date: Not reportedDiscover Date: 10/13/1986Prelim Assess: Not reportedReview Date: 5/21/1987Enter Date: Not reportedHow Stopped Date: T0605900234Global ID: Not reportedLeak Source: Not reportedLeak Cause: Not reportedHow Stopped: Not reportedHow Discovered: Not reportedFunding: SELEnf Type: STATE COLLEGECross Street: GTVEAbate Method: Not reportedQty Leaked: GasolineSubstance: Aquifer affectedCase Type: Not reportedLocal Case Num: 083000298TCase Number: Pollution CharacterizationFacility Status: Santa Ana RegionRegional Board: OrangeCounty: 8Region: LUST REG 8: Not reportedSite History: Gasoline, DieselPotential Contaminats of Concern: Aquifer used for drinking water supplyPotential Media Affect: Not reportedFile Location: Not reportedLOC Case Number: NORCO DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. (Continued) S101299244 TC2502198.2s Page 102 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation OFF SITE, UPGRADIENT WELLS INSTALLED 8/9/96 - REQUESTING ADD’L MONITORING APPEARS ON SITE CONCURRENT W/ RISE IN WATER TABLE 10/94 - VES MOTHBALLES 6/95 - 4/8/91 - GW DEPTH APPROX 82’. HIGH LEVELS OF CONTAM PRESENT 4/94 - FPSummary: Not reportedWork Suspended: Not reportedCleanup Fund Id: Not reportedPriority: Not reportedBeneficial: COASTAL PLAIN OF ORAHydr Basin #: NORCO DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. (Continued) S101299244 Not reportedContact address: Not reportedContact: CAD067625129EPA ID: ORANGE, CA 92868 1607 W ORANGE GROVE AVE STE AFacility address: DATA CIRCUITS INCFacility name: 09/01/1996Date form received by agency: RCRA-SQG: Deferred to RCRA (Subtitle C)Priority Level: 03/28/1991Date Completed: Not reportedDate Started: PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENTAction: Not reportedPriority Level: 08/24/1990Date Completed: Not reportedDate Started: DISCOVERYAction: CERCLIS Assessment History: Not reportedSite Description: Site Assessment Manager (SAM)Contact Title: (415) 972-3814Contact Tel: Carl BricknerContact Name: Site Assessment Manager (SAM)Contact Title: (415) 972-3095Contact Tel: Jeff InglisContact Name: Site Assessment Manager (SAM)Contact Title: (415) 972-3219Contact Tel: Karen JuristContact Name: CERCLIS Site Contact Name(s): Deferred to RCRANon NPL Status: Not on the NPLNPL Status: Not a Federal FacilityFederal Facility: 0900349Site ID: CERCLIS: CORRACTS 3008 ft.Orange Co. Industrial Site 0.570 mi.RCRA-TSDF Relative: Lower Actual: 155 ft. 1/2-1 FINDSORANGE, CA 92868 ESE RCRA-SQG1607 WEST ORANGE GROVE AVENUE CAD067625129 64 CERCLISDATA CIRCUITS SYSTEMS INC 1000141851 TC2502198.2s Page 103 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Large Quantity GeneratorClassification: DATA CIRCUITSSite name: DATA CIRCUITS INCFacility name: 04/03/1991Date form received by agency: Historical Generators: Commercial status unknownOff-site waste receiver: NoUsed oil transporter: NoUsed oil transfer facility: NoUsed oil Specification marketer: NoUsed oil fuel marketer to burner: NoUser oil refiner: NoUsed oil processor: NoUsed oil fuel burner: UnknownFurnace exemption: UnknownOn-site burner exemption: NoUnderground injection activity: NoTreater, storer or disposer of HW: NoTransporter of hazardous waste: NoRecycler of hazardous waste: UnknownMixed waste (haz. and radioactive): UnknownU.S. importer of hazardous waste: Handler Activities Summary: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OwnerOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (714) 997-2471Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: ORANGE, CA 92668 1607 W ORANGE GROVE AVE STE AOwner/operator address: DATA CIRCUITS INCOwner/operator name: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OperatorOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (714) 997-2471Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: ORANGE, CA 92668 1607 W ORANGE GROVE AVE STE AOwner/operator address: DATA CIRCUITS INCOwner/operator name: Owner/Operator Summary: Not reportedTSD commencement date: waste Handler is engaged in the treatment, storage or disposal of hazardousDescription: TSDFClassification: Facility is not located on Indian land. Additional information is not known.Land type: 09EPA Region: Not reportedContact email: Not reportedContact telephone: Not reportedContact country: Not reported DATA CIRCUITS SYSTEMS INC (Continued) 1000141851 TC2502198.2s Page 104 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation WRITTEN INFORMAL Enforcement action: StateViolation lead agency: 10/14/1988Date achieved compliance: 08/01/1988Date violation determined: TSD - Closure/Post-ClosureArea of violation: F - 264.110-120.GRegulation violated: Not reported Paid penalty amount: Not reported Final penalty amount: Not reported Proposed penalty amount: EPA Enforcement lead agency: Not reported Enf. disp. status date: Not reported Enf. disposition status: 07/05/1989 Enforcement action date: WRITTEN INFORMAL Enforcement action: StateViolation lead agency: 10/14/1988Date achieved compliance: 08/01/1988Date violation determined: LDR - GeneralArea of violation: F - 268.7Regulation violated: Not reported Paid penalty amount: Not reported Final penalty amount: Not reported Proposed penalty amount: EPA Enforcement lead agency: Not reported Enf. disp. status date: Not reported Enf. disposition status: 07/05/1989 Enforcement action date: WRITTEN INFORMAL Enforcement action: StateViolation lead agency: 10/14/1988Date achieved compliance: 08/01/1988Date violation determined: LDR - GeneralArea of violation: F - 268 ALLRegulation violated: Facility Has Received Notices of Violations: CA03192Event: Not reportedEvent date: CA074MEEvent: 03/28/1991Event date: action priority. CA Prioritization, Facility or area was assigned a medium correctiveEvent: 03/28/1991Event date: CA029STEvent: 03/28/1991Event date: CA049PAEvent: 03/28/1991Event date: Corrective Action Summary: Large Quantity GeneratorClassification: DATA CIRCUITS INCFacility name: 10/07/1980Date form received by agency: DATA CIRCUITS SYSTEMS INC (Continued) 1000141851 TC2502198.2s Page 105 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation StateEvaluation lead agency: 10/14/1988Date achieved compliance: TSD - GeneralArea of violation: COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION ON-SITEEvaluation: 08/01/1988Evaluation date: Evaluation Action Summary: Not reported Paid penalty amount: Not reported Final penalty amount: Not reported Proposed penalty amount: State Enforcement lead agency: Not reported Enf. disp. status date: Not reported Enf. disposition status: 08/25/1988 Enforcement action date: WRITTEN INFORMAL Enforcement action: StateViolation lead agency: 10/14/1988Date achieved compliance: 08/01/1988Date violation determined: TSD - GeneralArea of violation: F - 270Regulation violated: Not reported Paid penalty amount: Not reported Final penalty amount: Not reported Proposed penalty amount: State Enforcement lead agency: Not reported Enf. disp. status date: Not reported Enf. disposition status: 09/16/1988 Enforcement action date: WRITTEN INFORMAL Enforcement action: StateViolation lead agency: 10/14/1988Date achieved compliance: 08/01/1988Date violation determined: TSD - Financial RequirementsArea of violation: F - 264.140-150.HRegulation violated: Not reported Paid penalty amount: Not reported Final penalty amount: Not reported Proposed penalty amount: State Enforcement lead agency: Not reported Enf. disp. status date: Not reported Enf. disposition status: 11/14/1988 Enforcement action date: REFERRAL TO ATTORNEY GENERAL Enforcement action: StateViolation lead agency: 10/14/1988Date achieved compliance: 08/01/1988Date violation determined: TSD - Financial RequirementsArea of violation: F - 264.140-150.HRegulation violated: Not reported Paid penalty amount: Not reported Final penalty amount: Not reported Proposed penalty amount: State Enforcement lead agency: Not reported Enf. disp. status date: Not reported Enf. disposition status: 08/25/1988 Enforcement action date: DATA CIRCUITS SYSTEMS INC (Continued) 1000141851 TC2502198.2s Page 106 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation ENTIRE FACILITYArea Name: 9EPA Region: CAD067625129EPA ID: CORRACTS: COPPER ETCHANTSReleased Chemical: Closed pre 1994, file review required to determine closure typeClosure Type: CLOSED 10/17/1991Current Status: RO0000318Record ID: ORANGERegion: 91IC032Case ID: Orange Co. Industrial Site: and financial information. including an inventory of sites, planned and actual site activities, system contains information on all aspects of hazardous waste sites, to support management in all phases of the Superfund program. The Liability Information System) is the Superfund database that is used CERCLIS (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and corrective action activities required under RCRA. program staff to track the notification, permit, compliance, and and treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo allows RCRA events and activities related to facilities that generate, transport, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program through the tracking of RCRAInfo is a national information system that supports the Resource transported off-site. these facilities release directly to air, water, land, or that are facilities on the amounts of over 300 listed toxic chemicals that TRIS (Toxics Release Inventory System) contains information from 110000831315Registry ID: Other Pertinent Environmental Activity Identified at Site FINDS: StateEvaluation lead agency: 10/14/1988Date achieved compliance: TSD - Closure/Post-ClosureArea of violation: COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION ON-SITEEvaluation: 08/01/1988Evaluation date: StateEvaluation lead agency: 10/14/1988Date achieved compliance: LDR - GeneralArea of violation: COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION ON-SITEEvaluation: 08/01/1988Evaluation date: StateEvaluation lead agency: 10/14/1988Date achieved compliance: TSD - Financial RequirementsArea of violation: FINANCIAL RECORD REVIEWEvaluation: 08/01/1988Evaluation date: DATA CIRCUITS SYSTEMS INC (Continued) 1000141851 TC2502198.2s Page 107 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Not reportedSchedule end date: Not reportedOriginal schedule date: Other Electronic Component Manufacturing Bare Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing 334412 334419NAICS Code(s): corrective action priority CA075ME - CA Prioritization, Facility or area was assigned a mediumAction: 3/28/1991Actual Date: DATA CIRCUITS SYSTEMS INC (Continued) 1000141851 Not reportedMedia Affected Desc: NONE SPECIFIEDMedia Affected: Not reportedFuture Due Date: Not reportedFuture Document Type: Not reportedFuture Sub Area Name: Not reportedFuture Area Name: Not reportedConfirmed Description: NONE SPECIFIEDConfirmed: Not reportedCompleted Date: Not reportedCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: Not reportedCompleted Area Name: Completed Info: Not reportedComments: Not reportedAPN Description: NONE SPECIFIEDAPN: Envirostor ID NumberAlias Type: 60000734Alias Name: -117.863304592613Longitude: 33.8063186757679Latitude: Not ApplicableFunding: NORestricted Use: 2007-06-13 00:00:00Status Date: Refer: 1248 Local AgencyStatus: Not reportedSpecial Program: Not reportedSenate: Not reportedAssembly: Not reportedSite Code: 60000734Facility ID: CypressDivision Branch: Not reportedSupervisor: Not reportedProgram Manager: NONE SPECIFIEDLead Agency: SMBRPRegulatory Agencies: NONPL: Not reportedAcres: EvaluationSite Type Detailed: EvaluationSite Type: ENVIROSTOR: 3525 ft. 0.668 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 169 ft. 1/2-1 ORANGE, CA 92867 East 1101 W. STRUCK AVE N/A 65 ENVIROSTORPAMARCO GLOBAL GRAPHICS S108936097 TC2502198.2s Page 108 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation NONE SPECIFIEDPastUse: Not reportedSchedule Revised Date: Not reportedSchedule Due Date: Not reportedSchedule Document Type: Not reportedSchedule Sub Area Name: Not reportedSchedule Area Name: Not reportedPotenital Description: NONE SPECIFIEDPotential: Not reportedManagement Required Desc: NONE SPECIFIEDManagement Required: Management: PAMARCO GLOBAL GRAPHICS (Continued) S108936097 37.829444Latitude: T0600101124Global Id: STATERegion: LUST: 1Facility County: .3961Tons: RecyclerDisposal Method: Unspecified organic liquid mixtureWaste Category: San MateoTSD County: CAD009452657TSD EPA ID: 1Gen County: EMERYVILLE, CA 946620000Mailing City,St,Zip: P O BOX 8506Mailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 0000000000Telephone: DONALD HANEY-SK SMITHContact: CAL000003098Gepaid: 1Facility County: .4170Tons: RecyclerDisposal Method: Unspecified organic liquid mixtureWaste Category: San MateoTSD County: CAD009452657TSD EPA ID: 1Gen County: EMERYVILLE, CA 946620000Mailing City,St,Zip: P O BOX 8506Mailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 0000000000Telephone: DONALD HANEY-SK SMITHContact: CAL000003098Gepaid: HAZNET: HIST CORTESE ENVIROSTOR SWEEPS UST Alameda County CS 3608 ft.HIST USTSite 1 of 2 in cluster N 0.683 mi.CA FID UST Relative: Lower Actual: 147 ft. 1/2-1 USTANAHEIM, CA 92805 West LUST1016 E KATELLA AVE N/A N66 HAZNETKENS BOAT CENTER INC 1000384031 TC2502198.2s Page 109 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation InactiveStatus: Not reportedComments: Not reportedEPA ID: Not reportedNPDES Number: Not reportedDUNs Number: Not reportedContact Phone: Not reportedContact: EMERYVILLE 94608Mailing City,St,Zip: Not reportedMailing Address 2: P O BOXMailing Address: Not reportedMail To: Not reportedFacility Phone: Not reportedSIC Code: Not reportedCortese Code: 00018494Regulated ID: UTNKIRegulated By: 01001341Facility ID: CA FID UST: -117.8966Longitude: 33.80328Latitude: 4587Global ID: UST: Not reportedDate Post Remedial Action Monitoring Began: 3/20/1991Date Remediation Action Underway: Not reportedPollution Remediation Plan Submitted: 1/18/1991Pollution Characterization Began: 12/15/1990Preliminary Site Assesment Began: Not reportedPrelim. Site Assesment Wokplan Submitted: LUSTOversight Program: Not reportedDate Leak Confirmed: TankLeak Source: Structure FailureLeak Cause: Tank ClosureHow Discovered: 1667Case Number: Remedial action (cleanup) UnderwayFacility Status: 01-1223Facility Id: 2Region: LUST: LUFT Con. LC HSCARWG MTBE = nt (9/22/99) solvent release07/05/1994Site History: GasolinePotential Contaminats of Concern: Other Groundwater (uses other than drinking water)Potential Media Affect: Local AgencyFile Location: RO0000049LOC Case Number: 01-1223RB Case Number: ALAMEDA COUNTY LOPLocal Agency: Not reportedCase Worker: ALAMEDA COUNTY LOPLead Agency: 1994-09-12 00:00:00Status Date: Open - Verification MonitoringStatus: LUST Cleanup SiteCase Type: -122.284333Longitude: KENS BOAT CENTER INC (Continued) 1000384031 TC2502198.2s Page 110 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Not reportedActv Date: 01-000-018494-000001Swrcb Tank Id: Not reportedOwner Tank Id: Not reportedTank Status: Not reportedCreated Date: Not reportedAct Date: Not reportedRef Date: 44-000241Board Of Equalization: Not reportedNumber: 18494Comp Number: Not reportedStatus: SWEEPS UST: 5602PE: RO0000049Record Id: Pollution CharacterizationStatus: CS: Visual, Stock InventorLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: DIESELType of Fuel: PRODUCTTank Used for: 00004000Tank Capacity: Not reportedYear Installed: 3Container Num: 003Tank Num: NoneLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: UNLEADEDType of Fuel: PRODUCTTank Used for: 00001000Tank Capacity: 1982Year Installed: 2Container Num: 002Tank Num: Visual, Stock InventorLeak Detection: Not reportedTank Construction: REGULARType of Fuel: PRODUCTTank Used for: 00010000Tank Capacity: 1956Year Installed: 1Container Num: 001Tank Num: EMERYVILLE, CA 94608Owner City,St,Zip: 4030 HOLLIS STREETOwner Address: RANSOME COMPANYOwner Name: 4156523600Telephone: S.K. SMITHContact Name: 0003Total Tanks: Not reportedOther Type: OtherFacility Type: 00000018494Facility ID: STATERegion: HIST UST: KENS BOAT CENTER INC (Continued) 1000384031 TC2502198.2s Page 111 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation 2007-04-13 00:00:00Status Date: ActiveStatus: EPA - PASISpecial Program: 09Senate: 14Assembly: Not reportedSite Code: 01160019Facility ID: BerkeleyDivision Branch: Denise TsujiSupervisor: YING WAI (KEN) CHANProgram Manager: SMBRPLead Agency: SMBRPRegulatory Agencies: NONPL: 0.5Acres: EvaluationSite Type Detailed: EvaluationSite Type: ENVIROSTOR: Not reportedNumber Of Tanks: DIESELContent: PRODUCTStg: M.V. FUELTank Use: 4000Capacity: Not reportedActv Date: 01-000-018494-000003Swrcb Tank Id: Not reportedOwner Tank Id: Not reportedTank Status: Not reportedCreated Date: Not reportedAct Date: Not reportedRef Date: 44-000241Board Of Equalization: Not reportedNumber: 18494Comp Number: Not reportedStatus: Not reportedNumber Of Tanks: REG UNLEADEDContent: PRODUCTStg: M.V. FUELTank Use: 1000Capacity: Not reportedActv Date: 01-000-018494-000002Swrcb Tank Id: Not reportedOwner Tank Id: Not reportedTank Status: Not reportedCreated Date: Not reportedAct Date: Not reportedRef Date: 44-000241Board Of Equalization: Not reportedNumber: 18494Comp Number: Not reportedStatus: 3Number Of Tanks: LEADEDContent: PRODUCTStg: M.V. FUELTank Use: 10000Capacity: KENS BOAT CENTER INC (Continued) 1000384031 TC2502198.2s Page 112 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation 01160019Reg Id: CALSIReg By: 1Facility County Code: CORTESERegion: 01-1223Reg Id: LTNKAReg By: 1Facility County Code: CORTESERegion: CORTESE: MANUFACTURING - OTHERPastUse: Not reportedSchedule Revised Date: Not reportedSchedule Due Date: Not reportedSchedule Document Type: Not reportedSchedule Sub Area Name: Not reportedSchedule Area Name: Not reportedPotenital Description: 31001Potential: Not reportedManagement Required Desc: NONE SPECIFIEDManagement Required: Management: Not reportedMedia Affected Desc: UEMedia Affected: 2009Future Due Date: Site ScreeningFuture Document Type: Not reportedFuture Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDEFuture Area Name: Not reportedConfirmed Description: NONE SPECIFIEDConfirmed: Not reportedCompleted Date: Not reportedCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: Not reportedCompleted Area Name: Completed Info: Not reportedComments: Not reportedAPN Description: NONE SPECIFIEDAPN: Envirostor ID NumberAlias Type: 01160019Alias Name: HWIS Identification CodeAlias Type: CAD982326662Alias Name: -122.284783333333Longitude: 37.8289368139224Latitude: EPA GrantFunding: NORestricted Use: KENS BOAT CENTER INC (Continued) 1000384031 TC2502198.2s Page 113 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation UnknownFurnace exemption: UnknownOn-site burner exemption: NoUnderground injection activity: NoTreater, storer or disposer of HW: NoTransporter of hazardous waste: NoRecycler of hazardous waste: UnknownMixed waste (haz. and radioactive): UnknownU.S. importer of hazardous waste: Handler Activities Summary: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OperatorOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (415) 555-1212Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: NOT REQUIRED, ME 99999 NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator address: NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator name: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OwnerOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (415) 555-1212Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: NOT REQUIRED, ME 99999 NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator address: DOWNEY HEAT TREATING COMPANYOwner/operator name: Owner/Operator Summary: hazardous waste at any time waste during any calendar month, and accumulates more than 1000 kg of hazardous waste at any time; or generates 100 kg or less of hazardous waste during any calendar month and accumulates less than 6000 kg of Handler: generates more than 100 and less than 1000 kg of hazardousDescription: Small Small Quantity GeneratorClassification: 09EPA Region: Not reportedContact email: Not reportedContact telephone: Not reportedContact country: Not reported Not reportedContact address: Not reportedContact: ANAHEIM, CA 92805 E KATELLA STMailing address: CAD049903271EPA ID: ANAHEIM, CA 92805 1000 E KATELLA STFacility address: ORANGE EMPIRE HEAT TREATINGFacility name: 09/01/1996Date form received by agency: RCRA-SQG: 3668 ft. Site 2 of 2 in cluster N 0.695 mi.ENVIROSTOR Relative: Lower Actual: 147 ft. 1/2-1 CERC-NFRAPANAHEIM, CA 92805 West FINDS1000 E KATELLA ST CAD049903271 N67 RCRA-SQGORANGE EMPIRE HEAT TREATING 1000315096 TC2502198.2s Page 114 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENTAction: Not reportedPriority Level: 11/14/1988Date Completed: Not reportedDate Started: ARCHIVE SITEAction: Not reportedPriority Level: 12/01/1987Date Completed: Not reportedDate Started: DISCOVERYAction: CERCLIS-NFRAP Assessment History: Not reportedSite Description: CA Not reportedAlias Address: ORANGE EMPIRE HEAT TREATINGAlias Name: CERCLIS-NFRAP Site Alias Name(s): Site Assessment Manager (SAM)Contact Title: (415) 972-3811Contact Tel: Nuria MunizContact Name: Site Assessment Manager (SAM)Contact Title: (415) 972-3096Contact Tel: Matt MitguardContact Name: CERCLIS-NFRAP Site Contact Name(s): NFRAPNon NPL Status: Not on the NPLNPL Status: Not a Federal FacilityFederal Facility: 0900449Site ID: CERC-NFRAP: corrective action activities required under RCRA. program staff to track the notification, permit, compliance, and and treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo allows RCRA events and activities related to facilities that generate, transport, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program through the tracking of RCRAInfo is a national information system that supports the Resource 110002647734Registry ID: Other Pertinent Environmental Activity Identified at Site FINDS: No violations foundViolation Status: Commercial status unknownOff-site waste receiver: NoUsed oil transporter: NoUsed oil transfer facility: NoUsed oil Specification marketer: NoUsed oil fuel marketer to burner: NoUser oil refiner: NoUsed oil processor: NoUsed oil fuel burner: ORANGE EMPIRE HEAT TREATING (Continued) 1000315096 TC2502198.2s Page 115 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation * DiscoveryCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 1987-05-21 00:00:00Completed Date: Site ScreeningCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 1988-04-20 00:00:00Completed Date: Preliminary Assessment ReportCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 1994-10-28 00:00:00Completed Date: Site ScreeningCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: Completed Info: ASSESS DONE HISTORICAL RECORDS DO NOT INDICATE FAC WAS A PROBLEM PHONE BOOK SEARCH (1971)SITE SCREENING DONE MORE INFO NEEDEDPRELIM DATABASE VALIDATION PROGRAM CONFIRMS NFA FOR DTSC.FACILITY IDENTIFIEDComments: Not reportedAPN Description: NONE SPECIFIEDAPN: EPA Identification NumberAlias Type: CAD049903271Alias Name: Envirostor ID NumberAlias Type: 30330009Alias Name: Alternate NameAlias Type: LEONARDO MARBLEAlias Name: -117.896630534664Longitude: 33.8026958000869Latitude: Not reportedFunding: NORestricted Use: 1988-04-20 00:00:00Status Date: Refer: Other AgencyStatus: * CERC2Special Program: 34Senate: 69Assembly: Not reportedSite Code: 30330009Facility ID: CypressDivision Branch: * MMONROYSupervisor: Not reportedProgram Manager: NONE SPECIFIEDLead Agency: NONE SPECIFIEDRegulatory Agencies: NONPL: Not reportedAcres: * HistoricalSite Type Detailed: HistoricalSite Type: ENVIROSTOR: NFRAP (No Futher Remedial Action PlannedPriority Level: 11/14/1988Date Completed: Not reportedDate Started: ORANGE EMPIRE HEAT TREATING (Continued) 1000315096 TC2502198.2s Page 116 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation NONE SPECIFIEDPastUse: Not reportedSchedule Revised Date: Not reportedSchedule Due Date: Not reportedSchedule Document Type: Not reportedSchedule Sub Area Name: Not reportedSchedule Area Name: * UNSPECIFPotenital Description: 10195Potential: Not reportedManagement Required Desc: NONE SPECIFIEDManagement Required: Management: Not reportedMedia Affected Desc: NONE SPECIFIEDMedia Affected: Not reportedFuture Due Date: Not reportedFuture Document Type: Not reportedFuture Sub Area Name: Not reportedFuture Area Name: Not reportedConfirmed Description: NONE SPECIFIEDConfirmed: 1981-09-01 00:00:00Completed Date: ORANGE EMPIRE HEAT TREATING (Continued) 1000315096 The Voluntary Cleanup Agreement was fully executed on 3/25/08.Comments: Not reportedAPN Description: NONE SPECIFIEDAPN: Envirostor ID NumberAlias Type: 60000856Alias Name: Project Code (Site Code)Alias Type: 401399Alias Name: 33.8079021590368 / -117.861006229017Lat/Long: Responsible PartyFunding: NORestricted Use: 2008-03-25 00:00:00Status Date: ActiveStatus: Voluntary Cleanup ProgramSpecial Programs Code: 33Senate: 72Assembly: 401399Site Code: CypressDivision Branch: Greg HolmesSupervisor: JOSEPH CULLYProject Manager: DTSC - SitLead Agency Description: SMBRPLead Agency: SMBRPCleanup Oversight Agencies: NONational Priorities List: 0.9Acres: Voluntary CleanupSite Type Detail: Voluntary CleanupSite Type: 60000856Facility ID: VCP: 4204 ft. 0.796 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 175 ft. 1/2-1 ORANGE, CA 92867 East ENVIROSTOR1223 NORTH BATAVIA STREET N/A 68 VCPIMPRESSION POLISHING AND PLATING, INC. S109034347 TC2502198.2s Page 117 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Responsible PartyFunding: NORestricted Use: 2008-03-25 00:00:00Status Date: ActiveStatus: Voluntary Cleanup ProgramSpecial Program: 33Senate: 72Assembly: 401399Site Code: 60000856Facility ID: CypressDivision Branch: Greg HolmesSupervisor: JOSEPH CULLYProgram Manager: SMBRPLead Agency: SMBRPRegulatory Agencies: NONPL: 0.9Acres: Voluntary CleanupSite Type Detailed: Voluntary CleanupSite Type: ENVIROSTOR: METAL FINISHING, METAL PLATING - CHROME, METAL PLATING - OTHERPastUse: Not reportedSchedule Revised Date: Not reportedSchedule Due Date: Not reportedSchedule Document Type: Not reportedSchedule Sub Area Name: Not reportedSchedule Area Name: NickelPotenital Description: Chromium VPotenital Description: Total ChroPotenital Description: ArsenicPotenital Description: 30001, 30005, 30153, 30407Potential: Not reportedManagement Required Desc: NONE SPECIFIEDManagement Required: Management: SoilMedia Affected Desc: SOILMedia Affected: Not reportedFuture Due Date: Not reportedFuture Document Type: Not reportedFuture Sub Area Name: Not reportedFuture Area Name: Total ChroConfirmed Description: ArsenicConfirmed Description: NickelConfirmed Description: Chromium VConfirmed Description: 30153,30407,30001,30005Confirmed: 2008-12-11 00:00:00Completed Date: Preliminary Endangerment Assessment ReportCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 2008-03-25 00:00:00Completed Date: Voluntary Cleanup AgreementCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: Completed Info: IMPRESSION POLISHING AND PLATING, INC. (Continued) S109034347 TC2502198.2s Page 118 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation METAL FINISHING, METAL PLATING - CHROME, METAL PLATING - OTHERPastUse: Not reportedSchedule Revised Date: Not reportedSchedule Due Date: Not reportedSchedule Document Type: Not reportedSchedule Sub Area Name: Not reportedSchedule Area Name: NickelPotenital Description: Chromium VPotenital Description: Total ChroPotenital Description: ArsenicPotenital Description: 30001, 30005, 30153, 30407Potential: Not reportedManagement Required Desc: NONE SPECIFIEDManagement Required: Management: SoilMedia Affected Desc: SOILMedia Affected: Not reportedFuture Due Date: Not reportedFuture Document Type: Not reportedFuture Sub Area Name: Not reportedFuture Area Name: Total ChroConfirmed Description: ArsenicConfirmed Description: NickelConfirmed Description: Chromium VConfirmed Description: 30153,30407,30001,30005Confirmed: 2008-12-11 00:00:00Completed Date: Preliminary Endangerment Assessment ReportCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 2008-03-25 00:00:00Completed Date: Voluntary Cleanup AgreementCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: Completed Info: The Voluntary Cleanup Agreement was fully executed on 3/25/08.Comments: Not reportedAPN Description: NONE SPECIFIEDAPN: Envirostor ID NumberAlias Type: 60000856Alias Name: Project Code (Site Code)Alias Type: 401399Alias Name: -117.861006229017Longitude: 33.8079021590368Latitude: IMPRESSION POLISHING AND PLATING, INC. (Continued) S109034347 TC2502198.2s Page 119 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Not reportedMedia Affected Desc: NONE SPECIFIEDMedia Affected: Not reportedFuture Due Date: Not reportedFuture Document Type: Not reportedFuture Sub Area Name: Not reportedFuture Area Name: Not reportedConfirmed Description: NONE SPECIFIEDConfirmed: 2004-10-08 00:00:00Completed Date: Cost Recovery Closeout MemoCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 2004-02-04 00:00:00Completed Date: Phase 1Completed Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: Completed Info: Not reportedComments: Not reportedAPN Description: NONE SPECIFIEDAPN: Project Code (Site Code)Alias Type: 404522-11Alias Name: Alternate NameAlias Type: RANCHO SANTIAGO CCD-Alias Name: Envirostor ID NumberAlias Type: 30000046Alias Name: -117.86239Longitude: 33.81032Latitude: School DistrictFunding: NORestricted Use: 2004-10-08 00:00:00Status Date: Inactive - Needs EvaluationStatus: Not reportedSpecial Program Status: 33Senate: 72Assembly: 404522-11Site Code: ChatsworthDivision Branch: Javier HinojosaSupervisor: Not reportedProject Manager: DTSC - SitLead Agency Description: SMBRPLead Agency: SMBRPCleanup Oversight Agencies: NONational Priorities List: 6.2Acres: SchoolSite Type Detail: School InvestigationSite Type: 30000046Facility ID: SCH: 4420 ft. 0.837 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 170 ft. 1/2-1 ORANGE, CA 92867 ENE ENVIROSTOR1465 N. BATAVIA STREET N/A 69 SCHCOMMUNITY COLLEGE S106895137 TC2502198.2s Page 120 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Not reportedConfirmed Description: NONE SPECIFIEDConfirmed: 2004-10-08 00:00:00Completed Date: Cost Recovery Closeout MemoCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 2004-02-04 00:00:00Completed Date: Phase 1Completed Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: Completed Info: Not reportedComments: Not reportedAPN Description: NONE SPECIFIEDAPN: Project Code (Site Code)Alias Type: 404522-11Alias Name: Alternate NameAlias Type: RANCHO SANTIAGO CCD-Alias Name: Envirostor ID NumberAlias Type: 30000046Alias Name: -117.86239Longitude: 33.81032Latitude: School DistrictFunding: NORestricted Use: 2004-10-08 00:00:00Status Date: Inactive - Needs EvaluationStatus: Not reportedSpecial Program: 33Senate: 72Assembly: 404522-11Site Code: 30000046Facility ID: ChatsworthDivision Branch: Javier HinojosaSupervisor: Not reportedProgram Manager: SMBRPLead Agency: SMBRPRegulatory Agencies: NONPL: 6.2Acres: SchoolSite Type Detailed: School InvestigationSite Type: ENVIROSTOR: * UNKNOWNPastUse: Not reportedSchedule Revised Date: Not reportedSchedule Due Date: Not reportedSchedule Document Type: Not reportedSchedule Sub Area Name: Not reportedSchedule Area Name: Not reportedPotenital Description: NONE SPECIFIEDPotential: Not reportedManagement Required Desc: NONE SPECIFIEDManagement Required: Management: COMMUNITY COLLEGE (Continued) S106895137 TC2502198.2s Page 121 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation * UNKNOWNPastUse: Not reportedSchedule Revised Date: Not reportedSchedule Due Date: Not reportedSchedule Document Type: Not reportedSchedule Sub Area Name: Not reportedSchedule Area Name: Not reportedPotenital Description: NONE SPECIFIEDPotential: Not reportedManagement Required Desc: NONE SPECIFIEDManagement Required: Management: Not reportedMedia Affected Desc: NONE SPECIFIEDMedia Affected: Not reportedFuture Due Date: Not reportedFuture Document Type: Not reportedFuture Sub Area Name: Not reportedFuture Area Name: COMMUNITY COLLEGE (Continued) S106895137 CIRCUIT BOARDS NO FURTHER ACTION AT THIS TIME IT’S NAME TO ORANGE COUNTY ENTERPRISES FACILITY MANUFACTURED PRINTED DONE ALL VIOLATION HAS BEEN CORRECTED ORANGE COUNTY ELECTRIC CHANGED INDICATIONS OF A RELEASE OF LIQUID SUBSTANCE TO GROUND.PRELIM ASSESS COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTSITE SCREENING DONE RATIONALE FOR PA: DATABASE VALIDATION PROGRAM CONFIRMS NFA FOR DTSC.FACILITY IDENTIFIEDComments: Not reportedAPN Description: NONE SPECIFIEDAPN: Envirostor ID NumberAlias Type: 30340240Alias Name: -117.86124206828Longitude: 33.80167798584Latitude: Not reportedFunding: NORestricted Use: 1988-05-25 00:00:00Status Date: Refer: Other AgencyStatus: * CERC2Special Program: 33Senate: 72Assembly: Not reportedSite Code: 30340240Facility ID: CypressDivision Branch: * MMONROYSupervisor: Not reportedProgram Manager: NONE SPECIFIEDLead Agency: NONE SPECIFIEDRegulatory Agencies: NONPL: Not reportedAcres: * HistoricalSite Type Detailed: HistoricalSite Type: ENVIROSTOR: 4727 ft. 0.895 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 175 ft. 1/2-1 ORANGE, CA 92666 ESE 811 WEST BARKLEY AVENUE N/A 70 ENVIROSTORORANGE COUNTY ELECTRIC S101481460 TC2502198.2s Page 122 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation NONE SPECIFIEDPastUse: Not reportedSchedule Revised Date: Not reportedSchedule Due Date: Not reportedSchedule Document Type: Not reportedSchedule Sub Area Name: Not reportedSchedule Area Name: Cyanide (fPotenital Description: Chromium VPotenital Description: Cadmium anPotenital Description: LeadPotenital Description: ArsenicPotenital Description: * UNSPECIFPotenital Description: * ACID SOLPotenital Description: * ACID SOLPotenital Description: * CONTAMINPotenital Description: * OXYGENATPotenital Description: * LaboratoPotenital Description: * HYDROCARPotenital Description: 30153, 30160 10009, 10012, 10067, 10097, 10119, 10120, 10197, 30001, 30013, 30108,Potential: Not reportedManagement Required Desc: NONE SPECIFIEDManagement Required: Management: Not reportedMedia Affected Desc: NONE SPECIFIEDMedia Affected: Not reportedFuture Due Date: Not reportedFuture Document Type: Not reportedFuture Sub Area Name: Not reportedFuture Area Name: Not reportedConfirmed Description: NONE SPECIFIEDConfirmed: 1982-10-05 00:00:00Completed Date: * DiscoveryCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 1986-11-13 00:00:00Completed Date: Site ScreeningCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 1988-05-25 00:00:00Completed Date: Preliminary Assessment ReportCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 1994-10-27 00:00:00Completed Date: Site ScreeningCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: Completed Info: ORANGE COUNTY ELECTRIC (Continued) S101481460 TC2502198.2s Page 123 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation 7146371248Telephone: LAWRENCE J HONIKELContact: CAD058230582Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: 1.7513Tons: RecyclerDisposal Method: etc.) Halogenated solvents (chloroform, methyl chloride, perchloroethylene,Waste Category: Los AngelesTSD County: CAD008364432TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: ORANGE, CA 928675518Mailing City,St,Zip: 960 N PARKER STMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 7146371248Telephone: LAWRENCE J HONIKELContact: CAD058230582Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: 2.2935Tons: RecyclerDisposal Method: Liquids with pH <UN-> 2 with metalsWaste Category: Los AngelesTSD County: CAD008488025TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: ORANGE, CA 928675518Mailing City,St,Zip: 960 N PARKER STMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 7146371248Telephone: LAWRENCE J HONIKELContact: CAD058230582Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: 1.0000Tons: RecyclerDisposal Method: vanadium, and zinc) copper, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, (antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, Metal sludge - Alkaline solution (pH <UN-> 12.5) with metalsWaste Category: 99TSD County: AZD980735500TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: ORANGE, CA 928675518Mailing City,St,Zip: 960 N PARKER STMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 7146371248Telephone: LAWRENCE J HONIKELContact: CAD058230582Gepaid: HAZNET: 4779 ft. Site 1 of 2 in cluster O 0.905 mi.ENVIROSTOR Relative: Higher Actual: 182 ft. 1/2-1 SLICORANGE, CA 92867 East Orange Co. Industrial Site950-960 N PARKER ST N/A O71 HAZNETORANGE COUNTY PLATING CO INC S101481454 TC2502198.2s Page 124 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Not reportedSite History: Not reportedPotential Contaminants of Concern: Not reportedPotential Media Affected: Not reportedFile Location: SLT8R241RB Case Number: Not reportedLocal Agency: Not reportedCase Worker: Cleanup Program SiteCase Type: -117.858936Longitude: 33.802368Latitude: Not reportedLead Agency Case Number: SANTA ANA RWQCB (REGION 8)Lead Agency: SLT8R2414018Global Id: 1965-01-01 00:00:00Status Date: OpenFacility Status: STATERegion: SLIC: PLATING WASTE - OTHER METALSReleased Chemical: Closure certification issuedClosure Type: CLOSED 8/27/1996Current Status: RO0000505Record ID: ORANGERegion: 95IC026Case ID: Orange Co. Industrial Site: 110 additional CA_HAZNET: record(s) in the EDR Site Report. Click this hyperlink while viewing on your computer to access OrangeFacility County: .2293Tons: Not reportedDisposal Method: Other inorganic solid wasteWaste Category: Los AngelesTSD County: CAD000088252TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: ORANGE, CA 928675518Mailing City,St,Zip: 960 N PARKER STMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 7146371248Telephone: LAWRENCE J HONIKELContact: CAD058230582Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: 1.3625Tons: Transfer StationDisposal Method: Other inorganic solid wasteWaste Category: Los AngelesTSD County: CAD000088252TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: ORANGE, CA 928675518Mailing City,St,Zip: 960 N PARKER STMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: ORANGE COUNTY PLATING CO INC (Continued) S101481454 TC2502198.2s Page 125 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Site ScreeningCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 1987-09-30 00:00:00Completed Date: Preliminary Assessment ReportCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 1988-09-26 00:00:00Completed Date: Site ScreeningCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: Completed Info: TO POSE A THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR THE ENVIRONMENT INFO NEEDEDPRELIM ASSESS DONE NFA QUANTITIES OF WASTE DO NOT APPEAR STATUSFACILITY IDENTIFIED I’D FROM ASP FILES.SITE SCREENING DONE MORE SITE SCREENING DONE RCRA REGULATED FACILITY, THEREFORE, PENDINGComments: Not reportedAPN Description: NONE SPECIFIEDAPN: EPA Identification NumberAlias Type: CAD058230582Alias Name: Envirostor ID NumberAlias Type: 30340043Alias Name: -117.859444444444Longitude: 33.8044444444444Latitude: Not reportedFunding: NORestricted Use: 1989-03-10 00:00:00Status Date: Refer: RCRAStatus: * CERC2Special Program: 33Senate: 72Assembly: Not reportedSite Code: 30340043Facility ID: CypressDivision Branch: Referred - Not AssignedSupervisor: Not reportedProgram Manager: NONE SPECIFIEDLead Agency: NONE SPECIFIEDRegulatory Agencies: NONPL: Not reportedAcres: * HistoricalSite Type Detailed: HistoricalSite Type: ENVIROSTOR: MGCThomas Bros Code: MGCLocation Code: MGCLead Agency: MGCSubstance: MGCStaff: 8Region: Additional Characterization UnderwayFacility Status: SoilType: SLIC: ORANGE COUNTY PLATING CO INC (Continued) S101481454 TC2502198.2s Page 126 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation NONE SPECIFIEDPastUse: Not reportedSchedule Revised Date: Not reportedSchedule Due Date: Not reportedSchedule Document Type: Not reportedSchedule Sub Area Name: Not reportedSchedule Area Name: NickelPotenital Description: Cyanide (fPotenital Description: Chromium VPotenital Description: * ALKALINEPotenital Description: * ACID SOLPotenital Description: * Metals -Potenital Description: * HALOGENAPotenital Description: * HALOGENAPotenital Description: 10002, 10003, 10037, 10119, 20001, 30153, 30160, 30407Potential: Not reportedManagement Required Desc: NONE SPECIFIEDManagement Required: Management: Not reportedMedia Affected Desc: NONE SPECIFIEDMedia Affected: Not reportedFuture Due Date: Not reportedFuture Document Type: Not reportedFuture Sub Area Name: Not reportedFuture Area Name: Not reportedConfirmed Description: NONE SPECIFIEDConfirmed: 1982-09-01 00:00:00Completed Date: * DiscoveryCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 1987-05-21 00:00:00Completed Date: ORANGE COUNTY PLATING CO INC (Continued) S101481454 Small Small Quantity GeneratorClassification: Facility is not located on Indian land. Additional information is not known.Land type: 09EPA Region: Not reportedContact email: Not reportedContact telephone: USContact country: ORANGE, CA 92667 936 N PARKER STContact address: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGERContact: CAD009631045EPA ID: ORANGE, CA 92867 936 N PARKER STFacility address: DUNHAM METAL PROCESSINGFacility name: 09/01/1996Date form received by agency: RCRA-SQG: CA WDS ENVIROSTOR 4792 ft.NPDESSite 2 of 2 in cluster O 0.908 mi.Orange Co. Industrial Site Relative: Higher Actual: 181 ft. 1/2-1 HAZNETORANGE, CA 92867 East FINDS936 N PARKER ST CAD009631045 O72 RCRA-SQGDUNHAM METAL PROCESSING 1000239363 TC2502198.2s Page 127 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION ON-SITEEvaluation: 05/11/1994Evaluation date: Evaluation Action Summary: No violations foundViolation Status: Large Quantity GeneratorClassification: DUNHAM METAL PROCESSINGFacility name: 08/28/1980Date form received by agency: Historical Generators: Commercial status unknownOff-site waste receiver: NoUsed oil transporter: NoUsed oil transfer facility: NoUsed oil Specification marketer: NoUsed oil fuel marketer to burner: NoUser oil refiner: NoUsed oil processor: NoUsed oil fuel burner: UnknownFurnace exemption: UnknownOn-site burner exemption: NoUnderground injection activity: NoTreater, storer or disposer of HW: NoTransporter of hazardous waste: NoRecycler of hazardous waste: UnknownMixed waste (haz. and radioactive): UnknownU.S. importer of hazardous waste: Handler Activities Summary: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OperatorOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (415) 555-1212Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: NOT REQUIRED, ME 99999 NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator address: NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator name: Not reportedOwner/Op end date: Not reportedOwner/Op start date: OwnerOwner/Operator Type: PrivateLegal status: (415) 555-1212Owner/operator telephone: Not reportedOwner/operator country: NOT REQUIRED, ME 99999 NOT REQUIREDOwner/operator address: CHARLES DUNHAMOwner/operator name: Owner/Operator Summary: hazardous waste at any time waste during any calendar month, and accumulates more than 1000 kg of hazardous waste at any time; or generates 100 kg or less of hazardous waste during any calendar month and accumulates less than 6000 kg of Handler: generates more than 100 and less than 1000 kg of hazardousDescription: DUNHAM METAL PROCESSING (Continued) 1000239363 TC2502198.2s Page 128 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation CAT000646117TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: ORANGE, CA 928575518Mailing City,St,Zip: PO BOX 3736Mailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 7145325551Telephone: CHARLES DUNHAMContact: CAL000040097Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: 1.0000Tons: Not reportedDisposal Method: Other organic solidsWaste Category: 0TSD County: CAD000646117TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: ORANGE, CA 928575518Mailing City,St,Zip: PO BOX 3736Mailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 7145325551Telephone: CHARLES DUNHAMContact: CAL000040097Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: 1.68Tons: H141Disposal Method: Other inorganic solid wasteWaste Category: Not reportedTSD County: Not reportedTSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: ORANGE, CA 928575518Mailing City,St,Zip: PO BOX 3736Mailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 7145325551Telephone: JOHN BAILEYContact: CAL000040097Gepaid: HAZNET: corrective action activities required under RCRA. program staff to track the notification, permit, compliance, and and treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo allows RCRA events and activities related to facilities that generate, transport, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program through the tracking of RCRAInfo is a national information system that supports the Resource 110008261102Registry ID: Other Pertinent Environmental Activity Identified at Site FINDS: State Contractor/GranteeEvaluation lead agency: Not reportedDate achieved compliance: Not reportedArea of violation: DUNHAM METAL PROCESSING (Continued) 1000239363 TC2502198.2s Page 129 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Storm water industrialRegulatory Measure Type: 97-03-DWQOrder No Of General Order: Not reportedOrder No: 209069Regulatory Measure Id: 8Region: 13302Agency Id: ActiveFacility Status: Not reportedNpdes Number: NPDES: CHROMIC ACIDReleased Chemical: Voluntary Cleanup Program TerminationClosure Type: CLOSED 1/17/1996Current Status: RO0000339Record ID: ORANGERegion: 91IC051Case ID: Orange Co. Industrial Site: 4 additional CA_HAZNET: record(s) in the EDR Site Report. Click this hyperlink while viewing on your computer to access OrangeFacility County: 1.6856Tons: Disposal, OtherDisposal Method: Other inorganic solid wasteWaste Category: Los AngelesTSD County: CAT080033681TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: ORANGE, CA 928575518Mailing City,St,Zip: PO BOX 3736Mailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 7145325551Telephone: CHARLES DUNHAMContact: CAL000040097Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: .0625Tons: RecyclerDisposal Method: Unspecified solvent mixture WasteWaste Category: Los AngelesTSD County: CAD008252405TSD EPA ID: OrangeGen County: ORANGE, CA 926670000Mailing City,St,Zip: 936 N PARKER STMailing Address: Not reportedMailing Name: Not reportedFacility Addr2: 0000000000Telephone: DUNHAM CHARLESContact: CAL000037648Gepaid: OrangeFacility County: 1.0000Tons: Disposal, Land FillDisposal Method: Other organic solidsWaste Category: KingsTSD County: DUNHAM METAL PROCESSING (Continued) 1000239363 TC2502198.2s Page 130 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation 1987-06-09 00:00:00Completed Date: Site ScreeningCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 1995-02-08 00:00:00Completed Date: Site ScreeningCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: Completed Info: DISPOSAL ON SITE I’D FROM PREVIOUS EMPLOYEES FILES.SITE SCREENING DONE HISTORY OF WST DATABASE VALIDATION PROGRAM CONFIRMS NFA FOR DTSC.FACILITY IDENTIFIEDComments: Not reportedAPN Description: NONE SPECIFIEDAPN: Alternate NameAlias Type: DUNCANAlias Name: Envirostor ID NumberAlias Type: 30340008Alias Name: -117.859444444444Longitude: 33.8044444444444Latitude: Not reportedFunding: NORestricted Use: 1995-04-25 00:00:00Status Date: Refer: Other AgencyStatus: Not reportedSpecial Program: 33Senate: 72Assembly: Not reportedSite Code: 30340008Facility ID: CypressDivision Branch: * MMONROYSupervisor: Not reportedProgram Manager: NONE SPECIFIEDLead Agency: NONE SPECIFIEDRegulatory Agencies: NONPL: Not reportedAcres: * HistoricalSite Type Detailed: HistoricalSite Type: ENVIROSTOR: 92857Discharge Zip: CADischarge State: OrangeDischarge City: Not reportedDischarge Address2: PO Box 3736Discharge Address: Dunham Metal Processing IncDischarge Name: Not reportedTermination Date Of Regulatory Measure: Not reportedExpiration Date Of Regulatory Measure: 7/18/2001Effective Date Of Regulatory Measure: Not reportedAdoption Date Of Regulatory Measure: INDSTWProgram Type: 8 30I016654WDID: 220829Place Id: DUNHAM METAL PROCESSING (Continued) 1000239363 TC2502198.2s Page 131 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Not reportedPOTW: Not reportedReclamation: 0Baseline Flow: 0Design Flow: Not reportedSecondary Waste Type: Not reportedSecondary Waste: Not reportedPrimary Waste Type: Not reportedPrimary Waste: Not reportedSIC Code 2: 0SIC Code: PrivateAgency Type: 7145325551Agency Telephone: JOHN BAILEYAgency Contact: ORANGE 928570730Agency City,St,Zip: PO BOX 3736Agency Address: DUNHAM METAL PROCESSING INCAgency Name: JOHN BAILEYFacility Contact: 9145325551Facility Telephone: 8Subregion: are assigned by the Regional Board CAS000001 The 1st 2 characters designate the state. The remaining 7NPDES Number: under Waste Discharge Requirements. Active - Any facility with a continuous or seasonal discharge that isFacility Status: pumping. repairing, oil production, storage and disposal operations, water washing, geothermal operations, air conditioning, ship building and processing operation of whatever nature, including mining, gravel semisolid wastes from any servicing, producing, manufacturing or Industrial - Facility that treats and/or disposes of liquid orFacility Type: Santa Ana River 30I016654Facility ID: CA WDS: NONE SPECIFIEDPastUse: Not reportedSchedule Revised Date: Not reportedSchedule Due Date: Not reportedSchedule Document Type: Not reportedSchedule Sub Area Name: Not reportedSchedule Area Name: * ACID SOLPotenital Description: 10119Potential: Not reportedManagement Required Desc: NONE SPECIFIEDManagement Required: Management: Not reportedMedia Affected Desc: NONE SPECIFIEDMedia Affected: Not reportedFuture Due Date: Not reportedFuture Document Type: Not reportedFuture Sub Area Name: Not reportedFuture Area Name: Not reportedConfirmed Description: NONE SPECIFIEDConfirmed: 1982-08-01 00:00:00Completed Date: * DiscoveryCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: DUNHAM METAL PROCESSING (Continued) 1000239363 TC2502198.2s Page 132 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation dairy waste ponds. dischargers having waste storage systems with land disposal such as disposal systems, such as septic systems with subsurface disposal, or management practices, facilities with passive waste treatment and cooling water dischargers or thosewho must comply through best Category C - Facilities having no waste treatment systems, such asComplexity: represent no threat to water quality. Level. A Zero (0) may be used to code those NURDS that are found to considered a minor threat to water quality unless coded at a higher to a major or minor threat. Not: All nurds without a TTWQ will be should cause a relatively minor impairment of beneficial uses compared Minor Threat to Water Quality. A violation of a regional board orderTreat To Water: DUNHAM METAL PROCESSING (Continued) 1000239363 scoring are: Remediation of soil was comp- leted by Orange County, Mitigation. HRS I score preliminarily 2.22. The reasons for low SSI Report was reviewed by Region 4 staff and recommends NFA by SiteComments: Not reportedAPN Description: NONE SPECIFIEDAPN: EPA Identification NumberAlias Type: CAD000097634Alias Name: HWIS Identification CodeAlias Type: CAD981687882Alias Name: Envirostor ID NumberAlias Type: 30300004Alias Name: Alternate NameAlias Type: STERLING PLASTICS COAlias Name: Alternate NameAlias Type: GRANADA PLASTICS (PRAlias Name: Alternate NameAlias Type: NURSERY SUPPLIES INCAlias Name: -117.858360729196Longitude: 33.8048688883859Latitude: Not reportedFunding: NORestricted Use: 1991-01-23 00:00:00Status Date: Refer: Other AgencyStatus: Not reportedSpecial Program: 33Senate: 72Assembly: Not reportedSite Code: 30300004Facility ID: CypressDivision Branch: Referred - Not AssignedSupervisor: Not reportedProgram Manager: NONE SPECIFIEDLead Agency: NONE SPECIFIEDRegulatory Agencies: NONPL: Not reportedAcres: * HistoricalSite Type Detailed: HistoricalSite Type: ENVIROSTOR: 5168 ft. 0.979 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 183 ft. 1/2-1 ORANGE, CA 92667 East 534 WEST STRUCK AVENUE N/A 73 ENVIROSTORCOSDEN OIL AND CHEMICAL COMPANY S101481434 TC2502198.2s Page 133 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Not reportedManagement Required Desc: NONE SPECIFIEDManagement Required: Management: Not reportedMedia Affected Desc: NONE SPECIFIEDMedia Affected: Not reportedFuture Due Date: Not reportedFuture Document Type: Not reportedFuture Sub Area Name: Not reportedFuture Area Name: Not reportedConfirmed Description: NONE SPECIFIEDConfirmed: 1982-07-15 00:00:00Completed Date: * DiscoveryCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 1983-10-12 00:00:00Completed Date: * DiscoveryCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 1985-04-01 00:00:00Completed Date: Preliminary Assessment ReportCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 1987-06-18 00:00:00Completed Date: Site ScreeningCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 1989-05-19 00:00:00Completed Date: Site ScreeningCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: 1991-01-23 00:00:00Completed Date: Site ScreeningCompleted Document Type: Not reportedCompleted Sub Area Name: PROJECT WIDECompleted Area Name: Completed Info: Nursery Supplies Inc. DONE CERCLA 104creation, and present use of the property is by 5/84 ALL WASTE PROD REMOVED & HAULED BY CA PACIFIC OIL. PRELIM ASSESS SUBMIT TO EPA HAZARD MITIGATED IN 1983 TANKS SENT TO LOUISIANA. BY 10/30/82 EXPLOSION & FIRE. RESIDENTS EVACUATED. 8/18/78 GAS LEAK. CASMALIA LDFL. BEFORE 1972 ONSITE DISP OF RESINE- WATER. 3) INCIDENT: SINCE 1983 PACKAGING,SALES ONLY 2)WASTE: SEMI-SOLID PLASTIC TO 1)SOURCE ACT: PROD 60MILLION LB/YR OF POLYSTYRENE RESIN PELLETS. UNDERGROUND STORAGE OF STYRENE MONOMERS (8/14/78).ASP QUEST 3/27/80 - PRINTOUT ORANGE CO. FD RESPONDED TO LEAK OF 40,000 GALS. FROM RECOMMENDED MEDIUM SSI; DHS CONCURSFACILITY IDENTIFIED SWIS COMPUTER ERRISSITE SCREENING DONE FIT REASSESSMENT OF PA COMPLETED 8/12/88 NEEDS TO DETER IF 4 U/G TANKS ARE STILL ON SITE.FACILITY IDENTIFIED Santan Ana River is not used for drinking or reSITE SCREENING DONE COSDEN OIL AND CHEMICAL COMPANY (Continued) S101481434 TC2502198.2s Page 134 MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation NONE SPECIFIEDPastUse: Not reportedSchedule Revised Date: Not reportedSchedule Due Date: Not reportedSchedule Document Type: Not reportedSchedule Sub Area Name: Not reportedSchedule Area Name: * POLYMERIPotenital Description: * LATEX WAPotenital Description: * UNSPECIFPotenital Description: * UNSPECIFPotenital Description: * UNSPECIFPotenital Description: * OTHER ORPotenital Description: * OIL/WATEPotenital Description: * LaboratoPotenital Description: 10012, 10060, 10064, 10193, 10195, 10196, 20007, 20015Potential: COSDEN OIL AND CHEMICAL COMPANY (Continued) S101481434 TC2502198.2s Page 135 ORPHAN SUMMARYCityEDR IDSite NameSite AddressZipDatabase(s)ANAHEIM 8874194S AND C TIRE INC (R.HEMSTEDT)S AND C TIRE INC (R.HEMSTEDT) ERNSANAHEIM S108749374K H S & S CONTRACTOR’S1130 N ARMANDO ST STE A292806HAZNETANAHEIM S101541095BALL ROAD BASINN/A BALL ROAD SLICANAHEIM U001578877S. FUKUDA15132 LA. CRESTA92806HIST USTANAHEIM 91218795N/B I-5 S OF MAGNOLIAN/B I-5 S OF MAGNOLIA ERNSANAHEIM S106932514STADIUM TOWERS PLAZA2400 E KATELLA 58092806SWEEPS USTANAHEIM U003949192UNOCAL #56982001 E KATELLA AVE # 569892806USTANAHEIM A100325307WELL 452204 E KATELLA AVE (COA WELL 4 ASTANAHEIM 1003877988BURRIS SAND PIT15292 E LINCOLN AVE92806CERC-NFRAPANAHEIM 2008437330225 S. MANCHESTER AVE225 S. MANCHESTER AVE HMIRSANAHEIM S109349403PLACENTA STREET SWEEPER TRANDFER S1561 NORTH PLACENTIA AVENUE92806SWF/LFANAHEIM S102807532A L S CORP (G P S DIV)1045 EAST ST92806HAZNETANAHEIM S105022516SHELL SERVICE STATION210 STATE COLLEGE92806HIST CORTESEANAHEIM S105850478SHELL OIL PRODUCTS US201 STATE COLLEGE BLVD., S.92806LUSTANAHEIM S109284145SHELL #201201 S STATE COLLEGE BLVD92806LUSTANAHEIM S109284292CAC INDUSTRIAL1323 S STATE COLLEGE BLVD92806LUSTANAHEIM S109284561TEXACO SERVICE STATION1001 N STATE COLLEGE BLVD92806LUSTANAHEIM S109284572UNOCAL #62201201 S STATE COLLEGE BLVD92806LUSTANAHEIM S109284588MOBIL #18-K3Q1199 S STATE COLLEGE BLVD92806LUSTANAHEIM U001578893STATION 114420 STATE COLLEGE92806HIST USTANAHEIM U003949194UNOCAL #5869676 S STATE COLLEGE BLVD # 58692806USTANAHEIM U003949196UNOCAL #62201201 S STATE COLLEGE BLVD # 6292806USTANAHEIM 99612823TRANSITION ROAD FROM WEST STATE HWTRANSITION ROAD FROM WEST STAT ERNSANAHEIM 90182188UNOCAL SERVICE STATION 1818 S LEWIUNOCAL SERVICE STATION 1818 S ERNSANAHEIM S106838670S.R. BRAY DEVELOPMENT CORPVARIOUS LOCATIONS IN SCAQMD EMIANAHIEM S1060843861X S & R INDUSTRIAL SHEET METAL1371 N. REDGUM92806HAZNETORANGE S109519255CMACC RACING/C-MACCO INC1045 W COLLINS AVE STE C92867DRYCLEANERSORANGE S106073936METREX RESEARCH CORP.1717 WEST COLLINS AVE.92867SWF/LFORANGE S1095187833 X CLEANERS1915 E KATELLA SUITE C92867DRYCLEANERSORANGE S106447591TEXACO SERVICE STATION830 KATELLA92867LUSTORANGE S106797765CHEVRON #9-04561940 KATELLA92867LUSTORANGE U001577626THRIFTY OIL CO #367825 KATELLA92867LUST, HIST USTTC2502198.2s Page 136 To maintain currency of the following federal and state databases, EDR contacts the appropriate governmental agency on a monthly or quarterly basis, as required. Number of Days to Update:Provides confirmation that EDR is reporting records that have been updated within 90 days from the date the government agency made the information available to the public. STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS Federal NPL site list NPL: National Priority List National Priorities List (Superfund). The NPL is a subset of CERCLIS and identifies over 1,200 sites for priority cleanup under the Superfund Program. NPL sites may encompass relatively large areas. As such, EDR provides polygon coverage for over 1,000 NPL site boundaries produced by EPA’s Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC) and regional EPA offices. Date of Government Version: 02/02/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/12/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/30/2009 Number of Days to Update: 46 Source: EPA Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: 04/20/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/27/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly NPL Site Boundaries Sources: EPA’s Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC) Telephone: 202-564-7333 EPA Region 1 EPA Region 6 Telephone 617-918-1143 Telephone: 214-655-6659 EPA Region 3 EPA Region 7 Telephone 215-814-5418 Telephone: 913-551-7247 EPA Region 4 EPA Region 8 Telephone 404-562-8033 Telephone: 303-312-6774 EPA Region 5 EPA Region 9 Telephone 312-886-6686 Telephone: 415-947-4246 EPA Region 10 Telephone 206-553-8665 Proposed NPL: Proposed National Priority List Sites A site that has been proposed for listing on the National Priorities List through the issuance of a proposed rule in the Federal Register. EPA then accepts public comments on the site, responds to the comments, and places on the NPL those sites that continue to meet the requirements for listing. Date of Government Version: 04/23/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/28/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/19/2009 Number of Days to Update: 21 Source: EPA Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: 04/20/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/27/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly NPL LIENS: Federal Superfund Liens Federal Superfund Liens. Under the authority granted the USEPA by CERCLA of 1980, the USEPA has the authority to file liens against real property in order to recover remedial action expenditures or when the property owner received notification of potential liability. USEPA compiles a listing of filed notices of Superfund Liens. Date of Government Version: 10/15/1991 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/02/1994 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/30/1994 Number of Days to Update: 56 Source: EPA Telephone: 202-564-4267 Last EDR Contact: 05/17/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2009 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned TC2502198.2s Page GR-1 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Federal Delisted NPL site list DELISTED NPL: National Priority List Deletions The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425.(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. Date of Government Version: 02/02/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/12/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/30/2009 Number of Days to Update: 46 Source: EPA Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: 04/20/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/27/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly Federal CERCLIS list CERCLIS: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System CERCLIS contains data on potentially hazardous waste sites that have been reported to the USEPA by states, municipalities, private companies and private persons, pursuant to Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). CERCLIS contains sites which are either proposed to or on the National Priorities List (NPL) and sites which are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. Date of Government Version: 01/09/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/30/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Number of Days to Update: 101 Source: EPA Telephone: 703-412-9810 Last EDR Contact: 05/15/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/13/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site List CERCLIS-NFRAP: CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned Archived sites are sites that have been removed and archived from the inventory of CERCLIS sites. Archived status indicates that, to the best of EPA’s knowledge, assessment at a site has been completed and that EPA has determined no further steps will be taken to list this site on the National Priorities List (NPL), unless information indicates this decision was not appropriate or other considerations require a recommendation for listing at a later time. This decision does not necessarily mean that there is no hazard associated with a given site; it only means that, based upon available information, the location is not judged to be a potential NPL site. Date of Government Version: 12/03/2007 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/06/2007 Date Made Active in Reports: 02/20/2008 Number of Days to Update: 76 Source: EPA Telephone: 703-412-9810 Last EDR Contact: 03/16/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/15/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list CORRACTS: Corrective Action Report CORRACTS identifies hazardous waste handlers with RCRA corrective action activity. Date of Government Version: 03/25/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/02/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Number of Days to Update: 39 Source: EPA Telephone: 800-424-9346 Last EDR Contact: 03/03/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/01/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list RCRA-TSDF: RCRA - Transporters, Storage and Disposal RCRAInfo is EPA’s comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Transporters are individuals or entities that move hazardous waste from the generator offsite to a facility that can recycle, treat, store, or dispose of the waste. TSDFs treat, store, or dispose of the waste. TC2502198.2s Page GR-2 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 11/12/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/18/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/16/2009 Number of Days to Update: 118 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: (415) 495-8895 Last EDR Contact: 04/23/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/20/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly Federal RCRA generators list RCRA-LQG: RCRA - Large Quantity Generators RCRAInfo is EPA’s comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Large quantity generators (LQGs) generate over 1,000 kilograms (kg) of hazardous waste, or over 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month. Date of Government Version: 11/12/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/18/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/16/2009 Number of Days to Update: 118 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: (415) 495-8895 Last EDR Contact: 04/23/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/20/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly RCRA-SQG: RCRA - Small Quantity Generators RCRAInfo is EPA’s comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Small quantity generators (SQGs) generate between 100 kg and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per month. Date of Government Version: 11/12/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/18/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/16/2009 Number of Days to Update: 118 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: (415) 495-8895 Last EDR Contact: 04/23/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/20/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly RCRA-CESQG: RCRA - Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators RCRAInfo is EPA’s comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs) generate less than 100 kg of hazardous waste, or less than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month. Date of Government Version: 11/12/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/18/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/16/2009 Number of Days to Update: 118 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: (415) 495-8895 Last EDR Contact: 04/23/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/20/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies Federal institutional controls / engineering controls registries US ENG CONTROLS: Engineering Controls Sites List A listing of sites with engineering controls in place. Engineering controls include various forms of caps, building foundations, liners, and treatment methods to create pathway elimination for regulated substances to enter environmental media or effect human health. Date of Government Version: 03/31/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/22/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2009 Number of Days to Update: 13 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 703-603-0695 Last EDR Contact: 03/30/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/29/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies TC2502198.2s Page GR-3 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING US INST CONTROL: Sites with Institutional Controls A listing of sites with institutional controls in place. Institutional controls include administrative measures, such as groundwater use restrictions, construction restrictions, property use restrictions, and post remediation care requirements intended to prevent exposure to contaminants remaining on site. Deed restrictions are generally required as part of the institutional controls. Date of Government Version: 03/31/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/22/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2009 Number of Days to Update: 13 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 703-603-0695 Last EDR Contact: 03/30/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/29/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies Federal ERNS list ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System Emergency Response Notification System. ERNS records and stores information on reported releases of oil and hazardous substances. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/30/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/19/2009 Number of Days to Update: 109 Source: National Response Center, United States Coast Guard Telephone: 202-267-2180 Last EDR Contact: 05/12/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/20/2009 Data Release Frequency: Annually State- and tribal - equivalent NPL RESPONSE: State Response Sites Identifies confirmed release sites where DTSC is involved in remediation, either in a lead or oversight capacity. These confirmed release sites are generally high-priority and high potential risk. Date of Government Version: 02/23/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/24/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/08/2009 Number of Days to Update: 43 Source: Department of Toxic Substances Control Telephone: 916-323-3400 Last EDR Contact: 02/24/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/25/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS ENVIROSTOR: EnviroStor Database The Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC’s) Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program’s (SMBRP’s) EnviroStor database identifes sites that have known contamination or sites for which there may be reasons to investigate further. The database includes the following site types: Federal Superfund sites (National Priorities List (NPL)); State Response, including Military Facilities and State Superfund; Voluntary Cleanup; and School sites. EnviroStor provides similar information to the information that was available in CalSites, and provides additional site information, including, but not limited to, identification of formerly-contaminated properties that have been released for reuse, properties where environmental deed restrictions have been recorded to prevent inappropriate land uses, and risk characterization information that is used to assess potential impacts to public health and the environment at contaminated sites. Date of Government Version: 02/23/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/24/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/08/2009 Number of Days to Update: 43 Source: Department of Toxic Substances Control Telephone: 916-323-3400 Last EDR Contact: 02/24/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/25/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists SWF/LF (SWIS): Solid Waste Information System Active, Closed and Inactive Landfills. SWF/LF records typically contain an inve ntory of solid waste disposal facilities or landfills. These may be active or i nactive facilities or open dumps that failed to meet RCRA Section 4004 criteria for solid waste landfills or disposal sites. TC2502198.2s Page GR-4 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 03/09/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/10/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/08/2009 Number of Days to Update: 29 Source: Integrated Waste Management Board Telephone: 916-341-6320 Last EDR Contact: 03/10/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/08/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly State and tribal leaking storage tank lists LUST REG 9: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Report Orange, Riverside, San Diego counties. For more current information, please refer to the State Water Resources Control Board’s LUST database. Date of Government Version: 03/01/2001 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/23/2001 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/21/2001 Number of Days to Update: 28 Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region (9) Telephone: 858-637-5595 Last EDR Contact: 04/13/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/13/2009 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned LUST REG 8: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region (8). For more current information, please refer to the State Water Resources Control Board’s LUST database. Date of Government Version: 02/14/2005 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/15/2005 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/28/2005 Number of Days to Update: 41 Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region (8) Telephone: 909-782-4496 Last EDR Contact: 05/04/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/03/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies LUST REG 6L: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Case Listing For more current information, please refer to the State Water Resources Control Board’s LUST database. Date of Government Version: 09/09/2003 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/10/2003 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/07/2003 Number of Days to Update: 27 Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Lahontan Region (6) Telephone: 530-542-5572 Last EDR Contact: 03/03/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/01/2009 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned LUST REG 7: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Case Listing Leaking Underground Storage Tank locations. Imperial, Riverside, San Diego, Santa Barbara counties. Date of Government Version: 02/26/2004 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/26/2004 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/24/2004 Number of Days to Update: 27 Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Colorado River Basin Region (7) Telephone: 760-776-8943 Last EDR Contact: 05/18/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2009 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned LUST REG 6V: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Case Listing Leaking Underground Storage Tank locations. Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, Mono, San Bernardino counties. Date of Government Version: 06/07/2005 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/07/2005 Date Made Active in Reports: 06/29/2005 Number of Days to Update: 22 Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Victorville Branch Office (6) Telephone: 760-241-7365 Last EDR Contact: 03/30/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/29/2009 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned LUST: Geotracker’s Leaking Underground Fuel Tank Report Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident Reports. LUST records contain an inventory of reported leaking underground storage tank incidents. Not all states maintain these records, and the information stored varies by state. For more information on a particular leaking underground storage tank sites, please contact the appropriate regulatory agency. TC2502198.2s Page GR-5 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 04/08/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/08/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Number of Days to Update: 33 Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: see region list Last EDR Contact: 04/08/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/06/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly LUST REG 1: Active Toxic Site Investigation Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, Modoc, Siskiyou, Sonoma, Trinity counties. For more current information, please refer to the State Water Resources Control Board’s LUST database. Date of Government Version: 02/01/2001 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/28/2001 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/29/2001 Number of Days to Update: 29 Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board North Coast (1) Telephone: 707-570-3769 Last EDR Contact: 05/18/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2009 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned LUST REG 2: Fuel Leak List Leaking Underground Storage Tank locations. Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma counties. Date of Government Version: 09/30/2004 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/20/2004 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/19/2004 Number of Days to Update: 30 Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region (2) Telephone: 510-622-2433 Last EDR Contact: 04/07/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/06/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly LUST REG 3: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database Leaking Underground Storage Tank locations. Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz counties. Date of Government Version: 05/19/2003 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/19/2003 Date Made Active in Reports: 06/02/2003 Number of Days to Update: 14 Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region (3) Telephone: 805-542-4786 Last EDR Contact: 05/11/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/10/2009 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned LUST REG 4: Underground Storage Tank Leak List Los Angeles, Ventura counties. For more current information, please refer to the State Water Resources Control Board’s LUST database. Date of Government Version: 09/07/2004 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/07/2004 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/12/2004 Number of Days to Update: 35 Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Los Angeles Region (4) Telephone: 213-576-6710 Last EDR Contact: 03/23/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/22/2009 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned LUST REG 5: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database Leaking Underground Storage Tank locations. Alameda, Alpine, Amador, Butte, Colusa, Contra Costa, Calveras, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Kings, Lake, Lassen, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Modoc, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Solano, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Tuolumne, Yolo, Yuba counties. Date of Government Version: 07/01/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/22/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 07/31/2008 Number of Days to Update: 9 Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region (5) Telephone: 916-464-4834 Last EDR Contact: 04/20/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/20/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly SLIC: Statewide SLIC Cases The SLIC (Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanup) program is designed to protect and restore water quality from spills, leaks, and similar discharges. TC2502198.2s Page GR-6 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 04/08/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/08/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Number of Days to Update: 33 Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 866-480-1028 Last EDR Contact: 04/08/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/06/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies SLIC REG 1: Active Toxic Site Investigations The SLIC (Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanup) program is designed to protect and restore water quality from spills, leaks, and similar discharges. Date of Government Version: 04/03/2003 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/07/2003 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/25/2003 Number of Days to Update: 18 Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region (1) Telephone: 707-576-2220 Last EDR Contact: 05/18/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2008 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned SLIC REG 2: Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing The SLIC (Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanup) program is designed to protect and restore water quality from spills, leaks, and similar discharges. Date of Government Version: 09/30/2004 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/20/2004 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/19/2004 Number of Days to Update: 30 Source: Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region (2) Telephone: 510-286-0457 Last EDR Contact: 04/07/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/06/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly SLIC REG 3: Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing The SLIC (Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanup) program is designed to protect and restore water quality from spills, leaks, and similar discharges. Date of Government Version: 05/18/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/18/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 06/15/2006 Number of Days to Update: 28 Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region (3) Telephone: 805-549-3147 Last EDR Contact: 05/11/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/10/2009 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually SLIC REG 4: Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing The SLIC (Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanup) program is designed to protect and restore water quality from spills, leaks, and similar discharges. Date of Government Version: 11/17/2004 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/18/2004 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/04/2005 Number of Days to Update: 47 Source: Region Water Quality Control Board Los Angeles Region (4) Telephone: 213-576-6600 Last EDR Contact: 04/20/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/20/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies SLIC REG 5: Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing The SLIC (Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanup) program is designed to protect and restore water quality from spills, leaks, and similar discharges. Date of Government Version: 04/01/2005 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/05/2005 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/21/2005 Number of Days to Update: 16 Source: Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region (5) Telephone: 916-464-3291 Last EDR Contact: 03/30/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/29/2009 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually SLIC REG 6V: Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing The SLIC (Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanup) program is designed to protect and restore water quality from spills, leaks, and similar discharges. TC2502198.2s Page GR-7 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 05/24/2005 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/25/2005 Date Made Active in Reports: 06/16/2005 Number of Days to Update: 22 Source: Regional Water Quality Control Board, Victorville Branch Telephone: 619-241-6583 Last EDR Contact: 03/30/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/29/2009 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually SLIC REG 6L: SLIC Sites The SLIC (Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanup) program is designed to protect and restore water quality from spills, leaks, and similar discharges. Date of Government Version: 09/07/2004 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/07/2004 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/12/2004 Number of Days to Update: 35 Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region Telephone: 530-542-5574 Last EDR Contact: 03/03/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/01/2009 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned SLIC REG 7: SLIC List The SLIC (Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanup) program is designed to protect and restore water quality from spills, leaks, and similar discharges. Date of Government Version: 11/24/2004 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/29/2004 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/04/2005 Number of Days to Update: 36 Source: California Regional Quality Control Board, Colorado River Basin Region Telephone: 760-346-7491 Last EDR Contact: 05/17/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2009 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned SLIC REG 8: Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing The SLIC (Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanup) program is designed to protect and restore water quality from spills, leaks, and similar discharges. Date of Government Version: 04/03/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/03/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/14/2008 Number of Days to Update: 11 Source: California Region Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region (8) Telephone: 951-782-3298 Last EDR Contact: 03/30/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/29/2009 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually SLIC REG 9: Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing The SLIC (Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanup) program is designed to protect and restore water quality from spills, leaks, and similar discharges. Date of Government Version: 09/10/2007 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/11/2007 Date Made Active in Reports: 09/28/2007 Number of Days to Update: 17 Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region (9) Telephone: 858-467-2980 Last EDR Contact: 02/23/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/25/2009 Data Release Frequency: Annually INDIAN LUST R9: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land LUSTs on Indian land in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Nevada Date of Government Version: 12/15/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/16/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/16/2009 Number of Days to Update: 90 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 415-972-3372 Last EDR Contact: 05/17/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly INDIAN LUST R6: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land LUSTs on Indian land in New Mexico and Oklahoma. Date of Government Version: 02/15/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/27/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/16/2009 Number of Days to Update: 17 Source: EPA Region 6 Telephone: 214-665-6597 Last EDR Contact: 05/17/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies TC2502198.2s Page GR-8 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING INDIAN LUST R10: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land LUSTs on Indian land in Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington. Date of Government Version: 03/03/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/04/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/30/2009 Number of Days to Update: 26 Source: EPA Region 10 Telephone: 206-553-2857 Last EDR Contact: 05/17/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly INDIAN LUST R7: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land LUSTs on Indian land in Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska Date of Government Version: 04/01/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/03/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 12/23/2008 Number of Days to Update: 20 Source: EPA Region 7 Telephone: 913-551-7003 Last EDR Contact: 05/20/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies INDIAN LUST R8: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land LUSTs on Indian land in Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming. Date of Government Version: 03/13/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/17/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/30/2009 Number of Days to Update: 13 Source: EPA Region 8 Telephone: 303-312-6271 Last EDR Contact: 05/17/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly INDIAN LUST R1: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land A listing of leaking underground storage tank locations on Indian Land. Date of Government Version: 02/19/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/19/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/16/2009 Number of Days to Update: 25 Source: EPA Region 1 Telephone: 617-918-1313 Last EDR Contact: 05/17/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies INDIAN LUST R4: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land LUSTs on Indian land in Florida, Mississippi and North Carolina. Date of Government Version: 02/24/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/03/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2009 Number of Days to Update: 63 Source: EPA Region 4 Telephone: 404-562-8677 Last EDR Contact: 05/17/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2009 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually State and tribal registered storage tank lists UST: Active UST Facilities Active UST facilities gathered from the local regulatory agencies Date of Government Version: 04/08/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/08/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/14/2009 Number of Days to Update: 36 Source: SWRCB Telephone: 916-480-1028 Last EDR Contact: 04/08/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/06/2009 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually AST: Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Facilities Registered Aboveground Storage Tanks. Date of Government Version: 11/01/2007 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/10/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/14/2009 Number of Days to Update: 63 Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916-341-5712 Last EDR Contact: 05/11/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/27/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly TC2502198.2s Page GR-9 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING INDIAN UST R1: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian land in EPA Region 1 (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont and ten Tribal Nations). Date of Government Version: 02/19/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/19/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/16/2009 Number of Days to Update: 25 Source: EPA, Region 1 Telephone: 617-918-1313 Last EDR Contact: 05/17/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies INDIAN UST R4: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian land in EPA Region 4 (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Tribal Nations) Date of Government Version: 02/24/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/03/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2009 Number of Days to Update: 63 Source: EPA Region 4 Telephone: 404-562-9424 Last EDR Contact: 05/17/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2009 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually INDIAN UST R5: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian land in EPA Region 5 (Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin and Tribal Nations). Date of Government Version: 09/08/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/19/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/16/2008 Number of Days to Update: 27 Source: EPA Region 5 Telephone: 312-886-6136 Last EDR Contact: 05/17/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies INDIAN UST R6: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian land in EPA Region 6 (Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas and 65 Tribes). Date of Government Version: 04/06/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/07/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Number of Days to Update: 34 Source: EPA Region 6 Telephone: 214-665-7591 Last EDR Contact: 05/17/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2009 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually INDIAN UST R7: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian land in EPA Region 7 (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and 9 Tribal Nations). Date of Government Version: 04/01/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/30/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/16/2009 Number of Days to Update: 76 Source: EPA Region 7 Telephone: 913-551-7003 Last EDR Contact: 05/22/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies INDIAN UST R8: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian land in EPA Region 8 (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming and 27 Tribal Nations). Date of Government Version: 03/13/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/17/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/30/2009 Number of Days to Update: 13 Source: EPA Region 8 Telephone: 303-312-6137 Last EDR Contact: 05/17/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly TC2502198.2s Page GR-10 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING INDIAN UST R10: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian land in EPA Region 10 (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Tribal Nations). Date of Government Version: 03/03/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/04/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/30/2009 Number of Days to Update: 26 Source: EPA Region 10 Telephone: 206-553-2857 Last EDR Contact: 05/17/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly INDIAN UST R9: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian land in EPA Region 9 (Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, the Pacific Islands, and Tribal Nations). Date of Government Version: 12/15/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/16/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/16/2009 Number of Days to Update: 90 Source: EPA Region 9 Telephone: 415-972-3368 Last EDR Contact: 05/17/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites INDIAN VCP R7: Voluntary Cleanup Priority Lisitng A listing of voluntary cleanup priority sites located on Indian Land located in Region 7. Date of Government Version: 03/20/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/22/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/19/2008 Number of Days to Update: 27 Source: EPA, Region 7 Telephone: 913-551-7365 Last EDR Contact: 04/20/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/20/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies INDIAN VCP R1: Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing A listing of voluntary cleanup priority sites located on Indian Land located in Region 1. Date of Government Version: 04/02/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/22/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/19/2008 Number of Days to Update: 27 Source: EPA, Region 1 Telephone: 617-918-1102 Last EDR Contact: 04/20/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/20/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies VCP: Voluntary Cleanup Program Properties Contains low threat level properties with either confirmed or unconfirmed releases and the project proponents have request that DTSC oversee investigation and/or cleanup activities and have agreed to provide coverage for DTSC’s costs. Date of Government Version: 02/23/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/24/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/08/2009 Number of Days to Update: 43 Source: Department of Toxic Substances Control Telephone: 916-323-3400 Last EDR Contact: 02/24/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/25/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS Local Brownfield lists US BROWNFIELDS: A Listing of Brownfields Sites TC2502198.2s Page GR-11 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Included in the listing are brownfields properties addresses by Cooperative Agreement Recipients and brownfields properties addressed by Targeted Brownfields Assessments. Targeted Brownfields Assessments-EPA’s Targeted Brownfields Assessments (TBA) program is designed to help states, tribes, and municipalities--especially those without EPA Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilots--minimize the uncertainties of contamination often associated with brownfields. Under the TBA program, EPA provides funding and/or technical assistance for environmental assessments at brownfields sites throughout the country. Targeted Brownfields Assessments supplement and work with other efforts under EPA’s Brownfields Initiative to promote cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields. Cooperative Agreement Recipients-States, political subdivisions, territories, and Indian tribes become Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund (BCRLF) cooperative agreement recipients when they enter into BCRLF cooperative agreements with the U.S. EPA. EPA selects BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients based on a proposal and application process. BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients must use EPA funds provided through BCRLF cooperative agreement for specified brownfields-related cleanup activities. Date of Government Version: 10/01/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/14/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 12/23/2008 Number of Days to Update: 39 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202-566-2777 Last EDR Contact: 05/20/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/13/2009 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually Local Lists of Landfill / Solid Waste Disposal Sites DEBRIS REGION 9: Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations A listing of illegal dump sites location on the Torres Martinez Indian Reservation located in eastern Riverside County and northern Imperial County, California. Date of Government Version: 03/25/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/17/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/15/2008 Number of Days to Update: 28 Source: EPA, Region 9 Telephone: 415-972-3336 Last EDR Contact: 04/07/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/22/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies ODI: Open Dump Inventory An open dump is defined as a disposal facility that does not comply with one or more of the Part 257 or Part 258 Subtitle D Criteria. Date of Government Version: 06/30/1985 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/09/2004 Date Made Active in Reports: 09/17/2004 Number of Days to Update: 39 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 800-424-9346 Last EDR Contact: 06/09/2004 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned WMUDS/SWAT: Waste Management Unit Database Waste Management Unit Database System. WMUDS is used by the State Water Resources Control Board staff and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards for program tracking and inventory of waste management units. WMUDS is composed of the following databases: Facility Information, Scheduled Inspections Information, Waste Management Unit Information, SWAT Program Information, SWAT Report Summary Information, SWAT Report Summary Data, Chapter 15 (formerly Subchapter 15) Information, Chapter 15 Monitoring Parameters, TPCA Program Information, RCRA Program Information, Closure Information, and Interested Parties Information. Date of Government Version: 04/01/2000 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/10/2000 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/10/2000 Number of Days to Update: 30 Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916-227-4448 Last EDR Contact: 03/04/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/01/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly SWRCY: Recycler Database A listing of recycling facilities in California. Date of Government Version: 04/07/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/08/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Number of Days to Update: 33 Source: Department of Conservation Telephone: 916-323-3836 Last EDR Contact: 04/08/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/06/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly TC2502198.2s Page GR-12 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING HAULERS: Registered Waste Tire Haulers Listing A listing of registered waste tire haulers. Date of Government Version: 04/07/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/07/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Number of Days to Update: 34 Source: Integrated Waste Management Board Telephone: 916-341-6422 Last EDR Contact: 04/07/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/08/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies INDIAN ODI: Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands Location of open dumps on Indian land. Date of Government Version: 12/31/1998 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/03/2007 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/24/2008 Number of Days to Update: 52 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 703-308-8245 Last EDR Contact: 02/23/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/25/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites CDL: Clandestine Drug Labs A listing of clandestine drug lab locations. The U.S. Department of Justice ("the Department") provides this web site as a public service. It contains addresses of some locations where law enforcement agencies reported they found chemicals or other items that indicated the presence of either clandestine drug laboratories or dumpsites. In most cases, the source of the entries is not the Department, and the Department has not verified the entry and does not guarantee its accuracy. Members of the public must verify the accuracy of all entries by, for example, contacting local law enforcement and local health departments. Date of Government Version: 07/01/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/31/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 12/23/2008 Number of Days to Update: 53 Source: Drug Enforcement Administration Telephone: 202-307-1000 Last EDR Contact: 03/26/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/22/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly HIST CAL-SITES: Calsites Database The Calsites database contains potential or confirmed hazardous substance release properties. In 1996, California EPA reevaluated and significantly reduced the number of sites in the Calsites database. No longer updated by the state agency. It has been replaced by ENVIROSTOR. Date of Government Version: 08/08/2005 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/03/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 08/24/2006 Number of Days to Update: 21 Source: Department of Toxic Substance Control Telephone: 916-323-3400 Last EDR Contact: 02/23/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/25/2009 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned SCH: School Property Evaluation Program This category contains proposed and existing school sites that are being evaluated by DTSC for possible hazardous materials contamination. In some cases, these properties may be listed in the CalSites category depending on the level of threat to public health and safety or the environment they pose. Date of Government Version: 02/23/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/24/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/08/2009 Number of Days to Update: 43 Source: Department of Toxic Substances Control Telephone: 916-323-3400 Last EDR Contact: 02/24/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/25/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly TOXIC PITS: Toxic Pits Cleanup Act Sites Toxic PITS Cleanup Act Sites. TOXIC PITS identifies sites suspected of containing hazardous substances where cleanup has not yet been completed. TC2502198.2s Page GR-13 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 07/01/1995 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/30/1995 Date Made Active in Reports: 09/26/1995 Number of Days to Update: 27 Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916-227-4364 Last EDR Contact: 01/26/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/27/2009 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned CDL: Clandestine Drug Labs A listing of drug lab locations. Listing of a location in this database does not indicate that any illegal drug lab materials were or were not present there, and does not constitute a determination that the location either requires or does not require additional cleanup work. Date of Government Version: 09/30/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/06/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/13/2008 Number of Days to Update: 7 Source: Department of Toxic Substances Control Telephone: 916-255-6504 Last EDR Contact: 05/22/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/20/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies Local Lists of Registered Storage Tanks CA FID UST: Facility Inventory Database The Facility Inventory Database (FID) contains a historical listing of active and inactive underground storage tank locations from the State Water Resource Control Board. Refer to local/county source for current data. Date of Government Version: 10/31/1994 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/05/1995 Date Made Active in Reports: 09/29/1995 Number of Days to Update: 24 Source: California Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 916-341-5851 Last EDR Contact: 12/28/1998 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned UST MENDOCINO: Mendocino County UST Database A listing of underground storage tank locations in Mendocino County. Date of Government Version: 04/07/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/07/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/14/2009 Number of Days to Update: 37 Source: Department of Public Health Telephone: 707-463-4466 Last EDR Contact: 04/07/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/22/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies HIST UST: Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database The Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database is a historical listing of UST sites. Refer to local/county source for current data. Date of Government Version: 10/15/1990 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/25/1991 Date Made Active in Reports: 02/12/1991 Number of Days to Update: 18 Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916-341-5851 Last EDR Contact: 07/26/2001 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned SWEEPS UST: SWEEPS UST Listing Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System. This underground storage tank listing was updated and maintained by a company contacted by the SWRCB in the early 1990’s. The listing is no longer updated or maintained. The local agency is the contact for more information on a site on the SWEEPS list. Date of Government Version: 06/01/1994 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/07/2005 Date Made Active in Reports: 08/11/2005 Number of Days to Update: 35 Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: 06/03/2005 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned Local Land Records TC2502198.2s Page GR-14 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING LIENS 2: CERCLA Lien Information A Federal CERCLA (’Superfund’) lien can exist by operation of law at any site or property at which EPA has spent Superfund monies. These monies are spent to investigate and address releases and threatened releases of contamination. CERCLIS provides information as to the identity of these sites and properties. Date of Government Version: 02/06/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/20/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2009 Number of Days to Update: 46 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202-564-6023 Last EDR Contact: 05/18/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies LUCIS: Land Use Control Information System LUCIS contains records of land use control information pertaining to the former Navy Base Realignment and Closure properties. Date of Government Version: 12/09/2005 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/11/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/11/2007 Number of Days to Update: 31 Source: Department of the Navy Telephone: 843-820-7326 Last EDR Contact: 03/09/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/08/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies LIENS: Environmental Liens Listing A listing of property locations with environmental liens for California where DTSC is a lien holder. Date of Government Version: 02/13/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/17/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/08/2009 Number of Days to Update: 50 Source: Department of Toxic Substances Control Telephone: 916-323-3400 Last EDR Contact: 05/04/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/03/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies DEED: Deed Restriction Listing Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program Facility Sites with Deed Restrictions & Hazardous Waste Management Program Facility Sites with Deed / Land Use Restriction. The DTSC Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program (SMBRP) list includes sites cleaned up under the program’s oversight and generally does not include current or former hazardous waste facilities that required a hazardous waste facility permit. The list represents deed restrictions that are active. Some sites have multiple deed restrictions. The DTSC Hazardous Waste Management Program (HWMP) has developed a list of current or former hazardous waste facilities that have a recorded land use restriction at the local county recorder’s office. The land use restrictions on this list were required by the DTSC HWMP as a result of the presence of hazardous substances that remain on site after the facility (or part of the facility) has been closed or cleaned up. The types of land use restriction include deed notice, deed restriction, or a land use restriction that binds current and future owners. Date of Government Version: 03/30/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/31/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/08/2009 Number of Days to Update: 8 Source: Department of Toxic Substances Control Telephone: 916-323-3400 Last EDR Contact: 12/30/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/29/2009 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually Records of Emergency Release Reports HMIRS: Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System Hazardous Materials Incident Report System. HMIRS contains hazardous material spill incidents reported to DOT. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/30/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2009 Number of Days to Update: 95 Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Telephone: 202-366-4555 Last EDR Contact: 04/16/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/13/2009 Data Release Frequency: Annually TC2502198.2s Page GR-15 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING CHMIRS: California Hazardous Material Incident Report System California Hazardous Material Incident Reporting System. CHMIRS contains information on reported hazardous material incidents (accidental releases or spills). Date of Government Version: 12/31/2007 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/09/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 06/20/2008 Number of Days to Update: 42 Source: Office of Emergency Services Telephone: 916-845-8400 Last EDR Contact: 05/18/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies LDS: Land Disposal Sites Listing The Land Disposal program regulates of waste discharge to land for treatment, storage and disposal in waste management units. Date of Government Version: 04/08/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/08/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Number of Days to Update: 33 Source: State Water Qualilty Control Board Telephone: 866-480-1028 Last EDR Contact: 04/08/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/06/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly MCS: Military Cleanup Sites Listing The State Water Resources Control Board and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards partner with the Department of Defense (DoD) through the Defense and State Memorandum of Agreement (DSMOA) to oversee the investigation and remediation of water quality issues at military facilities. Date of Government Version: 04/08/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/08/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Number of Days to Update: 33 Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 866-480-1028 Last EDR Contact: 04/08/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/06/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly Other Ascertainable Records RCRA-NonGen: RCRA - Non Generators RCRAInfo is EPA’s comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Non-Generators do not presently generate hazardous waste. Date of Government Version: 11/12/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/18/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/16/2009 Number of Days to Update: 118 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: (415) 495-8895 Last EDR Contact: 04/23/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/20/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies DOT OPS: Incident and Accident Data Department of Transporation, Office of Pipeline Safety Incident and Accident data. Date of Government Version: 05/14/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/28/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 08/08/2008 Number of Days to Update: 72 Source: Department of Transporation, Office of Pipeline Safety Telephone: 202-366-4595 Last EDR Contact: 02/24/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/25/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies DOD: Department of Defense Sites This data set consists of federally owned or administered lands, administered by the Department of Defense, that have any area equal to or greater than 640 acres of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. TC2502198.2s Page GR-16 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/10/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/11/2007 Number of Days to Update: 62 Source: USGS Telephone: 703-692-8801 Last EDR Contact: 05/08/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/03/2009 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually FUDS: Formerly Used Defense Sites The listing includes locations of Formerly Used Defense Sites properties where the US Army Corps of Engineers is actively working or will take necessary cleanup actions. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2007 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/05/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 09/23/2008 Number of Days to Update: 18 Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Telephone: 202-528-4285 Last EDR Contact: 03/30/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/29/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies CONSENT: Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees Major legal settlements that establish responsibility and standards for cleanup at NPL (Superfund) sites. Released periodically by United States District Courts after settlement by parties to litigation matters. Date of Government Version: 01/27/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/23/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Number of Days to Update: 18 Source: Department of Justice, Consent Decree Library Telephone: Varies Last EDR Contact: 04/21/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/20/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies ROD: Records Of Decision Record of Decision. ROD documents mandate a permanent remedy at an NPL (Superfund) site containing technical and health information to aid in the cleanup. Date of Government Version: 04/23/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/28/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/19/2009 Number of Days to Update: 21 Source: EPA Telephone: 703-416-0223 Last EDR Contact: 03/30/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/29/2009 Data Release Frequency: Annually UMTRA: Uranium Mill Tailings Sites Uranium ore was mined by private companies for federal government use in national defense programs. When the mills shut down, large piles of the sand-like material (mill tailings) remain after uranium has been extracted from the ore. Levels of human exposure to radioactive materials from the piles are low; however, in some cases tailings were used as construction materials before the potential health hazards of the tailings were recognized. Date of Government Version: 01/05/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/07/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/08/2009 Number of Days to Update: 1 Source: Department of Energy Telephone: 505-845-0011 Last EDR Contact: 03/16/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/15/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies MINES: Mines Master Index File Contains all mine identification numbers issued for mines active or opened since 1971. The data also includes violation information. Date of Government Version: 02/19/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/24/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2009 Number of Days to Update: 42 Source: Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration Telephone: 303-231-5959 Last EDR Contact: 03/24/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/22/2009 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually TRIS: Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System Toxic Release Inventory System. TRIS identifies facilities which release toxic chemicals to the air, water and land in reportable quantities under SARA Title III Section 313. TC2502198.2s Page GR-17 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 12/31/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/29/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/18/2008 Number of Days to Update: 49 Source: EPA Telephone: 202-566-0250 Last EDR Contact: 04/09/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/15/2009 Data Release Frequency: Annually TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act Toxic Substances Control Act. TSCA identifies manufacturers and importers of chemical substances included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory list. It includes data on the production volume of these substances by plant site. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2002 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/14/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/30/2006 Number of Days to Update: 46 Source: EPA Telephone: 202-260-5521 Last EDR Contact: 04/14/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/13/2009 Data Release Frequency: Every 4 Years FTTS: FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) FTTS tracks administrative cases and pesticide enforcement actions and compliance activities related to FIFRA, TSCA and EPCRA (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act). To maintain currency, EDR contacts the Agency on a quarterly basis. Date of Government Version: 04/09/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/16/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Number of Days to Update: 25 Source: EPA/Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances Telephone: 202-566-1667 Last EDR Contact: 03/16/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/15/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly FTTS INSP: FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) A listing of FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System (FTTS) inspections and enforcements. Date of Government Version: 04/09/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/16/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Number of Days to Update: 25 Source: EPA Telephone: 202-566-1667 Last EDR Contact: 03/16/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/15/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly HIST FTTS: FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing A complete administrative case listing from the FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System (FTTS) for all ten EPA regions. The information was obtained from the National Compliance Database (NCDB). NCDB supports the implementation of FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) and TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act). Some EPA regions are now closing out records. Because of that, and the fact that some EPA regions are not providing EPA Headquarters with updated records, it was decided to create a HIST FTTS database. It included records that may not be included in the newer FTTS database updates. This database is no longer updated. Date of Government Version: 10/19/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/01/2007 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/10/2007 Number of Days to Update: 40 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202-564-2501 Last EDR Contact: 12/17/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/17/2008 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned HIST FTTS INSP: FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Inspection & Enforcement Case Listing A complete inspection and enforcement case listing from the FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System (FTTS) for all ten EPA regions. The information was obtained from the National Compliance Database (NCDB). NCDB supports the implementation of FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) and TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act). Some EPA regions are now closing out records. Because of that, and the fact that some EPA regions are not providing EPA Headquarters with updated records, it was decided to create a HIST FTTS database. It included records that may not be included in the newer FTTS database updates. This database is no longer updated. TC2502198.2s Page GR-18 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 10/19/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/01/2007 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/10/2007 Number of Days to Update: 40 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202-564-2501 Last EDR Contact: 12/17/2008 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/17/2008 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned SSTS: Section 7 Tracking Systems Section 7 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended (92 Stat. 829) requires all registered pesticide-producing establishments to submit a report to the Environmental Protection Agency by March 1st each year. Each establishment must report the types and amounts of pesticides, active ingredients and devices being produced, and those having been produced and sold or distributed in the past year. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/14/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/18/2008 Number of Days to Update: 35 Source: EPA Telephone: 202-564-4203 Last EDR Contact: 05/18/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/13/2009 Data Release Frequency: Annually ICIS: Integrated Compliance Information System The Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) supports the information needs of the national enforcement and compliance program as well as the unique needs of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Date of Government Version: 03/20/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/20/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2009 Number of Days to Update: 46 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202-564-5088 Last EDR Contact: 04/13/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/13/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly PADS: PCB Activity Database System PCB Activity Database. PADS Identifies generators, transporters, commercial storers and/or brokers and disposers of PCB’s who are required to notify the EPA of such activities. Date of Government Version: 12/04/2007 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/07/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/17/2008 Number of Days to Update: 39 Source: EPA Telephone: 202-566-0500 Last EDR Contact: 05/04/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/03/2009 Data Release Frequency: Annually MLTS: Material Licensing Tracking System MLTS is maintained by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and contains a list of approximately 8,100 sites which possess or use radioactive materials and which are subject to NRC licensing requirements. To maintain currency, EDR contacts the Agency on a quarterly basis. Date of Government Version: 04/02/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/24/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/19/2009 Number of Days to Update: 25 Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Telephone: 301-415-7169 Last EDR Contact: 03/30/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/29/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly RADINFO: Radiation Information Database The Radiation Information Database (RADINFO) contains information about facilities that are regulated by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations for radiation and radioactivity. Date of Government Version: 04/28/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/29/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Number of Days to Update: 12 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202-343-9775 Last EDR Contact: 04/29/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/27/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly TC2502198.2s Page GR-19 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING FINDS: Facility Index System/Facility Registry System Facility Index System. FINDS contains both facility information and ’pointers’ to other sources that contain more detail. EDR includes the following FINDS databases in this report: PCS (Permit Compliance System), AIRS (Aerometric Information Retrieval System), DOCKET (Enforcement Docket used to manage and track information on civil judicial enforcement cases for all environmental statutes), FURS (Federal Underground Injection Control), C-DOCKET (Criminal Docket System used to track criminal enforcement actions for all environmental statutes), FFIS (Federal Facilities Information System), STATE (State Environmental Laws and Statutes), and PADS (PCB Activity Data System). Date of Government Version: 04/28/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/01/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/19/2009 Number of Days to Update: 18 Source: EPA Telephone: (415) 947-8000 Last EDR Contact: 03/30/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/29/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly RAATS: RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System RCRA Administration Action Tracking System. RAATS contains records based on enforcement actions issued under RCRA pertaining to major violators and includes administrative and civil actions brought by the EPA. For administration actions after September 30, 1995, data entry in the RAATS database was discontinued. EPA will retain a copy of the database for historical records. It was necessary to terminate RAATS because a decrease in agency resources made it impossible to continue to update the information contained in the database. Date of Government Version: 04/17/1995 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/03/1995 Date Made Active in Reports: 08/07/1995 Number of Days to Update: 35 Source: EPA Telephone: 202-564-4104 Last EDR Contact: 06/02/2008 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/01/2008 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned BRS: Biennial Reporting System The Biennial Reporting System is a national system administered by the EPA that collects data on the generation and management of hazardous waste. BRS captures detailed data from two groups: Large Quantity Generators (LQG) and Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2007 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/19/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/22/2009 Number of Days to Update: 92 Source: EPA/NTIS Telephone: 800-424-9346 Last EDR Contact: 02/19/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/08/2009 Data Release Frequency: Biennially CA BOND EXP. PLAN: Bond Expenditure Plan Department of Health Services developed a site-specific expenditure plan as the basis for an appropriation of Hazardous Substance Cleanup Bond Act funds. It is not updated. Date of Government Version: 01/01/1989 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/27/1994 Date Made Active in Reports: 08/02/1994 Number of Days to Update: 6 Source: Department of Health Services Telephone: 916-255-2118 Last EDR Contact: 05/31/1994 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned NPDES: NPDES Permits Listing A listing of NPDES permits, including stormwater. Date of Government Version: 03/09/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/13/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/08/2009 Number of Days to Update: 26 Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916-445-9379 Last EDR Contact: 03/13/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/08/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly CA WDS: Waste Discharge System Sites which have been issued waste discharge requirements. TC2502198.2s Page GR-20 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 06/19/2007 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/20/2007 Date Made Active in Reports: 06/29/2007 Number of Days to Update: 9 Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916-341-5227 Last EDR Contact: 03/16/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/15/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly CORTESE: "Cortese" Hazardous Waste & Substances Sites List The sites for the list are designated by the State Water Resource Control Board (LUST), the Integrated Waste Board (SWF/LS), and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (Cal-Sites). This listing is no longer updated by the state agency. Date of Government Version: 04/20/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/22/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Number of Days to Update: 19 Source: CAL EPA/Office of Emergency Information Telephone: 916-323-3400 Last EDR Contact: 04/22/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/20/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly HIST CORTESE: Hazardous Waste & Substance Site List The sites for the list are designated by the State Water Resource Control Board [LUST], the Integrated Waste Board [SWF/LS], and the Department of Toxic Substances Control [CALSITES]. Date of Government Version: 04/01/2001 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/22/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/08/2009 Number of Days to Update: 76 Source: Department of Toxic Substances Control Telephone: 916-323-3400 Last EDR Contact: 01/22/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned NOTIFY 65: Proposition 65 Records Proposition 65 Notification Records. NOTIFY 65 contains facility notifications about any release which could impact drinking water and thereby expose the public to a potential health risk. Date of Government Version: 10/21/1993 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/01/1993 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/19/1993 Number of Days to Update: 18 Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916-445-3846 Last EDR Contact: 04/13/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/13/2009 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned DRYCLEANERS: Cleaner Facilities A list of drycleaner related facilities that have EPA ID numbers. These are facilities with certain SIC codes: power laundries, family and commercial; garment pressing and cleaner’s agents; linen supply; coin-operated laundries and cleaning; drycleaning plants, except rugs; carpet and upholster cleaning; industrial launderers; laundry and garment services. Date of Government Version: 05/06/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/07/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Number of Days to Update: 4 Source: Department of Toxic Substance Control Telephone: 916-327-4498 Last EDR Contact: 04/17/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/30/2009 Data Release Frequency: Annually WIP: Well Investigation Program Case List Well Investigation Program case in the San Gabriel and San Fernando Valley area. Date of Government Version: 03/31/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/24/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Number of Days to Update: 17 Source: Los Angeles Water Quality Control Board Telephone: 213-576-6726 Last EDR Contact: 04/24/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/20/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies HAZNET: Facility and Manifest Data Facility and Manifest Data. The data is extracted from the copies of hazardous waste manifests received each year by the DTSC. The annual volume of manifests is typically 700,000 - 1,000,000 annually, representing approximately 350,000 - 500,000 shipments. Data are from the manifests submitted without correction, and therefore many contain some invalid values for data elements such as generator ID, TSD ID, waste category, and disposal method. TC2502198.2s Page GR-21 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 12/31/2007 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/17/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/08/2009 Number of Days to Update: 50 Source: California Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 916-255-1136 Last EDR Contact: 05/08/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/03/2009 Data Release Frequency: Annually EMI: Emissions Inventory Data Toxics and criteria pollutant emissions data collected by the ARB and local air pollution agencies. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/16/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/26/2008 Number of Days to Update: 41 Source: California Air Resources Board Telephone: 916-322-2990 Last EDR Contact: 04/17/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/13/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies INDIAN RESERV: Indian Reservations This map layer portrays Indian administered lands of the United States that have any area equal to or greater than 640 acres. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/08/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/11/2007 Number of Days to Update: 34 Source: USGS Telephone: 202-208-3710 Last EDR Contact: 05/08/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/03/2009 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually SCRD DRYCLEANERS: State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing The State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners was established in 1998, with support from the U.S. EPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. It is comprised of representatives of states with established drycleaner remediation programs. Currently the member states are Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. Date of Government Version: 12/08/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/09/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/16/2009 Number of Days to Update: 97 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 615-532-8599 Last EDR Contact: 05/11/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/10/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies FEDLAND: Federal and Indian Lands Federally and Indian administrated lands of the United States. Lands included are administrated by: Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, National Wild and Scenic River, National Wildlife Refuge, Public Domain Land, Wilderness, Wilderness Study Area, Wildlife Management Area, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Department of Justice, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/06/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/11/2007 Number of Days to Update: 339 Source: U.S. Geological Survey Telephone: 888-275-8747 Last EDR Contact: 05/08/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/03/2009 Data Release Frequency: N/A EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS EDR Proprietary Records Manufactured Gas Plants: EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants The EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plant Database includes records of coal gas plants (manufactured gas plants) compiled by EDR’s researchers. Manufactured gas sites were used in the United States from the 1800’s to 1950’s to produce a gas that could be distributed and used as fuel. These plants used whale oil, rosin, coal, or a mixture of coal, oil, and water that also produced a significant amount of waste. Many of the byproducts of the gas production, such as coal tar (oily waste containing volatile and non-volatile chemicals), sludges, oils and other compounds are potentially hazardous to human health and the environment. The byproduct from this process was frequently disposed of directly at the plant site and can remain or spread slowly, serving as a continuous source of soil and groundwater contamination. TC2502198.2s Page GR-22 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: N/A Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A Date Made Active in Reports: N/A Number of Days to Update: N/A Source: EDR, Inc. Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: N/A Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned EDR Historical Auto Stations: EDR Proprietary Historic Gas Stations EDR has searched selected national collections of business directories and has collected listings of potential gas station/filling station/service station sites that were available to EDR researchers. EDR’s review was limited to those categories of sources that might, in EDR’s opinion, include gas station/filling station/service station establishments. The categories reviewed included, but were not limited to gas, gas station, gasoline station, filling station, auto, automobile repair, auto service station, service station, etc. Date of Government Version: N/A Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A Date Made Active in Reports: N/A Number of Days to Update: N/A Source: EDR, Inc. Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: N/A Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: Varies EDR Historical Cleaners: EDR Proprietary Historic Dry Cleaners EDR has searched selected national collections of business directories and has collected listings of potential dry cleaner sites that were available to EDR researchers. EDR’s review was limited to those categories of sources that might, in EDR’s opinion, include dry cleaning establishments. The categories reviewed included, but were not limited to dry cleaners, cleaners, laundry, laundromat, cleaning/laundry, wash & dry etc. Date of Government Version: N/A Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A Date Made Active in Reports: N/A Number of Days to Update: N/A Source: EDR, Inc. Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: N/A Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: Varies COUNTY RECORDS ALAMEDA COUNTY: Contaminated Sites A listing of contaminated sites overseen by the Toxic Release Program (oil and groundwater contamination from chemical releases and spills) and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program (soil and ground water contamination from leaking petroleum USTs). Date of Government Version: 04/24/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/28/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Number of Days to Update: 13 Source: Alameda County Environmental Health Services Telephone: 510-567-6700 Last EDR Contact: 04/20/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/20/2009 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually Underground Tanks Underground storage tank sites located in Alameda county. Date of Government Version: 04/24/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/28/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/14/2009 Number of Days to Update: 16 Source: Alameda County Environmental Health Services Telephone: 510-567-6700 Last EDR Contact: 04/20/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/20/2009 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually CONTRA COSTA COUNTY: TC2502198.2s Page GR-23 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Site List List includes sites from the underground tank, hazardous waste generator and business plan/2185 programs. Date of Government Version: 02/24/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/25/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/08/2009 Number of Days to Update: 42 Source: Contra Costa Health Services Department Telephone: 925-646-2286 Last EDR Contact: 02/23/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/25/2009 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually FRESNO COUNTY: CUPA Resources List Certified Unified Program Agency. CUPA’s are responsible for implementing a unified hazardous materials and hazardous waste management regulatory program. The agency provides oversight of businesses that deal with hazardous materials, operate underground storage tanks or aboveground storage tanks. Date of Government Version: 04/17/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/17/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Number of Days to Update: 24 Source: Dept. of Community Health Telephone: 559-445-3271 Last EDR Contact: 05/04/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/03/2009 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually KERN COUNTY: Underground Storage Tank Sites & Tank Listing Kern County Sites and Tanks Listing. Date of Government Version: 03/30/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/31/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/09/2009 Number of Days to Update: 9 Source: Kern County Environment Health Services Department Telephone: 661-862-8700 Last EDR Contact: 03/30/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/01/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly LOS ANGELES COUNTY: San Gabriel Valley Areas of Concern San Gabriel Valley areas where VOC contamination is at or above the MCL as designated by region 9 EPA office. Date of Government Version: 12/31/1998 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/07/1999 Date Made Active in Reports: N/A Number of Days to Update: 0 Source: EPA Region 9 Telephone: 415-972-3178 Last EDR Contact: 04/13/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/13/2009 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned HMS: Street Number List Industrial Waste and Underground Storage Tank Sites. Date of Government Version: 11/26/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/27/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/08/2009 Number of Days to Update: 71 Source: Department of Public Works Telephone: 626-458-3517 Last EDR Contact: 05/11/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/10/2009 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually List of Solid Waste Facilities Solid Waste Facilities in Los Angeles County. TC2502198.2s Page GR-24 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 04/21/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/21/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Number of Days to Update: 20 Source: La County Department of Public Works Telephone: 818-458-5185 Last EDR Contact: 05/12/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/10/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies City of Los Angeles Landfills Landfills owned and maintained by the City of Los Angeles. Date of Government Version: 03/05/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/10/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/08/2009 Number of Days to Update: 29 Source: Engineering & Construction Division Telephone: 213-473-7869 Last EDR Contact: 03/10/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/08/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies Site Mitigation List Industrial sites that have had some sort of spill or complaint. Date of Government Version: 02/11/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/23/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Number of Days to Update: 18 Source: Community Health Services Telephone: 323-890-7806 Last EDR Contact: 05/11/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/10/2009 Data Release Frequency: Annually City of El Segundo Underground Storage Tank Underground storage tank sites located in El Segundo city. Date of Government Version: 02/09/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/17/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/09/2009 Number of Days to Update: 51 Source: City of El Segundo Fire Department Telephone: 310-524-2236 Last EDR Contact: 05/11/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/10/2009 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually City of Long Beach Underground Storage Tank Underground storage tank sites located in the city of Long Beach. Date of Government Version: 03/28/2003 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/23/2003 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/26/2003 Number of Days to Update: 34 Source: City of Long Beach Fire Department Telephone: 562-570-2563 Last EDR Contact: 05/22/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2009 Data Release Frequency: Annually City of Torrance Underground Storage Tank Underground storage tank sites located in the city of Torrance. Date of Government Version: 02/23/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/24/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/09/2009 Number of Days to Update: 44 Source: City of Torrance Fire Department Telephone: 310-618-2973 Last EDR Contact: 05/11/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/10/2009 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually MARIN COUNTY: Underground Storage Tank Sites Currently permitted USTs in Marin County. Date of Government Version: 02/05/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/17/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/09/2009 Number of Days to Update: 51 Source: Public Works Department Waste Management Telephone: 415-499-6647 Last EDR Contact: 04/27/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/27/2009 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually NAPA COUNTY: TC2502198.2s Page GR-25 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Sites With Reported Contamination A listing of leaking underground storage tank sites located in Napa county. Date of Government Version: 07/09/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/09/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 07/31/2008 Number of Days to Update: 22 Source: Napa County Department of Environmental Management Telephone: 707-253-4269 Last EDR Contact: 03/23/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/22/2009 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually Closed and Operating Underground Storage Tank Sites Underground storage tank sites located in Napa county. Date of Government Version: 01/15/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/16/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 02/08/2008 Number of Days to Update: 23 Source: Napa County Department of Environmental Management Telephone: 707-253-4269 Last EDR Contact: 03/23/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/22/2009 Data Release Frequency: Annually ORANGE COUNTY: List of Industrial Site Cleanups Petroleum and non-petroleum spills. Date of Government Version: 03/02/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/18/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/08/2009 Number of Days to Update: 21 Source: Health Care Agency Telephone: 714-834-3446 Last EDR Contact: 03/05/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/01/2009 Data Release Frequency: Annually List of Underground Storage Tank Cleanups Orange County Underground Storage Tank Cleanups (LUST). Date of Government Version: 03/02/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/27/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/08/2009 Number of Days to Update: 12 Source: Health Care Agency Telephone: 714-834-3446 Last EDR Contact: 03/05/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/01/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly List of Underground Storage Tank Facilities Orange County Underground Storage Tank Facilities (UST). Date of Government Version: 03/02/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/18/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/09/2009 Number of Days to Update: 22 Source: Health Care Agency Telephone: 714-834-3446 Last EDR Contact: 12/02/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/01/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly PLACER COUNTY: Master List of Facilities List includes aboveground tanks, underground tanks and cleanup sites. Date of Government Version: 04/27/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/28/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Number of Days to Update: 13 Source: Placer County Health and Human Services Telephone: 530-889-7312 Last EDR Contact: 04/03/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/29/2009 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually RIVERSIDE COUNTY: TC2502198.2s Page GR-26 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Listing of Underground Tank Cleanup Sites Riverside County Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Sites (LUST). Date of Government Version: 04/14/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/15/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Number of Days to Update: 26 Source: Department of Public Health Telephone: 951-358-5055 Last EDR Contact: 04/13/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/13/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly Underground Storage Tank Tank List Underground storage tank sites located in Riverside county. Date of Government Version: 05/06/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/07/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/14/2009 Number of Days to Update: 7 Source: Health Services Agency Telephone: 951-358-5055 Last EDR Contact: 04/13/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/13/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly SACRAMENTO COUNTY: Contaminated Sites List of sites where unauthorized releases of potentially hazardous materials have occurred. Date of Government Version: 02/04/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/29/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Number of Days to Update: 12 Source: Sacramento County Environmental Management Telephone: 916-875-8406 Last EDR Contact: 04/29/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/27/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly ML - Regulatory Compliance Master List Any business that has hazardous materials on site - hazardous material storage sites, underground storage tanks, waste generators. Date of Government Version: 02/04/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/29/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Number of Days to Update: 12 Source: Sacramento County Environmental Management Telephone: 916-875-8406 Last EDR Contact: 04/29/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/27/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY: Hazardous Material Permits This listing includes underground storage tanks, medical waste handlers/generators, hazardous materials handlers, hazardous waste generators, and waste oil generators/handlers. Date of Government Version: 04/08/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/08/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Number of Days to Update: 33 Source: San Bernardino County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division Telephone: 909-387-3041 Last EDR Contact: 03/03/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/01/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly SAN DIEGO COUNTY: Hazardous Materials Management Division Database The database includes: HE58 - This report contains the business name, site address, business phone number, establishment ’H’ permit number, type of permit, and the business status. HE17 - In addition to providing the same information provided in the HE58 listing, HE17 provides inspection dates, violations received by the establishment, hazardous waste generated, the quantity, method of storage, treatment/disposal of waste and the hauler, and information on underground storage tanks. Unauthorized Release List - Includes a summary of environmental contamination cases in San Diego County (underground tank cases, non-tank cases, groundwater contamination, and soil contamination are included.) TC2502198.2s Page GR-27 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 07/16/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/29/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/26/2008 Number of Days to Update: 28 Source: Hazardous Materials Management Division Telephone: 619-338-2268 Last EDR Contact: 04/03/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/29/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly Solid Waste Facilities San Diego County Solid Waste Facilities. Date of Government Version: 11/01/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/23/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/27/2009 Number of Days to Update: 35 Source: Department of Health Services Telephone: 619-338-2209 Last EDR Contact: 05/18/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies Environmental Case Listing The listing contains all underground tank release cases and projects pertaining to properties contaminated with hazardous substances that are actively under review by the Site Assessment and Mitigation Program. Date of Government Version: 01/22/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/31/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/08/2009 Number of Days to Update: 8 Source: San Diego County Department of Environmental Health Telephone: 619-338-2371 Last EDR Contact: 03/31/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/29/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY: Local Oversite Facilities A listing of leaking underground storage tank sites located in San Francisco county. Date of Government Version: 09/19/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/19/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 09/29/2008 Number of Days to Update: 10 Source: Department Of Public Health San Francisco County Telephone: 415-252-3920 Last EDR Contact: 03/30/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/01/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly Underground Storage Tank Information Underground storage tank sites located in San Francisco county. Date of Government Version: 09/19/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/19/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/01/2008 Number of Days to Update: 12 Source: Department of Public Health Telephone: 415-252-3920 Last EDR Contact: 03/16/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/01/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY: San Joaquin Co. UST A listing of underground storage tank locations in San Joaquin county. Date of Government Version: 02/10/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/25/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/09/2009 Number of Days to Update: 43 Source: Environmental Health Department Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: 04/13/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/13/2009 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually SAN MATEO COUNTY: TC2502198.2s Page GR-28 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Business Inventory List includes Hazardous Materials Business Plan, hazardous waste generators, and underground storage tanks. Date of Government Version: 04/29/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/01/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Number of Days to Update: 10 Source: San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division Telephone: 650-363-1921 Last EDR Contact: 04/07/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/06/2009 Data Release Frequency: Annually Fuel Leak List A listing of leaking underground storage tank sites located in San Mateo county. Date of Government Version: 04/07/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/07/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Number of Days to Update: 34 Source: San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division Telephone: 650-363-1921 Last EDR Contact: 04/07/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/06/2009 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually SANTA CLARA COUNTY: HIST LUST - Fuel Leak Site Activity Report A listing of open and closed leaking underground storage tanks. This listing is no longer updated by the county. Leaking underground storage tanks are now handled by the Department of Environmental Health. Date of Government Version: 03/29/2005 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/30/2005 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/21/2005 Number of Days to Update: 22 Source: Santa Clara Valley Water District Telephone: 408-265-2600 Last EDR Contact: 03/23/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/22/2009 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned LOP Listing A listing of leaking underground storage tanks located in Santa Clara county. Date of Government Version: 12/29/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/29/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/27/2009 Number of Days to Update: 29 Source: Department of Environmental Health Telephone: 408-918-3417 Last EDR Contact: 05/18/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/22/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies Hazardous Material Facilities Hazardous material facilities, including underground storage tank sites. Date of Government Version: 03/03/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/03/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/08/2009 Number of Days to Update: 36 Source: City of San Jose Fire Department Telephone: 408-277-4659 Last EDR Contact: 03/03/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/01/2009 Data Release Frequency: Annually SOLANO COUNTY: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks A listing of leaking underground storage tank sites located in Solano county. Date of Government Version: 03/23/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/07/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Number of Days to Update: 34 Source: Solano County Department of Environmental Management Telephone: 707-784-6770 Last EDR Contact: 03/23/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/22/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly TC2502198.2s Page GR-29 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Underground Storage Tanks Underground storage tank sites located in Solano county. Date of Government Version: 03/23/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/10/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/14/2009 Number of Days to Update: 34 Source: Solano County Department of Environmental Management Telephone: 707-784-6770 Last EDR Contact: 03/23/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/22/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly SONOMA COUNTY: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites A listing of leaking underground storage tank sites located in Sonoma county. Date of Government Version: 04/20/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/21/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Number of Days to Update: 20 Source: Department of Health Services Telephone: 707-565-6565 Last EDR Contact: 04/20/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/20/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly SUTTER COUNTY: Underground Storage Tanks Underground storage tank sites located in Sutter county. Date of Government Version: 04/01/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/02/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/09/2009 Number of Days to Update: 7 Source: Sutter County Department of Agriculture Telephone: 530-822-7500 Last EDR Contact: 03/30/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/29/2009 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually VENTURA COUNTY: Business Plan, Hazardous Waste Producers, and Operating Underground Tanks The BWT list indicates by site address whether the Environmental Health Division has Business Plan (B), Waste Producer (W), and/or Underground Tank (T) information. Date of Government Version: 02/26/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/31/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/08/2009 Number of Days to Update: 8 Source: Ventura County Environmental Health Division Telephone: 805-654-2813 Last EDR Contact: 03/10/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/08/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly Inventory of Illegal Abandoned and Inactive Sites Ventura County Inventory of Closed, Illegal Abandoned, and Inactive Sites. Date of Government Version: 08/01/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/04/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 09/18/2008 Number of Days to Update: 14 Source: Environmental Health Division Telephone: 805-654-2813 Last EDR Contact: 05/17/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2009 Data Release Frequency: Annually Listing of Underground Tank Cleanup Sites Ventura County Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Sites (LUST). Date of Government Version: 05/29/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/24/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 07/31/2008 Number of Days to Update: 37 Source: Environmental Health Division Telephone: 805-654-2813 Last EDR Contact: 06/09/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/08/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly TC2502198.2s Page GR-30 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Underground Tank Closed Sites List Ventura County Operating Underground Storage Tank Sites (UST)/Underground Tank Closed Sites List. Date of Government Version: 03/31/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/08/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/14/2009 Number of Days to Update: 36 Source: Environmental Health Division Telephone: 805-654-2813 Last EDR Contact: 04/08/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/06/2009 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly YOLO COUNTY: Underground Storage Tank Comprehensive Facility Report Underground storage tank sites located in Yolo county. Date of Government Version: 04/21/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/06/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/14/2009 Number of Days to Update: 8 Source: Yolo County Department of Health Telephone: 530-666-8646 Last EDR Contact: 04/13/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/13/2009 Data Release Frequency: Annually OTHER DATABASE(S) Depending on the geographic area covered by this report, the data provided in these specialty databases may or may not be complete. For example, the existence of wetlands information data in a specific report does not mean that all wetlands in the area covered by the report are included. Moreover, the absence of any reported wetlands information does not necessarily mean that wetlands do not exist in the area covered by the report. CT MANIFEST: Hazardous Waste Manifest Data Facility and manifest data. Manifest is a document that lists and tracks hazardous waste from the generator through transporters to a tsd facility. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/11/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/19/2009 Number of Days to Update: 98 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 860-424-3375 Last EDR Contact: 03/13/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/08/2009 Data Release Frequency: Annually NJ MANIFEST: Manifest Information Hazardous waste manifest information. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/05/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/22/2009 Number of Days to Update: 17 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: 05/05/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/03/2009 Data Release Frequency: Annually NY MANIFEST: Facility and Manifest Data Manifest is a document that lists and tracks hazardous waste from the generator through transporters to a TSD facility. Date of Government Version: 01/27/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/25/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/12/2009 Number of Days to Update: 15 Source: Department of Environmental Conservation Telephone: 518-402-8651 Last EDR Contact: 02/25/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/25/2009 Data Release Frequency: Annually TC2502198.2s Page GR-31 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING PA MANIFEST: Manifest Information Hazardous waste manifest information. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2007 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/11/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/02/2008 Number of Days to Update: 21 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: 03/09/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/08/2009 Data Release Frequency: Annually RI MANIFEST: Manifest information Hazardous waste manifest information Date of Government Version: 12/31/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/12/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/11/2009 Number of Days to Update: 27 Source: Department of Environmental Management Telephone: 401-222-2797 Last EDR Contact: 03/16/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/15/2009 Data Release Frequency: Annually WI MANIFEST: Manifest Information Hazardous waste manifest information. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2007 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/22/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 09/08/2008 Number of Days to Update: 17 Source: Department of Natural Resources Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: 04/07/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/06/2009 Data Release Frequency: Annually Oil/Gas Pipelines: This data was obtained by EDR from the USGS in 1994. It is referred to by USGS as GeoData Digital Line Graphs from 1:100,000-Scale Maps. It was extracted from the transportation category including some oil, but primarily gas pipelines. Electric Power Transmission Line Data Source: PennWell Corporation Telephone: (800) 823-6277 This map includes information copyrighted by PennWell Corporation. This information is provided on a best effort basis and PennWell Corporation does not guarantee its accuracy nor warrant its fitness for any particular purpose. Such information has been reprinted with the permission of PennWell. Sensitive Receptors: There are individuals deemed sensitive receptors due to their fragile immune systems and special sensitivity to environmental discharges. These sensitive receptors typically include the elderly, the sick, and children. While the location of all sensitive receptors cannot be determined, EDR indicates those buildings and facilities - schools, daycares, hospitals, medical centers, and nursing homes - where individuals who are sensitive receptors are likely to be located. AHA Hospitals: Source: American Hospital Association, Inc. Telephone: 312-280-5991 The database includes a listing of hospitals based on the American Hospital Association’s annual survey of hospitals. Medical Centers: Provider of Services Listing Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Telephone: 410-786-3000 A listing of hospitals with Medicare provider number, produced by Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services, a federal agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Nursing Homes Source: National Institutes of Health Telephone: 301-594-6248 Information on Medicare and Medicaid certified nursing homes in the United States. Public Schools Source: National Center for Education Statistics Telephone: 202-502-7300 The National Center for Education Statistics’ primary database on elementary and secondary public education in the United States. It is a comprehensive, annual, national statistical database of all public elementary and secondary schools and school districts, which contains data that are comparable across all states. TC2502198.2s Page GR-32 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Private Schools Source: National Center for Education Statistics Telephone: 202-502-7300 The National Center for Education Statistics’ primary database on private school locations in the United States. Daycare Centers: Licensed Facilities Source: Department of Social Services Telephone: 916-657-4041 Flood Zone Data: This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 1999 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Data depicts 100-year and 500-year flood zones as defined by FEMA. NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 2002 and 2005 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Scanned Digital USGS 7.5’ Topographic Map (DRG) Source: United States Geologic Survey A digital raster graphic (DRG) is a scanned image of a U.S. Geological Survey topographic map. The map images are made by scanning published paper maps on high-resolution scanners. The raster image is georeferenced and fit to the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) projection. STREET AND ADDRESS INFORMATION © 2009 Tele Atlas North America, Inc. All rights reserved. This material is proprietary and the subject of copyright protection and other intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to Tele Atlas North America, Inc. The use of this material is subject to the terms of a license agreement. You will be held liable for any unauthorized copying or disclosure of this material. TC2502198.2s Page GR-33 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING TC2502198.2s Page A-1 geologic strata. of the soil, and nearby wells. Groundwater flow velocity is generally impacted by the nature of the Groundwater flow direction may be impacted by surface topography, hydrology, hydrogeology, characteristics 2. Groundwater flow velocity. 1. Groundwater flow direction, and Assessment of the impact of contaminant migration generally has two principle investigative components: forming an opinion about the impact of potential contaminant migration. EDR’s GeoCheck Physical Setting Source Addendum is provided to assist the environmental professional in 1981Most Recent Revision: 33117-G7 ORANGE, CAEast Map: 1981Most Recent Revision: 33117-G8 ANAHEIM, CATarget Property Map: USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP 158 ft. above sea levelElevation: 3740543.8UTM Y (Meters): 418711.0UTM X (Meters): Zone 11Universal Tranverse Mercator: 117.8782 - 117˚ 52’ 41.5’’Longitude (West): 33.80370 - 33˚ 48’ 13.3’’Latitude (North): TARGET PROPERTY COORDINATES ANAHEIM, CA 92806 1750 S DOUGLASS ROAD 1750 S DOUGLASS ROAD TARGET PROPERTY ADDRESS GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE ADDENDUM® TC2502198.2s Page A-2 should be field verified. on a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity Source: Topography has been determined from the USGS 7.5’ Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated SURROUNDING TOPOGRAPHY: ELEVATION PROFILES Elevation (ft)Elevation (ft)TP TP 0 1/2 1 Miles✩Target Property Elevation: 158 ft. North South West East132132132141145150152152156158161164167169172173175177179147149150151154157156157158158159161163163163163168174180General SSWGeneral Topographic Gradient: TARGET PROPERTY TOPOGRAPHY should contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted. assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, Surface topography may be indicative of the direction of surficial groundwater flow. This information can be used to TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION collected on nearby properties, and regional groundwater flow information (from deep aquifers). sources of information, such as surface topographic information, hydrologic information, hydrogeologic data using site-specific well data. If such data is not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary to rely on other Groundwater flow direction for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION INFORMATION GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY® TC2502198.2s Page A-3 SW1/4 - 1/2 Mile West6 WNW1/4 - 1/2 Mile NW1 GENERAL DIRECTIONLOCATION GROUNDWATER FLOWFROM TPMAP ID hydrogeologically, and the depth to water table. authorities at select sites and has extracted the date of the report, groundwater flow direction as determined flow at specific points. EDR has reviewed reports submitted by environmental professionals to regulatory EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System to provide data on the general direction of groundwater AQUIFLOW® Search Radius: 1.000 Mile. * ©1996 Site-specific hydrogeological data gathered by CERCLIS Alerts, Inc., Bainbridge Island, WA. All rights reserved. All of the information and opinions presented are those of the cited EPA report(s), which were completed undera Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) investigation. Information is inferred in the CERCLIS investigation report(s) Data Quality: No information about a sole source aquifer is available Sole Source Aquifer: aquifers underlying the site. Information is not available about the hydraulic connection between Hydraulic Connection: 75 feet to 90 feet. Inferred Depth to Water: South Groundwater Flow Direction: CAD008364150 Site EPA ID Number: Neville Chem Co Site Name: 1/2 - 1 Mile NW Location Relative to TP: 1.25 miles Search Radius: Site-Specific Hydrogeological Data*: * ©1996 Site-specific hydrogeological data gathered by CERCLIS Alerts, Inc., Bainbridge Island, WA. All rights reserved. All of the information and opinions presented are those of the cited EPA report(s), which were completed undera Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) investigation. contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted. environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should of groundwater flow direction in the immediate area. Such hydrogeologic information can be used to assist the Hydrogeologic information obtained by installation of wells on a specific site can often be an indicator HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION Not AvailableANAHEIM NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY NWI Electronic Data CoverageNWI Quad at Target Property 06059C0014E Additional Panels in search area: 06059C0021E Flood Plain Panel at Target Property: YES - refer to the Overview Map and Detail MapORANGE, CA FEMA FLOOD ZONE FEMA Flood Electronic DataTarget Property County and bodies of water). Refer to the Physical Setting Source Map following this summary for hydrologic information (major waterways contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted. the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should Surface water can act as a hydrologic barrier to groundwater flow. Such hydrologic information can be used to assist HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY® TC2502198.2s Page A-4 For additional site information, refer to Physical Setting Source Map Findings. SW1/2 - 1 Mile NW22 Not Reported1/2 - 1 Mile West13 GENERAL DIRECTIONLOCATION GROUNDWATER FLOWFROM TPMAP ID GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY® TC2502198.2s Page A-5 Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS - 11 (1994). of the Conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 Scale - a digital representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman Geologic Age and Rock Stratigraphic Unit Source: P.G. Schruben, R.E. Arndt and W.J. Bawiec, Geology ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC UNIT GEOLOGIC AGE IDENTIFICATION Stratifed SequenceCategory:CenozoicEra: QuaternarySystem: QuaternarySeries: QCode: (decoded above as Era, System & Series) at which contaminant migration may be occurring. Geologic information can be used by the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the relative speed GEOLOGIC INFORMATION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY move more quickly through sandy-gravelly types of soils than silty-clayey types of soils. characteristics data collected on nearby properties and regional soil information. In general, contaminant plumes to rely on other sources of information, including geologic age identification, rock stratigraphic unit and soil using site specific geologic and soil strata data. If such data are not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary Groundwater flow velocity information for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional GROUNDWATER FLOW VELOCITY INFORMATION GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY® EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc. 2 1 4 3 1 0 1/16 1/8 1/4 Miles TC2502198.2s Page A-7 Somewhat excessively drainedSoil Drainage Class: excessively drained sands and gravels. Class A - High infiltration rates. Soils are deep, well drained toHydrologic Group: loamy sandSoil Surface Texture: METZSoil Component Name: Soil Map ID: 2 Min: 6.6 Max: 8.4 Min: 4 Max: 14 Silty Sand. Sands with fines, SOILS, Sands, COARSE-GRAINED and Sand. Clayey Gravel 200), Silty, or passing No. pct. or less materials (35 Granular loam to fine sandy stratified sand62 inches16 inches 2 Min: 6.6 Max: 8.4 Min: 4 Max: 14 Silty Sand. Sands with fines, SOILS, Sands, COARSE-GRAINED and Sand. Clayey Gravel 200), Silty, or passing No. pct. or less materials (35 Granularloamy sand16 inches 0 inches 1 Soil Layer Information Boundary Classification Saturated hydraulic conductivity micro m/sec Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Soil Reaction (pH) > 0 inchesDepth to Watertable Min: > 0 inchesDepth to Bedrock Min: HighCorrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: Hydric Status: Not hydric Somewhat excessively drainedSoil Drainage Class: excessively drained sands and gravels. Class A - High infiltration rates. Soils are deep, well drained toHydrologic Group: loamy sandSoil Surface Texture: METZSoil Component Name: Soil Map ID: 1 in a landscape. The following information is based on Soil Conservation Service SSURGO data. for privately owned lands in the United States. A soil map in a soil survey is a representation of soil patterns Survey (NCSS) and is responsible for collecting, storing, maintaining and distributing soil survey information The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) leads the National Cooperative Soil DOMINANT SOIL COMPOSITION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY® TC2502198.2s Page A-8 Max: Min: Min: 42 Max: 141 Silty Sand. Sands with fines, SOILS, Sands, COARSE-GRAINED Sand. Gravel and Fragments, 200), Stone passing No. pct. or less materials (35 Granularsand 5 inches 0 inches 1 Soil Layer Information Boundary Classification Saturated hydraulic conductivity micro m/sec Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Soil Reaction (pH) > 31 inchesDepth to Watertable Min: > 0 inchesDepth to Bedrock Min: Not ReportedCorrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: Hydric Status: All hydric Soil Drainage Class: water table, or are shallow to an impervious layer. Class D - Very slow infiltration rates. Soils are clayey, have a highHydrologic Group: sandSoil Surface Texture: RIVERWASHSoil Component Name: Soil Map ID: 3 Min: 6.6 Max: 8.4 Min: 1 Max: 14.11 Not reportedNot reported sandy clay loam stratified59 inches46 inches 4 Min: 6.6 Max: 8.4 Min: 1 Max: 14.11 Not reportedNot reportedsilt loam46 inches40 inches 3 Min: 6.6 Max: 8.4 Min: 1 Max: 14.11 Not reportedNot reported loam to sandy clay stratified sand40 inches16 inches 2 Min: 6.6 Max: 8.4 Min: 1 Max: 14.11 Not reportedNot reportedloamy sand16 inches 0 inches 1 Soil Layer Information Boundary Classification Saturated hydraulic conductivity micro m/sec Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Soil Reaction (pH) > 0 inchesDepth to Watertable Min: > 0 inchesDepth to Bedrock Min: HighCorrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: Hydric Status: Not hydric GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY® TC2502198.2s Page A-9 Min: 7.4 Max: 8.4 Min: 14 Max: 42 Not reportedNot reported to silt loam stratified sand59 inches27 inches 2 Min: 7.4 Max: 8.4 Min: 14 Max: 42 Not reportedNot reportedfine sandy loam27 inches 0 inches 1 Soil Layer Information Boundary Classification Saturated hydraulic conductivity micro m/sec Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Soil Reaction (pH) > 0 inchesDepth to Watertable Min: > 0 inchesDepth to Bedrock Min: HighCorrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: Hydric Status: Not hydric Soil Drainage Class: textures. moderately well and well drained soils with moderately coarse Class B - Moderate infiltration rates. Deep and moderately deep,Hydrologic Group: fine sandy loamSoil Surface Texture: HUENEMESoil Component Name: Soil Map ID: 4 Max: Min: Min: 42 Max: 141 Silty Sand. Sands with fines, SOILS, Sands, COARSE-GRAINED Sand. Gravel and Fragments, 200), Stone passing No. pct. or less materials (35 Granular sandy loam coarse sand to stratified59 inches 5 inches 2 Soil Layer Information Boundary Classification Saturated hydraulic conductivity micro m/sec Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Soil Reaction (pH) GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY® TC2502198.2s Page A-10 1/2 - 1 Mile NorthCAOG50000014735 1 STATE OIL/GAS WELL INFORMATION LOCATION FROM TPWELL IDMAP ID OTHER STATE DATABASE INFORMATION 1/2 - 1 Mile NNECADW20000005843 25 1/2 - 1 Mile WSW5150 E24 1/2 - 1 Mile WSW5149 E23 1/2 - 1 Mile NNW5144 21 1/2 - 1 Mile NNE5036 20 1/2 - 1 Mile ENECADW20000005800 19 1/2 - 1 Mile NNWCADW20000005838 18 1/2 - 1 Mile SWCADW20000005749 D17 1/2 - 1 Mile ENECADW20000005817 16 1/2 - 1 Mile WNWCADW20000005796 14 1/2 - 1 Mile SW5145 C12 1/2 - 1 Mile SWCADW20000005757 C11 1/4 - 1/2 Mile ENECADW20000005799 A7 1/4 - 1/2 Mile SW5152 B5 1/4 - 1/2 Mile SW5151 B4 1/4 - 1/2 Mile SW5148 B3 1/4 - 1/2 Mile ENECADW20000005793 A2 STATE DATABASE WELL INFORMATION LOCATION FROM TPWELL IDMAP ID Note: PWS System location is not always the same as well location. No PWS System Found FEDERAL FRDS PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM INFORMATION LOCATION FROM TPWELL IDMAP ID 1/2 - 1 Mile SWUSGS3124664 D15 1/2 - 1 Mile SWUSGS3124668 C10 1/2 - 1 Mile ENEUSGS3124681 9 1/4 - 1/2 Mile ENEUSGS3124676 A8 FEDERAL USGS WELL INFORMATION LOCATION FROM TPWELL IDMAP ID 1.000State Database Nearest PWS within 1 mileFederal FRDS PWS 1.000Federal USGS WELL SEARCH DISTANCE INFORMATION SEARCH DISTANCE (miles)DATABASE opinion about the impact of contaminant migration on nearby drinking water wells. professional in assessing sources that may impact ground water flow direction, and in forming an EDR Local/Regional Water Agency records provide water well information to assist the environmental LOCAL / REGIONAL WATER AGENCY RECORDS GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY® TC2502198.2s Page A-11 1/2 - 1 Mile NWCAOG50000014305 3 1/2 - 1 Mile NNECAOG50000014541 2 STATE OIL/GAS WELL INFORMATION LOCATION FROM TPWELL IDMAP ID GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY® EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc. 1 601601 601601601601601601 6 0 160CA TC2502198.2s Page A-12 URANIUM COUNTING ERRORChemical: 1.76 PCI/LFindings:11/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: URANIUM (PCI/L)Chemical: 10.6 PCI/LFindings:11/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: RADIUM 228 COUNTING ERRORChemical: .4 PCI/LFindings:11/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERRORChemical: 1.93 PCI/LFindings:11/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: GROSS ALPHAChemical: 11 PCI/LFindings:11/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: NITRATE + NITRITE (AS N)Chemical: 4200 UG/LFindings:11/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: ANAHEIMArea Served: 57397Connections:292900Pop Served: ANAHEIM, CA 92805 P.O. BOX 3222 (#559) Organization That Operates System: City of AnaheimSystem Name: 3010001System Number: WELL 033Source Name: UndefinedPrecision:334800.0 1175300.0Source Lat/Long: Active UntreatedWell Status:Well/GroundwaterWater Type: WELL/AMBNT/MUN/INTAKE/SUPPLYStation Type:08District Number: OrangeCounty:3010001026FRDS Number: TEEUser ID:04S/10W-25F01 SPrime Station Code: Water System Information: B3 SW 1/4 - 1/2 Mile Lower 5148CA WELLS CADW20000005793Site id: 800100Gwcode: 30Countycode: PWelluseco: 3Districtco: 04S10W24J001SStwellno: 33.8062Latitude: 117.8706Longitude: A2 ENE 1/4 - 1/2 Mile Higher CADW20000005793CA WELLS Date: 07/15/1993 Average Water Depth: Not Reported Deep Water Depth: 84.77 Shallow Water Depth: 81.96 Groundwater Flow: WNW Site ID: 083000236T1 NW 1/4 - 1/2 Mile Higher 54991AQUIFLOW Map IDDirection DistanceElevation EDR ID NumberDatabase GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® TC2502198.2s Page A-13 TURBIDITY, LABORATORYChemical: .3 NTUFindings:09/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: NITRATE (AS NO3)Chemical: 19.7 MG/LFindings:09/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDSChemical: 593 MG/LFindings:09/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: FOAMING AGENTS (MBAS)Chemical: .03 MG/LFindings:09/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: BORONChemical: 160 UG/LFindings:09/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: BARIUMChemical: 124 UG/LFindings:09/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: FLUORIDE (F) (NATURAL-SOURCE)Chemical: .22 MG/LFindings:09/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: CHLORIDEChemical: 98 MG/LFindings:09/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: POTASSIUMChemical: 4 MG/LFindings:09/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: SODIUMChemical: 66.2 MG/LFindings:09/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: MAGNESIUMChemical: 20 MG/LFindings:09/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: CALCIUMChemical: 99.2 MG/LFindings:09/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: HARDNESS (TOTAL) AS CACO3Chemical: 330 MG/LFindings:09/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: BICARBONATE ALKALINITYChemical: 246 MG/LFindings:09/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: ALKALINITY (TOTAL) AS CACO3Chemical: 201 MG/LFindings:09/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: PH, LABORATORYChemical: 7.8Findings:09/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCEChemical: 966 USFindings:09/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: CHROMIUM (TOTAL CR-CRVI SCREEN)Chemical: 1.3 UG/LFindings:09/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: NITRATE (AS NO3)Chemical: 18.73 MG/LFindings:11/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: BORONChemical: 190 UG/LFindings:11/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: POTASSIUMChemical: 4.3 MG/LFindings:11/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: SODIUMChemical: 69.6 MG/LFindings:11/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: MAGNESIUMChemical: 20.6 MG/LFindings:11/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: CALCIUMChemical: 103 MG/LFindings:11/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: HARDNESS (TOTAL) AS CACO3Chemical: 342 MG/LFindings:11/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® TC2502198.2s Page A-14 RADIUM 228 COUNTING ERRORChemical: .4 PCI/LFindings:08/14/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERRORChemical: 1.93 PCI/LFindings:08/14/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: GROSS ALPHAChemical: 11 PCI/LFindings:08/14/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: CHROMIUM (TOTAL CR-CRVI SCREEN)Chemical: 1.4 UG/LFindings:08/14/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: NITRATE + NITRITE (AS N)Chemical: 4200 UG/LFindings:08/14/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: BROMIDEChemical: .24 MG/LFindings:08/14/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: TURBIDITY, LABORATORYChemical: .7 NTUFindings:08/14/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: NITRATE (AS NO3)Chemical: 18.64 MG/LFindings:08/14/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDSChemical: 550 MG/LFindings:08/14/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANEChemical: 6.3 UG/LFindings:08/14/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: BORONChemical: 190 UG/LFindings:08/14/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: BARIUMChemical: 124 UG/LFindings:08/14/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: FLUORIDE (F) (NATURAL-SOURCE)Chemical: .17 MG/LFindings:08/14/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: CHLORIDEChemical: 97.6 MG/LFindings:08/14/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: POTASSIUMChemical: 4.4 MG/LFindings:08/14/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: SODIUMChemical: 72.9 MG/LFindings:08/14/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: MAGNESIUMChemical: 20.5 MG/LFindings:08/14/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: CALCIUMChemical: 110 MG/LFindings:08/14/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: HARDNESS (TOTAL) AS CACO3Chemical: 359 MG/LFindings:08/14/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: BICARBONATE ALKALINITYChemical: 240 MG/LFindings:08/14/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: ALKALINITY (TOTAL) AS CACO3Chemical: 197 MG/LFindings:08/14/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: PH, LABORATORYChemical: 7.8Findings:08/14/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCEChemical: 966 USFindings:08/14/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: NITRATE + NITRITE (AS N)Chemical: 4500 UG/LFindings:09/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: BROMIDEChemical: .25 MG/LFindings:09/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® TC2502198.2s Page A-15 NITRATE (AS NO3)Chemical: 20.49 MG/LFindings:02/11/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANEChemical: 5.3 UG/LFindings:02/11/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: URANIUM COUNTING ERRORChemical: 1.76 PCI/LFindings:02/11/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: URANIUM (PCI/L)Chemical: 10.6 PCI/LFindings:02/11/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: RADIUM 228 COUNTING ERRORChemical: .4 PCI/LFindings:02/11/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERRORChemical: 1.93 PCI/LFindings:02/11/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: GROSS ALPHAChemical: 11 PCI/LFindings:02/11/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: NITRATE + NITRITE (AS N)Chemical: 4600 UG/LFindings:02/11/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: NITRATE (AS NO3)Chemical: 20.9 MG/LFindings:06/17/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANEChemical: 6.8 UG/LFindings:06/17/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: BORONChemical: 210 UG/LFindings:06/17/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: POTASSIUMChemical: 4.5 MG/LFindings:06/17/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: SODIUMChemical: 71.5 MG/LFindings:06/17/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: MAGNESIUMChemical: 20.4 MG/LFindings:06/17/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: CALCIUMChemical: 107 MG/LFindings:06/17/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: HARDNESS (TOTAL) AS CACO3Chemical: 351 MG/LFindings:06/17/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: URANIUM COUNTING ERRORChemical: 1.76 PCI/LFindings:06/17/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: URANIUM (PCI/L)Chemical: 10.6 PCI/LFindings:06/17/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: RADIUM 228 COUNTING ERRORChemical: .4 PCI/LFindings:06/17/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERRORChemical: 1.93 PCI/LFindings:06/17/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: GROSS ALPHAChemical: 11 PCI/LFindings:06/17/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: CHROMIUM (TOTAL CR-CRVI SCREEN)Chemical: 1.3 UG/LFindings:06/17/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: NITRATE + NITRITE (AS N)Chemical: 4700 UG/LFindings:06/17/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: URANIUM COUNTING ERRORChemical: 1.76 PCI/LFindings:08/14/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: URANIUM (PCI/L)Chemical: 10.6 PCI/LFindings:08/14/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® TC2502198.2s Page A-16 A7 ENE 1/4 - 1/2 Mile Lower CADW20000005799CA WELLS Date: 11/21/1994 Average Water Depth: Not Reported Deep Water Depth: 75 Shallow Water Depth: 50 Groundwater Flow: SW Site ID: 083001785T6 West 1/4 - 1/2 Mile Higher 65064AQUIFLOW ORANGEArea Served: 30144Connections:116800Pop Served: ORANGE 92666 P O BOX 449 Organization That Operates System: CITY OF ORANGESystem Name: 3010027System Number: WELL 11 - DESTROYEDSource Name: UndefinedPrecision:334800.0 1175300.0Source Lat/Long: DestroyedWell Status:Well/GroundwaterWater Type: WELL/AMBNT/MUN/INTAKE/SUPPLYStation Type:08District Number: OrangeCounty:3010027011FRDS Number: TEEUser ID:04S/10W-26J02 SPrime Station Code: Water System Information: B5 SW 1/4 - 1/2 Mile Lower 5152CA WELLS ORANGEArea Served: 30144Connections:116800Pop Served: ORANGE 92666 P O BOX 449 Organization That Operates System: CITY OF ORANGESystem Name: 3010027System Number: WELL 12 - DESTROYEDSource Name: UndefinedPrecision:334800.0 1175300.0Source Lat/Long: DestroyedWell Status:Well/GroundwaterWater Type: WELL/AMBNT/MUN/INTAKE/SUPPLYStation Type:08District Number: OrangeCounty:3010027012FRDS Number: TEEUser ID:04S/10W-26J01 SPrime Station Code: Water System Information: B4 SW 1/4 - 1/2 Mile Lower 5151CA WELLS Map IDDirection DistanceElevation EDR ID NumberDatabase GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® TC2502198.2s Page A-17 9 ENE 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher USGS3124681FED USGS 1956 179 Date Feet below Surface Feet to Sealevel ------------------------------------------------- Ground-water levels, Number of Measurements: 1 1Ground water data count: 1956-00-00Ground water data end date:Ground water data begin date: 1956-00-00 1Water quality data count:2000-11-06Water quality data end date: 2000-11-06Water quality data begin date:0Peak flow data count: 0000-00-00Peak flow data end date:0000-00-00Peak flow data begin date: 0Daily flow data count:0000-00-00Daily flow data end date: 0000-00-00Daily flow data begin date:0Real time data flag: 470657500Project number: logsSource of depth data: 870Hole depth:870Well depth: Not ReportedAquifer: Not ReportedAquifer Type: Single well, other than collector or Ranney typeType of ground water site: YLocal standard time flag: PSTMean greenwich time offset:20001106Date inventoried: 19560517Date construction:Ground-water other than SpringSite type: Flat surfaceTopographic: Not ReportedHydrologic: National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929Altitude datum: 5Altitude accuracy: Interpolated from topographic mapAltitude method: 170Altitude: 24000Map scale:ORANGELocation map: Not ReportedLand net:USCountry: 059County:06State: 06District:NAD83Dec latlong datum: NAD83Latlong datum:5Coor accr: GCoor meth:-117.87058333Dec lon: 33.80622222Dec lat:1175214.1Longitude: 334822.4Latitude: 004S010W24J001SSite name: 334822117521401Site no:USGSAgency cd: A8 ENE 1/4 - 1/2 Mile Higher USGS3124676FED USGS CADW20000005799Site id: 800100Gwcode: 30Countycode: PWelluseco: 3Districtco: 04S10W24J002SStwellno: 33.8072Latitude: 117.8704Longitude: GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® TC2502198.2s Page A-18 PSTMean greenwich time offset:20000712Date inventoried: Not ReportedDate construction:Ground-water other than SpringSite type: Stream channelTopographic: Not ReportedHydrologic: National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929Altitude datum: 2.5Altitude accuracy: Interpolated from topographic mapAltitude method: 147Altitude: 24000Map scale:ANAHEIMLocation map: Not ReportedLand net:USCountry: 059County:06State: 06District:NAD83Dec latlong datum: NAD27Latlong datum:SCoor accr: MCoor meth:-117.88394639Dec lon: 33.79807183Dec lat:1175259Longitude: 334753Latitude: 004S010W25F001SSite name: 334753117525901Site no:USGSAgency cd: C10 SW 1/2 - 1 Mile Lower USGS3124668FED USGS 1962 110 Date Feet below Surface Feet to Sealevel ------------------------------------------------- Ground-water levels, Number of Measurements: 1 1Ground water data count: 1962-00-00Ground water data end date:Ground water data begin date: 1962-00-00 1Water quality data count:2000-11-06Water quality data end date: 2000-11-06Water quality data begin date:0Peak flow data count: 0000-00-00Peak flow data end date:0000-00-00Peak flow data begin date: 0Daily flow data count:0000-00-00Daily flow data end date: 0000-00-00Daily flow data begin date:0Real time data flag: 470657500Project number: logsSource of depth data: 910Hole depth:910Well depth: Not ReportedAquifer: Not ReportedAquifer Type: Single well, other than collector or Ranney typeType of ground water site: YLocal standard time flag: PSTMean greenwich time offset:20001106Date inventoried: 1962Date construction:Ground-water other than SpringSite type: Flat surfaceTopographic: Not ReportedHydrologic: National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929Altitude datum: 5Altitude accuracy: Interpolated from topographic mapAltitude method: 170Altitude: 24000Map scale:ORANGELocation map: Not ReportedLand net:USCountry: 059County:06State: 06District:NAD83Dec latlong datum: NAD83Latlong datum:5Coor accr: GCoor meth:-117.87041667Dec lon: 33.80719444Dec lat:1175213.5Longitude: 334825.9Latitude: 004S010W24J002SSite name: 334826117521401Site no:USGSAgency cd: GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® TC2502198.2s Page A-19 Not ReportedArea Served: Unknown, Small SystemConnections:Unknown, Small SystemPop Served: Not Reported Organization That Operates System: ANACO RANCHSystem Name: 3000849System Number: WELL 01 - DESTROYEDSource Name: 1,000 Feet (10 Seconds)Precision:334750.0 1175300.0Source Lat/Long: DestroyedWell Status:Well/GroundwaterWater Type: WELL/AMBNT/MUN/INTAKEStation Type:08District Number: OrangeCounty:3000849001FRDS Number: TEEUser ID:04S/10W-24F01 SPrime Station Code: Water System Information: C12 SW 1/2 - 1 Mile Lower 5145CA WELLS CADW20000005757Site id: 800100Gwcode: 30Countycode: PWelluseco: 3Districtco: 04S10W25F001SStwellno: 33.7981Latitude: 117.884Longitude: C11 SW 1/2 - 1 Mile Lower CADW20000005757CA WELLS 1999-04-20 85 Date Feet below Surface Feet to Sealevel ------------------------------------------------- Ground-water levels, Number of Measurements: 1 1Ground water data count: 1999-04-20Ground water data end date:Ground water data begin date: 1999-04-20 1Water quality data count:2000-09-18Water quality data end date: 2000-09-18Water quality data begin date:0Peak flow data count: 0000-00-00Peak flow data end date:0000-00-00Peak flow data begin date: 0Daily flow data count:0000-00-00Daily flow data end date: 0000-00-00Daily flow data begin date:0Real time data flag: 470652400Project number: other reportedSource of depth data: 478Hole depth:447Well depth: Not ReportedAquifer: Not ReportedAquifer Type: Single well, other than collector or Ranney typeType of ground water site: YLocal standard time flag: GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® TC2502198.2s Page A-20 0000-00-00Peak flow data end date:0000-00-00Peak flow data begin date: 0Daily flow data count:0000-00-00Daily flow data end date: 0000-00-00Daily flow data begin date:0Real time data flag: 479300200Project number: Not ReportedSource of depth data: 341Hole depth:338Well depth: Not ReportedAquifer: Not ReportedAquifer Type: Single well, other than collector or Ranney typeType of ground water site: YLocal standard time flag: PSTMean greenwich time offset:Not ReportedDate inventoried: 19290427Date construction:Ground-water other than SpringSite type: Not ReportedTopographic: Seal Beach. California. Area = 90 sq.mi.Hydrologic: National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929Altitude datum: 2.5Altitude accuracy: Interpolated from topographic mapAltitude method: 144.50Altitude: 24000Map scale:ANAHEIMLocation map: SWNWS25T04SR10WSLand net:USCountry: 059County:06State: 06District:NAD83Dec latlong datum: NAD27Latlong datum:SCoor accr: MCoor meth:-117.88839094Dec lon: 33.7961274Dec lat:1175315Longitude: 334746Latitude: 004S010W25E001SSite name: 334746117531501Site no:USGSAgency cd: D15 SW 1/2 - 1 Mile Lower USGS3124664FED USGS CADW20000005796Site id: 800100Gwcode: 30Countycode: ZWelluseco: 3Districtco: 04S10W23R001SStwellno: 33.8069Latitude: 117.8886Longitude: 14 WNW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher CADW20000005796CA WELLS Date: 10/19/1994 Average Water Depth: 120 Deep Water Depth: Not Reported Shallow Water Depth: Not Reported Groundwater Flow: Not Reported Site ID: 083001205T13 West 1/2 - 1 Mile Lower 34025AQUIFLOW Map IDDirection DistanceElevation EDR ID NumberDatabase GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® TC2502198.2s Page A-21 CADW20000005749Site id: 800100Gwcode: 30Countycode: ZWelluseco: 3Districtco: 04S10W25E001SStwellno: 33.7961Latitude: 117.8884Longitude: D17 SW 1/2 - 1 Mile Lower CADW20000005749CA WELLS CADW20000005817Site id: 800100Gwcode: 30Countycode: ZWelluseco: 3Districtco: 04S09W19M001SStwellno: 33.8098Latitude: 117.8656Longitude: 16 ENE 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher CADW20000005817CA WELLS 1972-10-10 115.60 1972-10-03 114.00 1972-10-24 114.40 1972-10-17 114.60 1973-01-05 115.80 1972-10-31 114.90 1973-05-10 115.00 1973-03-05 114.50 1973-09-12 136.00 1973-07-06 123.80 1974-01-24 115.30 1973-11-02 120.30 1974-04-21 116.40 1974-03-19 114.50 1974-08-30 113.60 1974-07-03 114.00 1975-01-02 116.60 1974-10-22 115.40 1975-04-30 121.50 1975-03-19 117.90 1975-11-06 126.50 1975-07-02 132.00 1976-05-04 121.20 1976-03-08 123.00 1976-12-28 122.70 1976-10-29 126.80 1978-09-26 104.58 1977-10-28 132.50 1979-02-07 99.55 1978-11-03 103.05 1979-08-06 98.73 1979-05-02 93.80 1980-02-14 97.67 1979-11-14 100.42 1981-05-07 78.66 1980-06-11 80.08 Note: The measurement was discontinued. 1982-05-17 Date Feet below Surface Feet to Sealevel ------------------------------------------------- Date Feet below Surface Feet to Sealevel ------------------------------------------------- Ground-water levels, Number of Measurements: 37 37Ground water data count: 1982-05-17Ground water data end date:Ground water data begin date: 1972-10-03 0Water quality data count:0000-00-00Water quality data end date: 0000-00-00Water quality data begin date:0Peak flow data count: GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® TC2502198.2s Page A-22 21 NNW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher 5144CA WELLS Not ReportedArea Served: 1Connections:12Pop Served: Orange, CA 92665 1730 N. Main St. Organization That Operates System: Transit Mixed Concrete CompanySystem Name: 3000910System Number: WELL 01 TAFT AVE WELLSource Name: 1,000 Feet (10 Seconds)Precision:334855.0 1175205.0Source Lat/Long: Active UntreatedWell Status:Well/GroundwaterWater Type: WELL/AMBNT/MUN/INTAKEStation Type:08District Number: OrangeCounty:3000910001FRDS Number: TEEUser ID:04S/09W-19D05 SPrime Station Code: Water System Information: 20 NNE 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher 5036CA WELLS CADW20000005800Site id: 800100Gwcode: 30Countycode: PWelluseco: 3Districtco: 04S09W19K001SStwellno: 33.8072Latitude: 117.8613Longitude: 19 ENE 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher CADW20000005800CA WELLS CADW20000005838Site id: 800100Gwcode: 30Countycode: ZWelluseco: 3Districtco: 04S10W24D004SStwellno: 33.815Latitude: 117.8849Longitude: 18 NNW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher CADW20000005838CA WELLS Map IDDirection DistanceElevation EDR ID NumberDatabase GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® TC2502198.2s Page A-23 URANIUM COUNTING ERRORChemical: 1.72 PCI/LFindings:11/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: URANIUM (PCI/L)Chemical: 10.3 PCI/LFindings:11/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: RADIUM 228 COUNTING ERRORChemical: .4 PCI/LFindings:11/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERRORChemical: 1.83 PCI/LFindings:11/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: GROSS ALPHAChemical: 9.75 PCI/LFindings:11/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: NITRATE + NITRITE (AS N)Chemical: 4500 UG/LFindings:11/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: NITRATE (AS NO3)Chemical: 19.83 MG/LFindings:11/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: VANADIUMChemical: 3.2 UG/LFindings:11/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: BORONChemical: 150 UG/LFindings:11/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: POTASSIUMChemical: 4.5 MG/LFindings:11/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: SODIUMChemical: 69.3 MG/LFindings:11/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: NITRATE + NITRITE (AS N)Chemical: 4400 UG/LFindings:03/24/2003 00:00:00Sample Collected: NITRATE (AS NO3)Chemical: 19.39 MG/LFindings:03/24/2003 00:00:00Sample Collected: NITRATE (AS NO3)Chemical: 20.74 MG/LFindings:05/05/2003 00:00:00Sample Collected: NITRATE + NITRITE (AS N)Chemical: 4700 UG/LFindings:05/05/2003 00:00:00Sample Collected: NITRATE + NITRITE (AS N)Chemical: 4700 UG/LFindings:06/09/2003 00:00:00Sample Collected: NITRATE (AS NO3)Chemical: 20.921 MG/LFindings:06/09/2003 00:00:00Sample Collected: NITRATE (AS NO3)Chemical: 21.82 MG/LFindings:07/23/2003 00:00:00Sample Collected: NITRATE + NITRITE (AS N)Chemical: 4900 UG/LFindings:07/23/2003 00:00:00Sample Collected: ANAHEIMArea Served: 57397Connections:292900Pop Served: ANAHEIM, CA 92805 P.O. BOX 3222 (#559) Organization That Operates System: City of AnaheimSystem Name: 3010001System Number: WELL 019Source Name: UndefinedPrecision:334900.0 1175300.0Source Lat/Long: Active UntreatedWell Status:Well/GroundwaterWater Type: WELL/AMBNT/MUN/INTAKE/SUPPLYStation Type:08District Number: OrangeCounty:3010001013FRDS Number: TEEUser ID:04S/10W-23B02 SPrime Station Code: Water System Information: GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® TC2502198.2s Page A-24 FLUORIDE (F) (NATURAL-SOURCE)Chemical: .2 MG/LFindings:08/12/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: CHLORIDEChemical: 94.3 MG/LFindings:08/12/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: POTASSIUMChemical: 3.7 MG/LFindings:08/12/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: SODIUMChemical: 61.2 MG/LFindings:08/12/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: MAGNESIUMChemical: 20 MG/LFindings:08/12/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: CALCIUMChemical: 122 MG/LFindings:08/12/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: HARDNESS (TOTAL) AS CACO3Chemical: 387 MG/LFindings:08/12/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: BICARBONATE ALKALINITYChemical: 239 MG/LFindings:08/12/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: ALKALINITY (TOTAL) AS CACO3Chemical: 196 MG/LFindings:08/12/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: PH, LABORATORYChemical: 8.1Findings:08/12/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCEChemical: 966 USFindings:08/12/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: VANADIUMChemical: 3.5 UG/LFindings:08/12/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: BORONChemical: 150 UG/LFindings:08/12/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: NITRATE (AS NO3)Chemical: 19.65 MG/LFindings:08/12/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDSChemical: 590 MG/LFindings:08/12/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: URANIUM COUNTING ERRORChemical: 1.72 PCI/LFindings:08/12/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: URANIUM (PCI/L)Chemical: 10.3 PCI/LFindings:08/12/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: RADIUM 228 COUNTING ERRORChemical: .4 PCI/LFindings:08/12/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERRORChemical: 1.83 PCI/LFindings:08/12/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: GROSS ALPHAChemical: 9.75 PCI/LFindings:08/12/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: NITRATE + NITRITE (AS N)Chemical: 4400 UG/LFindings:08/12/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: BROMIDEChemical: .23 MG/LFindings:08/12/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: MAGNESIUMChemical: 21.7 MG/LFindings:11/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: CALCIUMChemical: 103 MG/LFindings:11/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: HARDNESS (TOTAL) AS CACO3Chemical: 347 MG/LFindings:11/26/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® TC2502198.2s Page A-25 NITRATE (AS NO3)Chemical: 22.8 MG/LFindings:02/07/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: URANIUM COUNTING ERRORChemical: 1.72 PCI/LFindings:02/07/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: URANIUM (PCI/L)Chemical: 10.3 PCI/LFindings:02/07/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: RADIUM 228 COUNTING ERRORChemical: .4 PCI/LFindings:02/07/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERRORChemical: 1.83 PCI/LFindings:02/07/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: GROSS ALPHAChemical: 9.75 PCI/LFindings:02/07/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: NITRATE + NITRITE (AS N)Chemical: 5100 UG/LFindings:02/07/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: VANADIUMChemical: 3.3 UG/LFindings:06/17/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: BORONChemical: 150 UG/LFindings:06/17/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: POTASSIUMChemical: 4.3 MG/LFindings:06/17/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: SODIUMChemical: 65.1 MG/LFindings:06/17/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: MAGNESIUMChemical: 19.6 MG/LFindings:06/17/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: CALCIUMChemical: 99.6 MG/LFindings:06/17/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: HARDNESS (TOTAL) AS CACO3Chemical: 329 MG/LFindings:06/17/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: URANIUM COUNTING ERRORChemical: 1.72 PCI/LFindings:06/17/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: URANIUM (PCI/L)Chemical: 10.3 PCI/LFindings:06/17/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: RADIUM 228 COUNTING ERRORChemical: .4 PCI/LFindings:06/17/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERRORChemical: 1.83 PCI/LFindings:06/17/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: GROSS ALPHAChemical: 9.75 PCI/LFindings:06/17/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: NITRATE + NITRITE (AS N)Chemical: 4900 UG/LFindings:06/17/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: NITRATE (AS NO3)Chemical: 21.75 MG/LFindings:06/17/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: BARIUMChemical: 102 UG/LFindings:08/12/2002 00:00:00Sample Collected: GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® TC2502198.2s Page A-26 25 NNE 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher CADW20000005843CA WELLS Not ReportedArea Served: Unknown, Small SystemConnections:Unknown, Small SystemPop Served: Not Reported Organization That Operates System: KEESEE TANK&PUMP COSystem Name: 3000817System Number: WELL 01 - DESTROYEDSource Name: 1,000 Feet (10 Seconds)Precision:334800.0 1175338.0Source Lat/Long: DestroyedWell Status:Well/GroundwaterWater Type: WELL/AMBNT/MUN/INTAKEStation Type:08District Number: OrangeCounty:3000817001FRDS Number: TEEUser ID:04S/10W-26C06 SPrime Station Code: Water System Information: E24 WSW 1/2 - 1 Mile Lower 5150CA WELLS Not ReportedArea Served: Unknown, Small SystemConnections:Unknown, Small SystemPop Served: Not Reported Organization That Operates System: TV MOTEL APARTMENTSSystem Name: 3000520System Number: WELL 01 - DESTROYEDSource Name: 1,000 Feet (10 Seconds)Precision:334759.0 1175337.0Source Lat/Long: DestroyedWell Status:Well/GroundwaterWater Type: WELL/AMBNT/MUN/INTAKEStation Type:08District Number: OrangeCounty:3000520001FRDS Number: TEEUser ID:04S/10W-26C05 SPrime Station Code: Water System Information: E23 WSW 1/2 - 1 Mile Lower 5149CA WELLS Date: 02/23/1999 Average Water Depth: Not Reported Deep Water Depth: 82 Shallow Water Depth: 76 Groundwater Flow: SW Site ID: 083001452T22 NW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher 49807AQUIFLOW Map IDDirection DistanceElevation EDR ID NumberDatabase GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® TC2502198.2s Page A-27 CADW20000005843Site id: 800100Gwcode: 30Countycode: UWelluseco: 3Districtco: 04S09W19D005SStwellno: 33.8164Latitude: 117.869Longitude: GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® TC2502198.2s Page A-28 10WRge:4STwn: 23Sec: 4455Td: -117.890504Longitude: 33.811941Latitude: hudSource: 006Status cod:W1-6Map: Not ReportedCagasoil m2 area:ORANGE COUNTYField: 1Well no:ThomasLease: Lindley C. MortonOperator:05901072Apinumber: 3 NW 1/2 - 1 Mile CAOG50000014305OIL_GAS CAOG50000014541Site id:1District: Not ReportedComments:12/30/1899 00:00:00Abanddate: 12/12/1968 00:00:00Spuddate:Not ReportedZone: 0Y coord: 0X coord: SBBm: 9WRge:4STwn: 19Sec: 4509Td: -117.870004Longitude: 33.813708Latitude: hudSource: 006Status cod:W1-6Map: Not ReportedCagasoil m2 area:ORANGE COUNTYField: 1Well no:Oliver-OrangeLease: Chevron U.S.A. Inc.Operator:05901262Apinumber: 2 NNE 1/2 - 1 Mile CAOG50000014541OIL_GAS CAOG50000014735Site id:1District: Not ReportedComments:12/30/1899 00:00:00Abanddate: 12/12/1968 00:00:00Spuddate:Not ReportedZone: 0Y coord: 0X coord: SBBm: 10WRge:4STwn: 24Sec: 4518Td: -117.875575Longitude: 33.815121Latitude: hudSource: 006Status cod:W1-6Map: Not ReportedCagasoil m2 area:ORANGE COUNTYField: 1Well no:FluorLease: British-American Oil Producing Co.Operator:05900880Apinumber: 1 North 1/2 - 1 Mile CAOG50000014735OIL_GAS Map IDDirectionDistance EDR ID NumberDatabase GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® TC2502198.2s Page A-29 CAOG50000014305Site id:1District: Not ReportedComments:12/30/1899 00:00:00Abanddate: 12/12/1968 00:00:00Spuddate:Not ReportedZone: 0Y coord: 0X coord: SBBm: GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® TC2502198.2s Page A-30 Not ReportedNot ReportedNot ReportedNot ReportedBasement Not ReportedNot ReportedNot ReportedNot ReportedLiving Area - 2nd Floor 0%0%100%1.000 pCi/LLiving Area - 1st Floor % >20 pCi/L% 4-20 pCi/L% <4 pCi/LAverage ActivityArea Number of sites tested: 1 Federal Area Radon Information for Zip Code: 92806 : Zone 3 indoor average level < 2 pCi/L. : Zone 2 indoor average level >= 2 pCi/L and <= 4 pCi/L. Note: Zone 1 indoor average level > 4 pCi/L. Federal EPA Radon Zone for ORANGE County: 3 0.000392806 _________________________________ Pct. > 4 Pci/L> 4 Pci/LTotal SitesZip Radon Test Results State Database: CA Radon AREA RADON INFORMATION GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS RADON ® TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION USGS 7.5’ Digital Elevation Model (DEM) Source: United States Geologic Survey EDR acquired the USGS 7.5’ Digital Elevation Model in 2002 and updated it in 2006. The 7.5 minute DEM corresponds to the USGS 1:24,000- and 1:25,000-scale topographic quadrangle maps. The DEM provides elevation data with consistent elevation units and projection. Scanned Digital USGS 7.5’ Topographic Map (DRG) Source: United States Geologic Survey A digital raster graphic (DRG) is a scanned image of a U.S. Geological Survey topographic map. The map images are made by scanning published paper maps on high-resolution scanners. The raster image is georeferenced and fit to the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) projection. HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION Flood Zone Data: This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 1999 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Data depicts 100-year and 500-year flood zones as defined by FEMA. NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 2002 and 2005 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION AQUIFLOW Information SystemR Source: EDR proprietary database of groundwater flow information EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System (AIS) to provide data on the general direction of groundwater flow at specific points. EDR has reviewed reports submitted to regulatory authorities at select sites and has extracted the date of the report, hydrogeologically determined groundwater flow direction and depth to water table information. GEOLOGIC INFORMATION Geologic Age and Rock Stratigraphic Unit Source: P.G. Schruben, R.E. Arndt and W.J. Bawiec, Geology of the Conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 Scale - A digital representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS - 11 (1994). STATSGO: State Soil Geographic Database Source: Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Services The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) leads the national Conservation Soil Survey (NCSS) and is responsible for collecting, storing, maintaining and distributing soil survey information for privately owned lands in the United States. A soil map in a soil survey is a representation of soil patterns in a landscape. Soil maps for STATSGO are compiled by generalizing more detailed (SSURGO) soil survey maps. SSURGO: Soil Survey Geographic Database Source: Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) Telephone: 800-672-5559 SSURGO is the most detailed level of mapping done by the Natural Resources Conservation Services, mapping scales generally range from 1:12,000 to 1:63,360. Field mapping methods using national standards are used to construct the soil maps in the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database. SSURGO digitizing duplicates the original soil survey maps. This level of mapping is designed for use by landowners, townships and county natural resource planning and management. TC2502198.2s Page A-31 PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED LOCAL / REGIONAL WATER AGENCY RECORDS FEDERAL WATER WELLS PWS: Public Water Systems Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water Telephone: 202-564-3750 Public Water System data from the Federal Reporting Data System. A PWS is any water system which provides water to at least 25 people for at least 60 days annually. PWSs provide water from wells, rivers and other sources. PWS ENF: Public Water Systems Violation and Enforcement Data Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water Telephone: 202-564-3750 Violation and Enforcement data for Public Water Systems from the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) after August 1995. Prior to August 1995, the data came from the Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS). USGS Water Wells: USGS National Water Inventory System (NWIS) This database contains descriptive information on sites where the USGS collects or has collected data on surface water and/or groundwater. The groundwater data includes information on wells, springs, and other sources of groundwater. STATE RECORDS Water Well Database Source: Department of Water Resources Telephone: 916-651-9648 California Drinking Water Quality Database Source: Department of Health Services Telephone: 916-324-2319 The database includes all drinking water compliance and special studies monitoring for the state of California since 1984. It consists of over 3,200,000 individual analyses along with well and water system information. OTHER STATE DATABASE INFORMATION California Oil and Gas Well Locations Source: Department of Conservation Telephone: 916-323-1779 RADON State Database: CA Radon Source: Department of Health Services Telephone: 916-324-2208 Radon Database for California Area Radon Information Source: USGS Telephone: 703-356-4020 The National Radon Database has been developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and is a compilation of the EPA/State Residential Radon Survey and the National Residential Radon Survey. The study covers the years 1986 - 1992. Where necessary data has been supplemented by information collected at private sources such as universities and research institutions. EPA Radon Zones Source: EPA Telephone: 703-356-4020 Sections 307 & 309 of IRAA directed EPA to list and identify areas of U.S. with the potential for elevated indoor radon levels. TC2502198.2s Page A-32 PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED OTHER Airport Landing Facilities: Private and public use landing facilities Source: Federal Aviation Administration, 800-457-6656 Epicenters: World earthquake epicenters, Richter 5 or greater Source: Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration California Earthquake Fault Lines: The fault lines displayed on EDR’s Topographic map are digitized quaternary fault lines, prepared in 1975 by the United State Geological Survey. Additional information (also from 1975) regarding activity at specific fault lines comes from California’s Preliminary Fault Activity Map prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology. STREET AND ADDRESS INFORMATION © 2009 Tele Atlas North America, Inc. All rights reserved. This material is proprietary and the subject of copyright protection and other intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to Tele Atlas North America, Inc. The use of this material is subject to the terms of a license agreement. You will be held liable for any unauthorized copying or disclosure of this material. TC2502198.2s Page A-33 PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED DRAFT APPENDIX C INTERVIEW AND REGULATORY AGENCY DOCUMENTATION DRAFT APPENDIX D HISTORICAL RESEARCH DOCUMENTATION The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package 1750 S Douglass Road 1750 S Douglass Road Anaheim, CA 92806 Inquiry Number: 2502198.5 May 26, 2009 EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) Aerial Photo Decade Package is a screening tool designed to assist environmental professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDRs professional researchers provide digitally reproduced historical aerial photographs, and when available, provide one photo per decade. When delivered electronically by EDR, the aerial photo images included with this report are for ONE TIME USE ONLY. Further reproduction of these aerial photo images is prohibited without permission from EDR. For more information contact your EDR Account Executive. Thank you for your business. Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050 with any questions or comments. Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report AS IS. Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice. Copyright 2009 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission. EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. Date EDR Searched Historical Sources: Aerial Photography May 26, 2009 Target Property: 1750 S Douglass Road Anaheim, CA 92806 Year Scale Details Source 1938 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=555'Flight Year: 1938 Laval 1947 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=666'Flight Year: 1947 Fairchild 1952 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=555'Flight Year: 1952 Pacific Air 1968 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=480'Flight Year: 1968 Teledyne 1976 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=666'Flight Year: 1976 Teledyne 1990 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=666'Flight Year: 1990 USGS 1995 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=666'Flight Year: 1995 USGS 2002 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=666'Flight Year: 2002 USGS 2005 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=484'Flight Year: 2005 EDR 2502198.5 2 INQUIRY #: YEAR: 2502198.5 1938 = 555' INQUIRY #: YEAR: 2502198.5 1947 = 666' INQUIRY #: YEAR: 2502198.5 1952 = 555' INQUIRY #: YEAR: 2502198.5 1968 = 480' INQUIRY #: YEAR: 2502198.5 1976 = 666' INQUIRY #: YEAR: 2502198.5 1990 = 666' INQUIRY #: YEAR: 2502198.5 1995 = 666' INQUIRY #: YEAR: 2502198.5 2002 = 666' INQUIRY #: YEAR: 2502198.5 2005 = 484' Certified Sanborn® Map Report 1750 S Douglass Road 1750 S Douglass Road Anaheim, CA 92806 Inquiry Number: 2502198.3 May 26, 2009 Certified Sanborn® Map Report 5/26/09 Site Name: 1750 S Douglass Road 1750 S Douglass Road Anaheim, CA 92806 Client Name: Kleinfelder, Inc. 620 West 16th Street Long Beach, CA 90813 EDR Inquiry #2502198.3 Contact:Margaret Carroll The complete Sanborn Library collection has been searched by EDR, and fire insurance maps covering the target property location provided by Kleinfelder, Inc. were identified for the years listed below. The certified Sanborn Library search results in this report can be authenticated by visiting www.edrnet.com/sanborn and entering the certification number. Only Environmental Data Resources Inc. (EDR) is authorized to grant rights for commercial reproduction of maps by Sanborn Library LLC, the copyright holder for the collection. Certified Sanborn Results: Site Name:1750 S Douglass Road Address:1750 S Douglass Road City, State, Zip:Anaheim, CA 92806 Cross Street: P.O. #103567/ENV Project:NA Certification #EC04-495B-8D2A Library of Congress University Publications of America EDR Private Collection The Sanborn Library includes more than 1.2 million Sanborn fire insurance maps, which track historical property usage in approximately 12,000 American cities and towns. Collections searched: Sanborn® Library search results Certification # EC04-495B-8D2A UNMAPPED PROPERTY This report certifies that the complete holdings of the Sanborn Library, LLC collection have been searched based on client supplied target property information, and fire insurance maps covering the target property were not found. Limited Permission To Make Copies Kleinfelder, Inc. (the client) is permitted to make up to THREE photocopies of this Sanborn Map transmittal and each fire insurance map accompanying this report solely for the limited use of its customer. No one other than the client is authorized to make copies. Upon request made directly to an EDR Account Executive, the client may be permitted to make a limited number of additional photocopies. This permission is conditioned upon compliance by the client, its customer and their agents with EDR's copyright policy; a copy of which is available upon request. Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark notice This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice. Copyright 2009 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission. EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. 2502198 - 3 page 2 1750 S Douglass Road 1750 S Douglass Road Anaheim, CA 92806 Inquiry Number: 2502198.6 May 26, 2009 The EDR-City Directory Abstract 440 Wheelers Farms Road Milford, CT 06461 800.352.0050 www.edrnet.comEnvironmental Data Resources IncEnvironmental Data Resources IncEnvironmental Data Resources IncEnvironmental Data Resources Inc TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION Executive Summary Findings Thank you for your business. Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050 with any questions or comments. Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction orforecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice. Copyright 2008 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates is prohibited without prior written permission. EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. 2009 Enhancements to EDR City Directory Abstract New for 2009, the EDR City Directory Abstract has been enhanced with additional information and features. These enhancements will make your city directory research process more efficient, flexible, and insightful than ever before. The enhancements will improve the options for selecting adjoining properties, and will speed up your review of the report. City Directory Report. Three important enhancements have been made to the EDR City Directory Abstract: 1. Executive Summary. The report begins with an Executive Summary that lists the sources consulted in the preparation of the report. Where available, a parcel map is also provided within the report, showing the locations of properties researched. 2. Page Images. Where available, the actual page source images will be included in the Appendix, so that you can review them for information that may provide additional insight. EDR has copyright permission to include these images. 3. Findings Listed by Location. Another useful enhancement is that findings are now grouped by address. This will significantly reduce the time you need to review your abstracts. Findings are provided under each property address, listed in reverse chronological order and referencing the source for each entry. Options for Selecting Adjoining Properties. Ensuring that the right adjoining property addresses are searched is one of the biggest challenges that environmental professionals face when conducting city directory historical research. EDR's new enhancements make it easier for you to meet this challenge. Now, when you place an order for the EDR City Directory Abstract, you have the following choices for determining which addresses should be researched. 1. You Select Addresses and EDR Selects Addresses. Use the "Add Another Address" feature to specify the addresses you want researched. Your selections will be supplemented by addresses selected by EDR researchers using our established research methods. Where available, a digital map will be shown, indicating property lines overlaid on a color aerial photo and their corresponding addresses. Simply use the address list below the map to check off which properties shown on the map you want to include. You may also select other addresses using the "Add Another Address" feature at the bottom of the list. 2. EDR Selects Addresses. Choose this method if you want EDR's researchers to select the addresses to be researched for you, using our established research methods. 3. You Select Addresses. Use this method for research based solely on the addresses you select or enter into the system. 4. Hold City Directory Research Option. If you choose to select your own adjoining addresses, you may pause production of your EDR City Directory Abstract report until you have had a chance to look at your other EDR reports and sources. Sources for property addresses include: your Certified Sanborn Map Report may show you the location of property addresses; the new EDR Property Tax Map Report may show the location of property addresses; and your field research can supplement these sources with additional address information. To use this capability, simply click "Hold City Directory research" box under "Other Options" at the bottom of the page. Once you have determined what addresses you want researched, go to your EDR Order Status page, select the EDR City Directory Abstract, and enter the addresses and submit for production. Questions? Contact your EDR representative at 800-352-0050. For more information about all of EDR's 2009 report and service enhancements, visit www.edrnet.com/2009enhancements EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DESCRIPTION Environmental Data Resources, Inc.’s (EDR) City Directory Abstract is a screening tool designed to assist environmental professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDR’s City Directory Abstract includes a search and abstract of available city directory data. For each address, the directory lists the name of the corresponding occupant at five year intervals. Business directories including city, cross reference and telephone directories were reviewed, if available, at approximately five year intervals for the years spanning 1920 through 2002. This report compiles information gathered in this review by geocoding the latitude and longitude of properties identified and gathering information about properties within 660 feet of the target property. A summary of the information obtained is provided in the text of this report. RESEARCH SUMMARY The following research sources were consulted in the preparation of this report. An "X" indicates where information was identified in the source and provided in this report. Source TPYear Adjoining Text Abstract Source Image 2002 Haines Company ---- 2001 Pacific Telephone ---- 1997 Pacific Bell ---- 1995 Pacific Bell -X X - 1992 Pacific Bell ---- 1991 Pacific Bell -X X - 1986 Pacific Bell -X X - 1980 Pacific Telephone -X X - 1975 Luskey Brothers & Co., Inc.-X X - 1970 General Telephone Co., of California ---- 1966 Pacific Telephone ---- 1965 Pacific Telephone ---- 1961 Luskey Brothers & Co.,---- 1960 Luskey Brothers Co.,---- 1956 The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Co.---- 1955 The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Co.---- 1952 Luskeys Directory Service Co.---- 1950 The Directorys Service Co.---- 1946 Southern California Telephone Co.---- 1945 Southern California Telephone Co.---- 1941 Southern California Telephone Co.---- 1936 Price Lee Co.---- 1930 Western Directory Co.---- 1926 Pacific Telephone ---- 1925 Western Directory Co.---- 1922 Kaasen Directory Co.---- 2502198 -6 Page 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Source TPYear Adjoining Text Abstract Source Image 1921 Western Directory Co.---- 1920 Santa Ana Directory Co.---- 2502198 -6 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MAP INFORMATION The Overview Map provides information on nearby property parcel boundaries. Properties on this map that were selected for research are listed below the map. SELECTED ADDRESSES The following addresses were selected by the client. Detailed findings are contained in the findings section. An "X" indicates where information was identified. Address Type Findings 1750 S Douglass Road Map ID: 1 2600 E KATELLA AVE Map ID: 3 1790 S Douglass Rd Client Entered 2150 E Katella Avenue Client Entered 1730 S Douglass Rd Client Entered 2608 E Katella Ave Client Entered 2610 E Katella Ave Client Entered 2502198 -6 Page 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Address Type Findings 2614 E Katella Ave Client Entered 2618 E Katella Ave Client Entered 2620 E Katella Ave Client Entered 2502198 -6 Page 4 FINDINGS TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION ADDRESS 1750 S Douglass Road 1 Anaheim, CA 92806 FINDINGS DETAIL Target Property research detail. No Addresses Found 2502198 -6 Page 5 FINDINGS ADJOINING PROPERTY DETAIL The following Adjoining Property addresses were researched for this report. Detailed findings are provided for each address. E KATELLA AVE 2560 E KATELLA AVE Year Uses Source 1995 LALifestyle Pacific Bell Caro & Company Pacific Bell Hands On Massage & Stress Therapy Pacific Bell Fisher Of London Hair Styles Pacific Bell Gallery Travel Pacific Bell LA Fitness Sports Clubs Pacific Bell Ripe Plum Pacific Bell Anaheim East Pacific Bell 1991 Ripe Plum Pacific Bell Body By Me & Z Personal Training Pacific Bell Hands On Massage & Stress Therapy Pacific Bell LA Fitness Anaheim Inc Pacific Bell Gallery Travel Pacific Bell Caro & Company Pacific Bell Fisher Of London Hair Styles Pacific Bell Riperti R Pacific Bell 2601 E KATELLA AVE Year Uses Source 1991 MIll Custom Cabinet Shop The Pacific Bell Old Mill Custom Cabinet Shop The Pacific Bell 2605 E KATELLA AVE Year Uses Source 1995 Mighty Ducks Professional Hockey Team Pacific Bell 1991 Pacific International Motorsports Pacific Bell Interserie Motorsport Pacific Bell Motorsport Series Pacific Bell 2610 E KATELLA AVE Year Uses Source 1995 Anaheim Pacific Bell 2502198 -6 Page 6 Year Uses Source FINDINGS Year Uses Source 1995 Amfac Electric Supply Co Pacific Bell Amfac Electric Supply Co Pacific Bell Anaheim Pacific Bell 1991 Anaheim Pacific Bell Anaheim Pacific Bell 2620 E KATELLA AVE Year Uses Source 1991 MD Medical Clinics Pacific Bell Du Brin Stanley MD Pacific Bell 1975 Southwest Regional Office Luskey Brothers & Co., Inc. Amfac Electrical Supply Co Luskey Brothers & Co., Inc. S DAOGLASS RD 1725 S DAOGLASS RD Year Uses Source 1991 Unitrac Corp Pacific Bell S DOOGLASS RD 1725 S DOOGLASS RD Year Uses Source 1980 Evergreen Properties Pacific Telephone S DOUGLASS RD 1725 S DOUGLASS RD Year Uses Source 1995 Evergreen Properties Pacific Bell Schmid Development Inc Pacific Bell Anaheim Bullfrogs Pacific Bell Autovation Inc Pacific Bell Cognitive Ergonomic Systems Pacific Bell Jade Investments Pacific Bell Unitrac Corp Pacific Bell Terry L Cox & Associates Pacific Bell Monroes Hair Salon Pacific Bell Hc Pacific Bell Metro Pacific Venture Corp 9398787 Pacific Bell 2502198 -6 Page 7 Year Uses Source FINDINGS Year Uses Source 1991 Schmid Development Inc Pacific Bell Schmid Don Pacific Bell Coffey Mike Pacific Bell Collegiate Cap & Gown Co Pacific Bell Collegiate Cap & Gown Co Pacific Bell Lybeck Associateslnc Pacific Bell Herff Jones Co Pacific Bell Positrac Corp Pacific Bell Ofc Pacific Bell Evergreen Properties Pacific Bell 1986 Lybeck & Associates Inc Pacific Bell Ordlock David Atty At Law Pacific Bell Seacrest Development Company Pacific Bell 1980 ME DITE RRAN E AN E XPORT IN C Pacific Telephone Dargus Development Pacific Telephone Pirelli Cable Corp Pacific Telephone 1729 S DOUGLASS RD Year Uses Source 1995 Spectacular Catering Pacific Bell Wade Shah & Associates Pacific Bell Custom Leasing Pacific Bell Growth Management Systems Pacific Bell Environmental Landscape Concepts Pacific Bell Posilovich Construction Pacific Bell 1991 VSIEquipment Rentals Pacific Bell Environmental Landscape Concepts Pacific Bell Posilovich Construction Pacific Bell Western Floor Covering Association Pacific Bell Varelal Son Pacific Bell 1986 Builders Advertising Journal Pacific Bell Cable Contract Services Inc Pacific Bell CCS Inc Pacific Bell Mac Donald Dettwiler Technologies Inc Pacific Bell Pfeifer Kevin J Co Pacific Bell Quality Data Concepts Pacific Bell Homebuilder Seminars Pacific Bell 1980 Agricultural Servicing Enterprises Pacific Telephone New West Devetopers Pacific Telephone 2502198 -6 Page 8 Year Uses Source FINDINGS 1730 S DOUGLASS RD Year Uses Source 1986 CALIF PRACTICE S ALE S Pacific Bell CALIF PRACTICE S ALE S Pacific Bell 1975 Lockridge Anne Realty Luskey Brothers & Co., Inc. Lockridge Anne Realty Luskey Brothers & Co., Inc. 1733 S DOUGLASS RD Year Uses Source 1995 Impresa Development Corp Pacific Bell Morris Pacific Bell Dunlap Real Estate Investments Pacific Bell Hammill & Associates architects Pacific Bell Hamilton Multimedia Systems Inc Pacific Bell Energy Saving Products Pacific Bell 1991 Franken & Associates Pacific Bell Andersen Associates Pacific Bell Artists World Internatl Pacific Bell Dub West Pacific Bell Industrial & Business Properties Pacific Bell 1986 Formation Inc Pacific Bell Gaynor Gene Pacific Bell A P Cray Marketing Pacific Bell Colka Construction Co Pacific Bell GrafFix The Pacific Bell American Eagle Productions Pacific Bell Pirelli Cable Corp Pacific Bell Pirelli Cable I C D Pacific Bell MARTE CH IN DUS TRIE S IN C mfrs rep Pacific Bell Martech Industries Inc Pacific Bell RC Data Inc Pacific Bell RC Data Inc Pacific Bell Reshue Contructlon Pacific Bell Industrial & Business Properties Pacific Bell 1980 From @Los Angeles@ Telephones Call Pacific Telephone Formation Inc Pacific Telephone Proprietor Development Pacific Telephone Si JE Hodlln& Sons Inc Pacific Telephone Top orm Data Pacific Telephone From Oowney Telephones Call Pacific Telephone 2502198 -6 Page 9 Year Uses Source FINDINGS Year Uses Source 1980 Creative Graphics Pacific Telephone Graf Fix The Pacific Telephone National Rooter Pacific Telephone N ATION AL S AFE OF CALIFORN IA Pacific Telephone Darrow Corp The Pacific Telephone Zebra Electronics Inc Pacific Telephone Douglass Composition Service Pacific Telephone Mar Tech Industries Inc mfrs rep Pacific Telephone Piper Development Inc Pacific Telephone 1739 S DOUGLASS RD Year Uses Source 1995 Arena Mortgage Pacific Bell Pacific Masonry Pacific Bell PJ Litho Pacific Bell DLH Service Corporation Pacific Bell Globe Financial Unlimited Pacific Bell R & D Materials Inc Pacific Bell Healthy Concepts Pacific Bell ELM Alterations & Dressmaking Pacific Bell Graman U SANTA ANA Inc Pacific Bell Morrison Sports Marketing Pacific Bell 1991 Dennie Reed & Sons Inc Pacific Bell R & D Materials Inc Pacific Bell 1986 Garza Ed Photography Pacific Bell Southern California Jewelry Mart Inc Pacific Bell Dwelling Developers Inc Pacific Bell Ed Garza Photography Pacific Bell Mediterranean Exports Inc Pacific Bell 1980 i La Palma Management Inc Pacific Telephone Landers Pools Pacific Telephone Pacific Construction Pacific Telephone Lundun Landscaping Pacific Telephone Southern California Jewelry Mart Inc Pacific Telephone 1743 S DOUGLASS RD Year Uses Source 1995 Holtrachem Inc Pacific Bell 1991 Villarreal & Jamar Pacific Bell 2502198 -6 Page 10 Year Uses Source FINDINGS Year Uses Source 1991 The Graphic Source Pacific Bell the graf fix Pacific Bell Holtrachem West Pacific Bell graf fix the Pacific Bell 1986 Electronic Telecommunications Enterprises Pacific Bell Master Financial Inc Pacific Bell MFI Pacific Bell 1980 Southco Inc Pacific Telephone Southco Development inc Pacific Telephone S OUTHLAN D CABIN E TS IN C Pacific Telephone Southland Business Sales Pacific Telephone BUIN E S S W ORLD FIN AN CE Pacific Telephone S From Compton Telephones Cat Pacific Telephone I Pacific Telephone DE S IGN Pacific Telephone Cluba Enterprises Pacific Telephone KIR Pvelopment Corp Pacific Telephone 1747 S DOUGLASS RD Year Uses Source 1995 Curtiss Advertising Pacific Bell Kilter Inc Pacific Bell Team Swolen Active Wear Pacific Bell Preferred Contractors Pacific Bell Kilter Inc Pacific Bell 1991 PB West Enterprises Pacific Bell C & R Interiors Pacific Bell Able Air Pacific Bell Murrays Tickets Pacific Bell 1986 Commonwealth Film Distributors Pacific Bell Goodman Sporting Goods Pacific Bell Goodman W A & Sons sporing gds Pacific Bell PB West Enterprises Pacific Bell Gundrey Don Productions Pacific Bell Don Gundrey Productions Pacific Bell Dynlamic Graphics Inc Pacific Bell Edgewater Custom Pools Pacific Bell 1980 Dry Fast Emergency Service Pacific Telephone Don Gundrey Productions Pacific Telephone 2502198 -6 Page 11 Year Uses Source FINDINGS Year Uses Source 1980 Gundrey Don Productions Pacific Telephone Videotape Inventory Pacific Telephone Commonwealth Film Distributors Pacific Telephone I Progressive Video Pacific Telephone 1751 S DOUGLASS RD Year Uses Source 1995 TUTHILL GARY E DC & ASSOCIATES Pacific Bell 1991 Milestone Builders Inc Pacific Bell 1986 Brown R B Company Pacific Bell R B Brown Company Pacific Bell 1980 Maui Distillers Pacific Telephone 1805 S DOUGLASS RD Year Uses Source 1986 Passenger Station Pacific Bell S DOUGLAST RD 1747 S DOUGLAST RD Year Uses Source 1980 Morton Lawrence consltng engnrng Pacific Telephone W KATELLA AVE 2611 W KATELLA AVE Year Uses Source 1991 Shragg Arthur J Cantor & Judith Pacific Bell 2502198 -6 Page 12 FINDINGS TARGET PROPERTY: ADDRESS NOT LISTED IN RESEARCH SOURCE The following Target Property addresses were researched for this report, and the addresses were not listed in the research source. Address Researched Address Not Listed in Research Source 1750 S Douglass Road 2002, 2001, 1997, 1995, 1992, 1991, 1986, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1966, 1965, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1952, 1950, 1946, 1945, 1941, 1936, 1930, 1926, 1925, 1922, 1921, 1920 ADJOINING PROPERTY: ADDRESSES NOT LISTED IN RESEARCH SOURCE The following Adjoining Property addresses were researched for this report, and the addresses were not listed in research source. Address Researched Address Not Listed in Research Source 1725 S DAOGLASS RD 2002, 2001, 1997, 1995, 1992, 1986, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1966, 1965, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1952, 1950, 1946, 1945, 1941, 1936, 1930, 1926, 1925, 1922, 1921, 1920 1725 S DOOGLASS RD 2002, 2001, 1997, 1995, 1992, 1991, 1986, 1975, 1970, 1966, 1965, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1952, 1950, 1946, 1945, 1941, 1936, 1930, 1926, 1925, 1922, 1921, 1920 1725 S DOUGLASS RD 2002, 2001, 1997, 1992, 1975, 1970, 1966, 1965, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1952, 1950, 1946, 1945, 1941, 1936, 1930, 1926, 1925, 1922, 1921, 1920 1729 S DOUGLASS RD 2002, 2001, 1997, 1992, 1975, 1970, 1966, 1965, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1952, 1950, 1946, 1945, 1941, 1936, 1930, 1926, 1925, 1922, 1921, 1920 1730 S DOUGLASS RD 2002, 2001, 1997, 1995, 1992, 1991, 1980, 1970, 1966, 1965, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1952, 1950, 1946, 1945, 1941, 1936, 1930, 1926, 1925, 1922, 1921, 1920 1730 S Douglass Rd 2002, 2001, 1997, 1995, 1992, 1991, 1986, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1966, 1965, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1952, 1950, 1946, 1945, 1941, 1936, 1930, 1926, 1925, 1922, 1921, 1920 1730 S DOUGLASS RD 2002, 2001, 1997, 1995, 1992, 1991, 1980, 1970, 1966, 1965, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1952, 1950, 1946, 1945, 1941, 1936, 1930, 1926, 1925, 1922, 1921, 1920 1733 S DOUGLASS RD 2002, 2001, 1997, 1992, 1975, 1970, 1966, 1965, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1952, 1950, 1946, 1945, 1941, 1936, 1930, 1926, 1925, 1922, 1921, 1920 1739 S DOUGLASS RD 2002, 2001, 1997, 1992, 1975, 1970, 1966, 1965, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1952, 1950, 1946, 1945, 1941, 1936, 1930, 1926, 1925, 1922, 1921, 1920 1743 S DOUGLASS RD 2002, 2001, 1997, 1992, 1975, 1970, 1966, 1965, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1952, 1950, 1946, 1945, 1941, 1936, 1930, 1926, 1925, 1922, 1921, 1920 1747 S DOUGLASS RD 2002, 2001, 1997, 1992, 1975, 1970, 1966, 1965, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1952, 1950, 1946, 1945, 1941, 1936, 1930, 1926, 1925, 1922, 1921, 1920 1747 S DOUGLAST RD 2002, 2001, 1997, 1995, 1992, 1991, 1986, 1975, 1970, 1966, 1965, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1952, 1950, 1946, 1945, 1941, 1936, 1930, 1926, 1925, 1922, 1921, 1920 1751 S DOUGLASS RD 2002, 2001, 1997, 1992, 1975, 1970, 1966, 1965, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1952, 1950, 1946, 1945, 1941, 1936, 1930, 1926, 1925, 1922, 1921, 1920 1790 S Douglass Rd 2002, 2001, 1997, 1995, 1992, 1991, 1986, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1966, 1965, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1952, 1950, 1946, 1945, 1941, 1936, 1930, 1926, 1925, 1922, 1921, 1920 FINDINGS Address Researched Address Not Listed in Research Source 1805 S DOUGLASS RD 2002, 2001, 1997, 1995, 1992, 1991, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1966, 1965, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1952, 1950, 1946, 1945, 1941, 1936, 1930, 1926, 1925, 1922, 1921, 1920 2150 E Katella Avenue 2002, 2001, 1997, 1995, 1992, 1991, 1986, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1966, 1965, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1952, 1950, 1946, 1945, 1941, 1936, 1930, 1926, 1925, 1922, 1921, 1920 2560 E KATELLA AVE 2002, 2001, 1997, 1992, 1986, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1966, 1965, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1952, 1950, 1946, 1945, 1941, 1936, 1930, 1926, 1925, 1922, 1921, 1920 2600 E KATELLA AVE 2002, 2001, 1997, 1995, 1992, 1991, 1986, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1966, 1965, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1952, 1950, 1946, 1945, 1941, 1936, 1930, 1926, 1925, 1922, 1921, 1920 2601 E KATELLA AVE 2002, 2001, 1997, 1995, 1992, 1986, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1966, 1965, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1952, 1950, 1946, 1945, 1941, 1936, 1930, 1926, 1925, 1922, 1921, 1920 2605 E KATELLA AVE 2002, 2001, 1997, 1992, 1986, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1966, 1965, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1952, 1950, 1946, 1945, 1941, 1936, 1930, 1926, 1925, 1922, 1921, 1920 2608 E Katella Ave 2002, 2001, 1997, 1995, 1992, 1991, 1986, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1966, 1965, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1952, 1950, 1946, 1945, 1941, 1936, 1930, 1926, 1925, 1922, 1921, 1920 2610 E Katella Ave 2002, 2001, 1997, 1995, 1992, 1991, 1986, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1966, 1965, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1952, 1950, 1946, 1945, 1941, 1936, 1930, 1926, 1925, 1922, 1921, 1920 2610 E KATELLA AVE 2002, 2001, 1997, 1992, 1986, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1966, 1965, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1952, 1950, 1946, 1945, 1941, 1936, 1930, 1926, 1925, 1922, 1921, 1920 2610 E KATELLA AVE 2002, 2001, 1997, 1992, 1986, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1966, 1965, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1952, 1950, 1946, 1945, 1941, 1936, 1930, 1926, 1925, 1922, 1921, 1920 2611 W KATELLA AVE 2002, 2001, 1997, 1995, 1992, 1986, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1966, 1965, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1952, 1950, 1946, 1945, 1941, 1936, 1930, 1926, 1925, 1922, 1921, 1920 2614 E Katella Ave 2002, 2001, 1997, 1995, 1992, 1991, 1986, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1966, 1965, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1952, 1950, 1946, 1945, 1941, 1936, 1930, 1926, 1925, 1922, 1921, 1920 2618 E Katella Ave 2002, 2001, 1997, 1995, 1992, 1991, 1986, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1966, 1965, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1952, 1950, 1946, 1945, 1941, 1936, 1930, 1926, 1925, 1922, 1921, 1920 2620 E Katella Ave 2002, 2001, 1997, 1995, 1992, 1991, 1986, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1966, 1965, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1952, 1950, 1946, 1945, 1941, 1936, 1930, 1926, 1925, 1922, 1921, 1920 2620 E KATELLA AVE 2002, 2001, 1997, 1995, 1992, 1986, 1980, 1970, 1966, 1965, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1952, 1950, 1946, 1945, 1941, 1936, 1930, 1926, 1925, 1922, 1921, 1920 The EDR Historical Topographic Map Report 1750 S Douglass Road 1750 S Douglass Road Anaheim, CA 92806 Inquiry Number: 2502198.4 May 26, 2009 EDR Historical Topographic Map Report Environmental Data Resources, Inc.s (EDR) Historical Topographic Map Report is designed to assist professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDRs Historical Topographic Map Report includes a search of a collection of public and private color historical topographic maps, dating back to the early 1900s. Thank you for your business. Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050 with any questions or comments. Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report AS IS. Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice. Copyright 2009 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission. EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. Historical Topographic Map ÕN TARGET QUAD NAME:ANAHEIM MAP YEAR:1898 SERIES:15 SCALE:1:62500 SITE NAME:1750 S Douglass Road ADDRESS:1750 S Douglass Road Anaheim, CA 92806 LAT/LONG:33.8037 / 117.878 CLIENT:Kleinfelder, Inc. CONTACT:Margaret Carroll INQUIRY#:2502198.4 RESEARCH DATE:05/26/2009 Historical Topographic Map ÕN TARGET QUAD NAME:SOUTHERN CA SHEET 1 MAP YEAR:1901 SERIES:60 SCALE:1:250000 SITE NAME:1750 S Douglass Road ADDRESS:1750 S Douglass Road Anaheim, CA 92806 LAT/LONG:33.8037 / 117.878 CLIENT:Kleinfelder, Inc. CONTACT:Margaret Carroll INQUIRY#:2502198.4 RESEARCH DATE:05/26/2009 Historical Topographic Map ÕN TARGET QUAD NAME:CORONA MAP YEAR:1902 SERIES:30 SCALE:1:125000 SITE NAME:1750 S Douglass Road ADDRESS:1750 S Douglass Road Anaheim, CA 92806 LAT/LONG:33.8037 / 117.878 CLIENT:Kleinfelder, Inc. CONTACT:Margaret Carroll INQUIRY#:2502198.4 RESEARCH DATE:05/26/2009 Historical Topographic Map ÕN TARGET QUAD NAME:GARDEN GROVE MAP YEAR:1935 SERIES:7.5 SCALE:1:31680 SITE NAME:1750 S Douglass Road ADDRESS:1750 S Douglass Road Anaheim, CA 92806 LAT/LONG:33.8037 / 117.878 CLIENT:Kleinfelder, Inc. CONTACT:Margaret Carroll INQUIRY#:2502198.4 RESEARCH DATE:05/26/2009 Historical Topographic Map ÕN TARGET QUAD NAME:ANAHEIM MAP YEAR:1950 SERIES:7.5 SCALE:1:24000 SITE NAME:1750 S Douglass Road ADDRESS:1750 S Douglass Road Anaheim, CA 92806 LAT/LONG:33.8037 / 117.878 CLIENT:Kleinfelder, Inc. CONTACT:Margaret Carroll INQUIRY#:2502198.4 RESEARCH DATE:05/26/2009 Historical Topographic Map ÕN TARGET QUAD NAME:ANAHEIM MAP YEAR:1965 SERIES:7.5 SCALE:1:24000 SITE NAME:1750 S Douglass Road ADDRESS:1750 S Douglass Road Anaheim, CA 92806 LAT/LONG:33.8037 / 117.878 CLIENT:Kleinfelder, Inc. CONTACT:Margaret Carroll INQUIRY#:2502198.4 RESEARCH DATE:05/26/2009 Historical Topographic Map ÕN TARGET QUAD NAME:ANAHEIM MAP YEAR:1972 PHOTOREVISED FROM:1965 SERIES:7.5 SCALE:1:24000 SITE NAME:1750 S Douglass Road ADDRESS:1750 S Douglass Road Anaheim, CA 92806 LAT/LONG:33.8037 / 117.878 CLIENT:Kleinfelder, Inc. CONTACT:Margaret Carroll INQUIRY#:2502198.4 RESEARCH DATE:05/26/2009 Historical Topographic Map ÕN TARGET QUAD NAME:ANAHEIM MAP YEAR:1981 PHOTOREVISED FROM:1965 SERIES:7.5 SCALE:1:24000 SITE NAME:1750 S Douglass Road ADDRESS:1750 S Douglass Road Anaheim, CA 92806 LAT/LONG:33.8037 / 117.878 CLIENT:Kleinfelder, Inc. CONTACT:Margaret Carroll INQUIRY#:2502198.4 RESEARCH DATE:05/26/2009 Historical Topographic Map ÕN ADJOINING QUAD NAME:ORANGE MAP YEAR:1935 SERIES:7.5 SCALE:1:31680 SITE NAME:1750 S Douglass Road ADDRESS:1750 S Douglass Road Anaheim, CA 92806 LAT/LONG:33.8037 / 117.878 CLIENT:Kleinfelder, Inc. CONTACT:Margaret Carroll INQUIRY#:2502198.4 RESEARCH DATE:05/26/2009 Historical Topographic Map ÕN ADJOINING QUAD NAME:ORANGE MAP YEAR:1950 SERIES:7.5 SCALE:1:24000 SITE NAME:1750 S Douglass Road ADDRESS:1750 S Douglass Road Anaheim, CA 92806 LAT/LONG:33.8037 / 117.878 CLIENT:Kleinfelder, Inc. CONTACT:Margaret Carroll INQUIRY#:2502198.4 RESEARCH DATE:05/26/2009 Historical Topographic Map ÕN ADJOINING QUAD NAME:ORANGE MAP YEAR:1964 SERIES:7.5 SCALE:1:24000 SITE NAME:1750 S Douglass Road ADDRESS:1750 S Douglass Road Anaheim, CA 92806 LAT/LONG:33.8037 / 117.878 CLIENT:Kleinfelder, Inc. CONTACT:Margaret Carroll INQUIRY#:2502198.4 RESEARCH DATE:05/26/2009 Historical Topographic Map ÕN ADJOINING QUAD NAME:ORANGE MAP YEAR:1972 PHOTOREVISED FROM:1964 SERIES:7.5 SCALE:1:24000 SITE NAME:1750 S Douglass Road ADDRESS:1750 S Douglass Road Anaheim, CA 92806 LAT/LONG:33.8037 / 117.878 CLIENT:Kleinfelder, Inc. CONTACT:Margaret Carroll INQUIRY#:2502198.4 RESEARCH DATE:05/26/2009 Historical Topographic Map ÕN ADJOINING QUAD NAME:ORANGE MAP YEAR:1981 PHOTOREVISED FROM:1964 SERIES:7.5 SCALE:1:24000 SITE NAME:1750 S Douglass Road ADDRESS:1750 S Douglass Road Anaheim, CA 92806 LAT/LONG:33.8037 / 117.878 CLIENT:Kleinfelder, Inc. CONTACT:Margaret Carroll INQUIRY#:2502198.4 RESEARCH DATE:05/26/2009 DRAFT APPENDIX E PREVIOUS ASSESSMENTS 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 December 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 620 W. 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p|562.432.1696 f|562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com December 23, 2009 File No.103567/ENV2 Jones and Stokes1 Ada, Suite 100Irvine, California 92618 Attention:Mr. David Feytag Subject:Limited Preliminary Phase II Environmental Site AssessmentProposedAnaheim Regional TransportationIntermodalCenter (ARTIC)–Phase 1Anaheim, California Dear Mr.Feytag: Kleinfelder is pleased to present this report of our Limited Preliminary Phase IIEnvironmental Site Assessment for the above-referenced property. We trust theinformation presented in this report meets your need at this time.We appreciate thisopportunity to provide our services to you. Should you require additional information orhave questions regarding this report, please contact Michael Counte at (949) 727-4466. Respectfully submitted, KLEINFELDER WEST, INC. Paolo M.Dizon, REA Herbert “Bert” A. Vogler III, PGEnvironmentalScientistSenior Hydrogeologist Michael A. Counte, REA, RBPEnvironmental Group Manager 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 Page i of iv December 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 620 W. 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p|562.432.1696 f|562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com LIMITED PRELIMINARY PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT PROPOSED ANAHEIM REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION INTERMODAL CENTER (ARTIC)–PHASE I ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA Project No.103567/ENV2 December 23, 2009 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 Page ii of iv December 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 620 W. 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p|562.432.1696 f|562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com Report Prepared for: Jones and Stokes1 Ada, Suite 100Irvine, California 92618 LIMITED PRELIMINARY PHASE IIENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENTPROPOSEDANAHEIM REGIONAL TRANSPORTATIONINTERMODAL CENTER (ARTIC)–PHASE 1ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA Kleinfelder Project No.103567/ENV2 Paolo M.Dizon, REAEnvironmentalScientist Herbert “Bert” A. Vogler III, PGSenior Hydrogeologist KLEINFELDER WEST, INC.2 Ada, Suite 250Irvine, CA 92618(949)727-4466 December 23, 2009 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 Page iii of iv December 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 620 W. 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p|562.432.1696 f|562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................1 1.1 SITE DESCRIPTION .................................................................................3 1.2 SITE HISTORY ..........................................................................................3 1.3 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING ..................................................................4 1.4 ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES ...................................................................4 2 FIELD ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................................5 2.1 HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN AND RELATED ACTIVITIES ....................5 2.2 UTILITY CLEARANCE...............................................................................5 2.3 SOIL SAMPLING .......................................................................................6 2.3.1 SAMPLING PROGRAM ..................................................................6 2.3.2 SOIL SAMPLE COLLECTION.........................................................7 2.3.3 BOREHOLE LOGGING ..................................................................8 2.3.4 EQUIPMENT DECONTAMINATION ...............................................8 2.3.5 INVESTIGATION-DERIVED WASTE..............................................9 3 ANALYTICAL PROGRAM .......................................................................................10 4 RESULTS ................................................................................................................12 4.1 FIELD RESULTS .....................................................................................12 4.2 SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS ................................................................13 5 EVALUATION,CONCLUSIONS,AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................15 6 LIMITATIONS ..........................................................................................................19 7 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................21 TABLES Table 1 Soil Analytical Results for TPH-CCID, VOCs,OCPs,and PCBsTable2Soil Analytical Results for CCR Title 22 Metals PLATES Plate 1 Site Location MapPlate 2 Boring Location Map 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 Page iv of iv December 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 620 W. 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p|562.432.1696 f|562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Section APPENDICES Appendix A Logs of BoringsAppendixBLaboratory Reports and Chain-of-Custody Records 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 ES -1 December 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 620 W. 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p|562.432.1696 f|562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ___________________________________________________________________________________ Kleinfelder has prepared this Limited Preliminary Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Report of the proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC)–Phase 1 project site (the Site)for Jones and Stokes (the Client).The Site is generally located at the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and South Douglass Road in the City of Anaheim, Orange County, California (see Plate 1, Site Location Map). Kleinfelder performed this Limited Preliminary Phase II ESA to assess potential soil impact that may have resulted from the following recognized environmental conditions (RECs)and potential RECs identified in Kleinfelder’s Phase I ESA report of the Site, dated July 17, 2009: Blue-green colored staining was observed on asphalt pavement and concrete, near a dipping vat and within a drainage swale,at the Sullivan & Mann Lumber Company at 1790 South Douglass Road. A gravel-filled pit was observed within a corrugated metal building on the southern portion of the Site parcel with an address of 1750 South Douglass Road. The former use of this pit is unknown to Kleinfelder and previous environmental sampling in this area was not identified by the Phase I ESA. The presence of undocumented fill material was reported in a former quarry on the Site parcel with an address of 1750 South Douglass Road. In addition to the RECs and potential RECs discussed above,Kleinfelder also assessed the following potential areas of concern which we believe warranted further investigation and/or confirmation sampling: An inactive laboratory and a former hazardous materials storage shed are located at 1750 South Douglass Road. In addition, a paint booth was formerly located inside the present-day warehouse building at 1790 South Douglass Road. Paint staining was observed in close proximity to a floor drain at 1750 South Douglass Road, adjacent to a former hazardous materials storage building. 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 ES -2 December 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 620 W. 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p|562.432.1696 f|562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com The Site parcel at 1750 South Douglass Road also contained a former fueling facility including two 10,000-gallon gasoline underground storage tanks (USTs), one 10,000-gallon diesel UST, two 5,000-gallon diesel USTs, and associated fuel dispensers. These USTs, along with two waste oil USTs (280-gallon and 300-gallon capacity)that were located farther to the east on the Site, were removed in March 1998.The gasoline and diesel USTs were replaced with a 20,000-gallon gasoline UST and a 20,000-gallon diesel UST, which were removed along with associated dispensers in July 2008.Based on Kleinfelder’s review of available Site assessment information,the maximum detected concentrations of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes (BTEX) were in samples from a boring (“B-3”) advanced by Tait Environmental Management, Inc. (Tait) to the north of the two former 10,000-gallon gasoline USTs.Soil hydrocarbon impact was also evident in samples from Tait’s Boring “B-5,”which was located by a former dispenser island beneath a presently-existing canopy; and in Boring “B-6,” which was located between the two former 5,000-gallon diesel USTs.Borings B-5 and B-6 are at the locations where Tait reported the highest concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH)from its assessment.Additionally,Block Environmental (Block)reported detected concentrations of total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH) and tetrachloroethylene (PCE)in samples of soil stockpiled from removal of the two former waste oil USTs.The stockpiled soil was subsequently removed from the Site. Three hydraulic lifts and associated equipment and piping were removed from the Site parcel at 1750 South Douglass Road in September and October 2008. A soil sample collected at a depth of approximately 15 feet below grade from a remedial excavation on the north side of former “Hydraulic Lift #2”apparently contained the highest detected TPH concentration in soil not subsequently removed from this area. Four wastewater clarifiers and associated sewer piping were removed from the Site parcel at 1750 South Douglass Road in October 2008. The excavation areas were filled with gravel and not sealed at the surface. 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 ES -3 December 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 620 W. 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p|562.432.1696 f|562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com Kleinfelder’s scope of services did not include sampling soil within the railroad right of way on the Site or sampling of groundwater beneath the Site.For this reason, although identified as potential RECs in the Phase I ESA report, the following were not addressed as part of this Limited Preliminary Phase II ESA: Former “pouring” of oil along the railroad tracks at/near the Anaheim Stadium Metrolink/Amtrak Station and the potential presence of agricultural chemicals (due to former agricultural land use on surrounding areas from at least 1938 through at least 1952)and heavy metals and creosote (from treated railroad ties associated with the railroad tracks). Potential impacts to Site groundwater resulting from upgradient off-Site facilities where releases are known to, or may, have impacted shallow groundwater. This Limited Preliminary Phase II ESA included performing environmental soil sampling, laboratory analyses,and data evaluation,along with formulation of conclusions and recommendations.A summary of the assessment sampling locations is presented below: Kleinfelder collected environmental soil samples from six geotechnical soil borings (B-1 through B-5 and W-1)that were drilled to depths of approximately 61.5 to 101.5 feet below ground surface (bgs).The environmental samples were collected to a maximum depth of approximately 50 feet bgs. Borings B-1, B-2, and W -1 were sampled as “background”locations based on an absence of identified or suspect environmental concerns within these general areas. (Boring W-1 was subsequently converted into a geotechnical monitoring well.) Boring B-3 was sampled to assess the potential for subsurface contamination in the vicinity of a former hazardous materials storage shed. Borings B-4 and B-5 were sampled to assess the presence of undocumented fill material reported within a former quarry that was in that area of the Site. Kleinfelder submitted the environmental soil samples from these borings to a laboratory,for analysis of TPH with carbon chain identification (TPH-CCID),volatile organic compounds (VOCs)including fuel oxygenates, organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and California Code of Regulations (CCR) 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 ES -4 December 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 620 W. 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p|562.432.1696 f|562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com Title 22 Metals.These and other analyses discussed below were performed using United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) methodology. Two environmental soil borings (KA-1 and KA-2)were advanced and sampled to a depth of approximately 15 feet bgs in the vicinity of the Sullivan & Mann Lumber Company at the Site’s 1790 South Douglass Road parcel.Boring KA-1 was installed in the location of a former paint booth, and Boring KA-2 was installed within a stained concrete drainage swale near a dipping vat.Soil samples from these borings were submitted to the laboratory for analysis of TPH-CCID,VOCs, and Title 22 Metals. Two environmental soil borings (KA-3 and KA-9)were advanced and sampled to a maximum depth of approximately 10 feet bgs within a former hazardous materials storage shed (Boring KA-3)and in an inactive laboratory (Boring KA-9) located on the Site’s 1750 South Douglass Road parcel.The soil samples from these borings were submitted to the laboratory for analysis of TPH-CCID,VOCs, OCPs, PCBs, and Title 22 Metals. One environmental soil boring (KA-4)was advanced and sampled to a maximum depth of approximately 4.5 feet bgs in the vicinity of a floor drain and nearby paint staining within a bermed area at the 1750 South Douglass Road parcel. Soil samples were submitted to the laboratory for analysis of TPH-CCID,VOCs, OCPs, PCBs, and Title 22 Metals. Four environmental soil borings (KA-5, KA-8, KA-13, and KA-16)were advanced and sampled to a maximum depth of approximately 15 feet bgs at four former wastewater clarifier locations.Soil samples were submitted to the laboratory for analysis of TPH-CCID,VOCs,OCPs, and PCBs. One environmental soil boring (KA-6)was advanced and sampled to a maximum depth of approximately 5 feet bgs within a gravel-filled pit observed within a corrugated metal building on the southern portion of the 1750 South Douglass Road parcel.Soil samples were submitted to the laboratory for analysis of TPH-CCID,VOCs,OCPs, PCBs, and Title 22 Metals. 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 ES -5 December 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 620 W. 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p|562.432.1696 f|562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com One environmental soil boring (KA-7)was advanced and sampled to a maximum depth of approximately 20 feet bgs on the north side of former “Hydraulic Lift #2.” This former lift was located within a concrete tilt-up building at the 1750 South Douglass Road parcel. Soil samples were submitted to the laboratory for analysis of TPH-CCID,VOCs,OCPs,and PCBs. Five environmental soil borings (KA-10 through KA-12, KA-14, and KA-15)were advanced and sampled to a maximum depth of approximately 20 feet bgs at former UST and dispenser island locations.Borings KA-10 and KA-12 were installed in the vicinity of former diesel and gasoline USTs and Boring KA-11 was installed in the vicinity of a former dispenser island.Soil samples from these borings were submitted to the laboratory for analysis of TPH-CCID and VOCs. Borings KA-14 and KA-15 were installed in the vicinity of former waste oil USTs, and soil samples from these borings were submitted to the laboratory for analysis of TPH-CCID,VOCs, and PCBs. A summary of the assessment’s findings and conclusions is presented below: Diesel-and oil-range TPH, at respective concentrations of 15.4 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)and 109 mg/kg, were detected in one soil sample collected from 20 feet bgs from Boring KA-7, which was drilled on the north side of former “Hydraulic Lift #2.” The chromatograms for the diesel-and oil-range results were reported by the analytical laboratory to not match that of the diesel and motor oil standards, which suggests the presence of hydraulic oil instead of diesel fuel and motor oil.Because the 20-foot bgs sample was the deepest sample collected from this boring, it is not known whether TPH concentrations increase below a depth of 20 feet. The organochlorine pesticide 4,4’-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)was detected at a concentration of 0.002 mg/kg in one soil sample,collected from approximately 10 feet bgs in Boring B-2, which was drilled in the central portion of the Site parcel at 1750 South Douglass Road.Deeper soil samples (collected at approximate depths of 20, 30, 40, and 50 feet bgs)that were analyzed from this boring did not contain detected DDT concentrations at or above the laboratory practical quantitation limits (PQLs).To assist in assessing the 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 ES -6 December 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 620 W. 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p|562.432.1696 f|562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com significance of the detected DDT concentration, Kleinfelder compared the result to the DDT US EPA Regional Screening Level (RSL) for Industrial Soil, and to the DDT California Human Health Screening Level (CHHSL) for Commercial/Industrial Land Use Soil. The RSLs and CHHSLs are human health risk-based tools for evaluating and cleaning up contaminated sites. They are considered to be protective for humans (including sensitive groups) over a lifetime. Residential values are lower and therefore more conservative than the corresponding values for Commercial/Industrial Use,but because residential Site use is not presently planned, the commercial/industrial values were judged to be appropriate for use in the comparison with Site data. Generally, if contaminant concentrations fall below RSLs and CHHSLs, no further action or study is warranted, so long as the exposure assumptions match those taken into account by the screening value calculations.The DDT Industrial Soil RSL is 7.0 mg/kg and the DDT Soil CHHSL for Commercial/Industrial Land Use is 6.4 mg/kg. Because the detected DDT concentration is far below its Industrial Soil RSL and Commercial/ Industrial Land Use Soil CHHSL,in Kleinfelder’s opinion no further study with regard to concern for human health is warranted by this finding. Additionally, the detected DDT concentration was compared to the CCR Title 22 Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC)value for DDT of 1.0 mg/kg, and also 10 times the CCR Title 22 Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC)value for DDT of 0.1 milligram per liter (mg/L).If a constituent’s concentration in waste soil exceeds the constituent’s TTLC value (assuming there is one), then the waste is California-hazardous.If a constituent’s concentration in a soil waste is 10 times its STLC value or higher, then analysis for the soluble constituent is required to determine if the waste is California-hazardous.Certain constituents also have Federal and/or CCR Title 22 Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) values, which are used to assess whether a waste is Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)-hazardous, but DDT does not have a TCLP value.Since the detected DDT concentration is less than 10 times the DDT STLC value and also below the DDT TTLC value,on the basis of this result the tested soil would be considered a non-hazardous waste. The VOC toluene was detected in 16 soil samples collected from various depths (to a maximum of approximately 50 feet bgs)in Borings B-1, B-2, and B-4, at a 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 ES -7 December 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 620 W. 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p|562.432.1696 f|562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com maximum concentration of 0.035 mg/kg.The VOC 2-butanone (also known as methyl ethyl ketone [MEK])was detected in one soil sample,collected from approximately 20 feet bgs from Boring B-2,at a concentration of 0.039 mg/kg. Based on our evaluation of the data and our knowledge of the Site, the source (or sources)of these VOC constituents is not readily apparent.The maximum detected concentrations of toluene and MEK are below their respective US EPA Industrial Soil RSLs of 46,000 mg/kg and 195,000 mg/kg.VOCs do not have established Soil CHHSLs, and the presence of these VOCs may pose indoor air intrusion concerns should a building be constructed in the vicinity of the sampled locations.MEK has both a Federal and CCR Title 22 TCLP value of 200 mg/L. If a constituent concentration in a soil sample is 20 times its TCLP value or higher, analysis for the soluble constituent is warranted to assess whether the material is a hazardous waste. The detected 0.039 mg/kg concentration of MEK is far below 20 times the MEK TCLP value, so on the basis of these results,the tested soil would be considered a non-hazardous waste. TPH, VOCs, and OCPs were not detected at or above their respective PQLs in the remaining analyzed soil samples. PCBs were not detected at or above their respective PQLs in the analyzed soil samples. The detected concentrations of metals in the soil samples for which they were analyzed are below their respective CHHSLs and RSLs and also below hazardous waste thresholds including CCR Title 22 TTLC values,10 times the CCR Title 22 STLC values, and 20 times the Federal and CCR Title 22 TCLP values.On the basis of these results, in Kleinfelder’s opinion no further study with regard to concern for human health is warranted by the detected metals, and the tested soil would be considered a non-hazardous waste. In summary, petroleum hydrocarbons in the diesel and oil ranges were detected in a soil sample collected at approximately 20 feet bgs from Boring KA-7, in the area of the former location of “Hydraulic Lift #2.” This is the area of a historic petroleum hydrocarbon release known to have impacted soil,where remedial excavation was performed under oversight of the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA),which 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 ES -8 December 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 620 W. 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p|562.432.1696 f|562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com issued a November 21, 2008 “no further action”letter (OCHCA Case No. 08IC027) confirming completion of the remedial action.Because the 20-foot bgs sample was the deepest sample collected by Kleinfelder from this boring, it is not known whether higher TPH concentrations may be present below a depth of 20 feet bgs.For this reason, Kleinfelder recommends additional assessment of the vertical extent of impact to soil in this area, especially if Site redevelopment will involve excavation at this location. In addition,the VOC toluene was detected in soil samples from various depths (to a maximum of 50 feet bgs)from Borings B-1, B-2, and B-4, and the VOC MEK was detected in one soil sample collected from approximately 20 feet bgs from Boring B-2. Based on our evaluation of the data and our knowledge of the Site, the source (or sources)of these VOCs is not readily apparent.Before a building is constructed in the vicinity of these sampled locations, we recommend assessment of the potential for indoor air intrusion,by performing a limited soil vapor survey. Kleinfelder’s scope of services did not include soil sampling within the railroad right of way on the Site, or sampling of groundwater beneath the Site.To minimize risk,we therefore recommend performing soil sampling to assess for petroleum hydrocarbons, agricultural chemicals, heavy metals, and creosote in the vicinity of the railroad right of way, and performing groundwater sampling to assess for potential impact to groundwater beneath the Site resulting from upgradient off-Site facilities where releases are known to, or may, have impacted shallow groundwater. 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 Page 1 of 21 December 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 620 W. 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p|562.432.1696 f|562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com 1 INTRODUCTION ___________________________________________________________________________________ This report presents the results of a Limited Preliminary Phase II ESA performed by Kleinfelder of the proposed ARTIC -Phase 1 project site,generally located at the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and South Douglass Road in the City of Anaheim, Orange County, California.The assessment was performed to assess the following RECs and potential RECs that were identified in Kleinfelder’s Phase I ESA of the Site, dated July 17, 2009: Blue-green colored staining was observed on asphalt pavement and concrete, near a dipping vat and within a drainage swale,at the Sullivan & Mann Lumber Company at 1790 South Douglass Road. A gravel-filled pit was observed within a corrugated metal building on the southern portion of the Site parcel with an address of 1750 South Douglass Road. The former use of this pit is unknown to Kleinfelder and previous sampling in this area was not identified by the Phase I ESA. The presence of undocumented fill material was reported in a former quarry on the Site parcel with an address of 1750 South Douglass Road. In addition to the RECs and potential RECs discussed above, Kleinfelder also assessed the following potential areas of concern which we believe warranted further investigation and/or confirmation sampling: An inactive laboratory and a former hazardous materials storage shed are located at 1750 South Douglass Road. In addition, a paint booth was formerly located inside the present-day warehouse building at 1790 South Douglass Road. Paint staining was observed in close proximity to a floor drain at 1750 South Douglass Road, adjacent to a former hazardous materials storage building. This Site parcel at 1750 South Douglass Road also contained a former fueling facility including two 10,000 gallon gasoline USTs, one 10,000-gallon diesel UST, 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 Page 2 of 21 December 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 620 W. 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p|562.432.1696 f|562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com two 5,000-gallon diesel USTs, and associated fuel dispensers. These USTs, along with two 280-gallon and 300-gallon capacity waste oil USTs that were located farther to the east on the Site, were removed in March 1998.The gasoline and diesel USTs were replaced with a 20,000-gallon gasoline UST and a 20,000-gallon diesel UST, which were removed,along with the associated dispensers,in July 2008.OCHCA issued a Remedial Action Completion Certification dated June 19, 1998 for the investigation and remedial action for the USTs removed in March 1998.A March 4, 2009 letter with subject “No Further Action for Diesel Fuel and Gasoline Contaminated Soil” was issued by the Anaheim Public Utilities Department (APUD)to the Orange County Department of Public Works (OCPW)for removal of the USTs in July 2008, in reference to Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB)Case No. 083003990T.Based on Kleinfelder’s review of available Site assessment information,the maximum detected concentrations of BTEX were in samples from a boring (B-3) advanced by Tait to the north of the two former 10,000-gallon gasoline USTs. Soil hydrocarbon impact was also evident in samples from Tait’s Boring B-5, which was located by a former dispenser island beneath a presently-existing canopy; and in Boring B-6, which was located between the two former 5,000-gallon diesel USTs. Borings B-5 and B-6 are at the locations where Tait reported the highest concentrations of TPH from its assessment. Additionally,Block reported detected concentrations of TRPH and PCE in samples of soil stockpiled from removal of the two former waste oil USTs. Three hydraulic lifts and associated equipment and piping were removed from the Site parcel at 1750 South Douglass Road in September and October 2008 under the oversight of OCHCA,which subsequently issued a November 21, 2008 case closure letter (OCHCA Case No. 08IC027) confirming completion of remedial action.A soil sample collected at a depth of approximately 15 feet bgs from a remedial excavation on the north side of former “Hydraulic Lift #2” apparently contained the highest detected TPH concentration for soil not subsequently removed from this area. Four wastewater clarifiers and associated sewer piping systems were removed from the Site parcel at 1750 South Douglass Road in October 2008.OCHCA’s 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 Page 3 of 21 December 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 620 W. 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p|562.432.1696 f|562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com aforementioned November 21, 2008 Closure Letter (OCHCA Case No. 08IC027) also confirmed completion of remedial action associated with removal of these clarifiers. The excavation areas were filled with gravel but not sealed at the surface. This Limited Preliminary Phase II ESA included performing soil sampling,laboratory analyses,and data evaluation,along with formulation of conclusions and recommendations.Kleinfelder’s scope of services did not include sampling soil within the railroad right of way on the Site or sampling of groundwater beneath the Site.For this reason, although identified as potential RECs in the Phase I ESA report, the following were not addressed as part of this Limited Preliminary Phase II ESA: Former “pouring” of oil along the railroad tracks at/near the Anaheim Stadium Metrolink/Amtrak Station and the potential presence of agricultural chemicals (due to former agricultural land use on surrounding areas from at least 1938 through at least 1952),and heavy metals and creosote (from treated railroad ties associated with the railroad tracks). Potential impacts to Site groundwater resulting from upgradient off-Site facilities where releases are known to, or may,have impacted shallow groundwater. 1.1 SITE DESCRIPTION The Site is an irregularly-shaped property consisting of nine parcels or portions thereof, which are occupied by commercial buildings, a former operations-and-maintenance facility, a lumber facility, a portion of the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) Railroad Corridor, and the Anaheim Stadium Metrolink/Amtrak Station,or are vacant land. The vacant parcels are generally small areas along the LOSSAN Railroad Corridor that do not have associated addresses.The approximate location of the Site, with respect to surrounding topographic features, is shown on Plate 1. 1.2 SITE HISTORY Available historic information reviewed during Kleinfelder’s Phase I ESA of the Site indicates that the eastern portion of the Site (east of the approximate present-day 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 Page 4 of 21 December 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 620 W. 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p|562.432.1696 f|562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com location of State Route 57) appeared to be part of the Santa Ana River from at latest 1938 through 1952.Also during this period,the area of the Site which is presently occupied by the Anaheim Stadium Metrolink/Amtrak Station appeared to have been used for agricultural purposes (orchards).By at latest 1976 the Site was partially developed east of South Douglass Road and the Metrolink/Amtrak Station was in operation.Construction of the remaining developed portions of the Site took place subsequent to 1976. 1.3 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING We understand that the Site is proposed to be re-developed as a major transit center that will provide Metrolink, Amtrak, and fixed-route bus service, and function as a regional gateway for the future California High Speed Train. 1.4 ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES The objective of this Limited Preliminary Phase II ESA was to assess RECs and potential RECs identified in Kleinfelder’s Phase I ESA (Kleinfelder,2009). The scope of services included the following: Performing a geophysical survey to locate identifiable subgrade utility lines in the immediate vicinity of proposed boreholes. Performing soil sampling activities, including the use of hollow-stem auger drilling and direct-push Geoprobe® technologies. Performing laboratory analysis of soil samples. Evaluating the results and documenting the assessment’s findings and conclusions in this report. 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 Page 5 of 21 December 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 620 W. 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p|562.432.1696 f|562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com 2 FIELD ACTIVITIES ___________________________________________________________________________________ Kleinfelder provided personnel to perform a geophysical survey and drilling/soil sampling with the assistance of our contractors. Kleinfelder also documented observations in the field, submitted samples for laboratory analyses,evaluated the field and analytical data,and prepared this report of findings. The following provides a description of field activities performed as part of this Limited Preliminary Phase II ESA. 2.1 HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN AND RELATED ACTIVITIES Prior to the initiation of field activities Kleinfelder prepared a Site-specific health and safety plan (HSP). The HSP included information concerning anticipated chemical and physical hazards that would potentially be encountered,and environmental monitoring equipment to be used during field activities.Ambient air monitoring and screening of soil samples for total VOCs with a photo-ionization detector (PID)were performed during sampling activities.Site safety was discussed with the drilling subcontractor on-Site prior to sampling. A cellular phone was available at the Site to facilitate potential emergency response. Additionally, directions to the nearest hospital were included with the HSP presented to field personnel. 2.2 UTILITY CLEARANCE Underground Service Alert (DigAlert) provided a partial location service for major utility lines free of charge. California law requires at least 48 hours (2 business days) advance notification of DigAlert prior to performing intrusive activities, and Kleinfelder provided the required notification in accordance with State requirements to arrange for utility marking within accessible areas. Because DigAlert may not mark underground utilities on private property, a geophysical services subcontractor was contracted to locate and mark detectable utility lines at proposed sampling locations. Geophysical instruments were used to survey the sampling locations for underground obstructions prior to initiation of intrusive field 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 Page 6 of 21 December 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 620 W. 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p|562.432.1696 f|562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com activities. Visual inspections of the sampling areas were also performed to assess potential subsurface obstructions. 2.3 SOIL SAMPLING The following sections discuss the soil sampling activities performed during this assessment. 2.3.1 Sampling Program The proposed sampling approach included the collection of soil samples from identified areas of potential environmental concern.The soil sampling was performed using a combination of drilling methods, including a conventional hollow-stem auger drill rig used between September 22 and 25, 2009, and a direct-push Geoprobe®drill rig used on October 15 and 16, 2009. Prior to drilling, direct-push sampling locations on asphalt concrete pavement and concrete were cored using a core drill.Each boring location was subsequently cleared using a hand auger to a depth of approximately 5 feet bgs,during which time a near-surface soil sample (i.e.,sample of first-encountered soil)from each boring was collected using the “grab” sampling method. Kleinfelder’s subcontractor California Pacific Drilling (Cal Pac)performed drilling of Borings B-1 through B-5 and Boring W-1 with a truck-mounted drill rig using hollow-stem augers.After collection of the “grab”near-surface sample, soil samples were collected from each of these borings using a California-modified split spoon sampler driven approximately 18 inches for each sample interval.These soil samples were collected beginning at a depth of approximately 5 feet bgs,then at approximately 10 feet bgs, and continuing at approximate 10-foot intervals beneath to a maximum depth of 50 feet bgs. Kleinfelder’s subcontractor HydroGeoSpectrum (HGS)performed direct-push drilling at 16 boring locations (KA-1 through KA-16)using a conventional truck-mounted 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 Page 7 of 21 December 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 620 W. 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p|562.432.1696 f|562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com Geoprobe®drill rig or limited-access direct-push drill rig,as dictated by Site access conditions.Following collection of a “grab” near-surface sample at each location, soil samples were collected at varying depths,beginning at a depth of approximately 3 feet bgs at selected locations and continuing to a maximum depth of approximately 25 feet bgs.For each specified sampling location and depth, the Geoprobe®soil sampling system was attached to deployment rods, advanced to the desired sampling depth, and subsequently driven approximately 2 feet (unless refusal was encountered)to acquire the soil sample. 2.3.2 Soil Sample Collection Kleinfelder field personnel performed the soil sampling under the technical guidance of a State of California Professional Geologist (PG).The near-surface soil samples were collected using a decontaminated hand auger and placed into 8-ounce glass jars and pre-preserved volatile organic analysis (VOA)vials as further discussed below. Relatively-undisturbed soil samples were collected from the hollow-stem auger borings using a split-spoon sampler lined with 2.5-inch diameter by 6-inch long stainless steel sleeves, and from the direct-push borings using a Geoprobe®soil sampler lined with acetate sleeves.For each specified sampling depth in each boring, a portion of the retrieved soil core sample was cut off and covered with Teflon®sheeting followed by tight-fitting plastic caps. Soil samples were screened in the field using a PID calibrated to a 50-part per million by volume (ppmv)hexane standard. The PID had a detection limit of 0.1 ppmv.A portion of the soil from each sample interval was placed in a clean,resealable plastic bag that was subsequently sealed. The bag remained sealed at ambient air temperature for approximately 10 minutes to allow potential VOC vapors to volatize into the bag’s headspace. Then the probe tip of the PID was placed into the bag by unsealing a small length of the seal,and the VOC vapor reading was recorded on the log of boring (see logs provided in Appendix A). 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 Page 8 of 21 December 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 620 W. 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p|562.432.1696 f|562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com For soil samples intended for VOC analysis, a portion of the soil sample was placed in pre-preserved, laboratory-prepared VOA vials in accordance with US EPA Method 5035. Each soil sample was labeled with a unique sample identification number, the project number, and date, and placed in an ice-chilled cooler for delivery under chain-of-custody (COC) protocol for analysis to Enviro-Chem, Inc. in Pomona, California. Except for Boring W-1, after completion of soil sampling each boring was back-filled with bentonite slurry or hydrated bentonite chips or granules, and then the surface was patched with asphalt or concrete if appropriate to match the surrounding area. Boring W -1 was subsequently converted to a geotechnical monitoring well. 2.3.3 Borehole Logging Kleinfelder field personnel, under the technical guidance of a State of California PG, examined the sampled soil and classified it in general accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System (USCS), using visual-manual procedures as described in ASTM International (formerly known as American Society for Testing and Materials) Designation D 2488-93.Additional geologic observations were noted as appropriate. 2.3.4 Equipment Decontamination Drilling equipment used in Kleinfelder’s assessment was decontaminated prior to use by high-pressure hot water washing. Soil sampling equipment was cleaned prior to collecting each sample by washing in a non-phosphate detergent (i.e., Liquinox®) and tap water wash, using a brush to dislodge soil, dirt, or other encrusted materials, and then double rinsing in distilled water. 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 Page 9 of 21 December 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 620 W. 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p|562.432.1696 f|562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com 2.3.5 Investigation-Derived Waste For soil borings drilled using the hollow-stem auger drill rig, soil cuttings were collected and contained in labeled Department of Transportation (DOT) 17H, 55-gallon drums, and temporarily stored on the Site pending profiling and disposal.Rinse water generated during cleaning of equipment was also collected and contained in labeled DOT 17H, 55-gallon drums pending disposal. For soil borings drilled using direct-push equipment,the soil sampling generated minimal to no soil cuttings. 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 Page 10 of 21 December 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 620 W. 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p|562.432.1696 f|562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com 3 ANALYTICAL PROGRAM ___________________________________________________________________________________ The following is a summary of the analyses performed on soil samples collected from the Site. Based on field observations and Site use,soil samples from the following borings were analyzed for the indicated constituents: Soil samples collected from Borings B-1 through B-5 and Boring W-1 were analyzed for TPH-CCID using US EPA Method 8015B,VOCs including fuel oxygenates using US EPA Methods 5035/8260B,OCPs using US EPA Method 8081A, PCBs using US EPA Method 8082,and Title 22 Metals using US EPA Methods 6010B/7471A. Soil samples collected from Borings KA-1 and KA-2 were analyzed for TPH-CCID using US EPA Method 8015B,VOCs using US EPA Methods 5035/8260B, and Title 22 Metals using US EPA Methods 6010B/7471A. Soil samples collected from Borings KA-3,KA-4, KA-6,and KA-9 were analyzed for TPH-CCID using US EPA Method 8015B,VOCs using US EPA Methods 5035/8260B,OCPs using US EPA Method 8081A, PCBs using US EPA Method 8082, and Title 22 Metals using US EPA Methods 6010B/7471A. Soil samples collected from Borings KA-5, KA-7, KA-8, KA-13, and KA-16 were analyzed for TPH-CCID using US EPA Method 8015B,VOCs using US EPA Methods 5035/8260B,OCPs using US EPA Method 8081A, and PCBs using US EPA Method 8082. Soil samples collected from Borings KA-10 through KA-12 were analyzed for TPH-CCID using US EPA Method 8015B and VOCs using US EPA Methods 5035/8260B. 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 Page 11 of 21 December 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 620 W. 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p|562.432.1696 f|562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com Soil samples collected from Borings KA-14 and KA-15 were analyzed for TPH-CCID using US EPA Method 8015B,VOCs using US EPA Methods 5035/8260B, and PCBs using US EPA Method 8082. The soil analytical laboratory reports and chain-of-custody records are provided in Appendix B. 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 Page 12 of 21 December 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 620 W. 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p|562.432.1696 f|562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com 4 RESULTS ___________________________________________________________________________________ 4.1 FIELD RESULTS The soils encountered in the borings consisted of interbedded layers of sand,silty sand, clayey sand,sandy silt, gravel,clay,and sandy clay.Based on Kleinfelder’s review of the logs, sands and silty sands appear to predominate at relatively shallow depths (to approximately 20 to 60 feet bgs depending on the location), whereas silts and clays tend to predominate at deeper depths (to approximately 80 to 85 feet bgs), although the deeper soils in Borings B-4, B-5, and W -1 include interbedded sand, silty sand, and gravel.Groundwater was encountered in only four of Kleinfelder’s borings,at an approximate depth of 83 feet bgs in Boring B-2,58 feet bgs in Boring B-3, 87 feet bgs in Boring B-4,and 25 feet bgs and 56 feet bgs in Boring W -1.Based on deeper soil samples that were not wet in Borings B-3 and W -1, the groundwater encountered in these borings appears likely to have been perched.Groundwater was not encountered in the remaining borings, although the geotechnical soil sample collected from 51 feet bgs in Boring B-1 exhibited free water, suggesting a possibility of perched groundwater at this location also.A more-detailed description of the interpreted soil profile at each of the boring locations, based on the logged soil samples, is presented in Appendix A. The indicated groupings represent the predominant materials encountered, although relatively thin, discontinuous layers of different material may occur within the major divisions. Petroleum hydrocarbon odors were noted in the two soil samples collected from Boring KA-12 at approximately 15 feet bgs and 19 feet bgs.There were no noticeable chemical/hydrocarbon odors or staining in the soil samples collected from the remaining borings.VOC vapors were detected by the PID in the screened soil samples from the following borings: Boring B-1 –Five samples,at concentrations ranging from 0.5 ppmv to 2.0 ppmv. Boring B-2 –12 samples,at concentrations ranging from 1.1 ppmv to 4.6 ppmv. Boring B-3 –Six samples,at concentrations ranging from 0.5 ppmv to 2.3 ppmv. Boring B-4 –Six samples,at concentrations ranging from 0.4 ppmv to 3.6 ppmv. 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 Page 13 of 21 December 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 620 W. 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p|562.432.1696 f|562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com Boring B-5 –Eight samples,at concentrations ranging from 0.9 ppmv to 3.1 ppmv. Boring KA-15 –Two samples,at concentrations ranging from 0.2 ppmv to 0.4 ppmv. Boring KA-16 –Two samples,at concentrations ranging from 0.2 ppmv to 0.8 ppmv. 4.2 SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS Analytical results for organic constituents (TPH-CCID, VOCs,OCPs, and PCBs)are summarized in Table 1.Analytical results for Title 22 Metals are summarized in Table 2.Approximate boring locations are shown on Plate 2.A summary of soil analytical results for the areas assessed follows: TPH in the diesel and oil ranges were detected in the 20-foot bgs soil sample collected from Boring KA-7,at respective concentrations of 15.4 mg/kg and 109 mg/kg.Boring KA-7 was drilled on the north side of former “Hydraulic Lift #2.” The chromatograms for the diesel-and oil-range results were reported by the analytical laboratory to not match that of the diesel or motor oil standards. No TPH in the gasoline, diesel, and oil ranges was detected at or above the PQLs in the remaining analyzed soil samples. The VOC toluene was detected in 16 soil samples collected from various depths (maximum of approximately 50 feet bgs) in three borings (B-1, B-2, and B-4).Toluene was detected at a maximum concentration of 0.035 mg/kg in the 20-foot bgs soil sample collected from Boring B-2.Toluene was not detected in samples from the remaining borings. The VOC MEK was detected at a concentration of 0.039 mg/kg in the 20-foot bgs soil sample collected from Boring B-2, but was not detected at or above the PQL in either the other analyzed samples from this boring or in samples from other borings. 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 Page 14 of 21 December 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 620 W. 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p|562.432.1696 f|562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com No other VOCs were detected at or above the laboratory PQLs in the analyzed soil samples. The organochlorine pesticide DDT was detected in the 10-foot bgs soil sample collected from Boring B-2 at a concentration of 0.002 mg/kg. No other OCPs were detected at or above the laboratory PQLs in this sample. No OCPs were detected at or above the laboratory PQLs in the remaining analyzed soil samples. No PCBs were detected at concentrations at or above the laboratory PQLs in the analyzed soil samples. Nine of the 17 CCR Title 22 Metals were detected at or above their respective PQLs in some or all of the analyzed soil samples. Cadmium was detected in three samples, at a maximum concentration of 0.669 mg/kg in the 1-foot bgs sample from Boring KA-1. Cobalt was detected in 15 samples, at a maximum concentration of 4.69 mg/kg in the 5-foot bgs sample from Boring KA-2. Nickel was detected in 42 samples, at a maximum concentration of 18.8 mg/kg in the 20-foot bgs sample from Boring B-5. Lead was detected in 52 samples, at a maximum concentration of 33.8 mg/kg in the 5-foot bgs sample from Boring KA-2. Copper was detected in 55 samples, at a maximum concentration of 57.1 mg/kg in the 40-foot bgs sample from Boring B-2. Vanadium was also detected in 55 samples, at a maximum concentration of 55.4 mg/kg in the 20-foot bgs sample from Boring B-5. Barium was detected in 58 samples, at a maximum concentration of 157 mg/kg in the 20-foot bgs sample from Boring B-5. Chromium and zinc were detected in all 59 soil samples, at respective maximum concentrations of 27.6 mg/kg and 97.8 mg/kg,in the 20-foot bgs sample from Boring B-5. The remaining eight CCR Title 22 Metals were not detected at or above their respective PQLs in the 59 soil samples analyzed for metals. The eight metals that were not detected were antimony, arsenic, beryllium, mercury, molybdenum, silver, selenium, and thallium. 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 Page 15 of 21 December 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 620 W. 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p|562.432.1696 f|562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com 5 EVALUATION,CONCLUSIONS,AND RECOMMENDATIONS ___________________________________________________________________________________ Detected concentrations of analytes in soil were compared to the April 2009 RSLs for Industrial Soil tabulated by US EPA (US EPA, 2009)and to Soil CHHSLs for Commercial/Industrial Land Use published by the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) in January 2005 (Cal/EPA, 2005), providing that the specific analyte had an RSL and/or CHHSL.The RSLs and CHHSLs are human health risk-based tools for evaluating and cleaning up contaminated sites. They are considered to be protective for humans (including sensitive groups) over a lifetime. Residential values are lower and therefore more conservative than the corresponding values for Commercial/Industrial Use,but because residential Site use is not presently planned, the commercial/industrial values were judged to be appropriate for use in the comparison with Site data. Generally, if contaminant concentrations fall below RSLs and CHHSLs, no further action or study is warranted, so long as the exposure assumptions match those taken into account by the screening value calculations. Analyte concentrations in soil were also compared to CCR Title 22 hazardous waste thresholds (i.e.,the TTLC values and 10 times the STLC values)and to the Federal and CCR Title 22 TCLP values, again providing that there were such values for the specific analyte.If a constituent’s concentration in waste soil exceeds the constituent’s TTLC value (assuming there is one), then the waste is California-hazardous. If a constituent’s concentration in a soil waste is 10 times its STLC value or higher, then analysis for the soluble constituent is required to determine if the waste is California-hazardous. Certain constituents also have Federal and/or CCR Title 22 TCLP values, which are used to further assess whether a waste is RCRA-hazardous. If a constituent concentration in a soil sample is 20 times its TCLP value or higher, analysis for the soluble constituent is warranted to determine if the material may be a hazardous waste. Based on the results and findings of this assessment, Kleinfelder concludes the following: Diesel-range and oil-range TPH, at respective concentrations of 15.4 mg/kg and 109 mg/kg, were detected in one soil sample,collected at 20 feet bgs from 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 Page 16 of 21 December 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 620 W. 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p|562.432.1696 f|562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com Boring KA-7, which was drilled on the north side of the location of former “Hydraulic Lift #2.”The fact that the chromatograms for the diesel-and oil-range results were reported by the analytical laboratory to not match that of the diesel or motor oil standard suggests the presence of hydraulic oil in this sample instead of diesel fuel and motor oil.Although the total TPH concentration of 124.4 mg/kg does not necessarily warrant action,the 20-foot bgs sample was the deepest sample collected from this boring, so it is not known whether TPH concentrations increase below a depth of 20 feet.For this reason, additional assessment of the vertical extent of impact to soil in this area is recommended, especially if Site redevelopment will involve excavation in this area. DDT was detected at a concentration of 0.002 mg/kg in one soil sample, collected from approximately 10 feet bgs in Boring B-2, which was drilled in the central portion of the Site’s 1750 South Douglass Road parcel.The detected concentration is far below the US EPA Industrial Soil RSL of 7.0 mg/kg and the Soil Commercial/Industrial Land Use CHHSL of 6.4 mg/kg.Based on this, in Kleinfelder’s opinion no further study with regard to concern for human health is warranted. Additionally, the detected DDT concentration is far below the CCR Title 22 TTLC value for DDT of 1.0 mg/kg, and also far below 10 times the CCR Title 22 STLC value for DDT of 0.1 mg/L. Since DDT does not have a TCLP value and the detected DDT concentration is less than 10 times the DDT STLC value and also below the DDT TTLC value, on the basis of these results the tested soil would be considered non-hazardous waste.DDT was not detected at or above the laboratory PQLs in the deeper soil samples (20, 30, 40, and 50 feet bgs)analyzed from this boring.No additional assessment is recommended for DDT. The VOC toluene was detected at a maximum concentration of 0.035 mg/kg in 16 soil samples collected from various depths (to a maximum of approximately 50 feet bgs)in Borings B-1, B-2, and B-4.In addition,the VOC MEK was detected in one soil sample,collected from approximately 20 feet bgs from Boring B-2, at a concentration of 0.039 mg/kg.Based on our evaluation of the data and our knowledge of the Site, the source of these VOC constituents is not readily apparent.The detected maximum concentrations of toluene and MEK 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 Page 17 of 21 December 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 620 W. 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p|562.432.1696 f|562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com are below their respective US EPA Industrial RSLs of 46,000 mg/kg and 195,000 mg/kg.Toluene and MEK do not have soil CHHSLs, and the presence of these VOCs may pose indoor air intrusion concerns should a building be constructed in the vicinity of the sampled locations.Before a building is constructed in the area of these locations, we recommend assessment of the potential for indoor air intrusion by performing a limited soil vapor study.MEK has both a Federal and CCR Title 22 TCLP value of 200 mg/L. The detected 0.039 mg/kg concentration of MEK is far below 20 times the TCLP value, so on the basis of these results the tested soil would not be considered a hazardous waste. The detected concentrations of metals in the soil samples analyzed for these constituents are below hazardous waste thresholds including TTLC values,10 times the STLC values, and 20 times the TCLP values.The detected metal concentrations in the soil samples are also below their respective RSLs and CHHSLs.Kleinfelder therefore recommends no further assessment concerning the detected metals. TPH,VOCs, and OCPs were not detected at or above PQLs in the remaining soil samples collected from these and other sampled locations.No additional assessment of these other areas is recommended. PCBs were not detected at or above PQLs in the soil samples.No additional assessment for PCBs is recommended. In summary,petroleum hydrocarbons in the diesel and oil ranges were detected in a soil sample collected at approximately 20 feet bgs from Boring KA-7,in the area of the former location of “Hydraulic Lift #2.”This is the area of a historic petroleum hydrocarbon release known to have impacted soil,where remedial excavation was performed under oversight of OCHCA,which issued a November 21, 2008 “no further action”letter (OCHCA Case No. 08IC027) confirming completion of the remedial action. Because the 20-foot bgs sample was the deepest sample collected by Kleinfelder from this boring, it is not known whether higher TPH concentrations may be present below a depth of 20 feet bgs.We therefore recommend further assessment of the extent of impact to soil in this area, especially if Site redevelopment will involve excavation here. 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 Page 18 of 21 December 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 620 W. 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p|562.432.1696 f|562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com In addition, VOC constituents were encountered at various depths,up to 50 feet bgs,in soil samples from Borings B-1, B-2, and B-4. Based on our evaluation of the data and our knowledge of the Site, the source of these VOCs is not readily apparent.Before a building is constructed in the vicinity of these sampled locations, we recommend assessment of the potential for indoor air intrusion by performing a limited soil vapor survey. Based on laboratory analytical results for the other analyzed constituents and areas of potential concern, no apparent significant impact has resulted from former Site operations in the other areas investigated. Kleinfelder’s scope of services did not include soil sampling within the railroad right of way on the Site or sampling of groundwater beneath the Site.To minimize risk,we therefore recommend performing soil sampling to assess for petroleum hydrocarbons, agricultural chemicals, heavy metals, and creosote in the vicinity of the railroad right of way, and performing groundwater sampling to assess for potential impact to groundwater beneath the Site resulting from upgradient off-Site facilities where releases are known to, or may, have impacted shallow groundwater. If unanticipated suspect soil contamination is encountered during future Site redevelopment activities, Kleinfelder recommends stopping construction activity in the area, implementing appropriate health and safety procedures, and notifying Kleinfelder so that we may perform further assessment. 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 Page 19 of 21 December 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 620 W. 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p|562.432.1696 f|562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com 6 LIMITATIONS ___________________________________________________________________________________ This work was performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of Kleinfelder’s profession practicing in the same locality, under similar conditions and at the date the services are provided.Our conclusions, opinions and recommendations are based on a limited number of observations and data.It is possible that conditions could vary between or beyond the data evaluated.Kleinfelder makes no other representation, guarantee or warranty, express or implied, regarding the services, communication (oral or written), report, opinion, or instrument of service provided. This report may be used only by the Client and the registered design professional in responsible charge and only for the purposes stated for this specific engagement within a reasonable time from its issuance, but in no event later than 2 years from the date of the report. The work performed was based on project information provided by the Client. If the Client does not retain Kleinfelder to review any plans and specifications, including any revisions or modifications to the plans and specifications, Kleinfelder assumes no responsibility for the suitability of our recommendations.In addition, if there are any changes in the field to the plans and specifications, Client must obtain written approval from Kleinfelder’s engineer that such changes do not affect our recommendations. Failure to do so will vitiate Kleinfelder’s recommendations. Kleinfelder offers various levels of investigative and engineering services to suit the varying needs of different clients. It should be recognized that definition and evaluation of geologic and environmental conditions are a difficult and inexact science. Judgments leading to conclusions and recommendations are generally made with incomplete knowledge of the subsurface conditions present due to the limitations of data from field studies. Although risk can never be eliminated, more-detailed and extensive studies yield more information, which may help understand and manage the level of risk. Since detailed study and analysis involves greater expense, our clients participate in determining levels of service that provide adequate information for their purposes at 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 Page 20 of 21 December 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 620 W. 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p|562.432.1696 f|562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com acceptable levels of risk. More extensive studies, including subsurface studies or field tests, should be performed to reduce uncertainties. Acceptance of this report will indicate that the Client has reviewed the document and determined that it does not need or want a greater level of service than provided. During the course of the performance of Kleinfelder's services, hazardous materials may have been discovered. Kleinfelder assumes no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any claim, loss of property value, damage, or injury that results from preexisting hazardous materials being encountered or present on the project site, or from the discovery of such hazardous materials. Nothing contained in this report should be construed or interpreted as requiring Kleinfelder to assume the status of an owner, operator, or generator, or person who arranges for disposal, transport, storage or treatment of hazardous materials within the meaning of any governmental statute, regulation or order. The Client is solely responsible for directing notification of all governmental agencies, and the public at large, of the existence, release, treatment or disposal of any hazardous materials observed at the project site, either before or during performance of Kleinfelder's services. The Client is responsible for directing all arrangements to lawfully store, treat, recycle, dispose, or otherwise handle hazardous materials, including cuttings and samples resulting from Kleinfelder's services. 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 Page 21 of 21 December 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 620 W. 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p|562.432.1696 f|562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com 7 REFERENCES ___________________________________________________________________________________ California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), 2005,Use of California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs) in Evaluation of Contaminated Properties, January. Kleinfelder, 2009,Draft Phase I Environmental Site Assessment,Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC)–Phase 1, Anaheim, California,July 17. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), 2009,Regional Screening Level Table (RSL),April, available on US EPA’s website at http://www.epa.gov/region09/superfund/prg/. TABLES TABLE 1 SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR TPH-CCID, VOCs, OCPs, and PCBs Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) - Phase 1 Anaheim, California DRAFT SampleDepthTPH-gasolineTPH-dieselTPH-oil2-Butanone(MEK)TolueneOtherVOCsOCPsPCBs8015B 8015B 8015B 8260B 8260B 8260B 8081A 8082 B-1-1.5 24-Sep-09 1.5 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 B-1-5 24-Sep-09 5 <100 <100 <500 <0.020 0.010 <0.005-0.020 <0.010-0.200 <0.100 B-1-10 24-Sep-09 10 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 B-1-20 24-Sep-09 20 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 B-1-30 24-Sep-09 30 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 B-1-40 24-Sep-09 40 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 B-1-50 24-Sep-09 50 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 0.007 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 B-2-1.5 24-Sep-09 1.5 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 0.010 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 B-2-5 24-Sep-09 5 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 B-2-10 24-Sep-09 10 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 0.008 <0.005-0.020 4,4'-DDT - 0.002 <0.010 B-2-20 24-Sep-09 20 <10 <10 <50 0.039 0.035 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 B-2-30 24-Sep-09 30 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 0.011 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 B-2-40 24-Sep-09 40 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 0.006 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 B-2-50 24-Sep-09 50 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 0.013 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 B-3-1.5 22-Sep-09 1.5 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 B-3-5 22-Sep-09 5 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 B-3-10 22-Sep-09 10 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 B-3-20 22-Sep-09 20 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 B-3-30 22-Sep-09 30 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 B-3-40 22-Sep-09 40 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 B-3-50 22-Sep-09 50 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 B-4-1 23-Sep-09 1 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 B-4-5 23-Sep-09 5 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 0.011 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 B-4-10 23-Sep-09 10 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 0.024 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 B-4-20 23-Sep-09 20 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 B-4-30 23-Sep-09 30 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 0.020 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 B-4-40 23-Sep-09 40 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 0.025 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 B-4-50 23-Sep-09 50 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 0.008 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 B-5-1.5 22-Sep-09 1.5 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 B-5-5 22-Sep-09 5 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 B-5-10 22-Sep-09 10 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 B-5-20 22-Sep-09 20 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 B-5-30 22-Sep-09 30 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 B-5-40 22-Sep-09 40 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 B-5-50 22-Sep-09 50 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 W-1-1.5 25-Sep-09 1.5 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 W-1-5 25-Sep-09 5 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 W-1-10 25-Sep-09 10 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 W-1-20 25-Sep-09 20 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 W-1-30 25-Sep-09 30 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 W-1-40 25-Sep-09 40 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 W-1-50 25-Sep-09 50 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 B-4 B-5 W-1BoringNumberB-1 B-2 B-3 Concentration in mg/kg(feet)DateSampledSampleNumber103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 T1-1 December 23, 2009 TABLE 1 SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR TPH-CCID, VOCs, OCPs, and PCBs Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) - Phase 1 Anaheim, California DRAFT SampleDepthTPH-gasolineTPH-dieselTPH-oil2-Butanone(MEK)TolueneOtherVOCsOCPsPCBs8015B 8015B 8015B 8260B 8260B 8260B 8081A 8082 BoringNumberConcentration in mg/kg(feet)DateSampledSampleNumberKA-1-1 15-Oct-09 1 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 ------ KA-1-5 15-Oct-09 5 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 ------ KA-1-10 15-Oct-09 10 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 ------ KA-1-15 15-Oct-09 15 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 ------ KA-2-1 15-Oct-09 1 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 ------ KA-2-5 15-Oct-09 5 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 ------ KA-2-10 15-Oct-09 10 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 ------ KA-2-15 15-Oct-09 15 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 ------ KA-3-1 15-Oct-09 1 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 KA-3-6 15-Oct-09 6 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 KA-4-2.5 15-Oct-09 2.5 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 KA-4-4.5 15-Oct-09 4.5 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 KA-5-5.5 15-Oct-09 5.5 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 KA-5-10 15-Oct-09 10 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 KA-5-15 15-Oct-09 15 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 KA-6-3 15-Oct-09 3 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 KA-6-5 15-Oct-09 5 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 KA-7-15 15-Oct-09 15 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 KA-7-20 15-Oct-09 20 <10 15.4*109^<0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 KA-8 KA-8-5 15-Oct-09 5 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.010 KA-9-2.5 16-Oct-09 2.5 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.01 KA-9-5 16-Oct-09 5 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.01 KA-9-10 16-Oct-09 10 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.01 KA-10-15 16-Oct-09 15 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 ------ KA-10-20 16-Oct-09 20 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 ------ KA-11 KA-11-15 16-Oct-09 15 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 ------ KA-12-15 16-Oct-09 15 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 ------ KA-12-19 16-Oct-09 19 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 ------ KA-13-5 16-Oct-09 5 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.01 KA-13-10 16-Oct-09 10 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.01 KA-13-14.5 16-Oct-09 14.5 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.01 KA-14-5 16-Oct-09 5 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 ----<0.01 KA-14-10 16-Oct-09 10 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 ----<0.01 KA-14-13 16-Oct-09 13 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 ----<0.01 KA-15-5 16-Oct-09 5 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 ----<0.01 KA-15-10 16-Oct-09 10 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 ----<0.01 KA-15-15 16-Oct-09 15 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 ----<0.01 KA-16-6.5 16-Oct-09 6.5 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.01 KA-16-10 16-Oct-09 10 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.01 KA-16-14 16-Oct-09 14 <10 <10 <50 <0.020 <0.005 <0.005-0.020 <0.001-0.020 <0.01 KA-10 KA-9 KA-1 KA-2 KA-3 KA-4 KA-5 KA-6 KA-7 KA-16 KA-15 KA-14 KA-13 KA-12 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 T1-2 December 23, 2009 TABLE 1 SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR TPH-CCID, VOCs, OCPs, and PCBs Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) - Phase 1 Anaheim, California DRAFT SampleDepthTPH-gasolineTPH-dieselTPH-oil2-Butanone(MEK)TolueneOtherVOCsOCPsPCBs8015B 8015B 8015B 8260B 8260B 8260B 8081A 8082 BoringNumberConcentration in mg/kg(feet)DateSampledSampleNumberNL NL NL 195,000 46,000 Vary 4'4-DDT - 7.0 0.057 NL NL NL NL NL NL 4'4-DDT - 6.3 0.3 Notes:TPH-CCID = Total petroleum hydrocarbons with carbon chain identification TPH = Total petroleum hydrocarbons MEK = Methyl ethyl ketone VOCs = Volatile organic compounds OCPs = Organochlorine pesticides PCBs = Polychlorinated biphenyls 8015B = United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Analytical Method Number mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram <10 = Not detected above the indicated laboratory detection limit -- = Not analyzed * = Peaks in diesel range but chromatogram does not match that of diesel standard ^ = Peaks in motor oil range but chromatogram does not match that of motor oil standard RSL = Regional Screening Level CHHSL = California Human Health Screening Level NL = No listed value Bold value indicates detected concentration US EPA Industrial Soil RSL Commercial/Industrial CHHSL for Soil 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 T1-3 December 23, 2009 TABLE 2 SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR CCR TITLE 22 METALS Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) - Phase 1 Anaheim, California DRAFT SampleDepthAntimonyArsenicBariumBerylliumCadmiumChromiumCobaltCopperLeadMercuryMolybdenumNickelSeleniumSilverThalliumVanadiumZinc6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 7471A 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B B-1-1.5 24-Sep-09 1.5 <1.0 <0.3 30.6 <0.5 <0.5 6.16 <1.0 4.53 1.87 <0.01 <5.0 3.72 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 13.5 25.2 B-1-5 24-Sep-09 5 <1.0 <0.3 41.2 <0.5 <0.5 7.64 <1.0 5.50 2.80 <0.01 <5.0 4.78 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 16.6 46.6 B-1-10 24-Sep-09 10 <1.0 <0.3 27.5 <0.5 <0.5 4.07 <1.0 5.56 0.634 <0.01 <5.0 <2.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 9.8 22.8 B-1-20 24-Sep-09 20 <1.0 <0.3 17.0 <0.5 <0.5 3.41 <1.0 2.29 <0.5 <0.01 <5.0 2.68 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 8.72 11.7 B-1-30 24-Sep-09 30 <1.0 <0.3 26.2 <0.5 <0.5 5.83 <1.0 7.63 0.668 <0.01 <5.0 3.31 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 12.5 20.7 B-1-40 24-Sep-09 40 <1.0 <0.3 14.8 <0.5 <0.5 2.69 <1.0 12.4 <0.5 <0.01 <5.0 <2.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 6.74 12.7 B-1-50 24-Sep-09 50 <1.0 <0.3 136 <0.5 <0.5 17.8 <1.0 23.4 7.83 <0.01 <5.0 18.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 36.8 73.8 B-2-1.5 24-Sep-09 1.5 <1.0 <0.3 24.0 <0.5 <0.5 3.88 <1.0 2.87 1.07 <0.01 <5.0 2.19 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 11.0 16.1 B-2-5 24-Sep-09 5 <1.0 <0.3 17.9 <0.5 <0.5 3.03 <1.0 2.94 0.760 <0.01 <5.0 <2.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 8.01 12.9 B-2-10 24-Sep-09 10 <1.0 <0.3 33.4 <0.5 <0.5 5.40 <1.0 6.54 14.3 <0.01 <5.0 3.63 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 10.4 54.8 B-2-20 24-Sep-09 20 <1.0 <0.3 112 <0.5 <0.5 22.7 <1.0 23.8 16.5 <0.01 <5.0 14.7 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 43.8 73.1 B-2-30 24-Sep-09 30 <1.0 <0.3 66.5 <0.5 <0.5 17.9 <1.0 14.4 2.86 <0.01 <5.0 11.7 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 32.4 51.2 B-2-40 24-Sep-09 40 <1.0 <0.3 51.0 <0.5 <0.5 11.6 <1.0 57.1 4.47 <0.01 <5.0 11.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 22.6 52.0 B-2-50 24-Sep-09 50 <1.0 <0.3 122 <0.5 <0.5 14.1 <1.0 21.6 7.93 <0.01 <5.0 15.4 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 29.0 73.4 B-3-1.5 22-Sep-09 1.5 <1.0 <0.3 20.7 <0.5 <0.5 3.68 <1.0 3.27 1.24 <0.01 <5.0 2.53 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 8.67 14.4 B-3-5 22-Sep-09 5 <1.0 <0.3 27.7 <0.5 <0.5 5.30 <1.0 26.9 1.92 <0.01 <5.0 3.74 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 11.4 26.4 B-3-10 22-Sep-09 10 <1.0 <0.3 33.9 <0.5 <0.5 6.27 <1.0 23.2 3.32 <0.01 <5.0 4.04 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 14.0 31.1 B-3-20 22-Sep-09 20 <1.0 <0.3 17.7 <0.5 <0.5 3.52 <1.0 22.2 <0.5 <0.01 <5.0 <2.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 9.19 18.6 B-3-30 22-Sep-09 30 <1.0 <0.3 79.7 <0.5 <0.5 19.6 <1.0 17.7 3.12 <0.01 <5.0 13.3 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 33.6 52.3 B-3-40 22-Sep-09 40 <1.0 <0.3 94.3 <0.5 <0.5 10.9 <1.0 17.9 6.13 <0.01 <5.0 13.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 25.9 62.5 B-3-50 22-Sep-09 50 <1.0 <0.3 101 <0.5 <0.5 11.7 <1.0 20.2 6.45 <0.01 <5.0 11.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 28.0 62.2 B-4-1 23-Sep-09 1 <1.0 <0.3 24.0 <0.5 <0.5 4.20 <1.0 4.56 1.36 <0.01 <5.0 2.65 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 10.3 16.6 B-4-5 23-Sep-09 5 <1.0 <0.3 42.6 <0.5 <0.5 8.23 <1.0 7.27 2.07 <0.01 <5.0 5.49 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 17.6 27.2 B-4-10 23-Sep-09 10 <1.0 <0.3 22.3 <0.5 <0.5 3.57 <1.0 3.56 2.97 <0.01 <5.0 <2.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 9.63 16.1 B-4-20 23-Sep-09 20 <1.0 <0.3 15.9 <0.5 <0.5 2.29 <1.0 22.9 <0.5 <0.01 <5.0 <2.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 6.75 10.4 B-4-30 23-Sep-09 30 <1.0 <0.3 65.1 <0.5 <0.5 15.4 <1.0 9.91 1.45 <0.01 <5.0 10.3 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 28.3 44.0 B-4-40 23-Sep-09 40 <1.0 <0.3 9.73 <0.5 <0.5 0.664 <1.0 <1.0 <0.5 <0.01 <5.0 <2.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <5.0 5.95 B-4-50 23-Sep-09 50 <1.0 <0.3 119 <0.5 <0.5 14.6 <1.0 18.6 7.34 <0.01 <5.0 14.4 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 32.1 62.5 B-2 Concentration in mg/kgBoringNumber B-1 (feet)SampleNumberDateSampledB-3 B-4 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 T2-1 December 23, 2009 TABLE 2 SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR CCR TITLE 22 METALS Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) - Phase 1 Anaheim, California DRAFT SampleDepthAntimonyArsenicBariumBerylliumCadmiumChromiumCobaltCopperLeadMercuryMolybdenumNickelSeleniumSilverThalliumVanadiumZinc6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 7471A 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B Concentration in mg/kgBoringNumber(feet)SampleNumberDateSampledB-5-1.5 22-Sep-09 1.5 <1.0 <0.3 24.8 <0.5 <0.5 3.75 <1.0 4.33 5.54 <0.01 <5.0 2.86 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 8.81 18.3 B-5-5 22-Sep-09 5 <1.0 <0.3 23.0 <0.5 <0.5 4.23 <1.0 5.73 1.47 <0.01 <5.0 3.01 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 14.7 18.0 B-5-10 22-Sep-09 10 <1.0 <0.3 17.5 <0.5 <0.5 3.35 <1.0 4.11 0.873 <0.01 <5.0 <2.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 7.97 14.3 B-5-20 22-Sep-09 20 <1.0 <0.3 157 <0.5 <0.5 27.6 <1.0 33.0 20.3 <0.01 <5.0 18.8 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 55.4 97.8 B-5-30 22-Sep-09 30 <1.0 <0.3 68.3 <0.5 <0.5 15.8 <1.0 23.9 2.20 <0.01 <5.0 10.6 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 28.1 51.1 B-5-40 22-Sep-09 40 <1.0 <0.3 70.1 <0.5 <0.5 11.5 <1.0 28.7 4.18 <0.01 <0.5 12.6 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 22.8 54.2 B-5-50 22-Sep-09 50 <1.0 <0.3 51.3 <0.5 <0.5 6.99 <1.0 16.6 3.68 <0.01 <5.0 9.07 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 18.8 41.1 W-1-1.5 25-Sep-09 1.5 <1.0 <0.3 8.61 <0.5 <0.5 0.711 <1.0 <1.0 <0.5 <0.01 <5.0 <2.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <5.0 5.11 W-1-5 25-Sep-09 5 <1.0 <0.3 40.6 <0.5 <0.5 6.95 <1.0 35.0 3.94 <0.01 <5.0 5.11 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 15.7 37.3 W-1-10 25-Sep-09 10 <1.0 <0.3 18.7 <0.5 <0.5 2.91 <1.0 2.56 0.655 <0.01 <5.0 <2.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 6.84 13.3 W-1-20 25-Sep-09 20 <1.0 <0.3 10.4 <0.5 <0.5 1.78 <1.0 <1.0 <0.5 <0.01 <5.0 <2.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <5.0 7.09 W-1-30 25-Sep-09 30 <1.0 <0.3 72.7 <0.5 <0.5 11.6 <1.0 18.3 3.96 <0.01 <5.0 9.51 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 25.4 50.6 W-1-40 25-Sep-09 40 <1.0 <0.3 26.7 <0.5 <0.5 5.18 <1.0 31.6 2.27 <0.01 <5.0 6.54 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 9.10 34.4 W-1-50 25-Sep-09 50 <1.0 <0.3 93.7 <0.5 <0.5 9.27 <1.0 13.5 4.83 <0.01 <5.0 10.2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 20.4 50.2 KA-1-1 15-Oct-09 1 <1.0 <0.3 56.8 <0.5 0.669 7.46 3.78 5.61 22.4 <0.01 <5.0 4.52 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 26.8 22.2 KA-1-5 15-Oct-09 5 <1.0 <0.3 11.1 <0.5 <0.5 1.92 1.12 1.82 5.50 <0.01 <5.0 <2.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 7.88 6.27 KA-1-10 15-Oct-09 10 <1.0 <0.3 9.52 <0.5 <0.5 2.14 1.14 1.71 5.15 <0.01 <5.0 <2.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 8.34 6.57 KA-1-15 15-Oct-09 15 <1.0 <0.3 24.3 <0.5 <0.5 2.66 <1.0 1.72 5.97 <0.01 <5.0 <2.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 9.61 7.62 KA-2-1 15-Oct-09 1 <1.0 <0.3 41.2 <0.5 <0.5 8.10 4.05 4.29 16.7 <0.01 <5.0 3.50 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 27.3 21.7 KA-2-5 15-Oct-09 5 <1.0 <0.3 93.2 <0.5 <0.5 12.9 4.69 11.1 33.8 <0.01 <5.0 6.01 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 49.8 30.3 KA-2-10 15-Oct-09 10 <1.0 <0.3 36.8 <0.5 <0.5 2.81 1.60 2.34 7.34 <0.01 <5.0 <2.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 11.8 8.91 KA-2-15 15-Oct-09 15 <1.0 <0.3 <5.0 <0.5 <0.5 0.507 <1.0 <1.0 1.42 <0.01 <5.0 <2.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <5.0 1.75 KA-3-1 15-Oct-09 1 <1.0 <0.3 22.1 <0.5 <0.5 3.47 2.10 3.14 1.65 <0.01 <5.0 <2.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 14.7 10.4 KA-3-6 15-Oct-09 6 <1.0 <0.3 44.1 <0.5 <0.5 4.31 1.70 2.76 11.5 <0.01 <5.0 3.42 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 16.0 13.2 KA-4-2.5 15-Oct-09 2.5 <1.0 <0.3 25.6 <0.5 0.585 4.43 2.14 3.96 10.4 <0.01 <5.0 2.97 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 17.1 16.7 KA-4-4.5 15-Oct-09 4.5 <1.0 <0.3 28.8 <0.5 <0.5 5.88 3.52 4.50 12.0 <0.01 <5.0 3.48 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 20.8 22.0 B-5 W-1 KA-1 KA-2 KA-3 KA-4 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 T2-2 December 23, 2009 TABLE 2 SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR CCR TITLE 22 METALS Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) - Phase 1 Anaheim, California DRAFT SampleDepthAntimonyArsenicBariumBerylliumCadmiumChromiumCobaltCopperLeadMercuryMolybdenumNickelSeleniumSilverThalliumVanadiumZinc6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 7471A 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B Concentration in mg/kgBoringNumber(feet)SampleNumberDateSampledKA-5-5.5 15-Oct-09 5.5 ---------------------------------- KA-5-10 15-Oct-09 10 ---------------------------------- KA-5-15 15-Oct-09 15 ---------------------------------- KA-6-3 15-Oct-09 3 <1.0 <0.3 34.9 <0.5 <0.5 6.53 3.64 5.36 13.1 <0.01 <5.0 3.41 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 23.2 23.1 KA-6-5 15-Oct-09 5 <1.0 <0.3 26.6 <0.5 <0.5 5.64 3.40 4.43 11.1 <0.01 <5.0 3.34 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 19.5 21.0 KA-7-15 15-Oct-09 15 ---------------------------------- KA-7-20 15-Oct-09 20 ---------------------------------- KA-8 KA-8-5 15-Oct-09 5 ---------------------------------- KA-9-2.5 16-Oct-09 2.5 <1.0 <0.3 22.9 <0.5 0.639 5.17 3.02 5.18 15.6 <0.01 <5.0 3.13 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 11.2 23.7 KA-9-5 16-Oct-09 5 <1.0 <0.3 20.0 <0.5 <0.5 3.90 2.50 3.71 7.71 <0.01 <5.0 2.22 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 14.7 15.1 KA-9-10 16-Oct-09 10 <1.0 <0.3 31.5 <0.5 <0.5 8.98 2.76 5.00 11.6 <0.01 <5.0 6.86 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 13.3 22.7 KA-10-15 16-Oct-09 15 ---------------------------------- KA-10-20 16-Oct-09 20 ---------------------------------- KA-11 KA-11-15 16-Oct-09 15 ---------------------------------- KA-12-15 16-Oct-09 15 ---------------------------------- KA-12-19 16-Oct-09 19 ---------------------------------- KA-13-5 16-Oct-09 5 ---------------------------------- KA-13-10 16-Oct-09 10 ---------------------------------- KA-13-14.5 16-Oct-09 14.5 ---------------------------------- KA-14-5 16-Oct-09 5 ---------------------------------- KA-14-10 16-Oct-09 10 ---------------------------------- KA-14-13 16-Oct-09 13 ---------------------------------- KA-15-5 16-Oct-09 5 ---------------------------------- KA-15-10 16-Oct-09 10 ---------------------------------- KA-15-15 16-Oct-09 15 ---------------------------------- KA-16-6.5 16-Oct-09 6.5 ---------------------------------- KA-16-10 16-Oct-09 10 ---------------------------------- KA-16-14 16-Oct-09 14 ---------------------------------- KA-5 KA-6 KA-7 KA-9 KA-15 KA-16 KA-10 KA-12 KA-13 KA-14 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 T2-3 December 23, 2009 TABLE 2 SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR CCR TITLE 22 METALS Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) - Phase 1 Anaheim, California DRAFT SampleDepthAntimonyArsenicBariumBerylliumCadmiumChromiumCobaltCopperLeadMercuryMolybdenumNickelSeleniumSilverThalliumVanadiumZinc6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 7471A 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B Concentration in mg/kgBoringNumber(feet)SampleNumberDateSampled500 500 10,000 75 100 2,500 8,000 2,500 1,000 20 3,500 2,000 100 500 700 2,400 5,000 15 5.0 100 0.75 1.0 560/5*80 25 5.0 0.2 350 20 1.0 5.0 7.0 24 250 NL 5.0 100 NL 1.0 5.0 NL NL 5.0 0.2 NL NL 1.0 5.0 NL NL NL 410 1.6 190,000 2,000 810 1,400 300 41,000 800 28 5,100 20,000 5,100 5,100 66 5,200 310,000 380 0.24 63,000 1,700 7.5 100,000**3,200 38,000 3,500 180 4,800 16,000 4,800 4,800 63 6,700 100,000 Notes:6010B = United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Analytical Method Number mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram <1.0 = Not detected above the indicated laboratory detection limit -- = Not analyzed TTLC = Total Threshold Limit Concentration STLC = Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration; units in milligrams per liter (mg/L) TCLP = Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure; units in mg/L RSL = Regional Screening Level CHHSL = California Human Health Screening Level NL = No listed value * = Must meet both the STLC Limit of 560 and US EPA TCLP Limit of 5 ** = Chrome III value Bold value indicates detected concentration Commercial/Industrial CHHSL for Soil TCLP TTLC STLC US EPA Industrial Soil RSL 103567-ENV2/LBE9R038 T2-4 December 23, 2009 PLATES REFERENCE:BASEMAPSISTOPOGRAPHICSURVEYPROVIDEDBYRBF.SHELL GASOLINE STATION 2331 E. KATELLA AVENUE OFFICE BUILDINGS 2300 E. KATELLA AVENUE ANGEL STADIUM LOSSANRAILROADCORRIDOR E. KATELLA AVENUE S.DOUGLASSROADSANTAANARIVERSTATEROUTE57ANGEL STADIUM PARKING LOT P A R K IN G S TR U C TU R E VACANT LAND PARKING LOT HONDA CENTER 2695 E. KATELLA AVENUE ANAHEIM STADIUM METROLINK / AMTRAK STATION 2150 E. KATELLA AVENUE VACANTLANDVACANTLANDTHE GROVE OF ANAHEIM 2200 E. KATELLA AVENUE OFFICE BUILDING 2400 E. KATELLA AVENUE 2600E.KATELLAAVENUE1730 S. DOUGLASS ROADAYERSHOTEL2550E.KATELLAAVENUEOFFICEPARK1751-1725S.DOUGLASSROADLUMBERSTORAGEDIPPING TANK 55-GALLON DRUMS SULLIVAN&MANNLUMBERCOMPANY 1790S.DOUGLASROAD COMMERCIAL BUILDING 2225 E. KATELLA AVENUE FORMERMAINTENANCEFACILITY1750S.DOUGLASSROAD(FORMERLY10852DOUGLASSROAD)NOTAPARTKA-1 KA-4 KA-3 KA-5 KA-8 KA-6 KA-10 KA-11 KA-12 KA-14 KA-7 KA-15 KA-13 KA-9 KA-16 W-1 B-4 B-2 B-1 B-5 0200 200100 APPROXIMATE SCALE (feet)DIAMONDBAR,CAPROPOSEDANAHEIMREGIONALTRANSPORTATIONINTERMODALCENTER(ARTIC)-PHASE1ANAHEIM,CALIFORNIAPLATE2MRGPD10/22/09103567BORINGLOCATIONMAPAPPROXIMATE HOLLOW-STEM AUGER BORING LOCATION LEGEND APPROXIMATE HOLLOW-STEM AUGER BORING/MONITORING WELL LOCATION APPROXIMATE DIRECT-PUSH BORING LOCATION SITE BOUNDARY KA-16 W-1 B-5 APPENDIX A LOGS OF BORINGS www.kleinfelder.comPLATEA-1aEXPLANATIONOFLOGS www.kleinfelder.comPLATEA-1bEXPLANATIONOFLOGS SP SP- SM SP ML SP SP- SM ASPHALT: approximately 3 inches thick. BASE: approximately 17 inches thick. SAND (SP): light brown, slightly moist, fine- to medium-grained. SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM): olive brown, slightly moist, fine- to coarse-grained. -- fine- to medium-grained, trace fine gravel. SAND (SP): light brown, slightly moist, fine- to medium-grained, pocket of sandy clay, layers of sand with silt. SANDY SILT (ML): olive gray to light brownish gray, fine- to medium-grained. SAND (SP): pink, olive yellow, slightly moist, fine-grained. -- light brown, fine- to medium-grained. SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM): light gray, slightly moist, fine- to medium-grained. 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sample Numbers: B-1-1.5 B-1-5 B-1-10 B-1-20 B-1-30 See report tables. 38 5 26 30 SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: PD DIAMETER OF BORING (inches): 6 DEPTH TO STATIC WATER (feet): Not encountered. SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): N/A TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 81.5 DATE DRILLED: 9-24-09 Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, CA Project No. 103567/ENV2 A-2a LOG OF BORING B-1 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Lithology SymbolU.S.C.S.DesignationComments Field Chemical Analyses PID (ppm) Lab.Sample TypeDepth(feet)5 10 15 20 25 30 Sample NumberBlows per Foot SP GP CL CL ML- SM SAND (SP): olive brown, slightly moist, fine- to medium-grained. (continued) -- increase coarse sand. -- fine- to coarse-grained, some gravel. -- olive yellow, with silt and gravel. GRAVEL (GP): brown, fine- to coarse-grained, broken. CLAY (CL): yellowish brown, slightly moist, lean. GRAVEL WITH SAND (GP): fine to medium grained. CLAY (CL): yellowish brown, slighly moist, lean. SILTY SAND (SM): yellowish brown, slightly moist, fine-grained. 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 B-1-40 B-1-50 20 32 9 18 SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: PD DIAMETER OF BORING (inches): 6 DEPTH TO STATIC WATER (feet): Not encountered. (Continued From Previous Page) SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): N/A TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 81.5 DATE DRILLED: 9-24-09 Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, CA Project No. 103567/ENV2 A-2b LOG OF BORING B-1 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Lithology SymbolU.S.C.S.DesignationComments Field Chemical Analyses PID (ppm) Lab.Sample TypeDepth(feet)40 45 50 55 60 65 Sample NumberBlows per Foot ML SM SILTY SAND (SM): yellowish brown, slightly moist, fine-grained. (continued) SANDY SILT (ML): yellow brown, slightly moist. SILTY SAND (SM): olive brown, slighly moist, fine- to medium-grained. Total depth: 81.5 feet. Free water encountered on geotechnical sample at approximately 51 feet. Boring backfilled with bentonite slurry and capped with quick-set concrete. 1.0 9 SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: PD DIAMETER OF BORING (inches): 6 DEPTH TO STATIC WATER (feet): Not encountered. (Continued From Previous Page) SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): N/A TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 81.5 DATE DRILLED: 9-24-09 Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, CA Project No. 103567/ENV2 A-2c LOG OF BORING B-1 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Lithology SymbolU.S.C.S.DesignationComments Field Chemical Analyses PID (ppm) Lab.Sample TypeDepth(feet)75 80 Sample NumberBlows per Foot SP CL ML CL ASPHALT: approximately 5 inches thick. BASE: approximately 5 inches thick. SAND (SP): light brown, slightly moist, fine- to coarse grained. -- olive yellow, fine- to medium-grained. -- pink, fine- to medium-grained, trace fine gravel. -- olive brown. -- pink, fine- to medium-grained. CLAY (CL): greenish black, slightly moist, lean. SILTY SAND (SM): brown, slightly moist. SANDY SILT (ML): yellowish brown, slightly moist, fine-grained sand. 2.8 4.6 1.2 1.6 2.6 Sample Numbers: B-2-1.5 B-2-5 B-2-10 B-2-20 B-2-30 See report tables. 26 18 7 21 SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: PD DIAMETER OF BORING (inches): 6 DEPTH TO STATIC WATER (feet): SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): N/A TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 101.5 DATE DRILLED: 9-24-09 Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, CA Project No. 103567/ENV2 A-3a LOG OF BORING B-2 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Lithology SymbolU.S.C.S.DesignationComments Field Chemical Analyses PID (ppm) Lab.Sample TypeDepth(feet)5 10 15 20 25 30 Sample NumberBlows per Foot GP CL ML CL ML CL SANDY CLAY (CL): yellowish brown, slightly moist. (continued) GRAVEL WITH SAND (GP): olive gray, slightly moist. CLAY WITH SAND (CL): yellowish brown, slightly moist, lean, some gravel. SANDY SILT (ML): yellowish brown, slightly moist. CLAY WITH SAND (CL): yellowish brown, slightly moist. SANDY SILT (ML): yellowish brown, slightly moist. 1.1 2.7 2.4 1.6 B-2-40 B-2-50 74 15 11 13 SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: PD DIAMETER OF BORING (inches): 6 DEPTH TO STATIC WATER (feet): (Continued From Previous Page) SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): N/A TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 101.5 DATE DRILLED: 9-24-09 Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, CA Project No. 103567/ENV2 A-3b LOG OF BORING B-2 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Lithology SymbolU.S.C.S.DesignationComments Field Chemical Analyses PID (ppm) Lab.Sample TypeDepth(feet)40 45 50 55 60 65 Sample NumberBlows per Foot ML CL SP SP GP CLAY WITH SAND (CL): yellowish brown, slightly moist, layers of sandy silt. (continued) SANDY SILT (ML): yellowish brown, slightly moist. SANDY CLAY (CL): yellowish brown, slightly moist, layers of sandy silt and silty sand. SAND WITH SILT (SP): yellowish brown, wet, fine- to medium-grained, trace gravel. SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (SP-SM): olive brown, moist, fine- to coarse-grained. GRAVEL WITH SAND (GP): olive brown, wet, fine- to coarse-grained. SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP): olive brown, wet. Total depth: 101.5 feet. Groundwater encountered at approximately 83 feet. Boring backfilled with bentonite slurry and capped with quick-set concrete. 2.0 2.0 2.0 19 3 3 SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: PD DIAMETER OF BORING (inches): 6 DEPTH TO STATIC WATER (feet): (Continued From Previous Page) SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): N/A TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 101.5 DATE DRILLED: 9-24-09 Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, CA Project No. 103567/ENV2 A-3c LOG OF BORING B-2 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Lithology SymbolU.S.C.S.DesignationComments Field Chemical Analyses PID (ppm) Lab.Sample TypeDepth(feet)75 80 85 90 95 100 Sample NumberBlows per Foot SP SM SP- SM SP SM ML SM CL ASPHALT: approximately 3 inches thick. BASE: approximately 7 inches thick. SAND (SP): olive brown, slightly moist, trace fine- to medium-gravel, layers of sand with silt. -- brown, small clay pockets. -- brown with light brown inclusions, fine- to medium-grained. SILTY SAND (SM): olive brown, fine- to coarse-grained SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM): light brownish gray, slightly moist, moderate iron oxide discoloration. SAND (SP): light brown sand, slightly moist, fine- to medium-grained. SILTY SAND (SM): olive brown to yellowish brown, very moist, fine-grained. SANDY SILT (ML): SILTY SAND (SM): olive brown to yellowish brown, moist, fine-grained. SANDY CLAY (CL): yellowish brown, moist, layers of clayey sand. 1.9 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 Sample Numbers: B-3-1.5 B-3-5 B-3-10 B-3-20 B-3-30 See report tables. 36 70 28 6 SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: PD DIAMETER OF BORING (inches): 6 DEPTH TO STATIC WATER (feet): SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): N/A TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 81.5 DATE DRILLED: 9-22-09 Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, CA Project No. 103567/ENV2 A-4a LOG OF BORING B-3 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Lithology SymbolU.S.C.S.DesignationComments Field Chemical Analyses PID (ppm) Lab.Sample TypeDepth(feet)5 10 15 20 25 30 Sample NumberBlows per Foot CL CL SM CL SANDY CLAY (CL): yellowish brown, moist, layers of clayey sand. (continued) -- lens of yellowish brown silty sand, trace fine gravel. CLAY (CL): yellowish brown, slightly moist, lean. SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM): yellowish brown, fine- to coarse-grained. SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP): gray, wet, fine- to coarse-grained. CLAY WITH SAND (CL): yellowish brown, moist, lean. 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.7 B-3-40 B-3-50 11 9 33 11 SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: PD DIAMETER OF BORING (inches): 6 DEPTH TO STATIC WATER (feet): (Continued From Previous Page) SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): N/A TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 81.5 DATE DRILLED: 9-22-09 Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, CA Project No. 103567/ENV2 A-4b LOG OF BORING B-3 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Lithology SymbolU.S.C.S.DesignationComments Field Chemical Analyses PID (ppm) Lab.Sample TypeDepth(feet)40 45 50 55 60 65 Sample NumberBlows per Foot SC SM CLAY WITH SAND (CL): yellowish brown, moist, lean. (continued) CLAYEY SAND (SC): yellowish brown, very moist, fine-grained. SILTY SAND (SM): yellowish brown, moist to very moist, trace gravel. Total depth: 81.5 feet. Groundwater encountered at approximately 58 feet. Boring backfilled with bentonite slurry and capped with quick-set concrete. 0.7 13 SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: PD DIAMETER OF BORING (inches): 6 DEPTH TO STATIC WATER (feet): (Continued From Previous Page) SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): N/A TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 81.5 DATE DRILLED: 9-22-09 Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, CA Project No. 103567/ENV2 A-4c LOG OF BORING B-3 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Lithology SymbolU.S.C.S.DesignationComments Field Chemical Analyses PID (ppm) Lab.Sample TypeDepth(feet)75 80 Sample NumberBlows per Foot SP SP- SM SP SM SP SM ASPHALT: approximately 3 inches thick. BASE: approximately 5 inches thick. SAND (SP): yellowish brown, slightly moist, fine- to medium-grained, layers of sand with silt, layers of silty sand. SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM): yellowish brown, slightly moist, fine- to medium-grained, layers of silty sand. SAND (SP): yellowish brown, slightly moist, fine- to medium-grained, trace silty sand. SILTY SAND (SM): olive brown, slightly moist, fine- to medium-grained. -- thin sandy clay layer at 16 feet. SAND WITH SILT (SP): brown, moist, fine- to medium-grained. -- olive brown sandy -- poorly graded sand. -- light brown, fine- to coarse grained. SILTY SAND (SM): brown, slightly moist. SANDY CLAY (CL): yellowish brown, wet, trace gravel. 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.0 2.1 Sample Numbers: B-4-1 B-4-5 B-4-10 B-4-20 B-4-30 See report tables. 41 38 25 13 SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: PD DIAMETER OF BORING (inches): 6 DEPTH TO STATIC WATER (feet): SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): N/A TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 101.5 DATE DRILLED: 9-23-09 Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, CA Project No. 103567/ENV2 A-5a LOG OF BORING B-4 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Lithology SymbolU.S.C.S.DesignationComments Field Chemical Analyses PID (ppm) Lab.Sample TypeDepth(feet)5 10 15 20 25 30 Sample NumberBlows per Foot SW- SM CL SM CL SM SANDY CLAY (CL): yellowish brown, wet, trace gravel. (continued) SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (SW-SM): olive brown, slightly moist, fine- to coarse-grained, moderate iron oxide discoloration. GRAVEL WITH SAND (GP): brown, slightly moist, medium- to coarse-grained sand. CLAY WITH SAND (CL): yellowish brown, slightly moist. SILTY SAND (SM): yellowish brown, slightly moist, fine- to medium-grained. CLAY WITH SAND (CL): yellowish brown, slightly moist, fine-grained sand. SILTY SAND (SM): yellowish brown, slightly moist. 1.4 3.6 0.0 B-4-40 B-4-50 22 43 50/5" 17 8 8 SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: PD DIAMETER OF BORING (inches): 6 DEPTH TO STATIC WATER (feet): (Continued From Previous Page) SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): N/A TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 101.5 DATE DRILLED: 9-23-09 Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, CA Project No. 103567/ENV2 A-5b LOG OF BORING B-4 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Lithology SymbolU.S.C.S.DesignationComments Field Chemical Analyses PID (ppm) Lab.Sample TypeDepth(feet)40 45 50 55 60 65 Sample NumberBlows per Foot CL SP- SM SW SILTY SAND (SM): yellowish brown, slightly moist. (continued) SANDY CLAY (CL): yellowish brown, slightly moist. SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM): yellowish brown, slightly moist, fine- to coarse-grained. -- decrease silt. -- wet, with gravel. SAND WITH GRAVEL (SW): gray, wet, fine- to coarse-grained, trace yellowish brown silty sand and sandy clay. GRAVEL WITH SAND (GP): fine- to medium-grained gravel, fine- to coarse-grained sand. -- olive brown. Total depth: 101.5 feet. Groundwater encountered at approximately 87 feet. Boring backfilled with bentonite slurry and capped with quick-set concrete. 0.0 1.4 11 42 SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: PD DIAMETER OF BORING (inches): 6 DEPTH TO STATIC WATER (feet): (Continued From Previous Page) SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): N/A TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 101.5 DATE DRILLED: 9-23-09 Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, CA Project No. 103567/ENV2 A-5c LOG OF BORING B-4 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Lithology SymbolU.S.C.S.DesignationComments Field Chemical Analyses PID (ppm) Lab.Sample TypeDepth(feet)75 80 85 90 95 100 Sample NumberBlows per Foot SP- SM SM CL SP SM ASPHALT: approximately 4 inches thick. BASE: approximately 5 inches thick. SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM): brown, slightly moist, fine- to coarse-grained, trace gravel. -- fine- to medium-grained. -- light brown, slightly moist. -- brown. SILTY SAND (SM): dark olive brown, slightly moist, fine- to coarse-grained, traces fine gravel, pockets of lean clay. -- dark brown with light brown inclusion. SANDY CLAY (CL): dark brown, slightly moist. SAND (SP): light brown. SILTY SAND (SM): brown, slightly moist, fine-grained. -- fine- to medium-grained, trace fine gravel, iron oxide discoloration. 1.6 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.9 Sample Number: B-5-1.5 B-5-1.5 B-5-5 B-5-10 B-5-20 B-5-30 See report tables. 34 72 20 14 SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: PD DIAMETER OF BORING (inches): 8 DEPTH TO STATIC WATER (feet): Not encountered. SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): N/A TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 81.5 DATE DRILLED: 9-27-09 Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, CA Project No. 103567/ENV2 A-6a LOG OF BORING B-5 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Lithology SymbolU.S.C.S.DesignationComments Field Chemical Analyses PID (ppm) Lab.Sample TypeDepth(feet)5 10 15 20 25 30 Sample NumberBlows per Foot SW SP SP- SM GP CL SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP): brown, slightly moist, fine- to medium-grained gravel, fine- to coarse-grained sand. (continued) SAND WITH GRAVEL (SW): brown, well-graded, slightly moist, fine- to coarse-grained gravel. SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP): olive brown, poorly graded, slightly moist, fine- to medium grained, layers of gravel. -- brown, well graded, slightly moist, fine- to coarse-grained, silty sand and sandy silt inclusion. -- layer of sandy lean clay. SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM): yellowish brown, slightly moist, fine- to medium-grained. CLAY (CL): yellowish brown, moist, lean. 1.0 0.0 1.7 3.1 B-5-40 B-5-50 64 34 18 8 SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: PD DIAMETER OF BORING (inches): 8 DEPTH TO STATIC WATER (feet): Not encountered. (Continued From Previous Page) SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): N/A TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 81.5 DATE DRILLED: 9-27-09 Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, CA Project No. 103567/ENV2 A-6b LOG OF BORING B-5 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Lithology SymbolU.S.C.S.DesignationComments Field Chemical Analyses PID (ppm) Lab.Sample TypeDepth(feet)40 45 50 55 60 65 Sample NumberBlows per Foot SM SP- SM SILTY SAND (SM): yellowish brown, slightly moist. SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM): olive yellow, slightly moist, fine- to medium-grained, some fine gravel. Total depth: 81.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered. Boring backfilled with bentonite slurry and capped with quick-set concrete. 2.3 18 SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: PD DIAMETER OF BORING (inches): 8 DEPTH TO STATIC WATER (feet): Not encountered. (Continued From Previous Page) SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): N/A TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 81.5 DATE DRILLED: 9-27-09 Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, CA Project No. 103567/ENV2 A-6c LOG OF BORING B-5 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Lithology SymbolU.S.C.S.DesignationComments Field Chemical Analyses PID (ppm) Lab.Sample TypeDepth(feet)75 80 Sample NumberBlows per Foot SP CONCRETE: approximately 6 inches thick. SAND (SP): gray brown, slightly moist, fine-grained. -- light brown. -- fine- to medium-grained. Total depth: 15 feet. Groundwater not encountered. Boring backfilled with hydrated bentonite granules and finished to surface with quick-set concrete. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sample Number: KA-1-1 KA-1-5 KA-1-10 KA-1-15 See report tables. SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: PD DIAMETER OF BORING (inches): 1 DEPTH TO STATIC WATER (feet): Not encountered. SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): N/A TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 15.0 DATE DRILLED: 10-15-09 Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, CA Project No. 103567/ENV2 A-7 LOG OF BORING KA-1 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Lithology SymbolU.S.C.S.DesignationComments Field Chemical Analyses PID (ppm) Lab.Sample TypeDepth(feet)5 10 15 Sample Number SP CONCRETE: approximately 6 inches of concrete. SAND (SP): light brown, slightly moist, fine-grained. -- olive gray. -- light brown, fine- to medium-grained. Total depth: 15 feet. Groundwater not encountered. Boring backfilled with hydrated bentonite granules and finished to surface with quick-set concrete. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sample Number: KA-2-1 KA-2-5 K-2-10 K-2-15 See report tables. SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: PD DIAMETER OF BORING (inches): 1 DEPTH TO STATIC WATER (feet): Not encountered. SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): N/A TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 15.0 DATE DRILLED: 10-15-09 Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, CA Project No. 103567/ENV2 A-8 LOG OF BORING KA-2 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Lithology SymbolU.S.C.S.DesignationComments Field Chemical Analyses PID (ppm) Lab.Sample TypeDepth(feet)5 10 15 Sample Number SP CONCRETE: approximately 5 inches thick. SAND (SP): gray brown, slightly moist, fine- to medium-grained. -- light brown. Total depth: 6.5 feet due to refusal. Groundwater not encountered. Boring backfilled with hydrated bentonite granules and finished to surface with quick-set concrete. 0.0 0.0 Sample Number: KA-3-1 KA-3-6 See report tables. SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: PD DIAMETER OF BORING (inches): 1 DEPTH TO STATIC WATER (feet): Not encountered. SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): N/A TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 6.5 DATE DRILLED: 10-15-09 Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, CA Project No. 103567/ENV2 A-9 LOG OF BORING KA-3 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Lithology SymbolU.S.C.S.DesignationComments Field Chemical Analyses PID (ppm) Lab.Sample TypeDepth(feet)5 Sample Number SP CONCRETE: approximately 4 inches thick. SAND (SP): light brown, slightly moist, fine- to medium-grained. -- fine- to coarse-grained. Total depth: 4.5 feet due to refusal. Groundwater not encountered. Boring backfilled with hydrated bentonite granules and finished to surface with quick-set concrete. 0.0 0.0 Sample Number: K-4-2.5 KA-4-4.5 See report tables. SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: PD DIAMETER OF BORING (inches): 1 DEPTH TO STATIC WATER (feet): Not encountered. SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): N/A TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 4.5 DATE DRILLED: 10-15-09 Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, CA Project No. 103567/ENV2 A-10 LOG OF BORING KA-4 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Lithology SymbolU.S.C.S.DesignationComments Field Chemical Analyses PID (ppm) Lab.Sample TypeDepth(feet)Sample Number SP SP- SM GRAVEL: approximately 5.5 feet thick. SAND (SP): gray brown, slightly moist, fine- to medium-grained. -- light brown, fine-grained. SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM): light brown to red gray, slightly moist, fine-grained. Total depth: 15 feet. Groundwater not encountered. Boring backfilled with hydrated bentonite granules. 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sample Number: KA-5-5.5 KA-5-10 KA-5-15 See report tables. SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: PD DIAMETER OF BORING (inches): 1 DEPTH TO STATIC WATER (feet): Not encountered. SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): N/A TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 15.0 DATE DRILLED: 10-15-09 Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, CA Project No. 103567/ENV2 A-11 LOG OF BORING KA-5 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Lithology SymbolU.S.C.S.DesignationComments Field Chemical Analyses PID (ppm) Lab.Sample TypeDepth(feet)5 10 15 Sample Number SP GRAVEL: approximately 2.5 feet thick. SAND (SP): light brown, slightly moist, fine-grained. -- fine- to medium-grained. Total depth: 6 feet due to refusal. Groundwater not encountered. Boring backfilled with hydrated bentonite granules. 0.0 0.0 Sample Number: KA-6-3 KA-6-5 See report tables. SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: PD DIAMETER OF BORING (inches): 1 DEPTH TO STATIC WATER (feet): Not encountered. SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): N/A TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 6.0 DATE DRILLED: 10-15-09 Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, CA Project No. 103567/ENV2 A-12 LOG OF BORING KA-6 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Lithology SymbolU.S.C.S.DesignationComments Field Chemical Analyses PID (ppm) Lab.Sample TypeDepth(feet)5 Sample Number SP CL CONCRETE: approximately 5 inches thick. Not sampled. SAND (SP): gray, slightly moist, fine- to coarse-grained. CLAY (CL): red gray, slightly moist. Total depth: 20 feet. Groundwater not encountered. Boring backfilled with hydrated bentonite granules and finished to surface with quick-set concrete. 0.0 0.0 Sample Number: KA-7-15 KA-7-20 See report tables. SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: PD DIAMETER OF BORING (inches): 1 DEPTH TO STATIC WATER (feet): Not encountered. SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): N/A TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 20.0 DATE DRILLED: 10-15-09 Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, CA Project No. 103567/ENV2 A-13 LOG OF BORING KA-7 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Lithology SymbolU.S.C.S.DesignationComments Field Chemical Analyses PID (ppm) Lab.Sample TypeDepth(feet)5 10 15 20 Sample Number SP GRAVEL: approximately 4 feet thick. SAND (SP): light brown, slightly moist, fine- to coarse-grained. Total depth: 6 feet due to refusal. Groundwater not encountered. Boring backfilled with hydrated bentonite granules. 0.0 Sample Number: KA-8-5 See report tables. SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: PD DIAMETER OF BORING (inches): 1 DEPTH TO STATIC WATER (feet): Not encountered. SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): N/A TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 6.0 DATE DRILLED: 10-15-09 Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, CA Project No. 103567/ENV2 A-14 LOG OF BORING KA-8 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Lithology SymbolU.S.C.S.DesignationComments Field Chemical Analyses PID (ppm) Lab.Sample TypeDepth(feet)5 Sample Number SP CONCRETE: approximately 6 inches thick. SAND (SP): gray grown, slightly moist, fine- to medium-grained. -- some clay. -- sand. Total depth: 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered. Boring backfilled with hydrated bentonite granules and finished to surface with quick-set cement and original floor tile. 0.0 0.0 Sample Number: KA-9-2.5 KA-9-5 KA-9-10 See report tables. SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: PD DIAMETER OF BORING (inches): 1 DEPTH TO STATIC WATER (feet): Not encountered. SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): N/A TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 10.0 DATE DRILLED: 10-16-09 Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, CA Project No. 103567/ENV2 A-15 LOG OF BORING KA-9 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Lithology SymbolU.S.C.S.DesignationComments Field Chemical Analyses PID (ppm) Lab.Sample TypeDepth(feet)5 10 Sample Number SP CL ASPHALT: approximately 5 inches thick. GRAVEL: approximately 6 inches thick. Not sampled. SAND (SP): red gray, slightly moist, fine- to medium-grained, trace silt. CLAY (CL): dark brown, slight moist. Total depth: 20 feet. Groundwater not encountered. Boring backfilled with hydrated bentonite granules and finished at surface with asphalt cold patch. 0.0 0.0 Sample Number: KA-10-15 KA-10-20 See report tables. SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: PD DIAMETER OF BORING (inches): 1 DEPTH TO STATIC WATER (feet): Not encountered. SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): N/A TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 20.0 DATE DRILLED: 10-16-09 Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, CA Project No. 103567/ENV2 A-16 LOG OF BORING KA-10 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Lithology SymbolU.S.C.S.DesignationComments Field Chemical Analyses PID (ppm) Lab.Sample TypeDepth(feet)5 10 15 20 Sample Number SP ASPHALT: approximately 5 inches thick. GRAVEL: greater than 4.5 feet. Not sampled. SAND (SP): red brown, slightly moist, fine- to medium-grained. Total depth: 16 feet due to refusal. Groundwater not encountered. Boring backfilled with hydrated bentonite granules and finished at surface with asphalt cold patch. 0.0 Sample Number: KA-11-15 See report tables. SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: PD DIAMETER OF BORING (inches): 1 DEPTH TO STATIC WATER (feet): Not encountered. SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): N/A TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 16.0 DATE DRILLED: 10-16-09 Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, CA Project No. 103567/ENV2 A-17 LOG OF BORING KA-11 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Lithology SymbolU.S.C.S.DesignationComments Field Chemical Analyses PID (ppm) Lab.Sample TypeDepth(feet)5 10 15 Sample Number SP CL ASPHALT: approximately 5 inches thick. GRAVEL: approximately 6 inches thick. Not sampled. SAND (SP): dark brown, slightly moist, fine- to medium-grained, some clay, hydrocarbon odor. CLAY (CL): dark brown, slightly moist, hydrocarbon odor. Total depth: 19 feet due to refusal. Groundwater not encountered. Boring backfilled with hydrated bentonite granules and finished at surface with asphalt cold patch. 0.0 0.0 Sample Number: KA-12-15 KA-12-19 See report tables. SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: PD DIAMETER OF BORING (inches): 1 DEPTH TO STATIC WATER (feet): Not encountered. SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): N/A TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 19.0 DATE DRILLED: 10-16-09 Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, CA Project No. 103567/ENV2 A-18 LOG OF BORING KA-12 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Lithology SymbolU.S.C.S.DesignationComments Field Chemical Analyses PID (ppm) Lab.Sample TypeDepth(feet)5 10 15 Sample Number SP GRAVEL: approximately 4.5 feet thick. SAND (SP): gray brown, slightly moist, fine- to medium-grained. -- yellow brown, fine- to coarse-grained. Total depth: 14.5 feet due to refusal. Groundwater not encountered. Boring backfilled with hydrated bentonite granules. 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sample Number: KA-13-5 KA-13-10 KA-13-14.5 See report tables. SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: PD DIAMETER OF BORING (inches): 1 DEPTH TO STATIC WATER (feet): Not encountered. SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): N/A TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 14.5 DATE DRILLED: 10-16-09 Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, CA Project No. 103567/ENV2 A-19 LOG OF BORING KA-13 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Lithology SymbolU.S.C.S.DesignationComments Field Chemical Analyses PID (ppm) Lab.Sample TypeDepth(feet)5 10 Sample Number SP CONCRETE: approximately 1 foot thick. Not sampled. SAND (SP): gray brown, slightly moist, fine- to coarse-grained. -- light brown, fine- to medium-grained. -- fine-grained. Total depth: 13 feet due to refusal. Groundwater not encountered. Boring backfilled with hydrated bentonite granules and finished at surface with quick-set concrete. 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sample Number: KA-14-5 KA-14-10 KA-14-13 See report tables. SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: PD DIAMETER OF BORING (inches): 1 DEPTH TO STATIC WATER (feet): Not encountered. SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): N/A TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 13.0 DATE DRILLED: 10-16-09 Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, CA Project No. 103567/ENV2 A-20 LOG OF BORING KA-14 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Lithology SymbolU.S.C.S.DesignationComments Field Chemical Analyses PID (ppm) Lab.Sample TypeDepth(feet)5 10 Sample Number SP ASPHALT: approximately 5 inches thick. SAND (SP): brown, slightly moist, fine- to medium-grained. -- poor recovery. -- yellow brown. Total depth: 15 feet. Groundwater not encountered. Boring backfilled with hydrated bentonite granules and finished at surface with asphalt cold patch. 0.0 0.2 0.4 Sample Number: KA-15-5 KA-15-10 KA-15-15 See report tables. SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: PD DIAMETER OF BORING (inches): 1 DEPTH TO STATIC WATER (feet): Not encountered. SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): N/A TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 15.0 DATE DRILLED: 10-16-09 Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, CA Project No. 103567/ENV2 A-21 LOG OF BORING KA-15 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Lithology SymbolU.S.C.S.DesignationComments Field Chemical Analyses PID (ppm) Lab.Sample TypeDepth(feet)5 10 15 Sample Number GRAVEL: approximately 6 feet thick. SAND (SP): brown, slightly moist, fine- to coarse-grained. -- light brown. Total depth: 14 feet due to refusal. Groundwater not encountered. Boring backfilled with hydrated bentonite granules. 0.0 0.2 Sample Number: KA-16-6.5 KA-16-10 See report tables. SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: PD DIAMETER OF BORING (inches): 1 DEPTH TO STATIC WATER (feet): Not encountered. SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): N/A TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 14.0 DATE DRILLED: 10-10-09 Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, CA Project No. 103567/ENV2 A-22 LOG OF BORING KA-16 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Lithology SymbolU.S.C.S.DesignationComments Field Chemical Analyses PID (ppm) Lab.Sample TypeDepth(feet)5 10 Sample Number SP SM SC ASPHALT: approximately 3 inches thick. BASE: approximately 5 inches thick SAND (SP): light brown, slightly moist, fine- to coarse-grained. -- layer of sand with silt, mottled brown, lumps of lean clay. -- layer of lean clay with sand. -- layer of sand with silt, mottled brown, moist, fine- to coarse-sand. SILTY SAND (SM): brown, slightly moist, fine- to medium-grained. SANDY SILT (ML): olive brown, wet, layers of lean clay. CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC): yellowish brown, moist, fine- to coarse-grained sand, lenses and layers of lean clay. GRAVEL WITH SAND (GP): olive brown, moist. Traffic-rated well box set in concrete. Bentonite seal 2-inch diameter blank poly-vinyl casing Bentonite grout Bentonite seal No. 3 sand 2-inch diameter 0.02-inch slotted casing 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 See report tables.W-1-1.5 W-1-5 W-1-10 W-1-20 W-1-30 8 31 27 14 SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: PD DIAMETER OF BORING (inches): 6 DEPTH TO STATIC WATER (feet): 56.0 SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): N/A TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 61.5 DATE DRILLED: 9-25-09 Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, CA Project No. 103567/ENV2 A-23a LOG OF BORING W-1 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Lithology SymbolU.S.C.S.DesignationWell Construction Field Chemical Analyses PID (ppm) Lab.Sample TypeDepth(feet)5 10 15 20 25 30 Sample NumberBlows per Foot SP ML GRAVEL WITH SAND (GP): olive brown, moist. (continued) SAND (SP): olive brown, moist, trace iron oxide discoloration. CLAY WITH SAND (CL): yellowish brown, moist. -- layer of silty sand, gray to olive gray, moist, fine- to coarse-grained. SANDY SILT (ML): yellowish brown, slightly moist. -- wet, trace gravel. -- moist, some fine sand. Total depth: 61.5 feet. Perched water zone encountered at approximately 25 feet. 2-inch diameter well casing installed to 60 feet. Bottom cap 0.0 0.0 W-1-40 W-1-50 56 14 15 SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: PD DIAMETER OF BORING (inches): 6 DEPTH TO STATIC WATER (feet): 56.0 (Continued From Previous Page) SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): N/A TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 61.5 DATE DRILLED: 9-25-09 Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, CA Project No. 103567/ENV2 A-23b LOG OF BORING W-1 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Lithology SymbolU.S.C.S.DesignationWell Construction Field Chemical Analyses PID (ppm) Lab.Sample TypeDepth(feet)40 45 50 55 60 Sample NumberBlows per Foot APPENDIX B LABORATORY REPORTS ANDCHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORDS This document was prepared for use only by the client, only for the purposes stated, and within a reasonable time from issuance. Non-commercial, educational and scientific use of this report by regulatory agencies is regarded as a "fair use" and not a violation of copyright. Regulatory agencies may make additional copies of this document for internal use. Copies may also be made available to the public as required by law. The reprint must acknowledge the copyright and indicate that permission to reprint has been received. 103567/IRV9R321 Page i of ix October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY STUDY PROPOSED ARTIC PHASE 1 PROJECT ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA Prepared by: KLEINFELDER 2 Ada, Suite 250 Irvine, California 92618 Kleinfelder Project No. 103567 Prepared for: Jones and Stokes 1 Ada, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92618 October 23, 2009 103921/IRV9R319 Page ii of ix October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT KLEINFELDER 2 Ada, Suite 250, Irvine, CA 92618 p | 949.727.4466 f | 949.727.9242 October 23, 2009 Project No. 103567 Jones and Stokes 1 Ada, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92618 Attention: Ms. Donna McCormick Principal Subject: DRAFT Geotechnical Feasibility Study Proposed ARTIC Phase 1 Project Anaheim, California Dear Ms. McCormick: Kleinfelder W est, Inc. (Kleinfelder) is pleased to present this report summarizing the geotechnical feasibility study for the proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) Phase 1 project located on the east side of Douglass Road between Katella Avenue and the railroad in Anaheim, California. The purpose of this feasibility study was to evaluate the subsurface soil conditions at the site in order to provide preliminary geotechnical conclusions for project feasibility to support the project’s Environmental Documents. This feasibility study is not intended to be a design-level geotechnical study, and additional field and laboratory testing will be required in order to finalize the geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are subject to the limitations presented in Section 6. W e appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical engineering services to you on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report or if we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at (949) 727-4466. Respectfully submitted, KLEINFELDER WEST, INC. Brian E. Crystal, P.E., G.E. Jacques B. Roy, P.E., G.E. Geotechnical Group Manager Principal Geotechnical Engineer TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page 103567/IRV9R321 Page iii of ix October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT ASFE INSERT.................................................................................................................v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................1 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................2 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS ..............................................................................................5 2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION .................................................................................5 2.2 SITE HISTORY ..........................................................................................5 3.0 GEOLOGY ...........................................................................................................7 3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING ...........................................................7 3.2 SITE GEOLOGY ........................................................................................7 3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ...................................................................8 3.3.1 Undocumented Fill ..........................................................................8 3.3.2 Young Alluvium ...............................................................................8 3.4 GROUNDW ATER ......................................................................................9 3.5 FAULTING ...............................................................................................10 3.6 OTHER GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ..............................................................12 3.6.1 Flooding and Inundation ...............................................................12 3.6.2 Liquefaction...................................................................................13 3.6.3 Lateral Spreading and Slope Stability (Santa Ana River Channel)13 3.6.4 Expansive Soils .............................................................................14 3.6.5 Subsidence ...................................................................................14 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................15 4.1 GENERAL................................................................................................15 4.2 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................15 4.2.1 2007 CBC Seismic Design Parameters ........................................15 4.2.2 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement ............................................16 4.3 PRELIMINARY DESIGN GROUNDW ATER ELEVATION.......................18 4.4 FOUNDATIONS.......................................................................................18 4.4.1 Ground Improvement ....................................................................19 4.4.2 Deep Foundations.........................................................................21 4.5 EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................22 4.5.1 General .........................................................................................22 4.5.2 Dewatering ....................................................................................22 4.5.3 Shoring..........................................................................................23 4.6 PERMANENT SUBTERRANEAN W ALLS ..............................................24 4.7 EARTHW ORK .........................................................................................24 4.7.1 General .........................................................................................24 4.7.2 W et Soils and Subgrade Stabilization ...........................................25 4.7.3 Temporary Excavations ................................................................26 4.8 SUBTERRANEAN PARKING SLAB-ON-GRADE....................................26 4.9 SOIL CORROSION .................................................................................26 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page 103567/IRV9R321 Page iv of ix October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT 5.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES ..................................................................................28 6.0 LIMITATIONS .....................................................................................................29 7.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................31 PLATES Plate 1 Site Location Map Plate 2 Field Exploration Map Plate 3 Geotechnical / Geologic Map of ARTIC Site Plate 4 Recommended Lateral Earth Pressures for Temporary Shoring Plate 5 Recommended Lateral Earth Pressures for Permanent Basement W all APPENDICES Appendix A Field Explorations Appendix B Laboratory Testing Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes The following information is provided to help you manage your risks. Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Speciﬁ c Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the speciﬁ c needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulﬁ ll the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geo- technical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without ﬁ rst conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one - not even you - should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on A Unique Set of Project-Speciﬁ c Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-speciﬁ c factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client’s goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and conﬁ guration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engi- neer who conducted the study speciﬁ cally indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the speciﬁ c site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it’s changed from a parking garage to an ofﬁ ce building, or from alight industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, • elevation, conﬁ guration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, • composition of the design team, or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes - even minor ones - and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natu- ral events, such as ﬂ oods, earthquakes, or groundwater ﬂ uctuations. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identiﬁ es subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers review ﬁ eld and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ-sometimes signiﬁ cantly from those indi- cated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Report’s Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your re- port. Those recommendations are not ﬁ nal, because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can ﬁ nalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engi- neer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report’s recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members’ misinterpretation of geotechnical engineer- ing reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geotechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team’s plans and speciﬁ cations. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Engineer’s Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare ﬁ nal boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of ﬁ eld logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con- tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report’s accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct ad- ditional study to obtain the speciﬁ c types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufﬁ cient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the ﬁ nancial responsibilities stemming from unantici- pated conditions. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- mental study differ signiﬁ cantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually re- late any geoenvironmental ﬁ ndings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoenvironmental in- formation, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk management guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, op- eration, and maintenance to prevent signiﬁ cant amounts of mold from grow- ing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a comprehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a number of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, wa- ter inﬁ ltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose ﬁ ndings are conveyed in-this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services performed in connection with the geotechnical engineer’s study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold prevention. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be sufﬁ cient to prevent mold from growing in or on the struc- ture involved. Rely on Your ASFE-Member Geotechnical Engineer For Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical engi- neers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine beneﬁ t for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with your ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone:’ 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017 e-mail: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE’s speciﬁ c written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any other ﬁ rm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being anASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. IIGER06045.0M The Best People on Earth 103567/IRV9R321 Page vii of ix October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ___________________________________________________________________________________ This report presents the results of our geotechnical feasibility study the proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) Phase 1 project. Kleinfelder understands that the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the City of Anaheim plan to develop a major transit facility, known as ARTIC. The proposed facility will serve Metrolink, Amtrak, fixed-route buses, and will be a regional terminal for the future California High Speed Train. This study was concentrated on the east side of Douglass Road and north of the railroad, where the main ARTIC building will be situated. Preliminary recommendations for improvements within the Caltrans right-of-way were presented in a Preliminary Foundation Report, dated July 8, 2009 (Kleinfelder, 2009b). Preliminary recommendations for the remaining improvements, such as the lowering and widening of Douglass Road, pedestrian railroad crossings, and retaining structures, were presented in a Preliminary Foundation Report, dated July 17, 2009 (Kleinfelder, 2009c). The purpose of this feasibility study is to evaluate the subsurface soil conditions at the site in order to provide preliminary geotechnical conclusions for project feasibility to support the project’s Environmental Documents. This feasibility study is not intended to be a design-level geotechnical study, and additional field and laboratory testing will be required in order to finalize the geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction. The subsurface conditions at the site were recently explored by Kleinfelder by drilling 5 borings, installing 2 groundwater monitoring wells, and advancing 7 Cone Penetration Tests (CPTs). Soil materials encountered during the subsurface explorations consisted of artificial fill underlain by young alluvium. Locally derived sand material appears to have been used as fill and compaction appears to be highly variable. This fill is considered undocumented and not suitable for structural support. The fill depth varies throughout the site and is difficult to determine due to the nature of the material. Based on our interpretation of the materials encountered, the fill depths range between about 7 and 21 feet in the vicinity of our borings. It should be noted that deeper fill may be present at other locations not explored. Alluvial deposits were observed to underlie the 103567/IRV9R321 Page viii of ix October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT fill in the borings. The alluvium consists predominantly of interbedded layers and lenses of poorly graded sand, silty sand, lean clay and sandy silt. The groundwater encountered during Kleinfelder’s field exploration appears to be perched. Groundwater was measured at a depth of 23 feet (Elevation 134 feet) in one of our monitoring wells (W ell W -1). It should be noted that Kleinfelder’s groundwater measurements were taken during a relatively long dry period and mostly likely are not representative of the groundwater conditions during the rainy season. In 1994, wet soil samples (indication of groundwater) were logged adjacent to the site and the LOSSAN railroad corridor at a depth of approximately 50 feet (SCRRA, 1994), and in 1999 groundwater was measured at a depth of about 34 feet near the intersection of Katella Avenue and South Douglass Road (Coleman Geotechnical, 1999). In June 2006, OCW D mapped groundwater levels near the site at a depth of approximately 60 feet. In 2001, an evaluation of the historically shallowest groundwater levels was conducted by the CGS (Greenwood and Pridmore, 2001) for the area, which included the site. They determined the highest historical groundwater to be approximately 20 feet deep for the project site. Based on the results of our field explorations performed to date, laboratory testing and geotechnical analyses conducted during this study, it is our professional opinion that the proposed project is geotechnically feasible, provided the recommendations presented in this feasibility study report and future design reports are incorporated into the project design and construction. The primary geotechnical constraints that will have a significant impact to the cost of developing the site include: 1) the compressibility of the upper alluvial soils (static settlement); 2) the potential for seismically-induced settlement and slope instability/lateral spreading due to liquefaction; 3) the presence of deep undocumented fill; and 4) the potential for shallow groundwater adversely affecting the design and construction of subterranean parking levels. The following key items are conclusions developed from our feasibility study. • The site is within a State of California Hazard Zone for Liquefaction (CDMG, 1998). Because of the depth to groundwater and the soil types encountered during our investigation, the potential for liquefaction at the site is high. Seismically-induced settlement of saturated sandy soils due to strong ground shaking during a design-level seismic event could be on the order of 3 to 6 inches with differential settlements on the order of 2 to 4 inches. 103567/IRV9R321 Page ix of ix October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT • The site is bounded by the Santa Ana River on the east, which has been channelized. The top of the embankment to the channel bottom is approximately 15 to 20 feet high with an inclination of approximately 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Preliminary analyses indicate that, due to liquefaction, the channel slope will not be stable during the design earthquake and may affect the site improvements. A detailed evaluation of the stability of the Santa Ana channel slope should be performed during the design-level geotechnical study in order to design mitigative measures to protect the site improvements. • According to the 2007 CBC, sites subject to liquefaction should be classified as Site Class F, which requires a site response analysis. However, ACSE7-05, which is the basis for the 2007 CBC, suggests that for a short period (less than ½ second) structure on liquefiable soils, Site Class D or E may be used instead of Site Class F to estimate design seismic loading on the structure. The project structural engineer should determine if a site-specific response analysis is required during the design phase for the structural design. • The long-term performance of the subterranean parking slab and subterranean walls will be affected by the water level if not considered in the design. Due to the potential for an increased groundwater elevation from rainfall, over-irrigation, and the proximity to the Santa Ana River, we recommend that a preliminary design groundwater elevation of 145 feet, which roughly corresponds to the adjacent river bottom, be used for preliminary design. W e recommend that all subterranean walls and floor slabs that extend to and below Elevation 145 feet be waterproofed and designed for hydrostatic pressures. • Based on the subsurface explorations, undocumented fill up to 21 feet was observed at the site and appears to extend near the groundwater. This fill is not considered suitable for structural support. • Due to the compressibility of the upper alluvial soils (static settlement) and the potential for seismically-induced settlement and lateral spreading due to liquefaction, conventional shallow foundations supported on the alluvial soils or engineered fill are not recommended. Several options are available for foundation support. The decision as to which option(s) to select will likely be dictated at least partially by economics, and should be made by the owner in consultation with the design team once the design-level geotechnical study is complete. Options include ground improvement, such as Stone Columns or Deep Soil Mixing, or a deep foundation system, such as driven piles, with a structurally supported slab. • Depending on the location and depth of the earthwork at the site, wet soils should be anticipated and significant processing of these materials will likely be required (moisture reduction) prior to placement as engineered fill. Also, additional overexcavation and recompaction or replacement and/or cement treatment may be necessary to stabilize the bottom of deep excavations where wet soils are encountered. 103567/IRV9R321 Page 1 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical feasibility study the proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) Phase 1 project. Kleinfelder understands that the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the City of Anaheim plan to develop a major transit facility, known as ARTIC. The proposed facility will serve Metrolink, Amtrak, fixed-route buses, and will be a regional terminal for the future California High Speed Train. The ARTIC Phase I project is approximately bounded by Katella Avenue to the north, the Santa Ana River to the east and by the Anaheim Stadium to the south. This study was concentrated on the east side of Douglass Road and north of the railroad, where the main ARTIC building will be situated. The project boundaries are shown on Plate 1, Site Vicinity map. Preliminary recommendations for improvements within the Caltrans right-of-way were presented in a Preliminary Foundation Report, dated July 8, 2009 (Kleinfelder, 2009b). Preliminary recommendations for the remaining improvements, such as the lowering and widening of Douglass Road, pedestrian railroad crossings, and retaining structures, were presented in a Preliminary Foundation Report, dated July 17, 2009 (Kleinfelder, 2009c). The purpose of this feasibility study is to evaluate the subsurface soil conditions at the site in order to provide preliminary geotechnical conclusions for project feasibility to support the project’s Environmental Documents. This feasibility study is not intended to be a design-level geotechnical study, and additional field and laboratory testing will be required in order to finalize the geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction. The scope of our services was presented in our document titled, “Revised Contract Amendment Request, Additional Geotechnical and Environmental Services, Proposed ARTIC – Phase 1, Anaheim, California”, dated September 3, 2009 (Document 103567/IRV9P123). This report summarizes the data collected and presents our preliminary findings, conclusions, and recommendations for design and construction for project feasibility. 103567/IRV9R321 Page 2 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Kleinfelder understands that the main ARTIC facility will consist of a transit center building (approximately 220 by 300 feet in plan) located at the south end of the site near the tracks. The transit center building will be underlain by a one- or two- level subterranean parking structure, which will extend north beyond the building limits. The remaining improvements will consist mainly of surface parking and driveways with some landscape areas. 1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of our geotechnical feasibility study consisted of a literature review, subsurface explorations, geotechnical laboratory testing, engineering evaluation and analysis, and preparation of this report. A description of our scope of services performed for the geotechnical portion of the project follows. Our report includes a description of the work performed, a discussion of the geotechnical conditions observed at the site, and preliminary recommendations developed from our engineering analysis of field and laboratory data. The recommendations contained within this report are subject to the limitations presented in Section 6. An information sheet prepared by ASFE (the Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences) is also included. W e recommend that all individuals using this report read the limitations (Section 6.0) along with the attached ASFE document. Task 1 – Background Data Review. W e reviewed readily-available published and unpublished geologic literature in our files and the files of public agencies, including selected publications prepared by the California Geological Survey (formerly known as the California Division of Mines and Geology) and the U.S. Geological Survey. W e also reviewed readily available seismic and faulting information, including data for designated earthquake fault zones as well as our in-house database of faulting in the general site vicinity. References used are listed in Section 7.0 (References) of this report. 103567/IRV9R321 Page 3 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT Task 2 – Field Exploration. The subsurface conditions at the site were recently explored by Kleinfelder by drilling 5 borings, installing 2 groundwater monitoring wells, and advancing 7 Cone Penetration Tests (CPTs). The borings/wells were drilled to depths between approximately 51½ and 101½ feet below the existing ground surface (bgs) using truck-mounted, hollow-stem drilling equipment. The CPTs were advanced to depths between approximately 38 and 94 feet bgs. The approximate locations of the borings and CPTs are presented on Plate 2, Field Exploration Map. Prior to commencement of the fieldwork, various geophysical techniques were used at each boring and CPT location in order to identify potential conflicts with subsurface structures. Each of our proposed field exploration locations were also cleared for buried utilities through Underground Service Alert (USA). A Kleinfelder engineer supervised the field operations and logged the borings. Selected bulk and drive samples were retrieved, sealed and transported to our laboratory for further evaluation. The number of blows necessary to drive both Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and modified California-type samplers were recorded. A description of the field exploration and the logs of the borings, including a Legend to the Logs of Borings, are presented in Appendix A. Logs of the CPTs are also presented in Appendix A. Task 3 – Laboratory Testing. Laboratory testing was performed on representative bulk and relatively undisturbed samples to substantiate field classifications and to provide engineering parameters for geotechnical design. Laboratory testing consisted of in-situ moisture content and dry unit weight, wash sieve (% passing #200 sieve), Atterberg limits, consolidation, gradation, direct shear and preliminary corrosion potential analyses. A summary of the testing performed and the results are presented in Appendix B. Task 4 – Geotechnical Analyses. The available field and laboratory data were analyzed in conjunction with assumed finished grades and structural loads to provide preliminary geotechnical conclusions for project feasibility and cost estimating purposes. Geotechnical considerations included an evaluation of feasible foundation systems including constructability and compatibility constraints and earthwork. Potential geologic hazards, such as ground shaking, liquefaction potential, slope stability, flood hazard, fault rupture hazard and seismically-induced settlement, were also evaluated. 103567/IRV9R321 Page 4 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT Task 5 – Report Preparation. This report summarizes the work performed, data acquired, and our preliminary geotechnical findings and conclusions for project feasibility to support the project’s Environmental Documents. Our report includes the following items: • Site Vicinity Map, and Field Exploration Map showing the approximate field exploration locations; • Logs of borings and CPTs, including approximate elevations; • Results of laboratory tests; • Discussion of general site conditions; • Discussion of general subsurface conditions as encountered in our field exploration, including the depth to groundwater; • Discussion of regional and local geology and site seismicity; • Discussion of geologic and seismic hazards; • Preliminary evaluation of the liquefaction potential, dynamic settlement, and lateral spreading; • Preliminary recommendations for grading, temporary construction shoring, and earthwork, which could significantly impact cost; • Discussion of feasible foundation systems, including preliminary design recommendations and ground improvement alternatives; • Preliminary recommendations for support of floor slabs and slab-on-grade; • Preliminary recommendations for seismic design parameters in accordance with the 2007 California Building Code; and • Preliminary evaluation of the corrosion potential of the on-site soils. 103567/IRV9R321 Page 5 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS 2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION The ARTIC project site includes approximately 13.5 acres of land located north of the existing LOSSAN corridor, and extending westward from the Santa Ana River to, and including, Douglas Road. This area is about 1400 feet long and 300 to 550 feet wide. Douglass Road is currently a 4-lane road, which crosses under the LOSSAN railroad corridor and SR-57 bridges. The remainder of the project site contains several single- story office and maintenance buildings and work shelters, including an area to wash vehicles. Except for a narrow landscape area along Douglass Road and some trees across from the main office building, most of the site outside the buildings is asphalt paved with localized concrete flatwork. The site ranges in elevation between approximately 165 feet in the northeast corner near Katella Avenue to 156 feet (NAVD 88) at the southern end near the LOSSAN corridor. Current surface elevations of Douglass Road are approximately 165 feet near Katella Avenue dropping to about 146 feet beneath the LOSSAN corridor bridge. The LOSSAN railroad corridor rises about 10 feet above the site at an elevation of approximately 166 feet. The Santa Ana River bounds the site to the east and is separated from the site by an improved embankment (levee or berm), which rises to an elevation of about 165 to 168 feet. The levee crest is paved and currently used as an Orange County bike path and maintenance access to the river. The river bottom elevation is estimated to be approximately 140 to 145 feet. The site includes underground utilities such as sewer, water, storm drain, electric and communication lines. The main power lines are overhead. The site is fenced and the southern two-thirds is currently used as contractor maintenance and storage yards and includes an office trailer. The northern portion of the site is presently used as parking. 2.2 SITE HISTORY Historical aerial photography (see Section 7.0 for a complete list) and vintage topographic maps (Plate II of Mendenhall, 1905) show that the project site and general vicinity was largely undeveloped or minimally developed agricultural land in the early 1900s. Although it appears that levee construction along the Santa Ana River had 103567/IRV9R321 Page 6 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT begun by the 1920s, the river’s west bank adjacent to the project site was still in a natural condition and bank erosion and sloughing was apparent. In 1938, a year of heavy rains and extensive flooding throughout southern California, the site was stripped of all vegetation. In 1939, on the project site’s western boundary, diagonal levees or berm-like structures (denoted as “1939 Levee” on Plate 3) are observed north and south of the railroad tracks (i.e., LOSSAN railroad corridor). The 1939 Levee is approximately 50 feet wide and appears to restrict the bank sloughing to its river-side, thus protecting orchards to the west. Collins Avenue crosses the river from the east, bisecting the site and turns northward to join a road that would become the present-day South Douglass Road. Between 1955 and 1959 quarry excavation activities had begun on the project site between the railroad tracks and Collins Avenue-Douglass Road alignment. The quarry is open towards the Santa Ana River and its bottom appears to be slightly below river’s bottom. The approximate extent of the quarry is shown on Plate 3. Also, during this time, bank erosion and sloughing of the project site, north of Collins Avenue, had migrated westward to the 1939 Levee. The Collins Avenue- Douglass Road alignment and the railroad tracks were largely unaffected by the quarry excavation or the sloughing of the river bank. By the late 1960s and early 1970s the Santa Ana River’s current levee system has been constructed between the river and the project site. The project site, behind the current river levee (including the quarry), has been filled and, by the mid-1970s, the site has been developed with the current alignment of South Douglass Road. By the late 1970s, the SR-57 has been completed. 103567/IRV9R321 Page 7 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT 3.0 GEOLOGY 3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING The ARTIC site is located in the southern part of the Los Angeles Basin within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. The Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province is characterized by elongate northwest-trending mountain ranges separated by sediment-floored valleys (California Geological Survey, 2002). The most dominant structural features of the province are the northwest trending fault zones, most of which die out, merge with, or are terminated by the steep reverse faults at the southern margin of the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province. East of the site are the northwest-trending Santa Ana Mountains, a large range which has been uplifted on its eastern side along the W hittier-Elsinore Fault Zone, producing a tilted, irregular highland that slopes westward toward the sea (Schoellhamer et al., 1981). The area south and west of the Santa Ana Mountains is generally characterized as a broad, complex, alluvial fan, which receives sediments from the Santa Ana River and its tributaries draining the Santa Ana Mountains and Puente Hills. These sediments are relatively flat-lying, unconsolidated to loosely consolidated clastic deposits that are approximately 1,700 feet thick beneath the site (Metropolitan W ater District of Southern California, 2007; and Orange County W ater District, 2004). 3.2 SITE GEOLOGY The ARTIC site is located adjacent to the Santa Ana River, a braided stream system with flood control measures. The surficial deposits in the vicinity of the project area consist of alluvial fan material and alluvium deposited by the Santa Ana River over the last few thousand years. These unconsolidated alluvial sediments are generally composed of flat-lying, non-marine deposits of sand and a minor amount of silt. (Morton et al., 2004). These sandy deposits become interbedded with clayey layers in the subsurface, generally at a depth of approximately 50 to 55 feet. However, due to quarrying activities and bank sloughing, most of the project site does not have alluvium at the surface, but rather an undetermined thickness of undocumented artificial fill. The 103567/IRV9R321 Page 8 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT site was apparently filled in to current grades during development of the property in the early 1970s. 3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subsurface conditions encountered in our borings and CPTs at the site generally consist of artificial fill underlain by young alluvium. A discussion of the subsurface materials encountered is presented in the following sections. Detailed descriptions of the deposits are provided in our logs of borings and CPTs presented in Appendix A. 3.3.1 Undocumented Fill Undocumented fill soils associated with the raising of the site were encountered in the borings recently drilled. Locally derived sand material appears to have been used as fill and compaction appears to be highly variable. This fill is considered undocumented and not suitable for structural support. The fill depth varies throughout the site and is difficult to determine due to the nature of the material. Based on our interpretation of the materials encountered, the fill depths range between about 7 and 21 feet in the vicinity of our borings. It should be noted that deeper fill may be present at other locations not explored. The fill soils were classified mostly as poorly graded sand, poorly graded sand with silt and silty sand. The moisture contents were generally in the range of 2 to 14 percent (average about 5½ percent). The dry unit weights range between 106 and 123 pcf (average about 114 pcf). 3.3.2 Young Alluvium Young alluvial deposits were encountered below the fill. The alluvium consists predominantly of interbedded layers and lenses of poorly graded sand, silty sand, lean clay and sandy silt. Based on the borings, the upper 10 feet of alluvium immediately below the fill consists generally of poorly graded sand (SP and SP-SM) and silty sand (SM). Groundwater appears to be perching on silt and clay soil layers. The shallowest clay layer was encountered in Boring B-2 at about 20½ feet. Gravel layers, generally ranging in thickness between about 2 and 8 feet, were identified in Borings B-1, B-2, 103567/IRV9R321 Page 9 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT B-4, W -1 and W -2. Borings B-3 and B-5 have sand layers containing significant amount of gravel. Generally gravel was first detected in the borings at depths between 28 and 40 feet. W ith few exceptions, Kleinfelder’s laboratory test data indicated moisture content of the silt and clay in the range of 14 to 27 percent (average of about 21 percent) and dry unit weights in the range of 99 to 113 pcf (average 105 pcf). For the sand and gravel materials the laboratory moistures are generally in the range of 2 to 17 percent (average of about 8 percent) and dry unit weights of 92 to 138 pcf (average of about 115 pcf). Based on field observation during sampling and blow counts recorded, the clay and silt soils are generally medium stiff or stiff, with localized soft, very stiff and hard layers. The sandy soils are generally loose to medium dense and the gravel are dense to very dense. The sand with gravel ranges from medium dense to very dense. 3.4 GROUNDWATER The ARTIC site is located in the forebay area of Orange County Basin (Metropolitan W ater District of Southern California, 2007; DW R, 2004; and OCW D, 2004). The forebay is an area consisting of coarser, interconnected deposits that allows surface water to percolate down and ultimately recharge the County’s principal aquifer about 800 feet deep (DW R, 2004). The nearest aquifer beneath the site is the Talbert aquifer and it extends to a depth of approximately 150 feet below the project area (Poland, 1956). Near the site, groundwater levels in the Talbert aquifer can fluctuate substantially depending on rainfall conditions or recharge activities in the river. In 1994, wet soil samples (indication of groundwater) were logged adjacent to the site and the LOSSAN railroad corridor at a depth of approximately 50 feet (SCRRA, 1994), and in 1999 groundwater was measured at a depth of about 34 feet near the intersection of Katella Avenue and South Douglass Road (Coleman Geotechnical, 1999). In June 2006, OCW D mapped groundwater levels near the site at a depth of approximately 60 feet. However, in 2001 an evaluation of the historically shallowest groundwater levels was conducted by the CGS (Greenwood and Pridmore, 2001) for the area which included the site. They determined the highest historical groundwater to be approximately 20 feet deep for the project site. 103567/IRV9R321 Page 10 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT The groundwater encountered during Kleinfelder’s field exploration appears to be perched. The zones of groundwater seepage observed are presented in Table 1. It should be noted that Kleinfelder’s groundwater measurements were taken during a relatively long dry period and mostly likely are not representative of the groundwater conditions during the rainy season. Table 1 Groundwater Level Measurements Boring No. Location Approximate Groundwater Depth (feet) Approximate Groundwater Elevation (feet) Date Measured B-1 NE Site Portion 51 110 9/24/09 B-2 Center of Site 83 75 9/24/09 B-3 SE Corner 58 98 9/22/09 B-4 S End of Site 87 71 9/23/09 W -1 E Center of Site 23 134 10/16/09 W -2 SE Corner 50 * -- 10/16/09 Note: * Groundwater was not encountered in the well. Fluctuations of the groundwater level, localized zones of perched water, and increased soil moisture content should be anticipated during and following the rainy season. Irrigation of landscaped areas on or adjacent to the site can also cause a fluctuation of local groundwater levels. 3.5 FAULTING Primary ground rupture is ground deformation that occurs along the surface trace of the causative fault during an earthquake. No known active faults are mapped crossing the site, and the site is not located within a State of California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007), thus the potential for future surface fault rupture at the site is considered to be low. The closest mapped faults to the site include the Peralta-El Modeno, Puente Hill Blind Thrust, W hittier-Elsinore faults and several unnamed and buried faults to the south of the site. Table 2 summarizes the distances of the closest known faults. 103567/IRV9R321 Page 11 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT Table 2 Summary of Closest Mapped Faults Fault Name Type Distance, miles (km) Magnitude, Mw El Modeno Reverse 2.3 (3.7) 6.5 Peralta Reverse 3.6 (5.9) 6.5 Unnamed Buried (2) Unknown 4.2 (6.7) and 4.9 (8.0) Unknown Puente Hills Blind Thrust 5.3 (8.6) 7.1 W hittier Strike Slip 8.5 (13.8) 6.8 The Peralta-El Modeno faults are located north and northeast of the project site. The Peralta fault outcrops along the southern edge of the Peralta Hills east of the Santa Ana River approximately 3.6 miles (5.9 kilometers) from the site (Morton et al., 2004). The Peralta fault is a reverse fault which dips north towards the W hittier fault and movement along it results in crustal shortening and uplift of the Peralta Hills (Dolan et al., 2001). The El Modeno fault could be a westward extension of the Peralta fault, but this is currently not known. The El Modeno fault is buried beneath the alluvium of the Santa Ana River and it’s inferred location is about 2.3 miles (3.7 kilometers) north of the site. The CGS fault map by Jennings (1994) shows the buried El Modeno fault extending westward from Burrel Ridge to about the SR-57 freeway. Slip rates of the El Modeno and Peralta faults are not currently known; however the faults are considered potentially active capable of generating an Mw6.5 earthquake (Mualchin, 1996). The Puente Hills Blind Thrust fault (Mw7.1 earthquake) passes approximately 5.3 miles (8.6 kilometers) from the site. This active fault consists of three segments, from west to east; the Los Angeles, Santa Fe Springs and the Coyote Hills segments. These segments shallowly dip northward toward the Puente Hills and thrusting motion along these faults has resulted in crustal shortening in the region. Slip on the three segments produced an anticlinal structure caused by the compression and folding. This has been observed in the Coyote Hills segment approximately 5.5 miles (9.1 kilometers) north- northwest of the site. Although the Puente Hills Blind Thrust is buried approximately 2 to 3 kilometers beneath the ground surface, significant seismic shaking can result from 103567/IRV9R321 Page 12 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT this buried fault. Displacement along a section of the Santa Fe Springs segment is believed to have caused the 1987 W hittier Narrows earthquake (Mw6.0), confirming the potential for this active fault system to cause significant seismic shaking in the Los Angeles Basin (Dolan et al., 2001; Shaw et al, 2002). The W hittier fault is an extension of the Elsinore fault where the fault deviates from the normal northwesterly strike and turns more westward at the Santa Ana River (Morton et al., 2004). Movement along the W hittier Fault is predominantly right-lateral strike-slip at a rate of approximately 2 to 3 mm/year (Dolan et al., 2001). However, it is believed to have had some reverse movement historically causing uplift of the Puente Hills at about 0.5 mm/year (Dolan et al., 2001). The surface trace of the W hittier fault has been mapped by the State and designated as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007). The surface trace has been mapped approximately 8.5 miles (13.8 kilometers) north of the project site. Two unnamed, buried faults are mapped to the southwest and south of the site, approximately 4.2 miles (6.7 kilometers) and 4.9 miles (8 kilometers), respectively. Both faults terminate within the Orange County Basin, however, the one to the south, is mapped trending towards the site before it ends about 4.9 miles away. No information regarding these faults is available except that they are buried beneath sediments, some older than 11,000 years (Morton et al., 2004). 3.6 OTHER GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 3.6.1 Flooding and Inundation Flooding and inundation occurs as a result of several factors in developed areas. These factors include: rainfall rates that exceed an area’s ability to absorb or control the runoff; impounded water retained behind a flood control structure (upstream- inundation); failure of a flood control structure (downstream-inundation); seiches and tsunamis (earthquake induced). Flooding of the Santa Ana River has inundated the site numerous times over the past 175 years. Channelization and flood protection levees were constructed, and following the devastating 1938 flood, Prado Dam was constructed to improve flood protection. As development of the inland empire proceeded, additional measures were soon needed. Currently, flood protection for the 103567/IRV9R321 Page 13 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT area is being improved with the Santa Ana River Mainstream Project. The project will increase the flood level protection along more than 75 miles of the Santa Ana River course within Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, and is scheduled to be completed by 2010. Although the Santa Ana River Mainstream Project may reduce the risk of flood along the river, it may not prevent flood inundation at the site due to failure of the Prado Dam during an earthquake. An earthquake along the Chino Hills fault, which crosses beneath the dam near the spillway, could cause the dam to fail. A catastrophic failure of the dam with substantial water stored behind it could cause flooding at the site downstream. A flood inundation evaluation should be performed for the site during the design phase. 3.6.2 Liquefaction Liquefaction occurs when loose, coarse-grained or silty soils are subjected to strong shaking resulting from earthquake motions. The coarse-grained or silty soils typically lose a portion or all of their shear strength, and regain strength sometime after the shaking stops. Soil movements (both vertical and lateral) have been observed under these conditions due to consolidation of the liquefied soils. The site is located within a State of California Hazard Zone for Liquefaction (CDMG, 1998). Because of the depth of historic groundwater and the soil types encountered during our investigation, the potential for liquefaction at the site is moderate to high. A more detailed description of the liquefaction analyses is provided in Section 4.2.2. 3.6.3 Lateral Spreading and Slope Stability (Santa Ana River Channel) Lateral spreading is the term commonly used to describe the permanent deformation of sloping ground that occurs during earthquake shaking as a result of soil liquefaction. Deformations can range from inches to several feet, with the greatest displacements usually occurring near free-faces. Therefore, facilities and structures adjacent to bodies of water (e.g. ports/harbors, lakes, and rivers) are usually at the greatest risk of experiencing damage due to lateral spreading. The portion of the site bound by the Santa Ana River has potential to be affected by slope instability and lateral spreading due to liquefaction. The top of the embankment 103567/IRV9R321 Page 14 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT to the channel bottom is approximately 15 to 20 feet high with an inclination of approximately 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Preliminary analyses indicate that, due to liquefaction, the channel slope will not be stable during the design earthquake and may affect the site improvements. A detailed evaluation of the stability of the Santa Ana channel slope should be performed during the design-level geotechnical study in order to design mitigative measures to protect the site improvements. 3.6.4 Expansive Soils The upper fill and alluvial soils are generally granular and non-cohesive in nature (sandy soil). Accordingly, the potential for expansive soils impacting the project at shallow depth is low. Subterranean parking excavations may encounter clayey soils with a medium expansion potential. 3.6.5 Subsidence The site is not located in an area of known ground subsidence due to the withdrawal of subsurface fluids. Accordingly, the potential for subsidence occurring at the site due to the withdrawal of oil, gas, or water is considered remote. 103567/IRV9R321 Page 15 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 GENERAL Based on the results of our field explorations performed to date, laboratory testing and geotechnical analyses conducted during this study, it is our professional opinion that the proposed project is geotechnically feasible, provided the recommendations presented in this feasibility study report and future design reports are incorporated into the project design and construction. The primary geotechnical constraints that will have a significant impact to the cost of developing the site include: 1) the compressibility of the upper alluvial soils (static settlement); 2) the potential for seismically-induced settlement and slope instability/lateral spreading due to liquefaction; 3) the presence of deep undocumented fill; and 4) the potential for shallow groundwater adversely affecting the design and construction of subterranean parking levels. Further discussion of these constraints is presented in the following sections. The following opinions, conclusions, and preliminary recommendations are based on the properties of the materials encountered in the borings and CPTs, the results of the laboratory-testing program, and our engineering analyses performed. Our preliminary conclusions regarding the geotechnical aspects of the design and construction of the project are presented in the following sections. Any substantial changes in grades or to the proposed improvements may require a change to our preliminary recommendations. 4.2 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The site is located in a seismically active region and the proposed development can be expected to be subjected to moderate to strong seismic shaking during its design life. The following sections discuss seismic design considerations with respect to the project site. 4.2.1 2007 CBC Seismic Design Parameters According to the 2007 California Building Code (CBC), every structure, and portion thereof, including non-structural components that are permanently attached to structures and their supports and attachments, shall be designed and constructed to 103567/IRV9R321 Page 16 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT resist the effects of earthquake motions in accordance with ASCE 7-05 (ASCE, 2006), excluding Chapter 14 and Appendix 11A. The seismic design category for a structure may be determined in accordance with Section 1613 of the 2007 CBC or ASCE 7-05. According to the 2007 CBC, sites subject to liquefaction should be classified as Site Class F, which requires a site response analysis. However, ACSE7-05, which is the basis for the 2007 CBC, suggests that for a short period (less than ½ second) structure on liquefiable soils, Site Class D or E may be used instead of Site Class F to estimate design seismic loading on the structure. The selection of Site Class D or E is based on the assessment of the site soil profile assuming no liquefaction. The project structural engineer should determine if a site-specific response analysis is required during the design phase for the structural design. The 2007 CBC Seismic Design Parameters, assuming a Site Class D, are summarized in Table 3. Table 3 2007 CBC Seismic Design Parameters Ss (Figure 1613.5(3)) (g) 1.38 S1 (Figure 1613.5(4)) (g) 0.50 Fa (Table 1613.5.3(1)) 1.0 Fv (Table 1613.5.3(2)) 1.5 SMS (Equation 16-37) (g) 1.38 SM1 (Equation 16-38) (g) 0.75 SDS (Equation 16-39) (g) 0.92 SD1 (Equation 16-40) (g) 0.50 4.2.2 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement The term liquefaction describes a phenomenon in which saturated, cohesionless soils temporarily lose shear strength (liquefy) due to increased pore water pressures induced by strong, cyclic ground motions during an earthquake. Structures founded on or above potentially liquefiable soils may experience bearing capacity failures due to the temporary loss of foundation support, vertical settlements (both total and differential), and undergo lateral spreading. The factors known to influence liquefaction potential include soil type, relative density, grain size, confining pressure, depth to groundwater, 103567/IRV9R321 Page 17 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT and the intensity and duration of the seismic ground shaking. The cohesionless soils most susceptible to liquefaction are loose, saturated sands and some silts. To assess the potential for liquefaction of subsurface soils at the site, we used the simplified liquefaction analysis procedure recommended by NCEER (Youd and Idriss, 1997, 2001). For estimating the resulting ground settlements, we used the method proposed by Tokimatsu and Seed (1987). This method utilizes the standard penetration test (SPT) blow count data to estimate the amount of volumetric compaction or settlement during an earthquake. According to the State of California (Greenwood and Pridmore, 2001), the historical high depth to groundwater beneath the site has been mapped at a depth of 20 feet below original ground surface. Following our subsurface explorations, groundwater was measured at a depth of 23 feet (Elevation 134 feet) in one of our monitoring wells (W ell W -1). A groundwater level of 20 feet below the existing ground surface was used in our preliminary analyses. According to Section 1802 of the 2007 CBC, the PGA used in the liquefaction analysis may be estimated by dividing the SDS by 2.5. A PGA of 0.37g with an associated Magnitude 6.8 earthquake was used as the design-level seismic event for our liquefaction analyses. W e evaluated the liquefaction potential at the site using the SPT data. The CPTs were used to refine the soil profile of the borings because they provide a continuous measurement of the site stratigraphy. Based on the SPT data and our engineering analyses, it is our opinion that the loose to medium dense sandy silt, silty sand, and sand below the design level groundwater are subject to liquefaction in the event of a major earthquake occurring on a nearby fault. Based on our preliminary analyses, we estimate that seismically-induced settlement of saturated sandy soils due to strong ground shaking during a design-level seismic event could be on the order of 3 to 6 inches. Because of variations in distribution, density, and confining conditions of the soils, seismic settlement is generally non-uniform and severe structural damage can occur due to differential settlement. The amount of differential settlement will depend on the uniformity of the subsurface profile. For relatively uniform subsurface conditions, differential settlement on the order of 50 percent of the total seismic settlement could be expected. For highly heterogeneous sites, differential settlements on the order of 75 103567/IRV9R321 Page 18 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT to 100 percent of the total seismic settlement could be expected. Differential settlement at this site is expected to be on the order of 2 to 4 inches. 4.3 PRELIMINARY DESIGN GROUNDWATER ELEVATION As discussed above, groundwater encountered during Kleinfelder’s field exploration appears to be perched. Groundwater was measured at a depth of 23 feet (Elevation 134 feet) in one of our monitoring wells (W ell W -1). According to the State of California (Greenwood and Pridmore, 2001), the highest historical groundwater depth at the site has been mapped at about 20 feet below grade. The long-term performance of the subterranean parking slab and subterranean walls will be affected by the water level if not considered in the design. Due to the potential for an increased groundwater elevation from rainfall, over-irrigation, and the proximity to the Santa Ana River, we recommend that a preliminary design groundwater elevation of 145 feet, which roughly corresponds to the adjacent river bottom, be used. W e recommend that all subterranean walls and floor slabs that extend to and below Elevation 145 feet be waterproofed and designed for hydrostatic pressures. W aterproofing above this elevation may be required to prevent moisture migration through the walls. 4.4 FOUNDATIONS The preliminary geotechnical design recommendations presented below are for project feasibility and budget-level cost estimating. These preliminary recommendations may be modified once the improvement configuration, design grades and structural loading have been finalized and after the design-level geotechnical study is completed. As discussed above, the primary geotechnical constraints for site development are the compressibility of the upper alluvial soils (static settlement) and the potential for seismically-induced settlement and lateral spreading due to liquefaction. Several options are available for foundation support. The decision as to which option(s) to select will likely be dictated at least partially by economics, and should be made by the owner in consultation with the design team once the design-level geotechnical study is complete. Options include ground improvement, such as Stone Columns or Deep Soil 103567/IRV9R321 Page 19 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT Mixing, or a deep foundation system, such as driven piles, with a structurally supported slab. Further discussion of these options is presented below. In addition, based on our preliminary analyses, we cannot preclude the potential for lateral spreading of the Santa Ana River channel slope. Seismic deformation of the channel slope adjacent to the proposed building may need to be mitigated with ground improvement. 4.4.1 Ground Improvement One alternative to mitigate static settlement and the potential for liquefaction at the site is to implement a properly designed ground improvement program. Once ground improvement is performed, the proposed building may be supported on a conventional shallow foundation system. Based on past experience, stone columns (vibro- replacement) or Deep Soil Mixing (DSM) may be cost effective ground improvement options. The ground improvement program should be designed to limit total settlement (static and seismic) within tolerable levels, typically approximately ½ to 1 inch static settlement and 1 inch seismic settlement and differential settlement (static and seismic) to about ½ inch over 50 feet. At a minimum, the soils should be improved a horizontal distance of at least 15 feet beyond the edge of the building pad. Additionally, the ground improvement program should consider the impact to the surrounding roads and underground utilities. The actual design of a ground improvement program should be performed by a design- build contractor specializing and experienced with these ground improvement methods. The contractor should provide material requirements, preliminary spacing and replacement ratios, and other design information. The ground improvement design will likely be an iterative process between the ground improvement contractor and the Geotechnical Engineer. It should be noted that ground improvement programs are typically design-build projects, and the specialty contractors are ultimately responsible for the performance of their designs. A more detailed discussion of two potential ground improvement options follows. 103567/IRV9R321 Page 20 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT Stone Columns Stone columns are formed by vibro-replacement. W ith vibro-replacement, a probe is advanced into the ground by means of vibration to the design treatment depth. The probe is then lifted several feet, and gravel is fed into the resulting void under pressure through a delivery tube attached to the probe. The vibrating probe is then advanced back into the deposited gravel, displacing it and compacting it. The probe is lifted and lowered again and again until a densified “stone column” is constructed to the ground surface. Ground improvement is achieved by the formation of these “stone columns” within the ground and by densifying the soil adjacent to the stone columns. The stiffer stone column matrix also helps to redistribute the shear stresses in the soil. Past experience and research have indicated that stone columns have the potential to additionally provide drainage. The inclusion of drainage assists in relieving excess pore pressures generated during an earthquake, and reducing the extent of liquefaction. Based on our experience and discussions with leading stone column installation experts, stone columns are very effective in sands and can be quite effective in silty sands and silts. Deep Soil Mixing (DSM) DSM is the mechanical blending of the in-situ soil with cementicious materials using a hollow auger and paddle arrangement. Soil-mixing rigs may have a single auger (about 2 to 12 feet in diameter) or several smaller-diameter augers (usually 2 to 8 augers). As the augers are advanced into the soil, grout is pumped through the stems and injected into the soil at the tips. After the design depth has been reached, the augers are withdrawn while the mixing process continues. The soil-mixing process results in a fairly uniform soil-cement column. The intent of a DSM program is to achieve increased shear strength and reduced compressibility of the soil. The DSM solidifies “columns” of soil in the treated area and the resulting soil-cement matrix helps to redistribute the shear stresses in the soil, thus, reducing the settlement of the ground surface due to liquefaction of the untreated soil. In addition, the soil-cement columns can be used as a load-bearing element to reduce static settlement. 103567/IRV9R321 Page 21 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT 4.4.2 Deep Foundations As an alternative to ground improvement, the structures could be supported on deep foundation systems, such as driven piles, with structurally supported slabs (suspended slab). A properly-designed pile foundation system and structural slab would mitigate static and dynamic settlements, but would need to extend well below the depth of liquefaction due to the downdrag loads caused by the seismically-induced settlement. Deep foundations consisting of 16-inch-square precast prestressed concrete driven piles could be used at the site. It should be noted that driven piles may encounter hard driving conditions and have difficulty penetrating interbedded dense gravel layers near the existing pile tip elevations. Pre-drilling of these dense gravel layers may be required. In addition, a vibration study should be conducted prior to final design to determine if vibrations from driving piles will have an adverse affect on existing structures. If driven piles are selected, the designer should evaluate the pile drivability and vibration concerns. As an alternative to driven piles, Tubex Grout Injection (TGI) piles could be used at the site. A TGI pile consists of a pipe casing with an oversized drill tip that is drilled into the ground to the desired depth. The steel casing could be spliced similar to a steel H-pile. Once the pile reaches the tip elevation, grout is injected between the steel casing and the soil column, filling the void left by the oversized tip. The inside of the steel casing is then drilled out and reinforcing steel and concrete is placed. Downdrag loads can be reduced by filling a portion of the outside of the casing with bentonite. The pile length will be significantly affected by the depth of liquefaction. Based on the available data and our preliminary analysis, liquefaction to a depth of approximately 60 feet may occur and possibly induce downdrag loads to a depth of about 55 feet. It should be noted that there are several thin soil layers below approximately Elevation 100 feet (below a depth of 60 feet) that could potentially be susceptible to liquefaction; however, the existing data was not sufficient to positively determine that liquefaction was of concern in these layers. As a result, these recommendations may require revision during the final design phase once additional data is available. Preliminary pile tip elevations based on extrapolating the existing soil data and assuming liquefaction will occur to an approximate elevation of 100 feet are presented in Table 4. The 103567/IRV9R321 Page 22 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT preliminary capacities provided in Table 4 assume the piles will tip into dense gravelly sand or gravel at around Elevation 70 feet. Table 4 Summary of Preliminary Axial Pile Capacities Allowable Capacity 1 (kips) Type of Pile Preliminary Pile Tip Elevation (feet) Compression 16-ich-square PCPS Driven 70 200 70 175 2 Tubex Grout Injection pile 60 250 2 Notes: 1 A one-third increase may be used when considering wind loads, but not seismic loads. 2 The preliminary pile capacities do not consider a reduction in the downdrag loads due to filling the annulus around the casing with bentonite. 4.5 EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS 4.5.1 General W hile the details of site excavation (i.e., depth and lateral extent) are not known at this time, the proposed excavation will require temporary shoring around the perimeter of the site during construction. Underpinning may also be required for adjacent improvements and potentially for any power poles or utilities affected by the planned excavations. The actual shoring design should be provided by a registered civil engineer in the State of California experienced in the design and construction of shoring under similar conditions. Once the final excavation and shoring plans are complete, the plans and design should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineer for conformance with the design intent and geotechnical recommendations. 4.5.2 Dewatering Due to the depth of the anticipated excavation, dewatering may be required during construction depending on when construction takes place. The owner or contractor 103567/IRV9R321 Page 23 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT should retain an experienced engineer for design of a dewatering system. The dewatering system should be installed by a contractor specializing in dewatering under similar soil conditions. It has been our experience that improperly designed or constructed dewatering systems can significantly impact project schedule and cost. The dewatering system will likely consist of deep wells with localized well points. If sump pumping is used to remove accumulated surface water in trenches or excavations, the gravel filled trenches and sump pits should be lined with filter fabric to reduce the potential of pumping out fines. The County of Orange, Division of Environmental Health (OCDEH), will likely restrict the discharge of water removed from excavations. W ater mostly likely will need to be treated to discharge it to either the storm drain or sewer systems. 4.5.3 Shoring Conventional shoring consisting of closely-spaced soldier piles and wooden lagging is commonly used. Due to the potential depth of the proposed excavation, several rows of tie-back anchors may be needed. Tie-backs may be installed by using hollow-stem auger drilling equipment. The tendon (high strength steel bar or cable) would be inserted into the hollow stem, the anchor drilled to its full length, and grout pumped through the stem while retracting the auger. For preliminary cost estimating purposes, the unit friction between the grout and the soil (ultimate bond stress) for post-grouted anchors may be assumed to be on the order of 3,000 psf. Only the resistance developed beyond the failure wedge should be used in resisting lateral loads. The minimum bonded length should not solely be based on the required anchor capacity; the global stability of the shored wall should also be checked. In addition, due to the reduced overburden and cover depth, the Santa Ana River channel slope will need to be considered in the tie-back anchor design. For preliminary design, braced excavations (including those using tie-back anchors) should be designed to resist a uniform horizontal soil pressure of at least 24H (in psf), where H is the wall height (feet). Forty five percent of any areal surcharge adjacent to the shoring (including existing structures and soil stockpiles) may be assumed to act as a uniform horizontal pressure against the shoring. A uniform horizontal surcharge pressure of 120 psf should be used for tieback walls adjacent to vehicular traffic. 103567/IRV9R321 Page 24 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT Plate 4 presents the recommended preliminary lateral earth pressures for temporary shoring. The pressures presented on Plate 4 do not include hydrostatic pressures; it is assumed that any temporary shoring will not be subject to hydrostatic pressures because construction dewatering will remove water before it accumulates behind the wall. If shoring or soldier piles extend below the water table, the effects of groundwater should be accounted for in the design of shoring. 4.6 PERMANENT SUBTERRANEAN WALLS W e anticipate that the permanent restrained retaining walls for the subterranean parking level will predominantly be constructed directly against the temporary shoring. The walls should be properly waterproofed and should have drainage system extending to the elevation of about 145 feet to collect surface water. W e have assumed that the remainder of the wall will be designed for full hydrostatic pressure. W e recommend that permanent walls be designed for the preliminary lateral earth pressures presented on Plate 5. 4.7 EARTHWORK 4.7.1 General The earthwork recommendations that follow are based on the evaluation of widely spaced borings and CPTs. As soil conditions can vary, sometimes significantly, across short distances, earthwork recommendations may need to be modified based on the results of the future design-level geotechnical study. The recommendations that follow provide our estimate of remedial grading based on the limited data available. Once the final proposed grades and building configurations are established and the design-level geotechnical study is complete, we can modify the remedial grading recommendations, as appropriate. All site preparation and earthwork operations should be performed in accordance with applicable codes, safety regulations and other local, state or federal specifications. All references to maximum unit weights are established in accordance with the latest 103567/IRV9R321 Page 25 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT version of ASTM Standard Test Method D1557. Site preparation will vary depending on the foundation support selected. • Structural Areas (Building Pads) supported on Piles with a Structural Slab: Any disturbed soil below the bottom of the floor slab should be overexcavated and replaced as engineered fill. • Structural Areas (Building Pads) supported on Shallow Foundation on Improved Ground: After ground improvement is performed, the upper few feet of the existing soils will be disturbed and some remedial grading will be required. In addition, there may be bulking of the upper soils from the ground improvement process. W e recommend that the improvement area be overexcavated to a depth of at least 3 feet below the pre-improved grade. Depending on the amount of disturbance, the overexcavation may have to be deepened. This overexcavation should extend the full width of the improved area and at least of 5 feet outside the building pad, whichever is greater, where possible. • Non-Structural Areas: For non-structural areas, such as equipment pads, pavements, sidewalks and other flatwork, etc., we recommend that the existing soils be overexcavated a minimum of 30 inches below existing grade or finished subgrade, whichever is greater, and be replaced as engineered fill. Depending on the observed condition of the existing soils, deeper overexcavation may be required in some areas. The overexcavation should extend beyond the proposed improvements a horizontal distance of at least two feet. 4.7.2 W et Soils and Subgrade Stabilization Depending on the location and depth of the earthwork at the site, wet soils should be anticipated and significant processing of these materials will likely be required (moisture reduction) prior to placement as engineered fill. Processing may require ripping the material, discing to break up clumps, and blending to attain uniform moisture contents necessary for compaction. Also, additional overexcavation and recompaction or replacement and/or cement treatment may be necessary to stabilize the bottom of deep excavations. Processing of wet soils and subgrade stabilization should be accounted for in cost estimates. 103567/IRV9R321 Page 26 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT 4.7.3 Temporary Excavations Temporary cut slopes may be sloped back at an inclination of no steeper than 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) in the existing site soils and newly placed fill. W here space for sloped embankments is not available, shoring will be necessary. Shoring and/or underpinning of existing improvements that are to remain may be required. Excavations within a 1.5:1 plane extending downward from a horizontal distance of 2 feet beyond the bottom outer edge of existing improvements should not be attempted without bracing and/or underpinning the footings. All applicable excavation safety requirements and regulations, including OSHA requirements, should be met. 4.8 SUBTERRANEAN PARKING SLAB-ON-GRADE W ith the ground improvement option, we recommend that a reinforced concrete slab be used to support the slab loads on the subgrade. Because the anticipated foundation level may be below the design groundwater level, the effects of uplift by hydrostatic pressure will likely control the design of the slab-on-grade. A design groundwater elevation of 145 feet is recommended for uplift of the slab areas. A thickened slab or permanent tie-down anchors may be utilized to resist uplift pressures. 4.9 SOIL CORROSION The corrosion potential of the on-site materials to steel and buried concrete was preliminarily evaluated. Laboratory testing was performed on three representative soil samples to evaluate pH, minimum resistivity, chloride and soluble sulfate content. The test results are presented in Table 5. 103567/IRV9R321 Page 27 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT Table 5 Corrosion Test Results Boring No. And Depth (feet) Component Analyzed Method Unit B-1 @ 4' B-4 @ 4.5’ B-4 @35’ Sulfate (SO4) 375.4/9038 Mg/kg 8 11 34 Chloride Cl 325.3/9253 Mg/kg 56 46 66 pH 9045C/150.1 pH Unit 8.3 7.8 6.9 Minimum Resistivity 120.1 W-cm 23,200 19,600 3,710 These tests are only an indicator of soil corrosivity for the samples tested. Other soils found on site may be more, less, or of a similar corrosive nature. Imported fill materials should be tested to confirm that their corrosion potential is not more severe than those noted. Although Kleinfelder does not practice corrosion engineering, based on the minimum resistivity results from the soil tested, the near-surface site soils may be considered to be moderately corrosive towards buried ferrous metals. The concentrations of soluble sulfates indicate that the potential of sulfate attack on concrete in contact with the on-site soils is “negligible” based on ACI 318 Table 4.3.1 (ACI, 2004). Accordingly, a concrete mix with Type II cement may be used. Maximum water-cement ratios are not specified for these sulfate concentrations. W e recommend that a competent corrosion engineer be retained to evaluate the corrosion potential of the on-site soils to the proposed improvements, to recommend further testing as required, and to provide specific corrosion mitigation methods appropriate for the project, if desired. 103567/IRV9R321 Page 28 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT 5.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES This report presents conclusions and preliminary recommendation related to foundation type, earthwork, pavements and other pertinent topics for a feasibility study. A design- level geotechnical study will need to be performed to develop final recommendations for the proposed development. The recommendations provided in this report are based on our understanding of the described project information and on our interpretation of the data. W e have made our recommendations based on experience with similar subsurface conditions under similar loading conditions. The recommendations apply to the specific project discussed in this report; therefore, any change in the structure configuration, loads, location, or the site grades should be provided to us so that we can review our conclusions and recommendations and make any necessary modifications. 103567/IRV9R321 Page 29 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT 6.0 LIMITATIONS This geotechnical feasibility study has been prepared for the exclusive use of Jones and Stokes, OCTA, and their agents for specific application to the proposed ARTIC Phase I project in support of the project’s Environmental Documents. It may not contain sufficient information for other uses or purposes of other parties. It is not considered sufficient for final design or construction of the project. The findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. The scope of services was limited to the field exploration program described in Section 1.2. It should be recognized that definition and evaluation of subsurface conditions are difficult. Judgments leading to conclusions and recommendations are generally made with incomplete knowledge of the subsurface conditions present due to the limitations of data from field studies. The conclusions of this assessment are based on our field exploration, laboratory testing programs, and engineering analyses. Kleinfelder offers various levels of investigative and engineering services to suit the varying needs of different clients. Although risk can never be eliminated, more detailed and extensive studies yield more information, which may help understand and manage the level of risk. Since detailed study and analysis involves greater expense, our clients participate in determining levels of service, which provide information for their purposes at acceptable levels of risk. The client and key members of the design team should discuss the issues covered in this report with Kleinfelder, so that the issues are understood and applied in a manner consistent with the owner’s budget, tolerance of risk and expectations for future performance and maintenance. Recommendations contained in this report are based on our field observations and subsurface explorations, limited laboratory tests, and our present knowledge of the proposed construction. It is possible that soil or groundwater conditions could vary between or beyond the points explored. If soil or groundwater conditions are encountered during construction that differ from those described herein, the client is responsible for ensuring that Kleinfelder is notified immediately so that we may reevaluate the recommendations of this report. If the scope of the proposed 103567/IRV9R321 Page 30 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT construction, including the estimated Traffic Index or locations of the improvements, changes from that described in this report, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are not considered valid until the changes are reviewed, and the conclusions of this report are modified or approved in writing, by Kleinfelder. The scope of services for this geotechnical report did not include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous substances in the soil, surface water, or groundwater at this site. This report, and any future addenda or reports regarding this site, may be made available to bidders to supply them with only the data contained in the report regarding subsurface conditions and laboratory test results at the point and time noted. Bidders may not rely on interpretations, opinion, recommendations, or conclusions contained in the report. Because of the limited nature of any subsurface study, the contractor may encounter conditions during construction which differ from those presented in this report. In such event, the contractor should promptly notify the owner so that Kleinfelder’s Geotechnical Engineer can be contacted to confirm those conditions. W e recommend the contractor describe the nature and extent of the differing conditions in writing and that the construction contract include provisions for dealing with differing conditions. Contingency funds should be reserved for potential problems during earthwork and foundation construction. This report may be used only by the client and only for the purposes stated, within a reasonable time from its issuance, but in no event later than one year from the date of the report. Land use, site conditions (both on site and off site) or other factors may change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time. Any party, other than the client who wishes to use this report shall notify Kleinfelder of such intended use. Based on the intended use of this report and the nature of the new project, Kleinfelder may require that additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these requirements by the client or anyone else will release Kleinfelder from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized party and the client agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Kleinfelder from any claims or liability associated with such unauthorized use or non-compliance. 103567/IRV9R321 Page 31 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT 7.0 REFERENCES American Concrete Institute, 2004, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-02) Bryant, W .A. and Hart, E.W ., 2007, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps: California Geological Survey Special Publication 42, 42p. (interim revision 2007). California Department of W ater Resources (DW R), 2004, Bulletin 118, California’s Groundwater, Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin, updated 2/27/2004. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1998, Seismic Hazard Zones Map of the Anaheim 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, California, scale 1:24,000, released April 25, 1998. Caltrans, 1976, As-Built Plans, SR-57 Stadium Overhead Bridge, Bridge No. 55-399, Bridge Department, Design Section 9, State of California, Department of Public W orks, Division of Highways, dated 1976. Coleman Geotechnical, 1999, Geotechnical Investigation, Country Suites by Ayres Hotel, 2560 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, August 26. Dolan, J.F., Gath, E.M., Grant, L.B., Legg, M., Lindvall, S., Mueller, K., Oskin, M., Ponti, D.F., Rubin, C.M., Rockwell, T.K., Shaw, J.H., Treiman, J.A., W alls, C., and Yeats, R.S. (compilers), 2001, Active Faults in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Region: SCEC Special Publication Series No. 001, Southern California Earthquake Center, 47p. Greenwood, R.B. and Pridmore, C.L, 1997 (revised 2001), Liquefaction zones in the Anaheim and Newport Beach 7.5-minute quadrangles, Orange County, California, in Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Anaheim and Newport Beach 7.5-minute quadrangles, Orange County, California: California Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Zone Report 03, pp. 5-18; Plates 1.1 and 1.2. International Code Council, Inc., 2007, California Building Code, CCR, Title 24, part 2, Volume 2, June. Jennings, C.W ., 1994, Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas with location and ages of recent volcanic eruptions: California Division of Mines and Geology, California Geologic Data Map Series, Map No. 6. Kleinfelder, 2009a, DRAFT Technical Memorandum, Preliminary Geotechnical Data Report, Proposed ARTIC Phase I, Anaheim, California, June 3. 103567/IRV9R321 Page 32 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT Kleinfelder, 2009b, DRAFT Preliminary Foundation Report; State Route 57 Stadium OH Bridge Abutments and Douglass Road Modifications; Proposed ARTIC Phase I Project; Anaheim, California; dated July 8. Kleinfelder, 2009c, DRAFT Preliminary Foundation Report; Proposed ARTIC Phase I Project; Anaheim, California; dated July 17. Mendenhall, W .C., 1905, Development of underground waters in the eastern coastal plain region of southern California: U.S. Geological Survey W ater-Supply Paper 137, Plate II. Metropolitan W ater District of Southern California, 2007, Chapter IV – Groundwater Basin Reports, Orange County Basins, in A Status Report on the use of Groundwater in the Service Area of the Metropolitan W ater District of Southern California, Report No. 1308, pp. IV-10-1 – IV-10-26, available at: www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/yourwater/supply/groundwater/GW AS.html Morton, D.M., K.R. Bovard and R.M. Alvarez, 2004, Preliminary digital geologic map of the Santa Ana 30’x60’ quadrangle, southern California, version 2.0: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-172. Orange County W ater District, 2004, Groundwater Management Plan, dated March 2004, available at: http://www.ocwd.com. Poland, J.F., Piper, A.M., and others, 1956, Ground-water Geology of the Coastal Zone Long Beach-Santa Ana Area, California: U.S. Geological Survey W ater-Supply Paper 1109, pp. 44-52, and Plate 7. Post-Tensioning Institute, 2004, Recommendations for Prestressed Rock and Soil Anchors, Fourth Edition. Schoellhamer, J.E., Vedder, J.G., Yerkes, R.F., and Kinney, D. M., 1981, “Geology of the Northern Santa Ana Mountains, California”, U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 420-D, 109 Pages. Shaw, J.H., Plesch, A., Dolan, J.F., Pratt, T.L., and Fiore, P., 2002, Puente hills blind- thrust system, Los Angeles, California: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Volume 92, No. 8, pp. 2946–2960. Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), 1994, Anaheim to Santa Ana, Second Main Track Addition, Bridge 170.8-Douglass Road Underpass, Log of Test Borings, Sheet No. 62, dated February 15, 1994. 103567/IRV9R321 Page 33 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H.B., 1987, “Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking,” Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 8. U.S. Geological Survey, 1965 (photorevised 1981), 7.5-minute Topographic map of the Anaheim, California Quadrangle, scale 1:24,000. Youd, T.L., and Idriss, I.M., et al., October 2001, “Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF W orkshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils.” 103567/IRV9R321 Page 34 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS REVIEWED Date Type Flight Frames Approximate Scale Source 2-28-1929 B&W C-287 #3 A1, A2; and B2, B3 1:18,000 Fairchild Aerial Collection 1931 B&W C-1780 C-1 1:15,600 Fairchild Aerial Collection 3-4-1938 B&W C-5029 66-68 1:32,000 Fairchild Aerial Collection 6-24-1939 B&W C-5925 120-122 1:24,000 Fairchild Aerial Collection 6-17-1947 B&W C-11351-7 54-56 1:24,000 Fairchild Aerial Collection 8-1947 B&W C-113730A-11 155X-157X 1:7,200 Fairchild Aerial Collection 8-1947 B&W C-113730A-12 102-104 1:7,200 Fairchild Aerial Collection 8-1947 B&W C-113730A-14 4-6 1:7,200 Fairchild Aerial Collection 8-31-1947 B&W C-113730D-14 48-50 1:14,400 Fairchild Aerial Collection 12-26-1952 B&W 5K 84-86 1:20,000 Continental Aerial Surveys 2-11-1953 B&W C-18785-1 100 1:14,400 Fairchild Aerial Collection 5-2-1953 B&W C-19400-V11-LA 1-33, 2-28 1:63,360 Fairchild Aerial Collection 3-7-1955 B&W C-21678-2 23-25 1:18,000 Fairchild Aerial Collection 1-17-1958 B&W C-23023-V11-ORA 5 82, 83 1:36,000 Fairchild Aerial Collection 3-25-1959 B&W 261-3-14 66-68 1:12,000 Continental Aerial Surveys 3-25-1959 B&W 261-3-15 110-112 1:12,000 Continental Aerial Surveys 6-3-1961 B&W C-24129 10 1:24,000 Fairchild Aerial Collection 103567/IRV9R321 Page 35 of 35 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS REVIEWED (Continued) Date Type Flight Frames Approximate Scale Source 3-1-1967 B&W 1 32, 33 1:24,000 Continental Aerial Collection 2-18-1970 B&W 61-6 270 1:48,000 Continental Aerial Surveys 10-29-1973 B&W 132-6 6-8 1:24,000 Continental Aerial Surveys 1-13-1975 B&W 157-7 14, 15 1:24,000 Continental Aerial Surveys 12-28-1976 B&W 181-7 12-14 1:24,000 Continental Aerial Surveys 12-10-1978 B&W 203-7 15, 16 1:24,000 Continental Aerial Surveys 2-25-1980 B&W 80033 75, 76 1:32,000 Continental Aerial Surveys 4-2-1983 B&W 218-7 13-15 1:24,000 Continental Aerial Surveys 1-9-1987 B&W F 232, 233 1:34,300 Continental Aerial Surveys 1-29-1992 B&W C-85-7 16, 17 1:25,800 Continental Aerial Surveys 6-9-1993 B&W C-93-13 176, 177 1:25,800 Continental Aerial Surveys 1-29-1995 B&W C-103-35 115, 116 1:24,000 Continental Aerial Surveys 10-15-1997 B&W C-117-35 230, 231 1:24,000 Continental Aerial Surveys 2-24-1999 B&W C-134-35 121, 122 1:24,000 Continental Aerial Surveys PLATES APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS 105231/IRV9R321 A-1 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS GENERAL Our field exploration program consisted of a site reconnaissance and drilling five borings, installing two groundwater monitoring wells, and advancing seven Cone Penetration Tests (CPTs). The borings were drilled to depths between approximately 51½ and 101½ feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). The CPTs were advanced to depths between approximately 38 and 94 feet bgs. The approximate locations of the borings, wells and CPTs are presented on Plate 2. Prior to commencement of the fieldwork, various geophysical techniques were used at each boring, well and CPT location in order to identify potential conflicts with subsurface structures. Each of our proposed field exploration locations were also cleared for buried utilities through Underground Service Alert (USA). BORINGS AND MONITORING WELLS The borings and monitoring wells were drilled on September 22 through 25 by Cal Pac Drilling of Calimesa, California with a truck-mounted, hollow-stem-auger drilling rig equipped with an auto-hammer (Mobile B61). After completion, the borings were backfilled using bentonite grout and bentonite chips upon completion of the drilling. The borings were then capped with quickset concrete. The monitoring wells were constructed in two boreholes after completion of drilling. The well construction is presented on the logs. A Modified California sampler was used to obtain drive samples of the soil encountered. This sampler consists of a 3-inch O.D., 2.4-inch I.D. split barrel shaft that is pushed or driven a total of 18-inches into the soil at the bottom of the boring. The soil was retained in six-inch long metal sleeve and in six 1-inch brass rings for laboratory testing. An additional 2 inches of soil from each drive remained in the cutting shoe and was usually discarded after visually classifying the soil. The sampler was driven using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The total number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is termed blow count and is recorded on the Logs of Borings. 105231/IRV9R321 A-2 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT Samples were also obtained using a Standard Penetration Sampler (SPT). This sampler consists of a 2-inch O.D., 1-inch I.D. split barrel shaft that is advanced into the soils at the bottom of the drill hole a total of 18 inches. The sampler was driven using a 140-pound hammer falling 30-inches. The total number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is termed the blow count (N) and is recorded on the Logs of Borings. The procedures we employed in the field are generally consistent with those described in ASTM Standard Test Method D1586-84. Bulk samples of the near-surface soils were directly retrieved from the auger cuttings. The Logs of Borings are presented as Plates A-2 through A-6 and the W ell Logs are on Plates A-7 and A-8. An explanation to the logs is presented as Plates A-1a and A-1b. The Logs of Borings describe the earth materials encountered, samples obtained and show field and laboratory tests performed. The logs also show the location, boring number, drilling date and the name of the drilling subcontractor. The borings were logged by a Kleinfelder engineer using the Unified Soil Classification System. The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate because the transition between different soil layers may be gradual. CPT SOUNDINGS The CPTs were advanced by Kehoe Testing and Engineering of Huntington Beach, California using a truck-mounted rig. The CPT involves pushing a conical-shaped probe into a soil deposit and recording the resistance of the soil to penetration. Test equipment consists of a cone assembly, a series of hollow sounding rods, a hydraulic frame to push the cone and rods into the soil, an electronic data processing unit, and a truck to transport the test equipment and provide thrust resistance. The cone penetrometer consists of a conical tip with a 60-degree apex angles and a cylindrical friction sleeve. The interior of the device is instrumented with strain gauges allowing simultaneous measurements of cone penetration resistance and sleeve friction during testing. Electric signals from the strain gauges are transmitted by cable through the hollow sounding rods to a data processing unit. The cone assembly used on this project had a cross-sectional area of 15-square centimeters and a friction sleeve surface area of 225 square centimeters. Plots of the tip resistance (tip bearing) and friction ratio for each CPT performed during this investigation are provided in this Appendix. 105231/IRV9R321 A-3 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT CPT data can be used to derive several significant soil parameters related to foundation design and performance. The end bearing resistance of the cone tip (generally referred to as the tip resistance) is an indicator of both in-situ bearing capacity and compressibility. Indirectly, tip resistance can also be an indicator of soil type, since a fine-grained soil typically has a lower tip resistance than a coarse-grained soil. The sleeve friction resistance is an indirect indicator of in-situ shear strength. In addition, the friction ratio (expressed as a percentage), is an indicator of soil behavior types. Sands typically have low friction ratios (0 to 2½ percent) while clays have higher friction ratios (typically more than 4 percent). The combination of CPT data defining soil behavior type and penetration resistance allows rapid interpretation of subsurface stratigraphy. A general classification of soil strata can be obtained from the data using the CPT Classification Chart provided in the attached CPT report in this Appendix. Since the CPT provides near-continuous information throughout the stratigraphy penetrated, it is possible to identify thinner soil units that could go undetected in selectively sampled boring. www.kleinfelder.comPLATEA-1aEXPLANATIONOFLOGS www.kleinfelder.comPLATEA-1bEXPLANATIONOFLOGS 4.3 Artificial Fill: Pavement:approx. 2.75 inches of asphalt over 16.5 inches of base. Poorly Graded Sand (SP):olive gray to light brownish gray, moist, fine to medium grained, trace of fine gravel. -- brown Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM):olive brown, medium dense to dense, moist, fine to coarse grained. -- loose, fine to medium grained, trace fine gravel. Alluvium: Poorly Graded Sand (SP):light brownish gray, loose, moist, fine to medium grained, pocket of sandy clay, layers of sand with silt. Sandy Silt (ML):olive gray to light brownish gray, medium stiff, fine to medium grained. Poorly Graded Sand (SP):pink, olive, yellow, loose, moist, fine grained. -- light brown, gray, pink, medium dense, fine to medium grained, mi caceous. Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM):light gray, medium dense, moist, fine to medium grained. 97 4.7 6.5 5.4 5.8 17.5 4.1 4.1 3.6 5.2 CHEM WA (3% fines) 114 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 104Dry Density(pcf)PLATE 160 155 150 145 140 135 130 Sample NumberARTIC S. Douglass Road and Katella Avenue Anaheim, California 5 10 15 20 25 30Elevation( feet)DepthSample TypeSOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.AdditionalTestsLOG OF BORING B-1 A-2a Legend To Logs On Plate A-1 38 8 5 9 10 26Blows per FootMoistureContent (%)30 Graphic LogDate Drilled: Drilled By: Drilling Method: Logged By: 9/24/09 Cal Pac Drilling Hollow Stem Auger K. S.GEOTECH DB 103567 ARTIC BORINGS, WELLS, CPTS.GPJ KA_RDLND.GDT 10/25/09Not Encountered 9/24/2009 161 feet (approx.) NAVD 88 PROJECT NO. 103567 Drafted By: Reviewed By: Water Depth: Date Measured: Elevation: Datum: 14 Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel (SP):olive brown, medium dense, moist, fine to coarse grained. 3.5 Poorly Graded Gravel (GP):brown, dense, fine to coarse grained, broken gravel. Lean Clay with Sand (CL):yel lowish brown, hard, moist. Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP):dry, dense, fine to medium grained. Lean Clay with Sand (CL):yel lowish brown, hard, moist. Silty Sand (SM):yel lowish brown, medium dense, moist, fine grained, pockets of clean sand. Sandy Silt (ML):yel lowish brown, stiff, moist. Poorly Graded Sand (SP):olive brown, medium dense, moist, fine to medium grained, 13 3.8 4.5 19.1 21.8 2.2 17.0 13.9 110 111 124 12 -- olive yellow, very dense, with silt and gravel. 14 15 16 17 18 19 110 125 120 115 110 105 100 95 90 Legend To Logs On Plate A-1 ARTIC S. Douglass Road and Katella Avenue Anaheim, California A-2b LOG OF BORING B-1PROJECT NO. 103567 PLATEAdditionalTestsSample NumberSample Type40 45 50 55 60 65 70Elevation( feet)Depth-- increase coarse sand 17 20 50/5" 38 32 9 39 18 28 (Continued From Previous Page)Dry Density(pcf)Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Blows per FootGraphic LogSOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION GEOTECH DB 103567 ARTIC BORINGS, WELLS, CPTS.GPJ KA_RDLND.GDT 10/25/09MoistureContent (%) AdditionalTests17.8Dry Density(pcf)MoistureContent (%)41 Legend To Logs On Plate A-1 (Continued From Previous Page) Total depth: 81.5 feet. Free water encountered on top of sample at 51 feet. Boring backfilled with bentonite slurry and capped with quickset conrete. Silty Sand (SM):olive brown, dense, moist, fine to medium grained. Sandy Silt (ML):yel lowish brown, stiff, moist. (continued) 21 20 111 8.6 9 Blows per FootGraphic LogGEOTECH DB 103567 ARTIC BORINGS, WELLS, CPTS.GPJ KA_RDLND.GDT 10/25/09PROJECT NO. 103567 SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION A-2c PLATEElevation( feet)DepthSample NumberLOG OF BORING B-1 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual. 80 85 80 ARTIC S. Douglass Road and Katella Avenue Anaheim, CaliforniaSample Type 3.1 Sandy Silt (ML):yel lowish brown, stiff, moist, fine grained sand. 10 Artificial Fill: Pavement:approx 5 inches of asphalt over 5 inches of base Poorly Graded Sand (SP):pink, moist, fine to coarse grained, trace fine gravel, layers of sand with silt. -- olive yellow, fine to medium grained. -- medium dense, fine to coarse grained. -- pink, loose, fine to medium grained, trace fine gravel. -- olive brown, medium dense. Alluvium: Poorly Graded Sand (SP):pink, loose to medium dense, dry, fine to medium grained. Lean Clay (CL):greenish black, medium stiff, moist. Silty Sand (SM):brown, loose, moist. 106 3.5 3.3 3.9 4.6 2.8 3.1 51.5 7.9 16.1 DS WA (95% fines) WA (32% fines) 109 11 100 69 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 WA (56% fines) 5 10 15 20 25 30 Legend To Logs On Plate A-1 Water Depth: Date Measured: Elevation: Datum: PLATEMoistureContent (%)155 150 145 140 135 130 125 Sample NumberDry Density(pcf)Drafted By: Reviewed By:Elevation( feet)DepthSample TypeNote: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual. LOG OF BORING B-2 A-3a SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION AdditionalTestsGraphic Log26 8 18 20 7 Blows per Foot7 21 Date Drilled: Drilled By: Drilling Method: Logged By:GEOTECH DB 103567 ARTIC BORINGS, WELLS, CPTS.GPJ KA_RDLND.GDT 10/25/099/24/09 Cal Pac Drilling Hollow Stem Auger K. S. PROJECT NO. 103567 83 feet 9/24/2009 158 feet (approx.) NAVD 88 ARTIC S. Douglass Road and Katella Avenue Anaheim, California 9 16.7 Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP):olive gray, very dense. Lean Clay with Sand (CL):yel lowish brown, stiff, moist, gravel inclusions. Sandy Silt (ML):yel lowish brown, stiff, moist, calcium stringers. Lean Clay with Sand (CL):yel lowish brown, very stiff, moist. Sandy Silt (ML):yel lowish brown, stiff, moist. Lean Clay with Sand (CL):yel lowish brown, stiff, moist. layers of sandy silt. Sandy Silt (ML):yel lowish brown, very stiff, moist. 115 3.5 14.2 20.5 15.3 16.9 15.8 26.4 AL LL = 30 PL = 16 CN WA (81% fines) 105 100 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Sandy Lean Clay (CL):yel lowish brown, stiff, moist, layers of clayey sand. (continued) 129Sample NumberAdditionalTestsARTIC S. Douglass Road and Katella Avenue Anaheim, California (Continued From Previous Page) Legend To Logs On Plate A-1 SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION 120 115 110 105 100 95 90 85 PROJECT NO. 103567 LOG OF BORING B-2 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual. 40 45 50 55 60 65 70Elevation( feet)DepthSample TypePLATEDry Density(pcf)12 74 9 15 11 28 13 MoistureContent (%)A-3bBlows per FootGraphic LogGEOTECH DB 103567 ARTIC BORINGS, WELLS, CPTS.GPJ KA_RDLND.GDT 10/25/0921 Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel (SP):olive brown, very dense, wet. Sandy Silt (ML):yel lowish brown, very stiff, moist. (continued) Sandy Lean Clay (CL):yel lowish brown, very stiff, moist, sandy silt and silty sand layers. Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM):yel lowish brown, loose, wet, fine to medium grained, trace subrounded gravel. 25 16.719 Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel (SP-SM):olive brown, very dense, moist, fine to coarse grained. 21 19.3 16.9 8.3 10.7 9.4 WA (53% fines) 133 127 20 22 23 24 25 Total depth: 101.5 feet. Groundwater encountered at approximately 83 feet. Boring backfilled with bentonite slurry and capped with quickset concrete.GEOTECH DB 103567 ARTIC BORINGS, WELLS, CPTS.GPJ KA_RDLND.GDT 10/25/09PROJECT NO. 103567Sample Type38 ARTIC S. Douglass Road and Katella Avenue Anaheim, California 80 85 90 95 100 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual. PLATE 80 75 70 65 60 Sample NumberPoorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP):olive brown, very dense, wet, fine to coarse grained sand. SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION 50/2" 36 92 MoistureContent (%)Dry Density(pcf)AdditionalTests(Continued From Previous Page) Legend To Logs On Plate A-1Blows per FootA-3cGraphic LogLOG OF BORING B-2Elevation( feet)Depth Sandy Silt (ML) Artificial Fill: Pavement:approx 2.75 inches of asphalt over 6.5 inches of base Silty Sand (SM):olive brown to yellowish brown, loose, very moist, fine grained. Poorly Graded Sand (SP):pink, medium dense, moist, micaceous, fine to medium grained. Alluvium: Sand with Silt (SP-SM):light brownish gray, medium dense, slightly moist, moderate iron oxide staining, lumps of clay. Silty Sand (SM):olive brown, medium dense, fine to coarse grained. --brown with light brown inclusions, moist, fine to medium grained. Poorly Graded Sand (SP):olive brown, dense, slightly moist, trace fine to coarse gravel, layers of sand with silt. 2.0 -- brown, moist, small clay pockets. 101 4.8 4.6 4.5 7.3 10.1 6.0 2.2 11.3 22.3 WA (30% fines) WA (39% fines) 118 118 6 13 12 11 10 9 123 7 105 5 4 3 2 1 8Sample TypePLATE 155 150 145 140 135 130 125 58 feet 9/22/2009 156 feet (approx.) NAVD 88 Sample NumberDrafted By: Reviewed By: Water Depth: Date Measured: Elevation: Datum: 5 10 15 20 25 30 LOG OF BORING B-3 SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION AdditionalTestsLegend To Logs On Plate A-1 MoistureContent (%)Elevation( feet)DepthNote: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual. Silty Sand (SM):olive brown to yellowish brown, loose, moist, fine grained.Dry Density(pcf)A-4a 70 Sandy Lean Clay (CL):yel lowish brown, very stiff, moist, layers of clayey s and. 36Blows per Foot9/22/09 Cal Pac Drilling Hollow Stem Auger K. S. and F. J.Graphic LogDate Drilled: Drilled By: Drilling Method: Logged By: PROJECT NO. 103567 ARTIC S. Douglass Road and Katella Avenue Anaheim, California 50 / 5" 6 GEOTECH DB 103567 ARTIC BORINGS, WELLS, CPTS.GPJ KA_RDLND.GDT 10/25/097 28 12 16 16.7 24.7 13.8 10.8 31.6 25.5 22.2 21.9 Sandy Lean Clay (CL):yel lowish brown, very stiff, moist, layers of clayey s and. (continued) -- lense of yellowish brown silty sand, trace fine gravel, very moist. Lean Clay (CL):yel lowish brown, stiff, moist. Silty Sand with Gravel (SM):yel lowish brown, medium dense, fine to coarse grained gravel. Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel (SP):gray, medium dense, wet, fine to coarse sand. Lean Clay with Sand (CL):yel lowish brown, stiff, moist. 16 19.9 121 17 18 19 20 21 15 14 23.6 101 105 WA (89% fines) WA (73% fines) WA (63 % fines) WA (72% fines) AL LL = 30 PL = 15 103Sample TypeElevation( feet)Depth40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Sample Number120 115 110 105 100 95 90 85 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual. ARTIC S. Douglass Road and Katella Avenue Anaheim, California PROJECT NO. 103567GEOTECH DB 103567 ARTIC BORINGS, WELLS, CPTS.GPJ KA_RDLND.GDT 10/25/09Graphic LogBlows per FootPLATE 15 11 9 9 33 36 11 16 MoistureContent (%)SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION AdditionalTests(Continued From Previous Page) Legend To Logs On Plate A-1 A-4b LOG OF BORING B-3 Dry Density(pcf) Legend To Logs On Plate A-1 AdditionalTests16.2Dry Density(pcf)MoistureContent (%)A-4c 13 (Continued From Previous Page) Total depth: 81.5 feet. Groundwater encountered at approximately 58 feet. Boring backfilled with bentonite slurry and capped with quickset concrete. Silty Sand (SM):yel lowish brown, medium dense, moist to very moist, trace gravel. Clayey Sand (SC):yel lowish brown, medium dense, very moist, fine grained. 23 22 16.830Blows per FootGraphic LogGEOTECH DB 103567 ARTIC BORINGS, WELLS, CPTS.GPJ KA_RDLND.GDT 10/25/09PROJECT NO. 103567 SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOG OF BORING B-3 80 80 75 Sample NumberNote: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual. PLATEARTIC S. Douglass Road and Katella Avenue Anaheim, CaliforniaElevation( feet)DepthSample Type 3.1 -- light brown, dry, fine to coarse grained. Artificial Fill: Pavement:approx. 2.5 inches of asphalt over 5.25 inches of base Poorly Graded Sand (SP):yel lowish brown, moist, fine to medium grained, layers of sand with silt, layers of silty sand. Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM):yel lowish brown, dense, moist, fine to medium grained, layers of silty sand. Poorly Graded Sand (SP):yel lowish brown, medium dense, dry, fine to medium grained. -- brown, lumps of clay, rounded gravel. -- darker, dense, inclusions of silty sand, moist. Alluvium: Silty Sand (SM):olive brown, medium dense, moist, fine to medium grained. -- thin sandy clay layer at 16 feet. Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM):brown, medium dense, moist, fine to medium grained. -- olive brown sandy clay -- poorly graded sand 104 6.0 5.4 3.9 5.8 7.4 7.0 2.5 9.1 8.9 CHEM WA (26% fines) WA (34% fines) 122 6 12 11 10 9 1127 107 5 4 3 2 104 8 Water Depth: Date Measured: Elevation: Datum:MoistureContent (%)PLATE 155 150 145 140 135 130 125 Dry Density(pcf)Sample NumberAdditionalTests5 10 15 20 25 30Elevation( feet)DepthSample TypeNote: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual. LOG OF BORING B-4 SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION A-5a Legend To Logs On Plate A-1 Silty Sand (SM):brown, loose, moist.Blows per FootSandy Lean Clay (CL):yel lowish brown, medium stiff, wet, trace subrounded gravel. 41 24 38 16 3 ARTIC S. Douglass Road and Katella Avenue Anaheim, California 87 feet 9/23/2009 158 feet (approx.) NAVD 88 PROJECT NO. 103567 9/23/09 Cal Pac Drilling Hollow Stem Auger F. J. 25 Date Drilled: Drilled By: Drilling Method: Logged By: 10 Graphic Log13 Drafted By: Reviewed By:GEOTECH DB 103567 ARTIC BORINGS, WELLS, CPTS.GPJ KA_RDLND.GDT 10/25/09 17.4 Sand with Silt and Gravel (SW-SM):olive brown, very dense, moist, fine to coarse grained, moderate iron oxide staining. Lean Clay with Sand (CL):yel lowish brown, stiff, moist. Silty Sand (SM):yel lowish brown, medium dense, moist, fine to medium grained. Lean Clay with Sand (CL):yel lowish brown, medium stiff, moist, fine grained sand. Silty Sand (SM):yel lowish brown, medium dense, moist. 115 5.5 4.6 19.0 23.3 16.5 18.5 10.7 WA (57% fines) CHEM WA ( 46% fines) 134 113 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP):brown, very dense, moist, medium to coarse grained sand, layers of sand. 107 120 115 110 105 100 95 90 85 Sample Type(Continued From Previous Page) ARTIC S. Douglass Road and Katella Avenue Anaheim, California Legend To Logs On Plate A-1 A-5bAdditionalTestsSandy Lean Clay (CL):yel lowish brown, medium stiff, wet, trace subrounded gravel. (continued) PROJECT NO. 103567Sample NumberNote: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual. 40 45 50 55 60 65 70Elevation( feet)DepthPLATE 9 22 43 50/5" 67 17 7 13 8 34 Dry Density(pcf)LOG OF BORING B-4Blows per FootGraphic LogGEOTECH DB 103567 ARTIC BORINGS, WELLS, CPTS.GPJ KA_RDLND.GDT 10/25/09SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION MoistureContent (%) 15.0Silty Sand (SM):yel lowish brown, medium dense, moist. (continued) Sandy Lean Clay (CL):yel lowish brown, stiff, moist. Sand with Silt (SP-SM):yel lowish brown, medium dense, moist, fine to coarse grained 11 -- dense, wet, with gravel. Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP):gray, very dense, wet, fine to medium grained, fine to coarse grained sand. Total depth: 101.5 feet. Groundwater encountered at approximately 87 feet. Boring backfilled with bentonite slurry and capped with quickset concrete. -- decrease silt. 21 20.9 8.2 7.4 10.7 11.2 8.3 110 122 22 23 24 25 26 -- olive brown 138 GEOTECH DB 103567 ARTIC BORINGS, WELLS, CPTS.GPJ KA_RDLND.GDT 10/25/09PROJECT NO. 103567Sample Type77 ARTIC S. Douglass Road and Katella Avenue Anaheim, California Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual. 80 85 90 95 100 PLATE 80 75 70 65 60 Sample NumberWell Graded Sand with Gravel (SW):gray, medium dense, wet, fine to coarse grained, trace of yellowish brown silty sand and sandy clay. 42 23 36 90 MoistureContent (%)Dry Density(pcf)Elevation( feet)DepthSOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION AdditionalTests(Continued From Previous Page) Legend To Logs On Plate A-1Blows per FootA-5cGraphic LogLOG OF BORING B-4 Silty Sand (SM):brown, loose, moist, fine grained. 16.2 12.7 6.4 4.2 13.5 12.3 3.1 WA (40% fines) 3.8 2.8 Artificial Fill: Pavement:approx 3.5 inches of asphalt over 5 inches of base Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM):brown, dry, fine to coarse grained, trace gravel, layers of clean sand. -- medium dense, fine to medium grained. -- light brown, slightly moist. -- brown, very dense. Silty Sand (SM):dark olive brown, medium dense, moist, fine to coarse grained, trace fine gravel, pockets of lean clay. -- dark brown with light brown inclusion. -- layer of sandy lean clay. 4.3 4 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 GS (8% fines) 5 -- loose, fine to medium grained, trace fine gravel, iron oxide staining. 3 2 1 114 111 118 107 114 155 150 145 140 135 130 125 Alluvium: Poorly Graded Sand (SP):light brown, moist, layers of silty sand. A-6a LOG OF BORING B-5 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Sample TypeElevation( feet)Depth5 10 15 20 25 30 AdditionalTestsSample NumberSOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION PLATEARTIC S. Douglass Road and Katella Avenue Anaheim, California PROJECT NO. 103567GEOTECH DB 103567 ARTIC BORINGS, WELLS, CPTS.GPJ KA_RDLND.GDT 10/25/09Graphic LogBlows per Foot34 32 72 30 16 20 Legend To Logs On Plate A-1 14 MoistureContent (%)8 Dry Density(pcf)Water Depth: Date Measured: Elevation: Datum: Drafted By: Reviewed By: Not Encountered 9/22/2009 157 feet (approx.) NAVD 88 9/22/09 Cal Pac Drilling Hollow Stem Auger F. J. and K. S. Date Drilled: Drilled By: Drilling Method: Logged By: Sand with Gravel (SP):brown, dense, moist, fine to medium grained gravel, fine to coarse grained sand, layers of gravel. (continued)5.8 Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel (SP):olive brown, medium dense, moist, fine to medium grained, layers of gravel. Well Graded Sand with Gravel (SW):brown, medium dense, moist, fine to coarse grained, silty sand and sandy silt inclusion. -- layer of sandy lean clay. Sand with Silt (SP-SM):yel lowish brown, medium dense, moist, fine to medium grained. Lean Clay (CL):yel lowish brown, stiff, very moist. Silty Sand (SM):yel lowish brown, loose, moist, lense of clayey s and. 101 5.5 5.1 4.7 19.0 5.1 17.9 17.7 25.6 WA (84% fines) 134 113 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Well Graded Sand with Gravel (SW):brown, very dense, moist, fine to coarse grained gravel. 117 120 115 110 105 100 95 90 85 (Continued From Previous Page) ARTIC S. Douglass Road and Katella Avenue Anaheim, California Legend To Logs On Plate A-1 A-6bSample TypePROJECT NO. 103567Sample NumberNote: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual. 40 45 50 55 60 65 70Elevation( feet)DepthPLATEBlows per Foot34 64 23 34 18 18 8 10 MoistureContent (%)AdditionalTestsGraphic LogGEOTECH DB 103567 ARTIC BORINGS, WELLS, CPTS.GPJ KA_RDLND.GDT 10/25/09SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LOG OF BORING B-5 Dry Density(pcf) AdditionalTests14.0Dry Density(pcf)MoistureContent (%)43 Legend To Logs On Plate A-1 (Continued From Previous Page) Total depth: 81.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered. Boring backfilled with bentonite slurry and capped with quickset concrete. Sand with Silt and Gravel (SP-SM):olive yellow, dense, moist, fine to medium grained, some fine gravel. Silty Sand (SM):yel lowish brown, loose, moist, lense of clayey s and. (continued) 23 22 107 6.9 18Blows per FootGraphic LogGEOTECH DB 103567 ARTIC BORINGS, WELLS, CPTS.GPJ KA_RDLND.GDT 10/25/09PROJECT NO. 103567 SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION A-6c PLATEElevation( feet)DepthSample NumberLOG OF BORING B-5 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual. 80 80 ARTIC S. Douglass Road and Katella Avenue Anaheim, CaliforniaSample Type 14.0 26.0 11.7 7.0 2.5 7.2 2.6 9.2 Artificial Fill: Pavement:approx 2.75 inches of asphalt over 5 inches of base Poorly Graded Sand (SP):pink, dry, fine to coarse grained. -- layer of sand with silt, mottled brown, lumps of lean clay. -- loose, yellowish brown, moist. Alluvium: Poorly Graded Sand (SP):pink, loose to medium dense, dry, fine to medium grained. -- layer of lean clay wi th sand -- layer of sand with silt, mottled brown, moist, fine to coarse sand. -- loose Silty Sand (SM):brown, medium dense, moist, fine to medium sand. -- coarse gravel Sandy Silt (ML):olive brown, soft, wet, layers of lean clay. 4.5 3 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 WA (20%) 124 Clayey Sand (SC):yel lowish brown, medium dense, moist, fine to coarse sand, lenses and layers of lean clay. 101 118 108 4 1 2 WA (38%) 117 155 150 145 140 135 130 125 -- darker, silty sand inclusions. Legend To Logs On Plate A-1 A-7a LOG OF BORING W-1 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Sample TypeElevation( feet)Depth5 10 15 20 25 30 SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION Blows per FootGraphic LogGEOTECH DB 103567 ARTIC WELLS.GPJ KA_RDLND.GDT 10/25/09Sample NumberARTIC S. Douglass Road and Katella Avenue Anaheim, California PLATE PROJECT NO. 103567 5 Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP):olive brown, very dense, moist. 8 7 31 19 AdditionalTests27 -- layer of gravel Water Depth: Date Measured: Elevation: Datum: 8 MoistureContent (%)14 Drafted By: Reviewed By: 25 feet 9/25/09 159 feet (approx.) NAVD 88 9/25/09 Cal Pac Drilling Hollow Stem Auger F. J. Date Drilled: Drilled By: Drilling Method: Logged By:Dry Density(pcf) 4.3Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP):olive brown, very dense, moist. (continued) Poorly Graded Sand (SP):olive brown, dense, moist, trace iron oxide staining. Lean Clay with Sand (CL):yel lowish brown, stiff, moist. -- layer of silty sand, gray to olive gray, moist, fine to coarse grained. 14 -- wet, trace gravel. Total depth: 61.5 feet. Seepage at approximately 25 feet. Two inch well constructed. 72 56 13 Sandy Silt (ML):yel lowish brown, stiff, moist. 15 5.3 19.2 8.6 19.8 21.6 21.9 106 105 14 16 17 18 13 ARTIC S. Douglass Road and Katella Avenue Anaheim, CaliforniaElevation( feet)DepthGEOTECH DB 103567 ARTIC WELLS.GPJ KA_RDLND.GDT 10/25/09PROJECT NO. 103567 40 45 50 55 60 15Sample NumberPLATE 120 115 110 105 100 -- moist, some fine sand. (Continued From Previous Page) 17 MoistureContent (%)Dry Density(pcf)Sample TypeAdditionalTestsLegend To Logs On Plate A-1 A-7b LOG OF BORING W-1 Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Blows per FootGraphic LogSOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION 7.2 26.0 12.1 12.5 3.4 2.8 8.4 7.2 Lean Clay with Sand (CL):yel lowish brown, stiff, moist. Artificial Fill: Pavement:approx 3 inches of asphalt over 6.25 inches of base Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM):brown, moist -- lumps of sandy clay -- olive gray to olive brown, dense, fine to medium grained. -- medium dense, iron oxide staining, trace clay nodules, -- layer of sand with silt, sandy lean clay, olive brown. Alluvium: Poorly Graded Sand (SP):gray to pink, medium dense, dry, fine to medium grained. -- layer of silty sand, moist. -- olive brown, sandy clay intrusions. Silty Sand (SM):olive gray, loose, moist, fine to medium grained. 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 WA (33%) 4 WA (64%) 3 2 1 99 113 92 114 1215 PLATE A-8a Sandy Silt (ML):yel lowish brown, medium stiff, moist. Note: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Sample TypeElevation( feet)Depth5 10 15 20 25 30 155 150 145 140 135 130 125 Legend To Logs On Plate A-1 ARTIC S. Douglass Road and Katella Avenue Anaheim, California PROJECT NO. 103567GEOTECH DB 103567 ARTIC WELLS.GPJ KA_RDLND.GDT 10/25/09Graphic LogBlows per FootSample Number47 28 24 13 12 20 7 LOG OF BORING W-2 Dry Density(pcf)SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION 10 AdditionalTestsMoistureContent (%)Water Depth: Date Measured: Elevation: Datum: Drafted By: Reviewed By: None 9/23/09 156 feet (approx.) NAVD 88 9/23/09 Cal Pac Drilling Hollow Stem Auger F. J. Date Drilled: Drilled By: Drilling Method: Logged By: Dry Density(pcf)Well Graded Sand with Gravel (SW):mottled olive brown and olive gray, medium dense, moist, fine to coarse grained, fine to coarse gravel. Lean Clay with Sand (CL):yel lowish brown, medium stiff, moist, layers of clayey s and and sandy silt. Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP):olive brown, loose, fine to coarse sand. Lean Clay with Sand (CL):yel lowish brown, medium stiff, moist. Total depth: 51.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered. Two inch well constructed. 16.5 42 8 11 MoistureContent (%)16 7.2 19.5 24.7 120 101 13 Lean Clay with Sand (CL):yel lowish brown, stiff, moist. (continued) 15 10 14 PROJECT NO. 103567GEOTECH DB 103567 ARTIC WELLS.GPJ KA_RDLND.GDT 10/25/09Blows per FootPLATEARTIC S. Douglass Road and Katella Avenue Anaheim, California 120 115 110 105 LOG OF BORING W-2 SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION AdditionalTests(Continued From Previous Page)Graphic LogA-8bSample NumberNote: The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate as the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.Sample TypeElevation( feet)Depth40 45 50 Legend To Logs On Plate A-1 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING 105231/IRV9R321 B-1 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING GENERAL Laboratory tests were performed on selected, representative samples as an aid in classifying the soils and to evaluate physical properties of the soils that may affect foundation design and construction procedures. The tests were performed in general conformance with the current ASTM or California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) standards. A description of the laboratory-testing program is presented below. MOISTURE AND UNIT WEIGHT Moisture content and dry unit weight tests were performed on a number of samples recovered from the borings. Moisture contents were determined in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 2216; dry unit weight was calculated using the entire weight of the samples collected. Results of these tests are presented on the logs of borings in Appendix A. WASH SIEVE The percent passing the No. 200 sieve of selected soil samples was performed by wash sieving in accordance with ASTM Standard Test Method D1140. The results of the tests are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. ATTERBERG LIMITS Two Atterberg limits tests were performed on soil samples to aid in classification and to evaluate the plasticity characteristics of the materials. The testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D4318. The test results are presented on the logs of Boring B-2 and B-3 in Appendix A. CONSOLIDATION TESTS One consolidation test was performed on a relatively undisturbed sample of Boring B-2 in accordance with ASTM D2435. The tests was performed on 1.0-inch-high and 2.42- inch diameter sample. After trimming the ends, the sample was placed in the 105231/IRV9R321 B-2 October 23, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT consolidometer and initial reading was recorded. The sample was incrementally loaded and submerged with water at a pressure of 5 ksf. The test results are presented on Plates B-3, Consolidation Test. SOIL CORROSIVITY TESTS A series of chemical tests were performed on three selected samples of the near- surface soils to estimate pH, resistivity and sulfate and chloride contents. Test results may be used by a qualified corrosion engineer to evaluate the general corrosion potential with respect to construction materials. The tests were performed by Enviro- Chem, Inc. of Pomona, California. The results of the tests are presented in the Table 5 in the body of the text. coarse PLATE Boring 0.0010.010.1110 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION medium ARTIC S. Douglass Road and Katella Avenue Anaheim, California finecoarse GRAVEL Symbol 30 0 20 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROJECT NO. 103567 10 B-5 #30 #60 #100 H Y D R O M E T E R CLAY S I E V E A N A L Y S I S B-1 GRAIN SIZE 103567 ARTIC BORINGS, WELLS, CPTS.GPJ KA_RDLND.GDT 10/25/093" 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90TOTAL PERCENT PASSINGTOTAL PERCENT RETAINEDGRAIN SIZE (mm) 1.5"3/4"3/8"#4 #10 Depth (ft)ClassificationDescription SILTSAND fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES #200 SP-SMPoorly Graded Sand with Silt3 #16 6 ARTIC S. Douglass Road and Katella Avenue Anaheim, California PROJECT NO. 103567 10 9 7 5 4 3 2 1 0 8 B-2 11 31 0.02 107 4.9 Poorly Graded Sand SP B-2 PLATE DIRECT SHEAR TESTSHEAR STRESS - KsfBoring Depth (ft) Friction Angle - deg Cohesion (Ksf) Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Description Classification DIRECT SHEAR 103567 ARTIC BORINGS, WELLS, CPTS.GPJ KA_RDLND.GDT 10/25/09NORMAL STRESS - Ksf 97531 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 10 PROJECT NO. 103567 9 0 PRESSURE - Ksf B-2 51 20.5 105 Lean Clay with Sand CL CONSOLIDATION 103567 ARTIC BORINGS, WELLS, CPTS.GPJ KA_RDLND.GDT 10/25/09B-3VERTICAL STRAIN - %1001010.1 CONSOLIDATION TEST Boring Depth ( feet) Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Description Classification Compression Ratio Recompression Ratio PLATEARTIC S. Douglass Road and Katella Avenue Anaheim, California 8 Pasteur, Suite 190 Irvine, CA 92618 p| 949.727.4466 f| 949.727.9242 kleinfelder.com 103567/IRV9R168 Page 1 of 13 June 3, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT June 3, 2009 Project No. 103567 Jones and Stokes 1 Ada, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92618 Attention: Ms. Donna McCormick Principal Subject: DRAFT Technical Memorandum Preliminary Geotechnical Data Report Proposed ARTIC – Phase 1 Anaheim, California Dear Ms. McCormick: Kleinfelder W est, Inc. (Kleinfelder) is pleased to present this draft technical memorandum summarizing our findings related to geologic hazards and hydrogeologic conditions at the proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) - Phase 1 project site. The scope of our services was presented in our proposal titled, “Proposal for Geotechnical and Environmental Services, 30 Percent Design Level Submittal, Proposed ARTIC – Phase 1, Anaheim, California,” dated February 25, 2009 (Proposal No. IRV9P031). This memorandum summarizes the work performed, data acquired, and our findings and conclusions. INTRODUCTION Kleinfelder understands that the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the City of Anaheim plan to develop a major transit facility, known as the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC). This proposed facility will serve Metrolink, Amtrak, fixed-route buses, and serve as a regional terminal for the future California High Speed Train. The ARTIC facility will be located southeast of the intersection of Katella Avenue and Douglass Road; bounded by the Santa Ana River, Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) railroad corridor, Douglass Road and Katella Avenue (see Plate 1, Site Vicinity Map). 8 Pasteur, Suite 190 Irvine, CA 92618 p| 949.727.4466 f| 949.727.9242 kleinfelder.com 103567/IRV9R168 Page 2 of 13 June 3, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT In addition to replacing the existing Anaheim station, the proposed construction for the ARTIC project site will include replacement of the existing railroad bridge crossing over Douglass Road, lowering and widening of Douglass Road, and modifying the existing crash walls to the support columns/foundations beneath State Route 57 (SR-57). Also, we understand that the proposed ARTIC development may include parking structure with two subterranean levels. SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of our services consisted of an evaluation of the potential geologic and seismic hazards, which may affect the project site. The evaluation included analyzing for expected ground shaking, determining the site’s potential exposure to fault rupture, landslides, liquefaction, lateral spreading and other geologic hazards including unstable soil conditions. An evaluation of existing and historical groundwater conditions was also performed. A site reconnaissance was performed; however, no fieldwork or subsurface investigation was conducted for this geologic hazards assessment. More specifically, Kleinfelder performed the following. • Review of available geotechnical/geologic reports and maps collected from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), California Geological Survey (CGS) and other available sources, of the site and surrounding area. A list of the reports and documents utilized can be found in the Bibliography provided at the end of this report; • Research at the City of Anaheim and the Orange County W ater District (OCW D) offices to view geotechnical and hydrogeological reports, maps and as-built plans for existing structures, and any available preliminary studies for the site and vicinity that may be available; • Review of historical, stereo-paired aerial photographs for the area available at W hittier College (Fairchild Collection) and Continental Aerial Services. The Fairchild Collection provided a detailed photographic coverage of the site from 1929 to 1961, while those provided by Continental Aerial Services spanned the years from 1952 to 1999. The aerial photographs reviewed are listed at the end of the Bibliography of this report; • A field reconnaissance to observe the existing site conditions; • A discussion of design and construction considerations that influence preliminary engineering; and 8 Pasteur, Suite 190 Irvine, CA 92618 p| 949.727.4466 f| 949.727.9242 kleinfelder.com 103567/IRV9R168 Page 3 of 13 June 3, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT • Preparation of this report which summarizes the work performed, data acquired, and our findings and conclusions for the proposed ARTIC development. SITE CONDITION The ARTIC project site includes approximately 13.5 acres located north of the existing LOSSAN corridor, and extending westward from the Santa Ana River to, and including, Douglas Road. Within the project area, Douglass Road is currently a 4-lane road, which crosses under the LOSSAN railroad corridor and SR-57 bridges. Current surface elvations of Douglass Road are approximately 165 feet (NAVD 88) near Katella Avenue and dropping to about 146 feet beneath the LOSSAN corridor bridge. The remainder of the project site is developed with several single-story office and maintenance buildings, and covered with asphalt for surface parking. The site ranges in elevation between approximately 165 feet in the northeast corner near Katella Avenue to 156 feet at the southern end near the LOSSAN corridor. The LOSSAN railroad corridor is about 10 feet above the site at an elevation of 166 feet. To the east of the site is the Santa Ana River with a bottom elevation estimated to be approximately 140 to 145 feet. The river is separated from the site by an improved embankment (levee or berm), which rises to an elevation of about 165 to 168 feet. The levee crest is paved and currently used as an Orange County bike path and maintenance access to the river. SITE HISTORY Historical aerial photography (see the Bibliography for a complete list) and vintage topographic maps (Plate II of Mendenhall, 1905) show that the project site and general vicinity was largely undeveloped or minimally developed agricultural land in the early 1900s. Although it appears that levee construction along the Santa Ana River had begun by the 1920s, the river’s west bank adjacent to the project site was still in a natural condition and bank erosion and sloughing was apparent. In 1938, a year of heavy rains and extensive flooding throughout southern California, the site was stripped of all vegetation. In 1939, on the project site’s western boundary, diagonal levees or berm-like structures (denoted as “1939 Levee” on Plate 2) are observed north and south of the railroad tracks (i.e., LOSSAN railroad corridor). The 1939 Levee is approximately 50 feet wide and appears to restrict the bank sloughing to its river- side, thus protecting orchards to the west. Collins Avenue crosses the river from the east, bisecting the site and turns northward to join a road that would become the present-day Douglass Road. Between 1955 and 1959 quarry excavation activities had begun on the project site between the railroad tracks and Collins Avenue-Douglass Road alignment. The quarry is open towards the Santa Ana River and its bottom appears to be slightly below river’s bottom. The 8 Pasteur, Suite 190 Irvine, CA 92618 p| 949.727.4466 f| 949.727.9242 kleinfelder.com 103567/IRV9R168 Page 4 of 13 June 3, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT approximate extent of the quarry is shown on Plate 2. Also, during this time, bank erosion and sloughing of the project site, north of Collins Avenue, had migrated westward to the 1939 Levee. The Collins Avenue-Douglass Road alignment and the railroad tracks were largely unaffected by the quarry excavation or the sloughing of the river bank. By the late 1960s and early 1970s the Santa Ana River’s current levee system has been constructed between the river and the project site. The project site behind the current river levee (including the quarry) is filled and, by the mid-1970s, the site has been developed and the current alignment of Douglass Road is completed. By the late 1970s, the SR-57 is completed. GEOLOGY Regional Geologic Setting The ARTIC site is located in the southern part of the Los Angeles Basin within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. The Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province extends 900 miles (1,450 kilometers) southward from the Los Angeles Basin to the tip of Baja California and is characterized by elongate northwest-trending mountain ranges separated by sediment-floored valleys (California Geological Survey, 2002). The most dominant structural features of the province are the northwest trending fault zones, most of which die out, merge with, or are terminated by the steep reverse faults at the southern margin of the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province. East of the site are the northwest-trending Santa Ana Mountains, a large range which has been uplifted on its eastern side along the Whittier-Elsinore Fault Zone, producing a tilted, irregular highland that slopes westward toward the sea (Schoellhamer et al., 1981). The area south and west of the Santa Ana Mountains is generally characterized as a broad, complex, alluvial fan, which receives sediments from the Santa Ana River and its tributaries draining the Santa Ana Mountains and Puente Hills, and to a lesser extent the San Bernardino Mountains. These sediments are relatively flat-lying, unconsolidated to loosely consolidated clastic deposits that are approximately 1,700 feet thick beneath the site (Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 2007; and Orange County Water District, 2004). General Site Geology The ARTIC site is located adjacent to the Santa Ana River, a braided stream system which has had significant flood control measures constructed along its course over the past 100 years. However, prior to flood control, deposition and erosion, primarily during flood events, contributed to the general geology of the project site and vicinity. The surficial deposits in the vicinity of the project area 8 Pasteur, Suite 190 Irvine, CA 92618 p| 949.727.4466 f| 949.727.9242 kleinfelder.com 103567/IRV9R168 Page 5 of 13 June 3, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT consist of alluvial fan material and alluvium deposited by the Santa Ana River (denoted as Qyfa on Plate 2, Geotechnical Map) over the last few thousand years. These unconsolidated alluvial sediments are generally composed of flat- lying, non-marine deposits of sand and a minor amount of silt. (Morton et al., 2004). South of Ball Road these sandy deposits become interbedded with clayey layers in the subsurface, generally at a depth of approximately 50 to 55 feet (OCW D, 2004; Southern California Regional Rail Authority [SCRRA], 1994). However, due to quarrying activities and bank sloughing, most of the project site is not underlain by alluvium, but rather an undetermined thickness of undocumented artificial fill (denoted Afu on Plate 2). The site was filled in to current grades during development of the property in the early 1970s. Although the bottom elevation of the fill is most likely equal to the river’s elevation in the northern part of the site, in the southern part (quarry area) aerial photography indicate that fill depth may be about 5 to 10 feet deeper than the river’s bottom elevation. The source for, or composition of, the fill material is not known. Underlying the undocumented fill throughout the project site is alluvial sand to silty sand. Plate 2 reflects this mapping and utilizes similar nomenclature (e.g., Qw and Qyf) presented by the USGS (Morton et al., 2004) and CGS (Greenwood and Pridmore, 2001). GROUNDWATER The ARTIC site is located in the forebay area of Orange County Basin (Metropolitan W ater District of Southern California, 2007; DWR, 2004; and OCWD, 2004). The forebay is an area consisting of coarser, interconnected deposits that allows surface water to percolate down and ultimately recharge the County’s principal aquifer about 800 feet deep (DWR, 2004). In other areas, the aquifer is under hydrostatic pressure and recharge from the surface is not possible. Most of the basin’s recharge occurs north of Ball Road in lakes, ponds, pits and the river’s main channel bottom. Here the alluvial deposits are sandier with few clay/silt layers to impede the downward movement of the recharge water. South of Ball Road clay layers become present and are interbedded with the sandy deposits. The clay layers are laterally discontinuous, thereby slowing, but not restricting, recharge from the surface. Adjacent to the site, sand levees are constructed in the bottom of the Santa Ana River to capture runoff and allow it to percolate into the groundwater system (OCWD, 2004). The nearest aquifer beneath the site is the Talbert aquifer and it extends to a depth of approximately 150 feet below the project area (Poland, 1956). Near the site, groundwater levels in the Talbert aquifer can fluctuate substantially depending on rainfall conditions or recharge activities in the river. In 1994, wet soil samples (indication of groundwater) were logged adjacent to the site and the LOSSAN railroad corridor at a depth of approximately 50 feet (SCRRA, 1994), and in 1999 groundwater was measured at a depth of about 34 feet near the 8 Pasteur, Suite 190 Irvine, CA 92618 p| 949.727.4466 f| 949.727.9242 kleinfelder.com 103567/IRV9R168 Page 6 of 13 June 3, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT intersection of Katella Avenue and Douglass Road (Coleman Geotechnical, 1999). In June 2006, OCWD mapped groundwater levels near the site at a depth of approximately 60 feet. However, in 2001 an evaluation of the historically shallowest groundwater levels was conducted by the CGS (Greenwood and Pridmore, 2001) for the area which included the site. They determined the highest historical groundwater to be approximately 20 feet deep for the project site. Although no site-specific groundwater data are available at this time, utilizing the depth of 20 feet reported by the CGS would appear to be the most prudent. A depth of 20 feet at the project site the groundwater elevation would be roughly equal to the bottom elevation of the Santa Ana River adjacent to the site. Fluctuations of the groundwater level, localized zones of perched water, and soil moisture content should be anticipated during and following the rainy season. Irrigation of landscaped areas on or immediately adjacent to the site can also cause a fluctuation of local groundwater levels. GEOLOGIC SITE HAZARDS Geologic and seismic hazards are those that could impact the site due to the surrounding geologic and seismic conditions. Potential geologic/seismic hazards include phenomena that occur during an earthquake such as ground rupture, liquefaction, lateral spreading, lurching, landslides, settlement and expansive soils. The geologic and seismic hazards have been evaluated in terms of their potential impact on the proposed project. The most significant geologic hazard to the project is the potential for moderate to strong ground shaking resulting from earthquakes generated on the faults within the seismically active southern California region. Active or potentially active surface faults are not known to exist on the site. An active fault is defined as one that has moved within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). However, for the purposes of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Act), an active fault is defined as a fault that has exhibited surface displacement within Holocene time (Bryant and Hart, 2007). A potentially active fault is defined by the State as a fault with a history of movement within Pleistocene time (between 11,000 and 1.8 million years ago). These active and potentially active faults are capable of producing potentially damaging seismic shaking at the site. It is anticipated that the project site will periodically experience ground acceleration as the result of earthquakes. Active faults without surface expression (buried faults) and other potentially active seismic sources which are capable of generating earthquakes are not currently zoned by the Act, and are known to be locally present under the region. 8 Pasteur, Suite 190 Irvine, CA 92618 p| 949.727.4466 f| 949.727.9242 kleinfelder.com 103567/IRV9R168 Page 7 of 13 June 3, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT Surface Fault Rupture Primary ground rupture is ground deformation that occurs along the surface trace of the causative fault during an earthquake. No known active faults are mapped crossing the site, and the site is not located within a State of California, Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007), thus the potential for future surface fault rupture at the site is considered to be low. The closest mapped faults to the site include the Peralta-El Modeno, Puente Hill Blind Thrust, Whittier-Elsinore faults and several unnamed and buried faults to the south of the site. Table 1 summarizes the distances of the closest known faults. Further discussion follows. Table 1 Summary of Closest Mapped Faults Fault Name Type Distance, miles (km) Magnitude, Mw El Modeno Reverse 2.3 (3.7) 6.5 Peralta Reverse 3.6 (5.9) 6.5 Unnamed Buried (2) Unknown 4.2 (6.7) and 4.9 (8.0) Unknown Puente Hills Blind Thrust 5.3 (8.6) 7.1 Whittier Strike Slip 8.5 (13.8) 6.8 The Peralta-El Modeno faults are located north and northeast of the project site. The Peralta fault outcrops along the southern edge of the Peralta Hills east of the Santa Ana River approximately 3.6 miles (5.9 kilometers) from the site (Morton et al., 2004). The Peralta fault is a reverse fault which dips north towards the Whittier fault and movement along it results in crustal shortening and uplift of the Peralta Hills (Dolan et al., 2001). The El Modeno fault could be a westward extension of the Peralta fault, but this is currently not known. The El Modeno fault is buried beneath the alluvium of the Santa Ana River and it’s inferred location is about 2.3 miles (3.7 kilometers) north of the site. The CGS fault map by Jennings (1994) shows the buried El Modeno fault extending westward from Burrel Ridge to about the SR-57 freeway. Slip rates of the El Modeno and Peralta faults are not currently known; however the faults are considered potentially active capable of generating an Mw6.5 earthquake (Mualchin, 1996). The Puente Hills Blind Thrust fault (Mw7.1 earthquake) extends approximately 40 kilometers from downtown Los Angeles to near Brea in northern Orange County, and passes approximately 5.3 miles (8.6 kilometers) from the site. This active fault consists of three segments, from west to east; the Los Angeles, 8 Pasteur, Suite 190 Irvine, CA 92618 p| 949.727.4466 f| 949.727.9242 kleinfelder.com 103567/IRV9R168 Page 8 of 13 June 3, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT Santa Fe Springs and the Coyote Hills segments. These segments shallowly dip northward toward the Puente Hills and thrusting motion along these faults have resulted in crustal shortening in the region. Slip on the three segments produced an anticlinal structure caused by the compression and folding. This has been observed in the Coyote Hills segment approximately 5.5 miles (9.1 kilometers) north-northwest of the site. Although the Puente Hills Blind Thrust is buried approximately 2 to 3 kilometers beneath the ground surface, significant seismic shaking can result from this buried fault. Displacement along a section of the Santa Fe Springs segment is believed to have caused the 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake (Mw6.0), confirming the potential for this active fault system to cause significant seismic shaking in the Los Angeles Basin (Dolan et al., 2001; Shaw et al, 2002). The Whittier fault is an extension of the Elsinore fault where the fault deviates from the normal northwesterly strike and turns more westward at the Santa Ana River (Morton et al., 2004). Movement along the Whittier Fault is predominantly right-lateral strike-slip at a rate of approximately 2 to 3 mm/year (Dolan et al., 2001). However, it is believed to have had some reverse movement historically causing uplift of the Puente Hills at about 0.5 mm/year (Dolan et al., 2001). The surface trace of the Whittier fault has been mapped by the State and designated as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007). The surface trace has been mapped approximately 8.5 miles (13.8 kilometers) north of the project site. Two unnamed, buried faults are mapped to the southwest and south of the site, approximately 4.2 miles (6.7 kilometers) and 4.9 miles (8 kilometers), respectively. Both faults terminate within the Orange County Basin, however, the one to the south, is mapped trending towards the site before it ends about 4.9 miles away. No information regarding these faults is available except that they are buried beneath sediments, some older than 11,000 years (Morton et al., 2004). Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading Seismically induced soil liquefaction generally occurs in loose, saturated, cohesionless soil when pore pressures within the soil increase during ground shaking. The increase in pore pressure transforms the soil from a solid to a semi-liquid state. The primary factors affecting the liquefaction potential of a soil deposit are: 1) intensity and duration of earthquake shaking, 2) soil type and relative density, 3) overburden pressures, and 4) depth to groundwater. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, uniformly graded, fine-grained sands, and non-plastic silts that are saturated. Silty sands have also been shown to be susceptible to liquefaction. These soils typically lose a portion or all of their shear strength and regain strength sometime after shaking stops. Soil 8 Pasteur, Suite 190 Irvine, CA 92618 p| 949.727.4466 f| 949.727.9242 kleinfelder.com 103567/IRV9R168 Page 9 of 13 June 3, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT movements (both vertical and lateral) have been observed under these conditions due to consolidation of the liquefied soils and the reduced shear resistance of slopes. According to the State (California Division of Mines and Geology [CDMG], 1998), the site is located within a liquefaction hazard zone. An evaluation of the liquefaction potential at the project site is required and should be performed following the collection of site-specific information from the field exploration and laboratory testing program. The potential for lateral spreading should also be evaluated along the site’s eastern boundary with the Santa Ana River. Seismically induced lateral spreading involves primarily lateral movement of earth materials due to ground shaking. Liquefaction-induced lateral displacement usually occurs on gently sloping ground, and results in near-vertical cracks with predominantly horizontal movement of the soil mass involved towards a free face (i.e., the river’s bank to the east). Estimating the magnitude of lateral spreading depends on the site’s regional topography and continuity of the liquefiable layer(s); therefore, an accurate estimate of lateral spreading magnitude is complicated and should be completed at a site-specific level following subsurface exploration program. Seismically-Induced Settlement and Differential Compaction Seismically-induced settlement and differential compaction occurs when relatively soft or loose soils experience a reduction in volume (compaction) caused by strong ground motion. Soil conditions subject to these include unconsolidated soil or areas where weak soils of variable thickness overlie firm soil or bedrock. The type of materials that would be more likely to experience seismically-induced settlement and differential compaction are deposits of alluvium and loosely compacted man-made fill, both of which underlie most of the project site. Any structures built on such soils could be damaged during settlement. Due to the possible high ground shaking levels and the unknown thickness and composition of the undocumented fill the seismically-induced settlement and differential compaction hazard is considered high. Lurching Lurching is the relative displacement of adjacent land surfaces during an earthquake. As the seismic motion encounters a cliff, bluff, stream bank, or even a fill slope at nearly right angles it may cause displacement of the material in the unsupported direction. Lurching may also be caused by liquefaction of a zone beneath the otherwise intact surface. Visible evidence of lurching includes ground cracking and fissuring generally in a relatively parallel fashion to a stream 8 Pasteur, Suite 190 Irvine, CA 92618 p| 949.727.4466 f| 949.727.9242 kleinfelder.com 103567/IRV9R168 Page 10 of 13 June 3, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT bank or slope face. Due to the expected high ground motion, potential for lurching exists at the site, especially along the Santa Ana River bank. Slope Failure Landslides and other forms of mass wasting, including mud flows, debris flows, soil slips, and rock falls occur as soil or rock moves down slope under the influence of gravity. Landslides are frequently triggered by intense rainfall or seismic shaking. The site is not within a State or County designated hazard zone for landslides (CDMG, 1998). Although the project site is relatively flat, the risk of landslides and other forms of slope failure could occur along the bank of the Santa Ana River, or the foundation slope beneath the LOSSAN railroad corridor, thus impacting the proposed project. Flooding and Inundation Flooding and inundation occurs as a result of several factors in developed areas. These factors include: rainfall rates that exceed an area’s ability to absorb or control the runoff; impounded water retained behind a flood control structure (upstream-inundation); failure of a flood control structure (downstream- inundation); seiches and tsunamis (earthquake induced). Flooding of the Santa Ana River has inundated the site numerous times over the past 175 years. Channelization and flood protection levees were constructed, and following the devastating 1938 flood, Prado Dam was constructed in to improve flood protection. As development of the inland empire proceeded, additional measures were soon needed. Currently, flood protection for the area is being improved with the Santa Ana River Mainstem Project. The project will increase the flood level protection along more than 75 miles of the Santa Ana River course within Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, and is scheduled to be completed by 2010. Although the Santa Ana River Mainstem Project may reduce the risk of flood along the river, it may not prevent flood inundation at the site due to failure of the Prado Dam during an earthquake. An earthquake along the Chino Hills fault, which crosses beneath the dam near the spillway, could cause the dam to fail. A catastrophic failure of the dam with substantial water stored behind it could cause flooding at the site downstream. A flood inundation evaluation should be performed for the site during the next phase. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Based on our review of readily-available geologic, geotechnical, and seismologic reports and publications covering the site and general vicinity, it is our professional opinion that the proposed project is geotechnically feasible. The 8 Pasteur, Suite 190 Irvine, CA 92618 p| 949.727.4466 f| 949.727.9242 kleinfelder.com 103567/IRV9R168 Page 11 of 13 June 3, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT primary geotechnical constraints that could have a significant impact to the cost of developing the site include: 1) the potential for seismically-induced settlement and lateral spreading due to liquefaction; 2) the presence of deep undocumented fill that was placed in the early 1970s; and 3) the potential for high groundwater potentially affecting the design and construction of subterranean structures. More detailed discussion of each potential geotechnically constraint is presented below. Liquefaction Potential The potential for seismically-induced settlement and lateral spreading due to liquefaction could have a significant impact to the ARTIC development. Depending on the severity of the liquefaction potential, ground improvement and/or alternative foundation systems, such as piles, may be necessary for the proposed structures. Current standard of practice dictates that seismic settlement greater than about 2 inches is excessive for a conventional spread footing foundation system. In addition, ground improvement along the river channel side of the site may be necessary to mitigate lateral spreading. The potential for liquefaction and its adverse affects, seismically-induced settlement and lateral spreading, will need to be evaluated in detail as part of the design- level geotechnical study for the ARTIC Development. Undocumented Fill An undetermined thickness of undocumented artificial fill is present at the site due to quarry activities in the late 1950s and infilling the site in the early 1970s. This material is mostly likely not suitable for support of settlement sensitive structures. Due to the anticipated depths of the undocumented fill, complete removal and recompaction may not be practical. Therefore, ground improvement and/or alternative foundation systems, such as piles, may be necessary for the proposed structures. The depth and composition of the undocumented fill, along with its adverse affects, will need to be evaluated in detail as part of the design- level geotechnical study for the ARTIC Development. High Groundwater Although the current groundwater levels beneath the site are likely below the historic high groundwater levels, fluctuations of the groundwater level, localized zones of perched water, and increased soil moisture content should be anticipated during and following the rainy season, especially since sand levees exist in the bottom of the Santa Ana River adjacent to the site to capture runoff and allow it to percolate into the subsurface. High groundwater will need to be considered when designing all subterranean walls and floor slabs that extend to 8 Pasteur, Suite 190 Irvine, CA 92618 p| 949.727.4466 f| 949.727.9242 kleinfelder.com 103567/IRV9R168 Page 12 of 13 June 3, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT and below groundwater. In addition, increased soil moisture contents and localized zones of perched water will need to be considered during construction. LIMITATIONS This technical memorandum has been prepared for the exclusive use of Jones and Stokes, OCTA, and their agents for specific application to the subject project. This work was performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of Kleinfelder’s profession practicing in the same locality, under similar conditions and at the date the services are provided. Our conclusions, opinions and recommendations are based on a limited number of observations and data. It is possible that conditions could vary between or beyond the data evaluated or that others may develop different opinions based on the available data. Kleinfelder makes no other representation, guarantee or warranty, express or implied, regarding the services, communication (oral or written), report, opinion, or instrument of service provided. The scope of services was based on the data collected, as described above. It should be recognized that definition and evaluation of subsurface conditions are difficult. Judgments leading to conclusions and recommendations are generally made with incomplete knowledge of the subsurface conditions present due to the limitations of data from field studies. The conclusions of this assessment are based on our background data research. Kleinfelder offers various levels of investigative and engineering services to suit the varying needs of different clients. Although risk can never be eliminated, more detailed and extensive studies yield more information, which may help understand and manage the level of risk. Since detailed study and analysis involves greater expense, our clients participate in determining levels of service, which provide information for their purposes at acceptable levels of risk. The client and key members of the design team should discuss the issues covered in this memorandum with Kleinfelder, so that the issues are understood and applied in a manner consistent with the owner’s budget, tolerance of risk and expectations for future performance and maintenance. This report may be used only by the client and only for the purposes stated, within a reasonable time from its issuance, but in no event later than two (2) years from the date of the report. Land use, site conditions (both on site and off site) or other factors may change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time. Any party, other than the client who wishes to use this report shall notify Kleinfelder of such intended use. Based on the intended use of this report and the nature of the new project, Kleinfelder may require that additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non- compliance with any of these requirements by the client or anyone else will 8 Pasteur, Suite 190 Irvine, CA 92618 p| 949.727.4466 f| 949.727.9242 kleinfelder.com 103567/IRV9R168 Page 13 of 13 June 3, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT release Kleinfelder from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized party and the client agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Kleinfelder from any claims or liability associated with such unauthorized use or non-compliance. CLOSURE We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical engineering services to you on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, KLEINFELDER WEST, INC. Robert Lemmer, C.E.G., C.H.G. Brian E. Crystal, P.E., G.E. Senior Engineering Geologist Geotechnical Group Manager Attachments: Bibliography Plate 1 - Site Location Map Plate 2 – Geotechnical Map 103567/IRV9R168 June 3, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT BIBLIOGRAPHY REFERENCES CITED Bryant, W .A. and Hart, E.W ., 2007, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps: California Geological Survey Special Publication 42, 42p. (interim revision 2007). California Department of Water Resources (DW R), 2004, Bulletin 118, California’s Groundwater, Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin, updated 2/27/2004. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1998, Seismic Hazard Zones Map of the Anaheim 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, California, scale 1:24,000, released April 25, 1998. California Geologic Survey (CGS), 2002, California Geomorphic Provinces, Note 36, 4p Coleman Geotechnical, 1999, Geotechnical Investigation, Country Suites by Ayres Hotel, 2560 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Job No. 1798, dated August 26, 1999. Dolan, J.F., Gath, E.M., Grant, L.B., Legg, M., Lindvall, S., Mueller, K., Oskin, M., Ponti, D.F., Rubin, C.M., Rockwell, T.K., Shaw, J.H., Treiman, J.A., Walls, C., and Yeats, R.S. (compilers), 2001, Active Faults in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Region: SCEC Special Publication Series No. 001, Southern California Earthquake Center, 47p. Greenwood, R.B. and Pridmore, C.L, 1997 (revised 2001), Liquefaction zones in the Anaheim and Newport Beach 7.5-minute quadrangles, Orange County, California, in Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Anaheim and Newport Beach 7.5-minute quadrangles, Orange County, California: California Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Zone Report 03, pp. 5-18; Plates 1.1 and 1.2. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas with location and ages of recent volcanic eruptions: California Division of Mines and Geology, California Geologic Data Map Series, Map No. 6. Mualchin, L.,1996 (revised 2006), California seismic hazard map 1996, based on maximum credible earthquake (MCE): California Department of Transportation. Mendenhall, W.C., 1905, Development of underground waters in the eastern coastal plain region of southern California: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 137, Plate II. 103567/IRV9R168 June 3, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT Metropolitan W ater District of Southern California, 2007, Chapter IV – Groundwater Basin Reports, Orange County Basins, in A Status Report on the use of Groundwater in the Service Area of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Report No. 1308, pp. IV-10-1 – IV-10-26, available at: www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/yourwater/supply/groundwater/GWAS.html Morton, D.M., K.R. Bovard and R.M. Alvarez, 2004, Preliminary digital geologic map of the Santa Ana 30’x60’ quadrangle, southern California, version 2.0: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-172. Orange County W ater District, 2004, Groundwater Management Plan, dated March 2004, available at: http://www.ocwd.com. Poland, J.F., Piper, A.M., and others, 1956, Ground-water Geology of the Coastal Zone Long Beach-Santa Ana Area, California: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1109, pp. 44-52, and Plate 7. Schoellhamer, J.E., Vedder, J.G, Yerkes, R.F., and Kinney, D.M., 1981, Geology of the northern Santa Ana Mountains, California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 420-D, 109p. Shaw, J.H., Plesch, A., Dolan, J.F., Pratt, T.L., and Fiore, P., 2002, Puente hills blind- thrust system, Los Angeles, California: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Volume 92, No. 8, pp. 2946–2960. Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), 1994, Anaheim to Santa Ana, Second Main Track Addition, Bridge 170.8-Douglass Road Underpass, Log of Test Borings, Sheet No. 62, dated February 15, 1994. U.S. Geological Survey, 1965 (photorevised 1981), 7.5-minute Topographic map of the Anaheim, California Quadrangle, scale 1:24,000. 103567/IRV9R168 June 3, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS REVIEWED Date Type Flight Frames Approximate Scale Source 2-28-1929 B&W C-287 #3 A1, A2; and B2, B3 1:18,000 Fairchild Aerial Collection 1931 B&W C-1780 C-1 1:15,600 Fairchild Aerial Collection 3-4-1938 B&W C-5029 66-68 1:32,000 Fairchild Aerial Collection 6-24-1939 B&W C-5925 120-122 1:24,000 Fairchild Aerial Collection 6-17-1947 B&W C-11351-7 54-56 1:24,000 Fairchild Aerial Collection 8-1947 B&W C-113730A-11 155X-157X 1:7,200 Fairchild Aerial Collection 8-1947 B&W C-113730A-12 102-104 1:7,200 Fairchild Aerial Collection 8-1947 B&W C-113730A-14 4-6 1:7,200 Fairchild Aerial Collection 8-31-1947 B&W C-113730D-14 48-50 1:14,400 Fairchild Aerial Collection 12-26-1952 B&W 5K 84-86 1:20,000 Continental Aerial Surveys 2-11-1953 B&W C-18785-1 100 1:14,400 Fairchild Aerial Collection 5-2-1953 B&W C-19400-V11-LA 1-33, 2-28 1:63,360 Fairchild Aerial Collection 3-7-1955 B&W C-21678-2 23-25 1:18,000 Fairchild Aerial Collection 1-17-1958 B&W C-23023-V11-ORA 5 82, 83 1:36,000 Fairchild Aerial Collection 3-25-1959 B&W 261-3-14 66-68 1:12,000 Continental Aerial Surveys 3-25-1959 B&W 261-3-15 110-112 1:12,000 Continental Aerial Surveys 6-3-1961 B&W C-24129 10 1:24,000 Fairchild Aerial Collection 103567/IRV9R168 June 3, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder DRAFT AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS REVIEWED (Continued) Date Type Flight Frames Approximate Scale Source 3-1-1967 B&W 1 32, 33 1:24,000 Continental Aerial Collection 2-18-1970 B&W 61-6 270 1:48,000 Continental Aerial Surveys 10-29-1973 B&W 132-6 6-8 1:24,000 Continental Aerial Surveys 1-13-1975 B&W 157-7 14, 15 1:24,000 Continental Aerial Surveys 12-28-1976 B&W 181-7 12-14 1:24,000 Continental Aerial Surveys 12-10-1978 B&W 203-7 15, 16 1:24,000 Continental Aerial Surveys 2-25-1980 B&W 80033 75, 76 1:32,000 Continental Aerial Surveys 4-2-1983 B&W 218-7 13-15 1:24,000 Continental Aerial Surveys 1-9-1987 B&W F 232, 233 1:34,300 Continental Aerial Surveys 1-29-1992 B&W C-85-7 16, 17 1:25,800 Continental Aerial Surveys 6-9-1993 B&W C-93-13 176, 177 1:25,800 Continental Aerial Surveys 1-29-1995 B&W C-103-35 115, 116 1:24,000 Continental Aerial Surveys 10-15-1997 B&W C-117-35 230, 231 1:24,000 Continental Aerial Surveys 2-24-1999 B&W C-134-35 121, 122 1:24,000 Continental Aerial Surveys PLATES ATTACHED XREFS:ATTACHED IMAGES: Images: Topo-plate1_1.JPG Images: Topo-plate1_2.JPG FILENAME:103567p1.dwgDRAWNBY:CHECKEDBY:DRAWN:PROJECTNO.CAD FILE: L:\2009\CADD\103567\ LAYOUT: 1 PLOTTED: 03 Jun 2009, 12:08pm, dfahrney www.kleinfelder.comTheinformationincludedonthisgraphicrepresentationhasbeencompiledfromavarietyofsourcesandissubjecttochangewithoutnotice.Kleinfeldermakesnorepresentationsorwarranties,expressorimplied,astoaccuracy,completeness,timeliness,orrightstotheuseofsuchinformation.Thisdocumentisnotintendedforuseasalandsurveyproductnorisitdesignedorintendedasaconstructiondesigndocument.Theuseormisuseoftheinformationcontainedonthisgraphicrepresentationisatthesoleriskofthepartyusingormisusingtheinformation.DIAMOND BAR, CA PROPOSEDANAHEIMREGIONALTRANSPORTATIONINTERMODALCENTER(ARTIC)-PHASE1ANAHEIM,CALIFORNIAPLATE1MRGMG6/02/09103567SITEVICINITYMAP02,0002,0001,000APPROXIMATESCALE(feet)SOURCE:U.S.G.S.7.5'topographicseries,AnaheimandOrange,Californiaquadrangledated1965(1964),photorevised1981. July 19, 2010 Draft Environmental Impact Report Prepared for: Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center State Clearinghouse #: 2009071071 ARTIC DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Anaheim, California State Clearinghouse Number: 2009071071 Environmental Impact Report Number: EIR2010-00343 Master Case Number: DEV2010-00043 Prepared for: City of Anaheim Public Works City Hall 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 276 Anaheim, California 92805 Prepared by: Kleinfelder 2 Ada, Suite 250 Irvine, California 92618 July 19, 2010 Draft EIR Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page ARTIC Draft EIR Page i of xvi July 19, 2010 ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS................................................................x EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................... ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................1-1 1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.......................1-3 1.2 CEQA EIR PROCESS.......................................................................................1-5 1.3 DRAFT EIR REVIEW PROCESS.....................................................................1-7 1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THIS EIR......................................................................1-9 1.5 PROJECT BACKGROUND............................................................................1-11 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION..........................................................................................2-1 2.1 OTHER RELEVANT PROJECTS ....................................................................2-3 2.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS................................................................................2-7 2.2.1 Existing Station Information.................................................................2-7 2.2.2 Existing Transportation Providers.......................................................2-15 2.2.3 Existing Parking..................................................................................2-16 2.2.4 Existing Pedestrian Access..................................................................2-16 2.2.5 OCTA-Owned Parcel..........................................................................2-16 2.2.6 City-Owned Parcel..............................................................................2-16 2.2.7 OCTA Railroad Right-of-Way............................................................2-17 2.2.8 SR-57 Right of Way............................................................................2-17 2.3 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES....................................................................2-19 2.3.1 Vision Statement.................................................................................2-19 2.3.2 Project Need........................................................................................2-19 2.3.3 Project Objectives ...............................................................................2-20 2.4 PROPOSED PROJECT....................................................................................2-23 2.4.1 Intermodal Terminal............................................................................2-23 2.4.2 Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area................................................................2-31 2.4.3 Stadium Pavilion.................................................................................2-31 2.4.4 Tracks/Platforms .................................................................................2-31 2.4.5 Douglass Road Improvements.............................................................2-35 2.4.6 Katella Avenue Pedestrian Bridge ......................................................2-39 2.4.7 ARTIC Pedestrian Trail ......................................................................2-39 2.4.8 Surface Parking/Access.......................................................................2-39 2.4.9 Utility Relocation and Proposed Utilities............................................2-40 2.5 CONSTRUCTION...........................................................................................2-43 2.6 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE.........................................................2-45 2.6.1 Operations and Maintenance - Construction.......................................2-45 2.6.2 Operations and Maintenance – Opening Year 2013............................2-45 2.7 PERMITS AND PLAN REVIEW ...................................................................2-47 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ...............................................................................3-1 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING......................................................................3.1-1 3.1.1 Environmental Setting........................................................................3.1-1 3.1.2 Regulatory Setting..............................................................................3.1-7 3.1.3 Thresholds of Significance...............................................................3.1-23 Draft EIR Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Section Page ARTIC Draft EIR Page ii of xvi July 19, 2010 3.1.4 Project Impacts.................................................................................3.1-24 3.1.5 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................3.1-25 3.1.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions................................3.1-25 3.1.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation..........................................3.1-26 3.1.8 Mitigation Measures.........................................................................3.1-26 3.1.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation............................................3.1-26 3.2 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC..........................................................3.2-1 3.2.1 Environmental Setting........................................................................3.2-1 3.2.2 Regulatory Setting............................................................................3.2-28 3.2.3 Thresholds of Significance...............................................................3.2-29 3.2.4 Project Impacts.................................................................................3.2-30 3.2.5 Existing Conditions Traffic Impact Analysis...................................3.2-37 3.2.6 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................3.2-76 3.2.7 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions................................3.2-77 3.2.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation..........................................3.2-78 3.2.9 Mitigation Measures.........................................................................3.2-84 3.2.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation............................................3.2-86 3.3 AIR QUALITY...............................................................................................3.3-1 3.3.1 Environmental Setting........................................................................3.3-1 3.3.2 Regulatory Setting..............................................................................3.3-2 3.3.3 Thresholds of Significance.................................................................3.3-6 3.3.4 Project Impacts...................................................................................3.3-8 3.3.5 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................3.3-16 3.3.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions................................3.3-16 3.3.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation..........................................3.3-17 3.3.8 Mitigation Measures.........................................................................3.3-17 3.3.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation............................................3.3-18 3.4 NOISE.............................................................................................................3.4-1 3.4.1 Environmental Setting........................................................................3.4-3 3.4.2 Regulatory Setting............................................................................3.4-18 3.4.3 Thresholds of Significance...............................................................3.4-20 3.4.4 Project Impacts.................................................................................3.4-21 3.4.5 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................3.4-24 3.4.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions................................3.4-27 3.4.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation..........................................3.4-27 3.4.8 Mitigation Measures.........................................................................3.4-27 3.4.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation............................................3.4-28 3.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS................................................................................3.5-1 3.5.1 Environmental Setting........................................................................3.5-1 3.5.2 Regulatory Setting............................................................................3.5-11 3.5.3 Thresholds of Significance...............................................................3.5-13 3.5.4 Project Impacts.................................................................................3.5-14 3.5.5 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................3.5-16 Draft EIR Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Section Page ARTIC Draft EIR Page iii of xvi July 19, 2010 3.5.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions................................3.5-16 3.5.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation..........................................3.5-16 3.5.8 Mitigation Measures.........................................................................3.5-16 3.5.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation............................................3.5-17 3.6 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS........................................................3.6-1 3.6.1 Environmental Setting........................................................................3.6-1 3.6.2 Regulatory Setting..............................................................................3.6-4 3.6.3 Thresholds of Significance.................................................................3.6-7 3.6.4 Project Impacts...................................................................................3.6-8 3.6.5 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................3.6-12 3.6.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions................................3.6-12 3.6.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation..........................................3.6-12 3.6.8 Mitigation Measures.........................................................................3.6-12 3.6.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation............................................3.6-12 3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS...........................................3.7-1 3.7.1 Environmental Setting........................................................................3.7-1 3.7.2 Regulatory Setting..............................................................................3.7-5 3.7.3 Thresholds of Significance.................................................................3.7-9 3.7.4 Project Impacts...................................................................................3.7-9 3.7.5 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................3.7-11 3.7.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions................................3.7-12 3.7.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation..........................................3.7-12 3.7.8 Mitigation Measures.........................................................................3.7-12 3.7.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation............................................3.7-12 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY....................................................3.8-1 3.8.1 Environmental Setting........................................................................3.8-1 3.8.2 Regulatory Setting..............................................................................3.8-2 3.8.3 Thresholds of Significance.................................................................3.8-7 3.8.4 Project Impacts...................................................................................3.8-8 3.8.5 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................3.8-11 3.8.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions................................3.8-12 3.8.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation..........................................3.8-12 3.8.8 Mitigation Measures.........................................................................3.8-12 3.8.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation............................................3.8-12 3.9 AESTHETICS.................................................................................................3.9-1 3.9.1 Environmental Setting........................................................................3.9-1 3.9.2 Regulatory Setting..............................................................................3.9-5 3.9.3 Thresholds of Significance.................................................................3.9-6 3.9.4 Project Impacts...................................................................................3.9-6 3.9.5 Cumulative Impacts............................................................................3.9-9 3.9.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions..................................3.9-9 3.9.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation............................................3.9-9 3.9.8 Mitigation Measures.........................................................................3.9-10 Draft EIR Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Section Page ARTIC Draft EIR Page iv of xvi July 19, 2010 3.9.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation............................................3.9-10 3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES..........................................................................3.10-1 3.10.1 Environmental Setting......................................................................3.10-1 3.10.2 Regulatory Setting............................................................................3.10-5 3.10.3 Thresholds of Significance...............................................................3.10-8 3.10.4 Project Impacts.................................................................................3.10-9 3.10.5 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................3.10-12 3.10.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions..............................3.10-12 3.10.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation........................................3.10-12 3.10.8 Mitigation Measures.......................................................................3.10-12 3.10.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation..........................................3.10-14 3.11 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ......................................................................3.11-1 3.11.1 Environmental Setting......................................................................3.11-1 3.11.2 Regulatory Setting............................................................................3.11-3 3.11.3 Thresholds of Significance...............................................................3.11-6 3.11.4 Project Impacts.................................................................................3.11-7 3.11.5 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................3.11-9 3.11.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions................................3.11-9 3.11.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation..........................................3.11-9 3.11.8 Mitigation Measures.........................................................................3.11-9 3.11.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation..........................................3.11-10 3.12 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.............................................................3.12-1 3.12.1 Environmental Setting......................................................................3.12-1 3.12.2 Regulatory Setting............................................................................3.12-7 3.12.3 Thresholds of Significance.............................................................3.12-15 3.12.4 Project Impacts...............................................................................3.12-15 3.12.5 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................3.12-16 3.12.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions..............................3.12-17 3.12.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation........................................3.12-17 3.12.8 Mitigation Measures.......................................................................3.12-17 3.12.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation..........................................3.12-17 4.0 ISSUE AREAS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT .............................................4-1 4.1 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES ...........................................4-1 4.1.1 Cumulative Impacts...............................................................................4-1 4.2 MINERAL RESOURCES..................................................................................4-1 4.2.1 Cumulative Impacts...............................................................................4-2 4.3 RECREATION...................................................................................................4-2 4.3.1 Cumulative Impacts...............................................................................4-2 4.4 PUBLIC SERVICES..........................................................................................4-2 4.4.1 Cumulative Impacts...............................................................................4-3 4.5 POPULATION AND HOUSING......................................................................4-3 4.5.1 Cumulative Impacts...............................................................................4-4 5.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES......................................................................................5-1 Draft EIR Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Section Page ARTIC Draft EIR Page v of xvi July 19, 2010 5.1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................5-1 5.2 METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................5-2 5.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED......................................5-2 5.3.1 Alternative Sites....................................................................................5-2 5.4 DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES ........................5-4 Description.........................................................................................................5-4 Reduced Building Size Alternative..............................................................5-4 No Project Alternative.................................................................................5-5 Proposed Project..........................................................................................5-6 Evaluation...........................................................................................................5-6 Reduced Building Size Alternative..............................................................5-6 No Project Alternative.................................................................................5-9 Proposed Project........................................................................................5-11 5.5 ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY COMPARISON...........................................5-12 5.6 CONCLUSION................................................................................................5-13 5.7 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE.................................5-13 6.0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACT ...............................................................................6-1 7.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED.............................................7-1 8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................8-1 9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY/LITERATURE CITED ................................................................9-1 Draft EIR Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Section Page ARTIC Draft EIR Page vi of xvi July 19, 2010 TABLES Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures..................................................8 Table 2.2-1 Existing (2009) Anaheim Station Service Levels and Daily Boardings......................................................................................................2-15 Table 2.6-1 Estimated Daily Boardings at ARTIC...........................................................2-46 Table 3.2-1 Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections (ICU Methodology).............................................................................................3.2-17 Table 3.2-2 LOS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections (HCM).................................3.2-18 Table 3.2-3 Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections (HCM) ..................3.2-18 Table 3.2-4 Daily Roadway Segment Capacities..........................................................3.2-19 Table 3.2-5 Existing Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary....................................................................................................3.2-20 Table 3.2-6 Existing Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service.................................3.2-21 Table 3.2-7 Caltrans Freeway Mainline and Ramp Level of Service Criteria (HCM)........................................................................................................3.2-24 Table 3.2-8 Caltrans Freeway Weaving Level of Service Criteria (HCM)...................3.2-24 Table 3.2-9 Caltrans Existing Intersection Traffic Conditions......................................3.2-25 Table 3.2-10 Caltrans Existing Merge/Diverge Traffic Conditions................................3.2-25 Table 3.2-11 Existing Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – Weaving Analysis (Caltrans Facilities Analysis)......................................................3.2-26 Table 3.2-12 Significant Impact Criteria.........................................................................3.2-27 Table 3.2-13 ARTIC Traffic Trip Generation Rates and Forecast..................................3.2-30 Table 3.2-14 Existing Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary....................................................................................................3.2-38 Table 3.2-15 Existing Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service Summary................3.2-39 Table 3.2-16 Year 2013 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary ..............3.2-40 Table 3.2-17 Year 2013 Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service Summary.............3.2-43 Table 3.2-18 Year 2013 Roadway Segment Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary....................................................................................................3.2-44 Table 3.2-19 Year 2013 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary (Caltrans Facilities Analysis).....................................................................3.2-47 Table 3.2-20 Year 2013 Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – Merge/Diverge Analysis (Caltrans Facilities Analysis).............................3.2-48 Table 3.2-21 Year 2013 Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – Weaving Analysis (Caltrans Facilities Analysis).......................................3.2-49 Table 3.2-22 Year 2013 Peak Hour Freeway Segment Capacity Analysis Summary (Caltrans Facilities Analysis).....................................................3.2-53 Table 3.2-23 Year 2030 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary ..............3.2-56 Table 3.2-24 Year 2030 Traffic Conditions....................................................................3.2-57 Table 3.2-25 Year 2030 + ARTIC Traffic Conditions....................................................3.2-57 Table 3.2-26 Year 2030 Roadway Segment Daily LOS Summary.................................3.2-59 Table 3.2-27 Year 2030 Roadway Segment Peak Hour LOS Summary.........................3.2-60 Table 3.2-28 Year 2030 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary (Caltrans Facilities Analysis).....................................................................3.2-61 Draft EIR Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Section Page ARTIC Draft EIR Page vii of xvi July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-29 Year 2030 Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – Merge/Diverge Analysis (Caltrans Facilities Analysis).............................3.2-63 Table 3.2-30 Year 2030 Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – Weaving Analysis (Caltrans Facilities Analysis).......................................3.2-65 Table 3.2-31 Year 2030 Peak Hour Freeway Segment Capacity Analysis Summary (Caltrans Facilities Analysis).....................................................3.2-68 Table 3.2-32 Existing +ARTIC Peak Hour CMP Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary....................................................................................................3.2-70 Table 3.2-33 Existing +ARTIC CMP Roadway Segment Daily LOS Summary............3.2-71 Table 3.2-34 Year 2013 Peak Hour CMP Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary....................................................................................................3.2-72 Table 3.2-35 Year 2013 CMP Roadway Segment Daily LOS Summary........................3.2-72 Table 3.2-36 Year 2030 Peak Hour CMP Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary....................................................................................................3.2-73 Table 3.2-37 Year 2030 CMP Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service Summary....................................................................................................3.2-74 Table 3.2-38 Year 2030 CMP Roadway Segment Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary....................................................................................................3.2-75 Table 3.2-39 Year 2013 With Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis, Improvements And Project Related Fair-Share Percentage Summary....................................................................................................3.2-80 Table 3.2-40 Year 2030 + ARTIC Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis, Improvements And Project Related Fair-Share Percentage Summary....................................................................................................3.2-83 Table 3.3-1 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards.............................3.3-4 Table 3.3-2 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds.............................................................3.3-7 Table 3.3-3 CEQA Ambient Air Quality Thresholds for Criteria Pollutants..................3.3-7 Table 3.3-4 Total ARTIC Construction Emissions from All Stages – Unmitigated................................................................................................3.3-10 Table 3.3-5 Operational Daily Emissions......................................................................3.3-10 Table 3.3-6 Maximum CO Impacts from Traffic at the Katella Avenue and Douglass Road Intersection .......................................................................3.3-15 Table 3.3-7 ARTIC Construction Daily Emissions with NOx Mitigation Measures....................................................................................................3.3-18 Table 3.4-1 Typical Range of Ldn in Populated Areas.....................................................3.4-3 Table 3.4-2 Existing Project Area Cumulative CNEL Values......................................3.4-11 Table 3.4-3 Existing Traffic Noise Levels....................................................................3.4-12 Table 3.4-4 Ayres Hotel Interior and Exterior Sound Levels........................................3.4-12 Table 3.4-5 Typical Construction Equipment Noise.....................................................3.4-18 Table 3.4-6 City of Orange Municipal Code Residential Noise Levels........................3.4-20 Table 3.4-7 2013 Traffic Noise Levels..........................................................................3.4-21 Table 3.4-8 Ayres Hotel Interior and Exterior Sound Levels for 2013.........................3.4-22 Table 3.4-9 2013 With Project Noise Levels ................................................................3.4-23 Draft EIR Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Section Page ARTIC Draft EIR Page viii of xvi July 19, 2010 Table 3.4-10 2030 Traffic Noise Levels..........................................................................3.4-25 Table 3.4-11 2030 With Project Noise Levels ................................................................3.4-26 Table 3.4-12 Ayres Hotel Interior and Exterior Sound Levels for Cumulative Impacts.......................................................................................................3.4-26 Table 3.5-1 Summary of Closest Mapped Faults............................................................3.5-3 Table 3.8-1 Surface Water Beneficial Uses within the Project Area ..............................3.8-4 Table 3.8-2 Groundwater Beneficial Uses within the Project Area ................................3.8-5 Table 3.12-1 Comparison of Worldwide GHG Emissions..............................................3.12-2 Table 3.12-2 AB 32 Scoping Plan Recommended Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures..................................................................................................3.12-12 Table 3.12-3 ARTIC Project Operational Daily Emissions..........................................3.12-16 Table 5.5-1 Comparison of Alternatives..........................................................................5-12 FIGURES Figure ES-1 Vicinity Map.................................................................................................ES-2 Figure ES-2 Project Limits................................................................................................ES-3 Figure 2.2-1 Architectural Rendering of ARTIC.................................................................2-9 Figure 2.2-2 Regional and Vicinity Map...........................................................................2-11 Figure 2.2-3 Project Limits................................................................................................2-13 Figure 2.4-1 City of Anaheim and OCTA Jurisdiction......................................................2-25 Figure 2.4-2 ARTIC East and West Elevations.................................................................2-27 Figure 2.4-3 ARTIC North and South Elevations .............................................................2-29 Figure 2.4-4 Overall Platform............................................................................................2-33 Figure 2.4-5 ARTIC Site Plan ...........................................................................................2-37 Figure 3.1-1 Land Use within the Platinum Triangle.......................................................3.1-3 Figure 3.1-2 FIRM Map....................................................................................................3.1-5 Figure 3.1-3 Landscape Concept Plan............................................................................3.1-15 Figure 3.1-4 Cross Section of Katella Avenue Landscape Concept Plan.......................3.1-17 Figure 3.1-5 Cross Section of Douglass Road North of Katella Ave Landscape Concept Plan..............................................................................................3.1-19 Figure 3.1-6 Cross Section of Amtrak/Metrolink Right-of-Way Landscape Concept Plan..............................................................................................3.1-21 Figure 3.2-1 Existing Roadways.......................................................................................3.2-5 Figure 3.2-2 Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...................................................3.2-9 Figure 3.2-3 Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes..................................................3.2-11 Figure 3.2-4 Existing Daily Traffic Volumes.................................................................3.2-13 Figure 3.2-5 Existing Trip Distribution..........................................................................3.2-33 Figure 3.2-6 Proposed ARTIC Trip Distribution............................................................3.2-35 Figure 3.4-1 Sensitive Receivers......................................................................................3.4-5 Figure 3.4-2 Field Measurement Locations......................................................................3.4-7 Figure 3.4-3 Summary of Long Term Monitoring............................................................3.4-9 Figure 3.4-4 Noise Impact Criteria for Transit Projects.................................................3.4-15 Figure 3.5-1 Geological Soils Map of ARTIC..................................................................3.5-3 Figure 3.5-2 Regional Fault Map......................................................................................3.5-4 Draft EIR Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Section Page ARTIC Draft EIR Page ix of xvi July 19, 2010 Figure 3.5-3 Liquefaction Potential Map..........................................................................3.5-8 Figure 3.7-1 Sites of Potential Environmental Concern...................................................3.7-3 Figure 3.9-1 View of ARTIC Facing South......................................................................3.9-3 Draft EIR Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Section Page ARTIC Draft EIR Page x of xvi July 19, 2010 APPENDICES (on CD) Appendix A – Notice of Preparation and Scoping Comments Appendix B – Traffic Impact Analysis Appendix C – Air Quality Impact Assessment Appendix D – Noise Impact Assessment Appendix E – Archaeological Resources Survey Report Appendix F – Biological Resources Technical Report Appendix G – ARTIC Draft Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Appendix H – ARTIC Limited Preliminary Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Appendix I – Geotechnical Feasibility Study Draft EIR Acronyms and Abbreviations ARTIC Draft EIR Page xi of xvi July 19, 2010 ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS AB Assembly Bill ADA Americans With Disabilities Act ADT Average Daily Traffic AG Attorney General AGR Agricultural Supply ALUC Airport Land Use Commission A-PA Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act AREMA American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association ARTIC Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center ATAM Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model AQMP Air Quality Management Plan B.C.E Before Common Era BFE Base Flood Elevations BMP Best Management Practice BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe BRT Bus Rapid Transit CAA Clean Air Act CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards Caltrans California Department of Transportation CARB California Air Resources Board CASQA California Stormwater Quality Association CBC California Building Code CBSC California Building Standards Commission CCAR Cal Climate Action Registry CCR California Code of Regulations CD Compact Disk CDC California Department of Conservation CDMG California Division of Mines and Geology CDFFP California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CDFG California Department of Fish and Game C.E. Common Era CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System CESA California Endangered Species Act CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFD Community Facilities District CFR Code of Federal Regulations CGP Construction General Permit CGS California Geologic Survey CH4 Methane CHSRA California High-Speed Rail Authority City City of Anaheim CIWMP Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan CMP Congestion Management Program Draft EIR Acronyms and Abbreviations ARTIC Draft EIR Page xii of xvi July 19, 2010 CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CNPS California Native Plant Society CNRA California Natural Resources Agency CNSST California-Nevada Super Speed Train CO Carbon Monoxide CO2 Carbon Dioxide CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent COG Council of Governments CRHR California Register of Historical Resources CUP Conditional Use Permit CWA Clean Water Act dB Decibel dBA A-weighting Sound Level EIR Environmental Impact Report EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPCRA Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know Act ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration GHG Greenhouse Gases GWRS Groundwater Replenishment System HCM Highway Capacity Manual HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HWCP Hazardous Waste Control Program IBC International Building Code ICBO International Conference of Building Officials ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change I-5 Interstate-5 km Kilometer kW Kilowatt LAWA Los Angeles World Airport lb/day Pounds Per Day Leq Equivalent Sound Level Leq (h) Hourly Equivalent Sound Level Ldn Day-Night Sound Level LOS Level of Service LOSSAN Los Angeles to San Diego Passenger Rail Corridor Draft EIR Acronyms and Abbreviations ARTIC Draft EIR Page xiii of xvi July 19, 2010 MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act mgd Million Gallons Per Day MLD Most Likely Descendent MMT Million Metric Tons MMTCO2e Million Metric Tons, Carbon Dioxide Equivalent mph Miles Per Hour MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MSEP Metrolink Service Expansion Program MT/yr Metric Tons Per Year MVA Megavolt Ampere MWD Metropolitan Water District NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NMFS National Marine Fisheries Services NNL National Natural Landmarks NOI Notice of Intent NOP Notice of Preparation NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide NOx Nitrogen Oxides NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPL National Priorities List NRHP National Register of Historic Places NSPS New Source Performance Standards O3 Ozone OCPW Orange County Department of Public Works OCFCD Orange County Flood Control District OCSD Orange County Sanitation District OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority OCTAM Orange County Transportation Analysis Model OCWD Orange County Water District OPR Office of Planning & Research Pb Lead pc/mi/ln Passenger cars per mile per lane PCBs Polychlorinated Byphenyls PM Particulate Matter PPM Parts Per Million PPMV Parts Per Million by Volume PR Public Recreation PRC Public Resources Code PTMU Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Draft EIR Acronyms and Abbreviations ARTIC Draft EIR Page xiv of xvi July 19, 2010 PUC Public Utilities Code PUD Public Utilities Department RCEM Road Construction Emissions Model RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ROG Reactive Organic Gases ROW Right-of-Way RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Program RTP Regional Transportation Plan RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SARWQCB Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board SB Senate Bill SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCE Southern California Edison SCG Southern California Gas Company SCRRA Southern California Regional Rail Authority SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area SFM California State Fire Marshal SIP State Implementation Plan SO2 Sulfur Dioxide SOx Sulfur Oxides SP Semi-Public SR State Route s/v Seconds per Vehicle (Control Delay) SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TAC Toxic Air Contaminant ug/m3 Micrograms per Cubic Meter URBEMIS Urban Emissions Model US United States USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USC United States Code USDOT United States Department of Transportation USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS United States Fish & Wildlife Service UWMP Urban Water Management Plan Draft EIR Acronyms and Abbreviations ARTIC Draft EIR Page xv of xvi July 19, 2010 V/C Volume to Capacity VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled VOC Volatile Organic Compounds VPD Vehicles per Day VPH Vehicles per Hour WSA Water Supply Assessment WQMP Water Quality Management Plan  Phase Draft EIR Acronyms and Abbreviations ARTIC Draft EIR Page xvi of xvi July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Draft EIR Executive Summary ARTIC Draft EIR ES-1 July 19, 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Executive Summary identifies the type of document, the proposed project including location, the purpose of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and summary of impacts and mitigation for the proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) Project. The summary of impacts and mitigation is an overview of mitigation proposed for ARTIC and is not the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan. Document Identification This EIR is intended to serve as a public disclosure document which will inform the Lead Agency, responsible agencies, decision makers, and the general public of the environmental effects anticipated with the adoption and implementation of ARTIC. It depicts the project alternatives (including the No Project Alternative), documents the project’s potential environmental effects pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and proposes mitigation measures, as applicable. This EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 3 §15000 et seq.). Per Public Resource Code (PRC) §21067 of the CEQA Statute and 14 CCR §15367 and §§15050 through 15053 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Anaheim (the City) is the “Lead Agency.” The Lead Agency is “the public agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a whole.” As the Lead Agency, the City has the authority to adopt ARTIC and implement appropriate mitigation measures, as required, to reduce significant impacts. In addition to this EIR, an Environmental Assessment is being prepared for ARTIC as a separate document. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is the lead agency for the Environmental Assessment, prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and FTA guidelines. Proposed Project The City, in partnership with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), is proposing to relocate the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station that is south of Katella Avenue and adjacent to The Grove of Anaheim (Figure ES-1 and Figure ES-2). The new location will be approximately one quarter (0.25) mile east along the existing OCTA railroad right-of-way (ROW). The OCTA railroad ROW is part of the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) Corridor. The total project site is approximately 19 acres, comprised of 16 acres for the facilities, two acres of OCTA and City roads and ROW, and less than one acre of Caltrans ROW. Approximately 18 of the 19 total acres are owned by OCTA and the City. The 405 parking spaces at the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station are not a part of the project construction site as no improvements are anticipated but will continue to be utilized as parking for the project. ARTIC is envisioned to include the development of an Intermodal Terminal, Public Plaza/Drop Off Area, the Stadium Pavilion, the Tracks/Platforms, Douglass Road Improvements, and Surface Parking/Access. In addition to surface access points, a pedestrian bridge is envisioned to be constructed over Katella Avenue connecting the project site and the Honda Center, and a trail Draft EIR Executive Summary ARTIC Draft EIR ES-2 July 19, 2010 easement, adjacent to the Santa Ana River Trail, is envisioned along the east side of ARTIC between the railroad ROW and Katella Avenue. Cl)ci,00.512MilesTheE,to,m.to.,wcludedonIN:g,apflic,ep,ent.bonh.beenoo.np,I.dftnmaaanetyof:ov,ce:snd,00t,eottoohangee,jthoutn000e.Xlelnfeid.,n,.k.a,,o,ep,e,entflonoorimpted.attO.000,koy,onarpleter,ean.Onralinen:.o,right:totheofouch,fo,r,redonThradocument,:notintendedtotu:eaalandvuroenp,Oduotno’:,,tde:.de,ntend.ds:aoon:nucdonde&gndooumentThavan:,ofthe.rfon,rat,onoont.,ned0tt’,:graphorepre:entabon,satthe.olentkotthep’tnuvn9O,mJ:utheflfonn.tionLincolncc’a)acW4a37i—cc.--.03a)-/\______________Cl)—>a)Cl)UI1ARTICKatellaChaprr?an________________--\\AnaheimDisneyConventinCDCl)Cl)zxCollinsChapmanGardenGroverdccnGroveOrangea)•\_____a/_/______LaVeta10Cl)ICCl)-oSantaAnaCCl)DI—\nPACIFIC-OCEAN>_NCALIFORNIADETML-.-REGIONALAND‘-llEI4jPROJECTNO.109528FIGUREDRAWN:7/14/10VICINITYMAPDRAWNBY:JP•%\CHECKEDBY:CCENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORTES—I(KLEINFELDERCITYOFANAHEIMFILENAME:ARTICBrightPeoplahRrghtSov,t:ar,aoonw.kleintelder.000r109528vic.mxdANAHEIM,CALIFORNIA Draft EIR Executive Summary ARTIC Draft EIR ES-7 July 19, 2010 Purpose of an Environmental Impact Report The purpose of an EIR is to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with a project. CEQA states that the purpose of an EIR is to: (1) inform the public and decision makers of the potential environmental impacts of a project; (2) identify methods that could reduce the magnitude of potentially significant impacts of a project; and (3) identify alternatives that could reduce the magnitude of potentially significant impacts or propose more effective use of the project site. The principal use of this EIR is to evaluate and disclose potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of ARTIC. An EIR is an informational document and is not intended to determine the merits or recommend approval or disapproval of a project. Ultimately, the City must weigh the environmental effects of a project among other considerations, including planning, economic, and social concerns. The standards of adequacy of an EIR, defined by §15151 of the CEQA Guidelines, are as follows: “An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient level of analysis to provide decision- makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effect of the proposed project need not be exhaustive, but sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have not looked for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and good faith effort at full disclosure.” This EIR is comprised of 9 chapters and appendices: Chapter 1.0 – Introduction Chapter 2.0 – Project Description Chapter 3.0 – Environmental Analysis Chapter 4.0 – Issue Areas Found Not To Be Significant Chapter 5.0 – Project Alternatives Chapter 6.0 – Growth Inducing Impacts Chapter 7.0 – Organizations and Agencies Consulted Chapter 8.0 – List of Preparers Chapter 9.0 – Bibliography/Literature Cited Appendices Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures A detailed discussion of existing environmental conditions, environmental impacts, and recommended mitigation measures is included in Chapter 3.0. Table ES-1 summarizes the environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation associated with ARTIC. Draft EIR Executive Summary ARTIC Draft EIR ES-8 July 19, 2010 Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation Land Use and Planning Implementation of the project will not result in any significant impacts to land use and planning. No Impact ARTIC will have no impact on land use. No mitigation measures are required for this issue area. No Impact Transportation and Traffic Implementation of the project will create an unacceptable LOS in certain areas, which will be in conflict with applicable plans, ordinances, policies, and a congestion management program. Potentially significant • TT-1: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City shall transmit the project’s applicable traffic impact fee into the City’s Traffic Impact Fee Account and pay for the Project’s fair share of City improvements related to ARTIC. City shall ensure that such improvements will be constructed pursuant to the fee program at that point in time necessary to avoid identified significant impacts on traffic. • TT-2: City shall participate in a multi-jurisdictional effort with Caltrans to develop a study to identify fair share contribution funding sources attributable to and paid from private and public development to supplement other regional and state funding sources necessary to implement feasible traffic improvements to State Facilities as identified in this EIR. The study shall include fair share contributions related to private and/or public development based on nexus requirements contained in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code section 66000, et seq.) and 14 CCR. section 15126.4(a)(4) and, to this end, the study shall recognize the state wide and regional contributions to impact State Facilities that are not attributable to local development such that local private and public development are not paying in excess of such developments’ fair share obligations. The fee study Less than significant Draft EIR Executive Summary ARTIC Draft EIR ES-9 July 19, 2010 Environmental Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation shall be compliant with Government Code section 66001(g) and any other applicable provisions of law. The study shall set forth a timeline and other agreed-upon relevant criteria for the implementation of the recommendations contained within the study to the extent Caltrans and other agencies agree to participate in the fee study program. • TT-3: This EIR has concluded that a number of identified State Facilities will operate at deficient levels of service with the Project at the 2013 and 2030 timelines. The Project’s contributions to traffic in these facilities will contribute to cumulative congestion on these identified State Facilities. Various improvements to these facilities have been identified in Table 3.2- 40 above that would mitigate the Project’s impacts to less than significant levels. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit the City shall transfer the agreed to amount into the City’s Traffic Impact Fee Account and hold the amount in trust and apply such amount following the implementation of any traffic fee program. • TT-4. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. • TT-5. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. This improvement is funded by Measure M and is estimated to be completed by Year 2015. • TT-6. SR-57 Southbound between Draft EIR Executive Summary ARTIC Draft EIR ES-10 July 19, 2010 Environmental Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. • TT-7. SR-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR- 57 Northbound freeway. This improvement is funded by Measure M and is estimated to be completed by Year 2015. • TT-8. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR- 57 Southbound freeway. • TT-9. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 5th westbound through lane. Modify existing traffic signal. • TT-10. Douglass Road at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Douglass Road to provide two left turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right turn lane in both the northbound and southbound directions. Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 4th westbound through lane. Modify existing traffic signal. • TT-11. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue to Anaheim Way: Widen Katella Avenue from six (6) to eight (8) lanes between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way. It should be noted that this improvement has been determined to be feasible through the Platinum Triangle Implementation Plan. • TT-12. Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to construct a pedestrian refuge island on the west leg of intersection with Draft EIR Executive Summary ARTIC Draft EIR ES-11 July 19, 2010 Environmental Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation pedestrian buttons. Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 4th westbound through lane. Modify the existing traffic signal and install eastbound right- turn overlap phase on Katella Avenue. • TT-13. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 5th westbound through lane. Modify existing traffic signal. • TT-14. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On- Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. • TT-15. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On- Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. • TT-16. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. • TT-17. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR- 57 Southbound freeway Air Quality Implementation of the project will violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Potentially significant • AQ-1: Excavation of the soil for the Intermodal Terminal shall precede excavation of Douglass Road under the bridge, and both activities shall occur in sequence. The sequencing of grading/excavation activities shall be noted on the grading plans submitted to the Anaheim Public Works Department for review and approval and in the contractor’s specifications. Less than significant Draft EIR Executive Summary ARTIC Draft EIR ES-12 July 19, 2010 Environmental Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation • AQ-2: Exporting of soil during the excavation stage of the project shall be limited to 25 on-road truck trips per day during excavation and grading. An export plan showing quantities and identified haul route shall be shown on grading plans submitted to the Anaheim Public Works Department for review and approval and in the contractor’s specifications. • AQ-3: Road widening and sidewalk improvement projects shall occur following the completion of the excavating activities. Street improvement plans submitted to the Anaheim Public Works Department for review and approval shall indicate sequencing of the street improvements. • AQ-4: Construction off-road equipment with engines greater than or equal to 150 brake horsepower shall meet or exceed USEPA Tier 2 engine standards and shall be required to have diesel oxidation catalysts installed that meet or exceed 20 percent reduction in NOx. A complete list of construction equipment to be used at the project site shall be submitted to the contractor to confirm compliance with United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Tier 2 standards. • AQ-5: Diesel or gasoline power generators shall be limited to less than two hours of use per day. This restriction shall be clearly noted on the grading/excavation and building plans submitted to the Anaheim Public Works Department and Building Division for review and approval. This information shall also be included in the contractor’s specifications. Draft EIR Executive Summary ARTIC Draft EIR ES-13 July 19, 2010 Environmental Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation Noise Implementation of the project may result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Potentially significant • N-1: Noise generated by construction shall be limited to 60 dBA along Douglass Road, Katella Avenue, and the tracks before 7 AM and after 7 PM, as governed by Chapter 6.70, Sound Pressure Levels, of the Anaheim Municipal Code. If 60 dBA is exceeded during these hours, noise attenuation features (i.e. temporary noise barriers, sound curtains, etc.) shall be installed to reduce noise levels to below 60 dBA at the exterior of the affected building. These noise attenuation features may be removed if a qualified noise specialist determines that noise levels are not significantly impacted by nighttime construction; • N-2: When excessive noise during construction is anticipated before 7 AM and after 7 PM the contractor shall request an exception to the requirements of Chapter 6.70 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. The request shall be submitted in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter 6.70 and shall include a construction schedule and a list of equipment to be used during that time frame. This information shall be provided to the Director of Public Works or Chief Building Official for consideration; and • N-3: Construction equipment and supplies shall be located in staging areas that shall create the greatest distance possible between construction-related noise sources and noise sensitive receivers nearest the project area. This information shall be specified on all grading, excavation and construction plans. Less than significant Draft EIR Executive Summary ARTIC Draft EIR ES-14 July 19, 2010 Environmental Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation Geology and Soils Implementation of the project will not result in any significant impacts to geology and soils. No Impact ARTIC will have a less than significant impact associated with geology and soils. No mitigation measures are required for this issue area. No Impact Utilities and Service Systems Implementation of the project will not result in any significant impacts to utilities and service systems. No Impact ARTIC will have a less than significant impact associated with utilities and service systems. No mitigation measures are required for this issue area. No Impact Hazards and Hazardous Materials Implementation of the project will locate the project on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, will create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Potentially significant • HHM-1: In areas that have been identified as potential soil contaminated (see Figure 3.7 1), appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of excavated soil. Contaminated soil will be properly disposed at an off-site facility. Less than significant Hydrology and Water Quality Implementation of the project will not result in any significant impacts to hydrology and water quality. No Impact ARTIC will have a less than significant impact on hydrology and water quality. No mitigation measures are required for this issue area. No Impact Aesthetics Implementation of the project will not result in any significant impacts to aesthetic resources. No Impact ARTIC will have a less than significant impact on aesthetics. No mitigation measures are required for this issue area. No Impact Cultural Resources Implementation of the project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and/or identified on the Qualified Historic Structures list of the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan (July 20, 1999) Implementation of the project Potentially significant • CR-1: A letter shall be submitted by the contractor to the Public Works/Engineering Department, Development Division, and the Planning Department, Planning Division, identifying the certified archaeologist that has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented: a) The archaeologist shall be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting Less than significant Draft EIR Executive Summary ARTIC Draft EIR ES-15 July 19, 2010 Environmental Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation has the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Implementation of the project has the potential to disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of artifacts if potentially significant artifacts are uncovered. If artifacts are uncovered and determined to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the City for exploration and/or salvage; b) Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process shall be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution; c) Any archaeological work at ARTIC shall be conducted under the direction of the certified archaeologist. If any artifacts are discovered during grading operations when the archaeological observer is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the observer can survey the area; and d) A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted to the City Engineer. Upon completion of the grading, the archaeologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted. • CR-2: A letter shall be submitted by the contractor to the Public Works/Engineering Department, Development Division, and the Planning Department, Planning Division, identifying the certified paleontologist that has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented: a) The paleontologist shall be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures to temporarily halt or redirect work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of fossils if potentially significant paleontological observer shall Draft EIR Executive Summary ARTIC Draft EIR ES-16 July 19, 2010 Environmental Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner/developer for exploration and/or salvage; b) Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process shall be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution; c) Any paleontological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified paleontologist. If any fossils are discovered during grading operations when the paleontological observer is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area; and d) A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted. Upon the completion of the grading, the paleontologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted. • CR-3: In the unlikely event of the accidental discovery of human remains during project construction, the procedures outlined in §15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, §7050.5(b) and (c) of the State Health and Safety Code, and §5097.94(k) and (i) of the PRC shall be strictly followed. These procedures specify that, upon discovery, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains can occur. The county coroner shall be contacted to determine if the remains are Native American. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC shall identify the Most Likely Draft EIR Executive Summary ARTIC Draft EIR ES-17 July 19, 2010 Environmental Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation Descendent (MLD). The MLD shall make recommendations for the appropriate treatment and disposition of the remains and any associated grave goods in accordance with PRC §5097.98. Biological Resources Implementation of the project has the potential to have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, or any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Potentially significant • BR-1: No more than one week prior to demolition and vegetation clearing, a qualified biologist shall conduct a breeding and nesting bird survey within ARTIC construction footprint and within a 500-foot buffer around the site. The purpose of the survey is to ensure that no active nests are located within or adjacent to the project area. Nesting season for raptors begins February 15 and the traditional breeding season for native and migratory birds begins March 15. If clearing starts after October and before the nesting season, there is no need for nesting bird surveys. If an active nest is detected, a suitable buffer around the nest shall be established dependent on the type of species detected and location of the nest as determined by a qualified biologist and in accordance with the requirements of the CDFG Code. The nest avoidance area shall be flagged and shall be avoided until after the young have fledged and the nest is no longer in use. Documentation showing that this mitigation measure has been completed shall be sent to the City by the contractor. This documentation shall include a description of the survey results and whether any subsequent actions were required prior to commencement of demolition and vegetation clearing. The CDFG may authorize the relocation of the nest Less than significant Draft EIR Executive Summary ARTIC Draft EIR ES-18 July 19, 2010 Environmental Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation but consultation is required to ensure that no direct or indirect impacts result from this action and compliance with the MBTA and CDFG Codes. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Implementation of the project will not result in any significant impacts to greenhouse gas emissions. No Impact ARTIC will not have a significant impact on GHG. No mitigation measures are required for this issue area. No Impact Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction ARTIC Draft EIR 1-1 July 19, 2010 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is to serve as a public disclosure document that informs the Lead Agency, responsible agencies, decision makers, and the general public of the environmental effects anticipated with the approval and implementation of the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC). This EIR depicts the project alternatives (including the No Project Alternative), documents the project’s potential environmental effects pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and proposes mitigation measures, as applicable. This EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] §15000 et seq.). Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) § 21067 of CEQA and 14 CCR §§15367 and §§15050 through 15053 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Anaheim (City) is identified as the Lead Agency. The Lead Agency is “the public agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a whole.” The City, as the Lead Agency, has the authority to approve ARTIC and implement appropriate mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts. ARTIC is located in the City’s municipal boundaries, and the City has land use approval authority over ARTIC. The City, in partnership with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), is proposing to relocate the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station that is located south of Katella Avenue and adjacent to The Grove of Anaheim. The new location will be approximately one quarter (0.25) mile east along the existing OCTA railroad right-of-way (ROW). The OCTA railroad ROW is part of the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) Corridor. The total project site is approximately 19 acres, comprised of 16 acres for the facilities, two acres of OCTA and City roads and ROW, and less than one acre of Caltrans ROW. Approximately 18 of the 19 total acres are owned by OCTA and the City. The 405 parking spaces at the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station are not a part of the project construction site as no improvements are anticipated but will continue to be utilized as parking for the project. ARTIC includes improvements to Douglass Road and Katella Avenue, and the development of an Intermodal Terminal, Public Plaza/Drop Off Area, the Stadium Pavilion, the Tracks/Platforms, Douglass Road Improvements, Katella Avenue improvements, and Surface Parking/Access. In addition to the surface access points, improvements envisioned for ARTIC include a pedestrian bridge to be constructed over Katella Avenue connecting the project site and the Honda Center, and a trail easement, adjacent to the Santa Ana River Trail along the east side of ARTIC between the railroad ROW and Katella Avenue. The ARTIC Intermodal Terminal is envisioned to include space up to 310,000 square feet, Platforms up to 86,000 square feet, and a Stadium Pavilion up to 12,000 square feet. For the purpose of the EIR these are the maximum sizes and the impacts are the “worst case”. The construction analysis is based on the worst case scenario of a 26-month construction period. The size and timing of construction will depend on available funding. Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction ARTIC Draft EIR 1-2 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of this Environmental Impact Report ARTIC Draft EIR 1-3 July 19, 2010 1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The purpose of this EIR is to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with a project. CEQA states the purpose of an EIR is to: (1) Inform the public and decision-makers of the potential environmental impacts of a project; (2) Identify methods that could reduce the magnitude of potentially significant impacts of a project; and (3) Identify alternatives that could reduce the magnitude of potentially significant impacts or propose more effective use of the project site. EIR Adequacy The principal use of this EIR is to evaluate and disclose potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. An EIR is an informational document and is not intended to determine the merits or recommend approval or disapproval of a project. Ultimately, the City decision-makers must weigh the environmental effects of a project among other considerations, including planning, economic, and social concerns. The standards of adequacy of an EIR, defined by §15151 of the CEQA Guidelines, are as follows: “An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient level of analysis to provide decision- makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effect of the proposed project need not be exhaustive, but sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have not looked for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and good faith effort at full disclosure.” The City, acting as the CEQA Lead Agency, has a duty pursuant to CEQA guidelines to neither approve nor carry out a project as proposed unless the significant environmental effects have been reduced to an acceptable level, where possible (CEQA Guidelines §15091 and §15092). An acceptable level is defined as eliminating, avoiding, or substantially lessening the significant effects (impacts) resulting from a project. If such a reduction is not possible, a lead agency must adopt Findings of Fact and prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations. As defined in CEQA Guidelines §15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations balances the benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental consequences. Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of this Environmental Impact Report ARTIC Draft EIR 1-4 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction 1.2 CEQA EIR Process ARTIC Draft EIR 1-5 July 19, 2010 1.2 CEQA EIR PROCESS The EIR process for ARTIC was initiated on February 10, 2010 with the posting of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) (sent February 4, 2010) with the State Clearinghouse (Appendix A). A public scoping meeting was conducted on February 24, 2010 at the Anaheim West Tower, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard in the City. The intent of this meeting was to receive input on the issues to be addressed in the Draft EIR. The meeting format included tables and displays arranged by topical issues for planning and environmental, supported by maps of the project study area. Project staff members and resource specialists were available to answer questions. There were approximately forty members of the public that attended the scoping meeting. Public participants were invited to fill out comment cards expressing their concerns. Eleven written comments were received during the meeting. Written comments were also received from four agencies (City of Orange - Department of Community Development, Orange County Department of Public Works, Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), and Caltrans District 12). The issues identified by the public and agencies include:  Air quality;  Noise;  Traffic;  Aesthetics;  Cumulative Impacts;  Water Quality/Flood Control/Santa Ana River;  Santa Ana River Trail; and  Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and State Bill (SB) 375. A scoping summary and comment letters that were received during the scoping period are presented in Appendix A. Specific concerns are also identified and addressed. Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction 1.2 CEQA EIR Process ARTIC Draft EIR 1-6 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction 1.3 Draft EIR Review Process ARTIC Draft EIR 1-7 July 19, 2010 1.3 DRAFT EIR REVIEW PROCESS In accordance with §21091 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR will be available for public review and comment for a 45-day period. During the public review period interested individuals, organizations, and agencies can provide written comments. All comments should be addressed to: Jamie Lai, P.E. Project Manager Department of Public Works Transit Planning Division 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 276 Anaheim, California 92805 Fax Number: (714) 765-5225 The Draft EIR will be available for review at the following locations: • Anaheim City Hall, Public Works, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., 2nd Floor, Anaheim, CA 92805 • Sunkist Public Library, 901 S. Sunkist, Anaheim, CA 92806 • Planning Department website: www.anaheim.net/planning • ARTIC website: www.articinfo.com The City will receive written public input on the EIR during the public comment period which extends from July 19, 2010 to September 3, 2010. Due to the time limits mandated by state law, your comment must be sent to the City at the earliest possible date, but no later than September 3, 2010. An agency response to this EIR should include the name of a contact person within the commenting agency. Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction 1.3 Draft EIR Review Process ARTIC Draft EIR 1-8 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction 1.4 Organization of this EIR ARTIC Draft EIR 1-9 July 19, 2010 1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THIS EIR The content and format of this EIR are designed to meet the current requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. Chapter 1.0 – Introduction: This chapter describes the purpose and organization of the EIR and its preparation, review, certification, and permitting process. Chapter 2.0 – Project Description: This chapter provides a description of the regional and local environmental setting, project background, project objectives, and project specific details. Chapter 3.0 – Environmental Analysis: This chapter provides a description of the environmental setting, regulatory compliance, significance criteria, potentially adverse environmental impacts for each environmental resource area, and mitigation measures, as required. Chapter 4.0 – Issue Areas Found Not To Be Significant: This chapter discusses resource areas that were found not to be significant, such as agriculture and mineral resources. Chapter 5.0 – Project Alternatives: This chapter describes alternatives considered and compares the relative impacts to those of ARTIC, and provides a brief description of alternatives considered. Chapter 6.0 – Growth Inducing Impacts: This chapter describes potential significant irreversible environmental changes that will be caused by ARTIC; and addresses how implementation of ARTIC will foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly upon the surrounding environment. Chapter 7.0 – Organizations and Agencies Consulted: This chapter identifies individuals, organizations, and agencies contacted in regards to ARTIC. Chapter 8.0 – List of Preparers: This chapter identifies firms and individuals responsible for the content of this EIR. Chapter 9.0 – Bibliography/Literature Cited: This chapter provides the list of references cited. Appendices: The appendices present data that support the analysis or contents of this EIR. All technical studies are provided electronically on a compact disk (CD) contained within this document. Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction 1.4 Organization of this EIR ARTIC Draft EIR 1-10 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction 1.5 Project Background ARTIC Draft EIR 1-11 July 19, 2010 1.5 PROJECT BACKGROUND The following provides project background including a brief outline of responsibilities and relationships between the City and OCTA. City of Anaheim Located in the northeastern portion of the County of Orange, the City and its sphere of influence lie approximately 35 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles and 7 miles north of Santa Ana. The City is surrounded by the Cities of Fullerton, Placentia, and Yorba Linda to the north; Riverside County to the east; the Cities of Garden Grove, Stanton, and unincorporated County of Orange to the south; the Cities of Cypress and Buena Park to the west; and the City of Orange to the south and east. The City encompasses over 32,000 acres of land stretching nearly 20 miles along Riverside Freeway (State Route [SR]-91). Another 2,431 acres of unincorporated land is included within its Sphere-of-Influence. In addition to SR-91, regional access to and from Anaheim is provided by Santa Ana Freeway (I-5), Orange Freeway (SR-57), Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55), SR-241, and Amtrak and Metrolink passenger train services at the Angel Stadium of Anaheim (herein referred to as “Angel Stadium”) and Anaheim Canyon Stations. Anaheim is currently home to over 328,000 people, approximately 16,000 businesses, and over 4,600 acres of parks and open space. The City encompasses approximately 50 square miles, and generally forms an elongated, irregular shaped area, extending approximately 16 miles east to west. The City developed a Transit Master Plan in December 2007 to meet current and future mobility needs. The plan is the culmination of a year-long study effort which began January 2007. The planning process took into consideration how current commuters, including residents, employees, and visitors travel, while simultaneously exploring new modes of transportation that will enhance the ability to get to places safely and efficiently. The study effort was undertaken in partnership with the cities of Orange and Villa Park, as these two cities were concurrently developing transit concepts to provide service for their residents and workers to the Metrolink system. As commuters in all three cities use stations in both Anaheim and Orange to access multiple activity centers, a comprehensive approach was required in order to arrive at a vision of transit service that would be supported by Anaheim, Orange and Villa Park. The Anaheim Transit Master Plan lays out a plan that helps guide the development of transit projects for the next 25 years. In the short term, the plan recommends a transit system to extend the reach of what will soon be a frequent, all-day Metrolink train service throughout the County of Orange. A major objective is to define feeder routes to improve connectivity to Anaheim’s two Metrolink stations – at ARTIC, and the Anaheim Canyon station (currently located at Tustin and La Palma Avenues). Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction 1.5 Project Background ARTIC Draft EIR 1-12 July 19, 2010 Orange County Transportation Authority OCTA is a multi-modal transportation agency that began in 1991 with the consolidation of seven separate agencies. OCTA is governed by an 18-member Board of Directors consisting of 5 county supervisors, 10 city members, 2 public members, and the Director of Caltrans District 12 as a non-voting member. OCTA serves the County of Orange residents and travelers by providing countywide bus and paratransit service, Metrolink rail service, the 91 Express Lanes, freeway, street and road improvement projects, motorist aid services and by regulating taxi operations. OCTA administers Measure M, a package of transportation improvements promised to voters in 1990 when they approved a half-cent sales tax. Measure M provides funding for freeway improvements, regional/local streets and roads projects and transit improvements. On November 7, 2006, the County of Orange voters approved the renewal of the Measure M one-half cent sales tax for transportation improvements for the next 30 years. ARTIC Background The existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station located north of Angel Stadium and south of Stadium Towers was built in 1982 to provide Amtrak inter-city rail service. Since then, Metrolink service has been successfully launched and the station has twice been upgraded and enlarged to meet the resulting rail ridership demand. In 2005, responding to the continued growth in Metrolink ridership demand, OCTA decided to increase rail service in this corridor through the Metrolink Service Expansion Program (MSEP). These factors led OCTA to initiate the Regional Gateway Program to upgrade Metrolink stations to accommodate increased Metrolink service. Through the Regional Gateway Program, OCTA purchased the 13.58 acre site adjacent to the LOSSAN ROW and east of the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station, for potential development of ARTIC. The intent was for ARTIC to replace the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station with the facilities needed to accommodate planned rail service expansions, as well as other new or expanded transportation services. OCTA administers the transportation funds collected under the local sales tax measure (Renewed Measure M) first approved by the County of Orange voters in 1990 and renewed by vote in 2006. Funding for ARTIC has been identified from the following sources: Renewed Measure M; Current Measure M; State Transportation Improvement Program; Federal Earmark; and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Formula Funds. In 2007, OCTA and the City entered into an agreement to explore the joint development of ARTIC. At that time, the project was envisioned as an Intermodal Center that included transit oriented retail, mixed-use commercial development, and civic space. The Intermodal Center would also accommodate expanded service by Metrolink and Amtrak that had already been approved. In addition, OCTA and the City recognize that the Anaheim Fixed Guideway, the California High-Speed Rail, and the California – Nevada Super Speed Train would potentially use ARTIC when these projects are planned, fully funded, and receive CEQA and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) certification. Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction 1.5 Project Background ARTIC Draft EIR 1-13 July 19, 2010 In 2009, OCTA and the City intended to prepare a joint EIR/Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for ARTIC and related transit projects. OCTA and the City then revisited the environmental clearance process, recognizing that the proper CEQA process would involve the City serving as Lead Agency for an EIR prepared to analyze ARTIC. ARTIC project objectives and goals changed and the proposed project was refocused. The City in cooperation with OCTA determined that an EIR prepared by the City is appropriate. Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction 1.5 Project Background ARTIC Draft EIR 1-14 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description ARTIC Draft EIR 2-1 July 19, 2010 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project will be known as ARTIC. The scope of ARTIC is to replace and enlarge the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station at a new location to the east of SR-57 and to accommodate growing passenger demand and increased ridership expected with Metrolink, Amtrak, and other transportation services already approved by other public agencies. In order to evaluate ARTIC, the Project Description is presented in seven subsections. These subsections are Other Related Projects, Project Background, Statement of Objective, Proposed Project, Construction, Operations and Maintenance, and Permit and Plan Review. A brief description of each subsection is presented below. The Other Relevant Projects subsection describes four regional transit projects with respect to ARTIC. The Project Background subsection presents the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station, the proposed property, and the ROW and ownership. In addition, the Project Background subsection describes the current transportation providers, existing parking, and pedestrian access. The Statement of Objectives subsection describes the vision and the need for ARTIC as well as the project objectives. The Proposed Project subsection describes the Intermodal Terminal, the Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area, the Stadium Pavilion, the Tracks/Platforms, Roadway Improvements, Utilities, and Surface Parking/Access. The Construction subsection presents the duration of construction and assumptions. The Operations and Maintenance subsection presents what will be expected when ARTIC opens in 2013. The Permit and Plan Review subsection lists the agencies expected to grant permits or review plans. Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description ARTIC Draft EIR 2-2 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.1 Other Relevant Projects ARTIC Draft EIR 2-3 July 19, 2010 2.1 OTHER RELEVANT PROJECTS The following projects listed below are relevant to ARTIC but are separate, distinct, and independent from ARTIC in terms of funding, lead agency status, purpose and need, and regulatory requirements. The localized impacts of these separate projects will be analyzed to the extent required and reasonable in this EIR in the Cumulative Impacts section of the EIR (14 CCR § 15130). Each relevant project listed below has undergone or is currently undergoing their own separate project clearance process, including but not limited to CEQA and NEPA. These projects are:  Anaheim Rapid Connection — In 2007, the City in conjunction with the OCTA, developed a Transit Master Plan to guide the development and implementation of transportation projects over the next 25 years. Consistent with the Transit Master Plan, the City and OCTA are now advancing the study of a fixed-guideway project. This project proposes to provide a new east/west transit system between The Anaheim Resort™ and the Platinum Triangle with a connection at ARTIC. The project is envisioned to operate as a high-capacity system, providing convenient and efficient transfers to/from Metrolink, Amtrak, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), local bus, and future high-speed train services connecting at ARTIC. The City is in the process of preparing a joint EIR/EIS for this project.  California High-Speed Rail — In 1996, the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) began planning high-speed train service for travel between major metropolitan areas in California. To develop this project, CHSRA divided the statewide route into sections, including the corridor from Anaheim to Los Angeles. The proposed alignment for the Anaheim to Los Angeles section will travel along the existing LOSSAN Passenger Rail Corridor between Anaheim and the Los Angeles Union Station. An additional station is being considered for either Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs or Fullerton. High-speed trains will reach top speeds of 120 miles per hour (mph) along this section, taking passengers from Anaheim to Los Angeles in just over 20 minutes. Following the completion of a statewide program-level environmental document, the project-level environmental review process for the Anaheim to Los Angeles section was initiated in January 2007. The purpose of the environmental review process is to identify potential environmental benefits and impacts and develop mitigation measures to address the impacts whenever possible. CHSRA is preparing an Alternatives Analysis Report for the Anaheim to Los Angeles section. The report identifies how to best accommodate high-speed trains within the LOSSAN corridor, taking into account what is required to run high-speed trains and minimizing impacts to adjacent communities. The technical team is continuing environmental studies outlined by CEQA and NEPA to determine potential project impacts and mitigation measures. Simultaneously, the design team is moving forward with preliminary design advancing towards 15 percent, with 30 percent design completion expected in 2011. The City has no approval authority over the high- speed rail project, and thus no ability to determine whether or not such project becomes reality. ARTIC is necessary to accommodate transit service capacity within the City and region regardless of whether high-speed rail service eventually comes to ARTIC. Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.1 Other Relevant Projects ARTIC Draft EIR 2-4 July 19, 2010 CHSRA was created by the Legislature in 1996, with the passage of the California High- Speed Rail Act (the “Act,” set forth at Public Utilities Code (PUC) §§ 185000 et seq.), and consists of a nine-member board (five members are appointed by the governor, two by the Senate Rules Committee, and two by the Speaker of the Assembly). The Authority is charged with preparing and carrying out a plan for the construction and operation of a high-speed train network for the state (PUC § 185032 (a) (1)). To that end, the CHSRA has been given “exclusive” authority over, and responsibility for, the planning, construction, and operation of high-speed passenger train service in the State of California (PUC § 185032(a)(2)). CHSRA is thus responsible for conducting environmental review of all high-speed rail projects (PUC §§ 185033 (b) (1) (C), 185034(1)). Under the Act, CHSRA was given power to take initial steps related to the development of a high speed rail system, including the development of a business plan and the preparation of engineering and environmental studies, upon passage of the Act (PUC § 185034). CHSRA’s power to actually enter into contracts for the design, construction, and operation of high-speed trains, acquire ROWs, and take certain other necessary actions to develop a high-speed rail system was made contingent upon further approval by the Legislature or voters (PUC § 185036). The approval came in the form of the Safe, Reliable, High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century, which was enacted by the Legislature in 2002 and approved by the voters on the November 2008 ballot. CHSRA is thus currently moving forward with plans for a high-speed rail system. In 2005, CHSRA completed a program-level EIS/EIR, which studied the environmental impacts of a proposed state-wide high-speed rail system connecting the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento in the north, through the Central Valley, to Los Angeles and San Diego in the south. CHSRA is currently conducting project-level environmental analysis of several sections of the contemplated high-speed rail system, including the Los Angeles-Anaheim section. The Los Angeles-Anaheim section project, if approved by CHSRA in its currently contemplated form, will utilize ARTIC. As a result of the CHSRA agreeing to study track sharing between Los Angeles and Anaheim, the EIR/EIS for that segment, which was to be released in May of 2010, will instead be released in January 2011. This EIR/EIS will fully analyze the environmental impacts that will result from the construction and operation of a high-speed rail line between Los Angeles and Anaheim. This EIR/EIS will also consider alternatives to the proposed Los Angeles- Anaheim section, including a no project alternative (CHSRA EIR/EIS Draft Scoping Report, p. 1). Thus, at this point in time, there is no certainty regarding whether and when the Los Angeles-Anaheim section of the high-speed rail system will be built. Since CHSRA has exclusive authority over high-speed rail projects and is the lead agency for purposes of complying with CEQA on the proposed Los Angeles-Anaheim section project, the City is not in a position to analyze the specific impacts that will result from any possible high-speed rail line which may utilize ARTIC at some point in the future. Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.1 Other Relevant Projects ARTIC Draft EIR 2-5 July 19, 2010  California-Nevada Super Speed Train (CNSST) – The CNSST is a proposal to connect southern California with southern Nevada. In 2004, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to complete an EIS for the CNSST Maglev Project that included a specific EIS for the first forty miles in Nevada. This project was planned to run between Las Vegas and Anaheim. As initially proposed, the train was envisioned to access ARTIC to provide service to the County of Orange. However, the recently enacted federal stimulus bill does not support funding for the Maglev Project from fiscal year 2010 or 2011 dollars and it is doubtful, given the status of the federal and state budget crisis, that future public monies necessary to fund this project will be available in the near future. Thus, it is highly doubtful as to whether the CNSST will be constructed within the next 20 years. Nevertheless, the localized cumulative impacts of this project have been analyzed in the cumulative impacts sections of each chapter of this EIR.  Desert Express — The Desert Express is a privately funded high-speed rail concept that has been discussed proposed by various Las Vegas-based business interests for years. The initial segment is anticipated to run from Victorville, California to Las Vegas, Nevada. This project is at the concept stage at this point.  Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion — The proposed project (the “Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project”) includes a General Plan Amendment, amendments to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone and Zoning reclassifications to expand the boundaries of the PTMU Overlay Zone and increase permitted residential, office, commercial and institutional development intensities within the PTMU Overlay Zone. The proposed project includes upgrades to existing infrastructure to serve the proposed increased intensity of land uses. These upgrades include roadway improvements, sewer upgrades, two new water wells, a new electrical substation, natural gas infrastructure improvements and an additional fire station. A NOP for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 339 and the project’s initial study were distributed on December 10, 2008 to Trustee Agencies, the State Clearinghouse, area property owners and parties that had requested such information (“interested parties”). The Anaheim Rapid Connector, CHST, CNSST, Desert Express, and the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project are separate and distinct projects, most of which are outside of the control of the City and are at various stages of funding and planning. In addition, each of these projects is undergoing its own separate environmental assessment process pursuant to CEQA. With the exception of the Platinum Triangle, these projects are in various stages of the planning and environmental clearance process; and it is uncertain, at the time of this EIR, when these projects will be fully funded and operational. The EIR nevertheless includes these projects in the cumulative impacts analysis section within each environmental issue area of the EIR. Thus, the localized cumulative impacts of these projects (and others) are included in the cumulative impact analysis contained in this EIR. Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.1 Other Relevant Projects ARTIC Draft EIR 2-6 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.2 Existing Conditions ARTIC Draft EIR 2-7 July 19, 2010 2.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS The ARTIC Project Description provides the required information on project background, the Statement of Objective, and details of the proposed project. A conceptual architectural rendering of ARTIC is presented to demonstrate the size and scale of the facility (Figure 2.2-1). Graphics are also provided to identify the location of the project, the project site boundary, and ARTIC elevations and site plans. The City in partnership with OCTA is proposing to relocate the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station (see 2.3 Statement of Objectives) that is south of Katella Avenue and adjacent to The Grove of Anaheim. The new location will be approximately one quarter (0.25) mile east along the existing OCTA railroad ROW (Figure 2.2-2 and Figure 2.2-3). The OCTA railroad ROW is part of the LOSSAN Corridor. ARTIC is envisioned to include an Intermodal Terminal space up to 310,000 square feet, Platforms up to 86,000 square feet, and a Stadium Pavilion up to 12,000 square feet. The Intermodal Terminal space includes Metrolink/Amtrak Concourse, Transit Space, The Public Hall/Waiting Area, and Program Space. For the purpose of this EIR these are the maximum sizes and impacts are the “worst case”. The size and timing of construction will depend on available funding. 2.2.1 Existing Station Information The Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station is located west of SR-57, north of Angel Stadium, and south of Katella Avenue with The Grove of Anaheim to the west. Direct access to the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station is provided by an entrance on Katella Avenue through Sportstown. On non-event days secondary access is sometimes available via State College Boulevard at Gene Autry Way. The existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station consists of a 6,814 square foot ticketing and operations office that includes two ticket windows manned during hours of operation, a single Amtrak self-service ticket kiosk, baggage claim office, restrooms for both men and women, and a waiting area with approximately 40 seats. Additional facilities that are outside the ticket and operations office include a covered waiting area with two Metrolink/Amtrak unmanned ticket kiosks, four 10-foot benches, and four five-foot benches for waiting patrons. Common areas to the east and west of the office include drought resistant landscaping, benches for public use, and a single bicycle rack built to accommodate approximately five bicycles. Facilities also include an electric car recharging station and bicycle lockers. The Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station also provides an adjacent drop-off area for the OCTA Station Link, Anaheim Resort Transit shuttles, private shuttles, and taxis. The configuration of the trackway includes a centerline rail with northbound and southbound side platforms. There is also an underpass that allows passengers to move across the rail tracks safely. The existing 800- foot long by 16-foot wide platforms and the tracks are situated on a 100-foot OCTA ROW. Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.2 Existing Conditions ARTIC Draft EIR 2-8 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank SOURCE:PB/HOK,2010The infomrafionirrdodedonfhsi graplriorepresenfafronhasheenoomplledfromavahefyof500r000codstdrjedfooharrgewfhoefoohoe,lhfeiofeieermakesnompresenfahonsorwarramies,eopreneorimplied,asfosnooraoy,oompiefenese,fimaloera,ordghrsrotheuseofsodrioforrerason.Thisdowjrrreof isrefiofeodedforuseasafarrdsuroeypmdicfnorisCdesignedorinfendedasaooosirroheoodesrgodooonreof.Theuse or misuseoftheioforroafioooondoofhsigreprriorepreserha&oisaffhesoiedheoffhepadyosPgormisuslrgfteinfomrefioo.PROJECTNO.109528DRAWN:7/12/10KLE/NFELflEABrighf People.dighfTolofiomo.DRAWNBY:JPCHECKEDBY:ARCHITECTURALRENDERINGOFARTICCCFILENAME:1O9528artistElR.dwgFIGUREL2-1ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORTCITYOFANAHEIMARTICANAHEIMrCALIFORNIA REGIONAL AND VICINITY MAP ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF ANAHEIM ARTIC ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 2.2-2 109528 7/12/10 JP CC 109528vicEIR.mxd The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information. §¨¦5 [_ ARTIC ·|}þ22 ·|}þ57 ·|}þ55 ·|}þ91 Santa Ana Orange Garden Grove Anaheim I 5 Katella TustinChapman East Collins GlassellAnahei mGarden Grove HasterMainState CollegeHarborOrangewood LewisSant WalnutN DisneylandWestDisney State Hwy 72GrandParkBristol ParkerB r o a d w a y Convention O w e n s G e n e Au t r y GlassellTaft Orangewood I 5 L i n c ol n La VetaThe Ci t yChapman PROJECT NO. DRAWN: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: FILE NAME: FIGURE 0120.5 Miles q www.kleinfelder.com DETAIL AREA CALIFORNIA PACIFIC OCEAN -IIlI--uC)-oLI)0j—H)o<o>c-m-H0z——HW—LI)-LI)—1ozC) Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.2 Existing Conditions ARTIC Draft EIR 2-15 July 19, 2010 2.2.2 Existing Transportation Providers The Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station provides access to several transportation providers that include Metrolink, Amtrak, OCTA Station Link, OCTA local bus service, the Anaheim Resort Transit shuttles, and taxi services. The existing (2009) ridership and daily service levels for the various modes of transportation was developed for the project Needs Assessment Update and Validation, (August, 2009) and included in Table 2.2-1, below (Cordoba Corporation 2009). Currently, a bus zone approximately 76 feet long has been designated for use by OCTA’s Station Link service and Anaheim Resort Transit shuttles. The Station Link buses are the only OCTA buses that actually enter the station area. All other station-serving OCTA buses are accessible along Katella Avenue. Local OCTA bus service can be accessed via the pedestrian underpass and the walkway through the adjacent commercial development and parking area. This private walkway is generally available from 5:00 AM to 12:00 AM. There is no designated taxi area. Taxis typically queue up curbside to the station, within or adjacent to the bus zone. Table 2.2-1 Existing (2009) Anaheim Station Service Levels and Daily Boardings Existing Conditions Existing Service Levels Existing Daily Boardings Metrolink (a) 19 trains per weekday 782 Amtrak (b) 22 trains per weekday 487 OCTA Bus Route 50 (c) 96 buses per weekday (15 min headways) 271 OCTA Bus Route 53 (c) 82 buses per weekday (15 min headways) 62 OCTA Bus Route 57 (c) 86 buses per weekday (15 min headways 300 Station Link Bus (Route 430) (c) 11 buses per day 31 OCTA Bus Route 757 (c) 4 buses per day 5 Anaheim Resort Transit (ART – Route 15) (d) 16 shuttles per day 587 Taxis (e) 22 per day 38 (a) Service levels and boardings provided by Metrolink, as part of the MSEP, Orange County Metrolink 2010 Ridership Projection Analysis Technical Memorandum, Parsons Brinkerhoff, June 5, 2008. (b) Service levels and boardings provided by Amtrak on June 5, 2009. (c) Service levels are based on Route schedule effective June 14, 2009; daily boardings provided by OCTA Bus Operations, June 9, 2009. It should be noted that some bus lines do not stop at the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station and that most of the daily boardings listed do not use the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station. (d) Service levels and boardings provided by City of Anaheim on June 2, 2009. (e) Estimated based on field observation and conversations with taxi cab drivers at the Anaheim Station on June 30, 2009. Source: Needs Assessment Update and Validation, Cordoba Corporation, August 2009 Note: Since the above data was collected, Route 153 was initiated on March 14, 2010. This route operates between Main and Katella and Brea Mall. Shuttle times are coordinated with the train schedules. Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.2 Existing Conditions ARTIC Draft EIR 2-16 July 19, 2010 2.2.3 Existing Parking The existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station currently provides 405 parking spaces for passengers using motor vehicles to access the station site, which will remain for ARTIC. Typically, the station parking demand approaches the allocated number of spaces. The Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station’s parking is constrained by Angel Stadium parking demand and configuration. In addition, it is constrained by existing agreements between the City and the Angels. According to the agreement between the City and the Angels, the City is prohibited from providing expanded parking rights within the stadium parking areas without the consent of the Angels’ franchise. 2.2.4 Existing Pedestrian Access The Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station is accessible via a pedestrian underpass north of the platforms and the adjacent parking lots for the Grove of Anaheim and Angel Stadium. This access allows passengers and other pedestrians to walk to the station, the neighboring entertainment venues, as well as surrounding residential, office, and commercial development. The Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station complies with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. The Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station has concrete ramps and a pedestrian underpass for safe access to the platforms. 2.2.5 OCTA-Owned Parcel OCTA purchased the site from Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) on November 21, 2006. Pursuant to cooperative Agreement C-7-1288 that is dated December 11, 2007, OCTA and the City identified this property with the potential to provide a future site as an intermodal center. The property is a 13.58-acre parcel bounded by Katella Avenue on the north, the LOSSAN corridor on the south, Douglass Road on the west, and the Santa Ana River on the east. This site previously served as the County of Orange Katella Maintenance Yard. Concrete, metal, and wood buildings remain on the site. The site also includes work areas covered with metal and wood canopies. The parcel is asphalt-paved with several concrete pads and some ornamental landscaping along Douglass Road. The site is surrounded by chain-link fencing. The site is currently being used for storage for OCTA’s MSEP. MSEP is making improvements in the rail corridor and to existing stations (scheduled to be completed in 2012). The northeast corner of the site is used for employee and over flow parking for the Honda Center and the adjacent Arena Plaza Commercial Center. 2.2.6 City-Owned Parcel The City owns a 2.2-acre parcel directly south of the OCTA owned parcel. This triangular-shaped parcel is bounded by the LOSSAN corridor on the north, the Santa Ana River on the east, and SR-57 on the southwest. Access to this parcel is from Douglass Road. The site is mostly paved with asphalt and some gravel areas. There are two small buildings on the site. The entire site is Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.2 Existing Conditions ARTIC Draft EIR 2-17 July 19, 2010 enclosed by chain-link fencing. A portion of the site is leased on a monthly basis for the storage of retail wood products. 2.2.7 OCTA Railroad Right-of-Way OCTA owns the railroad ROW adjacent to the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station and the proposed Intermodal Terminal site. Amtrak service, freight service, and Metrolink service use this ROW. Passenger and freight services will continue through the proposed construction. 2.2.8 SR-57 Right of Way Caltrans owns and manages the SR-57 ROW. The proposed construction may need to use less than an acre of this Caltrans property, mainly below the SR-57 freeway stadium bridge, to improve access to the 2.2-acre parcel and to develop the single-ended siding track (stub-end track). Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.2 Existing Conditions ARTIC Draft EIR 2-18 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.3 Statement of Objectives ARTIC Draft EIR 2-19 July 19, 2010 2.3 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES 2.3.1 Vision Statement ARTIC Project Vision…. ARTIC will be a world-class transportation center where people transfer between travel services to reach both regional and interregional activity centers and business districts. 2.3.2 Project Need An efficient multi-modal transportation network is necessary to meet the future mobility needs of residents and businesses in the County of Orange. Local jurisdictions have identified goals and objectives within the local planning documents that address these needs. A brief description of selected documents follows:  The Long-Range Transportation Plan for the County of Orange projects that population in the County of Orange will grow by 24 percent over the next 30 years (OCTA, 2006). As a result, the miles traveled by vehicles will grow by nearly 40 percent, and approximately three million additional person trips per year will be added to the transportation system by 2030. Currently, the freeway and roadway networks in the County of Orange are nearing build-out and the carpool lane network is nearing capacity during peak hours. Without improvements to the existing transportation system, by 2030 traffic during the morning commute will be operating at speeds of less than 25 mph (OCTA, 2006). Since the Long-Range Transportation Plan states that the County of Orange residents and visitors need the ability to travel an integrated and seamless transportation network within the County of Orange, improving mobility is the cornerstone of the Plan (OCTA, 2006). The main objectives for this goal are to offer safe and reliable transportation choices and develop an accessible, integrated transportation network. These can be accomplished, in part, by “expanding transit centers that serve multiple modes of transportation” (OCTA, 2006);  Goal 1.4 of the City of Anaheim Growth Management Element within the City of Anaheim General Plan supports the development of “land use strategies and incentives to reduce the amount of vehicle miles traveled within the City” (City of Anaheim, 2009). Policy 3 supports the development of diverse types of public transit services;  Goal 2.1 of the City of Anaheim Growth Management Element within the City of Anaheim General Plan calls for the reduction of traffic congestion on the City’s highway system by promoting the use of public transit and alternative modes of transportation, thereby increasing access to public transportation, including convenient pedestrian access (City of Anaheim, 2009). Policy 6 encourages working with OCTA to ensure an adequate mix of transit opportunities in the City;  Policy 2 of the Goal 15.1 of the City of Anaheim Land Use Element within the General Plan encourages the development of a regional intermodal transportation center in proximity to Angel Stadium of Anaheim (City of Anaheim, 2009); and Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.3 Statement of Objectives ARTIC Draft EIR 2-20 July 19, 2010  The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan provides opportunities for “transit oriented development in close proximity to existing and future rail and bus transportation facilities . . . [including] the proposed ARTIC station . . .” (City of Anaheim, 2008). It also calls for maintaining and enhancing connectivity between major entertainment centers throughout the City, including Angel Stadium, the Honda Center, The Anaheim Resort, and Disneyland Resort. The key factors that demonstrate the need for ARTIC are as follows:  Anaheim is the 10th largest city in California (City of Anaheim, 2010);  Anaheim attracts over 18 million tourists and visitors annually, while the County of Orange attracts over 45 million tourists and visitors annually (City of Anaheim, 2010); and  Population and employment in the area will continue to grow, increasing the demand for alternative means for transportation. Projections show that population will grow by 22 percent between 2000 and 2030. Employment will increase by 22 percent between 2007 and 2030 (Center for Demographic Research, 2009). This growth will drive demand for an increase in transit services (OCTA, 2006). 2.3.3 Project Objectives ARTIC is necessary because of the anticipated increase in rail passenger demand and the need to provide convenient intermodal connections. The existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station will not be able to meet the future demand for services because of physical and contractual constraints (Cordoba Corporation, 2009). In addition, the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station has restricted access and does not facilitate a seamless transfer of travelers from one mode of transit service to another at a regional center. ARTIC is intended to provide improved and safe pedestrian access to two major sports and entertainment centers within the City. ARTIC is also intended to provide opportunities for transit oriented development as identified within the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. The specific objectives of ARTIC are:  to provide a regional intermodal center that can combine multiple transportation modes at a central location;  to accommodate projected increases in mass transit ridership;  to provide a transit oriented building that can accommodate future transportation modes;  to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access to multimodal transit options;  to provide improved access and availability of mass transit resources; Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.3 Statement of Objectives ARTIC Draft EIR 2-21 July 19, 2010  to encourage the reduction of vehicle miles traveled on freeways and local arterial streets; and  to provide improved access to activity centers and destinations within the region. ARTIC will provide a necessary component for this transportation network within Anaheim and will serve as the gateway to the southern California region. ARTIC will enhance the County of Orange’s overall transportation system by accommodating additional bus transit options, additional alternatives to road based travel, and improved services for the transit-dependent. Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.3 Statement of Objectives ARTIC Draft EIR 2-22 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.4 Proposed Project ARTIC Draft EIR 2-23 July 19, 2010 2.4 PROPOSED PROJECT ARTIC will be approximately 0.25 miles east of the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station. This location is south of Katella Avenue, on an approximately 19-acre site which is owned by OCTA and the City (see Figure 2.2-3 and Figure 2.4-1). In addition to the two main parcels, improvements to approximately 2 acres of OCTA and City ROW and less than an acre of Caltrans ROW between the Santa Ana River and Katella Avenue are planned as part of the project. The Stadium Pavilion, which will be a pedestrian overcrossing of the tracks west of the SR-57, will be located along the railroad ROW and just northwest of SR- 57. The project also includes improvements to Douglass Road and Katella Avenue. ARTIC is envisioned to include the development of an Intermodal Terminal, Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area, the Stadium Pavilion, the Tracks/Platforms, Douglass Road Improvements, Katella Avenue improvements, and Surface Parking/Access (Figure 2.4-2 and Figure 2.4-3). 2.4.1 Intermodal Terminal The Intermodal Terminal is envisioned to be a three-level building of approximately 310,000 gross square feet that is comprised of approximately 140,000 square feet at-grade or above-grade and approximately 170,000 square feet below the building. There will be two levels at-grade or above-grade and one level below the building. The design of the Intermodal Terminal is planned to accommodate near term and future transportation related services. The Intermodal Terminal is envisioned to include the Bus Transit Center, Metrolink/Amtrak Concourse, The Public Hall/Waiting Area, and Program Space. The Intermodal Terminal is envisioned to be encased in a translucent glazing material and will rise to a maximum of 150 feet above the existing ground level (approximately 324 feet above mean sea level, North American Vertical Datum 1988). The Intermodal Terminal will be adjacent to the Tracks/Platforms and located north of the LOSSAN corridor. The below building level is envisioned to include the Bus Transit Center, the Metrolink/Amtrak Concourse, and Program Space. The at-grade and above-grade levels are envisioned to include the Public Hall/Waiting Area and Program Space. For the purpose of this EIR these are the maximum sizes and impacts are the “worst case”. The size and timing of construction will depend on available funding. Bus Transit Center The Bus Transit Center is envisioned to be located on the lower level of the Intermodal Terminal. This Transit Center is envisioned to include bus islands, waiting areas, bus bays, driving lanes, and driving ramps for surface street access. The Bus Transit Center is envisioned to contain a 16- bay bus facility (two, eight bay islands) located directly below the Intermodal Terminal. The Bus Transit Center will be an open air facility for ventilation. A waiting area is envisioned to be provided on each bus island. Metrolink/Amtrak Concourse The Metrolink/Amtrak Concourse is envisioned to provide pedestrian access between the Public Hall and the Bus Transit Center to the Tracks/Platforms and the Surface Parking that is located south of the railroad ROW. Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.4 Proposed Project ARTIC Draft EIR 2-24 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank C))I—0z0<0-IIIII-(I)I—I--J0_I-w‘-<00I-aQOwD_ZO—zwC,‘U-I Cl)0CC)mV;aj:;-glinh;(!iq!1-030001GD-1,m030r\)0pCi8;LHr0([)‘-C’)m4(J)i—ImV2z-1m0-1mz--no0-0F:Emm>>0N)C)<<C—-mmoj-Z-.-<pccCDc-C)130o:C,0mzrn;J•0>0mCl)IHmQHmr-,-1>rm:5z<JOm>mcl)cn-IIzz-1m00mz1%1%,-nGDCm Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.4 Proposed Project ARTIC Draft EIR 2-31 July 19, 2010 Public Hall/Waiting Area The Public Hall/Waiting Area is envisioned to be located on the first level of the Intermodal Terminal. This space is designed to enhance the traveling public’s experience. This area has access to exterior terraces, Metrolink/Amtrak Concourse, and the Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area. Program Space The Program Space is envisioned to be located on all three levels of the Intermodal Terminal. The below-building level includes spaces for OCTA, mechanical and ventilation, and building services. The at-grade uses will include terminal operations, passenger-oriented retail/restaurants, and passenger waiting areas. The above-grade uses will include passenger-oriented retail/restaurants, and passenger waiting areas. 2.4.2 Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area ARTIC is envisioned to include an exterior Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area of approximately 36,000 square feet (see Figure 2.4-2 and Figure 2.4-3). The Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area will be north of the Intermodal Terminal and south of Katella Avenue. The Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area is anticipated to be used for taxi and private automobile Drop-Off, with a designated walkway from the Intermodal Terminal to the surface parking south of Katella Avenue. There will be one-way vehicle circulation around the Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area with access from Douglass Road and Katella Avenue. 2.4.3 Stadium Pavilion The Stadium Pavilion is located northwest of SR-57, along the LOSSAN corridor, and provides a pedestrian bridge over the tracks and platforms. The Stadium Pavilion provides access to the stadium, surface parking, and the Tracks/Platforms (see Figure 2.4-3). The Stadium Pavilion includes elevators and stairways. 2.4.4 Tracks/Platforms The proposed Tracks/Platforms construction work will be within OCTA ROW, Caltrans ROW, and City ROW that are bounded by the Santa Ana River to the east and Katella Avenue to the west. There will be no improvements to the existing Santa Ana River railroad bridge or the existing Katella Avenue railroad bridge. The current rail operations, the station operations, and related facilities operations will be maintained during construction. The final configuration is envisioned to consist of two through tracks and one stub-end track with a platform. The stub-end track will be constructed south of the existing tracks (Figure 2.4-4). The stub-end track will allow continued two track service during construction and serve as a station track during operations. The side platform is envisioned to be 21 to 40 feet wide with additional width at each end for circulation, and the center platform will be 38 feet wide. The platforms will be approximately 1,200 feet in length. A replacement railroad bridge is envisioned to be constructed over Douglass Road to accommodate the three track/two platform alignment. The new bridge will contain stairs that allow emergency access from the platforms to Douglass Road. Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.4 Proposed Project ARTIC Draft EIR 2-32 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.4 Proposed Project ARTIC Draft EIR 2-35 July 19, 2010 Passengers are envisioned to access the Tracks/Platforms from the below grade Metrolink/Amtrak Concourse that connects the Intermodal Hall to the station platforms. The Tracks/Platforms can also be accessed from the Stadium Pavilion. Canopies will be provided on the rail platforms per the requirements of Amtrak and Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA)/Metrolink. 2.4.5 Douglass Road Improvements Douglass Road Between Stadium Parking Lot and the Railroad Bridge To maximize the capacity of the road within the physical constraints of the SR-57 overpass, it is proposed that Douglass Road be improved to the east to allow a pedestrian sidewalk on one side of Douglass Road under the SR-57 overpass. The proposed roadway will consist of four lanes beginning approximately 300 feet from the stadium parking booths to the Railroad Bridge. Douglass Road from the Railroad Bridge to Katella Avenue Douglass Road will be four lanes wide under the Railroad Bridge. Douglass Road is envisioned to be widened initially to a six lane configuration as it approaches Katella Avenue and widened to eight lanes as traffic warrants (Figure 2.4-5). A left turn pocket from Douglass Road into the bus transit center is provided along Douglass Road just north of the Railroad Bridge. A southbound left turn pocket will be provided for the main entrance into ARTIC. This configuration requires a total ROW width of approximately 120 feet, an increase from the existing 64 feet. This width will allow for Douglass Road ultimately having eight lanes south of the Katella Avenue intersection. The ultimate northbound lane configuration is proposed to have two left turn lanes, one through lane, one right turn/through lane and one right turn lane for northbound traffic. There will be three lanes for southbound traffic. In order to reach the proposed Douglass Road width of approximately 120 feet, approximately 20,000 square feet of ROW located along the east side of Douglass Road and the south side of Katella Avenue will be acquired from the retail center. Two retail businesses and one vacant storefront are located on the parcel that will be acquired. The widening of Douglass Road will require reconfiguration of driveway access and parking areas on both sides of Douglass Road. No raised median will be provided on Douglass Road. If the new Railroad Bridge requires columns within the Douglass Road ROW, a raised median will be constructed at the Railroad Bridge. Douglass Road – Vertical Profile In the vicinity of the Railroad Bridge, Douglass Road is envisioned to be lowered approximately eight feet at its lowest point, from the existing road surface. This will allow a wider Railroad Bridge and create a deeper structure than the existing bridge. Lowering Douglass Road is necessary to meet vertical clearance requirements for the new bridge. The proposed profile will meet the Metrolink vertical clearance standard of 16.5 feet for overcrossings. Approximately 1,100 total linear feet of Douglass Road will be re-graded. This re-grading will center north and south of the Railroad Bridge along Douglass Road to meet the grade requirements. A maximum vertical profile of six percent will be used in accordance with Caltrans Highway Design Standards for Urban Highways. Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.4 Proposed Project ARTIC Draft EIR 2-36 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.4 Proposed Project ARTIC Draft EIR 2-39 July 19, 2010 Katella Avenue Improvements Katella Avenue may require up to five feet of widening within the ROW to accommodate a new eastbound through lane at the Douglass Road and Katella Avenue intersection. This through lane will feed a right turn lane into ARTIC. The minimum width of curb lanes will be 13 feet and all other lanes will be 11 feet, while the median noses will be four feet wide. 2.4.6 Katella Avenue Pedestrian Bridge A pedestrian bridge is envisioned to be constructed over Katella Avenue, connecting the project site and the Honda Center. The bridge would be a clear span bridge approximately 175 feet long, 20 feet wide, and 17 feet clear above Katella Avenue. Supports within Katella Avenue would not be required. It is proposed that the bridge will include both elevators and stairwells on the north and south ends, with stairwells extending approximately 50 feet from the bridge. The bridge and stairways would be covered, but the bridge would be open on both sides. The touchdown point on the south side of the bridge is proposed within the OCTA owned parcel of the ARTIC site. The touchdown point on the north side of the bridge is proposed within the Honda Center site, which is leased to the Honda Center by the City of Anaheim. The construction of the bridge is envisioned to accommodate future widening of Katella Avenue on the north side of the street (2 additional lanes) as per the General Plan and the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. The bridge would also be designed to accommodate widening on the south side of Katella Avenue to incorporate anticipated improvements associated with the ARTIC project. 2.4.7 ARTIC Pedestrian Trail A trail easement, parallel to the existing Santa Ana River Trail is envisioned to be located along the east side of ARTIC between the railroad ROW and Katella Avenue. 2.4.8 Surface Parking/Access ARTIC is envisioned to have approximately 960 surface parking spaces. ARTIC parking will be located in three locations (see Figure 2.4-5). These surface locations are the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak parking (Existing Surface Parking), the parking south of the Intermodal Terminal and the railroad tracks (South Surface Parking), and the parking north of the Intermodal Terminal and south of Katella Avenue (North Surface Parking). The Existing Surface Parking is envisioned to provide approximately 405 spaces that are currently used for the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station. Patrons will access the Tracks/Platforms and the Intermodal Terminal through the Stadium Pavilion. The Existing Surface Parking will be accessed by vehicles from Katella Avenue via Sportstown (see Figure 2.2-3). The South Surface Parking is envisioned to provide approximately 232 spaces. Patrons will access the Tracks/Platforms and the Intermodal Terminal through the Metrolink/Amtrak Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.4 Proposed Project ARTIC Draft EIR 2-40 July 19, 2010 Concourse. The South Surface Parking will be accessed by vehicles from Douglass Road (see Figure 2.4-5). The North Surface Parking is envisioned to provide approximately 323 spaces. Patrons will access the Intermodal Terminal and the Tracks/Platforms through the Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area. The North Surface Parking will be accessed by vehicles from Douglass Road or Katella Avenue. The main vehicle access to the Bus Transit Center and the Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area will be via Douglass Road from Katella Avenue, which also serves as an entry and exit during events occurring at Angel Stadium. A secondary right in/right out access will be provided to ARTIC from Katella Avenue. The access point will be immediately west of the Santa Ana River. The Santa Ana River Trail is used by bicyclists, equestrians, and pedestrians and is located along the east side of ARTIC. Construction and operations of ARTIC will occur without interfering with trail users. Pedestrian access will be provided by sidewalks along Katella Avenue and Douglass Road. Bicycle access will be along Katella Avenue and Douglass Road. 2.4.9 Utility Relocation and Proposed Utilities Various utility tasks will be required to both accommodate the proposed improvements as well as supply utilities for operation of the proposed facility. ARTIC will require relocating existing utilities and the construction of new utilities. These utilities include electrical, water, sewer, gas, and drainage. Electrical Existing overhead electrical transmission lines located along Douglass Road will be undergrounded as part of the road improvements. Electrical service by the City of Anaheim will be provided via new underground ducts leading from the current service in Katella Avenue south under Douglass Road and into the facility. Solar photovoltaic (PV) panels are envisioned to be included on the project site to reduce the use of off-site generated electricity. PV panels will be considered as building integrated components, integrated into shading elements on the building or as shading canopies or structures on the site. A PV array of up to 130 kilowatt (kW) (dc) will be considered for the site and could generate between 7 to 10 percent of site annual energy demands, dependent on location, orientation and cell type. Water The existing fire hydrants located on both sides of Douglass Road will be relocated according to the appropriate fire code for the proposed and existing uses. An existing 8-inch water line will be abandoned in lieu of a new 16-inch water line. Sewer The existing 8-inch sanitary sewer line along the west side of Douglass Road that serves the existing uses west of Douglass Road will remain. A new 15-inch sanitary sewer line will be Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.4 Proposed Project ARTIC Draft EIR 2-41 July 19, 2010 installed from ARTIC to connect into the main sanitary sewer. This line will connect to the existing Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) sewer line. Gas The 2-inch gas line will remain but may be relocated to accommodate construction. A gas line to the facility will be supplied from the existing 2-inch line located along Douglass Road. Drainage The storm drain will be reconfigured to reflect the change in Douglass Road elevation. The existing stormwater system will require modification based on ARTIC components. Currently, there is a 48-inch reinforced concrete pipe that conveys run off from SR-57 to an outfall at the Santa Ana River. Additionally, stormwater from Douglass Road drains into a pump station under the roadway, and is pumped into the existing 48-inch pipe. With the proposed lowering of Douglass Road, this pump station will require replacement and the new installation will conform to the new lower street level. The above identified 48-inch pipe crosses the project site prior to reaching the river. This pipe will be lowered across the area to accommodate the new building. Since the slope of the drain is changing, a second pump station will be installed to continue to discharge stormwater to the river. No new discharge points will be created into the Santa Ana River. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be designed into the drainage system for ARTIC to comply with current regulations. ARTIC is being designed so no increases in runoff based on current site conditions will occur due to this new construction. Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.4 Proposed Project ARTIC Draft EIR 2-42 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.5 Construction ARTIC Draft EIR 2-43 July 19, 2010 2.5 CONSTRUCTION Construction of the proposed project and associated infrastructure improvements is anticipated to take approximately 26 to 36 months. The Air Quality Impact Analysis uses a 26-month construction time frame as the “worst case” scenario. Generally, construction will occur during normal daylight hours but railroad connection activities will require night construction activities. In particular, construction of the rail tracks and the new railroad bridges over Douglass Road will require night time construction. This construction requires that the railroad service be shutdown on a short term temporary basis. This shutdown of rail service can only be done at night to avoid shutdown during peak operational hours. This nighttime construction was assessed in the Noise Impact Assessment (Appendix D). The approximate volume of cut and fill results in an approximate export of 80,000 cubic yards. Some of the excavated material will be used to raise the new stub-end track to match the existing main line track elevation, and to fill selected areas of the site to the desired grade. All construction workers will be required to park vehicles on-site without impacting either local businesses or local parking lots for the duration of construction. The staging areas for construction are assumed to be on-site. All construction workers will be encouraged to carpool during construction as feasible. Material distribution to and from the site will occur through railroad deliveries and truck deliveries. Truck deliveries will access ARTIC by use of City of Anaheim streets during off-peak hours. Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.5 Construction ARTIC Draft EIR 2-44 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.6 Operations and Maintenance ARTIC Draft EIR 2-45 July 19, 2010 2.6 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE Operations and maintenance activities for the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station and ARTIC are presented below. 2.6.1 Operations and Maintenance - Construction The existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station will be demolished to make way for the new stub-end track (see Figure 2.4-4). Materials from this demolition will be recycled within the project, hauled to a recycling facility or disposed at a landfill. The Air Quality Analysis and the Traffic Impact Analysis assume a worst case scenario of having all demolished material leave the site. The two Metrolink/Amtrak unmanned ticket kiosks, four 10-foot benches, and four five-foot benches will be reused. The drought resistant landscaping, the bicycle rack, and bicycle locker, will be reused on the project site or at another location. Temporary passenger services will be provided to replace the services of the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station. This temporary station will be in the Metrolink/Amtrak parking lot. The existing pedestrian underpass will be extended or other temporary access points will be created. Temporary signage during construction will be erected to direct passengers to the trains and the connecting ground transportation. 2.6.2 Operations and Maintenance – Opening Year 2013 Maintenance for ARTIC will be conducted by the City of Anaheim, and maintenance of the rail ROW will remain the responsibility of Metrolink in keeping with an agreement with OCTA, which owns the ROW. Operations for the 2013 opening year at ARTIC will require planning and route modifications for the following existing and potential providers: Metrolink Metrolink will relocate their existing ticketing, customer services, and security operations to ARTIC from the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station. Metrolink timetables may require adjustment to the new location and bus schedules. Amtrak Amtrak will relocate their existing ticketing, customer service, and security operations to ARTIC from the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station. Amtrak timetables may require adjustment to the new location and bus schedules. Taxi services Taxi services will relocate their existing customer service to the Public Plaza/ Drop-Off Area for queuing and customer pick up and Drop-Off. Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.6 Operations and Maintenance ARTIC Draft EIR 2-46 July 19, 2010 OCTA Local Bus and OCTA Bravo! BRT OCTA services will be adjusted to utilize the Transit Center. OCTA will move ticketing, customer service, and security operations to ARTIC. OCTA timetables may require adjustment to the new location and train schedules. Other services Other services that will utilize the Transit Center include Para-transit shuttles, the Anaheim Resort Transit shuttles and circulators, Anaheim Go Local rubber tired mixed-flow shuttles, the Los Angeles World Airport (LAWA) “Fly-Away” airport shuttles, intercity buses, international buses, and private tourism buses. The estimated use of these transportation services is provided by the project needs assessment and based on a survey of service providers. Table 2.6-1 provides the estimated daily boardings at ARTIC by each service provider. Table 2.6-1 Estimated Daily Boardings at ARTIC Daily Boarding Provider 2009-2013 2014-2020 2021-2030 Metrolink 1,600 2,300 2,900 Amtrak 575 650 800 California High-Speed Rail 0 0 32,900 OCTA/Local Bus Service 545 800 970 Anaheim Resort Transit 685 840 1.130 OCTA Go Local/ARTIC – Anaheim Canyon Station BRT 1,070 1,240 1,620 Employer Shuttles/West Anaheim Commuter Shuttles 355 400 540 Community Circulations/ARTIC – Downtown Anaheim-Fullerton Transportation Center Connector (BRT) 1,600 1,860 2,430 Anaheim Resort Connection– Circulator (a) 850 0 0 ARTIC to Resort Connector– Fixed Guideway/Anaheim Fixed Guideway (b) 0 3,500 4,300 Intercity/International Bus 600 1,205 1,500 LAWA Fly-away 550 1,000 1,000 Taxis 29 35 1,830 Total Daily Boarding 8,614 13,830 51,915 (a) Anaheim Resort Connection ridership moves to ARTIC to Resort Connection starting in 2014. Anaheim Resort Connection is now known as the Anaheim Resort Transit. (b) The Resort Connection is now known as the Anaheim Resort Transit. The Fixed Guideway/Anaheim Fixed Guideway is now known as the Anaheim Rapid Connection. Source: Needs Assessment Update and Validation, Cordoba Corporation, August 2009 . Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.7 Permits and Plan Review ARTIC Draft EIR 2-47 July 19, 2010 2.7 PERMITS AND PLAN REVIEW The following provides a list of the projects permits and plan reviews: Caltrans Encroachment Permit Fair Share Agreement Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) Stormwater Permit Compliance MS4 permit (Order No. R8-2009-0030) SCRRA Rail design and operations South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air quality review and Conformity Concurrence City of Anaheim Building permits Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (CUP2010-05492) General Plan Amendment (GPA2010-00480) Master Land Use Plan Amendment (MIS2010-00437) OCFCD Design Review General Permit for Discharge of Stormwater OCTA Design Review United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Plan Review - Levees OCSD Plan Review Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.7 Permits and Plan Review ARTIC Draft EIR 2-48 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis ARTIC Draft EIR 3-1 July 19, 2010 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Chapter 3.0 provides information on the regulatory setting and affected environment, evaluates potential environmental consequences of the project (individually and cumulatively), and recommends mitigation measures as necessary for each environmental resource category. The intent of the individual analysis is to identify the types, locations, and magnitudes of potential environmental impacts and present the information to decision-makers, agencies and the public. The cumulative analysis explains and evaluates potential significant cumulative impacts resulting from ARTIC in combination with the other identified projects. A cumulative impact is defined in §15355 of the CEQA Guidelines as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Cumulative impacts represent the change caused by the incremental impact of a project (ARTIC) when added to other proposed or committed projects in the vicinity. The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15130 (b)(1)) state that the information utilized in an analysis of cumulative impacts should come from one of two sources: A. A list of past, present and probable future projects producing related cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or B. A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document designed to evaluate regional or area-wide conditions. The geographic scope of potential cumulative impacts within the ARTIC project area varies depending on the environmental issue area. For example, the geographic area associated with construction noise impacts will be limited to areas directly affected by construction noise, whereas the geographic area that will be affected by construction related air emissions will include the larger air basin. Aesthetics, agriculture, biological resources, cultural resources, mineral resources, and noise geographic scopes tend to be localized. Air quality and water quality impacts have the potential to occur over a broader geographical area. The cumulative impacts for ARTIC are evaluated within each environmental resource category. The individual and cumulative environmental evaluations provide a basis for defining mitigation measures in order to reduce the potential impacts. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis ARTIC Draft EIR 3-2 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.1 Land Use and Planning ARTIC Draft EIR 3.1-1 July 19, 2010 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING This section of the EIR discusses the potential environmental impacts of the project associated with land use and planning. The majority of analysis focuses on land use compatibility, General Plan consistency, and the implications of ARTIC on existing and surrounding land uses. 3.1.1 Environmental Setting ARTIC is designated by the City of Anaheim General Plan for mixed use and institutional land uses. Properties within the vicinity of ARTIC are primarily designated for mixed use land use; this designation allows for residential, commercial, office and mixed-use development. ARTIC is located within an area of the City referred to as the Platinum Triangle, located on the southeastern boundary of the City at the confluence of I-5 and SR-57. The Platinum Triangle includes Angel Stadium, the Honda Center, and The Grove of Anaheim. Project Site The project site is located on approximately 19 acres, formerly used as a County of Orange Maintenance Facility and currently used as a lay-down yard for OCTA and Metrolink construction projects. A portion of the project site is currently leased on a month-to-month basis to a lumber retailer. The project site includes a section of the existing LOSSAN corridor that is owned and operated by OCTA. The City of Anaheim General Plan designates the majority of the project site for institutional land use, which is implemented by the Semi-Public (SP) Zone. This land use designation covers a wide variety of public and quasi-public land uses. Although the City’s SP Zone applies to the majority of the project site, portions of the project site within the Stadium District are within the City’s Public Recreation (PR) Zone and the PTMU Overlay Zone. The pedestrian bridge will land on property north of Katella Avenue, designated by the General Plan for mixed-use and within the PR Zone and the PTMU Overlay Zone. Surrounding Land Uses Properties that surround the project site are primarily designated for mixed use land use by the General Plan. The PTMU Overlay Zone is applied to the properties within the Platinum Triangle that are designated mixed use by the General Plan. Within the PTMU Overlay Zone, there are five mixed use districts, which include the Arena District, the Katella District, the Stadium District, the Gene Autry District, and the Gateway District. Figure 3.1-1 illustrates the existing City of Anaheim General Plan designations and the PTMU Overlay Zone Districts within the Platinum Triangle. Floodplains ARTIC is located in an area considered protected by levees from the 1 percent annual chance flood (Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], 2009). Despite the protection provided from flooding by levees and the channeling of the Santa Ana River, over-toppling and/or failure of these structures is possible. A copy of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) panels inclusive of the site area is presented as Figure 3.1-2. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.1 Land Use and Planning ARTIC Draft EIR 3.1-2 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.1 Land Use and Planning ARTIC Draft EIR 3.1-7 July 19, 2010 3.1.2 Regulatory Setting Existing land uses within the project area (including ROW to be acquired) and the areas adjacent to ARTIC are characterized in the context of the City of Anaheim General Plan, the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, associated City zoning ordinances, and other adopted plans and policies. The FEMA National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was analyzed because of the flood zone located within ARTIC and the proximity to the Santa Ana River. Federal Policies and Regulations Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood zones are geographical areas that FEMA has defined according to varying levels of flood risk, and are shown on FIRM. High risk flood zones, labeled as Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) on FIRM, are areas subject to inundation by a 100-year flood event. The NFIP and participating communities require that development within floodplains does not exacerbate flooding in adjacent areas. A floodway and the adjacent land areas must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation. The participating communities must regulate development in these floodways to ensure that there are no increases in upstream flood elevations. Permit requirements to develop within regulatory floodways are described in detail in Section 3.8. State Policies and Regulations There are no state policies and regulations that supersede local policies and regulations for land use, planning, and zoning within ARTIC and adjacent parcels of land. Local Policies and Regulations Southern California Association of Governments The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the regional governing body for the south coast region, which includes the counties of Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Imperial. Regional associations of governments were created by the State to guide land use decisions that overlap multiple local jurisdictions by creating joint powers of agreement between these localities, and to provide policy guidance to the region. SCAG serves as southern California’s forum for addressing regional issues concerning transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG’s responsibilities under federal law as a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) include developing and adopting a long range Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) every four years. The RTP serves as a basis for transportation decision making in the region. The RTP includes projections for overall growth and economic trends in the SCAG region to provide strategic direction for transportation investments during the applicable time period. The RTP involves the preparation of long range transportation plans and development and adoption of transportation improvement programs that allocate State and Federal funds for highway, transit, and other surface transportation projects. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.1 Land Use and Planning ARTIC Draft EIR 3.1-8 July 19, 2010 SCAG is also responsible for developing and approving a short term component of the long range RTP, known as the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). The RTIP is updated every two years and is a plan which determines and prioritizes how much federal funding state and local agencies in the region receive in a five-year time span. In developing the RTP and RTIP, SCAG is responsible for ensuring that the collection of projects included in these transportation plans helps the region maintain conformity to federal air quality standards as required by the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). Under state law, SCAG as a Council of Governments (COG) is responsible for the development of a portion of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) prepared by the SCAQMD. SCAG is responsible for developing the demographic projections and the integrated land use, housing employment, transportation measures, and strategies portions of the AQMP every three years. Pursuant to CEQA, SCAG undertakes the appropriate environmental review for the RTP and RTIP. In most cases, this involves the preparation of Program EIR and amendments thereto. In accordance with CEQA regulations and Presidential Executive Order 12372, SCAG is the authorized regional agency for Inter-Governmental Review of projects of regional significance for consistency with regional plans. City of Anaheim General Plan The City of Anaheim General Plan provides the overall vision and framework for future development of the City. The implementation of ARTIC supports planning goals set forth to achieve the City’s vision:  Goal 3.1: Pursue land uses along major corridors that enhance the City’s image and stimulate appropriate development at strategic locations;  Goal 3.2: Maximize development opportunities along transportation routes;  Goal 4.1: Promote development that integrates with and minimizes impacts to surrounding land uses;  Goal 5.1: Create and enhance dynamic, identifiable places for the benefit of the City’s residents, employees, and visitors;  Goal 6.1: Enhance the quality of life and economic vitality in the City through strategic infill development and revitalization of existing development; and  Goal 7.1: Address the job-housing relationship by developing housing near job centers and transportation facilities. One additional goal included in the City of Anaheim General Plan addresses the continued detailed planning of the Platinum Triangle, the area of the City where ARTIC is located. It identifies specific goals of the Platinum Triangle, including the advancement of ARTIC: Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.1 Land Use and Planning ARTIC Draft EIR 3.1-9 July 19, 2010  Goal 15.1: Establish the Platinum Triangle as a thriving economic center that provides residence, visitors, and employees with a variety of housing, employment, shopping, and entertainment opportunities that are accessed by arterial highways, transit centers, and pedestrian promenades. Policies of Goal 15.1 include:  Continue more detailed planning efforts to guide the future development of the Platinum Triangle;  Encourage a regional inter-modal transportation hub in proximity to Angel Stadium;  Encourage mixed-use projects integrating retail, office, and higher density residential land uses; and  Maximize views and recreational and development opportunities afforded by the area’s proximity to the Santa Ana River. The majority of the project site, which is located east of SR-57 and south of Katella Avenue, is designated by the General Plan for institutional use. The portions of the project site west of SR-57 and east of SR-57, north of Katella Avenue are designated for mixed use. Land designated as institutional is typically implemented by the SP Zone and includes uses such as transportation centers, government buildings, hospitals, libraries, and other similar facilities. Areas designated by the General Plan as mixed use are designed to function differently from typical patterns of individual segregated land uses. Uses and activities are designed together in an integrated fashion to create a dynamic urban environment that serves as the center of activity for the surrounding area. Mixed use areas encourage the use of transit services and other forms of transportation, including pedestrian and bicycle travel. The General Plan’s mixed use designation is implemented within the Platinum Triangle by the PTMU Overlay Zone. The PTMU Overlay Zone provides an additional zoning layer of opportunity for property owners in addition to the property’s underlying or base zone. The portion of the project site within the PTMU Overlay Zone is also within the PR Zone. The City’s mixed use designation, as implemented by the PTMU Overlay Zone, allows property owners the flexibility to choose their path of development through either the existing zoning (i.e., the PR Zone) or through the PTMU Overlay Zone. ARTIC meets the intent of the General Plan land use designations for the project site and will expand accessibility public transportation and integrate other major activity centers in the area, which all help achieve the City’s vision for the Platinum Triangle. The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan The Platinum Triangle is an 820-acre area located at the intersection of the I-5 and SR-57 freeways within the City of Anaheim, which generally surrounds and includes Angel Stadium, the Honda Center, and The Grove of Anaheim. Planning principles of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan vision include: Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.1 Land Use and Planning ARTIC Draft EIR 3.1-10 July 19, 2010  Balance and integrate uses;  Stimulate market driven development;  Create a unique, integrated, walkable urban environment;  Develop an overall urban design frame work;  Reinforce transit oriented development opportunities;  Maintain and enhance connectivity;  Create great neighborhoods; and  Provide for installation and maintenance of public improvements. The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan encourages new development within the Platinum Triangle while providing the planning principles and details to carry out the City of Anaheim General Plan’s vision for this area. The mixed use areas of the Platinum Triangle are divided into five mixed use districts: the Arena District, the Katella District, the Stadium District, the Gene Autry District, and the Gateway District. The majority of the project site is located northeast of the Stadium District, with the southern portion of the site extending into it. Under the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and the PTMU Overlay Zone, the portion of the ARTIC site that includes the Stadium Pavilion is within the Stadium District; the landing area for the pedestrian bridge, north of Katella Avenue, is within the Arena District. Development principles of the Stadium District include:  Creating a sustainable balance between everyday land use/services and more intermittent special events activity;  Separate major event circulation and parking from existing and future rail and bus facilities, office, retail, and residential uses;  Provide an internal, pedestrian-scale, “promenade” street that allows walkable access to the transit stations and links the transit oriented development to the adjacent districts;  Balance regional transit access and mixed use place-making to allow the maximum number of workers and residents to be within a five minute walking distance from the stations;  Provide attractive urban streets lined with active ground floor uses and a scale of street width and building placement that creates security, a comfortable human scale and energizes ground floor retail and entertainment uses; and Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.1 Land Use and Planning ARTIC Draft EIR 3.1-11 July 19, 2010  Encourage a full compliment of uses, including corporate office, for sale residential, rental residential, local professional office, local support retail and community service to create activity 365 days a year. Development principles of the Arena District include:  Create a balance between everyday land uses/services and more intermittent special event activity;  Provide a connection with the existing and future transit stations through Douglass Road; and  Provide landmark architecture that addresses the intersection of Katella Avenue/Douglass Road. The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan includes a Landscape Concept Plan, which serves to provide the Platinum Triangle with visual identity and reflect the character of the area, as well as reinforce links to the other areas of the City outside of the Platinum Triangle, including The Anaheim Resort. The Landscape Concept Plan is presented as Figure 3.1-3, and cross sections of the specific landscape concept for Katella Avenue, Douglass Road, and adjacent to the Amtrak- Metrolink ROW are included as Figure 3.1-4, Figure 3.1-5, and Figure 3.1-6. Katella Avenue: The Landscape Concept Plan along Katella Avenue includes the grove-style planting of date palms in the median with flowering vines attached to the trunk of the palm and a single species of flowering shrubs and/or groundcover. The 6-foot wide parkways consist of Mexican Fan Palms with low flowering shrubs and/or groundcover. A 7-foot wide sidewalk is located between the parkway and the setback area. Douglass Road: The Landscape Concept Plan for Douglass Road prescribes a double row of Mexican Fan Palms to be planted within 8-foot parkways and the adjacent setback areas. A 5-foot wide sidewalk is located between the parkway and the setback area. The median will not be landscaped to allow for better traffic flow in and out of the Honda Center and Angel Stadium. Yellow Trumpet or similar vines will be attached to the base of the palm trunks and red Daylilies or similar low red flowering shrub will be planted in the parkway. Adjacent to the Amtrak/Metrolink ROW: The Landscape Concept Plan for properties adjacent to the Amtrak/Metrolink ROW consists of Mexican Fan Palms alternating with citrus trees within the 10-foot setback area adjacent to the Amtrak/Metrolink ROW. Anaheim Zoning Code (Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code) The portion of the project site west of SR-57 and east of SR-57, north of Katella Avenue is within the PR (PTMU) Overlay Zone, which means that the property can be developed according to its base zone, the PR Zone or in accordance with the PTMU Overlay Zone. The portion of the project site east of the SR 57, south of Katella Avenue, is within the SP Zone (see Figure 3.1-1). Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.1 Land Use and Planning ARTIC Draft EIR 3.1-12 July 19, 2010 ARTIC is proposed to be developed according to the development standards for the PR and SP Zones. Both of these zones are categorized as Public and Special Purpose Zones. Development of a transit facility within these zones requires approval of a CUP. The following development standards are determined as part of the approval process for projects that require a CUP in the PR and SP Zone.  Minimum Site Area;  Lot Width;  Maximum Structural Height; and  Structural Setbacks. Additional standards that apply to development within the PR and SP Zones are:  The size and shape of the site proposed for the use shall be adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the zone;  Adequate provisions shall be made for the safe and orderly circulation of both pedestrian and vehicular traffic between the proposed site and all streets and highways, and between coordinated facilities, accessways or parking areas on adjacent sites;  Adequate provisions shall be made for loading and unloading of persons, supplies and materials in a manner that does not obstruct required parking and accessways or impact adjacent land uses;  The proposed development shall not limit or adversely affect the growth and development potential of adjoining lands or the general area in which it is proposed to be located  Parking and loading requirements are set forth in Chapter 18.42 (Parking and Loading) of the Zoning Code. The parking requirements for a transit facility are determined by the Planning Services Manager of the Planning Department and/or his or her designee and/or the Planning Commission based on information contained in a parking demand study prepared by an independent traffic engineer;  Signs must be in conformance with Chapter 18.44 (Signs) of the Zoning Code;  Landscaping, fences, walls and hedges are subject to the conditions and limitations set forth in Chapter 18.46 (Landscaping and Screening) of the Zoning Code; and  Refuse storage must conform to the document "Minimum Acceptable Trash Collection Areas" on file with the Public Works Department. The storage shall be designed, located and/or screened so as not to be readily identifiable or visible from adjacent streets, Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.1 Land Use and Planning ARTIC Draft EIR 3.1-13 July 19, 2010 adjacent residential uses and zones, or other public rights-of-way. Recycling bins also shall be provided. There are no prescribed development standards that apply to development within the PR and SP Zones for lot depth and orientation, floor area, lot coverage, and structural location and orientation Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.1 Land Use and Planning ARTIC Draft EIR 3.1-14 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.1 Land Use and Planning ARTIC Draft EIR 3.1-23 July 19, 2010 Orange County Flood Control District The Orange County Flood Control Act of 1927 created the OCFCD to provide for the control and conservation of flood and stormwaters, and to protect property and lives from flood damage. OCFCD works cooperatively with cities to reduce the potential for flooding within the County of Orange by constructing flood control facilities that provide 100-year flood event protection. Orange County Department of Public Works Flood Control Division The mission of the Orange County Department of Public Works (OCPW) Flood Control Division is to “protect Orange County areas from the threat and damage of flooding.” ARTIC is bounded on its eastern border by the Santa Ana River, which is considered a potential flood hazard. The Santa Ana River Mainstem project is a project designed and implemented to provide flood protection for residences and business in the southern California communities of Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. All three counties coordinated with the USACE to design and construct the project. The section of the Santa Ana River that borders ARTIC is channelized. The channel levees serve to assist in the protection of the surrounding areas from flooding (OCPW Flood Control Division, 2010). United States Army Corps of Engineers Santa Ana River Mainstem Project The USACE’s Santa Ana River Mainstem project is a project designed and implemented to provide flood protection for residences and business in the Southern California communities of Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The USACE was consulted by all three counties to provide comments regarding project design and construction to ensure the flood control measures and structures are not impacted. Orange County Transportation Authority OCTA is a multi-modal transportation agency serving the County of Orange. OCTA began in 1991 with the consolidation of seven separate transportation agencies. OCTA is the County of Orange’s primary provider of public transportation, operating in a 798 square-mile area serving more than 3 million residents in 34 cities and unincorporated areas. OCTA provides services for bus, rail feeder, rail, and the 91 Express Lanes. 3.1.3 Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines, the thresholds of significance for Land Use are defined by: a) Would the project physically divide an established community? b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.1 Land Use and Planning ARTIC Draft EIR 3.1-24 July 19, 2010 3.1.4 Project Impacts ARTIC requires the following discretionary approvals: a General Plan Amendment (GPA2010- 00480), an amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (MIS2010-00437), and a CUP (CUP2010-05492). The General Plan Amendment will modify Figure C-1 (Planned Roadway Network) of the General Plan Circulation Element to classify Douglass Road south of Katella Avenue as a Secondary Arterial. This amendment is intended to provide consistency between the street classification and the existing street design. The amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan will allow for greater flexibility of the streetscape improvements prescribed by the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan to meet the specific design needs of ARTIC including the proposed pedestrian bridge. A CUP is required by the Anaheim Municipal Code for a transit facility to be developed and operated within the PR and SP Zones. a) Would the project physically divide an established community? (No Impact) ARTIC is located in an area of the City known as the Platinum Triangle. It is an area within Anaheim that includes Angel Stadium, the Honda Center and The Grove of Anaheim. ARTIC will be constructed in an area that is bordered to the south by SR-57, Douglass Road to the west, Katella Avenue to the north, and the Santa Ana River to the east. The section of railroad associated with ARTIC will operate entirely within an existing rail corridor and its adjacent parcels will be in an area where the railroad facilities have long been part of the local community setting. Implementation of ARTIC will not restrict the movement of people or physically divide an established community. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact? (No Impact) The properties that surround ARTIC are primarily designated as mixed use, which accommodates a variety of uses. Figure 3.1-5 provides an overview of land uses within and adjacent to ARTIC. ARTIC will be compatible with existing and planned land uses within the City. The proposed General Plan amendment pertains to the General Plan Circulation Element and is intended to provide consistency between the street classification and the existing street design and does not pertain to land use. The amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan will allow for greater flexibility of the streetscape improvements prescribed by the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan to meet the specific design needs of ARTIC. The streetscape for ARTIC will be compatible with the intent of the Landscape Concept Plan to create a memorable, unified and civic-scaled public landscape for the Platinum Triangle and the overall vision of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan to create a unique, integrated, walkable urban environment. The proposed project will comply with the development standards for the PR and SP Zones, including those standards that will be determined as part of the approval of a CUP for the transit facility. The evaluation of potential environmental consequences associated with land use reveals consistency with existing and future land uses at ARTIC. City and local land use plans anticipate and support ARTIC, as outlined below: Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.1 Land Use and Planning ARTIC Draft EIR 3.1-25 July 19, 2010  The City of Anaheim General Plan aims to support the “vision” of the City by encouraging growth and utilizing mixed-use areas within the Platinum Triangle, limiting traffic impacts and encouraging alternate means of transportation, and promoting economic development. Other related objectives of the City of Anaheim General Plan include, ensuring compatibility between adjacent land use, creating a dynamic, identifiable sense of place, and taking advantage of existing and implementing new transit to reduce traffic impacts. A specific goal of the City is to establish the Platinum Triangle as a thriving economic center, and part of the City’s policy to execute this goal is through encouraging the development of ARTIC;  The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and PTMU Overlay Zone provide opportunities for future commercial, office, residential and mixed-use development near existing transit facilities. Part of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan vision includes ARTIC. Other planning principles to support the vision of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan include helping to stimulate market driven development, creating a unique, integrated community, linking housing to employment, and maintaining and enhancing connectivity; and  ARTIC is located on properties within the PR and SP Zones. The intent of the PR Zone is to establish for the benefit of the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Anaheim and its visitors, a zone to preserve, regulate and control the orderly use and enjoyment of City-owned properties and facilities and adjacent private property. The intent of the SP Zone is to provide locations for uses that support civic, governmental, cultural, health, educational, recreational, and infrastructure uses of the community. The proposed project meets the intent of these zones and will comply with the applicable development standards prescribed by the Anaheim Municipal Code. ARTIC will be compatible with planned land uses and is consistent with the City’s policies and regulations concerning land use, zoning ordinances, and codes. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (No Impact) No habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans apply to ARTIC. ARTIC will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan (HCP) or natural community conservation plan (NCCP). No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 3.1.5 Cumulative Impacts ARTIC will comply with zoning designations, applicable municipal codes, and be consistent with both the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and the City of Anaheim General Plan. There is no impact from ARTIC as a result of cumulative effects. 3.1.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions  City of Anaheim General Plan; Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.1 Land Use and Planning ARTIC Draft EIR 3.1-26 July 19, 2010  Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan; and  Anaheim Municipal Code. 3.1.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ARTIC will have no impact on land use. 3.1.8 Mitigation Measures ARTIC will have no impact on land use. No mitigation measures are required for this issue area. 3.1.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ARTIC will have no impact on land use. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-1 July 19, 2010 3.2 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC The information from the following document was used in the preparation of this section and is included in its entirety in Appendix B of this EIR: Traffic Impact Analysis, ARTIC, Anaheim, California. Prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan (LLG) Engineers, July 2010. 3.2.1 Environmental Setting ARTIC Traffic Study Area SR-57 bisects the project site and provides primary regional access to ARTIC through both north and southbound ramps that exit onto Katella Avenue. The principal local network of streets serving ARTIC consists of; Katella Avenue, Cerritos Avenue, Struck Avenue, Collins Avenue, Orangewood Avenue, Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street, Manchester Avenue, Anaheim Way, Lewis Street, State College Boulevard, Howell Avenue, Douglass Road, Eckhoff Street, Main Street and Batavia Street. Existing Street Network The following is a description of the local street network. Katella Avenue is an east-west roadway that borders ARTIC on the north. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the ARTIC vicinity. Katella Avenue is a six- lane roadway divided by a raised median. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. The intersections of Katella Avenue at Manchester Avenue/I-5 SB Ramps, Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps, Lewis Street, State College Boulevard, Sportstown, Howell Avenue, SR-57 SB Ramps, SR-57 NB Ramps, Douglass Road, Struck Avenue, Main Street, and Batavia Street are controlled by traffic signals. Cerritos Avenue is an east-west roadway located north of ARTIC. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the ARTIC vicinity. Cerritos Avenue is a four-lane roadway divided by a two-way left-turn lane. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. Struck Avenue is an east-west roadway located east of ARTIC. On-street parking is not permitted on the south side of the roadway, but is permitted on the north side of the roadway, within the ARTIC vicinity. Struck Avenue is a two-lane roadway divided by a double-yellow line. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Collins Avenue is an east-west roadway located east of ARTIC. West of Main Street, Collins Avenue is a four-lane undivided roadway with on-street parking permitted on both sides of the roadway. East of Main Street, Collins Avenue is a four lane roadway divided by a two-way left turn lane. On-street parking is not permitted in the vicinity of ARTIC. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. Orangewood Avenue is an east-west roadway located south of ARTIC. On-street parking is generally not permitted on both sides of the roadway within the vicinity of ARTIC. Orangewood Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-2 July 19, 2010 Avenue is primarily a four-lane roadway divided by a two-way left-turn lane. Between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard, Orangewood Avenue is a six-lane roadway divided by a raised median, with on-street parking restricted on both sides of the roadway. West of Eckhoff Street, the posted speed limit is 40 mph. East of Eckhoff Street, the posted speed limit is 35 mph. Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street is a north-south roadway located west of ARTIC. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the vicinity of ARTIC. South of Katella Avenue, Haster Street is a four-lane roadway divided by a two-way left-turn lane. North of Katella Avenue, Anaheim Boulevard is a six-lane roadway divided by a raised median. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. Manchester Avenue is a one-way roadway located west of ARTIC trending in a southeast direction. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the vicinity of ARTIC. Manchester Avenue is a three-lane undivided roadway. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Anaheim Way is a one-way roadway located west of ARTIC trending in a northwest direction. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the vicinity of ARTIC. Anaheim Way is a three-lane undivided roadway. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Lewis Street is a north-south roadway located west of ARTIC. On-street parking is generally prohibited in the study area except between Katella Avenue and Anaheim Way where on-street parking is permitted on both sides of the roadway. North of Katella Avenue, Lewis Street is a four-lane roadway divided by a two-way left turn lane. South of Katella Avenue, Lewis Street is a two-lane undivided roadway. North of Anaheim Way, the posted speed limit is 35 mph. South of Orangewood Avenue, the posted speed limit is 45 mph. State College Boulevard is a north-south roadway located west of ARTIC. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the ARTIC vicinity. State College Boulevard is primarily a six-lane divided roadway. South of Orangewood Avenue, State College Boulevard is an eight-lane divided roadway. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. Howell Avenue is an east-west roadway located north-west of ARTIC. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the ARTIC vicinity. Howell Avenue is a two-lane roadway divided by a two-way left-turn lane. Douglass Road is a north-south roadway that borders ARTIC on the west. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the ARTIC vicinity. North of Katella Avenue, Douglass Road is a four-lane roadway divided by a two-way left turn lane, and south of Katella Avenue, Douglass Road is a four-lane undivided roadway. Eckhoff Street is a north-south roadway located south-east of ARTIC. On-street parking is permitted on both sides of the roadway within the ARTIC vicinity. South of Orangewood Avenue, Eckhoff Street is a two-lane undivided roadway with a posted speed limit is 25 mph. North of Orangewood Avenue, Eckhoff Street is a two-lane roadway divided by a two-way left turn lane with a posted speed limit of 40 mph. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-3 July 19, 2010 Main Street is a north-south roadway located east of ARTIC. South of Collins Street, on-street parking is not permitted on the west side of the roadway, but is permitted on the east side of the roadway, within the vicinity of ARTIC. North of Collins Avenue, on-street parking is generally permitted. Main Street is a four-lane roadway divided by a two-way left-turn lane. North of Orangewood Avenue, the posted speed limit is 40 mph. South of Orangewood Avenue, the posted speed limit is 35 mph. Batavia Street is a north-south roadway located east of ARTIC. On-street parking is generally permitted on both sides of the roadway within the ARTIC vicinity. Batavia Street is a four-lane undivided roadway. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. An inventory of the existing roadway conditions within the study area is presented in Figure 3.2-1. The number of travel lanes and intersection controls for the key area study intersections are also identified. Existing Traffic Volumes Existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the 12 key study intersections, along with existing daily two-way traffic volumes for the eight key roadway segments, were provided by the City. The traffic analysis included existing (i.e. baseline) and future (near term and long term) weekday AM and PM peak hour and daily traffic conditions, Year 2013 and Year 2030 traffic conditions With and Without ARTIC. Seven driveways for ARTIC were also included in the analysis for the near term with ARTIC scenarios. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-4 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-7 July 19, 2010 Traffic Study Area Intersections The study intersections listed below are locations that were evaluated for ARTIC. These existing key study intersections and the seven future ARTIC driveways listed below were selected based on the “51 or more peak hour trips threshold” criteria outlined in the City of Anaheim Criteria For Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies as well as discussions with the City staff. The key study intersections and driveways are: 1. Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue (City); 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue (City); 3. Lewis Street at Katella Avenue (City); 4. State College Boulevard at Katella Avenue (City); 5. Sportstown at Katella Avenue (City); 6. Howell Avenue at Katella Avenue (City); 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue (City); 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue (City); 9. Douglass Road at Katella Avenue (City); 10. Struck Avenue at Katella Avenue (City of Orange); 11. Main Street at Katella Avenue (City of Orange); 12. Batavia Street at Katella Avenue (City of Orange); 13. Douglass Road at Driveway 1 (Future); 14. Douglass Road at Driveway 2 (Future); 15. Douglass Road at Driveway 3 (Future); 16. Douglass Road at Driveway 4 (Future); 17. Douglass Road at Driveway 5 (Future); 18. Douglass Road at Driveway 6 (Future); and 19. Katella Avenue at Driveway 7 (Future). Existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes and daily traffic volumes for the 12 key study intersections are presented in Figures 3.2-2, 3.2-3, and 3.2-4, respectively. Traffic Study Area Roadway Segments The eight roadway segments listed below were selected based on the arterial network within the study area: 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way (City); 2. Katella Avenue between Anaheim Way and Lewis Street (City); 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard (City); 4. Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown (City); 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue (City); 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway (City); 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street (Cities of Anaheim and Orange); and 8. Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street (City of Orange). Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-8 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-15 July 19, 2010 City of Orange The study area was based on the location of ARTIC and “51 or more peak hour trips threshold” criteria outlined in the City of Anaheim Criteria For Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. The City of Orange uses the same methodology to determine intersections to be analyzed in Traffic Impact Studies. The City of Orange sent a scoping letter requesting the analysis of 12 intersections within the City of Orange. In response, the analysis of all 12 requested intersections was conducted to see if they met the minimum peak hour trip threshold. Those City of Orange intersections that were forecast to receive 51 or more peak hour trips from ARTIC were further scrutinized to determine whether ARTIC would create significant traffic impacts in connection with the identified City of Orange intersections because they did not receive 51 or more peak hour trips. Caltrans Facilities There were four Caltrans intersections/ramps within the ARTIC vicinity selected for analysis. These four intersection/ramps were identified within the 19 key intersections and driveways evaluated for the project. The four intersections are: 1. Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue In addition to the freeway/street intersection analysis the need for a Freeway Ramp Analysis for merge/diverge/weaving was identified. The locations identified for this analysis included; Merge/Diverge Analysis 1. I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from Katella Avenue 2. I-5 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue 3. SR-57 Northbound On-Ramp from Eastbound Katella Avenue 4. SR-57 Southbound On-Ramp from Westbound Katella Avenue Weaving Analysis 1. R-57 Northbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Avenue off- ramp 2. R-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue off- ramp Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-16 July 19, 2010 3. R-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road off-ramp 4. R-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue off-ramp Also the need for Freeway Segment Analysis was identified for the following four (4) Caltrans freeway segments: 1. R-57 Northbound from Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue 2. R-57 Southbound from Katella Avenue to Orangewood Avenue 3. R-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road 4. R-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue Traffic Study Methodology The following is a brief discussion of the methodology utilized for the Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix B). In order to assess ARTIC’s impact on future traffic conditions, the traffic analysis included existing (i.e. baseline) and future (near term and long term) weekday AM and PM peak hour and daily traffic conditions for existing (i.e. baseline), Year 2013 and Year 2030 cumulative traffic conditions With and Without ARTIC. Capacity Analysis Methodologies Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Method of Analysis (Signalized Intersections) Existing AM and PM peak hour operating conditions for the 12 key study intersections were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology for signalized intersections and the methodology outlined in Chapter 17 of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 for unsignalized intersections. Methodology outlined in Chapter 16 of the HCM 2000 for signalized intersections was utilized for the Caltrans Analysis. Existing AM and PM peak hour operating conditions for the key signalized study intersections were evaluated using the ICU method in conformance with City requirements. The ICU technique is intended for signalized intersection analysis and estimates the volume to capacity (V/C) relationship for an intersection based on the individual V/C ratios for key conflicting traffic movements. The ICU numerical value represents the percent signal (green) time and thus capacity, required by existing and/or future traffic. It should be noted that the ICU methodology assumes uniform traffic distribution per intersection approach lane and optimal signal timing. Per City requirements, the ICU calculations use a lane capacity of 1,700 Vehicles per Hour (VPH) for through and all turn lanes. A clearance adjustment factor of 0.05 was added to each Level of Service (LOS) calculation. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-17 July 19, 2010 The ICU value translates to a LOS estimate, which is a relative measure of the intersection performance. The six qualitative categories of LOS have been defined along with the corresponding ICU value range and are shown in Table 3.2-1. Table 3.2-1 Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections (ICU Methodology) LOS Intersection Capacity Utilization Value (V/C) LOS Description A  0.60 EXCELLENT. No vehicle waits longer than one red light and no approach phase is fully used. B 0.61 – 0.70 VERY GOOD. An occasional approach phase is fully utilized; many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles. C 0.71 – 0.80 GOOD. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red light; backups may develop behind turning vehicles. D 0.81 – 0.90 FAIR. Delays may be substantial during portions of the rush hours, but enough lower volume periods occur to permit clearing of developing lines, preventing excessive backups. E 0.91 – 1.00 POOR. Represents the most vehicles intersection approaches can accommodate; may be long lines of waiting vehicles through several signal cycles. F > 1.00 FAILURE. Backups from nearby locations or on cross streets may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approaches. Potentially very long delays with continuously increasing queue lengths. HCM Method of Analysis (Unsignalized Intersections) The 2000 HCM unsignalized intersection methodology was utilized in the analysis of stop- controlled intersections. For all-way stop-controlled intersections, this methodology estimates the average control delay for each of the subject movements and determines the LOS for each movement. The overall average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle and LOS is then calculated for the entire intersection. The HCM control delay value translates to a LOS estimate, which is a relative measure of the intersection performance. For one-way and two-way stop-controlled (minor street stop-controlled) intersections, this methodology estimates the worst side street delay, measured in seconds per vehicle and determines the LOS for that approach. The HCM delay value translates to a LOS estimate, which is a relative measure of the intersection performance. The six qualitative categories of LOS have been defined along with the corresponding HCM control delay value range, as shown in Table 3.2-2. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-18 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-2 LOS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections (HCM) LOS HCM Delay Value (sec/veh) LOS Description A  10.0 Little or no delay B > 10.0 and  15.0 Short traffic delays C > 15.0 and  25.0 Average traffic delays D > 25.0 and  35.0 Long traffic delays E > 35.0 and  50.0 Very long traffic delays F > 50.0 Severe congestion Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Method of Analysis (Signalized Intersections) Based on the HCM operations method of analysis, LOS for signalized intersections is defined in terms of control delay, which is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption and lost travel time. The delay experienced by a motorist is made up of a number of factors that relate to control, geometries, traffic and incidents. Total delay is the difference between the travel time actually experienced and the reference travel time that will result during ideal conditions i.e., no traffic control, geometric delay or incidents, and when there are no other vehicles on the road. In Chapter 16 of the HCM, only the portion of total delay attributed to the control facility is quantified. This delay is called control delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay and final acceleration delay. In contrast, in previous versions of the HCM (1994 and earlier), delay included only stopped delay. LOS criteria for HCM evaluated traffic signals are stated in terms of the average control delay per vehicle. The six qualitative categories of LOS that have been defined along with the corresponding HCM control delay value range for signalized intersections are shown in Table 3.2-3. Table 3.2-3 Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections (HCM) LOS Control Delay Per Vehicle (seconds/vehicle) (s/v) Level of Service Description A < 10.0 This LOS occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. B > 10.0 and < 20.0 This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. C > 20.0 and < 35.0 Average traffic delays. These higher delays may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-19 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-3 (cont’d) Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections (HCM) LOS Control Delay Per Vehicle (seconds/vehicle) (s/v) Level of Service Description D > 35.0 and < 55.0 Long traffic delays. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. E > 55.0 and < 80.0 Very long traffic delays. This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. -F  80.0 Severe congestion. This level, considered to be unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with over saturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing factors to such delay levels. Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio Method of Analysis (Roadway Segments) In conformance with the City criteria, existing daily operating conditions for the existing key study roadway segments have been investigated using the V/C method. The V/C relationship is used to estimate the LOS of the roadway segment based on 24-hour traffic count data and the existing roadway capacity based on the City’s classification of each roadway. All of the roadway segments are for Katella Avenue. The City of Anaheim General Plan, Circulation Element and Orange County Highway Design Manual (September 1991) classifications are presented in Table 3.2-4. Table 3.2-4 Daily Roadway Segment Capacities Type of Arterial Lane Configuration LOS E Capacity (Vehicles per Day (VPD)) Major 6-Lanes Divided 56,300 Major 8-Lanes Divided 75,000 Existing Levels of Service Intersections A summary of the existing peak hour LOS calculations for the 12 key study intersections based on existing traffic volumes and current street geometry is provided in Table 3.2-5. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-20 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-5 Existing Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary (1) (2) (3) (4) Existing Traffic Conditions Existing With Project Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Existing With Project With Improvements Key Intersection Time Period ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No ICU LOS Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 0.583 A 0.584 A 0.001 No -- -- 1. Katella Avenue PM 0.524 A 0.528 A 0.004 No -- -- Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 0.493 A 0.503 A 0.010 No -- -- 2. Katella Avenue PM 0.496 A 0.497 A 0.001 No -- -- Lewis Street at AM 0.484 A 0.485 A 0.001 No -- -- 3. Katella Avenue PM 0.646 B 0.653 B 0.007 No -- -- State College Boulevard at AM 0.426 A 0.446 A 0.020 No -- -- 4. Katella Avenue PM 0.531 A 0.540 A 0.009 No -- -- Sportstown at AM 0.333 A 0.329 A -0.004 No -- -- 5. Katella Avenue PM 0.461 A 0.460 A -0.001 No -- -- Howell Avenue at AM 0.377 A 0.378 A 0.001 No -- -- 6. Katella Avenue PM 0.551 A 0.555 A 0.004 No -- -- AM 0.402 A 0.441 A 0.039 No -- -- 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue PM 0.407 A 0.429 A 0.022 No -- -- SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 0.363 A 0.440 A 0.077 No -- -- 8. Katella Avenue PM 0.401 A 0.433 A 0.032 No -- -- Douglass Road at AM 0.408 A 0.437 A 0.029 No -- -- 9. Katella Avenue PM 0.492 A 0.685 B 0.193 No -- -- Struck Avenue at AM 0.280 A 0.284 A 0.004 No -- -- 10. Katella Avenue PM 0.344 A 0.349 A 0.005 No -- -- Main Street at AM 0.501 A 0.512 A 0.011 No -- -- 11. Katella Avenue PM 0.495 A 0.504 A 0.009 No -- -- Batavia Street at AM 0.534 A 0.544 A 0.010 No -- -- 12. Katella Avenue PM 0.500 A 0.506 A 0.006 No -- -- Roadway Segments A summary of the existing LOS calculations for the eight key study roadway segments based on existing daily traffic volumes and current roadway geometry is provided in Table 3.2-6. All the existing key study roadway segments are currently operating at acceptable LOS C or better except Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-21 July 19, 2010 for the roadway segment of Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and SR-57 Southbound Ramps, which currently operate at an adverse LOS D. Table 3.2-6 Existing Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service (1) (2) (3) (4) Existing Traffic Conditions Existing With Project Traffic Conditions Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial LOS E Capacity (VPD) Lanes Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 35,260 0.626 B 2. Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 35,410 0.629 B 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard Major 56,300 6D 30,260 0.537 A 30,630 0.544 A 4. Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown Major 56,300 6D 32,800 0.583 A 33,433 0.594 A 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue Major 56,300 6D 34,240 0.608 B 34,623 0.615 B 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway Major 56,300 6D 37,990 0.675 B 38,373 0.682 B Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-22 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-6 (cont’d) Existing Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service (1) (2) (3) (4) Existing Traffic Conditions Existing With Project Traffic Conditions Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial LOS E Capacity (VPD) Lanes Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street Major 56,300 6D 29,610 0.526 A 30,349 0.539 A 8. Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street Major 59,115 6D 30,280 0.512 A 30,686 0.519 A Caltrans Analysis Methods Caltrans requires the use of methods provided in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) for the analysis of signalized ramp intersections, freeway ramps and freeway segments. The four (4) intersection/ramps listed below are Caltrans’ intersections/ramps and were analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM) Methodology: 1. Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue The minimum required Level of Service to be maintained at Caltrans intersections/ramps is LOS D as identified by Caltrans District 12 staff. In addition, Freeway Ramp Analysis for merge/diverge/weaving was also conducted using the methods provided in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) for the following eight (8) Caltrans ramps: Merge/Diverge Analysis 1. I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from Katella Avenue 2. I-5 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue 3. SR-57 Northbound On-Ramp from Eastbound Katella Avenue Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-23 July 19, 2010 4. SR-57 Southbound On-Ramp from Westbound Katella Avenue Weaving Analysis 1. SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp Freeway Segment Analysis 1. SR-57 Northbound from Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue 2. SR-57 Southbound from Katella Avenue to Orangewood Avenue 3. SR-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue Freeway Mainline and Ramp Merge/Diverge Points The freeway mainline and freeway ramp criteria are based on peak hour HCM 2000 density analysis. The capacities are based on information contained in the HCM 2000 and the Caltrans Ramp Meter Design Manual. Existing count data provided by Caltrans. Ramp merge and diverge analysis was carried out by applying Highway Capacity Software, the electronic version of the HCM 2000 for freeway-to-arterial interchanges. According to HCM 2000 methodology, the ramp merge and diverge areas focus on an influence area of 1,500 feet, including the acceleration or deceleration lane and adjacent freeway lanes. The methodology incorporates three fundamental steps:  Determination of the traffic entering the freeway lanes upstream of the merge or at the beginning of the deceleration lane at diverge;  Determination of the capacity for the segment; and  Determination of the density of traffic flow within the ramp influence area and it’s LOS. The LOS for freeway ramps is determined by traffic density based on criteria outlined in the HCM 2000. Freeway mainline LOS are similarly determined from segment density. Table 3.2-7 presents the correlation between LOS and density in terms of passenger cars per mile per lane (pc/mi/ln) for both freeway ramps and basic freeway segments. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-24 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-7 Caltrans Freeway Mainline and Ramp Level of Service Criteria (HCM) LOS Freeway Ramp Density (pc/mi/ln) Basic Freeway Segment Density (pc/mi/ln) A ≤ 10.0 0-11.0 B > 10.0 and ≤ 20.0 11.0 – 18.0 C > 20.0 and ≤ 28.0 18.0 – 26.0 D > 28.0 and ≤ 35.0 26.0 – 35.0 E > 35.0 35.0 – 45.0 F Exceeds Capacity >45.0 Freeway Weaving Analysis Freeway weaving is defined as the crossing of two streams of traffic traveling in the same direction along a significant length of highway without the aid of traffic control devices. Weaving segments are formed when merge areas are followed by diverge areas within 2,500 feet of the merge area. Auxiliary lanes do not need to be present to be defined a weaving area. Weaving analysis uses the most current version of the HCM 2000 and provides a density for the weaving area within the freeway segment and corresponding LOS. Freeway weaving analysis was carried out by applying Highway Capacity Software to weaving areas. According to HCM 2000, the weaving analysis supersedes ramp merge/diverge analysis and therefore were not analyzed for identified weaving segments. Table 3.2-8 specifies the LOS for associated freeway weaving densities. Table 3.2-8 Caltrans Freeway Weaving Level of Service Criteria (HCM) LOS Freeway Weaving Area Density (pc/mi/ln) A ≤ 10.0 B > 10.0 and ≤ 20.0 C > 20.0 and ≤ 28.0 D > 28.0 and ≤ 35.0 E ≤ 43.0 F >43.0 Similarly, Freeway Segment Analysis was also conducted using the methods provided in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) for the following four (4) Caltrans freeway segments: 1. SR-57 Northbound from Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue 2. SR-57 Southbound from Katella Avenue to Orangewood Avenue 3. SR-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-25 July 19, 2010 Caltrans Existing Conditions The Caltrans study area intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours, as indicated in Table 3.2-9. Table 3.2-9 Caltrans Existing Intersection Traffic Conditions Caltrans Existing Traffic Conditions for Merge/Diverge Analysis All four Caltrans ramp locations operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours during the existing traffic conditions, as identified in Table 3.2-10. Table 3.2-10 Caltrans Existing Merge/Diverge Traffic Conditions Existing Traffic Conditions Key Freeway Ramp Analysis Type Time Period Peak Hour Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from AM 4,710 200 18.9 B 1. Katella Avenue Merge Analysis PM 7,230 280 26.8 C I-5 Off-Ramp Southbound to AM 5,590 540 1.7 A 2. Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue Diverge Analysis PM 6,930 200 1.2 A SR-57 Northbound On-Ramp from AM 4,010 300 17.3 B 3. Eastbound Katella Avenue Merge Analysis PM 7,230 450 27.0 C SR-57 Southbound On-Ramp from AM 5,490 240 21.7 C 4. Westbound Katella Avenue Merge Analysis PM 6,690 460 25.4 C Existing Traffic Conditions Key Ramp Intersection Time Period Delay (s/v) LOS Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 16.6 B 1. Katella Avenue PM 15.2 B Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 14.4 C 2. Katella Avenue PM 17.8 C SR-57 Southbound Ramps at AM 10.2 B 7. Katella Avenue PM 8.1 B SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 9.5 B 8. Katella Avenue PM 10.4 B Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-26 July 19, 2010 Caltrans Existing Traffic Conditions for Weave Analysis Of the four Caltrans locations the PM peak hours operate at an unacceptable LOS D or worse. The LOS during the AM and PM peak hours during the existing traffic conditions are identified in Table 3.2-11. Table 3.2-11 Existing Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – Weaving Analysis (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) (1) (2) Existing Traffic Conditions Weaving Movement Volume Key Freeway Ramp Time Period A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Ave AM 3,860 10 730 150 18.66 B 1. On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off- Ramp PM 6,960 10 550 270 30.62 D SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave AM 5,490 10 700 150 26.59 C 2. On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp PM 6,680 20 710 340 34.09 D SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave AM 3,600 10 840 140 22.80 C 3. On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp PM 7,050 10 660 230 39.28 E SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd AM 4,890 30 840 600 32.99 D 4. On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off- Ramp PM 6,190 30 660 500 37.03 E Impact Criteria and Thresholds In order to estimate the traffic impact characteristics of ARTIC, a multi step process was utilized. The first step is traffic generation, which estimates the total arriving and departing traffic on a peak hour and daily basis. The traffic generation potential is forecast by applying the appropriate vehicle trip generation equations and/or rates to ARTIC development tabulation. The second step of the forecasting process is traffic distribution, which identifies the origins and destinations of inbound and outbound ARTIC traffic. These origins and destinations are typically based on demographics and existing/expected future travel patterns in the study area. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-27 July 19, 2010 The third step is traffic assignment, which involves the allocation of ARTIC traffic to study area streets and intersections. Traffic assignment is typically based on minimization of travel time, which may or may not involve the shortest route, depending on prevailing operating conditions and travel speeds. Traffic distribution patterns are indicated by general percentage orientation, while traffic assignment allocates specific volume forecasts to individual roadway segments and intersection turning movements throughout the study area. For intersections and arterial segments, significant impacts are determined using the City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. Under the General Plan Build-out scenarios, these locations are governed by the City’s Growth Management Element. All State owned facilities are analyzed consistent with the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies for all scenarios. Intersections According to the City of Anaheim’s General Plan, Circulation Element and stated in the City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained during the morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak commute hours on all City intersections. LOS C is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained on a daily basis for roadway segments. The City of Orange also utilizes LOS D as the performance standard for intersections. The relative impact of the added traffic volumes generated by ARTIC during the AM and PM peak hours was evaluated based on analysis of future operating conditions at the key study intersections, With and Without, ARTIC. The previously discussed capacity analysis procedures were utilized to investigate the future delay or volume-to-capacity relationships and LOS characteristics at each study intersection. In determining whether ARTIC will have a significant impact on the signalized study intersections, the sliding scale criteria presented in Table 3.2-12 was used. Table 3.2-12 Significant Impact Criteria Level of Service (LOS) Final V/C Ratio ARTIC-Related Increase in V/C C > 0.700 – 0.800 Equal to or greater than 0.05 D > 0.800 – 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.03 E, F > 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.01 ARTIC-related increase in ICU value that defines a significant impact at signalized intersections varies with LOS as indicated in Table 3.2-9. For the unsignalized intersections, this analysis defines a significant impact as a decrease in LOS by one level or more for those locations operating at LOS D, E, or F. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-28 July 19, 2010 For General Plan Build-out analysis, consistent with the City’s Growth Management Element, ARTIC is deemed to have a significant impact if it results in deterioration from an acceptable to an unacceptable LOS or an increase in the ICU value of 0.01 if the intersection currently operates at LOS E or F under Without ARTIC conditions. Arterial Segments ARTIC is deemed to have a significant impact on roadway segments if it results in deterioration of the daily LOS to an unacceptable LOS (LOS D, E, or F) coupled with a continued deficiency under peak hour conditions. It is also deemed have a significant impact if it results in an increase in the daily ICU value of 0.01 if the segment currently operates at LOS E or F under daily Without ARTIC conditions and the segment is found to be deficient under peak hour conditions. For City of Orange segments, ARTIC is deemed to have a significant impact if it results in deterioration of the daily LOS to an unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F) or causes an increase in the daily ICU value of 0.01 if the segment currently operates at LOS E or F under daily Without ARTIC conditions. Caltrans Facilities Caltrans District 12 has established that LOS D is the operating standard for all Caltrans facilities. Caltrans has determined that all state owned facilities that operate below LOS D should be identified and improved to an acceptable LOS although specific criteria to identify ARTIC related impacts is not specified in the Caltrans Traffic Impact Study Guidelines. The relative impact of the added traffic volumes generated by ARTIC on a daily basis was evaluated based on analysis of future operating conditions at the key roadway segments. The capacity analysis procedures were utilized to investigate the future volume-to-capacity relationships and LOS characteristics at each roadway segment. 3.2.2 Regulatory Setting Local Policies and Regulations Southern California Area Governments SCAG is the regional governing body for the south coast region, which includes the counties of Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Imperial. Regional associations of governments were created by the state to guide land use decisions that overlap multiple local jurisdictions and to provide policy guidance to the region. The SCAG serves as southern California’s forum for addressing regional issues concerning transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG’s responsibilities under federal law as a MPO include developing and adopting a long range RTP every four years. The RTP serves as a basis for transportation decision making in the region and involves the preparation of long range transportation plans and development. The RTP also provides for the adoption of transportation improvement programs that allocate state and federal funds for highway, transit, and other surface transportation projects. The RTP includes ARTIC as part of its guide to provide strategic direction and transportation investments during the applicable time period. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-29 July 19, 2010 SCAG is responsible for developing and approving a short term component of the long range RTP, known as the RTIP. The RTIP is updated every two years and is used to determine and prioritize how much federal funding state and local agencies in the region receive in a five-year time span. City of Anaheim General Plan Goal 2.1 of the City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element is to maintain efficient traffic operations on city streets and a peak hour LOS not worse than D at street intersections. Goal 2.3 encourages improving regional access for City residents and workers by engaging in regional and inter-jurisdictional planning efforts, implementing state and regional growth management plans, and implementing public transportation services, including the development of ARTIC. City of Orange General Plan The Circulation and Mobility Plan within the City of Orange General Plan refers to the LOS levels discussed in the Orange County Management Program (City of Orange, 2010). The Circulation and Mobility Plan describes goals, policies, and implementation programs that seek to achieve a better balance between vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle travel, and provides a wide range of viable transportation options to City of Orange residents. The specific issues discussed include: enhancing the local circulation system; maintaining the regional circulation system; maintaining a viable public transportation network; creating a comprehensive system of sidewalks, trails, and bikeways; providing adequate parking facilities; and improving circulation system aesthetics and safety. 3.2.3 Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines, the threshold for significance for Transportation and Traffic is defined by: a) Would the project cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic loads and capacity of the street system as measured by the applicable performance standards, or exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by a congestion management agency? b) Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses? d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? e) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-30 July 19, 2010 3.2.4 Project Impacts a) Would the project cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic loads and capacity of the street system as measured by the applicable performance standards, or exceed, either individually or cumulatively a level of service standard established by a congestion management agency? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation) ARTIC Trip Generation Forecast Volumes The existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station generates 1,015 daily trips (one-half arriving and one-half departing), with 183 trips (119 inbound, 64 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour, and 223 trips (86 inbound, 137 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. Traffic generation for the AM and PM peak hours was derived using the factors provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation, 7th Edition, Land Use Codes 090 and 093. The trip rate includes buses, taxis, and shuttles. The anticipated AM and PM peak hour existing Station trips at the key study intersections are presented in Table 3.2-13. Table 3.2-13 ARTIC Traffic Trip Generation Rates and Forecast AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ARTIC Description Daily Trips Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Trip Generation Factors: ARTIC (TE/PS) 4.91 0.67 0.17 0.84 0.15 0.54 0.69 ARTIC Trip Generation Forecast: ARTIC North Parking Lot - (323 Spaces) 1,586 216 55 271 48 174 222 ARTIC South Parking Lot - (232 Spaces) 1,139 155 39 194 35 125 160 Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot - (405 Spaces) 1,989 271 69 340 61 219 280 ARTIC Trip Generation Forecast (A): 4,714 642 163 805 144 518 662 Existing Station Trip Generation: Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot 1,015 119 64 183 86 137 223 Existing ARTIC Trip Generation (B): 1,015 119 64 183 86 137 223 Net ARTIC Traffic Generation Forecast (C) = (A) - (B) 3,699 523 99 622 58 381 439 Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-31 July 19, 2010 ARTIC Traffic Distribution and Assignment The directional traffic distribution patterns at the key study intersections for the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station condition and ARTIC are presented in Figure 3.2-5 and Figure 3.2-6, respectively. Traffic volumes, both entering and exiting the site, have been distributed and assigned to the adjacent street system based on the following considerations:  Anaheim Metrolink Station Trip Access Distribution Survey;  The Station’s proximity to major traffic carriers (i.e. SR-57, Katella Avenue, etc.);  Expected localized traffic flow patterns based on adjacent street channelization and presence of traffic signals;  Traffic-carrying capacity and travel speed available on roadways serving the Station;  Existing intersection traffic volumes; and  Ingress/egress availability at the Station. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-32 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-37 July 19, 2010 Existing + ARTIC Traffic Volumes The estimates of ARTIC-generated traffic volumes were added to the existing traffic conditions to develop traffic distribution for the Existing + ARTIC traffic conditions. Year 2013 Without ARTIC Traffic Volumes In order to make a realistic estimate of future on-street conditions prior to implementation of ARTIC, anticipated Year 2013 traffic volumes were calculated by interpolation of model growth. Background ambient traffic growth estimates have been calculated by interpolating between the existing volumes and the Year 2030 + ARTIC volumes. The status of other known development projects (related projects) in the area has been researched at the City and has been included as part of the cumulative background settings for the Year 2013 traffic conditions. Based on information provided by the City there are 25 related projects located in the City that have been built but not fully occupied, or are being processed for approval. These 25 related projects have been included as part of the cumulative background setting. For the list see Appendix B, page 30. The traffic volumes for Year 2013 Without ARTIC in the AM and PM peak hour traffic at the twelve key study intersections and the eight key study roadway segments was provided by the City. Year 2013 + ARTIC Traffic Volumes The estimates of ARTIC generated traffic volumes were added to the Year 2013 Without ARTIC traffic conditions to develop traffic projections for the Year 2013 + ARTIC. 3.2.5 Existing Conditions Traffic Impact Analysis The existing conditions analysis establishes the basis for the future forecasts for ARTIC. This analysis was based on existing intersection and roadway segment counts collected in Year 2008 and provided by the City. The existing conditions analysis reflects these counts as well as existing lane configurations for all analyzed intersections and roadway segments. Existing Conditions Intersection Capacity Analysis The peak hour LOS results at the key study intersections for existing traffic conditions With and Without ARTIC as shown in Table 3.2-14. Existing conditions both With and Without ARTIC indicate that the twelve key study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS B or better. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-38 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-14 Existing Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary Existing Traffic Conditions Existing + ARTIC Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Key Intersection Time Period ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 0.583 A 0.584 A 0.001 No 1. Katella Avenue PM 0.524 A 0.528 A 0.004 No Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 0.493 A 0.503 A 0.010 No 2. Katella Avenue PM 0.496 A 0.497 A 0.001 No Lewis Street at AM 0.484 A 0.485 A 0.001 No 3. Katella Avenue PM 0.646 B 0.653 B 0.007 No State College Boulevard at AM 0.426 A 0.446 A 0.020 No 4. Katella Avenue PM 0.531 A 0.540 A 0.009 No Sportstown at AM 0.333 A 0.329 A -0.004 No 5. Katella Avenue PM 0.461 A 0.460 A -0.001 No Howell Avenue at AM 0.377 A 0.378 A 0.001 No 6. Katella Avenue PM 0.551 A 0.555 A 0.004 No SR-57 Southbound Ramps at AM 0.402 A 0.441 A 0.039 No 7. Katella Avenue PM 0.407 A 0.429 A 0.022 No SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 0.363 A 0.440 A 0.077 No 8. Katella Avenue PM 0.401 A 0.433 A 0.032 No Douglass Road at AM 0.408 A 0.437 A 0.029 No 9. Katella Avenue PM 0.492 A 0.685 B 0.193 No Struck Avenue at AM 0.280 A 0.284 A 0.004 No 10. Katella Avenue PM 0.344 A 0.349 A 0.005 No Main Street at AM 0.501 A 0.512 A 0.011 No 11. Katella Avenue PM 0.495 A 0.504 A 0.009 No Batavia Street at AM 0.534 A 0.544 A 0.010 No 12. Katella Avenue PM 0.500 A 0.506 A 0.006 No Existing Conditions Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis The daily LOS results at the key eight study roadway segments during a “typical” weekday for the existing traffic conditions with and without ARTIC as indicated in Table 3.2-15. All eight of the key study roadway segments are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS A or B on a daily basis under existing traffic conditions. All eight of the key study roadway segments are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS A or B on a daily basis under Existing + ARTIC traffic conditions. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-39 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-15 Existing Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service Summary Existing Traffic Conditions Existing + ARTIC Traffic Conditions Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial LOS E Capacity (VPD) Lanes Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 35,260 0.626 B 2. Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 35,410 0.629 B 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard Major 56,300 6D 30,260 0.537 A 30,630 0.544 A 4. Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown Major 56,300 6D 32,800 0.583 A 33,433 0.594 A 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue Major 56,300 6D 34,240 0.608 B 34,623 0.615 B 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway Major 56,300 6D 37,990 0.675 B 38,373 0.682 B 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street Major 56,300 6D 29,610 0.526 A 30,349 0.539 A 8. Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street Major 59,115 6D 30,280 0.512 A 30,686 0.519 A Year 2013 Traffic Impact Analysis Anticipated Year 2013 traffic volumes were calculated by interpolation of model growth. Background ambient traffic growth estimates have been calculated by interpolating between the existing volumes and the Year 2030 + ARTIC volumes. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-40 July 19, 2010 Year 2013 Intersection Capacity Analysis A summary of the peak hour LOS results of the key study intersections for Year 2013 Without ARTIC and Year 2013 + ARTIC is presented in Table 3.2-16. Table 3.2-16 Year 2013 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Year 2013 With Project With Improve- ments Key Intersection Time Period ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No ICU LOS Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 0.583 A 0.684 B 0.685 B 0.001 No -- -- 1. Katella Avenue PM 0.524 A 0.660 B 0.664 B 0.004 No -- -- Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 0.493 A 0.590 A 0.600 A 0.010 No -- -- 2. Katella Avenue PM 0.496 A 0.697 B 0.698 B 0.001 No -- -- Lewis Street at AM 0.484 A 0.656 B 0.658 B 0.002 No -- -- 3. Katella Avenue PM 0.646 B 0.829 D 0.831 D 0.002 No -- -- State College Boulevard at AM 0.426 A 0.639 B 0.648 B 0.009 No -- -- 4. Katella Avenue PM 0.531 A 0.804 D 0.811 D 0.007 No -- -- Sportstown at AM 0.333 A 0.433 A 0.429 A -0.004 No -- -- 5. Katella Avenue PM 0.461 A 0.610 B 0.609 B -0.001 No -- -- Howell Avenue at AM 0.377 A 0.465 A 0.476 A 0.011 No -- -- 6. Katella Avenue PM 0.551 A 0.699 B 0.703 C 0.004 No -- -- SR-57 Southbound Ramps at AM 0.402 A 0.496 A 0.545 A 0.049 No -- -- 7. Katella Avenue PM 0.407 A 0.589 A 0.627 B 0.038 No -- -- SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 0.363 A 0.414 A 0.491 A 0.077 No -- -- 8. Katella Avenue PM 0.401 A 0.475 A 0.508 A 0.033 No -- -- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-41 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-16 (cont’d) Year 2013 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Year 2013 With Project With Improve- ments Key Intersection Time Period ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No ICU LOS Douglass Road at AM 0.408 A 0.442 A 0.441 A -0.001 No -- -- 9. Katella Avenue PM 0.492 A 0.524 A 0.585 A 0.061 No -- -- Struck Avenue at AM 0.280 A 0.304 A 0.308 A 0.004 No -- -- 10. Katella Avenue PM 0.344 A 0.380 A 0.385 A 0.005 No -- -- Main Street at AM 0.501 A 0.523 A 0.535 A 0.012 No -- -- 11. Katella Avenue PM 0.495 A 0.520 A 0.529 A 0.009 No -- -- Batavia Street at AM 0.534 A 0.560 A 0.570 A 0.010 No -- -- 12. Katella Avenue PM 0.500 A 0.523 A 0.529 A 0.006 No -- -- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-42 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-43 July 19, 2010 Year 2013 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis The daily LOS results at the eight key study roadway segments during a “typical” weekday for the Year 2013 traffic conditions is presented Table 3.2-17. Five of the eight key study roadway segments are forecast to operate at adverse LOS on a daily basis under Year 2013 Without ARTIC traffic conditions. The same five key study roadway segments are forecast to continue to operate at adverse or worse on a daily basis under Year 2013 + ARTIC traffic conditions. To determine if ARTIC creates a significant impact, these segments are analyzed under peak hour conditions to determine if there are any peak hour deficiencies. Table 3.2-17 Year 2013 Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service Summary Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2013 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Year 2013 With ARTIC Traffic Conditions Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial LOS E Capacity (VPD) Lanes Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 53,229 0.945 E 53,449 0.949 E 2. Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 53,195 0.945 E 53,565 0.951 E 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard Major 56,300 6D 30,260 0.537 A 45,127 0.802 D 45,497 0.808 D 4. Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown Major 56,300 6D 32,800 0.583 A 43,779 0.778 C 44,412 0.789 C 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue Major 56,300 6D 34,240 0.608 B 47,287 0.840 D 47,670 0.847 D Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-44 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-17 (cont’d) Year 2013 Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service Summary Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2013 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Year 2013 With ARTIC Traffic Conditions Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial LOS E Capacity (VPD) Lanes Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR- 57 Freeway Major 56,300 6D 37,990 0.675 B 52,195 0.927 E 52,578 0.934 E 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street Major 56,300 6D 29,610 0.526 A 38,732 0.688 B 39,471 0.701 C 8. Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street Major 59,115 6D 30,280 0.512 A 36,039 0.610 B 36,445 0.617 B Year 2013 + ARTIC Traffic Conditions These study roadway segments are forecast to operate at LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours as identified in Table 3.2-18. The study roadway segments are not significantly impacted by Year 2013 + ARTIC traffic and no improvements are required. Table 3.2-18 Year 2013 Roadway Segment Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary Year 2013 + ARTIC Traffic Conditions Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial Time Period Approach (Lanes Total Link Capacity (VPH) Peak Hour Volume V/C Ratio LOS EB 3 3,192 1,691 0.530 A AM WB 3 2,736 1,680 0.614 B EB 3 3,249 1,732 0.533 A 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way Major PM WB 3 3,363 2,453 0.729 C EB 3 3,192 2,022 0.633 B AM WB 3 2,964 1,274 0.430 A EB 3 3,249 1,711 0.527 A 2. Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street Major PM WB 3 3,192 2,200 0.689 B Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-45 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-18 (cont’d) Year 2013 Roadway Segment Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary Year 2013 + ARTIC Traffic Conditions Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial Time Period Approach (Lanes Total Link Capacity (VPH) Peak Hour Volume V/C Ratio LOS EB 3 3,705 1,524 0.411 A AM WB 3 2,679 1,105 0.412 A EB 3 2,679 1,498 0.559 A 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Blvd Major PM WB 3 2,964 1,842 0.621 B EB 3 3,876 1,264 0.326 A AM WB 3 4,218 1,178 0.279 A EB 3 3,762 1,430 0.380 A 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue Major PM WB 3 3,648 1,698 0.465 A EB 3 3,876 1,415 0.365 A AM WB 3 4,218 1,660 0.394 A EB 3 3,933 1,780 0.453 A 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway Major PM WB 3 3,933 1,978 0.503 A Caltrans Facilities Year 2013 Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology) While the City requires the use of the ICU Methodology for analyzing ARTIC impacts, Caltrans requires the use of methods provided in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) for the analysis of signalized ramp intersections, freeway ramps and freeway segments. The four intersections listed below are Caltrans’ ramp intersections and have been analyzed using the HCM 2000 Methodology: 1. Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue; 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue; 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue; and 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue. It is expected that the results obtained from using the ICU methodology and the HCM methodology will be compatible and lead to similar conclusions. The two methods measure and analyze different travel flow characteristics, which lead to results that are not identical. The minimum required LOS to be maintained at Caltrans ramp intersections is LOS D as identified by Caltrans District 12 staff. Freeway Ramp Analysis for merge/diverge/weaving was also conducted using the methods provided in the HCM 2000 for the following eight Caltrans ramps: Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-46 July 19, 2010 Merge/Diverge Analysis 1. I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from Katella Avenue; 2. I-5 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue; 3. SR-57 Northbound On-Ramp from Eastbound Katella Avenue; and 4. SR-57 Southbound On-Ramp from Westbound Katella Avenue. Weaving Analysis 1. SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off- Ramp; 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off- Ramp; 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp; and 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp. Freeway Segment Analysis was also conducted using the methods provided in the HCM 2000 for the following four Caltrans freeway segments: 1. SR-57 Northbound from Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue; 2. SR-57 Southbound from Katella Avenue to Orangewood Avenue; 3. SR-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road; and 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue. Year 2013 Caltrans Intersection Capacity Analysis A summary of the peak hour LOS results for the Year 2013 both With and Without ARTIC for the four Caltrans study intersections is presented in Table 3.2-19. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-47 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-19 Year 2013 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2013 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Year 2013 With ARTIC Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Year 2013 With ARTIC With Improvements Key Ramp Intersection Time Period Delay (s/v) LOS Delay (s/v) LOS Delay (s/v) LOS Yes/No Delay (s/v) LOS Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 16.6 B 22.1 C 21.5 C No -- -- 1. Katella Avenue PM 15.2 B 19.9 B 19.5 B No -- -- Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 14.4 B 14.4 B 13.0 B No -- -- 2. Katella Avenue PM 17.8 B 24.2 C 25.4 C No -- -- SR-57 Southbound Ramps at AM 10.2 B 11.6 B 13.1 B No -- -- 7. Katella Avenue PM 8.1 A 16.0 B 15.5 B No -- -- SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 9.5 A 13.9 B 15.5 B No -- -- 8. Katella Avenue PM 10.4 B 11.2 B 12.1 B No -- -- Year 2013 Freeway Ramp Analysis (Merge/Diverge Analysis) The peak hour LOS results at the four Caltrans ramp locations for the merge/diverge analysis for the Year 2013 With and Without ARTIC traffic conditions is presented in Table 3.2-20. None of the four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an adverse LOS under the existing traffic conditions. All four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the existing traffic conditions. None of the four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an adverse LOS under the Year 2013 Without ARTIC traffic conditions. All four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2013 Without ARTIC traffic conditions. None of the four Caltrans ramp locations operate at an adverse LOS with the addition of ARTIC traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. All four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2013 + ARTIC traffic conditions. Year 2013 Freeway Ramp Analysis (Weaving Analysis) The peak hour LOS results at the four Caltrans ramp locations for the weaving analysis for the Year 2013 With and Without traffic conditions are presented in Table 3.2-21. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-48 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-20 Year 2013 Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – Merge/Diverge Analysis (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2013 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Year 2013 + ARTIC Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Key Freeway Ramp Analysis Type Time Period Peak Hour Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Yes/No I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from AM 4,710 200 18.9 B 4,828 213 19.3 B 4,828 217 19.3 B No 1. Katella Avenue Merge Analysis PM 7,230 280 26.8 C 7,471 306 27.5 C 7,471 321 27.4 C No I-5 Off-Ramp Southbound to AM 5,590 540 1.7 A 5,735 626 2.6 A 5,735 647 2.8 A No 2. Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue Diverge Analysis PM 6,930 200 1.2 A 7,121 247 2.0 A 7,121 250 2.0 A No SR-57 Northbound On-Ramp from AM 4,010 300 17.3 B 4,087 326 17.6 B 4,087 311 17.5 B No 3. Eastbound Katella Avenue Merge Analysis PM 7,230 450 27.0 C 7,498 467 27.7 C 7,498 444 27.8 C No SR-57 Southbound On-Ramp from AM 5,490 240 21.7 C 5,922 237 23.1 C 5,922 268 23.1 C No 4. Westbound Katella Avenue Merge Analysis PM 6,690 460 25.4 C 6,890 449 26.0 C 6,890 547 25.9 C No Notes: pc/mi/ln = Passenger cars per mile per lane (density). Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-49 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-21 Year 2013 Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – Weaving Analysis (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2013 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Year 2013 + ARTIC Traffic Conditions Year 2013 With ARTIC With Improvements Traffic Conditions Weaving Movement Volume Weaving Movement Volume Weaving Movement Volume Weaving Movement Volume Key Freeway Ramp Time Period A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Significant Impact Yes/No A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Ave AM 3,860 10 730 150 18.66 B 3,899 12 754 189 19.24 B 3,899 12 869 189 20.02 C No -- -- -- -- -- -- 1. On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp PM 6,960 10 550 270 30.62 D 7,140 15 590 359 32.33 D 7,140 15 602 359 32.42 D No -- -- -- -- -- -- SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave AM 5,490 10 700 150 26.59 C 5,820 10 736 150 28.44 D 5,820 10 736 172 28.62 D No 4,850 8 613 143 22.93 C 2. On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp PM 6,680 20 710 340 34.09 D 6,923 22 753 353 35.83 E 6,923 22 753 437 36.59 E Yes 5,769 18 628 364 29.09 D SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave AM 3,600 10 840 140 22.80 C 3,691 10 854 152 23.46 C 3,691 10 854 188 23.76 C No 3,691 10 854 188 18.50 B 3. On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp PM 7,050 10 660 230 39.28 E 7,350 15 726 258 41.72 E 7,350 15 726 396 43.04 F Yes 7,350 15 726 396 33.42 D SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd AM 4,890 30 840 600 32.99 D 5,313 30 850 609 35.32 E 5,313 30 1,038 609 37.10 E Yes 5,313 30 1,038 609 28.65 D 4. On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp PM 6,190 30 660 500 37.03 E 6,376 30 680 511 38.26 E 6,376 30 701 511 38.44 E Yes 6,376 30 701 511 29.88 D Notes: pc/mi/ln = Passenger cars per mile per lane (density). Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-51 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-21 indicates that two of the four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at adverse LOS under the existing traffic conditions. The remaining two Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the existing traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp -- -- -- -- -- -- 7,050 10 660 230 39.28 E 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off- Ramp -- -- -- -- -- -- 6,190 30 660 500 37.03 E Year 2013 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Three of the four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an adverse LOS under the Year 2013 Without ARTIC traffic conditions. The remaining Caltrans ramp location is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2013 Without ARTIC traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 2. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp 6,923 22 753 353 35.83 E 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp -- -- -- -- -- -- 7,350 15 726 258 41.72 E 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off- Ramp 5,313 30 850 609 35.32 E 6,376 30 680 511 38.26 E Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-52 July 19, 2010 Year 2013 + ARTIC Traffic Conditions Three of the four Caltrans ramp locations operate at an adverse LOS with the addition of ARTIC traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining Caltrans ramp location is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2013 + ARTIC traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp -- -- -- -- -- -- 6,923 22 753 437 36.59 E 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off- Ramp -- -- -- -- -- -- 7,350 15 726 396 43.04 E 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 5,313 30 1038 609 35.83 E 6,376 30 701 511 38.44 E Mitigation is required for the above identified impacts. Year 2013 Freeway Segment Analysis The peak hour LOS results at the four Caltrans freeway segments for the Year 2013 traffic conditions are indicated below and summarized in Table 3.2-22. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-53 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-22 Year 2013 Peak Hour Freeway Segment Capacity Analysis Summary (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2013 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Year 2013 + ARTIC Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Year 2013 With ARTIC With Improvements Key Freeway Segment Time Period Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Yes/No Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS SR-57 Northbound from AM 4,750 16.1 B 4,765 16.1 B 4,880 16.5 B No -- -- -- 1. Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue PM 7,790 27.4 D 8,093 28.9 D 8,106 29.0 D No -- -- -- SR-57 Southbound from AM 6,350 21.5 C 6,698 22.8 C 6,720 22.9 C No -- -- -- 2. Katella Avenue to Orangewood Avenue PM 7,750 27.2 D 7,986 28.4 D 8,070 28.8 D No -- -- -- SR-57 Northbound from AM 4,590 19.4 C 4,679 19.8 C 4,715 20.0 C No 4,715 15.9 B 3. Katella Avenue to Ball Road PM 7,950 42.7 E 8,243 OVRFL F 8,380 OVRFL F Yes 8,380 30.5 D SR-57 Southbound from AM 6,360 28.2 D 6,656 30.1 D 6,844 31.5 D No 6,844 23.4 C 4. Ball Road to Katella Avenue PM 7,380 36.1 E 7,582 38.2 E 7,603 38.4 E Yes 7,603 26.5 D Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-54 July 19, 2010 Existing Traffic Conditions Two Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an adverse LOS under the existing traffic conditions. The remaining two Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the existing traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 3. SR-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road -- -- -- 7,950 42.7 E 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue -- -- -- 7,380 36.1 E Year 2013 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Two Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an adverse LOS under the Year 2013 Without ARTIC traffic conditions. The remaining two Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2013 Without ARTIC traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 3. 3. SR-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road -- -- -- 8,243 OVRFL F 4. 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue -- -- -- 7,582 38.2 E Year 2013 + ARTIC Traffic Conditions Two Caltrans freeway segments operate at adverse LOS with addition of ARTIC traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining two Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2013 With ARTIC traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 3. 3. SR-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road -- -- -- 8,380 OVRFL F 4. 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue -- -- -- 7,603 38.4 E Mitigation is required for the above identified impacts. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-55 July 19, 2010 2030 Analysis With and Without ARTIC Year 2030 Without ARTIC Traffic Volumes The Year 2030 traffic volume forecasts were obtained from the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM). ATAM is the traffic forecasting tool for the City and has been certified by the OCTA to be consistent with the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM). ATAM relies upon OCTAM for the regional traffic component. OCTAM is based on and is consistent with the SCAG’s regional transportation model, incorporating adopted regional growth projections. As a sub-area model, ATAM incorporates the City of Anaheim General Plan within the City limits. As General Plan Amendments are processed, ATAM is updated to reflect any changes to the General Plan. ATAM contains every adopted project within the City’s limits. There are also a number of projects which are currently under various stages of analysis, and have been incorporated into ATAM for the purposes of this evaluation. The following projects listed below are some of the projects relevant to ARTIC but are separate, distinct, and independent from ARTIC in terms of funding, lead agency status, purpose and need and regulatory requirements. A complete list of all projects included in ATAM is included in the Section 3.2.5, Cumulative Impacts. Each relevant project listed below has undergone or is currently undergoing its own separate clearance process, including but not limited to CEQA and/or NEPA review. However, it is important to note that in order to be highly conservative, these projects are included in the cumulative analysis of this study. This is “highly conservative” because it is highly speculative as to whether many of these projects get constructed at all, much less by the 2030 timeline. This is particularly true with respect to the High Speed Rail project, the Desert Express and the California Nevada train. Some of the larger projects that are included in the cumulative impact analysis are:  Anaheim Rapid Connection;  California High-Speed Rail;  CNSST;  Desert Express;  Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion;  Amendment to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan;  City of Orange General Plan Update; and  Orange Center Specific Plan. Year 2030 Traffic Impact Analysis This analysis was performed with the application of the ATAM to obtain Year 2030 traffic volumes. Future trip activity is estimated and assigned throughout the study area. Year 2030 Intersection Capacity Analysis The peak hour LOS results at the key study intersections for Year 2030 With and Without ARTIC traffic conditions are identified in Table 3.2-23. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-56 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-23 Year 2030 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2030 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Year 2030 + ARTIC Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Year 2030 + ARTIC With Improvements Key Intersection Time Period ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No ICU LOS AM 0.583 A 0.761 C 0.768 C 0.007 No -- -- 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at Katella Avenue PM 0.524 A 0.803 D 0.804 D 0.001 No -- -- AM 0.493 A 0.936 E 0.946 E 0.010 Yes 0.815 D 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at Katella Avenue PM 0.496 A 0.896 D 0.897 D 0.001 No 0.776 C AM 0.484 A 0.849 D 0.850 D 0.001 No 0.699 B 3. Lewis Street at Katella Avenue PM 0.646 B 1.269 F 1.275 F 0.006 No 0.831 D AM 0.426 A 0.928 E 0.937 E 0.009 No 0.900 D 4. State College Boulevard at Katella Avenue PM 0.531 A 0.978 E 0.985 E 0.007 No 0.852 D AM 0.333 A 0.773 C 0.775 C 0.002 No 0.654 B 5. Sportstown at Katella Avenue PM 0.461 A 1.003 F 0.975 E -0.028 No 0.737 C AM 0.377 A 0.611 B 0.622 B 0.011 No 0.622 B 6. Howell Avenue at Katella Avenue PM 0.551 A 0.945 E 0.949 E 0.004 No 0.845 D AM 0.402 A 0.702 C 0.712 C 0.010 No -- -- 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue PM 0.407 A 0.690 B 0.691 B 0.001 No -- -- AM 0.363 A 0.602 B 0.679 B 0.077 No -- -- 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue PM 0.401 A 0.694 B 0.726 C 0.032 No -- -- AM 0.408 A 0.973 E 1.035 F 0.062 Yes 0.840 D 9. Douglass Road at Katella Avenue PM 0.492 A 1.052 F 1.077 F 0.025 Yes 0.868 D AM 0.28 A 0.669 B 0.673 B 0.004 No -- -- 10. Struck Avenue at Katella Avenue PM 0.344 A 0.806 D 0.809 D 0.003 No -- -- AM 0.501 A 0.791 C 0.803 D 0.012 No -- -- 11. Main Street at Katella Avenue PM 0.495 A 0.805 D 0.815 D 0.010 No -- -- AM 0.534 A 0.757 C 0.766 C 0.009 No -- -- 12. Batavia Street at Katella Avenue PM 0.5 A 0.765 C 0.771 C 0.006 No -- -- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-57 July 19, 2010 Year 2030 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Six of the key study intersections are forecast to operate at adverse LOS E or worse for the Year 2030 Without ARTIC traffic conditions are identified in Table 3.2-24. Table 3.2-24 Year 2030 Traffic Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at Katella Avenue 0.936 E -- -- 3. Lewis Street at Katella Avenue -- -- 1.269 F 4. State College Boulevard at Katella Avenue 0.928 E 0.978 E 5. Sportstown at Katella Avenue -- -- 1.003 F 6. Howell Avenue at Katella Avenue -- -- 0.945 E 9. Douglass Road at Katella Avenue 0.973 E 1.052 F Year 2030 + ARTIC Traffic Conditions The same six key study intersections are forecast to operate at adverse LOS E or worse for the Year 2030 + ARTIC traffic conditions and identified below in Table 3.2-25. Table 3.2-25 Year 2030 + ARTIC Traffic Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at Katella Avenue 0.946 E -- -- 3. Lewis Street at Katella Avenue -- -- 1.275 F 4. State College Boulevard at Katella Avenue 0.937 E 0.985 E 5. Sportstown at Katella Avenue -- -- 0.975 E 6. Howell Avenue at Katella Avenue -- -- 0.949 E 9. Douglass Road at Katella Avenue 1.035 F 1.077 F Out of the six key study intersections operating at adverse LOS listed above, only two key study intersections (shown in bold and italic above) will be significantly impacted based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. Three of the remaining four intersections have cumulative impacts due to the increase in the ICU values. The intersection of Sportstown/Katella Avenue has improved LOS with ARTIC. Mitigation measures will be identified for all six intersections. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-58 July 19, 2010 Year 2030 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis The daily LOS results at the key eight study roadway segments during a “typical” weekday for the Year 2030 traffic conditions is presented in Table 3.2-26. Five of the key study roadway segments are forecast to operate at adverse LOS on a daily basis under Year 2030 Without ARTIC traffic conditions based on the LOS impact criteria. The same five key study roadway segments are forecast to continue to operate at adverse LOS on a daily basis under Year 2030 + ARTIC traffic conditions. These study roadway segments are forecast to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours, except for Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue to Anaheim Way as indicated in Table 3.2-27. Mitigation will be required to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-59 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-26 Year 2030 Roadway Segment Daily LOS Summary Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2030 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Year 2030 + ARTIC Traffic Conditions Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial LOS E Capacity (VPD) Lanes Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 70,870 1.259 F 71,090 1.263 F 2. Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street Major 75,000 8D 35,040 0.622 B 70,720 0.943 E 71,090 0.948 E 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard Major 75,000 8D 30,260 0.537 A 57,490 0.767 C 57,860 0.771 C 4. Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown Major 75,000 8D 32,800 0.583 A 51,287 0.684 B 51,920 0.692 B 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue Major 56,300 6D 34,240 0.608 B 61,927 1.100 F 62,310 1.107 F 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway Major 56,300 6D 37,990 0.675 B 70,807 1.258 F 71,190 1.264 F 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street Major 56,300 6D 29,610 0.526 A 62,161 1.104 F 62,900 1.117 F 8. Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street Major 59,115 6D 30,280 0.512 A 51,164 0.865 D 51,570 0.872 D Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-60 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-27 Year 2030 Roadway Segment Peak Hour LOS Summary Year 2030 + ARTIC Traffic Conditions Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial Time Period Approach Lanes Total Link Capacity (VPH) Peak Hour Volume V/C Ratio LOS EB 3 3,192 2,720 0.852 D AM WB 3 2,736 2,620 0.958 E EB 3 3,249 3,580 1.102 F 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way Major PM WB 3 3,363 3,690 1.097 F EB 4 4,256 3,310 0.778 C AM WB 4 3,952 2,350 0.595 A EB 4 4,332 3,730 0.861 D 2. Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street Major PM WB 4 4,256 3,780 0.888 D EB 3 3,876 2,170 0.560 A AM WB 3 4,218 1,870 0.443 A EB 3 3,762 2,510 0.667 B 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue Major PM WB 3 3,648 2,740 0.751 C EB 3 3,876 2,430 0.627 B AM WB 3 4,218 2,310 0.548 A EB 3 3,933 2,770 0.704 C 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway Major PM WB 3 3,933 3,190 0.811 D EB 3 3,705 2,960 0.799 C AM WB 3 3,705 2,240 0.605 B EB 3 4,161 2,260 0.543 A 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street Major PM WB 3 4,161 3,620 0.870 D Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-61 July 19, 2010 Caltrans Facilities Analysis for 2030 Year 2030 Intersection Capacity Analysis The peak hour LOS results at the four Caltrans study intersections for Year 2030 With and Without ARTIC traffic conditions as presented below and summarized in Table 3.2-28. Table 3.2-28 Year 2030 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Year 2030 With Project With Improvements Key Ramp Intersection Time Period Delay (s/v) LOS Delay (s/v) Yes/No Delay (s/v) Yes/No Yes/No Delay (s/v) LOS Manchester Ave/I- 5 SB Ramps at AM 16.6 B 55.4 E 59.0 E Yes 33.7 C 1. Katella Avenue PM 15.2 B 71.1 E 70.9 E Yes 22.6 C Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 14.4 B 19.0 B 19.2 B No 16.4 B 2. Katella Avenue PM 17.8 B 79.6 E 81.7 F Yes 54.0 D SR-57 Southbound Ramps at AM 10.2 B 16.6 B 17.6 B No -- -- 7. Katella Avenue PM 8.1 A 12.0 B 12.3 B No -- -- SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 9.5 A 12.0 B 15.4 B No -- -- 8. Katella Avenue PM 10.4 B 14.2 B 15.6 B No -- -- Year 2030 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Two Caltrans study intersections are forecast to operate at an adverse LOS under the Year 2030 Without ARTIC traffic conditions. The remaining two Caltrans study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 Without ARTIC traffic conditions. The locations operating at an adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Intersection Delay (s/v) LOS Delay (s/v) LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at Katella Ave 55.4 E 71.1 E 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at Katella Avenue -- -- 79.6 E Year 2030 + ARTIC Traffic Conditions The same two Caltrans study intersections will continue to operate at an adverse LOS with addition of ARTIC traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The locations operating at an adverse LOS are listed below: Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-62 July 19, 2010 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Intersection Delay (s/v) LOS Delay (s/v) LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at Katella Ave 59.0 E 70.9 E 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at Katella Avenue -- -- 81.7 F Mitigation is required for the above identified impacts. Year 2030 Freeway Ramp Analysis (Merge/Diverge Analysis) The peak hour LOS results at the four Caltrans ramp locations for the merge/diverge analysis for the Year 2030 With and Without ARTIC traffic conditions as presented in Table 3.2-29. Year 2030 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an adverse LOS under the Year 2030 Without ARTIC traffic conditions. All four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 Without ARTIC traffic conditions. Year 2030 + ARTIC Traffic Conditions None of the four Caltrans ramp locations operate at adverse LOS with the addition of ARTIC traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. All four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 + ARTIC traffic conditions. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-63 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-29 Year 2030 Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – Merge/Diverge Analysis (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Key Freeway Ramp Analysis Type Time Period Peak Hour Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Yes/No I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from AM 4,710 200 18.6 B 5,230 256 19.4 B 5,230 260 19.5 B No 1. Katella Avenue Merge Analysis PM 7,230 280 26.3 C 8,290 395 28.1 D 8,290 410 28.0 D No I-5 Off-Ramp Southbound to AM 5,590 540 1.4 A 6,230 919 4.4 A 6,230 940 4.6 A No 2. Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue Diverge Analysis PM 6,930 200 0.9 A 7,770 407 3.1 A 7,770 410 3.2 A No SR-57 Northbound On-Ramp from AM 4,010 300 17.2 B 4,350 415 14.8 B 4,350 400 14.7 B No 3. Eastbound Katella Avenue Merge Analysis PM 7,230 450 26.9 C 8,410 523 22.2 C 8,410 500 22.2 C No SR-57 Southbound On-Ramp from AM 5,490 240 21.7 C 7,390 229 25.7 C 7,390 260 25.7 C No 4. Westbound Katella Avenue Merge Analysis PM 6,690 460 25.3 C 7,570 412 26.1 C 7,570 510 26.0 C No Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-64 July 19, 2010 Year 2030 Freeway Ramp Analysis (Weaving Analysis) The peak hour LOS results at the four Caltrans ramp locations for the weaving analysis for the Year 2030 traffic conditions are summarized in Table 3.2-30. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-65 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-30 Year 2030 Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – Weaving Analysis (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Year 2030 With Project With Improvements Traffic Conditions Weaving Movement Volume Weaving Movement Volume Weaving Movement Volume Weaving Movement Volume Key Freeway Ramp Time Period A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Yes/No A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Ave AM 3,860 10 730 150 18.66 B 4,030 20 835 320 19.22 B 4,030 20 950 320 19.95 B No -- -- -- -- -- -- 1. On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp PM 6,960 10 550 270 30.62 D 7,750 30 728 660 34.71 D 7,750 30 740 660 34.79 D No -- -- -- -- -- -- SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave AM 5,490 10 700 150 26.59 C 6,940 10 860 148 31.33 D 6,940 10 860 170 31.50 D No 5,783 8 717 142 25.19 C 2. On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp PM 6,680 20 710 340 34.09 D 7,750 30 900 396 37.49 E 7,750 30 900 480 38.20 E Yes 6,458 25 750 400 30.33 D SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave AM 3,600 10 840 140 22.80 C 4,000 10 900 194 18.14 B 4,000 10 900 230 18.34 B No 3,333 8 750 192 15.00 B 3. On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp PM 7,050 10 660 230 39.28 E 8,370 30 950 352 35.25 E 8,370 30 950 490 36.17 E Yes 6,975 25 792 408 29.44 D SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd AM 4,890 30 840 600 32.99 D 6,750 30 882 640 39.13 E 6,750 30 1,070 640 40.79 E Yes 6,750 30 1,070 640 31.54 D 4. On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp PM 6,190 30 660 500 37.03 E 7,010 30 749 550 38.46 E 7,010 30 770 550 38.63 E Yes 7,010 30 770 550 30.02 D Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-67 July 19, 2010 Year 2030 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Three of the four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an adverse LOS under the Year 2030 Without ARTIC traffic conditions. The remaining Caltrans ramp location is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 Without ARTIC traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp -- -- -- -- -- -- 7,750 30 900 396 37.49 E 3 SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp -- -- -- -- -- -- 8,370 30 950 352 35.25 E 4. 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 6,750 30 882 640 37.83 E 7,010 30 749 550 38.46 E Year 2030 +ARTIC Traffic Conditions Three of the four Caltrans ramp locations operate at an adverse LOS with the addition of ARTIC traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining Caltrans ramp location is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 +ARTIC traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 2. 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp -- -- -- -- -- -- 7,750 30 900 480 38.20 E 3 SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Road Off- Ramp -- -- -- -- -- -- 8,370 30 950 490 36.17 E 4. 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off- Ramp 6,750 30 1,070 640 39.41 E 7,010 30 770 550 38.63 E Mitigation is required for the above identified impacts. Year 2030 Freeway Segment Analysis The peak hour LOS results at the four Caltrans freeway segments for the Year 2030 traffic conditions as presented in Table 3.2-31. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-68 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-31 Year 2030 Peak Hour Freeway Segment Capacity Analysis Summary (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions SignificantImpact Year 2030 With Project With Improvements Key Freeway Segment Time Period Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Yes/No Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOSSR-57 Northbound from AM 4,750 16.1 B 5,205 16.1 B 5,320 16.5 B No -- -- -- 1. Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue PM 7,790 27.4 D 9,167 30.5 D 9,180 30.6 D No -- -- -- SR-57 Southbound from AM 6,350 21.5 C 7,958 25.2 C 7,980 25.2 C No -- -- -- 2. Katella Avenue to Orangewood Avenue PM 7,750 27.2 D 9,076 30.1 D 9,160 30.5 D No -- -- -- SR-57 Northbound from AM 4,590 19.4 C 5,104 15.8 B 5,140 15.9 B No -- -- -- 3. Katella Avenue to Ball Road PM 7,950 42.7 E 9,703 33.6 D 9,840 34.5 D No -- -- -- SR-57 Southbound from AM 6,360 28.2 D 8,302 38.4 E 8,490 40.4 E Yes 8,490 27.3 D 4. Ball Road to Katella Avenue PM 7,380 36.1 E 8,339 38.8 E 8,360 39.0 E Yes 8,360 26.8 D Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-69 July 19, 2010 Year 2030 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions One Caltrans freeway segment is forecast to operate at an adverse LOS under the Year 2030 Without ARTIC traffic conditions. The remaining three Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 Without ARTIC traffic conditions. The location operating at adverse LOS is listed below: PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) AM Peak Hour 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue 8,302 38.4 E 8,339 38.8 E Year 2030 +ARTIC Traffic Conditions One Caltrans freeway segment operates at an adverse LOS with addition of ARTIC traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining three Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 +ARTIC traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 4. 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue 8,490 40.4 E 8,360 39.0 E Mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Congestion Management Program (CMP) Analysis The goals of 2009 Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) are to support regional mobility and air quality objectives by reducing traffic congestion; provide a mechanism for coordinating land use and development decisions that support the regional economy; and determine gas tax fund eligibility. To meet these goals, the CMP contains a number of policies designed to monitor and address system performance issues. OCTA developed the policies that makeup Orange County’s CMP with local jurisdictions, Caltrans, and the SCAQMD. As Orange County’s Congestion Management Agency, OCTA is responsible for the administration of the CMP, as well as providing data and models that are consistent with the SCAG region, and developing the deficiency plan processes. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-70 July 19, 2010 The 2009 Orange County CMP stipulates the requirements for maintaining LOS E at CMP intersections and roadway segments. The following four CMP intersections are located within the study area: 1. Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue; 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue; 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue; and 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue. The following eight study area arterial segments are included in the CMP network: 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way; 2. Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street; 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard; 4. Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown; 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue; 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway; 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street; and 8. Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street. Existing +ARTIC CMP Intersection Peak Hour Capacity Analysis A comparison between the ICU values and the corresponding LOS for the Existing traffic conditions and Existing +ARTIC traffic conditions as presented in Table 3.2-32. None of the CMP intersections are impacted by the addition of ARTIC traffic based on the CMP criteria which stipulates maintaining LOS E at all CMP locations. All four CMP intersections operate at acceptable LOS A for both the Existing and Existing +ARTIC traffic conditions. Table 3.2-32 Existing +ARTIC Peak Hour CMP Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary Existing Traffic Conditions Existing +ARTIC Traffic Conditions Existing +ARTIC With Improvements Key Intersection Time Period ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS AM 0.583 A 0.584 A -- -- 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at Katella Avenue PM 0.524 A 0.528 A -- -- AM 0.493 A 0.503 A -- -- 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at Katella Avenue PM 0.496 A 0.497 A -- -- AM 0.402 A 0.441 A -- -- 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue PM 0.407 A 0.429 A -- -- AM 0.363 A 0.440 A -- -- 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue PM 0.401 A 0.433 A -- -- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-71 July 19, 2010 Existing +ARTIC CMP Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis A comparison between the V/C values and the corresponding LOS for the Existing and Existing +ARTIC traffic conditions Table 3.2-33. All eight CMP roadway segments operate at acceptable LOS B or better for both the Existing and Existing +ARTIC traffic conditions. Table 3.2-33 Existing +ARTIC CMP Roadway Segment Daily LOS Summary Existing Traffic Conditions Existing +ARTIC Traffic Conditions Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial LOS E Capacity (VPD) Lanes Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 35,260 0.626 B 2. Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 35,410 0.629 B 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard Major 56,300 6D 30,260 0.537 A 30,630 0.544 A 4. Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown Major 56,300 6D 32,800 0.583 A 33,433 0.594 A 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue Major 56,300 6D 34,240 0.608 B 34,623 0.615 B 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR- 57 Freeway Major 56,300 6D 37,990 0.675 B 38,373 0.682 B 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street Major 56,300 6D 29,610 0.526 A 30,349 0.539 A 8. Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street Major 59,115 6D 30,280 0.512 A 30,686 0.519 A Year 2013 +ARTIC CMP Intersection Peak Hour Capacity Analysis A comparison between the ICU values and the corresponding LOS for the Year 2013 Without ARTIC traffic conditions and Year 2013 +ARTIC traffic conditions as presented in Table 3.2-34. None of the CMP intersections are impacted by the addition of ARTIC traffic based on the CMP Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-72 July 19, 2010 criteria which stipulates maintaining LOS E at all CMP locations. All four CMP intersections operate at acceptable LOS B or better for both the Year 2013 Without ARTIC and Year 2013 +ARTIC traffic conditions. Table 3.2-34 Year 2013 Peak Hour CMP Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary Year 2013 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Year 2013 +ARTIC Traffic Conditions Key Intersection Time Period ICU LOS ICU LOS AM 0.684 B 0.685 B 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at Katella Avenue PM 0.660 B 0.664 B AM 0.590 A 0.600 A 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at Katella Avenue PM 0.697 B 0.698 B AM 0.496 A 0.545 A 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue PM 0.589 A 0.627 B AM 0.414 A 0.491 A 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue PM 0.475 A 0.508 A Year 2013 +ARTIC CMP Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis A comparison between the V/C values and the corresponding LOS for the Year 2013 Without ARTIC traffic conditions and Year 2013 +ARTIC traffic conditions as presented in Table 3.2-35. All eight of the CMP roadway segments operate at acceptable LOS E or better for both the Year 2013 Without ARTIC and Year 2013 +ARTIC traffic conditions. Table 3.2-35 Year 2013 CMP Roadway Segment Daily LOS Summary Year 2013 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Year 2013 +ARTIC Traffic Conditions Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial LOS E Capacity (VPD) Lanes Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way Major 56,300 6D 53,229 0.945 E 53,449 0.949 E 2. Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street Major 56,300 6D 53,195 0.945 E 53,565 0.951 E 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard Major 56,300 6D 45,127 0.802 D 45,497 0.808 D 4. Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown Major 56,300 6D 43,779 0.778 C 44,412 0.789 C Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-73 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-35 (cont’d) Year 2013 CMP Roadway Segment Daily LOS Summary Year 2013 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Year 2013 +ARTIC Traffic Conditions Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial LOS E Capacity (VPD) Lanes Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue Major 56,300 6D 47,287 0.840 D 47,670 0.847 D 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway Major 56,300 6D 52,195 0.927 E 52,578 0.934 E 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street Major 56,300 6D 38,732 0.688 B 39,471 0.701 C 8. Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street Major 59,115 6D 36,039 0.610 B 36,445 0.617 B Year 2030 +ARTIC CMP Intersection Peak Hour Capacity Analysis A comparison between the ICU values and the corresponding LOS for the Year 2030 Without ARTIC traffic conditions and Year 2030 +ARTIC traffic conditions is presented in Table 3.3-36. None of the CMP intersections are impacted by the addition of ARTIC traffic based on the CMP criteria which stipulates maintaining LOS E at all CMP locations. All four CMP intersections operate at acceptable LOS D or better after the implementation of the recommended improvements for both the Year 2030 Without ARTIC and Year 2030 +ARTIC traffic conditions. Table 3.2-36 Year 2030 Peak Hour CMP Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary Year 2030 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Year 2030 +ARTIC Traffic Conditions Year 2030 +ARTIC With Improvements Key Intersection Time Period ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS AM 0.761 C 0.768 C -- -- 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at Katella Avenue PM 0.803 D 0.804 D -- -- AM 0.936 E 0.946 E 0.815 D 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at Katella Avenue PM 0.896 D 0.897 D 0.776 C AM 0.702 C 0.712 C -- -- 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue PM 0.690 B 0.691 B -- -- AM 0.602 B 0.679 B -- -- 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue PM 0.694 B 0.726 C -- -- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-74 July 19, 2010 Year 2030 +ARTIC CMP Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis A comparison between the V/C values and the corresponding LOS for the Year 2030 Without ARTIC traffic conditions and Year 2030 +ARTIC traffic conditions is presented in Table 3.3-37. Four CMP roadway segments operate at LOS F for both the Year 2030 Without ARTIC and Year 2030 +ARTIC traffic conditions. Table 3.2-37 Year 2030 CMP Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service Summary Year 2030 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Year 2030 +ARTIC Traffic Conditions Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial LOS E Capacity (VPD) Lanes Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way Major 56,300 6D 70,870 1.259 F 71,090 1.263 F 2. Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street Major 75,000 8D 70,720 0.943 E 71,090 0.948 E 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard Major 75,000 8D 57,490 0.767 C 57,860 0.771 C 4. Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown Major 75,000 8D 51,287 0.684 B 51,920 0.692 B 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue Major 56,300 6D 61,927 1.100 F 62,310 1.107 F 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR- 57 Freeway Major 56,300 6D 70,807 1.258 F 71,190 1.264 F 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street Major 56,300 6D 62,161 1.104 F 62,900 1.117 F 8. Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street Major 59,115 6D 51,164 0.865 D 51,570 0.872 D Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-75 July 19, 2010 These four segments were analyzed under peak hour conditions to determine if there are any capacity deficiencies on these segments. Three of the CMP roadway segments are forecast to operate at LOS E or better during the AM and PM peak hours. These three study roadway segments are not significantly impacted by Year 2030 +ARTIC traffic and no improvements are required at these locations, as presented in Table 3.3-38. The one significantly impacted CMP roadway segment, the segment of Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way, will be mitigated by widening Katella Avenue from six to eight lanes. The envisioned pedestrian bridge spanning Katella Avenue would be constructed 20 feet wide to accommodate the future widening of Katella Avenue, and bridge supports within Katella Avenue would not be included. The recommended mitigation measure will offset the impact of the Year 2030 +ARTIC traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted roadway segment to an acceptable LOS and is consistent with the 2009 Orange County CMP requirement. Table 3.2-38 Year 2030 CMP Roadway Segment Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary Year 2030 +ARTIC Traffic Conditions Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial Time Period Approach Lanes Total Link Capacity (VPH) Peak Hour Volume V/C Ratio LOS EB 3 3,192 2,720 0.852 D AM WB 3 2,736 2,620 0.958 E EB 3 3,249 3,580 1.102 F 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way Major PM WB 3 3,363 3,690 1.097 F EB 3 3,876 2,170 0.560 A AM WB 3 4,218 1,870 0.443 A EB 3 3,762 2,510 0.667 B 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue Major PM WB 3 3,648 2,740 0.751 C EB 3 3,876 2,430 0.627 B AM WB 3 4,218 2,310 0.548 A EB 3 3,933 2,770 0.704 C 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway Major PM WB 3 3,933 3,190 0.811 D EB 3 3,705 2,960 0.799 C AM WB 3 3,705 2,240 0.605 B EB 3 4,161 2,260 0.543 A 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street Major PM WB 3 4,161 3,620 0.870 D b) Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (No Impact) The nearest public airport is the Fullerton Municipal Airport, located approximately 2 miles north of the City. Although the airport land use plan extends into the City, neither the airport nor land use plan zoning is in close proximity to ARTIC. There are also five heliports within the City. The closest heliport is the North Net Fire Training Center heliport, located approximately 0.5 miles southwest of ARTIC. Although this heliport is in close proximity to ARTIC, the construction and operation of ARTIC will not change or interfere with air traffic patterns. There will be no impact to this issue area. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-76 July 19, 2010 c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses? (No Impact) The driveways, access, internal circulation, and rail platforms for ARTIC are designed to comply with City, state, and rail safety requirements. The safety requirements do not allow for incompatible use in close proximity to each other in order to avoid conflicts. This includes previsions such as constructing the envisioned pedestrian bridge to a height of 17 feet clear above Katella Avenue as to prevent the obstruction of traffic signals at Douglass Road. There will be no impact to this issue area. d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? (No Impact) The driveways, access to the site, internal circulation, and rail platforms for ARTIC are designed to comply with City, state, and rail safety requirements including emergency access. There will be no impact to this issue area during operations. During construction the project contractor will coordinate with City personnel to ensure that emergency access is maintained and communicated to local first responders. There will be no impact to this issue area during construction. e) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? (No Impact) ARTIC will be an intermodal center that will encourage public transit use by allowing transit riders to easily move between transit modes. ARTIC is designed so that there will be no encroachment or impact from construction or operations, on the existing Santa Ana River Trail. Users of the Trail can enter ARTIC from the driveway located on Katella Avenue. Pedestrian access is provided to and from ARTIC via designated walkways, including an envisioned pedestrian bridge spanning Katella Avenue from the project site to the Honda Center. The walkways will allow safe access to and from ARTIC to both Angel Stadium and the Honda Center. There will be no impact to this issue area. 3.2.6 Cumulative Impacts The construction and operation of ARTIC has been considered in both The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and in the City of Anaheim General Plan. Traffic generated from the implementation of ARTIC does not vary from the projections in the General Plan traffic conditions of the area. ARTIC will provide a hub for rail and bus transportation facilities and will reduce overall vehicle traffic impacts in the area. The cumulative impact analysis contained in Traffic Impact Analysis Report evaluated related projects including many large projects that were considered to be the largest contributors to traffic at the 2030 timeline. These projects include, but are not limited to, the Anaheim Rapid Connection, California High-Speed Rail, CNSST, Desert Express, the Platinum Triangle Project, The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan amendment, the City of Orange General Plan, and the Orange Center Specific Plan. The Traffic Analysis Report discussed numerous regulatory tools and fee Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-77 July 19, 2010 programs the City utilizes to mitigate identified traffic impacts to less than significant levels. Several of these important regulatory tools and programs are discussed below. 3.2.7 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions  Congestion Management Plan. OCTA is responsible for adopting the CMP for Orange County. The CMP is designed to reduce traffic congestion and to provide a mechanism for coordinating land use and transportation decisions. Proposition 111, passed by California voters in June 1990, provides funds to those urbanized areas that adopt a CMP. In short, cities that contain CMP roadways within their jurisdictional boundaries receive CMP funding to improve these roadways if such roadways operate at deficient LOS (LOSE or below). In Anaheim, the CMP roadway system includes seven streets (Harbor Boulevard, State College Boulevard, Katella Avenue, Tustin Avenue, Orangethorpe Avenue, Beach Boulevard, and Imperial Highway) and 15 intersections. The intersections located within The Platinum Triangle are the SR-57 northbound and southbound ramps at Katella Avenue. A standard of LOS E must be met at these locations. If it is not met, the City is responsible for developing a deficiency plan for these intersections.  Traffic Fee Program. Any development in the City of Anaheim is required to pay transportation impact fees per the Anaheim Municipal Code. These fees go towards the funding of the completion of the City of Anaheim Circulation Element. With the exception of the State facilities identified below, the intersections located within the City’s municipal boundary that are identified within this traffic impact analysis are contained within the City’s Traffic Fee Program. Like most city infrastructure fee programs, the City imposes traffic impact fees as development occurs. These fees are based on nexus studies and capital improvement program studies required by State law. These studies identify the total cost of infrastructure required to accommodate the circulation needs of the City at buildout (i.e., 2030). Fees are then assessed on development, collected by the City, and are then placed in separate accounts pursuant to the requirements of State law. Fees collected are then used by the City to construct the infrastructure needed to accommodate the transportation demands of the City and to mitigate identified traffic impacts at the time such facilities are necessary and prior to the occurrence of a significant impact. The City has a demonstrated, proven track record of successfully implementing its traffic impact fee program. Many of the roadways already constructed or at various stages of construction within the Platinum Triangle are due to implementation of the City’s traffic impact fee program.  Community Facilities District. The City of Anaheim currently has a Community Facilities District (CFD) in place associated with development in the Platinum Triangle. The CFD is expected to contribute funds to all infrastructure needs in the Platinum Triangle, including transportation. Nearly all of the mitigation measures in this study within the Platinum Triangle are already identified within the CFD and/or the City’s Traffic Fee Program. The CFD is programmed to provide funding for improvements in the Platinum Triangle identified previously and this study has identified additional improvements that will need to be funded on a fair-share basis. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-78 July 19, 2010 3.2.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation This traffic impact analysis has identified the following impacts that will occur with the implementation of ARTIC: 2013 + ARTIC Impacts Intersections Improvements Since there were no impacted intersections under the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. It should be noted that the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue assumes a northbound lane configuration of 2NBL, 1NBTR and 1NBR for the + ARTIC as identified in the Project Description. Roadway Segments Improvements Since there were no impacted roadway segments under the Year 2013 + ARTIC traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Caltrans Ramp Intersections Improvements The results of the Year 2013 + ARTIC traffic conditions level of service analysis indicate that the ARTIC will significantly impact one of the of the four key study ramp intersections. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the ramp intersection significantly impacted by the Year 2013 + ARTIC traffic:  Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to construct a pedestrian refuge island on the west leg of intersection with pedestrian buttons. Re-stripe the northbound approach to have one left-turn lane and two right-turn lanes. Modify the existing traffic signal and install a northbound right-turn overlap phase on the I-5 Southbound Ramp and an eastbound right-turn overlap phase on Katella Avenue. Caltrans Ramp Locations Improvements (Merge/Diverge Analysis) Since there were no impacted ramp locations based on the merge/diverge analysis under the Year 2013 + ARTIC traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Caltrans Ramp Locations Improvements (Weaving Analysis) The results of the Year 2013 + ARTIC traffic conditions level of service analysis indicate that ARTIC will significantly impact three of the of the four key study Caltrans ramp locations based on the weaving analysis. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans ramp locations significantly impacted by the Year 2013 + ARTIC traffic: Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-79 July 19, 2010  SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off- Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway.  SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. This improvement is funded by Measure M and is estimated to be completed by Year 2015.  SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. Caltrans Freeway Segments Improvements The results of the Year 2013 + ARTIC traffic conditions level of service analysis indicate that ARTIC will significantly impact two of the of the four key study Caltrans freeway segments. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans freeway segments significantly impacted by the Year 2013 + ARTIC traffic:  SR-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. This improvement is funded by Measure M and is estimated to be completed by Year 2015.  SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. Year 2013 + ARTIC improvements with the resulting LOS are presented in Table 3.2-39. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-80 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-39 Year 2013 With Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis, Improvements And Project Related Fair-Share Percentage Summary Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions Year 2013 With Project With Improvements Key Impacted Location Type of Location Time Period Delay / Density LOS Year 2013 With Project Recommend Improvement Delay / Density LOS Project Fair-Share PercentageManchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 120.0 s/v F 35.4 s/v D I-1. Katella Avenue Ramp Intersection PM 143.9 s/v F Construct a pedestrian island with buttons on the west leg. Re-stripe for 1NBL and 2NBR. Modify signal and install a NB and EB right-turn overlap phases. 50.7 s/v D 2.14% SR-57 SB between Katella On-Ramp AM 27.59 p/m/l C 22.13 p/m/l C W-2. and Orangewood Off-Ramp Weaving Segment PM 35.24 p/m/l E Add a 6th lane. 28.05 p/m/l D 6.47% SR-57 NB between Katella Ave AM 22.98 p/m/l C 17.90 p/m/l B W-3. On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp Weaving Segment PM 41.62 p/m/l E Add a 5th lane. 32.33 p/m/l D 8.34% SR-57 SB between Ball Rd AM 35.83 p/m/l E 27.69 p/m/l C W-4. On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp Weaving Segment PM 37.18 p/m/l E Add a 5th lane. 28.91 p/m/l D 9.31% SR-57 Northbound from AM 19.8 p/m/l C 15.9 p/m/l B F-3. Katella Avenue to Ball Road Freeway Segment PM OVRFL F Add a 5th lane. 30.2 p/m/l D 8.28% SR-57 Southbound from AM 31.2 p/m/l D 23.3 p/m/l C F-4. Ball Road to Katella Avenue Freeway Segment PM 38.0 p/m/l E Add a 5th lane. 26.4 p/m/l D 3.38% Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-81 July 19, 2010 2030 + ARTIC Impacts (Cumulative Impacts) Intersections Improvements The results of the Year 2030 + ARTIC traffic conditions level of service analysis indicate that the ARTIC will significantly impact two of the of the twelve key study intersections. While mitigation measures required for ARTIC related significant impacts, ARTIC will also contribute fair share costs for cumulative impacts under buildout conditions. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the intersections significantly impacted by the Year 2030 + ARTIC traffic:  Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 5th westbound through lane. Modify existing traffic signal.  Douglass Road at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Douglass Road to provide two left turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right turn lane in both the northbound and southbound directions. Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 4th westbound through lane. Modify existing traffic signal. Roadway Segments Improvements The results of the Year 2030 + ARTIC traffic conditions level of service analysis indicates that one roadway segment will be significantly impacted based on the LOS impact criteria outlined in this report. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at this roadway segment significantly impacted by the Year 2030 + ARTIC traffic:  Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue to Anaheim Way: Widen Katella Avenue from six (6) to eight (8) lanes between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way. Caltrans Ramp Intersections Improvements The results of the Year 2030 + ARTIC traffic conditions level of service analysis indicate that the proposed Project will significantly impact two of the of the four key study Caltrans ramp intersections. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans ramp intersections significantly impacted by the Year 2030 + ARTIC traffic:  Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to construct a pedestrian refuge island on the west leg of intersection with pedestrian buttons. Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 4th westbound through lane. Modify the existing traffic signal and install eastbound right-turn overlap phase on Katella Avenue.  Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 5th westbound through lane. Modify existing traffic signal. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-82 July 19, 2010 It should be noted that the additional eastbound and westbound through lanes for both intersections are included as part of the roadway segment improvement to widen Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way. Caltrans Ramp Locations Improvements (Merge/Diverge Analysis) Since there were no impacted ramp locations based on the merge/diverge analysis under the Year 2030 + ARTIC traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Caltrans Ramp Locations Improvements (Weaving Analysis) The results of the Year 2030 + ARTIC traffic conditions level of service analysis indicate that the ARTIC will significantly impact two of the of the four key study Caltrans ramp locations based on the weaving analysis. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans ramp locations significantly impacted by the Year 2030 + ARTIC traffic:  SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off- Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway.  SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. Caltrans Freeway Segments Improvements The results of the Year 2030 + ARTIC traffic conditions level of service analysis indicate that the proposed Project will significantly impact one of the of the four key study Caltrans freeway segments. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans freeway segments significantly impacted by the Year 2030 + ARTIC traffic:  SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway A Summary of Year 2030 + ARTIC improvements with the resulting LOS are presented in Table 3.2-40. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-83 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-40 Year 2030 + ARTIC Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis, Improvements And Project Related Fair-Share Percentage Summary Year 2030 With ARTIC Traffic Conditions Year 2030 With ARTIC With Improvements Key Impacted Location Type of Location Time Period ICU/Delay/ V/C/Density LOS Year 2030 With ARTIC Recommend Improvement ICU/Delay/ V/C/Density LOS Project Fair-Share Percentage AM 0.946 E 0.815 D PM 0.897 D 0.776 C AM 115.8 s/v F 27.4 s/v C I-2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at Katella Avenue Intersection PM 53.6 s/v D Provide a 4th EBT and 5th WBT. Modify signal. 31.6 s/v C 2.93% AM 1.035 F 0.840 D I-9. Douglass Road at Katella Avenue Intersection PM 1.077 F Widen/Restripe to provide 2NBL, 2NBT, 1 NBR, 2SBL, 2 SBT, and 1 SBR; Provide 4th EBT and 4th WBT. Modify signal. 0.868 D 13.57% EB AM 0.852 D 0.639 B WB PM 0.958 E 0.718 C EB AM 1.102 F 0.826 D RS-1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way Roadway Segment WB PM 1.097 F Widen Katella Avenue from six (6) to eight (8) lanes. 0.823 D 0.95% AM 144.0 s/v F 30.9 s/v C I-1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at Katella Avenue Ramp Intersection PM 166.5 s/v F Construct a pedestrian island with buttons on the west leg. Provide a 4th EBT and 4th WBT. Modify signal and install EB right-turn overlap phase. 43.8 s/v D 2.14% AM 30.37 p/m/l D 24.31 p/m/l C W-2. SR-57 SB between Katella On-Ramp and Orangewood Off-Ramp Weaving Segment PM 36.78 p/m/l E Add a 6th lane. 29.23 p/m/l D 6.47% AM 39.41 p/m/l E 30.50 p/m/l D W-4. SR-57 SB between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp Weaving Segment PM 37.35 p/m/l E Add a 5th lane. 29.04 p/m/l D 9.31% AM 39.9 p/m/l E 27.1 p/m/l D F-4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue Freeway Segment PM 38.6 p/m/l E Add a 5th lane. 26.6 p/m/l D 9.31% Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-84 July 19, 2010 3.2.9 Mitigation Measures City facilities that are significantly impacted at the 2013 + ARTIC and 2030 + ARTIC timeframe will be mitigated to less than significant levels through payment of City Traffic Impact Fees and/or implementation of the City’s CFD. The traffic impact analysis has also identified impacts to State Facilities at the 2013 and 2030 time horizons. Consistent with the applicable programmatic City documents in effect or currently under review by the City, the following Mitigation Measures shall apply to the Project:  TT-1: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City shall transmit the project’s applicable traffic impact fee into the City’s Traffic Impact Fee Account and pay for the Project’s fair share of City improvements related to ARTIC. City shall ensure that such improvements will be constructed pursuant to the fee program at that point in time necessary to avoid identified significant impacts on traffic.  TT-2: City shall participate in a multi-jurisdictional effort with Caltrans to develop a study to identify fair share contribution funding sources attributable to and paid from private and public development to supplement other regional and state funding sources necessary to implement feasible traffic improvements to State Facilities as identified in this EIR. The study shall include fair share contributions related to private and/or public development based on nexus requirements contained in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code section 66000, et seq.) and 14 CCR. section 15126.4(a)(4) and, to this end, the study shall recognize the state wide and regional contributions to impact State Facilities that are not attributable to local development such that local private and public development are not paying in excess of such developments’ fair share obligations. The fee study shall be compliant with Government Code section 66001(g) and any other applicable provisions of law. The study shall set forth a timeline and other agreed-upon relevant criteria for the implementation of the recommendations contained within the study to the extent Caltrans and other agencies agree to participate in the fee study program.  TT-3: This EIR has concluded that a number of identified State Facilities will operate at deficient levels of service with the Project at the 2013 and 2030 timelines. The Project’s contributions to traffic in these facilities will contribute to cumulative congestion on these identified State Facilities. Various improvements to these facilities have been identified in Table 3.2-40 above that would mitigate the Project’s impacts to less than significant levels. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit the City shall transfer the agreed to amount into the City’s Traffic Impact Fee Account and hold the amount in trust and apply such amount following the implementation of any traffic fee program. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-85 July 19, 2010 Year 2013 + ARTIC Caltrans Facilities – Weaving Improvements  TT-4. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway.  TT-5. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. This improvement is funded by Measure M and is estimated to be completed by Year 2015.  TT-6. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. Caltrans Facilities – Segment Improvements  TT-7. SR-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. This improvement is funded by Measure M and is estimated to be completed by Year 2015.  TT-8. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. Year 2030 + ARTIC City of Anaheim Facilities – Intersection Improvements  TT-9. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 5th westbound through lane. Modify existing traffic signal.  TT-10. Douglass Road at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Douglass Road to provide two left turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right turn lane in both the northbound and southbound directions. Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 4th westbound through lane. Modify existing traffic signal. City of Anaheim Facilities – Roadway Segment Improvements  TT-11. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue to Anaheim Way: Widen Katella Avenue from six (6) to eight (8) lanes between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way. It should be noted that this improvement has been determined to be feasible through the Platinum Triangle Implementation Plan. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-86 July 19, 2010 Caltrans Facilities – Intersection Improvements  TT-12. Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re- stripe Katella Avenue to construct a pedestrian refuge island on the west leg of intersection with pedestrian buttons. Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 4th westbound through lane. Modify the existing traffic signal and install eastbound right-turn overlap phase on Katella Avenue.  TT-13. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 5th westbound through lane. Modify existing traffic signal. Caltrans Facilities – Weaving Improvements  TT-14. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway.  TT-15. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway.  TT-16. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. Caltrans Facilities – Segment Improvements  TT-17. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. 3.2.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation Participation in and implementation of the City’s traffic impact fee program will mitigate identified impacts to less than significant levels. State highway facilities within the study area are not within the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim. Rather, those improvements are planned, funded, and constructed by the State of California through a legislative and political process involving the State Legislature; the California Transportation Commission; the California Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency; Caltrans; and OCTA. In California, most State Highway System improvements are programmed through two documents, the State Transportation Improvement Program or the State Highway Operation and Protection Program. State and federal fuel taxes generate most of the funds used to pay for these improvements. Funds expected to be available for transportation improvements are identified through a Fund Estimate prepared by Caltrans and adopted by the California Transportation Commission. These funds, along with other fund sources, are deposited in the State Highway Account to be programmed and allocated to specific project improvements in both the STIP and SHOPP by the CTC. The STIP is developed from Regional Transportation Improvement Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-87 July 19, 2010 Programs (RTIPs) proposed by Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs/MPOs) throughout California and the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) proposed by Caltrans. Of the funds made available by the CTC for the STIP, 25 percent is made available for Caltrans to propose expansion and capacity-enhancing improvements on the statutorily designated Interregional Road System while 75 percent of the funds are made available to the RTPAs/MPOs to propose all types of improvements on all other State Highway System Roads, other non-State highway roads eligible to use federal funds, and on the Interregional Road System. Transportation funds generally come from a variety of sources including National Highway System funds; State fuel taxes; federal fuel taxes; sales taxes on fuel; truck weight fees; roadway and bridge tolls; user fares; local sales tax measures; development fees, where applicable; bond revenues; and State and local general and matching funds. Improvements to State Highway Systems are deemed to be matters of federal, State, regional, and local concern. On the federal level, the City, through its Congressional delegation, has aggressively sought federal monies for regional roadway improvements. Within the study area, relatively recent projects have provided improvements to the freeway facilities. Interstate 5 within the study area was widened in the late 1990’s under the OCTA Measure M. Additionally, the I-5, SR-57, SR-22 interchange to the south of the study area was recently upgraded to improve flow on all facilities. The State Highway System freeways and ramps that are cumulatively deficient under 2030 conditions are at their recommended build-out, according to the Route Concept Reports (RCR) for the Interstate 5 facility approved by Caltrans in 2000; SR-22 facility, approved by Caltrans in 1996; and the State Route 57 facility, approved by Caltrans in 1999. On I-5, the RCR identifies a concept facility of eight general-purpose lanes and two high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes for the segment between the SR-22/57 interchange, south of the study area, to SR-91, north of the study area. On SR-22, the RCR identifies a concept facility with six general purpose lanes and two HOV lanes, plus auxiliary lanes. On SR-57, the RCR identifies an eight-lane existing facility with two HOV lanes for the segment between the I-5/SR- 22 interchange, south of the study area to SR-91, north of the study area. For the 2030 analysis, the concept build-out facility of five general-purpose lanes and two HOV lanes was assumed, although there is still ongoing study for the funding and timeline for implementation of these improvements. State and local funding sources, including Renewed Measure M funding through OCTA, is currently assessing improvements on SR- 57. In an attempt to further increase capacity and reduce congestion on SR-57, a feasibility study was conducted by OCTA to examine alternatives for adding an additional lane in each direction between the Los Angeles County line and the I- 5/SR-22/SR-57 interchange. This study concluded that due of extensive right-of-way impacts and expanded traffic at the I-5/SR-22/SR-57 interchange, any consideration of capacity improvements should be deferred until the SR-57 is extended southward to the I-405 freeway. The following improvements are currently in the design and environmental stages with dedicated funding from OCTA through the Measure M Program.• SR-57 northbound between Orangethorpe Avenue to Lambert Road segment, addition of one general-purpose freeway lane from north of the SR-91 near Orangethorpe Avenue in Placentia to Lambert Road in Brea (The project is currently in the design phase and construction is scheduled to begin in fall 2010).• SR-57 northbound from the Katella Avenue off-ramp to the Lincoln Avenue off-ramp addition of auxiliary lane capacity-- (entered the environmental phase in 2008 and construction is scheduled to follow approximately Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-88 July 19, 2010 one year after the Orangethorpe Avenue to Lambert Road segment begins construction in late 2010 if project is approved). For improvements to the Caltrans facilities, the City of Anaheim, lead agency for this project, will have to decide whether (1) changes, alterations, or mitigation measures are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency such as Caltrans and not the City of Anaheim. It must determine if such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency and/or (2) whether any further mitigation to the impacted State Highway System are feasible, and if not, whether specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable cumulative traffic impacts caused by the project. The City of Anaheim has already taken steps to alleviate most of the impacts of increased development of the Platinum Triangle. The Gene Autry Extension Project and recent capacity improvements to State College Boulevard and Katella Avenue are just some of the examples of the City of Anaheim’s commitment to an effective circulation system within the Platinum Triangle. The City of Anaheim has an existing CFD program that outlines its strategy toward implementing many of the improvements necessitated by increased development in the Platinum Triangle. With completion of the improvements described in the mitigation, the significant impacts associated with ARTIC would be fully mitigated with the exception of the intersections identified impacts above in the City of Anaheim and the improvements to State highway facilities. However, inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with agencies other than the City of Anaheim (i.e., Caltrans); there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim’s control. Should that occur, the Project’s traffic impact would remain significant. The City is committed to working with Caltrans to identify the most appropriate improvement strategies for their facilities and acknowledges the fair-share cost of improvements to those facilities, however, Caltrans has full jurisdiction toward implementing the identified improvements. This, notwithstanding the fact that the City is imposing feasible mitigation measures in the form of collecting fair share fees for impacted state facilities, because the City does not control the State facilities, it cannot assure that the mitigation measures will mitigate the identified 2030 with project impacts to less than significant levels. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.3 Air Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.3-1 July 19, 2010 3.3 AIR QUALITY The information from the following document was used in the preparation of this section and is included in its entirety in Appendix C of this EIR: Air Quality Impact Assessment for the Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) Anaheim, California, Prepared by Kleinfelder, 2010. 3.3.1 Environmental Setting ARTIC is located within the southern portion of the City, which is part of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), a 6,600 square-mile area encompassing all of Orange County and the non-desert parts of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The SCAB is an area of high air pollution potential, particularly from June through September. Light winds and shallow vertical atmospheric mix frequently resulting in reduced pollutant dispersion, which causes elevated air pollution levels. Pollutant concentrations within the SCAB vary with location, season, and time of day. Ozone (O3) concentrations, for example, tend to be lower along the coast, higher in the near inland valleys, and lower in the far inland areas of the Basin and adjacent desert. The SCAB is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The SCAB is comprised of a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills. The Pacific Ocean forms the southwestern border, and high mountains surround the rest of the SCAB. The SCAB lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. The climate in the region is Mediterranean, with low humidity and an average of 328 days of sunshine each year. The average annual rainfall is 14 inches per year, with an annual average temperature of 73°F. This climatological pattern is rarely interrupted. Periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, and Santa Ana wind conditions do occur. Santa Ana wind condition describes a dry and warm wind in southwestern California that blows westward from the desert through the canyons and towards coastal areas. This seasonal phenomenon typically occurs from October through March. The climate and topography are highly conducive to the formation and transport of air pollution. The local wind is generally light and the dominant wind pattern is a daytime on-shore breeze with nighttime offshore breezes. Air stagnation may occur during the early evening and early morning during periods of transition between day and night wind patterns. Santa Ana wind conditions occasionally occur and disrupt this pattern. If the Santa Ana winds are strong, they can surpass the sea breeze and carry suspended dust and pollutants from the desert into the SCAB and off the coast. If they are weak, they are opposed by the sea breeze and cause air stagnation, resulting in high pollution events. The combination of topography, low mixing height, abundant sunshine, and emissions from the second largest urban area in the United States (US) gives the SCAB the worst air pollution problem in the nation. Over the past 30 years, the SCAQMD has made substantial progress in reducing air pollution levels in southern California. The area was previously designated nonattainment for all of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), except for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and lead (Pb). The area is now defined as in attainment for nitrogen dioxide (NO2), SO2, Pb, and carbon Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.3 Air Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.3-2 July 19, 2010 monoxide (CO). Levels of particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) and O3, while reduced substantially from their peak levels, are still far from attainment in the Basin. 3.3.2 Regulatory Setting Federal, state and local authorities have adopted various rules and regulations for assessing and mitigating a project’s impact on air quality. ARTIC is within the SCAB and is subject to the rules and regulations imposed by SCAQMD. A projects impact on air quality is also evaluated using the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and the NAAQS. This regulatory framework and how it related to ARTIC is discussed below. The SCAQMD has also established an interim Greenhouse Gases (GHG) Significance Threshold for CEQA. GHG significance will be discussed separately in Section 3.12. Federal Policies and Regulations Clean Air Act The CAA, enacted in 1970 and its subsequent amendments establishes the framework for modern air pollution control. The CAA directs the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to establish ambient air standards for six pollutants: O3, CO, Pb, NO2, PM2.5 and PM10, and SO2. The standards are divided into primary and secondary standards. The primary standards are set to protect human health and the secondary standards are set to protect environmental values, such as plant and animal life. The CAA requires states to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for areas designated as nonattainment for federal air quality standards. The SIP is reviewed and approved by USEPA and must demonstrate how the federal standards will be achieved. Failure to submit a plan or secure approval could lead to denial of federal funding and permits. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) refer to technology-based standards that were developed for specific categories of stationary sources. These standards found in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 60 are intended to promote use of the best air pollution control technologies by comparing available technologies based on cost of incremental pollution reduction and any other non-air quality, health, and environmental impact and energy requirements. Transportation Conformity The concept of transportation conformity was introduced in the 1977 amendments to the CAA, which includes a provision to ensure that transportation investments conform to the SIP in meeting the NAAQS. USEPA published a set of the Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments, amending the August 1997 regulations, in Federal Register Volume 69 No. 26 on July 1, 2004. The new amendments supplement the NAAQS by providing regulations for the 8- hour O3 and PM2.5. A March 2006 ruling establishes revised criteria for determining which transportation projects must be analyzed for local particle emissions impacts in PM2.5 and PM10 nonattainment and maintenance areas. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.3 Air Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.3-3 July 19, 2010 State Policies and Regulations California Clean Air Act The provisions contained in the California CAA are more stringent than the federal standards. The CAAQS are enforced by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and local air pollution control districts. State standards are to be achieved through district-level air quality management plans that are incorporated into the SIP. The California CAA requires local and regional air pollution control districts that are not attaining one or more of the CAAQS, to expeditiously adopt plans specifically designed to attain these standards. Each plan must be designed to achieve an annual five percent reduction in district-wide emissions of each non-attainment pollutant or its precursors. Amendments to the California CAA impose additional requirements designed to ensure an improvement in air quality within the next five years. Local districts with moderate air pollution that did not achieve “transitional nonattainment” status by December 31, 1997 must implement the more stringent measures applicable to districts with serious air pollution. Existing air quality conditions in ARTIC can be characterized in terms of the ambient air quality standards that California and the federal government have established for several different pollutants. For some pollutants, separate standards have been set for different measurement periods. Most standards have been set to protect public health. For some pollutants, standards have been based on other values, such as protection of crops, protection of materials, or avoidance of nuisance conditions. Table 3.3-1 shows the 2010 national and California standards for relevant air pollutants. Assembly Bill 2588 (1987) AB 2588, the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act, requires stationary sources of air pollutants to periodically report the type and quantities of specified Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) that are routinely or intermittently released. TACs, such as diesel particulate matter are air pollutants that are or may become harmful to human health or the environment. The only device at ARTIC that will potentially be subject to AB 2588 is the emergency diesel generator. Since emissions from the emergency generator are below the applicable AB 2588 threshold of 10 tons per year, ARTIC will not be subject to AB 2588 requirements. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.3 Air Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.3-4 July 19, 2010 Table 3.3-1 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time CAAQS (1) (ug/m3) NAAQS (2) (ug/m3) Most Stringent Standard (ug/m3) 1-hour 90 ppb (180 ug/ m3) No separate standard 90 ppb O3 8-hour 70 ppb (137 ug/ m3) 75 ppb (147 ug/m3) 70 ppb 24-hour 50 150 50 PM10 Annual 20 No separate standard 20 24-hour No separate standard 35 35 PM2.5 Annual 12 15 12 1-hour 23,000 35 ppm (40,000 ug/m3) 23,000 CO 8-hour 10,000 9 ppm (10,000 ug/m3) 10,000 1-hour 339 0.100 ppm (3) (189 ug/m3) 189 NO2 Annual 57 0.053 ppm (100 ug/m3) 57 1-hour 655 No separate standard 655 3-hour No separate standard 1,300 1,300 24-hour 105 365 105 SO2 Annual No separate standard 80 80 30-day 1.5 No separate standard 1.5 Pb Quarterly No separate standard 1.5 1.5 Sulfates 24-hour 25 No separate standard 25 Visibility Reducing Particulate 8-hour bext <0.23 km-1 No separate standard <0.23 km-1 Hydrogen sulfide 1-hour 42 No separate standard 42 Vinyl chloride 24-hour 26 No separate standard 26 Notes: 1. California standards for O3, CO (except Lake Tahoe), SO2 (1 and 24 hour), NO2, PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles, are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. CAAQS are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the CCR. 2. National standards (other than O3, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The O3 standard is attained when the fourth highest eight hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24 hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the USEPA for further clarification and current federal policies. 3. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.100 ppm (effective January 22, 2010). ppb = parts per billion ppm = parts per million µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter km = kilometer Source: CARB, March 2010 Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.3 Air Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.3-5 July 19, 2010 California Air Resources Board CARB identified diesel exhaust particulate as a TAC and approved a “Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles” in 2000. The goal of this Plan is to reduce diesel particulate matter emissions and the associated health risk by 75 percent by 2010 and 85 percent by 2020. CARB has promulgated several regulations with the objective of reducing diesel particulate matter and other criteria pollutants from diesel equipment and commercial vehicles. Much of the equipment that will be used during the construction phase of ARTIC is diesel powered and will be governed by the Off-Road Diesel or the On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle regulations. Per these regulations, the equipment owner is responsible for managing this equipment such that emissions meet specified fleet averages required by CARB. Regional Transportation Improvement Program SCAG, as the MPO for southern California, is mandated to comply with federal and state transportation and air quality regulations. SCAG is a six-county region (Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura) that contains four air basins that are administered by five air districts. ARTIC is included in SCAG’s RTIP and its emissions have been accounted for in the regional emissions burden for the region. Air Quality Management Planning The AQMP was prepared by the SCAQMD Governing Board, CARB, SCAG, and the USEPA. The most recent adopted comprehensive plan is the 2007 AQMP. The 2007 AQMP proposes attainment demonstration of the federal PM2.5 standards through a more focused control of SOx, directly emitted PM2.5, and focused control of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) by 2015. The eight-hour O3 control strategy builds upon the PM2.5 strategy, augmented with additional NOX and VOC reductions to meet the standard by 2024, assuming an extended attainment date is obtained. Local Policies and Regulations New Source Review The purpose of New Source Review is to prevent operational emissions from new, modified or relocated facilities from causing an exceedance in the region’s attainment of the NAAQS. In SCAQMD, Regulation XIII, which implements New Source Review, governs projects that result in an emissions increase of any nonattainment air pollutant associated with a stationary source of emissions. If certain thresholds are exceeded, projects may be required to mitigate emissions using controls or obtain emission offsets. For ARTIC, relocation of the station to a new location within the air district will primarily result in increases to air emissions associated with mobile sources, including ground and mass transit as well as passenger vehicle traffic to and from the facility. The only permitted source of emissions expected will be a 1,000 kW emergency backup generator with an USEPA Certified Tier 4 Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.3 Air Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.3-6 July 19, 2010 engine, whose planned operation typically will be one hour per month for maintenance and testing purposes. City of Anaheim General Plan The Green Element within the City of Anaheim General Plan combines all of the City’s open space, conservation, recreation, and landscaping resources into one comprehensive, integrated document. The primary objectives are to: expand public parks and open space amenities; improve the City’s trail and bicycle network for local and regional connections; beautify arterial corridors with landscape plans, edge treatments, and gateways; and use existing opportunities to expand accessible open space and recreation opportunities. Conserving natural resources, including quality of air, is a key component of the Green Element. Goal 8.1 specifically aims at reducing locally generated emissions through improved traffic flows and construction management practices. Policy 1 and Policy 2 call for reducing vehicle emissions, regulating construction practices to minimize dust and particulate matter pollution. Goal 11.1 encourages land planning and urban design that support alternatives to the private automobile, including transit-oriented development. City of Anaheim Resolution 2006-187 Resolution 2006-187 (approved August 8, 2006) of the City Council authorizes and directs the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department (PUD) to establish the Green Connection, a program that accommodates the principles of environmental soundness and sustainability. Resolution 2006-187 sets out a series of goals, including encouraging developers and builders in the City to receive LEEDTM registration and certification, reaching a 20 percent reduction in energy use and a 15 percent reduction in water use by 2015, and replacing 10 percent of the City’s light, non- emergency vehicles with low emission technologies. 3.3.3 Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines, the thresholds of significance for air quality are defined by: a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) 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 (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.3 Air Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.3-7 July 19, 2010 SCAQMD Air Quality Thresholds Table 3.3-2 shows the SCAQMD thresholds of significance and Table 3.3-3 lists the applicable the ambient air quality standards for construction activities and project operation. Table 3.3-2 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds Construction Sequence (lb/day) Operational Phase (lb/day) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 75 55 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 100 55 Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 150 150 Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 150 Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 55 55 Source: SCAQMD, 2007 Note: lb/day= pounds per day Table 3.3-3 CEQA Ambient Air Quality Thresholds for Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Averaging Time Ambient Air Quality Threshold NO2 1-hour Annual 0.18 ppm 0.03 ppm PM10 24-hour (construction) 24-hour (operation) Annual 10.4 µg/m3 2.5 µg/m3 1.0 µg/m3 PM2.5 24-hour (construction) 24-hour (operation) 10.4 µg/m3 2.5 µg/m3 Sulfate 24-hour 1 µg/m3 CO 1-hour 8-hour 20 ppm 9.0 ppm Source: SCAQMD Rule 1303 One of the concerns with ARTIC is the potential increase of CO as a result of increased operational traffic idling at intersections. The significance of localized project impacts depends on whether ambient CO levels in the vicinity of ARTIC are above or below state and federal CO standards. If ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have significant impacts if the project’s air emissions results exceed one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a state or federal standard, then project emissions are considered significant if they increase ambient concentrations by a measurable amount. The SCAQMD defines a measurable amount as 1.0 ppm or more for the 1-hour CO concentration or 0.45 ppm or more for the 8-hour CO concentration. The potentially significant construction-related TAC related to ARTIC is expected to be diesel particulate matter. Construction-related TAC impacts from ARTIC will create significant exposure impacts to receptors if it results in one or more of the following: Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.3 Air Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.3-8 July 19, 2010  Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk for Residential Receptors greater than or equal to 10 in 1 million; or  Non-cancer Hazard Index greater than or equal to 1.0 (proposed project increment) or is greater than or equal to 3.0 (facility-wide). SCAQMD Rule 402 states that a project will be considered to have a significant impact if it resulted in an objectionable odor at the nearest sensitive receptor. This will be qualitatively evaluated for ARTIC. 3.3.4 Project Impacts a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (No Impact) The current 2007 AQMP from SCAQMD accounts for area growth projections consistent with city planning documents. ARTIC is designed to increase the availability of mass transit alternative and will help reduce the number of vehicles on the road regionally, which is consistent with the strategies of the AQMP and other regional plans. ARTIC will not obstruct the implementation of applicable air quality plans. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation) SCAQMD developed regional emissions thresholds, shown in Table 3.3-2, to determine whether or not a project would violate air quality standards. Construction emissions include those created by gasoline- and diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment used on-site, both from engine exhaust emissions and fugitive dust from site work (i.e., excavating, grading, and driving on unpaved roadways). Engine exhaust emissions include criteria pollutants (i.e., NOx, CO, VOC (or Reactive Organic Gases [ROG]), PM10, PM2.5, and SOx), while fugitive dust generates PM10 emissions. Construction emissions associated with constructing the Intermodal Terminal and related facilities were assessed using the Urban Emissions Model, 2007, version 9.2.4 (URBEMIS). Emissions related to construction of roadways, sidewalks, and the stub-end track were estimated using the Road Construction Emissions Model, July 2009, Version 6.3.2 (RCEM) provided by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. Total construction emissions for the development of ARTIC were assessed on a lb/day basis. The maximum daily emissions were calculated for each construction sequence and for each pollutant, and were totaled to create a “worst-case” scenario of annual emissions. This provided a conservative estimate of construction emissions. Actual emissions from construction activities are expected to be lower due to sequencing of activities and varying use of the equipment on a daily basis. The total ARTIC unmitigated emissions for all stages of construction were compared to the SCAQMD significance thresholds and are shown in Table 3.3-4. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.3 Air Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.3-9 July 19, 2010 NOx is the only pollutant emitted that exceeds the significance thresholds for construction. Maximum unmitigated NOx emissions from all construction sequences were estimated at 151 lbs/day, which potentially exceeds the significance threshold of 100 lbs/day. Mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels (Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-13). The Air Quality Impact Assessment (Appendix C) lists standard BMPs to further minimize potential NOx emissions and ambient air quality impacts. The worst-case emissions for the construction of the Intermodal Terminal occur during the excavation activities. During excavation the construction of the Bus Transit Center, lowering of Douglass Road, and installing the building piles and foundation will occur. Work will occur on the Douglass Road rail bridge and the stub-end track following the lowering of Douglass Road. Construction activities to widen Douglass Road, including the sidewalk and turn lane to Katella Avenue, will occur following the excavation stage. Diesel equipment and vehicles associated with construction activities will emit diesel particulate matter or TACs, and their emissions are governed by CARB regulations for off-road diesel or heavy-duty diesel vehicles. These regulations require owners to maintain their fleets to certain emission standards, either through replacement with cleaner-burning engines or the addition of diesel particulate filters on the exhaust. The measures are designed to be increasingly stringent to reduce diesel particulate matter and NOx, with one of the primary target industries being construction. Diesel particulate matter is the primary component of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from diesel equipment. PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities are attributed to engine exhaust and fugitive dust. Modeling shows that for the maximum year (i.e., 2013), PM10 from engine exhaust is 6.29 lbs/day, which is less than five percent of the significance threshold. PM2.5 from engine exhaust for the same period is 5.90 lbs/day, which is less than 11 percent of the significance threshold. Given the overall short term duration of construction and the fact that diesel particulate matter emissions are well below significance thresholds, no exceedance of the exposure thresholds are expected. The NSPS for compression ignition internal combustion engines will be applicable to the emergency 1,000 kW diesel-fueled generator planned for ARTIC. NSPS regulations (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart IIII [40 CFR 4200 et seq.]) specifies emission limits for emissions for this equipment of 1.2 grams per horsepower hour for NOx and 0.11 grams per horsepower hour for PM10, in addition to proper record keeping and labeling requirements. The manufacturer of the engine is required to certify that the engine does not exceed the emission limits required by this regulation. Potential fugitive dust emissions during construction do not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. SCAQMD Rule 403 specifies BMPs to control fugitive dust during construction. ARTIC operations will not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for regional emissions, as shown in Table 3.3-5. ARTIC operations will not contribute to an increase in frequency or severity of air quality violations. ARTIC’s operation-related emissions will not result in a significant air quality impact and will not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the 2007 AQMP. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.3 Air Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.3-10 July 19, 2010 Table 3.3-4 Total ARTIC Construction Emissions from All Stages – Unmitigated Construction Activity NOx (lb/day) ROG (lb/day) CO (lb/day) SOx (lb/day)1 PM10 (lb/day) PM2.5 (lb/day) Intermodal Terminal 86.5 51.8 57.1 0.06 45.3 12.2 Stub-end Track 10.5 1.4 7.6 <1 2.6 1.0 Douglass Road Bridge 19.9 2.4 10.7 <1 1.9 1.1 Douglass Road Widening 17.5 2.5 11.7 <1 3.0 1.3 Douglass Road Sidewalk 1.4 0.4 2.1 <1 0.6 0.2 Katella Avenue Right Turn Lane 15.2 1.8 7.8 <1 1.6 0.8 Total 151.0 60.3 96.9 <1 54.7 16.4 Significance Thresholds 100 75 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact Yes No No No No No Source: Appendix C 1 SOx not calculated in RCEM; assumed to be insignificant [i.e., < 1 lb/day) Table 3.3-5 Operational Daily Emissions Operational Activity NOx (lb/day) ROG (lb/day) CO (lb/day) SOx (lb/day) PM10 (lb/day) PM2.5 (lb/day) Stationary Source (Electricity, Natural Gas Usage, Landscaping) 2.75 1.25 9.96 0.00 0.03 0.03 Emergency Backup Generator 1.54 0.93 8.02 0.57 0.22 0.17 Vehicle Traffic 46.43 29.69 323.78 0.37 3.96 2.54 Total ARTIC Operational 50.72 31.87 341.76 0.94 4.21 2.74 Baseline Operations -Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station -8.32 -5.42 -72.76 -0.10 -0.85 -0.55 Difference in Emissions (ARTIC – Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station) 42.40 26.45 269.00 0.84 3.36 2.19 SCAQMD Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact No No No No No No Source: Appendix C Notes: - denotes a benefit c) 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 (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Less Than Significant Impact) Construction emissions generated by ARTIC are anticipated to be highly variable, are of a short term nature, and will comply with SCAQMD regulations. The emissions are related to both Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.3 Air Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.3-11 July 19, 2010 equipment operation and soil excavation activities. The City has not received applications for construction of other projects in the area during the planned construction of ARTIC. There are no reasonably foreseeable projects planned within the project area during ARTIC’s excavation activities, with the exception of the SR-57 Northbound Widening Project. Construction of the SR- 57 Northbound Widening Project will increase emissions of O3, PM2.5, and PM10 as a result of the use of diesel and gasoline construction equipment and soil disturbance (LSA Associates, Inc., 2009). Since these emissions will be temporary and will be minimized through implementation of SCAQMD and Caltrans-required control measures, the project will not contribute to nonattainment within SCAB for O3, PM2.5, and PM10. ARTIC was included in the cumulative impact analysis for the SR-57 Northbound Widening Project, which stated that no significant cumulative impacts would occur. The combined construction emissions for these two projects will not exceed the SCAQMD’s regional emission thresholds and will be consistent with the AQMP. Cumulative impacts from the construction of ARTIC are anticipated to be less than significant with mitigation (Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-13). ARTIC will provide a necessary component for the transportation network with the City and will serve as the gateway to southern California region. ARTIC will enhance the County of Orange’s overall transportation system by accommodating additional bus transit, additional alternatives to road-based travel, and improved services for the transit-dependent. Development of ARTIC will reduce the overall number of vehicles on the roads, which will partially off-set cumulative air quality emissions in the local area. Less than significant cumulative impacts are anticipated for the operation of ARTIC. Operation of ARTIC will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in non-attainment air pollutants. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation) Sensitive receptors include areas that are commonly occupied by people that may be more susceptible to health issues caused by air quality. Typical sensitive receptors include residents, school children, the elderly, and hospital patients. A review of the area surrounding ARTIC showed the nearest potential sensitive receptors (i.e., residential housing) are located more than 0.4 miles away from the main entrance to ARTIC (Figure 3.3-1). Additional potential sensitive receptors include Santa Ana River Trail users, outdoor diners at the JT Schmid’s Restaurant and Brewery, and guests at the Ayres Hotel. As previously discussed, construction of ARTIC is not expected to cause a significant ambient air quality impact with mitigation (Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-13). ARTIC will have minimal new operational emissions increases. No significant new mobile emissions will result from relocating the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station to ARTIC. As previously discussed, daily operational emissions from ARTIC are below the significance thresholds. Operation of ARTIC in 2013 is not expected to cause a significant ambient air quality impact. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.3 Air Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.3-12 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank oz-Ht3-oU)C)C)-HC)U)-C)-H—E>-HW-U)jEC)ZmrmC)mz0I Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Air Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.3-15 July 19, 2010 CO Hotspot Analysis An analysis was conducted to assess the potential ambient air quality impacts of CO from traffic associated with ARTIC. The intersection of Katella Avenue and Douglass Road was identified as representing the worst-case intersection affected by ARTIC due to proximity and site access. ARTIC impacts were evaluated using traffic data provided by the City (City of Anaheim, 2010). Consistent with the traffic study data, the assessment included a scenario for conditions of ARTIC in year 2013 and a scenario for estimated future build-out of the Platinum Triangle in year 2030. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (Appendix B), the majority of traffic impacts are due to regional growth without ARTIC. The CO assessment addressed the combined impacts from regional growth and the addition of ARTIC. These results summarized in Table 3.3-6 indicate no cumulative impacts from CO Hotspot emissions for the intersections and roadway segments analyzed in the Traffic Study. ARTIC will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Table 3.3-6 Maximum CO Impacts from Traffic at the Katella Avenue and Douglass Road Intersection Scenario Averaging Time CO Concentration with Background (ppmv) SCAQMD Threshold (ppmv) Significant Impact? 1-hr 6.1 20 No 2013 - No Project 8-hr 4.1 9.0 No 1-hr 6.4 20 No 2013 w/ ARTIC 8-hr 4.3 9.0 No 1-hr 6.1 20 No 2030 - No Project 8-hr 4.1 9.0 No 1-hr 6.0 20 No 2030 - w/ ARTIC1 8-hr 4.0 9.0 No Source: Appendix E 1 Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan Build-out Note: Future background CO concentrations obtained from the SCAQMD CEQA guidance at: http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/CO/CO.html Less than significant impacts with mitigation are anticipated for this issue area. e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Less Than Significant Impact) Potential odors could result from construction activities including vehicle exhaust, and VOC from asphalt paving and architectural coating. Nuisance odors from these activities will be confined to the immediate vicinity of the activity itself. Odors may occasionally be detected immediately off- site. These odors will dissipate within a short distance of the project site. Odors from the Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Air Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.3-16 July 19, 2010 operation of ARTIC would not be distinguishable immediately off-site. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 3.3.5 Cumulative Impacts In accordance with the SCAQMD methodology, any project that produces a significant project- level regional or localized air quality impact in an area that is in nonattainment would significantly contribute to a cumulative impact. Regional or local emissions that exceed the emissions thresholds established by the SCAQMD are considered a substantial source of air pollution that has the potential to contribute significantly to a cumulative impact. Potential projects within the local area include new development as well as general growth within the project area. The SCAQMD considers a project cumulatively significant when project-related emissions exceed the SCAQMD regional and localized emissions thresholds shown in Table 3.3-2. Construction As previously discussed, the combined construction emissions for the SR-57 Northbound Widening Project and ARTIC will not exceed the SCAQMD’s regional emission thresholds and will be consistent with the AQMP. Construction of ARTIC is not anticipated to cause significant cumulative impacts with mitigation. Operation ARTIC will increase the availability of mass transit alternatives in accordance with the 2007 AQMP and the 2006 RTIP. A CO hotspot analysis was performed for the intersection most affected by ARTIC (i.e., Douglass Road and Katella Avenue) using the City’s traffic analysis model to predict traffic impacts from future development projects. As previously discussed, the results show that increased traffic levels in 2030 will not result in CO impacts above the state and federal ambient air quality standards. ARTIC will provide a necessary component for the transportation network with the City and will serve as the gateway to southern California region. ARTIC will enhance the County of Orange’s overall transportation system by accommodating additional bus transit, additional alternatives to road-based travel, and improved services for the transit-dependent. Less than significant cumulative impacts are anticipated for the operation of ARTIC. 3.3.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions  City of Anaheim General Plan;  City of Anaheim Resolution 2006-187;  SCAQMD Rule 201: Permit to Construct;  SCAQMD Rule 402: Nuisance Odors; Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Air Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.3-17 July 19, 2010  SCAQMD Rule 403: Fugitive Dust;  National and California ambient air quality standards (see Table 3.3-1); and  2007 AQMP. 3.3.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Without mitigation, the following impact will be potentially significant: NOx emissions as a result of construction activities were estimated at 151 lbs/day, which will exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds. 3.3.8 Mitigation Measures  AQ-1: Excavation of the soil for the Intermodal Terminal shall precede excavation of Douglass Road under the bridge, and both activities shall occur in sequence. The sequencing of grading/excavation activities shall be noted on the grading plans submitted to the Anaheim Public Works Department for review and approval and in the contractor’s specifications.  AQ-2: Exporting of soil during the excavation stage of the project shall be limited to 25 on-road truck trips per day during excavation and grading. An export plan showing quantities and identified haul route shall be shown on grading plans submitted to the Anaheim Public Works Department for review and approval and in the contractor’s specifications.  AQ-3: Road widening and sidewalk improvement projects shall occur following the completion of the excavating activities. Street improvement plans submitted to the Anaheim Public Works Department for review and approval shall indicate sequencing of the street improvements.  AQ-4: Construction off-road equipment with engines greater than or equal to 150 brake horsepower shall meet or exceed USEPA Tier 2 engine standards and shall be required to have diesel oxidation catalysts installed that meet or exceed 20 percent reduction in NOx. A complete list of construction equipment to be used at the project site shall be submitted to the contractor to confirm compliance with USEPA Tier 2 standards.  AQ-5: Diesel or gasoline power generators shall be limited to less than two hours of use per day. This restriction shall be clearly noted on the grading/excavation and building plans submitted to the Anaheim Public Works Department and Building Division for review and approval. This information shall also be included in the contractor’s specifications. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Air Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.3-18 July 19, 2010 3.3.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation Table 3.3-7 shows that when mitigation measures for scheduling excavation and NOx controls are implemented, NOx emissions from the construction of ARTIC are less than the significance threshold. Table 3.3-7 ARTIC Construction Daily Emissions with NOx Mitigation Measures Construction Activity NOx (lb/day) ROG (lb/day) CO (lb/day) SOx (lb/day)1 PM10 (lb/day) PM2.5 (lb/day) Intermodal Terminal 73.6 9.7 57.0 0.06 45.3 12.2 Stub-end Track 8.4 1.4 7.6 <1 2.6 1.0 Douglass Road Bridge 16.1 2.4 10.7 <1 1.9 1.1 Total 98.1 13.5 75.3 <1 49.5 14.1 Significance Thresholds 100 75 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact No No No No No No Source: Appendix C The mitigation measures identified above will reduce potential impacts associated with air quality to a level that is less than significant. No significant impacts relating to air quality have been identified. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-1 July 19, 2010 3.4 NOISE The information from the following document was used in the preparation of this section and is included in its entirety in Appendix D of this EIR: Noise Technical Report for the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC), prepared by Entech, July 2010. Introduction This section of the EIR discusses the potential noise and vibration impacts as a result of ARTIC. CEQA has defined threshold limits related to the exposure of persons to noise and vibration. These thresholds are contained in local general plans and noise ordinances, or applicable standards of other agencies. A significant impact from noise or vibration would occur if the project exceeded allowable limits defined by federal, state or local policies and regulations. The City and City of Orange have general plans and local noise ordinances that define maximum noise limits for community activities and local development projects. These ordinances are typically related to construction noise and nuisance noise levels. For purposes of assessing noise impacts relative to CEQA thresholds, the FTA impact criteria is used. The regulatory framework for evaluating noise impacts is discussed in further detail in Section 3.4-1. Noise and vibration generated from ARTIC will occur in the short term with site preparation and construction activities, and long term operation and maintenance. This section examines the following:  Potential increase in commuter train noise and vibration (starting and stopping) from the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station to ARTIC;  Car-and bus-generated noise from ARTIC;  Car and bus noise in the year 2030 at ARTIC; and  Day and nighttime construction impacts at the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station and ARTIC. Background Noise Noise or unwanted sound is what humans hear when our ears are exposed to small pressure fluctuations in the air (FTA, 2006). Noise is generated by a source and the magnitude of the noise depends on the type of source and its operating characteristics. When excessive noise interrupts ongoing activities, such as sleeping, conversing or watching TV, it can create annoyance, especially in residential areas. In the case of ARTIC, cars, buses, and commuter rail will be the primary sources of noise. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-2 July 19, 2010 Noise is measured using several descriptors:  Decibel (dB) - The logarithmic unit used to measure sound;  A-weighting Sound Level (dBA) –The basic noise unit that measures sound audible to humans. Noise contains sound energy at different frequencies and its range depends on the individual noise source. Human hearing does not register the frequencies of all sounds equally and can reduce the impression of the magnitudes of high and low pitched sounds. dBA units are measured sound levels within the range audible to humans. This process reduces the strength of very low and very high pitched sounds, such as low-frequency seismic disturbances and dog whistles, to more accurately measure sounds that affect humans. Therefore, the dBA scale measures sound lying within the range of 40 to 120 dBA. Reference measurements include a rail transit horn typically at 90 dBA, an idling city bus at 75 dBA, and a jack hammer is approximately 88 dBA (FTA, 2006);  Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) – A single value of sound level that quantifies the amount of noise in a specific environment for a particular period of time;  Hourly Equivalent Sound Level (Leq (h)) - A value that accounts for all levels of sound that occur in a particular location for one hour. For example, as a train approaches, passes by, and recedes into the distance, the dBA will rise, reach a maximum level, and eventually fade. The Leq (h) for this event would be a value that measures the cumulative impact of each level of sound that resulted from the train’s passing, in addition to any other sounds that occurred during one hour. It is particularly useful when measuring the cumulative noise impact for communities;  Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn) - A value that accounts for all levels of sound that occur in a particular location for 24 hours. This cumulative value also includes a 10 dB penalty imposed on any noise that occurs between 10 PM and 7 AM. Ldn is used to measure the cumulative noise impact at residential areas primarily because it takes into account the increased sensitivity to noise at night, which is when most people are sleeping. Typical ranges for community noise in various settings are shown in Table 3.4-1; and  Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) - Similar to Ldn, CNEL is the energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring over a 24-hour period, with a 10 dB penalty applied to A-weighted sound levels occurring during the nighttime hours between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM, and a 5 dB penalty applied to the A-weighted sound levels occurring during evening hours between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-3 July 19, 2010 Table 3.4-1 Typical Range of Ldn in Populated Areas Area Ldn, dBA Downtown City 75–85 “Very Noisy” Urban Residential Areas 65-75 “Quiet” Urban Residential Areas 60-65 Suburban Residential Areas 55-60 Small Town Residential Areas 45-55 Notes: Ldn= cumulative noise exposure Source: FTA (2006) A few general relationships may be helpful in understanding the dB scale:  An increase of one dBA cannot be perceived by the human ear;  A three dBA increase is normally the smallest change in sound levels that is perceptible to the human ear;  A 10 dBA increase in noise level corresponds to tenfold increase in noise energy, but a listener would only judge a 10 dBA increase as being twice as loud; and  A 20 dBA increase would result in a dramatic change in how a listener would perceive the sound. Vibration Vibration is a trembling or oscillating motion of the earth. Vibration is transmitted in waves through the earth or solid objects. Unlike noise, vibration is typically of a frequency that is felt rather than heard. Vibration can be either natural, as in the form of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, and landslides, or man-made as from explosions, the action of heavy machinery or heavy vehicles such as trains or construction equipment. Both natural and man-made vibration may be continuous such as from operating machinery, or transient as from an explosion. 3.4.1 Environmental Setting Existing Environment There are many noise sources in the City that contribute to the existing noise environment. The major source of noise in the project area is vehicular traffic from SR-57 and surrounding arterial streets. Noise is also generated from several passenger and freight trains that run through the project area. Stationary noise sources include industrial land uses, firework displays at Disneyland on a regular basis and at Angel Stadium for special events. While the noises from these stationary sources are Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-4 July 19, 2010 audible, they are of short duration and as such, do not add substantially to the existing community noise environment as measured by CNEL, which is based on a 24-hour, time-weighted average. The project area consists of mainly commercial land uses including office buildings, restaurants, retail businesses, and one hotel. FTA guidance recommends a screening distance of 1,200 feet from the centerline of the noise-generating activity. Sensitive receivers identified within this screen distance are the Ayres Hotel of Anaheim and the Avalon Anaheim Stadium Apartments, identified within Category 2 of the FTA Land Use Categories (Figure 3.4-1). An Extended Stay Hotel was also identified in the City of Orange approximately 1000 feet from the border of the City and the City of Orange border. However, it resides beyond the FTA screening distance and is not expected to experience noise impacts from ARTIC. A property immediately east of the Santa Ana River is designated "Urban Mixed Use" in the City of Orange General Plan Land Use Plan, which allows and could accommodate residential development in the future. However, currently there are no future plans for such development. Although noise sensitive land uses in the City of Orange are outside of the FTA screening, existing 24-hour noise measurement was taken at the closet location to the project site near the City and the City of Orange border to characterize the existing environment. Field Survey A field survey was conducted from April 4 to April 16, 2010 taking a combination of 24-hour measurements at three locations to determine the current noise environment around the Ayres Hotel, the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station, and the closest location to the border of the City and the City of Orange (Figure 3.4-2). A summary of the long term existing noise monitoring results at each of these locations is presented in graph form on Figure 3.4-3. mz;ij>0zzm-nom;IJ>m-o0-o0CmC-)-zpCDIC,)>CDC)mC)mC-<C)C)0CD(1C--oCl)mzC,,,-ImmC,mrnCl)-n•C).CIm mC)oz--aciç)-noam-a-2-<ZmcrC)‘ci-Im Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-11 July 19, 2010 The purpose of long-term monitoring was to document the existing noise environment and capture the noise levels associated with operations or activities in the project vicinity. The three long-term measurements were also used to determine the existing cumulative CNEL and Ldn values for each of the three locations within the project area. The cumulative CNEL and Ldn values for each location are shown in Table 3.4-2. Additional details on the monitoring program are provided in Appendix D. Currently, the Ayres Hotel experiences noise levels that exceed 65 dBA CNEL. According to the California Office of Noise Control’s land use compatibility chart for community noise, the Ayres Hotel is within the “conditionally acceptable” category. This is attributed to the hotel being located near SR-57, the dominate noise source observed during field monitoring. A “conditionally acceptable” designation implies that new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements for each land use is made and necessary noise attenuation features are incorporated in the design. Table 3.4-2 Existing Project Area Cumulative CNEL Values Location CNEL (dB) Ldn (dBA) Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station 60 59 Ayres Hotel 67 67 City of Orange 73 73 Existing Traffic Noise Levels Noise from motor vehicles is generated by engine vibrations, the interaction between tires and the road, and the exhaust system. Reducing the average motor vehicle speed reduces the noise exposure of receptors adjacent to the road. Each reduction of five miles per hour reduces noise by about 1 dBA. In order to assess the potential for mobile-source noise impacts, it is necessary to determine the noise currently generated by vehicles traveling through the project area. Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were based on the existing daily traffic volumes provided Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (July, 2010). The results of this modeling indicate that average noise levels along arterial segments currently range from approximately 75 dBA to 76 dBA CNEL as calculated at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the road. Noise levels for existing conditions along analyzed roadways are presented in Table 3.4-3. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-12 July 19, 2010 Table 3.4-3 Existing Traffic Noise Levels Segment ADT CNEL (dBA at a reference distance of 50 ft) Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way 35,040 75.0 Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street 35,040 75.6 Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard 30,260 75.0 Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown 32,800 75.3 Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue 34,240 75.5 Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway 37,990 75.9 Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street 29,610 74.9 Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street 30,280 75.0 Existing Rail Noise Levels Long-term noise measurements at the project site documented the noise levels from the existing Metrolink and Amtrak train operations through the current Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station. The hourly Leq values documented by the long-term noise measurement were weighted and summed to calculate the day-night 24-hour weighted average noise level for all noise sources on the project site. The resulting weekday measured ambient noise level the project site is 59 dBA Ldn. Existing Interior Noise Levels Simultaneous interior and exterior measurements were taken at the Ayres Hotel to determine the building attenuation of the hotel. The interior measurement was taken at Room 135 of the hotel and the exterior measurement was taken at the hotel pool area. The short term measurement results are shown in Table 3.4-4. The existing interior noise level is below the State of California’s Interior Noise level standard. Table 3.4-4 Ayres Hotel Interior and Exterior Sound Levels Location Interior Sound Level, dBA Exterior Sound Level, dBA Building Attenuation, dB Ayres Hotel 36 67 31 Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-13 July 19, 2010 Noise Impact Criteria FTA Noise Impact Criteria The FTA has established noise criteria to assess potential impacts of transit projects. These criteria were developed based on the research done by the USEPA that identified environments particularly sensitive to annoying noises. These environments are known as “noise sensitive land uses” or “sensitive receivers.” The FTA noise criteria groups noise sensitive land uses into the following three categories:  Category 1: Buildings or a park where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose;  Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This includes residences, hospitals, and hotels where nighttime sensitivity is assumed to be of utmost importance; and  Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This category includes schools, libraries, theaters and churches where it is important to avoid interference with such activities as speech, meditation and concentration on reading material. The two sensitive receivers identified within the project area (See Figure 3.4-1) are classified within Category 2. Due to the nature of the land uses grouped within Category 2, the Ldn is used to account for nighttime noise occurrences, while the Leq noise descriptor is used for Categories 1 and 3. In most cases, these three categories are the only land uses that would be negatively impacted by high noise levels because industrial or commercial areas are generally compatible with high noise levels. Figure 3.4-4 illustrates the FTA noise impact criteria for transit projects on categories 1, 2 and 3, based on the relative noise descriptor listed above. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-14 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-17 July 19, 2010 Noise impacts to these three categories as a result of a proposed project are assessed by comparing the existing and project-related noise levels as illustrated in Figure 3.4-4. Potential noise impacts are classified as having “No Impact,” “Moderate Impact,” or “Severe Impact,” which correlate with CEQA impact terminology (i.e., no impact, less than significant impact and potentially significant impact).  No Impact - The project, on average, will result in an insignificant increase in the number of instances where people are “highly annoyed” by new noise;  Moderate Impact - The change in cumulative noise is noticeable to most people, but may not be sufficient to cause strong, adverse community reactions; and  Severe Impact - A significant percentage of people would be highly annoyed by the noise, perhaps resulting in vigorous community reaction. An impact is only potentially significant if it affects a sensitive receiver. An increase in noise in an uninhabited location would not cause a significant impact. As the ambient noise level increases, the noise generated by transit is less perceptible by receivers. However, because the existing noise levels are already elevated, the ability to increase noise levels in the project area without impacting sensitive receivers is reduced (see Figure 3.4-4). Construction Noise Impact Criteria Chapter 6.70 of the Anaheim Municipal Codes states that the sound created by construction or building repair of any premises within the City shall be exempt from the noise provisions of the chapter between the hours of 7 AM and 7 PM. Compliance with these standards is mandatory and does not require mitigation under CEQA. Construction, even when restricted to these hours, presents a nuisance value when conducted in proximity to sensitive receivers and the impact can be considered potentially significant. Short term noise impacts are impacts associated with demolition, site preparation, grading and construction of the proposed project. Two types of short term noise impacts are likely to occur during construction. First, the transport of workers and movement of materials to and from the site could incrementally increase noise levels along local roads. The second type of short term noise impact is noise generated by construction equipment at the job site during demolition, site preparation, grading and/or building construction. Construction is performed on a distinct schedule, each phase of which has its own mix of equipment noise characteristics. Table 3.4-5 lists typical construction equipment noise levels used for noise impact assessments. The noise levels noted in the table are based on a distance of 50 feet, the recommended reference distance provided by FTA guidance, between the equipment and a noise receiver. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-18 July 19, 2010 Table 3.4-5 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Equipment Maximum Noise Level (dBA Leq at 50 feet) Scrapers 89 Bulldozers 85 Heavy Trucks 88 Backhoe 80 Pneumatic Tools 85 Concrete Pump 82 Source: FTA, 2006. 3.4.2 Regulatory Setting Federal Policies and Regulations Noise Control Act of 1972 and Quiet Communities Act of 1978 The Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S. Code [USC]) and the Quiet Communities Act of 1978 (42 USC 4913) were established by the USEPA to set performance standards for noise emissions from major sources, including transit sources. Though these acts are still in effect, their enforcement shifted to state and local governments in 1981. Federal Railroad Administration The FRA adopted the USEPA railroad noise standards as its noise regulations (49 CFR 11, part 210) for purposes of enforcement. These standards provide specific noise limits for stationary and moving locomotives, moving railroad cars, and associated railroad operations. These noise sources are evaluated using an A-weighted sound level at a specified measurement location. Federal Transit Administration The FTA provides capital assistance for a wide range of mass transit projects from new rail rapid transit systems to bus maintenance facilities and vehicle purchases. FTA’s environmental impact regulations classify the most common projects according to the different levels of environmental analysis required, ranging from an EIS to little or no environmental documentation (categorical exclusion). FTA’s environmental impact regulations are codified in Title 23, CFR, Part 771. State Policies and Regulations California Noise Control Act of 1973 The California Noise Control Act of 1973 (§46000 et seq.) was enacted to “establish and maintain a program on noise control.” This act mirrors the federal Noise Control Act of 1972 and also delegates the enforcement of noise emission standards to local county and city agencies. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-19 July 19, 2010 California Government Code Section 65302 (f) California Government Code Section 65302 (f) states that general plans must include a noise element section which identifies and appraises noise problems in the community, and recognizes the guidelines established by the Office of Noise Control. The adopted noise element should serve as a guideline for compliance with the state’s noise standards. The Office of Noise Control has prepared a land use compatibility chart for community noise (refer to Appendix D for the complete chart). It identifies normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, and clearly unacceptable noise levels for various land uses. For example, the conditionally acceptable noise exposure level for sports arenas is 75 dBA. The normally acceptable noise exposure level for office buildings is 70 dBA and the normally acceptable noise exposure level for industrial and manufacturing land uses is 75 dBA. Local Policies and Regulations City of Anaheim General Plan The intent of the Noise Element within the City of Anaheim General Plan is to set goals that limit and reduce the effects of noise intrusion and to set acceptable noise levels for varying types of land uses. The Noise Element indicates that exterior noise levels at residential locations should not exceed a CNEL of 65 dBA while interior levels shall not exceed a CNEL of 45 dBA in any habitable room. The City has adopted the California noise exterior and interior noise standards (refer to Appendix D for the complete table). For example, the conditionally acceptable noise exposure level for sports arenas is 75 dBA and the normally acceptable noise exposure level for office buildings is 70 dBA. The Noise Element also contains goals and policies to guide land use planning and design, and govern transportation related and non-transportation related noise sources. Protecting sensitive land uses from excessive noise through planning and regulations (Goal 1.1), encouraging the reduction of noise from transportation-related noise sources (Goal 2.1), and prohibiting new industrial uses from exceeding commercial or residential stationary-source noise standards at the most proximate land uses (Policy 1 of Goal 3.1). Anaheim Municipal Code Stationary noise sources are governed by Chapter 6.70, Sound Pressure Levels, of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Section 6.70.010 states that “No person shall, within the City, create any sound, radiated for extended periods from any premises which produces a sound pressure level at any point on the property in excess of 60 dB (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 City restricts noise intensive construction activities to the hours specified under Chapter 6.70 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to minimize disturbance by construction noise (i.e., weekdays and Saturdays from 7 AM to 7 PM). These hours also apply to any servicing of equipment and to the delivery of materials to or from the site. Construction is not be allowed any time on Sundays Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-20 July 19, 2010 or federally recognized holidays. Chapter 6.70 allows the Director of Public Works or the Building Official to permit additional work hours if deemed necessary. City of Orange General Plan The City of Orange has adopted a mandatory Noise Element required by California’s Health and Safety Code Section 46050.01. The goal of the Noise Element is to identify problems and noise sources threatening community safety and comfort and to establish policies and programs that will limit the community’s exposure to excessive noise levels. Standards within the Noise Element state that transportation sources not exceed an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL at residential locations while interior levels shall not exceed a CNEL of 45 dBA in any habitable room. See Appendix D for standards for other land uses found within the City of Orange. City of Orange Municipal Code, Chapter 8.24, Noise Control Interior and exterior noise levels for residential land uses in the City of Orange are governed by the City of Orange’s Municipal Code, Chapter 8.24, Noise Control. The code states that, “It is unlawful for any person at any location within the City to create any noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other residential property to exceed” the noise levels displayed in Table 3.4-6. Table 3.4-6 City of Orange Municipal Code Residential Noise Levels Noise Zone Noise Level (dBA) Time Period 55 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. Exterior 50 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. 55 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. Interior None Given 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. Source: City of Orange, Municipal Code, Section 8.24 3.4.3 Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines, the thresholds of significance for Noise and Vibration are defined by: a) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity about levels existing without the project? Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-21 July 19, 2010 d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within 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? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport or helistop, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 3.4.4 Project Impacts f) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Less Than Significant Impact) Traffic Impacts Due to the relocation of the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station, vehicular traffic will be rerouted to ARTIC. To identify any potential traffic noise impacts as a result of ARTIC, the FHWA-RD-77-108 noise calculations were utilized to estimate Without Project and With Project conditions for year 2013. As shown in Table 3.4-7, on-site traffic noise levels along roadway segments adjacent to the project site at a reference distance of 50 feet have negligible increases (less than 1 dBA) in noise levels from Without Project to With Project conditions. As a result, 2013 With Project noise impacts associated with vehicular traffic will have a less than significant impact. Table 3.4-7 2013 Traffic Noise Levels 2013 Without Project 2013 With Project Segment ADT CNEL ADT CNEL Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way 53,229 76.8 53,449 76.8 Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street 53,195 77.4 53,565 77.4 Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard 45,127 76.7 45,497 76.7 Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown 43,779 76.6 44,412 76.6 Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue 47,287 76.9 47,670 76.9 Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway 52,195 77.3 52,578 77.4 Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street 38,732 76.0 39,471 76.1 Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street 36,039 75.7 36,445 75.8 Rail Impacts There are approximately 22 Amtrak trains and 19 Metrolink trains that arrive and depart from the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station. These trains that currently utilize the track will continue to operate with the development of ARTIC. Additional trains are not components of ARTIC. Train noise for year 2013 With Project will be similar to existing conditions. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-22 July 19, 2010 Interior Noise Impacts In order to satisfy local and state standards for interior sound levels, a simultaneous interior and exterior measurement was taken at the Ayres Hotel to determine the building attenuation. The interior measurement was taken in Room 135 of the hotel and an exterior measurement was taken at the hotel pool area, results are shown in Table 3.4-8. The interior measurement was 34 dBA and the exterior measurement was 65 dBA, therefore, the building attenuation for the hotel is 31 dB. The CNEL for the Ayres Hotel was found to be 67 dBA. By applying the building attenuation of 31 dBA to the exterior CNEL of 67 dBA, the interior sound level is expected to be 36 dBA. The 2013 With Project noise levels will remain below the state and local standards interior noise standards. Table 3.4-8 Ayres Hotel Interior and Exterior Sound Levels for 2013 Location Interior Sound Level, dBA Exterior Sound Level, dBA Building Attenuation, dB Ayres Hotel 36 67 31 Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. g) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (No Impact) During construction it is anticipated that approximately 70,000 cubic yards of material will be excavated. If shoring is needed during the excavation work, the shoring will be vibrated into place and not pile driven. The FTA Vibration Screening procedure provides reference distances for sensitive receivers identified within the proposed project area (FTA, 2006). The Ayres Hotel was identified as the nearest sensitive receiver within the project area that is categorized as a Category 2 Land Use. The screening distance for Category 2 Land Uses is 200 feet from the project ROW. The Ayres Hotel is approximately 800 feet from the project location. Therefore, according to the FTA guidance no vibration impacts are likely to occur at the Ayres Hotel. Metrolink and Amtrak trains currently pass through the project area. For purposes of this analysis, vibration conditions at ARTIC are anticipated to be consistent with conditions at the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station. No changes in vibration noise levels will occur and the area surrounding ARTIC is not expected to experience excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. h) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (No Impact) Nearby sensitive land uses identified within the project area, such as the Avalon Anaheim Stadium Apartments and the Extended Stay Hotel in the City of Orange, fall outside of the FTA noise impact criteria screen distance of 1,200 feet. Therefore, the impact analysis focused on the Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-23 July 19, 2010 Ayres Hotel, which is the closest receiver that will experience changes in noise levels. This receiver location is approximately 800 feet away from the centerline of the platform of ARTIC, placing the station closer to the hotel than its current location. Since operations at ARTIC will be similar to operations at the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station, the 2013 With Project noise environment will be similar to existing conditions at the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station. Traffic Impacts As shown in Table 3.4-7, on-site traffic noise levels along roadway segments adjacent to the project site at a reference distance of 50 feet have negligible increases in noise levels from Without Project to With Project conditions. Changes in local traffic patterns and improvements to local roads will not have a perceptible increase in ambient noise levels in the project area. As a result, 2013 With Project noise impacts associated with vehicular traffic will have a less than significant impact. Rail Impacts Metrolink and Amtrak trains arriving and departing from ARTIC are expected to cause a periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of Ayers Hotel above levels existing without ARTIC. This increase is expected to last no longer than one minute and be intermittent. It will not add substantially to the existing CNEL, which is based on a 24-hour, time-weighted average. As shown in Table 3.4-9, when comparing the existing CNEL value at the hotel to the 2013 With Project CNEL value at ARTIC, it is anticipated that no increase in CNEL will occur. 2013 With Project noise levels will be less than the existing noise levels currently experienced at the Ayres Hotel. No noticeable change will occur in the exterior noise environment near the hotel. Table 3.4-9 2013 With Project Noise Levels Location CNEL (dBA) Ldn (dBA) Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station 60 59 Ayres Hotel 67 67 City of Orange 73 73 In addition, the cumulative CNEL and Ldn values found at the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station are well below the cumulative CNEL and Ldn values found at the Ayres Hotel. According to the FTA Noise Impact Criteria for Transit Projects (see Figure 3.4-4), if the existing noise levels at the Ayres Hotel are 67 dBA and the 2013 With Project are 59 dBA, then the implementation of ARTIC will have no future impact on the Ayres Hotel or the surrounding area. Furthermore, at the border between the City and the City of Orange the existing CNEL is near 73 dBA. 2013 With Project noise levels are expected to be far less than the 73 dBA; therefore, noise levels from the relocation of the station will not be noticeable in this area. No project impacts are expected in the City of Orange. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-24 July 19, 2010 i) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation) Construction activities, which will include demolition, site preparation, grading, and building construction, are expected to cause a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels. Construction that will occur between the hours of 7 AM and 7 PM will be in compliance with Chapter 6.70 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Constructing the stub-end track along the LOSSAN corridor will require intermittent nighttime construction of the rail bridge over Douglass Avenue in order to maintain operation of the Amtrak/Metrolink rail services. These construction activities may expose noise sensitive receivers, such as the Avalon Anaheim Stadium Apartments and the Ayres Hotel, to significant levels of temporary noise exposure. Mitigation measures are required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels (Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-3). As stated previously, the Extended Stay Hotel in the City of Orange is located over 1,200 feet from the project site and construction activities for ARTIC are not expected to impact the hotel. j) For a project located within an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport), expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact) ARTIC is not located within the Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport land use plans. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. k) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport or helistop, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact) There are no private airstrips, heliports, or helistops in the vicinity of ARTIC. The closest heliport is the North Net Fire Training Center heliport, located 0.5 miles southwest of ARTIC. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 3.4.5 Cumulative Impacts Construction Cumulative construction noise impacts have the potential to occur when multiple construction projects in the local area generate noise within the same time frame and contribute to the local ambient noise environment. The ambient noise environment for ARTIC includes traffic noise from SR-57. The two sensitive receptors in the project area are the Ayers Hotel (approximately 800 feet to the northwest) and the Avalon Anaheim Stadium Apartments (approximately 2,400 feet to the west). ARTIC construction will conform to applicable policies, regulations, and codes. Mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce nighttime construction impacts to less than significant levels. There are no reasonably foreseeable projects planned within the project area during ARTIC’s grading and excavation activities, with the exception of the expansion of SR-57. Nighttime construction activities are not planned for the SR-57 Northbound Widening Project (LSA Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-25 July 19, 2010 Associates, Inc., 2009). Noise as a result of daytime construction activities for the two projects will conform to applicable policies, regulations, and codes. Cumulative impacts for the construction of ARTIC will be less than significant with mitigation. Operation Traffic Impacts Cumulative traffic impacts can occur when multiple projects combine and operate concurrently. Future projects will be completed and operating by the year 2030. Therefore, 2030 traffic impacts will be analyzed for ARTIC in conjunction with other future planned projects operating within the project area during this future date. To identify cumulative traffic noise impacts as a result of the project in combination with other project sources, the FHWA-RD-77-108 noise calculations were utilized to estimate 2030 Without Project and 2030 With Project conditions. As shown in Table 3.4-10, on-site traffic noise levels along roadway segments adjacent to the project site at a reference distance of 50 feet have negligible increases in noise levels from Without Project to With Project conditions. Changes in local traffic patterns and improvements to local roads will not have a perceptible increase in ambient noise levels in the project area. Project related cumulative traffic noise impacts associated with vehicular traffic will be less than significant. Table 3.4-10 2030 Traffic Noise Levels 2030 Without Project 2030 With Project Segment ADT CNEL ADT CNEL Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way 70,870 78.1 71,090 78.1 Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street 70,720 78.6 71,090 78.7 Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard 57,490 77.7 57,860 77.8 Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown 51,287 77.2 51,920 77.3 Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue 61,927 78.1 62,310 78.1 Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway 70,807 78.6 71,190 78.7 Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street 62,161 78.1 62,900 78.1 Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street 51,164 77.2 51,570 77.3 Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-26 July 19, 2010 Rail Impacts There are approximately 22 Amtrak trains and 19 Metrolink trains that arrive and depart from this station. According to the Final EIR for the OCTA Long-Range Transportation Plan, transit trips in Orange County are expected to increase by 26 percent by the year 2030 (OCTA, 2006). FTA guidance states that a 40 percent change in trains per day or hour can produce an approximate two dBA change in noise exposure at a reference distance of 50 feet from the noise source. The 26 percent increase will occur throughout the County of Orange, not just the City. Therefore, it is assumed that the 2030 noise levels will increase by a maximum of 1 dBA from existing noise levels at ARTIC. Sound level attenuates or drops off at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of the distance (Caltrans, 2009). The Ayres Hotel is located approximately 800 feet from the Intermodal Terminal location and the Extended Stay Hotel is located over 1,200 feet. Therefore, the increase in noise levels from the relocation of the station and the estimated increase in transit trip will have no impact on the Ayres Hotel or the Extended Stay Hotel. Noise levels for the 2030 With Project conditions are shown in Table 3.4-11. Table 3.4-11 2030 With Project Noise Levels Location CNEL (dBA) Ldn (dBA) Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station 61 60 Ayres Hotel 67 67 City of Orange 73 73 Interior Noise Impacts Noise levels for the 2030 With Project conditions are expected to be similar to the 2013 With Project and existing conditions. As stated previously the building attenuation of the Ayres Hotel was found to be 31 dBA. Therefore, because 2030 noise levels are expected to remain the same as 2013 and existing conditions the interior sound levels for the hotel rooms will be 36 dBA, as shown in Table 3.4-12. The future noise levels will remain below the state and local standards interior noise standards. Table 3.4-12 Ayres Hotel Interior and Exterior Sound Levels for Cumulative Impacts Location Interior Sound Level, dBA Exterior Sound Level, dBA Building Attenuation, dB Ayres Hotel 36 67 31 Cumulative impacts for the operation of ARTIC are anticipated to be less than significant. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-27 July 19, 2010 3.4.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions  FTA noise impact criteria;  California Interior and Exterior Noise Standards are incorporated into the California Building Code (24 CCR Part 2) and are the noise standards required for new construction in California;  Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 6.70; and  Community noise standards adopted in the City of Anaheim General Plan. 3.4.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Without mitigation, the following impact will be potentially significant: Construction of ARTIC may result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without ARTIC. 3.4.8 Mitigation Measures Implementation of ARTIC is expected to result in a temporary and periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing noise levels. All other thresholds of significance are not expected to be impacted by the implementation of ARTIC. During construction of ARTIC, noise from construction activities may intermittently dominate the noise environment in the immediate area of construction. Noise from project construction will be regulated through the Anaheim Municipal Code. During grading, demolition, and construction, the City shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement mitigation measures to limit construction- related noise.  N-1: Noise generated by construction shall be limited to 60 dBA along Douglass Road, Katella Avenue, and the tracks before 7 AM and after 7 PM, as governed by Chapter 6.70, Sound Pressure Levels, of the Anaheim Municipal Code. If 60 dBA is exceeded during these hours, noise attenuation features (i.e. temporary noise barriers, sound curtains, etc.) shall be installed to reduce noise levels to below 60 dBA at the exterior of the affected building. These noise attenuation features may be removed if a qualified noise specialist determines that noise levels are not significantly impacted by nighttime construction;  N-2: When excessive noise during construction is anticipated before 7 AM and after 7 PM the contractor shall request an exception to the requirements of Chapter 6.70 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. The request shall be submitted in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter 6.70 and shall include a construction schedule and a list of equipment to be used during that time frame. This information shall be provided to the Director of Public Works or Chief Building Official for consideration; and Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-28 July 19, 2010  N-3: Construction equipment and supplies shall be located in staging areas that shall create the greatest distance possible between construction-related noise sources and noise sensitive receivers nearest the project area. This information shall be specified on all grading, excavation and construction plans. 3.4.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation The mitigation measures identified above will reduce potential impacts associated with noise to a level that is less than significant. No significant impacts relating to noise have been identified. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.5 Geology and Soils ARTIC Draft EIR 3.5-1 July 19, 2010 3.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS The information from the following document was used in the preparation of this section and is included in its entirety in Appendix I of this EIR: Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Proposed ARTIC Phase I Project, Anaheim, California, prepared by Kleinfelder, November 2009. 3.5.1 Environmental Setting Geologic Setting California is made up of 11 geomorphic provinces as defined by the California Department of Conservation (CDC) California Geologic Survey (CGS) (CGS, 2002). California Geomorphic Provinces are distinctive, generally easy to recognize natural regions in which the geologic record, types of landforms, pattern of landscape features, and climate in all parts are similar (CGS, 2002). ARTIC is located in the southern part of the Los Angeles Basin within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. The Peninsular Ranges extends southward from the Los Angeles Basin to the tip of Baja California and is characterized by elongated northwest trending mountain ranges separated by sediment-floored valleys (CGS, 2002). The most dominant structural features of the province are the northwest trending fault zones, most of which die out, merge with, or are terminated by the steep reverse faults at the southern margin of the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province. Regional Geology East of ARTIC are the northwest trending Santa Ana Mountains, a large range which has been uplifted on its eastern side along the Whittier-Elsinore Fault Zone, producing a tilted, irregular highland that slopes westward toward the sea (Schoellhamer et al., 1981). The area south and west of the Santa Ana Mountains is generally characterized as a broad, complex, alluvial fan, which receives sediments from the Santa Ana River and its tributaries draining the Santa Ana Mountains and Puente Hills, and to a lesser extent the San Bernardino Mountains. These sediments are relatively flat-lying, unconsolidated to loosely consolidated clastic deposits that are approximately 1,700 feet thick beneath the site (Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California, 2007; Orange County Water District (OCWD), 2004). ARTIC is located adjacent to the Santa Ana River, a braided stream system that has had significant flood control measures constructed along its course over the past 100 years. Prior to flood control, deposition and erosion primarily during flood events contributed to the general geology of ARTIC and the vicinity. The surficial deposits in the vicinity of ARTIC consist of alluvial fan material and alluvium deposited by the Santa Ana River (denoted as Qyfa on Figure 3.5-1) over the last few thousand years. These unconsolidated alluvial sediments are generally composed of flat-lying, non-marine deposits of sand and a minor amount of silt. (Morton et al., 2004). South of Ball Road (north of the site approximately 0.75 mile) these sandy deposits become interbedded with clayey layers in the subsurface, generally at a depth of approximately 50 to 55 feet (OCWD, 2004; SCRRA, 1994). Due to quarrying activities and bank sloughing, most of ARTIC is not underlain by alluvium, but rather an undetermined thickness of Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.5 Geology and Soils ARTIC Draft EIR 3.5-2 July 19, 2010 undocumented artificial fill (denoted Afu on Figure 3.5-1). ARTIC was filled in to current grades during development of the property in the early 1970s. Although the bottom elevation of the fill is most likely equal to the river’s elevation in the northern part of the site, in the southern part (quarry area) aerial photography indicate that fill depth may be about 5 to 10 feet deeper than the river’s bottom elevation. The source for, or composition of, the fill material is not known. Underlying the undocumented fill throughout ARTIC is alluvial sand to silty sand. Figure 3.5-1 reflects this mapping and utilizes similar nomenclature (e.g., Qw and Qyf) presented by the United States Geological Survey (Morton et al., 2004) and CGS (Greenwood and Pridmore, 2001). Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.5 Geology and Soils ARTIC Draft EIR 3.5-2 July 19, 2010 Project Soils Undocumented fill soils were encountered during subsurface investigations. Locally derived sand material appears to have been used as fill and site compaction appears to be highly variable. The fill soils were classified mostly as poorly graded sand, poorly graded sand with silt, and silty sand. This fill is considered undocumented and not suitable for structural support. The fill depth varies throughout ARTIC and is difficult to determine due to the nature of the material, although generally the fill depths range between approximately 7 and 21 feet. Young alluvial deposits were encountered below the fill. The alluvium consists predominantly of interbedded layers and lenses of poorly graded sand, silty sand, lean clay, and sandy silt. Gravel layers were identified in select locations, and sand layers containing significant amount of gravel were also identified. Seismicity and Faulting ARTIC is located in the highly seismic southern California region within the influence of several fault systems that are considered to be active or potentially active. Active and potentially active faults are capable of producing seismic shaking in the area of ARTIC, and it is anticipated that ARTIC will periodically experience ground acceleration as the result of moderate to large magnitude earthquakes. The terms “sufficiently active” and “well defined” are used by the CGS as criteria for categorizing faults under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Act. A “sufficiently active” fault is one that shows evidence of Holocene (a geologic epoch that began approximately 11,700 years ago and continues to the present [Roberts, 1998]) surface displacement along one or more of its segments and branches. A “well-defined fault” is a fault whose trace is clearly detectable by a trained geologist as a physical feature at, or just below, the ground surface. The definition “inactive” generally implies that a fault has not been active since the beginning of the Pleistocene Epoch (older than 1.7 million years old). No known active faults are mapped crossing ARTIC, and ARTIC is not located within a California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007). The potential for future surface fault rupture at ARTIC is considered to be low. The closest mapped faults to ARTIC include the Peralta and El Modeno (3.6 and 2.3 miles, respectively), Puente Hill Blind Thrust (5.3 miles), Whittier-Elsinore faults (8.5 miles), and several unnamed and buried faults to the south of ARTIC. Table 3.5-1 summarizes the distances of the closest known faults. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.5 Geology and Soils ARTIC Draft EIR 3.5-3 July 19, 2010 Table 3.5-1 Summary of Closest Mapped Faults Fault Name Type Distance, miles (km) Magnitude, Mw El Modeno Reverse 2.3 (3.7) 6.5 Peralta Reverse 3.6 (5.9) 6.5 Unnamed Buried (2) Unknown 4.2 (6.7) and 4.9 (8.0) Unknown Puente Hills Blind Thrust 5.3 (8.6) 7.1 Whittier-Elsinore Strike Slip 8.5 (13.8) 6.8 The Peralta and El Modeno faults are located north and northeast of ARTIC. The Peralta fault outcrops approximately 3.6 miles from ARTIC (Morton et al., 2004). The El Modeno fault is buried beneath the alluvium of the Santa Ana River and its inferred location is about 2.3 miles north of ARTIC. These faults are considered potentially active. The Puente Hills Blind Thrust fault passes approximately 5.3 miles north of ARTIC. Although the Puente Hills Blind Thrust is buried approximately 0.5 to 1 mile beneath the ground surface, significant seismic shaking can result from this buried fault. Displacement along a section of the Santa Fe Springs segment is believed to have caused the 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake, confirming the potential for this active fault system to cause significant seismic shaking in the Los Angeles Basin (Dolan et al., 2001; Shaw et al, 2002). The Whittier fault has been mapped by California and designated as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007). The surface trace has been mapped approximately 8.5 miles (13.8 km) north of ARTIC. Two unnamed, buried faults are mapped approximately 4.2 miles (6.7 km) and 4.9 miles (8 km) to the southwest and south of ARTIC. No information regarding these faults is available except that they are buried beneath sediments, some older than 11,000 years (Morton et al., 2004). A Regional Fault Map depicting the faults surrounding ARTIC is included as Figure 3.5-2. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.5 Geology and Soils ARTIC Draft EIR 3.5-6 July 19, 2010 Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement Potential Liquefaction and seismically induced settlement potential refer to another type of geologic hazard, in which loose sand and silt that is saturated with water and behaves like a liquid when shaken by an earthquake. Seismically induced soil liquefaction generally occurs in loose, saturated, cohesionless soil when pore pressures within the soil increase during ground shaking. The increase in pore pressure transforms the soil from a solid to a semi-liquid state. The primary factors affecting the liquefaction potential of a soil deposit are: 1) intensity and duration of earthquake shaking, 2) soil type and relative density, 3) overburden pressures, and 4) depth to groundwater. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, uniformly graded, fine-grained sands, and non-plastic silts that are saturated. Silty sands have also been shown to be susceptible to liquefaction. The potential for liquefaction has been mapped as shown on Figure 3.5-3. ARTIC is located within a State of California Hazard Zone for Liquefaction (California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1998; City of Anaheim, 2009). Because of the depth of historic groundwater and the local soil types, the potential for liquefaction at ARTIC is moderate to high. Landslides, Rockslides, Debris Flow, and Slope Stability Landslides, rockslides, and debris flow constitute another category of geologic hazards. Landslide refers to the lateral displacement of earth materials on a slope or hillside; while rockslides refer to a geological phenomenon which includes a wide range of ground movement, such as falling rocks, deep failure of slopes and shallow debris flows. Landslides commonly occur in connection with other major natural disasters such as earthquakes, volcanoes, wildfires, and floods. Steep, bare slopes; clay-rich rock; deposits of stream or river sediment; and heavy rains can also cause landslides. Lateral spreading is the term commonly used to describe the permanent deformation of sloping ground that occurs during earthquake shaking as a result of soil liquefaction. Deformations can range from inches to several feet, with the greatest displacements usually occurring near free- faces. Therefore, facilities and structures adjacent to bodies of water (e.g. ports/harbors, lakes, and rivers) are usually at the greatest risk of experiencing damage due to lateral spreading. Stabilization methods include shoring, soil modification or stabilization, drilled piers, and retaining walls that are cast in place. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.5 Geology and Soils ARTIC Draft EIR 3.5-7 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank IIIhfhIIILi-L1JLJLSTATEOFCALIFORNIASEISMICHAZARDZONESANAHEIM(04/15/98)ANDORANGE(04/15/98)QUADRANGLESMAPEXPLANATIONZonesofRequiredInvestigation:LiquefactionAreaswherehistoricoccurrenceofliquefaction,orlocalgeological,geotechnicalandgroundwaterconditionsindicateapotentialforpermanentgrounddisplacementssuchthatmitigationasdefinedinPublicResourcesCodeSection2693(c)wouldberequiredThiftiiftd€dthiSg,phih&tyfIdsbjttithtKIhfId&ksIipIid,ty,,tfr€Ii&s,ighfttthfftiTh!isti,t&ddditIdigditddttidig,Thfth€,ftitidthgphittiitthikfth@ptyigthSITECOORDINATES:ILATITUDE:33.8022’NLONGITUDE:-117.8993’W2,0001,00002,000APPROXIMATESCALE(feet),..,......DRAWN:7/12/10LIQUEFACTIONPOTENTIALMAP;lL1IIEIJVPROJECTNO.109528FIGUREDRAWNBY:JPCHECKEDBY:CCENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORT35’3‘KLEINFELDERFILENAME:CITYOFANAHEIM.BrightPeople.RightSolutioniARTIC\%109528L1Q.dwgANAHEIM,CALIFORNIA Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.5 Geology and Soils ARTIC Draft EIR 3.5-10 July 19, 2010 The annual precipitation in the City is low, averaging less than 13 inches per year, which is one component generally associated with low risk of debris flow disaster. ARTIC is at a low risk overall for landslides because of the low annual precipitation, limited presence of clay soils, and relatively level topography (City of Anaheim, 2009). The portion of ARTIC bound by the Santa Ana River has potential to be affected by slope instability and lateral spreading due to liquefaction. The top of the embankment to the channel bottom is approximately 15 to 20 feet high with an inclination of approximately 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) (Kleinfelder, 2009). Preliminary analyses indicate that, due to liquefaction, the channel slope will not be stable during the design earthquake and may affect improvements at ARTIC. The Intermodal Terminal will be approximately 150 feet from the Santa Ana River. Subsidence Ground subsidence results from fluid (e.g. groundwater, petroleum) withdrawal in weakly consolidated materials. The loss of fluid causes consolidation of the empty pore spaces, which means that any voids in the soil previously filled with fluid are compressed by the mass of the overlying materials, effectively decreasing the soil volume and resulting in land subsidence. ARTIC is not located in an area of known ground subsidence due to the withdrawal of subsurface fluids. Accordingly, the potential for subsidence occurring at ARTIC due to the withdrawal of oil, gas, or water is considered remote (Kleinfelder, 2009). Expansive Soils Certain soils, known as “expansive soils,” are subject to changes in volume and settlement in response to wetting and drying, often resulting in severe damage to structures. Expansive soils have a significant amount of clay particles which can exude water (shrink) or absorb and hold water (swell). The resultant changes in soil volumes exert stress on buildings and other loads placed on these soils. The distribution of expansive soils may be widely dispersed. The upper fill and alluvial soils are generally granular and non-cohesive in nature (sandy soil). The potential for expansive soils impacting ARTIC at shallow depth is low. Subterranean excavations may encounter clayey soils with a medium expansion potential (Kleinfelder, 2009). Corrosive Soils The corrosivity of soils is related to several key parameters: soil resistivity, presence of chlorides and sulfates, oxygen content, and pH. Typically, the most corrosive soils are those with the lowest pH and highest concentration of chlorides and sulfates. High sulfate soils are corrosive to concrete and may prevent complete curing reducing its strength considerably. Low pH and/or low resistivity soils could corrode buried or partially buried metal structures. Based on results from soil tested, ARTIC’s near-surface soils may be considered moderately corrosive towards ferrous metals. The corrosive potential on concrete in contact with the on-site soils is “negligible” (Kleinfelder, 2009). Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.5 Geology and Soils ARTIC Draft EIR 3.5-11 July 19, 2010 3.5.2 Regulatory Setting Federal Policies and Regulations International Building Code/California Building Code The Uniform Building Code (UBC) is now referenced as The International Building Code (IBC) and is published by the International Code Council, formally known as International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO). Revised editions of this code are published approximately every three years. The California Building Code (CBC) was approved and incorporated into the 2006 IBC in 2007. The regulatory environment for design and construction consists of building codes and standards covering local, state, federal, land use, and environmental regulations which are developed specifically for the purpose of regulating the life safety, health and welfare of the public. Once adopted, building codes become law (ICBO, 1997). The building code (which covers all new building construction, additions and renovations) is where the applicable seismic provisions are typically enforced. In addition to structural design requirements, the building code also covers fire resistance, disabled access and other life safety requirements (Fennie, 2005). A new version of the CBC will be effective January 1, 2011. This code will be based on the 2009 IBC. National Engineering Handbook The National Engineering Handbook (National Resources Conservation Service, 1983) Sections 2.0 and 3.0 provide standards for soil conservation during planning, design, and construction activities. ARTIC will need to conform to these standards during grading and construction to limit soil erosion. These measures will be defined and outlined in ARTIC’s stormwater plan. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA) following amendment in 1977, establishes requirements for discharges of stormwater or wastewater from any point source that will affect the beneficial uses of waters of the US (USEPA, 2009). The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted one statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit that will apply to stormwater discharges associated with construction, industrial, and municipal activities. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is the administering agency for the NPDES permit program. The CWA’s primary effect on soils within ARTIC consists of control of soil erosion and sedimentation during construction, including the preparation and execution of erosion and sedimentation control plans and measures for any soil disturbance during construction (SWRCB, 2009). State Policies and Regulations Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (A-PA) was enacted in 1975 and amended in 1993. The intent of the A-PA was to provide policies and criteria to assist cities, counties, and Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.5 Geology and Soils ARTIC Draft EIR 3.5-12 July 19, 2010 state agencies in the exercise of their responsibility to prohibit the location of developments and structures for human occupancy across the trace of active faults. The A-PA only addresses the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. It is the intent of the A-PA to provide the citizens of the state with increased safety and to minimize the loss of life during and immediately following earthquakes (CGS, 2003). Natural Hazards Disclosure Act Natural Hazards Disclosure Act came into effect June 1, 1998 and requires that sellers of real property and their agents provide prospective buyers with a “Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement” when the property being sold lies within one or more State-mapped hazard areas. Seismic Hazard Mapping Act The Seismic Hazard Mapping Act was enacted by the California legislature in April 1997, primarily as a result of the Northridge earthquake of 1994. The Seismic Hazard Mapping Act requires the creation and publication of maps showing areas where earthquake induced liquefaction or landslides could occur (CGS, 2003). If a property is located in a Seismic Hazard Zone as shown on a map issued by the State Geologist, the seller or the seller’s agent must disclose this fact to potential buyers (CGS, 2007). Stormwater BMP Handbooks The California Stormwater BMP Handbooks provide guidance to the stormwater community and were published by the Stormwater Quality Task Force in 1993. The Stormwater Quality Task Force became the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) in 2002 and in 2003 CASQA published an updated and expanded set of four BMP Handbooks. These Handbooks reflect the current practices, standards, and significant amount of knowledge gained since the early 90s about the effectiveness of BMPs. Local Policies and Regulations Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 17 The Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 17, details land development and resources restrictions and codes, pertaining to grading, land development, public safety, and other related concerns. City of Anaheim General Plan The Safety Element of the General Plan has been written to establish the City’s approach to ensure a safe environment for residents, visitors, and businesses. The Safety Element establishes goals, policies, and implements programs to guide this effort. Several policies pertaining to landslides, subsidence, expansive and collapsible soils, and other potential hazards on the site are included in the City of Anaheim General Plan Safety Element, as noted below: Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.5 Geology and Soils ARTIC Draft EIR 3.5-13 July 19, 2010  Goal 1.1, Policy 3: Enforce requirements of the California Seismic Hazard mapping and A-PA when siting, evaluating, and constructing new projects within the City; and  Goal 1.1, Policy 4: Require that engineered slopes be designed to resist earthquake- induced failure. The City requires that all grading operations be conducted in conformance with the Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 17, as well as the most recent IBC. As part of hazard mitigation, the City also requires geologic and geotechnical investigations in areas of potential seismic or geologic hazards. 3.5.3 Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines, the thresholds of significance for Geology and Soils are defined by: 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. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Would the project be located on 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) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of the 2007 California Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? 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? Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.5 Geology and Soils ARTIC Draft EIR 3.5-14 July 19, 2010 3.5.4 Project Impacts 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) ARTIC is located within the southern California region, known to be highly seismically active. No known active faults are mapped crossing ARTIC, and ARTIC is not located within a California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007). The potential for future surface fault rupture at ARTIC is considered to be low. The closest mapped faults to ARTIC include the Peralta and El Modeno, Puente Hill Blind Thrust, Whittier-Elsinore faults, and several unnamed and buried faults to the south of ARTIC (see Figure 3.5-2). Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Less Than Significant Impact) ARTIC elements including track, bridges, and structures will be designed in accordance with appropriate industry standards, including established engineering and construction practices and methods per the CBC, the National Engineering Handbook, current American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) guidance documents, and existing SCRRA standards. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. iii) Seismic related ground-failure, including liquefaction? (Less Than Significant Impact) ARTIC is located within a California Hazard Zone for Liquefaction (CDMG, 1998). Because of the depth of historic groundwater and the soil types at ARTIC, the potential for liquefaction is moderate to high. ARTIC elements will be designed in accordance with appropriate industry standards, including established engineering and construction practices and methods per the CBC, City, National Engineering Handbook, current AREMA guidance documents, and SCRRA standards. Site specific geotechnical engineering recommendations to reduce seismic impacts from seismic shaking to less than significant include, site grading, modification to foundation design and/or ground improvements. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. iv) Landslides? (Less Than Significant Impact) The annual precipitation in the City is low, averaging less than 13 inches per year, which is one component associated with low risk of debris flow disaster. ARTIC, because of the low annual precipitation, limited presence of clay soils, and relatively level topography, is at a low risk overall for landslides (City of Anaheim, 2009). ARTIC is adjacent to the Santa Ana River and has the potential to be affected by slope instability and lateral spreading due to liquefaction. The top of the embankment to the channel bottom is approximately 15 to 20 feet high with an inclination Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.5 Geology and Soils ARTIC Draft EIR 3.5-15 July 19, 2010 of approximately 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Preliminary analyses indicate that, due to liquefaction, the channel slope will not be stable during the design earthquake and may affect improvements to ARTIC (Kleinfelder, 2009). ARTIC will be engineered to comply with CBC, Orange County Building and Safety Department Code, the National Engineering Handbook, AREMA guidance documents, and SCRRA standards. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Less Than Significant Impact) Site preparation and excavation activities associated with ARTIC may result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil because of local precipitation and runoff. Due to relatively low annual precipitation, a relatively level topography, and implementation of BMPs, impacts will be less than significant for soil erosion. Development at ARTIC will adhere to the General Plan goals and policies to reduce impacts of erosion to below a level of significance. In accordance with the requirements of the SWRCB, ARTIC, which will disturb more than one acre of soil, must obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit [CGP]). The CGP requires the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to reduce or eliminate soil loss. The SWPPP will identify BMPs to minimize erosion and sediment loss. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. c) Would the project be located on 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) The primary geotechnical constraints for site development are the compressibility of the upper alluvial soils (static settlement) and the potential for seismically-induced settlement and lateral spreading due to liquefaction. Based on preliminary analyses, the potential for lateral spreading of the Santa Ana River channel slope cannot be precluded. Seismic deformation of the channel slope adjacent to ARTIC will be included in ground improvement and other engineering controls during the design phase of ARTIC. ARTIC elements including track, bridges, and structures will be designed in accordance with appropriate industry standards, including established engineering and construction practices and methods per the CBC, the City, the National Engineering Handbook, current AREMA guidance documents, and SCRRA standards. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.5 Geology and Soils ARTIC Draft EIR 3.5-16 July 19, 2010 d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of the 2007 California Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? (Less Than Significant Impact) The upper fill and alluvial soils are generally granular and non-cohesive in nature (sandy soil). The potential for expansive soils impacting ARTIC at shallow depth is low. Subterranean excavations may encounter clayey soils with a medium expansion potential. Changes in soil volumes due to shrink-swell potential could result in adverse impacts to buildings at these locations. Impacts from expansive soils associated in these areas can be reduced to less than significant levels through geotechnical engineering design recommendations (Kleinfelder, 2009). Engineering controls will be required to comply with CBC, Orange County Building and Safety Department Code, the National Engineering Handbook, AREMA guidance documents, and SCRRA standards. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 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) A sanitary sewer line from the Intermodal Terminal will be connected to the OCSD system. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 3.5.5 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts associated with geology and soils are considered less than significant because they are site specific. Project level impacts may be considered potentially significant but will be managed through engineering and construction practices to a less than significant level. Less than significant cumulative impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 3.5.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions  City of Anaheim General Plan;  Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 17; and  IBC. 3.5.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ARTIC will have a less than significant impact associated with geology and soils. 3.5.8 Mitigation Measures ARTIC will have a less than significant impact associated with geology and soils. No mitigation measures are required for this issue area. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.5 Geology and Soils ARTIC Draft EIR 3.5-17 July 19, 2010 3.5.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ARTIC will have a less than significant impact associated with geology and soils. No significant impacts were identified. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.6 Utilities and Service Systems ARTIC Draft EIR 3.6-1 July 19, 2010 3.6 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS This section evaluates the potential impacts associated with utilities and service systems related to ARTIC. This section discusses power distribution (electricity), water supply, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage and run-off, and solid waste collection and removal, including recycling. 3.6.1 Environmental Setting This section discusses the existing public utility systems within the study area. For utilities, the study area is within or adjacent to ARTIC. Utility providers throughout the study area include municipal agencies, special utility districts, and private companies providing electricity, water, wastewater collection, wastewater treatment, stormwater collection, natural gas, and telecommunications services. Water Supply Through the City of Anaheim PUD, the City operates its own water utility and water treatment plant (City of Anaheim, 2009). The City utilizes two primary sources of water supply: The Orange County Groundwater Basin wells and imported water from MWD. MWD obtains its water from the Colorado River and the State Water Project in northern California. The City currently pumps approximately 66 percent of its drinking water from the County of Orange groundwater basins and purchases the remainder from the MWD (City of Anaheim, 2005). OCWD has the responsibility for managing and conserving the groundwater basin and currently owns and operates approximately 1,000 acres of recharge spreading facilities located in cities of Anaheim and Orange adjacent to the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek. OCWD has built a recharge system that supplies the majority of water. Other than recycled water, OCWD primarily recharges the Basin with water from the Santa Ana River and to a lesser extent with imported raw water purchased from MWD. As of January 2008, OCWD began recharging recycled water from the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS). The GWRS can currently produce up to 72,000 acre-feet per year of recycled water, and has increased the County of Orange’s water independence by providing a locally controlled, drought-proof supply of safe, high-quality water (Psomas, 2009). The City’s water distribution system is generally divided into two main geographic areas, based on elevation: the Flatland Area and the Hill and Canyon Area. The Flatland Area is approximately 21,000 acres, situation generally north and west of the Santa Ana River, and almost entirely served by groundwater (with MWD imported water supplemented as necessary). ARTIC will be situated in the Flatland Area, west of the Santa Ana River, east of I-5, south of the Southern California Edison (SCE) easement, and north of the City limit. The Hill and Canyon Area is approximately 11,000 acres, situated generally south and east of the Santa Ana River, and is served primarily by imported water from the MWD. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.6 Utilities and Service Systems ARTIC Draft EIR 3.6-2 July 19, 2010 Wastewater Sewage created throughout the City is collected by the City’s sewer collection system facilities and conveyed to trunk sewers owned and maintained by the OCSD, which then treats the sewage at regional facilities (City of Anaheim, 2009). Two Orange County wastewater treatment plants serve the City. Plant 1 has a current capacity of 144 million gallons per day (mgd) and Plant 2 has a current capacity of 108 mgd. These capacities are expected to expand to 204 mgd for Plant 1 and 144 mgd for Plant 2 (City of Anaheim, 2009). Most of the sewer system is adequate for existing and future development. Some areas will require additional facilities to keep pace with future needs. Various sewer lines are considered deficient (City of Anaheim, 2009). ARTIC is surrounded on three sides by OCSD Trunk Sewer lines along State College Boulevard, along the eastern edge of the Santa Ana River, and to the north of ARTIC, running parallel to the train tracks. A small portion of the sewer trunk line that runs along State College Boulevard, between Katella Avenue and Gene Autry Way, is considered to be in a state of deficiency. A new 18-inch sanitary sewer line will be installed from ARTIC to connect into the main sanitary sewer. Storm Drains The local storm drains that serve ARTIC are maintained under the jurisdiction of the City and Caltrans. There are also major storm drains under the jurisdiction of the OCFCD. Storm drains collect rainwater and other urban runoff from the community. This water travels through street gutters to storm drains, which channel the runoff to the Santa Ana River and eventually to the ocean. Storm drains run beneath most streets with inlets along the curb face. The City is divided into 44 distinct drainage districts that are supported by a system of regional, intermediate, and municipal storm drainage facilities (City of Anaheim, 2009). Onsite water flows to the Santa Ana River via existing connections. Douglass Road runoff will flow to the river through existing connections. Solid Waste Solid waste collection and disposal is provided for the City through a private contractor. After the waste is collected, it is processed through the Material Resource Recovery Facility. Remaining non-recyclable waste is processed and consolidated before delivery to southern California landfills (City of Anaheim, 2009). All municipal solid waste generated in the study area will be disposed of at any of the three County of Orange landfills. All three active landfills accept municipal solid waste (trash) and are permitted as Class III landfills. Class III landfills accept only non-hazardous municipal solid waste for disposal; no hazardous or liquid waste is accepted (County of Orange, 2003). The Olinda Alpha Landfill, with a permitted life to 2023, is the closest facility to ARTIC. It will likely be the solid waste facility most often receiving waste from the project area, although the possibility remains that waste may be disposed of at either or both of the other facilities, depending upon daily permitted capacity and actual closure date (City of Anaheim, 2005). Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.6 Utilities and Service Systems ARTIC Draft EIR 3.6-3 July 19, 2010 The Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) requires that the County of Orange maintain a minimum of 15 years of disposal capacity. OC Waste & Recycling sets long range strategic planning goals to ensure that solid waste is safely disposed of and that future disposal needs are met, and administers the CIWMP. The Regional Landfill Options for Orange County strategic plan was developed to evaluate options for solid waste disposal over the next 40 years. In accordance with the City’s diversion programs, the Regional Landfill Options for Orange County program, and the projected landfill capacities, it is assumed that adequate capacity is available for the City for the foreseeable future (City of Anaheim, 2009). Electricity The City of Anaheim PUD will provide electricity to ARTIC. The City’s electric supply comes from resources located in or near the City and across the western US. Power supply comes primarily from PUD-owned interest in the Intermountain Power Project in Utah and the Magnolia Power Plant in Glendale, California. Electricity is delivered through PUD interstate and SCE interstate high-voltage transmission lines (City of Anaheim, 2010). Power purchases and seasonal power exchanges, along with market purchases as necessary to meet peak demand, provide the overall electric supply to the City. SCE power lines in the project vicinity are currently serving existing demand. The electrical distribution system consists of approximately 1,500 circuit miles of transmission and distribution lines, of which 500 miles are underground. Eleven distribution substations are located throughout the City. Nearest to ARTIC are the Lewis and Katella Substation. The PUD provides its current customer base with more than 595,000 kilowatts and 3.3 billion kilowatt-hours annually (City of Anaheim, 2009). The PUD provides service for the City, and will provide service for new developments within the Platinum Triangle, including ARTIC. A minimum service of 4.8 Megavolt Ampere (MVA) will be requested to serve ARTIC’s electrical needs, which includes a future 15 percent increase allowance. A 1,000 kW emergency generator will also be available to provide supply to ARTIC in the event of utility power loss (Buro Happold, 2010). Natural Gas Natural gas supplies to California are expected to remain plentiful for several decades. The total resource base (gas recoverable with today’s technology) for the lower 48 states is estimated to be about 975 trillion cubic feet, enough to continue current production levels for more than 50 years. Technology enhancements will continue to enlarge this resource base. Production capacity increases remain less certain. Despite this concern, production in the continental US is expected to increase from 17.1 trillion cubic feet in the 1994 base year to 25.9 trillion cubic feet in 2019 (California Energy Commission, 2000). ARTIC is within the service area of Southern California Gas Company (SCG) which is a utility provider under the Sempra Energy Company. The availability of natural gas service is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, SCG is under the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission and federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action that affects gas supply, or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.6 Utilities and Service Systems ARTIC Draft EIR 3.6-4 July 19, 2010 SCG provides gas service in the City and has facilities throughout the City. SCG has gas lines along Orangewood Avenue, State College Boulevard, Katella Avenue, Gene Autry Way, and Lewis Street (City of Anaheim, 2005). SCG currently has facilities in the City, and gas mains for ARTIC could be provided from existing SCG gas mains located in various locations throughout the City (City of Anaheim, 2009). Natural gas may be considered as the fuel type for ARTIC’s emergency generator. The natural gas supply from the City mains cannot be considered a guaranteed supply (Buro Happold, 2010). Diesel may be considered as an alternate fuel. Telephone Service Telephone and cable television service are provided by AT&T and Time-Warner throughout the Platinum Triangle (City of Anaheim, 2008). While development of ARTIC may contribute to the cumulative demand on the telephone and/or cable television service, due to the expandable nature of these services, systems can be upgraded as necessary by the provider without significant impacts (City of Anaheim, 2008). 3.6.2 Regulatory Setting Federal Policies and Regulations Clean Water Act (1987) The CWA is the primary federal law governing water pollution (33 USC 1251-1376). The act established the goals of eliminating releases to water of high amounts of toxic substances, eliminating additional water pollution by 1985, and ensuring that surface waters will meet standards necessary for human sports and recreation by 1983. Under the CWA, the USEPA’s Office of Waste Management works together with USEPA regions, states and tribes to regulate discharges into surface waters such as wetlands, lakes, rivers, estuaries, bays and oceans. Specifically, the Office of Waste Management focuses on control of water that is collected in discrete conveyances (also called point sources), including pipes, ditches, and sanitary or storm sewers (USEPA, 2009). The Federal Water Pollution Control Act prohibits the discharge of any pollutant to navigable waters unless the discharge is authorized by a NPDES permit. The NPDES permit requirements were established in 1987, with the passage of the Water Quality Act. Since 1990, operators of stormwater systems have been required to develop a stormwater management program designed to prevent harmful pollutants from being washed away by stormwater runoff and discharged into local water bodies. In California, the SARWQCB administers the NPDES permitting program (SARWQCB, 2009). Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.6 Utilities and Service Systems ARTIC Draft EIR 3.6-5 July 19, 2010 United States Environmental Protection Agency The USEPA defines solid waste as any garbage or refuse, sludge from a wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semi-solid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities (USEPA, 2009). Other wastes regulations are set forth in 40 CFR 273, including batteries, pesticides, and some conditionally exempt small quantity generators. State Policies and Regulations State of California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act (AB 1881) The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) was adopted as a comprehensive set of 43 recommendations, basically making changes to the AB 325 of 1990 for water conservation in landscaping, and updating the Model Local Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Performance standards and labeling requirements for landscape irrigation equipment, including irrigation controllers, moisture sensors, emission devices, and valves to reduce the wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy or water will also be adopted by regulation. Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations, Environmental Protection-Division 2, Solid Waste Title 27 of the CCR addresses landfill closure standards and landfill-related public health and safety issues. Regulations for Title 27 have been set forth by the California Integrated Waste Management Board and the SWRCB. Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan On December 13, 2001, the SARWQCB issued a Municipal Stormwater NPDES (NPDES Permit No. CAS004001) that requires new development and redevelopment projects to incorporate stormwater mitigation measures. Depending on the type of project, either a standard urban stormwater mitigation plan or a site- specific mitigation plan is required to reduce the quantity and improve the quality of rainfall runoff that leaves the site. Water Supply Assessment, Senate Bill 610 SB 610 became effective January 1, 2002. The bill requires a city or county that determines that a project (as defined in Water Code Section 10912) is subject to CEQA to identify any public water system that may supply water for the project and to request those public water systems to prepare a specified water supply assessment. The assessment is required to include an identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project and water received in prior years pursuant to those entitlements, rights, and contracts. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.6 Utilities and Service Systems ARTIC Draft EIR 3.6-6 July 19, 2010 California Integrated Waste Management Act, Assembly Bill 939 The California Integrated Waste Management Act (PRC §40000 et seq.) requires municipalities to divert 50 percent of their solid waste from landfills to recycling facilities by 2000. Local Policies and Regulations City of Anaheim Urban Water Management Plan The City has prepared an urban water management plan (UWMP) to describe how water resources are used and to present strategies that will be used to meet the City’s current and future water needs. To be consistent with the California Urban Water Management Planning Act, the City of Anaheim UWMP focuses primarily on water supply reliability and water use efficiency measures. The California Urban Water Management Planning Act requires water suppliers to develop water management plans every five years. The City most recently completed this five- year update in 2005. The 2005 UWMP was completed as an update to the 2000 UWMP to comply with the Urban Water Management Planning Act. City of Anaheim General Plan The Public Services and Facilities Element within the City of Anaheim General Plan lists several applicable goals and policies regarding utilities and service systems. Electricity Goal 3.1, Policy 2: Generate electricity in a manner that is reliable, cost-effective, and sustainable by ensuring that adequate electricity capacity exists for planned development. Water System Goal 4.1, Policy 2: Provide a water system that produces high quality water, sufficient water pressure, and necessary quantities of water to meet domestic demands by continuing to provide municipal water service that meets or exceeds state and federal health standards. Sewer System Goal 5.1, Policy 1: Provide a safe and effective sewer system that meets the needs of the City’s residents, businesses, and visitors by ensuring that appropriate sewer system mitigation measures are identified and implemented in conjunction with new development based on the recommendations of prior sewer studies and/or future sewer studies that may be required by the City Engineer. Storm Drain System Goal 6.1, Policy 3: Maintain a storm drain system that will adequately protect and enhance the health, safety and general welfare of residents, visitors, employees, and their property by minimizing the amount of impervious surfaces in conjunction with new development. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.6 Utilities and Service Systems ARTIC Draft EIR 3.6-7 July 19, 2010 Waste Management Goal 7.1, Policy 1: Minimize, recycle, and dispose of solid and hazardous waste in an efficient and environmentally sound manner by ensuring that solid waste generated within the City is collected and transported in a cost-effective manner that protects the public health and safety. Private Utilities Goal 8.1: Coordinate with private utilities to provide adequate natural gas and communications infrastructure to existing and new development in a manner compatible with the surrounding community. City of Anaheim Resolution 2006-187 Resolution 2006-187 (approved August 8, 2006) of the City Council authorizes and directs the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department (PUD) to establish the Green Connection, a program that accommodates the principles of environmental soundness and sustainability. Resolution 2006-187 sets out a series of goals, including encouraging developers and builders in the City to receive LEEDTM registration and certification, reaching a 20 percent reduction in energy use and a 15 percent reduction in water use by 2015, and replacing 10 percent of the City’s light, non- emergency vehicles with low emission technologies. Landscape Water Efficiency Ordinance In September 2009, the California Department of Water Resources released an updated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance to assist cities in reducing water waste in landscapes. In order to comply with the new requirement, the Anaheim City Council adopted the new Landscape Water Efficiency Ordinance (Chapter 10.19 of the Anaheim Municipal Code) in December 2009. This ordinance promotes the benefits of consistent landscape ordinances with neighboring local and regional agencies; establishes a structure for planning, designing, installing, and maintaining and managing water efficient landscapes in new construction and rehabilitation projects; and encourages the use of economic incentives that promote the efficient use of water. 3.6.3 Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines, the thresholds of significance for Utilities and Service Systems are defined by: a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities (including sewer (waste water) collection facilities) or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.6 Utilities and Service Systems ARTIC Draft EIR 3.6-8 July 19, 2010 c) Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project (including large-scale developments as defined by PRC § 21151.9 and described in Question No. 20 of the Environmental Information Form) from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) 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? f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Would the project comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? h) Would the project result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to electricity? i) Would the project result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to natural gas? j) Would the project result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to telephone service? k) Would the project result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to television service/reception? 3.6.4 Project Impacts a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Less Than Significant Impact) Point sources, which in the case of ARTIC will include sewage from on-site sanitary systems, will be discharged to a new local collection system and then to the existing sanitary sewer system. It will be treated by OCSD. During construction of ARTIC, construction personnel will use rented portable restrooms and sinks. Wastewater will be transported to a wastewater treatment facility for proper treatment. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. b) Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities (including sewer (waste water) collection facilities) or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less Than Significant Impact) Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.6 Utilities and Service Systems ARTIC Draft EIR 3.6-9 July 19, 2010 During construction of ARTIC, construction personnel will use rented, portable restrooms and sinks. Wastewater will be transported to a wastewater treatment facility for proper treatment. ARTIC is expected to create approximately 71,600 gallons per day of wastewater (Psomas, 2009; City of Anaheim, 2005). This represents approximately 0.02 percent of the current available combined capacity of 348 mgd between Plants 1 and 2 for the City (City of Anaheim, 2005). This is considered a negligible increase in wastewater flow going into the existing treatment facilities. ARTIC will include wastewater reduction strategies, such as water recycling, within its design goals that will further reduce wastewater created on-site. The existing 8-inch sewer line at Douglass Road, south of Katella Avenue, that currently serves the Industrial property and Ayers Hotel will remain and will not be disturbed by ARTIC. A new 18-inch sanitary line will be installed to serve ARTIC and will connect with the existing OCSD sanitary line at Katella Avenue. During construction of ARTIC, water trucks will supply water to the project. The use of water trucks is required during construction to comply with Fugitive Dust Rule 403. This water will be supplied by local sources. Other than the installation of a new 16-inch water transmission main in Douglass Road, ARTIC will not require or result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities because the projected use of the volume of water at ARTIC will not exceed existing or projected water uses presented in the Platinum Triangle Water Supply Assessment (WSA) and the City’s 2005 UWMP (City of Anaheim, 2009; City of Anaheim, 2005). The Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station and existing facilities on the ARTIC site currently have a stated wastewater usage. Operation of ARTIC will have a negligible increase in wastewater in addition to the existing amount. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. c) Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less Than Significant Impact) The project site is currently developed with industrial buildings and associated parking lots. The project site is covered with impervious surfaces and the rate or volume of stormwater generated by ARTIC will not be greater than the existing conditions. According to the Platinum Triangle Drainage Study, the project site is located within Benefit Zone SD-20, which is part of District 27 drainage area and is directly tributary to the Santa Ana River. Additional lines into the zone are not anticipated. Development in this area is based on a 25-year storm frequency and the appropriate surface flow limitations (City of Anaheim, 2009). The design of the storm drainage facilities for ARTIC will be divided into the Douglass Road and Caltrans SR-57 Drainage System, and a drainage system specifically designed for ARTIC, including the building, the plaza and the parking areas (B. Jones, electronic mail, January 15, 2010). Storm drain facilities for Douglass Road and SR-57 will include the construction of a new 48- inch reinforced concrete pipe, a pump station on the east side of Douglass Road including a Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.6 Utilities and Service Systems ARTIC Draft EIR 3.6-10 July 19, 2010 diversion structure to discharge the water, a new trunk line located at the west side of Douglass Road, the removal and reconstruction of an existing 48-inch reinforced concrete pipe, and a new manhole structure (B. Jones, electronic mail, January 15, 2010). Storm drain facilities for ARTIC will be separated into three watershed areas for stormwater surface runoff. These watersheds include the collection of stormwater from the following areas:  Parking lot south from the LOSSAN Corridor;  Building pads and underground area; and  Parking area north of the Plaza (B. Jones, electronic mail, January 15, 2010). The RWQCB criteria to control the discharge of pollutants associated with stormwater runoff will be met through the implementation of BMPs either based on volume or flow. The identified BMPs will be in compliance with the current municipal stormwater permit (B. Jones, electronic mail, January 15, 2010). Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project (including large-scale developments as defined by PRC § 21151.9 and described in Question No. 20 of the Environmental Information Form) from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Less Than Significant Impact) During construction of ARTIC, water trucks will supply water to the project. The use of water trucks is required during construction to comply with Fugitive Dust Rule 403. This water will be supplied by local sources. The WSA for the expansion of the Platinum Triangle (City of Anaheim, 2009) has found that there will be sufficient water supply to provide water to ARTIC and the rest of the Platinum Triangle. The City of Anaheim PUD will be able to continue to meet its future demand with imported water and groundwater supplies (Psomas, 2009). Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. e) 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) ARTIC is expected to create approximately 71,600 gallons per day of wastewater. This represents approximately 0.02 percent of the current available combined capacity of 348 mgd between Plants 1 and 2 for the City. This is considered a negligible increase in wastewater flow going into the existing treatment facilities. ARTIC will include wastewater reduction strategies, such as water recycling, within its design goals that will further reduce wastewater created on-site. This is considered a negligible increase in wastewater flow going into the existing treatment facilities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.6 Utilities and Service Systems ARTIC Draft EIR 3.6-11 July 19, 2010 f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? (Less Than Significant Impact) During construction, demolition material will be recycled on-site and off-site to reduce the volume of material required for disposal to the landfills. The excess soil generated during excavation will be transported to landfills for daily cover or transported to other developments requiring fill. During operation, ARTIC will create minimal daily solid waste. This will account for less than one percent of the combined daily capacity of the three County of Orange landfills. This percentage will not significantly reduce capacity at these associated landfills. ARTIC will be adequately accommodated by these landfills. Solid waste reduction strategies, waste diversion, and recycling efforts that are being planned for ARTIC will further reduce solid waste associated impacts. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. g) Would the project comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Less Than Significant Impact) ARTIC will comply with all federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. h) Would the project result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to electricity? (Less Than Significant Impact) The City of Anaheim PUD provides service for the City, and will provide for new developments within the Platinum Triangle, including ARTIC. A minimum service of 4.8 MVA will be requested to serve ARTIC’s electrical needs, which includes a future 15 percent increase allowance. A 1,000 kW emergency generator will also be available to provide supply to ARTIC in the event of utility power loss (Buro Happold, 2010). ARTIC will not result in the need for new systems, supplies, or alterations of current systems related to electricity. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. i) Would the project result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to natural gas? (Less Than Significant Impact) Due to the availability of natural gas and the limited impact to supply that ARTIC is anticipated to have (City of Anaheim, 2008), ARTIC will not result in the need for new systems, supplies, or alterations of current systems related to natural gas. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. j) Would the project result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to telephone service? (Less Than Significant Impact) While development of ARTIC may contribute to the demand on the telephone service, due to the expandable nature of this service, systems can be upgraded as necessary by the provider without significant impact (City of Anaheim, 2008). ARTIC will not result in the need for new systems, supplies, or alterations of current systems related to telephone. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.6 Utilities and Service Systems ARTIC Draft EIR 3.6-12 July 19, 2010 k) Would the project result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to television service/reception? (Less Than Significant Impact) While development of ARTIC may contribute to the demand on cable and/or television service, due to the expandable nature of this service, systems can be upgraded as necessary by the provider without significant impact (City of Anaheim, 2008). ARTIC will not result in the need for new systems, supplies, or alterations of current systems related to cable and/or television. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 3.6.5 Cumulative Impacts The capacity for utilities and service systems was evaluated in conjunction with service providers to ensure adequate capacity for ARTIC. The overall system capacity is known by the providers who have indicated adequate capacity for the currently anticipated projects in the area. The implementation of ARTIC and proposed projects within the Platinum Triangle were analyzed in Platinum Triangle Subsequent EIR No. 332, which includes an appropriate payment mechanism that is available to fund the necessary utility improvements as planned by each utility service provider. Impacts as a result of Platinum Triangle Subsequent EIR No. 332 are considered less than significant. Less than significant cumulative impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 3.6.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions  City of Anaheim General Plan;  Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 10.19 (Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance);  Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 10.18 (Water Conservation Ordinance No. 6138);  NPDES Permit No. CAS004001; and  Senate Bill 610. 3.6.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ARTIC will have a less than significant impact associated with utilities and service systems. 3.6.8 Mitigation Measures ARTIC will have a less than significant impact associated with utilities and service systems. No mitigation measures are required for this issue area. 3.6.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ARTIC will have a less than significant impact associated with utilities and service systems. No significant impacts were identified. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ARTIC Draft EIR 3.7-1 July 19, 2010 3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS This section describes the potential presence of hazardous materials within ARTIC, the potential for exposure to hazardous materials during and following construction, and the specific measures that will be employed to protect public health, worker safety, and the environment. A “hazardous material” is generally defined as any substance that poses a threat to human health or the environment. It is often used interchangeably with “contaminated material,” but should not be confused with the term “hazardous waste,” which is a regulatory term (Davis, 2006). “Hazardous waste” is defined in the USEPA regulations (40 CFR 261) and refers to a subset of solid wastes that are either specific wastes listed in the regulations (listed wastes) or solid wastes possessing the characteristic of ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity or toxicity (characteristic wastes) (Davis, 2006). ARTIC Draft Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, prepared by Kleinfelder, July 2009, and ARTIC Limited Preliminary Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Kleinfelder, December 2009. 3.7.1 Environmental Setting ARTIC consists of nine parcels or portions thereof, which are occupied by a former maintenance facility, a retail lumber facility, and a portion of the LOSSAN corridor. Infrastructure in the area includes utilities, sanitary sewer, and storm drains. According to the California State Fire Marshal (SFM) Pipeline Safety Division, there are no pipelines jurisdictional to the SFM in the area. No airports are zoned within the project site. The closest airport to the project site is the Fullerton Municipal Airport, which in located on the western edge of the City of Fullerton, approximately 2 miles north of the City. This airport is designated for general aviation crafts and encompasses about 86 acres of land, and future expansion is highly restricted by existing surrounding development. There are also five heliports within the City. None are located within the project site. The North Net Fire Training Center Heliport is located approximately 0.5 mile southwest of ARTIC, adjacent to and west of SR-57 and the Santa Ana River (2400 E. Orangewood Ave.). The North Net Fire Training Center’s helicopter flight path currently runs north along the Santa Ana River (City of Anaheim, 2009). The City has an emergency preparedness plan that complies with state law and interfaces with other cities and counties in the southern California region. The plan outlines the procedures that will be implemented in the event of a disaster. The City also participates in the Standard Emergency Management System (City of Anaheim, 2009). The County of Orange has a County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. State legislation enacted in 1986 required the development of the Hazardous Waste Management Plan written to address the planned emergency response for hazardous waste management in the County of Orange. The plan is intended to protect the health and welfare of the community, while preserving the vitality of the County of Orange. The Plan, developed in cooperation with the City, was approved by the Anaheim City Council in 1991 (City of Anaheim, 2009). Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ARTIC Draft EIR 3.7-2 July 19, 2010 The Orange County Natural Hazard Disclosure Map (Fire Map) provided by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDFFP) was reviewed to determine the susceptibility of ARTIC to forest fire risks and hazards (CDFFP, 2000). According to the Fire Map, ARTIC is not shown to be in or near a wildland area that may contain substantial forest fire risks and hazards. The project site and immediate vicinity are depicted as developed. There is one school located within one-quarter mile of ARTIC: Westwood College of Anaheim – 1551 S. Douglass Rd., Anaheim, CA (approximately 0.17 mile from ARTIC). Sites of Potential Environmental Concern A site located on or adjacent to a facility, or former facility, which is of potential environmental concern may pose a hazard to public health and safety. An environmental concern is defined as anything that poses a potential risk to the quality of the groundwater in the area and to the health of individuals drinking from the groundwater (USEPA, 2000). Several properties were listed within the government databases evaluated for potential environmental concerns for ARTIC. Of the properties listed, five sites were identified adjacent to ARTIC and three sites were identified within proposed ARTIC boundaries. The five adjacent properties are not considered a concern to ARTIC based on current proposed construction activities and because of their distance from where soil excavation is planned. However, should proposed construction activities change from their current scope, these properties should be reevaluated. The three properties within ARTIC project boundaries are identified as sites of potential environmental concern. Figure 3.7-1 depicts the locations of these properties relative to ARTIC. The adjacent properties are:  2695 E. Katella Avenue (MAP ID 1);  1654 S. Douglass Road (MAP ID 2);  1650 S. Douglass Road (MAP ID 3);  2400 E. Katella Avenue (MAP ID 4); and  N.W. corner of Katella Avenue and Douglass Road (MAP ID 5). 7 4 2 3 5 #* #* #*#* #* #*6 #*8 Katella AveOrange FwyHowell Ave Santa Ana River1 #* AREAS OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF ANAHEIM ARTIC ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 3.7-1 109528 7/12/10 JP CC 109528envconc.mxd The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information. PROJECT NO. DRAWN: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: FILE NAME: FIGURE 01,000500 Feet q www.kleinfelder.com #* LEGEND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN MAP ID APPROXIMATE AREA OF PROJECT STADIUM PAVILION PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE SOURCE: ESRI STREETMAP SITE NOT PART OF THIS PROJECT Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ARTIC Draft EIR 3.7-5 July 19, 2010 The three properties were identified within ARTIC project boundaries are:  1750 S. Douglass Road (Map ID 6) o A gravel-filled pit beneath a corrugated metal building on the southern portion of the property. The former use of this pit is unknown, and any previous sampling in the area was not determined.  2150 E. Katella Avenue (Map ID 7) o Former “pouring” of oil along the railroad tracks at/around/near the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station for weed abatement.  1790 S. Douglass Road (Map ID 8) o Blue-green dye staining near the dipping vat and within the concrete drainage swale at the retail lumber company. Pad-mounted transformers were observed on several commercial on-site and adjoining properties. Many transformers contain polychlorinated byphenyls (PCBs), which present a possible environmental concern. The transformers observed appeared to be in good condition with no visible leaks and no visible soil staining. 3.7.2 Regulatory Setting Federal Policies and Regulations Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975 The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act is the statutory basis for the extensive body of regulations aimed at ensuring the safe transport of hazardous materials on water, rail, highways, through air, or in pipelines. It includes provisions for material classification, packaging, marking, labeling, placecarding, and shipping documentation (49 USC 5101-5127). Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was enacted in 1976 as an amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal Act to address large volumes of municipal and industrial solid and hazardous waste being generated nationwide (42 USC 321). Subtitle C addresses hazardous waste generation, handling, transportation, storage, treatment, and disposal. It includes requirements for a system that uses hazardous waste manifests to track the movement of waste from its site of generation to its ultimate disposition. The 1984 amendments to RCRA created a national priority for waste minimization (40 CFR Parts 260-279). Subtitle D establishes national minimum requirements for solid waste disposal sites and practices. It requires states to develop plans for the management of wastes within their jurisdictions (40 CFR Parts 239-258). Subtitle I requires monitoring and containment systems for Underground Storage Tanks that hold hazardous materials. Owners of tanks must demonstrate financial assurance for the cleanup of a potential leaking tank (40 CFR Parts 280-282). Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ARTIC Draft EIR 3.7-6 July 19, 2010 Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 The Toxic Substances Control Act provides the USEPA with authority to require reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures. Certain substances are generally excluded from the Toxic Substances Control Act, including, among others, food, drugs, cosmetics and pesticides (15 USC §2601 et seq.). Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 The US Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) in 1980. The purpose of CERCLA is to identify and clean up chemically contaminated sites that pose a significant environmental health threat. Under CERCLA, the USEPA maintains a list, known as Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS), of all contaminated sites in the nation that have to some extent or are currently undergoing clean-up activities. CERCLIS contains information on current hazardous waste sites, potential hazardous waste sites, and remedial activities. This includes sites that are on the National Priorities List (NPL) or being considered for the NPL. The Hazard Ranking System within the CERCLIS database is used to determine whether a site should be placed on the NPL for cleanup activities (42 USC 103). Federal Hazard and Solid Waste Amendments The Federal Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments are the 1984 amendments to RCRA. They specifically targeted waste minimization and phasing out land disposal of hazardous waste, and focused on corrective action for releases of hazardous waste. Other mandates included increased oversight and enforcement by the USEPA, more stringent hazardous waste management standards and practices, and a comprehensive underground storage tank program (Public Law 98- 616, 98 Stat. 3221). Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) pertain primarily to emergency management of accidental releases. Passed by the United States Congress in 1986, it requires formation of state and local emergency planning committees, which are responsible for collecting material handling and transportation data for use as a basis for planning. Chemical inventory data is made available to the community at large under the “right-to-know” provision of the law. In addition, SARA also requires annual reporting of continuous emissions and accidental releases of specified compounds. These annual submissions are compiled into a nationwide Toxics Release Inventory (42 USC 103). Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986 The Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) was enacted by Congress as the national legislation on community safety in 1986, under Title III of SARA. This law is designed to help local communities protect public health, safety, and the environment from chemical hazards. To help EPCRA be put into action, Congress requires each state to appoint a State Emergency Response Commission. The State Emergency Response Commissions are Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ARTIC Draft EIR 3.7-7 July 19, 2010 required to divide their states into Emergency Planning Districts and to name a Local Emergency Planning Committee for each district. Fire fighters, health officials, government and media representatives, community groups, industrial facilities, and emergency managers help make sure that all necessary elements of the planning process are represented (42 USC 116). State Policies and Regulations California Hazardous Waste Control Program The Hazardous Waste Control Program (HWCP) is the primary hazardous waste statute in California. The HWCP implements RCRAs “cradle-to-grave” waste management system in California. HWCP specifies that generators have the primary duty to determine whether their wastes are hazardous and to ensure their proper management. The HWCL also establishes criteria for the reuse and recycling of hazardous wastes used or reused as raw materials. The HWCP exceeds federal requirements by mandating source reduction planning, and a much broader requirement for permitting facilities that treat hazardous waste. It also regulates a number of types of wastes and waste management activities that are not covered by federal law with RCRA (Department of Toxic Substances Control [DTSC], 2009). California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5 Most state and federal regulations and requirements that apply to generators of hazardous waste are listed within Title 22 CCR Division 4.5. Title 22 contains the compliance requirements for hazardous waste generators, transporters, and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Because California is a fully authorized state according to RCRA, most RCRA regulations (those contained in 40 CFR 260 et seq.) have been duplicated and integrated into Title 22. The DTSC regulates hazardous waste more stringently than the USEPA. The integration of California and federal hazardous waste regulations that make up Title 22 do not contain as many exemptions or exclusions as does 40 CFR 260. As with the California Health and Safety Code, Title 22 regulates a wider range of waste types and waste management activities than does the RCRA regulations in 40 CFR 260. To aid the regulated community, California compiled the hazardous materials, waste and toxics-related regulations contained in CCR, Titles 3, 8, 13, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 27 into one consolidated Title 26 CCR ‘Toxics’. California hazardous waste regulations are still commonly referred to as Title 22 (DTSC, 2009). Aeronautics Law, State Aeronautics Act The State Aeronautics Act created the requirement for an ALUC in each county and establishes statewide requirements for the conduct of airport land use compatibility planning. State statutes require that, once an ALUC has adopted or amended an airport land use compatibility plan, the county—where it has land use jurisdiction within the airport influence area—and any affected cities must update their General Plans and any applicable specific plans to be consistent with the ALUC’s plan (California PUC, §21670). The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook is published by the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and its purpose is to support and amplify the State article (California PUC, §21670). Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ARTIC Draft EIR 3.7-8 July 19, 2010 California PRC § 21081 The PRC § 21081.6 requires that public agencies adopt a reporting and monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The code applies to both private and public construction projects and is designed to ensure code compliance during project implementation and completion. Local Policies and Regulations City of Anaheim General Plan, Safety Element The City has established goals and policies for safety items that should be considered when new development is designed. Specific policies have been adopted for urban and wildland fire hazards, hazardous materials and hazardous waste, and emergency preparedness. Urban and Wildland Fire Hazards Goal 2.1: Protect the lives and property of residents, business owners, and visitors from the hazards of urban and wildland fires. Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Goal 4.1: Decrease the risk of exposure for life, property and the environment to hazardous materials and hazardous waste. Emergency Preparedness Goal 5.1: Minimize the risk to life and property through emergency preparedness and public awareness. City of Anaheim Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Section The City Fire Department’s Hazardous Materials Section administers and implements a comprehensive hazardous materials management program within the City. The program has been set up as a Certified Unified Program Agency, authorized by the California Environmental Protection Agency since July 1, 2001. Elements of the program include Above Ground Storage Tanks, California Accidental Release Prevention, Hazardous Materials Inventory and Management/Release Response Plans (Hazardous Materials Business Plans), Hazardous Waste Generator and Onsite Treatment and Underground Storage Tanks (City of Anaheim, 2010). Emergency Operations Plans Emergency Operations Plans for the City and the County of Orange have been written to address the planned emergency responses associated with natural disasters and technological incidents. Each specifies its own level of response within their jurisdiction. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ARTIC Draft EIR 3.7-9 July 19, 2010 3.7.3 Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines, the thresholds of significance for Hazards and Hazardous Materials are defined by: a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 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? 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? 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? e) Would the project be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area f) Would the project be within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 3.7.4 Project Impacts a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (No Impact) Construction activities associated with ARTIC will involve the use of small volumes of commercially available hazardous materials, such as petroleum products (gasoline, diesel, and other oils), brake fluids, coolants, and paints. The use of these substances is governed by existing hazardous materials regulations and will not adversely affect on-site construction workers or the public. During operation of ARTIC, there will be transport or disposal of hazardous materials. Any such materials incidental to construction and operational activities, including routine maintenance, will be required to be stored, used, and disposed of in accordance with existing federal, state, and local Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ARTIC Draft EIR 3.7-10 July 19, 2010 hazardous materials regulations, and will not adversely affect on-site construction workers or the public. Small volumes of hazardous materials will be used during construction and operation of ARTIC. Handling of these materials will be conducted using BMPs. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 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? (No Impact) According to the SFM Pipeline Safety Division, there are no pipelines jurisdictional to the SFM on-site or in the project area. Prior to conducting any below grade activities, an Underground Service Alert will also be called in to confirm the locations of any utilities or pipelines onsite or in the site vicinity. Construction activities associated with ARTIC will involve the use of small quantities of hazardous materials. Hazardous materials will be required to be stored, used, and disposed of in accordance with existing federal, state, and local agency hazardous materials regulations. Handling of these materials will be conducted using BMPs. Operation of ARTIC will use small quantities of hazardous materials. Hazardous materials will be required to be stored, used, and disposed of in accordance with existing federal, state, and local agency hazardous materials regulations. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 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) Construction for ARTIC may involve the use of small volumes of commercially available hazardous materials, such as petroleum products (gasoline, diesel, and other oils), brake fluids, coolants, and paints. The use of these substances is governed by existing hazardous materials regulations. The construction of ARTIC will not include power lines or propane tanks within a 1,500-foot setback of the schools, nor will the project introduce newly constructed high pressure natural gas lines or gasoline lines. One school (higher education) is within one-quarter mile of ARTIC. Small volumes of hazardous materials will be used during construction and operation of ARTIC, and handling of these materials will be conducted using BMPs. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 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? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation) The Phase I and Phase II identify locations of potential environmental concern within and adjacent to ARTIC. The sites of potential environmental concern are shown on Figure 3.7-1. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ARTIC Draft EIR 3.7-11 July 19, 2010 Mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels (Mitigation Measure HHM-1). e) Would the project be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact) The nearest public airport is the Fullerton Municipal Airport, located on the western edge of the City of Fullerton, approximately 2 miles north of the City. This airport is designated for general aviation crafts and encompasses about 86 acres of land, and future expansion is highly restricted by existing surrounding development. The Fullerton Municipal Airport land use plan extends into the City limits, although no airports or airport land use plans are zoned within two miles of ARTIC. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. f) Would the project be within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact) ARTIC is not within the vicinity of any private airstrips, although there are five heliports within the City (City of Anaheim, 2009). None are located within ARTIC. The North Net Fire Training Center heliport, is located approximately 0.5 mile southwest of the site, adjacent to and west of SR-57 and the Santa Ana River (City of Anaheim, 2009). Due to the distance from ARTIC, the type and frequency of air flight, and the fact that ARTIC will be in compliance with relevant local, state, and federal laws. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (No Impact) During construction, local emergency services will be notified prior to road closures. Routine operation of ARTIC will not interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. h) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (No Impact) ARTIC is not located within or adjoining a wildland area, and the portion of the Santa Ana River adjoining the site is channelized. The City has set forth emergency evacuation and preparedness plans that outline what to do in the event of a disaster (City of Anaheim, 2009). Wildfire evacuation plans will not be affected by ARTIC’s construction activities. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 3.7.5 Cumulative Impacts ARTIC and related projects will be subject to the same local, regional, state, and federal regulations. Removal of contaminated soils from within ARTIC that may be required will involve site-specific activities and will not add to or combine with similar site-specific impacts that may Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ARTIC Draft EIR 3.7-12 July 19, 2010 occur during the development of the nearby area. Mitigation measures will reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Cumulative impacts will be less than significant for this issue area. 3.7.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions  City of Anaheim General Plan;  California PRC § 21081; and  Title 26 CCR. 3.7.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Without mitigation, the following impact will be potentially significant: ARTIC is located on or adjacent to sites of potential environmental concern that have the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. 3.7.8 Mitigation Measures  HHM-1: In areas that have been identified as potential soil contaminated (see Figure 3.7-1), appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of excavated soil. Contaminated soil will be properly disposed at an off-site facility. 3.7.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation The mitigation measure identified above will reduce potential impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials to a level that is less than significant. No significant impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials have been identified. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.8-1 July 19, 2010 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section analyzes the potential impacts on surface water quality, groundwater, flooding, and stormwater runoff, and assesses these impacts in relation to the construction and operation of ARTIC. Water quality is the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of water. Changes to water quality can result from flowing through developed areas, soil, or rock material. The effects can be identified in both surface water and/or groundwater depending on local surface topography as well as subsurface soil types. 3.8.1 Environmental Setting The City is divided into 45 Drainage Districts. The Platinum Triangle generally includes portions of Drainage Districts 25, 26, and 27, with ARTIC falling under District 27. This area of the City is considered part of the Santa Ana River Watershed (Referred to as Watershed E). Drainage Master Plans have been completed for these Districts and updated after 1986. The City’s current drainage criteria were developed based on the fact that many of the systems in place are undersized for current run-off projections. Most systems within the City will be designed for a minimum storm frequency of 10 years, with specific and practical limits regarding surface flow during storms. A lower limit was established due to the overall limited conveyance capacity downstream. The area surrounding ARTIC is almost entirely covered with impermeable surfaces. Run-off in the project area occurs primarily through sheet flow across the parking areas in a southwest direction to the surrounding street system. The street system has been designed to convey a 10- year storm event while maintaining one dry lane in each direction. Catch basins located within the street system collect gutter run-off and transport it via the drainage system to the Southeast Anaheim Channel (referred to as E12), which flows to the Santa Ana River. Storm drain systems tributary to the Santa Ana River require sizing to adequately convey the run- off from a 25-year storm event. ARTIC and the surrounding area will require drainage infrastructure adequate to convey the 25-year run-off. Surface flow limitations also apply to this area of the City and are outlined in the City’s drainage criteria. Additional storm drain construction may be necessary in this area to meet the surface flow limitations, depending on grading and development configuration (City of Anaheim, 2008). ARTIC is located in an area considered protected by levees from the 100-year flood event projected for the Santa Ana River. After flood control measures were implemented with the collaboration of USACE, these levees were accredited by FEMA. Despite the protection provided from flooding by levees and the channeling of the Santa Ana River, over-toppling and/or failure of these structures is possible (FEMA, 2009). The City has an Emergency Action Plan in the case of flooding and the OCFCD has an Emergency Action Plan in case of a breach or overflow of the levee system. The FIRM map panel inclusive of the site area is presented as Figure 3.1-2 in Section 3.1. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.8-2 July 19, 2010 3.8.2 Regulatory Setting Federal Policies and Regulations Water Pollution Control Act The federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the CWA) is the cornerstone of surface water quality protection in the US. The statute employs a variety of regulatory and non-regulatory tools to sharply reduce pollutant discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff (33 USC 1251 et seq.). These tools are employed to achieve the broader goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters (USEPA, 2009). According to CWA, the only way pollutants can be discharged into water is if authorized by a NPDES permit (USEPA, 2009). Originally, the NPDES permit focused on reducing pollutants from discharges from industrial process wastewater and municipal sewage treatment plants. In 1987, the CWA was amended to require the USEPA to regulate stormwater discharges through the use of the NPDES stormwater permits. The NPDES permit program is administered by authorized states, including California. Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA is an agency of the US Department of Homeland Security with the primary purpose to coordinate response to disasters that overwhelm the resources of local and state authorities (FEMA, 2009). President Carter’s 1979 Executive Order merged various functions of disaster assistance and civil defense (previously handled by multiple agencies) under the direction of a single agency, FEMA. FEMA was created to coordinate the federal government’s role in preparing for, preventing, mitigating the effects of, responding to, and recovering from all domestic disasters, whether natural or man-made, including acts of terror. National Flood Insurance Program Created in 1968, the NFIP is managed by the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration and the Mitigation Directorate, which are components of FEMA. NFIP is a federal insurance program under which flood-prone areas are identified and flood insurance is made available to residents of participating communities that agree to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances (FEMA, 2009). The goal of NFIP is to reduce the loss of life, damage to property and rising disaster relief costs in areas with high flood risks. There are three components of NFIP: (1) Floodplain Management - Floodplain management is the operation of a community program of corrective and preventative measures for reducing flood damage. These measures take a variety of forms and generally include requirements for zoning, subdivision or building, and special-purpose floodplain ordinances. As a component of floodplain management, the NFIP works to enforce no-build zones in known floodplains Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.8-3 July 19, 2010 and relocate or elevate some at-risk structures so that development within floodplains will not exacerbate flooding in adjacent areas; (2) Flood Insurance – Federal flood insurance options are made available to residents in communities that choose to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances. Flood insurance premium rates depend on what flood zone a resident is located in. Flood zones are geographical areas that FEMA has defined according to varying levels of flood risk, and are shown on FIRM maps; and (3) Flood Hazard Mapping – Flood hazard maps, also known as FIRM, indicate areas with low, moderate, or high risk for flooding, and provide the data needed for floodplain management programs and to actuarially rate new construction for flood insurance. FIRMs specifically illustrate a community’s floodplain boundaries, base flood elevations (BFE), and flood zones. Floodplain boundaries are the areas of land that could be impacted by flooding from a nearby body of water. BFE is the computed elevation (or height) to which floodwater is anticipated to rise during a 100-year flood event. A 100-year floodplain is not an area subject to floods every 100 years; instead, it is land bordering a river or channel that can expect to be flooded in a storm that has a one-percent chance of occurring each year. 100-year flood events are used by the NFIP as the standard for floodplain management and to determine the need for and cost of flood insurance. There are low, moderate, and high risk flood zone areas. Moderate to low risk areas include zones that are either outside the 100-year floodplain, areas that have a one percent annual chance where the average flood depth is less than one foot, or where the contributing drainage area is less than one square mile. Purchasing flood insurance is not required in these zones. High risk flood zones, labeled as SFHAs on FIRM, are areas subject to inundation by a 100-year flood event. It is mandatory that flood insurance be purchased within these zones (FEMA, 2009). State Policies and Regulations Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act In 1969, the California Legislature enacted the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (Porter- Cologne Act) to preserve, enhance and restore the quality of the State’s water resources (SWRCB, 2009). The Porter-Cologne Act establishes water quality policies, enforces water quality standards for surface and ground water, and regulates discharges of pollutants SWRCB, 2009). The Porter-Cologne Act establishes the SWRCB and nine RWQCBs as the principal state agencies with the responsibility for controlling water quality in California. State Water Resources Control Board/Regional Water Quality Control Boards The SWRCB has the ultimate authority over state water rights and water quality policy. Nine RWQCBs are also established to oversee water quality on a day-to-day basis at the local and regional level. The SWRCB and RWQCBs are responsible for ensuring implementation and compliance with the provisions of the CWA and Porter-Cologne Act. ARTIC is located within Region 8, the SARWQCB (SARWQCB, 2009). Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.8-4 July 19, 2010 Water Quality Objectives RWQCBs are required to develop and periodically update a Water Quality Control Plan, also known as a Basin Plan (SWRCB, 2009). The Basin Plan establishes water quality objectives for the ground and surface waters of the region and includes an implementation plan describing the actions by the Regional Board and others that are necessary to achieve and maintain these water quality objectives. The Basin Plan designates the beneficial uses of receiving waters, including Reach 2 of the Santa Ana River to which the project site currently discharges, and specifies water quality objectives for these receiving waters in the County of Orange. Reach 2 of the Santa Ana River is not on the 2002 303(d) List of Impaired Water Bodies. As defined in the Porter-Cologne Act, water quality objectives are the set limits or levels of chemical constituents allowable in water (SWRCB, 2009). The designation of water quality objectives must satisfy all of the applicable requirements of the Porter-Cologne Act and the CWA. The RWQCB provides for the reasonable protection of beneficial uses, taking into account existing water quality, environmental and economic considerations. Beneficial Uses Beneficial uses are defined within the Basin Plan as the uses of water necessary for the survival or well being of man, plants, and wildlife (SARWQCB, 2008). These uses of water serve to promote the tangible and intangible economic, social, and environmental goals of man and are shown in Table 3.8-1 and Table 3.8-2. Table 3.8-1 Surface Water Beneficial Uses within the Project Area Beneficial Use Basin Hydrologic Unit MUN AGR GWR REC-1 REC-2 WARM WILD RARE Lower Santa Ana River Basin Santa Ana River Reach 2 – 17th Street in Santa Ana to Prado Dam 801.11 (Primary) 801.12 (Secondary) * X X X X X X X Notes: * Excepted from MUN Source: SARWQCB, 2008 Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.8-5 July 19, 2010 Table 3.8-2 Groundwater Beneficial Uses within the Project Area Beneficial Use Basin Hydrologic Unit MUN AGR IND PROC Lower Santa Ana River Basin Orange 801.11 (Primary) 801.13, 801.14, 845.61, 845.63 (Secondary) X X X X Source: SARWQCB, 2008 Anti-degradation Policy SARWQCB water quality objectives conform to USEPA regulations covering anti-degradation (40 CFR 131.12) and State Board Resolution No. 68-16, Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality of Waters in California. The main objective of the anti-degradation policy is “Wherever the existing water quality of water is better than the quality of water established herein as objectives, such existing quality shall be maintained unless otherwise provided by the provisions of the SWRCB Resolution 68- 16, “Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality of Waters in California”, including any revisions thereto, or the Federal Anti-degradation Policy, (40 CFR 131.12). Applications for the anti-degradation provisions to the standard process requires supporting documentation and appropriate findings whenever a standard (water quality objective) is made less restrictive to accommodate the discharge of pollutants or other activities of man. Resolution No. 68-16 establishes a general principle of non-degradation, with flexibility to allow some changes in water quality which is in the best interests of the State. Changes in water quality are allowed only where it is in the public interest and beneficial uses are not unreasonably affected. The terms and conditions of Resolution No. 68-16 serve as the general narrative water quality objective in all state water quality control plans. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Projects that anticipate disturbing one or more acres of soil are required to obtain coverage under the CGP (SWRCB, 2009). Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. This CGP requires the development and implementation of a site specific SWPPP. The SWPPP should contain a site map(s) which shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, stormwater collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project. The SWPPP must list BMPs that the discharger will use to protect stormwater runoff and the placement of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program; a chemical monitoring program for “non-visible” pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMP; and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body. Effective Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.8-6 July 19, 2010 July 1, 2010, all dischargers are required to obtain coverage under the CGP Order 2009-0009- DWQ. General MS4 Permit ARTIC falls subject to the waste discharge requirements of the Municipal Permit (MS4 Permit) Order No. R8-2002-0010, NPDES No. CAS618030. The new development and component of the MS4 Permit is intended to ensure that combinations of the site planning, source control, and treatment control BMPs are implemented to protect the quality of receiving waters. Permittees must ensure that stormwater discharges from the MS4 shall neither cause nor contribute to the exceedance of water quality standards and objectives nor create conditions of nuisance in the receiving waters, and that the discharge of non-stormwater to the MS4 has been effectively addressed. The MS4 Permit requires that a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) be prepared for new development or significant redevelopment projects, and a SWPPP for all municipal construction projects with disturbed areas greater than one acre. Local Policies and Regulations Orange County Department of Public Works Flood Control Division The mission of the OCPW Flood Control Division is to “protect Orange County areas from the threat and damage of flooding” (OCPW Flood Control Division, 2010). ARTIC is bounded on its eastern border by the Santa Ana River, which is considered a potential flood hazard. The Santa Ana River Mainstem project is a project designed and implemented to provide flood protection for residences and business in the southern California communities of Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. All three counties, collectively, are working closely with the USACE to design and construct the project. The stretch of the Santa Ana River that borders ARTIC is channelized. The channel and levees serve to assist in the protection of the surrounding areas from flooding (OCPW Flood Control Division, 2010). Orange County Flood Control District The OCFCD to provide for the control and conservation of flood and stormwaters, and to protect property and lives from flood damage. Since then an infrastructure of flood control channels, dams, retarding basins and pump stations have been constructed. Since the creation of the NFIP, OCFCD has worked cooperatively with the County of Orange’s cities to reduce the floodplain within the County of Orange by constructing flood control facilities that provide 100-year flood event protection. Such facilities typically traverse through the cities and ultimately outlet into the Pacific Ocean. City of Anaheim General Plan The City of Anaheim General Plan specifically details planning and precautions for flood control from the Santa Ana River (adjoining the site on the eastern boundary) in the Safety Element, water utilities and storm drain systems in the Public Services and Facilities Element, and water quality in the Green Element. The Land Use Element defines land use designations within the City, which include a designation for water use/waterways. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.8-7 July 19, 2010 The City is required by the Santa Ana Region Municipal Permit to minimize short and long term impacts on receiving waters from new development and significant redevelopment to the maximum extent practicable. The City of Anaheim’s General Plan provides a general overview of requirements for development/redevelopment within the City to ensure adequate watershed and water quality protection to receiving waters. The City’s Local Implementation Plan (November 2003) requires new development and significant redevelopment projects within the City to address stormwater quality impacts through incorporation of permanent (post-construction) BMPs in project design and identified within a WQMP. 3.8.3 Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines, the thresholds of significance for Hydrology/Water Quality are defined by: a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 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, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site? d) 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 substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off- site? e) Would the project 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? f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows ? i) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Would the project increase the likelihood of inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.8-8 July 19, 2010 k) Would the project substantially degrade water quality by contributing pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling, or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? l) Would the project substantially degrade water quality by discharge which affects the beneficial uses (i.e., swimming, fishing, etc.) of the receiving or downstream waters? 3.8.4 Project Impacts a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (No Impact) Construction activities for ARTIC will include clearing, grading, and excavating activities for the Intermodal Terminal, the stub-end track/platforms, and the road improvement projects. These construction activities will expose surface soils and may require de-watering of groundwater, which could result in sediment eroding into the downstream receiving water, along with attached soil nutrients and organic matter, and other nutrients, soil additives, pesticides, construction chemicals, and miscellaneous waste. Potential pollutants will be controlled by BMPs identified in the construction SWPPP. Minor oil and fluid leaks from vehicles will potentially be transported by runoff water as it flows into the storm drain system during operation of ARTIC. The RWQCB criteria to control the discharge of construction related pollutants will be met through the implementation of BMPs. BMPs will be in compliance with the current municipal stormwater permit (B. Jones, electronic mail, January 15, 2010) and will be implemented to control sediment erosion and other pollutants. Permanent BMPs addressing potential and anticipated pollutants during project operation will be identified in the WQMP. Construction and operation of ARTIC will not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted?) (Less Than Significant Impact) ARTIC involves constructing an Intermodal Terminal and station platforms, improving Douglass Road, and upgrading rail tracks. No on-site groundwater resources will be used for the construction and operation of ARTIC. ARTIC will receive its water from municipal supply and will not exceed existing or projected water uses presented in the Platinum Triangle WSA and the City’s 2005 UWMP (see Section 3.6 for a detailed discussion). ARTIC will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater resources. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.8-9 July 19, 2010 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, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site? (No Impact) ARTIC will be constructed on previously disturbed and paved land that does not contain defined drainage patterns. ARTIC components will not create an additional surface that could change the existing drainage area. ARTIC will be designed to direct local drainage into the existing storm drainage system with discharge to the Santa Ana River. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. d) 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 substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off- site? (No Impact) ARTIC will be constructed on previously disturbed and paved land that does not contain defined drainage patterns. Since the project site is currently covered with impervious surfaces, the rate or volume of surface runoff within the site after the construction of ARTIC will not be significantly greater than the existing conditions. ARTIC will be designed to direct local drainage into the storm drainage system. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. e) Would the project 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? (No Impact) ARTIC is currently almost entirely covered with impermeable surfaces. Run-off in the project area occurs primarily through sheet flow across the parking areas in a southwest direction to the surrounding street system. Stormwater flow will be directed into the storm drain line below Douglass Road. Catch basins located within the street system collect gutter run-off and transport it via the drainage system to Channel E12, which flows to the Santa Ana River. According to the Platinum Triangle Drainage Study, ARTIC will be located within Benefit Zone SD-20, which is part of District 27 drainage area and is directly tributary to the Santa Ana River. Additional drainage lines into the zone are not anticipated and the rate or volume of runoff water within ARTIC will not be greater than existing conditions (see Section 3.6 for a detailed discussion). Construction activities could cause sediment to erode into the downstream receiving water, along with attached soil nutrients and organic matter, and other nutrients, soil additives, pesticides, construction chemicals, and miscellaneous waste. Oil and fluid leaks from vehicles could also potentially be added to runoff water as it flows towards the ultimate destination of the Santa Ana River. RWQCB criteria to control the discharge of pollutants associated with runoff water will be met through the implementation of BMPs. The identified BMPs will be in compliance with the CGP (B. Jones, electronic mail, January 15, 2010). With the WQMP and planned BMPs in place, the construction and operation of ARTIC will not create or contribute runoff water which will exceed the capacity of existing or planned drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.8-10 July 19, 2010 f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (No Impact) Drainage and pollutants as a result of ARTIC will be managed with appropriate measures that comply with federal, state, and local regulations. The RWQCB criteria to control the discharge of pollutants associated with runoff water will be met through the implementation of BMPs. The identified BMPs will be in compliance with the current municipal stormwater permit (B. Jones, electronic mail, January 15, 2010). ARTIC will not otherwise substantially degrade water quality standards. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. g) Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (No Impact) The project does not include the construction of housing. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. h) Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? (No Impact) FIRM panel 06059C0142J was evaluated to identify flood designations and floodways including and proximate to ARTIC. Though ARTIC will not be located within a 100-year flood hazard area, the FIRM panel inclusive of ARTIC and surrounding area depicts the site located adjacent to a 100-year flood Zone A (see Figure 3.1-1) (FEMA, 2009). This potential flood zone, the Santa Ana River, is channelized and protected by an up-stream levee system. The FIRM map considers the 100-year flood hazard area to be contained within the channel. Adjacent areas are not likely at risk. The FIRM map notes that overtopping and/or failure of the levee system or channel is possible. Development of ARTIC will remain adjacent to the flood Zone A hazard area and will not add new structures within a 100-year flood hazard area that will impede or redirect flood flows. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. i) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (No Impact) The Prado Dam and reservoir are located approximately 2.5 miles east (upstream) of the City and ARTIC, in Riverside County. The Prado Dam was completed in 1941 and provides flood protection to the Lower Santa Ana River Basin. In addition, Prado Dam works in tandem with Seven Oaks Dam, which is also located on the Santa Ana River in the upper Santa Ana Canyon, about eight miles northeast of the City of Redlands in San Bernardino County. Construction of Seven Oaks Dam and improvements to the Prado Dam and downstream channel facilities are being implemented under the Santa Ana Mainstream Project, constructed by the USACE, Los Angeles District. These improvements have enabled Prado Dam to take full advantage of the improved channel capacity downstream and increase the level of flood protection to communities within the Santa Ana River floodplain. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.8-11 July 19, 2010 During torrential rainfall events or periods of extended rain, the storage capacity of upstream Prado Dam or Seven Oaks Dam could potentially be exceeded and overflow, increasing flow volume in the channelized Santa Ana River. The potential exists for dam failure. If either occurs, the river could swell and potentially flood the previously designated surrounding areas. Due to currently implemented improvements to the dams, the FIRM map considers the 100-year flood hazard area to be contained within the channel. Adjacent areas are not likely to be at risk. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. j) Is the project susceptible to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (No Impact) ARTIC is not located in close proximity to a coast or ocean and implementation of ARTIC will not create or be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. k) Would the project substantially degrade water quality by contributing pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling, or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? (No Impact) Construction activities associated with ARTIC will involve the use of small volumes of commercially available hazardous materials and the stockpiling of construction debris. A construction SWPPP will be prepared and implemented during the construction of ARTIC as a BMP. The SWPPP will include specific BMPs to minimize the potential for hazardous materials and construction debris from entering the local stormwater drainage system. There will be transport or disposal of hazardous materials during the operation of ARTIC. Any such materials incidental to operational activities, including routine maintenance, will be required to be stored, used, and disposed of in accordance with existing federal, state, and local hazardous materials regulations (see Section 3.7 for a detailed discussion). Construction and operation of ARTIC will not contribute pollutants that could substantially degrade water quality. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. l) Would the project substantially degrade water quality by discharge which affects the beneficial uses (i.e., swimming, fishing, etc.) of the receiving or downstream waters? (No Impact) Beneficial uses for Reach 2 of the Santa Ana River include uses for agriculture, groundwater recharge, recreational activities, freshwater and wildlife habitat, and rare, threatened or endangered species. Runoff water from ARTIC will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. BMPs will be in place to control pollutants. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 3.8.5 Cumulative Impacts The majority of the Santa Ana River watershed is already developed and surface flows are not expected to increase significantly. To protect existing and future structures, future projects will be Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.8-12 July 19, 2010 required to provide necessary drainage improvements. Cumulative impacts as a result of ARTIC are considered less than significant for this issue area. 3.8.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions  City of Anaheim General Plan;  City of Anaheim Local Implementation Plan;  CGP Order 2009-0009-DWQ; and  MS4 Permit, Order No. R8-2002-0010, NPDES No. CAS618030. 3.8.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ARTIC will have a less than significant impact on hydrology and water quality. 3.8.8 Mitigation Measures ARTIC will have a less than significant impact on hydrology and water quality. No mitigation measures are required for this issue area. 3.8.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ARTIC will have a less than significant impact on hydrology and water quality. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.9 Aesthetics ARTIC Draft EIR 3.9-1 July 19, 2010 3.9 AESTHETICS This section provides a discussion of the aesthetic resources in the vicinity of ARTIC. Aesthetics pertain to the elements that make a certain view pleasing to the eye. While the criteria to evaluate this perceived visual quality are subjective, contributing elements may include a distinct element in a visual setting or open space, vegetation, and architecture of a scenic area. Adverse impacts may occur through the removal, alteration, or addition of these important visual resources. 3.9.1 Environmental Setting Regional Setting ARTIC is located in the southwestern portion of the City, approximately 13 miles east of the Pacific Ocean and over 20 miles south of the San Bernardino Mountains range. The major natural feature in the area is the Santa Ana River, which flows alongside the eastern boundary of ARTIC. Local Setting The approximately 19-acre site is bounded by Katella Avenue to the north, the Santa Ana River Trail to the east, and SR-57 to the south and west (see Figure 2.2-3). The surrounding area is highly urbanized with primarily industrial and commercial multi-storied buildings. Angel Stadium and the Honda Center are two of the most prominent visual features in the area. SR-57 is elevated as it passes by ARTIC. Billboards and overhead utility lines occupy the skyline (Figure 3.9-1). The topography of the surrounding area is flat and views from ARTIC consist primarily of adjacent roadways, structures, and SR-57. The Santa Ana River is the only scenic vista within the vicinity of ARTIC. This portion of the River is devoid of vegetation and is channelized with concrete banks and manipulated for water infiltration. The area surrounding ARTIC has little vegetation and consists mainly of ornamental trees and shrubs. The San Bernardino Mountains range, which is over 20 miles to the north, can be seen in the distance from ARTIC. The Santiago Hills, located over 8 miles east of the site, are not visible from ARTIC. The Santiago Hills can be seen from the Avalon Anaheim Stadium Apartments, a multi-story complex located west of ARTIC. There are no eligible or designated State Scenic Highways or National Scenic Byways in the vicinity of ARTIC (Caltrans, 2007; United States Department of Transportation [USDOT], 2009). Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.9 Aesthetics ARTIC Draft EIR 3.9-2 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.9 Aesthetics ARTIC Draft EIR 3.9-5 July 19, 2010 3.9.2 Regulatory Setting Federal Policies and Regulations National Scenic Byways Program The Federal Highways Administration collaborated with several organizations to create a program for America’s scenic highways, called the National Scenic Byways Program (USDOT, 2000). The US Secretary of Transportation identifies Caltrans as the California agency responsible for implementing the National Scenic Byways Program. State Policies and Regulations California Scenic Highways Program In response to the National Scenic Byways Program, Caltrans established and implemented the California Scenic Highway Program to protect and enhance the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors through special conservation treatment (Streets and Highways Code, §260 et seq). Caltrans defines a State Scenic Highway as any freeway, highway, road, or other public ROW that “traverses an area of outstanding scenic quality, containing striking views, flora, geology, and other unique natural attributes” (Caltrans, 2009). Caltrans also includes “scenic corridors” in the State Scenic Highway Program: “Scenic corridors consist of land that is visible from, adjacent to, and outside the highway ROW, and is comprised primarily of scenic and natural features. Topography, vegetation, viewing distance, and/or jurisdictional lines determine the corridor boundaries” (Caltrans, 2009). Once a highway has been designated a state or national scenic highway, or a scenic corridor, special consideration must be made whenever a project proposes to develop the surrounding area. Local Policies and Regulations City of Anaheim General Plan Goal 8.1 in the Land Use Element of the City of Anaheim General Plan seeks to preserve natural, scenic, and recreational uses, while Goal 2.1, Goal 4.1, and the associated policies in the Green Element seek to preserve views of ridgelines, natural open space, and other scenic vistas (City of Anaheim, 2009). The Santa Ana River Trail, though not within City limits, is identified as open space in the City of Anaheim General Plan. The Circulation Element defines Scenic Highways as “transportation corridors where visual intrusions will impact views of natural beauty from the highway” (City of Anaheim, 2009). Goal 4.1 specifically preserves uniquely scenic or special visual resource areas along highways and designated State scenic routes. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.9 Aesthetics ARTIC Draft EIR 3.9-6 July 19, 2010 The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan includes landscaping requirements for certain areas of the Platinum Triangle, including along both Katella Avenue and Douglass Road. This Landscape Concept Plan is discussed in further detail in Section 3.1. City of Orange General Plan Goal 5.0 in the City of Orange General Plan Open Space Element states that the City will protect, preserve, and enhance open space and aesthetic resources, including scenic highways and corridors (City of Orange, 2010). Trails are identified as open space land uses. The Land Use and Circulation Element also encourage the protection and enhancement of scenic vistas. 3.9.3 Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines, the thresholds of significance for Aesthetics are defined by: a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 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? c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 3.9.4 Project Impacts a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Less Than Significant Impact) The designated scenic vista in the vicinity of ARTIC is the Santa Ana River (City of Anaheim, 2009). The City of Anaheim (2009) and City of Orange (2010) designate the Santa Ana River Trail as an open space area. The San Bernardino Mountains range (City of Anaheim, 2009) and the Santiago Hills (City of Orange, 2010) are designated scenic vistas in the viewshed of ARTIC. The portion of the Santa Ana River in the vicinity of ARTIC is channelized with concrete banks and a soft bottom. In the vicinity of ARTIC, the Trail is located on both sides of the Santa Ana River. The surrounding land is an urban area with multi-story buildings, elevated freeways, billboards, high-voltage transmission lines, and street lights. Commercial and industrial buildings in the surrounding area currently obstruct most views of the river. The sensitive receptors with views of the Santa Ana River and Trail are trail users along the Santa Ana River Trail. ARTIC will be built adjacent to the west side of the Santa Ana River and Trail. ARTIC will not obstruct the view of the Santa Ana River from the Trail. Two scenic resources, the San Bernardino Mountain range and the Santiago Hills, are visible from the Santa Ana River and Trail by trail users. The San Bernardino Mountain range can be Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.9 Aesthetics ARTIC Draft EIR 3.9-7 July 19, 2010 seen 20 miles to the north of ARTIC. The Santiago Hills are over eight miles east of ARTIC. Views of the scenic resources from the surrounding area are currently obstructed by the Honda Center and Angel Stadium, other multi-story buildings, SR-57, and overhead utility lines and billboards. Trail users are the primary sensitive receptors with views of the scenic resources. ARTIC will be built west of the Santa Ana River Trail and will not block views of the scenic resources from the Trail. ARTIC will not significantly impact views of the San Bernardino Mountain range and the Santiago Hills. The Avalon Anaheim Stadium condominiums are another sensitive receptor in the area. These condominiums are located adjacent to the western boundary of ARTIC and approximately 0.5 miles west of the Intermodal Terminal. Two scenic resources, the San Bernardino Mountain range and the Santiago Hills, are visible from the condominiums. The San Bernardino Mountain range is visible to the north and northeast. The Santiago Hills are visible behind SR-57 and can be seen from the condominium east-facing windows. ARTIC is located to the east of the condominiums and will not impact views of the San Bernardino Mountain range to the north. The view corridor of the Santiago Hills includes SR-57, Angel Stadium, the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station, billboards, telephone poles, high-voltage transmission lines, parking lots, street lights, and road signage. ARTIC development near the condominiums will be at ground-level and will not contribute man-made objects to the viewshed skyline. The Intermodal Terminal, which will be located between SR-57 and the Santiago Hills, will be one more structure added to an already developed visual landscape for the condominiums. The Stadium Pavilion will be located west of SR-57. The structure will be lower in height than SR-57 and built along the existing rail line. Views of the Santiago Hills from the complex will not be significantly impacted by ARTIC. The City of Orange is located east of the Santa Ana River, Santa Ana River Trail, and ARTIC. The San Bernardino Mountain range can be seen to the north and the Santiago Hills are further east. ARTIC will not obstruct views of these scenic resources from the City of Orange. The Santa Ana River Trail and the Santa Ana River are already subject to auditory intrusions from freeway traffic. According to the noise analysis (see Section 3.4), construction and operation of ARTIC will not significantly increase existing noise levels in the area. Noise sources resulting from ARTIC will be consistent with existing surrounding noises and will not degrade the quality of the Trail and River as scenic resources. Current access to the Santa Ana River and Trail will not be restricted during construction, and construction equipment and activities for ARTIC will not utilize these resources. Construction will not degrade the quality of the River and Trail as scenic resources. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.9 Aesthetics ARTIC Draft EIR 3.9-8 July 19, 2010 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) There are no State Scenic Highways or National Scenic Byways in the vicinity of ARTIC (Caltrans, 2007; USDOT, 2009). The City of Anaheim General Plan and City of Orange General Plan do not identify city designated scenic routes in the vicinity of ARTIC (City of Anaheim, 2009; City of Orange, 2010). No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Less Than Significant Impact) The project site is currently a maintenance yard for the County of Orange and consists of a paved lot with scattered machinery, railroad ties, and other maintenance materials. Multi-story industrial and commercial buildings surround the site. Angel Stadium is located southwest of ARTIC and west of SR-57, and the Honda Center is located to the north and across Katella Avenue from ARTIC. The surrounding area is designated as mixed use and light industrial. No residential areas are in the immediate vicinity of the Intermodal Terminal (City of Anaheim, 2009; City of Orange, 2010). ARTIC is planned to be consistent with the planned architecture and landscape environment envisioned for the Platinum Triangle (see Chapter 3.1 for additional information). Though ARTIC will change the visual character of the area, it will be a well-landscaped facility that will be an aesthetic improvement from the existing visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings. The pedestrian bridge connecting the site to the Honda Center over Katella Avenue will also be consistent with the planned architecture envisioned for the Platinum Triangle. It too will contribute to the enhancement of aesthetic quality and overall visual character of the site vicinity. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 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) ARTIC is located in an urban area with a significant number of existing sources of light and glare. Angel Stadium, the Honda Center, and associated parking lots create the most prominent sources of light and glare in the area surrounding ARTIC. The sky is lit up during nighttime events, and the existing SR-57, streetlights, parking lots, billboards, and other structures in the area emit sources of light. These sources include neon and fluorescent lights in parking lots, structural lighting for hotels, restaurants, and office buildings, overhead street lighting along roadways, vehicle headlights, and sign and building illumination. ARTIC will create an additional source of light to the nighttime sky. The covering used for the Intermodal Terminal will be translucent, which will diffuse light emitted from the facility. The overall appearance of the Intermodal Terminal at night will be of a glowing half-globe, instead of a glaring dome with direct light shining out in all directions. Nighttime lights are necessary for the safety and security of employees and passengers on site and along the pedestrian bridge and trail easement, but outdoor light fixtures will be shielded so that lighting is focused downward to Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.9 Aesthetics ARTIC Draft EIR 3.9-9 July 19, 2010 restrict any light spillover. Nighttime construction activities will occur. These instances will be temporary and will adhere to local regulations. The issue of shade and shadow is also relevant to this discussion. Shade and shadow are created when structures block direct sunlight, which can make outdoor temperatures unpleasant for people expecting warmth and sunshine. Shadow sensitive areas include residential, recreational, outdoor restaurants, and pedestrian areas (City of Anaheim, 2009). The longest shadows are cast during the winter months, while the shortest are cast during summertime. Angel Stadium, the Honda Center, multi-story industrial and commercial buildings, and SR-57 create the most prominent sources of shadows in the area surrounding ARTIC. The shadow sensitive area in the vicinity of ARTIC is the Santa Ana River Trail. The rising sun in the east will not be blocked from the Trail by ARTIC or the proposed pedestrian bridge spanning Katella Avenue. The setting sun in the west will only be blocked just prior to sunset, causing a minimal shadow just before sunset. SR-57 currently creates a shadow on the Trail in the evening during the winter months. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. Light, glare, and shadows as a result of ARTIC will be consistent with existing sources in the area and will not significantly impact day or nighttime views in the area. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 3.9.5 Cumulative Impacts ARTIC and related projects will be constructed among existing development that currently obstructs views of four scenic resources in the viewshed of ARTIC; the Santa Ana River Trail, the San Bernardino Mountain Range, the Santa Ana River, and the Santiago Hills. Development of ARTIC in conjunction with related projects in the area will not cumulatively obstruct views of these scenic resources. Implementation of ARTIC will intensify urban uses in agreement with the vision described in the City of Anaheim General Plan, the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, and the PTMU Overlay Zone, creating a cohesive and visually appealing character. ARTIC is located in an urban area with a number of existing sources of light, glare, and shadow. Light, glare, and shadows as a result of ARTIC will be consistent with existing conditions in the area and will not impact views in the area. The potential aesthetic impacts to scenic vistas, scenic resources, and existing visual character were evaluated and found to be less than significant. ARTIC’s contribution to cumulative aesthetic impacts will be less than significant. 3.9.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions  City of Anaheim General Plan; and  Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. 3.9.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ARTIC will have a less than significant impact on aesthetics. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.9 Aesthetics ARTIC Draft EIR 3.9-10 July 19, 2010 3.9.8 Mitigation Measures ARTIC will have a less than significant impact on aesthetics. No mitigation measures are required for this issue area. 3.9.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ARTIC will have a less than significant impact on aesthetics. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.10 Cultural Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.10-1 July 19, 2010 3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES This section provides a discussion of cultural and paleontological resources in the vicinity of ARTIC, describes the identified resources, analyzes the potential impacts to those resources, and provides mitigation measures to reduce, avoid, or minimize potential impacts. Cultural resources are archaeological, traditional, and built environment buildings, structures, objects, districts, and sites that are significant to the history of the US (16 USC 470). Cultural resources can generally be broken up into two time periods: prehistoric and historic. Prehistoric resources were created by humans who lived in a time before the advent of writing. Historic resources were created by humans who lived after the advent of writing. In the US, Native American artifacts that were created before the appearance of Europeans are considered prehistoric resources. Adverse impacts may occur through the removal, alteration, or addition of important cultural resources. Paleontological resources are fossilized remains, traces, or imprints of once-living organisms preserved in rocks and sediments within the earth’s crust that provide information about the history of life on earth. These fossils can include remains such as bones, teeth, shells, wood, and footprints. (16 USC 470). Unless otherwise referenced, the information in this section has been adapted from the Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report (Appendix E). 3.10.1 Environmental Setting Regional Environment and Geology ARTIC is located in the southwestern portion of the City, approximately 13 miles east of the Pacific Ocean and over 20 miles south of the San Bernardino Mountains range in northern County of Orange. The major natural feature in the area is the Santa Ana River, which flows near the eastern boundary of ARTIC. ARTIC is located within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province that extends from Los Angeles County to Baja California. The Santa Ana range, uplifted along the Whittier-Elsinore fault, is a prominent feature of the skyline between Orange and Riverside Counties. The project area is located within the Central Block portion of the Los Angeles Basin, which is a trough filled with thousands of feet of Quaternary and Tertiary sediments. The project area was formed by stream deposits primarily derived from the meandering of the Santa Ana River, prior to the river being channelized. The surficial sediments where the project site is located are Quaternary Younger Alluvium dating to the Holocene age (10,000 years to present). Holocene deposits are too geologically recent to contain fossils and therefore have a low paleontological sensitivity level. Fossiliferous older Quaternary sediments potentially underlie the Holocene deposits at various depths in the area as part of the floodplain deposits from the Santa Ana River. These deposits do not usually contain significant vertebrate fossils in the uppermost layers. However, fossils have been unearthed in the vicinity of ARTIC. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.10 Cultural Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.10-2 July 19, 2010 Existing Setting ARTIC is bounded by Katella Avenue, Douglass Road, the LOSSAN rail corridor, SR-57, and the Santa Ana River. Prior to development, the site was open land utilized for agricultural purposes. The area has been further disturbed by grading and construction of buildings, parking lots, and other improvements. The site was previously a maintenance yard for the County of Orange and currently consists of a paved lot with scattered machinery, railroad ties, and other maintenance materials. The surrounding area consists of a variety of land uses including retail and hotel land uses; sports and entertainment centers (Angel Stadium and the Honda Center); light industrial land uses; and an intercounty riding, hiking and bike trail. According to the City of Anaheim General Plan EIR, the majority of historically designated resources are located in residential areas of the community, particularly in the Anaheim Colony area (City of Anaheim, 2009). ARTIC contains a small number of commercial and industrial buildings less than 45 years of age, which are considered ineligible for federal, state, and/or local landmark designation because of lack of historical significance, architectural merit, and compromised integrity. Adjacent to ARTIC and west of the SR-57 is Angel Stadium and its “Big A” scoreboard. Historic Setting Prehistoric Resources The prehistoric occupation of southern California is divided chronologically into four temporal phases, or horizons. Horizon I, or the Early Man Horizon, began at the first appearance of people in the region approximately 12,000 years ago, and continued until approximately 5,000 Before Common Era (B.C.E.). Although little is known about these people, it is assumed that they were semi-nomadic and subsisted primarily on game. Horizon II, also known as the Millingstone Horizon or Encinitas Tradition, began around 5,000 B.C.E. and continued until approximately 1,500 B.C.E. The Millingstone Horizon is characterized by widespread use of milling stones (manos and metates), core tools, and few projectile points (such as arrowheads) or bone and shell artifacts. This horizon appears to represent a diversification of subsistence activities and a more sedentary settlement pattern. Archaeological evidence suggests that hunting became less important and that reliance on collecting shellfish and vegetal resources increased. Horizon III, the Intermediate Horizon or Campbell Tradition, began approximately 1,500 B.C.E. and continued until approximately 600–800 Common Era (C.E.). Horizon III is defined by a shift from the use of milling stones to increased use of mortar and pestle, indicating a greater reliance on acorns as a food source. Projectile points become more abundant and, together with faunal remains, indicate increased use of both land and sea mammals. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.10 Cultural Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.10-3 July 19, 2010 Horizon IV, the Late Horizon, which began approximately 600–800 C.E. and terminated with the arrival of Europeans, is characterized by dense populations; diversified hunting and gathering subsistence strategies, including intensive fishing and sea mammal hunting; extensive trade networks; use of the bow and arrow; and a general cultural elaboration. Following the Protohistoric period, there was a brief period (Ethnohistoric) when Native American culture was initially being affected by Euroamerican culture and historical records on Native American activities were limited. Archival and published reports from this time suggest that the project area lies within the territory of the Gabrielino Native American people. The Gabrielino are characterized as one of the most complex societies in native southern California, primarily as a result of their overall economic, ritual, and social organization. The intrusion of Spanish missionaries and subsequent forced relocations of southern California Indians resulted in polyethnic native communities. Historic Resources Mission San Gabriel Archangel, for which the Gabrielino Indians are named after, was founded in 1771. It soon became one of the richest missions, controlling all of the property in what is today the County of Orange, north of Aliso Creek and a large portion of Los Angeles County. In the County of Orange, Mission San Juan Capistrano was established by Franciscan missionaries in 1776. By the early 1800s, Spanish army officers and veterans began receiving large land grants and established cattle ranches or ranchos. In 1809, Jose Antonio Yorba and Juan Pablo Peralta were granted land east of the Santa Ana River, titled Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana. The Yorba and Peralta families raised cattle on their land for a half-century. In 1821, Mexico won independence from Spain and subsequently became a republic of states. In 1833, the Mexican government secularized the missions and began to redistribute the mission land holdings. The land was redistributed in the form of land grants to individuals who promised to work the land, primarily by raising cattle. Although secularization was intended to distribute the mission lands to the settlers and native population, the large-scale cattle ranchers or rancheros claimed the bulk of the resources, and few Native Americans received land grants. These cattle ranches became the driving force in the economy and the dominant culture of California, including in present County of Orange. The colony of Anaheim was originally located within the southeast portion Los Angeles County before the County of Orange became its own entity in 1889. The land on which the Colony was settled was originally part of the San Juan Cajon de Santa Ana Rancho belonging to Don Bernardo Yorba, who later sold it to Don Pacifico Ontiveras. Anaheim was founded in 1857 as a German cooperative colony by Germans Otto Weyse, John Frohling, and George Hansen, with most of its original settlers, including its three founders, relocating from San Francisco. The City’s name is a composition of Ana, from the nearby Santa Ana River, and heim, which is German for home. Anaheim was considered one the most successful southern California start-up colonies of the 19th century. In its early years, the Anaheim Colony was considered a significant regional wine growing district and its vineyard business was called “The Los Angeles Vineyard Company.” These Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.10 Cultural Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.10-4 July 19, 2010 vineyards were irrigated by a 7.1-mile long zanja (irrigation ditch) connecting the colony to the Santa Ana River. The zanja was dug by fifty Native American Indians, who called the colony Camp Aleman (German Camp). An 1881 plague decimated the vineyards and in their place almond, walnut, fig, lemon, and orange trees were planted. The first commercially grown oranges in the County of Orange were grown in Anaheim, where the growers attributed their success to the local hills which protected the fruit against the cold winds coming down from the mountains. The Southern Pacific Railroad arrived in Anaheim in January 1875, and the City was incorporated on December 6 of the following year with a population of 881. It was with the appearance of the Santa Fe Railroad in 1887 that Anaheim began to see some of the growth experienced by other regions of the southland, resulting from the competition between Santa Fe and the Southern Pacific railroad. In 1887 the Santa Fe Railroad began plans for the “Surf Line,” which would connect Los Angeles to San Diego, running along the Pacific Coast much of the way and serving as Santa Fe’s primary line between these two cities. The line, a portion of which today is located near Angel Stadium, was completed on August 12, 1888. By 1900, Anaheim had a population of 1,568 people and was a closely knit agricultural community. The Valencia Orange became the city’s primary export during this time and throughout the remainder of the first half of the twentieth century. The Santa Fe railroad used another of its lines through Santa Ana Canyon, San Bernardino, and other points eastward, to ship out oranges grown in Anaheim and other parts of the County of Orange. The four-lane I-5 freeway was completed in 1954 and facilitated travel between Anaheim and other major cities. The post World-War II period was a remarkable boom time for Anaheim. Land developers constructed numerous housing tracts in the city with thousands of single family homes. Disneyland theme park opened in 1955, attracting tourists from around the world. Throughout the 1950s Anaheim boomed, and citrus and other agriculture that previously defined the city began to disappear. Aggressive annexation increased the size of Anaheim in both acreage and population. In 1966, Angel Stadium, a 45,000 seat ballpark largely funded by the City, became home to the California Angels Major League Baseball team. The expansion team began in 1961 and was owned by cowboy singer Gene Autry. Angel Stadium was built on 150 acres of former citrus and walnut groves. A 230-foot tall A-shaped scoreboard, known as the Big “A” Scoreboard, was also originally constructed behind the park’s left field area. It is topped by a 70-foot diameter halo, which mimics the team logo. At that time, the Big “A” Scoreboard was the tallest scoreboard ever made and at 1 million dollars it was one of the most expensive. Relocated to a site adjacent SR- 57, the scoreboard is still a familiar icon for Anaheim and the County of Orange. Throughout the 1970s Anaheim continued its annexations, largely eastward into the Santa Ana Canyon where the planned community of Anaheim Hills was constructed beginning in 1971. In 1993, the new Disney-owned Mighty Ducks Hockey Team began playing in a newly completed arena called Arrowhead Pond of Anaheim (today called the Honda Center), and in 2001 Disney opened a second theme park just south of Disneyland called Disney’s California Adventure. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.10 Cultural Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.10-5 July 19, 2010 3.10.2 Regulatory Setting Federal Policies and Regulations Antiquities Act of 1906 The Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 USC 431-433) was one of the first federal regulations to address the preservation of cultural resources. The Antiquities Act of 1906 prohibits the destruction of “any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity” on Federal lands. Although neither the Antiquities Act nor its implementing regulations (43 CFR 3) specifically addresses paleontological resources, many federal agencies have interpreted “objects of antiquity” to include fossils. National Natural Landmarks Program The National Natural Landmarks (NNL) Program was established in 1962 under the authority of the Historic Sites Act of 1935, and is administered by the National Park Service. The goals of the NNL Program are:  To encourage the preservation of sites illustrating the geological and ecological character of the US;  To enhance the scientific and educational value of sites thus preserved; and  To strengthen public appreciation of natural history, and to foster a greater concern for the conservation of the nation’s natural heritage. A National Natural Landmark is an area designated by the Secretary of the Interior as being of national significance to the US because it is an outstanding example(s) of major biological and geological features found within the boundaries of the US or its Territories or on the Outer Continental Shelf (36 CFR Part 62.2). National significance describes an area that is one of the best examples of a biological community or geological feature within a natural region of the US, including terrestrial communities, landforms, geological features and processes, habitats of native plant and animal species, or fossil evidence of the development of life (36 CFR Part 62.2). All designated NNLs are listed on the National Registry of Natural Landmarks. Examples of paleontological NNLs in California include: Rancho La Brea in Los Angeles; Sharktooth Hill in Kern County; and Rainbow Basin in San Bernardino County. National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) states that cultural resources must be taken into consideration before construction can begin on any federally funded project. Section 106 uses the term “historic properties” to describe cultural resources. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.10 Cultural Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.10-6 July 19, 2010 An historic property is defined as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), which is maintained by the Secretary of the Interior (16 USC 470). National Register of Historic Places The NRHP was established in 1966 as the official national listing of important cultural resources worthy of preservation. Authorized under the NHPA, NRHP is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate and protect significant cultural resources. The criteria to determine the significance of a cultural resource is found in 36 CFR 60 of the NRHP. “The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of State and local importance that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and:  Criterion A: That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or  Criterion B: That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or  Criterion C: That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or  Criterion D: That have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history.” State Policies and Regulations California Environmental Quality Act Under CEQA, cultural, paleontological, and geological resources are considered important components of the environment and should be preserved. Accordingly, CEQA requires that a proposed project first evaluate the significance of any cultural, paleontological, and geological resources located in the project area. If the project will have an impact on any significant resource, alternative plans or mitigation measures must be provided. CEQA breaks down the meaning of cultural resources into two terms: “historical resources” and “archaeological resources.” The definition of a historical resource under CEQA is found in 14 CCR §15064.5. Historical resources are: Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.10 Cultural Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.10-7 July 19, 2010 1. A resource listed in, or eligible for listing, in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (PRC §5024.1); 2. A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in §5020.1(k) of the PRC or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements §5024.1(g); 3. Any object, building structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which 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; and 4. A resource that is not listed, or eligible for listing, in the CRHR but that is deemed significant by the lead agency. The definition of an archaeological resource includes any archaeological resources, not otherwise determined to be historical resources, that are “unique.” A “unique” archaeological resource meets one of the following criteria (PRC §21083.2): 1. The resource contains information needed to answer important scientific questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; 2. The resource has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; and 3. The resource is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person. Under CEQA, a cultural resource shall be considered significant if the resource is 45 years old or older, possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and meets the requirements for listing on the CRHR. California Register of Historical Resources The CRHR is the official state listing of important cultural resources that are worthy of preservation, and is maintained by the State Historic Preservation Office. Properties listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP are nominated and selected to be listed on the CRHR. Any resource eligible for the NRHP is also automatically eligible for CRHR (PRC §5020 et seq). Similar to the NRHP, a cultural resource may be considered significant by CEQA if it meets the following criteria for listing on the CRHR (PRC § 5024.1): 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; or 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to California’s past; or Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.10 Cultural Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.10-8 July 19, 2010 3. It 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; or 4. Has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history. California Health and Safety Code Quality Act Human remains are sometimes associated with archaeological sites. According to CEQA, “archaeological sites known to contain human remains shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of the Health and Safety Code (§7050.5).” The protection of human remains is also ensured by California PRC §§ 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.97. Local Policies and Regulations City of Anaheim General Plan There are no policies or goals within the City of Anaheim General Plan that call for the general protection of cultural or paleontological resources. However, according to the City of Anaheim General Plan Community Design Element, “The Big A” Scoreboard at Angel Stadium is considered an important landmark to the City (City of Anaheim, 2009). Additionally, Goal 14.1 and subsequent policies 1 through 7 promote the protection, preservation, and enhancement of the Anaheim Colony Historic District, an area in downtown Anaheim bounded by North Street, South Street, East Street, and West Street (approximately two miles northwest of ARTIC). 3.10.3 Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines, the thresholds of significance for Cultural Resources are defined by: a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and/or identified on the Qualified Historic Structures list of the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan (July 20, 1999)? b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.10 Cultural Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.10-9 July 19, 2010 3.10.4 Project Impacts a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and/or identified on the Qualified Historic Structures list of the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan (July 20, 1999)? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation) No surficial historical resources were observed during the cultural survey (ICF, 2009). An alluvial outwash plain of the Santa Ana River forms near the eastern boundary of ARTIC, according to the historical records search. Prior to channelization of the Santa Ana River, the ARTIC site was crossed by many tributaries and smaller creeks. The flow of water and accumulation of sediments over time may have buried evidence of past occupations in the project area. Previous cultural studies conducted less than 1/8 mile from ARTIC have determined the vicinity to be sensitive for historical resources (ICF, 2009). There is a potential for buried historical resource deposits to exist beneath previously disturbed and developed land surfaces, and ground disturbing activities as a result of ARTIC could unearth these resources. Mitigation measures are required to reduce potential construction impacts to less than significant levels (Mitigation Measure CR-1). The historical literature and records search identified three potentially significant historical resources within the vicinity of ARTIC. The City of Anaheim General Plan identifies the Big “A” scoreboard as an important visual landmark (2009), while the City of Orange (2010) does not identify historical resources within the vicinity of ARTIC. The Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan does not list any historic structures located in the vicinity of ARTIC (City of Anaheim, 1999). Angel Stadium of Anaheim Angel Stadium is located southwest of ARTIC and west of SR-57. Angel Stadium is the fourth oldest ballpark in Major League Baseball and was built during the time when Gene Autry owned the baseball club. Although Angel Stadium has a direct historic connection with Gene Autry as the former owner which would qualify it for eligibility under the CRHR, Angel Stadium is too altered to convey this association. The most significant of these presently visible alterations occurred after Autry’s tenure as the owner of the team and the property. At present Angel Stadium represents a mix of 1960s institutional architecture and themed 1990s post-modernism. Besides regularly scheduled baseball games, no known significant events are associated with Angel Stadium warrant listing of the resource on the CRHR or NRHP. Angel Stadium is considered ineligible for the CRHR and NRHP. Angel Stadium is not considered a historic resource pursuant to Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. Big “A” Scoreboard The Big “A” scoreboard is a sculptural, 230-foot-tall metal frame scoreboard located southwest of ARTIC and west of SR-57. From its north-facing front elevation, the object reads as a programmatic sign: a thin, elongated capital “A” representing the Angels major league baseball Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.10 Cultural Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.10-10 July 19, 2010 team that plays at Angel Stadium. The resource is clad in a heavy gauge corrugated metal and is topped by a suspended metal halo that is 70 feet in diameter. The scoreboard itself is a large, multi-bulb square screen between the two extended legs of the “A.” Originally located just beyond left field of the ballpark, the scoreboard was moved to its present location in 1979 when the ballpark was enclosed as part of an expansion project. The electronic message board of the scoreboard was upgraded and enhanced in 2009 to include a full color display and to be more energy efficient. The Big “A” scoreboard appears eligible for the CRHR under Criteria 1 due to its iconic association with the California Angels. The Big “A” scoreboard is a highly visible, monumentally scaled programmatic icon for the City. The nationally recognized, commonly used nickname for Angel Stadium, “The Big A”, is taken from this scoreboard. The Big “A” scoreboard appears eligible for the CRHR under Criterion 2 for its associations to Gene Autry, a legendary singer and cowboy actor of the early part of the twentieth century who became the first owner of the California Angels and who was ultimately responsible for the construction of Angel Stadium and the Big “A” scoreboard. The Big “A” scoreboard appears eligible for the CRHR under Criteria 3. Upon its 1966 completion as the signature element of Angel Stadium, at 230 feet the scoreboard was the tallest structure in the County of Orange and was also believed to be the tallest sports scoreboard in the world. The scoreboard’s scale, aspirational lines, themed lighting, and high technology for its time, make the resource a significant example of mid-century signage for the greater Los Angeles region. The City’s Community Design Element of the General Plan lists the Big “A” scoreboard as one of the City’s “important visual landmarks” (City of Anaheim, 2009). The Big “A” scoreboard is considered a historic resource pursuant to Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. The Big “A” scoreboard is partially separated from ARTIC by the SR-57 freeway and is surrounded by the Angel Stadium parking lot. Cars, trucks, and other machinery currently drive past the scoreboard at various times of day, as well as park underneath and around it. Since the scoreboard is located more than 300 feet outside of the project area, no direct impacts will occur to this historic resource with the implementation of ARTIC. Douglass Road Rail Bridge/Rail Alignment Constructed circa 1977, the Douglass Road railroad bridge is a welded steel, deck-plate, through- girder bridge supporting two parallel track alignments for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad. This bridge and rail alignment crosses over Douglass Road and extends through ARTIC. Construction activities will alter the bridge. The Douglass Road railroad bridge is a common example of a steel, through-girder bridge of the type used nationwide, especially at-grade separations. Though the style of the girders dates back to the first half of the twentieth century, railroad companies, including BNSF, consistently utilize standardized stock designs. The smooth, welded joints present at its stiffeners and across its floor indicate this particular bridge is less than 50 years old. The Douglass Road railroad bridge does Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.10 Cultural Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.10-11 July 19, 2010 not appear to meet local, state, or federal level significance criteria. Douglass Road railroad bridge is not considered a historic resource pursuant to Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. The tracks within the Douglass Road rail bridge are part of the BNSF rail alignment that was initially constructed between 1885 and 1888 by the Riverside, Santa Ana, and Los Angeles Railway Company as part of the Atchison, Topeka, and the Santa Fe line from Los Angeles to the County of Orange and San Diego. This rail alignment was previously evaluated for historical significance in 2002 for CEQA compliance associated with a grade separation project by BNSF/Metrolink. At that time, the rail line was found ineligible for federal, state, and local designation due to compromised integrity of design, materials, workmanship, setting, and feeling. The property was re-evaluated in 2007 and the initial finding of ineligibility to the NRHP and CRHR was concurred at that time. The BNSF rail alignment is not considered a historic resource pursuant to Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation) No archaeological resources were identified in the vicinity of ARTIC. Additionally, the City of Anaheim (2009) the City of Orange (2010) General Plans do not identify archaeological resources within the vicinity of the project area. Construction and operation of ARTIC are not expected to adversely change the significance of an archaeological resource. As described in part (a), there is the potential for buried archaeological resource deposits to exist beneath previously disturbed and developed land surfaces. Mitigation measures are required to reduce potential construction impacts to a less than significant level (Mitigation Measure CR-1). c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation) No paleontological resources or unique geologic features were identified within ARTIC. The City of Anaheim (2009) and the City of Orange (2010) General Plans do not identify paleontological resources within the vicinity of ARTIC. According to Dr. Samuel McLeod of the Vertebrate Paleontology Section of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, surficial sediments occurring at various depths within ARTIC have the potential to yield paleontological resources. Paleontological resources have been unearthed in the surrounding area. ARTIC is located in an area that may contain the presence of paleontological resources and mitigation measures are required to reduce potential construction impacts to a less than significant level (Mitigation Measure CR-2). Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.10 Cultural Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.10-12 July 19, 2010 d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (No Impact) Implementation of ARTIC is not expected to disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. In the unlikely event that human remains are uncovered, mitigation measures will be required (Mitigation Measure CR-3). 3.10.5 Cumulative Impacts Potential impacts to cultural resources as a result of ARTIC will be localized and will remain within the project area boundaries. Mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce impacts to cultural resources as a result of ARTIC to less than significant levels. Cumulative impacts will be less than significant for this issue area. 3.10.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions  City of Anaheim General Plan;  CEQA; and  California Health and Safety Code Quality Act. 3.10.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Without mitigation, the following impact will be potentially significant: ARTIC construction activities may significantly impact cultural or paleontological resources. 3.10.8 Mitigation Measures  CR-1: A letter shall be submitted by the contractor to the Public Works/Engineering Department, Development Division, and the Planning Department, Planning Division, identifying the certified archaeologist that has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented: a) The archaeologist shall be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of artifacts if potentially significant artifacts are uncovered. If artifacts are uncovered and determined to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the City for exploration and/or salvage; b) Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process shall be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution; Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.10 Cultural Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.10-13 July 19, 2010 c) Any archaeological work at ARTIC shall be conducted under the direction of the certified archaeologist. If any artifacts are discovered during grading operations when the archaeological observer is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the observer can survey the area; and d) A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted to the City Engineer. Upon completion of the grading, the archaeologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted.  CR-2: A letter shall be submitted by the contractor to the Public Works/Engineering Department, Development Division, and the Planning Department, Planning Division, identifying the certified paleontologist that has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented: a) The paleontologist shall be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures to temporarily halt or redirect work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of fossils if potentially significant paleontological observer shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner/developer for exploration and/or salvage; b) Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process shall be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution; c) Any paleontological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified paleontologist. If any fossils are discovered during grading operations when the paleontological observer is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area; and d) A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted. Upon the completion of the grading, the paleontologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted.  CR-3: In the unlikely event of the accidental discovery of human remains during project construction, the procedures outlined in §15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, §7050.5(b) and (c) of the State Health and Safety Code, and §5097.94(k) and (i) of the PRC shall be strictly followed. These procedures specify that, upon discovery, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains can occur. The county coroner shall be contacted to determine if the remains are Native American. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC shall identify the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The MLD shall make recommendations for the appropriate treatment and disposition of the remains and any associated grave goods in accordance with PRC §5097.98. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.10 Cultural Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.10-14 July 19, 2010 3.10.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation The mitigation measures identified above will reduce potential impacts associated with cultural resources to a level that is less than significant. No significant impacts relating to cultural resources have been identified. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.11 Biological Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.11-1 July 19, 2010 3.11 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Biological resources are terms that describe individual species as well as the habitat types used by these species. This section addresses biological resources within and adjacent to ARTIC. Potential impacts to biological resources associated with the construction of ARTIC and mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts are described in the following sections. METHODOLOGY The following assessment of biological resources is based on review of relevant literature and previous studies including the biological resources sections of the City of Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR (City of Anaheim, 2004), The Platinum Triangle Subsequent EIR No. 332 (City of Anaheim, 2005), The Initial Study for Amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and Associated Actions (City of Anaheim, 2008) and natural resource databases, maps, and aerial photographs. Specific species and habitat information for ARTIC was obtained from the Biological Resources Technical Report, Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, California, prepared by ICF dated November 2009 (Appendix F). This study included results of field assessments of the project site and a 500-foot buffer area, a special status species and habitat assessment, review of potential federal or state jurisdictional water features, results of queries to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) database, and correspondence with local regulatory agencies to confirm the presence or absence of listed species or critical habitats within the vicinity of ARTIC. 3.11.1 Environmental Setting Physical Characteristics ARTIC is located within a highly urbanized area and the proposed construction footprint is currently developed with paved parking areas, buildings, railroad tracks, and ornamental landscaping. ARTIC occurs at an elevation of approximately 150 feet above mean sea level and due to the developed nature of the site lacks natural topography or drainage features and is relatively flat. The Santa Ana River, present east of ARTIC, is channelized with concrete banks. The soft bottom is continually maintained and manipulated for groundwater infiltration. ARTIC is located on the historic floodplain of the Santa Ana River which has headwaters in the San Bernardino Mountains and drains to the Pacific Ocean. Botanical Resources ARTIC is largely developed with impervious surface coverage and the areas that have exposed soil are landscaped with ornamental vegetation or are highly compacted soils with non-native weed species. There are no natural or native vegetation communities present onsite or in the immediate vicinity of the project site that will function as viable habitat. The Santa Ana River is continuously cleared of vegetation and manipulated for groundwater infiltration. The Santa Ana River does not support native riparian or wetland vegetation communities. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.11 Biological Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.11-2 July 19, 2010 Zoological Resources Due to the lack of native vegetation communities to serve as functional wildlife habitat, most of the wildlife species observed during the field studies conducted by ICF represent animals that have adapted to urban and disturbed environments. Birds were the most commonly observed species and included, mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), rock pigeon (Columba livia), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), common raven (Corvus corax), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), lesser goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria), and house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus). Two raptor species were observed, a turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) and prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), which were considered transient and are typically only observed in urban settings during migration. Two species of mammals were detected: desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii) and California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi). No reptiles or amphibians were detected during the field surveys. Sensitive Resources Sensitive Plant Species Sensitive plant species are those listed, or are candidates for listing, by the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and CNPS. According to results from the CNDDB and correspondence with the USFWS, no sensitive plant species are expected to occur on ARTIC or in the vicinity of the project site. There is no suitable habitat on-site to support any of the sensitive plant species identified to have the potential to occur within the larger geographic vicinity of ARTIC. Sensitive Wildlife Species Sensitive wildlife species are those listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), candidates for listing by the USFWS or CDFG, species of special concern to the USFWS or CDFG, and those included in the NCCP/HCP. Based on the habitat assessment and sensitive species evaluation performed by ICF for ARTIC and surrounding 500 feet, three sensitive species were identified to have a least a low potential to occur within the study area. The species identified are the northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) a CDFG “Species of Special Concern,” the white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) a CDFG “Fully Protected” species, and the western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus) a Category 2 candidate for listing by the USFWS as Threatened or Endangered and a CDFG “Species of Special Concern.” No listed Threatened or Endangered Species were identified with the potential to occur on-site or within the vicinity of ARTIC. No nesting or roosting habitats for these species are present within ARTIC. These species may occur on an infrequent and transitory basis. Marginal foraging habitat for these species was noted along the Santa Ana River, which will not be disturbed by ARTIC. Sensitive Plant Communities and Federal Critical Habitats Sensitive habitats are those that are considered rare or endemic within a region, are considered sensitive by the CDFG or USFWS, or support sensitive plant or wildlife species. The CNDDB Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.11 Biological Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.11-3 July 19, 2010 tracks the occurrence of these habitats. No sensitive vegetation communities or critical habitats were identified onsite or within the vicinity of ARTIC. Raptor Foraging and Nesting Habitats Foraging requirements for raptor species include extensive open areas that have low lying vegetation, perching opportunities, and an abundance of small burrowing mammals and other small prey species. Some habitat types that serve as suitable raptor foraging grounds include grasslands, wetlands, and agricultural fields. Other raptor species prey on small birds and use riparian areas and wooded areas to hunt. Raptor nesting habitat may include mature riparian woodlands, wooded areas, or cliffs that are typically located away from areas with high levels of disturbance and ongoing human activity. Two raptor species were observed during the field assessments: a turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) and prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus). These species were considered transient and are typically only observed in urban settings during migration. Other raptor species that are expected to occur on a limited basis within the general area of ARTIC include American kestrel (Falco sparverius), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), and barn owl (Tyto alba). There is extremely marginal foraging habitat on-site and within the immediately vicinity of ARTIC and a very low likelihood of any raptor nesting on-site. Wildlife Corridors A wildlife corridor is a landscape feature, usually relatively narrow, that allows animal movement between two patches of habitat or between habitat and geographically discreet resources. There are no wildlife corridor features within ARTIC. The adjacent Santa Ana River is expected to serve as a wildlife corridor for species such as coyote (Canis latrans), bobcat (Lynx rufus), northern raccoon (Procyon lotor), and Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana). The River may act as a flyway for shorebirds and waterfowl during daily and seasonal migration. The River’s utility as a corridor has been disturbed by the continual manipulation of the bed of the river for groundwater infiltration and routine removal of vegetation. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters No federal or state jurisdictional wetlands or waters are present within ARTIC. The Santa Ana River is jurisdictional, but encroachment or disturbance to this feature is not proposed as part of ARTIC. 3.11.2 Regulatory Setting Federal Policies and Regulations Federal Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531-1544) The ESA directs all federal agencies to participate in endangered species conservation. The federal ESA provides protection for endangered and threatened species, and requires conservation of designated species’ critical habitats. An “endangered” species is a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A “threatened” species is one that is Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.11 Biological Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.11-4 July 19, 2010 likely to become “endangered” in the foreseeable future without further protection. Other special status species include “proposed,” “candidate,” and “species of concern.” “Proposed” species are those that have been officially proposed in the Federal Register for listing as threatened or endangered. “Candidate” species are those for which sufficient information is available to propose listing as “endangered” or “threatened.” “Species of concern” are species for which not enough scientific information has been gathered to support a listing proposal, but still may be appropriate for listing in the future after further study. A “delisted” species is one whose population has reached its recovery goal is no longer in jeopardy. The ESA is administered by the USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS). Under the ESA, it is prohibited to take, harm, or harass species listed as threatened or endangered by the USFWS. A permit for taking a federally listed threatened or endangered species may be obtained either through Section 7 consultation (where the proposed action requires approval of a federal agency) or Section 10(a) (i.e., where the proposed non-federal action requires development of a HCP). Both cases require consultation with the USFWS and/or NMFS, which ultimately issues a final opinion determining whether the federally listed species will be adversely impacted by a proposed project. Under Section 4(d), an alternative permitting approach can be written by the Secretary of the Interior for use with federally threatened species. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 661-667E) The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1934), authorized the Secretaries of Agriculture and Commerce to assist and cooperate with Federal and State agencies to protect, rear, stock, and increase the supply of game and fur-bearing animals, and to study the effects of domestic sewage, trade wastes, and other polluting substances on wildlife. Amendments to the Act require consultation with the USFWS, NMFS, and state agencies responsible for fish and wildlife resources for all proposed federal undertakings and non-federal actions needing a federal permit or license that will impound, divert, deepen, or otherwise control or modify a stream or water body; and to make mitigation and recommendations to the involved federal agency. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703-712) The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) provides special protection for migratory families of birds (i.e., those avian species that winter south of the US but breed within the US) by regulating hunting and trade. The MBTA prohibits anyone to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 CFR 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 CFR 21). “Take” includes any disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (e.g., killing or abandonment of eggs or young). Such activity may be punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. The use of families as opposed to individual species within the Act means that numerous non-migratory birds are extended protection under the MBTA. Most nesting birds are covered by the MBTA. Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251-1376) The CWA provides guidance for the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. There are numerous sections of the CWA that provide guidance related to implementation of this type of project. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.11 Biological Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.11-5 July 19, 2010 Section 401 requires that an applicant for a Federal license or permit that allows activities resulting in discharge to jurisdictional waters (including wetland/riparian areas) of the US must obtain a state water quality certification that the discharge complies with other provisions of CWA. The RWQCBs administer the certification program in California. Section 402 is regulated by the USEPA and establishes a permitting system for the discharge of any pollutant (except dredge or fill material) into waters of the US. It establishes a framework for regulating municipal and industrial stormwater discharges under the NPDES program. The RWQCBs also administer the NPDES permits for construction activities and operations. Section 404 establishes a permit program administered by the USACE regulating the discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the US, including wetlands, and jurisdictional non-wetland waters. The USACE has permit authority derived from Section 404 of the CWA (33 CFR 320- 330). State Policies and Regulations California Fish and Game Code, Section 1600 -1616 The CDFG Code 1600 requires that any person, state or local government agency or public utility proposing a project that may result in impacting a river, stream, or lake to notify the CDFG. In addition to protection of state listed species under CESA, the agency also has surface water jurisdiction to protect wildlife values and native plant resources associated with waters of the State. If CDFG determines that the project may adversely affect existing fish and wildlife resources, a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement may be required. Required conditions within the Streambed Alteration Agreement are intended to address potentially significant adverse impacts within CDFG jurisdictional limits. California Fully Protected Animals California first began to designate wildlife species as “fully protected” prior to the creation of the CESA. Lists of fully protected species were initially developed to protect those animals that were rare or facing possible extinction, including fish, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, and birds. Most of the “fully protected” species have been listed as threatened or endangered under CESA and/or the federal ESA. The Fully Protected Species Statute (CDFG Code Section 4700) states “fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research and relocation of the bird species for the protection of livestock.” California Endangered Species Act The CESA states that “all native species of fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, invertebrates, and plants, and their habitats, threatened with extinction and those experiencing a significant decline which, if not halted, will lead to a threatened or endangered designation, will be protected or preserved.” CESA mandates that state agencies should not approve projects that will jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species if reasonable and prudent alternatives are available that will avoid jeopardy. For projects that affect both a state- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.11 Biological Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.11-6 July 19, 2010 and federally listed species, compliance with the federal ESA will satisfy CESA if CDFG determines that the federal incidental take authorization is consistent with CESA under California Fish and Game Code Section 2080.1. For projects that will result in take of only a state-listed species, the project proponent must apply for a take permit under Section 2081 (b). California Fish and Game Codes §§ 3503, 3503.3, 3505, 3800, 3801.6 These regulations protect all native birds, birds of prey, and all non-game birds including eggs and nests, that occur naturally within the state and are not already listed as full protected. Local Policies and Regulations The City does not have any additional ordinances or regulations pertaining to the protection of environmental resources other than requiring projects to comply with provisions of the MBTA, ESA, and the CESA for protection of federal and state listed species. 3.11.3 Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines, the thresholds of significance for Biological Resources are defined by: 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? 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 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? 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? e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 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? Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.11 Biological Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.11-7 July 19, 2010 3.11.4 Project Impacts Impacts to biological resources are normally classified as direct, indirect or cumulative. In addition, these types of impacts can be considered permanent or temporary. 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? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation) Sensitive Plants No sensitive or special-status plants were observed or are known to occur within the vicinity of ARTIC. No suitable habitat has been identified on-site with the potential to support special-status plant species. No impacts to sensitive or special status plant species or their associated habitats will result from ARTIC. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. Sensitive Animals There is potential for northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) a CDFG “Species of Special Concern,” the white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) a CDFG “Fully Protected” species, and the western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus) a Category 2 candidate for listing by the USFWS as Threatened or Endangered and a CDFG “Species of Special Concern” to occur within ARTIC. No significant nesting or foraging habitats for northern harrier or white-tailed kite have been identified within ARTIC. No direct permanent or temporary impacts to these will result from ARTIC. Temporary disturbance to these species may occur from construction activities associated with ARTIC but will not impede life processes. Based on the field assessment conducted by ICF, no large maternal roosts sites were identified for the western mastiff bat. The removal of buildings, modification of bridges, and removal of mature trees may temporarily disturb a limited number of individuals. The western mastiff bat was last reported in the Anaheim quadrangle in 1949, so it is highly unlikely that this species even utilizes resources within the vicinity of ARTIC. Potential temporary impacts to northern harrier, white-tailed kite, and western mastiff bat are considered remote. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. Raptor Foraging and Nesting Habitat There is extremely marginal raptor foraging habitat on-site and along the Santa Ana River and a very low likelihood of any raptor nesting on ARTIC. ARTIC will not result in the removal of any significant raptor foraging or nesting habitat and no significant change in land use is proposed. Impacts to raptor foraging and nesting habitat will not occur. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. Nesting and Breeding Native Birds – MBTA Covered Species Bridges, buildings and mature trees and shrubs in the existing ornamental landscaping within ARTIC may provide nesting habitat for native bird and raptor species. ARTIC will result in the Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.11 Biological Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.11-8 July 19, 2010 removal of existing structures and landscaping for redevelopment, which could result in impacts to breeding and nesting birds protected by the federal MBTA and the CDFG Codes. Mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level (Mitigation Measure BR- 1). 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (No Impact) No riparian habitat, sensitive natural community or designated critical habitat occurs within or adjacent to ARTIC. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 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) No federal or state jurisdictional wetlands or waters are present within ARTIC. No impacts to jurisdictional resources will result from ARTIC. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (No Impact) No wildlife corridors or water resources that support migratory fish are present within ARTIC. The adjacent Santa Ana River likely serves as a wildlife corridor for resident and migratory wildlife species, but ARTIC will not impact this resource. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preserving policy or ordinance? (No Impact) The City does not have any local policies or ordinances other than compliance with federal and state regulations. ARTIC is committed to complying with all state and federal regulations. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 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) ARTIC is not located within a NCCP/HCP or other conservation planning area. ARTIC will not conflict with established provisions of conservation plans. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.11 Biological Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.11-9 July 19, 2010 3.11.5 Cumulative Impacts ARTIC will not adversely impact federal or state listed species, protected natural plant communities, or waterbodies. Potential to impact nesting migratory birds will be less than significant with mitigation. Cumulative impacts will be less than significant for this issue area. 3.11.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions  City of Anaheim General Plan;  ESA;  MBTA;  CESA; and  CDFG Code. 3.11.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Without mitigation, the following impact will be potentially significant: ARTIC will result in the removal of existing structures and landscaping for redevelopment, which could result in impacts to breeding and nesting birds protected by the federal MBTA and the CDFG Codes. 3.11.8 Mitigation Measures  BR-1: No more than one week prior to demolition and vegetation clearing, a qualified biologist shall conduct a breeding and nesting bird survey within ARTIC construction footprint and within a 500-foot buffer around the site. The purpose of the survey is to ensure that no active nests are located within or adjacent to the project area. Nesting season for raptors begins February 15 and the traditional breeding season for native and migratory birds begins March 15. If clearing starts after October and before the nesting season, there is no need for nesting bird surveys. If an active nest is detected, a suitable buffer around the nest shall be established dependent on the type of species detected and location of the nest as determined by a qualified biologist and in accordance with the requirements of the CDFG Code. The nest avoidance area shall be flagged and shall be avoided until after the young have fledged and the nest is no longer in use. Documentation showing that this mitigation measure has been completed shall be sent to the City by the contractor. This documentation shall include a description of the survey results and whether any subsequent actions were required prior to commencement of demolition and vegetation clearing. The CDFG may authorize the relocation of the nest but consultation is required to ensure that no direct or indirect impacts result from this action and compliance with the MBTA and CDFG Codes. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.11 Biological Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.11-10 July 19, 2010 3.11.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation The mitigation measures identified above will reduce potential impacts associated with biological resources to a level that is less than significant. No significant impacts relating to biological resources have been identified. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-1 July 19, 2010 3.12 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS This section addresses the potential global climate change impacts that could occur from ARTIC. At the direction of the State Legislature in SB 97, the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) adopted amendments to the CEQA Guidelines that require analysis of climate change and GHG emissions in CEQA documents; these amendments were effective March 18, 2010. GHGs are atmospheric gases and clouds within the atmosphere that influence the Earth’s temperature by absorbing most of the infrared radiation that rises from the sun warmed surface and that would otherwise escape into space. This process is commonly known as the “Greenhouse Effect”. GHGs, as defined under AB 32, include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), N2O, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3). General discussions on climate change often include water vapor, 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 and are therefore not GHGs. While water vapor, atmospheric ozone and aerosols 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 [CCAR]) as gases to be reported or analyzed for control. Therefore, no further discussion of water vapor, atmospheric ozone, or aerosols is provided in this section. 3.12.1 Environmental Setting ARTIC Site ARTIC is located within the City, which is part of the SCAB. The SCAB is an area of high air pollution potential, particularly from June through September. Light winds and shallow vertical atmospheric mixing frequently reduce pollutant dispersion, thus causing elevated air pollution levels. Pollutant concentrations within the SCAB vary with location, season and time of day. O3 concentrations, for example, tend to be lower along the coast, higher in the near inland valleys, and lower in the far inland areas of the Basin and adjacent desert. The SCAB is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. Additional description of the SCAB and air quality at the ARTIC site is provided in Section 3.3. Global Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases Climate change is a recorded change in the average weather of the earth measured by variables such as wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. Historical records show that global temperature changes have occurred naturally in the past, such as during previous ice ages. Eleven of the twelve years from 1995 to 2006 rank among the warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850). An increase of 0.74 degree Celsius (°C) (or 1.33 degrees Fahrenheit [°F]) in the global surface temperature occurred during the 100-year period from 1906 to 2005, and the linear warming trend over the 50 years from 1956 to 2005 is nearly twice that for the 100 years from 1906 to 2005 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC, 2007]). Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-2 July 19, 2010 An increase of GHG emissions has led to an anthropogenic warming trend of the earth’s average temperature, which is causing changes in the earth’s climate. GHG emissions are primarily associated with (1) the burning of fossil fuels during motorized transport, electricity generation, consumption of natural gas, industrial activity, manufacturing, and other activities; (2) deforestation; (3) agricultural activity; and (4) solid waste decomposition. This increasing temperature phenomenon is known as “global warming”, and the climatic effect is known as “climate change” or “global climate change”. Greenhouse Gases GHGs are global pollutants and are unlike air pollutants such as O3, particulate matter and TACs, which are pollutants of regional and local concern (see Section 3.3). While pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (generally on the order of a few days), GHGs have relatively long atmospheric lifetimes, ranging from one year to several thousand years. Long atmospheric lifetimes allow for GHGs to disperse around the globe. GHG impacts are global, as opposed to the localized air quality effects of criteria air pollutants and TACs. Since GHGs vary widely in the power of their climatic effects, climate scientists have established a unit called global warming potential (GWP). The GWP of a gas is a measure of both potency and lifespan in the atmosphere as compared to CO2. For example, since CH4 and N2O are approximately 21 and 310 times more powerful than CO2 in their ability to trap heat in the atmosphere, they have GWPs of 21 and 310 (CO2 has a GWP of 1). CO2e is a quantity that enables all GHG emissions to be considered as a group despite their varying GWP. The GWP of each GHG is multiplied by the prevalence of that gas to produce CO2e. Global, National, State, and Regional Contributions to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Table 3.12-1 shows the magnitude of GHG emissions on the global, national, state, and regional scale. Table 3.12-1 Comparison of Worldwide GHG Emissions Area and Data Year Annual GHG Emissions (MMTCO2e) World (2006) 29,000 United States (2007) 7,150 California (2006) 480 Orange County (2008) 30 MMTCO2e: million metric tons of CO2 equivalent Source: WRI 2009, USEPA 2009, CARB 2007, SCAG 2008. Worldwide, China is the world’s largest emitter, contributing approximately 19 percent, just ahead of the US, with approximately 18 percent. Approximately half of global emissions come from developed countries and half from developing countries; note that China and India are considered developing countries (WRI, 2009). The most common GHG is CO2, which constitutes approximately 84 to 85 percent of all GHG emissions in the US and California. The primary Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-3 July 19, 2010 contributors to California GHG emissions are transportation, electric power production from both in-state and out-of-state sources, and industrial uses. Scientific Debate As a matter of public policy, through the enactment of AB 32 and other legislation, California has declared that the continued rise in the level of GHGs pose a threat to the health and welfare of the people of California. This EIR sets forth a comprehensive analysis consistent with the framework provided by state and regional authorities of ARTIC’s impacts with respect to climate change. Nevertheless, there continues to be significant debate among scientists on (i) the cause and extent of anthropogenic global warming, and (ii) even assuming human activities are the cause of climate change, whether assuming California can even achieve AB 32’s goals, whether this will have any affect on global climate change trends. Significant scientific debate continues to exist regarding the cause and extent of anthropogenic global warming. In 2008, 650 scientists from around the globe submitted a several hundred page report calling into question the claims that global warming exists and is caused by humans made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). During the past two years, additional significant evidence and factual material has been disclosed, calling into question the integrity of scientific methodologies of the IPCC (the primary basis for much of the proposed regulatory action throughout the world). This factual material includes/supports: (1) the charge that the IPCC is a political organization and not a scientific organization; (2) extensive criticism that the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (“AR4”) lacked any sort of meaningful scientific peer review; (3) the assertion that the AR4 report contains numerous errors and unsubstantiated factual assertions such as (i) the use of the “Hockey Stick” graph that directly contradicts earlier graphs and data contained in earlier IPCC reports with insufficient explanation for the change; (ii) leaked emails from the University of East Anglia that suggest that British scientists deleted and hid data. Voluminous scientific publications exist that call into question the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Thus, while California has embarked upon a comprehensive regulatory program and has declared that climate change poses a significant threat to the health and welfare of the citizens of California, it is nevertheless true that significant scientific debate exists regarding the cause and extent of anthropogenic global warming. In addition, even assuming that the combustion of fossil fuels is the source of climate change, and assuming further that California can achieve its GHG emissions reductions goals set forth in AB 32, it is nevertheless doubtful as to whether the achievement would have any effect on any global warming trends allegedly cause by fossil fuel combustion. For example, according to a forecast by CARB, if no actions are taken to reduce GHG emissions, California emissions would be approximately 596.4 MMTCO2e by the year 2020, up from approximately 427 MMTCO2e and an average of 468.8 MMTCO2e between 2002 and 2004 (California EPA, 2010). Consequently, if California is successful in reducing GHG emissions to 1990 level by 2020 (as required by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2002 [“AB 32”]), emissions will be reduced by approximately 169.4 MMTCO2e, compared to what they would be under a “business as usual” scenario (California EPA, 2010) Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-4 July 19, 2010 Unfortunately, these savings are not nearly enough to compensate for the expected increase in emissions in developing countries during the same period alone. For example, according to projections from the Energy Information Administration, carbon emissions from Brazil alone are expected to increase from 216 MMTCO2e in 1990 and 356 MMTCO2e in 2005 to 541 MMTCO2e in 2020, i.e. they will have increased by 325 MMTCO2e between 1990 and 2020, nearly double the amount of emissions which will be saved by the implementation of AB 32. During that period, India’s emissions are projected to increase by about 1253 MMTCO2e. Both of those increases, however, are insignificant compared to the increases projected for China. According to one estimate, there will be a 7234 MMTCO2e projected increase in China’s 2020 carbon emissions during the same period of time (2241 MMTCO2e in 1990 versus 9475 in 2020). A 2009 analysis of Chinese emissions by the French Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations is even more staggering; despite assurances by the Chinese government that it will increase energy efficiency, projections indicate that the Chinese economy may grow by about eight percent a year. Even if the Chinese government reduces carbon emissions by about 40 to 45 percent per unit of gross domestic product (a difficult target), China will still have an approximate 75 percent increase in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020. The result is 2020 emissions of around 12,000 MMTCO2e. A different study by the Climate Change Institute at Australian National University suggested that China’s emissions may grow even more: doubling by 2020. Moreover, scientists from the University of California have determined that a ton of CO2 emitted from China comingles with a ton of carbon dioxide emitted from Southern California in approximately 72 hours. According to one European expert, China’s increase in emissions alone will be three to four times higher than the combined cuts promised by the US and the European Union. Consequently, it is clear that any steps taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California will be ineffective with respect to global phenomena, unless similar steps to reduce emissions are taken, and subsequently adhered to, in developing countries. Because it does not appear that developing countries are willing to take these steps, it is questionable as to whether the efforts of California (and perhaps other nations) will have any meaningful effect on global climate change. Currently, there is no international or national regulatory program regulating emissions from various nations. A brief summary of the state of international and national climate change regulation is set forth below. In 1992, 154 nations including the US entered into the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a nonbinding agreement under which industrialized countries pledged to work to reduce GHG emissions. Five years later, in 1997, the parties to the UNFCCC adopted the Kyoto Protocol, which set binding GHG reduction targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European Community, with the objective of reducing their collective omissions by five percent below 1990 levels during the “commitment period” of 2008-2012. The Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by 182 countries, but has not been ratified by the US. Indeed, in 1995, the Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution by a 95-0 vote, stating the Senate’s directive that Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-5 July 19, 2010 the US should not enter into any protocol that did not set binding targets for developing and industrialized nations. Many of the industrialized countries which ratified the Kyoto Protocol have not and/or are not expected to meet their Kyoto targets. For example, Canada, which currently has emissions that are 30 percent above 1990 levels, announced last year that it would not be able to meet its obligations under Kyoto. Instead, Canada intends to focus on “the development and implementation of a Made-in-Canada plan for reducing greenhouse gases” which it says “will be effective, realistic and focus on achieving sustained reductions in emissions in Canada while ensuring a strong economy” (Canada, 2010). Likewise, Japan has not indicated that it will not comply with its targets, but as of 2005, its emissions were approximately eight percent higher than in 1990 (National Public Radio, 2010). Despite this increase in emissions, Japan has not taken any regulatory steps to reduce the increase in its emissions. Since the US declined to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in 1995, it has become increasingly clear that global climate change cannot be addressed without limiting GHG emissions from developing and developed countries. It now appears fairly settled that China has surpassed the US as the world’s largest GHG emitter and is building new coal-fired power plants at a rate of approximately one per week. A recent study conducted by economists at University of California, Berkeley and University of California, San Diego estimated that China’s CO2 emissions are growing by as much as 11 percent annually. In 2007, China released its first national plan on climate change, which includes goals related to increasing energy efficiency and increasing use of renewable resources (BBC, 2007). The plan, however, makes no commitments regarding reduction of GHG emissions. Like China, India is already one of the top emitters of GHGs, and continues to grow rapidly. India has recently pledged to take more action to fight global warming, for example, by pursuing solar energy, urging energy efficiency, and conservation, but it has not set any concrete goals in these areas, let alone pledged to reduce its carbon emissions. To the contrary, India’s emissions are projected to increase fourfold by 2030. Similarly, Brazil, the largest economy in South America and another rapidly developing county, has no national policy requiring it to reduce carbon emissions. Brazil’s carbon emissions increased by more than 60 percent between 1990 and 2004, and are projected to continue to rise at a similar pace (International Energy Agency, 2010). The Kyoto Protocol is set to expire in 2012. Formal negotiations to replace the protocol officially begin in December 2007 at the UNFCCC Climate Change Conference in Bali, Indonesia. Presently, whether a workable agreement can be reached remains to be seen; as the US continues to press for an agreement which requires firm commitments from developing nations, countries like China and India continue to oppose binding targets. The federal government has taken a number of steps toward addressing global climate change over the past 30 years, but thus far, such actions have been mostly policy oriented with very little regulatory requirements. In 1978, Congress enacted the National Climate Program Act, which required an investigation into climate change (although at that time the federal concern was whether the world was entering into a prolonged ice age). In 1987, Congress enacted the Global Climate Protection Act for the purpose of “establish[ing] a national climate program that will assist the Nation and the world to understand and respond to natural and man-induced climate Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-6 July 19, 2010 processes and their implications” (15 USC § 2902.). The act required the establishment of various programs to further climate change research (15 USC § 2904(d)). Despite the fact that climate change has been on the federal government’s radar for 30 years, Congress has not enacted any legislation requiring economy-wide mandatory reductions in GHG emissions to date. Several different “cap-and-trade” proposals which would require such reductions have recently been introduced in Congress, but none of them have been passed by either branch of Congress, let alone become law. All such plans would place caps on the total amount of GHG which can be emitted during future years and allow emitters to buy and sell emission credits. However, such plans vary widely on what caps they would place on emissions and how quickly such caps would come into effect, as well as how their specific mechanisms would work. Currently, the federal government’s policy on climate change has three objectives: 1) “Slowing the growth of emissions”; 2) “Strengthening science, technology and institutions”; and 3) “Enhancing international cooperation,” which it is implementing “through voluntary and incentive-based programs” (USEPA, 2010). While the newly-elected Obama Administration has stated its support for cap and trade legislation, thus far no new federal legislation has been adopted. However, the USEPA has recently embarked upon a regulatory program through which that agency may begin to regulate nation-wide emissions of GHG’s in the future. In summary, despite the public policy direction of California as evidenced by AB 32 and the recent actions of CARB, there remains considerable debate among scientists on (i) the cause and extent of anthropogenic global warming, and (ii) even assuming human activities are the cause of climate change, whether assuming the State can even achieve AB 32’s goals, whether this will have any affect on global climate change trends. Methodology Calculation of GHG Emissions Construction and Operational GHG Emissions Long-term GHG emissions from mobile sources and area sources and short-term emissions from construction equipment were calculated by using URBEMIS Version 9.2.4. URBEMIS was also used to calculate construction GHG emissions. URBEMIS is a computer program accepted by the SCAQMD that can be used to estimate anticipated emissions associated with land development projects. The limitations of the URBEMIS model should be noted. The current version of the model was last updated in February 2008. Therefore, the emission factors do not reflect anticipated improvements in on-road or off-road vehicle emissions based on legislation enacted subsequent to the update. The model does not have detailed emissions reductions measures for the different versions of Title 24 building efficiency standards. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-7 July 19, 2010 3.12.2 Regulatory Setting Federal Policies and Regulations USEPA Findings On December 7, 2009, the USEPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding GHG under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, as follows:  “Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases - CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 - in the atmosphere 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 greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare. “These findings do not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities. However, this action is a prerequisite to finalizing the [US]EPA’s proposed greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty vehicles” (USEPA, 2009). Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards On April 1, 2010, the USEPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced a joint final rule to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel economy for new cars and trucks sold in the US. The rule applies to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. The rule requires these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 295 grams of CO2 per mile by 2012, decreasing to 250 gram per mile by 2016; the latter figure is equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon if the automobile industry were to meet this CO2 level solely through fuel economy improvements. The combined USEPA GHG standards and NHTSA Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards resolve previously conflicting requirements under both federal programs and the standards of California and other states that have adopted California standards (USEPA, 2010). State Policies and Regulations CARB, a part of the California EPA, is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs in California. In this capacity, CARB conducts research, sets the CAAQS, compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, and oversees local programs including those relative to climate change and global warming. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-8 July 19, 2010 There are numerous state plans, policies, regulations, and laws related to GHGs and global climate change. Following is a brief discussion of some of these plans, policies, and regulations. Assembly Bill 1493 – Clean Car Standards In 2002, AB 1493 (Pavley) required CARB to develop and adopt by January 1, 2005 regulations that achieve “the maximum feasible reduction of GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light- duty trucks and other vehicles determined by CARB to be vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the state.” Implementation of AB 1493 was delayed for many years by prolonged litigation and USEPA actions. On May 19, 2009, challenging parties, automakers, the California, and the federal government reached an agreement on a series of actions that would resolve these current and potential future disputes over the standards through model year 2016. On September 24, 2009, CARB adopted amendments to the AB 1493 regulations that reduce GHG emissions in new passenger vehicles from 2009 through 2016. The amendments, approved by the Board, are part of California’s commitment toward a nation-wide program to reduce new passenger vehicle GHGs from 2012 through 2016. The amendments will cement California’s enforcement of AB 1493 starting in 2009 while providing vehicle manufacturers with new compliance flexibility. The amendments will also prepare California to harmonize its rules with the federal rules for passenger vehicles (CARB, 2010). As described above, the USEPA/NHTSA rule to implement the GHG reduction standards was issued on April 1, 2010. Executive Order S-3-05 On June 1, 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-3-05. 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. Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 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, §38501). Further, the State Legislature has determined that the potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra Nevada snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious disease, asthma, and other human health-related problems. These public policy statements are contained within AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in September 2006. AB 32 is now codified as California Health and Safety Code Sections 38500–38599. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-9 July 19, 2010 Senate Bill 97 and Recent Amendments to CEQA Guidelines SB 97 directs the CNRA to adopt amendments to the CEQA Guidelines that require evaluation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions by January 1, 2010. These amendments, located in Section 15064.4 and titled Determining the Significance of Impacts from Greenhouse Gas Emissions, provide that: (a) The determination of the significance of greenhouse gas emissions calls for a careful judgment by the lead agency consistent with the provisions in Section 15064. A lead agency should make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project. A lead agency shall have discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to: (1) Use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology to use. The lead agency has discretion to select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate provided it supports its decision with substantial evidence. The lead agency should explain the limitations of the particular model or methodology selected for use; and/or (2) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance based standards. (b) A lead agency should consider the following factors, among others, when assessing the significance of impacts from greenhouse gas emissions on the environment: (1) The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; (2) Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project; (3) 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 greenhouse gas emissions. Such requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must reduce or mitigate the project’s incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project. The amendments add a new Section 15126.4(c), Mitigation Measures Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions. This new section includes the following: Lead agencies shall consider feasible means, supported by substantial evidence and subject to monitoring or reporting, of mitigating the significant effects of greenhouse gas emissions. Measures to mitigate the significant effects of greenhouse gas emissions may include, among others: Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-10 July 19, 2010 (1) Measures in an existing plan or mitigation program for the reduction of emissions that are required as part of the lead agency’s decision; (2) Reductions in emissions resulting from a project through implementation of project features, project design, or other measures, such as those described in Appendix F; (3) Off-site measures, including offsets that are not otherwise required, to mitigate a project’s emissions; (4) Measures that sequester greenhouse gases; (5) In the case of the adoption of a plan, such as a general plan, long range development plan, or plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, mitigation may include the identification of specific measures that may be implemented on a project-by- project basis. Mitigation may also include the incorporation of specific measures or policies found in an adopted ordinance or regulation that reduces the cumulative effect of emissions. Appendix F, Energy Conservation, in Section II, EIR Contents, includes the following: D. Mitigation Measures may include: 1. Potential measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. The discussion should explain why certain measures were incorporated in the Project and why other measures were dismissed. 2. The potential of siting, orientation, and design to minimize energy consumption, including transportation energy, increase water conservation and reduce solid-waste. 3. The potential for reducing peak energy demand. 4. Alternate fuels (particularly renewable ones) or energy systems. 5. Energy conservation which could result from recycling efforts. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory On June 19, 2008, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issued a Technical Advisory on addressing climate change impacts of a proposed project under CEQA (OPR Climate Change Advisory) (OPR, 2008). The OPR Climate Change Advisory recommends that lead agencies quantify, determine the significance of, and (as needed) mitigate the cumulative climate change impacts of a proposed project. The OPR Climate Change Advisory identifies that each lead agency is required, under CEQA, to exercise its own discretion in choosing how to determine significance in the absence of adopted thresholds or significance guidelines from California, CARB, or the applicable local air district. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-11 July 19, 2010 CARB Scoping Plan In December 2007, CARB published California’s GHG inventory, which compiled statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions and sinks for the years 1990 through 2004. The total statewide greenhouse gas 1990 emissions level, and therefore the 2020 emissions target, is 427 MMTCO2e. Achieving this target requires a reduction of 169 MMTCO2e (approximately 30 percent) from the State’s projected 2020 emissions of 596 MMTCO2e (business-as-usual), and a reduction of 42 MMTCO2e (almost 10 percent) from the 2002 through 2004 average emissions. AB 32 requires CARB to develop a Scoping Plan to lower the State’s GHG emissions to meet the required decrease by 2020. The Scoping Plan was approved at the December 2008 board meeting and the measures in the Scoping Plan, listed in Table 3.12.-2, will be developed and in place by 2012. As shown in the table, statewide measures addressing vehicle emissions, energy efficiency, vehicle fuel, and power generation are planned to achieve the greater amounts of emissions reductions. However, reductions at all levels will be needed to reach the 2020 targets. Key elements of the Scoping Plan include (1) expansion and strengthening of existing energy efficiency programs and building and appliance standards; (2) achievement of a statewide renewable energy mix of 33 percent; (3) development of a California cap and trade program linked with other similar programs; (4) establishment of targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California and pursuit of policies and incentives to achieve those targets; (5) implementation of existing laws and standards such as California’s clean car standards identified in Table 3.12.-2 as Light Duty Vehicle GHG Standards and described above under the AB 1493 heading, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard; and (6) issuing of targeted fees to fund the State’s long term commitment to AB 32 administration (CARB, 2008). On April 23, 2009, CARB approved the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which has a goal to reduce GHG emissions from California’s transportation fuels by 10 percent, equal to 16 MMTCO2e, by 2020. The regulation requires providers, refiners, importers, and blenders to ensure that the fuels they provide for the California market meet an average declining standard of “carbon intensity”. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-12 July 19, 2010 Table 3.12-2 AB 32 Scoping Plan Recommended Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Recommended Reduction Measures Reductions Counted toward 2020 Target of 169 MMTCO 2e Percentage of Statewide Year 2020 Target Cap and Trade Program and Associated Measures California Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Standards 31.7 18.2% Energy Efficiency 26.3 15.1% Renewable Portfolio Standard (33% by 2020) 21.3 12.2% Low Carbon Fuel Standard 15 8.6% Regional Transportation-Related GHG Targetsa 5 2.9% Vehicle Efficiency Measures 4.5 2.6% Goods Movement 3.7 2.1% Million Solar Roofs 2.1 1.2% Medium/Heavy Duty Vehicles 1.4 0.8% High Speed Rail 1.0 0.6% Industrial Measures 0.3 0.2% Additional Reduction Necessary to Achieve Cap 34.4 19.8% Total Estimated Reductions from Cap and Trade Program and Associated Measures 146.7 84.3% Uncapped Sources/Sectors Measures High Global Warming Potential Gas Measures 20.2 11.6% Sustainable Forests 5 2.9% Industrial Measures (for sources not covered under cap and trade program) 1.1 0.6% Recycling and Waste (landfill methane capture) 1 0.6% Total Estimated Reductions from Uncapped Sources/Sectors 27.3 15.7% Total Reductions Counted Towards 2020 Target 174.0b 100% Other Recommended Measures – Not Counted Towards 2020 Target Estimated Reductions MMTCO2e State Government Operations 1.0 to 2.0 Local Government Operations To Be Determined Green Buildings 26 Recycling and Waste 9 Water Sector Measures 4.8 Methane Capture at Large Dairies 1 a Reductions represent an estimate of what may be achieved from local land use changes. It is not the SB 375 Regional target. b The total reduction for the recommended measures slightly exceeds the 169 MMTCO2e of reductions estimated in the Draft Scoping Plan. This is the net effect of adding several measures and adjusting the emission reduction estimates for some other measures. Source: CARB, 2008. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-13 July 19, 2010 Senate Bill 375 Signed September 30, 2008, SB 375 provides for a new planning process to coordinate land use planning and regional transportation plans and funding priorities in order to help California meet the GHG reduction goals established in AB 32. SB 375 requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations, including the SCAG to incorporate a Sustainable Communities Strategy 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 VMTs and encouraging more compact, complete, and efficient communities for the future. SCAG’s Sustainable Communities Strategy is currently scheduled for adoption in April 2012. Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (24 CCR 6) were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. Since that time, the energy efficiency standards have undergone several revisions. Effective January 1, 2010, the adopted 2008 Title 24 standards replaced the 2005 Title 24 standards. The CEC adopted the 2008 standards in order to (1) “Provide California with an adequate, reasonably-priced, and environmentally-sound supply of energy” and (2) “Respond to Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which mandates that California must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020” (CEC, 2009). Title 24 Green Building Standards The California Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR 11) were adopted in June 2008. The purpose of the Green Building Standards is to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts that have a positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices in the following categories: (1) planning and design; (2) energy efficiency; (3) water efficiency and conservation; (4) material conservation and resource efficiency; and (5) environmental air quality (California Building Standards Commission [CBSC], 2008). Although the Green Building Standards became effective August 1, 2009, according to the cover date, effective dates for various elements are specified within the publication. Accordingly, the CBSC advises that this version of the standards is primarily a voluntary one. There are mandatory provisions within the Code, but these are items that are currently either required by State law or required by existing regulations. Most of the mandatory provisions adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development have a delayed effective date until the 2010 State building codes are in effect (CBSC, 2008). The CBSC states that nothing within California Building Standards Law would preclude a local jurisdiction from adopting the current voluntary version of the Code prior to its effective date. Attorney General The California Attorney General (AG) has submitted numerous comment letters during public review processes setting forth the Office of the AG’s views as to how climate change should be analyzed in CEQA documents. As part of the AG’s efforts to work with agencies on addressing climate change in their CEQA documents, the AG publishes and updates The California Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-14 July 19, 2010 Environmental Quality Act, Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level, which is a document with “information that may be helpful to local agencies in carrying out their duties under CEQA as they relate to global warming. Included in this document are various measures that may reduce the global warming related impacts of a project” (California Department of Justice, 2010). The AG’s measures are discussed later in this section. Local Policies and Regulations South Coast Air Quality Management District Air quality in the County of Orange is regulated by the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the SCAB. To that end, the SCAQMD, a regional agency, works directly with the 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 meets approximately once per month. On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted its staff proposal for an interim CEQA GHG significance threshold for industrial projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency (SCAQMD, 2008). The interim screening threshold for industrial projects is 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MTCO2e/yr) based on stationary (and not mobile) emissions. The Working Group adopted a philosophy similar to recommendations made by other agencies in California to identify “Significance Screening Levels” (or thresholds) for GHG emissions. Projects with GHG emissions less than these levels or thresholds would be less than significant although the projects may be required to demonstrate (1) energy efficiency greater than that required by the Title 24 standards and (2) water use efficiency, such as recycled water use or the installation of “smart” controllers for landscape irrigation. Projects with GHG emissions greater than the Significance Screening Levels would be required to implement specific performance standards or purchase offsets to reduce the climate change impact(s) to less than significant levels. As of November 2009, the SCAQMD was continuing to consider screening levels under CEQA for residential, commercial, and mixed-use projects; however, the working group has not met between November 2009 and May 2010. City of Anaheim General Plan, Green Element The City of Anaheim General Plan Green Element, while not specifically addressing GHG emissions or climate change, addresses topics concerning conservation of natural resources including vehicle emissions reduction; reducing vehicle work trips; expanding transit trips; sound land use planning; efficient, clean-burning public transit; energy conservation; and building performance standards. Goals and policies from the Green Element applicable to ARTIC are discussed in Section 3.3. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-15 July 19, 2010 City of Anaheim Resolution 2006-187 Resolution 2006-187 (approved August 8, 2006) of the City Council authorizes and directs the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department (PUD) to establish the Green Connection, a program that accommodates the principles of environmental soundness and sustainability. Resolution 2006-187 sets out a series of goals, including encouraging developers and builders in the City to receive LEEDTM registration and certification, reaching a 20 percent reduction in energy use and a 15 percent reduction in water use by 2015, and replacing 10 percent of the City’s light, non- emergency vehicles with low emission technologies. 3.12.3 Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines, the thresholds of significance for GHG emissions are defined by: a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? SCAQMD Air Quality Thresholds On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD established an interim GHG Significance Threshold for projects in which it is the lead agency for CEQA. The threshold is 10,000 MT/yr of CO2e. The threshold is compared to the total increase in operational emissions and the construction activity averaged over 30 years. Although this threshold is used for comparison purposes in this project, the threshold is not intended to apply to CEQA projects where SCAQMD is not the lead agency. 3.12.4 Project Impacts 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) GHG emissions for ARTIC are the result of the use of electricity, natural gas combustion, and increased vehicles exhaust. URBEMIS and RCEM were used to quantify the GHG emissions from the operational on-site sources and mobile sources of ARTIC, including the Intermodal Terminal, the emergency generator, and the temporary construction emissions. CO2e was calculated based on the total operational emissions plus construction emissions amortized over 30 years (per SCAQMD guidance). The emissions shown in Table 3.12-3 demonstrate that ARTIC is below the GHG significance thresholds. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-16 July 19, 2010 Table 3.12-3 ARTIC Project Operational Daily Emissions Operational Activity CO2 (lb/day) CO2e (MT/yr) Stationary Source (Electricity, Natural Gas Usage, Landscaping) 3,192.84 528.61 Emergency Backup Generator 1,624.00 38.30 Mobile Sources 10,273.10 1,700.83 Construction – 220.40 Total Proposed Project Operational 15,089.94 2,488.14 Existing Metrolink/Amtrak Station -7,543.58 -1,248.92 Difference in Emissions (Proposed Project – Existing Metro) 7,546.36 1,239.22 SCAQMD Significance Threshold – 10,000(1) Significant Impact – No Source: Appendix C The location of ARTIC relative to major event and destination centers within the Platinum Triangle increases availability of current and future mass transit systems to occupants and visitors. The result will be reduced motor vehicle traffic on local roadways and freeways, and a general reduction in motor vehicle travel throughout the region. Since motor vehicle traffic is the primary source of air pollution in the region, reduced traffic will result in lower GHG emissions regionally. GHG emissions from ARTIC will have a less than significant impact on the environment. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (No Impact) ARTIC will not conflict with an applicable plan to reduce emissions of GHG. The SCAQMD has released an interim significance threshold of 10,000 MT/yr, which was used as a point of comparison for ARTIC (see Table 3.12-3). Its location relative to major event and destination centers within the Platinum Triangle increases availability of current and future mass transit systems to occupants and visitors. The result is decreased regional motor vehicle traffic on local roadways and freeways, and a general reduction in motor vehicle travel throughout the region. Motor vehicle traffic is the primary source of air pollution in the region. Plans to reduce traffic, which would result in reduced GHG emissions, are consistent with the intent of the AQMP. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 3.12.5 Cumulative Impacts The City currently has no approved plan for the reduction of GHGs. The SCAQMD has released an interim significance threshold of 10,000 MT/yr, which was used as a point of comparison for ARTIC (See Appendix C for detailed information). Motor vehicle traffic is the primary source of air pollution in the region. ARTIC’s location relative to major event and destination centers within the Platinum Triangle increases availability of current and future mass transit systems to occupants and visitors. The GHG evaluation for ARTIC has determined that there will not be a cumulative impact. Potential GHG emissions are considered cumulatively less than significant. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-17 July 19, 2010 3.12.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions  SCAQMD  AB 1493;  Executive Order S-3-05;  AB 32; and  SB 375. 3.12.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ARTIC will have a less than significant impact on GHG. 3.12.8 Mitigation Measures ARTIC will have a less than significant impact on GHG. No mitigation measures are required for this issue area. 3.12.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ARTIC will have a less than significant impact on GHG. Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-18 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Draft EIR 4.0 Issue Areas Found Not to be Significant ARTIC Draft EIR 4-1 July 19, 2010 4.0 ISSUE AREAS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT The following is a discussion of the environmental effects that were determined not to be significant. 4.1 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies that a project will have a significant impact on agricultural and forest resources if the project will convert existing farmland, timberland, or forest land to non-agricultural or non-forest uses. According to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, ARTIC and the surrounding area are designated as Urban and Built-Up Land (CDC, 2006). The site is currently developed with commercial and industrial structures and paved parking lots, and is classified by the City with an Institutional Land Use (City of Anaheim, 2009). There are two zoning designations within ARTIC: SP Zone (City and OCTA parcels) and PR Zone/PTMU Overlay Zone (the stadium and arena properties) (City of Anaheim, 2009). Land west and north of ARTIC is designated by the General Plan for mixed use and office development; land east of ARTIC and adjacent to the Santa Ana River is designated for open space. There are no properties designated for farmlands in the immediate vicinity of ARTIC and the City has not designated the surrounding area to be placed under Williamson Act contract lands (City of Anaheim, 2009). ARTIC and the surrounding area do not contain Prime, Unique, or Statewide Important farmlands. ARTIC will not convert these farmlands to non-agricultural use. There are no zoned forest lands, timberlands, or Timberland Production areas in the vicinity of ARTIC. ARTIC will not conflict with or cause the rezoning of such areas. No further discussion is warranted. 4.1.1 Cumulative Impacts The site is currently fully urbanized and project implementation will not impact any agricultural resource. No cumulative impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 4.2 MINERAL RESOURCES Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies that a project will have a significant impact on mineral resources if the project will cause the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or a locally-important mineral resource recovery site. California designates ARTIC as an MRZ-2 area, which is an area where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood exists for their presence. The source map does not include ARTIC as part of a regionally significant resource area (CGS, 1994). Though there were several active regionally significant sites for mineral resources in the City, ARTIC is not located within any of these areas. No further discussion is warranted. Draft EIR 4.0 Issue Areas Found Not to be Significant ARTIC Draft EIR 4-2 July 19, 2010 4.2.1 Cumulative Impacts Implementation of ARTIC will not result in an adverse impact to mineral resources. No cumulative impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 4.3 RECREATION Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies that a project will have a significant impact on recreation if the project will increase the use of parks or other recreational facilities, or require the expansion or construction of recreational facilities which might have an adverse effect on the environment. Angel Stadium and the Honda Center are recreational facilities located in the vicinity of ARTIC. Train and bus services currently provide transportation to Angel Stadium and the Honda Center. ARTIC will continue this service. The Santa Ana River Trail is also a recreational facility, maintained by Orange County Parks, located adjacent to the eastern boundary of ARTIC. The County of Orange lists the Santa Ana River Trail in the Master Plan of Regional Riding and Hiking Trails. This plan contains specific goals and policies aimed at directing the development and operation of the county-wide trail system, including: providing efficient acquisition, development, operation, maintenance, and financing programs (Goal 3); creating trail linkages between open space and recreation facilities (Goal 2); and providing a useful, enjoyable, and safe public regional riding and hiking trail system (Goal 1). Current access to the Trail will not be restricted during construction. Construction activities for ARTIC will remain within the site and will not utilize the Santa Ana River Trail. ARTIC will not create demand for trail use above current use generated by the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station. ARTIC will provide current users of the Santa Ana River Trail with access to a variety of transportation modes. A trail easement envisioned to be located along the east side of the ARTIC site will provide access from the Santa Ana River Trail to ARTIC via Katella Avenue. No further discussion is warranted. 4.3.1 Cumulative Impacts Implementation of ARTIC will not result in an adverse impact to recreational resources. No cumulative impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 4.4 PUBLIC SERVICES Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies that a project will have a significant impact on public services if the project will result in substantial adverse impacts associated with the provision or need of new or altered government facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or response times. Public services include fire, police, schools, and parks. ARTIC is located in an urban area with little vegetation, and will not be affected by wildfires. Potential urban fires will be addressed through applicable buildings codes, a fire suppression, and alarm system that will notify local fire department of fires. Draft EIR 4.0 Issue Areas Found Not to be Significant ARTIC Draft EIR 4-3 July 19, 2010 Amtrak is policed by Amtrak, Metrolink is policed by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, and OCTA is policed by the Orange County Sheriff’s Department. There are also currently 26 Sheriff’s personnel assigned to Transit Police Services who patrol the various transit centers throughout the county (Orange County Sheriff’s Department, 2010). The Orange County Sheriff’s Department under contract to OCTA will patrol the trains and ROW at ARTIC. The Anaheim Police Department will be responsible for the ARTIC station and surrounding area, aside from the ROW. ARTIC will replace the existing Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink Station, which currently has police service by Anaheim Police Department, Amtrak, and Metrolink. Over time, there will be an increased demand for police services at ARTIC for emergency response. Emergency responders will be trained in accordance with emergency response plans jointly developed by the train operators and local jurisdictions. ARTIC is a transportation facility and does not include a residential component. ARTIC will not induce significant growth off-site and there will be no new student generation as a result of project implementation. Additional public facilities, such as schools and parks, will not be required to accommodate ARTIC. ARTIC will replace the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station located in the same service area and emergency response times are not anticipated to differ from current response times. ARTIC will not result in substantial adverse impacts associated with the provision or need of new or altered government facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or response times. No further discussion is warranted. 4.4.1 Cumulative Impacts ARTIC does not include residential components that will permanently increase human presence in the area. Implementation of ARTIC will not result in an adverse impact to public services. No cumulative impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 4.5 POPULATION AND HOUSING Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies that a project will have a significant impact on population and housing if the project will induce substantial population growth or displace populations or existing housing. ARTIC is expected to accommodate the transportation demand anticipated from the existing and projected population and employment from within the City and the County of Orange. It is not expected to directly or indirectly induce or alter population growth within these communities. ARTIC will not require the acquisition of properties currently used for residential purposes and will not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, which would necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and the associated allowable development intensities within the Platinum Triangle for residential, commercial and office land uses were developed to accommodate housing and employment that would benefit from locating in close proximity to the existing train station and/or ARTIC. No further discussion is warranted. Draft EIR 4.0 Issue Areas Found Not to be Significant ARTIC Draft EIR 4-4 July 19, 2010 4.5.1 Cumulative Impacts Implementation of ARTIC will not result in an adverse impact to population and housing. No cumulative impacts are anticipated for this issue area. Draft EIR 5.0 Project Alternatives ARTIC Draft EIR 5-1 July 19, 2010 5.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 5.1 INTRODUCTION CEQA requires that an EIR include a discussion of reasonable project alternatives that would “feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives” (CEQA Guidelines §15126.6). This chapter identifies potential alternatives to the Proposed Project and evaluates them, as required by CEQA. Key provisions of the CEQA Guidelines on alternatives (§15126.6(a) through (f)) are summarized below to explain the foundation and legal requirements for the alternatives analysis in the EIR.  The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly” (15126.6(b)).  “The specific alternative of ‘no project’ shall also be evaluated along with its impact” 15126.6(e)(1). “The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the NOP is published, and at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the “no project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives” (15126.6(e)(2)).  “The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a ‘rule of reason’ that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project” (15126.6(f)).  “Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent)” (15126.6(f)(1)).  For alternative locations, “only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR” (15126.6(f)(2)(A)).  “An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative” (15126.6(f)(3)). Draft EIR 5.0 Project Alternatives ARTIC Draft EIR 5-2 July 19, 2010 5.2 METHODOLOGY The alternative analysis defines, evaluates and compares the alternatives in a way that enables an equitable comparison of transportation benefits which will best suit the local area and needs. This analysis evaluates the Proposed Project, the Reduced Building Size alternative, and the No Project alternative. This analysis also considers three location alternatives that were considered but rejected. Each alternative was assessed for its impacts to each environmental issue area as compared to the Proposed Project and evaluated for its ability to meet the Statement of Objectives. 5.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED The following is a discussion of the alternatives considered during the planning process and the reasons why they were not selected for detailed analysis in this EIR. The feasibility of developing the Proposed Project on alternative sites was reviewed and rejected because no significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. 5.3.1 Alternative Sites Three alternative sites were evaluated as the potential locations for a transportation intermodal center. The alternative sites found to have impacts identical to or more severe than the Proposed Project, or that would not meet most of the project objectives, were considered, evaluated, and then dismissed from further consideration. The alternative sites included the development of a transportation intermodal center at the Fullerton Transportation Center, the Orange Metrolink Station, and the Irvine Station. These locations were considered based on the fact that they are existing transit centers that offer bus and rail transit options. Fullerton Transportation Center The Fullerton Transportation Center (FTC), located at 120 E. Santa Fe Avenue was considered as an alternate location for the Proposed Project. This transportation center is an active train station that currently services Amtrak, Metrolink, the OCTA bus system, taxis, bicycles, and pedestrians (OCTA, 2009). Plans to expand the station within the existing footprint are in preparation (City of Fullerton, 2010). This site is approximately 5.5 acres with limited room to expand. The surrounding area is developed, and residential zones are located 500 feet to the south, 700 feet to the northeast, and 1,000 feet to the north (City of Fullerton, 2005). The nearest freeways are one or more miles away from the FTC site. SR-91 is approximately one mile south, SR-57 is approximately 2.5 miles east, and I-5 is approximately 2.5 miles southwest. The closest freeway access would be SR-91 via Lemon Street, Harbor Boulevard or Euclid Street, which travels through a primarily residential area. The minimum land area needed to accommodate the parking, building, and other facilities for ARTIC is 19 acres, which is not available at the 5.5 acre FTC site. Displacement of people and businesses would be required to obtain the necessary land in order to provide adequate parking, building size, and internal circulation. In order to provide adequate parking for this site, a large parking structure would be required. The City of Fullerton is currently evaluating the feasibility of a parking structure to provide approximately 1,200 Draft EIR 5.0 Project Alternatives ARTIC Draft EIR 5-3 July 19, 2010 parking spaces across Harbor Boulevard from the station but does not have the available property (City of Fullerton, 2010). The disconnected parking structure would require travelers to cross Harbor Boulevard in order to enter the transit center. The transit center building (Intermodal Terminal) would obstruct views from residences and businesses. Due to this proximity, traffic, air quality, noise, aesthetics, and population and housing impacts would be potentially significant at the FTC. The CHSRA has identified FTC as an optional station on the first Southern California segment of its planned high speed train service. The CHSRA will evaluate the Fullerton Transportation Center for “skip-stop” service on the Los Angeles-to-Anaheim segment of the high speed rail project. A skip-stop reduces travel times and increases capacity by scheduling some trains to stop at the station while others continue through the station (City of Fullerton, 2010). Since the FTC will be evaluated as a “skip-stop” for CAHSR, it would not be able to function as a main terminus stop. The FTC cannot meet the Proposed Project objectives because it would not be able to accommodate the projected increases in mass transit ridership, provide a transit oriented building that can accommodate future transportation modes, provide improved access and availability of mass transit resources, or provide improved access to activity centers and destinations within the region. The FTC alternative was rejected because it would not avoid or substantially lessen any of the potentially significant impacts of the Proposed Project. Orange Metrolink Station The Orange Metrolink Station, also known as the Orange Santa Fe Depot, was also considered as an alternate location for the Proposed Project. The approximately 2.3 acre site is located at 194 North Atchison Street (OCTA, 2009). Surrounding land uses include a Medium Density Residential area one block west and a Low Density Residential area 600 feet to the south (City of Orange, 2010). The Orange Metrolink Station site does not contain the minimum 19 acres needed and would not be able to accommodate the parking, building, and other facilities necessary to the operation of ARTIC. This alternate site has limited room to expand because the surrounding area is already highly developed and would require the displacement of people and businesses. The Orange Station current has 250 parking spaces. The station is approximately 0.75 miles from SR-22, 1.3 miles from SR-57, and 1.5 miles from SR-55. The most direct freeway access would SR-57 via West Chapman Avenue, which travels through a primarily residential and commercial area. The minimum land area needed to accommodate the parking, building, and other facilities for ARTIC is 19 acres, which is not available at the 2.3 acre Orange Station site. Displacement of people and businesses would be required to obtain the necessary land in order to provide adequate parking, building size, and internal circulation. In order to provide adequate parking for this site, a large parking structure would be required. The transit center building and parking structure would obstruct views and would be inconsistent with the character of the surrounding development. Due to this proximity, traffic, air quality, noise, and aesthetic impacts would be potentially significant at the Orange Metrolink Station. Draft EIR 5.0 Project Alternatives ARTIC Draft EIR 5-4 July 19, 2010 The Orange Metrolink Station cannot meet the Proposed Project objectives because it would not be able to accommodate the projected increases in mass transit ridership, provide a transit oriented building that can accommodate future transportation modes, provide improved access and availability of mass transit resources, or provide improved access to activity centers and destinations within the region. The Orange Metrolink Station alternative was rejected from further evaluation because it would not avoid or substantially lessen any of the potentially significant impacts of the Proposed Project Irvine Station The Irvine Station located at 15215 Barranca Parkway encompasses approximately 12 acres and currently offers Amtrak, Metrolink, OCTA bus system, taxis, and shuttle services (OCTA, 2009). Land to the north and west of the Irvine Station is developed. Land to the south and southeast is zoned for Transit Oriented Development and is currently vacant (City of Irvine, 2006). There would be the potential for the station to expand to the minimum 19 acres required. Environmental impacts such as traffic, air quality, and noise would be similar to the Proposed Project impacts. Freeway access and proximity to entertainment destinations would be less convenient than the Proposed Project. The Irvine Station is approximately 0.5 miles from I-5 and 0.8 miles away from the I-5 and I-405 interchange and the nearest residential areas are 0.6 miles away (City of Irvine, 2006). The Irvine Station is at least ten miles away from many major entertainment destinations. The closest destinations are Wild Rivers Water Park and Verizon Wireless Amphitheater, which are approximately 1.25 miles to the southwest. The Irvine Station is adjacent to the planned Orange County Great Park (OCGP), which will be located at the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) El Toro base. The OCGP is currently planned but development has been suspended. The Irvine Station cannot meet the Proposed Project objectives because it would not be able to provide improved access to activity centers and destinations within the region. The Irvine Station alternative was rejected from further evaluation because it would not avoid or substantially lessen any of the potentially significant effects of the Proposed Project. 5.4 DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES Three alternatives to the Proposed Project were based upon their ability to satisfy the Statement of Objectives (see Section 2.3.3). The alternatives include:  Reduced Building Size alternative;  No Project alternative; and  Proposed Project. Description Reduced Building Size Alternative The Reduced Building Size alternative assumes that an intermodal center would be developed at the Proposed Project site and would provide expanded capacity compared to the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station. The Reduced Building Size alternative would include a Draft EIR 5.0 Project Alternatives ARTIC Draft EIR 5-5 July 19, 2010 transit center that is approximately 66,000 gross square feet and a below-grade Bus Transit Center. The Reduced Building Size alternative would have the same amount of parking as the Proposed Project. It would also include the envisioned pedestrian bridge to be constructed over Katella Avenue and the trail easement adjacent to the Santa Ana River Trail. The Reduced Building Size alternative would provide the same intermodal transit services as the proposed project. Passenger waiting areas, public space and other program space will be smaller for the Reduced Building Size alternative than the Proposed Project. Intermodal Terminal The Reduced Building Size alternative would include a 13,000 square-foot Intermodal Terminal building to allow for a Metrolink/Amtrak ticket and waiting area, a 30,000 square-foot civic space for passenger and community use, and 23,000 square feet of retail space. Bus Transit Center The Bus Transit Center would be located below the Intermodal Terminal. This Transit Center will include bus islands, waiting areas, bus bays, driving lanes, and driving ramps for surface street access. The Bus Transit Center will contain a bus facility located directly below the Intermodal Terminal. The Bus Transit Center will be an open air facility for ventilation. A waiting area will be provided on the bus islands. Tracks/Platforms The existing LOSSAN corridor mainline tracks would be realigned, the platforms relocated, and a new railroad bridge constructed. Realigning the tracks would require modifications to the existing crash wall to the support columns under SR-57. The new platforms would be 1,000 feet long with a total nominal width of 28 to 32 feet. Platform amenities would be consistent with the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station, such as ticketing, communication systems, benches, canopies, and information kiosks. Douglass Road would be lowered to accommodate the new bridge. Surface Parking/Access Vehicular access to this alternative would be from Douglass Road with a potential access point on Katella Avenue. Approximately 960 parking spaces would be provided. Under the Reduced Building Size alternative, the tracks/platform components would be consistent with the Proposed Project but the terminal and supporting facilities would be smaller. No Project Alternative The No Project alternative assumes that the Proposed Project would not be constructed and that transportation services would be accommodated at the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station. Sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.4 describe details of the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station, transportation providers, parking, and pedestrian access. The envisioned pedestrian bridge and trail easement would not be constructed. Approximately 405 parking spaces would be Draft EIR 5.0 Project Alternatives ARTIC Draft EIR 5-6 July 19, 2010 provided. The proposed site would continue to be used for the retail lumber business (City property) and the remaining portion (OCTA property) of the site would be used for the MSEP construction yard. When MSEP is complete, this site would be vacant. Proposed Project The Proposed Project is described in Section 2.2.5 through 2.2.8 and Section 2.4 through 2.6. Section 2.4 describes the Intermodal Terminal, Public Plaza/Drop-off Area, Stadium Pavilion, Tracks/Platforms, Road Improvements, Utilities, and Surface Parking/Access. Section 2.5 outlines the approach to construction and Section 2.6 details the operations and maintenance. Evaluation Reduced Building Size Alternative Construction-related impacts as a result of this alternative would be lessened due to the shorter construction period and reduced grading and excavation. This alternative would have similar operational impacts to environmental issue areas as the Proposed Project. The environmental issue areas are discussed below. Land Use and Planning This alternative would require a General Plan Amendment (GPA2010-00480), an amendment to The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (MIS2010-00437), and a CUP (CUP2010-05492). Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Transportation and Traffic This alternative would support similar transportation services as the Proposed Project and would generate a comparable amount of traffic. All planned improvement and additional mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would still be applicable under this alternative in order to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Air Quality Operations for this alternative would not exceed significance thresholds or result in violations of ambient air quality standards with the use of BMPs. Construction activities for the Reduced Building Size alternative would yield criteria pollutant emissions that would be less than the significance thresholds, with the exception of NOx. NOx would require mitigation measures to reduce it to below the threshold level. Fewer construction related mitigation measures would be required for this alternative because of the shorter construction period and reduced grading and excavation activities. Impacts would be less than the Proposed Project. Noise Operations for this alternative would not significantly impact noise-sensitive receivers. Noise from construction activities could intermittently dominate the noise environment in the immediate Draft EIR 5.0 Project Alternatives ARTIC Draft EIR 5-7 July 19, 2010 area of construction. Noise from project construction will be regulated through the Anaheim Municipal Code. Construction activities at night would require mitigation measures. Mitigation measures similar to the Proposed Project would be implemented under this alternative. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Geology and Soils The project area would remain the same and impacts associated with geology and soils would be equivalent to those identified for the Proposed Project. This alternative would have equivalent impacts as the Proposed Project and the same existing regulations and mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would be applicable to this alternative. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Utilities and Service Systems This alternative would be smaller than the Proposed Project and consumption of utilities would be reduced. This reduction in utilities consumption would be minimal. This alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project in that it would not significantly impact utilities and service systems and no mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The project area would remain the same under this alternative and impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials would be equivalent to those associated with the Proposed Project. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would be applicable under this alternative. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Hydrology and Water Quality The project area and the amount of impervious surfaces would be comparable to the Proposed Project. The project area is primarily developed, project implementation would not result in substantial increases in the amount of impervious surface, and water quality impacts would not increase. Runoff volumes would be generally the same as compared to the Proposed Project. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Aesthetics The project area would remain the same under this alternative. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Cultural Resources The project area would remain the same under this alternative and potential impacts to cultural resources would be equivalent to those associated with the Proposed Project. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would be applicable under this alternative. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Draft EIR 5.0 Project Alternatives ARTIC Draft EIR 5-8 July 19, 2010 Biological Resources The project area would remain the same under this alternative and potential impacts to biological resources would be equivalent to those associated with the Proposed Project. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would be applicable under this alternative. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Public Services This alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project in that it would not include a residential component. The demand for public services would be similar to the Proposed Project and as such, would not result in an adverse impact to public services. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Greenhouse Gases This alternative would not significantly impact GHG and impacts to this issue area are not anticipated as a result of the Proposed Project. Impacts from the Reduced Building Size alternative would be comparable or less than the Proposed Project during construction. Agriculture The site is currently fully urbanized and project implementation will not impact any agricultural resource. The project area would remain the same under this alternative and impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Mineral Resources This alternative would not impact mineral resources and impacts to this issue area are not anticipated as a result of the Proposed Project. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Recreation This alternative would not impact recreation and impacts to this issue area are not anticipated as a result of the Proposed Project. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Population and Housing This alternative would not impact population and housing and impacts to this issue area are not anticipated as a result of the Proposed Project. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Conclusion This alternative would have fewer construction impacts due to the shorter construction schedule and reduced grading and excavation activities. Operational impacts as a result of the Reduced Draft EIR 5.0 Project Alternatives ARTIC Draft EIR 5-9 July 19, 2010 Building Size alternative would be comparable to the Proposed Project. This alternative would meet all objectives. No Project Alternative This alternative would have fewer construction impacts to environmental issue areas in comparison with the Proposed Project but would have more operational impacts. The environmental issue areas are discussed below: Land Use and Planning This alternative already exists and is compatible with zoning designations. No impacts would occur. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Transportation and Traffic No construction impacts to transportation and traffic would occur as a result of this alternative. This alternative would have operational impacts to traffic due to reduced parking and the existing and growing demand for intermodal services. Impacts would be the same for construction but greater for operations than the Proposed Project. Air Quality The No Project alternative would have fewer construction impacts than the Proposed Project. The No Project alternative would not accommodate projected increases in traffic congestion. Air quality impacts would be more significant than the Proposed Project. Noise Noise from nighttime construction would not occur as a result of this alternative, in contrast to the Proposed Project. Impacts would be less than the Proposed Project. Geology and Soils No impacts associated with geology and soils would occur as a result of this alternative. Impacts would be less than the Proposed Project. Utilities and Service Systems No impacts to utilities and service systems would occur as a result of this alternative. Impacts would be less than the Proposed Project. Hazards and Hazardous Materials No impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials would occur as a result of this alternative. Impacts would be less than the Proposed Project. Draft EIR 5.0 Project Alternatives ARTIC Draft EIR 5-10 July 19, 2010 Hydrology and Water Quality No impacts to hydrology and water quality would occur as a result of this alternative. Impacts would be less than the Proposed Project. Aesthetics No impacts to aesthetics would occur as a result of this alternative. Impacts would be less than the Proposed Project. Cultural Resources No impacts to cultural resources would occur as a result of this alternative. Impacts would be less than the Proposed Project. Biological Resources No impacts to biological resources would occur as a result of this alternative. Impacts would be less than the Proposed Project. Public Services No impacts to public services would occur as a result of this alternative. Impacts would be less than the Proposed Project. Greenhouse Gases This alternative would not accommodate projected increases in transit demand. Fewer vehicles would be removed from the roadway network. GHG impacts would be greater than the Proposed Project. Agriculture No impacts to agriculture would occur as a result of this alternative. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Mineral Resources No impacts to mineral resources would occur as a result of this alternative. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Recreation No impacts to recreation would occur as a result of this alternative. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Draft EIR 5.0 Project Alternatives ARTIC Draft EIR 5-11 July 19, 2010 Population and Housing No impacts to population and housing would occur as a result of this alternative. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Conclusion Though most No Project alternative impacts on environmental issue areas would be less than the Proposed Project for construction, mitigation measures for the Proposed Project construction and operations would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Construction impacts associated with the No Project alternative would not be substantially lower than the Proposed Project impacts or the Reduced Building Size alternative with mitigation. With respect to operations, the No Project alternative would have greater impacts to air quality, GHG and transportation and traffic. This alternative would not meet several ARTIC objectives, including:  Providing a regional intermodal center that can combine multiple transportation modes at a central location;  Accommodating projected increases in mass transit ridership;  Providing a transit oriented building that can accommodate future transportation modes;  Facilitating pedestrian and bicycle access to multimodal transit options;  Providing improved access and availability of mass transit resources; and  Encouraging the reduction of vehicle miles traveled on freeways and local arterial streets. The No Project alternative is not a feasible alternative to the Proposed Project or the Reduced Building Size alternative. Proposed Project As discussed in Chapter 3.0, the Proposed Project would have less than significant impacts with application of appropriate mitigation measures and all of the ARTIC objectives would be met. Draft EIR 5.0 Project Alternatives ARTIC Draft EIR 5-12 July 19, 2010 5.5 ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY COMPARISON Table 5.5-1 presents a comparison between the Reduced Building Size alternative, the No Project alternative, and the Proposed Project alternative. Table 5.5-1 Comparison of Alternatives Environmental Issue Areas Reduced Building Size Alternative No Project Alternative Proposed Project Meets Identified Project Objectives? Some No Yes Land Use and Planning No impact No impact No impact Transportation and Traffic Less than significant with mitigation Potential impacts with reduced parking and fewer patrons changing from cars to transit. Less than significant with mitigation Air Quality Less than significant with mitigation for construction and no operational impacts. Potentially significant operational impacts due to congestion around the station. No construction impacts. Less than significant with mitigation for construction and no operational impacts. Noise Less than significant with mitigation No impact Less than significant with mitigation Geology and Soils Less than significant No impact Less than significant Utilities and Service Systems Less than significant No impact Less than significant Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less than significant with mitigation No impact Less than significant with mitigation Hydrology/Water Quality Less than significant No impact Less than significant Aesthetics Less than significant No impact Less than significant Recreation No impact No impact No impact Cultural Resources Less than significant with mitigation No impact Less than significant with mitigation Biological Resources Less than significant with mitigation No impact Less than significant with mitigation Public Services No impact No impact No impact Population and Housing No impact No impact No impact Greenhouse Gas Emissions Less than significant Potentially significant operational impact due to less patrons using transit Less than significant Draft EIR 5.0 Project Alternatives ARTIC Draft EIR 5-13 July 19, 2010 5.6 CONCLUSION The Proposed Project and the Reduced Building Size alternative would have similar operational environmental impacts and no impacts are significant with incorporation of recommended mitigation measures. The Proposed Project meets all the project objectives where the Reduced Building Size alternative meets some of the objectives and the No Project alternative does not meet the objectives. The No Project alternative has potentially significant air quality, traffic and transportation, and GHG environmental impacts for operations as the demand for parking exceeds the supply. 5.7 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE The environmentally superior alternative is the Reduced Building Size alternative. Operational environmental impacts as a result of the Reduced Building Size alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project. Construction impacts would be reduced due to the shorter construction schedule. With mitigation both alternatives are would have similar impacts. The Reduced Building Sized alternative would cost less to build and maintain but does not meet all the project objectives. The quality of the current transit service under the No Project alternative will deteriorate because the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station is operating near capacity and cannot accommodate the anticipated increased transportation demand. The parking spaces are generally utilized to full capacity (95 percent or more) daily. Assuming that no additional parking will be made available, passengers estimated under the future growth would have to park off-site and use alternate modes of transportation to the site. Pedestrian circulation would not be improved. This alternative does not meet the Proposed Project objectives. Draft EIR 5.0 Project Alternatives ARTIC Draft EIR 5-14 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Draft EIR 6.0 Growth Inducing Impact ARTIC Draft EIR 6-1 July 19, 2010 6.0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACT Section 15126.2 (d) of the CEQA Guidelines states that an EIR must “discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.” Growth can be induced by several means, including, but not limited to, eliminating obstacles to growth and encouraging economic activity within the area. According to CEQA Guidelines, growth is not necessarily considered to be beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. ARTIC will be located in an area that is experiencing growth in numerous ways, including housing, employment, and transportation needs. OCTA and the City have compiled several plans to address this anticipated growth, especially as it relates to transportation. ARTIC plays an integral role in these planning efforts. Three of these plans are the City’s Go Local Program, OCTA’s Long-Range Transportation Plan, and the Anaheim Transit Master Plan. A component of the MSEP was to extend commuter rail service by allowing cities to develop extensions that would connect the Metrolink corridor to major destinations or activity centers. In February 2006, the OCTA Board approved the Go Local Program, a four-step process for city- initiated rapid transit planning. The City’s Go Local study was initiated in January 2007. The results of this study determined that utilizing ARTIC would meet the screening threshold for the Go Local Program. OCTA’s Long-Range Transportation Plan projects that population in the County of Orange will grow by 24 percent over the next 30 years, and that approximately three million additional person trips per year will be added to the transportation system by 2030. The Long-Range Transportation Plan determined that expanding transit centers that serve multiple modes of transportation would be necessary to accommodate this growth. The Anaheim Transit Master Plan recommends a transit system to extend the reach of what will soon be a frequent, all-day Metrolink train service throughout the County of Orange. It recommends that ARTIC serve as the primary hub in the City and a key regional hub. ARTIC is a key transportation component in facilitating multimodal transit services in the City, the County of Orange, and southern California. ARTIC is a growth accommodating facility for southern California. To address potential growth-inducing impacts as a result of ARTIC and how ARTIC will integrate into the existing transportation network, the following questions will be analyzed: 1. Would this project remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the Project Area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development? 2. Would this project require the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service? Draft EIR 6.0 Growth Inducing Impact ARTIC Draft EIR 6-2 July 19, 2010 3. Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment? 4. Would approval of this project involve some precedent setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? This issue area is analyzed to provide additional information on ways in which ARTIC could contribute to significant changes in the environment, beyond the environmental impacts discussed in the preceding sections of this EIR. 1. Would this project remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the Project Area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development? ARTIC is located within the Platinum Triangle, which currently has infrastructure facilities that are readily available throughout the area. Though ARTIC will require relocating existing utilities and constructing new utilities as discussed in Section 3.6, no major new infrastructure facilities will be required. Development of ARTIC is allowed by the existing General Plan and Zoning Designations for the site. The City of Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element encourages the development of a regional intermodal transportation hub in proximity to Angel Stadium of Anaheim (City of Anaheim, 2009). Additionally, the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan provides opportunities for “transit oriented development in close proximity to existing and future rail and bus transportation facilities . . . [including] the proposed ARTIC stations” (City of Anaheim, 2009). Since ARTIC will not require changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development, this project will not remove obstacles of growth. 2. Would this project require the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service? The nature of ARTIC is to improve local and regional transportation services. In addition, implementation of ARTIC is consistent with City of Anaheim’s General Plan and supports local and regional development projections. ARTIC will not significantly impact existing public services. ARTIC will not have significant growth-inducing consequences in regards to this issue area. 3. Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment? ARTIC is intended to improve access and mobility of various modes of transportation, as well as continue to serve the surrounding existing recreational, industrial, and commercial land uses. ARTIC will accommodate a portion of existing transportation demand in the County of Orange. Construction activities expected to last approximately 26 to 36 months will generate a stimulus for the local economy due to construction-period expenditures for equipment, materials, supplies, and employment of workers by contractors. Indirect economic benefits will also occur due to the Draft EIR 6.0 Growth Inducing Impact ARTIC Draft EIR 6-3 July 19, 2010 multiplier effect as construction-generated revenues are re-spent by suppliers and workers. However, these effects are considered to be temporary effects that will occur during the construction period. Operations and maintenance of ARTIC will create new job opportunities. Growth is anticipated in the existing City of Anaheim General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (City of Anaheim 2009; City of Anaheim 2008). 4. Would approval of this project involve some precedent setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? ARTIC is consistent with the overall vision for the surrounding area, as described in the City of Anaheim General Plan and The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. No changes to the City of Anaheim building safety standards (i.e., building, grading, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, fire codes) are proposed or required to implement ARTIC, and project implementation will comply with applicable City plans, policies, ordinances, and regulations. ARTIC will accommodate projected increases in mass transit ridership, provide improved access and availability of existing mass transit resources, and encourage the reduction of current vehicle miles traveled on freeways and local arterial streets. Future transportation projects that may utilize ARTIC are already in various stages of development and will complete individual environmental assessments. ARTIC will not involve a precedent setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment. Draft EIR 6.0 Growth Inducing Impact ARTIC Draft EIR 6-4 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Draft EIR 7.0 Organizations and Agencies Consulted ARTIC Draft EIR 7-1 July 19, 2010 7.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED AMTRAK California Department of Transportation, District 12 California High-Speed Rail City of Anaheim City of Orange Native American Heritage Commission Orange County Flood Control District Orange County Sanitation District Orange County Transportation Authority Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Southern California Railroad Authority South Coast Air Quality Management District United States Army Corps of Engineers Draft EIR 7.0 Organizations and Agencies Consulted ARTIC Draft EIR 7-2 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Draft EIR 8.0 List of Preparers ARTIC Draft EIR 8-1 July 19, 2010 8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS Lead Agency City of Anaheim Department of Public Works Transit Planning Division 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California 92805 City of Anaheim Project Manager: Jamie Lai, P.E. Project Manager Department of Public Works Transit Planning Division 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California 92805 Program Manager: Anthony Venturato, P.E. STV Incorporated 100 Pacifica, Suite 140 Irvine, CA 92618 Environmental Program Manager: Andy Minor Chambers Group Inc 302 Brookside Avenue Redlands, California 92373 Report Preparers: Kleinfelder 2 Ada, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92618 Project Staff: Robert Motschall, Ph.D. (Project Manager) Michael Johnson, J.D. Chuck Cleeves Michael Counte Jim Dill, P.E Russ Erbes, CCM Lauren Ferrell, EIT Blair Baker Elyssa Figari Jeremy Janusziewicz Alexis McCollom Melissa Sherman Janet Patay Megan Kelly Kathleen McCracken Traffic Analysts: Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers 1580 Corporate Drive, Suite 122 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Keil Maberry, P.E. Zawwar Saiyed, P.E. Noise Analysts: Entech Consulting Group 43410 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Michelle Jones, P.E. Draft EIR 8.0 List of Preparers ARTIC Draft EIR 8-2 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Draft EIR 9.0 Bibliography/Literature Cited ARTIC Draft EIR 9-1 July 19, 2010 9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY/LITERATURE CITED Albert A. Webb Associates, 2007. Towne Center Traffic Impact Study. Anaheim Public Utilities. 2010. Renewable Energy. Anaheim, CA. http://www.anaheim.net/utilities/adv_svc_prog/renew_energy/info.html Anaheim Resort Transit (ART) 2010. Anaheim Resort Transit. http://www.rideart.org/index.php?loc=1 BBC, 2007. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6717671.stm Bryant, W.A. and Hart, E.W., 2007, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps: California Geological Survey Special Publication 42, 42p. (interim revision 2007). Buro Happold, 2010: Electrical Loads Calculations, February, 2010. California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2009. 1999-08-12 California Air Toxics Program Background. http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/background.htm California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2007. EMFAC 2007 Computer Model, Version 2.3, November 2006. CARB, 2008. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, a Framework for Change. Sacramento, CA. CARB, 2009. California Ambient Air Quality Standards. Reviewed November 24, 2009. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/caaqs.htm CARB, 2010. Clean Car Standards – Pavley, Assembly Bill 1493. Sacramento, CA. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/ccms.htm#rule California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), 2008. 2008 California Green Building Standards Code. Sacramento, CA. CBSC, 2008. Building Standards Bulletin 08-02. Sacramento, CA. http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/cd_qustns/documents/BSB_08-02.pdf California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387, 2007. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines. Amended July 27, 2007. CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3, §§15000-15387. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Statutes and Guidelines. Amended July, 2007. http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines California Department of Conservation (CDC), 2006. California Farmland Conversion Report, The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Index.aspx Draft EIR 9.0 Bibliography/Literature Cited ARTIC Draft EIR 9-2 July 19, 2010 California Department of Education (CDE) 2009. California Education Code http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=17001- 18000&file=17210-17224 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDFFP), 2000. Orange County, Natural Hazard Disclosure Map (Fire Map). California Department of Justice. 2010. Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Project Level, Sacramento, CA. http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf. California Department of Justice, 2010. Comment Letters filed under the California Environmental Quality Act. Sacramento, CA. http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/ceqa/comments.php. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2002. California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut/documents/ALUPHComplete-7- 02rev.pdf Caltrans, 2007. California Public Utilities Code, State Aeronautics Act. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut/documents2/puc051107.pdf Caltrans, 2007. Officially Designated State Scenic Highways and Historic Parkways, Orange County. Caltrans, 2009. Scenic Highway Guidelines. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/guidelines/scenic_hwy_guidelines.pdf California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1998. Seismic Hazard Zones Map of the Anaheim 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, California, scale 1:24,000, released April 25, 1998. California Energy Commission (CEC), 2009. 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Sacramento, CA. http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2008standards/ CEC, 2000. California Energy Demand 2000-2010. Staff Report. Technical Report to California Energy Outlook 2000. Docket #99-CEO-1. June, 2000. CEC, 2003. Buying a Photovoltaic Solar Electric System. A Consumer Guide. Handbook. 2003 Edition. March, 2003. CEC, 2006. California Commercial End-Use Survey (CEC-400-2006-005, prepared by Itron, Inc.). Sacramento, CA: CEC. CEC, 2006. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California (CEC-500-2006-118, prepared by Navigant Consulting). Sacramento, CA: CEC. CEC, 2007. Integrated Energy Policy Report. Draft EIR 9.0 Bibliography/Literature Cited ARTIC Draft EIR 9-3 July 19, 2010 California EPA, 2010. “Green House Gas Inventory 2020 Forecast”. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/forecast.htm California EPA, 2010. “Staff Report, California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Level and 2020 Emissions Limit, November 16, 2007”. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/1990level/1990level.htm California Government Code (CGC) §§8877.1-8877.6, Chapter 12.4. 1986. California Geologic Survey (CGS), 1994. Orange County Mineral Resource Publications, OFR 94-15, Mineral Land Classification of Portland Cement Concrete Aggregate in Ventura, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties, California, Part III: Orange County. CGS, 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces, Note 36. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/information/publications/cgs_notes/note_36/Docume nts/note_36.pdf CGS, 2003. Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Assessment - Peak Ground Acceleration. http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/psha/pga.htm CGS, 2007. California Department of Conservation, Seismic Hazard Zonation Program: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/shzp/Pages/SHMPrealdis.aspx California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), 2008. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Sacramento, CA. http://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/pdfs/june08-ceqa.pdf. California Public Utilities Code (PUC), §21675: Airport Environs Land Use Plan Requirements. California Stormwater Quality Association. 1993. Stormwater Best Management Practice (BMP) Handbooks, Access at: http//www.cabmphandbooks.com/ Canada, 2010. Environment Canada. http://www.ec.gc.ca/cc/ Center for Demographic Research, 2009. Orange County Facts and Figures. Cal State Fullerton, June 2009. City of Anaheim, 2005. City of Anaheim 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. City of Anaheim, 2005. The Platinum Triangle Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Number 332. City of Anaheim, 2005. Updated and Modified Mitigated Monitoring Program No. 106A for The Platinum Triangle (includes Environmental Impact Report Nos. 321, 330, and 332. City of Anaheim, 2008. Initial Study for Amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and Associated Actions. Prepared December 2008. Draft EIR 9.0 Bibliography/Literature Cited ARTIC Draft EIR 9-4 July 19, 2010 City of Anaheim, 2008. The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. October 14, 2008. City of Anaheim, 2009. Anaheim Municipal Code. City of Anaheim, 2009. Anaheim Public Utilities: Water Rules, Rates, And Regulations, Rule 15D - Main Extensions. City of Anaheim, 2009. Combined Central Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers (CCAAMPSS) – Analysis of Models for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project (DSEIR No. 339). City of Anaheim, 2009. General Plan, Revised August 11, 2009. City of Anaheim, 2009. The Platinum Triangle Water Supply Assessment Amendment 2009. City of Anaheim, 2010. A Gateway to the Future: The Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center. Power Point Presentation, January 27, 2010. City of Anaheim, 2010. City of Anaheim Fire Department, Certified Unified Program Agency Factsheet. City of Anaheim, 2010. Green Connection. Website accessed May 7, 2010. http://www.anaheim.net/section.asp?id=162 City of Anaheim, 2010. Meetings and Conversations with David Kennedy, City of Anaheim Traffic Engineer. April, 2010. City of Fullerton, 2005. General Plan, Revised October 5, 2004. City of Fullerton, 2010. City of Fullerton Transportation Center. Website accessed on April 29, 2010. http://www.ci.fullerton.ca.us/visitors/downtown_fullerton/transportation_center.asp City of Irvine, 2006. General Plan, Supplemented August 2006. City of Orange, 2009. General Plan EIR, Updated January 2009. City of Orange, 2010. General Plan, Updated March 9, 2010. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40: Protection of the Environment, May 19, 1980. CFR, Title 40, Part 51, subpart A: Air Emissions Reporting Requirements, Updated December 17, 2008. CFR, Title 40, Parts 239-258, Subtitle D: Requirements for Solid Waste Disposal Sites. CFR, Title 40, Parts 260-279, Subtitle C: Hazardous Waste Generation, Handling, Transportation, Storage, Treatment, and Disposal. Draft EIR 9.0 Bibliography/Literature Cited ARTIC Draft EIR 9-5 July 19, 2010 CFR, Title 40, Parts 280-282, Subtitle I: Underground Storage Tank Regulations. Cordoba Corporation, 2009. Needs Assessment Update and Validation. August 11, 2009. County of Orange, 2002. Orange County Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Update. County of Orange, 2005. General Plan. http://www.ocparks.com/strategicplan/OCGeneralPlan.pdf County of Orange, 2005. Scenic Highway Plan. http://www.ocplanning.net/Documents/pdf/GeneralPlan2005/Chapter_IV_Scenic_Highway_ Plan.pdf County of Orange, 2007. Regional Landfill Options for Orange Co., Strategic Plan Update. County of Orange, 2010, OC Planning Code and Regulations, 2010, available at: http://www.ocplanning.net/CodesRegulations.aspx County of Orange, 2010. OC Waste & Recycling website. http://egov.ocgov.com/ocgov/Info%20OC/Departments%20&%20Agencies/OC%20Waste %20&%20Recycling/Landfill%20Information Davis, Daniel and Julie Davis, 2006. Hazardous Material Reference Book: Cross-Index. Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), 2009. California Hazardous Waste Classification. http://ccelearn.csus.edu/wasteclass/intro/intro_01.html Dolan, J.F., Gath, E.M., Grant, L.B., Legg, M., Lindvall, S., Mueller, K., Oskin, M., Ponti, D.F., Rubin, C.M., Rockwell, T.K., Shaw, J.H., Treiman, J.A., Walls, C., and Yeats, R.S. (compilers), 2001. Active Faults in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Region: SCEC Special Publication Series No. 001, Southern California Earthquake Center, 47p. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2009. Disaster Information: Flood. http://www.fema.gov/hazard/flood/index.shtm FEMA, 2009. Floodplain Management Requirements. http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/floodplain/fm_sg.shtm FEMA, 2009. The National Flood Insurance Program. http://www.fema.gov/about/programs/nfip/index.shtm FEMA, 2010. FEMA FIRM Map ID 06059C0142J, 2009, available at: http://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/MapSearchResult?storeId=10001&catalogI d=10001&langId=- 1&userType=G&panelIDs=06059C0142J&Type=pbp&nonprinted=&unmapped= Draft EIR 9.0 Bibliography/Literature Cited ARTIC Draft EIR 9-6 July 19, 2010 Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. FTA-VA-90-1003-06. Office of Planning and Environment, May 2006. Fennie, 2005. The Space Place, Space Planning: Seismic Retrofit Requirements and Their Triggers. http://www.thespaceplace.net/articles/fennie200501b.php General Code of Operating Rules (GCOR), 2005. 6.0 Movement of Trains and Engines, April 3, 2005. Greenwood, R.B. and Pridmore, C.L, 2001. Liquefaction zones in the Anaheim and Newport Beach 7.5-minute quadrangles, Orange County, California, in Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Anaheim and Newport Beach 7.5-minute quadrangles, Orange County, California: California Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Zone Report 03, pp. 5-18; Plates 1.1 and 1.2. International Energy Agency, 2010. http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/ Integrated Waste Management Department, 2001. Regional Landfill Options for Orange County, Strategic Plan. Integrated Waste Management Department, 2007. Regional Landfill Options for Orange County, Strategic Plan Update 2007. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Summary for Policymakers (Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Boulder, CO: IPCC, Working Group I. International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 1997. Handbook to the 1997 Uniform Building Codes. Kleinfelder, 2009, Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Proposed ARTIC Phase I Project, Anaheim, California, October 23, 2009. Kleinfelder, 2009. Draft Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center. July 17, 2009 Kleinfelder, 2009. Limited Preliminary Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. December 23, 2009 LSA Associates, Inc., 2009. State Route 57 Northbound Widening Project Between Katella Avenue and Lincoln Avenue; Initial Study with Negative Declaration. Prepared for Caltrans. November 2009. LSA Associates, Inc., 2009. State Route 57 Northbound Widening Project Between Katella Avenue and Lincoln Avenue; Noise Study Report. Prepared for Caltrans. January 2009. Draft EIR 9.0 Bibliography/Literature Cited ARTIC Draft EIR 9-7 July 19, 2010 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), 2007. Chapter IV – Groundwater Basin Reports, Orange County Basins, in A Status Report on the use of Groundwater in the Service Area of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Report No. 1308, pp. IV-10-1 – IV-10-26. www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/yourwater/supply/groundwater/GWAS.html Morton, D.M., K.R. Bovard and R.M. Alvarez, 2004. Preliminary digital geologic map of the Santa Ana 30’x60’ quadrangle, southern California, version 2.0: US Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-172. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 1983. National Engineering Handbook. National Public Radio (NPR), 2010. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=%2014087783 Orange County Department of Public Works Flood Control Division (OCDPWFCD), 2010. http://www.ocflood.com/ Orange County Sheriff’s Department, 2010. Mass Transit Bureau. Website accessed May 17, 2010 http://egov.ocgov.com/ocgov/Sheriff- Coroner/Divisions/Homeland%20Security/Mass%20Transit%20Bureau Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), 2006. New Directions: Chartering the course for Orange County’s future transportation system. 2006 Long-Range Transportation Plan, July 24, 2006. Orange County Water District, 2004, Groundwater Management Plan, dated March 2004, available at: http://www.ocwd.com. OCTA, 2006. Final EIR for the Long Range Transportation Plan. July 2006. OCTA, 2009. Fullerton Metrolink Station Fast Facts. July 16, 2009. OCTA, 2009. Irvine Metrolink Station Fast Facts. July 13, 2009. OCTA, 2009. Orange Metrolink Station Fast Facts. July 28, 2009. Orange County Water District (OCWD), 2004. Groundwater Management Plan, dated March 2004, available at: http://www.ocwd.com. Psomas, 2009. Amendment to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment. Santa Ana, CA. Psomas, 2009. The Platinum Triangle Water Supply Assessment. Prepared for the City of Anaheim, September 2009. Roberts, Neil, 1998. The Holocene: An Environmental History (2nd Ed.). Blackwell Publishers, Inc.; Malden, MA. Draft EIR 9.0 Bibliography/Literature Cited ARTIC Draft EIR 9-8 July 19, 2010 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, 2009. Road Construction Emissions Model (RCEM), Version 6.3.2, July 2009. Santa Ana River Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB), 2008. Santa Ana Region Basin Plan. Updated February, 2008. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb8/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/index.shtml SARWQCB, 2009. California Environmental Protection Agency, Santa Ana Region. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb8/ Schoellhamer, J.E., Vedder, J.G, Yerkes, R.F., and Kinney, D.M., 1981. Geology of the northern Santa Ana Mountains, California: US Geological Survey Professional Paper 420-D, 109p. Shaw, J.H., Plesch, A., Dolan, J.F., Pratt, T.L., and Fiore, P., 2002. Puente hills blind-thrust system, Los Angeles, California: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Volume 92, No. 8, pp. 2946–2960. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993. SCAQMD, 2007. Draft 2007 Air Quality Management Plan, November 2006. SCAQMD, 2007. Urban Emissions Model (URBEMIS) Computer Model, version 9.2, June 2007. SCAQMD, 2008. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Thresholds. Diamond Bar, CA. SCAQMD, 2010. Rules and Regulations, March 2010. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 2010. Regional Comprehensive Plan, 2008, available at: http://www.scag.ca.gov/index.htm. Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), 1994. Anaheim to Santa Ana, Second Main Track Addition, Bridge 170.8-Douglass Road Underpass, Log of Test Borings, Sheet No. 62, dated February 15, 1994. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2009. Construction Stormwater Permit. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.shtml SWRCB, 2009. Basin Plan. Updated February, 2008. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb8/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/docs/chapter3.pdf SWRCB, 2009. Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Amended January 1, 2009. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/laws_regulations/docs/portercologne.pdf Streets and Highways Code, §260 et seq. Caltrans, California Scenic Highways Program, Updated 2009. Draft EIR 9.0 Bibliography/Literature Cited ARTIC Draft EIR 9-9 July 19, 2010 United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), 1999. Compliance with Railroad Operating Rules and Corporate Culture Influence. http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/ord9909.pdf USDOT, 2000. 23 USC 162, National Scenic Byways Program. USDOT, 2009. National Scenic Byways Online. http://www.byways.org/ United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2000. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Superfund: 20 Years of Protecting Human Health and the Environment http://epa.gov/superfund/20years/index.htm USEPA, 2010. EPA and NHTSA Finalize Historic National Program to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improve Fuel Economy for Cars and Trucks, EPA-420-F-10-014, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/420f10014.htm USEPA, 2004. CAL3QHC Computer Model, MCB#6, September 2004. USEPA, 2009. Climate Change – Regulatory Initiatives: Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act. Washington, D.C. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html. USEPA, 2009. Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. http://www.epa.gov/OEM/content/lawsregs/hmtaover.htm USEPA, 2009. History of the Clean Water Act. http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/cwahistory.html USEPA, 2009. Introduction to the Clean Water Act. http://www.epa.gov/watertrain/cwa/ USEPA, 2009. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/cwa.cfm?program_id=45 USEPA, 2009. Office of Waste Management. http://www.epa.gov/owm/ USEPA, 2009. Wastes - Non-Hazardous Waste. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/index.htm USEPA, 2010. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policy/index.html United States Code (USC), Title 33, §1251-1376: Federal Water Pollution Control Act. USC, Title 42, §§4321-4370: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Updated January 19, 2004. USC, Title 42, §5101-5127: Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975. USC, Title 42, Chapter 103: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980. Draft EIR 9.0 Bibliography/Literature Cited ARTIC Draft EIR 9-10 July 19, 2010 USC, Title 42, Chapter 116: Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know-Act of 1986. USC, Title 42, Chapter 321: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. United State Geological Survey (USGS), 1981. Anaheim, California 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle. Western Regional Climate Center, 2009. Period of Monthly Climate Summary, Anaheim, California, available at: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca0192 World Resources Institute (WRI), 2009. Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) version 7.0. Washington, D.C. http://cait.wri.org/ Appendices A-I (See attached CD) ATTACHMENT NO. 6 1 Susan Kim From:Amy Davis [dacj@sbcglobal.net] Sent:Wednesday, August 25, 2010 2:31 PM To:Susan Kim Subject:Comments on the Transit Center as Illustrated Today it is 98F outside in Anaheim, not far from the Platinum Triangle. A large glass structure as is shown in illustrations of the proposed train station. The glass will collect heat and be very hard to cool. The energy costs for cooling such a structure can be enormous as well as possibly causing some breakdowns to electric systems inside and related to train operations. I was in Germany this summer, during their high heat period. The Cologne Train Station is a beautiful glass building. It was designed for the days when German summers were 20F cooler. It is a mistake to use this as a standard to work from, as I was in Germany during their high heat events in July. Many of the train breakdowns were in the Cologne/Frankfurt transit area. The German's lack of experience with such high heat made many building difficult to inhabit, as they trapped heat. This may have related to some of the problems with switch timing. I was on a train that had the green light, yet another train was switched across our track - luckily the train master was able to react and slow our train, and angrily report the incident. I don't know what all of their problems were during those 100F + days, but the old Frankfurt train station, with very little glass, was more pleasant than the beautiful Cologne train station. In California, high heat is a problem and not designing to avoid heat entrapment/reflection of heat on to neighboring structures (The Disney Concert Hall is an example of a heat endangering neighbor) is not only economically stupid but inexcusable as heat is common here almost any time of the year. Amy Davis 1677 Ord Wy. Anaheim “The Department improves mobility across California” STATE OF CALIFORNIA------- BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 12 3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380 Irvine, CA 92612-8894 Tel: (949) 724-2241 Fax: (949) 724-2592 Flex your power! Be energy efficient! FAX & MAIL September 3, 2010 Jamie Lai City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 276 Anaheim, California 92805 File: IGR/CEQA SCH#: 2009071071 IGR Log #: 2324-C I-5, SR-22, SR-57 Subject: Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) - Draft EIR & Traffic Impact Study Dear Ms. Lai, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report and Traffic Impact Study dated July 19, 2010 for the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC). The City, in partnership with OCTA, is proposing to relocate the existing Anaheim Metrolink /Amtrack Station that is south of Katella Avenue and adjacent to The Grove of Anaheim. The new location will be approximately one quarter mile east along the existing OCTA rail road right of way. Development of the proposed project is necessary due to increasing rail passenger demand, the inability to expand the existing Metrolink Station parking, limited access to the existing Metrolink site, and the need for connections enabling travelers to transfer from one mode of transit service to another via a regional hub. ARTIC’s development is an integral element of OCTA’s gateway to regional rail program and will include passenger –oriented retail and civic space and will provide up to 960 parking spaces with in three parking lots. ARTIC also fits well in the Renewed Measure M project “T” program that will provide funding to convert Metrolink stations to regional gateways that will connect Orange County with high speed rail systems. The proposed ARTIC site is planned to be the only Orange County Metrolink station site designated as a destination stop by the California High Speed Rail Authority. The project site is located in the City of Anaheim and is bounded by SR-57, Katella Avenue, Douglas Street, the Santa Ana River, and the LOSSAN rail corridor. The California Department of Transportation (Department), District 12 is a responsible agency on this project and has the following comments: 1. The Department is prepared to work with the City of Anaheim to develop a Transportation Impact Mitigation Agreement based on fair-share contributions for infrastructure improvements on the State Highway System to reduce impacts related to The Platinum Triangle, Anaheim Resort Area and ARTIC to a less than significant level. The Department suggests development of a comprehensive Transportation Impact Mitigation Agreement which includes all of the aforementioned development proposals. “The Department improves mobility across California” 2. Attached is a list of potential mitigation projects that the Department considers to be reasonable, feasible and satisfactory in addressing the Department’s concerns regarding potential impacts to the State Highway System. The City should contribute to these projects on a fair share basis through the City’s developer Traffic Impact Fees program as indicated in Table 1-4 MM 9-10 to lessen the impacts associated with Platinum Triangle, Anaheim Resort Area and ARTIC. 3. Table 2.6-1 on page 2-46 reflects the cumulative total daily boarding among all modes of transportation at the ARTIC is anticipated to increase from the existing 8,614 to ultimately 51,915 by the year 2021. This shows an increase of 650% over the existing daily boardings which results in increased demand due to new transit developments and transportation services, which is indicative of the magnitude of the ARTIC impact. In addition to this development, other major developments such as Anaheim Platinum Triangle and Anaheim Resort Area will also impact the State Highway System and collectively need to be all taken into account as cumulative impacts to the area intersections and State Highway Facilities. 4. Freeway peak hour segment capacity analysis is not provided for I-5 in the TIS. 5. For mainline segment capacity analysis, the important average true speed factor is missing from the tables and it appears that free flow speeds have been utilized to arrive at unrealistic density and LOS values in the associated Tables. Mitigation measures and fair share calculations need to be based on true and realistic data and resulting values. 6. Queuing analysis needs to be provided for all on and off ramps in the Study Area to avoid congestion and also address the important safety concerns of the Department related to traffic backing up on to the freeway mainline. Speeds and densities are not the only determining factors in evaluating the ramps performance and LOS. Other factors such as volume, lane/storage capacity, and delays caused by ramp meter or ramp intersection signal settings, are involved to prevent ramp traffic from spilling onto the freeway mainlines or adjacent streets and intersections. 7. Page 3.2-30, Table 3.2-13, ARTIC Trip Generation Rates indicates values that are different from the ones shown in the ITE Trip Generation 7th Edition. Provide reasons for the difference and how you arrived at your numbers. 8. The traffic impacts from the Platinum Triangle and Anaheim Resort development projects need to be included in the cumulatively impacts in the analysis. Further, mitigation measures and proposed improvements to State facilities need to be considered to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. 9. Year 2013 is indicated to be the project completion year. The horizon year for traffic forecasting should be 2035, not 2030. 10. The Department's Highway Design Manual specifies the use of unconstrained volumes when conducting a Traffic analysis. “The Department improves mobility across California” 11. The document states that the ITE rates were used yet there is a difference between the ITE rates and those shown in TABLE 5-1. Provide justification for the trip generation rates and directional distribution used in TABLE 5-1. 12. The directional distribution (entering and exiting) on TABLE 5-1 add up to 0.84 and 0.69 in the AM and PM respectively not to 1.0 (100%). Please explain why this is the case. 13. The document states that The Department does not have any additional improvements identified or planned for the identified impacted and deficient segments. Attached is a list of proposed projects which can be considered as potential mitigation measures for Anaheim Platinum Triangle. 14. Mitigation Measure TT-2: When will the City and The Department develop a study to identify fair share mitigation measures? 15. Mitigation Measure TT-7, TT-8, TT-9, etc. describe widening freeways. As noted in the EIR some of these projects are under construction or will be constructed. These projects are not considered to be mitigation measures for the ARTIC project. 16. If any project work (e.g. storage of materials, street widening, emergency access improvements, sewer connections, sound walls, storm drain construction, street connections, etc.) will occur in the vicinity of the Department’s Right of way, an encroachment permit is required prior to commencement of work. Please allow 2 to 4 weeks for a complete submittal to be reviewed and for a permit to be issued. When applying for an Encroachment Permit, please incorporate Environmental Documentation, SWPPP/ WPCP, Hydraulic Calculations, Traffic Control Plans, Geotechnical Analysis, Right of way certification and all relevant design details including design exception approvals. For specific details on the Department’s Encroachment Permits procedure, please refer to the Department’s Encroachment Permits Manual. The latest edition of the manual is available on the web site: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/developserv/permits/ 17. Description and Evaluation of Alternatives section- When were the other Alternatives eliminated from consideration? 18. Description and Evaluation of Alternatives section- This document should analyze all alternatives equally. 19. All activities within The Department’s right of way must fully conform to The Department Statewide NPDES Permit No. CAS000003 (Order No. 99-06-DWQ), in addition to the BMPs specified in The Department Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP). 20. Any work that encroaches or discharges onto State right of way will require an encroachment permit. A Finalized WQMP and SWPPP would need to be reviewed by The Department. 21. A separate dewatering permit may be needed if dewatering is anticipated. Groundwater extraction and similar waste discharges from construction, remediation, and permanent “The Department improves mobility across California” groundwater extraction projects to surface waters are regulated under the general permit, Order R8-2009-0003 (NPDES No. CAG998001). 22. Should an encroachment permit and dewatering permit be necessary, please note that encroachment permit prohibits the discharge of groundwater onto State right of way or facilities. This project will adversely impact the State Transportation System. The Department believes we can work together as partners to maintain and enhance economic stability within the region. We would like to extend an invitation to the City to schedule a meeting to discuss fair-share contributions related to the traffic impacts generated by this project. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at (949) 724-2267. Sincerely, Christopher Herre, Branch Chief Local Development/Intergovernmental Review C: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research California Regional Water Quality Control Board & '.. Santa Ana Region • 3737 Main Street, Suite 500, Riverside, California 92501·3348 Linda S. Adams Phone (951) 782-4130· FAX (951) 781-6288· TDD (951) 782-3221 Arnold Schwarzenegger Secretary for www.waterboards.cagov/sarnaana Governor Environmental Protection September 2, 2010 Jamie Lai City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Blvd, Suite 276 Anaheim, CA 92805 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ANAHEIM REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION INTERMODAL CENTER (ARTIC), DOUGLAS ROAD SOUTH OF KATELLA AVENUE, ANAHEIM, SCH# 2009071071 Dear Ms. Lai: Staff of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (Regional Board) have reviewed the City of Anaheim's (City) Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC)(Project), to be located between Douglas Road and the western bank of the Santa Ana River (SAR), east of Anaheim Stadium and south of Honda Center. The Project consists of a major transportation terminal to centralize transit by rail, bus, and fixed guideway, and it will include train tracks, associated platforms and walkways, and surface parking. Specific platform design to accommodate High-Speed Trains remains indeterminate in this DEIR. The following comments supplement our earlier letters regarding this Project (not in Appendix A), in keeping with our overall responsibility of protecting and enhancing water quality standards (water quality objectives and beneficial uses) contained in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Region 8 Basin Plan): 1. DEIR pg. 2-41 discusses the discharge of stormwater from the Project site to the SAR, through the existing 48-inch pipe extending through the SAR's western embankment. However, this page vaguely states that Best Management Practices (BMPs), in compliance with the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) required by Order No. RB8-2009-0030 1 , will be "designed into the drainage system." We are aware that a preliminary WQMP has been prepared for the Project but note that it was not included in the DEIR. Failure to prepare a conceptual or preliminary WQMP prior to Project approval does not implement Section 7 of the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP pgs. 7-27, 28, 29 and Exhibit 7.1 2 ). In turn, failure to implement the DAMP is a violation of Provision 1I.A.1 of Order No. RB8-2009-0030. Therefore, the DEIR does not currently meet the Order's standard for "maximum extent "RB8-2009-0030, NPDES No. CAS618030, Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana River Region, Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff, Orange County." We note the DEIR's citation of the previous Order No. R8 2002-0010. Also, we concur with the salient discussion of the Order and WQMP in the recent City of Orange letter, Appendix A, p.29. 2 "Guidance for Preparing and Reviewing CEQA Initial Studies and Environmental Impact Reports." r>J California ~ironmental Protection Agency Ms Jaime Lai -2-September 2, 2010 practicable" BMPs. In the Final EIR, please include the preliminary WQMP (or latest version) and elaborate on all likely BMPs to be utilized in Project construction/post construction to address the removal of potential pollutants from storm water runoff. Current text should be amended to include requirements of the DAMP, particularly Exhibit 7.1. 2. DEIR Section 3.8.4 essentially concludes that the Project will have "no impact" to water quality (except for impacts to groundwater recharge, Le., from pavement and some infiltration), despite known types of urban runoff impacts discussed in Order No. RB8 2009-0030. Further, the DEIR generalizes that with the WQMP and BMPs in place, the construction and operation of ARTIC will not "provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff," yet the DEIR does not analyze for any increase of polluted runoff relative to baseline conditions. The DEIR must evaluate potential water quality impacts prior to the implementation of the BMPs (not afterward as apparent from the text) and determine any need for mitigation for impacts to water quality standards. The DEIR does not clarify (and should) whether the implementation of the BMPs are intended to constitute mitigation measures, project desjgn features, or Standard Conditions of Approval, because the latter two are not considered regulatory mitigation. Also, the DEIR does not explain the relationship between BMPs, WQMP, and pollutant removal. For the Final EIR, please discuss this relationship, assess new sources of contaminated runoff posed by the Project, and if appropriate, include a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan. As you may be aware, the City is currently undergoing an audit of its New Development element of its Storm Water Program. As part of that audit, Regional Board staff have undertaken this review of the ARTIC DEIR and subsequent iterations. You may contact Adam Fischer of our Coastal Storm Water Section regarding the audit and the contents of this letter at (951) 320-6363, or afischer@waterboards.ca.gov . Also, if you have any questions regarding our CEQA review, please contact me at (951) 782-3259, or grobertson@waterboards.ca.gov, or Mark Adelson, Chief of the Regional Planning Programs Section, at (951) 782-3234, or madelson@waterboards.ca.gov Sincerely, Glenn Robertson Engineering Geologist Regional Planning Programs Section cc: State Clearinghouse U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles -Veronica Chan U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service! HST Resource Agency Technical Working Grp, Carlsbad -Sally Brown Califomia Department of Fish and Game, Los Alamitos -Helen Birss Califomia High-Speed Rail Authority, Sacramento -Dan Leavitt State Water Resources Control Board -Catherine Woody Orange County RDMD, Flood Control, Santa Ana -Andy Ngo X:Groberts on MagnolialDatalCEONCEOA ResponsesJDEIR-City of Anaheim-ARTIC rv California Hrdironmental Protection Agency ATTACHMENT NO. 7 August 30, 2010 Stephen Faessel, Chairman City of Anaheim Planning Commission Anaheim City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 RE: SUPPORT FOR ARTIC – Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Dear Chairman Faessel: S.O.A.R. (Support Our Anaheim Resort) supports the City of Anaheim’s efforts to design and build the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC), a vision creating a 21st century transportation hub for Anaheim and the Orange County region. ARTIC will be instrumental in transforming the future of Anaheim and Orange County. ARTIC will serve as a hub for Orange County and the region, a landmark where freeways, major arterials, bus routes and Orange County’s backbone rail transit system converge. The network of transit choices will continue to grow in the coming years as the number of Metrolink and Amtrak trains serving Anaheim and local and express bus routes increase. S.O.A.R. is a broad coalition of more than 10,000 local business owners, community leaders and Anaheim residents that advocate the protection and promotion of the Anaheim Resort District. S.O.A.R. appreciates the City’s leadership and vision in creating ARTIC, which will serve the Anaheim Resort District, our community and region in the years to come. Sincerely, Jill Kanzler Ocean Center Building 110 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 19 Long Beach, CA 90802 Tel 562.733.0106 Fax 562.733.0107 www.bikestation.com Monday, August 30, 2010 Stephen Faessel, Chairman City of Anaheim Planning Commission Anaheim City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 RE: SUPPORT FOR ARTIC – Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Dear Chairman Faessel: Bikestation supports the City of Anaheim’s efforts to design and build the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC), a vision creating a 21st century transportation hub for Anaheim and the Orange County region. ARTIC will be instrumental in transforming the future of Anaheim and Orange County. ARTIC will serve as a hub for Orange County and the region, a landmark where freeways, major arterials, bus routes and Orange County’s backbone rail transit system converge. The network of transit choices will continue to grow in the coming years as the number of Metrolink and Amtrak trains serving Anaheim and local and express bus routes increase. ARTIC will accommodate these services as well as plans for future high speed trains and Anaheim Rapid Connection (ARC). These critical transportation systems will provide Anaheim residents, businesses and visitors with the much needed access to transportation and increased mobility through the potential use of federal, state, local and private resources to help deliver these state-of-the-art systems. ARTIC is needed to get people moving again as research shows traffic congestion costs California $20 billion per year in wasted fuel and lost time. State of the art, well-planned access to and support services for cyclists at the station will be an important part of determining the success of the ARTIC facility, and we are particularly supportive of plans that include such design. Ocean Center Building 110 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 19 Long Beach, CA 90802 Tel 562.733.0106 Fax 562.733.0107 www.bikestation.com The environmentally-friendly design of ARTIC is a significant benefit. ARTIC will be built in accordance with LEED™ (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) "Platinum" certification. By achieving a Platinum rating, ARTIC operations can experience a dramatic reduction of energy use, water use, solid waste produced and CO2 emissions. It will also help meet the goals of AB32 and SB375 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Bikestation appreciates the City’s leadership and vision in creating ARTIC, which will serve our community and region in the years to come. We look forward to continuing to support projects that improve the quality of life for Anaheim’s residents and businesses alike while increasing options to conveniently access Anaheim. Sincerely, Andrea White-Kjoss President and CEO Bikestation/Mobis Transportation Alternatives Orange County Bicycle Coalition 2400 Calle Monte Carlo, San Clemente Ca 92672 9/01/2010 Stephen Faessel, Chairman City of Anaheim Planning Commission Anaheim City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 RE: SUPPORT FOR ARTIC – Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Dear Chairman Faessel: Provided that planners and designers of ARTIC incorporate bicycle serving amenities in their designs from the start, the Orange County Bicycle Coalition supports the City of Anaheim’s efforts to design and build the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC). OCBC appreciates the tremendous value a 21st century intermodal transportation hub will provide for the citizens of Anaheim and the Orange County region. Bicycles are portable personal transportation devices which link the “last mile” with the modes of service ARTIC will support. It will be a hub for Orange County and the region, a landmark where the Santa Ana River bikeway, freeways, major arterials, bus routes, and Orange County’s backbone rail transit system all converge. ARTIC will enhance transportation options for cyclists in Anaheim and throughout the county. Federal, state, and private agencies agree on the need for truly attractive state-of-the-art transportation systems which are capable of luring citizens from their automobiles. Bicycles combined with rail and modern bus service are one such system. ARTIC is needed to get people moving again as research shows traffic congestion costs California $20 billion per year in wasted fuel and lost time. We applaud the environmentally-friendly design of ARTIC, built in accordance with LEED™ (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) "Platinum" certification. We hope the designers will incorporate features and facilities which accommodate cyclists as fully entitled transportation patrons. The Orange County Bicycle Coalition appreciates the City’s leadership and vision in creating ARTIC, which will serve our region in the decades to come. We look forward to continuing to support projects that improve the quality of life for Orange County residents and businesses alike. Sincerely, Executive Director August 24, 2010 Stephen Faessel, Chairman City of Anaheim Planning Commission Anaheim City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 RE: SUPPORT FOR ARTIC – Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Dear Chairman Faessel: The Building Industry Association of Orange County (BIA/OC) supports the City of Anaheim’s efforts to design and build the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC), a vision creating a 21st century transportation hub for Anaheim and the Orange County region. ARTIC will be instrumental in transforming the future of Anaheim and Orange County. ARTIC will serve as a hub for Orange County and the region, a landmark where freeways, major arterials, bus routes and Orange County’s backbone rail transit system converge. The network of transit choices will continue to grow in the coming years as the number of Metrolink and Amtrak trains serving Anaheim and local and express bus routes increase. ARTIC will accommodate these services as well as plans for future high speed trains and Anaheim Rapid Connection (ARC). These critical transportation systems will provide Anaheim residents, businesses and visitors with the much needed access to transportation and increased mobility through the potential use of federal, state, local and private resources to help deliver these state-of-the-art systems. ARTIC is needed to get people moving again as research shows traffic congestion costs California $20 billion per year in wasted fuel and lost time. The Mixed-Use District surrounding the ARTIC will be a catalyst for urban infill development, connecting Angel Stadium, the Honda Center, The Platinum Triangle and other commercial development, as well as generating new development opportunities that complement and support the local community. ARTIC will also serve as an economic catalyst for the local community stimulating the economy through job creation – both construction and permanent for the tourism industry. ARTIC is expected to create approximately 5,000 estimated jobs based upon project costs of $184 million. The BIA/OC appreciates the City’s leadership and vision in creating ARTIC, which will serve our community and region in the years to come. We look forward to continuing to support projects that improve the quality of life for Anaheim’s residents and businesses alike while increasing options to conveniently access Anaheim. Sincerely, Kristine E. Thalman Chief Executive Officer, BIA/OC CC: Anaheim City Council Jamie Lai, Anaheim Transit Manager Orange County Chapter Building Industry Association of Southern California 17744 Sky Park Circle Suite 170 Irvine, California 92614 949.553.9500 fax 949.553.9507 www.biaoc.com www.newhomesmatch.com Your industry’s comprehensive online guide to new homes PRESIDENT DAVE BARTLETT BROOKFIELD HOMES VICE PRESIDENT PAUL HERNANDEZ IRVINE COMPANY 2ND VICE PRESIDENT MICHAEL McCANN CALMAR DEVELOPMENT TREASURER CHRIS HAINES PULTE HOMES/DEL WEBB SECRETARY DAVE BULLOCH STANDARD PACIFIC HOMES IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIIDENT PAUL JOHNSON RANCHO MISSION VIEJO TRADE CONTRACTOR COUNCIL V.P. JIM YATES GOLDEN WEST PLUMBING ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT MARK HIMMELSTEIN NEWMEYER & DILLION, LLP MEMBER-AT-LARGE BILL WATT BAYWOOD DEVELOPMENT MEMBER-AT-LARGE MIKE WINTER SARES-REGIS KRISTINE THALMAN CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER C-G (BCC) DEV 2010-00128 RETAILC-G (BCC) RETAIL RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE C-G (BCC) AUTO REPAIR/ SERVICE C-G (BCC)RETAILC-G (BCC)CRYSTAL INNC-G (BCC)RETAILC-G (BCC) RETAIL C-G (BCC) RETAIL C-G (BCC) CAR WASH C-G (BCC) BOWLING ALLEY T (BCC)RELIGIOUS USERS-2 (BCC)SFRC-G (BCC) RETAIL RS-2 RM-4 THE GRAND RESORT APARTMENTS 768 DU RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RM-2 (BCC) CONDOMINIUMS/TOWNHOUSES RM-2 (BCC) CONDOMINIUMS/TOWNHOUSES RM-2 (BCC) CONDOMINIUMS/TOWNHOUSES RM-2 (BCC) CONDOMINIUMS/TOWNHOUSES RM-2 (BCC) CONDOMINIUMS/TOWNHOUSES C-G (BCC) RETAIL C-G (BCC) RETAILC-G (BCC) RETAIL C-G (BCC) RETAILC-G (BCC) RETAIL C-G (BCC) RETAIL RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RM-2 (BCC) CONDOMINIUMS/TOWNHOUSES C-G (BCC) MEDICAL OFFICE C-G (BCC) RETAIL RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR C-G (BCC) RETAIL T (BCC) SFRC-G (BCC)RETAILC-G (BCC) RETAIL C-G (BCC) SFR T (BCC) SFR ||115'||278' W LINCOLN AVE S BROOKHURST STN BROOKHURST STW HIAWATHA AVEN LINDSAY STN BIRCHER STN RANCHITO STW LINDSAY RD N ROB WAYS LINHAVEN CIR W CHERRYWOOD LN 5 W. BROADWAY W. CRESCENT AVE S. EUCLID STN. EUCLID STN. MAGNOLIA AVES. BROOKHURST STN. BROOKHURST STW. LINCOLN AVE W. LINCOLN AVE 110092162 West Lincoln Avenue DEV2010-00128 Subject Property APN: 128-011-03 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 W LINCOLN AVE S BROOKHURST STN BROOKHURST STW HIAWATHA AVEN LINDSAY STN BIRCHER STN RANCHITO STW LINDSAY RD N LINDSAY RDN ROB WAYS LINHAVEN CIRW CHERRYWOOD LN 5 W. BROADWAY W. CRESCENT AVE S. EUCLID STN. EUCLID STN. MAGNOLIA AVES. BROOKHURST STN. BROOKHURST STW. LINCOLN AVE W. LINCOLN AVE 110092162 West Lincoln Avenue DEV2010-00128 Subject Property APN: 128-011-03 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. T DEV 2010-00087 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RM-4 CONDOS RM-2 TOWNHOMES 21 DU RS-2 SFR RS-2 AGRICULTURE RM-2 TOWNHOMES 11 DU C-G VACANT T RELIGIOUS USE RM-3 OLIVEWOOD APARTMENTS 13 DU RM-4 BRIAR COURT APTS 21 DU RM-4 BELL COURT APARTMENTS 52 DU T VACANT RM-4 APTS 8 DU C-G OFFICES RM-4 APTS 15 DU RM-4CHEZ PAREEAPARTMENTS23 DURS-2 SFR C-G RETAIL C-G RETAIL T OFFICES T SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR T SFR T SFRRS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-3SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCERS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR ||240'RM-3 WESTERN GARDEN APARTMENTS 17 DU ||165'W BALL RD S WESTERN AVEW TERANIMAR DR S WESTCHESTER DRS COURSON DRW ROM E AVE S OAKHAVEN DRW DEERWOOD DR W GLEN HOLLY DR S RAMBLEWOOD DRW. BALL RD W. ORANGE AVE S. DALE AVES. KNOTT AVE. CERRITOS AVE S. BEACH BLVD. BEACH BLVD. BALL RD W. CERRITOS AVE 11010851 & 905 South Western Avenue DEV2010-00087 Subject Property APN: 079-441-11 079-441-10 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 W BALL RD S WESTERN AVEW TERANIMAR DR S WESTCHESTER DRS COURSON DRW ROM E AVE S OAKHAVEN DRW DEERWOOD DR W GLEN HOLLY DR S RAMBLEWOOD DRS NEVEEN LNS CABERNET CIRW. BALL RD W. ORANGE AVE S. DALE AVES. KNOTT AVE. CERRITOS AVE S. BEACH BLVD. BEACH BLVD. BALL RD W. CERRITOS AVE 11010851 & 905 South Western Avenue DEV2010-00087 Subject Property APN: 079-441-11 079-441-10 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. C-G (BCC) DEV 2010-00063 RETAIL C-G (BCC) INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL C-G (BCC) FAIRMONT PRIVATE SCHOOL T (BCC) BROOKHURST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL T (BCC) FIRE STATION I INDUSTRIAL I (BCC) SELF STORAGE FACILITY C-G (BCC) RETAIL C-G (BCC) RETAIL C-G (BCC) RETAIL C-G (BCC) INDUSTRIAL T (BCC) WATER WELLS 5 W CRESCENT AVEN BROOKHURST STN VALLEY STW SEQUOIA AVEW GRAMERCY AVE 5 W. LA PALMA AVE N. EUCLID STN. MAGNOLIA AVEW. LINCOLN AVE W. CRESCENT AVE W. ROMNEYA DR W. LINCOLN AVE W. CRESCENT AVE 11010800 North Brookhurst Street DEV2010-00063 Subject Property APN: 072-060-65 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 W CRESCENT AVEN BROOKHURST STN VALLEY STW SEQUOIA AVEW GRAMERCY AVE 5 W. LA PALMA AVE N. EUCLID STN. MAGNOLIA AVEW. LINCOLN AVE W. CRESCENT AVE W. ROMNEYA DR W. LINCOLN AVE W. CRESCENT AVE 11010800 North Brookhurst Street DEV2010-00063 Subject Property APN: 072-060-65 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 5 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2010-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT CLASS 15 AND CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS ARE THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2010-109 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05500 (DEV2010-00063) (800 – 814 NORTH BROOKHURST STREET) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Parcel No. 2010-109 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05500 to subdivide a 9.45 acre property into two commercial lots and construct a new 2,192 square foot, fast food drive-through restaurant and for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. WHEREAS, this property is currently developed with a home improvement store located in the General Commercial (C-G) BCC (Brookhurst Corridor Overlay) zone and the Anaheim General Plan designates the property for general commercial land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on September 13, 2010, at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed tentative parcel map and conditional use permit to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing with respect to the request for a tentative parcel map, does find and determine the following facts: 1. That the proposed subdivision, including its design and existing improvements, is consistent with the Anaheim General Plan and the development standards contained in the General Commercial (C-G) BCC (Brookhurst Corridor Overlay) zone. 2. That the site is physically suitable for the type of proposed commercial subdivision. 3. That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will observe all existing easements for the use of, or access through the property and are not likely to cause serious public health problems, as the site is currently developed with an asphalt parking lot and all proposed construction will occur on land already paved for parking. 4. That the existing layout of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, as - 2 - PC2010-*** the site is developed with an asphalt parking lot and no sensitive environmental habitat has been identified. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does further find and determine that the request for a conditional use permit should be approved for the following reasons: 1. The request to construct a new 2,950 square foot Burger King fast food drive- through restaurant is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized under Code Section Nos. 18.08.030 (Primary Uses, Commercial Zones) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 2. The proposed fast food drive-through restaurant, as conditioned herein, would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the site is currently utilized as a commercial use with no adverse affects to adjoining land uses. 3. The size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety of the citizens of Anaheim because a fast food drive-through restaurant will not impact the development of the area. 4. The traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the traffic generated by this use will not exceed the volume of traffic planned for the streets and highways in the area and further the results of parking analysis indicate that 499 parking spaces are sufficient for both the restaurant and home improvement store. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim as the proposed land use will continue to be compatible with the surrounding area because this use is not a health or safety risk to the citizens of the City of Anaheim. WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15303, Class 15 (Minor Land Divisions) and Class 32 (In-fill Development Projects) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 2010-109 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05500 and subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition (s), (ii) the modification complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. - 3 - PC2010-*** BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this tentative parcel map and conditional use permit are approved without limitations on the hours of operation or the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of September 13, 2010. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2010-*** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on September 13, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 13th day of September 2010. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 5 - PC2010-*** - 6 - PC2010-*** EXHIBIT “B” TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2010-109 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05500 (DEV2010-00063) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT 1 Prior to approval of permits for improvement plans, the property owner/developer shall coordinate with Electrical Engineering to establish electrical service requirements and submit electric service requirement and submit electric system plans, electrical panel drawings, site plans, elevation plans, and related technical drawings and specifications. Public Utilities, Electrical Engineering 2 Any new backflow equipment shall be located above ground outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans and approved by water Engineering and Cross Connection Control Inspector before submittal for Building permits. Water Engineering 3 Prior to connection of electrical service, the legal owner shall provide to the City of Anaheim a Public Utilities easement with dimensions as shown on the approved utility service plan. Public Utilities, Electrical Engineering PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 4 All requests for new water services or fire lines, as well as any modification, relocations, or abandonments of existing water services and fire lines, shall be coordinated through Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department. Water Engineering 5 Prior to connection of electrical service, the legal owner shall submit payment to the City of Anaheim for service connection fees. Public Utilities, Electrical Engineering PRIOR TO PARCEL MAP APPROVAL 6 Vehicular access rights to Brookhurst Street shall be Public Works, - 7 - PC2010-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY released and relinquished to the City of Anaheim, except at the existing intersection at Sequoia Avenue, on the final Parcel Map Development Services 7 A vehicular access agreement, across Parcel B for the benefit of Parcel A, shall be submitted for review and approval by Planning and in a form approved by the City Attorney. The agreement shall be recorded concurrently with the Parcel Map. Planning Division GENERAL 8 That ongoing and during project operation, no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage uses. Code Enforcement 9 That curbs adjacent to the drive-aisles shall be painted red to prohibit parallel parking in the drive aisles. Red curb locations shall be clearly labeled on building permits. Public Works, Traffic & Transportation Division 10 Prior to final building and zoning inspection, fire lanes shall be posted with “No Parking Any Time.” Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. Public Works, Traffic & Transportation Division 11 Roof-top address numbers for the police helicopter shall be a minimum size of 4’ in height and 2’ in width. The lines of the numbers are to be a minimum of 6” thick. Numbers should be spaced 12” to 18” apart. Numbers should be painted or constructed in a contrasting color to the roofing material. Numbers should face the street to which the structure is addressed. Numbers are not to be visible from ground level. Police Department 12 The business shall be equipped with an alarm system (silent or audible). Police 13 Complete a Burglary/Robbery Alarm Permit application, Form APD 516, and return it to the Police Department prior to initial alarm activation. This form is available at the Police Department front counter, or it can be downloaded from the following web site: http://www.anaheim.net/article.asp?id=678 Police Department - 8 - PC2010-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY 14 Address numbers shall be positioned so as to be readily readable from the street. Numbers should be illuminated during hours of darkness. Police Department 15 Monument signs and addresses shall be well lighted during hours of darkness. Police Department 16 Adequate lighting of parking lots and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with lighting of a minimum one-foot candle to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all person, property, and vehicles on-site. Police Department 17 Wide-angle peepholes or other viewing device should be installed in solid doors where natural surveillance is compromised. Police Department 18 Rear entrance doors shall be numbered in the same address numbers or suite number of the businesses. Minimum height of 4 inches recommended. Police Department 19 All exterior doors to have adequate security hardware, e.g. deadbolt locks. Locks shall be so constructed that both the deadbolt and deadlocking latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside doorknob/lever/turn piece. Police Department 20 All exterior doors shall have their own light source, which shall adequately illuminate door areas at all hours to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises and provide adequate illumination for persons exiting the building. Police Department 21 “No Trespassing 602(k) P.C.” sign posted at appropriate place where visible to the public. Sign must be at least 2’x1’ in overall size, with white background and black 2” lettering. Police Department 22 File Emergency Listing Card, Form APD-281, with the Police Department, available at the Police Department front counter, or it can be downloaded from the following web site: http://www.anaheim,net/article.asp?id=678 Police Department - 9 - PC2010-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY 23 Parking areas shall have appropriate signs per 22658(a) C.V.C. posted, to assist in removal of vehicles at the property owners/managers request. Police Department 24 That the final map shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and the Orange County Surveyor and then shall be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. Public Works – Development Services 25 The property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1 (Tentative Parcel Map and Site Plan), Exhibit No. 2 (Elevation Plans) Exhibit No. 3 (Floor Plans) and as conditioned herein. Planning ATTACHMENT NO. 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. C-G DEV 2010-00101 SERVICE STATION SP 94-1 DA6 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT RM-4 CONDOMINIUM 40 DU RM-4 FOURPLEX RM-4 FOURPLEX SP 94-1 DA6 BIKE TRAIL RM-4 FOURPLEX RM-4 KLONDIKE APTS 28 DU T BIKE TRAIL T ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT SP 94-1 DA6 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT C-G SERV ICE S TAT IO N RM-4 FOURPLEX RM-4 FOURPLEXRM-4 FOURPLEX || 1 3 3' RM-3 CONDOMINIUMS 92 DU RM-3 CONDOMINIUMS 92 DU 91 N T U S TI N A V E E R I V E R DA L E AV E N KODIAK STN SANTA LUCIA STN SANTA CECILIA STE R I V E R V I E W AV E E R O G U E D R N V A L L E Y F O R G E D R 91 55 E . R I V E R D A L E A V E E . L A P A L M A A V E E. NOHL RANCH R D 110123901 East Riverdale Avenue DEV2010-00101 Subject Property APN: 360-261-03 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 ORANG E CITY LIM ITS AN AH EIM CITY LIMITS N T U S TI N A V E E R I V E R DA L E AV E N KODIAK STN SANTA LUCIA STN SANTA CECILIA STE R I V E R V I E W AV E E R O G U E D R N V A L L E Y F O R G E D R N IRONPIKE CIRN P O W D E R H O R N D R 91 55 E . R I V E R D A L E A V E E . L A P A L M A A V E E. NOHL RANCH R D 110123901 East Riverdale Avenue DEV2010-00101 Subject Property APN: 360-261-03 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 ORANG E CITY LIM ITS AN AH EIM CITY LIMITS [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2010-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT A CLASS 1 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION IS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05511 (DEV2010-00101) (3901 EAST RIVERDALE AVENUE) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05511 to permit the expansion of an existing service station convenience market and to permit the sales of beer and wine for off-site consumption in conjunction with a Request for Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2010-00069 for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. WHEREAS, this property is developed with a service station and convenience market located in the C-G (General Commercial) zone and the Anaheim General Plan designates the property for commercial land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on September 13, 2010, at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and variance and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. The request to permit the expansion of an existing service station convenience market and to permit the sales of beer and wine for off-site consumption is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized under Code Section Nos. 18.08.030 (Primary Uses, Commercial Zones) and 18.38.070 (Automobile Service Stations) and 18.38.110 (Convenience Stores) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 2. The proposed expansion of an existing service station convenience market and to permit the sales of beer and wine for off-site consumption will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because this is a minor expansion of an existing use located within an commercial zone with similar surrounding uses and adequate distance separation from residential uses. - 2 - PC2010-*** 3. The size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety of the citizens of Anaheim because this is a minor expansion of an existing service station convenience market and the sales of beer and wine for off-site consumption will not impact the development of the area. 4. The traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the traffic generated by this use will not exceed the volume of traffic planned for the streets and highways in the area. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim as the existing land use will continue to be compatible with the surrounding area and the proposed sales of beer and wine are not a health or safety risk to the citizens of the City of Anaheim. WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15303, Class 1 (Existing Facilities) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05511 subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition (s), (ii) the modification complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Conditional Use Permit is approved without limitations on the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. - 3 - PC2010-*** BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of September 13, 2010. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on September 13, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 13th day of September 2010. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2010-*** - 5 - PC2010-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05511 (DEV2010-00101) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT 1 Prior to approval of permits for improvement plans, the property owner/developer shall coordinate with Electrical Engineering to establish electrical service requirements and submit electric system plans, electrical panel drawings, site plans, elevation plans, and related technical drawings and specifications. Public Utilities, Electrical Engineering GENERAL 2 Prior to connection of electrical service, the legal owner shall provide to the City of Anaheim a Public Utilities easement with dimensions as shown on the approved utility service plan. Public Utilities, Electrical Engineering 3 Prior to connection of electrical service, the legal owner shall submit payment to the City of Anaheim for service connection fees. Public Utilities, Electrical Engineering 4 Adequate lighting of parking lots, passageways, and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with lighting of sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all person, property, and vehicles on-site. Additionally, the position of such lighting shall not disturb the normal privacy and use of any neighboring residences. Police Department 5 All exterior doors shall have their own light source, which shall adequately illuminate door areas at all hours to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises and provide adequate illumination for persons exiting the building. Police Department 6 Parking areas shall have appropriate signs per 22658(a) Police - 6 - PC2010-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY C.V.C. posted, to assist in removal of vehicles at the property owners/managers request. Department 7 “No Trespassing 602(k) P.C.” sign posted at appropriate place where visible to the public. Sign must be at least 2’x1’ in overall size, with white background and black 2” lettering. Police Department 8 File Emergency Listing Card, Form APD-281, with the Police Department, available at the Police Department front counter, or it can be downloaded from the following web site: http://www.anaheim,net/article.asp?id=678 Police Department 9 All exterior doors to have adequate security hardware, e.g. deadbolt locks. The locks shall be so constructed that both the deadbolt and deadlocking latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside doorknob/lever/turn piece. Police Department 10 Wide-angle peepholes or other viewing device should be installed in solid doors where natural surveillance is compromised. Police Department 11 Closed circuit television (CCTV) security cameras are recommended and shall be strategically located inside and outside the convenience store including the cashier’s area and entrance/exit door. If security cameras are not monitored, signs indicating so should be placed at each camera. CCTV monitors and recorders should be secured in a separate locked compartment to prevent theft of, or tampering with, the tape. CCTV recordings should be kept for a minimum of 30 days before recorded over. CCTV videotapes should not be recorded over more than 10 times per tape. Use of digital recording equipment as an alternative to videotape is encouraged. Police Department 12 Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent area under the control of the licensee shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours of being applied. Police Department 13 That on-going during project operation, no required Code - 7 - PC2010-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY parking areas shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage uses. Enforcement 14 There shall be no public telephones on the property that are located outside the building and within the control of the applicant. Police Department 15 Landscaping shall be of the type and situated in locations to maximize observation while providing the desired degree of aesthetics. Security planting materials are encouraged along fence and property lines. Police Department 16 The subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 (Site Plan), 2 (Elevation Plans) 3 ( Floor Plans) and as conditioned herein. Planning [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 3 - 1 - PC2010-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT A CLASS 1 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION IS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND DETERMINING PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2010-00069 FOR A TYPE 20, BEER AND WINE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL LICENSE (DEV2010-00101) (3901 EAST RIVERDALE AVENUE) WHEREAS, pursuant to applicable provisions of the Business and Professions Code, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (hereinafter the “Department”) is charged with the responsibility of reviewing applications and issuance of licenses (hereinafter “license or licenses”) for the sale and/or manufacture of alcoholic beverages in the State of California; and WHEREAS, Section 23958 of the Business and Professions Code provides that the Department shall deny an application for a license if issuance of that license would tend to create a law enforcement problem, or if issuance would result in or add to an undue concentration of licenses, except as provided in Section 23958.4 of said Business and Professions Code; and WHEREAS, Section 23958.4 of the Business and Professions Code provides that, notwithstanding the limitations of Section 23958, the Department shall issue a license if the applicant shows that “public convenience or necessity” would be served by the issuance of such license; and WHEREAS, said Section 23958.4 further provides that the determination of “public convenience or necessity” shall be made by the Department with regard to certain applications, and shall be made by the local governing body of the area in which the applicant premises are located with regard to certain other applications; and WHEREAS, on July 11, 1995, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 95R-134 establishing procedures and delegating certain responsibilities to the Planning Commission relating to the determination of "public convenience or necessity" on those certain applications requiring that such determination be made by the local governing body pursuant to applicable provisions of the Business and Professions Code, and prior to the issuance of a license by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive an application for a Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity to permit retail sales and on- premises consumption of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with an application for Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05511 to permit the sales of beer and wine for off-site consumption in conjunction with a service station convenience market for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. - 2 - PC2010-*** WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on September 13, 2010, at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed determination of public convenience or necessity for an alcoholic beverage control license and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. That the C-G (General Commercial) zone permits the sales of beer and wine for off-site consumption in conjunction with a service station convenience market, pursuant to Sections 18.08.030 (Primary Uses, Commercial Zones), 18.38.070 (Automobile Service Stations) and 18.38.110 (Convenience Stores) of the Anaheim Municipal Code subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. The proposed sales of beer and wine for off-site consumption will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because it is accessory to an existing service station convenience market and has an adjacent commercial use and adequate distance separation from residential properties. 2. That California State law requires a Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity when property is located in a census tract with more off-sale alcohol licenses than allowed; and that Section 23958 of the Business and Professions Code provides that the ABC shall deny an application for a license if issuance of that license would tend to create a law enforcement problem or if issuance would result in, or add to, an undue concentration of licenses, except when an applicant has demonstrated that public convenience or necessity would be served by issuance of a license. 3. That Resolution No. 95R-134 authorizes the City of Anaheim Police Department to make recommendations related to the public convenience or necessity determinations; and said recommendations shall take the form of conditions of approval to be imposed on the determination in order to ensure that the sale and consumption of beer and wine does not adversely affect any adjoining land use or the growth and development of the surrounding area. 4. That the subject property is located in Census Tract 762.02 with a population that allows for four off-sale and six on-sale Alcoholic Beverage Control licenses in the tract. Currently, there are six off-sale and five on-sale licenses in the tract, The Anaheim Police Department evaluates these requests based on the crime rates within the police reporting district by utilizing a 1/4 mile radius for the subject site. This site has a 1/4 mile radius crime rate of 30% percent below the average. 5. That the Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity can be made based on the finding that the license requested is consistent with the Planning Commission guideline for such determinations. 6. That the sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption will be in conjunction with an existing service station convenience market. The sales of beer and sales will - 3 - PC2010-*** provide a convenience to service station patrons using the convenience market. Therefore, the requested off-sale license will not be detrimental to the area provided that restrictions on the sales of beer and wine are included in the approval. WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15303, Class 1 (Existing Facilities) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby approve the Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2010-00069 subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the findings hereinabove set forth. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of September 13, 2010. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2010-*** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on September 13, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 13th day of September 2010. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 5 - PC2010-*** - 6 - PC2010-*** EXHIBIT “B” PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2010-00069 (DEV2010-00101) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY GENERAL 1 There shall be no exterior advertising or sign of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays of alcoholic beverages or signs which are clearly visible to the exterior shall constitute a violation of this condition. Police Department 2 No display of alcoholic beverages shall be located outside of a building or within five (5) feet of any public entrance to the building. Police Department 3 Any and all security officers provided shall comply with all State and Local ordinances regulating their services, including, without limitation, Chapter 11.5 of Division 3 of the California Business and Profession Code. (Section 4.16.070 Anaheim Municipal Code) Police Department 4 The area of alcoholic beverage displays shall not exceed 25% of the total display area in a building. Police Department 5 Sale of alcoholic beverages shall be made to customers only when the customer is in the building. Police Department 6 The possession of alcoholic beverages in open containers and the consumption of alcoholic beverages are prohibited on or around these premises. Police Department 7 The gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 35 percent of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of alcoholic beverages and other items. These records shall be made available for inspection by any City of Anaheim official when requested. Police Department 8 The subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 (Site Plan) and 2 ( Floor Plans) and as conditioned herein. Planning ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 file:///H|/REPORTS/Planning%20Commission/2010%20PC%20Meetings/09...essa/Attachments/Att.%20No.%207%20-%20Opposition%20Email%201.txt From: sgraves827@roadrunner.com Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 4:39 PM To: Vanessa Norwood Subject: 3901 E Riverdale Ave Liquor Permit Good Day My name is Sharon Graves and I am a resident off of Riverdale Avenue with two children, one 18 & one 13. I am writing you regarding a liquor permit for the gas station at 3901 E Riverdale Ave. My concern is that there are plenty of immediate access to purchase beer and or wine within less than a five mile radius and adding one more distributor seems futile outside of having these other amenities start a pricing war with selling. The location is very small inside to be able to accomodate the selling of beer and wine and they have also been advertising adding a Subway inside for over six months now. The Circle K next store and the liquor store at the end of Lakeview and Riverdale should be sufficient to supply whatever needs the neighborhood has. You may not be aware yet over 7-10 sex offenders live directly across the street from this location and with the Circle K already selling Beer and Wine it just seems to be another opportunity for them to have access to liquor. It is not appropriate to have side by side locations that serve liquor and beer. After all this is not Nevada where a gas station sells liquor, beer and gas. We appreciate our voice being heard in a no to allow such a permit. Respectfully The Graves 4370 E Alderdale Ave Anaheim CA 92807 file:///H|/REPORTS/Planning%20Commission/2010%20PC%2...ents/Att.%20No.%207%20-%20Opposition%20Email%201.txt [9/8/2010 9:26:02 AM] ATTACHMENT NO. 7 file:///H|/REPORTS/Planning%20Commission/2010%20PC%20Meetings/0...0Vanessa/Attachments/Att.%20No.%20%20Opposition%20email%202.htm From: Earl Kelso [ekelso@cforge.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 9:15 AM To: Vanessa Norwood Subject: 3901 EAST RIVERDALE AVENUE CURRENTLY WE HAVE 2 OFF SITE PLACES TO PURCHASE BEER AND WINE. ONE OF THEM IS NEXT DOOR TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AT THE CIRCLE K. THE OTHER IS LESS THAN ½ MILE AWAY AT TUSTIN AND SANTA ANA CANYON. I HAVE TALKED TO SOME OF MY NEIGHBORS AND THE FEELING AMOUNG US IS THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH PROBLEMS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WITHOUT ADDING TO THE FREY. A LOT OF US DO NOT EVEN BUY GAS AT THE STATION BECAUSE HE IS ALWAYS 5 TO 10 CENTS HIGHER THAN THE STATIONS OVER THE HILL IN ORANGE. PERHAPS IF HE WERE TO LOWER HIS PRICES HIS GAS SALES WOULD IMPROVE AND HE WOULD NOT HAVE TO TRY TO MAKE HIS PROPHETS OFF OF BEER AND WINE. EARL KELSO 221 N. MERRIMAC DR. ANAHEIM, CA. 92807-2711 earlkelso@sbcglobal.net 714-637-8697 file:///H|/REPORTS/Planning%20Commission/2010%20PC%20...ttachments/Att.%20No.%20%20Opposition%20email%202.htm [9/8/2010 9:26:36 AM] SITE PLAN-AERIAL VIEW RIVERDALE ST. T U S TIN A V E. NORTH STREET VIEW ALONG E. RIVERDALE MINI-MART CANOPY-1 CANOPY-2 ATTACHMENT NO. 8 STREET VIEW AT CORNER OF RIVERDALE ST. & TUSTIN AVE. STREET VIEW AT TUSTIN AVE. EXISTING MINI-MART WITH SERVICE BAY EXISTING MINI-MART VIEW AT EAST ELEVATION-N. TUSTIN AVE. EXISTING SIGNAGE AT CORNER EXISTING FUEL CANOPIES PROPOSED REMODEL MINI-MART (2,250 SQ.FT.)(E) CANOPY(E) CANOPY(E) T.E.WSWSWS07-26-101" = 10'-0"5+6'2.#0#5ÄPROJECT DATAZONINGLAND USEBLDG SETBACKSFRONTREARLEFTRIGHTREQUIREDPROVIDEDLANDSCAPE AREAFLOOR AREA RATIOMAXIMUM HEIGHTPARKINGPARKING COMPUTATIONPARKING STANDARDSSIZEPROVIDEDREGULARCOMPACTHANDICAPLOADINGTYPEPARKING REQUIREMENTSUSEFORMULAREQUIREDPROVIDEDBUILDING DATABUILDING (EXISTING TO REMODEL)C-STOREOCCUPANCYTYPE OF CONSTNUMBER OF STORYAREA (E) REMODEL MARTBLDG HEIGHTBUILDINGCANOPYOCCUPANCYTYPE OF CONSTNUMBER OF STORYAREA (SOUTH)BLDG HEIGHTHANDICAP PARKING REQUIREMENTSFORMULAREQUIREDPROVIDEDAREA OF SITESCALE:1 SITE PLAN 1" = 10'-0"SITE KEY NOTESAREA (EAST)AREA (N) C-STORE STORAGEZOHREH JADALI3901 E. RIVERDALE,ANAHEIM, CA 92807CONVERSION OF (E)GARAGE INTO C-STORE3901 E. RIVERDALE,ANAHEIM, CA 92807E85410JIHGFEDCBA1234567891011121314NOTE TO CONTRACTOR3421DESCRIPTIONNO.BY DATEREVISIONSSUBMITTALOWNER NAME & ADDRESSPROJECT NAME & ADDRESSCONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENTSHEET NUMBERSHEET TITLE1ABCDEFGH23456J7810911121314DRAWN BY:DATE DRAWN:CHECKED BY:DATEBYNO. DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED BY:SCALE:IJOB NoCUP NoCONSULTANT/ SEALSPlotted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 4:27 PM M:\_Current Projects\E85410 3901 E. RIVERDALE AVE. & TUSTIN AVE\_CAD\1. Architectural\SHEETS\AS-1 SITEPLAN.dwg 2010-05511NORTHPROJECT SITEATTACHMENT NO. 9 PROPOSED REMODEL MINI-MART (2,250 SQ.FT.)(E) CANOPY(E) CANOPY(E) T.E.WSWSWS07-26-101" = 10'-0"5+6'2.#0#5ÄPROJECT DATAZONINGLAND USEBLDG SETBACKSFRONTREARLEFTRIGHTREQUIREDPROVIDEDLANDSCAPE AREAFLOOR AREA RATIOMAXIMUM HEIGHTPARKINGPARKING COMPUTATIONPARKING STANDARDSSIZEPROVIDEDREGULARCOMPACTHANDICAPLOADINGTYPEPARKING REQUIREMENTSUSEFORMULAREQUIREDPROVIDEDBUILDING DATABUILDING (EXISTING TO REMODEL)C-STOREOCCUPANCYTYPE OF CONSTNUMBER OF STORYAREA (E) REMODEL MARTBLDG HEIGHTBUILDINGCANOPYOCCUPANCYTYPE OF CONSTNUMBER OF STORYAREA (SOUTH)BLDG HEIGHTHANDICAP PARKING REQUIREMENTSFORMULAREQUIREDPROVIDEDAREA OF SITESCALE:1 SITE PLAN 1" = 10'-0"SITE KEY NOTESAREA (EAST)AREA (N) C-STORE STORAGEZOHREH JADALI3901 E. RIVERDALE,ANAHEIM, CA 92807CONVERSION OF (E)GARAGE INTO C-STORE3901 E. RIVERDALE,ANAHEIM, CA 92807E85410JIHGFEDCBA1234567891011121314NOTE TO CONTRACTOR3421DESCRIPTIONNO.BYDATEREVISIONSSUBMITTALOWNER NAME & ADDRESSPROJECT NAME & ADDRESSCONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENTSHEET NUMBERSHEET TITLE1ABCDEFGH23456J7810911121314DRAWN BY:DATE DRAWN:CHECKED BY:DATEBYNO.DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED BY:SCALE:IJOB NoCUP NoCONSULTANT/ SEALSPlotted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 4:22 PM M:\_Current Projects\E85410 3901 E. RIVERDALE AVE. & TUSTIN AVE\_CAD\1. Architectural\SHEETS\AS-1 SITEPLAN.dwg 2010-05511 TOP OF PARAPET+24'-6"FINISH KEY NOTESEXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTUREMETAL FLASHINGMATERIAL1-2-3-4-5-6-COLORS-A-B-C-D7-FOAMS, TRIMS & MOLDINGSFABRIC AWNING1" REVEAL8-ILLUMINATED SIGNAGE(UNDER SEPARATE PLAN-CHECK & PERMIT)ALUMINUM STORE FRONTMANUFACTURER: NEW WORLD WEST, INC. TEL: (714) 529-8001MODEL NUMBER: 5100 SERIESCOLOR: DARK BRONZE ANODIZED FINISH-E-F-G-HLA HABRA STUCCO X-696 SOUTHERN MOSS BASE 20078" EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER PARALEX LA HABRA, INC., ICC-ESEVALUATION REPORT ESR--2564* OR EQUAL OVER GALV. METAL LATH &15lb. BUILDING PAPER. USE A MIN. 2 LAYERS GRADE D PAPER OVER ALLWOOD BASED SHEATHING. (USE SCREWS INSTEAD OF STAPLES)1. THE EXTERIOR STUCCO SYSTEM WILL BE PAINTED UTILIZING AN ELECTROMETRICMATERIAL APPLIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURES RECOMMENDATION2. THE BUILDING EXTERIOR WILL BE PREPARED PER PAINT MANUFACTURESSPECIFICATIONS TO RECEIVE ONE COAT OF PRIMER AND ONE COAT OF EXTERIORVINYL PAINT, INCLUDE ONE ADDITIONAL PAINT COLOR PER ARCHITECTURALDRAWINGS. EXTERIOR MAN DOORS, ROLL-UP DOORS AND HANDRAILS WILL BEENAMEL"DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS"NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS & SUBCONTRACTORSCONTRACTORS SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY THE PLANS IN REGARDTO THE DIMENSIONS AND DETAILS AND BRING TO THE ATTENTION OFTHE ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS, OWNERS AND DEVELOPERS SHOULDANY DISCREPANCY ARE FOUND BEFORE START OF CONSTRUCTION.SHOP FORMED PRE-FINISHED METAL COPING CAPCOLOR TO MATCH WALL PARAPETKBKEYNOTES3200 SERIES KNOX BOX AT 7'-0" FROM THE ADJACENT GROUND LEVELLA HABRA X-53 PURE IVORY BASE 100NATURAL WOOD COLOR FINISHALUMINUM STOREFRONT/WINDOWSUNBRELLA FABRIC AWNINGDUNN EDWARDS: # DEC 707 - "FOX TAIL"DUNN EDWARDS: # DE 5485 -"RUSSET GREEN"ALL ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT MUST NOT BE VISIBLE IN ANYDIRECTION FROM ANY PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, PUBLIC PROPERTY, ORANY ADJACENT PROPERTY FROM A POINT 6'-0" ABOVE GROUND LEVEL.GENERAL NOTES4NORTH ELEVATION'.'8#6+105#ÄMILAD O.N.G./REOMILAD O.06-08-103WEST ELEVATION2SOUTH ELEVATION1EAST ELEVATIONZOHREH JADALI3901 E. RIVERDALE,ANAHEIM, CA 92807CONVERSION OF (E)GARAGE INTO C-STORE3901 E. RIVERDALE,ANAHEIM, CA 92807E85410JIHGFEDCBA1234567891011121314NOTE TO CONTRACTOR3421DESCRIPTIONNO.BYDATEREVISIONSSUBMITTALOWNER NAME & ADDRESSPROJECT NAME & ADDRESSCONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENTSHEET NUMBERSHEET TITLE1ABCDEFGH23456J7810911121314DRAWN BY:DATE DRAWN:CHECKED BY:DATEBYNO.DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED BY:SCALE:IJOB NoCUP NoCONSULTANT/ SEALSPlotted: Thursday, August 19, 2010 9:47 AM M:\_Current Projects\E85410 3901 E. RIVERDALE AVE. & TUSTIN AVE\_CAD\1. Architectural\SHEETS\A-3.0ELEVATIONS.dwg 2010-05511 1A3.03A3.0BEER & WINEDISPLAY AREA= 30 SF TOTAL5 SF5 SF1PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN (.1142.#0#ÄMILAD O.N.G./REOMILAD O.06-08-10NORTHZOHREH JADALI3901 E. RIVERDALE,ANAHEIM, CA 92807CONVERSION OF (E)GARAGE INTO C-STORE3901 E. RIVERDALE,ANAHEIM, CA 92807E85410JIHGFEDCBA1234567891011121314NOTE TO CONTRACTOR3421DESCRIPTIONNO.BYDATEREVISIONSSUBMITTALOWNER NAME & ADDRESSPROJECT NAME & ADDRESSCONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENTSHEET NUMBERSHEET TITLE1ABCDEFGH23456J7810911121314DRAWN BY:DATE DRAWN:CHECKED BY:DATEBYNO.DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED BY:SCALE:IJOB NoCUP NoCONSULTANT/ SEALSPlotted: Thursday, August 19, 2010 11:49 AM M:\_Current Projects\E85410 3901 E. RIVERDALE AVE. & TUSTIN AVE\_CAD\1. Architectural\SHEETS\A-1.0 FLOORPLAN.dwg 2010-05511 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. R M -4 D E V 2 0 1 0 -0 0 0 4 8 S F R RM-4 DUPLEX R S -3 S F R R S -3 F O U R P L E X R S -3 F O U R P L E X R S -3 S F R R S -3 S F R C -G R E T A I L C -G A U T O R E P A I R / S E R V I C E R S -3 S F R R S -3 S F R C -G A U T O R E P A I R / S E R V I C E C -G A U T O R E P A I R / S E R V I C E R S -3 D U P L E X C -G A U T O R E P A I R / S E R V I C E R M -4 D U P L E X R S -3 S F R R M -4 S F R R S -3 S F R R S -3 D U P L E X R S -3 S F R R S -3 F O U R P L E X R S -3 D U P L E XRS-3 D U P L E X R S -3 S F R R S -3 S F R R M -4 S F R I INDUSTRIAL C-G INDUSTRIAL RM-4 SFR RM-4 TRIPLEX RM-4 SFR RM-4 APTS 3 DU RM-4 SFR RM-4 SFR RM-4 TRIPLEX RM-4 TRIPLEX C-G RETAIL I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL C -G A U T O R E P A I R / S E R V I C E R M -4 S F R RM-4 SFR RM-4 LAS PALMAS APARTMENTS 61 DU RM-4 SFR RM-4 VACANT R M -3 S F R R M -3 R E T A I L C -G A U T O R E P A I R / S E R V I C E R M -3 S F R R M -3 S F R R S -3 D U P L E X R S -3 S F R C -G A U T O D E A L E R S H I P ||36'84' E LA PALMA AVE N ANAHEIM BLVDE M I L L S D R N EMILY STN PATT STN KEMP STN CLAUDINA STN ZEYN STN PHILADELPHIA STW L A V E R N E S T E JULIAN NA ST N PHILADELPHIA ST91 N. EAST STN. HARBOR BLVDE. LA PALMA AVE E . L I N C O L N A V E W. LA PALMA AVE N. ACACIA STN. ANAHEIM BLVDN. ANAHEIM BLVD10985942 North Claudina Street DEV2010-00048 Subject Property APN: 035-062-02 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 E LA PALMA AVE N ANAHEIM BLVDE M I L L S D R N EMILY STN PATT STN KEMP STN CLAUDINA STN ZEYN STN PHILADELPHIA STW L A V E R N E S T E JULIAN NA ST N PHILADELPHIA ST91 N. EAST STN. HARBOR BLVDE. LA PALMA AVE E . L I N C O L N A V E W. LA PALMA AVE N. ACACIA STN. ANAHEIM BLVDN. ANAHEIM BLVD10985942 North Claudina Street DEV2010-00048 Subject Property APN: 035-062-02 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2010-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT A CLASS 3 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION IS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2010-04810 (DEV2010-00048) (942 NORTH CLAUDINA STREET) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission (hereinafter "Planning Commission") did receive a verified Petition for Variance for certain real property located at 942 N. Claudina Street, in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as more particularly shown in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the petitioner requests a variance from the front yard and rear yard setbacks and to allow fewer parking spaces than required by code zone to construct a single family residence in the R-M 4 (Multiple-Family Residential) Zone, and the Anaheim General Plan designates this property for Low Density residential land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on September 13, 2010, at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60 “Procedures”, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed variance and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. That the applicant requests to deviate from the following to construct a two-story, single-family residence: SECTION NO. 18.04.090.010 Maximum Lot Coverage - DELETED SECTION NO. 18.04.100.010.0101 Minimum front yard setback (15 feet required; 11 feet 6 inches proposed) SECTION NO. 18.04.100.010.0101 Minimum rear yard setback (15 feet required; 10 feet proposed) SECTION NO. 18.42.030.040 Minimum number of parking spaces (4 spaces required – two garage spaces and two spaces in front of the garage; 2 spaces proposed – one garage space and one space in front of the garage) - 2 - PC2010-*** 2. The requested variance is hereby approved because there are special circumstances applicable to the property pertaining to the extremely limited size of the lot. 3. Strict application of the Code would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under the identical zoning classification in the vicinity and further a single family residence previously existed on this lot. WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15301, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve Variance No. 2010-04810 subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition (s), (ii) the modification complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Variance is approved without limitations on the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. - 3 - PC2010-*** BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of September 13th, 2010. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on September 13, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 13th day of September, 2010. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2010-*** - 5 - PC2010-*** EXHIBIT “B” VARIANCE NO. 2010-04810 (DEV2010-00048) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT 1 The developer shall design and construct all off-site water system improvements required to serve the project in accordance with Rule No. 15A.6 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations. Water Engineering PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 2 All requests for new water services or fire lines, as well as any modification, relocations, or abandonments of existing water services and fire lines, shall be coordinated through Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department. Water Engineering GENERAL 3 The property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1 (Site, Elevation and Floor Plan) and as conditioned herein. Planning W.T. Durant, Inc. STATE CONTRACTORS LICENSE #B743376 1306 East 29th Street Signal Hill, CA. 90755-1842 Office (562) 424-8816 Fax (562) 424-8440 City of Anaheim Planning Department 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 RE: Response letter for justification for variance. Date: March 18, 2010 Owner: The Estate of John F Lee, Susan Hawken, Administrator Project location: 942 N. Claudina Street, Anaheim, CA Telephone: (714) 547-7150 Requesting for a reduction in lot coverage, at the front and rear setbacks in RM-4 zone, to construct a new single family residence. Existing lot at 942 N. Claudina Street is undersize compared to existing adjacent lots. Thank you. James Shelter Project Manager W.T. Durant, Inc. (562) 424-8816 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item.