RES-2010-187 RESOLUTION NO. 2010- 187
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTIFYING FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2008-
00339 AND ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 106C
AND WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT (MIS2008-
00284) FOR THE REVISED PLATINUM TRIANGLE
EXPANSION PROJECT.
WHEREAS, the Platinum Triangle comprises approximately 820 acres located at
the confluence of Interstate 5 and SR -57 Freeways in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange,
State of California, generally east of Interstate 5 Freeway, west of the Santa Ana River channel
and SR -57 Freeway, south of the Southern California Edison easement, and north of the
Anaheim City limit area. The Platinum Triangle encompasses the Angel Stadium of Anaheim,
the Honda Center, the Grove of Anaheim, the Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink Station, and
surrounding residential and mixed use development, light industrial buildings, industrial parks,
distribution facilities, offices, hotels, restaurants, and retail development; and
WHEREAS, since 1996, the Anaheim City Council (the "City Council ") has
approved several actions relating to the area encompassed by the Platinum Triangle; and
WHEREAS, on May 30, 1996, the Anaheim City Planning Commission (the
"Planning Commission ") certified Final Environmental Impact Report No. 320 and adopted Area
Development Plan No. 120 for that portion of the Stadium property associated with the
Sportstown Development. Area Development Plan No. 120, which entitled a total of 119,543
seats for new and /or renovated stadiums, 750,000 square feet of urban entertainment/retail uses,
a 500 -room hotel (550,000 square feet), a 150,000- square -foot exhibition center, 250,000 square
feet of office development and 15,570 on -site parking spaces. The Grove of Anaheim, the
renovated Angel Stadium of Anaheim, and the Stadium Gateway Office Building were
developed/ renovated under this plan; and
WHEREAS, on March 2, 1999, the City Council adopted the Anaheim Stadium
Area Master Land Use Plan (MLUP). The boundaries for this MLUP were generally the same as
those for the Platinum Triangle, with the exception that this MLUP included 15 acres adjacent to
I -5 that are not a part of the current Platinum Triangle boundaries. As part of the approval
process for the Anaheim Stadium Area MLUP, the City Council also certified Final
Environmental Impact Report No. 321 and adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106.
Development within the Anaheim Stadium Area was implemented through the Sports
Entertainment (SE) Overlay Zone, which permitted current uses to continue or expand within the
provisions of the existing zoning, while providing those who may want to develop sports,
entertainment, retail, and office uses with standards appropriate to those uses, including
increased land use intensity. Implementation of this Overlay Zone was projected to result in a net
-1-
loss of 491,303 square feet of industrial space and increases of 1,871,285 square feet of new
office space, 452,026 square feet of new retail space, and 991,603 square feet of new hotel space.
Projects that were developed under the SE Overlay Zone included the Ayers Hotel, the Arena
Corporate Center, and the Westwood School of Technology; and
WHEREAS, on May 25, 2004, the City Council approved a comprehensive
citywide General Plan and Zoning Code Update, which included a new vision for the Platinum
Triangle. The General Plan Update changed the General Plan designations within the project area
from Commercial Recreation and Business Office /Mixed Use /Industrial to Mixed -Use, Office -
High, Office -Low, Industrial, Open Space and Institutional to provide opportunities for existing
uses to transition to mixed -use, residential, office, and commercial uses. The General Plan
Update also established the overall maximum development intensity for the Platinum Triangle,
which permitted up to 9,175 dwelling units, 5,000,000 square feet of office space, 2,044,300
square feet of commercial uses, industrial development at a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of
0.50, and institutional development at a maximum FAR of 3.0. In addition, the square
footage /seats allocated to the existing Honda Center and all of the development intensity entitled
by Area Development Plan No. 120 was incorporated into the Platinum Triangle Mixed -Use land
use designation. Final Environmental Impact Report No. 330, which was prepared for the
General Plan and Zoning Code Update and associated actions, analyzed the above development
intensities on a citywide impact level and adopted mitigation monitoring programs, including an
Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 106 for the Platinum Triangle; and
WHEREAS, in order to provide the implementation tools necessary to realize the
City's new vision for the Platinum Triangle, on August 17, 2004, the City Council replaced the
Anaheim Stadium Area MLUP with the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (the
"PTMLUP "), replaced the SE Overlay Zone with the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU)
Overlay Zone, approved the form of the Standardized Platinum Triangle Development
Agreement and approved associated zoning reclassifications. Under these updated zoning
regulations, property owners desiring to develop under the PTMU Overlay Zone provisions are
required to enter into a standardized Development Agreement with the City of Anaheim; and
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2005, the City Council adopted and certified the
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) No. 332 including Updated and
Modified Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 106A for the PTMLUP and associated actions, which
utilized Final Environmental Impact Report No. 321 (adopted for the Anaheim Stadium MLUP,
as discussed above) and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106. At the present time, Final
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 serves as the primary environmental
document for subsequent land use actions within the Platinum Triangle, including necessary
infrastructure improvements and all local discretionary approvals requested to implement the
PTMLUP, consistent with Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The General Plan
Amendment associated with Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 increased
the allowable development intensity within the Platinum Triangle to 9,500 residential units;
5,000,000 square feet of office uses; and 2,254,400 square feet of commercial uses; and
WHEREAS, since the approval and certification of Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report No. 332, the majority of the permitted development intensity on
-2-
private properties analyzed by said SEIR has been either developed, is under construction or has
been designated for development under approved Development Agreements. In addition, City
Council has approved two addendums to Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No.
332 in conjunction with requests to increase the Platinum Triangle intensity by 67 residential
units; 55,550 square feet of office development; and, 10,000 square feet of commercial uses. A
project Environmental Impact Report has also been approved to increase the allowable
development intensity by an additional 699 residential units to bring the total allowable
development intensity within the Platinum Triangle to up to 10,266 residential units; 5,055,550
square feet of office uses; and 2,264,400 square feet of commercial uses; and
WHEREAS, in order to increase the overall densities within the Platinum
Triangle to accommodate market demands for increased densities, and to further the project
objectives outlines above, on February 13, 2007, the City embarked upon a process to adopt a
General Plan Amendment; amendments to the PTMLUP, PTMU Overlay Zone, and the Platinum
Triangle Standardized Development; and related zoning reclassifications to increase the
development intensities within the Platinum Triangle to up to 18,363 residential units; 5,657,847
square feet of commercial uses; 16,819,015 square feet of office uses; and 1,500,000 square feet
of institutional uses (the "Platinum Triangle Expansion Project "); and
WHEREAS, as required by law, the City prepared an environmental impact report
in connection with the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project. The Draft Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report for the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, DSEIR No. 334, and
was first circulated for a 45 -day public review period from July 12, 2007 to August 27, 2007. On
October 4, 2007, the City released the DSEIR No. 334 for an additional 45 -day public review.
The recirculated DSEIR No. 334 contained minor revisions to the Project Description and
additional traffic information based on comments received from the City of Orange and
California Department of Transportation. Other minor revisions to the DSEIR were made based
on other comments received on the previously circulated DSEIR No. 334. The recirculated
FSEIR No. 334 was approved in December 2007 and reapproved in April 2008; and
WHEREAS, following the approval of FSEIR No. 334, a lawsuit was filed
challenging the adequacy of FSEIR No. 334. In consideration of the City's exemplary historical
record in avoiding CEQA litigation and its commitment to proper environmental review, the City
Council repealed the approval of the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, including FSEIR No.
334 and various related actions, and directed staff to prepare a new Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report for the project; and
WHEREAS, on October 14, 2008, the City Council initiated (i) General Plan
Amendment No. 2008 - 00471; (ii) Zoning Code Amendment No. 2008 - 00074; (iii) an
amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, including the Platinum Triangle
Standardized Development Agreement Form (MIS2008- 00283); (iv) Reclassification No. 2008-
00222; (v) Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 2008 - 00339; and (vi) Water Supply
Assessment (MIS2008- 00234) pertaining to the Platinum Triangle (collectively referred to herein
as the "Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project "); and
-3-
WHEREAS, the City is the lead agency for the preparation and consideration of
environmental documents for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion 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 (the
"CEQA Guidelines "); and
WHEREAS, the City submitted a Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") for preparation
of a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ( "SEIR ") for the Revised Platinum Triangle
Expansion Project on December 11, 2008 for a 30 -day review; the scoping period identified in
the NOP was from December 11, 2008 until January 9, 2009; and
WHEREAS, interested parties were invited to attend a public scoping meeting
held on January 9, 2009, at Anaheim City Hall, City Council Chamber, 200 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 Draft SEIR; and
WHEREAS, on October 13, 2010, the Draft SEIR (EIR2008- 00339) 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 October 13, 2010 until September 27, 2010, for public review and comment
on the Draft SEIR 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 SEIR 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, Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 2008 -00339 (the "Final SEIR ")
shall consist of the Draft SEIR; the comments and recommendations received on the Draft SEIR
either verbatim or in summary; a list of persons, organizations and public agencies that
submitted comments on the Draft SEIR; the responses of the City, as Lead Agency, to significant
points raised in the review and consultation process; and the Findings of Fact and Statement of
Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106C prepared for the
Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project. A complete copy of the Final SEIR is on file and
can be viewed in the City Planning Department and at http: / /www.anaheim.net /planning/; and
WHEREAS, on October 11, 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
EIR2008 -0339 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 SEIR; and
-4-
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and
studies made by itself and in its behalf and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing, did adopt its Resolution No. 2010 -105 recommending that the Anaheim
City Council certify EIR2008- 00339; and
WHEREAS, on October 26, 2010, the City Council did conduct 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 the Final SEIR and to investigate and make findings in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, based upon the evidence and reports received at said public hearing,
and upon the studies and investigation made by itself and in its behalf, the City Council finds and
determines as follows:
The Final SEIR has been presented to and independently reviewed and considered by
the City Council.
The Final SEIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council.
The Final SEIR has been processed and completed in compliance with the
requirements of CEQA, and all applicable CEQA Guidelines.
WHEREAS, in conformance with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines, the City has prepared, or caused to be prepared, the (i) Revised Platinum Triangle
Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of
Overriding Considerations, relating to the Final SEIR, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"
and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, (ii) Revised Platinum
Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring
Program No. 106C, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this
reference as though set forth in full, and (iii) Water Supply Assessment (MIS2008- 00284), which
is included as Appendix G of Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 2009 -00339
and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full; and
WHEREAS, to the extent authorized by law, the City desires and intends to use
the Final SEIR as the environmental documentation required by CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project; and
WHEREAS, the California Legislature enacted Senate Bill 610 (Water Code
Section 10910) which mandates that the retail water utility must prepare a Water Supply
Assessment (WSA) for any development project that (i) is subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and (ii) exceeds 500 residential units, or equivalent water
demand for shopping centers, business establishments, and commercial developments; and
WHEREAS, the proposed development Project is subject to CEQA and consists
of over 500 residential units, or equivalent water demand for shopping centers, business
establishments, and commercial developments; and
-5-
WHEREAS, a WSA, dated September 2009, has been prepared for the Revised
Platinum Triangle Expansion Project in accordance with applicable sections of the Public
Resources Code and California Water Code as referenced in Senate Bill 610. A complete copy of
the WSA is on file and can be viewed in the City Planning Department and at
http: / /www.anaheim.net /planning/; and
WHEREAS, the WSA concludes that a sufficient water supply and reliability to
the City, now and into the future, including sufficient water supply for the Revised Platinum
Triangle Expansion Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby certifies
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 2008 -00339 and adopts the Revised
Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
incorporated herein by reference.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby finds and
determines that the Final SEIR has been presented to and independently reviewed and considered
by the City Council, reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council, has
been processed and completed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines, and is adequate to serve as the environmental documentation for the ARTIC project
and all related discretionary actions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, in conformance with the requirements of CEQA
and the CEQA Guidelines, the City Council hereby adopts the Revised Platinum Triangle
Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring Program
No. 106C, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the City Council that the Water Supply
Assessment (MIS2008- 00284) prepared for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project is
hereby approved and adopted and ordered filed with the City Clerk.
-6-
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the City Council
of the City of Anaheim this 26thday of October , 2010, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Pringle, Council Members Sidhu, Hernandez
NOES: Council Members Galloway, Kring
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
CITY OF ANAHEIM
By:
MA OR OF THE OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF AHEIM
79771 .v 1 /MGordon
-7-
EXHIBIT "A"
THE REVISED
PLATINUM TRIANGLE
EXPANSION PROJECT
SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
NO. 339
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
k
Pf4wmii fit
COY OF ANAHEIM
Susan IGm MOP
Senior Planner
THE PLANNING
CENTER
Confect
Warms Halligan. Esq.
Woe Presider*
Environments/ Services
OCTOBER 2010
-8-
THE REVISED
PLATINUM TRIANGLE
EXPANSION PROJECT
SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL.
I*WACT REPORT
NO: 339
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
P e
CITY OF ANAHEIM
200 S. Anaheim Bou kraal Contact
Anaheim, OA 92805 Susan Kim. AiCP
Senior Planner
Pmp 1 7:
THE PLANNING
CENTER
1580 Metro drive Contact
Costs Mese. CA 92828 William Horgan. Esq.
Tet 714.96119220 to Far 714.9089221 Woe Pres*1er*
&madl costamessephinningoenter.com Envinstenental Services
%% bade: www..plannigoerdarcom
COA-51.OE
OCTOBER 2010
-9-
Table of Contents
SECTION ---- ----PAGE
1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY..------ 1-1
1.1 RNDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSWERATIONS 1-1
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS 1-3
1.3 PROJECT SUMMARY 1-4
1.4 DOCUMENT FORMAT 1-9
2. FINDINGS ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 2-1
2.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSH)ERED AND REJECTED DURING TI-E
SCOPING/PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS _2-1
21.1 Afternative Development Areas 2-1
2.1.2 Southern California Gas Company Microwave Tower Relocation Alternative._ 2-2
2.2 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS 2-2
2.2.1 No-Project/Existing 14U_UP Alternat ve 2.3
22.2 Reduced Intensity Alternative 2-3
2.2.3 Increased Residential Interiorly Alternalve 2-4
3. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS.. 3-1
3.1 AESTHETICS 3-1
32 AIR QUALITY 3-2 « ;11
33 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3-12 kr>4
3.4 LAM) USE AND PLUMING 3-13
3.5 NOISE 3-14
3.6 POPULATION AND HOUSING 3-25
3.7 PUBIJC SERVICES 3-26
3.8 RECFIEAT1ON 3-31
3.9 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC 3-32
3.10 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3-58
al 1 GREENHOUSE GAS EheSSIONS 3-77
4. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS.--. 4-1
41 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS _4-1
42 CONSIDERATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 4-5
5. REFERENCES 5-1
5.1 1NEBSITES 5-4
52 MODELS 5-6
SEM Ne. 339 gains Oda ilia City eAsebtin
StttaretofOvwfidig Csisititekttions Doge i
-10-
Table of Contents
This page in entiona y left blank
The Nam* Cesar Qrmber 2010
xrr ii
-11-
1. Introduction and Summary
The California EnNronmental Quaky Act (CEQA) requires that a number of written finding' be made by
the Lead Agency in connection with certification of an erniorrnental impart report (BR) prior to approval
of the project pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 of the
Public Resources C ode. This document provides the findings required by CEQA and the specific
reasons for considering the project acceptable even though the project has significant t impact that are
infeasible to mitigate_
1.1 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRfDINfi CONSIDERATIONS
The City of Anaheim, as Lead Agency, is required under CEQA to make written llndinge concerning each
alternative and each significant environmental impact identified in the Draft Bairorrnevdal Impart Report
(DER) and Final Erns raranental Impact Report (FEIR).
SpecicaIy regarding findings. Guidelines Section 15081 provides:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an BR has been
certified which wee one or more dartboard environmental effects of the
project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of ft lb
those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for
each firming. The poesible findings are:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect as identified in the final EM
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responaibity and jurisdiction
of another public agency and not the agency making the fndirn0. Such
changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should
be adopted by such other agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations.
inducing provision of employment opportunities for hig ty trained
workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project atiernabves
identified in the final BR.
(b) The findings required by subsection (a) shall be supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
(c) The irxing in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made i the agency making the
fixing has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified
feasible mitigation measures or aiemativea. The finding im subsection (a)(3)
shall deecxbe the specific reasons for rejecting identified migabon measures
and project alternatives.
SEIR No. 339 Findiegs of Idea anti Cary u)f Airrrbsaar
Strteerat of Oumriidiag Csssidrrdterws Per I-1
-12-
1. Introduction and Summary
(d) When making the Swinge required in subdivision (a)(1). the agency shah also
adopt a program for reporting on or mor>itoring the changes which it has either
required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or subslantiar
lessen significant envirwrnerdal effects. These measures roust be fully
enforceable through permit conditions. agreements. or other measures.
(e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or
other material which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its
decision is based.
(f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the indngs
required by this section.
The `charges or alterations referred to in Section 15091(a)(1) may include a wide variety of measures
Of actions as set forth in Guideines Section 15370. including:
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an
action.
(b) Minimizing impacts by im'ting the degree or magni of tie action and its
(a) Rectifying the impact by repairing. rehabilitating. or reetorng the impacted
environment.
(d) Reducing or efiminatig the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the ife of the action.
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing subetikute resources or
environments_
Reganfing a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Guidelines Sedion 15093 provides:
(a) CEQA requires the decision - making agency to balance. as appicable. the
economic, legal. social. technologicet, or other benefits of a proposed project
against tis unavoidable environmental riles when determining whether to
approve the project. if the specific economic, legal, social, technological. or
other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects. the adverse environmental effects may be considered
(b) When the lead agency approves a project which with result in the occurrence of
sigrrficant effects which are identified in tie that EIR but are not avoided or
substantially lessened, the agency shall slate in wiling the specific reasons to
support its action based an the final BR and/or other niemmation in the record.
The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial
evidence in the record_
(c) lt an agency makes a statement of overridig considerations, the statement
should be included in the record of the project approval and should be
The Pl anrirgCenter Ortrber2010
Part 1 -2
-13-
1. Introduction and Summary
mentioned in the notice of determination. This stalement does not dub litule for.
and dial be in addition to, fish required pursuant to Section 15091_
12 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
In conformance with CEQA. the Slate CEQA Guides naa and the City of Anaheim CEQA Guidelines, the
City of Anaheim conducted an extensive environmental review of the proposed project The
environmental al review process has included:
• Completion of an Initial Study by the City of Anaheim, which concluded that a'Subsequent BR'
should be prepared, and the Notice of Preparation (POOP), whidu was released for a 3D-day
pubic review period from December 11. 2008 to January 12. 2009. Section 2.3 of the DSBR
describes the issues identified for analysis in the OSBR through the Initial Study, NOR and
Pct soaping process.
• Completion of a soaping process in which the pubic and public agencies were invited by the
City of Anaheim to Participate- The cooping wresting for the DSBR was held on January 7.2009.
• Preparation of a Draft SBA by the City of Anaheim. which was made available for a 45-day pubic
review period August 13 to September 27. 2010). The Draft SBR consisted of two volumes.
Volume I contains the teed of the Draft SEtii Volume II contains the Appendices, haduding the
NOR responses to the NOR ail quaity and noise modeling o lints. service correspondence.
traffic report water supply assessment, sewer study. itrastr uctureffac:ity improvements. and
HCD's approval Weiter of the Housing Element. The Appendices also include a description of the
proposed amendments to the General Plan. the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. and
the PTMU Overlay Zone. which are described in Section 1.3, Project Summary. Notice of the
availabity of the Draft BR wail sent to interested persona and ore ens: it was also
pubis/led in one newspaper of general circulation, and was ported at the Office of the Clerk of
Orange County.
• Preparation of a Anal Eli. including the Responses to Comments. ts. the Findings of Fad, and the
Statement of Ovenicirrg Consideration on the Draft BR. The Anal BR/Response to Comments
oontairar comments on the Draft BR: responses to those comments; nts; revisions to the Draft BR:
and appended documents, i cluing the Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 109C. which
includes the measures set forth in Drat ER No. 339. as modified to relied changes described in
the Response to Comments.
• Public hearings on the proposed project. including a Planning Commission hearing on
October 11, 2010 and a City Council Hearing on October 26.2010.
SE1R No. 339 Fiedrsgr glint chid City eAeoh.iar
Statoraeas cfOsernadrag Cocrnidrr tiacr 11rgv 1 -3
-14-
1. Introduction and Summary
1.3 PROJECT SUMMARY
The City of Anaheim proposes to increase the amount of residential. commercial. office. and institutional
development intensifies perrndted in the Platinum Triangle as shown in Table 1 -1. The Proposed Project
has reduced the amount of dice and commercial square tootage and increased the amount of
residential unite being requested as compared to the previous Platinum Triangle Expansion Project
analyzed in Final SBR No. 334. These modAcetions were made in an efort to improve the overall
johalhousing balance in the Platinum Triangle at bu7donct, encourage a full range of tarsi oriented
development opportu "lies for ARTIC. and reduce traffic impacts to the City of Orange.
Table 1 -7
Proposed Platinum Trianitle Development Intensities
Lind Use Mewed homed frame
Resiemeii lkas 10.258 18.909 5643
Caa.resial So ne feet 2.264.400 4.900$02 2.645.202
Mee S4rrse feet 5.055.550 1(340.522 924172
imi6anl S4rue feet 0 1.500.000 1,500,000
The Proposed Project would expand the General Plan Mixed Use land use designation within the
Platinum Triangle. create two new mimed use district% and expand two existing mixed use creel/late adhin
PTMU Overlay Zone. District development intensity maps that break down the allocated development in
the Platinum Triangle Meted -Use Districts by sub -areas have also been developed and are included in
Appendix I at the SBR No. 339. Development that occurs within the Platinum Triangle is implemented
through the processing of subdvisien maps and the submilal of plans for building penntis unless a
oanddional use perms or a variance are required Development in the PTMU Overlay Zone also requires
approval of a Master Site Plan and/or a Anal Site Plan and a Development Agreement.
Specifically. the Proposed Project includes tedinical refinements and clarifications to tie documents that
govern and regulate development within the Platinum Triangle—the General Plan, the PTtti.Un and the
PTMU Overlay Zone.
Below la a description of the proposed amendments to each of these documents.
General Plan
A. Amend the Land Use Element (Figure W4: Land Use Plan) to:
a. Redesignate approximately 191 acres from the Office High land use designation to the
Mixed Use designation: and
b. Redesignate appros 17 acres from the Institutional land use designation to the
Mixed Use designation.
c. Retied a recently constructed park and parks required by approved development
agreements.
B. Amend the Land Use Bement (Table W-4: General Plan Density Provisions for Specific Areas of
the City) as shown in Table 1-2. Exists,' g and Proposed General Plan Density Provisions. to:
Tim Phoning Casa. Oath". 2010
Pvgr 1-4
-15-
1. Intriddiiaion and Summary
a. kicreaee the permitted development intensities in the Platinum Tram and
b. Remove the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) requirement for Mixed Use development in the
Plabson Triangle.
Table 1.2
Existing and Proposed General Plan Densely Provisions (Table W4)
Edge' scrieion W4 Pommel DembOam i k1114
Wake fkrlenIPlat/ailtll' lamed r leesiiee i use 1. teal PendeediDew*
Use Dr ism Us a Oes
Up in 10,266 dieing lied Use
w'ts at daisies pp b Dreirg
100 devil twits per Residential 18,909 fiats
acre; 4+b 3,265,000 Commercial 4,109,682 Space Feet
Weed Um swam bet of aloe Moe 9,062,166 Spore Feet
4•b
2,254,400 square teete /
commercial devdapment
The Ratan at a madmen FAR of ile minim
Triangle Area 0.40. T Insfaubrdd 1,500,000 Swore Feet
Up to 1,790,550 spume Olire460i and Sgme
feet of dice d eveimment Oioed amt 4478,356 Feet*
and yub 10,000 swam Ma6Ldional 10 FAR 88
0lee li0h and feet of co msetfal biebial 0.5 Fl1R
Oboe Low development and a Open Space 0.1 FAR
madimwd FAR of 0.50 far *itr madman FAR for p opeies designated
impedes designated O lloeLaw is 0.5; Oar madam FAR for
wo e - Low Mapenies designated Oiorfipia is 2.0.
C. Amend the Circulation Bement (Figure C-1: Planned Roadway Network) to modify the
designations of streets within the Platinum Triangle:
a. 1Gelella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way from 6-lane Major
Arterial to 8-lane Shinn Smartsineet;
b. Douglass Road between Katela Avenue and Cerritos 'Venue from Secondary Arterial to
4-lane Primary Arterial;
c. Douglass Road between Kabala Avenue and SR-57 overpass from Interior Street to
Secondary Arterial:
d. Rampart Street between Orangewood Avenue and the South City Limbs adjacent to the
City of Orange from Interior Street to Secondary Medal;
e. West Dupont Drive between Orangewood Avenue and South Dupont Drive from Interior
Street to Collector Street
SEMR Ne. 339 Nouns gnus dad City a fitseMisr
Strrorrrst Overran:: Considenitioar Bog 1 -5
-16-
.1. Introduction and Summary
f. South Dupont Drive between West Dupont Drive and West Towne Centre Place from
Interior Street to Collector Street
g. South Towne Centre Place between West Towne Centre Place and Rampart Street from
Interior Street to Secondary Arterial;
h. Lewis Street between Kaiefa Avenue and Cemtos Avenue from Secondary Arterial to 4-
lane Primary Artenet and.
i_ Centre Avenue between State College Boulevard and Douglass Road from Secondary
Arterial to 4-lane Primary Arterial.
D. Amend the Circulation tion Element (Figure C-5: Existing and Proposed Bicycle Fealties) to:
a. Extend the Class II Bikeway on Orangewood Avenue from east of State College
Boulevard to West Dupont Drive;
b. Add the Class N Bikeway to West Dupont Drive. South Dupont Drive and West Towne
Centre Place to Rampart Street
c. Add the Class I Bioeway to Lewis Street between Katela Avenue and Ban Road: and
d. Add the Class N Bikeway to Cerritos Avenue between Anaheim Boulevard and Douglass
Road.
E. Amend the Green Element (Figure G-1: Green Plan) to reflect a recently constructed park and
parks required by approved development agreements_
F. Amend the Pubic Services and Facilities Element (Figure PSF-1: Fee and Poke Fealties Map)
to relied the three ire stations proposed for the Platinum Triangle.
Platinum Triangle Mosier Land Use Plan
Amend the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP) as shown in *ether detail in Appendix I.
Proposed Ame ncmnents to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. to:
A. Retied the proposed General Plan amendments:
B. Adjust the boundaries of the PTMU Overlay Zone to create the ART1C and Office Districts and
expand the Katela and Orangewood Districts:
C. Distribute the proposed increased development intensities as shows in Table 1-3 and further
detailed in Appendix I. Proposed Amendments to The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plen.
The Amain costar Ortsber 2010
Page 1-b
-17-
1. Introduction and Summary
rage 1-3
Proposed P11W Overlay Zone Development intensities
Phis = Acres ResilAait t !Ms Soeile Feat soma feet
No* 654 ict Adopted Proposed Moped Proposed Moped Proposed hasped ?reposed
Arena 41 41 425 425 100.000 100.000 100.000 100,000
/ATV 0 17 t 520 0 35010 0 mean
53 50 142 3,, 1.1 r
61sT 53 33 W. _I Effixa •
Karla 99 141 4.250 se 5,707 630,300 332.614 715,000 2.131.050
frarosed 4 35 0 1 1;; T` 1 '•- •
Stade? 153 153 1.750 5,175 1,300.000 3,120,365 1,760,000 3,125.000
Tad Med tae 353 470 1 a 1 - 4M ?116
Office 0 121 0 0 0 0 0 4475.356
Ted P1rt
_ 3113 III 1 _. 400 1 Y/
The mined deadopneedriesiyiehdest 500.000s1ma fed etidiihsol seL
2 fleodopid end peepoQddevdap roll lassies far Se Sidra Qariet:dude 119.543 snub Ter tieing 149.016 surds) ad pakid (7150D
suds) s eirms.
The adopted Semi Pie Bikers mouldier., 1,200,550 wpm festal ire dredopaieit%Oa The Prier Tin* es poppies arse of Ile
PU R I Owstsy Z a e e . The Pmposd n e i n t apesds The PTMU Oa rby lace eaerepan base meths.
O. Replace Updated and Modified Mitigation Monilwng Program No. 106A with Updated and
Molded Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106C. and.
E. Reflect technical rsfnementa and clarfficedions including, but not landed to, refinements to street
crass.ec Lions, density descriptions and eschthls.
PTMU Overlay Zowe
Amend Chapter 18.20 PTMU Overlay Zone of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. as shown in
further detail in Appendix I, Proposed Amendments to the Mafia= Triangle Master Land Use Pam. to:
A Relied the proposed General Plan and PTIAUJP ;
B. Provide development standards for the ARTIC. Stadium, Arena, and Office Districts; and,
G. Modify raring standards, including, but not united to, vacant Iota and sethacior and parking
structure requirement for hotels and ofOcea
Zoning Reclassification
The Proposed Project includes a request to add the PTMU Overlay Zone to the properties within the new
AR11C and Once Districts and the expanded areas of the Katella and Orangewood Districts.
Related Intrastructwe Upgrades
The Proposed Project also includes upgrades to existing infrastructure to serve the proposed increased
internally of laid uses. These upgrades include roadway improvements, including a railroad grade
separation project along Slate College Bound. between Kateia Avenue and Nowell Avenue; sewer
SEilf No. 339 Piadiags eiart.msd City gA.uoMv r
stttaerrrt of °rertiirin g Csrtid(errirass Rog 1 -
-18-
q miff; a
Mllin
111.11 a, sr I I !UPI! sr f
d pihiE ? ih' �g ufr�P € Mil } � E �
{ 6fisi ILCI I ill Orli 15. giN �ier` "� 4 °v e �9' °�9 6��P � �3�i � I �� P ( = fig} �c ; #i ITO$ �[t
le wits! lip; lira lin 114 .kr
31/1iP i Id;141 i i� 8 hall ii pF� hii &� dill. �ei�ii�9 iG�� 3�i"
1. Introduction and Summary
Natural Gas: The Southern Caifomia Gas Company has indicated that alterations to the existing system
and itiraa* ucture improvements would be required future street and infrastructure improvements would
be coordinated wrlh the appropriate service provides.
1.4 DOCUMENT FORMAT
This document summarizes the signacarnt environmental impacts of the project, describes how these
impacts are to be mitigated, and discusses various alternatives to the proposed project. which were
developed in an effort to reduce the remaining eiplrv'ficavnt environmental impacts. Al impacts are
considered potentially significant prior to mitigation unless otherwise stated in the findings.
This document is divided inb five aedio ns:
Section 1.0 - Introduction and Suarnary provides the CEQA requirements for the R narhge of Fad and
Statement of Overriding Considerations, the environmental review process uhdertahen to date, a
sranmary deacxipton of the proposed project, and a description of the contents of tis document_
Section 2.0 - rearrange on the Project Alternatives presents alternatives to the project considered in
the Draft BR and eratiades them in relation to the findings set forth in Section 15091(a)(3) of the Stale
CEQA Guidelthea, which afowa a pubic agency to approve a project that would result in one or more
significant erwiorrnehgaf eftecda it the project alternatives are found to be infeasible because of the
specific economic, sosial or other considerations.
Section 3.0 - Feedings on Potentially Significant Impacts presents significant impacts of the proposed
project that were identified in the Draft/renal SEM. the mitigation measures idenaaSed in the Nation
Monitoring Program No. 106C (dated October 2010), the findings for the inpads, and the rationales for
the findings.
Section 4.0 - Statement of Overriding Considerations presents the cweniding considerationa for
significant impacts related to the project that cannot be or have not been mtigated or resolved. These
considerations are required under Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines. which require decision
makers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risk in
determining whether to approve the project
Section 5.0 - References identifies all references cited in this document.
SPIR Ne. 339 Fiadisgr.Mira dad City offs
Sketessrat of tharrrd sg Couidenetiests Page 1 -9
-20-
I. Introduction and Summary
This page irdenborwly leg bank
The Plr eiig Caatar Ottnder 2010
Page 1 -10
-21-
2. Findings on Project Alternatives
The todowing discussion is intended to provide a aunrnary of the alternatives considered and rejected in
the Revised P4dinurn Triangle Expansion Project Draft SEIR, including the No-Project/Existing Master
Land Use Plan (MLUP) Alternative. Reduced try Alternative, and the Increased Residential Intensity
Alternative.
2.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE SCOPING/PROJECT
PLANNING ING PROCESS
The blowing is a discussion of the hand use alternatives considered during the trooping and planning
process and the reasons why they were not selected ted for detailed analysis in the Draft Subsequent BR
(DSEW .
2.1.1 Alternative Development Maas
CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the project or its location that
we capable of avoiding or Nally lessening any significant effects of the project The key question
and fast step in the analysis is whether any of the signincant effects of the project would be avoided or
substantially leavened by puling the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or f
mil► lessen any of the agrticarht effects of the project need be considered for induaion in the ( "x i
Eli (Guideines Sec. 15126.s[ti)2)[Ai), In general. any development of the size and type proposed by
the project would have substantially the same impede an air quality, land use and planning„ noise.
population and housing public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and ut itiee and service
systems. Without a site specific analyse, alpaca on aesthetics,
geology and sore, hazards and hazardous materials, cultural mineral resources.
re ounce
��� hydrology and water qualay, and mineral reeosiaehe
cannot be
Where a previous document has shlidehly analyzed a range of reasonable alternative locations and
environmental inpacis for projects with the same basic purpose. the lead agency should review the
previous document. The BR may rely on the previous document to help it assess the ihaasibitiy of
potential project alternatives to the extent the circumstances remain substantially the same as they relate
to the akeinat ve (Guidelines Section 15129.61f)(2J[C3).
On May 25. 2004, the Anaheim City Council adopted the General Plan and Zoning Code Update for the
City of Anaheim. Through this comp eheneive General Plan Update, the City reduced allowable (Mambas
in the Hal and Canyon Area of the City which contained signify biological re sources, and created a
moved -use overlay zone in the Plainurn Triangle, which allows the introduction of residential units in this
area through redevelopment of this predominantly industrial area Therefore, trough preparation of the
General Plan, the City identified the most environmentally sensitive areas tor permanent protection as
open space. Less environmentally sensitive areas were designated for development. As a result: the
project site is designated for a moo of reeidenial. dice, and commercial uses in accordance with the
City's General Plan.
As the California Supreme Court indicated in as decisions in Qbzens of [raids Valley v. Board of
Supervisors. 52 Cal. 3d 553 (1990):
SSIR Ns. 339 Fiadiag sfRret awd City ofAaobehire
Start nt (Overriding Cestideratirwr Page 2 -1
-22-
I r I hIK:1' I .11YEr O 1 i I. lap ki pub ;i.
i I 1 11 if[ 3 Atli , tro fffi ' .. . 1 i i
j i . tillii 1 i iiettilr.rr I li ell q R it Plii ht
0 if r��� +�e � illiPlifilla i tf•
UI �1� rEI lillii[
. h 1 .81 11 ! f 01 l e g til 1
ithiFill Pillibliii li 11/ lb gill;
1/414ii iiiirpfc I uptiW fp pii
1101 TAO i 111 I I li
il 11 I I a rs' II i ilitriti i I N
l f lit t 1 4- .. i • r • . V 6 g.
1 "11 g i l l h a r 1 1' ,
Fiera . :: fit g 1 II fat M
2. Finding' on Project Alternative
a Increased Residential Intensity Alternative
2.2.1 No-Project /Existing MLUP Alternative
This alternative, which is required by CEQA, assumes that the Adopted MLUP and the Platinum Triangle
Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone would remain unchanged. The properties designated by the General
Plan for Mixed Use, Institutional. Industrial, Office-High and Office -Low land use would remain
unchanged. The Katella and Orangewood Mixed Use Districts would not be impended. The Office District
and ARTIC Mixed Use District would not be created. Therefore, this alternative would not require a
General Plan Amendment or amendments to the Platinum Triangle MUJP As a recut the No-
Projed)Existing MLUP Alternative assumes a total of 10.266 dwelling units, a maximum overall
commercial density of 2.264.400 square feet, and a maximum overall office density of 5.055.550 square
feet
Finding: The City finds that the No-Project/Existing MLUP Alternative is less than desirable (Public
Resources Code 3 21061 ja](3], Guidelines 5 150911a]]3]).
Facts In Support of Finding:
• The No- Project/Existing MLUP Alternative would reduce impacts in nine of the eleven resource
areas. including noise. transportation and traffic, and GIIG, which are significant and
unavoidable impacts of the Project.
• This alternative would meet all of the project objectives identified in Section 3.2 of the FSEIR, but
not to the extent attained by the implementation of the proposed project
• Although this alternative would reduce some of the project impacts, the significant air quality,
noise, and traffic impacts associated with the project would not be avoided. In addition., the
beneficial impacts associated with new housing opportunities and provision of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers would not occur to the same extent.
2.2:2 Reduced intensity Alternative
This alternative would reduce proposed intensity increases by 30 percent Implementation of this
alternative would result in a total of 16.316 residential units, 4. 116,097 square feet of commercial uses.
11.555.030 square feet of office uses, and 1.050,000 square feet of institutional uses within the PTMU
Overlay Zone. The intent of this alternative is to reduce the impacts associated with implementation of
the Platinum Triangle MLUP while achieving the basic goals and objectives established in the City's
General Plan.
Finding: The City finds that the Reduced Intensity Alternative is less than desirable than the proposed
project and rejects this alternative: (Public Resources Code 5 21081(a)[3], Guidelines 5 150911x][3]).
Facts in Support of Finding:
• The Reduced Intensity Alternative would avoid or reduce impacts associated with aesthetics, air
quality, raise, pubic services. tranoportalionttraffsc, and utiities and service systems. However,
unavoidable adverse impacts to air quality, traffic, and noise would still occur and adoption of a
Statement of Overriding Considerations would styli be required_
SEJR N. 330 Finding! . ,e` Fact and Cut) afAnaheier
Star[irrrrrt of Otrrr dl►S' C eenidlrvtioni Page 2-3
-24-
2. Findings on Project Alternatives
• Although this altemalire would reduce some of the project impacts, the significant air quality
noise and traffic impacts aeeociated with the project would not be avoided. In addition. the
beneficial impacts associated with new housing opportunities and provision of employment
opportunities tor highly trained walker would not occur to the same extent.
• This alternative would meet all of the project objectives identified in Section 3.2 of the PSBR. but
not to the extent attained by the lion of the proposed project
2.2.3 Increased Residential fafensifpr Alternative
The Increased Residential Intensity Alternative would convert some of once uses to residential intensity
and commercial rMai and inablutionai square foalages would remain. This Alternative would Mari a
maximum of 23,500 dwelling unite. 11.714.038 square feet of office. 4,909,682 square feet of
cemm l i. and 1. 500.000 square feet of institutional within the PTMU Overlay Zone. The
increased Residential Intensity Alterative would reduce 2,626.484 square feet of office use from the
Proposed Project and add 4.591 additional residential units. The resulting intensities ward result in a
more balanced jobs/housing ratio but exacerbate other environmental impacts associated with
residential increases ouch as the need for additional recreation and education facilities where there may
not be adequate available ales.
Finctinw The City fads that the Increased Residential Intensity Alternative is leas than desirable than the
proposed project and rejects this alternative:
Facts in Support of Foxing:
• This Increased Residential Intensity Alternative ward slightly increase impacts associated with
public senvicee and utilities /service systems. Mow ever, this alternative would lessen jobs/housing
imbalance impact.
• White this alternative would reduce some of the significant sleds of the proposed project this
alternative would not achieve the project objectives identified in Section 3.2 of the DEIR to the
same degree as the proposed project including the beneficial impacts associated with the
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers.
• Although this alternative would avoid or reduce some of the project impacts the the jobs/housing
balance, the significant as quality, noise, and traffic impacts associated with the project would
not be avoided and adoption of a Statement of Ovenid ng Considerations would WI be required
The Pl nrwiag Carter Qrtrber 2010
Pray 2-4
-25-
3. Findings on Potentially Sign Impacts
This section identifies the fandango on impact categories analyzed in the Draft and Final ER, including
paternally eiwiicant impels of the project.
3.7 AESTHEJICS
hid 51 -1: The proposed project would alter the visual appearance of the project area.
As discussed in the DSER, development it accordance wih the increased development intensities
would inevitably result in changea to the visual appearance of the project area as the height size, and
scale of ebuchres increase. The proposed project would also modify widthe of steed and street
within the Flatiron Triangle to ensure that increased development intensities are
aocornmodated.
However, all new mined use development would be required to adhere to the adopted design standards
set forth in the Chapter 18.20, Platinum Triangle Mired Use (PiMU) Overlay Zone, and other applicable
zoning regulations of the City of Anaheim Municipal Code. Development wilhin the Platinum Triangle
would be designed in accordance with the adopted Platinum Triangle design principles. Development It 7
aide within the project area would be oonsbuoted in a and scales that are consistent with s
planned development in the area and provide a rich mix of block, building. and unit eerrtigtrations to I if
enhance the visual atbactiveness. As non of the proposed project occurs over an extended
period of tine, various urban design alb: kites i corporaied in the Master Land Use Plan (MWP) and
PTMU Overlay Zone would ensure that individual projects are archtecheaIy consistent and well
landscaped, as envisioned by the MLUP
State College Boulevard Railroad Undercrossing
The ATBSF railroad crosses State College Boulevard approximately 250 feet north of Wright Circle within
the Platte= Triangle. In order to improve traffic flow and safety, the City of Anaheim is working with the
Orange County Transportation Actively (OCTA) on an taadspa s concept at this location. Figure 3-12
shows the proposed urdacroesing location and conceptual gkrohaton. Because a is an underpass
concept, any visual impact would be minimal. as & would not be veoble from suaroxndng areas. It is
anticipated that this underarossing would improve the visual quaity of the area as landscaping would be
incorporated inlo the project design.
Shade/Shadow Impact
The issue of shade and shadow pertains to the blockage of direct sunlight by onsle bulldogs. which
affects ad}aoent properties. Sharing is an important erwironnerttal issue because the users or occwards
of certain land uses, such as residential, recreational, outdoor restaurants, and pedestrian areas have
expectations for direct airtight and warmth from the sun Fatima that influence the extent and range of
shading include season; time of thy; weather; bolding height. bulk and shale: spacing between
bullrings: and bee cover The longest ahadowa are cast during the wirier months, when the sun is
lowest on the horizon, and the shortest shadows are cast during the summer mon Shadows are
longer in the early morning and late afternoon. The City does not provide any specific provisions in
SEIR No. 339 Fiadisgr af Rat and City ofAmdahl:
SZatarvrt of Ovwridisg Caruidrrratisu
liege 3 -
-26-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
regulating shade or shadow impede Therefore. this analysis aseurnes that the extent of shadow impacts
is considered substantial if 50 percent of sun-aenellive area lain shaddahadow for at least 50 percent of
the duration for the season fia... three hours between 9 AM and 3 PM during winter daylight hours).
Nonethelees. the increased allowable densely and height of the Proposed Project would result in
increased shadow lengths and widths being cast by the ousting conctitiona. Therefore. despite the
existing design guidelines. there in a potential that over 50 percent of on- and oft-site shadow-senellive
areas would experience shadefehadow effects for mare than 50 percent of the sunlight hours. Future
development projects adjacent to uses that are deemed shadow sensitive would be required to
demonstrate that they would not interfere with those uses' exposure to natural firelight and to
incorporate design features that allow tired sunlight tar at least 50 percent of the sun-sensitive areas for
at least 50 percent of duration for the season. Therefore. with mitigation, implementation of the Proposed
Project would result in less than aigniticant impede associated with the project area's visual appearance.
Mitigation Measures:
Applicable Alleasure from IIMND No. 106A
The following mitigation measure was included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring
Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25. 2005, as part of
the Subsequent Erwironmental Wiped Report Mx 332. and is applicable to the proposed project.
Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in airiest* formal The mitigation reference
number I shown in Makcs).
1-1 Prior to approval of a Are-parlorif Ake Feed Site Plan application, where adjacent uses are
deemed to be shadow sensitive ereg... residential recreational. ettdeer-restruarthw and
pedestrian areas), the property overeddratoper for Mum developmert projeda ahall
demonstrate that the Proposed Project would not preclude shadow sensitive receptors'
exposure to natural sunlight for ahead 50 percent of duration for the season. for at least 50
percent of the shade-sensitive wee to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. (5.1-1)
Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and avoids or substantially lessens potentially
significant aesthetic impacts to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in
the Draft SEIR.
Reference: FSBR Section 5.1. Pages 5.1-9 through 51-12.
3.2 AM QUAUTY
impact 52-1: Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would generate
substentiaNy more short-term air pollutants compared to the Adopted Master Land Use Plan and
would continue to exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District's regional significance
thresholds.
Construction activities occurring within the Platinum Triangle would potentially exceed the SCAQPK1
emissions thresholds for P40„, CO, VOC. Pilland PIA,„and signticanny contribute to the 0,, PM, and
PM„, nonattainment designation of the SoCAB. The emissions shown in Table 5_2-7 represent an
estimate of construction emissions from developneint of multiple projects occurring within the Platinum
Triangle tritJJ However, actual maximum daily ankteions would depend on the number of
airreiltaneouely occurring projects,. Regional construction impacts associated with the Adopted MWP in
The Pkanamg Caner &tether 2010
Page 3-2
-27-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
the 2SEIR No. 332 were conaidered a significant impact of the project The Proposed Project would
generate substantially more construction emissions over the same 20 -year lime frame as compared to
the adopted h&UP Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures:
Applicable able Measures from MAW No. 106A
The following mitigation measures were induded in Updated and Modified Mibgabon Monitoring
Program No. 106 prepared for the Platinum Triangle. adopted by the City Council on October 25. 2005.
as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 (FSEii No. 332). and are applicable to
the Proposed Project (For m igaion measures to reduce energy consumption. see also Chapter 5.10.
litMGee and Service Systems). Additions are shown in bold and deleions are =Scaled in eharesut
format. The reference number for each measure from IMP NoI06A it shown in (Palms).
Construction
2-1 Ongoing during gradng and conebwrfion. the property owner/developer shall be
responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to reduce
Bona; how ever: the resultant value is expected to remain
significant (53
a) The contractor shall ensure that at construction ction equipment is being property
serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's fir
recommendations to reduce operational emissions.
b) Where4easibla4tre The contractor shall use Tier 3 or higher, as identified by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency, off-road construction
equipment with higher air polubrd emissions standards for equipment greater
than 50 horsepower, based on manufacturer's avaiabittiy. Iwaremissierraisbile
sanebuetew.
c) The contractor shall Mize existing power sour es (e.g., power poles) or clean-fuel
generators rather than temporary dreeel -power generators. where feasible.
2-2 Ongoing during grading and construction. the property owner/developer shall implement the
following measures in addition to the existing requirements for fugitive dust control
under South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 to further reduce warder
ts- +eduse PM,,, and PM emissions. To assure compiance, the City shall verity
compliance that these measures have been implemented during normal construction
site inspections. The measures to be implemented are listed below: (5.2
a) '
SE1R No. 339 Findings of fiat sad at of Amebas:
Sweeny of Overriding Cosciderrviarr huger 3 -3
-28-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
a) e— During at grading activities, the property owner /developer's construction
contractor shall iAeestabish ground cover on the construction site through
seeding and watering as quickly as possible to achieve a minimum control
efficiency for PM„ of 5 percent
b) e--During at gracing activities, the property osmer/developer's construction
contractor shall apply chemical soil stabilizers Pave to on-site haul roads to
achieve a control efficiency for Pk1„ of 85 percent compared to travel on
unpaved, untreated reads
c) a—The property owner /developer's construction contractor shall pPhase
gracing to prevent the suaceptitr of large areas to erosion over extended periods
of time.
d) a—The property owner /developer's construction contractor shall *Schedule
acdiviiea to minimize the amount of exposed excavated soil during and alter the end
of work periods.
e) a —During all construction activities, the property owner /developer's construc-
tion contractor shall e6weep sheets with Rule 11813 - compliant PM,,-efficient
vacuum units on a daily basis if silt is carried ova to adjacent pubic thoroughfares
or occurs as a result of hawing.
f) E- urirg active demolition and debris removal and gracing, the property
owner/ developer's construction contractor shah eguspend demolition and
gracing operations when during -high winds speeds exceed 25 miss per hour to
achieve an emissions control efficiency for PM,, under worst -case wind
conditions of 98 percent
g) 2—During all construction activities, the property owner/developer's construc-
tion contractor shall mMairdain a minimum 12 -inch freeboard retie on haul bucks
hauling dirt, sand, son, or other loose materials and tarp materials with a fabric
cover or other suitable means to achieve a control efficiency for PM„ of 9i
means,.
h) During all construction activities, the property owner /developer's construction
contractor shall water exposed ground surfaces and disturbed areas a
minimum of every three hours on the construction site to achieve an emissions
reduction control efficiency for PM„ of 61 percent.
The Phrasing Centre Weber 2010
Rags 3-
-29-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
i) During active demolition and debris removal, the property owner /developer's
construction contractor shall apply water to disturbed soils at the end of each
day to achieve an emission control efficiency for PM,, of 10 percent
j) During scraper unloading and lowing, the properly owner /developer's
construction contractor shall ensure that actively disturbed areas maintain a
minimum soil moisture content of 12 percent by use of a moveable sprinkler
system or water truck to achieve a control efficiency for PM,, of 89 percent.
k) During all construction activities, the property owner/developer's construction
contractor shag limit on -ails vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to no more than
15 pries per hour to achieve a control efficiency for PM„ of 57 percent
2-3 Prior to approval of each gracing plan (for k porti6gort Plan) and prior to issuance of
demotion permits (for Demolition Plane), the property owner/developer shag submit
Demolition and tnpartiExport Plans detailing construction and demolition (CAD)
recycling and waste reduction measures to be implemented to recover OW materials.
These plans shall include identification of aide kxc#ons for materials export from the
project and options for deposal of excess material_ These options may include recycling of
materials on -site or to an adiacent mite, sale to a soil broker or conntracior sale to a project in
the vicinity vicirdy or transport to an environrnerrbally cleared landfill. with atlernpls made to move it
within Orange County. The property ownerJdeveloper ghat offer recyclable building
materials, such as asphalt or concrete for sale or removal by private Anne or public agencies
for use in construction of other projects if not ail can be reused at the project site_ (523) 4 74
2-4 Prior to issuance "planned of each butting permit the property owner /developer shall
submit evidence that high -solids or water-based low emissions paints and coatings are
ut ized in the design and conebu ion of buildings. in compliance with South Coast Air
Management District's regulations_
•
This information shah be
denoted on the project plans and specifications. Additionally, the property
owner/developer's shall specify She use of high- vokaue/le - pressure spray equipment
or hand application. Air - atomized spray techniques shall not be pernnlfted. Plana shall
also show that property owner /developers shall construct/build with materials that do
not require painting, or use preprinted construction materials, to the extent feasible.
(52-4)
Fending_ The mitigation measures are feasible and would reduce emissions from architectural
coatings, construction vehicle exhaust, and fugrfive dust during construction activities_ However,
as individual development projects could overlap and considering the magnitude of construction
activities proposed within the Platinum Triangle, emissions of CO, NO,„ HOG, PM,, and PM.
would continue to exceed the SCAQMD's regional thresholds for construction. As a result, Impact
5.2 -1 would remain Significant and Unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is
required.
Sh at q Ridings Rsg tf Fret ad s City afAw 3 -5
v 3-5
-30-
3. Findings on Potentially Sign Impacts
Reference: FSBR Section 5.2. Pages 5.2-17 through 52-37.
Impact 52-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project would generate subetantiafy more long-
term at pollutants compared to the Adopted Master Land Use Plan and would continue to exceed
South Coast Air Quakily Management District's regional significance thresholds.
The Adopted M W P and the Proposed Project would exceed the SCAQMD threehokfe for CO. NOX, VOC.
PM„. and PM ,. The Proposed Project would generate shy more as pollutant emissions when
compared to the Adapted MLUP because the project would result i, additional residential. con-aneroid
and office development The primary source of project-related long -tea► air potrulant missions are from
mobile sources (i.e., vehicles beveling to and from the project ale). Emissions of VOC. PM,,, PM,,,, and
NOx that exceed the SCAQMD emission thresholds would cormitxrte to the CXi nonaitaihment
designation. Emissions of PM, and PM,, that sensed the SCAigMD enuresion thresholds would
oonbhute to the particulate matter (PM„ and PM,,) nonagairnent designations of the SOCAB, and
impacts would remain significant and unavoidable for both the Adopted /AMP and the Proposed Project.
Mitigation Measures:
App icable Measures horn MMP Ala t06A
The following mitigation measures were induded in Updated and Modied Obligation Monitoring
Program No. 106 prepared for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005,
as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332, and are apptigde to the Proposed
Project. (For mitigation measures to reduce energy consumption. see atao Chapter 5.10, Ltlififres and
Semite Systems). Additions am shown in bold and deletions are indicated in eiireaut format. The
reference number for each measure from /AMP Na106A is shown in Malice).
Operation
2-5 In accordance wilts the timing required by the Traffic and Trataporfation Manager: but no
latter than prior to the first that Building and Zoning inspection. the property ownner /developer
shall implement the following measures to reduce long-term operational l CO. N01 ROC', and
PM,,, emissions: (5.2-5)
• Traffic lane inprovements and aignatimtion as outlined in the Revised Platinum
Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report by Parsons Brinckerhoft,
August 2010, iaftisdudrand Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) shall be
implemented as required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager.
• � The Traffic property ow Transportation shall place bus benches and/or shelters as required
ransportation Maager at locations along any si a frontage routes
as needed.
2-6 Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner /archlect shall submit energy
calculations used to demonstrate compliance with the performance approach to the
California Energy Efficiency Standards to the Building Division that shows each new
structure exceeds the appicabfe Bolden and Energy Efficiency Standards by a
minimum of 10 percent at the time of the buideng permit. Prior to issuance of a buridng
permit plans shall show the following:
Ter Plrreing Carter [71 der 2010
Page 3-6
-31-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
a) Energy roofing , such as vegetated or cool roofs, that reduce
roof temperatures significantly during the summer and therefore reduce the
energy requirement for air eordubroning. Examples of energy efficient building
materials and suppliers can be found at htlp:/ /edd_lb .gov/ Cool Roofs or similar
websies_
b) Cod pavement materials such as lighter-colored pavement materials, porous
materials, or permeable or porous pavement, for all roadways and walkways
not within the public right -of -vary, to minimize the absorption of solar heat and
subsequent transfer of heat to lts mrramwing environment. Examples of cool
pavement materials are available at htlp://www.epa.govtheatiNd/
images /inrtra/leve13pavingproduebhbni or similar websrtea.
c) Energy saving devices that achieve the existing 2000 Appliance Energy
Efficiency Standards, such as use of energy efficient appliances (e.g,
EnergySfar€' appliances) and use of sunfight- fltering window coatings or
double -paned windows.
d) Electrical vehicle charging stations for all commercial structures encompassing
over 50,000 square feet
e) Shady trees strategically located within close proximity to the butd'ingg structure
to reduce heat load and resulting energy usage at residential, commercial, and
office buildings. 4t :14
•
(5.2-6)
The following Mitigation Measure from htiligabon Monitoring Plan No. 106A is no longer applicable
because SCAQMD adopted Rule 445, Wood - Burning Devices. SCAQMD Rule 445 prohibits installation of
wood-burning fireplaces. Consequently. all ireptaces installed will the Platinum Triangle would be
required to be gas-burning and former Miga ion Meade* 5.2-7 is no longer required.
uaeeb
Find ig: The mitigation measures are feasible and avoid or substantially lessen the significant air
quality impacts of the project to the extent feasible. However, due to the magnitude of the
development forecast under the Platinum Triangle, Impact 5.2.2 would remain Significant and
Unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required_
Reference: FSEIR Section 5.2, Pages 5.2-19 through 5.2-37.
S c at 339 Plain' Ca r tiions City °fAs 3 - 7
� 3 -7
-32-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant 17npacts
Impact 52-3: Construction activities would potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations of NO CO, PM,,, and PM
Construction associated with won of the Proposed Project would cause temporary, short-term
emissions of CO. NO, VOC. SO PM.,. and PM„,. The SCAQMD developed LSTa for emissions of NO
CO. PM„ and PM, generated at the project site a mohie source errmseiona are not included tie
LST analysis). LSTh represent the maximum emissions at a project site that are not expected to cause or
contnb ate to an wcoeedance of the moat stringent national AAQS or California AMPS. LSTs are based on
the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the project SRA area and the dhata ce to the nearest
sensitive receptor.
Information Ong specific development projects, soil types, and the locations of receptors would be
needed to quantify the level of Impact associated with construction autiv*y. Air gushy emissions related
to construction must be addressed on a project- by-project baste. For this broad-based minter land use
plan i is not possible to detenrhine the emissions that would be generated by the development of
individual projects that would occur through the imptementadion of the Proposed Project, due to the
speculative nature of scheduling construction projects. However, t is eigpected that due to the
of the existing and proposed residences within the Platinum Triangle of
angle n addition to the rrhagnitude Aude of
canabnrticr activities, construction activities associated within bold -art of the Proposed Project could
c in f to as this impact woidd to during construction
at:l
Pmb aignticart far both the Adopted MWP and the Proposed
Mitigation Measures:
Appiable beaarwes from AMID Afo. 106A
Mitigation Measures 2-1 trough 24 would also reduce localized concentration of air polutahts during
construction.
Findings: The mitigation measures as described above are feastille and would reduce localized
construction emissions. However, due to the magnitude of the construction grading activibiea, the
probability that multiple construction activities would occur at the same time, and the proximity of
existing and future sensitive receptors within the Platinum Triangle, Impact 5.2-3 would remain
significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required.
Reference: FS 8R Sec bon 5.2. Pages 5.2-20 through 52-37.
Impact 5.24: Mobile sources of emissions related to the Proposed Project would not expose
sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Impact 5.2-4 was not found to be aigni hoar# and no findings are required for this impact.
Impact 5.2-5: Sensh"tive land uses within 500 feet of State Route 57 and Interstate 5 or within the
recommended buffer distances to facilities emitting TACs may be exposed to substantial pollutant
concentrations.
tinder the Proposed Project development of residential uses and associated private recreational areas
would be binned to the mi_ • e dam. As shown in Figure 52-3 of the DSE1R. GARS 500 -Foot
The Pbnarirg Carter
Page 3-8 ArtslMr 2010
-33-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
Recommended Butler Distance from Freeways. portion of the mixed -use districts and associated private
facilities would far within the 500-foot buffer distance to Interstate 5(1.6) and State-Route 57 (SR -57).
Proposed like within the Platinum Triangle would not be within the 500400r buffer distance of the
freeway. In addition, future resident and recreational trees may be within the recommended buffer
distance of existing distrtudion centers. drone platers, dry deaners, gas stations, or other fealties that
may be currently oper ating within the Platinum Triangle that Bail TACa. Consequently, applicants for new
development within the Ptatinwn Triangle would need to evaluate air gnarly land use compatibly.
However, the mixed-use districts would be buffered torn the existing industrial areas in the Platinum
Triangle by the office dnutrits. Placement of sensitive urea (reeldenbal and recreational) near major
pollutant sources would result in ant air quality impacts from the exposure of persons to
substantial concentrations of tonic air pollutant contaminants.
Mitigation Measures
Apprmahfe Measures horn Mile Ala 106A
No mitigation measures are applicable.
Additional llftigsf for,
2-7 Appicante for new residential developments in the Plain= Triangle Master Land Use Plan
within 500 feet of Inferable 5(1-5) or State Route 57 (SR -57) shag be required to instal high
efficiency Minimum Efficiency Reporting Vane (MERV) hers of MERV 14 or better in the
intake of residential ventilation systems. Installation of MERV dens shag be shown an plane IR, 'A
submitted for building permits. MERV 14 filters have a Particle Size B cien y rating of 90
percent for paric Mates 1.0 micron to 3.0 microns in size and a Particle Size Efficiency rating
of 75 to 85 percent for particles 0.3 b 1.0 micron in size. A MERV 14 filter creates more
resistance to airflow because the fifer media become, denser as efficiency increases.
Heating, air darting. and veMlabon systems shall be insetted with a fan wit designed
to force air through the MERV 14 Slier.
lb n maintenance g-^maintenance and replacement of the MERV 14 titters in the individual
lowing shag occur:
a) Developer. sale, and/or rental representative shall provide nottic idion to al affected
tenarnta/reeidenle of the potential health risk from 45158 -57 for al affected coils.
b) For rental units within 500 feet of the 1- SySR -57, the owner/properly manager shall
maintain and replace MERV 14 Mere n accordance with the manufacturer's
turer's
The property owner shy inform renters of increased risk of
exposure to diesel particulates from 15 or SR-57 when windows are open.
c) For residential owned Untie within 500 feet of I-5/SR-57. the homeowner's
association (HON shaft incorporate requirements for long-term maintenance in the
Covenant. Conditions. and Restrictions and inform homeowners of their
responeirlilyr to maintain the MERV 14 Ater in accordance with the manufacturer's
The HOA shaft inform homeowners of increased risk of exposure
to diesel particulates from 15/SR -57 when windows are open.
2-8 Based on the recorrrne ded buffer distances of the California Air Resources Board,
applicants for new developments in the Platinum Triangle ,fail place residential atrxxiures
SW Iva. 339 Fielding goers writ
City di:Arrifyriurr
st x,udear ((Overriding Crrwiefrrrriarr .Argo 3-9
-34-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
and active outdoor recreational areas outside of the recommended buffer asterism to the
Ong stationary air podulant sources:
• 1.000 feet from the truck bays with an arising dtskibutiorh center that
accommodates more than 100 trucks per thy, more than 40 bucks with operating
transport refrigeration units. or where transport refrigeration Lilt operations exceed
300 hours per week.
• 1.000 feet from an existing chrome plating tacity
• 300 feet from a dry-cleaning facility usingg one machine and
500 feet from dry- cleaning tastily using perchilmethylene using trio machines.
• 50 feet from gas pumps within a gases tacit,/ and 300 feet from gas
pimps within a gasoinedtapensing balky with a throughput per year or greater. of 3.6 !nation gallons
2-9 At outdoor active -use public recreational areas associated with development projecta shall
be located more than 500 feet from the nearest lane of traffic on interstate 5 and State Route
57.
Fndinge: Mitigation measures are feasible and avoid or substantially reduce the potential health
risk for future residences within the Platinum Triangle from proximity to the leeway. However,
because Lang berm maintenance associated with replacement of the MMERV filters is not in the
control of the developer, and because the Titers do not affect air quality outdoors, Impact 5.25
would remain Significant and Unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is
required However, it should be noted that as set forth in the response to comments, recent data
has called into question the validity of the CARR and SCAQMO studies that have been used to
generate estimated background levels of DMA. It is ikely that the FSEIR overestimates impacts to
residents iving within 500 feet of the freeway.
Reference: FSBR Section 5.2, Pages 5.2-22 through 51 -37.
Impact 5.2 -6: The Proposed Project is consistent with the 2007 AQMP_
inroad 5.2-6 was not found to be significant and no findings are required for this impact.
impact 5.2 -7: The Proposed Project would not create objectionable odors; however,
implementation of the Proposed Project could result in new residential land uses located near
existing odor generators.
SCAQM O Rule 402, Pkuisance, regulates the generation of offensive odors. Project construction would
involve the operation of heavy equipment and haul tricks, resulting in exhaust missions and attendant
the time odors nuiaance such My su odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the equipment heel By
generated by diesel exhaust reached the sensitive ►eaidential receptors, they would be
Mutest to well below any level of air quality conceal. M occasional - whip- of diesel exhaust horn
passing equip' and trucks accessing the site from public uomfenys may result Such brief exhaust
odors are not significant air quality impact. Addionajy, some odor would be produced from the
The Plriseiirg Carter
Wafer 2010
Page 3 -10
-35-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
appbcation of asphalt paints. and coatings. Agait any exposure ci the general public to these common
odors would be of short duration and less than significant
Off -Site Impacts
Odors generated by land uses within the Plat um Triangle must comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which
prohibits the generation of odors that cause injury. detriment nuisance, or annoyance to a considerable
number of persons or which endanger the comfort repose, health or satiety of people. Became
proposed cam. commercial. hotel, and residential land uses typically do not generate substantial odors.
no sgrniicard impacts would occur. Impacts would be lees than sigtnalcant
On-See Irrrpaets
SGAC*S) cites the following land uses as having the potential to generate noisome odors: agricultural
(taming and livestock), chemical plants. composting operations. dairies. fiberglass molding. landfds.
refineries. rendering plants, rail yards. and wastewater treatment p (SCAQAD 2005). knduetrial uses
within the Platinum Triangle area may generate odors that are objectionable to some. At buidout
residential areas would be badgered by office uses from industrial areas that have the potential to
generate odors. Iberefore. at buidaut. residential land tares would not be exposed to objectionable
odors. While many of the industrial land toes within The Platinum Triangle are generaly non- odorous.
during conversion of The Platinum Triangle residential land uses maybe temporarily loaded adjacent to
industrial businesses that generate odors. Consequently. impacts would be potentially eigniicant without
mtigabonn measures to ensure that new land uses are not located in proximity to existing land uses that
generate substantial odors with the Plattner" Triangle. R 4
Mitigation Measures
Appinarbte Measures from ltMlp No. /OSA
No mitigation measures are applicable.
Additional ifi'fi ipaion
5-10 For projects located within 1.000 feet of an irnduakial featly that emits substantial odors.
which includes but is not united to:
• wastewater treatment plants
• composting, greenwaste. or recyd'sng facilities
• nfberglass manufacturing facilities
• paining/coaling oparabons
• coffee roasters
• food processing facilities
Project Applicant shall submit an odor assessment to the Planning Director prior to approval
of any future discretionary action that verifies that the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQuD) has not received twee or more verged odor complainer I the Odor
Assessment identities that the tacitly has received twee such complaints, the applcarnt will
be requited to identify and demonstrate that Best Amiable Control Technologies for Tonics
(f -BACTs) are capable of reducing g potential odors to an acceptable level. including
appropriate enforcement mechanisms. T-BAC% may include. but are not limited to.
SETR Na. 339 Findings If Era .and City ofAn heiar
Sunman sf (Amidia* Csasidrrcriass Page 3 -11
-36-
3. Findings on Potentially Sign s cant Impacts
scrubbers 4 the industrial fact y. or irmFalafion of Mihinun Efficiency Reporting Value
(MBiV) titers rated at 14 or better at all residential unite.
Fairings: The mitigation measure is feasible and avoids or substantially lessens potentially
significant aesthetic impacts to a lees than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Draft
SEIR.
Reference: FSEIR Section 5.2. Pages 5.2 -27 through 5.2-37.
3.3 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact 5.3-1: The proposed project would place additional demands on groundwater supple. due
to the construction of a new water web.
The City owns and operates a network of groundwater wells to supply groundwater to their leers.
Groundwater stipples approximately 66 percent of the City's current total water production. There are
two groundwater wells located on the project area: a monitoring well on the eastern border at the project
area and a production well located north of Angel Stadium of Anaheim. To meet the project water
demands the City proposes to upgrade the initial production rate of a previously proposed new water
well in tie Plaiia,m Triangle (located adjacent to planned Fire Station No. 12. between Anaheim Way
and Santa Gnu Street and designated as Well No. 57) and dal an additional new water well at a location
to be determined.
The Orange County Groundwater Basin holds rations at acre feet (at) of water of which abort 1.25 to
1.5 rriion at are available for use. The OCWO drills one new well every one or two years to replace
adding shallow and deteriorated webs and provide additional production capacity. Construction of an
additional water well to serve the Platinum Triangle would provide the necessary production capacity.
The poposed water well is one of the water faculty improveranta identified in Rule 1513 - Water Fealty
Fee for the Platinum Triangle and would not result in substantial depletion of groundwater
A that Supply Assessment (WSA) for the Platinum Triangle prepared in .luny 2008
adequate water supply is available to serve the proposed project.
Note: Water quality was adequately d echseed in FSEIR No. 334. Since the Revised Platinum Triangle
project would not result in any addlional water quaity impacts, no additional decussion relating to water
quatby was necessary in FSEIR No. 339.
Mitigation Measures
Applicable Mdpartion Measures from ANW No_ 1064
The following n.igalion measures were included in the Updated and Modified ng
Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, M , 20 as part
of
the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 and ate applicable to the proposed project.
Addliiors are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in eb lhesed format The miigation reference
numbers from WWI No. 106A are shown in (Ridics)_
3-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the property owneydev eloper shall submit plans docu-
merging
es) at the
be at least of
a feet ee o slang
higher 100-year flood zone. where applicable.
The Pbsvtrg Corr.
Oaths 2010
Per 3 -
-37-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
unless otherwise required by the Gay Engineer. MI structures below this level shall be
lloodprooled to prevent damage to property or harm to people. 05.54)
3-2 Prior to the inanition of grading activities, for projects greater than one acre, coverage
for the project must be obtained by electronicaly submtiting penal registration
documents to the State or obtaining coverage via current general construction penal
pfescr'ibed method by the property owner/developer pursuant to Stale and Federal
National Pollution Discharge Eraninalion System (WOES) requirement:. As pert of the
NOI, a Surface Water Polution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared. The
Property owner /developer shall also prepare and subsoil to the Development Services
Division of the Pubic Works Department, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) in
accordance with the C ty's municipal NPDES requirements and Chapter 7 of the
Orange County Drannage Area Management Plan. The WQMP must be approved prior
to issuance of grading permit_ The SWPPP, in conjunction when the WOMP, will
describe the structural and nonstnacbral IMP. that viii be implemented during
construction ( short -term) within tae Project Area as well as IMPS for long -term
operation of the Project Area that address potential impacts to surface waters. (5.5 -2)
. (5.5-2)
Additional litigation Measures
No additional mitigation measures are required.
Fuming litgabon measures are feasible and avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant
hydrology and water gushy iiapects toe less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the
Drab SEMR.
Reference: FSSH Section 5.3. Pages 5.3-6 trough 5.33, DSBI Appendix G.
3.4 LAND USE AND PIANISM/6
impact 5.4-1: Project Implementation would conflict with applicable plans, policies, and/or
regulation.
impact 5.4-1 was not found to be significant and no findings are required for this inpac t-
SEIR N.. 339 Findings gates send city of Asrbsiw
Among #'Overriding Csirsidinereiss
Pogo 3 - 13
-38-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
Impact 54.2: Some development pursuant to the Proposed Project will not be
Southern Cai/omia Gee Company's compatible with the
�PmY's existing microwave fawner
It is ardcipated that high-rise residential towers proposed as part d the A-Town Metro
existing microwave tower would potentially interfere 'rah the Southern project north ultra
microwave tower telecommunications function. However. A-Town Metro Gan $ a
')
signed Development Agreement and is not a part of the currant project thi w
�am Triangle. Therefore, the City cannot project actions to increase the
lees than require any actions on A-Town Metro to 'educe level. Unless the property containing the mioowave tourer is
redeveloped with mixed uses it the hdue, the microwave tower would not be relocated and the impacts
It is noted that the current PTMIJ Overlay Zone allows rooftop communications equipment within the
Platinum Triangle so long as shielding is provided Although there is a concern that the pniviaion
on shaking may impede the functionality of the microwave tower, a variance for zoning
microwave tower can be requested at the time of relocation.
Mitigation Measurer
No feasible mdigabon measures are evadable to mitigate the potential conflict with the microwave tower's
function anticipated by the high -rime towers.
Friaries No feasible mitigation measures are evadable to avoid or eubsfantialy lessen potentially
significant land use and planning impact for the reasons net forth in the Drat SBR. Therefore,
Co 5.. -2 is
would remain Significant and Unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding
required.
Reference: FSBR Section 5.4. Pages 5.4-16 through 5.418.
3.5 1IOISE
Impact 5.5-1: Build -out of the Proposed Project would result in a substantial, permanent increase
in ambient traffic noise levels within the vicinity of existing noise-sensiltive receptors.
Based on the criteria used in the 2005 SEIR to determine level of significance O.e., a 5 dBA increase in an
ambient noise environment of less than 65 dBA CNEL or a 3 dBA noise increase in an ambient noise
environment of 65 dBA CNEL or more), the Proposed Project would result in new significant noise
increases along mtdipie ray segmerda as shown in Table 5.5-9 of the DS t. As shown in the table,
the Proposed Project would not substantially increase noise ( +3 dB) beyond the noise levels shown in
FSBR No. 332. However, because FSER No. 332 identified significant increases in the ambient noise
environment from existing conditions that exceed the ttnreaholde castrated above. noise imp ede along the
roomy segments ( bolded in the Table 5.5.8) in the vicinity of the project ale would occur under the
Adopted 1AL1JP and the Proposed Project and therefore. impacts would remain eignificsuk, Significant
noise increases would occur at the following locations:
• Anaheim IA*
• State College Boulevard to Orangewood Avenue
The Nam* Carter
Rip 3 -14 Ocxrdrr 2010
-39-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
• Cerritos Avenue
• Anaheim Boulevard to Lewis Street
• Lewis Street to State College Boulevard
• State College Boulevard to Sunkist Street
• Sunkist Street to Douglass Road
• Collins Avenue
• Eciduol Street to Main Street
• Main Street to Batavia Street
• Disney Way
• Harbor Boulevard to Clementine Street
• Douglass Skeet
• Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue
• Ecktral Street
• Orangewood Avenue to Coins Avenue
fir II
• Gene Autry Way
a 1-5 Freeway to State Colege Boulevard
• Hanky Street
• 1a Freeway to Bal Road
• Ball Road to Vermont Street
• Howell Avenue
• State College Boulevard to Sunkist Street
• Katella Avenue
• Manchester Avenue to Anaheim Way
• Anaheim Way to Lewis Street
• SR-57 Freeway to Main Street
• Lewis Street
• Gene Autry Way to Katella Avenue
• Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue
• Cerritos Avenue to Ball Road
• Main Street
SPJR Na_ 339 Fiudiag •f H tet Ara
S
City wami a Osw i•Gag Cerera winos of tw�ai
Roy 3-15
-40-
3. Findings on Potentially Sign Impacts
• Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue
• Manchester Avenue
• Campton Avenue to Orangewood Avenue
• Orangewood Avenue to Katela Avenue
• KateNa Avenue to Anaheim Boulevard
• Orangewood Avenue
• State CoNege Boulevard to Rampart Street
• Rampart Street to SR-57 Freeway
• Phoenix Club Drive
• Honda Center to Ball Road
• Rampart Street
• Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue
• State CoNege Boulevard
• 1-5 to Orangewood Avenue
• Orangewood Avenue to Gene Autry Way
• Shuck Avenue
• KateilaAvenue to Main Street
• Sunkiat Sheet
• Howel Avenue to Cerritos Avenue
Mitigation Measures
Appicabie Mitigation Measures bow, W No. 1069
No eivaing meson measures from MMP No 106A appy.
Additional W.! r. tan
5-1 Prior to approval at street improvement plane for any project- related roadway widening, the
City shall retain a quaffed aoouaic engineer to design project acouebcal feahaes that vial
limit traffic noise at noise wive uses to levels that are below the Ciy"a noise ordinance.
These heatments atoll be noted on the street improvement plans to the aaiefacAon of the
Planning Departnent and may include. but we not boded to. the replacement of windows
and doors at existing residences with acoustic* rated windows and doors.
T6v Nortairg Carter Welter 2010
Bvgr 3 -16
-41-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
Fnudrgs: Mitigation measures are feasible and avoid or substantially reduce the potential noise
impacts of the proposed project. However, some areas may experience noise levels in exceedance
of the City's noise ordinance prior to implementation of roadway improvements and associated
noise attenuation. Consequently, Impact 5.5-1 would remain significant and unavoidable.
Reference: FSBR Section 5.5. Pages 5.5-19 through 5.542.
Impact 5.52: Build -out of the Platinum Triangle would not generate significant levels of stationary-
source noise that exceeds the City of Anaheim's noise standards from truck loading/unloading
activities and operation of HVAC systems.
knpact 5.5-2 was not found to be significant and no findings are required for this impact
impact 5.5-3: Noise-sensitive residential unite proposed within the Platinum Triangle may be
exposed to mobite- and stationary - source noise levels that exceed stole and/or City standards.
T Noise
Table 5.5-9 in the OSI I shows list that noise from roadways within the Platinum Triangle can exceed 65
d13A CNEL, resulting in noise levels that exceed the City's conditionally acceptable noise compatibility
criterion for noiaeaeneilive residential uses. Noise from SR-57, 1-5. and the Orange County line also
impacts for to erni,Yn
oent FSBR No. 332 identified potentially significant noise
}
placed in proadmly to freeways and major arieriats. as they may tel
within the 65 dBA GNf3 noise contour. 5irriady, under the Proposed Project. because not all noise
-
sensitive areas constructed under individual development proposals under the Platinum Triangle may
meet the City's noise compaulxity standards and impact would need to be eativated on a case•by-
case base. any ailing of seneiive and uses within the vicinity of major arterials and freeways represents
a potentially significant impact and would require a separate noise study *rough the development
review process to determine the level of impact and required mitigation. Consequently, impacts under
the revised plan would be suntan to those identified in FSBR No. 332.
Adjacent Industrial- Source Noise
Residences within the Platinum Triangle could be exposed to stationary-souroe noise tom activities
conduced at the adjacent industrial areas. Noise from industrial uses could occur curing the nighttime
hours when residences we most sensitive to extraneous noise sources. As no ma uteduring occur
within this area, the prinwy noise generators from these types of ' uses include
buck idtng. loading. and a loadng activities.
As part at the Noise Shady for the PSBR No. 332, noise measurements were taken at the Consolidated
Volume Transfer Station and Recycling Fart (CVI) located at 1071 North Blue Gum Street in Anaheim.
Noise sources during 15 minutes of noise monitoring included yard activities (truck engine saris, ideng.
bucket loader) from a green waste processing area. Noise measurements were taken at a distance of 50
feet from the noisiest portion at the buck (Le., the side with the engine exposed). which resulted in noise
levels of 73 dBA t The use of multiple bucks could generate noise levels on the order of 80 dBA 1 e
measured at a distance of 50 feet Process emipment and the use of pneumatic toot could also
generate elevated noise levels, but this equipment is typically housed within the fealties and would not
be acpected to exceed the 80 dBA 1 ,,, projected for exterior imam. if it is aeakrned that the 80 (SAL.,
S of City a fAnaabe1
-42-
oll !milli iflup [ iiirompurtinv f qi r '44
di gptite. litIti 1 liplidrati . VIII I y 1 '
1 4 ii : lag itqiif h Iiii j '..ie I .L
, ps,isid phis 11; i Ho 1
iliall idyl 1411illiniiihilil I Hill d 1
pipit yi 4 ip 1 I pil g z
t. ill:jill ilitil'i ii! 1[1 , roe P '':
.
o il ti lt ..Ru 1 1 ,R. i i iri 141 " ''
liA 5: i I Ifi pt '��
1{ "I it killfiri
IIIfltiIiIidIIi
i LA :t(4 ��i ilI9r !Iii
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
a distance of appnoaitnately 951 feet from the centerline of the track when the horn is sounded, which is
a quarter mile from the grade crossing. When there are no at-grade railroad crossings the 65 Lr noise
contour would be 765 feet from the cenbatine Cl the railroad tacks. Actual distances to these contours
could be shorts where topography or structures block the line of sight to the rail. SEIR No. 332
evaluated noise impacts of the Orange County Line at Anaheim Stadium MelnoHr/Ambak Station,
located adjacent to Angel Stadim south of Koala Aarersie. According to FSEtl No. 332, operation
along this line would put the 65 dBA L noise contour at approximately 630 feet Residential
developments within 65 cBA L r , noire contour with outdoor noise sensitive areas (eg., ground loot
patios and recreation areas) would exceed the City's normally acceptable noise oonpatbiiy c rierion.
Consequently, noise impacts assocaoied with train activity on the Orange County Line under the
Proposed Project would be similar to those idenuiied in FSEIR No. 332 and considered potentially
significant
titadtium/Event Noise
Placement of noise-senseive land uses weal the vicinity of Angel Stadium of Anaheim would also
expose residents to temporary irxxeasas in ambient noise environment during a stadium event During a
game day. cheering. PA systems, and fireworks (e.g., when the Angels ha a home nun) would be audible
at residential areas surrounding the stadium. These even typically occur in the evening hours and
carne last past 10:00 PM, which is considered the noise-sensitive portion of the right The average
base6a8 game lasts 2 hours and 47 minutes and each team plays 162 gashes per year (Wicipedia 2007).
Temporary increases in the ambient noise environment during the baseball season. which lasts from
Apra until potentially October could result in nightene awakenings for future residents.
Typical noise levels within the stadium
during a sporting event range from 94 dBA to 114 dBA for
spectators within the stadium, while fireworks shows are 150 d8A as measured at a distance of 10 feet
(Bergner, Neltael, and Kiadden 2006). The FAN 1997 report gives the proportion of persons awakened
by noise events at different S8_. Because some populations are more senetiive to noise events, the
threshold for awakening typically used for airport analysis assumes impacts if 10 percent of the
population is awakened. Based on the FK:AN study. the interior noise level at which 10 percent of
population is awakened by a loud event is when interior noise levels exceed 81 dBA SEL. For interior
noise levels to exceed 81 dt3A SEL, the exterior noise level would have to exceed 105 dBA SEL (based
on standard construction). Without acoustically upgraded windows and doors, noise from sporting
events at the serum could result in a significant number of nighttime awakenings nings for projects located
within the vicinity of the stadium. Any sling of sensitive semuTive land uses within the vicinity of the stadium that
would be exposed to interior noise levels of 81 cBA SEL due to the stadium would result in a potentially
significant noise impact
Mitigation Measures
App Measures from NNW No. 106A
The following mitigation measure was included in the Updated and Modified Negation Monitoring
Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the Qty Council on October 25, 2005, as part of
the SEIR Nor 332 and is applicable to the Proposed Project Additions are shown in bold and deletions
are indicated in strikeout format The miigation reference numbers from MMP No. 106A are shown in
5-2 Prior to issuance of a buldi g permitter th
project property awneridevelopers shall submit a trail acoustical report prepared to the
satisfaction of the Plash Directs. The report shall show that the development will be
SEM No. 3391isdrs yf Foe and City ifilsobeixt
Stottantt of Oaerridrrg Csoesidrr Tarr Pugs 3 -19
-44-
3. Findings on Potentially Sign Impacts
sound - attenuated against present and projected noise levels, inducing roadway, aircraft
helicopter, stationary sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, stadium', etc.), and railroad.
to meet Cray interior standards as follows: (532)
a) The report shall demonstrate that the proposed residential design will result in
compliance with the 45 dRA CNEL interior noise levels, as required by the
California Budding Code and California Noise insulation Standards (Tale 24
and 25 of the California Code of Regulations).
b) The report shall demonstrate that the Proposed Project residential design shall
minimize nighttime awakening tom stadium event noise and train horns such
that interior single -event noise levels are below 81 dBA �.
The property owner/developer shag submit the noise mitigation report to the Planning
Director for review and approval Upon approval by the Cay, the project acoustical
design features shall be incorporated into construction of the Proposed Project.
Additional M tipsion
5-3 Prior to the Twat final building and zoning inspection. the property owner /developer shall
aubmit evidence to the eatistoi bon of the Planning Director that oocupanc t disclosure
notices regarding the potential for exterior noise levels to be elevated during a stadium event
will be provided to all future tenants in the Stadium District.
5-4 Prior to the fast trial bullring and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall
submi evidence to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that occupancy disc osure
notices regarding potential for exterior noise levels to be elevated during Bouncing of train
home wit be provided to all future tenants is faring an at -grade crossing of the Orange County
Line.
Furl Mitigation measures are feasible and avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant
impacts related to noise. However, because the exterior noise environment may exceed the goals
for noise compatibility established by the City and individual project corspatibiity with the exterior
noise environment would be evaluated on a case -by -case basis, even with the implementation of
the mitigation measures, Impact 5.5-3 would remain Significant and Unavoidable and a Statement
of Overriding Considerations is required.
Reference: FSBR Secion 5.5. Pages 5.5-26 through 5.5 -42.
impact 5.5-4: Buiting topsides that are exposed to noise levels that exceed 6e dBA would require
architectural improvements to achieve the required 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level limas.
Pursuant to the California Baking C ode, noive habitable rooms would be required to be
designed to achieve an interior noise standard of 45 cEA CNEL. n general. exterior -to- interior
transmission loss torn standard budding construction results in a minimum attenuation of 24 dBA (SAE
1971). Whole the exact locaion of the slice structures have not yet been determined, budding facades
that are exposed to noise levels that exceed 69 dBA would require architectural improvements, such as
Sound Tranenrssmon Cues (STC) {aced windows and doors, to achieve the required 45 &IA CNEL
interior noise level linos. Became noise levels along major arterials could exceed these noise levels, the
office bui dings could require additional noise insulation to meet the 45 dBA CNEL standard. Compliance
The Awning Carter Carteber 2010
Alga 3 -20
-45-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
with the California Building Code would ensure that interior noise levels meet the required limits. Table
5.5-9 of the DSEt? shows that noise tomb roadways erihin the Platinum Triangle can exceed 69 dBA
CNEL. resulting in elected interior noise levels that do not meet the state's noise standards. Due to the
high volumes of hallo and proximity of new noise- eetdliwe developments adjacent to the major arterials.
freeways, and railroads. t may be necessary to preside ardlschrat acoustic upgrades in the farm of
STC -raced windows and doors in new residential until. Therefore. sing of sanative land uses within the
vicinity of major arterials. #eeways. railroads. or industrial uses that would result in building facades
being exposed to noise levels that exceed 69 dBA would represent a pally sigr�icant interior noise
Mitigation Measures:
Same mitigation measures as Impact 5.5a.
Finding: Mitigation measures are feasible and avoid or substantially lessen potsntiafly
significant impede related to interior noise.
Reference: FSEIR Section 5.5. Pages 5.529 through 5542
Napad 5.55: Consinrction of the Proposed Project would generate substantial levels of
grouncborne vibration and graasiome noise in the vicinity of vibration- eer»live land uses.
Vibration Annoyance
Construction of individual laud uses pu w or occur
auant to the on of the Proposed Project would occ t�?C
over a period of approximately 20 years. However, there world be considerable overlap in construction
of iutividuai development projector While the majority of heavy consbuucion equipment would not be in
operation exactly at the property ire. residences wthin and surrourring the Proposed Project site would
be exposed to vibration during development.
Vibration is typically not perceptible in outdoor environments. but sensed at nearby structures when
objects within the structure generate to noise icon the vibration, such as ratting windows or pio frames.
Levels of vibration produced by construction equipment are evaluated agaist the FTA's sigrd oa ce
threshold for vibration annoyance of 78 VdB for barely perceptible levels of vibration during the daytime.
Vibration would primarily occur during the grading and foundation phases of eonstructon. Construction
activities would be restricted to daytime hours when people are the least sensitive to noise intrusions.
However: as shown in Table 5.5-10. heavy construction equipment has potential to generate su
levels of vibration out would raise annoyance at the on-srte and offaia patio five reoeptora
Vibration - Induced Structural Damage
In addition to vibration - induced annoyance, project- related construction vibration was evaluated for its
potential to cause structural damage in comparison to the FTA's structural damage criteria (see Table
5.5 -6). The FTA threefold of 02 inch per second is the threshold at which there is a risk of ardtriechral
damage to normal house° with plastered walls and mange. The nearest sensitive uses for vibration-
induced structural damage asesenert are the onrrale and the adjacent off-site residences. Typically.
only construction equipment generating e.ernely high levels of vibration, such as pie drivers, has the
potential for vbration- induced structural damage. Construction of buildings taller than 12 stories may
require use of an impact pie driver, which generates substantial levels of vibration that can be perceived
at even farther distances and could result in structural damage. Construction activities related to build -
SEIR No. 339 Fiudisg of Rvrt wad City afArrbeiav
Statement of Overritkwg Grli enwrap Pigs 3 -21
-46-
3. Findings on Potentially Sign Impacts
out of the Proposed Project could result in vbration levels exceeding the FTA"a creaia for vibration-
induced structural damage within the Platinum Triangle. and would be considered agrricarrt.
Mitigation Measure:
5-5 Prior to issuance of the brat butting permit, to reduce noise and vibration impacts from the
impact pie driver. the construction contractor shall evaluate the feasibility of using auger rest
piles or a drnlw system to duel holes to construct cast -in -place pies for a pile - supported
transfer stab foundation system This alternative construction method would reduce the
duration necessary for use of the impact pie driver and/or eliminate the need to use pile
drivers altogether. Proof of complaint with this measure shall be mubmited to the Planning
Department in the form of a letter from tie eorstrucdicn contractor.
Finclincs Mitigation Measure 5-5 is feasible and would reduce the duration necessary for use of the
impact pie driver amdlor eiminate the need to use pie drivers altogether. No additional mitigation
measures are available to reduce vibration generated by heavy construction equipment operating
within close proximiy to proposed harts within the Platinum Triangle. However, vibration impacts
would be temporary, as they would only occur during construction activities and would cease by
evening. During construction, Impact 5.55 would remain Significant and Unavoidable and a
Statement of Overriding Considerations is required.
Reference: FSBR Sec ion 5.5. Pages 5.5.29 through 5.5-42.
Impact 5.54: Implementation of the Proposed Project could expose vibration- sensiive receptors
to substantial levels of grouaubarne vibration and groundbome noise in the vicinity of the
AMTRAK/Metroink line.
Buldout of the Platinum Triangle MWP could potentially expose people to tie impacts of groundbore
ablation or noise levels from transportation and industrial activities.
On -Road Mobile -Source Vibration Impacts
Caftans has studied the effects of propagation of vehicle vibration on sensitive lard uses. Caltrane notes
that 'heavy hydra, and quit *equality buses. generate the highest uarthbome vibrations of normal
traffic.' Caibaras further notes tat the highest traffio- generated vibrations are alon0 the freeways and
state routes. Their study Inds that vexations measured on freeway shoulders (five meters from the
centerline of the nearest lane) have never exceeded 0.08 inch per second, with the worst combinations
of heavy bucks. Ibis level coincides with the maximum recommended safe level for Haim and ancient
morsenente (and historic buuicings)_ Typically, trucks do not generate high levels of vibration because
they travel on tubber wheels and do not have veriicai movement which generates ground vibration.
Vibrations from trucks may be noticeable if there are any roadway imperfections such as potholes (FTA
1995). Vibration-sensitive atrhxftaee are not ad oil not be seed within love metes from the centerine of
the nearest lane of 1-5 or SR-57. Consequently, no significant impacts related to on -road mobie-eource
vbration impacts are aniGpated.
Orange County Line Railroad Vibration Impacts
New vibrationsenedive land uses, including residential tad uses, would be exposed to groundbome
vexation from train operations along the Orange County Line. Vibration levels within the City from train-
induced vibration are dependant on specific site conditions inducing geology and the condition of the
The Plwaaibrn Carter °etcher 2010
Bop 3
-47-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
railroad track and train wheels. In addition. wood - framed structures could amplify vibration levels felt by
occupants (FTA 2006). Vibration impacts from the Orange County Line are based on the potential for rail
operations to cause perceptible levels of vibration. If current ;levels at the residential structure are less
than perceptible to residents. future increases in rail traffic would not generate levels of vibration
perceptible to residents. as the intensity of vibration would not increase, only the frequency of
occurrence. However, vibration -serer land uses located in dose proximity to the Orange County Line
have the potential to be impacted by perceptible levels of vibration from rat operations. Vibration -
sensitive land uses would be exposed to tight rat and locomotive trains on the Orange County Line
during both dayime and nightime hours. Levels of vibration produced by construction equipment are
evaluated against the FTA's frequent everts significance threshold for vibration annoyance of 72 VdB for
residential land uses.' Based on the FlA1 s generakze ground surface vibration curve. ight veil trains
would generate a vibration level of 72 VdB at a distance of 60 feel Locomoive powered passenger or
freight trains traveing at 90 miles per hour would generale a vibration level of 72 WEI at a distance of
200 feet (FTA 2006). Vibradion-sensitive land uses located within 200 feet of the Orange County Line
would result in a potentially signitic rt impact
Mitigation Measures
Appicable Mitigation Measures from AMP Na 106A
No ex istrng mitigation measures from Miff' No. 106A apply.
Additional Mitigation
5-6 Prior to approval of any Final Site Plan, if nett vibration -serve land uses are located in
dose prordmaly to the Orange County Line. the project applicant shall retain an acoustical
engineer to conduct an acoustic analysis that includes a vibration analysis for potential
impacts from vibration generated by operation of the rat tine. If perceptible levels of vibration
are detected, the acoustic analysis shall recommend site design features. such as setbacks
and trenches. and/or required butting improvements. such as harder building materials
(e.g.. steel framing vs. wood framing), to eliminate the potential for train operations to result
in perceptible levels of vibration Gnat came human annoyance to future project residents.
The ale design features shall be iterated on the Final Ste Plan to the sasbsfadion of the
Planning Director.
Finding: Mitigation measure is feasible and avoids or substantially lessens potentially significant
noise impacts to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
Reference: FSBR Section 5.5. Pages 5.5-31 through 5.5-42.
Impact 5.5-7: Development within the Platinum Triangle could result in a substantial temporary
increase in noise levels in the vicinity of existing noise - sensitive land uses during construction
acfimiies.
Shoat term noise impacts are impacts associated with site preparation, gracing, and building
°antiurban of the proposed land uses. Two types of short-term noise impede could occur during
cornarudion. Fast, the transport of workers and movement of materials to and from the site could
incrementally increase noise levels along local access roads. The second type of short - err noise
' Frequent events is defined as more rah 70 vinrmion ~Rs or sane source per my.
saw No. 339Fi isg+fRoddad City+fArabriar
Ssmaters gO'vr'ratr'g Considetscsiew.► Post 3 -23
-48-
3. Findings on Potentially Sign Impacts
impact is related to noise generatd at the job site during demnoibon. site preparation. grating. andfor
physical construcian Construction is performed in distinct steps. each of which has its own mix of
equipment and. consequently. its awn noise characteristics. However: despite tie variety in the type and
size of construction equipment similarities in the dominant noise sasses and patterns of operation allow
construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase.
It is probable that development of the proposed project would involve construction activities that occur
within 50 feet of existing noise-eenitithe uses. Project-related construction would temporally increase the
ambient noise environment. In addition. construction of buildings that are bier than 12 stories may
require use of an impact pie driver, which can generate extremely high levels of noise. While the City of
Anaheim restricts the hours of construction adiviiee to the least noiseaenelive portions of the day. due
to the extended length of construction activates and level of noise from the combination of construction
activates, project- related combustion noise would result in a significant noise impact
Mitigation Measures
Applicable A6 igal ion Measures born MIMP Nor 10NA
The following mitigation measure was included in the Updated and Madded Mitigation Monitoring
Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Coux:i on October 25.2005. as part of
the SETA No. 332 and is applicable to the Proposed Project Addition are shown in bold and deletions
are indicated in ekriCeael format The mitigation reference numbers are shown in ( ).
5-7 Ongoing during grading, demotion, and construction. the property owner/developer shat
be responatle for requiring cantradors to implement the following measures to Snit
construction-related noise: (5.71)
a) Noise generated by construction shall be boiled by the property owner/develaper to
60 dBA along the property boundaries. before 7:00 AM and alter 7:00 PM, as
governed by Chapter 6.7. Sound Pressure Levels, of the Anaheim M Code.
b) Limit the hours of operation of equipment that produces noise levels noticeably
above general construction noise levels to the hare of 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
c) All internal combustion engines on all of the construction equipment shall be
property outfitted wit' weitir intaved mutter systems.
Additional iditigabon
5-8 Ongoing during construction activates. the property owner/developer shall be responsible
for requiring project contractors to property maintain and time all construction equipment to
minimize noise emissions.
5-9 Ongoing during construction activities, the property owna/developer shall be responsible
for requiring project contractors to locate all stationary noise sources (e.g.. generators.
compressors. staging arenas) as far from occupied n Oise serve receptors as is feasible.
5-10 Ongoing during construction activities. material deivery. sot haul trucks, and equipment
servicing shall also be restricted to the hours set forth in the City of Anaheim Municipal
Code, Section 6.70.
The Naming Center Oaten 2010
Pagw 3 -24
-49-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
Roddy Mitigation measures are feasible and avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant
noise impacts to the extant feasible_ Construction noise impacts would be temporary, as they
would only occur during construction activities and would cease by evening. However, due to the
proximity of occupied undo within the Platinum Triangle to construction activities arid potential
ovedap in the construction schedule from individual development projects constructed within the
Platinum Triangle, Impact 5.5-7 would remain Significant and Unavoidable and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations is required.
Reference: FSBR Section 5.5, Pages 5.5-32 through 5_5-42_
hapset 5.5-8: Heliportsdielipads within and surrounding the Platinum Triangle would not
significantly expose fuhine residents and/or workers to substantial levels of airport-rt4ated noise.
Impact 5.5.8 was not found to be Significant and no findings are required for this impact.
3.6 POPULATION AND HOUSING
hapact 5.0-1: The Proposed Project would result in direct population growth this to new housing
and employment oppoitunthes in the Project Area.
The Proposed Project would directly induce population growth through allowing additional residential
development and indirectly induce population growth by allowing additional non-residential development or 10
in the Platinum Triangle. As shown in 5.6-6 in the MEE. laid-out of the Proposed Project is anticipated
to add 1 2.965 residents and 26.860 employees in the project area, increasing the total Platinum Triangle 411, JP
population to 28.364 and employees to 41.500. The jobelhousing balance is one indicator of a projects
effect on growth and quality of Me in the project area. Jobe/housing goals and ratios we adviecory only
and no ideal jobs/housing ratio is adopted in state. regional. or city policies. As shown in Table 5.6-6.
laid-out of the Adopted MWP would create 143 jabs per one housing unit produced, compared to 2.19
jabs created for one housing urd with the Proposed Project Howevet this is a significant improvement
over the existing jobs/housing ratio within the Platinum Triangle, which is 13.47.
Regions/ Planning Petioles
The City certified is Housing Bement in 2009. The additional housing units proposed for the Platinum
Triangle would contribute toward the City's effort to meet RIINA's fair share allocation goal of 9.498 units
by 2014. In addlion. development of tie Proposed Project vii generale additional redevelopment funds
which can be used by the City in the future to develop additional affordable housing opportunities.
The Proposed Project would result in died and indirect growth in the area and, at build-out, contribute
towards a higher Oho/housing ratio for the City. Although a balanced jabs/housing growth is
encouraged. SCAG also encourages job growth to be concentrated near transit services and transit
nodes. and near existing freeways to facelide existing and new residents' use of transit to get to their
places of ernpkgment. The Platinum Triangle, this to de unique location with two freeways and ARTIC in
close prothmity, lends itself as an ideal cancidath for a high employment center Build-out of the
Proposed Project would sightly increase the projected Obis/housing ratio in the Qty from 1.77 to 1.85.
However, the Proposed Project would be consisted with regional growth management policies that
facfitate future job growth at strategic marls along the commuter rad, transit systems, and freeway
corridors.
SEIR No. 339 Piadisgr Ef lira glad City eAsealleim
Stamina of Osenrdiag Cosasideratiors liege 3-25
-50-
0 f NI pliPipilliii I i i el v i 6
I r 1 1 " 1 Iii i: h liiiiii .ii i
UI I;Ik!J r • l u l l If rij i tt i III I
i li lull PiiiiiHr I I t i i iiihrii. pi '..-'•
1 ib ill iiiiliigliti I I tOttifil 0111 II '',.
1 IP 11 011.1011 1 i L.
1 ri ill 'alit 1 I I. ir7t4 1 10411 lir. '
jilI!!JU
mprquifi 1 '11 1 0 1 111[1 1 .1 I 1 Ihili r i l l I Ill
iii !,1.15 9 i a Il - -OA .. .
1 ;[ uw 1 Si if i ' 1 %I.1 11P15,13.11 i
g III thriligliill I 1
�
1 diEiiHIItll I F ffl!IIUIIHII t}#
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
sprinfders and appropriate fie tidies tees are paid. the proposed Project would not result in a
substantial adverse fire impact
Mitigation Measures
Appicable Measure from MAW Nos IOU
The following =ligation measure was included in the Updated and Modified Mitigabon Monitoring
Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by tie City Council on October 25, 2005. as part of
the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) No. 332 and is applicable to the Proposed Project.
Addulio s are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in ekiissul format The mitigation reference
numbers from IMP No. 106A are shown in (idi'caj.
7-1 Prior to issuance of a Both: ring Permit, plans Plana shat indicate that at buikings shall
have fire apri alders ' in accordance with the
Anaheim Municipal Code. Said =raiders shall be imbibed by the property
oameddeveloper prior to each final Butting and Zoning inspection. (5.9 -1)
Additional Mitigation
7-2 Prior to issuance of a Building Permit the property owner/developer shall pay the Public
Safety Impact Fee, as amended from time to line, tot fire facilities and equipment impact
fees identified in Anaheim l&wricipal Code Chapter 17.36.
Finding: The =ligation measures are feasible and avoid or substantially lessen potentially
significant fire services impacts to a lees than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Draft
SEIR.
Reference: FSNR Section 5.7. Pages 5.75 through 5.7 -7.
Impact 5.7.2: The proposed project would require increase in police fealties and staffing needs.
The Proposed Project will add to the number of service calla received and to the number of patrols and
staff necessary to service the area. According to APD, Proposed Project wit result in an annual increase
of 36,216 calls for service. This wit rewire an additional 108.5 Officers, 56.7 full-time and 25.9 part time
civilian support persorrhel. This increased stall will require an additional 43,189 square feet of office
space. 48 vehicles and $554,218 for assigned equipment.
n April 2005. the Are and Police Departments prepared the Pubic Safety Services Master Facility Plan
and Development Fee Calculation and Nexus Report to study the needs of the Are and Police
Departments to serve the growing and expanded development in the PiMU Overlay Zone. The purpose
of ealabliehng new Pubic Safety Impact Fees is to finance improvements and additions to tallies and
equipment to support fire suppression and emergency and lair enforcement and crime prevention
services made necessary by new development and the expansion of and additions to existing develop -
merit within the PTMU Overlay Zone (Resolution 2006.149).
It is anticipated that the overall increase in property tax revenue from the Proposed Project would be
used to cover the additional staling needs. The Public Safety Impact Fee will be collected at the time of
issuance of building permits for the Proposed Project and levied teee would be used to provide for
construction of new police facilities and procurement of necessary equipments.
SSIR No. 339 Fiediap yin es •rd City Asibriss
Statarrest of Over iding Crrnedarrtima Page 3 -27
-52-
3. Findings on Potentially Sign Impacts
Mitigation Measures
APpk'able Mitigabon Measures from AAUP Na 10611
The following rn igadion measures were included in the updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring
Program No. 106A for the Pladinun Trangle. adopted by the City Council on October 25; 2005. as part of
the SBR No. 332 and are applicable to the Proposed Project AddNons are shown it bold and deletions
are indicated in etrieesd! faunal The miifiga bon reference numbers from LW No. 106A are shown in
(R).
7-3 Prior to the approval of a Final Site Plan, the Moe property owner/developer aha0 submit
plane to the Anaheim Police Department for review and approval for the purpose of
incorporating safety measures it the project design inducting implementation of Ordinance
6016 and the concept of crime prevention through ewionmerial design (i.e.„ building design.
circulation, sae planning and fighting of parking structure and parking areas). Rooftop
addressee shall be provided for all parking ainrttues (for the police helicopter). Minimum
size for numbers drill be four feet in height and two feet in width The foes for the /ambers
shall be 6 inches thick and spaced 121018 inches apart AI /timbers shat have a eoniraading
color to the parking structure and shall face the street 10 which the M uct re is addressed.
(
7-4 Prior to the issuance of each Building Permit for a panting structure, the *he property
owner /developer shall submt plans to the Anaheim Poke Department for review and
approval indicating the provision of closed circuit monitoring and recording or ether
subsibute security measures as may be approved by the Anaheim Police Department Said
measures shall be implemented prior to final Butting and Zoning inspections_ (5.9 -3)
7-5 Prior to the approval of a Final Site Plan, the Me property owner /developer shall submit
design plans that shall include parking lots and parking structures with controlled access
points to Cana ingress and egress i determined to be necessary by the Anaheim Poise
Deparbnernt and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Anaheim Police
Deparinent (5.9-4)
7-6 Ongoing during project operation, if II the Anaheim Police Department of Anaheim Traffic
Management Center (fMC) personnel one required to provide temporary traffic control
services, the property owner/developer shall reimburse the City, on a fairshare baba. i
applicable, for reasonable costa aasocated with such services. (5.9-5)
Additional MRfydiov,
7 -7 Prior to the issuance of each buding permit the property owner/developer shah pay the
Pubic Safely impact Fee, as amended from time to Time, for police facilities and equipment
impact fees identified in Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 17.3&
Finding: The mitigation measures are feasible and avoid or substantially lessen potentially
significant poice services impacts to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the
Draft BR.
Reference: FSBR Season 5.7. Pages 5.7.9 through 5.7 -12.
The Pkeetifrg Center 0nther 2010
Pry 3-28
-53-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
Impact 5.7 -3_ The Proposed Project would generate new students and require additional school
%cities in the area.
Ikon of the Proposed Project would genera le new students within Vie ACSD and AUHSD
boundaries and necessitate the need for new school factiibes. The project site is located with in the
general attendance area of Paul Revere Elementary School. South Ardor High School. and Kateia High
School. Table 5.7-6 from the DSE#1 shows the anticipated number of additional students generated by
the Proposed Project At build out, the Proposed Project is anieipated to generate additional 3 ,119
elementary school Ardent e. 899 midde school students, and 1,549 high school ahuderfa. These students
are in addition to the demand created by the adopted 10,286 steeling rrita
Table 5.7-6
ACSD • A4AfSD Student Generation Rates
hapasedAddisraal eaparatim Await
Myelin t its rive Rates MBE 8111 Trim*
Bahardy 43909 3.119 3,704 6,823
0,643 DU Jr Web 01040 099 1,069 1,967
tint 0.1790 1 549 1 835 3.387
Teed t74i1 6.451 7,577 12,177
However, it should be noted that the generation tailors used above are based on the number of students "
expected to be generated from the traditional h o using types in the City such as airgle fan ily detached,
tingle -family attached. multi-family, and motile homes development. and therefore may not accurately
reflect the probable number of students that would be generated by the type of housing to be offered by
the Proposed Project. T e type of high-denely uabah housing Projects tends to generate fewer students
for a comber of reasons. including: (1) the matoriy of homes are one- and two- bedroom undo; (2) the
aims of the trite are generally smaller than the typical single - famly detached homes with an equivalent
number of bedrooms; and (3) there are other housing types in the area that are eirrdar in coat but are
more famiyrorierded, providing better choices for fannies with children.
For instance. the ACSD, through its demographic consultant conducted a survey of the current student
generation rates for residential projects in Southern California that might be similar to the type of
residential development that may occur in tie Platinum Triangle in terms of cosh, shale. first occupancy,
and unit etruucbre. The elementary school (K student 9mecaiban rate based on this study is 0.011,
which would result in an additional 95 students. Although such data is very new and its validly not
versed, it still emphasizes One point that the Plebe= Triangle would generate fewer students than the
number of students expected io be generated from the tratdhtanal housing types. The ACSD considers
this number an absolute minimum of students which may be generated by the Proposed Project and is
planning for a far greater number of students. Currently. there are no elementary schools in the units of
the Platinum Triangle; therefore, students from the Platinum Triangle would be sent to the school with
available capacity. Prior to opening of a school within the Platinum Triangle, tie Distic would have to
bus all students generated from the Platinum Triangle to other District sines. therefore create the need for
additional buses and supporting separate CEQA review and approval California operation of a new for acts to t d re a
pprova
and the environment.
of Education flx irnpacis b students
S,E7R N.. 339 Findings ifFioa and City Anaheim:
Sumner of Owrridirg Cwuideraioar Prgr 3 -29
-54-
3. Findings on Potentially Sign Impacts
Semler to the elementary school student generation rate. student generation rates for midde school and
high school students are also expected to be lower than the iradik'onal generation rates. South Junior
High and Katela High Schools are currently overcrowded and mould not be able provide adequate
school services to tie project.
Therefore, in order to mitigate the school-related impacts, the developer is regaled to pay school impact
fees levied by ACSD and AUHSD. ACSO's Fee Justification Report for Residential and
Commerciatilndustrial Development (Report) set forth the school impact fees to $2.97 per residential
square foot and $0.47 per oonmercialf,nduetral square foot This kundng program. established by
Senate Bit 50 (Government Code pc) Section 85995 (b][3] as amended) (SB 50). has been found by
the Lure to constitute 'loll and complete mitigation of the impacts' on the provision of adequate
school fealties (GC 65995(h)). The SB 90 establishes tree potential binds for school districts.
depending on the avaiabity of new school cond urtion faxing Porn the state and the particular needs
cif the individual school districts. ACSD and AUHSD qualify for imposing the level one fee. where Pie
amount is typicaly allocated 50 percent to AUHSD and 50 percent to ACSD. 58 50 sets forth a slate
school fades construction pnogmam that in dudes reakicions on a local juiedictian's abity to demand
mitigation of a project's impede on school facties in misses of tees set forth in Education Code 17620.
Although the increased demand for school facilities would result in substantial impact payment d
impact fees as adopted by the Board of Trustees of the AUHSD in compliance with SB 50, would reduce
the impacts to an acceptable level.
Mitigation Measures
Applicable J6 on Measure from 11811P No. 106A
The following mitigation measure was included in the updated and Modified lititigalion Monitoring
Program No. 10611 for the Ptaimrn Triangle, adopted by the City Could an October 25. 2005, as part of
the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Nis_ 332 and is appicable to the Proposed Project
Additions are shown in bold and damns are indicated in Midweek format The mitigation reference
numbers from MM' No. 106A are shown in (dwioe).
7-8 Ongoing, theiime City of Anaheim wit work cooperatively with school dra ride to identity
opportunities for school facilities in the Platinum
Triangle. (
Addibo nal M tigdion
7-8 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owneddeveloper that pay the school
impact fees as adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Anaheim th,ian High School District and
Anaheim City School District in compliance with Senate Bit 50 (Government Code (GC] Section
65995 (1413) as amended).
Finding: The mitigation measures are feasible and avoid or substantially lessen potentially
significant school services impacts to less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the
Draft EIR.
Reference: FS8R Section 5.7. Pages 5/ -17 through 5.7 -19; Response to Comments Leber A3.
The Plumrirg Carter Os 1s6er 2010
Page 3-30
-55-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Imes
Impact 5.74: The proposed project would increase the service needs for locallibraries.
The increase is population due to the proposed project will increase demand for library colections, staff,
space, and services from this area of Anaheim. Based on Emmet Anaheim Library model, a 28.332
population requires the building of physical space for library services of approuinadey 10,000 square
feet. In addition. to maintain current per capita levels and li ere ng agreements, ackiVonal physical and
virtual resources need to be added to the Anaheim library system. Developer tees are assessed to allow
a corrmuniy to esnblieh a feu/icing mechanism to he to abet the increased service needs that occur
when new housing units are butt It is anticipated that Vie fee will be reviewed annually and adjustments
will be made based upon the illabonIdellabon costa for library construction, land, library materials, and
computers. Provided that appropriate library impact fees are assessed to fund the added Meaty lashes,
the impacts would be reduced to a less than signicaht level
Mitigation Measure:
7 -10 Prior to approval of the fast Development Agreement with residential units wit in the
Platinum Triangle following certification of SEft No 339, an update to the library facitiee fee
program included in the Standardized Development Agreement shall be submitted to the
City Council for review and consideration to reflect the proposed project intensities.
R nd'ing The mitigation measure is feasible and avoids or substantially lessens potentially
significant library services impacts to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the
Draft BR „.
Reference: FSBR Section 5.7, Page 5.7.21. tit �
impact 5.7.5: The Proposed Project would increase the service needs for local day care families.
Impact 5.7-5 was not found to be significant and no findings are required for this impact.
3.8 RECREATION
impact 5.8-1: The proposed project would increase demands on orbiting parks and recreational
faciites.
The City has a goal of providng two acres of parkland per 1.000 residents. The existing parks facilities
are already impeded with overuse and adlditional demand created by the proposed project would further
exacerbate the current deiciency.
The dedication of property to the City for park and recreation faciles, development and maintenance of
pocket parka by the developer or homeowners' associations, and the payment of enhanced park- in-ieu
fees as required under the City of Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.20.110 would reduce impacts to
park fatuities. In addiion, redevelopment of rndhmbial areas and naeaaed development intensities
would relieve development pressure in other areas, thereby providng opportunities for larger recreation
areas to develop. However, even with the compliance with the existing regulation, the proposed project
will bring in residents and users that wit exceed the capacity of the surrounding pats system.
Recreational facilities developed in association with the Platinum Triangle would primarily be mini urban
parks. and therefore would not alleviate the need for larger neighborhood perks or conenurrly parks with
S o . rr City go 3-
� 3 -31
-56-
3. Findings on Potentially Sign knpacts
recreational wrnennies such as turf ball fields_ Therefore. additional effort to acquire and development
additional parkland would be Mary.
Mitigation Measures
8-1 Ongoing during project implementation. the City shall continue to seek property acquisition
opportunities for parkland in and adjacerd to the project area
8-2 Ongoing during project Win. the Cray shall continue to work with developers to
seek alternative means of pravidnng reaeational amenities.
8-3 Ongoing Ong project Win. the City shall continue fostering partnerships with
other public errbes and private organizations to seek alternative means of providing various
types of recreational opp:whrdies.
Finding The mryation measures are feasible and avoid or substantially lessen potentially
significant recreational facilities impacts to a less than sgniicant level for the reasons set forth in
the Draft EIR.
•
Reference: FSBR Section 5.8. Pages 5.88 through 5.8 -13.
impact 5.8-2: Development of recreational facrlilies would not have adverse physical effect on the
awirormment.
Impact 5.8-2 was not found to be sib' rcarrt and no findings are required for this impact
3.9 IRANSPORTAT70N/IRAFFIC
Impact 5.9-1: Project - related trip generation would impact levels of service for the area roadway
system
2030 With Project
knfersectiion ICUAnafyais (W tin Project 2030)
Intersection analysis describes the effect of future growth on the study area intersections. with the
Proposed Project As shown in Table 5.9-17 and Figure 5.9.5 of the OSEiR. the following intersections
are forecast to operate at LOSE or F (five intersections in the Cray of Orange and one shared intersection
between Anaheim and Orange).
1) Euclid Street at Kabala Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(1 -1)
2) Ninth Street at Kaleta Avenue (AM and PM Peak HourJ(1-2)
3) Disneyland Drive at Ban Road (PM Peak Hour)/(I-5)
4) Disneyland Drive /West Sheet at 1Catena Avenue (AM and PM Peak Hour) /(l-6)
5) Harbor Boulevard at Ball Road (AM and PM Peak Hour)/(I -8)
6) Harbor Boulevard at Katena Avenue (AM and PM Peak Hour)/(1 -12)
7) Anaheim Boulevard at Vermont Avenue (AM Peak Hour)/(1 -18)
T kr Pkrxitirg Caner er October 2010
Page 3 -32
-57-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
8) Anaheim Boulevard at Ball Road (PM Peak Hour)/(11-19)
9) Anaheim Boulevard at Centre Avenue (PM Peak Hou)!(1-23)
10) Anaheim Boulevard at 15 NB Ramps (PM Peak Hour)/(1,21)
11) Anaheim Boulevard/Heater Sheet at liable Avenue (PM Peak Han)/({ 23)
12) Harter Street at Gene Autry Way (AM and PM Peak Hour)/(1-24)
13) Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) at Kaiera Avenue (AM Peak Han) /(l -27)
14) Lewis Street at Cerritos Avenue (PM Peak Ho r)f(431)
15) Lewis Street at Katela Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(133)
16) Lewis Street at Anaheim Connector (future) (PM Peak Hour)/(155) •
17) State College Boulevard at Cerritos Avenue (AM Peak Hour)/(I-47)
18) State College Boulevard at Katella Avenue (AM and PM Peak Hour)/(I-49)
19) State College Boulevard at Gateway Center Drive (AM and PM Peak Hate)/(l50)
20) State College Boulevard at Gene Autry Way (AM Peak Ham)/(l -51)
21) State College Boulevard at Orangewood Avenue (Anaheim/Orange) (AM and PM Peak
22) State College Boulevard The City Drive at Chapman ran Avenue (Orange) (FM Peak
Ho r)/(7)
23) Sunkist Sheet at Howell Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(150)
24) Hower Avenue at !Welk Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(I+61)
25) Sports town at Katela Avenue (PM Peak Haury( -82)
26) Rampart Street at Orangewood Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(I64)
27) Orangewood Avenue at SR-57 Southbound Ramps (Orange) (PM Peak Hour)/(I-71)
28) Douglass Road at Kaieia Avenue (AM and PM Peak Hour)/(1-73)
29) Main Street at Collins Avenue (Orange) (PM Peak Hour)/(1-80)
30) Glasser Street at Katela Avenue (Orange) (PM Peak Hour)/(1-87)
31) The City Drive at Garden Grove Boulevard (Orange) (AM and PM Peak Hour)/(1 -102)
OW of Orange FaosTbea
The Proposed Project results in cumulative impacts to seven intersections located within the City of
Orange and includes one shared intersection with Anaheim and two ramp termini interventions_ Some of
the idenided improvements are not included within the Orly of Orange development impact lee program.
The Proposed Project would contribute the associated intersection fair- we percentage toward the
oasts of the reoonwaended improvements. The fair -share calculations, presented bl Table 5.9 -19. show
that the Proposed Project contrhbiAes between 8 percent and 27 percent of he to Orange intersections
and 34 percent of be to tie shared Anaheim and Orange intersection, The Cities of Orange and
Anaheim will need to enter into or amend an existing cooperative agreement to determine the
implementation of these irprrohvernenta
Arterial Segment Deity LOS Anaysis (yam prat 2310)
The foBowing arterial segments operate at a deficient LOS with implementation of the Proposed Project
As shown in Table 5.9-20 of the DS 1. the traffic analysis found that there are 42 arterial segments with
S wi if City ofAurebeiw
Pugs 3-33
-58-
3. Findings on Potentially Sign Impacts
significant impacts will won of the Proposed Pmjest i ducts° ax aegmenha in the City of
Orange. These six arterial segmenbr in the City of Orange ail rare miigabon to operate at an
able LOS through upgrading seemed daemon to provide additional oapacty. For those
deficient arterial segments in the City of Anaheim. a peak hour LDS analysis was performed for further
analysia.
1) Anaheim Boulevard from 1-5 to Cerritos Avenue/(A-23
2) Anaheim Boulevard from Cerrioe Avenue to Ball Road<(A3)
3) Anaheim Way from Orangewood Avenue to Kateda Avenuel(A -6)
4) Ball Road from Disneyland Drive to Harbor
5) Ball Road from Harbor Boulevard to Anaheim Bouleverdf(A-10)
6) Ball Road from Anaheim Boulevard to East Sfeeil(A -11)
7) Ball Road from East Sheet to Sate College Boulevard/(A -12)
8) Ball Road from State College Boulevard to Sordid Street/(A -13)
9) Bab Road from Sunkist Sheet to SR- 57/(A -14)
10) Bab Road from SR-57 to Main Street (Cby of Orange segment)/(A -15)
11) Cerrlltos Avenue from Sunkist Sheet to Douglass Road/(A -19)
12) Collins Avenue from Main Sheet to Batavia Street (City of Orange eegmenl)/(A27)
13) Coons Avenue from Batavia Skeet to Calaeaell Street (City of Orange segrnerd)J(A.26)
14) Douglass Road from Katella Avenue to Cent= Aven ue/(A31)
15) Eck huff Street from Orangewood Avenue to Collins Avenue (City of Orange aegrnenf)/(A-
32 )
16) Gene Autry Way from 1-5 to State College Bouleva {A36)
17) Harbor Boulevard from Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue/(A37)
18) Harbor Boulevard from Orangewood Avenue to Cornenion Wkay /(A38)
19) Harbor Boulevard from Carwenion Way to Katella Arenuef(A39)
20) Harbor Boulevard from Katella Averse to Disney W ay/(A40)
21) Harbor Boulevard from Disney Way to Manchester Aven ue/(A -41)
22) Harbor Boulevard from Manchester Avenue b 1.5l(A -42)
23) Howell Avenue from State College Boulevard to Sunkist Sheetj(A -47)
24) Katella Avenue from Euclid Street to tenth StreeV(A -49)
25) Katella Avenue from Ninth Street to Walnut StreeV(A50)
26) Katella Avenue from Walnut Street to Disneyland Drive/(A51)
27) Katella Avenue from Disneyland Drive to Harbor Boulevard/(A.52)
28) Katella Avenue from Manchester Avenue to Anaheim Way/(A56a)
29) Katella Avenue from Anaheim Way to Lewis Sheetl(A-56b)
30) Katella Avenue from Sporfabwn to Howell Avenue/(A 58)
31) Katella Avenue from Howell Avenue to SR57 /(,4611)
32) Katella Avenue from SR-57 to Main Skeet/(A61)
33) Lewis Street from Kateba Avenue to Cermtos Avenuer(A.65)
The P/rmrirg Center October 2010
Page 3 -34
-59-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
34) Manchester Avenue from Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue/(A -72)
35) Orangewood Avenue from Harbor Boulevard to Hasler Street/(A-74)
36) Orangewood Avenue from State College Boulevard to Rampart Street/(A-77)
37) Orangewood Avenue from Rampart Street to SR-57 Freeway /(A -78)
38) Phoenix Club Drove from Honda Center in Ball Road/(A51)
39) Rampart Street from Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue /(A-82)
40) Slate College Boulevard from KCatella Avenue to Howell Avenue/(A-87)
41) Struck Avenue from Kaiteta Avenue to Main Street (City of Orange segment) /(A -91)
Medal Segmert Peek Hour LOS Analysis (With Project 2030)
A peak hour LOS analysis was performed for 35 deident arterial segments in the City of Anaheim as
previously indicated and it determined that four arterial segments would have significant impact in ether
AM or PM peak hour as shown in Table 5.921. Table 5.922 compares these deficient segments under
existing, No Project, and With Project conditions. The *Mowing bate deficient arterial segments that
require improvements alter the peak hour LOS arhafyae.
1) Cerrtos Avenue from Sunkist Street to Douulase Road/(A -19)
2) Douglass Road from Kateta Avenue to Centro Avenue/(A -31)
3) Kateba Avenue from Manchester Avenue to Anaheim Way/(Ar56a)
4) Lewis Street from Katella Avenue to Conlon Avenue/(A-6f4
The Proposed Project would result in significant impact to far arterial segments. However. with
improvements as deecnbed in Table 5.9-23 of the DSEH, all segments except for Leath Street between
Katella Avenue and Conlon Avenue (A-65) would operate at acceptable levels. Although the arterial
segment on Centers Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sunkist Avenue (A-18) was not
identified as having a significant impact. improvements are necessary so that Cerritos Avenue has a
consistent classification for is entire length and would be consistent with the Orange County Master Plan
of Arterial Highways.
Qty of Orange Fealties
Table 5.9-24 of the DSt7R compares the deficient arterial segments in the City of Orange under existing.
No Project, and With Project conditions. Future forecasts for the arterial segments in Orange are
generally consistent with the forecast vokenes presented by the City of Orange in their General Plan
Update Traffic Analysis (Revised June 2009). As such, the segments of Ball Road (A-15, referred to as
Talc Avenue in the Orange analysis) identified in Table 5.9-24 of the DSEUt was identMed as deficient in
the Orange General Plan Update Traffic Analysis with no apeciic oapadty enhancing rraligation
proposed. Rather, the City of Orange recommended monitoring the segment through peak her
intensecbon perfonna ice to shrive acceptable peak hour operations- Therefore. no 'ipecac road
improvements are proposed for this arterial segment.
For arterial segment improvements within the City of Orange, the facilities identified in Table 5.9-25 would
require improvements to ensure acceptable operations. Future forecasts for the arterial segments in
Orange are generally consistent with the forecast volumes presented by the City of Orange in their
General Plan Update Traffic Analysis (Revised June 2009). Aa such. the segments of Ball Road (referred
to an Tact Avenue in the Orange analysis) identified in Table 5.925 of the DSRR was identified as
SBIR Mc 339 Finder": i f Fert .md City eArrahein
Swains: Overriding Cesridenoiesr 3-35
-60-
3. Findings on Potentially 'Significant Impacts
deficient in to Orange General Plan Update TraMic Analysis wits no specific is a sty enhancing
mitigation proposed. Ratlhe , the City of Orange recommended monitoring this segment through teak
hour intersection performance to ensure acceptable peak hour operations. For the segment of Collins
Avenue between Batavia Street and Giessen Street. improvements its to a four-lane divided facility was
recommended. The segments of Eck huff Street and Struck Avenue were not found to be deficient in the
Orange General Plan Update. Coins Avenue from Man Sheet to Batavia was also not found to be
deficient in the Orange General Plan Update.
The City of Anaheim dose not have jurisdiction over the deficient circulation system components in the
City of Orange. Nevertheless, the City shy kind appropriate fairahares of the identtied improvements.
The City shall endeavor to work with the City of Orange in developing a joint fee program whereby cross-
municipal ipal bounda'y impacts can be mitigated by development that is occurring in the adjoining
jurisdiction. Howeve` because the City of Anaheim cannot guarantee that toe City of Orange wit
cooperate in the development of such a fee program or utilize funds collected by tie City of Anaheim for
City of Orange impacts for the intended purpose at such funds. a Statement of Overriding
Considerations wit be developed for the deficient Orange artery segrents in the Environmental
Documentation.
Mitigation Measures
Applicable AAiypaion Measures from AAih No. tOGA
The following mitigation meaehxes were included in the Updated and Modified ftiigation Monitoring
Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle. adopted by the City Count on October 25.2005. as part Of
the Subsequent Environmental impact Report No. 332 and are appiceble to the Proposed Project
Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in efrihcsnt format. The reference number for
each measure from the MMP No. 106A is shown in (cfstica).
9-1 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for each building with commercial,
office, and/or institutional uses, the property ow ners/developer shall record • covenant
on the properly requiring that ongoing during project implementation, ithe property
owner/developer shall implement and admi a comprehensive Try Demand
Management (TOM) program tar all employees. The foam of the covenant shall be
approved by the City Attorney's Office. Objectives of the TOM program shall be: (5.10 -2)
• Increase rideeharing and use of alternative transportation modes by guests.
• Provide a menu of corn mute alternatives for employees to reduce
• Conduct an annual commuter survey to ascertain hip generation. trip origin. and
Average Vehicle Ridership,
9-2 Prior to the first Final Baking and Zoning inspection for each betiding with commercial,
office, or institutional uses, . t1e property
owner /developer shall provide to the City of Anaheim Public Works Department for
review and approval a menu of TOM program strategies and elements for both existing and
future employees' commute options, to include, but not be limited to. the fist below. The
property owner /developer shall also record a covenant on the property requiring that
the approved TOM strategies and elements be implemented ongoing during project
T e Phassirg Caner arxsber 2010
Pegg 3 36
-61-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
operation. The form of the covenant shaft be approved by the Ctiy Attorney's Office
prior to recordation. fallowing: (S. 104)
• On-e services such as the food, retail and other services be provided.
• Ridesharing. Develop a commute luting of all employee members for the purpose
of working a 'matching of employees With other employees who fee in the sane
geographic areas and who could rideahare.
• Vanpooling. Develop a commuter listing of all employees for the purpose of
matching numbers of employees who lye in geographic proxiinly to one another
and could comprise a varipool or participate in the exisbig minpool programs.
• Transit Pass. Southern California Rapid Mania District and Orange County
Transportation Authority (inducing commute rat) passes be promoted through
financial assistance and on-silo sales to encourage employees to use the various
liana and bus services from throughout the region_
• Shuttle Service. A commuter bating of ai employees liMig in proximity to the project
be generated, and a local shuttle program offered to encourage employees to travel
to work by means other than the autamobie.
• ElicYcing. A Bicyding Program be developed to otter a bicycling alternative to
empbyees. Secure bicycle racks. lockers, and showers be provided as part of this ft
program. Maps of bicycle routes troughout the area be provided to inform potential
bicyclists of these options.
• Guaranteed Fide Home Program. A program to provide employees who rideshare,
or use transit or other means of commuting to work, with a prearranged ride home in
a tad, rental car shuttle, or other vehicle, in the event of emergencies during the work
stilt
• Target Reduction of Longest Commute Trip. An incentive program for ridesharing
and the alternative transportation modes to put highest priority on reduction of
longeat employee commute trips.
• Stagger work shifts.
• Develop a 'compressed work week" program, which provides for fewer work days
but forge daily shifts as an option for employees.
• Explore the possibirty of a lelecommuling" program that would link some
employees via electronic means (e.g., computer with modem).
• Develop a parking management program that provides incentivea to those who
rideshare or use traria means other than single-occupant auto to travel to work.
• Access. Preferential mimes to high occupancy vehicles and shuttles may be
provided.
SE1R No. 339 Findiags 41 Eta cad Gay of Aseabein
Swallow ofOrortidimg Caierisionotions Rogo 3-37
-62-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
• Financial Incentive for Ridesharng and/or Public Transit. (Currently. federal law
provides tax -free Mahn for up to 365 per month per employee coririxitions to
employees who van or use pubic bansit incising corrunauter rat and/or empress
bus pools-)
• Fnandal incentive for Bicycling. Employees altered financial incertives for bicycling
to work.
• Special ' Premium' for the Participation and Promotion of Trip Reduction.
Ticket/passes to special events. vacation. en. be offered to employees who remit
other employees for vanpool. carpool. or other trip reduction programs.
• Design incentive programs for carpooling and other alternative transportation modes
so as to put highest priority on reduction of longest commute hips.
Every property owner and/or lessee shall designate an on site contact who vnll be
responsible for coordinating with the ATM and implementing all trip aritigation
measures. The on -site coordinator shall be the one point of contact representing the
project with the ATM. The TDM requirements ahal be included in the lease or other
agreement with all of the project participants.
9-3 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection, for each buiding with office
and/or commercial uses, ;Vie property owner/developer stall join and financially
participate m a clean fuel ahutlle program, if established and. shat participate in the
Anaheim Transportation Network/Transportation Management Assocaimh in conjunction
with the on-going operation of the project The property owner /developer shall also
record a covenant on the property that requires participation in the program ongoing
during project operation. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City
Attorney's Office prior to recordation. (5.10-3)
94 Prior to issuance of the fret building permit for each lending. the property
owner/developer shall pay the appropriate Appropriate Traffic Signal Assessment Fees.
Tralic impact and Improvement Fees. and Pietism Triangle impact Fees aball be- paid-by
to the City of Anaheim in amounts determined by tie City
Counci Resolution in effect at the tine of issuance of the building permit with credit given for
ahrautormed improvements provided by the property owner/developer. and participate in
all appicable reimbursement or benr'it cicirida witch have been established. (5./0-5)
8-5 Prior to approval of the first final subdivision map or issuance of the first building
permit, whichever occurs first, *the properly owner/devdoper that imvowt iy afer for
dedication (with subordination of easements). including necessary construction eaaernents.
the ultimate arterial highway right(a) -o -way adjacent to their property as shown in the
Ciraulaion Bement of the Anaheim General Plan and consistent
with the Adopted Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. (3.108)
Additional Atitgafon Measures
9-6 Prior to approval of a Development Agreement for any project forecast to generate 100 or more
peak hour trips, as determined by the Carty Tralic and Transportation Manager utilizing Anaheim
Traffic Analysis Model Trip Generation Rates. property owner/developers shat prepare traffic
improvement phasing analyses to identify when the improvemenla identified in tie Revised
TAr nanny Cater Ortalvr 2010
Pap 338
-63-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study. Parsons Briidaerhoif. August 2010
(Appendix F of this SEWI) shall be designed and constructed. The Development Agreement
Conditions of Approval shat require the properly ownerldeveloper to implement haft
improvements as identified in the project bafkc study to maihtan satisfactory levels of service as
deined by the City's General Plan, based on thresholds of sigciiicance. performance ctandands
and methodologies ublimed in SEIR No 339, Orange County Congeation Management Progrwn
and ehtabfished in City of Anaheim Traffic Study Gtidefries. The improvement phasing analyses
WI specify the Email' g. fuming. construction and fair -share responei for all hello
improvements
necessary to maintain satiefaclary levels of service within the City of Anaheim and
surrounding jurisdictions. The Develop ner t Agreement Conditions of Approval shall require the
property owner/developer to construct, bond for or error into a fimdrig agreement for necessary
circulation system improvements,. as determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manage;
unless alternative funding sources have been ideritifiect
9-7 In conjunction with the preparation of any traltic improvement phasing analyses as required in
Mitigation Measure 9-6. property owners/developers will analyze to determine when the
intersection improvements shall be constructed. subject to the conditions identified in Mitigation
Measure 98.
The improvement phasing analyses vie specify the timing. funding. construction and fai-ah re
responsibilities for all traffic improve /nerds necessary to maintain satisfactory levels of service
within the City of Anaheim and suhousndng juraafictiane. At minimum. fair-share calf ions
shall include intersection improvements. fir. and construction coals. unless alternative
funding sources have been identified to he pay for the improvement
The Development Agreement Conditions of Approval shall requite the property orvneridevelper
to construct. bond for or enter into a funding agreement for necessary circulation system
improvements. as determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manages unless alternative
funding solaces have been identified.
9-8 In conjunction with the preparation of any traffic improvement phasing analyses as required in
Mitigation Measure 96, the foaming actions shat be taken in cooperation with the City of
a) The traffic improvement phasing analysis shall identify any impacts created by the project on
facilities within the City of Orange. The fair -share percentage responsibility for mageng
these impacts shall be cakatafed in this analysis.
b) The City of Anaheim shall estimate the coat of the project's fair-share reepon ibi'fity in
cooperation with the City of Orange.
c) The Proposed Project shell pay the City of Anaheim the fair -share cost prior to issuance of a
buiding permit The City of Anaheim shall hold the anoint received in net and tan, once
a mutuak agreed upon joint program is executed by both cities, the City of Anaheim stall
allocate the fair-share contribution union to traffic mitigation programs that issue in improved traffic
flow at the impacted locations. via an agreement m ubiafy acceptable to both cities.
d) The City shall work with the City of Orange to amend the JCFA to ensue that fair share fees
collected to mitigate arterial and intersection impacts in the City of Orange are mitigated to
the extent feasible.
SIIIK No. 339
'neat * g afa dh of g err
Pogo 3-39
-64-
3. Findings on Potentially Sign f cant Impacts
9.8 in conjunction with the preparation of any traffic improvement phaeisg analyses as required in
Mitigation Measure 9-6. and assraning that a regional transportation agency has not akeedy
programmed and funded tie warranted improvements to the impacted freeway mainline or
freeway ramp locations, property ownersydevelopers and the City wU take the following actions
in cooperation with Cairene:
a) The traffic study will identify the Project's proportionate impact on the specula freeway
mainline and/or freeway temp locations and is iai-share percentage seepornebiiy for
mitigating these impacts based on thresholds of significance. performance standards and
methodologies utlmed in SEit No. 339 and established in the Orange County Congestion
Management Program and City of Anaheim Traffic Study Guidelnes.
b) The City shat estimate the cost of the project's fair-share reepannerthi r in cooperation with
Cairene.
9-10 Prior to the approval of the final subdivision map or laminae of a Building Permit. whichever
occurs but the property owner/developa than pay the idenntifed fair-ahem responsibiily as
determined by the City as set forth in Mien demure 9-9. The City shall atlocafe the property
awnerddevelopers f air -share contribution to haft mitigation programs that result in unproved
traffic tow on the impacted mainline and ramp locaions, via an agreement mutually acceptable
to Calfrarsa and the City.
9-11 Prior to approval of the first final subdivision map or iasuarnce of the fret building permt.
whichever oocurs kat the property owner/developer shall irrevocably offer for dedication (with
subordination of easements), including necessary construction easements. the ultimate arterial
highway right(s)- fway ar:fjac ent to their property as shown in the traula ion Element of the
Anaheim General Plan and consistent with the Adopted Platinum Triangle Mader Land Use Plan.
regardless of the level of impacts generated by the project.
Transpo tton Fee Program
9-12 Subsequent to the certification of the FEIR, and prior to the approval of the first Development
Agreement, if the costa of the identified improvements in this traffic study cannot be covered by
the total Ending eoceian under the enlisting Community Facilities District (CFO). an update to
the CFD or an update to the City's traffic impact fee program or other fee programs shall be
developed by the City of Anaheim to ensure completion of the recommended improvements.
Any updated CFD or City traffic fee program doll include the costa of implementing identified
intersection and/or arterial improvements ii the City of Orange.
Transporiaan Demand Alenagernent OW Program
9-13 Prior to the feat final building and zoning inspection for each building with commercial, office,
and/or insibplional uses, the property owners/developer shall record a covenant on the property
requiring that ongoing during project won. the property ownerkieveloper shall
implement and administer a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
program for all employees. The form of the covenant shat be approved by the City Attorney's
Office Objectives of the TDM program shall be:
• Increase ridesharig and use of alternative transportation modes by guests.
• Provide a menu of commute alternatives for employees to reduce project- generated trips.
The Plrnnring Came C) alrr 2010
Rep 3-40
-65-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
• Conduct an annual commuter survey to ascertain trip generation. trip origin. and Average
Vehicle Mendip.
PattieMallon to Ire Anaheim Transportation Network (ATM
9-14 Prior to the fist final building and zoning inspection, for each buiidng with office and/or
ccnrnercial uses, tie property owner/developer chap submit proof to the Pubic Wadks. Transit
Ptarning Division that the property owner /developer has entered into an agreement with the
Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN) for the provision of a transit shuttle service between the
project, the existing Metroink Station and future Anaheim Regional Transportation Irtermodal
Center (ARTIC) as well as major activity centers in between. The agreement atoll be recorded in
the Oficai Records of the Office of the County Recorder. Orange County, Cabana_ a_ The form of
the agreement shall be approved by the City Attorney's Once prior to recordation. The
agreement *ball provide for the following:
a. A shuttle mule plan, approved by the Public Works Department. Transit Planning Division
and ATN, shall be attached and incorporated rdo the agreement. The plan shall include co-
location of slops with Orange County Transportation Authority bus atop locations and other
properties in the Platinum Triangle where feasible and determined appropriate by the Pubic
Works Transit Planning Division and ATN. The property owner/developer shall pay all costa
associated with the preparation of the shuttle route plan.
b. The property owner/developer shall provide the full cost associated with providing the
startle. including. but not limited 1o, purchasing the ahuttte vehicle and all costs associated
with operating and madsing the shuttle route.
c. The agreement shall provide a mechanism for the property owner/developer to request fair-
e participation from other major activity centers to be served by this skittle route. The
mechanism shaft be subject to the approval of the ATN.
d. The agreement shall set forth a schedule for commencement of operation of the shuttle
service.
e. The agreement shall provide that the property owner/developer% obigations to fund the
shuttle service may be cancelled only upon prior written approval from the Public Works
Department. Transit Planning Division's once a new transit service has taken de place.
f That to the extent permitted by law the terms of this agreement shaft constitute covenants
which shat nn with the property for the benefit thereof, and the benefits of this agreement
shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties and all successors in interest to the parties
hereto.
Ndtersecbon and Atrtknai Segment Impacts
Based upon the ICU methodology established by the Cities of Anaheim and Orange. the study
determined that 31 intersections are impacted by the Proposed Project and require mitigation. As shown
in Table 5.9-37 in the FSOR. improvements have been proposed for all 31 locations and all intersections
within the study area would operate at an acceptable WS with the implementation of the mitigation
atrategiee. Additionally. as shown in Table 5.9-37 of tie FSOR, nrtigation measures have been provided
for four arterial segments in the City of Anaheim and six arterial segmente in the City of Orange that are
impacted by the Proposed Project. One arterial segment (A-18, Cerritos Avenue between State College
SFJR Na. 339 Fisifisar rf Fart &wd City rl f taabaia
Stamina, of Damnsian Cays d radars Pala 3
-66-
3. Findings on Potentially Signcant Impacts
Bordevad and Sunhat Street is recommended for inprovemennt to allow for continuty on a key east-
west condor although no significant impart was idemdTied.
Implementation of Mitigation 9-1 through 9-14. in conjunction with the recommended improvements in
Table 5.9-37 of tie PSBR would reduce impacted intersections LOS to a less than agrricart level.
However as indcated in Table 5.9-37 of the FS13R. mr'tigaian measures recommended for 13 impacted
intersections are infeasible and project impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Although
recommended. not all identified improvements are feasrble due to a number of reasons such as the
inability to undertake rgldoI.way acgiieiions as a 'tidbit of policy to preserve existing businesses.
environmental constraints, or jurisdictional consideration. In addition. although cost eatimnden have not
been completed at this time it m ardcQeted that a number of improvements would be economically
infeasbie due to the anticipated owls of some of the improvements. Inasmuch as the primary
responsibility for approving and/or completing cettanh inpmvemmrts located outside of Anaheim lies
with agencies other than the City of Anaheim (Le.. City of Orange and Caltrara). there is the potential that
significant impede may not be fu0y mrtiga3ed i such inprovemerds 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 a juiedst on or the City cannot construct improvements in the
Cabana right-of-way without Cabana approval). Should that occur, the project's traffic impact would
remain significant Table 5.9-37 of the FSEH presents mitigation measures identified through analysis of
the Proposed Project traffic impacts. including those locations that are eghected to remain signiieard
due to infeasibility_
Table 5.9-37 (tan the FSEIR)
Recommended Mitigation Measures
tree I D brier iKeCtlon _ MitinalM Corm nts
ehmeatiee
1-1 add Sweet / iamb Avenue Peahen P mjec t Restripe 181 is NIT. Infeasible
Aitken deportee far
4OOfeet
1-2 tiro Serail Rya Av rshe Anaheim Project Add 2nd Mt ( teal ue #1
M land
I3 Okeeyland Diim / BM Read Wen%
Pentair Aid MIL Reside Into Meade
21..2T.111 aidSBhR.
14 eanyked Drive / West Skeet/ Kawela Muse Andean Project Shit P
Phsjex R eseipe fib ®rf, .
Pardair
Restr ue WBA 1s Wand Infeasible
add 4th dB destine
Soda piing l romans
1-0 Hobe gadood/ Bas Road Anaheim Project AM MT, SBT. MT, MR Infeasible
I-111 Maleie Bedewed/ VamentAeerse Anaheim Project AM SBT
1-19 Anaheim Bsderad/ Ball Road Miahenr Project Add MK t8. RIR
1-20 Anaheim Wend/ Cantos Averse Anaheim Reject AM NIL SM. WBR.
R snipe MI /petcock to
2L. RR. 1B
1-21 Males Ik dewed! 1-5 Ibiteornd Ramps Anaheim Pmjeit Add SIT (n mediae)
1-23 Makin Baadeard/ lbsar Secret/ Luella Menge Mahan Project Add WIR lefeastile
1-24 lases Seen/ Gene /tag Way Anaheim Reject MIRE_ SBL, Sat
1-27 M ari n War 0-5 Ire t Bend Barnes) / Keldla Anaheim Pout Add MT. MT
1-31 terms Meet/ Genes Aram Mahan Project Add MN
The Phaarriag Carter Cinder 2010
Pop 3 -
-67-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
Table 5.9-37 (front the FSEIR)
Recuwweended M>bgation Measures
Level at
lamina Mi mc*. homer Comae
133 Lewis sleet / Kyela Maw Mahan Reject Add NIL MT, SIR, SIR.
MBT: Reline s810 ZI.
1T,1TR,1R
1-35 Lewis Steel /Aohesn Connector (hare) Minim Reject Add ®l.
1-47 Stye College Bahwed / Genies Meet Arahein Reject Add MBL SRL BBL
1-49 Si m CoSeBe Ikedraad/ Kandla Aimee Anaheim Reject Add MR. Elit Rert pe Pat*
Sit b 21, ZT. 2Fk T$ b 31. Meal*
3T, 1R
1,50 Rae Wier Baitead / Gateway Caaer0eim A *
Reject AddMIL and lBt
IS1 Sem Cedleae BmMvad /Gene Mee 1Nay Awiean Project Add SBR
133 4 - Cage Bootwsd /Olopmreed Ammo Ateiwial Reject Add MDR ail WU ieMeaside
Orape
1,57 Stmt wale Bartered / The Cdr Drive/ Clopmae °role Project Reship INBT b MBTR Oveide
160 Suakin Steeel Rowel Mace Anaheim Reject Add SBL, wsbpe 5Bb
1L lIT.1R
1-61 Hood Meee / Kaiak Aware Anabein Add MR
1-6Z 5pertrbrm/ KmlaAve ee Pmhein Pmjet Reitipe 8111110 IBT.
MIL. Add Lane
1-64 Rampart Sint/ Dr+aOerroad Avenue Moheied Pmjed Add NB free Rio" Add
SBL
1-71 Orapewood Metre / SR-57 Somhhomd Ramps Orange Reject Add MAIL (Resn*e) °amide
FLgr 3
-68-
3. Findings on Potentially Signcant Impacts
Table 5.9-37 (bum the FSEIR)
Recommended MN qal on Afeaswe5
lard at
lseaiaa ktisacive lama Mikalim Cam Witt
1-73 Deegan Road/ Kati Avenue Anaheim Project Add INT and SOT;
Reoodgae t TR Is IBT.
Re000ipre MR a SIT;
A611:11TrdWBR
1410 Ltd Suet/ Calks Avenue Oraee Paine Add2rndWBL Override
1417 toad Sheet / Karla Amen Orange Project Reties RmSOTad thweide
Widen 511 depaw s ter
400 tea
1-102 The thy Dire / Garden state Bodevad Osage Reject Add MIL In Resfipig s1 Mande
NB taee) Remipe EBT*,
BIL
teeieibedisiw
1-21 ' Baderad/ 14 NB Rams Mahan Peodt Add 41n SBT•
1-26 Undresses Ammo 14 Smtimmel Rath / Kam Anaheim Pta jea Add M ®T; Add 46
1-27 (15 Nenthrwd Rates) / Kilda Makin Project A6146 EBT. Add 56
1-71 Owrgerrad /5RS7 Smdtbmud Ramps Osage Project Ada Wit Pestriper Oveide
1-90 91-22 Westward Ranpal Magnpa9at Oire Osage CaMMbe Realm WBT arm Oveide
I
A-11 C e d e s Avesta (b dmew Sate Cdkge Oadmad and Makin Project Upgrade to 4 tae piny
Wriest Been) Medd MV bees
A-11 Carlos Avenue (between Bede Sweet ad Daghss Anaheim Project Upgrade to 4lame piney
Rend) menial vdbloc bees
A-31 Douglass Road (between Larch shame aid Caries Makin Project Upgrade a 4 lame piney
atrial vd hike laps
A- Kilda Avenue (between Mind ser knee and Anaheim Project Upgrade*, s hoe Station
56a Way) Stinatweet
A-65 Lena Sweet (hlwem Kaaeb Avenue ad flanks Maiein Project Upgrade re 4lase primary
amid vd hire lames
A-15 Bag Road (hareem SR-57 freeway awl Main Sheet) Orage Project No nmkgaian Oneida
A-27 Cd'as Ave en (based Main Sheet ad Barrie Orange Prupect Upgrade*, 44ae *aided Oven*
Meet Mend
A-2111 Collins Amon (between Batavia Street ai eet a d asst kaage t Papa Upgrade*, Mme *nded Override
arteid
A32 � c areen tk +gewaad worse and Osage Project Hopedale 4-bee exiled Oneida
raid
A-62 Link Avenue (bewmeen Mde Stteetad Baud Orange Payed No aiigaiou Ovetitk
AS1 Stack Averse (between Kalb Avenue and Ike (bawge Project Upgrade to Mae Onside
undivided awns
Mx • Norse*. Waled s deb let war bath EU sod HMI redws
The following City of Anahein intersection impovementa are not feaa'6le due to right-of-way or other
oarmtrainbz.
1) Intersection 1 -1: Euclid Street/Katela Avenue— Restripe Northbound Right turn lane to
Northbound through her
The improvement at Euclid Street and Kaaela Avenue is irdeasible due to the presence of a large
number of exerting and newly oonetructed businesses including a recently rebuilt mini -rrrai on the
The Plnneing Canter Canker 2010
Pigs 3-44
-69-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
northeast corner of the intersection. which support economic development for the City of Anaheim.
The p -way requited for receiving lane on the northeast corner of the intersection
would significantly impact the business and parking an the east side of Euclid Street, north of Katella
Avenue.
2) Intersection 1-5: Disneyland DriveBal Road —Add NBL Reekipe NB to 2L, 2T 1R and SE/ to 2L
21 Rene Spit Phase
The improvement is ideasloie due to the presence of a large number of Anaheim Resort supportive
land uses that contribute to the economic development of the City. In order to accommodate the
proposed improvement, the intersection would likely need to be expanded, potentially impacing the
I-10V rasp dampen to the Disneyland Resort. Both the City and Disney have invested heavily in
supporting The Anaheim Resort and altering the street system n the area would be a cost prohnbiive
undertaking and disruptive to the effective operation of The Anaheim Resort.
3) Intersection 1.B: Disneyland Drive/West Street/Habana Avenue-- Reatripe WBR to WBT and add
4th WB lane to the Sumba parking lot entrance
The improvement is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of immediately adjacent
Anaheim Resort supportive land uses that contribute to fie economic development of the City. This
access to the Disneyland Resort has been sigriticanty reconfigured in recent years to accommodate
intersection d t at the f and adjacent parking areas. The addition of lane capacity at this
Disneyland Resort created trough extensive la� and affect the attractive gateway that the
landscaping.
4) Intersection 1-8: Harbor Boulevard/Ball Road --Add Northbound Through lane. Southbound
Through lane. Eastbound Ttrough lane, and Eastbound Rigtnt -kin lane
The improvements are infeasible due to the presence of a large numbs of immediately adjacent
Anaheim Resort supportive land trees that contribute to the economic development of the City. To
accommodate the proposed improvements, the intersection would have to be substantially
expanded impacting tie right-of-way of several hotel buidi gs indudi g the Days lm Suites and
Hotel Menage. Altering the abed system in the area would be a cost prolrbitive undertaking and
disruptive to the effective operation of The Anaheim Resort
5) Intersection 1-23: Anaheim Boukvard/Haster StreeVKa$ells Avenue --Add Weslhoxnd Right-turn
lane
The City has invested heavily in supporting development in The Anaheim Resort and reconfiguring
an intersection in this area would be disruptive to those goals. This improvement also serves a
turning movement that could be considered redundarmt, as most of the vehicles using this movement
would be better served using Anaheim Way to the east to acmes Anaheim Boulevard.
6) Intersection 1-40: State College Avenue-- Reetripe Eastbound to 3 left ken
lanes. 3 through lanes, and 1 runt duet lane
This proposed resbipe wit reduce the number of through lanes on eastbound Katetia Avenue from
four lanes to free lanes. This proposed change wit negatively affect signal coordination and timing
for both streets. Katela Avenue is iderdffed as an eight lane smart street by OCTA. Al through lanes
must be kept to ensure the higher capacities envisioned by OCTA on its smart *eel c>onidors. To
add a third eastbound left tun lane without removing a through lane will signiicarry impact a
SErs a of Overriding o City afAsro -45 PST 3-45
-70-
i x t 7P 8 4 P P I i i S' 3 I x i
i ,,,;, il I, I t f � illillifp1 , P � � t 1111 i i ll t c, , ; it in i 1101111. N w il II ilifit If ill c !'
i 1 II n g 11:1 YihRip pi 74 :
LI 1 4; II i 1 1 1 1 1 4 01 1 [ k
I IL 1 l ill i rrir 4 II ilP li 7
1 II *1 Cli II Iiil I i l l
1 i El i n' da in grid rlida, ri
i ! , 1. it 1111H111 Iiiii Vil I p
, I 1 at 1. f,v1 it Iii r W f e
h I II II iliMIHI Ian i1111 I d
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
The existing curb lines up wah the curb of the new bridge that will aoes the Santa Ma Fives The
number 1 lane will become a left turn lane at this intersection. leaving two through lanes wahout an
duet Only signal loops. ebbing. and timing changes are required at this intersection. and there are
no impacts to right- of-way.
11) intersection 1-80: Mach Sbeet/Cdtine Avenue —Add 2nd Westbound Lett Turn Lane
The improvement may be infeasible due to the fact that there are significant right-of-way anomie to
adding additional capacity at the intersection. 6deing businesses on the east aide of Main Street
would be dimpled by corstrucion and right -of -way impacts. The City of Anaheim would need to
work with the Gay of Orange to determine the moat appropriate strategy for future improvements at
the loceton.
12) intersection 1-87: Giesselt Street/Kalela Avenue—Restripe SouBrbound tight to Southbound
Through and Widen Southbound deparhire for 400 feet
The improvement would require right-of-way and would doily disrupt existing businesses at the
southwest corner of the i ereecion.. Although the proposed improvement is a restripi g, receiving
lane accommodations may impact e>aafrhg property_
13) Intersection 1-102: The City Drive/Garden Grove Boulevard —Add Southbound Lit by Reabiping
#1 Northbound Lane. Reetripe Eastbound Through to Eastbound Left Turn Lane.
This improvement wit result in only two northbound through lanes on The City Drive until the
southbound left ban pocket tapers to as standard cross section. No impacts to right-of-way are
required at this intellection.
Additionally, the following one intersection in the City of Orange was identified as deficient under the
HCM methodology_ This location should be monitored fo determine appropriate strategies toward
improving low through signal liming and coardi abon. However, because the intersection We under the
jurisdiction of the City of Orange. although operational improvements may be %sable. the impacts
would remain significant and unavoidable.
14) Intersection 1-08: SR-22 Westbound Ramps at Metropolitan Drive- AasbQe Westbound Through
to 3rd Westbound Left Turn Lane.
The blowing an arterial segments identified as deficient we located within corridors that are twit out
and right- of-way constraints include a ietirng businesses. eide live landscaping, and in the case of
Shuck Avenue, several tomes_ The City of Orange has not included these segments in a current capital
improvement program to fund construction of these improvements: but should the City of Orange decide
b implement improvements along these corridors, the City of Anaheim wi need to contrbute a fair -
sFrare. The Gay of Anaheim will continue to work with the City of Orange to develop the most appropriate
strategy toward improving the locations impeded by the Proposed Project
15) Arterial Segment A-15: Ball Road from SR-57 Freeway to Main Street—No mitigation measures
are recommended_
16) Arterial Segment A-27: Collins Avenue from Main Street to Batavia to 4-lane
divided arterial.
SEAR No. 339 Fisdiagr +f Fart And City efAwtheer
Stcnsarst of Oviniid wg Cssuifer naves Pagr 3-47
-72-
3. Findings on Potentially Sign Impacts
17) Arterial Segment A-28: Coins Avenue from Batavia Skeet to Giessen Sheet—Upgrade to 4-lane
divided arterial.
18) Arterial Segment A-32: Ecddroit Street to Orangewood Avenue to Collins Avenue—Upgrade to 4-
lane divided arterial.
19) Arterial Segment A-62 Katela Avenue from Main Street to Batavia Street —No nrbgaion
measures are recommended.
20) Arterial Segment A-01: Struck Avenue from Katella Avenue to Main Street -- Upgrade to 4-lane
undivided arterial.
Fatifincy The mitigation measures are tenable and avoid or substantialy lessen project- related
traffic impacts to a lees than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Orat SBA However;
as noted above several intersection and roadway improvements are inle due to right of way
constraints. In addition, if the mitigation programs identtiied above are not implemented by the
agencies with the responsibility to do so, inducing Canrans and the City of Orange, the project's
intersection, freeway ramp, and eaniti'rne impacts would remain Significant and Unmitigated and a
Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required.
Reference: FSEIR Sed ion 5.9. Pages 5.939 through 5_9- 128: FSBR Responses to Comments Appendix
B and C.
Impact 5.9-2: The Proposed Project would increase traffic volumes on Caltrans facilities.
With Project (Year 2030)
Cal6arns Mum Termini Intersection Analysis (N9h P►mjecd 2030)
The ramp termini intellections have previously been evaluaad based on the ICU methodology as shown
in Table 5.9-17 of the DSEIR. Year 2030 Peat Hour intersection Summary. and in general, the analysis
LOS results are consistent However. two ramp termini interaedione operate at different levels of service
when comparing the ICU and HCM analysis: Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) at Kathie
Avenue (1-26) and SR-22 Wentibound at Meropailan Olive (1.88). These itemec:iona are deficient only
under the HC M analysis, indicating that the deficiency is generally the result of operational issues, such
as insufficient or excessive signal linings to pedestrian crossings. Three locations. 1,21. Anaheim
Boulevard at 1-5 Nothbohnd Rarpa.1 -27. Anaheim Way (15 Northbound Ramps) at Kabala Avenue. and
I-71, Orangewood Avenue at SR-57 Southbound Ramps correlate to intersection deficiencies already
idemt'ied through the ICU analysis. Table 5.9-29 of the DSEIR displays the freeway ramp tennis
locations where implementation of the Proposed Project results in a deficient LOS. The following five
freeway ramp termini are deficient under HCM analysis.
1) Anaheim Boulevard at 1.5 NB Ramps (PM peak hour)/(1 -21)
2) Manchester Avenue (1.5 Southbound Ramps) at Katela Avenue (PM peak hour) /(1,26)
3) Anaheim Way (1-5 Southbound Ramps) at Katela Avenue (PM peak hour)/(1 -27)
4) Orangewood Avenue at SR-57 Soulbound Ramps (PM peak 11our) /(1 -71)
5) SR-22 Westbound Ramps at Metropolitan Drive (PM peak hour)/(l - 98)
The P/.msirg fie' Canter 2010
Page 3
-73-
n II
% ill lq livip 1:
49911mi lipTal IIII PI ii' 1111111
' NI 15 thi pi/ II I Lsli i
i kinilli 4111 iim i lp pi ipod!
oguipotti midi 1 :r o . 10 , iii III
c; •th§! i i i 1 ,.q/ 0 8 ir 10 1 I L I 1,, ,
I wiriPrif twits 4 al 11 ! I 91 i glii: ;
1 iiii111111011 IPTI 1 1 1 1 1 iii 11111 I. iiiiir
1 jIg iglii 11 Tic' 3 1' 4 IN I ' I I Hhi 1
i i llowl i bi 1 11111 Viol id 1 P I gl I
lig:boob Flo pm iii i pH ct Iiipo II
111 ������lI ihfl Fair 1 HQ ; I Mill ii
c,..p
II /FIT
d 1 111 1 1q114 1 E.as. MEE
I.
if
in!
opri !fir!
hu
mo.ert u Ifl
la I IF
Pe Ad 11 if I if
II 111111
hill; t
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
additional del�cienoee under With Project condbonk Cabana cune>ilr does not have any additional
improvements identified or planned for the identified deficient segments on the 15. SR-57, and SR-22
freeways. According to the most current Route Concept Reports for I.5 and SR-22. and consistent wilts
the tuhae proposed improvements to SR-57. inproremenbs to these tales are canirngent on the
availabi'ily of revenue born regional, state. and federal tranepartaiion funding sources. In adoii ion. the
City does not have ju e:in ion over the Stele tighway System an therefore, carhot directly implement
mc7l bon mixes associated with project related impacts on mainline segments.
1) I-5 Northbound between SR-91 and Brookhurst Street (PM Peak HourW(F-1)
2) 1-5 Northbound between 8roakMxat Street and Euclid Sheet (PM Peak Horur)/(F2)*
3) 1-5 Northbound between Eucid Sheet and Lincoln Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(F 3)*
4) I5 Southbound between Euclid Street and Lincoln Avenue (AM and PM Peak Hour)/(F 3)*
5) I-5 Northbound between Lincoln Avenue and Harbor Boulevard (PM Peak Hour )/(F4)*
6) I-5 Northbound between Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue (PM Peak Hoary(F-5)
7) 1-5 Northbound between SR -22 and 17th Street (PM Peak Houry(F8)*
8) 1-5 Southbound between SR-22 and 17th Street (AM and PM Peak Hour)I(F -8)*
9) 1-5 Northbound between 17th Street and Grand Avenue (PM Peak Hour) /(F8)*
10) 1-5 Southbound between 17th Street and Grand Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(F.9)*
11) I-5 Northbound between Grand Avenue and 4th Street (PM Peak Hour) /(F10)*
12) I-5 Southbound between Grand Avenue and 4th Street (PM Peak Hour)/(F -10)*
13) I-5 Northbound between 4th Street and S1155 (PM Peak Howr)/(F1 i)*
14) SR-57 Southbound between Katelta Avenue and Bar Road (AM and PM Peak Hour) /(F14)*
15) SR-57 Northbound between Bar Road and Lincoln Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(F15)*
16) SR-57 Northbound between SR-91 and Lincoln Avenue (PM Peak Haur)/(F16)*
17) SR-22 Eastbound between Brookhurut Street and Euclid Street (PM Peak Hout(F17)*
18) SR-22 Westbound between Brookhuat Skeet and Euclid Street (PM Peak Hour)/(F17)*
19) SR-22 Eastbound between Euclid Street and Harbor Boulevard (PM Peak Hma) /(F18)*
20) SR-22 Westbound between Euclid Street and Harbor Boulevard (PM Peak Hour) /(F18)*
21) SR-22 Eastbound between Harbor Boulevard and Fairview Street (PM Peak Hour) /(F19)*
22) SR-22 Westbound between Harbor Boulevard and Hester Skeet (PM Peak Hour) /(F19)*
23) SR-22 Westbound between Haste Skeet and The City Mired-5 (PM Peak Hour) /(F20)*
Coltrane Freeway Wearing HCY Analyse (W8SI Project 2030)
Table 5.9-36 at the DSBR shows deficient freeway weaving segments with the Proposed Project. The
fallowing weaving segments identified as being deficient it either the AM or PM peak hours.
•
Coordination with Cabana will be required for proposed capacity or operational k provements to the
freeway mainline segments or ramps, which may improve the wearing LOS.
1) 15 Northbound between Lincoln Avenue On -Ramp and Euclid Sleet 00-Ramp (PM Peak
Hokin)
2) I-5 Northbound between Disneyland Drive On -Ramp and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour)
SE1R No. 339 Fisdiags of Rocs wad City rfAarheinr
St mssrat of Owrridrag Consickndirsr P,rgr 3 -51
-76-
3. Findings on Potentially Signcant Impacts
3) 1-5 Southbound between Disneyland Drive On -Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp (PM Peak
Harr)
4) I5 Northbound between Anaheim Boulevard On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp (PM Peak
How)
5) 1-5 Northbound between Slate College Boulevard On -Ramp and Katela Avenue OR -Ramp (PM Peak
Hour)
6) I.5 Southbound between Kateila Avenue On-Ramp and Stele College Boulevard Of-Ramp (PM Peak
Hour)
7) 1-5 Northbound between SR-22 Conneciur and Chapman Avenue Of -Ramp (PM Peak Hour)
8) 1-5 Southbound between State College Boulevard / Chapman Avenue On -Ramp and SR-22
Connector (PM Peak Hour)
9) 15 Northbound between Main Street On -Ramp and SR-22 WB Connector (PM Peak How)
10) 15 Northbound between 17th Street On -Ramp and Main Street Off -Ramp (PM Peak Hour)
11) 15 Soul hbou d between Main Street On -Ramp and 171h Sheet / Penn Way Ott -Ramp (AM and PM
Peak Hour)
12) 15 Northbound between Grand Avenue On -Ramp and 17th Sheet Off-Ramp (PM Peak How)
13) 1-5 Southbound between Penn Way On-Ramp and Santa Ma Boulevard Of -Ramp (AM and PM Peak
Hour)
14) 1.5 Northbound between Fourth Street On-Ramp and Grand Avenue OR-Ramp (PM Peak Hour)
15) 15 Southbound between Santa Ma Boulevard On -Ramp and Fourth Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak
Hour)
16) 1-5 Northbound between SR-55 Corrector and f=iat Street Oft -Ramp (PM Peak How)
17) 15 Southbound between Fret Street On-Ramp and SR-55 Southbound Connector (PM Peak Hour)
18) SR-57 Southbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Chapman Avenue Off-Ramp (PM
Peak Hour)
19) SR-57 Southbound between Kateta Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off -Ramp (PM Peak
How)
20) SR-57 Northbound between Katela Avenue On4iamp and Ball Road Oft-Ramp (PM Peak Hour)
21) SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On -Ramp and Kabala Avenue Oft -Rarnp (AM and PM Peak
Hour)
22) SR-57 Northbound between Lincoln Avenue On -Ramp and SR-91 Eastbound Connector (PM Peak
23) SR-57 Southbound between SR-91 Eastbound Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off -Ramp (PM Peak
Hour)
24) SR-22 Westbound between Harbor Boulevard On -Ramp and Eucid Street Oft-Ramp (PM Peak Hour)
25) SR-22 Eastbound between Fairview Street / Garden Grave Boulevard On -Ramp and Collector I
Distributor The City Drive OIRRamp (AM and PM Peak Hour)
26) SR-22 Westbound between Metropolitan Drive On -Ramp and Heater Street Of -Ramp (PM Peak
How)
27) SR-22 Eastbound Collector / Diahihutor between The City Drive On -Ramp and Bristol Street Off-
Ramp (AM and PM Peak Hour)
The PL Being Carter Gather 2010
Page 3 -52
-77-
i1
I i I ""qi
1 Agis 'Z'
:4;1, c,
I
7 d i1 I1I 6 11 1 ' ilI &
3 I „i up A10,1
Up' I 11. 1 191i
1 � s � t6t � I plid' � poi � �Il 1 11 1 11!
'* m I II I 1 I ei � 1 �� °��I@ !ipii' #�it��
moth s,ii . . dip
; I gi Hill p poi
ig H pi ;411!
MI 1 11 I III 1 Li IN
! 1 1111 °ti I Ii I 1.16 11111 �� l s'� #{(Iii f � ;p � 111 irqd ill
I 1 11111 I II II q I l ho
v: urea ,§ Em 2 id
I 11 I rift
m
H • • • • � 3 � JI � P21et i a a f71(1 G$
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
establish a legal standard for determining equitable responsibility, but rather to provide a starting point
for discussions with Coltrane to address the traffic miigafion and far bare respond:M ee. The pealed
shares for the two segments on 1-5 are 10 percent and less than 0.5 percent, respectively.
Coltrane Freeway iMesriug HCM Analysis
Two weaving segments are deficient under the Proposed Project Palatial improvements include
implemerutaion of an ahaaiiary lane within the weaving area to improve operations_
The weaving analysis revealed that several weaving areas operate at deficient levels of service under
2030 With and No Project oondtions as a result of high marline forecast volumes and cumulaive
growth. To address cumulative deficiencies associated with the freeway mainline and weaving segment,
freeway capacity enhancements such as widening the facilities by one lane in each dsedion would
require consideration:
• I-5 between SR-91 and SR-55 - widen by 1 lane each direction (fair shares range from
approximately 2-12%)
• SR-57 Northbound between SR-91 and Kathlfa Avenue - widen by 1 lane each direction (fair -
shares range from approximately 13 -19%)
• SR-57 Southbound between SR 91 and SR 22 Ramps - widen by 1 lane each direction (fair-
share approximately 16%)
• SR-22 Westbound between Brooidrrat Street and Main Street - widen by 1 lane each direction
(tar-shares range from approximately 8-13%)
• SR-22 Eastbound between BrooWhurst Street and Glassed Street - widen by 1 lane each
ban (fir negligible)
Mitigation strategies have been recommended to reduce the level of impact to lees than significant
levels. Potential adcMionai capacity enhancements include the implementation of ancillary lanes whin
weaving areas to improve operations on the merge/diverge areas as wet as the mainline and weaving
areas. However this does not saisfy the capacity needs of the oonreapondng and adjacent mainline
segment and no additional improvements are feasible_
Faxing The mitigation measures listed above are feasible except where noted and avoid or
substantially lessen project- related traffic impacts to a lees than significant level for the reasons
set forth in the Draft SEIR. However, this does not satisfy the capacity needs of the corresponding
and adjacent mainline segment and no additional improvements are feasntie. In addition, if these
programs are not implemented by the agencies with the responsibility to do so, including Caftans,
the project'. freeway ramp, and mainline impacts would remain Significant and Unmitigated and a
Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required.
Reference: FSEIR Section 5.9, Pages 5.9-72 through 5.9- 126, PSBR Responses to Comments Appendix
B and C.
SEMR No. 339 Fiadiads if all rs rid City ef ,9yrhiar
Susanna of Onnidisg C airdrrniarr Fdge 3 -
-80-
" - WWI 11 Pi HU II I PI II ;:.
q 1 � H � I ti a � I` ��� ; I JI� i 1 Ids €�� H i E 00 V � llli I ! � �t ¢ � ' 11 11 1 1 1 1 4 itti i 1 1 I 111 t ..L?.
I 111:111 1z 1 a; 1 g ' g� I ' i li 1
at 11 i ; 7
ti i IT i } I{ Il F�Fi1l 111
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
Certain i teraedions will have an unbalanced share of touring volumes between the AM and PM peak
hours. Addibonellyr. events at Angel Stadium and Honda Center can generate traffic patterns that are
unique for events only. Dynamic lane assignment signs wit Mow for some lanes to operate as trough
lanes during certain lames and tin lanes during other times. The 'plowing locations wit benefit from
these signs in place of capacity enhancements:
• State College Avenue — Southbound and Eastbound approaches
• State College Bouts ®rd/Ge fluty Way — Eastbound approach
• Orangewood Avenue/SR -57 SB Ramps — Eastbound approach
• Douglass Road/ Kalela Avenue — Eastbound and soul hborand approaches
OCTA operates fee transit routes in the project area. White there are no inherent safety hazards.
conabudian of bus turnouts wit be considered in addition to far aide bus stops to minimize delay effects
and provide a sale environment for pedestrians. Each development project within the Plaliman Triangle
would be reviewed per the planned circutoioh system and would be required to provide necessary
improvements in accordance with the determination of the Trap and Traneportrnlan Division.
Furthermore. s coordination with OCTA. a rairoed uxndehxossing is being planned along State College
Boulevard between Kabala Avenue and Howell Avenue to tither improve traffic flow and safety. It should
also be noted that an accordance with the proposed Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring
Program No. 1066, the property owner /developer wit dedicate. including necessary construction
easements. the ultimate arterial highway right(s)-at-way as shown in the Circulation Bement of the
Anaheim General Plan adjacent to their properly to maintain adequate levels of service and access with
the Platinum Triangle. Theref ore, the Proposed Project would not auhctanba ty increase hazards due to a R
design feature.
Mitigation Measures
9-15 In conjunction with the preparation of any traffic improvement phasing analyses as required
in Mitigation Measure 95, property owners/developers will analyze to determine when the
intersection improvements idenited under Impact 5.9-4 shat be constructed. subject to the
condions idenifed in Mitigation Measure 9.6
9-16 Prior to the approval of a Final Sile Plan, the property owner/developer shall meet with the
Traffic and Transportation Manager to determine whether a bus doge) is required to be
placed adjacent to the property. N a bus stop(a) is required, it that be placed in a location
that least impacts franc low and may be designed as a bus turnout or a far aide bus stop as
required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager and per the approval of the Orange
County Transportation Authority (OCTA).
Andrew The mitigation measures are feasible and avoid or substantially lessen project- related
impacts related to traffic safety to a loss than eigrr'ticant level for the reasons set forth in the Draft
SEIR.
Reference: FSDR Section 5.9. Pagee 5.9 -105 through 5.9 -126. FSBR Responses to Comments
Appendix B and C.
impact 5.0-5: The Proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access.
Impact 5.9-4 was not found to be significant and no findings are required for this impact
SHLR Ns. 339 Findings gala Rvr aadd City of Aawbsiar
Swam: if Ovorridiss Coieliieratioar Page 3-57
-82-
3. Findings on Potentially Sign Impacts
Loped 5.9-8: The Proposed Project would promote alternative tones of transportation.
biped 5.9-4 was not found to be agrsf' hcant and no findings are required for this impact.
f0 U1L 11ES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Impact 5.10-1: Project- generated sewage could be adequately treated by the sewer service
provider for the Proposed Project
to June 2009. CH2M HILL prepared a technical memorandum edified the Combined Central Anaheim
Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers (CCAAhPSS) for the Revised Rahman Triangle Expansion Project -
Draft Suhaequsrd Environmental impact Report No. 339 (June 2009 CCAAMPSS), included in Appendix
G of this MEM. The tec menmorandhsn incorporated the development intensities analyzed by the
June 2006 sewer wady and subsequent revisions to the project. For moddrg purposes of the June
2009 CCAAMPSS, the permitted development intensifies were detributed into subareas to accurately
reflect the total increased development interiorly. Became this modeling approach removed tie need to
generalize numbers. some subareas showed lees denalopmert intereiies when compared to the June
2006 sewer study even though the overall intenaiy amount was greater. The drebnbution of the
developmhert intensities is shown in Atachmernt 1 of the June 2009 CCAAMiPSS. The June 2009
CCAAMPSS ran 12 models (Models 15. 28B. 47. 115. 116. 117, 118. 119, 120, 121. 122„ and 123)
following the sanitary tow modeling methodology of the CCAAI PSS, which is based an using diurnal
owes. rather than using the traditional pealing factor method. The diurnal curve method better
represents the pattern of sanitary wastewater Iowa generated by a type of land use over a 24-hour
period. The new model run incorporated the three sleek: hes of new backbone sewers in Models 117.
25th, and 47. The proposed amendment to tie Anatheim Resort Specific Plan (USER No. 340) was
incorporated 4lo Model 15 for the cumulative impact
The June 2009 CCAAMPSS determined that the Proposed Project would require upsidng of 7,373 (near
feet of sewer pipe in Models 15, 288, 47, 119, 120, 121. and 122. Table 5.10 -7 shows the length.
capacity, and location of the required sewer pipes. There are no improvements proposed for Models
115, 116, 117,118, and 123. Figure 5.10.4. Reposed Se* 0-e emenis, share recommended sewer
improvernerts to the Proposed Project.
Mitigation Measures
Impact 5.101 (Sewer)
Applicable litigation Measures from AMP No. TOGA
The Mowing nil gation measures were included in the updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring
Program (MMP) No. 106A for the Platinum Triagle, adopted by the City Coral an October 25, 2005, as
part of the Subsequent ErMarenerdai Impact Report No. 332 and are applicable to the Proposed
Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are inifed in MYlreer! format. The m itgaliion
reference numbers tram MMP No. 106A are shown in Wyk
10-1 The City Engineer shall review the location of each project to determine i i is located within
an area served by deficient newer facilities, an identified In the latest updated sewer study
for the Platinum Trianglefseweeelludy. I the project will increase sewer Iowa beyond those
programmed in the appropriate masts plan sewer study for the area or i tie project
Tfir Planning Carer Orrobvr 2010
Par 3
-83-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
cwrwdty discharges to an existing deident sewer system or will create a deficiency in an
existing sewer lire. the property owner/developer that be required to guarantee mitigation
at the impact to adequately serve the area to the satisfaction of the Cay Engineer and City
Attomeye Office. • _ _ _ _ _ .
•
•
Prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a
grading or building permit for each development project, whichever occurs first, the
property owner/developer shall be required to install the sanitary sewer faciiies, as
required by the City Engineer, to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development
based upon the latest updated sewer study for the Platinum Triangle. Addiianaiyy, the
property owner/developer that participate in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program.
if adopted for the project area, as determined by the City Engineer, which could include fees.
credits, reimbursements, construction. err a combination thereof. (5.11 -5)
104 Prior to the approval and ongoing during construction of any street improvement plans
within the Platinum Triangle. which encompass area(s) where Orange County Sanitation
District (OCSD) will be upwrng trunk tines and/or are making other improvements. the City
ad/or property owner /devebper shall cooninate with the OCSD to ensure that all
improvements and construction schedules we coordinated. (5.11 -7)
Additional Ilatigafron
10-3 Prior to approval of a final subdivision ding or building perm for
or issuance of a gracing
each development project. whichever occurs fiat. the property ownhe /devebper that contact
Orange County Santaian District (OCSD) regarding sewer capacity. Additionally it
requested by the OCSD. the property owner/developer that place up to three taw
monitoring devices for up to a moth to verify capacity and ensue consistency with the
OCSD's nhodeing results.
10-4 Prior to approval of sanitary sewer connections for each development project, the property
owner /developer shall be required to install the sanitary sewer facaien. as required by the
City Engineer. to prevent the sewer spill for below-grade structures of the proposed
development based upon the latest updated sewer study for the Platinum Triangle. Where
requested by the City Engineer. server irn prone merge shall be constructed wryh larger than
recommended diameter to maintain the surcharge levels wit in the pipe and the invert
elevation of sewer laterals shall be located above the hydrauic grade line elevation of the
surcharge levels when they are above the pipe crown.
10-5 Prior to the approval and ongoing during construction of any sheet improvement plans
within the Platinum Triangle. which encompass areas) where OCSD wit be 'mailing truck
lines and/or we making other improvements, the City and/or property owner that coordinate
with OCSD to ensure that baddlaw prevention devices are installed at the lateral
connections to prevent surcharge flow from entering private properties.
10-6 Prior to final design approval, additional analysis sham be performed for each individual
project using tow, wet - weather data. and other information specific for that project in order
to obtain more accurate results of the surcharge levels for final design.
SEIR Na 339 Findings gam: dud City ofA*Wdsisr
Ssdtawrar of &vividisg Cmuidenctionr Avg. 3-59
-84-
3. Findings on Potentially Signcant Impacts
Fording: Mitigation measures are feasible and avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant
wastewater services impacts to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the halt
BR.
Reference: FSBR Section 5.10, Pages 5.10-22 through 510.27. FSBR Appendix H.
Impact 5.10 -2: Water supply and deivery systems are adequate to meet project requirements.
As shown ix Table 5. 109. the buidout of the Platinum Triangle would result in a total demand of 5,248
afy, which includes (I) the aaating demands from the arena, stadium, and landscape irigafion of afy that
have been a part of and included in, the existing citywide demand; (ii) the 2,856 ally from the February
2005 WSA, which was included in the 2005 LAMP; and (it) the 1.1104 sty of additional demand
addressed it the 2009 WSA As shown, when subtracting the exili g wander use by the aiding uses
onaie (landscape irrigation, arena, and slalom) and the permitted Platinum Triangle development
intena8iee as ixduded in 2005 UYNMP, the additional water demand for the Proposed Project would be
1,804 ally
Table 5.10-9
Total Water Demand
Demand
t a x i U s e Units Dermot h a m ' 8 s per Dm stp
Rid 19,909 di 105 vaunt 1,995,445 2,224
Connacht 4,909,652 d 195 gidksf 957,300 1,072
Rine 14,340,522 of 60 mad 900,431 964
h dutioml 1.500,800 of 60 Maltat 90.000 101
Pats 9.07 ac 3,900 earn 31.745 36
Mead 3.325.809 4397
Lena Wag induuea f I 2,272.155 of I (X473) (-100)
3 0'X Lasses Tied 4,217
163
Ending tamdscape
kinpliort
164 are 3,000 tpdta: 492.000 551
Bistig (Rea Cam) aid Arid Madan of Andrei& 235
Tsai Maw Truk War Deamd' 1.20
tens Bostic landsciae Inigainn
I I (-551)
Las 9Lan Bating Assnad Staion (
Las fetruav 20(5 WM Action' Dinaaad Garnded 12005 (M11114 (- 2.656)
flaw ussuai baame 1,991
bow Psaa. 2909
Owed m Amor Bay Dread
besides auadie ppis lid se erred ad oiler ewivafwn
du = *bed es daadfq ad:
lid = 1.000 sore led dbulling sea
' Bose isberildesads woe iaiid bon wow drest toe psis d win oderesi psbornalesahjed:duslidpad :.
? Elia/lanbore Worms de miaidsbd basal a20 %4 pus maw Olio PbfiwTOE* 512'0m ssjbeimbedsgdal
Waded. Douai war bid a *Sol sp.bisin defer leis glair ad ensue rnbsegag VOW b 9e auto' rd uses. Siva fix
dean.!e:iddIad'i% ode uus iefirses Febeary 2005 MA sod 2005 War fond wastadisipsledio dos- diebrdoebduse
ii ensisinnj. Awlsad :abiediedelsmia,VOW0eaad
' f>idglbni Ceder her sad MMd Skim irm ds nub hued : Oepjeafoas :idedleosms*swaed
Irma Tame phis Uwe is load is tried: midq was soar iyse is be Mossy 2095 WU sal 2005 t (ad at
amid b door are Wan W use iboollaia1, a war ad WNW debol:a Mhrs Oesad k.eeae
The Plraeiag Cosner &taier 2010
Piga 3-60
-85-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
• 'kW lab/ danMfarebeposerbledwordes2655sfpi eaide. riiw. l wowed dealoperd Wired bribe ameba
aiipid62fe palm vadat site Plasm Ma*p a shah weia6id'afeeMOS UAW fe alike Imbeipc :Arkin bow
dseied is faeil&2.feedormf Afar a iSi a mdeem! desaidiebekede5 ,
cl .I W.. addiesei alba ISA. 16usfaWSAwyasfefi /5,219*Adadeerdpejekdia enTa *gapeddevelm sd
Water Supply and Demand
According to the WSA prepared for the Proposed Project, the dye average wader demand for 2009/10
is appraodmatey 76.170 afy and is projected to increase to 81.960 aty by 2029/30 without the Platinean
Triangle. However as shown in Table 5.10 -10, there are adequate water supplies from now through 20-
year planing period to meet the Cry's wader demand. As dsouseed above in Eiwirorrnenfal Setting.
OCWD establishes the SIP each water year based on groundwater conditions, avalairtity of imported
water supplies. ideal preciplation. Santa Ma Fiver runoff. and Wain management objectives. The RPP
was iniany established in 1969 and has genera ly ranged from 60 to 80 percent. The average 13PP for
the past 20 years is 72.9 percent and the Cry's wader supply projection assumed an average aPP of 67
percent groundwater and 33 percent imported At the end of the 20 -year placing period for this WSA,
as required by SS 610. City water demand for 2029/30 is projected to be approodevately 88,520 afy. This
projection includes future demands from the City based on the overall projected growth rate, as wel as
added demands from the Proposed Project, the Kaiser Pe ianente Med'asal Center Project, and the
amendment to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and Convention Center Expansion. al of which have
been, or are being, addressed in other WSAs prepared since the 2005 tNWMP Implementation of the
Proposed Project would require an additional 90 afy in 2009/10. 540 ay by 2014/15,990 afy by 2019/20
1.440 afy by 2024/25, and 1,800 afy by buld-out year 2029/30 (all numbers have been rounded to the x
nearest 10). Comparison of projected demand and supply concluded that there we adequate wafer W
supplies to meet the water demand created by the Proposed Project. The WSA concluded that there
would be surplus wader through the 20-year planning period. Table 5.10 -10 shows the projected water
supply and demand will the proposed increase ii development intensities. As shown in Table 5.10 -10.
torea indicate that APUD would continue to have a supply surplus of potable water trough 2030
under Normal. Single Dry. and Multiple Dry Year eoratio ns.
Table 5.10 -10
With Project %!fate► Supply end Demand WO
slice I 2011 I 281S I 2020 r 2823 I 20_
#died ter
:ash
MIND bawd' 29.090 30.430 23.560 29640 29.640
Lecd Ilimandeaterf 52.110 54.500 5(440 54360 59.310
Tid t igh IMO 14,131 WOW UM UAW
DIMINMI Mout TPTEoga®ers 76,170 M040 79,760 81500 01,960
Bias pis Append TPTDemand* t440 1.340 2.450 2.950 3,450
A/ditiad TPT 8oaeeiee 0enand 90 540 900 1440 1.000
And MAC Desard 40 210 330 330 330
Addled 30 910 740 MD 912)
Ted Del 77.770 1E341 $4Zfi WIN 04120
thyiligldwast OiOesee 1430 3.900 1,71 !00 430
NNW Sy Yser
l
WW1 Imparted I 30.330 I 40.570 I 41.140 I 40,500 I 40.010
SF1R No. 339 bindings Out rued City 4ihde
StansermrofOeered* Consiinueiees Pose 3-61
-86-
i
1 I [d 1 1
q tiltit/INIENItinirilli 1 Hi li IN 1 ;
4 E WWI ill a fl iletj t i 11 It 11 I ..
it il 90 / Li I
1 1 111 A11 1 1
l iiiiiii�imitfir 1114 it b
1141"Illt itfl It tifi t I I a I 1r L i Pin Pp; lit Nal; i 1 .
[I i i I 1 1p 11
Viii .1.° ; fp bIl f i ii fl itgligiiirli ilissiMA i
If Ida iir fi 1 i t8 z
ti , IA 'ti a t wm , t .. -
li fill iR ' N �NI I 1
gl
iJI! I R1 la �� Ili i 1 I
1 J rE 11[ igigi �i� ligillil
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
Water Reiabiity
The City's water supply projection assumed up to 67 percent groundwater and 33 percent imported.
which has been confirmed as relable by MWD. Additionally, analyses of natural, single -dry, and multiple_
dry year scenarios dernormtrate the City's abSly to meet demand during the 20 -year analysis period.
Finally. an analysis was conducted utilizing assumed temporary shortages in MIND'S water supply, which
demonstrates the City's ability to meet demand under reasonably loreeeeabie temporary aiocebone to
deal with wracks in SWP deliveries due to Della smelt and other environmental
There are a number of water supply dnalengee for MWD and its service area. such as crbcal dry
condhiens and protective measures for the delta smelt in the SaoanwrioSan Joaquin River Delta which
resulted in uncertainly about tubes pumping operations from the SWP due to ruing in the federal courts
in Aughat 2007. However the Platinum Triangle WSA includes. as a worse -case scenario. an analysis
under the asaumpion that SWP deiveries will be reduced by both 35 and 40 percent Table 5.10 -11
sheave the worst case scenario demand and supply comparison under temporary 40 percent reduction
in SWP water supply. This level of evaluation goes beyond the scope and requiernenl a of Si3 610. to the
event that the SWP water supply is temporavly reduced by 40 percent. the prajed's wilier demand
would be met by implementing water conservation in the range of 03 to 3 percent. as shown in Table
5.10 -11 Should eradreordrosy circumstances require it. the City can meet is water demand by (1)
increasing production of groundwvoier beyond the 60'P up to the basin sale yield. g imported
water purchases horn available storage programs. arxdor (3) decreasing demand trough water
conservation nnea ores. Moreover, under temporary MWD aiooaticn shortages. the City would trigger in
Conservation Ordnance and cal for at least a 10 percent reduxion in usage by all customer dame with
rate penalties I users exceed 90 percent of their previous year's water use. MI planned water supplies a
and fates. there is adequate water to serve the Proposed Project
Table 5.10 -11
With Project Water Demand and Supply (ally`)
Under Temporary 40 Percent SWP Water Supply Shortage
lfufiiple Dry Years 2011-2030
Wooer Sauces NSltil1 lean try 1f+irs'
*11 an MS nu MTh
WPM
Yrnaorbed 26,260 26.260 25M0 26.910 25310
Local Fiemarkiraer 51.460 51.000 55.730 54.530 56,130
Tsai teak 77.720 75.000 N,.1M 53.760 Std 5M
BRIM
Tod Cyr Omani elves Proposed Project. h0'MC 76.540 76,920 52,410 50.54E 52,340
atl ARSP°
thetas plus Approved Ream Tcianale Demand' 1.540 1.640 1,560 1.910 2,051
Ainll'oret Ptseeaal Pitied Demad' 150 270 300 470 570
Proust falser W aal Colter Daman& 40 40 220 220 220
Additional ARV Durand' 50 50 110 610 640
%d Hosed fear Omani 100.0 10110 106.7 103.7 105.5
Toad t5.tigk Tew Qewe.i 76,1110 77,310 13,160 51,SM 113,775
b51dalleanwnd Mltwdse !15 750 1,4111 1.560 1.211
*160 *'17 11 2011
ie4wled 25270 25270 29.120 29.120 29.120
Lard (6ourdaaIs)' 53 310 53.610 57.750 56.450 57.530
Tid twig 75.710 75.010 MAN 60,575 NMI
SFJR Na. 339 Findisgs of Fart and City a f Aaarh isr
Summit of Oewadrsg Carwndertsaeas Purge 3-63
-88-
r lil!sii :Vila o p! • I loll 11 1 i
I I
15 1 1:!ii . 1 111:05 iliii ii 1 1111 1 11 i i I
1111! li in ! l i •5
ii r 11/1” `hi it °11 if 14
" ill liat si tin! 1- • ii /
::: titer. l' I' g lli s WO 4 i
i t] 1 °°:'?
1 1
.- ~ 1 Ilg I I 111111 o .01 1 HAI li ii ytii i iii 1p t pi
1 11 A 1/ 1J is Iffitil il III
0:4 I I 1 I 1 I 1
1IJI.i •'1
t". - 11 i - ii 1 'if ' dd iiiiiiiiii a I
i il I II i 1 .
, «
II h j 13 jjiliititillifildlifi 1 !II -- 0 2.1 6 t k
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
• A 16 inch water man in State College Boulevard tern Orangewood Avenue to Gene Auby Way
(1.250 L9
• A 16 inch water main in Katelfa Avenue at State College to Well #45 (1.300 LF)
• A new wider well adjacent to the planned Fie Station No. 12 between Anaheim Way and Santa
Ono Street south of Stanton! Court
Furthermore. the APUD indicated that the proposed increase in development inteneiies would require
the following improvements to the cement water faciies_
• A new transmission main in Orangewood Avenue from Stale College Boulevard to State Route
57 (SR-57)
• A new traneniasion main in Douglass Road from Miele to the Anaheim Stadium loop
• A new won main in State College Boulevard from Orangewood south to the City imila
• A new transmission main in the Lewis Street Connector
• One new 1000 GPM water well, location to be determined
Rule 15-D of Anaheim's Water Rules, Rates and Regulations (Plan No. W2524D) specifies the water
Wady impmvemenla required to a000nrnodate the projected land use water demands within the City. «
including the Platinum Triangle. Under Rule 15-D. a new 3,500 gallons per minute (gpm) Well No. 45 was
constructed in 2000. and currently applies most of the demands in and around the Platinum Triangle
area
titirnately, changes in land use projections and addition of water fades with require updating Rule 15-
D; however, under a nosh g Rule 15-D. the projected demands for new oliee, commercial, and industrial
land uses have afeady been accounted for in determining water facitiy improvements. The only
significant changes, in terms of projected demand quantity for the Proposed Project. were the demands
resulting from new residential daeti g wads
Once the City approves the necessary improvements. Rule 15-D and associated rates and igues with be
revised. Compliance with the amended Rule 15-0 would ensue that adequate uate water tac3ities are
provided to serve the Proposed Project implementation of the Plainun Triangle Master Land Use Plan
would not adversely impact the water den very system.
Mitigation Measures
Applicable Milig ion fife ewes from Ally No. /06A
The following mitigation measures were included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring
Program No. 106A for the Platinun Triangle, adopted by the City Count on October 25, 2005, as part of
the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 and are appicable to the Proposed Project.
Addions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in Miami format The mitigation reference
numbers from IA M' No. 106A are shown in (Haim).
10-7 Prior to issuance of a building permit. submitted landscape plane shall demonstrate
compliance with the City of Anaheim adopted Landscape Water Efficiency deny Guideines. This
SEIR No. 339 Fisding .flicrcr mei City if Anaheim
Summit of &a idrrg uid ran as AV 3-65
-90-
3. Findings on Potentially Sign Impacts
ordnance is in compliance with the stale of Cablomia Model Water Efficient Landscape
Ordnance (AB 1881
Among the measures to be implemented with the project are the followirqp
• Use of water.conaerving landscape plant materials wherever feasible;
• Use of vacuums and other equipment to reduce the use of water for wash down of
ederior areas;
• t.ow4knv fi6rhgs lottures and equipment inducing low flush toilets and urinate;
• Use of sell closing valves for drrddng fountains:
• Use of efficient irrigation systems such as drip irrigation and automatic systems
which use moisture sensors;
• Mrared sensors on sinks, toilets and urinals;
• Low-llow shower heads in hotels;
• Infrared sensors on drinking fountains;
• Use of irigatinn systems primarily at night when evaporation rate are lowest
• Waler-efficient ice machines, dishwashers, clothes washers, and other water using
appliances;
• Goofing tower recirculating syotem;
a Use at low -blow sprinkler heads in inigaion sysfern;
• Use of waterway retiraulaion systems;
• Provide information to the pubic in conspicuous places regarding water
corservaiion; and
• Use of reclaimed water for irigaion and waandosn when it becomes avaiabie.
In conjunction wall submdhab of landscape and bidding plans, the applicant shall iderbty
Mich of these measures have been incorporated into the plane. (5. -1 )
148 Prior to the isaumm& of the drat budding permit, the property owner/developer shall provide
engineering ducks. including network analysis, to size the water mains for ultimate
development within the project. This includes detailed water usage analysis and building
plans for Public Utilities Waller Engineering reviews and approval in determining project
water requirements and appropriate water aseesement fees. (5.11-2)
149 Prior to the issuance of the fret bulking permit or gracing permit, whichever occurs fret the
property owneddeveloper shall indicate on plans installation of a separate irrigation meter
The Pursing Carter Ornbrr 2010
Rote 3-66
-91-
3. Findings on Potent S Impacts
when the total landscaped area exceeds 2500 square feet (City of Anaheinn Water
Conservation Measures) (5.11-3)
10-10 Prior to the issuance of the fret butting permit or gracing permed following certication of
SBR No. 884339, whichever occurs frst the property owner/developer shall comply with
Rule 150 of the Water Mies Rates, Rules, and Regulations
Tie nglr. (55.11 -4)
Additional Mtigsia i
10-11 Ongoing, the City that continue to cobiborate with the Metopdian Wafer District of
Southern Caliomia, is member agencies, and Orange County Water District to ensure fiat
evadable water supplies meet ahbctpated demand. If it is forecast that water demand
exceeds evadable guppies, fie City shad trigger appication of its Water Conservation
Ordinance, Municipal Code Section 10.18. as presc ndoed, to require mandatory conservation
measures as authorized by Section 10.18.070 through 10.18.080. as appropriate.
10-12 Prior to issuance of a budding permed, eubrnited landscape platy for all residential, slice
and commercial landscaping shad demonstrate the use of drought tolerant plant materials
pursuant to the publication edited 'Water Use Bfic iency of Landscape Species` by the U.C.
Cooperative Extension. August 2000.
10-13 Prior to ieauance of a budding pemit or gracing permit. whichever occurs first, the property « ` �A `
owner/developer shall indicate on plans water efficient design features inducing, but not
limited to (as applicable to the type of development at issue) waterless water heaters.
waterless wine, automatic on and of water facets, and water a lident appiaHces.
10-14 Prior to issuance of a butting perm or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the property
owner/developer shall inchoate on plans inatallaion of a separate inigatien fines for recycled
water. Al irigatien systems shad be designed so that they wit function tion properly with
recycled water.
10-15 Prior to approval of a project that exceeds the statutory thresholds set forth in SB 610 and
SB 221. the appiard shall demonstrate to the City Engineer that adequate water supply
sorts to serve the Proposed Project. d it cannot be demonebaled that adequate water exists
to serve fie specific project. the project shall not be approved.
10-16 Prior to issuance of the find building permit or grading permed following certffecation of SBR
No. 339. whichever occurs first, shall be revised, updated and amended to include a new
3.000 gallon per minute water wed. revised faaiiea coals and the tofat Goes Roar Budding
Area of the Projected Total Development of SEE1 No. 339.
Findi w Mitigation measures are feeaitule and avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant
water services impacts to a lees than significant level for the reasons eel forth in the Draft EIR.
Reference: FSE1R Sedian 5.10, Pages 5.10 -27 through 5.1033, FSBR Appendix G.
SEMR Na. 339 Flag + f Rio and City 0Asidten r
Sr u of Oerrid ag Consider tsr:«ar Rage 3-67
-92-
et; i g 3 1 fl II 1/4.4
IR F ' i i i 1 51"19 4 ; ''
q R. I .110 limprili il ii.. I I tri IA -0 1 I 911 'rim .,N 9,111 ' lifriip? i i
I trilif, 'Dry II! 11111 I igi i k
3
i IiiirdPhlruilii. i iii:104 i .-)..
L.g iiiiiiii Iii 1,111 ; 1,11.4,01 i a
,,,c
NIL 2 1 5 rili .1% 1 ! qr' i i 7
/PA? gilleli ' 3 Ski I$ � ial� li g0 ilFilla I
lilliiiiiiprlii flit 1 41111111 1 i
; a ir i . 1 1 al.. 5
o
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Imparts
Impact 5.104_ Existing and/or proposed facilities would be able to accommodate project -
generated sold waste and comply with related acid waste regulations.
Development at the Proposed Project would increase the service demand for sold we disposal
beyond existing conditions and would provide more solid waste to the Olinda Alpha L.a maL Typical
wade amid include, but is not imbed to, green waste (i.e.. lawn and tree kennings, cardboard, paper,
glass. plamic. aluminum cans. dupes. food, and household hazardous waste (paint, motor oil,
antifreeze, batteries). etc. Table 5.10 -12 stows projected sold waste demands for residential.
commercial. °rase. and institutional uses.
Table 5.10 -12
Projected Solid Waste Demand
lad Use seeeA.ml Fodor I lli* 'orste Ccwated
Mowed Pabst
Res tmreal 8.643 DU 90 hatreAvedc 111.1241a (50 tam)
cam 2.845282 ss. It DA46 brass. fr/dar 121933 he (33
hike 92$4.912 a4 t 1 41Oo:l, *$ar 92860 bs (42 tam)
boliotoral 1200.000 as It 3.12 14 tidily 46.800 Is (21 tees)
Tad 3124$4 tits..1188 Ind
.
The additional 8,643 residential with would erh
generate approximately 111.124 pounder per day or 5.562 ta
tone per day (tpd). The proposed increase in commercial. °lice and institutional usee would generate
additional 55.19 tpd, 42.12 loci, and 2123 tpd of said waste. respectively_ Mande Alpha Landlri is the
main disposal site for the waste generated in the City of Anaheim. Olinda Alpha tandiM is located in the
City of Brea and is permitted through 2013 with an operational life of 2021. The current daily tonnage at
Olinda Alpha is approximately 5.600 tone and is permitted for 8,000 tors per thy. The Proposed Project
would generate an additional 18894 tons of solid waste per day. which would constitute about 2.4
percent of the permitted capacity. Therefore, the proposed increase would not have a substantial impact
an the Midi Alpha aardhil capacity or the MRF processing. to addition, the FRB Landai in toe City of
twine and the Prima Deshecha Landfill in the City of San Capistrano each provides land la capacty
through 2053 and 2067, respectively_ The proposed residential uses are expected to generate the typical
range of recydabie and norms yclable waste. The Orange County Landfill system is regihed to have
available disposal capacity for a projected period of 15 years. The Orange Corshty Lariat System has
demonstrated this capacity and ',melody imports sold waste from Los Angeles County. There is
available landfill capacity in the Orange County braille to accommodate the anticipated sold waste
abeam generated by the Proposed Project. individually and cumulatively.
The City has increased is diversion rate tram 44 percent in 1995 to 51 percent in 2004. Diversion rates
for later yeas are not yet approved. knplerhe Cation of the Proposed Project would generale increased
construction and operation acid waste in the area. However, each development project in the project
area would be required to submit project plane to the Streets and Sarnitaban Division of the Public Wad's
Department for review and approval to ensure that the plains comply with AB 939. the Sold Waste
Reduction Ad of 1989, and the County of Orange and City of Anaheim Integrated Waste Managerhent
Plans as admiradeed by the City of Anaheim. Development projects in the project area are required to
comply with the City's adding reciting and diversion programs, which would reduce impacts
generated by the additional devebp neat density to a less than aigr arced level.
SE1R No- 339 Fiadisg.f Rat wed City a fAsw3Eisr
Slimmest of OsIttniiing C+saidnaviari Prge 3-69
-94-
3. Findings on Potentially Signcant Imparts
Mitigation Measures
Applicable ration Meataes time MOP No. /OM
The following mitigation measures were included in the updated and Modified Matador' Monitoring
Program No. 1061 for the Platinum Triangle. adopted by the City Council an October 25, 2005. as part of
the Subsequent Erwiro mental knpact Report No. 332 and are appicabie to the Proposed Project
Adduions we shown in bold and deletions we indicated in efriheete format The mitigation reference
numbers from /NAP No. 106A we shown in tom).
10-18 Prior to the final building and zoning inspections of each development, the4ire property
owner/developer shall attired project plans to the Streets and Satiation Division of the
Public Works Depafrnent for review and approval to ensure that the plans comply with AB
939. and the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989. and the Canty of Orange and City of
Anaheim Integrated Waste Management Plans as administered by the City of Anaheim.
Impfe»neriatian of said plan shall commence upon occupancy and shall remain in till effect
as required by the Street and Sanitation Division and may include, at its riacreticn, the
following plan
• °elating the locations and design of onale recycinng faciitiea.
• Participating in the Qty of Anaheim's 'Recycle Anaheim" program or other substitute
program as may be developed by the City or governing agency.
• Facilitating cardboard recycling (eepecia8y in retail areas) by providing adequate
apace and centralized locations for collection and bating.
• Providing trash cannpacto a for nonrecydable materials whenever tearable to reduce
the total volume of sold Ovate and number of tripe required for colecion.
• Proving on-site recycling receptacles accessible to the public to encourage
recycling tar all businesses, employees. and patrons where tearable.
• Prohibiting curbside pick-up.
• Ensuring hazardous materials disposal complies with federal, shade. and city
10-19 Ongoing during project operations, the 4ine following practices shall be implemented, as
feasible, by the property (5.11 -0)
• Usage of recycled paper products for stationery. letterhead, and packaging.
• Recovery of materials. such as aksairarm and cardboard.
• Collection of slice paper for recycling.
The Pram Cater oaaber 2010
Page 3-70
-95-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
• Collection of glass. plastics, kichen grease, laser printer toner carkidgest, al,
batteries, and scrap metal for recycling or recovery.
10-20 Prior to the approval of each grading plan (for import/export plan) and prior to
issuance of demolition penis (for dermal= plans), the are property owner/developer
=all auto* a Demolition and Import/Export Plans, if deism "'bed to be necessary by the
Pubic Works Department Traffic Engineering Division, and/or Street and Sanitation Division.
The plans shall include identification of allele locations for material export from the project
and options for disposal of excess material. These options may include recycling of
materials onaile, sale to a broker or contractou . sate to a project in the vicinity or transport to
an environmentally cleared =KIK with attempts made'', move I wain Orange County. The
property owner/developer shah oiler recyclable building materials, such an nuptial or
concrete for sale or removal by private thins or public agencies for use in construction of
other projects. it all carrot be reused on the project ale. (5.11-10)
Fungi Mitigation measures are feasible and avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant
solid waste services impacts to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Draft
SEIR.
Reference: FSER Secion 5.10, Pages 5.10-33 through 5.10-34.
impact 5.10-5: Existing and/or proposed factlities would be able to accommodate project-
generated electricity demands.
Development pursuant to the proposed amendments would increase the electrical load on existing
bathes and require upgrades to the existing 12 kV chakthution systems. The impact would include, but
may not be killed to, increasing conductor sizes, locating the conductors underground. installing new
high and low voltage conductors. and instating new voltage transformation facilies. inducing one
electrical substation. As described in the project description, a new electrical =beta= is proposed
adjacent to Fee Station No. 12 between Anaheim Way and Santa Cruz Street south of Stanford Court
This new substation would have capacity between 112 and 168 megawatts (MW) and connect to new
and odsting electrical transmission and distribution Ines. AM installations would be located in City
streets. City property and rights-at-ways, or on customer-provided easements. DON:whorl and
transmission systems would be installed to coincide rear skeet improvements, or as needed by a
development whichever comes ink
According to APUD. the City currently canaries approximakty 590.000 MWh for residential use and
630,000 MY= for commercial/office me, and APUD anticipates that a new substation would be installed
when project electrical loads exceed the existing electrical capacity in the Platinum Triangle by 20 MW.
The owner or developer would be required to robust plans showing that each Onset= will comply with
the Stale Energy Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential Buildings (Tile 24. Part 6, Article 2. California
Code of Regulations) and wit consul with the APUD Business and Cononunly Program Division in order
to review Tile 24 measures prior to each final Burling and Zoning inspection to incorporate into the
project design energy and water efficiency and sustainabily practices. Therefore. APUD anticipates that
impacts resulting from the Proposed Project are within the expansion capabilities of the misting service
and such expansion would not be detrimental to the environment
APUD has specified electric utility improvements in the project vicinly that have been completed or are
in the planning stages:
SEIR N.. 339 Nadas: gnu? Arai City eilitabsim
Sudestat ofOoorraisg Owed erotica Pogo 3
-96-
3. Findings on Potentially Signcant Impacts
• Relocate Southern California Edison kanan aion Be r underground on Katella Avenue from wed
of toe Union Pectic Railroad to Lewis Skeet (850 feel)
• Relocate Southern CaHorrhia Edson communication ine underground on Katella Avenue from
Lewis Skeet to east of State College. (2,400 feet)
• A new dietrbubon dud bank on Katella Avenue from Lewis Street to 70D feet west of State
College Boulevard (2.400 feel)
• Relocate distribution circuits underground on fiddle Avenue from Lewis Street to 700 feet west
of State College Boulevard (2.400 feel)
• A new diskimicn duct bank an Orangewood Avenue from Anaheim Way to State College
Boulevard (1.500 feel)
• Relocate a distribution circuit underground on Orangewood Avenue from State College
Boulevard to west of the Santa Ma River (1.600 feet)
• A new distribution duct bank on Gene Autry Way from I-5 to State College Boulevard (2,500 feet)
• A new distribution dud bark on Anaheim Way from 700 feet north of Katella Avenue to
Orangewood Avenue (3.400 feel)
• A new didnbution dud bank an Lewis Street from Katella Avenue to Gene Autry Way (WO feet)
• Relocate a distribution eraci underground on Douglas Skeet from Katella Avenue to Cerritos
Avenue (1.000 feel)
Furthermore, the APUD indicated that tie proposed increase in development lnteneibes would require
the following improvements to the Anent electric facilities:
• Two new dstriibution dud banks on Kabala Avenue from Anaheim Way to Lewis Skeet (800 feet)
• A new distribution duct bank on Katella Avenue from Douglas Road to Howell Avenue (2.000
feet)
• A new distribution dud bank an State College Boulevard from Gerdes Avenue to Kadege Avenue
(2.600 feet)
• A new distribution dud bank on Orangewood Avenue from 15 to the Santa Ma River (4.800 feet)
• A new distribution duct bank on Gene Autry Way from Hamer Street to the twat aide of I-5 (2.500
feet)
• A new distribution duct bank on Gene Autry Way from la to State College Boulevard (2500 feet)
• A new transmission duct berth on Anaheim Way from 700 feet north of Kateta Avenue to
Orangewood Avenue (3.400 feet)
The nom* Cater Amber 2010
Page 3 -72
-97-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
• A new transmission dud bark on Lewis Street and Santa Cruz Street from Kabala Avenue to
Orangewood Avenue (3.000feet)
• A new dim dud bank an the east side of tie Angel Stadium parking lot from Orangewood
Avenue to the SR-57 (2,000 feet)
• A new distribution dud bank on Douglas Road from SR-57 to Cerritos Avenue (4.000 feet)
The electrical substation wit be required when project electrical bads exceed the oxiding electrical
capacity in the project area by 20 MW of customer load. The existing electric system capacity in the
Platinum Triangle area is appnmsmaiely 40 MW To meet this inaeased electrical demand. the electric
unity had determined that a new electrical substation in the project area would be required.
A suitable site for the substation has been sewed at the City-owned property at Orangewood Avenue
and Anaheim Way, on the same parcel where the new fire station and water well will be located.
Therefore. provided that a new electrical substation is conakuded to meet increased electrical demand.
and new electrical dmiriution and tranarnieaion fines are const acted, implementation of the PT MLUP
would not adversely impact the electrical supply and the impacts world be leas than significant
Mitigation Measures
krfi cable lifiligibon Measures tae MAW No. 1064
The following mitigation measures were included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring fi,
Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle. adopted by the City Council an October 25, 2005, as part of
the Subsequent 6Mronrrhaal impact Report No. 332 and are applicable to the Proposed Project.
Additions are ahown in bold and deletions me indicated in *insect format The mitigation reference
numbers from MMP No. 106A are shown in (i1 ).
10-21 Prior to the issuance of each billeting permit, the The property owneddeveloper shall
submit plans showing that each structure va7 Ply exceed the State Energy
Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential add {Title 24. Part 6. Articl 2. California Code
of Regulations) by a minimum of 10 percent and viii consult with the City of Anaheim
Public Utilities Department Business and Community Programs
This consultation awl' take place during project design in order to
review Title 24 measures that are incorporated into the project design energy efficient
practices efiaieney and allow potential systems alternatives such as thermal energy storage
air-conditioning. fighting, and building envelope options. Plans submitted for building
permb shaft show the proposed energy efficiencies and systems alternatives. (511 - 11)
10-22 Prior to the issuance of each buiding pernr't, , the property
owner /developer shall laical* on plans implement energy.eavirg Practices that will be
implemented with the project in con piarrce with Tile 40 24. which may include the
following:
• High-efficiency air - conditioning with t3NS (computer) control.
• Variable An Volume (VAV) ai distrthuticn.
• Outside air (100 percent) eoonomizer cycle.
SEER No. 339 Fisdirar i f Fir:.and City uploof im
Station r gO'o' d Cosuideratiou Rigs 3-73
-98-
3. Findings on Potentially Sign impacts
• Staged compressors or variable speed drives to low varying thermal loads.
• Isolated HVAC zone control by loorieeperahie activity anus.
• Speoiicallon of premium-efficiency electric motors (Le.. compressor motors, air-
ha thing units. and tan -cod urns)_
• Use of occupancy MINN, ih appropriate spaces.
• Use of compact fluorescent lamps i .
• Use of cold cathode fluorescent lamps.
• Use of Energy Star exit Fighting or a st signage.
• Use of T8 lamps and electronic ballasts where applications of standard fluorescent
fodures are identrhed.
• Use of ighing power controllers in association with me haide or high-
pressure sodium Righ intensity discharge) lamps for outdoor lighting and paridng
• Consideration of thermal energy storage air - conditioning for spaces or hotel
that may require elk-conditioning during smmner day -peak periods.
• Consideration for participation in fleastree--lifkieney:e Advantage Services
Programs such as:
• New construction design review, in which the City cost - shares engineering lees
for up to $40000 $15,000 for design of energy efficient bindings and systems.
• Energy Cate-far New Conekuction - Cash incentives 451
$400 per Kw or $0.15 per KW h
saved for each measure and up to $200,000 per fealty for efficiency that exceed
Title 24 requirements.
• Green Budding Program - Offers accelerated plan approval, financial
incentives, waived plan check fees and free technical assistance.
. (5.11 -12)
• Use of high efficiency toilets (1.28 gallons per flush (apt) or less).
• Use of zero to low water use urinals (0A gpf to 0.25 gpf).
• Use of weather-based irrigation controllers for outdoor irrigation.
• Use of drought - tolerant and native plants in outdoor landscaping.
10-23 Prior to issuance of each baiting permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, Fsr
the property owner/developer that
The Plrsrairg Carter Wan. 2010
Pap 3 -74
-99-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant ThIllaCti
install their portion of the an underground electrical service from the Pubic Illhhies
Disiriuion System as determined by the City of Ana heim Pubic Utilities Department The
Underground Service via be installed in accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates.
Regulations and Eleckical Specifications far of Underground Syaterms. Electrical Senn
Fees service fee• and other arppicable tees wit be amassed in accordance with the Electric
Ruffs, Rates, Regulations or another financial mechanism approved by the Cltyand
lileskisal-tipeellisetrass4a4Inetergreend-filysterna The underground electrical service will
consist of the following improvements to the current electric 0.
• Relocate Southern Canaria Edison transmission terse underground an Katella
Avenue from west of the Union Pacific Rahroad to Lewis Street (850 feet).
• Relocate Southern California Edison communication lire underground an Katella
Avenue from Lewis Sheet to east of State College Boulevard (2,400 feet).
• A new distribution duct bank on Kukla Avenue from Lewis Street to 700 feet west of
State College Boulevard (2.400 feet)_
• Relocate drskhbution citrate underground on Kateta Avenue from Lewis Skeet to
700 feet west of Stale College Boulevard (2.400 feet).
• A new distribution duct bank on Orangewood Avenue from Anaheim Way to State
College Boulevard (1,500 feet).
• Relocation a c elution circuti underground on Orangewood Avenue from Slate ICI
College Boulevard to west of the Santa Ma Fiver (1.600 feet).
• A new dhstribuiion duct bank on Gene Autry Way from 1-5 to State College Boulevard
(2,500 feet).
• A new distribution duct bank on Anaheim Way from 700 feet north of Katelta Avenue
to Orangewood Avenue ue (3,400 feet).
• A new distribution dud bank on Lewis Skeet from Kabala Avenue to Gene Autry Way
(950 .
• Relocate a distribution circuit underground on Douglas Street from Katella Avenue to
Carton Avenue (1.000 feet).
10-24 Prior to the issuance of each buidng permi, the The property owner /developer shat
submit plans for review and approval which shall ensure that bullrings
with exceed the Stale Energy 6eweervefien Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential
bullrings (Title 24, Part 6, Article 2, Caifornia Adminisbafive Code) by a minimum of 10
percent. (5 -14)
Additional linigobon
10-25 Prior to issuance of each buildrrg peml or gracing pennl, whichever occurs test the
property owner/developer shall install their portion of the underground electrical service from
the Public UtiFiiee Distribution System as determined by the City of Anaheim Pubic tiniest
MR
tamm of Overriding r r r City A r
Page 3 -75
-100-
3. Findings on Potentially Signcant Impacts
Department. The Underground Service wit be installed in accordance with the Electric Rules.
Rates. Regulations and Bec6'icai Spec7Cations of Underground Systems. Electrical service
fees and other appticehle fees wit be assessed n accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates.
Regulations or another inancial mechanism approved by the City. The underground
electrical service will consist of the following improvements to the current electric fades:
• Two new diabibuton duct banks on Kelpie Avenue from Anaheim Way to Lewis
Street (800 feet).
• A new distribution duct bank on Katela Avenue from Douglas Road to Howel
Avenue (2.000 feet).
• A new distribuion duct bank on Slate College Boulevard from Cerritos Avenue to
KatallaAvenue (2.600 feet).
• A new distribution duct bank on Orangewood Avenue from 1-5 to the Santa Ma River
(4.800 feet).
•
• A new diskiuian duct bank on Gene Autry Way from Hastier Street to the eaat aide
of 1.5 (2.500 feel).
• A new distribution duct bank on Gene Autry Way from 1.5 to Stale College Boulevard
(2.500 feet).
• A new transmission dud bank on Anaheim Way from 700 feet north of Keane
Avenue to Orangewood Avenue (3,400 feet).
• A new transmission duct bank an Lewis Skeet and Santa Cruz Street from Kaballa
Avenue to Orangewood Avenue (3.000 feet).
• A new distribution duct bank on the east aide of the Angel Stadanm paling lot from
Orangewood Avenue to the SR-57 (2.000 feet).
• A new distribution duct bank on Douglas Road from SR-57 to Cenios Avenue (4.000
feet).
10-26 Prior to issuance of each building permit or grading permit, the property owner/developer
shall provide an electrical load analysis to the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department
(APUD). The analysis chat ircknde a load schedule and maximum electrical coincident
demand. Should the property owner/developer's load analysis result in a contributed load
forecasted to exceed 20 MVA above the ex sing 40 MVA capacity of the electrical system
currently serving the Platinum Triangle area, the APUD wi haste conatnuian of a new
electrical substation wain the Plafirsm Triangle project area. Electrical service fees and
other applicable fees far the electrical substation we be assessed in accordance with the
Electric Roes, Rates, Regulations or anotlner financial mechanism approved by the Oily.
Fondants Mitigation measures are tearable and avoid or aubetantiatly leaven potentially significant
electricity impacts to a lees than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Draft SEIR.
Reference: FSEIR Section 5.10, Pages 5.10-34 through 5.10-36.
The Plrasir* tarter Cknber 2010
Rugs 3 -
-101-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
impact 5.104: Existing and/or proposed tamales would be able to accommodate project-
generated natural gas demands.
Development pursuer* to the amendments would mamas the naitirat gas demand in the project area
The project area is served by SCG but would require substantial upgrades to the existing system. SCG
has indicated that the Proposed Project would require an additional 1.5 miles of 465 pounds per square
inch gauge (peig) large-diameter gas transmission pipelines. along with placement of at least two
addNional pressure limiting stations in the area, and alteration of at least three mules of existing gas main
in the area to increase capacity.
Gas service will be aided to the existing system by SCG as necessary to meet the requirements of
individual development mojects within the project ate. it is anticipated that with necessary system
upgrades and facility irnprovernents. SCG would be able to service the project site with natural gas.
which would be provided in accordance with the SCGti policies and extension rules on file with the
Pubic Uthbee Commission when the contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas
service is based upon present conditions of gas supply aid regulatory poticies. As a public utity. SCG is
under the jurisdiction of the California Pubic Utilities Commission and federal regulatory agencies.
Should these agencies take any action Hart Mach" gas aupplyt ar the conditions under which service is
available, gas service would be provided in accordance with revised conditions.
Although the Proposed Project would mate additional dernande on natural gas gumption and distribution
infrastrucluie, the increased demands are projected to be within the service capabtilies of SCG provided
necessary improvements are made in nomination with SCG.
Nle4 Increased buticing densities and heights in the project area could interfere with tie communication
function of a microwave tower at the comer of Gene Auby Way and State College Boulevard. However,
the current PTMU Overlay Zone would allow a nonecreened rooftop microwave conwrounications tower
with a variance. if relocation of the microwave tower is neceseary.
Mitigation Measures
10-27 The City shall coordinate all tonne street and infrastructure improvements within the Platinum
Triangle with other service providers including Southern Cal Gas Company aid the
Orange County Santiation District so that required infrastructure upgrades maybe
constructed concurrently.
Finding: Mitigation measures are feasible and avoid or substantially lessen potentiaNy significant
natiffal gas impacts to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Draft SEMI.
Reference: FSBR Section 5.10. Pages 5.10-36 through 5.10-37.
MIR No. 339 Findings tellsa APhi City eAliehein
Stemma of 06wridisg Coariabrationts Digs 3-77
-102-
3. Findings on Potentially Sign Impacts
3.11 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
hapsst 510 -6: The Proposed Project would generate substantially more greenhouse gee
emissions compared to the Adopted Master Land Use Plan and cuneuh lively contribute to climate
change impacts in California. However, the Proposed Project would be consistent statewide and
regional greenhouse gas reductions goals_
Projeef-iielstsd G iG Emissions
The Proposed Project is a regionally ski project pursuant to SCAG's Intergovernmental Review
(IGH) aiee and the CEQA Guideines. The emissions inventory assumes both residential and
employment trips to be associated oath land uses in the Pietism Triangle_ Therefore. all the veticle
miles traveled (VIM) generated by those hips are considered to be pat of the City. GHG iventay even
if part of the trip end is external to the Cityr. h comparison, the Regional Target Advisory Committee for
SB 375 is recommending that in scenarios where employment trips are split between jurisdictional
boundaries. only 50 percent of the hip length be included as part of that region's GHG inventory_ What
this means is** vet icle trip may originate in the City of Los Angeles. but end in the Platinum Triangle (or
vice-versa). The City considers this whole trip length and hip to be emaciated with the Proposed Project.
Because the Platinum Triangle GHG inventory does not split trips associated with residential uses and
hips associated with nonresidential uses, tie correction is not included in the GHG emissions inventory
and nouns in an overestimation of WAT and tripe generated by the Platinum Triangle alone.
The development contemplated by the Proposed Project would conbsbuAe to global climate change
through died emissions of GHG from on-ate area sauces, anode energy production required for m-
site a tivitiies and water use. and vehicle trips generated by the Proposed Project. Liecyde emissions
are not included in this analysis because no information is available for tie Proposed Project and
therefore itecy ole GHG emissions would be speculative.' Project -related GHG emissions from operation
aciviies were calculated using the URBEMIS2007 and BNFACE2007 computer models, energy usage
factors and emission rates from tie BA. and GHG emission rates from waste disposal torn the USEPA.
For the operations phase, the project's GHG emissions are separated into emission sources for the
appicable GHG emissions sectors established by CARE_ Tra sportet on Sector emissions are produced
from vehicular travel to and from the project sie. Bectridly Sector sources are indirect GHG emissions
from the energy (purchased energy and energy from water use) trot is produced ofRaie.` h accordance
with Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, these sources of GHG emissions are evaluated. Recycling and
Waste Sector are emissions associated with waste deposal generated by the project Area Sources
Sector (Commercial and Residential Sector emissions sources) are owned or controlled by the project
(e.g.. naheal gas combueic n. bad furnaces) and produced on -site. Project- related construction
adivties would consume fuel and result in the generation of GHG emissions.
GHG emissions from operational activities associated with the Proposed Project at bold -out year 2030
are shown in Table 5.11 -4_ In general, project-related Transportation Sector errasions represent the
!argent proportion of emissions associated with the Proposed Project While development patterns can
' Libcyde emissions include 'extract emissions associated wbt menials mastact re. hbwEYer. these indirect
emissions iuwNe numerous parties, each or which is responsible tar GHG missions of Weir oakum a- activity.
Demme of me programmatic nature came Platleuuan Triangle MLIP development. evaluation and gria*liica ben or
new material usage and production are mimeo
" Potable water use consumes large amounts or energy associated win water conreyance, teabnet. disinbution.
end use, and wastewater uea<rnet
The P!sseisg Carter Gather 2010
Bop 3 -78
-103-
nh lipreirditro1 [i[IjjijiII:j[JiI:I qg
ig" ii§111.04To .1
0.4 „
174 1 1:Hilfirliort
1111 1111110
11' . 111113.°1 0 1100 ti !if 1:
i glliklibEi I 4 1 4 if
/ /1 . L71
11110 !Rai . 10 f ili
!kg g
3. Findings on Potentially Significant tits
emissions by 30 percent from year 2020 BAU. Therefore. the Soaping Plan defines the future baseline
emissions scenario to mean in the absence of the sdaEewide emissions reduction siategy In order to
determine whether the projects GHG emissions are consistent t with the overall goal of AB 32, emissions
shown previously in Table 511-4 are compared to GHG emissions with implementation of the Sopping
Plan GHG emissions reduction measures. Addlorrary. the Soaping Plan identified several early action
measures to reduce GHG emissions in the State of CaNamia. These early action measures include:
• Green Bullring: Implementation at newer. more energy-efficient California Bulking Standards
within the California Butting Code (CBC). The new 2008 Building and Energy Elbciewy
Standards are 15 percent more energy efficient than the 2005 standards.
• Renewable Energy Portloito: Requiring that California use renewable energy to represent 33
percent of California's energy portfolio. Renewable energy currently comprises 12 percent of the
state's energy pertain.
• Per - Capita Water Reduction: Reducing per-capita water use by approximately 20 percent The
draft 200E2020 water conservation plan identifies strategies to reduce water use in the state. In
addition, plumbing and landscaping codes amended will the new CSC result in a 50 percent
reduction of water use for new commercial and residential plumbing futures.
• Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Adoption of a new Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). The LCFS
requires the carbon content of fuels sold in California to be reduced by 10 percent by year 2020.
• Parley Fuel Efficiency Standards: Adoption of higher fuel eltcisac.y standards (Parley Fuel
Efficiency Standards). The l.kilted States Environmental Protection Agency granted the waiver to
California to implement higher fuel efficiency standards on July 1. 2009. Catitomia's fuel
efficiency standards require the average fleet fuel economy of cars to be 43 miles per gallon
(mpg) by year 2020. This results in an increase in fuel efficiency of 42.8 percent from the current
23 mpg average fleet economy in California_
Table 511-5 shows the GHG emissions inventory at build -out of the Proposed Project with the
associated GHG emisaions reductions and the percent reduction from BAU. As described previously, to
be consistent with GHG reduction targets of AB 32 for year 2020. the Cry would need to reduce GHG
emissions by 30 percent from BAU by year 2020. As shown in tie table, the statewide GHG emissions
reduction measures identied in the Sopping Plan and that we belle implemented over toe next 10
years would reduce GHG emissions by 353. 237 Worse or 35 percent. from the BAU scenario. Because
the GHG emissions reductions for transportation, buildings, energy. and other economic sectors would
be implemented by yew 2020, the percent reduction emaciated with the Soaping Plan for the project for
2030 would be similar for forecast year 2020 (see Appendix C). This is because no additional emissions
control mesa ores are assumed for years 2020 through years 2030 for the purpose of the analysis.
The PIrwwirg Carter Weber 2010
Pugs 3-80
-105-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
Table 5.11-5
2030 Annual GHG Emissions inventory for the Proposed Project with Scopi g Plan
Reductions
Paposedheject
Sane NAV Saaidel 8MINCE as /lalieltlrlTOY
Ti.r ywrbon Sector' 665.963 390.934 50%
Bede* Semler
Weser Dewed ad Treatment" 5.249 4.147 1%
Predated Bier 190,126 132,362 20%
Tad bar Emissions 195,177 136.509 21%
flemcier and W4sAeSector 27.441 27.441 4%
Area Sasses Sector' 19.933 11.096 9%
Awed Image Caastnad d 41.394 41.394 7%
Ted 616 WEIR 1.117113 134.371 110%
Per U nicer ----- 11111(e 11.1OtemiiP 1111
Pewee Dem=ftaw VW 3%
Sari! Flee Reieiss 313237
Yeas = auudia bam The earieaa denim does ad Wide ewe i ea aid%iaba iii led acs
lead m .42.3 peened 'awersa fed agars" is paasrva tam 2000 in 2610 live CATS 2006Tealaid Mussy. Party 2 %mid
refire ad mop led lid aeoaomyaimed oars 4423 ry0 by 2020 aaa*ared Is an mislay weave at 24A rays (CA1620006).
s dad an an brash b wrwile envy use from 12 puasedb 3S pawdiy 2020. (CM 200114
a nosed as ma
arose :115 mod maw eta nay ban le 2005b2000 eeiiavai buss B6risoy 9Vio s (P+e 24. Cafiaai baby
Cade).
• Snipe million bids peapk 11111) ire (esiieub) acid walk (egdaysq bake naiad Tiirgk.11eAipid lIWPge r r 15.339 iiii
adders aid 14,640 earybyes bra setae populated d 30,039 people_ lke hquwed hojedwesY paste 23364 naiads rd 41 .500
eruylayes for a swim pgai6aa d 6064 peayle.
Relative to Measure T-3 of the Soaping Plan, which is the measure encompassing the reg irernents of SB
375, local governments have the ability to timely inluence both the sling and design of new residential
and commercial developments in a way that reduces per capia greenhouse gases associated with
vehicle travel. energy, water, and waste_ SB 375 enhances wising procemes by which governments
coordinate with the regional planning agencies in order to &marmal ate GHG emission reductions
through integralied development per, improved iraneportahon plannnhg, and other transportation
measures and policies. The Proposed Project would mix high- and housing orals with
dice. retail. and erterninmerh uses within the vieieiy of major bansportabon corridors. exiudng State
Route 22, Intershite 5, and State Route 57, and therefore would be considered confident with intent of
similar regional piamng efforts focused on efficient lead use that shrive to irdegrete jobs centers and
housing opporliribes specifically to reduce VMT and therefore GHG emissions.
Regional GHG emissions reduction largess have not yet been estabbehed by CARS and the Sustain able
Communiiee Strategy (SCS) element of the RIP that we required by SB 375 wit rod be adopted by the
SCAG region unti the 2012 RTP is adopted. At this time, the only regional growth document that has
been incorporated into a regional growth policy is SCAGS Compass Blueprint If the Compose Blueprint
were to be fully implemented, VMT per household would be expected to deaeaae (SCAG 2009b). The
Proposed Project includes land use features designed to reduce VM 1 willies southern Calomel' and the
SoCAB through development of the Proposed Projec including the AR IC Dieted The ARTIC District
replaces the existing in oral land use designation an the eastern project boundary with a meted use
land use designation. This designation would allow for a variety of uses in addition to ARTIC. which is
envisioned as a major regional ird errrwdai trend center proposed under a partnership between the City
SEIR ens of City (Anaheim
Rage 3-81
-106-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant impacts
of Anaheim and the Osage County Transportahon Authority. The regional intermodil trans* center
would link rail. ground. and trans* services in Orange County and would serve as a gateway for high
speed and conventional rai. bus, and aulomobie travelers. Development of ARTlC project and the
ARTIC District would facilitate hale the use of transit by reside to in the Platinum Triangle and the erwroeinding
region and would. therefore, improve mobility in the southern California region and could reduce
transportation derived CO, emissions in the air basin.
As shown in Table 5.11-5 fist implementation of transportation and energy measures of CARS a Sopping
Plan would reduce emissions by 35 percent or 353237 triton of CO,„ from BALL Coupled with
statewide meaaurea to reduce GHG emissions from electric producers. vehicles. fuel, and the cap-and-
trade pry. the project would achieve GIG reductions consistent with the 30 percent reduction
consistent with the GIG reduction goals of AB 32, as desaihed in the statewide GFIG emissions
reduction strategy outlined in the Sopping Ran.
Mitigation Measures
Impact 5.11 -1
Apyricabfe Mitigation Measures from Other EIR Sedans
Below as a list of mitigation measures included in other environmental sections of this BR that
also would reduce GHG emissions associated with the project and are consistent with the California
Attorney General's =ligation measures for energy efficiency. renewable energy and age, water
conservation and efficiency, solid waste, lard use. transportation and motor vehicle. and agrimiture and
forestry measures. k should also be noted that the proposed project is a mixed -use dill project that is
consistent wr'ti the Attorney General's recommended measures for lad use. th addition, several of the
mitigation measures incorporate several categories of the California Attorney General's recommended
measures (i.e.. energy efficiency and water efficiency measures are ootaeionaly incorporated in the
same mitigation measure).
Solid Wade Measures
2-3 Prior to approval of each gracing plan (for 1mport/Esport Plan) and prior to issuance of
demotion Fernlike (tar Demolition Plans), the property cwne%teveloper stall submit
Demolition and inporffExport Plans detailing construction and demolr'6'on (C&D)
recycling and waste reduction measures to be implemented to recover CiD materials.
These plans shall include identian of off -ate locations for materials expert from the
project and options for disposal of excess material. These options may include recyclig of
materials on -site or to an adjacent site, sale to a soil broker or contractor, sale to a project in
the vicinity or transport to an environmehtaiy cleared bandit with attempts made to move it
valhin Orange fib! The praperly ovinerideveloper at offer recyclable building
materials. such as asphalt or concrete for sale or removal by private finis or public agencies
for use in construction of other projects if not all can be reused at the project tile. (5.24)
10-18 Prior to the final bulling and zoning inspections of each development, theme properly
owner /developer alai submit project plans to the Streets and Sanitation Division of the
Public Works Department for review and approval to ensure that the plane comply with AB
939, and the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989, and the County of Orange and City of
Anaheim Integrated Wade Management of Pans as pa n by the City of Anaheim.
indernentadion upon occupancy and that remain in full effect
T 6r Plrwsirg Clary 0nrsdvr 2010
Bop 3-82
-107-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
as required by the Street and sanitafwn Division and may include, at ills discretion, the
following plan (5. MB)
• Derailing the looabons and design of on-sie recycling facitiies.
• Participating in the City of Anahein'a "Recycle Anaheim' program or other substitute
program as may be developed by the City or governing agency.
• Fah sing cardboard recycling (especialy in retail areas) by providing adequate
apace and centralized locations for collection and bating.
• Providing trash compactors to norwec ciaole rmateriehe whenever feasible to reduce
the total volume of scid we and number of trips required for canecion
• Providing an-ere wing receptacles accessible to the public to encourage
recycling for ail businesses, employees, and patrons where feasible.
• Prohibiting curbside pick-mi.
a Ensuing hazardous materide &appeal complies with federal, stale, and oily
regulations.
10-19 Ongoing during project operations, the Abe
following practices shall be implemented, as
feasible by the property owner/developer (5.11.9)
• Usage of recycled paper products to stationery letterhead, and packaging.
• Recovery of materials, such as akirinum and cardboard.
• Collection of office paper for recycling.
• Collection of glass. plastics, kitchen greesc, laser printer toner cartridges, oil.
batteries. and eaap metal for recyciig or recovery
1420 Prior to the approval of each grading plan (for art plan) and prior to
issuance of demolition perm*, (far demolition plans), the 3ihe property ownerldeveloper
shall submit a Demolition and importjExport Rams. t determined to be necessary by tie
Public Works Depabnent. Traffic Engineering Division, and ,for Street and Sanitation
Division. The plane shall include identification of olfaite locations for materiel export from the
Prof and options for deposal at excess material. These options may include recycling of
materials on site. sale to a broker or contractor sale to a project in the vicinity or transport to
an erwironmentally cleared landfill. with ethernet made to move I within Orange County. The
property owner/'developer shat offer recyclable building materials, such as asphalt or
concrete for sale or removal by private firms or public agencies for use in construction of
other projects. i all cannot be reused on the project site (5.11-10)
SEIR No. 339 Fiidiag sf Rvd and Gin ofAaeheisr
Sr aararrt of Overidrsg Cwrr alnariou Rage 3-83
-108-
3. Findings on Potentially Sign Impacts
Tranepori t ion and Molar Vehicle measures
2-5 in accordance with the tiring required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager, but no
later than prior to the fast Grad aiding and Zoning ihepecfion, the property owner/developer
shall inpiernent the following measures to reduce long-term operational CO. NO4. HOG, and
PM,„ emissions: (5.2 -5)
• Traffic lane improvements and aignai¢ation as outlined in the Revised Platinum
Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report by Parsons Brinckerthoff,
August 2010, balisitudj and Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) shall be
implemented as required by the Traffic and Trnaporiafion Manage
• The
h thethe property
and Transportation owner/contractor shall place bus beaches and/or shelters as required
nsportation Manager at locations along any site frontage routes
as needed.
9-1 Prior to the first final busiding and zoning inspection for each braiding with commercial,
office, and/or in elfutional uses, the property owners/developer shall record a covenant
on the property requiring that ongoing during project implementation, The property
ownerdeveloper shah inpiernat and administer a comprehensive Transportation Demand
Management (IDM) program for of employees. The form of the covenant shall be
approved by the City Attorney's Office. Objectives of the TDM program shall be (5.10-2)
• Increase nideshari ng and use of alternative transportation modes by guests.
• Provide a menu of commute alternate/ea for employees to reduce
triPtl
• Conduct an amual commuter survey to ascertain trip generation, trip origin. and
Average Vehicle Ridership.
9-2 Prior to the fist FEW Budding and Zoning inspection for each budding with commercial,
office, or institutional uses, the property
owner /developer shall provide to the City of Anaheim Pubic Works Department for
review and approval a menu of TDM program strategies and elements for both exieing and
future employees' commute options, to include, but not be limited to, the fist below. The
property tamer/developer shall also record a covenant on the property requiring that
the approved TDM strategies and elements be Implemented ongoing during project
operation. The force of the covenant shaft be approved by the City Attorney's Office
prior to recordation. f- Naming (5.10-2)
• On-sie services such as the food, retail, and other services be provided.
• Rideahwirhg. Develop a commuter hating of all employee members for the purpose
of providing a `matching' of employees win other employees who live in the same
geographic areas and who could rideh_
• Vanpooirg. Develop a commuter {sting of all employees for the purpose of
matching numbers of employees who five in geographic proximity to one another
and could comprise a vanpool or participate in the existing vanpool programs.
The Pkersi Coder Welter 2010
Alga 3-84
-109-
3. Findings on Potentially Signifuant Impacts
• Transit Pass. Southern California Rapid Tram District and Orange County
Transportation Authority (inducing conmsie rat) passes be pointed through
financial assistance and omile sales to encourage employees lo use the various
banal and bus services from throughout the region.
• Shuttle Service. A commuter fisting of at employees living in proximity to the project
be generated, and a local shuttle program offered to encourage employees to travel
to work by means other than the automobile. Evert -shulte-servise-will-be-avaiahle
• Birycing. A Bicyding Program be developed to offer a bicycing atbernafive to
employees. Secure bicycle rac& lockers, and showers be provided as part of this
program. Maps of bicycle routes throughout the area be provided to inform potential
bicyciels of these options.
• Guaranteed Rde Home Program. A program to provide employees who rideshare.
or use transit or other means of commuting to work. with a prearranged ride home in
a lard. rental ca, all dtle. or other vehicle, in the event of emergencies during the work
shit
• Target Reduction of Longest Commute Trip. An incentive program for rideeharing
and other alternative transportation n modes to put highest priority on reduction of
longest employee commute trips.
• Stagger work shifts
ill
• Develop a 'compressed work week° program, which provides for fewer work days
but longer daily shale as an option for employees.
• Explore the poselotty of a "telecom/muting" program that would tinik some
employees via electronic means (e.g.. computer with modem).
• Develop a parking management program lhat provides incentives to those who
rideshae or use transit means other than auto to travel to work.
• Access. Preferential access to high occupancy vehicles and shutles may be
providr +d.
• Financial Incentive for Rideeharing and/or Public Transit. (Currently, federal law
provides tax -fee status for up to $65 per nrrdth per employee contributions to
employees who vanpool or use pubic trans including commuter rat and/or express
bus pools.)
• Fnancdal Incentive for Bicycling. Employees offered financial incentives for bicycling
to work.
• Special "Premium' for the Participation and Promotion of Trip Retraction.
Ticket/paean to special events. vacation. els. be offered to employees who recruit
other employees for vanpool, carpool. or other trip reduction programs.
SffiR No. 339 Ftsdrsas Ora t acrd City eAsoolsoin
Sommer if Osvrrndirg Cssiidmaierrr P gr 3-85
-110-
^ A P P A F
i NI qv pg r r i pl l ip Igo pip . ..!
ail igi II l ..1 fp 4,5:1'11 thiliii 40,51 ii, „
L N, i, 1 T o writ t ii 4
1 4: 4 0 a V 1 1 1 I 1 21 / 1 11 -
r 2 .1 r I 1 . ! Ile :_,41 6 • ri 1E. ri i k..
it l Ei l
. 1.7 al 1 1 i ll lArt . FF,..1 tr. pi I. 33 tgle .,, V c I, tqr kg iil
!iv ui [ I Pq ig Wth titilrit.. lig il '
[ ,i Ik lal . 1 III - .1 .1! 4.1 „ '-
41 1 1 1 a 1,1 ii 1 tpliliq Hi ii
214 it r 1 ti k . VP yliqll st
W bi ". ir V I AII Li'l " I
' "11 11 ; " l 141. I il .
g. iig 1 fr i viz . r iihi .L vit ii if 1 i
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager and per the approval of the Orange
County Transportation Authority (OCTA).
Ems' Efficiency
2-6 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the property ownerfarchited shall submit energy
calculations used to demonstrate compiance with the performance approach to the
California Energy Efficiency Standards to the Buidig Division that shows each new
structure exceeds the applicable Buildng and Energy Efficiency Standards by a
minimum of 10 percent. Plane shall show the following:
a) Energy - efficient roofing systems, such as vegetated or "coor roofs, that reduce
roof temperatures significantly during the summer and therefore reduce the
energy requirement for air conditioning. Examples of energy efficient building
materials and suppliers can be found at http:/ /eetd.lbi gov/ CoolRoole or simiar
we!bsites.
b) Cool pavement materials such as lighter- colored pavement materials, porous
materials, or permeable or porous pavement, for all roadways and walkways
not within the public right-of-way, to minimize the absorption of solar heat and
subsequent transfer of heat to its swooning environment. Examples of cool
pavement materials are available at ht p:/ /www.epa.govl heaiald/
imagee/mdraileve13_pavingproducte.html or similar webafes.
ft 14
c) Energy saving devices that achieve the existing 2008 Appliance Energy
Efficiency Standards, such as use of energy efficient nt appliances (e.g., Of
EnergyStare appliances) and use of suaight- filtering window coatings or
double -paned windows.
d) Electrical vehicle charging stations for al commercial structures encompassing
over 50,000 square feet.
e) Shady trees strategically located within close proximity to the building structure
to reduce heat load and resulting energy usage at residential, commercial, and
office buildings.
(
10-21 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the ifhe property per shall
submit Plans showing that each atruckre will amply - nth exceed the Stale Energy
Efic he n y Standards for Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24. Part 6. Article 2. Ca lomia Code
of Regulations) by a minimum of 10 percent and will consult with the City of Anaheim
Public Mies Department Business and Community Programs
Division. " • . - - - _
This consultation shall take place during project design in order to
review Title 24 measures that are incorporated into the project design energy efficient
practices ieltielenay and slow potential systems alternatives such as theme, energy storage
Stmt q $ 1 , Prigs 3-87
Pugs
-112-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
air- cancitioni g, lighting, and building envelope options. Plans submdled for budding
penis shall show the proposed energy efficiencies and systems altertiafive . (5_11 -11)
10-22 Prior to the issuance of each budding permit, . tie property
owner /developer shall indicate on plans implement energy-saving practices that will be
implemented with the project in compliance wah The 49 24, which may include the
wing:
• High-efficiency air-conditioning with EMS (computer) control.
• Variable Air Volume (VAV) all distribution.
• Outside air (100 percent) economizer cycle.
• Staged compressors or variable speed drives to SOW varying thermal loads.
• Isolated HVAC zone control by Soma/separable activity areas.
• Specificsition of premium-efficiency electric motors (i.e, compressor motors, air-
handing units, and an-coi units).
• Use of occupancy sensors in appropriate spaces.
• Use of compact fluorescent lamps inaplaseeNneandessenHanspe.
• Use of cold cathode fluorescent lamps.
• Use of Energy She exit fighting or exit signage.
• Use of T-8 lamps and electronic ballasts where appicationa of atandand l uorescen t
fiiduree are identified.
• Use of fighting power controllers in association with metal -haide or high -
preeeure sodium (high intensity discharge) lamps for outdoor lighting and parking
lots.
• Consideration of thermal energy storage all conditioning for spaces or + Wel
that may require air-conditioning during su nvner, day -peak periods.
• Consideration for participation in flesetree—Effieieney4 Advantage Services
Programs such as:
• New construction design review in which the City coal-stares engineering fees
for up to $$15.000 for design of energy efficient building: and systems.
▪ Energy -Sated New Construction - Cash incentives $400 per kW or $0.15 per
kWh saved for each measure up to $200.000 oer facility for eiaiencythat exceed
Tile 24 requirements.
Green &aiding Program - Offers accelerated plan approval, financial
incentives, waived plan check fees and free technical assistance
2 hr Amin Cam" Ouu& 2010
Pap 3-88
-113-
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
.
. (511 -12)
• Use of high efficiency toilets (1.28 gallon per twill (gpl) or less).
• Use of zero to low water use urinals (0.0 gpf to 025 gpf).
• Use of weather -based irrigation controllers for outdoor irrigation.
• Use of drought - tolerant and native plants in outdoor landscaping.
10-24 Prior to the issuance of each baking perm*, the she property owner/developer shall
submit plans for review and approval which ahai ensure that buildings
with exceed the State Energy Standanda for Nonreeidenial
buildings (Title 24. Part 6. Article 2. California Admini dra ive Code) by a minimum of 10
percent. (511 -14)
Water Cronsennd on and Efficiency
10-7 Prior to issuance of a bulking perms submitted landscape plans shat demonstrate
compliance with the City of Anaheim adopted Landscape Water Efficiency Guidelines. Thia
ordinance is in compliance with the Slate of Caliomia Yodel Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance (AU 1881
Among the measures to be impler nenied with the project are the foiowirhg:
• Use of watercomaening landscape plant materials wherever tearable;
• Use of vacuums and other equipment to reduce the use of water for wash down of
exterior areas;
• low -Mow filings. Toduree and equipment including low Mush toilets and urinals:
• Use of self-dosing valves for drinking fountains;
• Use of efficient irigation eyetevna such as drip irrigation and automatic ayaleme
which use masks. sensors;
• Infrared sensors on sinks. toilets and urinals;
• law -lbw shower heads in hotels;
• Infrared sensors on drinking funk ins;
• Use of irrigation systems primarily at night when evaporation rates are lowest
• Water-efficient ice machines. dishwashers. clothes washers, and other water using
app;
• Cooing tower recirculaing system;
5;41R N& 339 Fa drag •f slat And City If Aa hdar
Sr tmettt of orw►r dirig car Rog 3-89
-114-
3. Finding on Potentially Significant Impacts
• Use of low-flow sprinter heads in krigaton system;
• Use of waterway relation systems:
• Provide information to the pubic in conspicuous placea regarding water
conservation: and
• Use of reclaimed water for inigabon and waandown when it beeamee amiable.
In aonjuncbon with submittal of landscape and building plans, the applicant shall identify
which of these measures have been incorporated into the plans. (5.1 /-/)
10.9 Prior to the issuance of the brat budding permit or grading permit whichever occurs fiest, the
property owner/developer shall indicate on plans installation of a separate irigation meter
when the total landscaped area exceeds 2.500 square feet (City of Anaheim Water
Conservation Measures) (5.114)
10-12 Prior to issuance of a building permi submitted landscape plans for all residential, office
and commercial landscaping shall demorad ate the use of drought tolerant plant nmeaeriafs
puaauant to the publication entitled °Water Use Efficiency of Landscape Species' by the U.C.
Cooperative Bdermian . August 2000.
10-13 Prior to issuance of a building permit or grading permit. whichever occurs trst, the property
owner/deveIopar shall indicate on plains water efficient design features inchscfing. but not
Whited to (as applicable to the type of development at issue) waterless water healers,
waterless urinals. automatic on and off water facets. and water efficient appiances.
10-14 Prior to issuance of a buffing permit or grading pennk. whichever oocua trek the property
owner/developer than indicate on plans instalabon of a separate irrigation tines for recycled
water. AM irrigation systems shall be designed so that they wit function properly with
recycled wafer.
Additional ifRis ion
No additional mitigation erasures we available_
Francs Mitigation measures are feasible and avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant
greenhouse gas emissions impacts to the extent feasible for the reasons set forth in the Draft
SEIR. However, as shown in Table 5.11 -6, implementation of the project would generate a
subatanial increase (463,371 Won. or 243 percent) in GHG emissions from existing conditions.
Therefore, while the project would be consistent with GHG reduction goats of the Scoping Plan,
GHG emissions generated by the project would be significant and unavoidable.
Reference: FSEIR Section 5.11. Pages 5.11 -14 through 5.11-31.
The P1 raiag Ce+aaer Grw6vr 2010
Rage 3 -
-115-
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable
erwiro, mental risks when determining whether to approve the project E the beneMs at the project
ouhveigh the unavoidable adverse effects. those enacts may be considered 'acceptable (State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15093[4). CEQA requies the agency to support. in writing, the speck reasons for
considering a project acceptable when significant ink are infeasible to miigate. Such reason mud
be based an substantial evidence in the Rnal EH or elsewhere kr the admirishative record (Stare CEQA
Guidelines Secian 15093 [b]). The agency's statement is referred to as a 'Staternerd of Overriding
Co sdderatione. The following sections provide a description of the each of the project's significant and
unavoidable adverse impacts and tie justification for adopting a statement of overriding consideration.
4.1 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE MII CTS
The blowing adverse impacts of tie project are considered signiicard and unavoidable based an Drat
Ski No. 339. the Final BR, Motion Monitoring Program No. 1060. and the findings discussed in
Seciens 2.0 and 3.0 of this document
Air Quality
impact 5.2-1 t
Implementation of litigation Measures 2 -1 through 2-4 would reduce construction emissions associated
with nevv development projecia in the Ptairum Triangle. However, due to the magnitude of construction
activties that could woe place wih txid -out of tie Proposed Project emissions of Carbon monoxide
(CO). nitrogen oxides (NO„). vole organic compounds (VOC). coarse irhalable parbicii le matter
(PM„), and fine inhalabie particulate matter (bra) would continue to exceed the Sour Coast Air Quality
Management Diddles (SC QMD) regional construclion regional emissions thresholds and cumulatively
conbbbute to the 0 and paricadate matter (PM. and PM nonatbaiment designation of the South
Coast Air Basin (Sot'. AB). As a result. impact 5.2-1 world remain significant and unavoidable.
X522
inpiemer*iian of Mitigation Measures 2-4 through 2-6 sold reduce opera6onai phase emroaione d the
project However, due to the magrebale of new air pollutant eons sources that could result with
Ix/id-out of the Proposed Project. emissions would exceed the SCAQMD's regional significance
thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the 0, and particulate matter (PIA,„ and PM,„) nonatiaixrmNd
designations of the SoCAB. Asa recut, Impact 5.2-2 would remain eignucant and iaiavoida6le.
impact t 5.2-3
Mitigation Measures 2-1 through 2-4 would reduce on-sale construction emissions to the extent feasible.
However, due to the m agnide of the construction grading awiviies, the probability that multiple
construction activities could occur at the same time. and tie proximity of existing and future sensitive
receptors within the Platinum Triangle, coridruction emissions may emceed the SC AC MD localized
significance thresholds. Asa result, impact 5.2-3 would remain significant and unavoidable.
SEER Nor. 339 Find* effect ad City ngAnrdxvbs
Staitstnt gOverritliwg Cehnnider tsenr R+grr 4-1
-116-
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
impact 52-6
Placement of sensitive uses near major pollutant sources would result in significant air quaity impacts
from the exposure of persons to substantial concerttra ions of toxic air poluutert confaninards. However,
implerrennion of Millman Measure 2-7 and 2-8 would ensure that reeidehces within the Platinum
Triangle are not located in close proximity to major staionary sources of air pollution ideified by
California Air Resources Board (CARIB). As a result, no significant impact would occur: kupiententabon of
Mitigation Measure 2-7 would reduce the potential 'indoor health risk. While tong -lean maintenance
associated with replacement of the minimum efficiency reporing value Mere is not in fie control of the
developer for indoor air quaky impacts. Mitigator' Measure 2-7 would require the property menage
beasts) and homeowner's association (I-lOA) to require homeowners to replace Mere to reduce heath
risk associated was diesel particulates from being located within 500 feet of Intenage 5 and Stale Route
57. Asa result. implementation of Aiitigabcn Measures 2-7 and 2-8 wouuld a acre that residents eaten tie
Platinum Triangle would riot be exposed to levels of toxic ak contaminants that exceed the ambient
concentration in the project vicinity, which are 931 to 1.086 in a million in the Platinum Triangle area
( SCAQMD 2009).
While Migation Measure 2-9 would reduce the potential outdoor health risk for parks wi to i close
prexardy to the freeway. development projects may include outdoor private recreational areas within the
distance of 500 feet Therefore. placement of private auidoer recreational areas
would expose people to elevated taiga of toxic ar contaminants that exceed the ambient concentrations
in the project vicinity, which are 931 to 1.088 a maim in the Platinum Triangle (SCAQMD 2008). and
impacts would be potentially significart Impact 5.2-5 would be significant and unavoidable.
Land Use
Impact 544
No mdigetion measures are available to reduce significant impacts to operation of the Southern
CaUomia Gas Company's microwave tower. The A-Town Metro project north at the microwave tower was
approved on October 25, 2005, and is not a part of the current project actions to increase the intensity in
the Platinum Triangle. Unless the property containing the microwave tower is redeveloped with a future
mixed use and the tower is relocated, high -rise residential towers north of the microwave tower wB
cartict with the tower's operation and this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
Noise
impact 56-1
Mitigation gamine 5-1 will reduce impacts related traffic noise in reaeea to the extent feasible. However.
some areas may experience nose levels in exceedance of the City's noise ordnance prior to
implementation of roadway improvements and associated noise attenuation. Consequently. impact 5.5-1
would retrain significant and unavoidable.
impact 5.64
Mitigation Measures 5-2 trough 5-4 would reduce exterior noise levels at noise-sensitive exterior areas
from roadway source rose, rairoad noise. and from stadium events. Floweret et the exterior noise
environment may sal exceed the goals for noise compatniiy established by the City and would require
evaluation of individual project compatibility with the exterior noise envinxment on a case-by-care bass.
Consequently. Impact 5.5-3 would remain significant and unavoidable.
2Yr Plrrrirtg Crater Qrisber 2010
Page 4-2
-117-
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
Mip.cf 5.6.6
Mtiigation Measure 5-5 would reduce vibration impacts from pile driving. but world not eliminate
vixaiion generated by heavy construction equipment operating within dose proaimiy to eriaing or
proposed units within the Platinum Triangle. Therefore. Impact 5.5-5 would remain significant and
unavoidable.
tiuupact 6.6
Mitigation Measures 5-7 through 5-10 would reduce noise levels from aormtructian activities to the extent
feasible. Construction noise impacts would be temporary as they would only occur when construction
activities are occurring and would cease by evening. However. due to the proximity of occupied units
within the Platinum Triangle to construction activities and potential overlap in the construcicn schedule
from individual development projects constructed *lin the Platinum Triangle. Impact 5.5-7 would
remains sip and unavoidable_
Transportation and Traffic
Impact 5.9
Implementation of lAitigation Meaau re 9-1 through 9-17 provides means to implement belfie
improvements to reduce impacted intersections and arterial segments level of service to a leas than
significant level. However. although recommended, not all identified improvements are feasible. Where
the primary responsibility tor approving and/or completing certain improvements located outside of
Anaheim lee with agencies other than the City of Anaheim audh as tin City of Orange and California
Department of Transportation (Cabana). recommended measures may not be implemented tor masons
beyond the C ty's control The City of Anaheim cannot undertake or require improvements outside of
Anaheim's jurisdiction arid the City cannot construct improvements it the Caltrane's right -of ay without
Citizens approval Should that occur, the project's traffic impact would remain significant.
Reconenended improvements on the following City of Anaheim intersections are not feasible and
impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
1) Intersection 1-1: Euclid Street/Kaiefia Avenue
2) Intersection 1-5: Disneyland Drive/Ball Road
3) Mlensecion 1-6: Disneyland Drive4Weet Street/Kate la Avenue
4) Intersection 48: Harbor Boulevard/Ball Road
5) Intersection 1-23: Anaheim Boulevard/Hae er Street/KatellaAvenue
6) intersection 1-49: State College Boulevad/Ketdla Ave
7) itesection 1-53: State College Boulevard/Orangewood Avenue
Recommended improve ent:I on the following City of Orange intersections are not feasible because the
City of Anaheim does not have jurisdrtion over the implementation of these improvements: and.
therefore, impacts would remain atgruiicard and unavoidable.
8) Intersection 1-53: Stale College Avenue (shared intersection between
Anaheim and Orange)
9) Intersection 1-57: State College Sou leved/ihe City Drive/Chapman Avenue
10) Intersection 1-71: Orangewood Avenue/SR-57 Southbound Ramps
11) I terse on 1-80: Main Street/Collins Avenue
12) Intersection 1-87: I Street/Katela Avenue
SR1R No. 339 Fiadings .fRrex.ssd City ((AavMea
Strteatat OrmviIiig Considnations Bag 4-3
-118-
it tuNii: i 1 gitlitip 1
I I V311111 i i i 1 iiii :`, a a " S PROPi 3 g :::
i il 7 i Ali 4. er Or" : Wit (i H i
I!II I . 1148111 i g a4i5S � xi z:
i iji a [ � I r f�3 IS 1 39f �Srp 3 € � �1 ���E 1 �`i� � p
EIEU s I Ii � � g 1 ee� 3x ;.
l'unil Fillfiql Olit ferig,11 r
4011 i i li l 141.1
! 11rJ1 it 11 1 1 0 di l
.11f • . 1,5 1 ! 1 1 .
11:11711 'Mow
..s w Es. s. • thirea nil
1:1 1 114 I
w ird; & 11
913 Art .11
. WI 5 I M 1 12 4 tit 11
girl 1112:111114P0/110
104;191 I ka
rig � I 7i6i3�ii[�1R� }Rt$�i°,�g 1111 `1]
t 1° 1 tir
Er I
r11011 1119101111 11".
Mi hinhilliiilihifi
ti+
1 I P 1
91111if 1 111 I I I ii ii l OA I I I PIg I 1111 rilla
4 1 I F , ; 1 1.1 A
1:11111 i 1 I 111111 1 11 11 1 11
E I . I 111111 .1:1
PI 11 31 I ti i I f 14
-1 1 91 I 1111 [1 411 i I .1 1 d i I hi a
lit illho 1 11
Illill 1,0011 'IN 1111
te 419:p 11 .1
e ,It i1411
" R 11 If
• 4r.. th. "
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
To address the Poicy Considerations identified above, the Ciy has eatable/led Guiding Principles that
provide the primary potiicy direction to address le identified needs. The table below identifies the
Guiding Princples and analyzes the proposed project's consistency with these principles.
Guitlegy singes Proposed Project
Qi ing %ape A The daisies of a lid gutty. led The deposed doled vii ioaease the penalied anew d Mushy
m a i r . i s e d handl stock is a piney oenubuter to q u a l i t y with tie Mien 'Maniple. Development villa this arias putted
of lie Aram. by the Reim Tingle Nester lard the Phi and sepcald byte
PLO= Teogk Iliad Use Oveay Tare, which have detaied
puddles and staiad ierdedto laoeide a high quaky. veil
emintabd Mush. stock
Grip Pimple lk The scabby d a rame commie The proposed deject provides the apposite** hawse the
choices fora vaiety d incomes in Malvin cetaiutes b a permed ammo rdi -fariy residedial devdapswt viilin the
6ahroed community and coramody eveswe st coy and por de Wahl fora moiety d homes.
h ?DOT. the deflates of bousir0 type adapt fe 101 ,510
hsusiep eels vide tee City vos 43% sigletaw* detached &9%
siegle-6raly amdhd. 43.7%'mil-Leidy. and 43% motile hexes.
fluid atel tbe proposed deject would aeae se le pa cmeage d
rmifanly ads b525%dthe hominy soak
Develops%edit thaw lamb have to same wail* to seek
ad Mae Ambi 's manatees laid* programers to devdopihp
Addible heady as ley do thorpbac the test the City, and.
the lie pueaed deject dos nattiest teeakiyb peoeide
ft 1 4
leasing tor a variety d ecanelends.
Gahm Pimple C: Persons Mu special homing needs The deposed psojeat vii imam the supply of hwsiy vain le
should lave access tea windy d besting chokes that are fly sodas a naafi mestsele haft choices tar psa *n
impaled ankh comae iyr. spatial weds.
Wig Panicle tk 5lataiable design and the efficient The proposed pee ie encourages atstanable dear ad We efficient
russet d mammas am* move fable seelpliehoods died= of veseuoes. For eample, le proposed prodded agile
and can have bat anatomist Rst ad iamdal beMu development to emceed Tit 24 scene statekeds by a riierm of
10%
Castled bap umeiirn dthe Phiran Tree Master Laud Use
Pan ask Neale eve bitable veighhadesodstatai have bath
e tioamsed acid iardal benefits.
Dahl Principe E Cemmaiyr ebeaid ad eoea>te is The Voiced Palladia lathe flevised Mew Trim* 6paaion
of t e d a r o a d a l ieepoeta ce b esarbd.hig a vid- inlameed, Paled was posted en Decade 11. 2003, advertised n t1a 0raye
echo ed euermig toot can pupae daealyr n the Carty Register and realedto adonis and who issested pates. A
potable, ccecavatior and preservation of loosing in pabie sceptre; meeting was held on Jamey 9. ?009. Comments
Anaheim haired i.igthe pubic Levier period we samatbed n Table 2-1
of USSR No. 339 aid contained n Appesdoe S of the OSER
A Ihiae d Amiably tor Draft Ai was sdeaaed on twat 13.
2010 ad to doome dwhs made ratable at City yki Strekb
8raeofi Weary. and Makin Cenral th ea y and an the immet a
45day pubic maser paiot width odd c. Sepaebe 27. 2010.
Owing le pubic 'edge period. to Oily necked ceewanls boo
rulers secedes and lawesled pates. these comments ad
assoeMed espouses as dace fed in the Fiat Est, Mich dl be
raided to flee pdic at leaded days piorto the City Cceed's
maw tithe Sit
MIR S q +3 eil
r s Age 4 -7
Age r -
-122-
d IIIN ;PUP HIM 111114111
A > lei il I 41 � g� j1itIIJ 11141 - ���i 9 I'lli t a
lit &iP era WI I PIE 11411 114 i 1 l'
Phi ilid 3 it 1 1 1 WW 3t : ql i I ll 1 1 .
JtIJj IIH j
1 IN a pfeti i II str E li i
r y l l a : !II:M:1: g ' F �rj i If a ° ii
1114 phitql4 !Aid ilitit plihii i II
1 diii 1111111111 lilifit kiri mill Ri
iiir ! 9 E 4i411 p SS� mil tiil Rimprip S I
Elt IL p 42. 1 hi. tip.; tilleri i I I uic..
A 11 :i 1 iglii lin‘l ly Plikii 1 gootill
, igt li i Irmo' e, r 3, I Ii J„r I 1 illiif .
ii i [ piht lijil In 141111 111111"11 'e
II ll r f t p WO 1 if l . rmar itA 1
1 ;r ' . I 0 • 1 "II if lir Ifiliapi z
V 1 .9 i i i di im lip y ar ?.
i IA. .111 roil itri 1 1 1 1.1 r 1
I i 'OW 4E0 OH td I p I ifq; .4"
i 1 l ir;r 1 11 0111Z INE 1 I 1111411 x '�Es; Fi
"11" i !I I lilt jjka A
li la' Rim 11 tar ..
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
• Provide for a wide range of housing opporhnries in close proximity to jobs and a regional
transportation ceder
• Provide a mix of greedy. high - density urban homing that is integrated into the area through
carefuiy maintained pedestrian skeet's. transit cornedions. and arterial access.
• Create a development plan that encourages residents of Anaheim to work and shop in close
proximity to their homes. minimiang use of their automobiles.
• Encourage extensive dice development along the highly visible periphery of the area to provide
a quakly employment center.
• Foster rmiced. use development that serves to reduce vehicle melee traveled by promoting
alternatives to driving. such as warring, taking. and used inane transit.
• Provide on -srle open apace and recreation amenities that further enhance the mixed -use
environment of the area for both residents and employees working in the Platinum Triangle.
• Encourage high 'densely Meted use development that is synergistic with the entertainment and
employment uses already estsbiehed in the Plebeian Triangle.
• Maximize opparhariies to increase he increment received from the Redevelopment Project Area.
• Avow for the continued development of the Platinum Triangle and accommodate future market
demand through amendments to tike General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan.
Provides Employment Opportunities for mighty Walled Workers
The implementation of the Project wit provide employment opportunities for a highly skilled workforce.
Nat only wit the Project increase the opportunities for proteaeiorhal. medical and other job opportunties.
but the Project will also provide apportionable for tie trades and construction industries.
As of July 2010. unemployment in the City stood at approximately 12.5 percent and unemployment in
Orange County stood at 9.8 percent (Employment Development Deparknent. 2010). California and the
Untied States have faced the moat severe recession since the great depression. The construction sector
was particularly reflected. For example, construction work in Orange County saw a 12.6 percent decrease
in revenue during the past year, totaling approrornaiely $6.4 Mien (Orange County Business Journal.
2010). Condnucion of AR11C alone wit provide needed cormkucion jobs. ARTIC is enacted to create
approximately 5,000 estimated jobs based upon project costs of 8184 trillion. It is anticipated that build
out of the Project wit provide 26.860 jobs over the comae of 20 years. It is a social and legal prerogative
of the City to provided employment oppokrriies for highly sidled workers.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the implementation of Amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use
Plan (MLUP) project and the emaciated project actions wit conkubute toward a beneficial mix of
residential. c ommerciai. industrial. institutional, recreation, and open space uses in the PlinurM Triangle,
providing significant housing, recreational, and pubic services benefits of local and regional
significanoe, as well as various public inkasbnn4ure improvements, all of which outweigh the
unavoidable environmental imhpac t&
7Yv
Phoesirrg Coster Gather 2010
Page 4-10
-125-
5. References
The following reference materials were reviewed to obtain information included in or considered doing
the preparation of this environmental impact report To arrange for the review of one or more of these
references. please contact the agency tiled or Stan tam, AICR Senior Planer C ity of Anaheim
Planning Department, at (714) 7654998_
Auflhamner. Maximilian and Car son, Richard T 2008, May Fareeasi rw the path of lime's CO2
emissions using ptminee-ievel antennation. Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management. Volume 44. tesue 3. Pages 229 -247.
Berger, Elliott. Rick Nebel, and Cynthia A. Ktadden. 2006. February. Noise Navigator Sound Level
Database with over 1,700 Measurement Values. Version 1.0. E A•R 88 -34/HP
Bolt, Beranek and Newman. Inc. 1971. Noise front Conetruciion Equipment and Operations. Building
Equipment and Nome Appliances,. Prepared for the Untied Slates Environmental Protection
Agency. Washington, DC.
California Air Resources Board (CARE). 2005 Apra. Air Qualify and Land Use Handbook: A Cormrrwfy
Health Perspective. ,�
. 2008, June. Climate Change Dreg Soaping Ptah, a Framework for Change.
ange. �'
. 2000. October. California's Plan to Reduce Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions.
. 1999, December. Final SfoV Report (Update to the Toxic Air Condamine,' ttst.
California Department of Finance. E-5 Pepndrtkae and Housing Estimates for Cities, 2001 - 2007, wtlh 2000
Bendwnmdr. Sacramento. to. Cabbala. May 2008.
Caifoma Department of Housing and Consrsrnity Development. State income Limits for 2008, 2008.
California Department of Transportation (Cataans). Division of Enriorenenlal Analysis. 2002.
Tia►uaportsflon Related Eam hboare 'libation: Cabana Einierienoes. Technical Advisory. Vibration.
TAY02-01 - 89 601. Prepared by Rudy Hendricks.
CaWoma Energy Commission (CEC)• 2006. June_ Climate Mange Emissions Entireties Nom Bemis.
Gerry and Jerenie►Allen, hsrer*sy of Callomin Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1980 to
2002 Update. Catitarna Energy Commission Staff Paper . Sacramento,
CaMorna.
. 2006, December bwentory ol Cattleman Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1890 to 2004.
Report CEG-000.2D06 -013SE
_ 2007. The Role of Land Use in ill eeW rg (a NOrnie a Energy and Climate Lange Goals. Report
CEC-600- 2007-008 -SD.
sFd m r°fovrmidieg iararr dry afAnaheim i
-126-
5. References
C H2MHill. 2009. June Combined Cerrbrd Anaheim Area Plaster Plan of sanwtary Sewers fCCAAAWSS) -
Anayees of Models for the Revised Pk iinum Triangle Expansion Project (DSBR NO 339).
City of Anaheim. 2006. City of Anaheim Alfordeble Housing Strategic Plan.
. 2005. May.Pialinu n Triangle Dealt Environmental impact Report lints and hazardous
Alsieriefs.
- 2004. August 17 (amended). The Platinum Triangle Mester Land Use Plan.
- 2004. May 25 (amended). CATy of Anaheim General Plan Update.
Energy Information Adrainietrahon, United States ow 2008. International Energy Outlook 2008_
Federal kderagen y Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAt4).1997. June. Olbds of Aviation Noise on
Areakenings from Sleep.
Federal Transit Administration (FM). 1995. Trams& Noise and Vibration impact Assessment. United States
Department MTransportation_
-. 2006. May. Tiensrt Noise and Vibration Impact United States Department of
Transportation. FTA- VA•80- 1003-06.
. 2007. Federal Transit Admunietratien Noise Impact Assessment Spreadsheet
idtp://www.ta.dat.gov erwiromrnent 222i3html
Holland. David. 2007. December: Bias and Conceaknent in the UPCC Process: The Tiockey.SticleMair
and Implications. Energy & Environment. Vat 18. No. 7 +8. Pg. 954.
Intergovernmental Panel on dirnate Change (IPCC). 2001. Third Assessment Report Clknate Charge
2001. New VA: Cambridge University Preen.
-. 2007. Fourth Assessment Report Curate Change 2007. New lotto Cambridge University Preps.
kdernational Energy Agency. 2006. Wald Energy Outbok 2000.
USA Associates. Inc. 2006. Platinum Triangle Adopted Master Lard Use Plan Traffic Study.
Michael Fivane. 2007. Orange County 2007 Caornnrwdy indicators. Orange County Community tncieators
Project.
Merit Civil Engineering. Inc. 2007. May 15. Platinum Triangle Sewer Study. Addendum b the Feat Revision
(Jibe 2000). Errata Sheet No. 3.
- 2007. Apri 1. Summary Letter for Supplemental Sewer Study - Addendum to ER 332.
- 2007. March 25. Summary Letter for Supplemental Sewer Study- Platinum Triangle Sladrrwn North
Densely Revision (BaaH 122).
. 2007. February 20. Summary Letter for Supplemental Sewer Study - Platinum Triangle Stadium
Nate Densely Revision (Basin 122).
Ter Phrwnirr* Carter (ruler 2010
Pigs 5 -2
-127-
Appendices
. - 2007. February 20. Summery teller for Supplemental Sewer Study — Platinum Triangle
Establishment ofARTIC District.
. 2007. January 25. Platinum Triangle Sewer Study Addendum to the That Reardon (June 2006).
Enate Sheet No. 2.
- 2008. July. Platinum Margie Sewer Study Addendum to the First Revision (June 2006). Emata
Sheet.
2006. June. Ptat nun Triangle Sewer Study Addend n b Rest Revision.
Mondrian. Christopher. 2008, September. Hockey Slick? What Hockey Slick? Science and Public Poicy
Institute (SPP», Commentary and Essay Series_
Parsons Brinkerhoff Quads A Douglas. 2010. May. Platinum Triangle Mester Lem Use Plan Traffic Study
Report May 2010.
Aromas, 2009. June. The P l a t i n u m T r i a g l e Alder 9 rAssesarnenf
Public Economics. kw. 2006, June 5. Addendum to March 17.2004 Fee Justticetian Study.
Singer, S. Fred. 2008, March. Velure, Not Human Activity Rules the Climate_ Srarrrray for Pot c wie cers of
the Report of the Nongovernmental international Panel on (lunette Change. Nongovernmental
international Panel on Climate Change. The Headland knbikuie.
Society of Automotive Engineers. Inc. ( SAE). 1971. October House Noise — Reduction Measurements for
Use in Studies o&Al a t Flyover Noise. MR 1061.
Southern Cailomia Association of Governments (SCAG). 1986. k gevemmenial Review Procedures
Handbook.
Southern California Association ion of Governments (SCAG). 1998. Mach. Regional Comprehensive Plan
and Guide.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2004. Regional Transportation Plan Forecast
2030
Southern CaMomia Gededxnical. 2005, Apra 19. Aelrminery Geotect+nical Feasibility Study, Aoposed
Stadium Business Perk SWC Gene Autry t by and Spate College Boulmard. Anehekn. CaWornia.
Southern Caliomia Regional Rail Aulonty. 2007, January 2& SCCRA Strategic Assessment
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2005. May. Guidance Doc anent for Addressing
Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Load Planning.
- 2007. June. Fi net 2007 Air Dually Atengerne tPlen.
.. 2008. September. Multiple Air llsdcs Exposure Study in the South Ooest Air Bann (MATES N).
SEIR No. 339 Findings Oat red City ofArwbeier
SMusaeatrfOwrrdiwgO.atidi micas Psgr -
-128-
5. References
. 2009. December. Final PM10 Redseignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the South Coast
Air Basin.
She of California Governor's Ofice of Planning and Research (GOPR). California Environmental Quay
Act Stakes and Guidelines. Adopted December 30, 2007, effective March 18.2010.
The Economist 2006. June 5. Melting Asia. The Economist.
The Planning Center: 2005, October The Platinum Triangle Subsequent Er iranmenta! Impact Report
(MEN) tib. 332.
Tat Richard S. 2007. December. &esed Pb icy Advice From The tiatergovernmental Panel on Climate
Charge. Energy & Ernrtionment Val. 18. No. 7-8, Pg. 933.
U.S. Senate Minority Report 2006, December: Mo than 050 International Scientists Dissent Over Mar -
Made Global Manning Claims: Scientists Continue to Debunk Consensus.
S.1 WEBSITES
Affordable Housing Strategic Plan Update tl Affordable Housing Commission. City of Anaheim, Live and
Archived Media Resource, Workshop Meeting Videos. August 21.2007.
Accessed on September 7. 2007.
Miriam UM. 2007. tIrdornation. NIp:!lwww.airnavcomMirports.
8BK News. 2007. December, US sale terms for emote fats. 88K N.
http:/lnews bbc o0 4560B.stm.
California in egrated Waste Management Board. 2006. Jurisdictional Profile for City of Anaheim.
Jurisdiction Diversion and Disposal Proflie: Caifomia Waste Stream Ratites.
hfa,y/wwwciwmb.ca.gov/ JJu is/JutProAe2. asp ?RG= CALAWIID= 158JUR- -,Anaheim
Accessed on January 26, 2006.
California Integrated Vidaste Management Board. 2007. Said Waste l.and9Peng Data: 2005 Landfill
Summary Tonnage Report htiplivnvwciamb.ca.gov/LandlNefrannage. Accessed an January
26, 2007.
Cakiorrra Department of Education_ Education at Dernowaphirn Unit Dataquest Graph. lime Series —
Public School Esroiment htip:/ /dq.ode cagov ?rbTsneFrame=
oneyeartlrYear= 200GQ7 &cName= anahartn&Topic=Eirol Level= School. Accessed on
March 14. 2007.
California Air Resources Board (CARE). 2010. Air PoMrftnn Deals Morriorirg Cards (2004. 2006, 2006,
2007. and 2008).
California Air Resources Board (GARB). 2010, January. Ambient Air Quafly S endads.
California bUlatilleltLedlgiLagthetegghlgegigaggagst
Air Resources Board (GARB). 2007. July. Area Dons. AcBwlies and Maps.
bnitalCaNkfiLairthisigaidetulpintn-
The Now* awn Orteber 2010
Prigs 5-4
- 1 29-
App en dices
California Air Resources Board (GARB). 2010. March. 2010 Stele Ames Designebons-
Deingpole. James. 2009. November 20. Climategate: the OW naa in the coffin of 7%nthropogerric Global
Worming? Telegraphco.uk.
hO plibbgelelegraph.co.ulthrewatjameadeingpole/100017393icarnategalelhe-final-nal-in-the-
coffimelwnthropogersic-global-warmingf.
Environment Canada. 2010. May. A Summery of Trends: 1990-2006. httpliwww.ec.gc.ca/ges-
gtigidefaultaap?1ang=Eniin=0590840B-1.
Gray. Louise. 2010. Apr 14_ Hockey slick' graph ouss exaggended. Telegraph.co,uk
htl p ://www.tele g ra p h.cox earthtenvionmerdcbmalethange1 7 589097iRodreV-89thilraPh-was-
escaggerateirtml.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (FCC). 2010. January MAPCO siderite.* on the meNng of
!limekiln', glaciers_ httix/I•emwipcc,.ch/pd1/presentabons/himalaya-statement-20jWrivary201O.pdf-
Keslienbaum. 2007. October 1. Japan Wrestles WM Kyoto Accord Prosnisee. National Pubbc Radio (NPR).
1111 1 3 :1Awwwnprorttberriplalesistory/dory.php?storyld=14087783.
Lathe, Jonathan. 2010. February 7. Akicrapte: top Brash scientist says UN panel is losing credibility.
The Times. hliplivnvw.timesonine.cauktioWneirsterwironment/arbcle7017907.ece.
Pew Center an Gobs! Climate Change. 2008. December. Economy-Wide Cap & Trade Proposals in the
11011h Congress. Idtp:/hwewpwriclirnrde.orgifederaVanalyabriconbreasi110icaPbade-babl.
Southern California Associalion of Governments (SCAG). 2007.2% Strategy Opporhmity Area Maps.
Compass Blueprint. Strategic Opportunely Areas Maps.
The Tines Twnes of Inca. 2009. December 10. China emissions could double by 2020. The Times of Incia.
ht tp : //timesoindiainciabrnes.corniworldfchinistaina-ernissions-could-double-by-2020-
Expertsfarficleshowl5321352.cms.
US Censure Bureau. Fact Sheet. 2000. Anaheim aye California. Ceram 2000 Demographic Profile
Ni10
18000 US 0602000 kgeoConted=01000US%7C04000US09%7C16000USOG0200DA streelk c
ounty=anaheirrill alyTovm=anaheim& strde=04000US069 zip=9 lang=en& ase=on&Adive
GeoDiv---& useEV=bipcbctidlpgal=.1608 submenuld=facteheet 1 ads name=ACS 2005 S
AFFh_d_ribr=nullbrir_namnultilreli_loeyworclWi_inclualry=.
Data Prate: Anaheim city. California. Seleded Housing Characteristics: 2005 American
Cormnuniy Survey
hdp:filactinclemensers.goWseivlet/AOSSAFFFacts? erent=Search&geo ir:&_geoContext=h
street=9 county=anaheim& obyTown=anaheimill state-4000US069 lang=en& sae
:inifipd:d=fphelpgsl=.010.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008. April Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
61$1101=11211.1mthiggidgehminguigglgggaugut
SEM Nw 339 Finding' s if Asa And City gAndthein
Stortnnest &pawed ing Ciaridnwrisar Fogy 5-5
-130-
Appendices
California Air Resources Board (CARS). 2010. Mach. 2010 State Area Designations.
Deingpole. James. 2009, November 20. : the anal nail in the coffin of 74nOwopogerrc Global
NlamrirY�g? Telegraph ao.uk
hlip: //bioga telegraph oo.0 0001rio3; al- th sd - f
cofhnolonthropogeniaglobal- vrarming/.
Envioranent Canada. 2010. May A Slinmaty of Trends: 1090 -2008. hthr://www.ec.gc.ca/ges-
ghg/deF =Ertl= 05906408 -1.
Gray, Louise. 2010. April 14. Hockey stick' graph see ecag8aated. Telegraph.00.uk
hllp://wwwtelegraph.co. -graph- -
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2010. January 20.1PCO eM erri er* on Nye melding of
Mmalayen glaciers. R1/www.ipckc.cfypxll uary2010.pdf.
Keafenbam. 2007. October 1. Japan Wrestles with Kyoto Accord Promises. National Pubic Radio (NPR).
tepJ/ewesnp . or gftemplaienie6orY lebryphp ?eioryId= 14087783.
Leaks. Jonathan. 2010. February 7. A*foag&e: top shush scientist says tm panel is losing c redfblAiy.
The limes. tdtpJ/ wwwtiriesonlrre .co.uk/loWnewsienvianrrherrt/aricle7t117907.eoe.
Pew Center on Global Climate
Change. 2008, Deoerthber. EokxrocnyNriuk Cap & Trade Proposals it the
110dh Congress. htlp://www.pewdimide.orgifederalhvialysis'
Southern Cailomia Associaion of Govgmhahe (SCAG). 2007.2% Strategy Opportumily Area Maps.
Compass KLINK Strategic Opporhniy Areas Maps.
The Times of kndra. 2009. December 10. China emissions could double by 2020. The Tines of krca.
htlpJ/i
Experts/arlicleshow/5321352.cms.
US Census Bureau. Fact Sheet 2000. Anaheim city Caitomia. Census 2000 Demographic Profile
HiOlighte-
18000 geoCvntex t= 01000US%7Cp1000US06%7C 16000US0602D00& street -li c
ounly=anaheirnar cdyTawn= enaireirnak atialem000usom ap =lk tang tri& aseonitAc..tive
GeoDiv --S useEV=apctxt=fplillpgal=1604 submdacld= lacmheet 111da none= ACS2005 S
AFF& d nor =ndlagr nave=n rag= keywor = k
Data Proile: Anaheim ciy. California. Selected Housing Chmacterietcs: 2005 American
Comnuhiy Survey
hllp://lactindeme sus.gav/aervfet/ACSSAFFFa ts? event= Searchtigeo id=1►_geoContaxd =81
street =A eouhly= akaheim& crlyTawnh= anaheinik state 0 4000090tH tk Iang, en&
:In&pcbd= tph&pgs1 =010.
tk ed States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008. April. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
SE
Swaney IB No.
of gd city efAaobs -5 Ctstridnutieru Page 5 - 5
-131-
EXHIBIT "B"
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 100C
FOR
THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE EXPANSION
CEQA Action: Environmental Impact Report Na 330
1. Project Description —
• Certify Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339 and adopt Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 108C.
• Approve General Plan Amendment No. 2008- 00471.
• Approve Miscela ecus Case No 2008 -00283 (Amendments to the Platinum Triangle MLUP).
• Approve Zoning Code Amendment No. 2008- 00074.
• Approve Zoning Reclassification No 2008-00222.
• Approve Miscellaneous Case Na 2008-00284 (Water Supply Assessment).
•
Implementation of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (e.g.. subdivision maps, gracing permits, street improvement plans, find site plans,
development agreement, financial mechanisms inducing but not limited to assessment misbids. etc.).
2. Property Developer —Any caner or developer of real property within the bovmdries of The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan.
3. Environmental Eguivatenq/Yaring — Any MBigabon Measure and thing thereof. subject to the approval of the City, which will have the same or superior
result and wit have the sane or superior elect on the environment The Flaming Department in conjunction with any appropriate agencies or City
departments, shall determine the adequacy of any proposed 'environmental equivalent/lining" and. if detemmimed necessary. may refer said determination
to the Planning Commission. Any costs associated with Information required in order to make a determination of environmental equivalency/hieing shat be
borne by the property owner/developer. Staff time for reviews ail be charged on a time and materiels basis at the rate in the City's adopted tee schedule.
-132-
_...... --
!LI
in! I
I tro
a j kit �.
i
!O n. 1
pill M
11 111
. i
ilhi I
pill
1 1 bb
g
ihJj j i i i
11 }jJ Il i
11111 b 9
I hill 1I1
f 4 O
I
l iii 11111 . iii .
11111 tl till ii M•.
�w
.
111 . '111 , 1111 ri J P1Lt i u 1
M
111 I' ll ills
1 1 111 1 11a bb
11 . 0I1JhJ 1, 111111
! i
v
i
i I 17,
I
li r Pi ll M
'i
I iW itdUijI g .
I
It a
101 IL
U!
'
a
if !PI i ll at I
Milli I! �.
Inn! ai 1
1110111101
: 'dri M
I W
I ifiRthdiglifillIgilI
7 ai t I i 4 jiw 'i ! f 1 z
i v q 111 . iz z . f j a I ll 1
1 11 1 11; /IA ii q UegtilI
I 1 Ii t
q .9v1 a ti td t d-
ill
� 11 1 11 ii
t
.. I
I
11 I i
if
1 iiiii is iii I w i fJijJI iw
i 1 AE �E
ti JI b t_
IN A l l .a il if p
iti r� nn1ii him 1 h ll!ili
A
I
I I
;I
I w
N
measure w% Ewing reeau„e Despoils le be Completion
2 -7 Prior to approval d Apprise/es w torn residential dewbpme n be e Phial= Triangle threw land Souls Coast a te ' (i*y
DesebpsaiApeement the Plan within 500 betel kteslate 5 (1-5) or Se touts 57 (511-57) dal be ibnopmeit Denict
required of NM 14orbomn diciency Wan= Efficiency Reporing Value DERV) biers
tie tide rasidenial .pnyoon mows bruiion Planning Department,
hBN 14 ib is slat be shown on plane etnnlad *haft penile. DERV 14 Plmn0 services Divhim
Dies laws a Prick She Mien minuet 90 percetla palc has 1.0 ninon
b 3.0 micron n size and a Parade She 8idecy retina of75bf5 f or
made; 0. 3to 1.0 micron n size. A NEW 14W cleats mom resistance to
Mow because die the media becomes denser as efficiency increases. Heath" at
and ventiation
feh�Y1 y%ka shag be awth afn ore &siaad b
To ensure lonntonn nai teswe a and raplacemet et the WM 14 Mrs in tie
individual wile. to tofowbq shat occur:
a) Denbpec sab ands natal ropresentsive dai wide noiTeaim to all
dbebd bmasr4aide is alum potential heath risk tam 1-5/511-57 ter m
Awed ob.
b) For rental tile whin 500 hat of tier f- 5/SR-57, to ownwfpraperty
maapa shall maintain and replace hf31V 14 lbws in accedence with to
miewhis rer's recoeane der iara. The property awns shall inform renters
d increased risk or epos re%dead particulates inn 45 ar SR-57when
windows are open
c) for residential owed unit whin 500 het of 1-Y51157. the hameornds
assxntion (1hOA) shall ncorpaab requirements for lonq-1ma
maimaance iota covenant Gonfalons, and Reetrictione and imam
homeowners oftleresponsibly bmaintanlie MERV141bsn
accordance will to maufamrs's recces dttioas. The DOA del
intone homeowners of brcmaed risk of apoare b toil paladins
hem IS+511-57 when windows we cotes.
2-8 Prior to approval of Based on the ieconmraded better balances dtre Cabbala At Resew=Bord. Pgmiq Depwlmet
DevenproeiAgreement aplomb tar new developments in tie Pletitrrn limb Mat place rasidental Planning Santee Division
anima and active towbar nmeadonai roes outside et be recommended bulls
dennces to to blowing stationery air pollutant seems:
• 1,000 bet has to truck bait with an existing AgrbWm center that
accommodates more has 100 treks per day mete than 40 kudos with
7
-138-
ii 1111111 1
if h 1111
I P I
pi is 111101
i t WOO
01 111041
4 i la !I
11 1 "II 1 1111 1111114
n
BO 1101 I 1 1
1011651 1
1111111
ali lig
ii ii
vi
II
a
1 _
iii l l
iiIii II
;i t' ' 001 II ,011
� ii �
: A 111111 till! I 11111 i. hi 1 Hil l
x1 . �.� fil is iiiiiii, ii
i . i1 _111 b 1 rlit 1 A � � A � � i 1 f�Yij . a ! six ijt..6A 2 A i.
; I ;if .
I II if
1 if A
iii fli H
. i
I 1 p, .,
17, ,,„,
rn
h 11 H . 1H
a a J is
i til
ning 04 d , I a;
MD ! ins
pri
111 11111 krill fill 11
Ill
11 Ii II
I zi, I ° ' 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
f g .111111
211 ill il
� � �e a ,� a I III oil H la il ill III 1.1
ii ! t I'J ft
I 11 II II fig 11
I if if i JJ
if If i
__
8V. 44 do fn L
El
I If 11 li fp Fe
Ii 1 11 1 1 .2
r
J J in "if ii .Mir ills
WIR ell nth 1 P
11 1111 1 1 tin' li lt! x 4 1
diII fil IIII 1 grbi iiiiii 1
%.'" illii lel il WINO 401
ii Hi mil Ildi
1 4111Rr I 4 lie r ill l
x t al I PT Iillifili
I/ i MI
h r 111! Y 01
f IN
1
,. .
10 1 ill 11 I
1 1111111111 111111111111111 11
l
ifl i i e 'i i ta, a
II 1
��i
iffii fii
111. ;ill, it if JR lb
1 II
ill it I I
a II
I
I 10i
E h PI I a iii i zl2 11 figi ill
to 1 I I illifill 1 7,11 I 1I!! Ii i '14H v jjJI J I vi
�� _
iIjiiI 111111 Li A a JJfljjft Iiiiiiiilii I • •
1 11 Phi
it ii
HUI
I
I
• • • • • • •• • • • •
111111111 !i111111111/11111111.1Vglill
ea e id I
I trip z I�:. e
11 1" III 1 Jj I
pi Ii � J I9
r !*
Ji ll H "!'"
Ii If
11- J1 i ii � ' • A V
Phi vi 11
i p font f'
II Jai 41,1 onall nie
a biz al ill lig 1
I a l 1 1411 trigill NI Ili
i 1 A 1
hi 11 At ipidelq ifill
!Glop- 1J Mu . i 1 ova habil . j
•
lid 1
1 1
H 9 A
H hill i
7 a
,
III II II
ii
al
ii
I i
Oil 1 P111 1 1111 l il hid I 1 11
0, !!
al- zoo lei ii a !IL 14
111111$11114 II $111111 i 4
ilii 11111ilini 11 11 41
i iliAiiiiiiiiiiipili i b p
$6 10 I II I NI 110 li Ii
11011111 loillilii lilt igh
iifilliiiiithilhilmili1141 1 I
LAI
III
4diii NOE
I
Will dliii
1 .4- :
e
I
r
I i 1 111 11'
i lit ;. 1111 7 a 1 1
3
ppp: , , a. , ,
illiiiimpligiy II j i I i . 1.51
z.- qi 11 1101 1 I
1 1 1 1 11 t il l q tt1ip li a e I i iiiir 1
iii II 1 i 41 lI 11 a
iii iii
11 Ii II
. I
a
I i;ii
1
i
. .b a h :� . *hi
I ; bG! J i L
!I 1 0 11111
WI
:iJ
• ld
hi h I i 1. • l i
�b b
alb e ll
,;7", N .7
N Im i
i ii
la
a ���
11 1 ,t I Ii
� f IP �i� a a jvjii
i 1.
1 1111 11i h1i 11
il 1i 104 � I! li'' iiiiiiiiii
itiilliallIfil L.
ill
in I
di
Ii i
A
I
;
N
i 11 i 11 h h
ii. n ii H H
111 /
"• JJ ftflfl u Jh I i I X II i ii.211 ilibillillif lig ifei
I lifi ibilliblit If illif i i
I i l " i
A ti 1 15 Ti y,'b .
1 i huh ii ip
w
!,, g A I i
Ith a ; •
1
if h h h h
II I II
I
i il
xq'I I'
ji
0 111 lds 111 1 11 1
IIflI
f idi pi of WI II
tpiti fli I
hirogg - •
ilia him
11 I
" Ii t
fi.
1 a ; ;
o � g
H
! hll h !i 1 ' ut t i r i iu
iqiji
l I
I flvila I I
Ji di if II
lig fill If
JI i t I Ij 11 /I
x I x• i to
Ling IL gip F�� ij III I it � r
i hi i ij.
#
1 dil
f n # x .I
A 3
N
u il 1I11 . j h � x• l' ! i �
4 I .IdI n �� n�n n�� a
w w ;II w x if a �� f
fin
75�
.i. `
• A A A A A J
d d d d d d d
i
taw if
11 1111 q ! n 1 1 t iih1
a
11 1 1 111 • �� � ��� � gr-otoolii
e
iI h' .i N .� . .
it r im ei
i I 11 ff
.a � a Ite 11
if 11
U
0
II 111
11 1
Mil 11 ilk
I 1 it WI! it
i lit II if If
111
fi
I
�e
a
. . . . . . . . . . . . . S
W:
o p
a
m1[11111;91
;el
1 /5 111111/1 iliggigl
! lq 1 I it
fp
a�
i
dill
i friz ;I A 1!
f, !p h If
I I; Pi ji 'Hood
A
lolly
a .
iii' � �� ���
A A
'-"111111iii • • • • •
IDD
•iii
1111
I
lilt "
i P
fi 1
gil a
iiiiiiiill
1 li ii e h 1 ilifilifil
Lll ' hh � 1 1 1 111
i II PP /Mg g g nil I
I fill i i $: § U II 1
I 1 i i lipiltglim r g I
f
e
qt Iii
flip iv
0
ii11 1 9
illilu
j ililqj
lii-sA
Iffial
41 P 1
1 fig 8 S 8 g r.
Ho]
JjJ:J p't'
4� 4� Qi Q� Qi
a
3 b
i
ih
ill 11111
� a
i
11
I
tC ►iP
E��
md
t
I