PC 2018/10/01
City of Anaheim
Planning Commission
Agenda
Monday, October 1, 2018
Council Chamber, City Hall
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, California
• Chairperson: Jess Carbajal
• Chairperson Pro-Tempore: John Gillespie
• Commissioners: John Armstrong, Bill Dalati, Kimberly Keys,
Michelle Lieberman, Steve White
• Call To Order - 5:00 p.m.
• Pledge Of Allegiance
• Public Comments
• Public Hearing Items
• Commission Updates
• Discussion
• Adjournment
TELECONFERENCE NOTICE
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953, Subdivision (b), this meeting will include teleconference
participation by Commissioner Keys from: CHI St. Luke's Health-Springwoods Village Hospital,
2255 E. Mossy Oaks Road, Spring, TX 77389 in the conference room.
This Notice and Agenda will be posted at the teleconference location. Public comment on the agenda
from this address shall be allowed pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.3.
For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda,
please complete a speaker card in advance and submit it to the secretary.
A copy of the staff report may be obtained at the City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department,
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. A copy of the staff report is also available on
the City of Anaheim website www.anaheim.net/planning on Thursday, September 27, 2018, after 5:00
p.m. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any
item on this agenda (other than writings legally exempt from public disclosure) will be made available
for public inspection in the Planning and Building Department located at City Hall, 200 S. Anaheim
Boulevard, Anaheim, California, during regular business hours.
You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following
e-mail address: planningcommission@anaheim.net
10-01-2018
Page 2 of 5
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS
Any action taken by the Planning Commission this date regarding Reclassifications, Conditional
Use Permits, Variances, Public Convenience or Necessity Determinations, Tentative Tract and
Parcel Maps will be final 10 calendar days after Planning Commission action unless a timely
appeal is filed during that time. This appeal shall be made in written form to the City Clerk,
accompanied by an appeal fee in an amount determined by the City Clerk.
The City Clerk, upon filing of said appeal in the Clerk's Office, shall set said petition for public
hearing before the City Council at the earliest possible date. You will be notified by the City Clerk
of said hearing.
If you challenge any one of these City of Anaheim decisions in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
a written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council at, or prior to, the
public hearing.
Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 5:00 P.M.
Public Comments
This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of
the Anaheim City Planning Commission or provide public comments on agenda items with the
exception of public hearing items.
10-01-2018
Page 3 of 5
Public Hearing Items
ITEM NO. 2
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2011-00484
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2011-00242
(DEV2011-00035)
Location: Ball Road Basin
Request: Amendments to the City of Anaheim’s General
Plan and Zoning Map to allow commercial development of
the project site (Ball Road Basin). The proposed project
would change the City’s General Plan Land Use
Designation for the Ball Road Basin from Open Space to
General Commercial and the Zoning from Transitional (T)
and Industrial (I) Zones to the General Commercial (C-G)
Zone. In addition, the proposed project would amend the
General Plan Circulation and Green Elements to add a
Planned Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area along the
northern, eastern and southern edges of Ball Road Basin.
The proposed project does not include a specific
development plan for Ball Road Basin.
Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission
will consider whether to recommend City Council
certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 2012-
00345 and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, Findings of Fact and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for the proposed project.
This item was continued from the September 5, 2018
Planning Commission meeting.
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner:
Susan Kim
SKim@anaheim.net
10-01-2018
Page 4 of 5
ITEM NO. 3
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2018-00184
(DEV2018-00101)
Location: Cityw ide
Request: A City-initiated amendment to Chapter 18.18
(Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone) of Title 18 (Zoning)
of the Anaheim Municipal Code to minimize safety and
fire hazards, related to Specimen Trees by 1) no longer
classifying Eucalyptus trees as Specimen Trees; and, 2)
streamlining and clarifying the permitting process for the
removal and replacement of Specimen Trees.
Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission
will consider whether the proposed action is exempt from
the requirements to prepare additional environmental
documentation per California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15304, Class 4 (Minor
Alterations to Land).
ITEM NO. 4
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP4156D
(DEV2018-00055)
Location: Site A - The auto dealership is located within
a 13.2 acre multi-tenant business complex at
5401–5449 East La Palma Avenue;
Site B - The existing auto dealership is
located within six tenant spaces at 5401,
5403, 5425, 5427, 5429, and 5431 East La
Palma Avenue, approximately 270 feet east
of the centerline of Brasher Street.
Request: The applicant requests to amend a previously-
approved conditional use permit for an existing auto
dealership to: 1) modify the location and number of
outdoor vehicle spaces for display, retail sales, and
service/repair; 2) convert an existing vehicle storage area
to a service and repair facility; and, 3) permit off-site
parking for employees.
Environmental Determination: The Planning
Commission will consider whether the proposed action
is Categorically Exempt from the requirements to
prepare additional environmental documentation per
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities).
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner:
Ignacio Rincon
IRincon@anaheim.net
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner:
Lucita Tong
LTong@anaheim.net
10-01-2018
Page 5 of 5
Adjourn to Monday, October 15, 2018 at 5:00 p.m.
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING
I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at:
1:00 p.m. September 26, 2018 (TIME) (DATE)
LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK
SIGNED:
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
The City of Anaheim wishes to make all of its public meetings and hearings accessible to all
members of the public. The City prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin
in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
If requested, the agenda and backup materials will be made available in appropriate alternative
formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation
thereof.
Any person who requires a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids
or services, in order to participate in the public meeting may request such modification,
accommodation, aid or service by contacting the Planning and Building Department either in person
at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, or by telephone at (714) 765-5139, no later
than 10:00 a.m. one business day preceding the scheduled meeting.
La ciudad de Anaheim desea hacer todas sus reuniones y audiencias públicas accesibles a todos
los miembros del público. La Ciudad prohíbe la discriminación por motivos de raza , color u origen
nacional en cualquier programa o actividad que reciba asistencia financiera federal.
Si se solicita, la agenda y los materiales de copia estarán disponible en formatos alternativos
apropiados a las personas con una discapacidad, según lo requiere la Sección 202 del Acta de
Americanos con Discapacidades de 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), las normas federales y
reglamentos adoptados en aplicación del mismo.
Cualquier persona que requiera una modificación relativa a la discapacidad, incluyendo medios
auxiliares o servicios, con el fin de participar en la reunión pública podrá solicitar dicha modificación,
ayuda o servicio poniéndose en contacto con la Oficina de Secretaria de la Ciudad ya sea en
persona en el 200 S Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, o por teléfono al (714) 765-5139,
antes de las 10:00 de la mañana un día habil antes de la reunión programada.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 2
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE: OCTOBER 1, 2018
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2012-00345
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2011-00484
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2011-00242
LOCATION: The project site, referred to as “Ball Road Basin” is 19.5 acres,
located southeast of the intersection of Ball Road and Phoenix Club Drive. Ball Road
Basin is adjacent to the Santa Ana River Center Levee and the Santa Ana River to
the east, Ball Road and the Burris Basin to the north, the Union Pacific Railroad to
the south, and Phoenix Club Drive to the west.
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant and property owner is the
Orange County Water District (OCWD), represented by Bruce Dosier.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting certification of an environmental impact
report and approval of amendments to the City of Anaheim’s General Plan and
Zoning Map to allow commercial development of Ball Road Basin. The proposed
project would change the City’s General Plan Land Use Designation for the Ball
Road Basin from Open Space to General Commercial and the Zoning Map from the
Transitional (T) and Industrial (I) Zones to the General Commercial (C-G) Zone. In
addition, the proposed project would amend the General Plan Circulation and Green
Elements to add a Planned Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area along the northern,
eastern and southern edges of Ball Road Basin. The proposed project does not
include a specific development plan for Ball Road Basin.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take
one of the two following actions:
1. By resolution, recommend that City Council certify Environmental Impact
Report No. 2012-00345, adopt Findings of Fact and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations; and, approve General Plan Amendment No.
2011-00484 and Reclassification No. 2011-00242; or,
2. By motion, deny General Plan Amendment No. 2011-00484 and
Reclassification No. 2011-00242 and determine that, per Section 15270 of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, CEQA does
not apply to this project because of its denial.
Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Reclassification
October 1, 2018
Page 2 of 11
BACKGROUND: Ball Road Basin, highlighted in green in the aerial photograph below,
encompasses approximately 19.5 acres and has a holding capacity of 220 acre-feet of water. The
basin is approximately 20 feet below the surrounding grade level. Overflow from the adjacent
upstream Burris Recharge Basin storm water runoff from Orange County Flood Control District
(OCFCD) facilities drain into the project site. The OCWD intended to use the project site to
retain this overflow and runoff so that the water could percolate into the ground to replenish the
groundwater basin. However, due to an extensive clay layer underlying the basin, the project site
is incapable of significant amounts of surface recharge.
Aerial Photograph of Ball Road Basin
The OCFCD has a flood control easement over the entire basin as well as a 100-foot wide area
adjacent to the Santa Ana River. The OCFCD would need to abandon this flood control easement
with development of the project site. In addition to the OCFCD easements, Southern California
Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Reclassification
October 1, 2018
Page 3 of 11
Edison (SCE) has a 270 feet wide easement and multiple transmission lines that cross the
southern end of the BRB.
The City’s General Plan designation for the Project site is Open Space. This designation includes
those areas intended to remain in natural open space; utility easements that will provide
recreational and trail access to Anaheim’s residents; heavily landscaped freeway remnant
parcels, and land areas surrounding major water features. The project site is designated Open
Space due to its use as a recharge basin.
As shown in the map below, the project site has two separate zoning designations. APN 375-
221-09 does not have a zoning designation. APNs 253-473-01 and 253-641-39 are within the T
Zone, which is typically assigned to land that is used for agricultural uses, in a transitory or
interim use, restricted to limited uses because of special conditions, or not zoned to one of the
zoning districts contained in the City’s zoning code, including in situations involving recent
annexation. APN 253-631-32 is in the I Zone, which intended to provide for and encourage the
development of industrial uses and their related facilities.
Existing Zoning
Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Reclassification
October 1, 2018
Page 4 of 11
Surrounding land uses include the Anaheim Auto Center and the SR-57 freeway to the west,
Anaheim Coves Nature Park and Trail, The Islands Golf Center, and OCWD Burris Basin to the
north, the Santa Ana River Center Levee and the Santa Ana River to the east, and commercial
office uses, Honda Center, and the Union Pacific Railroad to the south. General Plan
designations for land uses surrounding the project site include General Commercial, Water Uses,
Parks, Mixed Use and Office Low. Zoning designations for surrounding land uses include:
General Commercial, Transitional, Transitional – Flood Hazard (FP) Overlay, Public
Recreational, Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone, and Industrial.
In 1933, the State of California established OCWD to manage and protect the Orange County
Groundwater Basin, which encompasses over 229,000 acres in twenty cities, as well as
unincorporated areas on the coastal plain in northwest Orange County. OCWD owns over 1,000
acres of land in Orange County. OCWD uses the majority of its land to recharge water into the
groundwater basin.
As part of the OCWD groundwater recharge program, OCWD established several recharge
basins along the Santa Ana River. Ball Road Basin is the most down-gradient recharge basin in
OCWD’s Off-River System, and is located south of Ball Road and Burris Basin in south central
Anaheim. OCWD purchased Ball Road Basin in 1943. OCWD subsequently separated Ball
Road Basin from the Santa Ana River in the early 1970’s with the construction of the center
levee.
In 1975, the City annexed a small (0.31-acre) portion of the project site (APN 253-63-132) from
the County and reclassified said property from the County A1 “General Agricultural” Zone to the
City’s Limited Industrial (ML) Zone, as part of a larger 150-acre annexation and reclassification.
In 2003, the City annexed the remainder of the project site from the County of Orange. Although
the properties were within the County’s jurisdiction, they were part of the City’s General Plan
Sphere of Influence, and designated by the Anaheim General Plan for Open Space and Water
land uses. As part of the 2003 annexation, the City reclassified the properties from the County
A1 “General Agricultural” Zone to the RS-A-43,000 Zone consistent with the existing water uses
of the property. In 2004, the City consolidated the ML and Heavy Industrial (MH) Zones into
the Industrial (I) Zone and renamed the RS-A-43,000 Zone, the Transition (T) Zone, as part of a
citywide General Plan and Zoning Code Update.
In October 2006, OCWD determined that the basin was incapable of significant amounts of
recharge due to an extensive clay layer underlying the majority of the basin. OCWD analyzed
various potential future uses for the site including enhancing recharge operations, storm water
storage, or selling/leasing the site for commercial uses. OCWD has decided to pursue the latter
and is now taking the necessary planning steps to prepare the site for future commercial
development.
In August 2007, OCWD submitted a Conceptual Development Review (CDR) Application for a
General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Reclassification (also referred to as a Zone Change or an
amendment to the Zoning Map) to permit general commercial development on the project site. In
September 2007, the City provided comments on the CDR, indicating that an Environmental
Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Reclassification
October 1, 2018
Page 5 of 11
Impact Report (EIR) would be required for this project, pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and the EIR would need to address the loss of open space.
In April 2011, after discussions with the City, OCWD re-submitted its request for a GPA and
Zone Change. The request included an Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (NOP), prepared
by a consultant under contract to OCWD. An Initial Study and NOP are the first documents
completed and released to the public in the process of preparing an EIR. The Initial Study
typically provides analysis of topic areas that EIR will and will not analyze and the NOP asks for
public input on the potential environmental impacts that the EIR should study. The City
reviewed, edited and released the Initial Study and NOP for a public review period, which lasted
from February 8, 2013 through March 11, 2013. The City held a Scoping Meeting on February
13, 2013, to give the public the opportunity to learn more about the proposed project and
comment on potential environmental impacts that the EIR should study for the proposed project.
In December 2013, OCWD authorized a Lease Option Agreement with Orange County Energy
Park, LLC (OCEP), allowing OCEP to conduct due diligence as to the potential leasing or
purchasing of the project site for an electrical generation station. On August 6, 2014, OCWD
suspended preparation of the EIR until the potential for an electrical generation station was
resolved. In November 2014, OCEP terminated the Lease Option Agreement. OCWD re-initiated
preparation of the EIR in 2016.
Concurrent with OCWD’s consideration of an electrical generation station, on February 13,
2014, the City released a NOP of an EIR for the proposed Ball Road Basin Park Project. The
Ball Road Basin Park Project involved the City’s proposed development of the Ball Road Basin
as an active public park with lighted playing fields and associated parking, concession areas,
playgrounds, and an adjacent riding/hiking trail and bike path. As part of proposed Ball Road
Basin Park Project, the City would fill the Ball Road Basin with engineered soil and develop a
park facility to serve City residents with the ability to remain open 24-hours a day. Also as part
of the Ball Road Basin Park Project, the City proposed a General Plan Amendment (Case No.
GPA2014-00491) to designate the Ball Road Basin as a Park and a Zoning Reclassification to
change the zoning for the Ball Road Basin to the “PR” Public Recreation Zone (Case No.
RCL2014-00261). Rather than have the City consider two competing land use requests, the City
later withdrew this request.
Following the above decisions, the OCWD’s consultant completed preparation of the Draft EIR
for the current GPA and Zone Change request. The Draft EIR was peer reviewed by the City’s
environmental consultant and reviewed by City staff, according to their area of expertise. On
June 7, 2018, the City, as the Lead Agency under CEQA, released the Draft EIR (Attachment
No. 2) for a 45-day public review period. The City received comments on the document from
the following agencies:
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Native American Heritage Commission
Department of Toxic Substance Control
Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources
Department of Transportation, District 12 (Caltrans)
Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Reclassification
October 1, 2018
Page 6 of 11
Office of Planning and Research
City of Orange
County of Orange, Public Works
California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc.
None of the comments received required recirculation of the Draft EIR. Responses to these
comments are part of the Final EIR (Attachment No. 3), which the City released on August 24,
2018. Following, its receipt of the Final EIR, the City received additional comments from
Caltrans (see Attachment No. 4), which repeated and/or clarified recommendations from the first
letter. Additional analysis was prepared per Caltrans request and is included in Attachment No.4.
The second Caltrans letter did not require recirculation of the Draft EIR.
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to amend the City of Anaheim’s General Plan and Zoning
Map to allow commercial development of Ball Road Basin. The proposed project would change
the City’s General Plan Land Use Designation for the Ball Road Basin from Open Space to
General Commercial and the Zoning Map from the Transitional (T) and Industrial (I) Zones to
the General Commercial (C-G) Zone. In addition, the proposed project would amend the
General Plan Circulation and Green Elements to add a Planned Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study
Area along the northern, eastern and southern edges of Ball Road Basin. The proposed project
does not include a specific development plan for project site.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS: When staff submits multiple discretionary land use applications
for concurrent Planning Commission review and approval, and one or more of such applications
requires City Council review and approval in conjunction with a noticed public hearing, all such
applications shall be subject to full review and approval by the City Council as the granting
authority.
The City Council is the final review authority for the General Plan Amendment, the
Reclassification, and certification of the EIR. However, in the event that the Planning
Commission denies the General Plan Amendment, said decision is final unless appealed to
Council. Furthermore, the Planning Commission cannot recommend approval of the
Reclassification unless it is consistent with the General Plan Amendment. In the event the
Planning Commission or City Council denies the request, it would not need to make a
determination on the certification of the EIR because, per Section 15270 of the CEQA
Guidelines, CEQA does not apply to projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves.
General Plan Amendment: The Planning Commission may either submit a recommendation for
approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment to the City Council, or disapprove the
amendment. The Planning Commission shall submit a recommendation for approval, only if it
makes the following findings:
1) The proposed amendment maintains the internal consistency of the General Plan;
2) The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience or welfare of the City;
3) The proposed amendment would maintain the balance of land uses within the City; and
Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Reclassification
October 1, 2018
Page 7 of 11
4) If the amendment is to the General Plan Land Use Map, the subject property is physically
suitable to accommodate the proposed modification, including but not limited to, access,
physical constraints, topography, provision of utilities, and compatibility with surrounding
land uses.
Reclassification: The following findings are required for an amendment of the Zoning Map.
1) The proposed amendment implements the General Plan; and
2) The proposed amendment enhances and preserves the general welfare of the City.
The C-G Zone is the implementing zone for the General Plan’s General Commercial land use
designation. The proposed Reclassification from the T and I Zones to the C-G Zone would only
be consistent with the General Plan, if the Commission recommends City Council approval of
the above General Plan Amendment.
OCWD Letter of Justification: The applicant has submitted a Letter of Justification (Attachment
No. 5) for the proposed General Plan Amendment and Reclassification. For ease of reference,
staff summarizes the applicant’s justifications below, without providing comment or analysis as
to whether staff concurs or does not concur with the applicant’s justifications:
1) The proposed General Plan Amendment maintains the internal consistency of the General
Plan, as the proposed modification to the General Plan is consistent with the following
General Plan Land Use Element Goals:
a) Goal 3.1: Pursue land uses along major corridors that enhance the City’s image
and stimulate appropriate development at strategic locations.
b) Goal 3.2: Maximize development opportunities along transportation routes.
c) Goal 4.1: Promote development that integrates with and minimizes impacts to
surrounding land uses.
d) Goal 5.1: Create and enhance dynamic, identifiable places for the benefit of
Anaheim residents, employees and visitors.
e) Goal 6.1: Enhance the quality of life and economic vitality in Anaheim through
strategic infill development and revitalization of existing development.
2) The proposed General Plan Amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest,
health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City in that the proposed amendment would
result in commercial development opportunities while increasing recreational trail
connectivity. The Proposed multi-purpose trail would serve as a southern extension of the
Anaheim Coves Class1 Bike Path/Riding and Hiking Trail located to the north across Ball
Road. This will also implement the City’s General Plan Green Element Goal 4.1: Maximize
the recreational and scenic potential of existing reservoirs, basins and waterways.
3) The proposed General Plan Amendment would maintain the balance of land uses within the
City as it would promote the development of retail and commercial uses that would serve
existing residential communities located west and northwest of the subject property and
Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Reclassification
October 1, 2018
Page 8 of 11
could provide 1,063 additional jobs at buildout that would enhance the economic base of the
City. The site currently does not generate any sales tax revenue for the City. The proposed
amendments will allow for and facilitate future commercial development of the site, which
would increase the property value of the site and generate sales taxes, a portion of which
accrue to the City.
4) The subject site for the General Plan Amendment is physically suited to accommodate the
proposed designation because the proposed land use designation is compatible with
surrounding land uses, particularly the commercially designated properties to the west along
Phoenix Club Drive.
For generally the same reasons as stated above for the General Plan Amendment, the applicant is
justifying the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map.
Environmental Review: As described in the background section of this report, an EIR has been
prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, to analyze and disclose the environmental
effects of the proposed General Plan and Zoning Map amendments. The EIR determined that the
proposed amendments would not create any effect on the following impact areas:
Agricultural and Forest Resources Mineral Resources
With implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the effects to the following
environmental impact areas would be less than significant:
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Utilities and Service Systems
However, even with the implementation of mitigation measures, effects would remain significant
and unavoidable for the following impact areas:
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Traffic and Transportation
Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program No. 358 (Attachment No. 6) includes all of the
mitigation measures included in the EIR.
OCWD Proposed Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations: The applicant
has submitted a Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations document
(Attachment No. 7) in support the certification of the EIR. This document summarizes the
significant impacts of the Proposed Project, describes how the applicant will mitigate these
impacts, and discusses alternatives to the proposed project, including a “No Project” alternative.
Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Reclassification
October 1, 2018
Page 9 of 11
The document rejects the No Project alternative because it does not meet the objectives
established for the Proposed Project, which are to:
1) Allow commercial development of the project site.
2) Permit a viable and productive use of an obsolete groundwater recharge basin.
3) Generate non-operating revenues for the Orange County Water District.
The Statement of Overriding Considerations presents the justification for the proposed project’s
significant impacts that the applicant cannot mitigate. Generally, the reasons for overriding the
significant impacts are similar to the justification for approval of the proposed amendments.
These reasons are generally that:
1) The proposed project will provide sales tax and property tax revenue to provide funding for
needed City services.
2) The proposed project will implement the City’s General Plan.
3) The proposed project will increase recreational opportunities.
Staff Analysis
Staff acknowledges the proposed General Plan Amendment and Reclassification are consistent
with certain Land Use Element Goals, particularly Goal 6.1, which, in pertinent part, encourages
strategic infill development that enhances the quality of life and economic vitality in Anaheim.
In addition, staff acknowledges that the proposed General Plan Amendment and Reclassification
provide an opportunity for future commercial development that would generate public revenues
for City services, and that the commercial designation of the subject property would arguably be
consistent with the existing commercial uses to the west (auto dealers) and south (Honda
Center). However, staff’s ability to evaluate the consistency of proposed General Plan
Amendment and Reclassification with the other Land Use Goals cited in the applicant’s Letter of
Justification is complicated by the absence, at this time, of a specific development proposal.
In addition, while the applicant’s Letter of Justification and the Findings of Fact and Statement
of Overriding Considerations provide reasonable justification to recommend City Council
certification of the EIR and approval of the amendments, the Commission may also wish to
consider allowing the Ball Road Basin to remain in its current General Plan land use designation
and Zoning. As noted above, absent a development project, it is difficult to weigh the merits of
the proposed changes against loss of open space and the environmental impacts that may occur
because of development of the site. The City currently has approximately 3,145 acres designated
by the General Plan for Open Space land use. Although the loss of the property represents less
than 1% of that acreage, Open Space is typically not a land use type that increases over time, and
therefore, the Commission and the Council should carefully consider the loss of each acre.
The following excerpts from the General Plan Land Use (LU), Green (G) and Community
Design (CD) Elements are in support of the preservation of the Open Space land use designation:
Page LU-33: “The Open Space land use designation includes those areas intended to remain in
natural open space; utility easements that will provide recreational and trail access to Anaheim’s
Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Reclassification
October 1, 2018
Page 10 of 11
residents, heavily landscaped freeway remnant parcels, and land areas surrounding major water
features.”
Page LU-34: “The Land Use Element, together with other General Plan Elements, strives to
implement this vision by …protecting natural and open space resources.”
Page LU-50: “Use existing utility line easements for open space and/or trail connections
(enhance landscaping where feasible).
Page G-2: “The Green Element is intimately related to at least three other elements of the
General Plan: Land Use, Economic Development and Community Design. The Land Use
Element designates appropriate areas for open space and recreation…The major goals of the
Anaheim Vision, related to the Green Element, include: …Preservation of open space, ridgelines,
public scenic vistas and specimen trees;…Enhanced trail network connecting City and County
open space and regional trail systems.
Page G-3: “The objectives of the Green Plan are to:
Expand public parks and open space amenities;
Improve the City’s trail and bicycle network for local and regional connections;
Beautify arterial corridors with landscape plans, edge treatments and gateways; and,
Use existing opportunities, such as easements, vacant land and the Santa Ana River to
expand accessible open space and recreation opportunities.
The Green Plan uses a variety of open space opportunities and resources to create a unified
vision for a more beautiful, healthy city. The Green Plan considers not only existing parks and
open space, but also potential recreational opportunities, such as schools, utility easements, water
uses, and vacant land. It also identifies opportunities to enhance the appearance of existing areas
through enhanced community edges and City entryways. The emphasis of the Green Plan is not
only to make spatial connections throughout the City through parks, trails, open space and
landscaping but also create connections between policies and plans that help the City conserve its
natural and cultural resources such as water, energy and historic districts.”
Page G-7: “Goals and Policies: Natural Open Space – A vital component of the Green Element is
the comprehensive and long-range preservation and enhancement of open space areas.”
Page CD-2: “The desire to make Anaheim a better place to live, work, learn and visit is the
foundation of the Community Design Element. The key objectives of the Element are to
create…An Abundance of open space features throughout the City.
Page CD-7&8: “Goal1:1: Create an aesthetically pleasing and unified appearance within the
context of distinct districts and neighborhood…Identify and preserve/enhance view corridors for
major landmarks, community facilities, and natural open space in the planning and design of all
public and private projects.”
Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Reclassification
October 1, 2018
Page 11 of 11
Although the above excerpts from the General Plan provide justification for maintaining the
property’s Open Space General Plan land use designation, the Commission could also conclude
that the proposed project would implement many of the above sections related to open space and
trails. The proposed project would amend the General Plan Circulation and Green Elements to
add a Planned Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area along the northern, eastern and southern edges
of Ball Road Basin. This would allow the City to develop a bike path/trail in said location or
require one with the future development of the project site. The future bike path/trail would
provide a connection to and extend the bike path/trail within Anaheim Coves to Ball Road Basin.
The future bike path/trail would provide greater accessibility to the western side of the Santa Ana
River, which is currently inaccessible from Ball Road Basin in its current state. In addition, this
bike path/trail could provide a connection to other planned bicycle facilities along Ball Road,
including a potential connection to the Regional Santa Ana River Trail in the City of Orange, and
planned bicycle facilities along Cerritos Avenue and connecting to The Platinum Triangle. In
addition, depending on the type of commercial development constructed at Ball Road Basin, the
site could provide commercial amenities for users of the bike path/trail. However, absent a
development plan, it is difficult to conclude whether the potential development would enhance or
conflict with this future bike path/trail.
CONCLUSION: Staff acknowledges that the Planning Commission has a policy decision that
requires consideration of the merits to both recommending approval of the proposed request, as
well as, maintaining the status quo.
Prepared and submitted by,
Susan Kim
Principal Planner
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution
2. Draft Environmental Impact Report
3. Final Environmental Impact Report
4. Caltrans Comment Letter and Responses
5. Letter of Justification
6. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 358
7. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
TDEV 2011-00035
C-GHARDIN BUICKPONTIAC GMC
C-GLINCOLN MERCURYAUTO DEALER
C-GHARDIN BUICKPONTIAC GMC
C-GHARDIN HONDA
C-GMITSUBISHIAUTO DEALER C-GMITSUBISHIAUTO DEALER
C-GPHOENIX CLUB
C-GRELIGIOUS USE
C-GPHOENIX CLUB
C-GVACANT
C-GRANCHO DEL RIO(HORSES)
TWATER
C-GLINCOLN MERCURYAUTO DEALER
RAILROAD
IDEV 2011-00035
TDEV 2011-00035
E BALL RD
S P H O E N I X C L U B D R
S AU TO CEN TE R DR
S SANDERSON AVE
E. BALL RDS. S U N K I S T S T
E .K A T E L LA AVES. S T A T E C O L L E G E B L V D
Ba l l Ro a d Ba s in
D E V N o . 2 0 1 1 -0 0 03 5
Subject Property APN: 253-631-32375-221-09253-473-01253-631-39
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Pho to:May 20 16
E BALL RD
S P H O E N I X C L U B D R
S AUTO C EN TE R DR
S SANDERSON AVE
E. BALL RDS. S U N K I S T S T
E .K A T E L LA AVES. S T A T E C O L L E G E B L V D
Ba l l Ro a d Ba sin
D E V N o . 2 0 1 1 -0 0 0 3 5
Subject Property APN: 253-631-32375-221-09253-473-01253-631-39
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeria l Ph oto :Ma y 2 01 6
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1
-1- PC2018-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2018-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NO. 2012-00345; ADOPT FINDINGS OF FACT AND A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; AND, APPROVE AND
ADOPT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2011-00484 AND
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2011-00242
(DEV2011-00035)
WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Council (“City Council”) did adopt the Anaheim General
Plan by Resolution No. 69R-644, showing the general description and extent of possible future
development within the City; and
WHEREAS, by adoption of Resolution No. PC2004-95 on May 25, 2004, the City Council
adopted a comprehensive update to the General Plan for the City of Anaheim (collectively, the
"2004 General Plan Update"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 18.68 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, provisions of the
General Plan may be amended whenever the public necessity and convenience and the general
welfare require such amendment when adopted by a resolution of the City Council in the manner
prescribed by law; and
WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim did receive a verified petition for an amendment to the
Land Use Element of the General Plan Amendment ("General Plan Amendment No. 2011-00484")
for certain real property commonly referred to as “Ball Road Basin” and consisting of
approximately 19.5 acres, located southeast of the intersection of Ball Road and Phoenix Club
Drive in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the
map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Property is currently comprised of four parcels; Assessor Parcel Number
(APN) 375-221-09 does not have a zoning designation; APNs 253-473-01 and 253-641-39 are
within the Transitional (T) Zone, which is typically assigned to land that is used for agricultural
uses, in a transitory or interim use, restricted to limited uses because of special conditions, or not
zoned to one of the zoning districts contained in the City’s zoning code, including in situations
involving recent annexation; and, APN 253-631-32 is in the Industrial (I) Zone, which intended
to provide for and encourage the development of industrial uses and their related facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Property is designated Open Space on the Land Use Element of the
General Plan; and
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2011-00484 proposes to change the City’s
General Plan Land Use Designation for the Ball Road Basin from Open Space to General
Commercial and the Zoning Map from the Transitional (T) and Industrial (I) Zones to the General
Commercial (C-G) Zone. In addition, the proposed project would amend the General Plan
-2- PC2018-***
Circulation and Green Elements to add a Planned Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area along the
northern, eastern and southern edges of Ball Road Basin;
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2011-00484 is proposed in conjunction with a
request to zone or classify APN 375-221-09 to the General Commercial (C-G) Zone and rezone or
reclassify APNs 253-473-01 and 253-641-39 from the Transitional (T) Zone to the General
Commercial (C-G) Zone, and APN 253-631-32 from the Industrial (I) Zone to the General
Commercial (C-G) Zone, which reclassification is designated as "Reclassification No. 2011-
00242"; and
WHEREAS, General Plan No. 2011-00484 and Reclassification No. 2011-00242 shall be
referred to herein collectively as the “Proposed Project”; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as
“CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for the Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act (commencing with Section 15000 of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations; herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA
Procedure Manual, the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of
environmental documents for the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 2012-00345 was prepared pursuant
to the requirements of CEQA to analyze and disclose the effect of the Proposed Project on the
physical environment; and
WHEREAS, the City released an Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) of EIR
No. 2012-00345 for the Proposed Project for a public review period, which lasted from February
8, 2013 through March 11, 2013.
WHEREAS, the City held a Scoping Meeting on February 13, 2013, to give the public the
opportunity to learn more about the Proposed Project and comment on potential environmental
impacts that the EIR should study for the Proposed Project.
WHEREAS, on June 7, 2018, the City, as the Lead Agency under CEQA, released the
Draft EIR for a 45-day public review period; the Draft EIR was made available to the public on
the City’s website, at the Anaheim Planning Department, and at the Anaheim Central and Sunkist
Libraries; and,
WHEREAS, the City received comments on the Draft EIR from nine agencies; however,
none of the comments received required recirculation of the Draft EIR; responses to these
comments are part of the Final EIR, which the City released on August 24, 2018; following, its
receipt of the Final EIR, the City received additional comments from Caltrans, which repeated
and/or clarified recommendations from the first letter; additional analysis was prepared per
Caltrans request; however, the second Caltrans letter did not require recirculation of the Draft EIR;
and,
WHEREAS, according to the Final EIR, as a result of implementation of Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 358 (“MMRP 358”), with the exception of impacts to
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Traffic and Transportation, all of the environmental impacts of the
-3- PC2018-***
Proposed Project are less than significant. As to Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Traffic and
Transportation, the Draft EIR concludes that even with implementation of mitigation measures,
the Proposed Project’s impacts to (1) Greenhouse Gas Emissions and (2) Traffic and
Transportation would remain significant and unavoidable;
WHEREAS, the “Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the
Proposed Project documents and supports the conclusion that even with the implementation of all
feasible mitigation measures recommended in MMRP 358, it is infeasible to reduce impacts to
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Traffic and Transportation to a level of insignificance, and which
further sets forth the overriding benefits of the Proposed Project, which outweigh the unavoidable
environmental impacts of the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Anaheim Civic
Center, Council Chamber, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, on October 1, 2018, at 5:00 p.m., notice
of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the
provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, to consider the Proposed Project and to hear and
consider evidence for and against the Proposed Project, and related actions, and to investigate and
make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due consideration, inspection, investigation
and study made by itself, and after due consideration of, and based upon, all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing, does hereby find that:
1) The proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2011-00484 maintains the internal consistency of
the General Plan, as the proposed modification to the General Plan is consistent with the
following General Plan Land Use Element Goals:
a) Goal 3.1: Pursue land uses along major corridors that enhance the City’s image and
stimulate appropriate development at strategic locations.
b) Goal 3.2: Maximize development opportunities along transportation routes.
c) Goal 4.1: Promote development that integrates with and minimizes impacts to surrounding
land uses.
d) Goal 5.1: Create and enhance dynamic, identifiable places for the benefit of Anaheim
residents, employees and visitors.
e) Goal 6.1: Enhance the quality of life and economic vitality in Anaheim through strategic
infill development and revitalization of existing development.
2) The proposed amendment to the General Plan would not be detrimental to the public interest,
health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City in that the proposed amendment would result
in commercial development opportunities while increasing recreational trail connectivity. The
Proposed multi-purpose trail would serve as a southern extension of the Anaheim Coves Class1
Bike Path/Riding and Hiking Trail located to the north across Ball Road. This will also
implement the City’s General Plan Green Element Goal 4.1: Maximize the recreational and
scenic potential of existing reservoirs, basins and waterways.
3) The proposed amendment to the General Plan would maintain the balance of land uses within
the City as it would promote the development of retail and commercial uses that would serve
-4- PC2018-***
existing residential communities located west and northwest of the subject property and could
provide 1,063 additional jobs at buildout that would enhance the economic base of the City.
The site currently does not generate any sales tax revenue for the City. The proposed
amendments will allow for and facilitate future commercial development of the site, which
would increase the property value of the site and generate sales taxes, a portion of which accrue
to the City.
4) The subject site is physically suited to accommodate the proposed designation, including
because the proposed land use designation is compatible with surrounding land uses,
particularly the commercially designated properties to the west along Phoenix Club Drive.
and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due consideration, inspection, investigation
and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts:
1) The proposed Reclassification No. 2011-00242 to the General Commercial (C-G) Zone would
implement General Plan Amendment No. 2011-00484; and
2) The proposed Reclassification No. 2011-00242 enhances and preserves the general welfare of
the City for generally the same reasons as stated in the findings for the approval of General
Plan Amendment No. 2011-00484.
and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record
constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this
Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the
record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report
and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts,
that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly
declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due
consideration of all evidence presented to it.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the aforesaid findings and
determinations and based upon a thorough review of the Draft EIR, the other CEQA documents,
and the evidence received to date, this Planning Commission does hereby approve and recommend
that the City Council of the City of Anaheim certify
Final EIR No. 2012-00345, for the Proposed Project and adopt the Findings and Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, based upon the aforesaid
findings and determinations, and the evidence received to date, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Anaheim approve and adopt General Plan
Amendment No. 2011-00484 in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B, contingent upon and subject
-5- PC2018-***
to the adoption of an ordinance reclassifying the property affected by General Plan Amendment
No. 2011-00484
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, on the basis of the above
findings and determinations, and the evidence received to date, this Planning Commission does
hereby approve Reclassification No. 2011-00242 to authorize an amendment to the Zoning Map
of the Anaheim Municipal Code to rezone and reclassify the subject sites into the General
Commercial (C-G) Zone as shown in Exhibit C, contingent upon and subject to approval by the
City Council of General Plan Amendment 2011-00484, now pending, and that the City Council
adopt an ordinance reclassifying the Property in accordance with Reclassification No. 2011-00242.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall not constitute a rezoning of, or a
commitment by the City to rezone, the subject sites; any such rezoning shall require an ordinance
of the City Council, which shall be a legislative act, which may be approved or denied by the City
Council at its sole discretion.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
October 1, 2018.
CHAIRPERSON, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
-6- PC2018-***
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby
certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Anaheim held on October 1, 2018, by the following vote of the
members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 1st day of October, 2018.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
126681 / LM
-7- PC2018-***
-8- PC2018-***
Exhibit B
Proposed General Plan Amendments
-9- PC2018-***
-
1
0
-
P
C
2
0
1
8
-
*
*
*
-
1
1
-
P
C
2
0
1
8
-
*
*
*
-12- PC2018-***
-
1
3
-
P
C
2
0
1
8
-
*
*
*
-
1
4
-
P
C
2
0
1
8
-
*
*
*
-15- PC2018-***
-
1
6
-
P
C
2
0
1
8
-
*
*
*
-
1
7
-
P
C
2
0
1
8
-
*
*
*
-18- PC2018-***
-
1
9
-
P
C
2
0
1
8
-
*
*
*
-
2
0
-
P
C
2
0
1
8
-
*
*
*
-21- PC2018-***
Exhibit C
Proposed Zoning Map Amendment
-22- PC2018-***
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 345
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
BALL ROAD BASIN
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT & ZONE CHANGE
Anaheim, CA
(Orange County)
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2011-00035
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2013021026
Prepared for:
CITY OF ANAHEIM
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, California 92805
Prepared by:
2390 E. Orangewood Ave., Suite 510
Anaheim, California 92806
May 2018
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER 0.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 1
0.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1
0.2. PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ................................................................. 1
0.3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................. 1
0.3.1 Project Location and Setting ............................................................................................. 2
0.3.2 Project Background ........................................................................................................... 3
0.3.3 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................. 5
0.3.4 Project Description ............................................................................................................ 5
0.4. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY/ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED .................................................................... 7
0.5. TABLE OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................. 7
0.6. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................. 30
CHAPTER 1.0 – INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 32
1.1. PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ............................................................... 32
1.2. SCOPE OF THE EIR ....................................................................................................................... 33
1.3. DRAFT EIR ORGANIZATION ......................................................................................................... 34
1.4. PUBLIC SCOPING PROCESS ......................................................................................................... 35
1.5. AVAILABILITY OF THE DRAFT EIR ................................................................................................ 36
1.6. PUBLIC COMMENTS .................................................................................................................... 36
CHAPTER 2.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ............................................. 38
2.1. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING ............................................................................................. 38
2.1.1 Location ........................................................................................................................... 38
2.1.2 Project Site ...................................................................................................................... 38
2.1.3 General Plan Designation/Zoning ................................................................................... 38
2.1.4 Surrounding Land Uses .................................................................................................... 45
2.1.5 Surrounding Circulation .................................................................................................. 45
2.2. PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................. 45
2.2.1 OCWD History .................................................................................................................. 45
2.2.2 Ball Road Basin History .................................................................................................... 46
2.3. PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................. 47
2.4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 47
2.5. INTENDED USES OF THE EIR ....................................................................................................... 49
2.5.1 Lead Agency Approval ..................................................................................................... 49
2.5.2 Other Required Permits and Approvals .......................................................................... 50
2.5.3 Reviewing Agencies ......................................................................................................... 50
CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 51
AESTHETICS ........................................................................................................................................... 55
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC iii
3.1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 55
3.1.2 Existing Environmental Setting ....................................................................................... 55
3.1.3 Applicable Regulations .................................................................................................... 65
3.1.4 Significance Criteria ......................................................................................................... 67
3.1.5 Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................................................... 68
3.2. AIR QUALITY................................................................................................................................ 72
3.2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 72
3.2.2 Existing Environmental Setting ....................................................................................... 74
3.2.3 Applicable Regulations .................................................................................................... 78
3.2.4 Significance Criteria ......................................................................................................... 85
3.2.5 Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................................................... 87
3.3. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................... 103
3.3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 103
3.3.2 Existing Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 104
3.3.3 Applicable Regulations .................................................................................................. 117
3.3.4 Significance Criteria ....................................................................................................... 118
3.3.5 Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................................................. 119
3.4. CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................. 122
3.4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 122
3.4.2 Existing Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 122
3.4.3 Significance Criteria ....................................................................................................... 128
3.4.4 Applicable Regulations .................................................................................................. 128
3.4.5 Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................................................. 131
3.5. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................................................................................................................ 140
3.5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 140
3.5.2 Existing Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 140
3.5.3 Significance Criteria ....................................................................................................... 143
3.5.4 Applicable Regulations .................................................................................................. 146
3.5.5 Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................................................. 147
3.6. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ................................................................................................. 152
3.6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 152
3.6.2 Existing Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 152
3.6.3 Applicable Regulations .................................................................................................. 155
3.6.4 Significance Criteria ....................................................................................................... 164
3.6.5 Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................................................. 164
3.7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................................................. 171
3.7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 171
3.7.2 Existing Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 171
3.7.3 Applicable Regulations .................................................................................................. 176
3.7.4 Significance Criteria ....................................................................................................... 177
3.7.5 Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................................................. 178
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC iv
3.8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ......................................................................................... 182
3.8.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 182
3.8.2 Existing Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 182
3.8.3 Applicable Regulations .................................................................................................. 194
3.8.4 Significance Criteria ....................................................................................................... 199
3.8.5 Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................................................. 200
3.9. LAND USE AND PLANNING ....................................................................................................... 218
3.9.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 218
3.9.2 Existing Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 218
3.9.3 Applicable Regulations .................................................................................................. 219
3.9.4 Significance Criteria ....................................................................................................... 221
3.9.5 Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................................................. 221
3.10. NOISE ........................................................................................................................................ 238
3.10.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 238
3.10.2 Existing Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 240
3.10.3 Applicable Regulations .................................................................................................. 248
3.10.4 Significance Criteria ....................................................................................................... 257
3.10.5 Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................................................. 258
3.11. POPULATION AND HOUSING .................................................................................................... 277
3.11.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 277
3.11.2 Existing Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 277
3.11.3 Applicable Regulations .................................................................................................. 278
3.11.4 Significance Criteria ....................................................................................................... 279
3.11.5 Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................................................. 280
3.12. PUBLIC SERVICES ...................................................................................................................... 281
3.12.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 281
3.12.2 Existing Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 281
3.12.3 Applicable Regulations .................................................................................................. 283
3.12.4 Significance Criteria ....................................................................................................... 284
3.12.5 Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................................................. 285
3.13. RECREATION ............................................................................................................................. 287
3.13.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 287
3.13.2 Existing Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 287
3.13.3 Applicable Regulations .................................................................................................. 289
3.13.4 Significance Criteria ....................................................................................................... 290
3.13.5 Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................................................. 291
3.14. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC .............................................................................................. 293
3.14.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 293
3.14.2 Existing Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 293
3.14.3 Applicable Regulations .................................................................................................. 302
3.14.4 Significance Criteria ....................................................................................................... 304
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC v
3.14.5 Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................................................. 304
3.15. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................. 346
3.15.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 346
3.15.2 Existing Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 346
3.15.3 Applicable Regulations .................................................................................................. 349
3.15.4 Significance Criteria ....................................................................................................... 351
3.15.5 Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................................................. 351
CHAPTER 4.0 – ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS .......................................................................................... 359
4.1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ............................................................................................. 359
4.2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................ 359
4.3. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ............................................................................ 360
4.3.1 No Project Alternative ................................................................................................... 360
4.3.2 Reduced Project Alternative ......................................................................................... 363
4.3.3 Mixed Use Alternative ................................................................................................... 367
4.4. ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION .............................................. 371
4.5. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE ......................................................................... 372
CHAPTER 5.0 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................ 373
5.1. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT.................................................. 373
5.2. IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES ............................................................................. 373
5.3. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS ................................................................................................. 374
5.3.1 Direct Growth-Inducing Impacts in the Surrounding Environment .............................. 374
5.3.2 Indirect Growth-Inducing Impacts in the Surrounding Environment ........................... 375
5.4. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ....................................................... 375
5.4.1 GreenHouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................... 375
5.4.2 Transportation and Traffic ............................................................................................ 375
CHAPTER 6.0 – BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................... 376
CHAPTER 7.0 – ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED ........................................................... 387
CHAPTER 8.0 – REPORT PREPARATION ............................................................................................. 388
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Notice of Preparation, Initial Study, and Comment Summary
APPENDIX B: Air Quality and Global Climate Change Impact Analysis
APPENDIX C: Biological Technical Report
APPENDIX D: Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
APPENDIX E: Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources—Phase I Assessment
APPENDIX F: Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment and Slope Stability Analysis
APPENDIX G: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
APPENDIX H: Noise Impact Analysis
APPENDIX I: Traffic Impact Analysis
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC vi
APPENDIX J: Sewer Assessment Report
APPENDIX K: Hydrology Technical Report
APPENDIX L: Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 0.5-1 Summary of Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................................... 8
Table 1.2-1 Required Sections in CEQA Guidelines ..................................................................................... 34
Table 3.0-1 City of Anaheim General Plan Residential Buildout Estimates ................................................ 53
Table 3.0-2 City of Anaheim General Plan Non-Residential Buildout Estimates ........................................ 54
Table 3.2-1 Local Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary ........................................................................... 77
Table 3.2-2 State and Federal Criteria Pollutant Standards ....................................................................... 78
Table 3.2-3 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status ................................................................................. 80
Table 3.2-4 SCAQMD Regional Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance .......................................... 86
Table 3.2-5 SCAQMD Local Air Quality Thresholds of Significance for Construction ................................. 86
Table 3.2-6 Construction-Related Criteria Pollutant Emissions .................................................................. 92
Table 3.2-7 Mitigated Construction-Related Criteria Pollutant Emissions ................................................. 93
Table 3.2-8 Mitigation for Import of Fill Criteria Pollutant Emissions ........................................................ 94
Table 3.2-9 Local Construction Emissions at the Nearest Sensitive Receptors .......................................... 94
Table 3.2-10 Operational Regional Air Pollution Emissions ........................................................................ 95
Table 3.2-11 Operational Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions ...................................................................... 96
Table 3.3-1 Land Cover Types Within the Project Area ............................................................................ 107
Table 3.3-2 Land Cover Types Within the Project Site .............................................................................. 107
Table 3.4-1 Divisions of Recent Geologic Time1 ........................................................................................ 123
Table 3.4-2 Previously Recorded Archaeological Resources within One Mile of the Project Site ............ 132
Table 3.4-3 Previously Conducted Cultural Resources Studies within One Mile of the Project Site ........ 132
Table 3.6-1 Global Warming Potentials, Atmospheric Lifetimes and Abundances of GHGs .................... 155
Table 3.6-2 Project Construction Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions ...................................................... 166
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC vii
Table 3.6-3 Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions Prior to Mitigation ........................ 166
Table 3.6-4 Mitigated Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions....................................... 167
Table 3.8-1 Surface Water Quality Objectives for Santa Ana River Reach 2 ............................................ 191
Table 3.8-2 Dry Weather Monitoring Data for Santa Ana River Sampling Location ANAE12@E01 ......... 191
Table 3.8-3 Groundwater Quality Objectives for the Orange County Groundwater Management Zone 194
Table 3.9-1 Consistency of the Proposed Project with SCAG’s Draft 2016 RTP/SCS Policies ................... 223
Table 3.9-2 Consistency of the Proposed Project with the Anaheim General Plan .................................. 224
Table 3.10-1 Year 2013 (Ambient) Noise Level Measurements ............................................................... 242
Table 3.10-2 Year 2016 (Ambient) Noise Level Measurements ............................................................... 246
Table 3.10-3 Existing Roadway Noise Contours for Anaheim Roadways ................................................. 246
Table 3.10-4 Existing Roadway Noise Contours for Orange Roadways .................................................... 247
Table 3.10-5 City of Orange Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure – Transportation Sources ................. 253
Table 3.10-6 City of Orange Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure – Stationary Sources ........................ 254
Table 3.10-7 City of Orange Municipal Code Exterior Noise Standards ................................................... 256
Table 3.10-8 City of Orange Municipal Code Interior Noise Standards .................................................... 256
Table 3.10-9 Construction Equipment Noise Emissions and Usage Factors ............................................. 258
Table 3.10-10 FHWA Model Roadway Parameters for Anaheim Roadways ............................................ 260
Table 3.10-11 FHWA Model Roadway Parameters for Orange Roadways ............................................... 260
Table 3.10-12 Average Daily Traffic Volumes for Anaheim Roadways ..................................................... 261
Table 3.10-13 Average Daily Traffic Volumes for Orange Roadways ....................................................... 262
Table 3.10-14 Roadway Vehicle Mix ......................................................................................................... 263
Table 3.10-15 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ........................................................ 265
Table 3.10-16 Average Construction Noise Levels at Nearby Receptors .................................................. 266
Table 3.10-17 Possible Operational Stationary Noise Sources Average Noise Levels .............................. 268
Table 3.10-18 Existing Project Traffic Noise Contributions to Anaheim Roadways ................................. 270
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC viii
Table 3.10-19 Existing Project Traffic Noise Contributions to Orange Roadways .................................... 271
Table 3.10-20 Year 2035 Project Traffic Noise Contributions to Anaheim Roadways .............................. 272
Table 3.10-21 Year 2035 Project Traffic Noise Contributions to Orange Roadways ................................ 272
Table 3.10-22 Possible Operational Stationary Noise Sources Maximum Noise Levels ........................... 275
Table 3.11-1 Population and Housing: 2010 and 2016 ............................................................................. 277
Table 3.11-2 Employment Status .............................................................................................................. 277
Table 3.11-3 Growth Forecast .................................................................................................................. 278
Table 3.14-1 Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary .................................................................. 298
Table 3.14-2 Existing Roadway Segment Levels of Service ....................................................................... 300
Table 3.14-3 Existing Caltrans Ramp Intersection Level of Service Summary .......................................... 300
Table 3.14-4 Existing Freeway Mainline Segment Level of Service Summary .......................................... 302
Table 3.14-5 Existing Freeway Weaving Segment Level of Service Summary .......................................... 302
Table 3.14-6 Level of Service Definitions .................................................................................................. 305
Table 3.14-7 Level of Service Descriptions ............................................................................................... 306
Table 3.14-8 Existing Plus Project Intersection Level of Service Summary ............................................... 311
Table 3.14-9 Existing Plus Project Roadway Segment Levels of Service ................................................... 313
Table 3.14-10 Existing Plus Project Freeway Ramp Intersection Level of Service Summary .................... 315
Table 3.14-11 Existing Plus Project Freeway Mainline Segment Level of Service Summary .................... 315
Table 3.14-12 Existing plus Project Freeway Weaving Segment Level of Service Summary .................... 316
Table 3.14-13 Buildout Year 2035 Baseline Intersection Level of Service Summary ................................ 317
Table 3.14-14 Buildout 2035 Baseline Roadway Segment Levels of Service ............................................ 318
Table 3.14-15 Buildout 2035 Baseline Caltrans Ramp Intersection Level of Service Summary ............... 319
Table 3.14-16 Buildout 2035 Baseline Freeway Segment Level of Service Summary .............................. 320
Table 3.14-17 Buildout 2035 Baseline Freeway Weaving Segment Level of Service Summary ............... 321
Table 3.14-18 Buildout Year 2035 Plus Project Intersection Level of Service Summary .......................... 323
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC ix
Table 3.14-19 Buildout 2035 Plus Project Roadway Segment Levels of Service ...................................... 325
Table 3.14-20 Buildout 2035 Plus Project Freeway Ramp Intersection Level of Service Summary ......... 327
Table 3.14-21 Buildout 2035 Plus Project Freeway Mainline Segment Level of Service Summary .......... 327
Table 3.14-22 Buildout 2035 Plus Project Freeway Weaving Segment Level of Service Summary .......... 328
Table 3.14-23 Engineered Fill of Basin Construction Trip Generation Estimates ..................................... 329
Table 3.14-24 Construction (Engineered Fill of Basin Construction Phase) Year 2020 Intersection Level of
Service Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 330
Table 3.14-25 Building Construction Trip Generation Estimates .............................................................. 332
Table 3.14-26 Construction (Buildings) Year 2022 Intersection Level of Service Summary ..................... 333
Table 3.14-27 Buildout 2035 plus Project Fair-Share Calculations ........................................................... 341
Table 3.15-1 Proposed Loads .................................................................................................................... 354
Table 4.1 Summary of Alternatives ........................................................................................................... 360
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC x
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2-1: Project Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................. 39
Figure 2-2: Project Boundary Map .............................................................................................................. 40
Figure 2-3: General Plan Land Use Designations ........................................................................................ 41
Figure 2-4: Zoning Map ............................................................................................................................... 44
Figure 3.1-1: Viewpoints ............................................................................................................................. 56
Figure 3.1-2: Viewpoint A ........................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 3.1-3: Viewpoint B ............................................................................................................................ 59
Figure 3.1-4: Viewpoint C ............................................................................................................................ 60
Figure 3.1-5: Viewpoint D ........................................................................................................................... 61
Figure 3.1-6: Viewpoint E ............................................................................................................................ 62
Figure 3.1-7: Viewpoint F ............................................................................................................................ 63
Figure 3.1-8: Viewpoint G ........................................................................................................................... 64
Figure 3.3-1: Biological Study Area ........................................................................................................... 105
Figure 3.3-2: Soils ...................................................................................................................................... 106
Figure 3.3-3: Watershed ........................................................................................................................... 108
Figure 3.3-4: FEMA Floodplain Zones ....................................................................................................... 109
Figure 3.3-5: National Wetlands Inventory ............................................................................................... 110
Figure 3.3-6: Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types ................................................................. 111
Figure 3.3-7: Literature Review ................................................................................................................. 114
Figure 3.3-8: Critical Habitat ..................................................................................................................... 115
Figure 3.3-9: Waters of the US and State ................................................................................................. 116
Figure 3.5-1: Regional Geology Map ......................................................................................................... 142
Figure 3.5-2: Regional Fault Map .............................................................................................................. 144
Figure 3.5-3: Seismic Hazard Zone Map .................................................................................................... 145
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC xi
Figure 3.8-1: Site Features ........................................................................................................................ 184
Figure 3.8-2: Chantilly Drain Drainage Area Map ..................................................................................... 185
Figure 3.8-3: Local Off-site Hydrology ...................................................................................................... 187
Figure 3.8-4: FEMA Firm Map ................................................................................................................... 188
Figure 3.8-5: Santa Ana River Watershed ................................................................................................. 190
Figure 3.8-6: Orange County Groundwater Management Zone ............................................................... 193
Figure 3.8-7: Earthwork ............................................................................................................................ 202
Figure 3.8-8: Conceptual Grading ............................................................................................................. 203
Figure 3.8-9: Conceptual Storm Drain ...................................................................................................... 204
Figure 3.8-10: Onsite Hydrology Exhibit ................................................................................................... 212
Figure 3.10-1: Noise Measurement Locations .......................................................................................... 243
Figure 3.10-2: Field Noise Measurement Graph ....................................................................................... 244
Figure 3.10-3: Field Noise Measurement Graph ....................................................................................... 245
Figure 3.10-4: Land Use Compatibility Matrix .......................................................................................... 250
Figure 3.12-1: Public Service Facilities ...................................................................................................... 282
Figure 3.13-1: Recreational Resources ..................................................................................................... 288
Figure 3.14-1: Study Area Intersections and Roadway Segments ............................................................ 297
Figure 3.15-1: Existing Sewer System ....................................................................................................... 348
Figure 3.15-2: Conceptual Utility Plan ...................................................................................................... 353
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC xii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AB 32 Assembly Bill 32
ACSD Anaheim City School District
ADT average daily traffic
AFD Anaheim Fire Department
APD Anaheim Police Department
APS alternate planning strategy
APUD Anaheim Public Utilities Department
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ARTIC Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center
ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials
ATAM Anaheim Transportation Analysis Model
ATS Active Treatment System
AUHSD Anaheim Union High School District
BMPs Best Management Practices
BRB Ball Road Basin
CAA Federal Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
Cal EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
Cal OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
CARB California Air Resources Board
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC xiii
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Responsibility, Compensation, and Liability Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFCs chlorofluorocarbons
CFGC California Fish and Game Code
cfs cubic feet per second
CH4 methane
CHL California Historical Landmarks
CHRIS California Historic Resources Information System
CLOMR Condition Letter of Map Revision
CMP Congestion Management Program
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
COC chemicals of concern
CORRACTS Corrective Action Sites
CPHI California Points of Historical Interest
CPTs Cone Penetration Tests
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CSD Chantilly Storm Drain
CTR Commute Trip Reduction
CWA Clean Water Act
DAMP Drainage Area Management Plan
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DOGGR California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal
Resources
DOT Department of Transportation
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC xiv
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
EFZs Earthquake Fault Zones
EIR Environmental Impact Report
ESCP Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR floor area ratio
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FID Facility Inventory Database
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FSliq Factor of Safety Against Liquefaction
GCP General Construction Permit
GHG greenhouse gas
GPS Global Positioning System
GWP global warming potential
HCOC hydrologic conditions of concern
HFCs hydrofluorocarbons
hp horsepower
HRA health risk assessment
Hz hertz
IPCC International Panel on Climate Change
IS Initial Study
kW kilowatt
Ldn Day-Night Average Level
Leq equivalent sound level
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC xv
LID low impact development
LOS Level of Service
LQG Large Quantity Generator
LSTs Localized Significant Thresholds
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MEP Maximum Extent Practicable
MG million gallon
mg/L milligrams per liter
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MTCO2e 427 million metric tons of CO2e
MWD Metropolitan Water District
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
N2O nitrous oxide
NO₂ nitrogen dioxide
NOx nitrogen oxides
NOA Notice of Availability
NOI Notice of Intent
NOP Notice of Preparation
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL National Priorities List
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NWI National Wetland Inventory
O₃ ozone
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC xvi
OC DAMP Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan
OC SCS Orange County Sustainable Communities Strategies
OCCOG Orange County Council of Governments
OCFA Orange County Fire Authority
OCFCD Orange County Flood Control District
OCSD Orange County Sanitation District
OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority
OCWD Orange County Water District
OHP Office of Historic Preservation
OHWM ordinary high water mark
ONAC Federal Office Noise Abatement and Control
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls
PCE tetrachloroethene
PFCs perfluorocarbons
PHGA Peak Horizontal Ground Accelerations
PJD preliminary jurisdictional determination
PM particulate matter
ppt parts per trillion
PPV peak particle velocity
PRC Public Resources Code
PRDs Permit Registration Documents
PTMU Platinum Triangle Mixed Use
RCP reinforced concrete pipe
RCPG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide
RCRA Resource Conservation Recovery Act
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment
rms root mean square
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC xvii
ROW right-of-way
RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Plan
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB18 Senate Bill 18
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
SCE Southern California Edison
SCS sustainable communities strategy
SEL Single Event Level
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SFHA Special Flood Hazard Areas
SIP State Implementation Plan
SLIC Spills, Leaks, Investigation and Cleanup
SO₂ sulfur dioxide
SOx sulfur oxide
SPTs Standard Penetration Tests
SQG small quantity generators
SVOCs Semi-volatile organic compounds
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TACs toxic air contaminants
TDS total dissolved solids
TMDL total maximum daily loads
tpd tons per day
TRUs transport refrigeration units
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC xviii
TSDs treatment, storage, or disposal sites
UMTA Urban Mass Transit Administration
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USC United States Code
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank
US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
V/C volume to capacity
VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program
VOC volatile organic compounds
WoS Waters of the State
WoUS Waters of the United States
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
1
CHAPTER 0.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
0.1. INTRODUCTION
The Orange County Water District (OCWD) is proposing to amend the City of Anaheim’s General Plan
and Zoning Map to allow the eventual commercial development of the Ball Road Basin (referred to as
the “BRB” or “Project site”). The Proposed Project would change the City’s General Plan Land Use
designation for the Project site from Open Space to General Commercial and the zoning from the
Transitional (T) and Industrial (I) Zones to the General Commercial (C-G) Zone. In addition, the Proposed
Project includes amending the General Plan Circulation and Green Elements to add a Proposed Class 1
Bike Path/Trail Study Area along the northern, eastern and southern edges of the Project site. The
Proposed Project does not include a specific development plan for Project site.
“Projects” within the State of California are required to undergo environmental review to determine the
environmental impacts associated with implementation of the project in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) unless a project is exempt. CEQA was enacted in 1970 by the
California Legislature to disclose to decision makers and the public the significant environmental effects
of a proposed project and identify possible ways to avoid or minimize significant environmental effects
of a project by requiring implementation of mitigation measures or recommending feasible alternatives.
CEQA applies to all California public agencies at all levels, including local, regional and state, as well as
boards, commissions, and special districts (such as OCWD). As such, the City of Anaheim (City) as the
lead agency is required to conduct an environmental review to analyze the potential environmental
effects associated with the Proposed Project.
This document is a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared in accordance with CEQA. It
provides an overview of the Proposed Project and considers alternatives, identifies the anticipated
environmental impacts from the Proposed Project and the alternatives, and identifies mitigation
measures designed to reduce the level of significance of any impact.
0.2. PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The primary purpose of CEQA is to inform the public and decision makers as to the potential impacts of
a project and to allow an opportunity for public input to ensure informed decision making. CEQA
requires all state and local government agencies to consider the environmental effects of projects over
which they have discretionary authority. CEQA also requires each public agency to mitigate or avoid the
significant environmental impacts resulting from proposed projects, when feasible, and to identify a
range of feasible alternatives to the proposed project that could reduce those environmental effects.
Under CEQA, a project EIR analyzes the impacts of an individual activity or specific project and focuses
primarily on changes in the environment that would result from the activity or project. The EIR must
include the contents required by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and examine all phases of the project,
including planning, construction, operation, and any reasonably foreseeable future phases.
0.3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This section provides a description of the Proposed Project. The Project location, background, and
objectives are described, followed by a description of the Proposed Project, alternatives, and a summary
of project approvals that would be required.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
2
0.3.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
Location
The Ball Road Basin (Project site) is located in the south central portion of the City of Anaheim, in
Orange County, California. BRB is approximately 19.5 acres and consists of four assessor parcels (APN
253-473-01 [6.48-acres], 253-631-32 [0.31-acres], 253-631-39 [12.69-acres], and 375-221-09 [0.1-acres])
owned by the Orange County Water District, and bounded by the Santa Ana River Center Levee and the
Santa Ana River to the east, Ball Road and the Burris Basin to the north, the Union Pacific Railroad to the
south, and Phoenix Club Drive to the west.
Project Site
The Project site encompasses approximately 19.5 acres and has a holding capacity of 220 acre-feet of
water. The basin is approximately 20 feet below the surrounding grade level. Overflow from the
adjacent upstream Burris Recharge Basin drains into BRB. Storm water runoff from Orange County Flood
Control District (OCFCD) facilities described below also drains into BRB. The BRB was intended to retain
this overflow and runoff so that the water could percolate into the ground to replenish the groundwater
basin. However, due to an extensive clay layer underlying the basin, BRB is incapable of significant
amounts of surface recharge.
The OCFCD has a flood control easement over the entire basin as well as a 100 foot wide area adjacent
to the Santa Ana River. The flood control easement would be abandoned with the construction of
infrastructure modifications as described in Section 2.4. The OCFCD’s Chantilly Storm Drain (CSD) crosses
the BRB. The CSD is fed by several tributary storm drains and generally parallels the SR -57 freeway
before discharging into the BRB at its southernmost reach. Runoff from CSD enters BRB at the northwest
corner and flows in a southerly direction. In addition, 36 -inch and 48-inch storm drains collect runoff
from Auto Center Drive and Sanderson Avenue, respectively, and discharge directly into the western
side of BRB. At the southern end of BRB is a 101-foot wide by 6-foot high sharp crested concrete weir
aligned in a north-south direction. During medium to high flow rates into BRB, water spills over the weir
and flows into a “sub-basin” before flowing through a 12-foot by 12-foot concrete box and discharging
into the Santa Ana River.
In addition to the OCFCD easements, Southern California Edison (SCE) has a 270 feet wide easement and
multiple transmission lines that cross the southern end of the BRB.
General Plan Designation/Zoning
The City’s General Plan designation for the BRB is Open Space (see Figure 2-3, General Plan Land Use
Designations). The Open Space land use designation includes those areas intended to remain in natural
open space; utility easements that will provide recreational and trail access to Anaheim’s residents;
heavily landscaped freeway remnant parcels, and land areas surrounding major water features. The
Proposed Project site is designated Open Space due to its use as a recharge basin.
The Project site has two separate zoning designations (see Figure 2-4, Zoning Map). APN 375-221-09
does not have a zoning designation. APNs 253-473-01 and 253-641-39 are zoned Transitional (T) on the
City's zoning map. The City's Zoning Ordinance (Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code) describes the
“T” Zone as intended to provide for a zone to include land that is used for agricultural uses, in a
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
3
transitory or interim use, restricted to limited uses because of special conditions, or not zoned to one of
the zoning districts contained in the City’s zoning code for whatever reason, including recent
annexation.
APN 253-631-32 is zoned Industrial (I) on the City's zoning map. The City's Zoning Ordinance describes
the "I" Zone as intending to provide for and encourage the development of industrial uses and their
related facilities, recognize the unique and valuable existing industrial land resources, and encourage
industrial employment opportunities within the City. Targeted industries include research and
development, repair services, wholesale activities, distribution centers, and manufacturing and
fabrication. In some situations, other types of uses are allowed with a conditional use permit.
Portions of APN 253-473-01 and 253-641-39 are also within a Flood Hazard Zone Overlay referred to in
the City’s zoning code as a Floodplain (FP) Overlay Zone. APN 375-221-09 is not zoned and therefore is
not within the City’s FP Overlay Zone. The whole Project site is located in FEMA FIRM Map Zone A flood
area, as discussed in Chapter 3.8, Hydrology. The FP Overlay Zone is combined with existing zones in
those areas within the City which, under present conditions, are subject to periodic flooding and
accompanying hazards. The zoning designation for the property constitutes the base or underlying zone
and the FP designation is the overlay zone. In the event of conflicting provisions between the underlying
“T” Zone and the (FP) Overlay Zone regulations, the more restrictive regulations shall apply.
Surrounding Land Uses
Surrounding land uses include the Anaheim Auto Center and the SR-57 freeway to the west, Anaheim
Coves Nature Park and Trail, The Islands Golf Center, and OCWD Burris Basin to the north, the Santa Ana
River Center Levee and the Santa Ana River to the east, and commercial office uses, Honda Center, and
the Union Pacific Railroad to the south.
General Plan designations for land uses surrounding the Proposed Project site include General
Commercial, Water Uses, Parks, Mixed Use and Office Low. Zoning designations for surrounding land
uses include: General Commercial, Transitional, Transitional – Flood Hazard (FP) Overlay, Public
Recreational, Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone, and Industrial.
0.3.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND
OCWD History
OCWD was established by the State of California in 1933 to manage and protect the Orange County
Groundwater Basin, which encompasses over 229,000 acres in twenty cities, as well as unincorporated
areas on the coastal plain in northwest Orange County. OCWD owns over 1,000 acres of land in Orange
County. The majority of OCWD’s land is used to recharge water into the groundwater basin.
Ball Road Basin History
As part of the OCWD groundwater recharge program, several recharge basins were established along
the Santa Ana River. BRB is the most down-gradient recharge basin in OCWD’s Off-River System, and is
located south of Ball Road and Burris Basin in south central Anaheim. BRB was purchased in 1943 by
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
4
OCWD, and was separated from the Santa Ana River in the early 1970’s with the construction of the
center levee.
OCWD analyzed the percolation rates of the BRB and its effectiveness as a recharge basin. In October
2006, OCWD determined that the basin was incapable of significant amounts of recharge due to an
extensive clay layer underlying the majority of the basin. OCWD analyzed various potential future uses
for the site including enhancing recharge operations, storm water storage, or selling/leasing the site for
commercial uses. The District has decided to pursue the latter and is now taking the necessary planning
steps to prepare the site for future commercial development.
In August 2007, OCWD submitted a Conceptual Development Review (CDR) Application for a General
Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zone Change (ZC) to permit general commercial development on the
Proposed Project site. In September 2007, the City provided comments on the CDR, indicating that an
EIR would be required for this project and the loss of open space would need to be addressed.
In April 2011, after discussions with the City, OCWD re-submitted the CDR for a GPA and ZC. OCWD
prepared an Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (NOP), which was reviewed and commented on by
the City. The Initial Study and NOP was released for public review from February 8, 2013 through March
11, 2013. A Scoping Meeting was held on February 13, 2013, to give the public the opportunity to learn
more about the Proposed Project and comment on potential environmental impacts to be studied in the
EIR for the Proposed Project. In December 2013, OCWD authorized a Lease Option Agreement with
Orange County Energy Park, LLC (OCEP), allowing OCEP to conduct due diligence as to the potential
leasing or purchasing of the Project site for an electrical generation station.
On February 13, 2014, the City released a NOP of an EIR for a Ball Road Basin Park Project. The proposed
Ball Road Basin Park Project involves the development of the BRB as an active public park with lighted
playing fields and associated parking, concession areas, playgrounds, and an adjacent riding/hiking trail
and bike path. As part of this Proposed Project, the BRB would be filled with engineered soil and the City
would develop a park facility to serve City residents with the ability to remain open 24 -hours a day. Also
as part of this Proposed Project, the City proposed a General Plan Amendment (Case No. GPA2014-
00491) to designate the BRB as Parks and a Zoning Reclassification to rezone the BRB to “PR” Public
Recreation (Case No. RCL2014-00261). Approval of this Proposed Project would require amendments to
the Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Map. This Proposed Project is discussed further under Section 4.4
Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration.
The City requested that OCWD include in the Proposed Project EIR analysis of an electrical generation
station alternative and a park alternative. On August 6, 2014, OCWD suspended preparation of the EIR
until the potential for an electrical generation station was resolved. In November 2014 OCEP terminated
the Lease Option Agreement. OCWD re-initiated preparation of the EIR in 2016. Under the Proposed
Project (General Plan Amendment and Zone Change), an electrical generation station would be
permitted subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the City, or separate State permitting, and
subsequent and related environmental analysis pursuant to CEQA. Given the additional discretionary
review required for an electrical generation station, analysis of this alternative would be speculative at
this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15163.6(f)(3), which states that “an EIR need not consider
an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and
speculative.” This alternative is discussed further under Section 4.4 Alternatives Eliminated From Further
Consideration.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
5
0.3.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The OCWD analyzed the percolation rates of the BRB, and its effectiveness as a recharge basin. BRB was
found to be incapable of significant amounts of recharge due to an extensive clay layer underlying the
majority of the basin. OCWD analyzed various potential future uses for the site including enhancing
recharge operations, storm water storage, or selling/leasing the site for commercial uses. The District
has decided to pursue the latter and is now taking the necessary planning steps to prepare the Project
Site for future development.
The following objectives have been established for the Proposed Project:
1. Allow commercial development of the Project site.
2. Permit a viable and productive use of an obsolete groundwater recharge basin.
3. Generate non-operating revenues for the Orange County Water District
0.3.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The OCWD is proposing to amend the City of Anaheim’s General Plan and Zoning Map to allow the
eventual commercial development of the Ball Road Basin. The Proposed Project would change the City’s
General Plan Land Use designation for the Project site from Open Space to General Commercial and the
zoning from the Transitional (T) and Industrial (I) Zones to the General Commercial (C-G) Zone. In
addition, the Proposed Project includes amending the General Plan Circulation and Green Elements to
add a Proposed Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area along the northern, eastern and southern edges of the
Project site. The Proposed Project does not include a specific development plan for Project site.
General Plan Land Use Designation
The City of Anaheim General Plan has three separate land use desig nations related to Open Space and
Recreation. These land use designations are Open Space, Parks and Water Uses. The Open Space land
use designation includes those areas intended to remain in natural open space; utility easements that
will provide recreational and trail access to Anaheim’s residents; heavily landscaped freeway remnant
parcels, and land areas surrounding major water features. The Parks designation allows for active and
passive recreational uses such as parks, trails, athletic fields, interpr etive centers and golf courses. The
Water Uses designation applies to water bodies, such as the Santa Ana River, lakes, and reservoirs, and
other water-related uses such as flood control channels and drainage basins. The General Plan
designates the subject property for Open Space land use.
The Proposed Project would change the General Plan designation of the property from Open Space to
General Commercial. Areas designated for General Commercial land use may, but do not necessarily,
serve the adjacent neighborhood or surrounding clusters of neighborhoods. General Commercial land
uses include a variety of land uses, including neighborhood-serving food markets, drug stores,
restaurants, small hardware stores, child care centers, health clubs, large grocery stores, appliance
stores, neighborhood-serving restaurants, bakeries, banks, specialty shops, some low intensity civic
uses, and other retail and professional uses. In addition, these areas may include highway-serving uses
such as fast food restaurants, auto-oriented uses such as tire stores, service stations, auto parts stores,
and other stand-alone retail uses.
Zone Change
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
6
The Proposed Project would change the zoning designation of the site from Transitional (T) Zone and
Industrial (I) Zone to the General Commercial (C-G) Zone. The "T" Zone includes land used for
agricultural uses, a transitory or interim use, or restricted to limited uses because of special
conditions. The “I” Zone is for industrial uses and their related facilities. Targeted industries include
research and development, repair services, wholesale activities, distribution centers, and manufacturing
and fabrication. In some situations, the City allows other types of uses through the approval of a
conditional use permit. The “C-G” Zone allows a variety of commercial land uses by right (without
further discretionary approval), including commercial retail centers, convenience stores, grocery stores,
offices, personal services and restaurants, at a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.5. Additional uses
permitted within the C-G Zone are subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. This zone
implements the General Commercial land use designation contained in the Land Use Element of the
Anaheim General Plan. A portion of the site is also within the Floodplain (FP) Overlay Zone. No change is
proposed to the overlay zone.
Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area
The Proposed Project would amend the General Plan Circulation and Green Elements to designate a
Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area along the northern, eastern and southern perimeter of the Project
site. The proposed multi-purpose trail would serve as a southern extension of the Anaheim Coves Class 1
Bike Path/Riding and Hiking Trail located to the north across Ball Road. Class I Bike Paths are identified
within the Circulation Element in Figure C-5: Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities. Class 1 Bike Paths
provide for bicycle travel on right-of-way completely separated from the street. Trail Study Areas are
identified in the Green Element in Figure G-5: Equestrian, Riding and Hiking Trails Plan. Trail Study Areas
depict potential trail locations that connect residents with recreational opportunities, schools and
activity centers such as Downtown, Anaheim Canyon, The Anaheim Resort and the Platinum Triangle.
The locations of these study areas are based on existing utility easements, railroad rights -of-way and
flood control channels. Although they are mapped, the feasibility of their implementation has yet to be
determined. Future implementation of the Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area will potentially include
analysis of necessary intergovernmental or joint use agreements (i.e. lease, license, easement, joint use
agreement); law enforcement jurisdiction; potential property acquisition; maintenance responsibilities;
cost sharing; allowable trail uses; physical obstacles; ownership constraints; and, funding issues to
determine feasibility.
Site Development
The Proposed Project does not include a specific development plan for BRB. The intent of the
commercial zoning is to allow a variety of land uses either “by right” as a permitted use or discretionary
by Conditional Use Permit. Uses permitted by right that are within the C-G Zone and that comply with
the development standards of the C-G Zone may not be subject to further environmental review under
CEQA and could be implemented upon approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone
change. Only uses and development that require discretionary approval will require future
environmental review under CEQA.
In order to evaluate potential environmental impacts resulting from the change in land use, this EIR uses
the intensity threshold in the Anaheim General Plan for the General Commercial land use designation
and the maximum FAR permitted by the Anaheim Municipal Code for development within the C -G Zone.
The Anaheim General Plan Land Use Map and Element and the C -G Zone limit commercial development
to a maximum FAR of 0.5. This translates into 425,000 square feet of commercial development for the
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
7
19.5-acre Project site. This analysis also anticipates a Project operation date of 2025. All direct and
indirect impacts resulting from the construction of a 425,000 square foot commercial project including
required street, sewer, storm drain, water and other infrastructure requirements will be analyzed.
In order to facilitate development of the Project site, the existing OCFCD CSD and other storm drain
facilities that currently flow into the Proposed Project site would be relocated. Burris Basin has an
existing spillway structure that diverts water to BRB and eventually to the Santa Ana River in the event
of an overflow. The overflow water is conveyed to BRB through an existing vehicular access tunnel,
which is a 14-foot wide by 13-foot high reinforced concrete box underneath Ball Road. This vehicular
access tunnel would be abandoned as part of the implementation of the Proposed Project . A new outlet
for Burris Basin would be constructed to provide an outlet to the Santa Ana River. This new facility
would include an inlet and outlet structure, piping, valves, and appurtenances. A 100-foot wide
construction and maintenance easement, surrounding the inlet and outlet structure at Santa Ana River,
would be retained as a multi-use area, with an OCFCD easement. In addition, commercial development
of the Project Site would require an engineered fill to provide useable building pad areas as well as
street sewer, water and other infrastructure improvements.
To model and assess impacts resulting from the Proposed Project, a mass grade conceptual layout was
prepared which included building pads, on-site drainages facilities, an on-site sewer system, the
rerouting of two local drainage facilities, and the relocation of the existing CSD. Details of the conceptual
plans and assumptions used for modeling purposes are discussed and analyzed in Chapter 3 of this
document.
0.4. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY/ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
Section 15123 (b)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR Executive Summary identify areas of
controversy known to the lead agency, including issues raised by other agencies and the public.
A public scoping meeting was held for the Proposed Project on February 13, 2013. The scoping meeting
introduced the Proposed Project, outlined the environmental review process for the EIR, and invited
public comment on the scope and content of the EIR. Eight people attended the meeting. Issues and
concerns raised at the public scoping meetings included impacts to birds, loss of open space and trail
access.
In addition to the comments provided at the scoping meeting, several comments were received in
response to the NOP/IS for this EIR. The primary areas of controversy identified by the public and
agencies include impacts to the Santa Ana River Riding and Hiking Trail; Caltrans SR-57 facilities; City of
Orange roadways; safety of rail corridor; wetland loss and mitigation; delineation of creeks and
associated riparian habitats; rare, endangered and threatened flora and fauna; cultural resources; and
water quality.
The NOP/IS and a summary of the comments can be found in Appendix A.
0.5. TABLE OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 0.5-1 summarizes the potential impacts of the Proposed Project in each environmental resource
area discussed in Chapter 3.0. Impacts found to be significant are listed along with the proposed
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
8
mitigation measures. The residual impact after application of mitigation is also indicated for each
significant impact. Cumulative impacts, if any, are also identified.
Table 0.5-1 Summary of Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Potential Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
3.1 AESTHETICS
IMPACT AES-1: The Proposed
Project would potentially have
a substantially adverse effect
on a scenic vista.
Less Than
Significant
None required Less Than Significant
IMPACT AES-2: The Proposed
Project would potentially
degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site
and its surroundings.
Less Than
Significant
None required Less Than Significant
IMPACT AES-3: The Proposed
Project would create a new
source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in
the area.
Less Than
Significant
None required Less Than Significant
3.2 AIR QUALITY
IMPACT AIR-1: The Proposed
Project would conflict with or
obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan.
Potentially
Significant
MM AIR-1: Prior to issuance of the grading
permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall
require the construction contractor to use
large off-road diesel equipment with a
horsepower (hp) rating of 160 hp or higher
that meets the U.S. EPA-Certified emission
standard for Tier 3 off-road equipment or
higher. Any model year 2006 or later off-
road diesel equipment meets the Tier 3
standard. The construction contractor shall
maintain on-site a list of construction
equipment by type and model year. MM
AIR-1 shall not apply to any equipment that
is utilized on the Project site that is licensed
to operate on public roadways, such as
water trucks.
Less Than Significant
IMPACT AIR-2: The Proposed
Project would violate any air
quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation.
Potentially
Significant
MM AIR-1, see above.
MM AIR-2: Prior to the issuance of grading
or building permits, the Property
Owner/Developer shall provide a note on
plans indicating that the work days for
import of fill and grading of the Project site
is reduced from the anticipated rate of 527
work days and increased above the
anticipated average of 46 haul truck
deliveries per day (92 two-way trips), the
Property Owner/Developer will require that
all haul trucks used to import fill to the
Less Than Significant
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
9
Potential Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Project site are model year 2010 or newer.
The work days shall not be decreased
below 127 work days and truck deliveries
shall not be increased beyond 190 haul
truck deliveries per day.
MM AIR-3: Prior to the issuance of building
permits for any future development on the
Project site that has the potential to
generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per
day or have 40 or more truck trips per day
with operational transport refrigeration
units (TRUs), the Property Owner/Developer
shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA)
to the Anaheim Planning and Building
Department. The HRA shall be prepared in
accordance with policies and procedures of
the State of California’s Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA) and the SCAQMD.
If the HRA shows that the incremental
cancer risk exceeds one in one hundred
thousand (1.0E-05), PM concentrations
would exceed 2.5 μg/m3, or the appropriate
non-cancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the
Property Owner/Developer shall identify
and demonstrate that best available control
technologies for toxics (T-BACTs) will reduce
potential cancer and non-cancer risks to an
acceptable level, including appropriate
enforcement mechanisms. T-BACTs may
include, but are not limited to, restricting
idling onsite, electrifying loading docks to
reduce diesel particulate matter, or
requiring use of newer equipment and/or
vehicles. The Property Owner/Developer
shall record a covenant on the property that
requires ongoing implementation of T-
BACTs identified in the HRA. The form of the
covenant shall be approved by the City
Attorney’s Office prior to recordation.
IMPACT AIR-3: The Proposed
Project would result in a
cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria.
Potentially
Significant
MM AIR-1 and MM AIR-2, see above. Less Than Significant
IMPACT AIR-4: The Proposed
Project would expose sensitive
receptors to substantial
Less Than
Significant
None required Less Than Significant
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
10
Potential Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
pollutant concentrations.
IMPACT AIR-5: The Proposed
Project would create
objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people.
Less Than
Significant
None required Less Than Significant
3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
IMPACT BIO-1: The Proposed
Project would have a
substantial adverse effect on a
candidate, sensitive, or special
status species.
Potentially
Significant
MM BIO-1: Prior to issuance of grading
permits, the Property Owner/Developer
shall submit a biological survey prepared by
a qualified biologist. The biological survey
shall assess potential impacts to sensitive
vegetation communities and/or special
status species and include measures to
reduce any impacts to less than significant.
Such measures shall identify as appropriate,
measures for avoidance, restoration, and/or
relocation in accordance with the USFWS
and CDFW requirements.
Less Than Significant
IMPACT BIO-2: The Proposed
Project would have a
substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community.
Potentially
Significant
MM BIO-2: Prior to issuance of grading
permits, the Property Owner/Developer
shall hire a qualified biologist to conduct a
jurisdictional delineation of the potential
disturbance area at locations where
construction activity could affect
jurisdictional waters. The jurisdictional
delineation shall determine if features are
under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps
of Engineers (ACOE), the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and/or the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW). The result shall be a preliminary
jurisdictional delineation report that shall
be submitted to the City of Anaheim and
any responsible agency, ACOE, RWQCB, and
CDFW, as appropriate, for review and
approval. Based on the results of the
preliminary jurisdictional delineation,
development of the site shall be designed
so that impacts to jurisdictional waters are
minimized in consultation with the ACOE,
RWQCB, and CDFW. Prior to issuance of
building permits, permits shall be obtained
from each agency where applicable. The
aforementioned permits and approvals will
ensure no net loss of wetlands and water
ways, by defining adequate mitigation and
compensation to impact ratios.
Less Than Significant
IMPACT BIO-3: The Proposed
Project would have a
substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands.
Potentially
Significant
See mitigation measure MM BIO-2. Less Than Significant
IMPACT BIO-4: The Proposed Potentially MM BIO-3: Prior to issuance of any grading Less Than Significant
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
11
Potential Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Project would interfere
substantially with the
movement of fish or wildlife
species or with established
wildlife corridors, or impede
the use of native wildlife
nursery sites.
Significant or building permits, for any construction
activity set to occur during nesting season
(typically between March 15 and September
15), the Property Owner/Developer shall be
required to conduct nesting bird surveys in
accordance with the CDFW requirements,
and submit said surveys to the City of
Anaheim Planning and Building Department.
Such surveys shall identify avoidance
measures to protect active nests. These
measures shall be complied with by the
Property Owner/Developer.
3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
IMPACT CUL-1: Construction of
the Proposed Project would
potentially cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a historical
resource.
Less Than
Significant
None required Less Than Significant
IMPACT CUL-2: Construction of
the Proposed Project would
potentially cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
Potentially
Significant
MM CUL-1: Prior to issuance of a grading
permit for any ground-disturbing activities,
the Property Owner/Developer shall retain
an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of
the Interior’s Professional Qualification
Standards (the “Archaeologist”), and who
shall be approved by the Anaheim Planning
and Building Director. The Archeologist shall
monitor ground‐disturbing activities within
the Project site, including digging, grubbing,
or excavation into native sediments that
have not been previously disturbed for the
Proposed Project.
In the event that cultural resources are
encountered, construction in that area must
stop until the archaeologist assesses the
resource and deems it appropriate for
construction to continue. Work shall be
allowed to continue outside of the vicinity
of the find. All cultural resources unearthed
by project construction activities shall be
evaluated by the Archaeologist. If the
Archaeologist determines that the
resources may be significant, the
Archaeologist shall notify the Property
Owner/Developer and the Anaheim
Planning and Building Director, and shall
develop an appropriate treatment plan for
the resources. The Archaeologist shall
consult with an appropriate Native
American representative in determining
appropriate treatment for unearthed
cultural resources if the resources are
Less Than Significant
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
12
Potential Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
prehistoric or Native American in nature.
A report containing the monitoring results
and any cultural resources records, if
resources are observed, shall be written
after work is completed and submitted to
the Anaheim Planning and Building
Department. Any artifacts collected during
monitoring shall be properly recorded,
identified, cataloged, and curated at an
appropriate institution.
IMPACT CUL-3: Construction of
the Proposed Project would
potentially cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a
paleontological resource.
Potentially
Significant
MM CUL-2: Prior to issuance of a grading
permit for any ground-disturbing activities,
the Property Owner/Developer shall retain
a qualified paleontologist meeting the
criteria established by the Society for
Vertebrate Paleontology who shall be
approved by Anaheim Planning and Building
Director. The paleontologist shall monitor
ground‐disturbing activities within the
Project site including digging, grubbing, or
excavation into older Quaternary alluvial
sediment types. Monitoring shall consist of
visually inspecting fresh exposures of rock
for larger fossil remains and, where
appropriate, collecting wet or dry screened
sediment samples of promising horizons for
smaller fossil remains. The frequency of
monitoring inspections shall be based on
the rate of excavation and grading activities,
the materials being excavated, and the
depth of excavation, and if found, the
abundance and type of fossils encountered.
If a potential fossil is found, the
paleontologist shall temporarily divert or
redirect grading and excavation activities in
the area of the exposed fossil to facilitate
evaluation and, if necessary, salvage the
find. The paleontologist shall evaluate the
significance of newly discovered
paleontological deposits and prepare and
implement a treatment plan for those
deposits, as appropriate. A paleontological
resources monitoring results report shall be
written after work is completed and
submitted to the Anaheim Planning and
Building Department. Any fossils collected
during monitoring shall be properly
recorded, identified, and cataloged by the
company that is conducting the monitoring
and then curated at the Natural History
Museum of Los Angeles County.
Less Than Significant
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
13
Potential Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
IMPACT CUL-4: Construction of
the Proposed Project would
potentially impact unknown
human remains within the
Proposed Project site.
Potentially
Significant
MM CUL-1 (see above) and MM CUL-3: In
the event human remains are discovered,
the Construction Contractor shall notify the
County Coroner of the find immediately and
no further disturbance shall occur until the
County Coroner has made a determination
of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC
Section 5097.98 (State of California 2006). If
human remains are found during grading, all
work in the immediate area (a radius of at
least 100 feet) shall stop, and all parties
shall follow all applicable state laws
regarding human remains. If the remains
are Native American, the coroner is
responsible for contacting the NAHC within
24 hours. The NAHC, pursuant to Section
5097.98, shall immediately notify those
persons it believes to be the Most Likely
Descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete
the inspection of the site within 48 hours of
notification and shall recommend
preservation in place, reburial, or the
scientific removal and nondestructive
analysis of human remains and items
associated with Native American burials.
Less Than Significant
3.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
IMPACT GEO-1: The Proposed
Project site would potentially
experience rupture of a known
earthquake fault in the vicinity.
Less Than
Significant
None required Less Than Significant
IMPACT GEO-2: The Proposed
Project site would potentially
experience strong seismic
ground shaking during seismic
events on regional faults in the
vicinity.
Less Than
Significant
None required Less Than Significant
IMPACT GEO-3: The Proposed
Project site would potentially
experience seismic-related
ground failure, including
liquefaction or landslides.
Potentially
Significant
MM GEO-1: Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit, the Property
Owner/Developer shall conduct
geotechnical field explorations, which shall
include Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs)
and CPTs to evaluate and quantify the
extent of liquefaction. The test results shall
be submitted to the Anaheim Public Works
Department for review and approval. If test
results show that liquefaction potential is
significant, the following measures shall be
implemented:
▪ Removal and recompaction of low-
density near-surface, loose sand
Less Than Significant
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
14
Potential Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
▪ Design of the proposed structures to
accommodate liquefaction-induced
settlement
▪ Compaction grouting
▪ Deep dynamic compaction
▪ Use of stone columns
MM GEO-2: Prior to issuance of a grading
permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall
submit a final geotechnical report to the
Anaheim Public Works Department
implementing the recommendations
contained in the Slope Stability Analysis
prepared by Leighton (September 2017) in
conjunction with any future proposed
development of the project site. These
recommendations shall also be
incorporated into the grading plan prepared
for the project site.
IMPACT GEO-4: The Proposed
Project would potentially result
in soil erosion or loss of topsoil
during sediment removal
activities.
Less Than
Significant
None required Less Than Significant
IMPACT GEO-5: The Proposed
Project would potentially be
located on a geologic unit that
is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of
the project, and could
potentially result in on- or off-
site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse.
Potentially
Significant
MM GEO-1 and MM GEO-2, see above. Less Than Significant
IMPACT GEO-6: The Proposed
Project is located on expansive
soil, creating substantial risks
to life or property.
Less Than
Significant
None required Less Than Significant
3.6 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
IMPACT GHG-1: The Proposed
Project would generate
greenhouse gas emissions.
Potentially
Significant
MM GHG-1: Prior to Certificate of
Occupancy, the Property Owner/Developer
or applicable designee (e.g., building
manager), for future tenants on the Project
site that employ 20 or more people, which
is typically equivalent to 16,000 square feet
of retail space, shall implement an
employee commute trip reduction (CTR)
Operation-related GHG
emissions would remain
Significant and
Unavoidable
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
15
Potential Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
program. The CTR shall identify alternative
modes of transportation to the Project site,
including transit schedules, bike and
pedestrian routes, and carpool/vanpool
availability. Information with regard to
these programs shall be readily available to
employees and clients (e.g., Go511.com).
This information shall be submitted to the
Anaheim Traffic and Transportation Division
prior to the first certificate of occupancy for
the Project. The Property Owner/Developer
or designee shall consider the following
incentives for commuters as part of the CTR
program:
▪ Ride-matching assistance (e.g.,
subsidized public transit passes);
▪ Vanpool assistance or employer-
provided vanpool/shuttle (OCTA
vanpool program provides a subsidy of
$400 to each vanpool);
▪ Car-sharing program (e.g., Zipcar or
other similar companies); and/or
▪ Bicycle end-trip facilities, including
bike parking and lockers.
MM GHG-2: Prior to issuance of issuance of
building permits, the Property
Owner/Developer shall demonstrate that
the Proposed Project will meet all applicable
GHG emissions thresholds at the time of
issuance of permits or if these thresholds
cannot be met, the Property
Owner/Developer will implement measures
to reduce the GHG emissions to the greatest
extent feasible by submitting a GHG
reduction plan to the Anaheim Planning and
Building Department. This information shall
be specifically shown on plans submitted for
building permits.
Examples of quantifiable reduction
measures are provided below:
▪ Require all future tenants to
implement a recycling program that
diverts 50 percent of the project
waste from landfills;
▪ Require all building structures be
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
16
Potential Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
designed to exceed the current Title
24 standards at the time of
construction;
▪ Require all lighting used on the Project
site to be high efficiency lighting that
is a minimum of 15 percent more
efficient than standard lighting;
▪ Require all dishwashers, fans,
refrigerators, and other appliances to
be Energy Star certified appliances;
and
▪ Require the on-site generation of the
Project electricity usage through use
of photovoltaic panels, co-generation
plants, fuel cells or other means.
IMPACT GHG-2: The Proposed
Project would conflict with an
applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases.
Potentially
Significant
MM GHG-1 and MM GHG-2, see above. Operation-related GHG
emissions would remain
Significant and
Unavoidable
3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
IMPACT HAZ-1: The Proposed
Project would create a hazard
to the public or the
environment through the
routine transport, use or
disposal of hazardous
materials.
Less Than
Significant
None required Less Than Significant
IMPACT HAZ-2: The Proposed
Project would create a
significant hazard to the public
or the environment through
reasonable foreseeable upset
and accident conditions
involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment.
Potentially
Significant
MM HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of a grading
permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall
prepare a Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment conducted under the oversight
of the Department of Toxic Substance
Control, RWQCB, or the Orange County
Health Care Agency and submit it to the
Anaheim Planning and Building Department
for review. The Phase II ESA shall include
soil and soil vapor sampling to assess the
Project site for potential contaminants,
including, but not limited to, petroleum
hydrocarbons, VOCs, semi-volatile organic
compounds (SVOCs), heavy metals,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and
pesticides. A Phase II sampling plan shall
consider the geotechnical requirements to
prepare potentially contaminated site soils
for development of the Project site and
Less Than Significant
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
17
Potential Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
shall also consider the thickness of soils and
soil types that will be imported to the
Project site to achieve final grade. These
factors will affect the potential for exposure
to potentially contaminated soils during
earthwork activities and the post-
development potential for indoor air
exposure to potentially contaminated soil
vapor. Additionally, a sampling plan shall be
prepared and implemented prior to
importing soil to the Project site for infill
purposes in order to verify that imported
soils will meet regulatory screening levels
for commercial property use.
MM HAZ-2: Prior to issuance of a grading
permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall
conduct a review of DOGGR records. A
methane survey shall be conducted, under
oversight from the OCFA, if it is determined
that the oil well is located within 100 feet
from the Project site, or if the location of
the well cannot be accurately determined. A
methane survey work plan shall be
submitted to the OCFA, prior to issuance of
a grading permit. The methane survey and
methane mitigation, if determined to be
required, shall be in accordance with the
OCFA Combustible Soil Gas Hazard
Mitigation Guideline C-03 (OCFA, 2008).
MM HAZ-3: Prior to issuance of a grading
permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall
abandon the existing groundwater
monitoring well in accordance with
applicable City and OCWD requirements. A
Well Destruction Permit shall be obtained
from the Environmental Services Division of
the Anaheim Public Utilities Department
(APUD). Any other wells discovered during
grading or demolition shall also be
destroyed under a revised Well Destruction
Permit. Proof of proper abandonment shall
be submitted to the APUD.
IMPACT HAZ-3: The Proposed
Project would emit hazardous
emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing
or proposed school.
Less Than
Significant
None required Less Than Significant
IMPACT HAZ-4: The Proposed
Project would be located on a
site which is included on a list
No Impact None required No Impact
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
18
Potential Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would
create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment.
IMPACT HAZ-5: The Proposed
Project would impair
implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan.
Less Than
Significant
None required Less Than Significant
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
IMPACT HYDRO-1: The
Proposed Project would violate
any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements.
Potentially
Significant
MM HYDRO-1: Prior to the issuance of a
precise grading permit, the Property
Owner/Developer shall prepare and submit
to the Anaheim Public Works Department a
program-level WQMP consistent with the
existing Preliminary WQMP (March 17,
2017). It shall describe the menu of BMPs
chosen for the Proposed Project and include
operation and maintenance requirements
for all structural and any treatment control
BMPs in compliance with the 2011 Model
WQMP and Technical Guidance Document
(TGD). Future project-specific WQMPs,
preliminary or final, shall also be prepared
for future development, consistent with the
terms and content of the program-level
Preliminary WQMP for the Proposed
Project, while developing specific water
quality solutions for each individual
development area. More specifically, LID
and water quality treatment solutions
prescribed in project-specific WQMPs shall
be designed to supplement or enhance the
regional LID BMPs prescribed in the
program-level Preliminary WQMP.
MM HYDRO-2: Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit, the Property
Owner/Developer shall provide to the
Anaheim Public Works Department a Notice
of Intent and WDID Number issued from the
SWRCB in accordance with the
requirements of the GCP to ensure the
potential for soil erosion and construction
impacts are minimized. In accordance with
the updated GCP (Order No. 2009-0009-
DWQ), the following PRDs are required to
be submitted to the SWRCB prior to
Less Than Significant
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
19
Potential Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
commencement of construction activities:
▪ Notice of Intent (NOI)
▪ Risk Assessment (Standard or Site-
Specific)
▪ Particle Size Analysis (if site-specific
risk assessment is performed)
▪ Site Map
▪ Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
(ESCP)
▪ Post-Construction Water Balance
Calculator (not required – project is
covered under the North Orange
County MS4 permit Order No. R9-
2009-0030)
▪ Active Treatment System (ATS) Design
Documentation (if ATS is determined
necessary)
▪ Annual Fee & Certification
MM HYDRO-3: In accordance with the
existing and updated Anaheim Grading
Code, prior to commencement of
construction activities, the Property
Owner/Developer shall prepare and submit
to the Anaheim Public Works Department a
construction ESCP. The ESCP shall be
implemented and revised as necessary, as
administrative or physical conditions
change. The ESCP shall describe
construction BMPs that address pollutant
source reduction, and provide
measures/controls necessary to mitigate
potential pollutant sources. These
measures/controls include, but are not
limited to erosion controls, sediment
controls, tracking controls, non-storm water
management, materials & waste
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
20
Potential Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
management, and good housekeeping
practices,1 including the following:
▪ Erosion control BMPs, such as
hydraulic mulch, soil binders, and
geotextiles and mats, protect the soil
surface by covering and/or binding the
soil particles. Temporary earth dikes or
drainage swales may also be employed
to divert runoff away from exposed
areas and into more suitable locations.
If implemented correctly, erosion
controls can effectively reduce the
sediment loads entrained in storm
water runoff from construction sites.
▪ Sediment controls are designed to
intercept and filter out soil particles
that have been detached and
transported by the force of water. All
storm drain inlets on the Project site or
within the project vicinity (i.e., along
streets immediately adjacent to the
Project boundary) should be
adequately protected with an
impoundment (i.e., gravel bags) around
the inlet and equipped with a sediment
filter (i.e., fiber roll). Bags should also
be placed around areas of soil
disturbing activities, such as grading or
clearing.
▪ Stabilize all construction entrance/exit
points to reduce the tracking of
sediments onto adjacent streets. Wind
erosion controls should be employed in
conjunction with tracking controls.
▪ Non-storm water management BMPs
prohibit the discharge of materials
other than storm water, as well as
reduce the potential for pollutants
from discharging at their source.
Examples include avoiding paving and
grinding operations during the rainy
season (i.e., October 1 through April 30
each year) where feasible, and
performing any vehicle equipment
1 California Stormwater Quality Association. (2003, January). Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook for New Development
and Redevelopment. Retrieved January 27, 2009, from http://www.cabmphandbooks.com
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
21
Potential Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
cleaning, fueling and maintenance in
designated areas that are adequately
protected and contained.
▪ Waste management consists of
implementing procedural and
structural BMPs for collecting,
handling, storing and disposing of
wastes generated by a construction
project to prevent the release of waste
materials into storm water discharges.
IMPACT HYDRO-2: The
Proposed Project would
substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local
groundwater table level.
Less Than
Significant
None required Less Than Significant
IMPACT HYDRO-3: The
Proposed Project would
substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site,
which would potentially result
in substantial erosion or
siltation, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding
on- or off-site.
Less Than
Significant
None required Less Than Significant
IMPACT HYDRO-4: The
Proposed Project would create
or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems
or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted
runoff.
Less Than
Significant
None required Less Than Significant
IMPACT HYDRO-5: The
Proposed Project would
otherwise substantially
degrade water quality.
Potentially
Significant
MM HYDRO-1, MM HYDRO-2, and MM
HYDRO-3, see above.
Less Than Significant
IMPACT HYDRO-6: The
Proposed Project would place
structures within a 100-year
flood hazard area.
Potentially
Significant
MM HYDRO-4: Prior to issuance of a
grading permit in conjunction with a future
development of the project site, the
Property Owner/Developer shall a) submit a
floodplain analysis to the Anaheim Public
Works and Planning Departments for review
Less Than Significant
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
22
Potential Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
and approval. The flood plain analysis will
include (1) 200-yr water surface elevations
approved by U.S. ACOE on the Santa Ana
River along the project frontage, (2) possible
impact of inlet closure of existing overflow
bypass structure (crossing Ball Road) on the
recharging basin water surface north of Ball
Road and any affected existing structures or
Santa Ana River levee, and (3) longitudinal
and transverse sections of the entire
proposed site with existing grades. The
recommendations contained in the analysis,
including a CLOMR/LOMR if required, shall
be implemented prior to issuance of a
building permit; and b) storm drain
improvement plans shall be submitted for
the modification of the Chantilly Storm
Drain and closure of the inlet structure from
Burris Basin.
IMPACT HYDRO-7: The
Proposed Project would
substantially degrade water
quality by contributing
pollutants from areas of
mineral storage, vehicle or
equipment fueling, vehicle or
equipment maintenance, or by
discharge which affects the
beneficial uses (i.e., swimming,
fishing, etc.) of the receiving or
downstream waters.
Potentially
Significant
MM HYDRO-1, MM HYDRO-2, and MM
HYDRO-3, see above.
Less Than Significant
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
IMPACT LU-1: The Proposed
Project would conflict with any
applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.
Less Than
Significant
None required. Less Than Significant
3.10 NOISE
IMPACT NOISE-1: The
Proposed Project would result
in exposure of persons to or
generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established
in the local general plan or
Potentially
Significant
MM NOISE-1: Prior to issuance of all
demolition, grading and building permits,
the Property Owner/Developer shall
indicate on plans adherence to the
following noise attenuation requirements:
Less Than Significant
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
23
Potential Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies.
▪ All construction equipment shall
operate with mufflers and intake
silencers no less effective than
originally equipped.
▪ All construction activities shall be
restricted from occurring between
7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., unless the
contractor obtains authorization from
the Director of Public Works or
Building Official to extend
construction work hours.
IMPACT NOISE-2: The
Proposed Project would result
in exposure of persons to or
generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels.
Less Than
Significant
None required Less Than Significant
IMPACT NOISE-3: The
Proposed Project would result
in a substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without
the project.
Less Than
Significant
None required Less Than Significant
IMPACT NOISE-4: The
Proposed Project would result
in a substantial temporary or
periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing
without the project.
Less Than
Significant
None required Less Than Significant
3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
IMPACT POP-1: The Proposed
Project would induce
substantial population growth
in an area, either directly or
indirectly.
Less Than
Significant
None required Less Than Significant
3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES
IMPACT PUB-1: The Proposed
Project would result in
substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the
provision of or need for new or
physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could
cause significant
environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable
Less Than
Significant
None required Less Than Significant
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
24
Potential Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
service ratios, response times
or other performance
objectives for fire protection,
police protection, schools,
parks or other public facilities.
3.13 RECREATION
IMPACT REC-1: The Proposed
Project would increase the use
of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that
substantial physical
deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated.
Less Than
Significant
None required Less Than Significant
IMPACT REC-2: The Proposed
Project would include
recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion
of existing recreational
facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the
environment.
Less Than
Significant
None required Less Than Significant
3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
IMPACT TRAF-1: The Proposed
Project would conflict with an
applicable plan, ordinance or
policy establishing measure of
effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation
system.
Potentially
Significant
MM TRAF-1: Prior to the first final building
and zoning inspection, the Property
Owner/Developer shall implement the
following improvements, identified in the
Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment
and Zone Change Project Traffic Impact
Study, Transpo Group, February 2017
(Appendix I of this EIR), under the Existing
Plus Projects scenario, that are required by
the Anaheim Municipal Code:
▪ Ball Road between Phoenix Club Drive
and Orange City Limits- add one
westbound lane and one eastbound
lane
▪ Phoenix Club Drive, south of Ball
Road- widen street to six lane divided
arterial.
The Property Owner/Developer is
responsible for the full cost of these
improvements. The Property
Owner/Developer shall construct, bond for
or enter into a funding agreement for
necessary circulation system improvements,
as determined by the City Traffic and
Transportation Manager.
Impacts to Caltrans
Freeway Mainline and
Weaving Segments
would remain Significant
and Unavoidable.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
25
Potential Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
MM TRAF-2: Prior to issuance of the first
grading permit, the Property
Owner/Developer shall submit to the City
Traffic and Transportation Manager a traffic
improvement phasing analysis to identify
when the improvements identified in the
Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment
and Zone Change Project Traffic Impact
Study, Transpo Group, February 2017
(Appendix I of this EIR), but not included in
MM TRAF-3, shall be designed and
constructed.
The improvements below are required
under the Existing Plus Projects scenario.
The Property Owner/Developer is
responsible for the full cost of these
improvements:
▪ Phoenix Club Drive/Ball Road- stripe
northbound approach to provide 2
left, 1 through, and 1 right turn lane,
add one eastbound right turn lane,
add one westbound left turn lane, add
northbound and eastbound right turn
overlap phases.
▪ Ball Road between Sunkist St and SR-
57 Southbound Off Ramp- add one
westbound lane
▪ Ball Road between SR-57 Northbound
On Ramp and Phoenix Club Drive- add
one westbound lane
▪ Taft Avenue between Anaheim City
Limits and Main Street- add one
westbound lane and one eastbound
lane.
The improvements below are required
under the General Plan Buildout plus
Project scenario. The Property
Owner/Developer is responsible for the fair
share cost of these improvements:
▪ Ball Road between SR-57 Southbound
Off Ramp and SR-57 Northbound On
Ramp - add one westbound lane
▪ Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue- add
one northbound right turn lane,
convert northbound shared through
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
26
Potential Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
right into a right turn lane
▪ Katella Avenue/SR-55 SB Ramps-
convert second southbound left turn
lane to shared left-right turn lane, add
one westbound left turn lane.
The traffic improvement phasing analysis
will specify the timing for construction for
these traffic improvements when necessary
to maintain satisfactory levels of service
within the Cities of Anaheim and Orange as
defined by the City’s General Plan, based on
thresholds of significance, performance
standards and methodologies utilized in EIR
No. 345, Orange County Congestion
Management Program and established in
Cities of Anaheim and Orange Traffic Study
Guidelines. The analysis shall also include
fair-share responsibilities for the
improvements identified in MM TRAF 2(b).
A cost estimate for these improvements
shall be provided for approval by the City
Traffic and Transportation Manager, which
shall include intersection improvements,
rights-of-way, and construction costs, unless
alternative funding sources have been
identified to help pay for the improvement.
The Property Owner/Developer shall
construct, bond for or enter into a funding
agreement for necessary circulation system
improvements, as determined by the City
Traffic and Transportation Manager.
Property Owner/Developer
MM TRAF-3: In conjunction with the
preparation of the traffic improvement
phasing analysis required by MM TRAF-2,
the Property Owner/Developer shall take
the following actions in cooperation with
the Cities of Anaheim and Orange:
a) The traffic improvement phasing analysis
shall identify any impacts created by the
project on facilities within the City of
Orange.
b) The traffic improvement phasing analysis
shall calculate the project’s responsibility
for mitigating these impacts.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
27
Potential Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
c) The Property Owner/Developer shall
estimate the cost of the improvements in
cooperation with the Cities of Anaheim and
Orange.
d) The Property Owner/Developer shall pay
the cost responsible for the improvements
to City of Anaheim prior to issuance of a
building permit.
e) The City of Anaheim shall hold the
amount received in trust, and then, once a
mutually agreed upon joint program is
executed by both cities, the City of Anaheim
shall allocate the project contribution to
traffic mitigation programs that result in
improved traffic flow at the impacted
locations, via an agreement mutually
acceptable to both cities.
MM TRAF-4: In conjunction with the
preparation of the traffic improvement
phasing analysis required by MM TRAF-2,
the Property Owner/Developer shall take
the following actions in cooperation with
Caltrans and the City of Anaheim:
a) The traffic improvement phasing analysis
shall identify the project’s proportionate
impact on the specific freeway mainline
and/or freeway ramp locations.
b) The traffic improvement phasing analysis
shall determine the Property
Owner/Developer’s responsibility for
mitigating project impacts based on
thresholds of significance, performance
standards and methodologies utilized in EIR
No. 345 and established in the Orange
County Congestion Management Program
and City of Anaheim Traffic Study
Guidelines.
c) The traffic improvement phasing analysis
shall determine if a regional transportation
agency has programmed and funded the
warranted improvements to the impacted
freeway mainline or freeway ramp locations
d) The Property Owner/Developer shall
estimate the cost of the project’s
responsibility in cooperation with Caltrans
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
28
Potential Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
and the City of Anaheim.
e) The Property Owner/Developer shall pay
the cost responsible for the improvements
to City of Anaheim as determined above
prior to issuance of a building permit.
f) The City shall allocate the property
owners/developers contribution to traffic
mitigation programs that result in improved
traffic flow on the impacted mainline and
ramp locations, via an agreement mutually
acceptable to Caltrans and the City of
Anaheim.
MM TRAF-5: Prior to the first final building
and zoning inspection, as identified in the
approved traffic improvement phasing
analysis prepared as part of MM TRAF-2,
the Property Owner/Developer shall
implement traffic improvements to
maintain satisfactory levels of services, as
identified in the project traffic improvement
phasing analysis.
IMPACT TRAF-2: The Proposed
Project would conflict with an
applicable congestion
management program.
No Impact None required No Impact
IMPACT TRAF-3: The Proposed
Project would conflict with
adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities
supporting alternative
transportation.
Less Than
Significant
None required Less Than Significant
3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
IMPACT UTIL-1: The Proposed
Project would exceed
wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
Board.
Less Than
Significant
None required Less Than Significant
IMPACT UTIL-2: The Proposed
Project would require or result
in the construction of new
water or wastewater
treatment facilities (including
sewer (waste water) collection
Less Than
Significant
None required Less Than Significant
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
29
Potential Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
facilities) or expansion of
existing facilities, the
construction of which could
cause significant
environmental effects.
IMPACT UTIL-3: The Proposed
Project would require or result
in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities
or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental effects.
Less Than
Significant
None required Less Than Significant
IMPACT UTIL-4: The Proposed
Project may not have sufficient
water supplies available to
serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources,
and may require new or
expanded entitlements.
Less Than
Significant
None required Less Than Significant
IMPACT UTIL-5: The Proposed
Project would result in a
determination by the
wastewater treatment
provider that it has adequate
capacity to serve the projected
demand in addition to the
provider’s existing
commitments.
Less Than
Significant
None required Less Than Significant
IMPACT UTIL-6: The Proposed
Project would be served by a
landfill with insufficient
permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s
solid waste disposal needs.
Less Than
Significant
None required Less Than Significant
IMPACT UTIL-7: The Proposed
Project would result in a need
for new systems or supplies or
substantial alterations related
to electricity.
Less Than
Significant
None required Less Than Significant
IMPACT UTIL-8: The Proposed
Project would result in a need
for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations related
to natural gas.
Less Than
Significant
None required Less Than Significant
IMPACT UTIL-9: The Proposed
Project would result in a need
for new systems or supplies or
substantial alterations related
to telephone service.
Less Than
Significant
None required Less Than Significant
IMPACT UTIL-10: The Proposed Less Than None required Less Than Significant
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
30
Potential Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Project would result in a need
for new systems or supplies or
substantial alterations related
to television/reception.
Significant
0.6. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires consideration and discussion of alternatives to the
Proposed Project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Proposed Project and
would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. Development of the
Project site as a public park, use of the Project site for an electrical generation station, use of an
alternative site for commercial development, and alternatives for residential development of the Project
site were considered but rejected from consideration in this EIR because none of the established
objectives for commercial development would be met (see further discussion in Section 4.4). Four
alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative (Proposed Project) are briefly summarized here.
▪ Preferred Alternative (Proposed Project) – The Proposed Project would amend the Project site’s
General Plan land use designation from Open Space to General Commercial and zoning
designation from Transitional (T) Zone and Industrial (I) Zone to the General Commercial (C-G)
Zone to allow commercial development. This would allow a maximum FAR of 0.5, which
translates into 425,000 square feet of commercial development. Environmental impacts to air
quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazardous and hazardous
materials, hydrology and water quality, and noise would be less than significant with mitigation;
however, impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions and transportation and traffic would be
cumulatively significant and unavoidable.
▪ No Project Alternative – This alternative assumes that changes described for the Proposed
Project would not be implemented; thus, no environmental impacts would occur as a result of
this alternative.
▪ Reduced Project Alternative – This alternative would reduce the overall land use intensity by 50
percent and density from 0.5 FAR assumed for the Proposed Project to 0.25 FAR. Environmental
impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas
emissions, hazardous and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, and
transportation would be reduced; however, the amount of reduction cannot be quantified at
this time. Despite the reduction of environmental impacts, it is likely that impacts to greenhouse
gas emissions and traffic would remain cumulatively significant and unavoidable.
▪ Mixed Use Alternative – This alternative would allocate four acres of the 19.5-acre Project site
to multi-family residential. The remaining 15.5 acres would contain commercial uses.
Environmental impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils,
greenhouse gas emissions, hazardous and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality,
noise, and transportation would be reduced; however, the amount of reduction cannot be
quantified at this time. Despite the reduction of environmental impacts, it is likely that impacts
to greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic would remain cumulatively significant and unavoidable.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
31
The Preferred Alternative is discussed in detail in Chapters 2.0 and 3.0. The remaining alternatives are
discussed in Chapter 4.0 of this document.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
32
CHAPTER 1.0 – INTRODUCTION
1.1. PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
All “projects” within the State of California are required to undergo environmental review to determine
the environmental impacts associated with implementation of the project in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
CEQA was enacted in 1970 by the California Legislature to disclose to decision makers and the public the
significant environmental effects of a Proposed Project and identify possible ways to avoid or minimize
significant environmental effects of a project by requiring implementation of mitigation measures or
recommending feasible alternatives. CEQA applies to all California governmental agencies at all levels,
including local, regional and state, as well as boards, commissions, and special districts. As such, the City
is required to conduct an environmental review to analyze the potential environmental effects
associated with the Proposed Project. The City is the lead agency for the preparation of this Draft EIR in
accordance with CEQA.
This Draft EIR is circulated to the public and affected agencies for review and comment. One of the
primary objectives of CEQA is to enhance public participation in the planning process; public
involvement is an essential feature of CEQA. Community members can participate in the environmental
review process, request to be notified, monitor newspapers for formal announcements, and submit
substantive comments during scoping and review periods as prescribed by CEQA guidelines. The
environmental review process, diagramed below, illustrates the opportunities for the public to
participate during the scoping and public review of CEQA documents. Additionally, lead agencies are
required to respond to public comments in Final EIRs and consider comments from the scoping process
in the preparation of the Draft EIR.
The Environmental Review Process
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
33
1.2. SCOPE OF THE EIR
This section provides a summary of the issues addressed in the EIR. This Draft EIR was prepared
following input from the public, responsible agencies, and affected agencies through the EIR scoping
process, which included the following:
▪ In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study
(IS) were prepared and distributed to responsible agencies, affected agencies, and other
interested parties.
▪ The NOP was posted in the County Clerk’s office for 30 days. The NOP was submitted to the
State Clearinghouse to officially solicit participation in determining the scope of the EIR.
▪ A scoping meeting was conducted on Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 5:30 p.m. at the Council
Chamber, City Hall East, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805.
▪ Information requested and input provided during the 30-day public review period and the
scoping meeting, regarding the contents of the NOP/IS and the scope of the EIR were
incorporated in this Draft EIR.
The content of the Draft EIR was established based on the findings of the IS and public and agency input.
Under the CEQA Guidelines, the analysis in the Draft EIR is focused on issues determined in the IS to be
potentially significant, whereas issues found in the IS to have less than significant impacts or no impact,
do not require further evaluation. Therefore, based on the analysis contained in the IS, the following
issue areas were determined to have less than significant impacts or no impacts with respect to
implementation of the Proposed Project and would not require further evaluation in the Draft EIR:
▪ Agriculture and Forest Resources
▪ Mineral Resources
This Draft EIR analyzes the following environmental issues:
▪ Aesthetics
▪ Air Quality
▪ Biological Resources
▪ Cultural Resources
▪ Geology/Soils
▪ Greenhouse Gas Emissions
▪ Hazards & Hazardous Materials
▪ Hydrology/Water Quality
▪ Land Use/Planning
▪ Noise
▪ Population/Housing
▪ Public Services
▪ Recreation
▪ Transportation & Traffic
▪ Utilities/Service Systems
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
34
Mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level are proposed whenever feasible.
In addition to the environmental issues identified above, this Draft EIR also includes all of the sections
required by the CEQA Guidelines. (Table 1.2-1 contains a list of sections required under CEQA
Guidelines, along with reference to the chapter where these items can be found.)
Table 1.2-1 Required Sections in CEQA Guidelines
Section Title Location
Table of contents (Section 15122) Table of Contents
Summary (Section 15123) Executive Summary
Introduction (Section 15122) Chapter 1
Project Description (Section 15124) and environmental setting Chapter 2
Significant environmental impacts (Section 15126.2) Chapter 3.1-3.15
Unavoidable significant environmental impacts (Section 15126.2) Chapter 5
Mitigation Measures (Section 15126.4) Chapter 3.1-3.15
Cumulative impacts (Section 15130) Chapter 3.1-3.15
Alternatives to the Proposed Project (Section 15126.6) Chapter 4
Growth-inducing impacts (Section 15126.2) Chapter 5
Effects found not to be significant (Section 15128) Chapter 5
Organizations and persons consulted (Section 15129) Chapter 6 and 7
List of preparers Chapter 8
1.3. DRAFT EIR ORGANIZATION
The Draft EIR is organized into the following chapters so the reader can easily obtain information about
the Proposed Project and related environmental issues:
▪ Executive Summary – Presents a summary of the Proposed Project and alternatives, a discussion
of areas of controversy and issues to be resolved, and potential impacts and mitigation
measures.
▪ Chapter 1: Introduction – Describes the purpose and use of the Draft EIR, provides a brief
overview of the Proposed Project, and outlines the organization of the Draft EIR.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
35
▪ Chapter 2: Project Description and Environmental Setting – Describes the project location,
project details, baseline environmental setting and existing physical conditions and the overall
objectives for the Proposed Project.
▪ Chapter 3: Environmental Analysis – Describes the existing conditions, or setting, before project
implementation; methods and assumptions used in impact analysis; thresholds of significance;
impacts that would result from the Proposed Project; and applicable mitigation measures that
would eliminate or reduce significant impacts for each environmental issue.
▪ Chapter 4: Alternatives Analysis – Evaluates the environmental effects of project alternatives,
including the No-Project Alternative and Environmentally Superior Project Alternative.
▪ Chapter 5: Other CEQA Considerations – Includes a discussion of issues required by CEQA that
are not covered in other chapters. This includes unavoidable adverse impacts, impacts found not
to be significant, irreversible environmental changes, and growth inducing impacts.
▪ Chapter 6: Bibliography – Identifies the documents consulted in preparing the Draft EIR.
▪ Chapter 7: Organizations and Persons Consulted – Identifies organizations and individuals
consulted in preparing the Draft EIR.
▪ Chapter 8: Report Preparation – Lists the individuals involved in preparing the Draft EIR and
organizations and persons consulted.
▪ Appendices – Present data supporting the analysis or contents of this Draft EIR. The Appendices
include the following:
o APPENDIX A: Notice of Preparation, Initial Study, and Comment Summary
o APPENDIX B: Air Quality and Global Climate Change Impact Analysis
o APPENDIX C: Biological Technical Report
o APPENDIX D: Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
o APPENDIX E: Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources—Phase I
Assessment
o APPENDIX F: Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment and Slope Stability
Analysis
o APPENDIX G: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
o APPENDIX H: Noise Impact Analysis
o APPENDIX I: Traffic Impact Analysis
o APPENDIX J: Sewer Assessment Report
o APPENDIX K: Hydrology Technical Report
o APPENDIX L: Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
1.4. PUBLIC SCOPING PROCESS
This Draft EIR was prepared following input from the public, responsible agencies, and affected agencies
through the EIR scoping process, which included the following:
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
36
▪ In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was prepared and
distributed to responsible agencies, affected agencies, and other interested parties.
▪ The NOP was posted in the County Clerk’s office for 30 days. The NOP was submitted to the
State Clearinghouse to officially solicit participation in determining the scope of the EIR.
▪ A public scoping meeting was held for the Proposed Project on February 13, 2013. The scoping
meeting introduced the Proposed Project, outlined the environmental review process for the
EIR, and invited public comment on the scope and content of the EIR. Eight people attended the
meeting.
▪ In addition to the comments provided at the scoping meeting, several written comments were
received in response to the NOP/IS for this EIR.
The NOP/IS and a summary of the comments can be found in Appendix A. The key issues and areas of
controversy identified during the NOP process were discussed in the following chapters of this EIR:
Issue EIR Chapter
Impacts to Caltrans SR-57 facilities 3.14 Transportation and Traffic
Impacts to City of Orange roadways 3.14 Transportation and Traffic
Safety of rail corridor 3.14 Transportation and Traffic
Wetland loss and mitigation 3.3 Biological Resources
Delineation of creeks and associated riparian habitats 3.3 Biological Resources
Impacts to rare, endangered and threatened flora and
fauna
3.3 Biological Resources
Impacts to cultural resources
3.4 Cultural Resources
Impacts to Santa Ana River and Anaheim Coves Trails 3.13 Recreation
Impacts to open space access 3.1 Aesthetics, 3.9 Land Use and Planning, 3.13
Recreation
Impacts to water quality 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
1.5. AVAILABILITY OF THE DRAFT EIR
The Draft EIR for the Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Project is being
distributed directly to numerous agencies, organizations, and interested groups and persons for
comment during the formal review period. The Draft EIR is also available for review at the following
locations:
City of Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805
Anaheim Central Library, 500 W. Broadway, Anaheim, CA 92805
Sunkist Library, 901 S Sunkist Street, Anaheim, CA 92806
In addition, the Draft EIR is available on the City of Anaheim website at www.anaheim.net/planning
under the Quick Link to Current Environmental Documents.
1.6. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
37
Interested agencies and members of the public are invited to provide written comments on the Draft EIR
to the City. Due to the time limits mandated by state law [CEQA Guidelines Section 15205(d)],
comments must be sent to the City at the earliest possible date, but not later than July 23, 2018, which
is 45 days after publication of the Notice of Availability (NOA) for this Draft EIR. Upon completion of the
45-day review period, the City will review all written comments received and prepare written responses
for each comment. The Final EIR will then be prepared incorporating all of the comments received,
responses to the comments, and any changes to the Draft EIR that result from the comments received.
Correspondence and comments can be delivered to:
Susan Kim, Principal Planner
City of Anaheim, Planning Department
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, CA 92805
Comments can also be sent by EMAIL to skim@anaheim.net. Include “Ball Road Basin General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change Project” in the subject line. Agency responses to the Draft EIR should
include the name of a contact person within the commenting agency.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
38
CHAPTER 2.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This chapter provides a description of the Proposed Project. The project location, background, and
objectives are described, followed by a description of the Proposed Project, alternatives, and a summary
of project approvals that would be required.
2.1. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
2.1.1 LOCATION
The BRB is located in the south central portion of the City, in Orange County, California (see Figure 2-1,
Project Vicinity Map). BRB is approximately 19.5 acres and consists of four assessor parcels (APN's 253-
473-01 [6.48-acres], 253-631-32 [0.31-acres], 253-631-39 [12.69-acres] and 375-221-09 [0.1-acres])
owned by the Orange County Water District, and bounded by the Santa Ana River Center Levee and the
Santa Ana River to the east, Ball Road and the Burris Basin to the north, the Union Pacific Railroad to the
south, and Phoenix Club Drive to the west (see Figure 2-2, Project Boundary Map).
2.1.2 PROJECT SITE
BRB encompasses approximately 19.5 acres and has a holding capacity of 220 acre -feet of water. The
basin is approximately 20 feet below the surrounding grade level. Overflow from the adjacent upstream
Burris Recharge Basin drains into BRB. Storm water runoff from OCFCD facilities described below also
drains into BRB. The BRB was intended to retain this overflow and runoff so that the water could
percolate into the ground to replenish the groundwater basin. However, due to an extensive clay layer
underlying the basin, BRB is incapable of significant amounts of surface recharge.
The OCFCD has a flood control easement over the entire basin as well as a 100 foot wide area adjacent
to the Santa Ana River. The flood control easement would be abandoned with the construction of
infrastructure modifications as described in Section 2.4. The OCFCD’s Chantilly Storm Drain (CSD) crosses
the BRB. The CSD is fed by several tributary storm drains and generally parallels the SR -57 freeway
before discharging into the BRB at its southernmost reach. Runoff from CSD enters BRB at the northwest
corner of the Basin and flows in a southerly direction. In addition, 36-inch and 48-inch storm drains
collect runoff from Auto Center Drive and Sanderson Avenue, respectively, and dischar ge directly into
the western side of the basin. At the southern end of the basin is a 101-foot wide by 6-foot high sharp
crested concrete weir aligned in a north-south direction. During medium to high flow rates into BRB,
water spills over the weir and flows into a “sub-basin” before flowing through a 12-foot by 12-foot
concrete box and discharging into the Santa Ana River.
In addition to the OCFCD easements, Southern California Edison (SCE) has a 270 feet wide easement and
multiple transmission lines that cross the southern end of the BRB. The SCE easement will stay in place.
2.1.3 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION/ZONING
The City’s General Plan designation for the BRB is Open Space (see Figure 2-3, General Plan Land Use
Designations). The Open Space land use designation includes those areas intended to remain in natural
open space; utility easements that will provide recreational and trail access to Anaheim’s residents;
heavily landscaped freeway remnant parcels, and land areas surrounding major water features. The
Proposed Project site is designated Open Space due to its use as a recharge basin.
'JHVSF1SPKFDU7JDJOJUZ.BQ$JUZPG"OBIFJN0SBOHF$PVOUZ8BUFS%JTUSJDU
&OWJSPONFOUBM"EWJTPST
--$
%SBGU&*3#BMM3PBE#BTJO(FOFSBM1MBO"NFOENFOU;POF$IBOHF
0SBOHF$PVOUZ
Legend:
1SPKFDU#PVOEBSZ
Project
Location
Figure 2-2: Project Boundary MapCity of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
Draft EIR Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Orange County
253-473-01
253-631-39
253-631-32
375-221-09
Legend:
Project Boundary
City of Anaheim
Boundary
Figure 2-3: General Plan Land Use DesignationsCity of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
Draft EIR Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Orange County
Legend:
Parks
Water Uses
Mixed-Use Project Boundary
General Commercial
Commercial Recreation
Open Space
City of Orange
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
42
The Project site has two separate zoning designations (see Figure 2-4, Zoning Map). APN 375-221-09
does not have a zoning designation. APNs 253-473-01 and 253-641-39 are zoned Transitional (T) on the
City's zoning map. The City's Zoning Ordinance (Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code) describes the
“T” Zone as intended to provide for a zone to include land that is used for agricultural uses, in a
transitory or interim use, restricted to limited uses because of special conditions, or not zoned to one of
the zoning districts in contained in the City’s zoning code for whatever reason, including recent
annexation.
APN 253-631-32 is zoned Industrial (I) on the City's zoning map. The City's Zoning Ordinance describes
the "I" Zone as intending to provide for and encourage the development of industrial uses and their
related facilities, recognize the unique and valuable existing industrial land resources, and encourage
industrial employment opportunities within the City. Targeted industries include research and
development, repair services, wholesale activities, distribution centers, and manufacturing and
fabrication. In some situations, other types of uses are allowed with a conditional use permit.
Portions of APN 253-473-01 and 253-641-39 are also within a Flood Hazard Zone Overlay referred to in
the City’s zoning code as a Floodplain (FP) Overlay Zone. APN 375-221-09 is not zoned and therefore is
not within the City’s FP Overlay Zone. The whole Project site is located in FEMA FIRM Map Zone A flood
area, as discussed in Chapter 3.8, Hydrology. The FP Overlay Zone is combined with existing zones in
those areas within the City which, under present conditions, are subject to periodic flooding and
accompanying hazards. The zoning designation for the property constitutes the base or underlying zone
and the FP designation is the overlay zone. In the event of conflicting provisions between the underlying
“T” Zone and the (FP) Overlay Zone regulations, the more restrictive regulations shall apply. As noted in
the City’s zoning code, the objectives of the (FP) Overlay Zone are as follows:
▪ Prevent the loss of life and property, and minimize economic loss caused by flood flows.
▪ Establish criteria for land management and land use in flood-prone areas that are consistent
with the criteria promulgated by the Federal Insurance Administration, for the purpose of
providing flood insurance eligibility for property owners.
▪ Prohibit encroachments, new construction, or other improvements or development that would
obstruct or divert the flow of floodwaters within a regulatory floodway.
▪ Regulate and control the use of land below the elevation of the design flood flow within the
remainder of the floodplain.
▪ Compliance with the Cobey-Alquist Floodplain Management Act requirements for floodplain
management regulations.
Surrounding land uses include the Anaheim Auto Center and the SR-57 freeway to the west, Anaheim
Coves Nature Park and Trail, The Islands Golf Center, and OCWD Burris Basin to the north, the Santa Ana
River Center Levee and the Santa Ana River to the east, and commercial office uses, Honda Center, and
the Union Pacific Railroad to the south.
General Plan designations for land uses surrounding the Proposed Project site include General
Commercial, Water Uses, Parks, Mixed Use and Office Low. Zoning designations for surrounding land
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
43
uses include: General Commercial, Transitional, Transitional – Flood Hazard (FP) Overlay, Public
Recreational, Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone, and Industrial.
Figure 2-4: Zoning Map
Platinum Triangle
Mixed Use Overlay
Project Boundary
Legend:
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
O-L (Low Intensity Office)
PR (Public Recreation)
Flood Hazard
Transitional
Industrial
C-G (General Commercial)
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
45
2.1.4 SURROUNDING LAND USES
Surrounding land uses include the Anaheim Auto Center and the SR-57 freeway to the west, Anaheim
Coves Nature Park and Trail, The Islands Golf Center, and OCWD Burris Basin to the north, the Santa Ana
River Center Levee and the Santa Ana River to the east, and commercial office uses, Honda Center, and
the Union Pacific Railroad to the south.
General Plan designations for land uses surrounding the Proposed Project site include General
Commercial, Water Uses, Parks, Mixed Use and Office Low. Zoning designations for surrounding land
uses include: General Commercial, Transitional, Transitional – Flood Hazard (FP) Overlay, Public
Recreational, Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone, and Industrial.
2.1.5 SURROUNDING CIRCULATION
Ball Road and Phoenix Club Drive are located adjacent to the Proposed Project site to the north and
west. Local access to Proposed Project site is provided by Ball Road/Taft Avenue. Regional access to the
Project site is provided by State Route 57 (SR-57.
The Project site is currently served by OCTA Bus Route #46 on Ball Road. Route #46 extends from the
City of Orange, east of the Project site, to the City of Long Beach to the west. There are bus stops
located along Ball Road in each of the cities served by this route. There are existing bus stops on Ball
Road, in each direction, east of its intersection with Phoenix Club Drive.
Just east of the Proposed Project site is the Santa Ana River and the Santa Ana River Riding and Hiking
Trail, which is classified as a Class I Bikeway, and provides a continuous path between Huntington Beach
and Riverside County. North of the Project site is the Anaheim Coves Riding and Hiking Trail, which is
currently being expanded to provide a Class 1 Bikeway facility between Ball Road and Frontera Street, as
well as to the Santa Ana River Biking and Hiking Trail via Lincoln Avenue.
Pedestrian access to and from the Project site is generally gained from Ball Road. Sidewalks are available
on both sides of Ball Road and extend uninterrupted into the City of Orange to the east and to parts of
the City west of SR-57. Pedestrian access to the Project site may also be gained using the Santa Ana
River Riding and Hiking Trail, by exiting the trail at Ball Road and transitioning to the site along the Ball
Road sidewalk. In addition, pedestrian access is available from the Anaheim Coves Riding and Hiking
Trail; however, it currently requires crossing Ball Road using the crosswalk at the signalized intersection
of Phoenix Club Drive and Ball Road.
2.2. PROJECT BACKGROUND
2.2.1 OCWD HISTORY
OCWD was established by the State of California in 1933 to manage and protect the Orange County
Groundwater Basin, which encompasses over 229,000 acres in twenty cities, as well as unincorporated
areas on the coastal plain in northwest Orange County. OCWD owns over 1,000 acres of land in Orange
County. The majority of OCWD’s land is used to recharge water into the groundwater basin.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
46
2.2.2 BALL ROAD BASIN HISTORY
As part of the OCWD groundwater recharge program, several recharge basins were established along
the Santa Ana River. The BRB is the most down-gradient recharge basin in OCWD’s Off-River System, and
is located south of Ball Road and Burris Basin in south central Anaheim. The BRB was purchased in 1943
by OCWD, and was separated from the Santa Ana River in the early 1970’s with the construction of the
center levee.
OCWD analyzed the percolation rates of the BRB and its effectiveness as a recharge basin. In October
2006, OCWD determined that the basin was incapable of significant amounts of recharge due to an
extensive clay layer underlying the majority of the basin. OCWD analyzed various potential future uses
for the site including enhancing recharge operations, storm water storage, or selling/leasing the site for
commercial uses. The District has decided to pursue the latter and is now taking the necessary planning
steps to prepare the site for future commercial development.
In August 2007, OCWD submitted a Conceptual Development Review (CDR) Application for a General
Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zone Change (ZC) to permit general commercial development on the
Proposed Project site. In September 2007, the City provided comments on the CDR, indicating that an
EIR would be required for this project and the loss of open space would need to be addressed.
In April 2011, after discussions with the City, OCWD re-submitted the CDR for a GPA and ZC. OCWD
prepared an Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (NOP), which was reviewed and commented on by
the City. The Initial Study and NOP was released for public review from February 8, 2013 through March
11, 2013. A Scoping Meeting was held on February 13, 2013, to give the public the opportunity to learn
more about the Proposed Project and comment on potential environmental impacts to be studied in the
EIR for the Proposed Project. In December 2013, OCWD authorized a Lease Option Agreement with
Orange County Energy Park, LLC (OCEP), allowing OCEP to conduct due diligence as to the potential
leasing or purchasing of the Project site for an electrical generation station.
On February 13, 2014, the City released a NOP of an EIR for a Ball Road Basin Park Project. The proposed
Ball Road Basin Park Project involves the development of the BRB as an active public park with lighted
playing fields and associated parking, concession areas, playgrounds, and an adjacent riding/hiking trail
and bike path. As part of this Proposed Project, the BRB would be filled with engineered soil and the City
would develop a park facility to serve City residents with the ability to remain open 24 -hours a day. Also
as part of this Proposed Project, the City proposed a General Plan Amendment (Case No. GPA2014-
00491) to designate the BRB as Parks and a Zoning Reclassification to rezone the BRB to “PR” Public
Recreation (Case No. RCL2014-00261). Approval of this Proposed Project would require amendments to
the Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Map. This Project is discussed further under Section 4.4
Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration.
The City requested that OCWD include in the Proposed Project EIR analysis of an electrical generation
station alternative and a park alternative. On August 6, 2014, OCWD suspended preparation of the EIR
until the potential for an electrical generation station was resolved. In November 2014 OCEP terminated
the Lease Option Agreement. OCWD re-initiated preparation of the EIR in 2016. Under the Proposed
Project (General Plan Amendment and Zone Change), an electrical generation station would be
permitted subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the City, or separate State permitting, and
subsequent and related environmental analysis pursuant to CEQA. Given the additional discretionary
review required for an electrical generation station, analysis of this alternative would be speculative at
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
47
this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15163.6(f)(3), which states that “an EIR need not consider
an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and
speculative.” This alternative is discussed further under Section 4.4 Alternatives Eliminated From Further
Consideration.
2.3. PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
OCWD analyzed the percolation rates of the BRB, and its effectiveness as a recharge basin. The basin
was found to be incapable of significant amounts of recharge due to an extensive clay layer underlying
the majority of the basin. Stormwater flows into the BRB and is discharged into the adjacent Santa Ana
River. OCWD analyzed various potential future uses for the site including enhancing recharge
operations, storm water storage, or selling/leasing the site for commercial uses. The District has decided
to pursue the latter and is now taking the necessary planning steps to prepare the site for future
development.
The following objectives have been established for the Proposed Project:
1. Allow commercial development of the Project site.
2. Permit a viable and productive use of an obsolete groundwater recharge basin.
3. Generate non-operating revenues for the Orange County Water District
2.4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The OCWD is proposing to amend the City of Anaheim’s General Plan and Zoning Map to allow the
eventual commercial development of the Ball Road Basin. The Proposed Project would change the City’s
General Plan Land Use designation for the Project site from Open Space to General Commercial and the
zoning from the Transitional (T) and Industrial (I) Zones to the General Commercial (C-G) Zone. In
addition, the Proposed Project includes amending the General Plan Circulation and Green Elements to
add a Proposed Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area along the northern, eastern and southern edges of the
Project site. The Proposed Project does not include a specific development plan for Project site.
General Plan Land Use Designation
The City of Anaheim General Plan has three separate land use designations related to Open Space and
Recreation. These land use designations are Open Space, Parks and Water Uses. The Open Space land
use designation includes those areas intended to remain in natural open space; utility easements that
will provide recreational and trail access to Anaheim’s residents; heavily landscaped freeway remnant
parcels, and land areas surrounding major water features. The Parks designation allows for active and
passive recreational uses such as parks, trails, athletic fields, interpretive centers and golf courses. The
Water Uses designation applies to water bodies, such as the Santa Ana River, lakes, and reservoirs, and
other water-related uses such as flood control channels and drainage basins. The General Plan
designates the subject property for Open Space land use.
The Proposed Project would change the General Plan designation of the property from Open Space to
General Commercial. Areas designated for General Commercial land use may, but do not necessarily,
serve the adjacent neighborhood or surrounding clusters of neighborhoods. General Commercial land
uses include a variety of land uses, including neighborhood-serving food markets, drug stores,
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
48
restaurants, small hardware stores, child care centers, health clubs, large grocery stores, appliance
stores, neighborhood-serving restaurants, bakeries, banks, specialty shops, some low intensity civic
uses, and other retail and professional uses. In addition, these areas may include highway-serving uses
such as fast food restaurants, auto-oriented uses such as tire stores, service stations, auto parts stores,
and other stand-alone retail uses.
Zone Change
The Proposed Project would change the zoning designation of the site from Transitional (T) Zone and
Industrial (I) Zone to the General Commercial (C-G) Zone. The "T" Zone includes land used for
agricultural uses, a transitory or interim use, or restricted to limited uses because of special
conditions. The “I” Zone is for industrial uses and their related facilities. Targeted industries include
research and development, repair services, wholesale activities, distribution centers, and manufacturing
and fabrication. In some situations, the City allows other types of uses through the approval of a
conditional use permit. The “C-G” Zone allows a variety of commercial land uses by right (without
further discretionary approval), including commercial retail centers, convenience stores, grocery stores,
offices, personal services and restaurants, at a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.5. Additional uses
permitted within the C-G Zone are subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. This zone
implements the General Commercial land use designation contained in the Land Use Element of the
Anaheim General Plan. A portion of the site is also within the Floodplain (FP) Overlay Zone. No change is
proposed to the overlay zone.
Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area
The Proposed Project would amend the General Plan Circulation and Green Elements to designate a
Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area along the northern, eastern and southern perimeter of the Project
site. The proposed multi-purpose trail would serve as a southern extension of the Anaheim Coves Class 1
Bike Path/Riding and Hiking Trail located to the north across Ball Road. Class I Bike Paths are identified
within the Circulation Element in Figure C-5: Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities. Class 1 Bike Paths
provide for bicycle travel on right-of-way completely separated from the street. Trail Study Areas are
identified in the Green Element in Figure G-5: Equestrian, Riding and Hiking Trails Plan. Trail Study Areas
depict potential trail locations that connect residents with recreational opportunities, schools and
activity centers such as Downtown, Anaheim Canyon, The Anaheim Resort and the Platinum Triangle.
The locations of these study areas are based on existing utility easements, railroad rights-of-way and
flood control channels. Although they are mapped, the feasibility of their implementation has yet to be
determined. Future implementation of the Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area will potentially include
analysis of necessary intergovernmental or joint use agreements (i.e. lease, license, easement, joint use
agreement); law enforcement jurisdiction; potential property acquisition; maintenance responsibilities;
cost sharing; allowable trail uses; physical obstacles; ownership constraints; and, funding issues to
determine feasibility.
Site Development
The Proposed Project does not include a specific development plan for BRB. The intent of the
commercial zoning is to allow a variety of land uses either “by right” as a permitted use or discretionary
by Conditional Use Permit. Uses permitted by right that are within the C-G Zone and that comply with
the development standards of the C-G Zone may not be subject to further environmental review under
CEQA and could be implemented upon approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
49
change. Only uses and development that require discretionary approval will require future
environmental review under CEQA.
In order to evaluate potential environmental impacts resulting from the change in land use, this EIR uses
the intensity threshold in the Anaheim General Plan for the General Commercial land use designation
and the maximum FAR permitted by the Anaheim Municipal Code for development within the C -G Zone.
The Anaheim General Plan Land Use Map and Element and the C -G Zone limit commercial development
to a maximum FAR of 0.5. This translates into 425,000 square feet of commercial development for the
19.5-acre Project site. This analysis also anticipates a Project operation date of 2025. All direct and
indirect impacts resulting from the construction of a 425,000 square foot commercial project including
required street, sewer, storm drain, water and other infrastructure requirements will be analyzed.
In order to facilitate development of the Project site, the existing OCFCD CSD and other storm drain
facilities that currently flow into the Proposed Project site would be relocated. Burris Basin has an
existing spillway structure that diverts water to BRB and eventually to the Santa Ana River in the event
of an overflow. The overflow water is conveyed to BRB through an existing vehicular access tunnel,
which is a 14-foot wide by 13-foot high reinforced concrete box underneath Ball Road. This vehicular
access tunnel would be abandoned as part of the implementation of the Proposed Project. A new
overflow structure for Burris Basin would be constructed to provide an outlet to the Santa Ana River.
This new facility would include an inlet and outlet structure, piping, valves, and appurtenances. A 100-
foot wide construction and maintenance easement, surrounding the inlet and outlet structure at Santa
Ana River, would be retained as an OCFCD easement. In addition, commercial development of the
Project site would require an engineered fill to provide useable building pad areas as well as street
sewer, water and other infrastructure improvements.
It is understood that more refined technical studies pertaining to hydrology and geology (soils) will be
performed once a specific development project is proposed for the site, as detailed analysis for these
technical areas would be speculative at this stage in the process and would not yield meaningful public
review. Subsequent hydrological studies will focus on floodplain analysis, reconfiguration of the
Chantilly Storm Drain, and the inlet closure related to the bypass structure connected to Burris Basin. In
addition, prior to grading plan approval a final geotechnical report incorporating the recommendations
pertaining to the Slope Stability Analysis will be submitted to Anaheim Public Works for review and
approval.
To model and assess impacts resulting from the Proposed Project, a mass grade conceptual layout was
prepared which included building pads, on-site drainages facilities, an on-site sewer system, the
rerouting of two local drainage facilities, and the relocation of the existing CSD. Details of the conceptual
plans and assumptions used for modeling purposes are discussed and analyzed in Chapter 3 of this
document.
2.5. INTENDED USES OF THE EIR
2.5.1 LEAD AGENCY APPROVAL
The Final EIR must be reviewed by the Anaheim Planning Commission and certified by the Anaheim City
Council as to its adequacy in complying with the requirements of CEQA before taking any action on the
Proposed Project. The City Council will consider the information contained in the EIR in making a
decision to approve or deny the BRB General Plan Amendment and Zone Change (Proposed Project). The
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
50
analysis in the EIR is intended to provide a full disclosure of the Proposed Project’s potential
environmental impacts in accordance with CEQA requirements.
2.5.2 OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS
A Responsible Agency is a public agency, other than the lead agency, that has discretionary approval
authority over a project. The Responsible Agencies, and their corresponding approvals, for this Project
include the following:
▪ OCWD – property transactions
▪ California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) – Section 1600 Streambed Alteration
Agreement
▪ California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) – Right-of-Way (ROW) Construction Permit
▪ Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) – Section 401 Water Quality Certification
▪ US Army Corps of Engineers – Section 404 Permit
2.5.3 REVIEWING AGENCIES
Reviewing Agencies include those agencies that do not have discretionary powers, but that may review
the Draft EIR for adequacy and accuracy. Potential Reviewing Agencies include the following:
Regional Agencies
▪ Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
▪ South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
▪ OCFCD
▪ City of Orange
▪ County of Orange
▪ California Public Utilities Commission
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
51
CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ADDRESSED
An IS was prepared for the Proposed Project in December 2010 (see Appendix A). Based on the findings
documented in the IS, the City determined that an EIR would be required for the Proposed Project. Two
issue areas, Agricultural Resources and Mineral Resources, were identified as having no impact. These
issues areas are not included for further analysis in the EIR. All other issue areas were identified as
having potentially significant impacts in the IS are further analyzed in this EIR.
The City used the IS, as well as agency and public input received during the NOP public comment period
(February 8, 2013 to March 11, 2013), to determine the final scope for this EIR. The issue areas and their
corresponding subchapter numbers discussed in the EIR include:
▪ 3.1 – Aesthetics
▪ 3.2 – Air Quality
▪ 3.3 – Biological Resources
▪ 3.4 – Cultural Resources
▪ 3.5 – Geology and Soils
▪ 3.6 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
▪ 3.7 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
▪ 3.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality
▪ 3.9 – Land Use and Planning
▪ 3.10 – Noise
▪ 3.11 – Population and Housing
▪ 3.12 – Public Services
▪ 3.13 – Recreation
▪ 3.14 – Transportation and Traffic
▪ 3.15 – Utilities and Service Systems
Chapters 3.1 through 3.15 provide a detailed discussion of the environmental setting, applicable project
design features, impacts associated with the Proposed Project, cumulative impacts, and mitigation
measures designed to reduce significant impacts.
ORGANIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
To assist the reader in comparing information about the various environmental issues, each chapter
contains the following information.
▪ Introduction
▪ Existing Environmental Setting
▪ Applicable Regulations
▪ Significance Criteria
▪ Impacts and Mitigation
o Methodology (if applicable)
o Impact Analysis
o Mitigation Measures
o Level of Significance after Mitigation
o Cumulative Impacts
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
52
TERMINOLOGY USED IN THIS ANALYSIS
For each question listed in the IS checklist, a determination of the level of significance of the impact is
provided. Impacts are categorized in the following categories:
▪ Less Than Significant. A less than significant impact would cause no substantial adverse change
in the environment.
▪ Potentially Significant. A potentially significant impact would have a substantial adverse impact
on the environment.
▪ Significant and Unavoidable. A significant and unavoidable impact would cause a substantial
adverse effect on the environment and no feasible mitigation measures would be available to
reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative impacts refer to the combined effect of Proposed Project impacts with the impacts of other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Both CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require
that cumulative impacts be analyzed in an EIR. As set forth in the CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of
cumulative impacts must reflect the severity of the impacts, as well as the likelihood of their occurrence;
however, the discussion need not be as detailed as the discussion of environmental impacts attribut able
to the project alone. As stated in CEQA, “a project may have a significant effect on the environment if
the possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.”
According to the CEQA Guidelines, “cumulative impacts” refer to two or more individual effects which,
when considered together, are considerable and which compound or increase other environmental
impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate
projects. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from
the incremental impact of the Proposed Project when added to other closely related past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but
collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. In addition, as stated in the CEQA
Guidelines, “the mere existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone shall
not constitute substantial evidence that the Proposed Project’s incremental effects are cumulatively
considerable.”
The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15130 (b)(1)) state that the information utilized in an analysis of
cumulative impacts should come from one of two sources, either:
1) A list of past, present and probable future projects producing related cumulative impacts,
including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or
2) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document
designed to evaluate regional or area-wide conditions.
The cumulative analysis contained in this Draft EIR utilizes the second method and is based on the
projections contained in the City’s Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR No.
346. This project included updates to the General Plan Land Use Element Tables LU-5: Residential
Buildout Estimates and LU-6: Non-Residential Build-Out Estimates to reflect the 42 General Plan
amendments that have been adopted since the City’s General Plan was comprehensively updated in
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
53
May 2004, up to and including the General Plan Amendment associated with certification of EIR. No.
346, approved on October 8, 2013. These build-out estimates are shown in Tables 3.0-1 and 3.0-2
below.
For the purposes of forecasting traffic and transportation impacts associated with cumulative growth
within the City and regionally, the City uses the Anaheim Transportation Analysis Model (ATAM), a
socioeconomic-based traffic model that uses regional growth projections to calculate future traffic
volumes. The ATAM includes traffic impacts from projects located both within and outside of the City’s
boundaries, including all of the development analyzed in EIR No. 346 and any subsequent General Plan
Amendments. The current version of ATAM includes recent projects in the Platinum Triangle, such as
the LT Platinum and Trumark on Lewis projects, both of which amended the General Plan.
Table 3.0-1 City of Anaheim General Plan Residential Buildout Estimates
Land Use Designation Probable
Density
Acres Dwelling
Units
Persons per
Household
Population
RESIDENTIAL
Estate (0-1.5 du/ac) 1.0 1,246 1,548 3.3 5,108
Low Density (0-6.5 du/ac) 4.0 9,905 38,909 3.3 128,400
Hillside Low-Medium Density (0-6.0
du/ac)
5.0 456 1,589 3.3 5,244
Low-Medium Density (0-18.0 du/ac) 13.0 1,530 17,266 3.3 56,978
Medium Density (0-36.0 du/ac) 24.0 1,960 47,040 3.3 155,232
Corridor Residential (0-13.0 du/ac) 13.0 183 2,379 3.3 7,851
Areas of the City with Special
Density Limitations
n/a 3,050 2,675 3.3 8,828
Subtotal 18,330 111,406 367,641
MIXED USE
Mixed Use (0-100) 40.0 189 7,560 1.5 11,340
Mixed Use – Platinum Triangle n/a 470 18,988 1.5 28,482
Subtotal 659 26,548 39,822
TOTALS 18,989 137,954 407,463
Notes: The number of dwelling units for each designation is calculated by adding the number of existing dwelling units in areas of the City
that are not anticipated to change to the number of units that are calculated by multiplying the gross acres of areas that are most likely to
change by the probable residential densities.
Dwelling units in areas not anticipated to change are the number of dwelling units in areas that are not likely to be further subdivided or
areas that have a fixed buildout capacity through a specific plan. These are determined by: 1) adding the number of parcels in areas that are
not likely to further subdivide; or 2) by referencing the number of units expected at buildout for areas addressed through sp ecific plans (see
Table LU-1 for a list of the City’s specific plans).
The Areas of the City with Special Density Limitations, as shown on Figure LU-5 and described in Table LU-4, that are planned for residential
development are shown as a separate category on the table and include the following:
Area Acres
Dwelling Units
Low Density Hillside
Low-Medium Density Low-Medium Density
Mountain Park 3,001 485 2,015
Area A 16 140
Stonegate 33 35
Total 3,050 35 485 2,155
Residential units in the Platinum Triangle, a mixed use area of the City which is also included in the “Areas of the City with Special Density
Limitations,” are shown separately in the Mixed Use calculations.
Source: City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR No. 346, Appendix H, SHC No. 2003041105. Table
LU-5: Residential Buildout Estimates. (July 2013; The Planning Center/DC&E)
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
54
Table 3.0-2 City of Anaheim General Plan Non-Residential Buildout Estimates
Land Use Designation Probable
FAR
Acres Square Footage Square Feet
per
Employee
Estimated
Employees
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Center (0.35-0.45 FAR) 0.35 229 2,610,878 400 6,527
Regional Commercial (0.30-0.50 FAR) 0.40 231 3,023,064 400 7,558
General Commercial (0.25-0.50 FAR) 0.30 661 6,396,786 400 15,992
Office-Low (0.40-0.50 FAR) 0.40 402 5,366,539 285 18,830
Office-High (0.50-2.00 FAR) 1.00 9 392,040 285 1,376
Subtotal 1,532 17,789,307 50,283
INDUSTRIAL
Industrial (0.35-0.50 FAR) 0.35 2,550 28,654,857 364-700 53,863
Subtotal 2,550 28,654,857 53,863
MIXED USE
Mixed Use (1.5-3.0 FAR) 1.50 237 15,485,580 285-400 45,279
Subtotal 237 15,485,580 45,279
PLATINUM TRIANGLE
Mixed Use – Commercial n/a
470
4,795,111 400 11,988
Mixed Use – Office n/a 9,652,747 285 33,869
Mixed Use - Institutional n/a 1,500,000 Varies --
Office High 2.0 50 4,478,356 285 15,714
Office Low 0.5 71 5,486
Industrial 0.5 134 2,918,520 364-700 11,988
Subtotal 812 23,344,734 79,045
THE ANAHEIM RESORT
Commercial Recreation 1,078
Subtotal 1,078
OPEN SPACE/RECREATION
Parks (golf courses) -- 293 -- -- --
Parks -- 1,133 -- -- --
Open Space -- 1,836 -- -- --
Platinum Triangle Open Space 84 -- -- --
Water Uses -- 1,208 -- -- --
Subtotal 7,617 -- -- --
INSTITUTIONAL
Institutional (0-3.00) -- 211 -- Varies --
Platinum Triangle Institutional (0-3.00) -- 3 -- Varies --
Subtotal 211 -- --
SCHOOLS
Schools -- 1,010 -- -- --
Subtotal 1,010 -- -- --
Notes:
The estimated square feet for each designation is calculated by adding the existing building square feet in areas of the City that are not
anticipated to change to the gross acres of areas that are most likely to change multiplied by the probable Floor Area Ratios (FAR).
For The Anaheim Resort/Commercial Recreation land use designation, please refer to the Disneyland Resort, Anaheim Resort and Hotel
Circle Specific Plans.
Build-out intensities for the Platinum Triangle are based on the maximum intensities described in Table LU-4.
Source: City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR No. 346, Appendix H, SHC No. 2003041105. Table
LU-6: Non-Residential Buildout Estimates. (July 2013; The Planning Center/DC&E)
The cumulative analyses are presented under impacts and mitigation sections for each environmental
issues area addressed in Chapter 3.0.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
55
AESTHETICS
3.1.1 INTRODUCTION
This section describes the Proposed Project’s potential to affect visual resources (aesthetics) in the
Project area. The visual resources to be analyzed include both natural and human-made features that
make up the physical characteristics of the landscape. In general, natural resources include the
landform, water, soil, and vegetation, while human-made features include physical structures, roads,
etc. The analysis describes the potential aesthetic impacts of the Proposed Project on the existing
landscape, and discusses the compatibility of the Proposed Project with existing conditions and the
effect on visual resources. Since the quality of scenic resources is measured by humans, the visual
resources that are most important are those within areas accessible to people.
3.1.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Views of the Project site are available from adjacent roadways and land uses. These views consist of
mostly undeveloped land with vegetation that is recurrently subject to removal from fuel modification
and weed abatement. While the vegetation is ruderal and subject to frequent disturbance due to
OCWD’s on-going site management activities, the Project site is part of the part of an undeveloped open
space area adjacent to the Santa Ana River. The portion of the Santa Ana River in the vicinity of Project
site is channelized with concrete banks and a soft bottom. A portion of the Santa Ana River Riding and
Hiking Trail is located on the east side of the Santa Ana River. A golf driving range and Anaheim Coves
Park and Riding and Hiking Trail are located to the north of the Project site; these facilities are
developed around OCWD basins and adjacent to the Santa Ana River. The surrounding area to the south
and west, is predominately urban with multi-story buildings, elevated freeways, billboards, high-voltage
transmission lines, and street lights. Neither the Orange County, City of Orange, nor Anaheim General
Plans designate this location as a scenic vista. However, the City of Orange General Plan Natural
Resources Element and Anaheim General Plan Green Element identify the Santa Ana River as a scenic
resource or a scenic amenity, respectively. The City of Orange General Plan Natural Resources Element
and Anaheim General Plan Green Element identify views of the Santa Ana Mountains and foothills as
scenic vistas. These visual amenities can be seen in the distance to the north and east.
VIEWPOINTS
As shown in Figure 3.1-1, Viewpoints, the following seven public viewpoints (dated July 22, 2013) were
selected to represent the range of vantage points in the surrounding area from which the Proposed
Project would be visible to the general public:
▪ Viewpoint A – Ball Road looking south
▪ Viewpoint B – Auto Center Drive and Phoenix Club Drive looking east
▪ Viewpoint C – SR-57 looking east
▪ Viewpoint D – Honda Center north parking lot looking north
▪ Viewpoint E – Century Stadium Theater parking lot looking northwest
▪ Viewpoint F – Parking lot of 1596 N. Brian Street looking west
▪ Viewpoint G – Santa Ana River and Trail looking west
E. Ba
l
l
R
d
.
S. Auto Center Dr.
S. Sanderson Ave.
N
.
M
a
i
n
S
t
.
W. Taft Ave.
Figure 3.1-1: Viewpoints
F
A
B
C
D
E
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
G
Draft EIR Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Orange County
City of Anaheim
City of Orange
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
57
Photos from each viewpoint are provided in Figure 3.1-2 through Figure 3.1-8. Visual characteristics
from each viewpoint are provided below:
Viewpoint A: Figure 3.1-2 depicts the view from the north side of Ball Road looking south at the Project
site. BRB dominates the foreground. The Project site is vacant and covered with vegetation. Honda
Center is visible to the south of the Project site. The Anaheim Auto Center is visible to the west and the
Cinemark Century Stadium Theater is visible to the east.
Viewpoint B: Figure 3.1-3 depicts the view from the intersection of Auto Center Drive and Phoenix Club
Drive looking east at the Project site. The Project site is surrounded by chain link fence; however, the
actual Project site is not visible since BRB is approximately 20 feet below the existing grade of the
surrounding area. In the background, an existing cement factory and several light industrial warehouse
buildings are visible. Distant views of the Santa Ana Mountains and foothills to the north and east are
available from this viewpoint.
Viewpoint C: Figure 3.1-4 depicts the view from southbound SR-57 looking east at the Project site. The
rooftops and some landscaping associated with the Anaheim Auto Center are visible from the freeway.
However, the Project site is not visible from the freeway since the SR-57 is elevated above the Project
site.
Viewpoint D: Figure 3.1-5 depicts the view from Honda Center north parking lot looking north at the
Project site. Parking lot landscaping and an abundance of chain link fence surrounding the property lines
are visible in the foreground. The Project site is visible behind the chain link fencing. The Anaheim Auto
Center is visible in the background. Distant views of the Santa Ana M ountains and foothills to the north
and east are available from this viewpoint.
Viewpoint E: Figure 3.1-6 depicts the view from Century Stadium Theater parking lot looking northwest
towards the Project site. Views of the Project site are obscured from public view by the parking lot
landscaping.
Viewpoint F: Figure 3.1-7 depicts the view from parking lot of 1596 N. Brian Street looking west towards
the Project site. Views of the Project site are obscured from public view by the existing block wall.
Viewpoint G: Figure 3.1-8 depicts the view from the Santa Ana River Riding and Hiking Trail, located east
of the Project site and the Santa Ana River, looking west towards the Project site. The Santa Ana River
dominates the foreground of this viewpoint. The Anaheim Auto Center is visible in the background and
Ball Road is visible to the north. The Project site itself is not visible from this viewpoint because BRB is
approximately 20 feet below the existing grade of the surrounding area and is obscured from public
view by the Santa Ana River Center Levee.
VIEWERS
Viewers of the Project site consist of commercial viewers, commuter viewers and recreational viewers.
Commercial viewers are employed at or a patron of a commercial use. These viewers usually have a
moderate to low sensitivity to their visual environment, unless their activity is primarily focused on the
view. These viewers concentrate on their driving, their final destination, and their commercial activity.
Employees and customers of the Anaheim Auto Center, Honda Center, and the various
office/commercial buildings surrounding the Project site would be considered commercial viewers.
'JHVSF7JFXQPJOU"$JUZPG"OBIFJN0SBOHF$PVOUZ8BUFS%JTUSJDU
&OWJSPONFOUBM"EWJTPST
--$
7JFXQPJOUGSPN#BMM3PBE
-PPLJOH4PVUIBU#3#
Figure 3.1-3: Viewpoint BCity of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
Viewpoint from Auto Center Drive & Phoenix Club Drive
Looking East at BRB
Figure 3.1-4: Viewpoint CCity of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
Viewpoint from SR-57
Looking East toward BRB
'JHVSF7JFXQPJOU%$JUZPG"OBIFJN0SBOHF$PVOUZ8BUFS%JTUSJDU
&OWJSPONFOUBM"EWJTPST
--$
7JFXQPJOUGSPN)POEB$FOUFS/PSUI1BSLJOH-PU
-PPLJOH/PSUIBU#3#
Figure 3.1-6: Viewpoint ECity of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
Viewpoint from Century Stadium Theater Parking Lot
Looking Northwest toward BRB
'JHVSF7JFXQPJOU'$JUZPG"OBIFJN0SBOHF$PVOUZ8BUFS%JTUSJDU
&OWJSPONFOUBM"EWJTPST
--$
7JFXQPJOUGSPN/#SJBO4USFFU1BSLJOH-PU
-PPLJOH8FTUUPXBSE#3#
'JHVSF7JFXQPJOU($JUZPG"OBIFJN0SBOHF$PVOUZ8BUFS%JTUSJDU
&OWJSPONFOUBM"EWJTPST
--$
7JFXQPJOUGSPN4BOUB"OB3JWFS5SBJM
-PPLJOH8FTUBU#3#
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
65
Commuter viewers utilizing roadways and rail lines usually have a moderate to low sensitivity to the
visual environment due to their concentration on arriving at their final destination. The primary adjacent
commuter routes with visibility onto the site are Ball Road, which forms the northern boundary of the
Project site, and the Union Pacific Railroad south of the Project site. The Project site is not visible from
ARTIC to the south due to the intervening structures.
Recreational viewers are viewers that utilize the recreational facilities near a Project site. These viewers
usually have high sensitivity to the natural environment since their activities are related to the
environment. Users of the Santa Ana River Riding and Hiking Trail and Anaheim Coves Trails would be
considered recreational viewers.
3.1.3 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
LOCAL
City of Anaheim General Plan, Green Element
The Green Element recognizes the importance of scenic views and vistas and addresses the preservation
of scenic resources within the City. The following goals and policies pertain to visual resources:
Goal 2.1: Preserve views of ridgelines, natural open space and other scenic vistas wherever possible.
Policies:
2) Encourage development that preserves natural contours and views of existing backdrop
ridgelines or prominent views.
3) Site parks, nature centers and trails to take advantage of natural vistas.
Goal 4.1: Maximize the recreational and scenic potential of existing reservoirs, basins and waterways.
Policies
1) Support the County of Orange to continue in their efforts to upgrade and maintain the Santa
Ana River Trail.
2) Work with the County of Orange and the Orange County Water District to maintain and improve
the recreational and scenic resources of the Anaheim Lakes and Five Coves areas and other
appropriate water resource areas, including retarding basins and reservoirs.
City of Anaheim General Plan, Community Design Element
The Community Design Element is intended to ensure aesthetically pleasing development within the
City. The following goals and policies pertain to the Proposed Project:
Goal 6.1: Focus activity centers at the intersections of selected major corridors to provide a convenient
and attractive concentration of retail and office uses.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
66
Policies:
1) Locate buildings and building frontages close to the street and street corners with parking
behind or to the side of the buildings. Where this is not possible or practical, ensure that street-
facing parking is shielded through landscaping or berming.
2) Design highly visible entrances to retail activity centers through accent landscaping and lighting,
enhanced intersection features, facade detailing, monument signs, public art and other design
amenities.
3) Encourage pedestrian-scale features such as canopies and/or awnings, customized signage, and
strategically located secondary entrances.
4) Incorporate architectural interest and variety within the context of a unified design theme for
large-scale retail activity centers. Architectural interest should be provided through varied
rooflines, architectural detailing, accent lighting and massing. Consistency should be maintained
through commonalities of architectural style, color, landscaping, signage, and lighting.
5) Richly detail and articulate facade designs thereby avoiding monotonous expanses of blank
walls.
6) Link newly developed retail activity centers, where practical, to surrounding residential and/or
office uses through clear and safe pedestrian and bicycle connections.
7) Provide walls when necessary for security and/or privacy. Pedestrian breaks should be provided
where needed for access and walls should contain vertical and/or horizontal detailing to avoid a
blank appearance. Walls should also be planted with clinging vines to address potential graffiti
opportunities and have layered landscaping to soften the look and create a sense of depth.
8) Provide people-gathering places and amenities – such as mini-plazas, courtyards, benches,
outdoor eating areas, specialized landscaping, accent lighting, public art, shade, trash
receptacles, and water fountains.
9) Buffer parking areas from the street and adjoining uses through tree plantings and landscaped
edges and bays (i.e., berms and/or hedges with layered landscape). Landscaping on the
perimeter and within parking lots should provide shade and pedestrian walkways should be
strategically located and clearly marked for safe access to shopping and activity areas.
10) Where practical, encourage use of parking structures to minimize visual impacts of surface
parking. Such structures should be sited away from the street, landscaped to soften large
expanses of walls, and designed to blend and be consistent with the commercial buildings.
11) Encourage internal access between adjacent properties in order to minimize curb cuts along
major thoroughfares.
12) Where possible, underground or screen utilities and utility equipment or locate and size them to
be as inconspicuous as possible.
Goal 7.1: Neighborhood retail centers are thoughtfully designed to create attractive places that provide
convenient access and ample pedestrian amenities to residents of surrounding neighborhoods.
Policies:
1) Locate neighborhood retail center buildings close to the street and, if on an intersection, occupy
as much of the corner as possible.
2) Create focal points by encouraging corner buildings that contain special design features such as
towers, decorative detailing or varied roof designs.
3) Locate parking in a neighborhood center behind or beside the center’s buildings rather than in
front of them to reduce the visual impact of surface parking lots, where practical. Massive,
oversized parking lots should be avoided.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
67
4) To the extent practical, screen views of surface parking areas using shade trees, perimeter
hedges, and other plantings. Landscaped planters and defined pedestrian pathways should be
incorporated into the parking lot design.
5) Incorporate street-level pedestrian amenities such as awnings, large storefront windows,
arcades, small sitting areas, and accent landscaping.
6) Encourage pedestrian access to and from ad joining uses by providing paths and breaks in walls
or landscaped buffer areas.
7) Encourage a consistent sign program which effectively addresses scale, type and placement
within the overall design theme of the retail center.
8) Ensure that the scale and massing of neighbor retail centers are sensitive to the context of
surrounding residential development.
9) Lighting should provide for safety and highlight features of the neighborhood retail center but
not shine directly onto neighboring properties.
10) Where possible, underground or screen utilities and utility equipment or locate and size them
to be as inconspicuous as possible.
City of Orange General Plan, Natural Resources Section
The Natural Resources Section recognizes the importance of scenic vistas and addresses the
preservation of open space and view corridors where possible and encourages landscaping in urban
areas to improve boulevards, neighborhoods, and commercial and industrial districts within the City.
The following goals and policies pertain to visual and aesthetic resources:
GOAL 7.0: Protect significant view corridors, open space, and ridgelines within the urban environment.
Policies:
7.1: Preserve the scenic nature of significant ridgelines visible throughout the community.
7.2: Designate Santiago Canyon Road east of Jamboree Road as a City Scenic Highway to preserve
the scenic nature of the open space adjacent to the road.
7.3: Encourage the development of landscaped medians and parkway landscaping along arterial
streets in public and private projects, and encourage the state to provide freeway landscaping.
7.4: Coordinate with Southern California Edison and other utilities to place utility lines underground
wherever possible.
7.5 Encourage the retention and enhancement of scenic corridors and visual focal points within the
community.
3.1.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Proposed
Project would have a significant impact to aesthetic resources if it would result in any of the following:
• Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
• Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of t he site and
its surroundings?
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
68
• Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
EFFECTS DISMISSED IN THE INITIAL STUDY
The IS concluded that the following would not result in potential impacts to aesthetic resources and did
not need to be further addressed in the EIR:
• The project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway
3.1.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
METHODOLOGY
Aesthetic resources are defined as both natural and built features of the landscape that contribute to
the public’s experience and appreciation of the environment. Aesthetic impacts are determined through
a comparison to existing characteristics of an area. This section addresses the visual condition of the
project site and its vicinity and the potential for the project to adversely affect those conditions. This
analysis focuses on the visual character of the project site and selected views from the surrounding
areas. Depending on the extent to which a project’s presence would significantly alter the perceived
visual character and quality of the environment, aesthetic impacts may occur.
The aesthetics impacts were analyzed using a review of photographic documentation of key views of
and from the Proposed Project site, as well as regional visual context.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
IMPACT AES-1: The Proposed Project would have a substantially adverse effect on a scenic vista.
A scenic vista may generally be defined as a panoramic view, which is visual access to a large geographic
area, for which the field of view can be wide and extend into the distance. Panoramic views are
generally associated with vantage points that provide a sweeping geographic orientation not commonly
available. Examples of panoramic views include urban skylines, valleys, mountain ranges, or large bodies
of water. Scenic vistas (in a general sense) are limited in the Project area due to the surrounding
suburban developments built along nearby hillside slopes and ridgelines.
The City of Orange General Plan Natural Resources Element and Anaheim General Plan Green Element
identify views of the Santa Ana Mountains and foothills as scenic vistas. These visual amenities can be
seen in the distance from Viewpoints B and D to the north and east.
The City of Orange General Plan Natural Resources Element and Anaheim General Plan Green Element
identify the Santa Ana River as a scenic resource or a scenic amenity, respectively; however, neither the
Orange County, City of Orange, nor Anaheim General Plans designate the Project site as a scenic vista.
Recreational viewers using the Santa Ana River Riding and Hiking Trail regard the viewshed of the Santa
Ana River as an important visual resource. Based on the viewpoint analysis, the Santa Ana River is clearly
visible only from Viewpoint G.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
69
Construction of the Proposed Project could adversely impact the visual quality of the Project area with
construction activities and equipment. However, impacts would be temporary and would be considered
less than significant.
Build-out of the Project site could result in up to 425,000 square feet of commercial development with
maximum building heights of up to six stories or 75 feet. This would directly modify the existing views of
the undeveloped Project site. Although the Proposed Project would convert undeveloped land
historically used for water uses/recharge to commercial uses, development would be consistent with
the existing land use pattern in the area. Future development design would be compatible with the
surrounding area and would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Community Design Element
of the General Plan, as well as all development and design standards contained in the Anaheim
Municipal Code. As described above in Section 3.1.3, goals to provide visually attractive retail and office
uses include policies guiding building and parking placement, architectural design, landscaping,
pedestrian access, and screening of utilities. In addition, the Proposed Project would amend the General
Plan Circulation and Green Elements to designate a Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area along the
northern, eastern and southern perimeter of the Project site. The proposed multi-purpose trail would
serve as a southern extension of the Anaheim Coves Class 1 Bike Path/Riding and Hiking Trail located to
the north across Ball Road. The proposed location of the Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area would
provide an opportunity for public access to views from the Project site of the Santa Ana River and the
Santa Ana Mountains that currently not publically accessible. Although the Proposed Project would
result in development of the site which may obscure certain views of the Santa Ana River and the Santa
Ana Mountains, the public would also have the opportunity to gain greater access to views of the Santa
Ana River and the Santa Ana Mountains through the proposed Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study; therefore,
impacts would be considered less than significant.
IMPACT AES-2: The Proposed Project would degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings.
The proposed General Plan amendment and zone change would allow for development of general
commercial uses on the Project site. The Proposed Project would facilitate the change in visual character
of the site by providing for the opportunity to develop and operate commercial uses on the site.
Although a specific site plan is not proposed at this time, commercial build out of the Project site would
result in a change in visual character from vacant undeveloped land to 425,000 square feet of
commercial development. Based on the viewpoints described above, the Project site is visible only from
Ball Road (Viewpoint A), from the intersection of Auto Center Drive and Phoenix Club Drive (Viewpoint
B), from Honda Center north parking lot (Viewpoint D). The Project site is currently not visible from the
Santa Ana River and Anaheim Coves Trails (Viewpoint G) however, the lack of development on the site
contributes to the open space visual aspect of the Santa Ana River.
Construction of the Proposed Project would adversely impact the visual quality of the Project area with
construction activities and equipment. However, impacts would be temporary and would be considered
less than significant.
Development of the Project site would change the visual characteristic of the Project site by introducing
commercial buildings and landscaping. Although most buildings in the surrounding area are only two to
three stories in height, future development would allow buildings up to 75 feet in height (six stories).
The maximum allowable height would be similar to Honda Center. Maximum buildout of the Project site
would be in keeping with the existing characteristics of the surrounding built environment. The
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
70
development of commercial uses on the site would be consistent with existing commercial development
to the west across Phoenix Club Drive and the office uses and Honda Center to the south and would be
required to comply with adopted goals and policies in the Community Design Element and with
Anaheim’s Zoning Code and development standards. As described above in Section 3.1.3, goals to
provide visually attractive retail and office uses include policies guiding building and parking placement,
architectural design, landscaping, pedestrian access, and screening of utilities.
While the Project site currently contains ruderal vegetation and is subject to frequent disturbance due
to OCWD’s on-going site management activities, the undeveloped open space aspect of the Project site
is a visual amenity that provides visual relief form the surroundi ng built environment. Development of
the Project site would result of a loss of this visual amenity from Viewpoints A, B D, and G, resulting in a
potentially significant impact. However, the Proposed Project would amend the General Plan
Circulation and Green Elements to designate a Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area along the northern,
eastern and southern perimeter of the Project site. The proposed multi-purpose trail would serve as a
southern extension of the Anaheim Coves Class 1 Bike Path/Riding and Hiking Trail located to the north
across Ball Road. The proposed location of the Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area would provide an
opportunity for public access to views from the Project site of the Santa Ana River and the Santa Ana
Mountains that are currently not publically accessible. Although the Proposed Project would result in
development of the site that would change the open space character of the site, the public would have
the opportunity to gain greater access to the remaining open space in the area, through the proposed
Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study; therefore, impacts would be considered less than significant.
IMPACT AES-3: The Proposed Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Proposed commercial development would include lighting for security, signage and site recognition.
These sources would likely consist of outdoor lighting of parking areas, driveways, and walkways, and
lighted commercial signage. The increase in night light from new development would increase ambient
light levels in the area, and the significance would depend on the amount and type of lighting, which
would be similar to the existing sources of lighting on adjacent properties. The Anaheim Auto Center,
located adjacent to the Project site, contributes a significant amount of nighttime lighting to the area’s
ambient light levels. Compared to the Anaheim Auto Center, the increase in nighttime lighting from the
Proposed Project would be minimal. Furthermore, night lighting for commercial development would be
regulated by the City’s policies and regulations regarding outdoor lighting and signage.
The Proposed Project does not include a specific site plan. Future development on the Project site would
be required to comply with the development standards related to lighting and glare contained in the
Anaheim Municipal Code. Impacts to lighting and glare are considered less than significant and
mitigation measures would not be required.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Required.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Less Than Significant.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
71
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The Project site is not a designated scenic vista within the City and is surrounded by existing
commercial/light industrial uses. The site is vacant and is further disturbed by OCWD site management
activities intended to keep the basin free of weeds and debris. Implementation of the Proposed Project
would be similar to established land use patterns in the area. Future development on the Project site
would be consistent with the surrounding area; however, the loss of the open space visual amenity
would be considered a potentially significant impact. Although the Proposed Project would result in
development of the site that would change the open space character of the site, the public would have
the opportunity to gain greater access to the remaining open space in the area, through the proposed
Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study; therefore, impacts would be considered less than significant. Light sources
and glare introduced to the Project area as a result of future development would be required to comply
with the development standards for lighting contained in the Anaheim Municipal Code. Due to the
developed nature of the City and the existence of light sources from both within the City and from
adjacent cities, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to add significantly to the creation of light and
glare in the region.
Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(e) states “if a cumulative impact was adequately
addressed in a prior EIR for a community plan, zoning action, or general plan, and the project is
consistent with that plan or action, then an EIR for such a project should not further analyze that
cumulative impact.” The cumulative impact analyses for aesthetics contained in the EIR for the City of
Anaheim General Plan, found that visual impacts were cumulatively less than significant. Therefore,
visual impacts to the Project area from the Proposed Project would not be considered cumulatively
significant.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
72
3.2. AIR QUALITY
3.2.1 INTRODUCTION
This section describes the existing air quality and potential impacts of the Proposed Project on the
Project site and the surrounding area. The information presented this section is based on Air Quality and
Global Climate Change Impact Analysis, dated February 15, 2017, prepared by Vista Environmental,
which is included in Appendix B of this Draft EIR.
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the Proposed Project are addressed in Section 3.6, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, of this Draft EIR.
CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
Pollutants are generally classified as either criteria pollutants or non-criteria pollutants. Federal ambient
air quality standards have been established for criteria pollutants, whereas no ambient standards have
been established for non-criteria pollutants. For some criteria pollutants, separate standards have been
set for different periods. Most standards have been set to protect public health. For some pollutants,
standards have been based on other values (such as protection of crops, protection of materials, or
avoidance of nuisance conditions).
The criteria pollutants consist of: ozone, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, lead, and
particulate matter. These pollutants can harm your health and the environment, and cause property
damage. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) calls these pollutants “criteria”
air pollutants because it regulates them by developing human health-based and/or environmentally-
based criteria for setting permissible levels. The following provides descriptions of each of the criteria
pollutants:
Nitrogen Oxides
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) is the generic term for a group of highly reactive gases containing nitrogen and
oxygen. While most NOx is colorless and odorless, concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO 2) can often be
seen as a reddish-brown layer over many urban areas. NOx form when fuel is burned at high
temperatures, as in a combustion process. The primary manmade sources of NOx are motor vehicles,
electric utilities, and other industrial, commercial, and residential sources that burn fuel. NOx reacts with
other pollutants to form ground-level ozone, nitrate particles, acid aerosols, as well as NO2, which cause
respiratory problems. NOx and the pollutants formed from NOx can be transported over long distances,
following the patterns of prevailing winds. Therefore, controlling NOx is often most effective if done
from a regional perspective, rather than focusing on the nearest sources.
Ozone
Ozone is not usually emitted directly into the air but at ground-level is created by a chemical reaction
between NOx and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the presence of sunlight. Motor vehicle exhaust,
industrial emissions, gasoline vapors, chemical solvents as well as natural sources emit NOx and VOC
that help form ozone. Ground-level ozone is the primary constituent of smog. Sunlight and hot weather
cause ground-level ozone to form with the greatest concentrations usually occurring downwind from
urban areas. Ozone is subsequently considered a regional pollutant. Ground-level ozone is a respiratory
irritant and an oxidant that increases susceptibility to respiratory infections and can cause substantial
damage to vegetation and other materials. Because NOx and VOC are ozone precursors, the health
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
73
effects associated with ozone are also indirect health effects associated with significant levels o f NOx
and VOC emissions.
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas that is formed when carbon in fuel is not burned
completely. It is a component of motor vehicle exhaust, which contributes about 56 percent of all CO
emissions nationwide. In cities, 85 to 95 percent of all CO emissions may come from motor vehicle
exhaust. Other sources of CO emissions include industrial processes (such as metals processing and
chemical manufacturing), residential wood burning, and natural source s such as forest fires.
Woodstoves, gas stoves, cigarette smoke, and unvented gas and kerosene space heaters are sources of
CO indoors. The highest levels of CO in the outside air typically occur during the colder months of the
year when inversion conditions are more frequent. The air pollution becomes trapped near the ground
beneath a layer of warm air. CO is described as having only a local influence because it dissipates
quickly. Since CO concentrations are strongly associated with motor vehicle emissions, high CO
concentrations generally occur in the immediate vicinity of roadways with high traffic volumes and
traffic congestion, active parking lots, and in automobile tunnels. Areas adjacent to heavily traveled and
congested intersections are particularly susceptible to high CO concentrations.
Sulfur Oxides
Sulfur Oxide (SOx) gases are formed when fuel containing sulfur, such as coal and oil is burned, and from
the refining of gasoline. SOx dissolves easily in water vapor to form acid and interacts with o ther gases
and particles in the air to form sulfates and other products that can be harmful to people and the
environment.
Lead
Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as manufactured products. The major sources
of lead emissions have historically been motor vehicles and industrial sources. Due to the phase out of
leaded gasoline, metal processing is now the primary source of lead emissions to the air. High levels of
lead in the air are typically only found near lead smelters, waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid
battery manufacturers. Exposure of fetuses, infants and children to low levels of Pb can adversely affect
the development and function of the central nervous system, leading to learning disorders,
distractibility, inability to follow simple commands, and lower intelligence quotient. In adults, increased
lead levels are associated with increased blood pressure.
Particulate Matter
Particulate matter (PM) is the term for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air.
PM is made up of a number of components including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic
chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles. The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for
causing health problems. Particles that are less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10) are the particles
that generally pass through the throat and nose and enter the lungs. Once inhaled, these particles can
affect the heart and lungs and cause serious health effects. Particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers
in diameter (PM2.5) have been designated as a subset of PM10 due to their increased health impacts and
its ability to remain suspended in the air longer and travel further.
OTHER POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
Toxic Air Contaminants
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
74
In addition to the above-listed criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants (TACs) are another group of
pollutants of concern. Sources of TACs include industrial processes such as petroleum refining and
chrome plating operations, commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor
vehicle exhaust. Cars and trucks release at least forty different toxic air contaminants. The most
important of these TACs, in terms of health risk, are diesel particulates, benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-
butadiene, and acetaldehyde. Public exposure to TACs can result from emissions from normal
operations as well as accidental releases.
TACs are less pervasive in the urban atmosphere than criteria air pollutants, however they are linked to
short-term (acute) or long-term (chronic or carcinogenic) adverse human health effects. Health effects
of TACs include cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, and death. There are hundreds of different
types of TACs with varying degrees of toxicity.
Asbestos
Asbestos is listed as a TAC by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and as a Hazardous Air Pollutant
by the US EPA. Asbestos occurs naturally in mineral formations and crushing or breaking these rocks,
through construction or other means, can release asbestoform fibers into the air. Asbestos emissions
can result from the sale or use of asbestos-containing materials, road surfacing with such materials,
grading activities, and surface mining. The risk of disease is dependent upon the intensity and duration
of exposure. When inhaled, asbestos fibers may remain in the lungs and with time may be linked to such
diseases as asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma. Naturally occurring asbestos is not present in
Orange County. The nearest likely locations of naturally occurring asbestos, as identified in the General
Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California prepared by the California Division of Mines and
Geology, is located in Santa Barbara County. Due to the distance to the nearest natural occurrences of
asbestos, neither the Project site nor the fill material imported to the site is likely to contain asbestos.
3.2.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
ATMOSPHERIC SETTING
The Project site is located within the central portion of Orange County in the City of Anahe im, which is
part of the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) that includes all of Orange County as well as the non-desert
portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Orange County is located on a coastal
plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills to the east. Regionally, the Basin is bounded by the
Pacific Ocean to the southwest and high mountains to the east forming the inland perimeter. The
general region lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. As a result, the
climate is mild, tempered by cool sea breezes. Occasional periods of strong Santa Ana winds and winter
storms interrupt the otherwise mild weather pattern.
Although the Basin has a semi-arid climate, the air near the surface is typically moist because of the
presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for infrequent periods when dry air is brought into the Basin
by offshore winds, the ocean effect is dominant. Periods of heavy fog are frequent and low stratus
clouds, often referred to as “high fog” is a characteristic climate feature.
Winds are an important parameter in characterizing the air quality environment of a Project site
because they determine the regional pattern of air pollution transport and control the rate of dispersion
near a source. Daytime winds in Orange County are usually light breezes from off the coast as air moves
regionally onshore from the cool Pacific Ocean. These winds are usually the strongest in the dry summer
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
75
months. Nighttime winds in Orange County are a result mainly from the drainage of cool air off of the
mountains to the east and they occur more often during the winter months and are usually lighter than
the daytime winds. Between the periods of dominant airflow, periods of air stagnation may occur, both
in the morning and evening hours. Whether such a period of stagnation occurs is one of the critical
determinants of air quality conditions on any given day.
During the winter and fall months, surface high-pressure systems north of the Basin combined with
other meteorological conditions, can result in very strong winds from the northeast called the “Santa
Ana Winds”. These winds normally have durations of a few days before predominant meteorological
conditions are reestablished. The highest wind speed typically occurs during the afternoon due to
daytime thermal convection caused by surface heating. This convection brings about a downward
transfer of momentum from stronger winds aloft. It is not uncommon to have sustained winds of 60
miles per hour with higher gusts during a Santa Ana Wind.
August is typically the warmest month and December is typically the coolest month for the City. Rainfall
in the City varies considerably in both time and space. Almost all annual rainfall comes from the fringes
of mid-latitude storms from late November to early April, with summers being almost completely dry.
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to pollution than others due to the types of population,
groups, or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, and those that
are acutely or chronically ill.
Residential areas, retirement facilities, and hospitals and schools are also considered sensitive receptors
because people typically remain in these locations for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained
exposure to any pollutants that are present. Recreational land uses are considered moderately sensitive
to air pollution despite the generally short exposure periods. This is due to the fact that recreational
activities place a high demand on respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air pollution.
Industrial, commercial, retail, and office areas are considered the least sensitive to air pollution because
exposure periods are typically short and workers generally stay indoors.
The nearest sensitive receptors to the Proposed Project are single-family homes on Chantilly Street,
which are approximately 900 feet northwest of the Project site. The nearest offsite workers are located
as near as 70 feet west of the Project site at the nearby Enterprise Rent-A-Car.
MONITORED AIR QUALITY
The air quality at any site is dependent on the regional air quality and local pollutant sources. Regional
air quality is determined by the release of pollutants throughout the air basin. Estimates of the existing
emissions in the Basin are provided in the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), prepared by
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), September 2012, indicate that collectively,
mobile sources account for 59 percent of the VOC, 88 percent of the NOx emissions and 40 percent of
directly emitted PM2.5, with another 10 percent of PM2.5 from road dust.
SCAQMD has divided the Basin into 38 air-monitoring areas with a designated ambient air monitoring
station representative of each area. The Project site is located in air monitoring area 17, which covers
the western central portion of Orange County. The nearest air monitoring station to the Project site is
the Anaheim-Pampas Lane Monitoring Station (Anaheim Station), which is located approximately four
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
76
miles northwest of the Project site at 1630 Pampas Lane, Anaheim. Since historical concentrations of
carbon monoxide were found to be well below state and federal limits throughout SCAB, SCAQMD
discontinued monitoring of carbon monoxide levels on March 31, 2013. It should also be noted that due
to the air monitoring station’s distance from the Project site, recorded air pollution levels at the
Anaheim Station reflect with varying degrees of accuracy the local air quality cond itions at the Project
site. The monitored pollutant levels from the Anaheim Station are provided in Table 3.2-1, which
indicates that ozone and PM10 and PM2.5 are the air pollutants of primary concern in the Project area.
Ozone
During the 2011 to 2015 monitoring period, the State 1-hour concentration standard for ozone has been
exceeded between 0 and 2 days each year at the Anaheim Station. The State 8-hour ozone standard has
been exceeded between 1 and 6 days each year over the past five years at the Anaheim Station. The
federal 8-hour ozone standard was exceeded between 0 and 4 days each year over the past five years at
the Anaheim Station. The numbers indicate that there is a declining trend of both maximum ozone
concentrations and days of exceedances in the area.
Ozone is a secondary pollutant as it is not directly emitted. Ozone is the result of chemical reactions
between other pollutants, most importantly hydrocarbons and NO2, which occur only in the presence of
bright sunlight. Pollutants emitted from upwind cities react during transport downwind to produce the
oxidant concentrations experienced in the area. Many areas of the SCAQMD contribute to the ozone
levels experienced at the monitoring station, with the more significant areas being those dire ctly
upwind.
Carbon Monoxide
CO is another important pollutant that is due mainly to motor vehicles. The Anaheim Station did not
record an exceedance of the state or federal 1-hour or 8-hour CO standards for the last five years.
Nitrogen Dioxide
The Anaheim Station did not record an exceedance of the state or federal NO2 standards for the last five
years.
Particulate Matter
The state 24-hour concentration standard for PM10 has been exceeded between 0 and 6 days each year
over the past five years at the Anaheim Station. The federal 24-hour standard for PM10 not been
exceeded over the past five years at the Anaheim Station. The annual PM10 concentration at the
Anaheim Station has exceeded the state’s standard for the past five years; however, the federal
standard has not been exceeded over the past five years.
The federal 24-hour standard for PM2.5 was exceeded between 1 and 4 days each year over the past five
years at the Anaheim Station. The annual PM2.5 concentration at the Anaheim Station exceeded both the
State and Federal standard for two of the past three years, with the exceedances occurring in 2014 and
2015. There does not appear to be a noticeable trend for PM 10 or PM2.5 in either maximum particulate
concentrations or days of exceedances in the area. Particulate levels in the area are due to natural
sources, grading operations, and motor vehicles.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
77
Table 3.2-1 Local Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary
Year
Pollutant (Standard) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Ozone:
Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.088 0.079 0.084 0.111 0.100
Days > CAAQS (0.09 ppm) 0 0 0 2 1
Maximum 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.073 0.068 0.070 0.082 0.081
Days > NAAQS (0.08 ppm) 0 0 0 4 1
Days > CAAQs (0.070 ppm) 1 0 0 6 1
Carbon Monoxide:
Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 2.3 2.9* 3.3* --* --*
Days > NAAQS (20 ppm) 0 0 0 --* --*
Maximum 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) 2.08 2.34 --* --* --*
Days > NAAQS (9 ppm) 0 0 --* --* --*
Nitrogen Dioxide:
Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppb) 73.8 67.3 81.5 75.8 59.1
Days > NAAQS (100 ppb) 0 0 0 0 0
Inhalable Particulates (PM10):
Maximum 24-Hour California Measurement (ug/m3) 53.0 48.0 77.0 84.0 59.0
Days > NAAQS (150 ug/m3) 0 0 0 0 0
Days > CAAQS (50 ug/m3) 2 0 1 2 2
Annual Arithmetic Mean (AAM) (ug/m3) 24.9 22.4 25.4 26.8 25.5
Annual > NAAQS (50 ug/m3) No No No No No
Annual > CAAQS (20 ug/m3) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Ultra-Fine Particulates (PM2.5):
Maximum 24-Hour National Measurement (ug/m3) 39.2 50.1 37.8 45.0 45.8
Days > NAAQS (35 ug/m3) 2 4 1 4 3
Annual Arithmetic Mean (AAM) (ug/m3) 10.9 10.8 10.1 16.1 14.8
Annual > NAAQS & CAAQS (12 ug/m3) No No No Yes Yes
Notes: Exceedances are listed in bold. CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standard; NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standard; ppm =
parts per million;
Data obtained from Anaheim Station.
* Insufficient or no data.
Source: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
78
3.2.3 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
The air quality at the Project site is addressed through the efforts of various international, federal, state,
regional, and local government agencies. These agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to improve
air quality through legislation, regulations, planning, policy-making, education, and a variety of
programs.
FEDERAL
The Clean Air Act, first passed in 1963 with major amendments in 1970, 1977 and 1990, is the
overarching legislation covering regulation of air pollution in the United States. The Clean Air Act has
established the mandate for requiring regulation of both mobile and stationary sources of air pollution
at the state and federal level. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created in 1970 in order
to consolidate research, monitoring, standard-setting and enforcement authority into a single agency.
The US EPA is responsible for setting and enforcing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
for atmospheric pollutants. It regulates emission sources that are under the exclusive authority of the
federal government, such as aircraft, ships, and certain locomotives. NAAQS pollutants were identified
using medical evidence and are listed below in Table 3.2-2. Table 3.2-2 also lists the air quality standards
associated with each pollutant.
Table 3.2-2 State and Federal Criteria Pollutant Standards
Air
Pollutant
Concentration / Averaging Time
Most Relevant Effects California Standards Federal Primary
Standards
Ozone (O3)
0.09 ppm / 1-hour
0.07 ppm / 8-hour
0.075 ppm, / 8-hour
(a) Pulmonary function decrements and localized lung edema in
humans and animals; (b) Risk to public health implied by
alterations in pulmonary morphology and host defense in
animals; (c) Increased mortality risk; (d) Risk to public health
implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered
pulmonary morphology in animals after long-term exposures and
pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed humans;
(e) Vegetation damage; (f) Property damage.
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
20.0 ppm / 1-hour
9.0 ppm / 8-hour
35.0 ppm / 1-hour
9.0 ppm / 8-hour
(a) Aggravation of angina pectoris and other aspects of coronary
heart disease; (b) Decreased exercise tolerance in persons with
peripheral vascular disease and lung disease; (c) Impairment of
central nervous system functions; (d) Possible increased risk to
fetuses.
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)
0.18 ppm / 1-hour
0.030 ppm / annual
100 ppb / 1-hour
0.053 ppm / annual
(a) Potential to aggravate chronic respiratory disease and
respiratory symptoms in sensitive groups; (b) Risk to public
health implied by pulmonary and extra-pulmonary biochemical
and cellular changes and pulmonary structural changes; (c)
Contribution to atmospheric discoloration.
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
0.25 ppm / 1-hour
0.04 ppm / 24-hour
75 ppb / 1-hour
0.14 ppm/annual
(a) Bronchoconstriction accompanied by symptoms which may
include wheezing, shortness of breath and chest tightness,
during exercise or physical activity in persons with asthma.
Suspended
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
50 µg/m3 / 24-hour
20 µg/m3 / annual 150 µg/m3 / 24-hour
(a) Exacerbation of symptoms in sensitive patients with
respiratory or cardiovascular disease; (b) Declines in pulmonary
function growth in children; and (c) Increased risk of premature
death from heart or lung diseases in elderly.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
79
Air
Pollutant
Concentration / Averaging Time
Most Relevant Effects California Standards Federal Primary
Standards
Suspended
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
12 µg/m3 / annual 35 µg/m3 / 24-hour
12 µg/m3 / annual
Sulfates 25 µg/m3 / 24-hour No Federal Standards
(a) Decrease in ventilatory function; (b) Aggravation of asthmatic
symptoms; (c) Aggravation of cardio-pulmonary disease; (d)
Vegetation damage; (e) Degradation of visibility; and (f) Property
damage.
Lead 1.5 µg/m3 / 30-day 1.5 µg/m3 / 3-month
rolling
(a) Learning disabilities; and (b) Impairment of blood formation
and nerve conduction.
Visibility
Reducing
Particles
Extinction coefficient
of 0.23 per kilometer
- visibility of ten miles
or more due to
particles when
relative humidity is
less than 70 percent.
No Federal Standards Visibility impairment on days when relative humidity is less than
70 percent.
Source: SCAQMD, February 2016
Notes:
a) U.S. EPA often only declares Nonattainment areas; everywhere else is listed as Unclassifiable/Attainment or Unclassifiable
b) A design value below the NAAQS for data through the full year or smog season prior to the attainment date is typically required for
attainment demonstration
c) 1-hour O3 standard (0.12 ppm) was revoked, effective June 15, 2005; however, the Basin has not attained this standard based on 2008-2010
data and is still subject to anti-backsliding requirements
d) 1997 8-hour O3 standard (0.08 ppm) was reduced (0.075 ppm), effective May 27, 2008; the revoked 1997 O3 standard is still subject to anti-
backsliding requirements
e) New NO2 1-hour standard, effective August 2, 2010; attainment designations January 20, 2012; annual NO2 standard retained
f) The 1971 annual and 24-hour SO2 standards were revoked, effective August 23, 2010; however, these 1971 standards will remain in effect
until one year after U.S. EPA promulgates area designations for the 2010 SO2 1-hour standard. Area designations are still pending, with Basin
expected to be designated Unclassifiable /Attainment.
g) Annual PM10 standard was revoked, effective December 18, 2006; 24-hour PM10 NAAQS deadline was 12/31/2006; SCAQMD request for
attainment redesignation and PM10 maintenance plan was approved by U.S. EPA on June 26, 2013, effective July 26, 2013.
h) Attainment deadline for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS (designation effective December 14, 2009) is December 31, 2019 (end of the 10th
calendar year after effective date of designations for Serious nonattainment areas). Annual PM2.5 standard was revised on January 15, 2013,
effective March 18, 2013, from 15 to 12 μg/m3. Designations effective April 15, 2015, so Serious area attainment deadline is December 31,
2025.
i) Partial Nonattainment designation – Los Angeles County portion of Basin only for near-source monitors. Expect to remain in attainment
based on current monitoring data
As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the US EPA requires each state with federal nonattainment
areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that demonstrates the means to attain
the national standards. The SIP must integrate federal, state, and local components and regulations to
identify specific measures to reduce pollution, using a combination of performance standards and
market-based programs within the timeframe identified in the SIP.
The Project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which has been designated by the US EPA
as a non-attainment area for ozone (O3) and suspended particulates (PM10 and PM2.5), and partial non-
attainment for lead, as indicated in Table 3.2-3. Currently, the Basin is in attainment with the national
ambient air quality standards for CO, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and NO2. The CARB defines attainment as the
category given to an area with no violations in the past three years.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
80
In 2011, the Basin exceeded federal standards for either ozone or PM2.5 at one or more locations on a
total of 124 days, based on the current federal standards for 8-hour ozone and 24-hour PM2.5. Despite
substantial improvements in air quality over the past few decades, some air monitoring stations in the
Basin still exceed the NAAQS for ozone more frequently than any other stations in the U.S. In 2011,
three of the top five stations that exceeded the 8-hour ozone NAAQS were located in the Basin (Central
San Bernardino Mountains, East San Bernardino Valley, and Metropolitan Riverside County).
Table 3.2-3 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status
Criteria Pollutant Standard Averaging Time Designationa) Attainment Dateb)
1-Hour Ozone
NAAQS 1979 1-Hour
(0.12 ppm) Nonattainment (Extreme)
2/6/2023
Originally
11/15/2010
(not attained)c)
CAAQS 1-Hour
(0.09 ppm) Nonattainment N/A
8-Hour Ozoned)
NAAQS 1997 8-Hour
(0.08 ppm) Nonattainment (Extreme) 6/15/2024
NAAQS 2008 8-Hour
(0.075 ppm) Nonattainment (Extreme) 7/20/2032
NAAQS 2015 8-Hour
(0.070 ppm) Designations Pending ~2037
CAAQS 8-Hour (0.070 ppm) Nonattainment Beyond 2032
CO
NAAQS 1-Hour (35 ppm)
8-Hour (9 ppm) Attainment (Maintenance) 6/11/2007 (attained)
CAAQS 1-Hour (20 ppm)
8-Hour (9 ppm) Attainment 6/11/2007
(attained)
NO2e)
NAAQS 1-Hour (0.10 ppm) Unclassifiable/ Attainment N/A (attained)
NAAQS Annual (0.053 ppm) Attainment (Maintenance) 9/22/1998 (attained)
CAAQS 1-Hour (0.18 ppm)
Annual (0.030 ppm) Attainment ---
SO2f)
NAAQS 1-Hour (75 ppb) Designations Pending (expect
Unclassifiable/ Attainment) N/A (attained)
NAAQS 24-Hour (0.14 ppm)
Annual (0.03 ppm) Unclassifiable/ Attainment 3/19/1979 (attained)
PM10
NAAQS 1987 24-hour
(150 μg/m3) Attainment (Maintenance)g) 7/26/2013 (attained)
CAAQS 24-hour (50 μg/m3)
Annual (20 μg/m3) Nonattainment N/A
PM2.5h)
NAAQS 2006 24-Hour
(35 μg/m3) Nonattainment (Serious) 12/31/2019
NAAQS 1997 Annual
(15.0 μg/m3) Nonattainment 4/5/2015
NAAQS 2012 Annual
(12.0 μg/m3) Nonattainment (Serious) 12/31/2025
CAAQS Annual (12.0 μg/m3) Nonattainment N/A
Pb NAAQS 3-Months Rolling
(0.15 μg/m3) Nonattainment (Partial) 12/31/2015
Source: SCAQMD, February 2016
Notes:
a) U.S. EPA often only declares Nonattainment areas; everywhere else is listed as Unclassifiable/Attainment or Unclassifiable
b) A design value below the NAAQS for data through the full year or smog season prior to the attainment date is typically required for
attainment demonstration
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
81
c) 1-hour O3 standard (0.12 ppm) was revoked, effective June 15, 2005; however, the Basin has not attained this standard based on 2008-2010
data and is still subject to anti-backsliding requirements
d) 1997 8-hour O3 standard (0.08 ppm) was reduced (0.075 ppm), effective May 27, 2008; the revoked 1997 O3 standard is still subject to anti-
backsliding requirements
e) New NO2 1-hour standard, effective August 2, 2010; attainment designations January 20, 2012; annual NO2 standard retained
f) The 1971 annual and 24-hour SO2 standards were revoked, effective August 23, 2010; however, these 1971 standards will remain in effect
until one year after U.S. EPA promulgates area designations for the 2010 SO2 1-hour standard. Area designations are still pending, with Basin
expected to be designated Unclassifiable /Attainment.
g) Annual PM10 standard was revoked, effective December 18, 2006; 24-hour PM10 NAAQS deadline was 12/31/2006; SCAQMD request for
attainment redesignation and PM10 maintenance plan was approved by U.S. EPA on June 26, 2013, effective July 26, 2013.
h) Attainment deadline for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS (designation effective December 14, 2009) is December 31, 2019 (end of the 10th
calendar year after effective date of designations for Serious nonattainment areas). Annual PM2.5 standard was revised on Jan uary 15, 2013,
effective March 18, 2013, from 15 to 12 μg/m3. Designations effective April 15, 2015, so Serious area attainment deadline is December 31,
2025.
i) Partial Nonattainment designation – Los Angeles County portion of Basin only for near-source monitors. Expect to remain in attainment based
on current monitoring data.
PM2.5 in the Basin has improved significantly in recent years, with 2010 and 2011 being the cleanest
years on record. In 2011, only one station in the Basin (Metropolitan Riverside County at Mira Loma)
exceeded the annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 98th percentile form of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, as well as
the three-year design values for these standards. Basin-wide, the federal PM2.5 24-hour standard level
was exceeded in 2011 on 17 sampling days.
The Basin is currently in attainment for the federal standards for NO2. While the concentration level of
the new 1-hour NO2 federal standard (100 ppb) was exceeded in the Basin at two stations (Central Los
Angeles and Long Beach) on the same day in 2011, the NAAQS NO2 design value has not been exceeded.
Therefore, the Basin remains in attainment of the NO2 NAAQS.
Although much of the Basin, including the proposed site location of Orange County, is in attainment for
lead, the US EPA designated the Los Angeles County portion of the Basin as nonattainment for the
revised (2008) federal lead standard (0.15 µg/m3, rolling three-month average). This was due to the
addition of source-specific monitoring under the new federal regulation. This designation was based on
two source-specific monitors in Vernon and the City of Industry exceeding the revised standard in the
2007-2009 period of data used. For the 2009-2011 data period, only one of these stations (Vernon) still
exceeded the lead standard. The 2012 Lead State Implementation Plan Los Angeles County, prepared by
SCAQMD and adopted on May 4, 2012, provides measures to meet attainment of lead by December 31,
2015.
STATE
The California Air Resources Board (CARB), which is a part of the California Environmental Protection
Agency (Cal EPA), is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air
pollution control programs within California. In this capacity, the CARB conducts research, sets the
California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), compiles emission inventories, develops suggested
control measures, provides oversight of local programs, and prepares the SIP. The CAAQS for criteria
pollutants are shown above in Table 3.2-2. In addition, the CARB establishes emission standards for
motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (e.g. hairspray, aerosol paints, and barbeque
lighter fluid), and various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifications to further
reduce vehicular emissions.
As shown in Table 3.2-3, the Basin has been designated by the CARB as a non-attainment area for ozone,
PM10, PM2.5 and lead. Currently, the Basin is in attainment with the ambient air quality standards for CO,
SO2, NO2, and sulfates and is unclassified for visibility reducing particles and Hydrogen Sulfide.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
82
In 2008 the CARB adopted Resolution 08-43, which limits NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from on-road
diesel truck fleets that operate in California. In 2009 Executive Order R-09-010 was adopted that
codified Resolution 08-43 into Section 2025, title 13 of the California Code of Regulations. This
regulation requires that by the year 2023 all commercial diesel trucks that operate within California shall
meet model 2010 (Tier 4 Final) or latter emission standards. In the interim period, this regulation
provides annual interim targets for fleet owners to meet. This regulation also provides a few exemptions
including a onetime per year 3-day pass for trucks registered outside of California.
CARB is also responsible for regulations pertaining to TACs. The Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and
Assessment Act (AB 2588, 1987, Connelly) was enacted in 1987 as a means to establish a formal air
toxics emission inventory risk quantification program. AB 2588, as amended, establishes a process that
requires stationary sources to report the type and quantities of certain substances their facilities
routinely release in California. The data is ranked by high, intermediate, and low categories, which are
determined by: the potency, toxicity, quantity, volume, and proximity of the facility to nearby receptors.
REGIONAL
The SCAQMD is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the Basin.
As a regional agency, the SCAQMD works directly with the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, and local governments and cooperates
actively with all federal and state agencies. SCAQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes
permitting requirements for stationary sources, inspects emission sources, and enforces such measures
through educational programs or fines, when necessary. SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing
emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources through the preparation and implementation of
an AQMP.
SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and
Imperial Counties and addresses regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, community
development and the environment. SCAG is the federally designated Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) for the majority of the Southern California region and is the largest MPO in the
nation. With respect to air quality planning, SCAG has prepared the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP)/ sustainable communities strategy (SCS), adopted April 2016 and the 2015 Federal
Transportation Improvement Plan (FTIP), adopted October 2013, which addresses regional development
and growth forecasts. These plans form the basis for the land use and transportation components of the
AQMP, which are utilized in the preparation of air quality forecasts and in the consistency analysis
included in the AQMP. The RTP/SCS, FTIP, and AQMP are based on projections originating within city
and county General Plans.
The 2012 AQMP provides a comprehensive program for the Basin that ensures compliance with all
federal and state air-quality planning requirements, accommodates growth, reduces the high pollutant
levels in the Basin, meets federal and state ambient air quality standards, and minimizes the fiscal
impact that pollution control measures have on the local economy. The 2012 AQMP was prepared in
order to meet the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requirement that all 24-hour PM2.5 non-attainment areas
prepare a SIP, which was required to be submitted to the US EPA by December 14, 2012 and
demonstrate attainment with the 24-hour PM2.5 standard by 2014. The 2012 AQMP demonstrates
attainment of the federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard by 2014 in the Basin through adoption of all feasible
measures, and therefore, no extension of the attainment date is needed. A revised draft of the 2012
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
83
AQMP was released in September 2012, and was adopted by the SCAQMD Board on December 7, 2012
and was adopted by CARB via Resolution 13-3 on January 25, 2013.
The 2012 AQMP is designed to satisfy the California Clean Air Act’s (CCAA) emission reductions of five
percent per year or adoption of all feasible measures requirements and fulfill the US EPA’s requirement
to update transportation conformity emissions budgets based on the latest approved motor vehicle
emissions model and planning assumptions. The 2012 AQMP builds upon the approaches taken in the
2007 AQMP for the attainment of federal PM and ozone standards, and highlights the significant
amount of reductions needed and the need to engage in interagency coordinated planning of mobile
sources to meet all of the federal criteria pollutant standards. Compared with the 2007 AQMP, the 2012
AQMP utilizes revised emissions inventory projections that use 2008 as the base yea r. On-road
emissions are calculated using CARB EMFAC2011 emission factors and the transportation activity data
provided by SCAG from their 2012 RTP. Off-road emissions were updated using CARB’s 2011 In-Use Off-
Road Fleet Inventory Model. Since the 2007 AQMP was finalized, new area source categories such as
LPG transmission losses, storage tank and pipeline cleaning and degassing, and architectural colorants,
were created and included in the emissions inventories.
In March 2017, SCAQMD adopted the Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. The plan includes
integrated strategies and measures to meet the following standards:
• 8-hour Ozone (75 ppb) by 2031
• Annual PM2.5 (12 µg/m3) by 2021-2025
• 8-hour Ozone (80 ppb) by 2023 (updated from the 2007 and 2012 AQMPs)
• 1-hour Ozone (120 ppb) by 2022 (updated from the 2012 AQMP)
• 24-hour PM2.5 (35 µg/m3) by 2019 (updated from the 2012 AQMP)
Although SCAQMD is responsible for regional air quality planning efforts, it does not have the authority
to directly regulate air quality issues associated with plans and new development projects throughout
the Basin. Instead, this is controlled through local jurisdictions in accordance to CEQA. In order to assist
local jurisdictions with air quality compliance issues the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook), prepared by SCAQMD, 1993, with the most current updates found at
http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/hdbk.html, was developed in accordance with the projections and
programs of the AQMP. The purpose of the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook is to assist Lead Agencies, as well
as consultants, project proponents, and other interested parties in evaluating a Proposed Project’s
potential air quality impacts. Specifically, the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook explains the procedures that
SCAQMD recommends be followed for the environmental review process required by CEQA. The
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook provides direction on how to evaluate potential air quality impacts, how to
determine whether these impacts are significant, and how to mitigate these impacts. The SCAQMD
intends that by providing this guidance, the air quality impacts of plans and development proposals will
be analyzed accurately and consistently throughout the Basin, and adverse impacts will be minimized.
LOCAL
Local jurisdictions, such as the City, have the authority and responsibility to reduce air pollution through
its police power and decision-making authority. Specifically, the City is responsible for the assessment
and mitigation of air emissions resulting from its land use decisions. The City is also responsible for the
implementation of transportation control measures as outlined in the 20 12 AQMP. Examples of such
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
84
measures include bus turnouts, energy-efficient streetlights, and synchronized traffic signals. In
accordance with CEQA requirements and the CEQA review process, the City assesses the air quality
impacts of new development projects, requires mitigation of potentially significant air quality impacts by
conditioning discretionary permits, and monitors and enforces implementation of such mitigation.
In accordance with the CEQA requirements, the City does not, however, have the expertise to develop
plans, programs, procedures, and methodologies to ensure that air quality within the City and region
will meet federal and state standards. Instead, the City relies on the expertise of the SCAQMD and
utilizes the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook as the guidance document for the environmental review of plans
and development proposals within its jurisdiction.
The City of Anaheim General Plan Green Element contains the following air quality-related goals and
policies that are applicable to the Proposed Project:
Goal 8.1: Reduce locally generated emissions through improved traffic flows and construction
management practices.
Policies:
2) Regulate construction practices, including grading, dust suppression, chemical management,
and encourage pre-determined construction routes that minimize dust and particulate matter
pollution.
Goal 9.1: Reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips.
Policies:
1) Encourage alternative work schedules for public and private sector workers.
2) Encourage development of new commercial and industrial projects that provide on -site
amenities that help to lesson vehicle trips such as on-site day care facilities, cafeterias,
automated teller machines and bicycle storage facilities.
3) Encourage use of vanpools and carpools by providing priority parking through the project design
process.
4) Encourage bicycle and pedestrian travel by improving the City’s trail and bikeway master plan
and by providing convenient links between the trail system and desired destinations.
5) Encourage the development of commercial, office and residential uses in appropriate mixed-use
and multiple use settings.
Goal 11.1: Encourage land planning and urban design that support alternatives to the private
automobile such as mixed-use, provision of pedestrian amenities, and transit-oriented development.
Policies:
1) Encourage commercial growth and the development of commercial centers in accordance with
the Land Use Element.
2) Encourage mixed-use development in accordance with the Land Use Element.
3) Encourage retail commercial uses in or near residential areas and employment centers to lessen
vehicle trips.
4) Encourage higher densities and mixed-use development in the vicinity of major rail and transit
stops.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
85
5) Encourage a diverse mix of retail uses within commercial centers to encourage one-stop
shopping.
Goal 15.2: Continue to encourage site design practices that reduce and conserve energy.
Policies:
1) Encourage increased use of passive and active solar design in existing and new development
(e.g., orientating buildings to maximize exposure to cooling effects of prevailing winds and
locating landscaping and landscape structures to shade buildings).
Goal 17.1: Encourage building and site design standards that reduce energy costs.
Policies:
1) Encourage designs that incorporate solar and wind exposure features such as daylighting design,
natural ventilation, space planning and thermal massing.
3.2.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Proposed
Project would have a significant impact to air quality if it would result in any of the following:
• Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
• Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
• Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutants for
which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
• Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
• Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
REGIONAL AIR QUALITY THRESHOLDS
Many air quality impacts that derive from dispersed mobile sources, which are the dominate pollution
generators in the basin, often occur hours later and miles away after photochemical processes have
converted primary exhaust pollutants into secondary contaminants such as ozone. The incremental
regional air quality impact of an individual project is generally very small and difficult to measure.
Therefore, SCAQMD has developed significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted
rather than on actual ambient air quality because the direct air quality impact of a project is not
quantifiable on a regional scale. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that any project in the Basin with
daily emissions that exceed any of the identified significance thresholds should be considered as having
an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. For the purposes of this air quality impact
analysis, a regional air quality impact would be considered significant if emissions exceed the SCAQMD
significance thresholds identified in Table 3.2-4.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
86
Table 3.2-4 SCAQMD Regional Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Lead
Construction 75 100 550 150 150 55 3
Operation 55 55 550 150 150 55 3
Source: http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/signthres.pdf
LOCAL AIR QUALITY THRESHOLDS
Project-related construction air emissions may have the potential to exceed the state and federal air
quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant
enough to create a regional impact to the Basin. In order to assess local air quality impacts the SCAQMD
has developed Localized Significant Thresholds (LSTs) to assess the project-related air emissions in the
project vicinity. SCAQMD has also provided Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST
Methodology), dated July 2008, that details the methodology to analyze local air emission impacts. The
LST Methodology found that the primary emissions of concern are NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.
The LST Methodology provides Look-Up Tables with different thresholds based on the location and size
of the Project site and distance to the nearest sensitive receptors. The Project site is approximately 19.5-
acres, however because the Look-Up Tables only provide thresholds for 1, 2, and 5-acre sites, the 5-acre
threshold was utilized in this analysis. As detailed above in Section 4.2, the Project site is located in Air
Monitoring Area 17, which covers central Orange County. For PM10 and PM2.5, which are based on a 24-
hour standard, the nearest sensitive receptors are the single-family homes located as near as 900 feet
(274 meters) northwest of the Project site. Since the Look-Up Tables only provide emissions thresholds
for 25, 50, 100, 200 and 500 meters, the PM10 and PM2.5 emissions thresholds were calculated through
interpolation of the 200 and 500 meter thresholds. For NOx, which is based on a 1-hour threshold and
CO, which is based on an 8-hour threshold, the nearest sensitive receptors are the offsite workers
located as near as 72 feet (22 meters) west of the Project site in a car rental center. According to LST
Methodology, any receptor located closer than 25 meters (82 feet) shall be based on the 25 meter
thresholds and is what was utilized for CO and NOx. Table 3.2-5 below shows the LSTs for NOx, CO, and
PM10 and PM2.5 for both construction and operational activities.
Table 3.2-5 SCAQMD Local Air Quality Thresholds of Significance for Construction
Activity
Allowable Emissions (pounds/day)1
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Construction 183 1,253 113 51
Operation 183 1,253 28 13
Notes:
1 For PM10 and PM2.5 the thresholds are based on 274 meters, which is the distance to the nearest single-family homes to the northwest. For
NOx and CO the thresholds are based on 25 meters, since all receptors closer than 25 meters are based on the 25-meter threshold and the
nearest offsite workers are as near as 22 meters west of the Project site.
Source: Calculated from SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-Up Tables for five acres in Air Monitoring Area 17, Central Orange County.
TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, any project that has the potential to expose the public to
TACs in excess of the following thresholds would be considered to have a significant air quality impact:
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
87
▪ If the Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk is 10 in one million or greater; or
▪ TACs from the Proposed Project would result in a Hazard Index increase of 1 or greater.
In order to determine if the Proposed Project may have a significant impact related to hazardous air
pollutants (HAP), the Health Risk Assessment Guidance for analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source
Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis, (Diesel Analysis) prepared by SCAQMD, dated
August 2003, recommends that if the Proposed Project is anticipated to create HAPs through stationary
sources or regular operations of diesel trucks on the Project site, then the proximity of the nearest
receptors to the source of the HAP and the toxicity of the HAP should be analyzed through a
comprehensive facility-wide health risk assessment (HRA).
ODOR IMPACTS
The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that an odor impact would occur if the Proposed Project creates an
odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402, which states:
“A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants
or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable
number of persons, to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of
any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or
damage to business or property.
The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations
necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.”
If the Proposed Project results in a violation of Rule 402 with regards to odor impacts, then the
Proposed Project would create a significant odor impact.
3.2.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
METHODOLOGY
Construction and operation of a 425,000 square foot commercial development, based on the City’s
maximum FAR for the General Commercial land use designation and C-G Zone, was used to determine
the worst-case air emissions for the Proposed Project. The results of the models used for the impact
analysis are provided in Appendix B.
Construction-Related Regional Impacts
Typical emission rates from construction activities were obtained from CalEEMod Version 201 6.3.1.
CalEEMod is a computer model published by the SCAQMD for estimating air pollutant emissions. The
CalEEMod program uses the EMFAC2014 computer program to calculate the emission rates specific for
Orange County for construction-related employee, vendor, and haul truck vehicle trips and the
OFFROAD2014 computer program to calculate emission rates for heavy truck operations. EMFAC2014
and OFFROAD2014 are computer programs generated by CARB that calculate composite emission rates
for vehicles. Emission rates are reported by the program in grams per trip and grams per mile or grams
per running hour. Using CalEEMod, the peak daily air pollutant emissions during each construction
phase described below was calculated. These emissions represent the highest level of emissions for each
of the construction phases in terms of air pollutant emissions.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
88
1. Grading
The grading phase was modeled as occurring over two years and assumed earliest start in 2020. During
the grading phase an estimated 386,000 cubic yards are anticipated to be imported to the site in order
to backfill the existing detention basin. The grading activities are anticipated to require a total of 48,250
two-way haul trips 20 miles in length. The import of 386,000 cubic yards of material is anticipated to
occur over 527 days, and require an average of 46 haul truck deliveries per day (92 two-way trips),
which was based on observations of the number of haul trucks received by other soil receiving centers in
the Project vicinity. This analysis also analyzed expedited grading periods that are detailed in the
analysis below.
The grading activities would also require up to 20 worker trips per day . In order to account for water
truck emissions, 6 daily vendor truck trips were added to the grading phase. The onsite equipment
would consist of two excavators, two graders, two rubber tired dozers, three scrappers, and two of
either a tractor, loader or backhoe, which are an increase of one grader, one rubber tired dozer and one
scrapper over the CalEEMod default equipment mix in order to account for the increase in grading due
to the import of fill. According to SCAQMD staff, application of the Rule 403 minimum requirements
would provide a 55 percent reduction over the default calculated fugitive dust emission rates, whi ch has
been applied to the CalEEMod model.
2. Trenching
The trenching for utilities would occur after the completion of the grading phase. The trenching phase
was included since the Proposed Project would require the Chantilly Storm Drain and two storm drains
from Auto Center Drive that currently drain into the Project site be extended so that they discharge into
the Santa Ana River instead. The trenching activities would occur over one month, would require up to
10 worker trips per day. In order to account for water truck emissions, 6 daily vendor trips were also
added to the trenching phase. The mitigation of water all exposed areas 3 times per day was chosen in
order to account for the fugitive dust reduction that would occur through adhering to SCAQMD Rule
403, which requires that the Best Available Control measures be utilized to reduce fugitive dust
emissions. The onsite equipment would consist of two excavators, one rubber tired loader, and one of
either a tractor, loader, or backhoe.
3. Building Construction
The building construction would occur after the completion of the trenching phase. In order to provide a
worst-case analysis, the maximum allowed structure of 425,000 square feet was analyzed a s being built
over a 14-month period. The building construction would require up to 255 worker trips and 116 vendor
trips per day. The onsite equipment would consist of the simultaneous operation of one crane, three
forklifts, one generator set, one welder, and three of either a tractor, loader, or backhoe.
4. Paving
The paving would occur after the completion of the building construction phase. The paving phase was
modeled based on the paving of the onsite roads and parking lots, which are anticipated to cove r 6.5
acres of the 19.5-acre Project site. The paving activities would occur over one month and would require
up to 15 worker trips per day. The onsite equipment would consist of the simultaneous operation of two
pavers, two paving equipment, and two rollers.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
89
5. Architectural Coating
The application of architectural coatings would occur after the completion of the paving phase. The
architectural coating phase was modeled based on covering 212,500 square feet of non-residential
exterior area, 637,500 square feet of non-residential interior area, and 16,988 square feet of parking
area that includes striping on the streets, painting of signs, and other architectural coatings in public
areas. The architectural coating phase would occur over three months and would require up to 51
worker trips per day. The onsite equipment would consist of one air compressor. Per SCAQMD Rule
1113 as amended on June 3, 2011, the architectural coatings that would be applied will be limited to an
average of 50 grams per liter or less and the CalEEMod model default VOC emissions have been
adjusted accordingly.
Construction-Related Local Impacts
The local air quality emissions from construction were analyzed through utilizing the methodology
described in Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology), prepared by SCAQMD,
revised October 2009. The LST Methodology found the primary criteria emissions of concern are NOx,
CO, PM10, and PM2.5. In order to determine if any of these pollutants require a detailed analysis of the
local air quality impacts, each phase of construction was screened using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate LST
Look-up Tables. The Look-up Tables were developed by the SCAQMD in order to readily determine if the
daily onsite emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 from the Proposed Project could result in a significant
impact to the local air quality.
The emission thresholds were calculated based on the Central Orange County source receptor area and
a disturbance of five acres, which is the nearest acreage available to the daily disturbed area. The
nearest residences are located as near as 900 feet (275 meters) northwest of the Project site and the
nearest offsite workers as located as near as 70 feet (22 meters) west of the Project site.
Operations-Related Criteria Pollutant Impacts
The air quality impacts created by vehicle trips associated with the Proposed Project have been analyzed
by inputting the Project-generated vehicular trips from the Traffic Impact Analysis Update Ball Road
Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Project (Traffic Impact Analysis), prepared by Transpo
Group, February, 2017, into the CalEEMod Model. The Traffic Impact Analysis found that the Proposed
Project would create 25,930 trips per day. The CalEEMod default vehicle mix was utilized in the analysis,
which found that the Project would generate 184 semi-truck trips per day and 267 vendor truck trips per
day. The program then applies the emission factors for each trip which is provided by the EMFAC2014
model to determine the vehicular traffic pollutant emissions. The operating emissions were based on
the year 2025, which has been assumed as the earliest practical opening year for a commercial retail
project on the Project site. The Project setting was set to Suburban Center in the CalEEMod, which is
defined by areas with transit headways of 20-30 minutes during peak hours and the jobs per acre
created was set to 28, which was based on the difference between the AM peak hour inbound trips and
outbound trips in the Traffic Impact Analysis. Currently, OCTA Bus Route 46 has a bus stop at the Project
site and any development that occurs at the Project site would be required to provide sidewalks, which
have been entered into the CalEEMod model.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
90
The air quality impacts created by the major on-site pollutant emitters associated with the on-going use
of 425,000 square feet of commercial uses have also been analyzed using the CalEEMod model. The
CalEEMod model has standardized emission rates for electrical usage, natural gas appliances, landscape
maintenance equipment, and architectural coatings. The program then multiplies these rates by the
number of units of each land use type for the project being analyzed.
Operations-Related Local Impacts
CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor
vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a
roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential local air quality impacts. Local air quality
impacts can be assessed by comparing future without and with project CO levels to the State and
Federal CO standards of 20 ppm over one hour or 9 ppm over eight hours.
Local Air Quality Impacts from On-Site Operations
Project-related air emissions from on-site sources such as architectural coatings, landscaping
equipment, and onsite usage of natural gas appliances may have the potential to create emissions areas
that exceed the state and federal air quality standards in the Project vicinity, even though these
pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Basin. The local air
quality emissions from on-site operations were analyzed using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate LST Look-up
Tables and the methodology described in Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST
Methodology), prepared by SCAQMD, revised October 2009. The Look-up Tables were developed by the
SCAQMD in order to readily determine if the daily emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 from the
Proposed Project could result in a significant impact to the local air quality. The thresholds for PM10 and
PM2.5, which are based on a 24-hour standard, were calculated through interpolation of the 200 and 500
meter LST thresholds. The emissions thresholds for NOx, which is based on a 1-hour threshold and CO,
which is based on an 8-hour threshold, shall be based on the 25 meter LST thresholds according to LST
methodology.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
IMPACT AIR-1: The Proposed Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan.
The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended GP Elements (including land use zoning and
density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the
AQMP." Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A Proposed Project should
be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct
other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency:
1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality
violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality
standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP (except as provided for CO
in Section 9.4 for relocating CO hot spots).
2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2010 or increments based on
the year of project buildout and phase.
Criterion 1 - Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
91
Based on the air quality modeling analysis present under IMPACT AIR-2 below, with implementation of
mitigation measure MM AIR-1, short-term construction impacts would not result in significant impacts
based on the SCAQMD regional and local thresholds of significance. The ongoing operation of the
Proposed Project would generate air pollutant emissions that are inconsequential on a regional basis
and would not result in significant impacts based on SCAQMD thresholds of significance. The analysis for
long-term local air quality impacts showed that local pollutant concentrations would not be projected to
exceed the air quality standards. Therefore, no long-term impact would occur and no mitigation would
be required for on-going operations at the Project site. Therefore, based on the information provided
above, with implementation of mitigation measure MM AIR-1, the Proposed Project would be
consistent with the first criterion.
Criterion 2 - Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP
Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the Proposed
Project with the assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion is to insure that the analyses
conducted for the Proposed Project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. SCAG’s 2012-2035
Regional Transportation/Sustainable Communities Strategy consists of three sections: Core Chapters,
Ancillary Chapters, and Bridge Chapters. The Growth Management, Regional Mobility, Air Quality, Water
Quality, and Hazardous Waste Management chapters constitute the Core Chapters of the document.
These chapters currently respond directly to federal and state requirements placed on SCAG. Local
governments are required to use these as the basis of their plans for purposes of consistency with
applicable regional plans under CEQA. For this Project, the City of Anaheim Land Use Plan defines the
assumptions that are represented in the AQMP.
The Orange County Water District (OCWD) is proposing to amend the City of Anaheim’s General Plan
Land Use Element Map and Zoning Map for Ball Road Basin (BRB) to allow the eventual commercial
development of the Ball Road Basin. The Proposed Project would change the City’s General Plan Land
Use designation for the Project site from Open Space to General Commercial and the zoning from the
Transitional (T) and Industrial (I) Zones to the General Commercial (C-G) Zone. In addition, the Proposed
Project includes amending the General Plan Circulation and Green Elements to add a Proposed Class 1
Bike Path/Trail Study Area along the northern, eastern and southern edges of the Project site. The
Proposed Project does not include a specific development plan for Project site. Although the Proposed
Project is inconsistent with the City General Plan land use designation for the Project site, it would be in
substantial compliance with the Land Use Element goals and policies since it would match the existing
land use designation on the west side of Phoenix Club Drive and is located near major transportation
corridors (i.e., SR-57 and Ball Road). As the Proposed Project would amend the City's General Plan and
change Project site zoning designations to eliminate potential conflicts with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect the
Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relating to conflicting with applicable land
use plans, policies, and regulations. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur for the second
criterion and mitigation would not be required.
Impact Summary
Mitigation measure MM AIR-1 requires that prior to issuance of the grading permit, the Property
Owner/Developer shall require the construction contractor to use large off-road diesel equipment with
a horsepower (hp) rating of 160 hp or higher that meets the U.S. EPA-Certified emission standard for
Tier 3 off-road equipment or higher. Any model year 2006 or later off-road diesel equipment meets the
Tier 3 standard. The construction contractor shall maintain on-site a list of construction equipment by
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
92
type and model year. MM AIR-1 shall not apply to any equipment that is utilized on the Project site that
is licensed to operate on public roadways, such as water trucks. Mitigation measure MM AIR-2 requires
that prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the Property Owner/Developer shall provide a
note on plans indicating that the work days for import of fill and grading of the Project site is reduced
from the anticipated rate of 527 work days and increased above the anticipated average of 46 haul truck
deliveries per day (92 two-way trips), the Property Owner/Developer will require that all haul trucks
used to import fill to the Project site are model year 2010 or newer. The work days shall not be
decreased below 127 work days and truck deliveries shall not be increased beyond 190 haul truck
deliveries per day.
With implementation of mitigation measure MM AIR-1, the Proposed Project would be consistent with
both Criterion 1 and Criterion 2, therefore impacts would be less than significant.
IMPACT AIR-2: The Proposed Project would violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to
an existing or projected air quality violation.
Construction Related Regional Impacts
Construction-related criteria pollutant emissions for each of the five construction phases are shown in
Table 3.2-6.
Table 3.2-6 Construction-Related Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Grading
On-Site1 7.00 79.61 45.36 0.09 10.76 6.31
Off-Site2 0.85 26.19 7.73 0.07 3.57 0.99
Total 7.85 105.80 53.09 0.17 14.33 7.30
Trenching
On-Site 1.40 13.93 12.31 0.02 0.67 0.62
Off-Site 0.05 0.55 0.43 0.00 0.15 0.04
Total 1.45 14.48 12.74 0.02 0.83 0.66
Building Construction
On-Site 1.71 15.62 16.36 0.03 0.81 0.76
Off-Site 1.29 10.82 10.08 0.05 3.63 1.01
Total 3.00 26.43 26.44 0.08 4.44 1.77
Paving
On-Site 1.88 10.19 14.58 0.02 0.51 0.47
Off-Site 0.06 0.03 0.40 0.00 0.17 0.05
Total 1.94 10.22 14.98 0.02 0.68 0.51
Architectural Coatings
On-Site 67.17 1.30 1.81 0.00 0.07 0.07
Off-Site 0.19 0.10 1.35 0.00 0.57 0.15
Total 67.35 1.40 3.16 0.00 0.64 0.23
SCQAMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
1 On-site emissions from equipment not operated on public roads.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
93
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2 Off-site emissions from vehicles operating on public roads.
Source: CalEEMod Version 2011.1.1.
According to Table 3.2-6, only NOx would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance for the grading
phase, all other criteria pollutant emissions and phases would be within the SCAQMD thresholds. This
would be considered a significant impact.
Mitigation measure MM AIR-1 requires that prior to issuance of the grading permit, the Property
Owner/Developer shall require the construction contractor to use large off-road diesel equipment with
a horsepower (hp) rating of 160 hp or higher that meets the U.S. EPA-Certified emission standard for
Tier 3 off-road equipment or higher. Any model year 2006 or later off-road diesel equipment meets the
Tier 3 standard. The construction contractor shall maintain on-site a list of construction equipment by
type and model year. MM AIR-1 shall not apply to any equipment that is utilized on the Project site that
is licensed to operate on public roadways, such as water trucks. Table 3.2-7 shows that with application
of mitigation measure MM AIR-1, the construction-related criteria pollutant emissions would be
reduced to less than significant.
Table 3.2-7 Mitigated Construction-Related Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1
Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Grading
On-Site1 2.53 45.11 52.72 0.09 9.23 5.04
Off-Site2 0.85 26.19 7.73 0.07 3.57 0.99
Total 3.38 71.30 60.45 0.17 12.81 6.03
Trenching
On-Site 1.40 13.93 12.31 0.02 0.67 0.62
Off-Site 0.05 0.55 0.43 0.00 0.15 0.04
Total 1.45 14.48 12.74 0.02 0.83 0.66
Building Construction
On-Site 1.71 15.62 16.36 0.03 0.81 0.76
Off-Site 1.29 10.82 10.08 0.05 3.63 1.01
Total 3.00 26.43 26.44 0.08 4.44 1.77
Paving
On-Site 1.88 10.19 14.58 0.02 0.51 0.47
Off-Site 0.06 0.03 0.40 0.00 0.17 0.05
Total 1.94 10.22 14.98 0.02 0.68 0.51
Architectural Coatings
On-Site 67.17 1.30 1.81 0.00 0.07 0.07
Off-Site 0.19 0.10 1.35 0.00 0.57 0.15
Total 67.35 1.40 3.16 0.00 0.64 0.23
SCQAMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
1 Calculated from CalEEMod with application of Mitigation Measure 1.
Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.1.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
94
Mitigation measure MM AIR-2 has been provided in case there is a need to complete the import of fill in
less time than the anticipated rate of 527 days. This mitigation measure would consist of requiring all
haul trucks to be either model year 2010 or newer. In order to determine the reduction in air emissions
associated with the mitigation measure, the EMFAC2011 model was utilized and was run based on the
same parameters that were used in the CalEEMod model. The EMFAC2011 model printouts are provided
in Appendix B. The increase in haul trucks per day is not anticipated to change the number of on-site
workers or the amount of on-site equipment. In order to account for the vehicle emissions from the
workers driving to and from the Project site, the off-site emissions from the trenching phase which
consist solely of the emissions from 10 worker trips per day was doubled, since there is anticipated to be
twice the number of worker trips (20 worker trips) during the grading phase.
Multiple scenarios were run in order to find the maximum number of haul truck trips that can operate
per day, while remaining under the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds and it was found that through
requiring all haul trucks to be model year 2010 or newer that would allow up to 190 haul truck deliveries
(380 two-way) trips per day and would allow the grading phase to be shortened to 127 work days. Table
3.2-8 shows the criteria pollutant emissions levels with implementation of mitigation measure MM AIR-
2.
Table 3.2-8 Mitigation for Import of Fill Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1
Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Grading With all Haul Trucks Model Year 2010 or Newer and 190 Haul Truck Deliveries per Day
On-Site 2.38 43.57 52.62 0.09 32.28 14.94
Off-Site 1.88 54.65 27.67 0.27 7.08 2.01
Total 4.26 98.21 80.29 0.36 39.35 16.95
SCQAMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes: 1 Calculated from CalEEMod with application of Mitigation Measures MM AIR-1 and MM AIR-2-.
Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.1.
Construction-Related Local Impacts
Construction-related air emissions from fugitive dust and on-site diesel emissions may have the
potential to exceed the state and federal air quality standards in the Project vicinity, even though these
pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Basin. Table 3.2-9
shows the onsite emissions from the CalEEMod model for the five construction phases and the
calculated emissions thresholds.
Table 3.2-9 Local Construction Emissions at the Nearest Sensitive Receptors
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
Phase NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Grading1 45.11 52.72 9.23 5.04
Trenching1 13.93 12.31 0.67 0.62
Paving 15.62 16.36 0.81 0.76
Building Construction 10.19 14.58 0.51 0.47
Architectural Coatings 1.30 1.81 0.07 0.07
SCAQMD Threshold for 25 meters (82 feet) and 275 183 1,253 113 51
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
95
meters (900 feet)2
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Notes: 1 Grading and Trenching based on adherence to fugitive dust suppression requirements from SCAQMD Rule 403.
2 For PM10 and PM2.5 the thresholds are based on 274 meters, which is the distance to the nearest single-family homes to
the northwest. For NOx and CO the thresholds are based on 25 meters, since all receptors closer than 25 meters are based
on the 25-meter threshold and the nearest offsite workers are as near as 22 meters west of the Project site.
Source: Vista Environmental, calculated from CalEEMod and SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for five acres in Air
Monitoring Area 17, Central Orange County.
The data provided in Table 3.2-9 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the
calculated local emissions thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptors. Therefore, a less than significant
local air quality impact would occur from construction of the Proposed Project.
Construction-Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts
The greatest potential for TAC emissions would be related to diesel particulate emissions associated
with heavy equipment operations during construction of the Proposed Project. According to SCAQMD
methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of “individual
cancer risk”. “Individual Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of TACs
over a 70-year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk-assessment methodology.
Given the relatively limited number of heavy-duty construction equipment and the short-term
construction schedule, the Proposed Project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 70 years) substantial
source of TAC emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk. Therefore, TAC emissions impacts
during construction of the Proposed Project would be considered less than significant.
Operations-Related Criteria Pollutant Impacts
The worst-case summer or winter VOC, NOx, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions created from the
Proposed Project’s long-term operations were calculated and are summarized below in Table 3.2-10.
Table 3.2-10 Operational Regional Air Pollution Emissions
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources1 9.62 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Usage2 0.02 0.22 0.19 0.00 0.02 0.02
Mobile Sources3 10.03 34.49 100.15 0.39 38.06 10.38
Total Emissions 19.67 34.72 100.38 0.39 38.08 10.40
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
1 Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment.
2 Energy usage consist of emissions from electricity and natural gas usage.
3 Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust.
Source: Vista Environmental, calculated from CalEEMod Version 2016.3.1.
The data provided in Table 3.2-10 above shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would
exceed the regional emissions thresholds. Therefore, a less than significant regional air quality impact
would occur from operation of the Proposed Project.
Operations-Related Local Impacts
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
96
At the time of the 1993 Handbook, the SCAB was designated nonattainment under the CAAQS and
NAAQS for CO. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of
control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the SCAB and in the state have steadily
declined. In 2007, the SCAB was designated in attainment for CO under both the CAAQS and NAAQS.
SCAQMD conducted a CO hot spot analysis for attainment at the busiest intersections in Los Angeles
during the peak morning and afternoon periods and did not predict a violation of CO standards 2. Since
the nearby intersections to the Proposed Project are smaller with less traffic than what was analyzed by
the SCAQMD, no local CO Hotspot are anticipated to be created from the Proposed Project and no CO
Hotspot modeling was performed. Therefore, a less than significant long-term air quality impact is
anticipated to local air quality with the on-going use of the Proposed Project.
Local Air Quality Impacts from On-Site Operations
Project-related air emissions from on-site sources such as architectural coatings, landscaping
equipment, and onsite usage of natural gas appliances may have the potential to create emissions areas
that exceed the state and federal air quality standards in the Project vicinity. Table 3.2-11 shows the on-
site emissions from the CalEEMod model that includes area sources, energy usage, and vehicles
operating on-site and the calculated emissions thresholds.
Table 3.2-11 Operational Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
On-Site Emission Source NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00
Energy Usage 0.22 0.19 0.02 0.02
Onsite Vehicle Emissions1 4.31 12.52 4.76 1.30
Total Emissions 4.53 12.75 4.78 1.31
SCAQMD Thresholds for 25 meters and 274 meters2 183 1,253 28 13
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Notes:
1 Onsite vehicle emissions based on 1/8 of the gross vehicular emissions, which is the estimated portion of vehicle emissions o ccurring
within a quarter mile of the Project.
2 For PM10 and PM2.5 the thresholds are based on 274 meters, which is the distance to the nearest single-family homes to the northwest. For
NOx and CO the thresholds are based on 25 meters, since all receptors closer than 25 meters are based on the 25 meter threshold a nd the
nearest offsite workers are as near as 22 meters west of the Project site.
Source: Calculated from CalEEMod and SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for five acres in Air Monitoring Area 17, Central Orange
County.
As shown in Table 3.2-11, the on-going operations of the Proposed Project would not exceed the local
NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds of significance. Therefore, the on-going operations of the Proposed
Project would create a less than significant operations-related impact to local air quality due to on-site
emissions and mitigation would not be required.
Operations-Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts
Particulate matter from diesel exhaust is the predominate TAC in urban areas and based on a statewide
average in 2000 was estimated to represent about two-thirds of cancer risk from TACs. Some chemicals
in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde have been listed as carcinogens by State
2 The four intersections analyzed by the SCAQMD were: Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway; Wilshire Bo ulevard and Veteran Avenue;
Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue; and La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard. The busiest intersection evaluated (Wilshire and
Veteran) had a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day with LOS E in the morning and LOS F in the evening peak hour.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
97
Proposition 65 and the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants program. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is not
directly measured but is indirectly estimated based on fine particulate matter measurements and
special studies on the chemical speciation of ambient data along with receptor modeling techniques.
The DPM modeling requires inputs of the geographical locations of sensitive receptors and the
placement of each source of DPM, which includes stationary places such as loading docks where trucks
idle and transport refrigeration units (TRUs) would operate for extended periods of time and both on-
site and off-site roads where running emissions from trucks would create DPM. Although the locations
of the nearby sensitive receptors, are known and includes offsite workers as near as 70 feet west and
single-family homes as near as 900 feet northwest of the Project site, the location of the on-site DPM
sources is unknown at this time, since this Project is a program level analysis that is limited to a General
Plan Amendment and zone change and does not provide Project level details for the Project site.
Therefore, it is not possible to provide a quantitative analysis of the operational DPM levels and
resultant cancer risks at the nearby receptors from the Proposed Project at this time.
According to the Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects, prepared by CAPCOA, July
2009, this report recommends that sensitive receptors should not be located within 1,000 feet of a
distribution center that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day or more than 40 trucks per day
with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs). As detailed above in the operational criteria
pollutant analysis, the CalEEMod default vehicle mix found that the Project would generate 184 semi-
truck trips per day and 267 vendor truck trips per day. Therefore, potential future development on the
Project site may exceed CAPCOA screening thresholds of where potential cancer and non-cancer (acute
and chronic) health risks may occur from Project-related TAC emissions. This would be considered a
significant impact.
Mitigation measure MM AIR-3 requires any future development on the Proposed Project site that has
the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more truck trips with
operational transport refrigeration units (TRUs) to submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City’s
Planning Department, prior to the issuance of building permits. The HRA shall assess the cancer and
non-cancer (acute and chronic) health risks from Project generated TAC emissions at the nearby
sensitive receptors and if potential health risks are identified, best available control technologies for
toxics (T-BACTs) shall be identified in the HRA to reduce the risk to less than significant levels. Through
implementation of mitigation measure MM AIR-3, operational TAC impacts would be reduced to less
than significant.
Impact Summary
Mitigation measure MM AIR-1 requires that prior to issuance of the grading permit, the Property
Owner/Developer shall require the construction contractor to use large off-road diesel equipment with
a horsepower (hp) rating of 160 hp or higher that meets the U.S. EPA-Certified emission standard for
Tier 3 off-road equipment or higher. Any model year 2006 or later off-road diesel equipment meets the
Tier 3 standard. The construction contractor shall maintain on-site a list of construction equipment by
type and model year. MM AIR-1 shall not apply to any equipment that is utilized on the Project site that
is licensed to operate on public roadways, such as water trucks.
Mitigation measure MM AIR-2 requires that prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the
Property Owner/Developer shall provide a note on plans indicating that the work days for import of fill
and grading of the Project site is reduced from the anticipated rate of 527 work days and increased
above the anticipated average of 46 haul truck deliveries per day (92 two-way trips), the Property
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
98
Owner/Developer will require that all haul trucks used to import fill to the Project site are model year
2010 or newer. The work days shall not be decreased below 127 work days and truck deliveries shall no t
be increased beyond 190 haul truck deliveries per day.
With implementation of mitigation measures MM AIR-1 and MM AIR-2, Construction-related criteria
pollutant emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds; impacts would be less than significant.
Operations-related criteria pollutant emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds; impacts would
be less than significant.
Mitigation measure MM AIR-3 requires any future development on the Proposed Project site that has
the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more truck trips with
operational transport refrigeration units (TRUs) to submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City’s
Planning Department, prior to the issuance of building permits. The HRA shall assess the cancer and
non-cancer (acute and chronic) health risks from Project generated TAC emissions at the nearby
sensitive receptors and if potential health risks are identified, best available control technologies for
toxics (T-BACTs) shall be identified in the HRA to reduce the risk to less than significant levels.
With implementation of mitigation measure MM AIR-3, local construction and operational emissions at
the nearest receptor, and construction and operations-related TAC emissions would not exceed
SCAQMD thresholds. Impacts would be considered less than significant.
IMPACT AIR-3: The Proposed Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria.
Cumulative projects include local development as well as general growth within the project area.
However, as with most development, the greatest source of emissions is from mobile sources, which
travel throughout the local area. Therefore, from an air quality standpoint, the cumulative analysis
would extend beyond any local projects and when wind patterns are considered, would cover an even
larger area. Accordingly, the cumulative analysis for the project’s air quality must be general by nature.
The project area is out of attainment for both ozone and PM10 and PM2.5 particulate matter.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b), this analysis of cumulative impacts incorporates a
three-tiered approach to assess cumulative air quality impacts.
• Consistency with the SCAQMD project specific thresholds for construction and operations;
• Project consistency with existing air quality plans; and
• Assessment of the cumulative health effects of the pollutants.
Consistency with Project Specific Threshold
Construction-Related Cumulative Impacts
The Project site is located in the Basin, which is currently designated by the US EPA for federal standards
as a non-attainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. The regional ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions
associated with construction of the Proposed Project have been calculated above under IMPACT AIR-2.
The above analysis found that development of the Proposed Project, with implementation of mitigation
measures MM AIR-1 and MM AIR-2, would result in less than significant regional emissions of VOC and
NOx (ozone precursors), PM10, and PM2.5 during construction of the Proposed Project. Therefore, a less
than significant cumulative impact would occur from construction of the Proposed Project.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
99
Operational-Related Impacts
The greatest cumulative operational impact on the air quality of the Basin will be the incremental
addition of pollutants mainly from increased traffic from residential, commercial, and industrial
development. In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, projects that do not exceed SCAQMD criteria
or can be mitigated to less than criteria levels are not significant and do not add to the overall
cumulative impact. The regional zone, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions created from the on-going operation of
the Proposed Project have been calculated above. The analysis found that the development of the
Proposed Project would result in less than significant regional emissions of VOC and NOx (ozone
precursors), PM10, and PM2.5 during operation of the Proposed Project. With respect to long-term
emissions, this Proposed Project would create a less than significant cumulative impact.
Consistency with Air Quality Plans
The Orange County Water District (OCWD) is proposing to amend the City of Anaheim’s General Plan
Land Use Element Map and Zoning Map for Ball Road Basin (BRB) to allow the eventual commercial
development of the Ball Road Basin. The Project would change the site’s General Plan Land Use
designation from Open Space to General Commercial and would change the zoning designation of the
site from the T Zone and I Zone to the C-G Zone. Although the Proposed Project is currently inconsistent
with the General Plan land use designation for the proposed site, it would be in substantial compliance
with the Land Use Element goals and polices, since it would match the existing land use designation on
the west side of Phoenix Club Drive and is located near major transportation corridors (i.e., SR -57 and
Ball Road). As the Proposed Project would amend the City's General Plan and change the Project site
zoning designation to eliminate potential conflicts with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect the Proposed
Project would have a less than significant impact relating to conflicting with applicable land use plans,
policies, and regulations. Therefore, with the approval of the proposed amendments, the Proposed
Project would not result in an inconsistency with the current land use designations with respect to the
regional forecasts utilized by the AQMPs.
Cumulative Health Impacts
The Basin is designated as nonattainment zone for O3, PM10, and PM2.5, which means that the
background levels of those pollutants are at times higher than the ambient air quality standards. The air
quality standards were set to protect public health, including the health of sensitive individuals (elderly,
children, and the sick). Therefore, when the concentrations of those pollutants exceeds the standard, it
is likely that some sensitive individuals in the population would experience health effects . The regional
analysis detailed above found that the Proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD regional
significance thresholds for VOC and NOx (ozone precursors), PM10, and PM2.5. As such, the Proposed
Project would result in a less than significant cumulative health impact.
Impact Summary
Cumulative impacts associated with the Proposed Project would be less than significant.
IMPACT AIR-4: The Proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
100
The nearest sensitive receptors that may be impacted by the Proposed Project are single-family homes
located as near as 900 feet northwest of the Project site and offsite workers located as near as 70 feet
west of the Project site. The above analysis for IMPACT AIR-2 found that none of the analyzed criteria
pollutants would exceed the calculated local emissions thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptors for
construction activities. Therefore, the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations would be considered less than significant impact during construction activities and
mitigation would not be required.
The analysis provided under IMPACT AIR-2 also found that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants
would exceed the calculated local emissions thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptors to the Project
site for operational activities. The on-going operations of the Proposed Project may expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations in the immediate vicinity of the Proposed Project from
on-site operations, or near intersections where the Proposed Project would substantially increase the
vehicular traffic and resultant CO concentrations. CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways
because the most notable source of CO is motor vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually
indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of
potential impacts to sensitive receptors. The analysis provided above for IMPACT AIR-2 shows that no
local CO Hotspots are anticipated to be created at any nearby intersections from the vehicle traffic
generated by the Proposed Project. Therefore, operation of the Proposed Project would result in a less
than significant impacts to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
The exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be considered less
than significant impact during construction and operational activities. Mitigation would not be required.
IMPACT AIR-5: The Proposed Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people.
Individual responses to odors are highly variable and can result in a variety of effects. Generally, the
impact of an odor results from a variety of factors such as frequency, duration, offensiveness, location,
and sensory perception. The frequency is a measure of how often an individual is exposed to an odor in
the ambient environment. The intensity refers to an individual’s or group’s perception of the odor
strength or concentration. The duration of an odor refers to the elapsed time over which an odor is
experienced. The offensiveness of the odor is the subjective rating of the pleasantness or
unpleasantness of an odor. The location accounts for the type of area in which a potentially affected
person lives, works, or visits; the type of activity in which he or she is engaged; and the sensitivity of the
impacted receptor.
Sensory perception has four major components: detectability, intensity, character, and hedonic tone.
The detection (or threshold) of an odor is based on a panel of responses to the odor. There are two
types of thresholds: the odor detection threshold and the recognition threshold. The detection
threshold is the lowest concentration of an odor that will elicit a response in a percentage of the people
that live and work in the immediate vicinity of the Project site and is typically presented as the mean (or
50 percent of the population). The recognition threshold is the minimum concentration that is
recognized as having a characteristic odor quality, this is typically represented by recognition by 50
percent of the population. The intensity refers to the perceived strength of the odor. The odor character
is what the substance smells like. The hedonic tone is a judgment of the pleasantness or unpleasantness
of the odor. The hedonic tone varies in subjective experience, frequency, odor character, odor intensity,
and duration.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
101
Construction-Related Odor Impacts
Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the application of materials
such as asphalt pavement, paints and solvents and from emissions from diesel equipment. The
objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process would be temporary and
would not likely be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the Project site’s boundaries. Odor
emission during construction would be short-term in nature and limited to the operational time of diesel
equipment and the amounts of odor producing materials being utilized. Therefore, the Proposed Project
would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people during construction
activities and mitigation would not be required.
Potential Operations-Related Odor Impacts
Potential sources that may emit odors during the on-going operations of the Proposed Project would
primarily occur from odor emissions from the trash storage areas. Pursuant to City regulations,
permanent trash enclosures that protect trash bins from rain as well as limit air circulation would be
required for the trash storage areas. In addition, the nearest off-site worker to the Proposed Project
would be located as near as 70 feet west of the Project site and the nearest off-site residence to the
Proposed Project would be located approximately 900 feet northwest of the Project site and north of
Ball Road. Due to the distance of the nearest receptors from the Project site and through compliance
with SCAQMD’s Rule 402 significant impacts related to odors would not occur during the on-going
operations of the Proposed Project and mitigation would not be required.
Impact Summary
The Proposed Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of p eople
during construction activities or during the on-going operations of the Proposed Project. Mitigation
would not be required.
MITIGATION MEASURES
MM AIR-1: Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall require the
construction contractor to use large off-road diesel equipment with a horsepower (hp) rating of 160 hp
or higher that meets the U.S. EPA-Certified emission standard for Tier 3 off-road equipment or higher.
Any model year 2006 or later off-road diesel equipment meets the Tier 3 standard. The construction
contractor shall maintain on-site a list of construction equipment by type and model year. MM AIR-1
shall not apply to any equipment that is utilized on the Project site that is licensed to operate on public
roadways, such as water trucks.
MM AIR-2: Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the Property Owner/Developer shall
provide a note on plans indicating that the work days for import of fill and grading of the Project site is
reduced from the anticipated rate of 527 work days and increased above the anticipated average of 46
haul truck deliveries per day (92 two-way trips), the Property Owner/Developer will require that all haul
trucks used to import fill to the Project site are model year 2010 or newer. The work days shall not be
decreased below 127 work days and truck deliveries shall not be increased beyond 190 haul truck
deliveries per day.
MM AIR-3: Prior to the issuance of building permits for any future development on the Project site that
has the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more truck trips per
day with operational transport refrigeration units (TRUs), the Property Owner/Developer shall submit a
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
102
health risk assessment (HRA) to the Anaheim Planning and Building Department. The HRA shall be
prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State of California’s Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the SCAQMD.
If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds one in one hundred thousand (1.0E-05), PM
concentrations would exceed 2.5 μg/m3, or the appropriate non-cancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the
Property Owner/Developer shall identify and demonstrate that best available control technologies for
toxics (T-BACTs) will reduce potential cancer and non-cancer risks to an acceptable level, including
appropriate enforcement mechanisms. T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to, restricting idling
onsite, electrifying loading docks to reduce diesel particulate matter, or requiring use of newer
equipment and/or vehicles. The Property Owner/Developer shall record a covenant on the property that
requires ongoing implementation of T-BACTs identified in the HRA. The form of the covenant shall be
approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
With implementation of mitigation measures MM AIR-1, MM AIR-2 and MM AIR-3, impacts from
Proposed Project construction and operations-related emissions would be less than significant.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
A cumulative impact discussion is provided under IMPACT AIR-3 above.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
103
3.3. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.3.1 INTRODUCTION
This section describes the biological resources3 of the Project site and surrounding area, and evaluates
habitat conditions to determine the potential for occurrence of common and special -status species4 ,
and their habitats5. For the purposes of this discussion, the “biological study area” includes the 19.5-acre
future development footprint (Project site) and a 500-foot buffer, as shown in Figure 3.3-1, Biological
Study Area. The information contained within this section includes sufficient data to permit the
assessment of the significant environmental consequences of the Proposed Project by reviewing
agencies and members of the public. The information presented in this section is based on the Biological
Technical Report for Orange County Water District Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone
Change Project and the Orange County Water District Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone
Change Project Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination both prepared for the Proposed Project by
NOREAS and dated March 2017 and April 2013, which are included in this document as Appendix C and
Appendix D, respectively. Data collection and analysis methods, results, conclusions, assumptions, and
limitations can found within Appendix C and Appendix D, but are succinctly characterized below.
Prior to beginning pedestrian based field surveys, resource specialists were consulted and available
information from resource management plans and relevant documents were reviewed to determine the
locations and types of biological resources that have the potential to exist within and adjacent to the
biological study area; resources were evaluated within several miles of the Project. The materials
reviewed included, but were not limited to, the following:
• City of Anaheim Initial Study for the Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
(City 2012);
• USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper and File Data (USFWS 2017a);
• USFWS Carlsbad Field Office Species List for Orange County (2017b);
• California Natural Diversity Database maintained by the CDFW (CDFW 2017);
• Regional South Coast Missing Linkages Project Report (South Coast Wildlands. 2008);
• California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory (CNPS 2017);
• Aerial Photographs (Microsoft Corporation 2017);
• Biological Technical Report for the Orange County Water District’s Ball Road Basin General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change Project (NOREAS 2013a);
• Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for the Orange County Water District’s Ball Road Basin
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Project (NOREAS 2013b)
Pedestrian-based field surveys were performed on March 2017 to assess general and dominant
vegetation community types, community sizes, habitat types, and species present within communities.
3 For the purposes of this analysis, “biological resources” refers to the plants, wildlife, and habitats that occur, or have th e potential to occur,
within the biological study area.
4 For the purposes of this analysis, “special-status species” refers to any species that has been afforded special protection by federal, state, or
local resource agencies (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW]) or resource conservation
organizations (e.g., California Native Plant Society [CNPS]). The term “special-status species” excludes those avian species solely identified under
Section 10 of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) for federal protection. Nonetheless, MBTA Section 10 protected species are afforded
avoidance and minimization measures per state and federal requirements.
5 A “habitat” is defined as the place, or type of locale where a plant or animal naturally or normally lives and grows.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
104
Community type descriptions were based on observed dominant vegetation composition and derived
from the criteria and definitions of widely accepted vegetation classification systems (Holland 1986;
Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf, and Evens 2009). Plants were identified to the lowest taxonomic level sufficient to
determine whether the plant species observed were non-native, native, or special-status. Plants of
uncertain identity were subsequently identified from taxonomic keys (Baldwin et al. 2012). Scientific and
common species names were recorded according to Baldwin et al. (2012).
The presence of a wildlife species was based on direct observation, and wildlife sign (e.g., tracks,
burrows, nests, scat, or vocalization). Field data compiled for wildlife species included scientific name,
common name, and evidence of sign when no direct observations were made. Wildlife of uncertain
identity was documented and subsequently identified from specialized field guides and related
literature (Burt and Grossenheider 1980, Halfpenny 2000, Sibley 2000, Elbroch 2003, and Stebbins
2003).
The Project site was also assessed for its potential to support special-status species based on habitat
suitability comparisons with reported occupied habitats; and a formal delineation of wetlands and
waters was performed using the routine onsite determinations method which is detailed within
Appendix D.
Additionally, the Project site’s suitability as a wildlife movement and migration corridor was analyzed to
determine if there is potential for it to link together areas of wildlife habitat that are otherwise
separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. The fragmentation of open
space areas by urbanization tends to create isolated islands of wildlife habitat. Wildlife movement and
migration corridors can be highly variable in size and scope, and are used by individuals for refuge or
dispersal purposes to transfer into other more expansive open-space lands that can facilitate breeding,
foraging, or population-level movements.
3.3.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Project site is located in Township 4 South, Range 9 and 10 West of the Orange United States
Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle Map within the San Bernardino Meridian,
in an un-sectioned portion of the Santiago de Santa Ana Land Grant (USGS 1978). More specifically, the
Project site is located within an inactive recharge basin adjacent to the Santa Ana River, at an
approximate elevation of 160 feet above mean sea level. The majority of the biological study area is
currently disturbed but is adjacent to higher quality native habitats. The Project site was separated from
the Santa Ana River in the early 1970’s but includes nuisance and ruderal vegetation that is recurrently
subject to removal from fuel modification and weed abatement during OCWD’s on-going management
activities. There are no trees within the Project site and it’s not located within the City’s Central and
Coastal Natural Conservation Plan boundaries. Field surveys of the Project site were conducted in March
2017 to assess general and dominant vegetation community types, community sizes, habitat types, and
species, and to prepare a preliminary jurisdictional determination (PDJ).
SOILS
The biological study area contains three soil types: Metz Loamy Sand, Riverwash, and Pits (Figure 3.3-2,
Soils). All three soil types are classified as hydric soils (Natural Resource Conservation Service, Soil
Survey Geographic Database [SSURGO] [USDA-NRCS accessed February 2013]).
Figure 3.3-1: Biological Study AreaCity of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
Draft EIR Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Orange County
Figure 3.3-2: SoilsCity of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
Draft EIR Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Orange County
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
107
HYDROLOGY
As shown in Figure 3.3-3, Watershed, the biological study area is located in the Lower Santa Ana
Watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code 1807020310), which drains over 67,108-acres through a series of
upper elevation washes, creeks, rivers and the Chantilly Storm drain to the Santa Ana River (USDA-NRCS
2013). The watershed also can be further defined into the following sub-watersheds: Aliso Creek-Santa
Ana River Subwatershed (HUC12: 180702031001), Walnut Canyon-Santa Ana River Sub-Watershed
(HUC12: 180702031002), and Greenville Banning-Santa Ana River Subwatershed (HUC12:
180702031003). Flows within the vicinity of the biological study area are directed southwest for
approximately 13.5 miles before draining into the Pacific Ocean.
The biological study area is located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year
flood zone, as illustrated in Figure 3.3-4, FEMA Floodplain Zones (FEMA 1996). The biological study area
also includes hydrologic features identified by the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) (USFWS 2013).
Hydrologic features identified within the biological study area by NWI are depicted on Figure 3.3-5,
National Wetland Inventory.
VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND LAND COVER TYPES
Five vegetation communities/land cover types were observed within the biological study area: Disturbed
Sage Scrub, Freshwater Marsh, Seasonal Wetland , Open Water/River, and Developed/Disturbed Lands
(See Table 3.3-1, Land Cover Types Within the Project Area, Table 3.3-2, Land Cover Types Within the
Project site, and Figure 3.3-6, Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types Within the Project Area).
Table 3.3-1 Land Cover Types Within the Project Area
Type Acres Percent of Study Area
Developed/Disturbed Lands 59.1 63%
Open Water/River 27.6 30%
Seasonal Wetland 4.8 5%
Freshwater Marsh 1.6 2%
Disturbed Sage Scrub 0.4 <1%
Total 93.5 100%
Table 3.3-2 Land Cover Types Within the Project Site
Type Acres Percent of Study Area
Developed/Disturbed Lands 12.5 64%
Open Water/River 0.3 1.5%
Seasonal Wetland 4.8 25%
Freshwater Marsh 1.6 8%
Disturbed Sage Scrub 0.3 1.5%
Total 19.5 100%
Figure 3.3-3: WatershedCity of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
Draft EIR Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Orange County
Figure 3.3-4: FEMA Floodplain ZonesCity of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
Draft EIR Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Orange County
Figure 3.3-5: National Wetlands InventoryCity of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
Draft EIR Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Orange County
Figure 3.3-6: Vegetation Communities
and Land Cover Types
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
Draft EIR Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Orange County
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
112
A comprehensive plant list is available within Appendix C. Vegetation communities/land cover types are
summarized below:
Disturbed Sage Scrub
Disturbed sage scrub within the biological study area has integrated with non -native species.
Accordingly, its vegetation composition varies substantially, depending on physical circumstances (i.e.,
topography) and successional stage. Dominant species within this type include: California buckwheat
(Eriogonum fasciculatum), deer weed (Acmispon glaber), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), tree
tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), and other non-native species.
Fresh Water Marsh
Freshwater marsh typically is dominated by perennial monocots up to 6 feet in height and includes
cattails (Typha spp.), bulrush (Scirpus spp.), sedges (Carex spp.), spike rushes (Eleocharis spp.), flatsedges
(Cyperus spp.), smartweed (Polygonum spp.), watercress (Rorippa spp.) and yerba mansa (Anemopsis
californica) (Keeler-Wolf 1995). Freshwater marsh found within the biological study area is limited to
lands dominated by Typha latifolia.
Seasonal Wetland
Seasonal Wetlands within the biological study area are currently saturated with standing water due to
the record precipitation received in Southern California in early 2017. Seasonal Wetlands are dominated
by Flatsedge (Cyperus ssp.). Other species observed within this vegetation community included cudweed
(Pseudognaphalium spp.), cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), Curly dock (Rumex crispus) and Australian
waterbuttons (Cotula australis).
Open Water/River
Open water/river habitat within the biological study area can be found within the Islands Golf Center
Driving Range and the Santa Ana River. These lands generally contain un-vegetated areas with small
uplands or sediment deposits, and the water can hold suspended organisms such as filamentous green
algae and desmids (Grenfell 1988). Floating plants such as duckweed (Lemna spp.), water buttercup
(Ranunculus aquatilis) and mosquito fern (Azolla filiculoides) may also be present on a seasonal basis
(Holland and Keil 1995).
Disturbed and Developed Lands
Developed or disturbed lands include locales that have been disked, cleared, or otherwise altered by
human activities. This cover type within the biological study area includes roadways (paved and
unpaved), existing buildings and other structures, existing train tracks (southern portion of the biological
study area), ornamental plantings for landscaping, escaped exotics, and ruderal vegetation dominated
by non-native, weedy species.
WILDLIFE
Wildlife species observed within the study area included commonly-occurring avian species such as Rock
Pigeon (Columba livia) and Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia); as well as one commonly-occurring
mammal [California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi)] and one reptile [western fence lizard
(Sceloperous occidentalis)].
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
113
Given the extent of the existing human-influenced environment within the study area (e.g., high levels
of vehicle/train related traffic, noise, light, vibration, and maintenance efforts associated with OCWD’s
management of the basin), any species currently using these lands have acclimated to the disturbance
regime present. However, raptors and passerine species appear to have suitable nesting, roosting,
refuge, and foraging habitats within the study area within the majority of the land cover types described
above.
SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS
One historic occurrence (1924 - 1935) of chaparral sand-verbena (Abronia villosa var. aurita) exists
within the study area; however it was not detected during any 2013 and 2017 pedestrian based surveys.
The Project site does not include high quality habitat for chaparral sandverbena (Figure 3.3-7, Literature
Review). However, Lewis’ evening primrose (Camissoniopsis lewisii) was detected in the Project site
during 2017 surveys (Figure 3.3-6). Lewis’ evening primrose has no State or Federal listing status, but the
CNPS has ranked this species as a 3. This implies that there is a lack of information about the species
(i.e., data regarding distribution, endangerment, ecology, taxonomic validity, and so forth). In the
absence of adequate data on the species, it is considered to be taxonomically problematic. Special-
status plant species and their potential for occurrence within the Project site are provided within
Appendix C. The study area includes no USFWS-critical habitat for plants (Figure 3.3-8, Critical Habitat),
and species observed during the surveys are identified within Appendix C.
SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE
The Project site was assessed for its potential to support special-status wildlife based on habitat
suitability comparisons with reported occupied habitats. No special-status wildlife species have been
documented within the biological study area (Figure 3.3-7). Special-status wildlife species known to
occur within ten miles of the Project site and their potential for occurrence are detailed within Appendix
C. The biological study area does not include any USFWS critical habitat for animals (Figure 3.3-8), and
all wildlife detected during the surveys are identified within Appendix C.
SPECIAL AQUATIC RESOURCE AREAS
The National Wetland Inventory includes records of special aquatic resource areas within the biological
study area (Figure 3.3-9, National Wetland Inventory). To that end, the 2013 Preliminary Jurisdictional
Determination (PJD) detailed the presence of 1.6-acres of included wetlands, and 6.5-acres of Waters of
the United States (WoUS) and Waters of the State (WoS) within the Project site (NOREAS 2013). The
2013 PJD represented an estimate of jurisdictional boundaries using the most recent regulations,
written policies, and guidance from the appropriate regulatory agencies at that time. However, only the
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and CDFW can
make a final determination of special aquatic resource area boundaries and jurisdiction. As a result of
the record precipitation received in early 2017, the extent of the jurisdictional boundaries appears to
have substantially changed.
The Santa Ana River supports the movement and dispersal of common and special status species within
the region and is known to connect large blocks of natural open space that are considered essential for
long-term plant and wildlife viability in southern California. Wildlife movement and migration corridors
like the Santa Ana River allow for the re-colonization of areas that may have experienced greatly
reduced populations or localized extirpations. The Santa Ana River also allows for genetic mixing and
flow between
Figure 3.3-7 - Literature ReviewCity of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
Draft EIR Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Orange County
Figure 3.3-8: Critical HabitatCity of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
Draft EIR Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Orange County
Figure 3.3-9: Waters of the US and StateCity of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
Draft EIR Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Orange County
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
117
otherwise segregated populations of species in the region. The Project site, while immediately adjacent
to the Santa Ana River, is separated from the River by a levee, which runs along the east perimeter of
the site.
3.3.3 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
FEDERAL
Endangered Species Act of 1973
The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) protects plants and wildlife that are listed by the USFWS and
the National Marine Fisheries Service as endangered or threatened (USA 1973). Section 9 of the FESA
prohibits the taking of endangered wildlife, where “taking” is defined as any effort to “harass, harm,
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in such conduct” (50 CFR
17.3). For plants, this statute governs removing, possessing, maliciously damaging, or destroying any
endangered plant on federal land, and removing, cutting, digging up, damaging, or destroying any
endangered plant on non-federal land in knowing violation of state law (16 United States Code [USC]
1538). Under Section 7 of FESA, federal agencies are required to consult with the USFWS if their actions,
including permit approvals or funding, could adversely affect an endangered species (including plants) or
its critical habitat.
Clean Water Act of 1977
The purpose of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (USA, 1977) is to “restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.” Section 401 requires that an applicant for a
federal license or permit that allows activities resulting in discharge to jurisdictional waters (including
wetland/riparian areas) of the US must obtain a state water quality certification that the discharge
complies with other provisions of CWA. The RWQCBs administer the certification program in California.
Section 402 is regulated by the USEPA and establishes a permitting system for the discharge of any
pollutant (except dredge or fill material) into waters of the US. It establishes a framework for regulating
municipal and industrial stormwater discharges under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) program. The RWQCBs also administer the NPDES permits for construction activities
and operations.
Section 404 of the CWA prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into “waters of the United
States” without a permit from the USACE. The definition of waters of the United States includes rivers,
streams, estuaries, territorial seas, ponds, lakes, and wetlands. Wetlands are defined as those areas
“that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted
for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 CFR 328.3 7b). The U.S. EPA also has authority over wetlands and
may override a USACE permit. Substantial impacts to wetlands may require an individual permit.
Projects that only minimally affect wetlands may meet the conditions of one of the existing nationwide
permits. A water quality certification or waiver pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA is required for
Section 404 permit actions; this certification or waiver is issued by the RWQCB in California.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits actions, unless permitted, “to p ursue, hunt, take,
capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to purchase, purchase,
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
118
deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for transportation, transport, cause to be
transported, carry, or cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment, transportation
or carriage, or export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird, included in the terms of the
Convention for the protection of migratory birds or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird” (16 United
States Code [USC] 703).
As authorized by the MBTA, the USFWS issues permits to qualified applicants for the following types of
activities: falconry, raptor propagation, scientific collecting, special purposes (rehabilitation, education,
migratory game bird propagation, and salvage), take of depredating birds, taxidermy, and waterfowl
sale and disposal. The regulations governing migratory bird permits can be found in 50 CFR part 13
(General Permit Procedures) and 50 CFR part 21 (Migratory Bird Permits). The State of California has
incorporated the protection of birds of prey in Sections 3800, 3513, and 3503.5 of the California Fish and
Game Code (CFGC).
STATE
California Endangered Species Act of 1984: California Fish and Game Code Sections 2050 – 2098
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) generally parallels the main provisions of the FESA, but
unlike its federal counterpart, CESA also applies take prohibitions to species proposed for listing (called
“candidates” by the State) and has a much narrower definition of “take” (State of California, 1984).
“Take” is defined in Section 86 of the CFGC as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt,
pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” CESA allows for take incidental to otherwise lawful development
projects. State lead agencies are required to consult with CDFG to ensure that any action they undertake
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species.
California Fish and Game Code
Section 1600 -1616 requires that any person, state or local government agency or public utility
proposing a project that may result in impacting a river, stream, or lake to notify the CDFG. In addition
to protection of state listed species under CESA, the agency also has surface water jurisdiction to protect
wildlife values and native plant resources associated with waters of the State. If CDFG determines that
the project may adversely affect existing fish and wildlife resources, a Section 1602 Streambed
Alteration Agreement may be required. Required conditions within the Streambed Alteration
Agreement are intended to address potentially significant adverse impacts within CDFG jurisdictional
limits.
Section 2080 of the CFGC prohibits the taking, possession, purchase, sale, and import or export of
endangered, threatened, or candidate species, unless otherwise authorized by permit or in the
regulations.
Section 3513 of the CFGC duplicates the federal protection of migratory birds and prevents take or
possession of any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA.
3.3.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Proposed
Project would have a significant impact on biological resources if it would result in any of the following:
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
119
▪ Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
▪ Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
▪ Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
▪ Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
EFFECTS DISMISSED IN THE INITIAL STUDY
The IS concluded that the following potential impacts to biological resources were less than significant
or did not have an impact and did not need to be further addressed in the EIR:
The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such
as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
The project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
3.3.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
IMPACT ANALYSIS
IMPACT BIO-1: The Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species.
The biological study area does not include any USFWS critical ha bitat for plants or animals. No special-
status wildlife species have been documented within the study area. No plant species with State or
Federal listing status were observed in the Project site during 2017 survey, however, the Lewis’ evening
primrose CNPS ranked 3 species was detected.
The Proposed Project is limited to a zone change and General Plan Amendment and no specific
development of the Project site is proposed. Impacts associated with future development of the Project
site consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would be considered less
than significant with implementation of mitigation measure MM BIO-1.
IMPACT BIO-2: The Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community.
The Proposed Project is located within an inactive groundwater recharge basin. The majority of the
Project site consists of disturbed lands, with small amounts of freshwater marsh and seasonal wetland.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
120
The Proposed Project is limited to a zone change and General Plan Amendment and no specific
development of the Project site is proposed. Impacts associated with future development of the Project
site consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would be considered less
than significant with the implementation of mitigation measure MM BIO-2, which include obtaining
discretionary approvals from the appropriate regulatory agencies ensure no net loss of riparian habitat
or sensitive natural communities prior to the onset of surface disturbing activities within the Project site.
IMPACT BIO-3: The Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands.
The 2013 PJD details the presence of 1.6-acres of included wetlands, and 6.5-acres of WoUS and WoS
within the Project site. The freshwater marsh and seasonal wetland land cover types within the Project
site have increased in size since their previous delineation in 2013 . The Proposed Project is limited to a
zone change and General Plan Amendment and no specific development of the Project site is proposed .
Impacts associated with future development of the Project site consistent with the proposed General
Plan Amendment and Zone Change would be considered less than significant with the implementation
of mitigation measure MM BIO-2. Mitigation measure MM BIO-2 requires coordination with
appropriate resource agencies (i.e., USACE, RWQCB, CDFW), would ensure that surface disturbing
activities result in no net loss of protected wetlands or waterways.
IMPACT BIO-4: The Proposed Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of fish or
wildlife species or with established wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
The Santa Ana River supports the movement and dispersal of common and special status species within
the region and is known to connect large blocks of natural open space that are considered essential for
long-term plant and wildlife viability in southern California. The Project site, while immediately adjacent
to the Santa Ana River, is separated from the River by a levee, which runs along the east perimeter of
the site. No conversion of habitats in the River is proposed.
The Proposed Project is limited to a zone change and General Plan Amendment and no specific
development of the Project site is proposed. Impacts associated with future development of the Project
site consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would be considered less
than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures MM BIO-2 and MM BIO-3.
MITIGATION MEASURES
MM BIO-1: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit a biological
survey prepared by a qualified biologist. The biological survey shall assess potential impacts to sensitive
vegetation communities and/or special status species and include measures to reduce any impacts to
less than significant. Such measures shall identify as appropriate, measures for avoidance, restoration,
and/or relocation in accordance with the USFWS and CDFW requirements.
MM BIO-2: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Property Owner/Developer shall hire a qualified
biologist to conduct a jurisdictional delineation of the potential disturbance area at locations where
construction activity could affect jurisdictional waters. The jurisdictional delineation shall determine if
features are under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and/or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The
result shall be a preliminary jurisdictional delineation report that shall be submitted to the City of
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
121
Anaheim and any responsible agency, ACOE, RWQCB, and CDFW, as appropriate, for review and
approval. Based on the results of the preliminary jurisdictional delineation, development of the site shall
be designed so that impacts to jurisdictional waters are minimized in consultation with the ACOE,
RWQCB, and CDFW. Prior to issuance of building permits, permits shall be obtained from each agency
where applicable. The aforementioned permits and approvals will ensure no net loss of wetlands and
water ways, by defining adequate mitigation and compensation to impact ratios.
MM BIO-3: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, for any construction activity set to occur
during nesting season (typically between February 1 and September 15), the Property Owner/Developer
shall be required to conduct nesting bird surveys in accordance with the CDFW requirements, and
submit said surveys to the City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department. Such surveys shall
identify avoidance measures to protect active nests. These measures shall be complied with by the
Property Owner/Developer.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
The Proposed Project is limited to a zone change and General Plan Amendment and no specific
development of the Project site is proposed; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in
substantial adverse impacts to biological resources. Impacts associated with future development of the
Project site would be considered less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures MM
BIO-1, MM BIO-2, and MM BIO-3.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative biological impacts would consider impacts from this Project and other projects. As detailed
herein, the Proposed Project, shall comply with all applicable codes, laws, ordinances, and regulations to
minimize or avoid adverse effects to biological resources altogether. Furthermore, any other planned
projects would also be required to comply with the same local, state and federal codes, ordinances,
laws, and other required regulations. Thus, the Proposed Project’s incremental contribution to
cumulative effects is not considerable. Future development of the Project site would result in impacts to
some biological resources. However, implementation of identified mitigation measures and compliance
with applicable codes, ordinances, laws, and other required regulations would reduce the magnitude of
any impacts to a less than significant level. Future projects identified within the vicinity and are included
in Section 3.0.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
122
3.4. CULTURAL RESOURCES
3.4.1 INTRODUCTION
This section describes the existing cultural resources environmental conditions, and discusses the
consequences to cultural resources related to Proposed Project implementation. Where impacts are
identified, mitigation measures are proposed to reduce those impacts to less than significant levels. The
information presented in this section is based on the Cultural Resources And Paleontological
Resources—Phase I Assessment For The Orange County Water District Proposed Ball Road Basin General
Plan Amendment And Zone Change And Possible Commercial Development, City Of Anaheim, Orange
County, dated July 2013, prepared by ArchaeoPaleo Resource Management Inc. (ArchaeoPaleo), which is
included in Appendix E of this Draft EIR.
Cultural resources are defined as buildings, sites, structures, or objects, each of which may have
historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific importance. The term cultural resources
also encompasses the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) term “historic property” as well as
CEQA terms “historic resource” and “unique archaeological resource.” Under the NHPA, historic
property refers to a property that is listed on, or determined eligible for listing on, the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP). While under CEQA, historic resource means a property that is listed on, or
determined eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Unique
archaeological resources are archaeological artifacts, objects, or sites that contain information to
answer important scientific questions, possess a particular quality such as the oldest of its type, or are
directly associated with a recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
The State of California considers paleontological resources as a subset of cultural resources.
Paleontological resources consist of fossilized remains and include fossils sites and fossil-bearing strata.
3.4.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
GEOLOGIC AND PALEONTOLOGICAL SETTING
The Project site is mapped as being underlain by Qal/recent Holocene alluvial deposits (Rogers 1965) or
Qyfa/older Holocene deposits (Morton and Miller 2006). Table 3.4-1 lists the name and age of deposits
in geologic time. Due to the Project site’s proximity to the Santa Ana River and its location within the
floodplain of the Santa Ana River, it is likely to have experienced much re-deposition of sediment.
However, the location and the Holocene age of the soil of the Project site indicate that the soil may
contain paleontological deposits. The top 20 feet (approx.) of sediment in the Project site was removed
in the early 1970s but records of its content or disposition could not be located. The 20 feet may have
contained an overburden of more recent floodplain deposits, leaving older Holocene deposits behind. In
addition, Pleistocene deposits that may contain the remains of Pleistocene mammals typical of southern
California may underlie Holocene deposits. Surficial sediments of the Project site and the surrounding
area are younger terrestrial Quaternary floodplain alluvium, with older terrestrial Quaternary floodplain
sediments present at various depths (McLeod 2013).
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
123
Table 3.4-1 Divisions of Recent Geologic Time1
Era Period or Subperiod Series or Epoch
Ce
n
o
z
o
i
c
65
.
5
m
y
a
t
o
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
Quaternary
1.5 million years ago (mya) to the Present
Ne
o
g
e
n
e
Holocene
11,477 years ago (+/- 85 years) to the Present
Pleistocene ("The Great Ice Age")
1.5 million to approximately 11,477 (+/- 85 years) years ago
Tertiary
65.5 to 1.5 mya
Pliocene
5.3 to 1.5 mya
Miocene
23 to 5.3 mya
Pa
l
e
o
g
e
n
e
Oligocene
33.9 to 23.0 mya
Eocene
55.8 to 33.9 mya
Paleocene
65.5 to 58.8 mya
1 After U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Names Committee, 2007; earlier eras not shown.
CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistoric Overview
The generally accepted chronology of four distinct Horizons for the region of the Project site was
devised by W.J. Wallace (1955). His initial classification reflected the qualitative nature of archaeological
sites and lacked absolute dates. It was divided into Early Man Period (Horizon I), Millingstone Period
(Horizon II), Intermediate Period (Horizon III), and Late Prehistoric (Horizon IV). Despite lacking dates,
the generalized themes from Wallace provided the foundation for regional prehistory (Moratto 2004).
For the purposes of this discussion, Wallace’s (1955) original scheme will be used with approximate
dates assigned using other chronologies laid out in Moratto (2004).
Horizon I-Early Man - Paleocoastal (>12,000 – 7,500B.P.)
Horizon I, described as the Early Man Period, began with the arrival of the first inhabitants of the region
more than 12,000 years ago and persisted until 7,500 B.P. This period, also called the San Dieguito
Period (Rogers 1939, Warren 1968), is characterized by the presence of nomadic and semi-nomadic
hunter-gatherer groups who exploited coastal and inland environments for food and shelter.
Horizon II–Milling Stone (7,500 – 3,000 B.P.)
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
124
Horizon II, also known as the Millingstone Period, began approximately 7,500 B.P. and lasted until 3,000
B.P. This period is called the La Jolla Period for sites in this area and south of it. The hallmarks of the
Millingstone Period are extensive use of millingstone implements, such as manos and metates,
suggestive of hard seed processing, and the use of core tools. The Millingstone Period is characterized
by larger and more stable settlements as evidenced by deeper and more extensive middens. This
difference in settlement may reflect increased sedentism with long-term habitation within an
established area. Cultural adaptation toward the coastal perimeter and along lakes, streams, lago ons,
and estuaries started to be prolific after 5,000 B.P. (Wallace 1978). There is great diversification of
subsistence strategies during the Millingstone Period between the inhabitants; some sites indicate a
greater reliance upon shellfish, small mammals, and birds, as well as plant resources, and less emphasis
upon hunting and fishing (Wallace 1955; Moratto 2004). This shift from big game hunting towards a
diverse plant and shell fish collecting economy may have been the result of changing climatic factors
related to the start of the Altithermal Period, a warm and dry period that lasted for several thousand
years and resulted in the development of California’s Mediterranean climate (Byrd and Raab 2007; Raab
and Larson 1997). This shift in collecting strategies also resulted in the introduction of the mortar and
pestle during this horizon (Wallace 1955, 1978; Warren 1968).
Horizon III–Intermediate (3,000 – 1,000 B.P.)
Horizon III is identified as the Intermediate Period, which is a short temporal shift that lasts from
approximately 3,000 to 1,000 B.P. During the latter part of the Millingstone Period and throughout the
Intermediate Period, the use of mortar and pestles appear extensively in the archaeological record
suggesting increased reliance upon the acorn as a dietary staple and a noticeable shift away from the
hard seed exploitation of the Millingstone Period. Additionally, projectile point and faunal remains
indicate increased land and sea exploitation as well as seasonal hunting and gathering subsiste nce
strategies. The artifact assemblages of this period are diverse and include broad leaf shaped blades,
heavy stemmed projectile points in association with terrestrial and aquatic bone, antler and bone tools,
asphaltum, steatite, the bow and arrow, and arrow shaft straighteners (Wallace 1978).
Horizon IV–Late Prehistoric (1000 – 500 B.P.)
Horizon IV, considered the Late Prehistoric Period, began approximately 1000 B.P. and terminated at the
time of European contact. This period is characterized by greater population density and socio-cultural
complexity. Beginning approximately 1500 B.P., there was an increased use in the bow and arrow,
bedrock mortars, and milling slicks, indicative of the transition from the Intermediate to the Late
Prehistoric Period and continuing to the period of contact (Goldberg 1999). The bow and arrow was
widely used during this period, and there was a greater reliance upon fishing and sea mammal hunting.
The artifact assemblages of this period tend to be more diverse and elaborate, and include evidence of
trade goods, indicative of increasing intricacy with respect to trade networks and social contact with
other groups. Assemblages include small points, mortar and pestle, perforated stones, circular shell fish
hooks, bone tools, bone and shell ornaments, asphaltum, and elaborate mortuary customs, which point
to increased population and social complexity. The populace of a settlement tended to be quite large,
indicative of village-type habitation, possibly with smaller inland seasonal camp affiliations.
Ethnographic Overview
The Spanish arrived in the region of the Project site in the sixteenth century. The Proposed Project is
located in a region within the homeland of the Tongva people, who have been called Gabrielino for the
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
125
Mission San Gabriel where many were taken and that they helped build (Bean and Smith 1978; Johnston
1962; Kroeber 1925; McCawley 1996).
By the time of contact, the Tongva had established a semi-sedentary lifestyle within the coastal zone
and foothills of the interior, making efficient use of abundant and varied resources. Villages were
autonomous, and territories were prescribed (McCawley 1996). The center of the village of Hotuuknga
was located approximately 1.5 miles north of the Project site, on the same side of the river, at the
riverbend (Harrington 1933; Kroeber 1925: Plate 57; Johnston 1962: fold-out map; McCawley 1996:56,
59-60), making the Project site highly sensitive for archaeological deposits and cultural importance.
Habitation sites were often built in sheltered areas, such as canyons and coves, and near reliable
supplies of fresh water. Riparian and marine resources were used for subsistence, but also as
adornment and as currency, as in the case of shell beads. The socio -cultural complexities of the Tongva
are evident in tribal structure, village autonomy, and the importance placed upon social status. Spiritual
and medicinal practices evolved through the years and included the use of datura (jimson) (Bean and
Smith 1978).
Burial practices of the Tongva included flexed burials or cremation and the use of cremation urns
(McCawley 1996; Bean and Smith 1978). When the deceased were cremated, their ashes might be
placed in a stone bowl or a shell dish to be buried, or may be scattered to the east (Ashby and
Winterbourne 1996:27, Hudson 1969:17-18; McCawley 1996:157). Offerings buried with the deceased
included seeds, pots, otter skins, baskets, wood, bone, and shell implements and beads (McCawley
1996:157).
Historic Overview
The following discusses the historic setting in three parts: The Spanish Period (ca. 1542 to 1821 C.E.), the
Mexican Period (1821 to 1848 C.E.), and the American Period (1848 C.E. to Present).
Spanish Period (ca. 1542 to 1821 C.E.)
The Spanish were the first known Europeans to explore and colonize the land area of what today is
known as California, which included Alta and Baja California. Early reconnaissance of the region near
California began in 1539 with Hernando de Alarcon’s expedition northward up the Gulf of California into
the mouth of the Colorado River. This expedition never actually entered California. From 1542 to 1543,
Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo led an ocean expedition to explore the coastal perimeter of California. Cabrillo
and his crew first stepped ashore at the present day harbor of San Diego, claiming California for the King
of Spain in 1542 (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984; Laylander 2000). Sebastián Vizcaíno, in 160 2-1603,
mapped and described the coast in great detail. These early Spanish expeditions made contact with the
local Native Californians, facilitated trade networks, and set the stage for future Spanish colonization,
which resulted in the eventual decline of the Native Californian population (Chartkoff and Chartkoff
1984; Laylander 2000).
The colonization of California by the Spanish began in 1769 with the arrival of the Franciscan
administrator Junípero Serra and the Spanish military under the command of Gaspar de Portolá in San
Diego. The expedition passed through the vicinity of the Project site. Father Crespí, who kept detailed
logs of the expedition, described a village in the vicinity of the Project site, likely Hotuuknga (McCawley
1996:60). Father Crespí reported that its inhabitants offered the members of the expedition a place to
stay, food, and land.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
126
Twenty-one California Missions were established in order to “convert” the Native Californians to
Catholicism within a ten-year period and then return the Mission lands to the Indians (Chartkoff and
Chartkoff 1984; Laylander 2000). The original site of the Mission San Gabriel Arcangel was chosen to be
located along the Santa Ana River, then on the banks of the Rio Hondo near today’s Whittier Narrows;
ultimately the site in present-day San Gabriel was chosen (McCawley 1996:189; Temple 1960:154).
Tongva from interior locations such as Hotuuknga and the Project vicinity were taken to Mission San
Gabriel or Mission San Juan Capistrano. Native inhabitants of the areas were “named” according to the
mission with which they were associated. For example, association with the Mission San Gabriel resulted
in the name “Gabrielino.” Cattle ranching and viticulture were two mainstays of the mission economic
system.
At the time of the Spanish arrival, population estimates of California Indians were placed at about
310,000 individuals. By the end of the Spanish reign, through unhygienic Spanish population centers
(essentially labor camps), European diseases, incarceration of Indians, excessive manual labor demands,
and poor nutrition, the population declined as a result of over 100,000 fatalities, nearly one third of
California Indians (Castillo 1998).
Cattle ranching continued in the region and in the vicinity of the Project site. The Project site is at the
western edge of the former Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana, which is located just east of Rancho San Juan
Cajon de Santa Ana (see Hansen 1955; Reynolds 1868). Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana was made up of
63,414-acres granted in 1810 by Spanish Governor José Joaquín de Arrillaga to Jose Antonio Yorba (a
soldier from the Portolá expedition) and his nephew, Juan Pablo Peralta (Davila 1893; Dominguez 1985).
The rancho’s ditches that diverted water from the Santa Ana River may have been the first historic-era
irrigation systems to use the river (Scott 1977).
Mexican Period (1821 to 1848 C.E.)
The beginning of the Mexican Period (1821 to 1848) is marked by Mexico’s independence from Spain.
Mexico became California’s new ruling government, and at first, little changed for the California Indians.
The Franciscan missions continued to enjoy the unpaid labor native people provided, despite the
Mexican Republic’s 1824 Constitution that declared them Mexican citizens.
Increasing hostility between missionaries and local civilians who demanded mission lands, the influence
of private traders in the hide and tallow industry, and the rise of introduced diseases among the Native
American population led to an uprising of the Indian population against the Mexican government, and
the eventual secularization and collapse of the mission system by 1834. Mission lands were to be
divided among California’s Mexican population and California Native people. By the late 1830s, land had
been granted to loyal Mexican politicians, soldiers, and supporters. The ranchos surrounding Rancho
Santiago de Santa Ana were granted during this period. Landowners focused on the cattle industry and
devoted large tracts to grazing. Cattle hides were a primary southern California export, providing a
commodity to trade for goods from the east and other areas in the United States and Mexico. The
number of nonnative inhabitants increased during this period because of the influx of explorers and
trappers and of ranchers associated with the land grants (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984; Castillo 1998).
Ultimately, little land was distributed back to the native people of California via land grants (Castillo
1998).
American Period (1848 C.E. – Present)
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
127
American military forces were present within California beginning in the summer of 1846, representing
the United States’ quest for territorial expansion towards the West Coast. The strength of Mexican
resistance to attacks eventually deteriorated, and the United States occupied Mexico City in 1848,
marking the beginning of the American Period (1848 to Present). In February 1848, California became a
U.S. holding with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This treaty ended the Mexican-
American War and ceded much of the southwest (California, Nevada, Utah, and portions of Arizona,
New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming) to the United States.
A month before the end of the Mexican-American War, on January 24, 1848, gold was discovered along
the American River. The following year resulted in an estimated 100,000 adventurers, known as “forty-
niners”, descending upon California. That same year, 1849, California petitioned Congress for admission
to the Union as a free state. As a result of the Compromise of 1850, California was admitted to the
Union as the 31st state on September 9, 1850.
Spanish and Mexican land grant boundaries and ownership were contested, and often, ownership was
not patented until many years later, even after the Mexican Claims Act of March 3, 1851, 9 Stat. 631,
provided protocols for land claims. A claim for Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana was filed with the Public
Land Commission in 1852, and the grant was ultimately patented to Juan Pablo Peralta, Antonio Yorba,
Bernardo Yorba, and Heirs of Bernardo Yorba in 1883 (Bureau of Land Management 2013a; Surveyor-
General of the State of California 1886). The Project site is located in a parcel later purchased by Van de
Graff (Reynolds 1868).
George Hansen travelled from Austria to the gold mines of California in 1850 (Paule 1952). By 1857,
together with John Frohling, a German musician; and Otto Weyse, he had made plans to buy land to
plant with grapevines by way of establishing a German colony in Southern California. Viticulture in mid-
nineteenth-century Southern California was the second-most lucrative industry (after raising livestock)
because the demand for wine exceeded the supply at that time (Paule 1952). John Frohling and George
Hansen bought 1,165 acres of Rancho San Juan Cajon de Santa Ana land from Juan Pacifico Ontiveros to
create the Los Angeles Vineyard Society (Anaheim Colony Historic District 2013a; Carpenter 1989;
Hansen 1855). They acquired an easement for an irrigation ditch that would transport water from the
Santa Ana River to the vineyards through Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana land (Carpenter 1989).
Ultimately, the Anaheim Colony was established in 1857 between North, East, West, and South streets,
approximately 2.5 miles northwest of the Project site. "Ana"—for the Santa Ana River—combined with
"heim"—“home” in German—became “Anaheim,” or “home by the river” (Anaheim Colony Historic
District 2013b). The colony’s layout was designed by civil engineer and surveyor George Hansen, who
planned the vineyards, irrigation systems, and town lots and supervised the planting of 400 ,000
grapevines and willow poles that sprouted to form a windbreak and fence around the colony (Becker et
al. 2007). The first settlers arrived in 1859.
In 1881, disease began wiping out the vineyards, and oranges became the area’s most profitable crop
(Carpenter 1989). Agriculture continued to expand in and around Anaheim, by way of citrus groves fed
by new irrigation. The city was incorporated in 1876, and the coming of the railroads in the late 1800s
linked orange growers with new markets, and boosted sales and production (Anaheim Chamber of
Commerce 2013; Anaheim Colony Historic District 2013c; Berry 1989). A segment of the Union Pacific
Railroad, bounds the southern edge of the Project site.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
128
Before World War II, the City experienced early suburbanization and the ebb of agriculture, as
residential neighborhoods replaced the orange groves (Anaheim Colony Historic District 2013b;
Carpenter 1989). The boom in the agriculture industry started to wa ne after World War II because of a
disease called “Quick Decline” that attacked the orange groves (Carpenter 1989). Like much of Southern
California, Anaheim boomed after World War II, with the advent of the GI Bill. In addition, low land
prices and low taxes brought Cold War aerospace and electronics firms to the area.
In the early 1950s, Walt Disney decided to bring a theme park to Anaheim and purchased 160 acres of
an orange grove (Anaheim Chamber of Commerce 2013). The park opened in 1955 and is a main stay of
Anaheim’s economy and heritage.
In 1966, Angel Stadium, a 45,000-seat ballpark built on 150 acres of former citrus and walnut groves
largely funded by the City, became home to the California Angels Major League Baseball team. In 1993,
the new Disney-owned Mighty Ducks Hockey Team began playing in a newly completed arena called
Arrowhead Pond of Anaheim, which is known today as Honda Center. Both the Angel Stadium and
Honda Center are located with the City’s Platinum Triangle, which is an 820-acre mixed-use area,
located north of the confluence of the I-5 and SR 57 freeways. The Project site is located adjacent to the
northern boundary of the Platinum Triangle, which is delineated by the Southern California Edison
easement. .
3.4.3 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Proposed
Project would have a significant impact to cultural resources if it would result in any of the following:
▪ Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
as defined in §15064.5?
▪ Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
▪ Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
▪ Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
3.4.4 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
STATE
Senate Bill 18 (Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004; Amendment to Section 815.3 of the Civil Code;
Amendment to Section 65040.2 of the Government Code)
Senate Bill 18 (SB18) requires cities and counties to contact and consult with California Native American
tribes before amending or adopting any general plan or specific plan, or before changing and zoning
designations. SB 18 implementation requires the local governments, “to refer the proposed action to
California Native American tribes, as specified, and also provide opportunities for involvement of
California Native American tribes” (State of California 2004:1).
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
129
As required by Government Code Sections 65352.3 and 65562.5, for purposes of consultation with
California Native American tribes, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) maintains a list of
California Native American Tribes with whom local governments must consult. The list is developed and
maintained by the NAHC, under authority granted by Government Code Sections 65092, 65352 and
65352.3.
Office of Planning and Research Tribal Consultation Guidelines (State of California Governor’s Office of
Planning and Research 2005)
This document provides guidance to cities and counties regarding the process for consulting with Native
American Indian tribes during the adoption or amendment of local general plans or specifi c plans, in
accordance with the statutory requirements of SB 18
California Register of Historical Resources
A significant historical resource, as defined by CEQA, is referred to as a “historical resource.” Such
historical resources have been deemed eligible for inclusion in the CRHR per Title 14, California Code of
Regulations (CCR), § 15064.5(a)(3), or are historically significant at a local level, such as a city, town,
community, or county. This includes historic properties eligible for inclusion on the NRHP per PRC §
5024.1. The purposes of the CRHR are to maintain listings of the State’s historical resources and to
indicate which properties are to be protected from substantial adverse change. The criteria for listing
resources in the CRHR were expressly developed to be in accordance with previously established criteria
developed for listing on the NRHP (36 CFR 60.4.). A cultural resource is considered historically significant
under CEQA [Title 14, CCR § 15064.5(a)(3); State of California 2012] provided the resources retains
integrity and meets one of four criteria:
1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California's history and cultural heritage;
2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of installation, or
represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
If the cultural resource meets one of the above criteria, it is considered as eligible for listing in the CRHR
as a historical resource, which receives protection from significant impacts under CEQA. According to
the federal laws to which the State of California defers when its own laws do not apply to a situation,
cultural resources are evaluated if they are 50 years old or older, unless they are exceptional according
to a set of criteria considerations. The Instructions for Recording Historical Resources (California Office
of Historic Preservation [OHP] 1995:2) states that “any physical evidence of human activities over 45
years old may be recorded for purposes of inclusion in the OHP's filing system. Documentation of
resources less than 45 years old also may be filed if those resources have been formally evaluated,
regardless of the outcome of the evaluation.”
Public Resources Code Section 5097-5097.993: Native American Historic Resource Protection Act:
Archaeological, Paleontological, and Historical Sites; Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred
Sites
This act protects cultural resources on California public lands and was amended by Senate Bill 1034
(State of California 2010). It states that no person shall “knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
130
remove, destroy, injure, or deface, any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or
vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, rock
art, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except
with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over the lands.”
AB 4239: Native American Heritage Act
The Native American Heritage Act, passed by California in 1976, established the NAHC for the purpose of
protecting Native American heritage on State property (PRC §5097.9). The NAHC protects the heritage
of California Indians and ensures their participation in matters concerning heritage sites. The NAHC also
stipulates what specific procedures, laid out in the California Health and Safety Code (HSC), must be
implemented if a Native American burial is uncovered during project construction or archaeological data
recovery.
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
The discovery of human remains is always a possibility during construction-related disturbances. The
State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 addresses this possibility by stating that no
further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and
disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98 which states that the Coroner must
be notified of the find immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner
will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD shall
complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific
removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American
burials.
California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (Cal NAGPRA); Health and Safety
Code Section 8010-8011 (State of California 2001)
This act mandates state agencies, local agencies, and museums to repatriate human remains and
associated cultural items to California Indian Tribes, not only to federally recogniz ed Indian Tribes within
California. This act also aligns the state's repatriation policy with the federal Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. Sec. 3001 et seq), and establishes penalties for
noncompliance.
LOCAL
City of Anaheim General Plan EIR
The City of Anaheim General Plan EIR states that property owners/project proponents should provide
studies to document the presence or absence of archaeological . . . [or historic resources] for areas with
documented or inferred resource presence. “On properties where resources are identified, such studies
shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ
preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a qualified specialist” (City of Anaheim 2004:5-56).
The EIR also states that “all archaeological resources shall be subject to the provisions of CEQA (Public
Resources Code) Section 21083.2” (City of Anaheim 2004:5-56). The City of Anaheim General Plan EIR
also provides a summary of cultural resources recorded within the City and provides a historical context
for the City. However, the City of Anaheim General Plan EIR does not specifically address the protection
of paleontological resources.
City of Anaheim Citywide Historic Preservation Plan
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
131
The Citywide Historic Preservation Plan (City of Anaheim 2010) provides for the identification and
protection of historic resources throughout the City of Anaheim. It includes a Cityw ide Historic Context
Statement and outlines the City’s Preservation Policies and Procedures for designating historical
resources.
3.4.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
METHODOLOGY
Sacred Lands File Search and Initial Native American Contact
The Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and initial Native American Contact conducted by ArchaeoPaleo. A
letter to the NAHC was sent on January 29, 2013 requesting a SLF search and a Native American Contact
List for the Project site. ArchaeoPaleo received the summary of the SLF search request and a Native
American Contact List for the Project site on Friday, February 1, 2013. On Monday, February 4, 2013,
ArchaeoPaleo staff sent letters by post to each of the representatives (correspondents) noted on the
Native American Contact List. The SLF search request and results, and all requests and responses
resulting from the initial Native American Contact conducted by ArchaeoPaleo are included in Appendix
E.
Cultural Resource Records Search Methods and Results
The cultural resource archival record search for the Proposed Project was conducted at the California
Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC),
located on the campus of California State University, Fullerton (CSUF) by ArchaeoPaleo Senior
Archaeologist/Principal Investigator Linda Akyüz on January 30, 2013. Research consisted of a review of
the USGS 7.5-Minute Orange, CA Topographic Quadrangle (USGS 1964, PR 1981) and the USGS 7.5-
Minute Anaheim, CA Topographic Quadrangle (USGS 1965, PR 1981) for any previously recorded cultural
resources within a one-mile radius of the Project site, and a review of 11 Mylar overlays for cultural
resources investigations within a one-mile radius of the Project site.
The CHRIS search also included a review of the NRHP, CRHR, the California Points of Historical Interest
(CPHI) list, the California Historical Landmarks (CHL) list, the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility
(ADOE) list, the California State Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) list, local histories, historic quadrangle
maps, and other historic maps available at the SCCIC.
Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within One Mile of the Project Site
The record and literature search revealed one prehistoric cultural resource that had been recorded
within the Project site and three historic-age resources that had been recorded within one mile of the
boundaries of the Project site. The isolated find of one prehistoric mano (30-100402) was found on the
surface of the wall/dirt road on the western edge of the BRB at the northwest cor ner of the Project site
“in a disturbed context,” during archaeological monitoring in 2004 (Becker et al. 2007:1; Jones 2007:1).
The mano was curated at the Fowler Museum at the University of California, Los Angeles, under
Accession No. 948. Isolates are not considered eligible for listing in the CRHR, except in some cases
when they are exceptional finds or can be related to NRHP-eligible properties, according to the criteria
considerations.
The three historic-age resources that have been recorded within one mile of the Project site are the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (30-176663), the Steel Transmission Line Tower (30-177703)
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
132
erected in 1939, and Angel Stadium (30-177113). None of these resources have been deemed eligible
for listing in the City as a Historic Districts/Qualified Historic Structure, Historically Significant
Structure/Qualified Historic Structure, or Structure of Historical Interest, or eligible for listing in the
NRHP or CRHR.
Table 3.4-2 summarizes describes the previously recorded cultural resources within one mile of the
Project site.
Table 3.4-2 Previously Recorded Archaeological Resources within One Mile of the Project Site
Resource No. CA-ORA-/
30- Description First Recorded By; Year Proximity to Project
Site
CRHR Eligibility per
Recorder/Evaluator
100402 Isolated mano Wendy Jones, 2007 Within Project site,
on northwest edge 6Z (not eligible)
176663 Burlington Northern
Santa Fe Railroad
Daniel Ballester, Bai “Tom”
Tang, 2002 Half mile to one mile 6Z (not eligible)
177703
1939 Steel
Transmission Line
Tower
Brent D. Johnson, 2009 Half mile to one mile 6Z (not eligible)
177113 Angel Stadium Dana E. Supernowicz, 2010 Half mile to one mile 6Z (not eligible)
Previously Conducted Cultural Resources Studies within One Mile of the Project Site
As shown in Table 3.4-3 total of 31 cultural resources studies were conducted within one mile of the
Project. Two studies were not on file at the SCCIC at the time of the records search but are being
submitted to the SCCIC presently.
Table 3.4-3 Previously Conducted Cultural Resources Studies within One Mile of the Project Site
Report #
OR- Report Title Author, Year Study Type
Proximity
to Project
Site
Comments
Ascription
in process
Cultural Resources Monitoring Report,
Orange County Water District
Groundwater Replenishment System,
Orange County, California
Kenneth M.
Becker, John
Goodman, Kristin
Sewell, and Sarah
Van Galder, 2007
Cultural Resources
Monitoring Within
Study
documented
isolated mano/
30-100402
within current
Project site
Ascription
in process
Cultural Resources Reconnaissance for
the Groundwater Replenishment System,
Orange County, California
Bissell, Ronald M. Cultural Resources
Survey
Within No resources
recorded
within one-mile
of Project site
270
Description and Evaluation of Cultural
Resources Within the US Army Corps of
Engineers Santa Ana River Project
N. Nelson
Leonard III and
Matthew C. Hall,
1975
Cultural Resources
Survey and Surface
Evaluation
Within
No resources
recorded
within one mile
of Project site
609
Cultural Resources Report on 5 Proposed
Hazardous Waste Storage Sites Located
in Northern Orange County
Mark Desautels,
1981
Cultural Resources
Survey
Within a
quarter
mile
No resources
recorded
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
133
Report #
OR- Report Title Author, Year Study Type
Proximity
to Project
Site
Comments
801 Phase II Archaeological Studies of Prado
Basin and the Lower Santa Ana River
Langenwalter,
Paul E. and
James Brock,
1985
Archaeological Site
Evaluation Adjacent
No resources
recorded
within one mile
of Project site
895
Archaeological Survey Report: Villa Park-
Lewis 230 kV Transmission Right-of-way
Thomas T.
Taylor, 1988
Cultural Resources
Survey Adjacent
No resources
recorded
within one mile
of Project site
1162 Monitoring Report for the Sports Arena
in the City of Anaheim
Joan C.
Brown,1991
Cultural and
Paleontological
Resources
Monitoring
Within a
quarter
mile
No resources
recorded
within one mile
of Project site
1806
Cultural Resources Records Search and
Literature Review Report for a Pacific Bell
Mobile Services Telecommunications
Facility, CM 069-12 Anaheim, Orange
County, California
Roger D. Mason,
1998
Records search: no
field work
Within a
quarter
mile
No resources
recorded
within one mile
of Project site
1834
Results of Implementing Mitigation
Measures Specified in the Operation Plan
and Research Design for the Proposed
Newporter North Residential
Development at ORA-64
Michael E.
Macko, 1998
Impact-to-Cultural-
Resources
Mitigation Plan and
Research Design
Within a
mile
No resources
recorded
within one mile
of Project site
1836
Cultural Resource Review for
Groundwater Replenishment System
Program EIR/TIER I/EIS, Orange County
Water District and County Sanitation
Districts of Orange County
Beth Padon,
1998
Records search: no
field work
Within a
mile
No resources
recorded
within one mile
of Project site
1900
Historical and Architectural Evaluation of
Four Railroad Bridges, Lower Santa Ana
River and Santiago Creek, Orange
County, California
Roger Hathaway,
1987
Cultural Resource
Evaluation
Within a
mile
No resources
recorded
within one mile
of Project site
2141
Inspection of Kinder Morgan Energy
Partners Electrical Substation and Control
Building Proposed Sites, Orange County
William Self,
2000
Cultural Resources
Survey
Within a
quarter
mile
No resources
recorded
within one mile
of Project site
2200
Cultural Resources Investigation for the
Nextlink Fiber Optic Project, Los Angeles,
and Orange Counties, California
Sara M. Atchley,
2000
Cultural Resources
Survey
Within a
mile
No resources
recorded
within one mile
of Project site
2254 Historic Property Survey Report Tustin
Avenue Widening at State Route 91
Dana N. Slawson,
2000
Caltrans Historic
Property Survey
Report (Cultural
Resources Survey)
Within a
quarter
mile
No resources
recorded
within one mile
of Project site
2255
Cultural Resources Assessment for AT&T
Fixed Wireless Services Facility Number
OC_745_A, County of Orange, California
Curt Duke, 2001 Cultural Resources
Assessment
Within a
mile
No resources
recorded
within one mile
of Project site
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
134
Report #
OR- Report Title Author, Year Study Type
Proximity
to Project
Site
Comments
2256 Cultural Resources Assessments for
Orange County Sanitation Districts
Carol Demcak,
1999
Records search: no
field work Within
No resources
recorded
within one mile
of Project site
2587
Revised Archaeological/Paleontological
Monitoring Report for the Arena
Corporate Center Project, Contract
Number PO#1058, Project #714375-01in
the City of Anaheim
Joan C. Brown,
2002
Cultural and
Paleontological
Resources
Monitoring
Within a
quarter
mile
No resources
recorded
within one mile
of Project site
2846
State College Boulevard at Ball Road
Improvements, City of Anaheim, Orange
County, California
Richard S.
Shepard, 1993
Cultural Resources
Assessment
Within a
mile
No resources
recorded
within one mile
of Project site
2898
Results of Archaeological Resource
Mitigation Monitoring for Anaheim
Corners Mixed-Use Development
Meredith Staley,
Terri Fulton, and
Debbie McClean
Archaeological
Monitoring
Within a
mile
No resources
recorded
within one mile
of Project site
2911 Sunkist Gardens, City of Anaheim,
Orange County, California
Kyle H. Garcia,
2005
Cultural Resources
Assessment
Within a
mile
No resources
recorded
within one mile
of Project area
3090 Taft/CA-8214 1320 South Sanderson
Avenue, Anaheim, CA, Orange County Sean Thal, 2004
Cell Tower Cultural
Resources Survey
and Records Search
Within a
quarter
mile
No resources
recorded
within one mile
of Project site
3097
Cultural Resources Records Search
Results and Site Visit for Sprint Nextel
Candidate CA7061 (Monterey), 2023
West Collins Avenue, Orange, Orange
County, California
Wayne H.
Bonner, 2006
Cell Tower Cultural
Resources Survey
and Records Search
Within a
mile
No resources
recorded
within one mile
of Project site
3106
Cultural Resources Assessment SC-043-
01 at 2848 E. South St. Anaheim,
California
Don Lewis, 2002 Cultural Resources
Assessment
Within a
mile
No resources
recorded
within one mile
of Project site
3108
Cultural Resources Records Search
Results and Site Visit for Cingular
Telecommunications Facility Candidate
SC-043-02 (Calvary Baptist Church), 2780
East Wagner Avenue, Anaheim, Orange
County, California
Wayne H.
Bonner, 2003
Cell Tower Cultural
Resources Survey
and Records Search
Within a
mile
No resources
recorded
within one mile
of Project site
3287
Historic Property Survey Report for
Tustin Branch Trail Network, City of
Orange, Orange County, California
Roger D. Mason
Caltrans Historic
Property Survey
Report (Cultural
Resources Survey)
Within a
mile
No resources
recorded
within one mile
of Project site
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
135
Report #
OR- Report Title Author, Year Study Type
Proximity
to Project
Site
Comments
3335
Cultural Resources Records Search
Results and Site Visit for T-Mobile
Candidate LA03007D (TM007-Boysen
Park), 915 South State College Boulevard,
Anaheim, Orange County, California
Wayne H.
Bonner, 2006
Cell Tower Cultural
Resources Survey
and Records Search
Within a
mile
No resources
recorded
within one mile
of Project site
3458
Cultural Resources Records Search and
Site Visit Results for T-Mobile Candidate
LA02881D (Anillo Industries), 2090 North
Glassell Avenue, Orange, Orange County,
California
Wayne H.
Bonner, 2006
Cell Tower Cultural
Resources Survey
and Records Search
Within a
mile
No resources
recorded
within one mile
of Project site
3461
Cultural Resources Records Search and
Site Visit Results for Royal Street
Communications, LLC Candidate LA0889A
(Fletchers), 2848 East South Street,
Anaheim, Orange County, California
Wayne H.
Bonner, 2006
Cell Tower Cultural
Resources Survey
and Records Search
Within a
mile
No resources
recorded
within one mile
of Project site
3654
Direct APE Historic Architectural
Assessment for Royal Street
Communications, LLC Candidate LA2658A
(SCE Barre Villa Park M6-T6), 1511 North
Main Street, Orange, Orange County,
California
Wayne H.
Bonner, 2007
Historic
Architectural
Assessment
Within a
quarter
mile
No resources
recorded
within one mile
of Project site
3916
Preliminary Historical/Archaeological
Resources Study, Olive Subdivision
Positive Train Control (PTC) Project,
Southern California Regional Rail
Authority (SCRRA) Cities of Anaheim,
Orange, and Placentia, Orange County,
California
Bai “Tom” Tang,
2010
Cultural Resources
Survey/Inventory
Within a
mile
No resources
recorded
within one mile
of Project site
4049
Cultural Resources Record Search and
Archaeological Survey Results for the
Proposed Clear Wireless, LLC, Site CA-
ORC1556A (SCE M5-T6 Lewis Villa Park)
located at 2030 East Cerritos Avenue,
Anaheim, Orange County, California
92806
Robert J.
Wlodarski, 2009
Cultural Resources
Survey
Within a
mile
No resources
recorded
within one mile
of Project site
4091
Cultural Resources Assessment for the
Burris Basin Interpretive Loop Trail and
the Lincoln Avenue Multi-use Staging
Area, City of Anaheim, Orange County,
California
Terri Fulton,
2009
Cultural Resources
Assessment Adjacent
No resources
recorded
within one mile
of Project site
4156
Draft, Phase I Archaeological Resources
Survey Report, Anaheim Regional
Transportation Intermodal Center
Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County,
California
Catherine Wood,
2009
Cultural Resources
Survey
Within a
mile
No resources
recorded
within one mile
of Project site
Of the 31 cultural resources studies identified in Table 3.4-3, three studies were conducted within the
Project site. Only one of the three studies contained documentation of a recorded resource. However,
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
136
the report that was referenced in the record for 30-100402 had not been processed by the SCCIC at the
time of the record search. The reports for Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (30-176663), the Steel
Transmission Line Tower (30-177703), and Angel Stadium (30-177113) were not on file at the SCCIC.
Archaeological Survey Methods and Results
On February 5, 2013, Ms. Akyüz conducted a pedestrian survey of the Project site in transects 15 meters
apart, as feasible, while avoiding wet or vegetated areas. Observations were recorded via photographs,
field notes, and a GPS device with accuracy to five meters. Most of the bottom of the BRB (considered
disturbed land) was wet and had new seedlings growing in it. These wet areas were avoided in order to
avoid damaging any threatened plant species that might have been growing there, but were visually
surveyed from no further than 18 meters away.
No archaeological resources—artifacts or features—were observed during the survey. While several
boulders and small broken rocks were observed in the field, none of these were flaked or groundstone
artifacts. The BRB and the concrete water-retention/conveyance features noted in the northern and
southern ends of the Project site were interpreted to have been excavated/constructed in the early
1970s and do not qualify as cultural resources that should be recorded because of their relatively young
age and their ubiquitous nature. A levee that was built by 1950 is now the dirt road at the western edge
of the Project site and could not be discerned from the modern features of the edge of the basin.
Therefore, no cultural resources were observed or recorded during the survey.
Paleontological Records Search Methods and Results
On January 28, 2013, Robin Turner initiated a paleontological resources records search of the Project
site from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHM) database. Samuel A. McLeod, Ph.D.,
conducted the paleontology collection records for locality and specimen data for the Project. The NHM
did not have on record any vertebrate fossil localities directly within the boundaries of the Project site,
but did have on record localities close to the Project site from the same sedimentary units that occur in
the Project site (McLeod 2013). The report stated that surficial sediments in and around the Project site
and in the surrounding area consist of younger terrestrial Quaternary Alluvium, with older terrestrial
Quaternary sediments that occur at various depths, from floodplain deposits of the Santa Ana River.
McLeod (2013) stated that such deposits typically do not contain significant vertebrate fossils in the
uppermost layers, but they often contain significant vertebrate fossils in lower levels.
Two Pleistocene vertebrate fossil localities have been found near the Project site. Fossil Locality LACM
1652—along Rio Vista Avenue, south of Lincoln Avenue (approximately 1.2 miles north of the Project
site) has yielded a fossil specimen of sheep, Ovis sp. The closest fossil locality in older Quaternary
sediments on file at the NHM is LACM 4943, along Fletcher Avenue east of Glassell Street/the Santa Ana
River, approximately 1.3 miles northeast of the Project site. LACM 4943 yielded a specimen of fossil
horse, Equus sp., at a depth of 8 to10 feet below the surface.
McLeod (2013) stated that surface grading or very shallow excavations in the uppermost few feet of the
younger Quaternary alluvial sediments of the Project site, which were excavated in the early 1970s,
were unlikely to uncover significant fossil vertebrate remains. However, deeper excavations could
encounter significant vertebrate fossils. Any substantial excavations below the uppermost layers,
therefore, should be closely monitored to quickly and professionally collect any specimens without
impeding development. Any fossils recovered during excavation should be deposited in an accredited
and permanent scientific institution for the benefit of current and future generations.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
137
Ms. Akyüz also conducted an analysis of geologic maps. According to the NHM database search and
geologic map analysis, the Project site, at the levels that will be excavated, is deemed highly sensitive for
the presence of Pleistocene vertebrate fossil remains.
Paleontological Survey Methods and Results
On February 5, 2013, Denise Ruzicka conducted a pedestrian survey of the Project site in transects 15
meters apart. Observations were recorded via photographs, field notes, and a GPS device with accuracy
to five meters. Most of the bottom of the BRB (considered disturbed land) was wet and had new
seedlings growing in it. These wet areas were avoided in order to avoid damaging any threatened plant
species that might have been growing there. A freshwater marsh was observed along the central axis of
the Project site and in its northern portion.
Soils observed were tan silty sand in the ground-level portion of the Project site and medium-to coarse-
grained tan sand in the BRB. The BRB had pockets of red sand on its central west side and gray sand
intermixed with the tan sand at its northern end. Gray clay was observed at the bottom of the basin.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
IMPACT CUL-1: Construction of the Proposed Project would not potentially cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a historical resource.
Three historic-age resources were recorded within one mile of the Project site. None of these resources
have been deemed eligible for listing in the City as a Historic Districts/Qualified Historic Structure,
Historically Significant Structure/Qualified Historic Structure, or Structure of Historical Interest, or
eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would not result in alteration
or demolition of any recorded resources. Impacts to a historical resource would be considered less than
significant and would not require mitigation.
IMPACT CUL-2: Construction of the Proposed Project would potentially cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an archaeological resource
One cultural resource, an isolated mano, was previously discovered within the Project site but was not
considered eligible for listing on the CRHR. No cultural resources (historic buildings, structures or
objects; archaeological sites; or historical resources) were identified during the archaeological survey of
the Project site.
The environmental setting of the Project site has changed drastically since prehistoric and historic times,
and areas may have been excavated to below levels that may have contained archaeological resources.
However, the location of the Project site along the banks of the original course of the Santa Ana River
and fairly close to the village of Hotuuknga makes it an extremely sensitive area for the encounter of
buried archaeological resources. Construction excavation could adversely impact as-yet undocumented
resources. Impacts to archaeological resources could be potentially significant. Implementation of
mitigation measure MM CUL-1, which requires monitoring by a qualified archaeologist and by a
culturally affiliated Native American monitor during grubbing/excavation activities, would reduce
potential impacts to archaeological resources to less than significant.
IMPACT CUL-3: Construction of the Proposed Project would potentially cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a paleontological resource.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
138
The Quaternary alluvial sediment types within the Project site typically do not contain significant
vertebrate fossils in the uppermost layers, but are highly sensitive for the discovery of Pleistocene
vertebrate fossil remains at depths that may be reached as a result of the Proposed Project. The Project
site has been disturbed by previous excavation activities and no paleontological deposits were apparent
during the survey. The Project site has been excavated to approximately 20 feet below its original
surface and may be excavated up to 10 feet below its current level, which may be relatively undisturbed.
Previous excavations in the vicinity of the Project site have encountered native soils anywhere from two
feet to seven feet below the street-level surface. Significant fossil remains representing a Pleistocene
sheep and a Pleistocene horse have been recovered from similar soils at similar depths to the depths of
possible future excavation of the Project site. Therefore, it is a likely possibility that significant
vertebrate fossils may be present within the Project site and impacts to paleontological resources could
be potentially significant. Implementation of mitigation measure MM CUL-2, which requires monitoring
by a qualified paleontologist during excavation activities, would reduce potential impacts to
paleontological resources to less than significant.
IMPACT CUL-4: Construction of the Proposed Project would potentially impact unknown human remains
within the Proposed Project site.
The Proposed Project site does not contain any formal cemeteries. Archival research and the
archaeological survey in connection with the present Project did not indicate the presence of any known
human remains in the Project site. However, the location of the Project site along the banks of the
original course of the Santa Ana River and fairly close to the village of Hotuuknga makes it an extremely
sensitive area for the encounter of archaeological resources and human remains. Construction activities
could impact human remains if they are present within the Project site. Implementation of mitigation
measures MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-3 would ensure that impacts to unknown human remains are less
than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
MM CUL-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any ground-disturbing activities, the Property
Owner/Developer shall retain an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualification Standards (the “Archaeologist”), and who shall be approved by the Anaheim Planning and
Building Director. The Archeologist shall monitor ground‐disturbing activities within the Project site,
including digging, grubbing, or excavation into native sediments that have not been previously disturbed
for the Proposed Project.
In the event that cultural resources are encountered, construction in that area must stop until the
archaeologist assesses the resource and deems it appropriate for construction to continue. Work shall
be allowed to continue outside of the vicinity of the find. All cultural resources unearthed by project
construction activities shall be evaluated by the Archaeologist. If the Archaeologist determines that the
resources may be significant, the Archaeologist shall notify the Property Owner/Developer and the
Anaheim Planning and Building Director, and shall develop an appropriate treatment plan for the
resources. The Archaeologist shall consult with an appropriate Native American representative in
determining appropriate treatment for unearthed cultural resources if the resources are prehistoric or
Native American in nature.
A report containing the monitoring results and any cultural resources records, if resources are observed,
shall be written after work is completed and submitted to the Anaheim Planning and Building
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
139
Department. Any artifacts collected during monitoring shall be properly recorded, identified, cataloged,
and curated at an appropriate institution.
MM CUL-2: Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any ground-disturbing activities, the Property
Owner/Developer shall retain a qualified paleontologist meeting the criteria established by the Society
for Vertebrate Paleontology who shall be approved by Anaheim Planning and Building Director. The
paleontologist shall monitor ground‐disturbing activities within the Project site including digging,
grubbing, or excavation into older Quaternary alluvial sediment types. Monitoring shall consist of
visually inspecting fresh exposures of rock for larger fossil remains and, where appropriate, collecting
wet or dry screened sediment samples of promising horizons for smaller fossil remains. The frequency of
monitoring inspections shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, the materials
being excavated, and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of fossils
encountered.
If a potential fossil is found, the paleontologist shall temporarily divert or redirect grading and
excavation activities in the area of the exposed fossil to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage
the find. The paleontologist shall evaluate the significance of newly discovered paleontological deposits
and prepare and implement a treatment plan for those deposits, as appropriate. A paleontological
resources monitoring results report shall be written after work is completed and submitted to the
Anaheim Planning and Building Department. Any fossils collected during monitoring shall be properly
recorded, identified, and cataloged by the company that is conducting the monitoring and then curated
at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.
MM CUL-3: In the event human remains are discovered, the Construction Contractor shall notify the
County Coroner of the find immediately and no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner
has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98 (State of California
2006). If human remains are found during grading, all work in the immediate area (a radius of at least
100 feet) shall stop, and all parties shall follow all applicable state laws regarding human remains. If the
remains are Native American, the coroner is responsible for contacting the NAHC within 24 hours. The
NAHC, pursuant to Section 5097.98, shall immediately notify those persons it believes to be the Most
Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of
notification and shall recommend preservation in place, reburial, or the scientific removal and
nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Implementation of mitigations measure MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-3 would ensure that Project
impacts to historical, archaeological, paleontological, and human remains remain less than significant.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impacts to cultural resources are generally site specific and cannot be accurately assessed on a
cumulative basis, in part because it is not definitively known if a cultural resource is present until
ground-disturbing activities commence. Cultural resources that are impacted through implementation of
multiple projects could result in a loss of multiple resources representing a similar period, genre or type,
leading to a loss of information about a specific time period, culture, or trend, which could contribute to
cumulative impacts to cultural resources. Implementation of the proposed mitigation measures would
reduce impacts to project-specific cultural resources, thereby reducing the likelihood of a significant
cumulative impact to cultural resources.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
140
3.5. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
3.5.1 INTRODUCTION
This section describes the regional and local geologic and soil characteristics of the Proposed Project
area. The information presented this section is based on the Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment,
dated June 13, 2013, prepared by Leighton Consulting, Inc., which is included in Appendix F of this Draft
EIR. A review of this report by Leighton Consulting, Inc., on March 17, 2017, found that the conclusions,
findings and recommendations provided in the report remain applicable. In addition, Leighton prepared
a Slope Stability Analysis in September 2017 to evaluate the potential for lateral spreading (Appendix F).
3.5.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING
The Project site is located in the Tustin Plain within the southeastern margin of the Los Angeles Basin, a
large structural depression within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of California. In general,
the Tustin Plain consists of approximately 1,400 feet of unconsolidated to semi-consolidated
Quaternary-age alluvial sediments. Underlying the Quaternary alluvial deposits are Tertiary-age bedrock
units consisting of sandstone, siltstone, shale and conglomerate on the order of 31,000 feet in thickness.
The site lies near the lower reaches of the Santa Ana River. The surface distribution of Holocene
sediments, as recorded in early editions of regional soil survey maps (Eckmann et al., 1916), suggests
that the Santa Ana River has recently wandered back and forth across the Orange County coastal plain
from Alamitos Bay to Newport Bay. Historical accounts and documents further support the process of
widespread sheet flooding being the dominant depositional process associated with the Santa Ana River
prior to the construction of Prado Dam in 1941 (California Department of Water Resources, 1957).
Currently, the Santa Ana River is located east of the BRB. A geology map of the area is presented on
Figure 3.5-1, Regional Geology Map.
LOCAL GEOLOGY
The Project site is underlain by young alluvial soils deposited by the Santa Ana River. Available
subsurface explorations at and in the vicinity of the Project site included the borings and Cone
Penetration Tests (CPT’s) provided by OCWD (Appendix F) and borings and CPT’s by Leighton (2013)
immediately to the north of BRB. Review of this available data indicates that the soils in the upper 20 to
25 feet of the basin are expected to consist generally of sand and silty sand with thin layers of silty clay
and silt. A clay layer with interbedded silty clay and silt was encountered below 20 to 25 feet. The clay
layer appears to range in thickness from approximately 15 feet to over 30 feet towards the south end of
BRB. Below the clay layer, the soils consist mainly of sand and gravel.
GROUNDWATER
The California Department of Water Resources (2010) has several groundwater monitoring wells in the
vicinity of BRB with readings dating back to 1969. The measured groundwater ranged from Elevations 40
to 125 feet. Borings (Leighton, 2013) at the Burris Basin located north of BRB encountered groundwater
at depths of 7 and 25 feet below existing grade, corresponding to approximate Elevations 159 to 164
feet. Groundwater in the area appears to be influenced by the water level in the recharge basins and
Santa Ana River. Fluctuations of the groundwater level, localized zones of perched water, and an
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
141
increase in soil moisture should be anticipated depending on the water level in the basins and during
and following the rainy seasons or periods of locally intense rainfall or storm water runoff.
Figure 3.5-1: Regional Geology MapCity of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
Draft EIR Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Orange County
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
143
REGIONAL FAULTING AND SEISMICITY
A review of available in-house literature indicates that there are no known active or potentially active
faults that have been mapped at the Project site, and the Project site is not located within an Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Hart and Bryant, 2007). The principal seismic hazard that could affect the
Project site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake occurring along one of several major active
or potentially active faults in Southern California. According to the available fault database by USGS and
the Caltrans, the closest active faults that could affect the site are the Puente Hills Blind Thrust, Elsinore,
San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust, and Newport Inglewood faults located approximately 4.7, 7.6, 8.5 and
11.8 miles, respectively, from the Project site. Figure 3.5-2, Regional Fault Map illustrates the proximity
of the site to major active faults. The blind thrust faults are expressed as a fold scarp at or just below the
ground surface and are, therefore, not shown on Figure 3.5-2.
The intensity of ground shaking at a given location depends primarily upon the earthquake magnitude,
the distance from the source, and the site response characteristics. Peak Horizontal Ground
Accelerations (PHGA) is generally used to evaluate the intensity of ground motion. A probabilistic
seismic hazard analysis was performed using the online interactive deaggregation program developed
by the USGS (2008). The analysis was conducted for a two percent probability of exceedance in 50 years
(average return period of 2,475 years). The results of the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis indicate
the modal seismic event is Moment Magnitude (MW) 7.0 at a distance of 8.1 miles and a PHGA of 0.61g.
Based on review of the Seismic Hazard Zone Map for the Orange Quadrangle (California Geological
Survey, 1998), the Project site is located within liquefaction hazard zone. Figure 3.5-3, Seismic Hazard
Zone Map shows the region susceptible to liquefaction and the Project site.
3.5.3 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Proposed
Project would have a significant impact related to geology and soils if it would result in any of the
following:
▪ Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
o Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
o Strong seismic ground shaking?
o Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
o Landslides?
▪ Would the project result in substantial erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Figure 3.5-2: Regional Fault MapCity of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
Draft EIR Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Orange County
Figure 3.5-3: Seismic Hazard ZoneCity of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
Draft EIR Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Orange County
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
146
▪ Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
▪ Would the project be located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property?
EFFECTS DISMISSED IN THE INITIAL STUDY
The IS concluded that the following potential geology and soils impacts did not have an impact and did
not need to be further addressed in the EIR:
▪ The project would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
waste water.
3.5.4 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
STATE
California Building Standards Code
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, also known as the California Building Standards Code,
contains provisions to safeguard against major structural failures or loss of life caused by earthquakes or
other geologic hazards and sets forth minimum requirements for building design and construction. The
California Building Standards Code is a compilation of three types of building standards from three
different origins:
1) Standards adopted by State agencies without change from the national model codes;
2) Standards adopted and adapted from the national model code standards to meet California
conditions; and
3) Standards authorized by the California legislature that constitute extensive additions not
covered by the national model codes and adopted to address concerns particular to California.
California Building Standards Code’s design standards have a primary objective of assuring public safety
and a secondary goal of minimizing property damage and maintaining function during and following a
seismic event. Since the risk of severe seismic ground motion varies from place to place, the California
Building Standards Code seismic code provisions also vary depending on location (Seismic Zones 0, 1, 2,
3, and 4; with 0 being the least stringent and 4 being the most stringent).
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface
faulting to structures designed for human occupancy. This state law was enacted in response to the
1971 San Fernando earthquake, which resulted in extensive surface fault ruptures that damaged
numerous homes, commercial buildings, and other structures. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Act’s main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the
surface trace of active faults. This act required the State Geologist to delineate Earthquake Fault Zones
(EFZs) along known active faults that have a relatively high potential for ground rupture. Faults that are
zoned under the Alquist-Priolo Act must meet the strict definition of being “sufficiently active” and
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
147
“well-defined” for inclusion as an EFZ. No structures for human occupancy may be built across an
identified active fault trace.
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (PRC, Chapter 7.8, §§2690–2699.6) directs the California
Department of Conservation to identify and map areas subject to earthquake hazards such as
liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides, and amplified ground shaking. This act was passed by the
State legislature after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and is aimed at reducing the thre at to public
safety and minimizing potential loss of life and property in the event of a damaging earthquake event.
As a result of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Program, Seismic Zone Hazard Maps are produced that
identify Zones of Required Investigation. Local jurisdictions require any developments that would
construct structures designated for human occupancy within these zones to conduct site-specific
geotechnical investigations in order to identify the hazards and to develop appropriate mitigation
measures.
LOCAL
City of Anaheim General Plan, Safety Element
The Safety Element establishes policies and programs to protect the community from risks associated
with potential seismic, geologic, and flood hazards in an attempt to avoid or minimize exposure to these
potential hazards.
The following goal and policies are applicable to the Proposed Project:
Goal 1.1: Minimize the risk to public health and safety and disruptions to vital services, economic
vitality, and social order resulting from seismic and geologic activities.
Policies:
1) Minimize the risk to life and property through the identification of potentially hazardous areas,
adherence to proper construction design criteria, and provision of public information.
2) Require geologic and geotechnical investigations in areas of potential seismic or geologic
hazards as part of the environmental and/or development review process for all structures and
enforce structural setbacks from faults that are identified through those investigations.
3) Enforce the requirements of the California Seismic Hazards Mapping and Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Acts when siting, evaluating, and constructing new projects within the
City.
7) Require that new construction and significant alterations to structures located within potential
landslide areas (Figure S-2) be evaluated for site stability, including the potential impact to other
properties, during project design and review.
3.5.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
METHODOLOGY
Potential impacts related to geologic, soils, and seismic conditions were evaluated on the basis of site-
specific information prepared for the project, and developed through review of existing published
reports and mapping.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
148
IMPACT ANALYSIS
IMPACT GEO-1: The Proposed Project site would not experience rupture of a known earthquake fault in
the vicinity.
Surface slip along a fault plane can damage structures that cross the fault trace by surface r upture and
offset. As shown in Figure 3.5-2, no active or sufficiently active faults are known to cross the Proposed
Project. The Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Bryant and Hart,
2007). The nearest active or sufficiently active faults are Puente Hills Blind Thrust and Elsinore faults
located approximately 4.7 and 7.6 miles, respectively, from the Project site. The geotechnical hazard
posed by ground surface rupture from direct fault offset is considered to be low. Therefore, impacts
from the rupture of a known earthquake fault would be considered less than significant and no
mitigation would be required.
IMPACT GEO-2: The Proposed Project site would not experience strong seismic ground shaking during
seismic events on regional faults in the vicinity.
The Proposed Project is located within a seismically active region and has the potential to be subjected
to ground shaking hazards associated with earthquake events on active faults throughout the region.
Seismic hazards that could affect the site include strong ground shaking resulting from an earthquake
occurring along one of several major active faults in the region. The intensity of ground shaking at a
given location depends on several factors, but primarily on the earthquake magnitude, the distance
from the epicenter to the site of interest, and the response characteristics of the soils or bedrock units
underlying the site. The peak horizontal ground accelerations at the site are estimated to be on the
order of 0.61g for an earthquake event with a return period of 2,475 years. Therefore, within the Project
area, the hazard posed by seismic shaking is considered to be high, due to the proximity of known active
faults and the nature of the materials underlying the Project site. Although ground shaking could create
a potentially significant impact, impacts are not anticipated to be greater than any other sites in
southern California and are not considered to pose an unusual risk to the Project site. Furthermore,
there is no realistic way in which the seismic shaking hazard can be avoided. Proper design and
construction of the Proposed Project in accordance with current regulations and codes would reduce
the effects of ground shaking to the degree feasible. Thus, impacts from ground shaking would be
considered less than significant and mitigation would not be required.
IMPACT GEO-3: The Proposed Project site would potentially experience seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction or landslides.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, fine-grained granular soils behave
similarly to a fluid when subjected to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when three
general conditions exist: 1) shallow groundwater; 2) low density, fine, clean sandy soils; and 3) high-
intensity ground motion. Effects of liquefaction on level ground can include sand boils, settlement, and
bearing capacity failures below structural foundations. Effects of liquefaction on pile foundations include
reduction in pile’s lateral capacities and downdrag or negative friction due to settlement of a liquefied
layer and the layers above it.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
149
As shown in Figure 3.5-3, the Project site is located within liquefaction hazard zone based on the Seismic
Hazard Zone Map for the Orange Quadrangle (California Geological Survey, 1997). The effects of
liquefaction are expected to be potentially significant. Future placement of 15 to 25 feet of compacted
fill will increase overburden pressures that tend to reduce liquefaction potential and the associated
surface manifestation. Furthermore, implementation of mitigation measure MM GEO-1, which includes
the removal and recompaction of near-surface, loose sand, design of the proposed structures to
accommodate liquefaction-induced settlement, compaction grouting, deep dynamic compaction or
stone columns would reduce the effects of liquefaction to less than significant.
Seismically Induced Landslides
Marginally stable slopes, including existing landslides, may be subject to landsliding caused by seismic
shaking. In most cases, this is limited to relatively shallow soil failures on steep slopes, especially where
the soil is relatively thick and loose. The Project site is not located in an area shown to be susceptible to
seismically induced landslides by the California Geological Survey (1997). However, the east side of BRB
is bordered by the Center Levee that is maintained by the USACE. The levee slopes down into the Santa
Ana River Channel. As such, the potential hazard from seismically induced landslides is considered to be
potentially significant. Implementation of mitigation measure MM GEO-2, which requires the
application of slope stability measures recommended by the Slope Stability Analysis to be implemented
would reduce impacts to less than significant.
IMPACT GEO-4: The Proposed Project would not result in soil erosion or loss of topsoil during sediment
removal activities.
Erosion is a normal and inevitable geologic process whereby earth materials are loosened, worn away,
decomposed or dissolved, and are removed from one place and transported to another location.
Precipitation, running water, waves, and wind are all agents of erosion. Ordinarily, erosion proceeds so
slowly as to be imperceptible, but when the natural equilibrium of the environment is changed, the rate
of erosion can be greatly accelerated. This can create aesthetic as well as engineering problems.
Accelerated erosion within an urban area can cause damage by undermining structures, blocking storm
sewers and depositing silt, sand or mud in roads and tunnels. Eroded materials are eventually deposited
into our coastal waters where the carried silt remains suspended for some time, constituting a pollutant
and altering the normal balance of plant and animal life.
The majority of the City and its Sphere-of-Influence enjoys a relatively flat topography and minimal
potential for erosion impacts. Development on the Project site would be subject to local and state codes
and requirements for erosion control and grading. In addition, the Proposed Project would be required
to comply with a NPDES permit and develop an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP). With
adherence to these codes and regulations and implementation of the General Plan Goals and Policies,
impacts would be reduced to less than significance and mitigation measures would not be required.
IMPACT GEO-5: The Proposed Project would potentially be located on a geologic unit that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and could potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is a phenomenon where large blocks of soil translate laterally along or throug h a layer
of liquefied soil. The mass moves downslope toward an unconfined area, such as a descending slope or
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
150
river, and is known to move on slope gradients as gentle as one degree. For lateral spreading to occur,
the layer of liquefied soil needs to be continuous. As mentioned under the discussion for IMPACT GEO-3
above, the Project site is bordered by the Center Levee on the east, which slopes down into the Santa
Ana River Channel, and located in an area susceptible to liquefaction.
A Slope Stability Analysis was conducted by Leighton to evaluate the potential for lateral spreading. The
shear strength parameters used in the analysis were obtained from direct shear test results, correlation
with SPT blowcounts and relative density, and CPT data. The sand underlying the basin down to
Elevation 134 feet is potentially liquefiable and is modelled with a post liquefaction residual strength of
500 psf. The calculated factor of safety for a pseudostatic condition with liquefied soils was less than 1.0
FSliq. Ground improvement may be performed to reduce the potential for lateral spreading. For the
planned finish grades, it is assumed that the basin will be filled to an elevation similar to the surrounding
grades. The slope stability analysis shows that a setback zone of approximately 60 feet from the
property line should be considered in preliminary development planning of the site. Implementation of
mitigation measures MM GEO-1 and MM GEO-2 would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Seismically Induced Settlements
These settlements, consisting of dynamic settlement (above groundwater) and liquefaction settlement
(below groundwater), occur primarily in loose sandy soils due to reduction in volume during or after an
earthquake event. These settlements are caused by strong ground shaking that allows the soil particles
to become more tightly packed, thereby reducing pore space. Poorly compacted artificial fills and poorly
consolidated wash deposits are especially susceptible to this phenomenon. Seismically induced
settlement is a potentially significant impact. Structures on the Project site should be designed to
account for settlements. Additionally, the implementation of mitigation measure MM GEO-1, which
includes structural design that accounts for settlements and removal and recompaction of low-density,
near-surface soils would reduce impacts to less than significant.
IMPACT GEO-6: The Proposed Project is not located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or
property.
Expansive soils are those possessing clay particles that react to moisture changes by shrinking (when
they dry) or swelling (when they become wet). Expansive soils can also consist of silty to sandy clay. The
extent of shrinking and swelling is influenced by the environment, such as alternating wet and dry
cycles, and by the amount of clay in the soil. This physical change in the soils can react unfavorably with
building foundations, concrete walkways, swimming pools, roadways, and masonry walls, etc.
Future development on the Project site would be designed for the appropriate expansion potential. The
City implements a number of existing codes and policies that serve to mitigate the impacts of
development within areas containing expansive soils. Current codes and regulations relating to geology
and soils are identified in the Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 17 – Land Development and Resources.
These codes address grading, excavation, fills and watercourses as well as applicable geotechnical report
preparation and submittal. Application of the existing regulations identified in the Municipal Code and
Uniform Building Code and grading regulations would minimize the risk associated with any
development proposed within areas containing expansive soils. Impacts would be less than significant
and mitigation would not be required.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
151
MM GEO-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall conduct
geotechnical field explorations, which shall include Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) and CPTs to
evaluate and quantify the extent of liquefaction. The test results shall be submitted to the Anaheim
Public Works Department for review and approval. If test results show that liquefaction potential is
significant, the following measures shall be implemented:
1. removal and recompaction of low-density near-surface, loose sand
2. design of the proposed structures to accommodate liquefaction-induced settlement
3. compaction grouting
4. deep dynamic compaction
5. use of stone columns
MM GEO-2: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit a final
geotechnical report to the Anaheim Public Works Department implementing the recommendations
contained in the Slope Stability Analysis prepared by Leighton (September 2017) in conjunction with any
future proposed development of the project site. These recommendations shall also be incorporated
into the grading plan prepared for the project site.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Impacts from liquefaction on the Project site are potentially significant. Implementation of mitigation
measures MM GEO-1 and MM GEO-2 would reduce impacts to less than significant.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impacts associated with potential geologic hazards are generally site-specific and would not be
compounded by additional development. Future development would be sited and designed in
accordance with appropriate geotechnical and seismic guidelines and recommendations consistent with
the California Building Code. In addition, adherence to all relevant plans, codes, and regulations with
respect to project design and construction for all future development would provide adequate levels of
safety, which would ensure that the Proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts related to
geologic hazards would be less than considerable. Cumulative impacts would be considered less than
significant.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
152
3.6. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
3.6.1 INTRODUCTION
This section addresses the potential climate change impacts as a result of the Proposed Project. The
information present this section is based on Air Quality and Global Climate Change Impact Analysis,
dated February 15, 2017, prepared by Vista Environmental, which is included in Appendix B of this Draft
EIR.
3.6.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
GREENHOUSE GASES
Constituent gases of the Earth’s atmosphere, called atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a
critical role in the Earth’s radiation amount by trapping infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s
surface, which otherwise would have escaped to space. Prominent greenhouse gases contributing to
this process include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), O3, water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). This phenomenon, known as the Greenhouse Effect, is responsible for
maintaining a habitable climate. Anthropogenic (caused or produced by humans) emissions of these
greenhouse gases in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for the enhancement of
the Greenhouse Effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s natural climate,
known as global warming or climate change. Emissions of gases that induce global warming are
attributable to human activities associated with industrial/manufacturing, agriculture, utilities,
transportation, and residential land uses. Transportation is responsible for 41 percent of the state’s
greenhouse gas emissions, followed by electricity generation. Emissions of CO2 and N2O are byproducts
of fossil fuel combustion. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, results from off-gassing associated with
agricultural practices and landfills. Sinks of CO2, where CO2 is stored outside of the atmosphere, include
uptake by vegetation and dissolution into the ocean. The following provides a description of each of the
greenhouse gases and their global warming potential.
Water Vapor
Water vapor is the most abundant, important, and variable GHG in the atmosphere. Water vapor is not
considered a pollutant; in the atmosphere it maintains a climate necessary for life. Changes in its
concentration are primarily considered a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the
atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback loop in which water is involved
in is critically important to projecting future climate change. As the temperature of the atmosphere
rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is
warmer, the relative humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to “hold” more water when it is
warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a GHG, the higher concentration of water
vapor is then able to absorb more thermal indirect energy radiated from the Earth, thus further
warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so
on. This is referred to as a “positive feedback loop.” The extent to which this positive feedback loop will
continue is unknown as there is also dynamics that put the positive feedback loop in check. As an
example, when water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into
clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the
Earth’s surface and heat it up).
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
153
Carbon Dioxide
The natural production and absorption of CO2 is achieved through the terrestrial biosphere and the
ocean. However, humankind has altered the natural carbon cycle by burning coal, oil, natural gas, and
wood. Since the industrial revolution began in the mid-1700s. Each of these activities has increased in
scale and distribution. CO2 was the first GHG demonstrated to be increasing in atmospheric
concentration with the first conclusive measurements being made in the last half of the 20th century.
Prior to the industrial revolution, concentrations were fairly stable at 280 parts per million (ppm). The
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicates that concentrations were 379 ppm in 2005, an
increase of more than 30 percent. Left unchecked, the IPCC projects that concentration of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere is projected to increase to a minimum of 540 ppm by 2100 as a direct result
of anthropogenic sources. This could result in an average global temperature rise of at least two degrees
Celsius.
Methane
CH4 is an extremely effective absorber of radiation, although its atmospheric concentration is less than
that of CO2. Its lifetime in the atmosphere is brief (10 to 12 years), compared to some other GHGs (such
as CO2, N2O, and CFCs). CH4 has both natural and anthropogenic sources. It is released as part of the
biological processes in low oxygen environments, such as in swamplands or in rice production (at the
roots of the plants). Over the last 50 years, human activities such as growing rice, raising cattle, using
natural gas, and mining coal have added to the atmospheric concentration of methane. Other
anthropocentric sources include fossil-fuel combustion and biomass burning.
Nitrous Oxide
Concentrations of N2O also began to rise at the beginning of the industrial revolution. In 1998, the global
concentration was 314 parts per billion (ppb). N2O is produced by microbial processes in soil and water,
including those reactions which occur in fertilizer containing nitrogen. In addition to agricultural sources,
some industrial processes (fossil fuel-fired power plants, nylon production, nitric acid production, and
vehicle emissions) also contribute to its atmospheric load. It is used as an aerosol spray propellant, i.e.,
in whipped cream bottles, in potato chip bags to keep chips fresh, and in rocket engines and in race cars.
Chlorofluorocarbons
CFCs are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane (C 2H6) with
chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. CFCs are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive
in the troposphere (the level of air at the Earth’s surface). CFCs have no natural source, but were first
synthesized in 1928. It was used for refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. Due to the
discovery that they are able to destroy stratospheric ozone, a global effort to halt their production was
undertaken and in 1989 the European Community agreed to ban CFCs by 2000 and subsequent treaties
banned CFCs worldwide by 2010. This effort was extremely successful, and the levels of the major CFCs
are now remaining level or declining. However, their long atmospheric lifetimes mean that some of the
CFCs will remain in the atmosphere for over 100 years.
Hydrofluorocarbons
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are synthetic man-made chemicals that are used as a substitute for CFCs.
Out of all the GHGs, they are one of three groups with the highest global warming potential. The HFCs
with the largest measured atmospheric abundances are (in order), HFC-23 (CHF3), HFC-134a (CF3CH2F),
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
154
and HFC-152a (CH3CHF2). Prior to 1990, the only significant emissions were HFC-23. HFC-134a use is
increasing due to its use as a refrigerant. Concentrations of HFC-23 HFC-134a are now about 10 parts
per trillion (ppt) each. Concentrations of HFC-152a are about 1 ppt. HFCs are manmade for applications
such as automobile air conditioners and refrigerants.
Perfluorocarbons
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) have stable molecular structures and do not break down through the chemical
processes in the lower atmosphere. High-energy ultraviolet rays about 60 kilometers above Earth’s
surface are able to destroy the compounds. Because of this, PFCs have very long lifetimes, between
10,000 and 50,000 years. Two common PFCs are tetrafluoromethane (CF4) and hexafluoroethane (C2F6).
Concentrations of CF4 in the atmosphere are over 70 ppt. The two main sources of PFCs are primary
aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing.
Sulfur Hexafluoride
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. SF6 has the
highest global warming potential of any gas evaluated; 23,900 times that of CO2. Concentrations in the
1990s were about 4 ppt. Sulfur hexafluoride is used for insulation in electric power transmission and
distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas
for leak detection.
Aerosols
Aerosols are particles emitted into the air through burning biomass (plant material) and fossil fuels.
Aerosols can warm the atmosphere by absorbing and emitting heat and can cool the atmosphere by
reflecting light. Cloud formation can also be affected by aerosols. Sulfate aerosols are emitted when fuel
containing sulfur is burned. Black carbon (or soot) is emitted during biomass burning due to the
incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. Particulate matter regulation has been lowering aerosol
concentrations in the United States; however, global concentrations are likely increasing.
GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL
GHGs have varying global warming potential (GWP). The GWP is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap
heat in the atmosphere; it is the cumulative radiative forcing effects of a gas over a specified time
horizon resulting from the emission of a unit mass of gas relative to the reference gas, CO 2. One
teragram of carbon dioxide equivalent (Tg CO2e) is essentially the emissions of the gas multiplied by the
global warming potential. The GHGs listed by the IPCC and the CEQA Guidelines are discussed in this
section in order of abundance in the atmosphere. Water vapor, the most abundant GHG, is not included
in this list because its natural concentrations and fluctuations far outweigh its anthropogenic (human
made) sources. To simplify reporting and analysis, GHGs are commonly defined in terms of their GWP.
The IPPC defines the GWP of various GHG emissions on a normalized scale that recasts all GHG
emissions in terms of CO2e. The GWP of CO2 is by definition, 1. The GWP values used in this analysis are
based on the IPPC Second Assessment Report (SAR) and United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) reporting guidelines, and are detailed in Table 3.6-1. The SAR GWPs are used
in CARB’s California inventory and AB32 Scoping Plan estimates.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
155
Table 3.6-1 Global Warming Potentials, Atmospheric Lifetimes and Abundances of GHGs
Atmospheric Lifetime
(years)1
Global Warming Potential
(100 Year Horizon)2
Atmospheric
Abundance
Gas
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 50-200 1 379 ppm
Methane (CH4) 9-15 25 1,774 ppb
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 114 298 319 ppb
HFC-23 270 14,800 18 ppt
HFC-134a 14 1,430 35 ppt
HFC-152a 1.4 124 3.9 ppt
PFC: Tetrafluoromethane (CF4) 50,000 7,390 74 ppt
PFC: Hexafluoroethane (C2F6) 10,000 12,200 2.9 ppt
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 22,800 5.6 ppt
Notes:
1 Defined as the half-life of the gas.
2 Compared to the same quantity of CO2 emissions and is based on the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC)
2007 standard, which is utilized in CalEEmod (Version 2016.3.1), which is used in this report (CalEEmod user guide: Appendix
A).
Definitions: ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; ppt = parts per trillion
Source: IPCC 2007, EPA 2015
3.6.3 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
In 1988, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to
evaluate the impacts of global climate change and to develop strategies that nations could implement to
curtail global climate change. In 1992, the United States joined other countries around the world in
signing the United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreement with the
goal of controlling GHG emissions. The parties of the UNFCC adopted the Kyoto Protocol, which set
binding GHG reduction targets for 37 industrialized countries, the objective of reducing their collectiv e
GHG emissions by five percent below 1990 levels by 2012. The Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by 182
countries, but has not been ratified by the United States. It should be noted that Japan and Canada
opted out of the Kyoto Protocol and the remaining developed countries that ratified the Kyoto Protocol
have not met their Kyoto targets. The Kyoto Protocol expired in 2012 and the amendment for the
second commitment period from 2013 to 2020 has not yet entered into legal force. The Parties to the
Kyoto Protocol negotiated the Paris Agreement in December 2015, agreeing to set a goal of limiting
global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius compared with pre-industrial levels. The agreement will
become legally binding if it is ratified by at least 55 countries which together represent at least 55
percent of global greenhouse emissions by April 21, 2017.
Additionally, the Montreal Protocol was originally signed in 1987 and substantially amended in 1990 and
1992. The Montreal Protocol stipulates that the production and consumption of compounds that
deplete ozone in the stratosphere—CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform—were to
be phased out, with the first three by 2000 and methyl chloroform by 2005.
FEDERAL
In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (Docket No. 05–1120), argued November 29, 2006
and decided April 2, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court held that not only did the EPA have authority to
regulate greenhouse gases, but the EPA's reasons for not regulating this area did not fit the statutory
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
156
requirements. As such, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA should be required to regulate CO2
and other greenhouse gases as pollutants under the CAA.
In response to the FY2008 Consolidations Appropriations Act (H.R. 2764; Public Law 110-161), EPA
proposed a rule on March 10, 2009 that requires mandatory reporting of GHG emissions from large
sources in the United States. On September 22, 2009, the Final Mandatory Reporting of GHG Rule was
signed and published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2009. The rule became effective on
December 29, 2009. This rule requires suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs, manufacturers of
vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of GHG emissions to
submit annual reports to EPA.
On December 7, 2009, the US EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings under section 202(a) of
the CAA. One is an endangerment finding that finds concentrations of the six GHGs in the atmosphere
threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. The other is a cause or
contribute finding, that finds emissions from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines
contribute to the GHG pollution which threatens public health and welfare. These actions did not
impose any requirements on industry or other entities, however, since 2009 the U.S. EPA has been
providing GHG emission standards for vehicles and other stationary sources of GHG emissions that are
regulated by the U.S. EPA, including proposed GHG emission standards for light-duty vehicles, which
were jointly proposed by the U.S. EPA and Department of Transportation on September 15, 2009. On
September 13, 2013 the U.S. EPA Administrator signed 40 CFR Part 60, which limits emissions from new
sources to 1,100 pounds of CO2 per MWh for fossil fuel-fired utility boilers and 1,000 pounds of CO2 per
MWh for large natural gas-fired combustion units.
On August 3, 2015, the U.S. EPA announced the Clean Power Plan, emissions guidelines for U.S. states to
follow in developing plans to reduce GHG emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants (Federal
Register Vol. 80, No. 205, October 23, 2015). On February 9, 2016 the Supreme Court stayed
implementation of the Clean Power Plan due to a legal challenge from 29 states, until the Supreme
Court rules on the case next year.
STATE
CARB proposed interim statewide CEQA thresholds for GHG emissions and released Recommended
Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under CEQA, on October
24, 2008. The state currently has no regulations that establish ambient air quality standards for GHGs.
However, the state has passed laws directing CARB to develop actions to reduce GHG emissions, which
are listed below.
Executive Order B-30-15, Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197
The California Governor issued Executive Order B-30-15 (EO B-30-15) on April 29, 2015 that aims to
reduce California’s GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. This executive order aligns
California’s GHG reduction targets with those of other international governments, such as the European
Union that set the same target for 2030 in October, 2014. This target will make it possible to reach the
ultimate goal of reducing GHG emissions 80 percent under 1990 levels by 205 0 that is based on
scientifically established levels needed in the U.S.A to limit global warming below 2 degrees Celsius – the
warming threshold at which scientists say there will likely be major climate disruptions such as super
droughts and rising sea levels. Assembly Bill 197 (AB 197) (September 8, 2016) and Senate Bill 32 (SB 32)
(September 8, 2016) codified into statute the GHG emissions reduction targets of at least 40 percent
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
157
below 1990 levels by 2030 as detailed in EO B-30-15. AB 197 also requires additional GHG emissions
reporting that is broken down to sub-country levels and requires CARB to consider the social costs of
emissions impacting disadvantaged communities.
Executive Order B-29-15
The California Governor issued Executive Order B-29-15 on April 1, 2015 and directed the State Water
Resources Control Board to impose restrictions to achieve a statewide 25% reduction in urban water
usage and directed the Department of Water Resources to replace 50 million square feet of lawn with
drought tolerant landscaping through an update to the State’s Model Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance. The Ordinance also requires installation of more efficient irrigation systems, promotion of
greywater usage and onsite stormwater capture, and limits the turf planted in new residential
landscapes to 25 percent of the total area and restricts turf from being planted in median strips or in
parkways unless the parkway is next to a parking strip and a flat surface is required to enter and exit
vehicles.
Assembly Bill 1109
California AB 1109 (AB 1109), which also known as the Lighting Efficiency and Toxics Reduction Act,
prohibits the manufacturing of lights after January 1, 2010 that contain levels of hazardous substances
prohibited by the European Union pursuant to the RoHS Directive. AB 1109 also requires reductions in
energy usage for lighting and is structured to reduce lighting electrical consumption by: (1) At least 50
percent reduction from 2007 levels for indoor residential lighting; and (2) At least 25 percent red uction
from 2007 levels for indoor commercial and all outdoor lighting by 2018.
Assembly Bill 1493
California AB 1493 (also known as the Pavley Bill, in reference to its author Fran Pavley) was enacted on
July 22, 2002 and required CARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by
passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. In 2005, the CARB approved the “Pavley I” regulations limiting
the amount of GHGs that may be released from new passenger automobiles that are being phased in
between model years 2009 and 2016. These regulations will reduce GHG emissions by 30 percent from
2002 levels by 2016. The second set of regulations “Pavley II” is currently in development and will be
phased in between model years 2017 through 2025 and will reduce emissions by 45 percent by the year
2020. The Pavley II standards are being developed by linking the GHG emissions and formerly separate
toxic tailpipe emissions standards previously known as the “LEV III” (third stage of the Low Emission
Vehicle standards) into a single regulatory framework. The new rules reduce emissions from gasoline-
powered cars as well as promote zero-emissions auto technologies such as electricity and hydrogen, and
through increasing the infrastructure for fueling hydrogen vehicles. In 2009, the U.S. EPA granted
California the authority to implement the GHG standards for passenger cars, pickup trucks and sport
utility vehicles. In September 2009, the Pavley I regulations were adopted by CARB.
Executive Order S-3-05
In 2005 the California Governor issued Executive Order S 3-05, GHG Emission which established the
following reduction targets:
▪ 2010: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels;
▪ 2020: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels;
▪ 2050: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
158
The executive order directed the secretary of the Cal EPA to coordinate a multi-agency effort to reduce
GHG emissions to the target levels. To comply with the Executive Order, the secretary of Cal EPA created
the California Climate Action Team, made up of members from various state agencies and commissions.
The team released its first report in March 2006. The report proposed to achieve the targets by building
on the voluntary actions of businesses, local governments, and communities and through state incentive
and regulatory programs. The State achieved its first goal of reducing GHG emissions to 2000 levels by
2010.
Assembly Bill 32
In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires CARB, to adopt rules and regulations that would achieve GHG
emissions equivalent to statewide levels in 1990 by 2020 through an enforceable statewide emission cap
which will be phased in starting in 2012. Emission reductions shall include carbon sequestration projects
that would remove carbon from the atmosphere and best management practices that are
technologically feasible and cost effective.
In 2007 CARB released the calculated Year 1990 GHG emissions of 431 million metric tons of CO2e
(MMTCO2e). The 2020 target of 431 MMTCO2e requires the reduction of 78 MMTCO2e, or approximately
16 percent from the State’s projected 2020 business as usual emissions of 5 09 MMTCO2e. Under AB 32,
CARB was required to adopt regulations by January 1, 2011 to achieve reductions in GHGs to meet the
1990 cap by 2020. Early measures CARB took to lower GHG emissions included requiring operators of
the largest industrial facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons of CO2 in a calendar year to submit
verification of GHG emissions by December 1, 2010. The CARB Board also approved nine discrete early
action measures that include regulations affecting landfills, motor vehicle fuels, refrigerants in cars, port
operations and other sources that became enforceable on or before January 1, 2010.
CARB’s Scoping Plan that was adopted in 2009, proposes a variety of measures including strengthening
energy efficiency and building standards; targeted fees on water and energy use; a market -based cap-
and-trade system; achieving a 33 percent renewable energy mix; and a fee regulation to fund the
program. The 2014 update to the Scoping Plan identifies strategies moving beyond the 2020 targets to
the 2050.
The Cap and Trade Program established under Scoping Plan sets a statewide limit on sources responsible
for 85 percent of California’s GHG emissions, and has established a market for long-term investment in
energy efficiency and cleaner fuels since 2012.
Senate Bill 1368
Senate Bill 1368 (SB 1368) is the companion Bill of AB 32 and was adopted September, 2006. SB 1368
requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to establish a performance standard for
baseload generation of GHG emissions by investor-owned utilities by February 1, 2007 and for local
publicly owned utilities by June 30, 2007. These standards could not exceed the GHG emissions rate
from a baseload combined-cycle, natural gas-fired plant. Furthermore, the legislation states that all
electricity provided to the State, including imported electricity, must be generated by plants that meet
the standards set by CPUC and California Energy Commission.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
159
Executive Order S-1-07
Executive Order S-1-07 was issued in 2007 and proclaims that the transportation sector is the main
source of GHG emissions in the State, since it generates more than 40 percent of the State’s GHG
emissions. It establishes a goal to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in the State by
at least ten percent by 2020. This Order also directs CARB to determine whether this Low Carbon Fuel
Standard could be adopted as a discrete early-action measure as part of the effort to meet the
mandates in AB 32.
In 2009 CARB approved the proposed regulation to implement the LCFS. The standard was challenged in
the courts, but has been in effect since 2011 and was re-approved by the CARB in 2015. The LCFS is
anticipated to reduce GHG emissions by about 16 MMT per year by 2020. The LCFS is designed to
provide a framework that uses market mechanisms to spur the steady introduction of lower carbon
fuels. The framework establishes performance standards that fuel producers and importers must meet
annually. Reformulated gasoline mixed with corn-derived ethanol and low-sulfur diesel fuel represent
the baseline fuels. Lower carbon fuels may be ethanol, biodiesel, renewable diesel, or blends of these
fuels with gasoline or diesel. Compressed natural gas and liquefied natural gas also may be low -carbon
fuels. Hydrogen and electricity, when used in fuel cells or electric vehicles, are also considered as low
carbon fuels.
Senate Bill 97
Senate Bill 97 (SB 97) was adopted August 2007 and acknowledges that climate change is a prominent
environmental issue that requires analysis under CEQA. SB 97 directed the Governor’s Office of Planning
and Research, which is part of the State Resource Agency, to prepare, develop, and transmit to CARB
guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions, as required by
CEQA, by July 1, 2009. The Resources Agency was required to certify and adopt those guidelines by
January 1, 2010.
Pursuant to the requirements of SB 97 as stated above, on December 30, 2009 the Natural Resources
Agency adopted amendments to the state CEQA guidelines that address GHG emissions. The CEQA
Guidelines Amendments changed 14 sections of the CEQA Guidelines and incorporate GHG language
throughout the Guidelines. However, no GHG emissions thresholds of significance are provided and no
specific mitigation measures are identified. The GHG emission reduction amendments went into effect
on March 18, 2010 and are summarized below:
▪ Climate action plans and other greenhouse gas reduction plans can be used to determine
whether a project has significant impacts, based upon its compliance with the plan.
▪ Local governments are encouraged to quantify the greenhouse gas emissions of Proposed
Projects, noting that they have the freedom to select the models and methodologies that best
meet their needs and circumstances. The section also recommends consideration of several
qualitative factors that may be used in the determination of significance, such as the extent to
which the given project complies with state, regional, or local GHG reduction plans and policies.
OPR does not set or dictate specific thresholds of significance. Consistent with existing CEQA
Guidelines, OPR encourages local governments to develop and publish their own thresholds of
significance for GHG impacts assessment.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
160
▪ When creating their own thresholds of significance, local governments may consider the
thresholds of significance adopted or recommended by other public agencies, or recommended
by experts.
▪ New amendments include guidelines for determining methods to mitigate the effects of
greenhouse gas emissions in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines.
▪ OPR is clear to state that “to qualify as mitigation, specific measures from an existing plan must
be identified and incorporated into the project; general compliance with a plan, by itself, is not
mitigation.”
▪ OPR’s emphasizes the advantages of analyzing GHG impacts on an institutional, programmatic
level. OPR therefore approves tiering of environmental analyses and highlights some benefits of
such an approach.
▪ Environmental impact reports (EIRs) must specifically consider a project's energy use and energy
efficiency potential.
Senate Bills 1078, 107, and X1-2 and Executive Orders S-14-08 and S-21-09
Senate Bill 1078 (SB 1078) requires retail sellers of electricity, including investor-owned utilities and
community choice aggregators, to provide at least 20 percent of their supply from renewable sources by
2017. Senate Bill 107 (SB 107) changed the target date to 2010. Executive Order S-14-08 was signed on
November 2008 and expands the State’s Renewable Energy Standard to 33 percent renewable energy
by 2020. Executive Order S-21-09 directed CARB to adopt regulations by July 31, 2010 to enforce S-14-
08. Senate Bill X1-2 codifies the 33 percent renewable energy requirement by 2020.
Senate Bill 375
Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) was adopted September 2008 and aligns regional transportation planning
efforts, regional GHG emission reduction targets, and land use and housing allocation. SB 375 requires
MPOs to adopt a sustainable communities strategy (SCS) or alternate planning strategy (APS) that will
prescribe land use allocation in that MPOs RTP. CARB, in consultation with each MPO, will provide each
affected region with reduction targets for GHGs emitted by passenger cars and light trucks in the region
for the years 2020 and 2035. These reduction targets will be updated every eight years but can be
updated every four years if advancements in emissions technologies affect the reduction strategies to
achieve the targets. CARB is also charged with reviewing each MPO’s sustainable communities strategy
or alternate planning strategy for consistency with its assigned targets.
City and County land use policies, including General Plans, are not required to be consistent with the
RTP and associated SCS or APS. However, new provisions of CEQA would incentivize, through
streamlining and other provisions, qualified projects that are consistent with an approved SCS or APS
and categorized as “transit priority projects.”
Assembly Bill 341 and Senate Bills 939 and 1374
Senate Bill 939 (SB 939) requires that each jurisdiction in California divert at least 50 percent of its waste
away from landfills, whether through waste reduction, recycling or other means. Senate Bill 1374 (SB
1374) requires the California Integrated Waste Management Board to adopt a model ordinance by
March 1, 2004 suitable for adoption by any local agency to require 50 to 75 percent diversion of
construction and demolition of waste materials from landfills. AB 341 was adopted in 2011 and builds
upon the waste reduction measures of SB 939 and 1374, and sets a new target of a 75 percent reduction
in solid waste generated by the year 2020.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
161
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 6
CCR Title 24, Part 6: California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings
(Title 24) were first established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s
energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible
incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. Although it was not originally
intended to reduce GHG emissions, electricity production by fossil fuels results in GHG emissions and
energy efficient buildings require less electricity. Therefore, increased energy efficiency results in
decreased GHG emissions.
The Title 24 standards are updated on a three year schedule, with the most current 2016 standards
going into effect on January 1, 2017. The Title 24 standards require the installation of insulated hot
water pipes, improved window performance, improved wall insulation, and mandatory duct sealing.
Title 24 also requires roofs to be constructed to be solar ready, with cool roofing shingles, a minimum 1 -
inch air space between roof material and roof deck, and a minimum of R -22 roof/ceiling insulation. All
lighting is required to be high efficiency and daylight sensors and motion sensors are required for
outdoor lighting, bathrooms, utility rooms and other spaces. The forced air systems are required to limit
leakage to 5 percent or less and requires all heat pump systems to be equipped with liquid line filter
driers. The 2016 Title 24 Part 6 standards are anticipated to reduce electricity consumption by 281
gigawatt-hours per year and natural gas consumption by 16 million therms per year
(http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037-CMF.pdf).
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 11
CCR Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards (Title 24) was developed in response to
continued efforts to reduce GHG emissions associated with energy consumption. The most current
version is the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen), which became effective on
January 1, 2017 and replaced the 2013 CalGreen. One focus of CCR Title 24, Part 11 is clean air vehicles
and increasing requirements for electric vehicle charging infrastructure, which would reduce pollutant
emissions. CCR Title 24, Part 11 has approximately 52 nonresidential mandatory measures and an
additional 130 provisions for optional use. Some key mandatory measures for nonresidential use include
providing designated bicycle parking where necessary, providing parking for low-emitting, fuel-efficient,
and carpool/van pool vehicles where new construction adds 10 or more parking spaces, and facilitating
future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment.
REGIONAL
SCAG
SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and
Imperial Counties and addresses regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, community
development and the environment. SCAG is the federally designated MPO for the majority of the
Southern California region and is the largest MPO in the nation. SCAG adopted the 2016-2040 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy in April 2016. The RTP/SCS is a regional growth
management strategy that incorporates local land use projection and circulation networks in the cities
and counties general plans. The RTP/SCS was developed in order to meet the requirements of SB 375,
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
162
which requires MPO to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy that demonstrates how the region
will meet its GHG reduction targets as set forth by CARB.
SCAQMD
In order to assist local agencies with direction on GHG emissions, the SCAQMD organized a working
group and adopted Rules 2700, 2701, 2702, and 3002 which are described below.
SCAQMD Stakeholder Working Group
Since neither CARB nor the OPR has developed GHG emissions threshold, the SCAQMD formed a
Working Group to develop significance thresholds related to GHG emissions. At the September 28, 2010
Working Group meeting, the SCAQMD released its most current version of the draft GHG emissions
thresholds, which recommends a tiered approach that either provides a quantitative annual thresholds
of 3,500 MTCO2e for residential uses, 1,400 MTCO2e for commercial uses, and 3,000 MTCO2e for mixed
uses. An alternative annual threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land use types is also proposed. Although
the SCAQMD provided substantial evidence supporting the use of the above thresholds, as of December
2016, the SCAQMD Board has not yet considered or approved the Working Group’s thresholds.
Originally SCAQMD had stated that they were waiting to approve the Working Group’s thresholds
dependent on the outcome of the State Supreme Court decision of the California Building Industry
Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which was filed on December 17,
2015. However, since that court decision has been decided for some time now, the most likely time for
the SCAQMD Board to consider the Working Group thresholds will be in combination with the
consideration of the updated CEQA Air Quality Handbook that is currently being revised by SCAQMD
staff.
Rules 2700 and 2701
The SCAQMD adopted Rules 2700 and 2701 on December 5, 2008, which establishes the administrative
structure for a voluntary program designed to quantify GHG emission reductions. Rule 2701 provides
specific protocols for private parties to follow to generate certified GHG emission reductions for projects
within the district. Approved protocols include forest projects, urban tree planting, and manure
management. The SCAQMD is currently developing additional protocols for other reduction measures.
For a GHG emission reduction project to qualify, it must be verified and certified by the SCAQMD
Executive Officer, who has 60 days to approve or deny the Plan. Upon approval of the Plan, the
Executive Officer issues required to issue a certified receipt of the GHG emission reductions within 90
days.
Rule 2702
The SCAQMD adopted Rule 2702 on February 6, 2009, which establishes a voluntary air quality
investment program from which SCAQMD can collect funds from parties that desire certified GHG
emission reductions, pool those funds, and use them to purchase or fund GHG emission reduction
projects within two years, unless extended by the Governing Board. Priority will be given to projects that
result in co-benefit emission reductions of GHG emissions and criteria or toxic air pollutants within
environmental justice areas. Further, this voluntary program may compete with the cap-and-trade
program identified for implementation in CARB’s Scoping Plan, or a Federal cap and trade program.
LOCAL
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
163
City of Anaheim General Plan, Green Element
The Green Element does not specifically address GHG emissions or climate change; however, it
establishes goals and policies that are aimed at reducing emissions. The goals and policies contained in
the Green Element that are related to air quality and air emissions are listed in Section 3.2.3 of this
document. The Green Element also contains the following goals and policies for water and energy
conservation that could aid in reducing GHG emissions:
Goal 5.1: Continue Anaheim’s water conservation efforts to ensure that all City facilities are water
efficient.
Policies:
1) Continue to inspect, maintain and enhance City facilities relative to their water use.
2) Continue inter-departmental coordination of water use and conservation policies to improve
City-facility water use.
3) Specify and install water-conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings in public facilities such as
parks, community centers, and government buildings.
4) Continue and expand Anaheim’s water rebate program.
Goal 5.2: Continue and expand Anaheim’s educational outreach and incentives programs aimed at
water conservation.
Policies:
1) Continue to educate the public through the award-winning annual Water Awareness Month
Campaign.
2) Continue to offer all Anaheim public and private schools the opportunity to participate in the
Water Conservation Poster Contest.
3) Continue to encourage landscape projects employing water efficient irrigation.
4) Maximize opportunities to install local or regional groundwater recharge facilities.
Goal 15.1: Continue to lead the County in energy conservation programs, practices and community
outreach.
Policies:
1) Continue to maintain and update energy conservation programs and information provided on
the City’s website.
Goal 15.1: Continue to encourage site design practices that reduce and conserve energy.
Policies:
1) Encourage increased use of passive and active solar design in existing and new development
(e.g., orienting buildings to maximize exposure to cooling effects of prevailing winds and
locating landscaping and landscape structures to shade buildings).
2) Encourage energy-efficient retrofitting of existing buildings throughout the City.
3) Continue to provide free energy audits for the public.
City of Anaheim Green Resolution
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
164
In 2006, the City Council adopted a Resolution setting a series of goals for the City, grounded in the
principles of environmental soundness and sustainable development. These goals include the reduction
of energy use by 20 percent and water use by 15 percent by 2015, and the increase of renewable energy
purchases by 10%. In order to meet these goals, the Anaheim Public Utilities Department (APUD),
through its Green Connection Program, offers several incentive-based programs including solar energy
rebates, a Green Power Program to fund renewable energy purchases, and a Green Building Program for
developers.
3.6.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Proposed
Project would have a significant impact to greenhouse gas emissions if it would result in any of the
following:
▪ Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the environment?
▪ Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
GHG THRESHOLDS
The CARB and SCAQMD have issued proposed standards and guidelines for GHG emissions for a variety
of land uses. To identify significance criteria under CEQA for development projects, SCAQMD initiated a
Working Group, which provided detailed methodology for evaluating significance under CEQA. At the
September 28, 2010 Working Group meeting, the SCAQMD released its most current version of the draft
GHG emissions thresholds, which recommends a tiered approach that either provides a quantitative
annual thresholds of 3,500 MTCO2e for residential uses, 1,400 MTCO2e for commercial uses, and 3,000
MTCO2e for mixed uses. An alternative annual threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land use types was also
proposed. Although the SCAQMD provided substantial evidence supporting the use of the above
thresholds, as of December 2016, the SCAQMD Board has not yet considered or approved the Working
Group’s thresholds. Originally SCAQMD had stated that they were waiting to approve the Working
Group’s thresholds dependent on the outcome of the State Supreme Court decision of the California
Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which was filed on
December 17, 2015. However, since that court decision has been decided for some time now, the most
likely time for the SCAQMD Board to consider the Working Group thresholds will be in combination with
the consideration of the updated CEQA Air Quality Handbook that is currently being revised by SCAQMD
staff. In order to provide a conservative analysis, the Working Group’s draft thresholds have been
utilized. Therefore, this analysis has utilized the annual threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land use types
3.6.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
METHODOLOGY
The CalEEMod model run used the criteria pollutant analysis in Section 3.2 Air Quality was also used to
calculate the GHG emissions from the Proposed Project’s construction and operational activities.
The Proposed Project is anticipated to generate GHG emissions from area sources, energy usage, mobile
sources, waste, and water. The operational GHG emissions were based on the year 2025, which has
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
165
been assumed as the earliest practical opening year for a commercial retail project on the project site.
Each source of GHG emissions is described in greater detail below.
Area Sources
Area sources include emissions from architectural coatings, consumer products, hearths, and landscape
equipment. No changes were made to the CalEEMod default area source emissions.
Energy Usage
Energy usage includes emissions from the electricity and natural gas used on-site. The energy usage was
based on the CalEEMod default emissions for a 425,000 square foot commercial development. No
changes were made to the CalEEMod default energy usage emissions.
Mobile Sources
Mobile sources include emissions from the additional vehicle miles generated from the Proposed
Project. The vehicle trips associated with the Proposed Project have been analyzed based on the Traffic
Impact Analysis (see Section 3.14 and Appendix I) that found that the proposed Project would create
10,148 vehicular trips per day. The CalEEMod default vehicle mix was utilized in the an alysis, which
found that project operation would generate 184 semi-truck trips per day and 267 vendor truck trips per
day. The Project setting was set to Suburban Center in the CalEEMod, which is defined by areas with
transit headways of 20-30 minutes during peak hours, and the jobs per acre created was set to 28, which
was based on the typical amount of employment that would be generated from 425,000 square feet of
commercial uses. Currently, OCTA Bus Route 46 has a bus stop at the Project site and any development
that occurs at the Project site would be required to provide sidewalks, which have been entered into the
CalEEMod model.
Solid Waste
Waste includes the GHG emissions associated with disposal of solid waste from the Proposed Project
into landfills. The solid waste generation was based on the default rate of 446.25 tons per year for a
425,000 square foot commercial center. All other emission factors were based on the default emission
levels in the CalEEMod model.
Water and Wastewater
Water includes the GHG emissions from the treatment of water and conveyance of water to the Project
site. The Proposed Project would be required to meet the water reduction measures included in SB 610
and requires projects of this size to develop a Water Supply Assessment. However, since the Proposed
Project is limited to a zone change and General Plan Amendment and no specific development of the
Project site is proposed the City has not yet required the preparation of a Water Supply Assessment.
Therefore, the analysis was based on the default CalEEMod water usage rate of 31,480,822 gallons per
year of interior water usage and 19,294,697 gallons per year of outdoor water usage from the Proposed
Project. In order to account for the California 2016 Green Building Code water conservation
requirements, the use of low flow fixtures and toilets and water efficient irrigation systems were
included in the model. All other emission factors were based on the default emission levels in the
CalEEMod model.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
166
IMPACT ANALYSIS
IMPACT GHG-1: The Proposed Project would generate greenhouse gas emissions.
Construction-Related GHG Emissions
The construction-related GHG emissions for each year that construction activities are anticipated to
occur for the Proposed Project are shown below in Table 3.6-2.
Table 3.6-2 Project Construction Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions
Construction Year
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons per Year)
Bio-CO2 NonBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
2020 0.00 1,805.59 1,805.59 0.39 0.00 1,815.40
2021 0.00 2,018.78 2,018.78 0.44 0.00 2,029.78
2022 0.00 1,026.16 1,026.16 0.15 0.00 1,029.85
2023 0.00 396.96 396.96 0.05 0.00 398.13
Threshold of Significance 3,000
Notes:
Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.1.
The data provided in Table 3.6-2 above shows that the maximum GHG emissions from construction
activities would occur in the year 2021, when the Project would create 2,029.78 metric tons of GHG
emissions. This is within the 3,000 metric tons per year significance threshold. Therefore, GHG emissions
from construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would be less than significant and
mitigation measures would not be required.
Operational GHG Emissions
The Project’s operational GHG emissions have been calculated with CalEEMod model based on the
parameters detailed in the methodology described above. A summary of the results is shown below in
Table 3.6-3.
Table 3.6-3 Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions Prior to Mitigation
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons per Year)
Category Bio-CO2 NonBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Area Sources1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Usage2 0.00 4,060.11 4,060.11 0.08 0.02 4,066.94
Mobile Sources3 0.00 7,662.10 7,662.10 0.31 0.00 7,669.88
Solid Waste4 90.58 0.00 90.58 5.35 0.00 224.42
Water and Wastewater5 9.99 437.01 446.99 1.03 0.03 480.57
Total Emissions 100.57 12,159.22 12,259.80 6.77 0.04 12,441.82
Threshold of Significance 3,000
1 Area sources consist of GHG emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment.
2 Energy usage consist of GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage (non-hearth).
3 Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles.
4 Waste includes the CO2 and CH4 emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills.
5 Water includes GHG emissions from electricity used for transport of water and processing of wastewater.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
167
Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.1 for year 2025.
The data provided in Table 3.6-3 above shows that the Proposed Project would create 12,441.82 metric
tons per year of GHG emissions. This would exceed the 3,000 metric tons per year significance threshold
and would be considered a significant impact.
The GHG emissions would be primarily created from additional motor vehicles that would be generated
from operation of the proposed commercial retail project. GHG emissions from motor vehicles operated
on public roads are regulated by the state and not by local jurisdictions. There is no feasible mitigation
available to a local jurisdiction that could be incorporated to reduce the GHG emission levels from the
on-going operations of a commercial retail project of this size to a less than significant level. The GHG
emissions may be reduced through incorporation of the example reduction measures in mitigation
measures MM GHG-1 and MM GHG-2, above, but not to a less than significant level. MM GHG-2
requires that the Property Owner/Developer of any future development of the Project site to
demonstrate compliance with all GHG emissions thresholds at the time of issuance of permits. MM
GHG-1 requires that all future tenants implement a CTR, in order to reduce employee vehicle trips .
These mitigation measures are examples of possible reduction measures. Table 3.6-4 shows that with
application of the example reduction measures in MM GHG-1 and MM GHG-2, the operation-related
GHG emissions would be reduced, but not to a less than significant level. Impacts would remain a
significant and unavoidable.
Table 3.6-4 Mitigated Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons per Year)1
Category Bio-CO2 NonBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Area Sources 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01
Energy Usage 0.00 3,091.85 3,091.85 0.06 0.01 3,097.08
Mobile Sources 0.00 6,308.61 6,308.61 0.26 0.00 6,315.20
Solid Waste 45.29 0.00 45.29 2.68 0.00 112.21
Water and Wastewater 8.43 383.09 391.52 0.87 0.02 419.88
Total Emissions 53.72 9,783.56 9,837.29 3.87 0.03 9,944.38
Threshold of Significance 3,000
1 Includes implementation of the example GHG reduction measures in MM GHG-1 and MM GHG-2.
Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.1 for year 2025.
IMPACT GHG-2: The Proposed Project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
The applicable plans for the Proposed Project consist of SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS, the City of Anaheim’s
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GHG Reduction Plan), adopted July 2015, and the SCAQMD Working
Group’s draft GHG thresholds.
SCAG
SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS land use policies incorporates best practices for achieving state-mandated
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions through decreases in per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
regionally. As discussed in Section 3.9.5, the Proposed Project would not conflict with SCAG’s Final 2016
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
168
RTP/SCS’s land use policies, see Table 3.9-1 Consistency with SCAG’s Final 2016 RTP/SCS Land Use
Policies.
City of Anaheim
The City of Anaheim’s GHG Reduction Plan provides reduction targets for energy usage, water
conservation, photovoltaic (PV) rooftop installations, and transportation emissions. For energy usage,
the GHG Reduction Plan provides a target of a 15 percent reduction by 2020 and a 30 percent reduction
by 2030 of the energy utilized by businesses and homes in Anaheim. This target will be met through
implementation of mitigation measures MM GHG-1 and MM GHG-2.
In addition to mitigation measures MM GHG-1 and MM GHG-2, the Proposed Project would be required
to meet State regulations that include Title 24, Part 6 California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for
Buildings and Title 24, Part 11, California’s Green Building Standards, which require a variety of energy
efficiency measures to be installed on new businesses. The Title 24 standards are updated on a three
year schedule, with the most current 2016 standards went into effect on January 1, 2017. New Title 24
Building Standards are anticipated to be released in 2019 and the 2019 Title 24 Building Standards are
required to meet a zero-net energy goal. Therefore, through implementation of mitigation measures
MM GHG-1 and MM GHG-2 and State regulations, the Proposed Project will meet the energy use
reduction targets provided in the GHG Reduction Plan.
The GHG Reduction Plan also includes water conservation targets of a 30 percent reduction by 2020 and
a 25 percent reduction by 2030. The Proposed Project will be required to adhere to Executive Order B-
29-15 that requires that new development projects adhere to the State’s Model Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance and CCR Title 24, Part 11, that requires all new commercial developments to
install low-flow water fixtures as well as other water reduction measures. These State regulations would
reduce the amount of water utilized and the Proposed Project would comply with this measure.
The GHG Reduction Plan also includes a 2020 target of 27,000 kW of PV systems installed by 2020 and
37,000 kW of PV systems installed by 2030. This target will be met through application of mitigation
measure MM GHG-2 that requires any future development on the Project site to install on-site
generation of electricity that could be met through use of a PV system. In addition, the 2013 Title 24
Building Standards require that new non-residential buildings are constructed to be solar ready to
facilitate the installation of rooftop solar systems. This requirement is typically met through structural
design to ensure that rooftops are designed to handle the weight of PV systems and through installation
of electrical conduit from the main circuit panel area to the roof. Therefore, through implementation of
mitigation measure MM GHG-2 and State regulations, the Proposed Project in association with future
commercial projects in the City, will meet the PV rooftop targets provided in the GHG Reduction Plan.
The GHG Reduction Plan also includes a 2020 target of a 6,000 MTCO2e reduction in vehicle emissions
and a 2030 target of 20,000 MTCO2e reduction in vehicle emissions. Future CalGreen Building Standards
are anticipated to require that all new non-residential projects provide electric vehicle charging stations.
Therefore, through implementation of State regulations, the Proposed Project would comply with the
vehicle emission reduction targets provided in the GHG Reduction Plan.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
169
SCAQMD
To identify significance criteria under CEQA for development projects, SCAQMD initiated a Working
Group, which provided detailed methodology for evaluating significance under CEQA. At the September
28, 2010 Working Group meeting, the SCAQMD released its most current version of the draft GHG
emissions thresholds, which recommends a tiered approach that provides a quantitative annual
threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land use types. Although the SCAQMD provided substantial evidence
supporting the use of the above thresholds, as of February 2017, the SCAQMD Board has not yet
considered or approved the Working Group’s thresholds. Originally SCAQMD had stated that they were
waiting to approve the Working Group’s thresholds dependent on the outcome of the State Supreme
Court decision of the California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD), which was filed on December 17, 2015. However, since that court decision has been
decided for some time now, the most likely time for the SCAQMD Board to consider the Working Group
thresholds will be in combination with the consideration of the updated CEQA Air Quality Handbook that
is currently being revised by SCAQMD staff. Therefore, this analysis has utilized the annual threshold of
3,000 MTCO2e for all land use types.
The discussion under IMPACT GHG-1 above found that with implementation of the example measures
provided in mitigation measures MM GHG-1 and MM GHG-2, the Proposed Project would generate 9,
944.38 MTCO2e per year, which would exceed the annual 3,000 MTCO2e threshold. The GHG emissions
would be primarily created from additional motor vehicles that would be generated from operation of
the proposed commercial Project. GHG emissions from motor vehicles operated on public roads are
regulated by the State and not by local jurisdictions. The regulatory breakdown has been discussed
above in Section 3.6.3. Therefore, in order to build a commercial project of this size, there is no feasible
mitigation available to a local jurisdiction that could be incorporated to reduce the GHG emission levels
from the on-going operations of the Proposed Project to a less than significant level. The Proposed
Project would result in a conflict with the SCAQMD adopted threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e. With
implementation of MM GHG-1 and MM GHG-2, the operation-related GHG emissions would be
reduced; however not to within the adopted thresholds and would remain a significant unavoidable
impact.
MITIGATION MEASURES
MM GHG-1: Prior to Certificate of Occupancy, the Property Owner/Developer or applicable designee
(e.g., building manager), for future tenants on the Project site that employ 20 or more people, which is
typically equivalent to 16,000 square feet of retail space, shall implement an employee commute trip
reduction (CTR) program. The CTR shall identify alternative modes of transportation to the Project site,
including transit schedules, bike and pedestrian routes, and carpool/vanpool availability. Information
with regard to these programs shall be readily available to employees and clients (e.g., Go511.com). This
information shall be submitted to the Anaheim Traffic and Transportation Division prior to the first
certificate of occupancy for the Project. The Property Owner/Developer or designee shall consider the
following incentives for commuters as part of the CTR program:
▪ Ride-matching assistance (e.g., subsidized public transit passes);
▪ Vanpool assistance or employer-provided vanpool/shuttle (OCTA vanpool program provides a
subsidy of $400 to each vanpool);
▪ Car-sharing program (e.g., Zipcar or other similar companies); and/or
▪ Bicycle end-trip facilities, including bike parking and lockers.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
170
MM GHG-2: Prior to issuance of issuance of building permits, the Property Owner/Developer shall
demonstrate that the Proposed Project will meet all applicable GHG emissions thresholds at the time of
issuance of permits or if these thresholds cannot be met, the Property Owner/Developer will implement
measures to reduce the GHG emissions to the greatest extent feasible by submitting a GHG reduction
plan to the Anaheim Planning and Building Department. This information shall be specifically shown on
plans submitted for building permits. Examples of quantifiable reduction measures are provided below:
▪ Require all future tenants to implement a recycling program that diverts 50 percent of the
project waste from landfills;
▪ Require all building structures be designed to exceed the current Title 24 standards at the
time of construction;
▪ Require all lighting used on the Project site to be high efficiency lighting that is a minimum of
15 percent more efficient than standard lighting;
▪ Require all dishwashers, fans, refrigerators, and other appliances to be energy star
appliances; and
▪ Require the on-site generation of the Project electricity usage through use of photovoltaic
panels, co-generation plants, fuel cells or other means.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
The Proposed Project would exceed and conflict with the SCAQMD draft threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e.
Implementation of MM GHG-1 and MM GHG-2 would reduce the operational GHG emissions but not
below the adopted threshold. Impacts would remain a significant after mitigation.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Climate change is global impact and not a local impact. Project-related GHG emissions are dispersed
globally and are not confined to the Basin. Therefore, the analysis presented in this section represents
the cumulative impact analysis for GHG emissions related to the Proposed Project. Since the Project’s
GHG emissions were significant even with mitigation, the Project’s GHG emissions and contribution to
global climate change would also be cumulatively significant.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
171
3.7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
3.7.1 INTRODUCTION
This section describes the existing conditions regarding hazards and hazardous materials and potential
impacts from Proposed Project on the Project site and its surrounding area. Information presented in
this section is based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, dated August 9, 2013,
prepared for the Proposed Project by Leighton Consulting, Inc. This report is included in Appendix G of
this Draft EIR.
3.7.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Project site is bounded to the north by Ball Road followed by Burris Basin; to the south by the
Union Pacific Railroad followed by a large parking lot for Honda Center and a business park; to the east
by the Santa Ana River; and to the west by Phoenix Club Drive/South Auto Center Drive followed by the
Anaheim Auto Center (primarily sales with some auto repair), the El Bekel Shrine, the Phoenix Club, and
the Anaheim Equestrian Center Rancho Del Rio Stable. There are also residential developments located
in the surrounding vicinity to the west across SR-57 and to the northwest across Burris Basin.
BRB is a broad semi-rectangular pit ranging in elevation from approximately 155 feet at the invert to
approximately 180 feet at the top-of-grade. The topography of the general vicinity slopes towards the
west. BRB has a water holding capacity of about 220 acre-feet. The Project site is unpaved and consists
of bare soil and weedy vegetation with standing water during rain events. Structures or roads were not
observed on the Project site with the exception of unpaved access roads around the perimeter. The
Project site supports surface water containment and control features including the CSD, city drains, and
drainage to the Santa Ana River
OIL AND GAS FIELDS
Leighton Consulting reviewed the California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and
Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) online mapping system on February 26, 2013. According to the map, oil
fields and oil/gas wells were not identified on the Project site. A plugged and abandoned oil well was
depicted within the existing Santa Ana River Channel approximately 150 feet east of the Project site. The
well is identified as “Oliver-Orange”, American Petroleum Institute Number (API) 05901262, owned by
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. A plugged and abandoned well was also depicted approximately 1,200 feet to the
west of the Project site, which was identified as “Fluor” 1, API 05900880, and is owned by British-
American Oil Producing Company.
The DOGGR office in Cypress was contacted on March 14, 2013 to inquire about available records for
the “Oliver-Orange” well. The location of wells plotted on DOGGER maps may not be accurate and
Leighton Consulting advises a review of the hard copy records if a well appears to be within
approximately 500 feet of the Project site. The Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) requires a methane
survey for properties that are located within an oil field or within 100 feet from any active or abandoned
oil/gas well that is not located within the administrative boundary of an oil field.
HAZARDOUS DATABASE REVIEW
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
172
A search of selected government databases was conducted by Leighton Consulting using the
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR®) Radius Report, dated March 1, 2013. The results of the
database search are as follows:
The Project site was identified in the EDR® as listed on the Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanup
(SLIC) database. This listing comes from the California Regional Water Control Board and is identified as
Case Number “SLT8R107”. The case type is listed as “soil and groundwater”, and the case status is
reported to be “Case Closed” as of June 17, 2009. Regulatory records documented a release of
approximately 3,500 gallons of JP-5 jet fuel into BRB that occurred on September 19, 1989. BRB was
filled with storm water at that time and an approximately two to three-foot layer of free-phase jet fuel
spread across the Project site. The OCWD assumed a lead agency role to assure adequate cleanup and IT
Corporation conducted the investigation and cleanup. Cleanup was reported to include removal of the
jet fuel, contaminated soil, water, and vegetation; however, investigation and remediation reports were
not included in the file provided by the OCWD. The release was reportedly remediated and a regulatory
closure was issued on June 13, 1990. However, the cleanup activities were not well documented,
deficiencies in sampling and contaminant containment were noted by the OCWD, and benzene was
identified in onsite soil at concentrations of up to 18 µg/kg. These deficiencies were not addressed in the
case closure rationale.
Federal NPL List
The US EPA’s National Priorities List (NPL) of uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites was
reviewed for sites within a mile radius of the Project site. To appear on the NPL, sites must have met or
surpassed a predetermined hazard ranking system score, been chosen as a state’s top priority site, pose
a significant health or environmental threat, or be a site where the EPA has determined that remedial
action is more cost effective than removal action. The database search did not identify any NPL sites
within a one-mile radius of the Project site.
Delisted NPL List
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes the criteria the
EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425. (e), sites may be deleted from
the NPL where no further response is appropriate. The database search did not identify any delisted NPL
facilities located within a one-mile radius of the Project site.
Federal CERCLIS List
The EPA’s Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) listings were reviewed to determine if sites within a half-mile of the Project site are listed for
investigation. The CERCLIS database identifies hazardous waste sites that require investigation and
possible remedial action to mitigate potential negative impacts on human health or the environment.
The database search did not identify any state equivalent CERCLIS facilities within a half-mile radius of
the Project site.
CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned (CERCLIS-NFRAP)
As of February 1995, CERCLIS sites designated "No Further Remedial Action Planned" (NFRAP) have been
removed from CERCLIS. NFRAP sites may be sites where, following an initial investigation, no
contamination was found, contamination was removed quickly without the need for the site to be
placed on the NPL, or the contamination was not serious enough to require Federal Superfund action or
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
173
NPL consideration. EPA has removed approximately 25,000 NFRAP sites to lift the unintended barriers to
the redevelopment of these properties and has archived them as historical records so EPA does not
needlessly repeat the investigations in the future. This policy change is part of the EPA’s Brownfields
Redevelopment Program to help cities, states, private investors and affected citizens to promote
economic redevelopment of unproductive urban sites. The database search did not identify CERCLIS-
NFRAP facilities within a half-mile radius of the Project site.
Federal RCRA List
The current Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) Notifiers List was reviewed to determine if
RCRA treatment, storage, or disposal sites (TSDs) are located within a half-mile radius of the Project site.
It should be noted, however, that inclusion in the RCRA database is not indicative of a release or waste
storage/handling violation. Rather, it indicates that the generator is following manifest and reporting
procedures. The database did not identify RCRA TSD facilities within a half-mile radius of the Project site.
The RCRA Corrective Action Sites (CORRACTS) List is maintained for sites, which are undergoing “a
corrective action.” A corrective action order is issued when there has been a relea se of hazardous waste
constituents into the environment from a RCRA facility. The database search identified one RCRA
Corrective Action site within a one-mile radius of the Project site.
▪ Orange Precision Circuits, 812 Southern Avenue, City of Orange, located approximately 0.8
miles to the northeast of the Project site. This facility is an electronic component
manufacturing facility and is listed on multiple databases including RCRA-TSDF, CERC-NFRAP,
RCRA-SQG, Finds, Hist UST, Envirostor, and HWP.
The RCRA Corrective Action site is listed as No Further Action (NFA) as of May 1, 2012. Based on the NFA
letter and the intervening distance from the Project site, it is expected to have a low potential to
adversely affect the Project site.
The RCRA regulated Hazardous Waste Generator Notifiers list was reviewed to determine if RCRA
generator facilities are adjoining the Project site. The database search did not identify large quantity
generator (LQG) facilities within a quarter-mile radius of the Project site. The database identified six
small quantity generators (SQG) located to the west of the Project site across Auto Center Drive. Waste
included waste oil and solvents. The auto park appears to have been constructed in the 1980s. Based on
the small quantities of hazardous waste generated, no reported releases, and that the auto park was
constructed during a period of high regulatory control of hazardous materials and waste, the auto park
is expected to have a low potential to adversely affect the Project site.
Historical (HIST) Calsites Database
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) HIST Calsites Database contains potential or
confirmed hazardous substance release properties. This database is no longer updated and has been
replaced by ENVIROSTOR. The database search identified one facility within a one-mile radius of the
Project site.
▪ Continental Molding, 1841 North Batavia Street, City of Orange, located approximately a half-
mile to the east-northeast of the Project site. The site is also listed on the Envirostor
database. Approximately 105 cubic yards of contaminated soil has been removed from the
site. This facility is reported to have been “certified as having been remediated satisfactorily
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
174
under DTSC oversight” as of November 19, 1987. Based on the NFA issued by DTSC and the
intervening distance from the Site, it is expected to have a low potential to adversely affect
the Project site.
Solid Waste Landfill Facilities
This database, provided by the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, co nsists of open, as
well as closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and transfer stations (SWL). The database
search did not identify SWL sites within a half-mile radius of the Project site.
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Sites
The EPA maintains lists of information pertaining to reported LUSTs in the state. The database search
identified 10 LUST facilities within a half-mile radius of the Project site. All of the facilities were reported
to be at least a quarter-mile from the Project site and each was listed as Case Closed. The LUST facilities
are expected to have a low potential to adversely affect the Project site based on the closure status and
the distance to the Project site.
Underground Storage Tank (UST) Sites
The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) UST inventory list was reviewed to
determine if any USTs are located adjacent to the Project site. It should be noted that a listing in the UST
databases does not necessarily mean that a leak has occurred. The database search identified two UST
facilities at the auto park located directly west of the Project site, west of Auto Center Drive. The auto
park is expected to have a low potential to adversely affect the Project site because there are no
reported releases and because the auto park was constructed during a period of high regulatory control
of hazardous materials and waste.
Historical USTs (HIST UST, CA FID, and SWEEPS)
Historical UST Registered Database and the Facility Inventory Database (FID) contains active and inactive
UST locations. Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System (SWEEPS) is a UST listing that
was updated and maintained by a company contracted by the SWRCB in the early 1980s. The listing is no
longer updated or maintained. The local agency is the contact for more information on a site on the
SWEEPS list. These database searches identified four historical UST facilities at the auto park located
west of the Project site, across Phoenix Club Drive. The auto park is expected to have a low potential to
adversely affect the Project site because there are no reported releases and because the auto park was
constructed during a period of high regulatory control of hazardous materials and waste
Voluntary Cleanup Program
The Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) Properties list contains low threat level properties with either
confirmed or unconfirmed releases and the project proponents have request that DTSC oversee
investigation and/or cleanup activities and have agreed to provide coverage for DTSC’s costs. The
database search did not identify any VCP facilities on properties adjacent to the Project site.
ENVIROSTOR
The DTSC’s SMBRP ENVIROSTOR database identifies sites that have known contamination or sites for
which there may be reasons to investigate further. The database includes the following site types:
Federal Superfund sites (NPL); State Response, including Military Facilities and State Superfund;
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
175
Voluntary Cleanup; and school sites. ENVIROSTOR provides similar information to the information that
was available in Cal Sites, and provides additional site information, including, but not limited to,
identification of formerly-contaminated properties that have been released for reuse, properties where
environmental deed restrictions have been recorded to prevent inappropriate land uses, and risk
characterization information that is used to assess potential impacts to public health and the
environment at contaminated sites. The database identified two facilities within a half mile of the
Project site and an additional 19 facilities located within a half-mile to a one-mile radius of the Project
site. The facilities that are located more than a half mile from the Project site are expected to have a low
potential to adversely affect the Project site based on the intervening distance. The two facilities in
proximity to the Project site are discussed below:
▪ Unnamed Site, 1350 North Main Street, City of Orange, located approximat ely 0.3 miles
southeast of the Project site. This facility is listed as a “Tiered Permit” site and the status is
“inactive – needs evaluation”. The Envirostor website lists the property name as SFPP/LP
Orange Terminal. A web search identifies this facility as the Kinder Morgan Orange terminal,
a 10-acre facility with nine refined petroleum products tanks. The groundwater gradient in
the vicinity of the facility appears to be toward the west-southwest. Based on the cross-
gradient location of this facility and the intervening Santa Ana River migration barrier, this
facility is expected to have a low potential to adversely affect the Project site.
▪ Continental Molding, 1841 North Batavia Street, City of Orange, located approximately a half-
mile east-northeast of the Project site. Approximately 105 cubic yards of contaminated soil
has been removed from the facility. This facility is reported to have been “certified as having
been remediated satisfactorily under DTSC oversight” as of November 19, 1987. Based on the
NFA issued by DTSC and the intervening distance from the Project site, it is expected to have
a low potential to adversely affect the Project site.
SLIC
This listing comes from the RWQCB. The database search identified five SLIC cases within a half-mile
radius of the Project site. The five facilities are reported to be located a minimum distance of 0.4 miles
from the Project site and each facility is reported to be closed. These listing are expected to have a low
potential to adversely affect the Project site based on the intervening distance and the Case Closure
issued by a regulatory agency.
Drycleaners and EDR Historical Cleaners List
A review of the Drycleaners list identified one dry cleaning facility with an US EPA ID number located
within a quarter-mile radius of the Project site. A review of the EDR Historical Cleaners list identified the
same historical cleaner facility located within a quarter-mile radius of the Project site.
▪ X-Press Dry-cleaning, 1890 North Main Street, City of Orange, located approximately 0.2
miles northeast of the Project site. The facility has operated at its current location from
approximately 2004 to the present. This facility is expected to have a low potential to
adversely affect the Project site because of the intervening distance and the dates of
operation fall during a period of high regulatory control and because no violations or releases
have been reported.
EDR Historical Auto Stations List
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
176
A review of the EDR Historical Auto Stations list identified five historical auto stations located within a
quarter-mile radius of the Project site. Four of the facilities are located adjacent to the west across
Phoenix Club Drive. The auto park appears to have been constructed in the 1980s. The auto park is
expected to have a low potential to adversely affect the Project site because of the small quantities of
hazardous waste generated, no releases have been reported, and because the auto park was
constructed during a period of high regulatory control of hazardous materials and waste.
EDR Manufactured Gas Plants (MGP) List
A review of the EDR MGP list did not identify MGP facilities located within a one-mile radius of the
Project site.
INDIAN RESERV
The INDIAN RESERV database identifies Indian administered lands of the United States that have an area
of 640-acres or more. The database search did not identify INDIAN RESERV properties within a one-mile
radius of the Project site.
INDIAN LUST
The INDIAN LUST database lists leaking underground storage tank locations on Indian Land. The
database search did not identify INDIAN LUST facilities within a half-mile radius of the Project site.
INDIAN UST
The INDIAN UST database lists underground storage tank locations on Indian Land. The database search
did not identify INDIAN UST facilities on the Project site or on properties adjacent to the Project site.
Unmapped Listings
Several properties were listed within EDR® report as “unmapped listings” (Orphan Summary).
Unmapped listings are properties without a complete street address and therefore cannot be located on
a map. Leighton reviewed these listings to determine if the properties were possibly located near the
Project site. None of the listings were identified to be located adjacent to the Project site. Based on the
information provided in the EDR® report, these unmapped sites are unlikely to have the potential to
adversely impact the Project site.
3.7.3 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
FEDERAL
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
CERCLA, otherwise known as the Superfund law, enacted in 1980 by Congress crea ting a federal
authority responsible for responding to releases or threatened releases of hazardous materials that can
become a threat to public health or the environment. CERCLA also provides the legal framework for
dealing directly with abandoned properties containing hazardous waste, liability of potential responsible
parties for the release of hazardous waste, and established a fund for cleanup costs when no
responsible party is identified.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
177
RCRA is a federal law that provides authority over the disposal of solid and hazardous waste including
“cradle to grave” requirements. RCRA’s cradle to grave authority includes managing every step of a
particular waste stream including the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of
hazardous waste. RCRA also provides the legal framework for the management of non-hazardous waste.
STATE
The DTSC is the responsible governing agency that regulates the permitting for the generation, handling,
treatment and disposal of hazardous waste in the State of California. The DTSC and the State Water
Resources Control Board (per the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969); regulates the
cleanup activities of hazardous waste sites in California that have caused contamination in soil and
groundwater.
Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR)
Title 22, Division 4.5 contains the State of California hazardous waste regulations that are enforced by
the DTSC.
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal and state occupational safety and health laws contain requirements regarding the handling of
hazardous waste concerning worker safety, training, and right-to-know. Authority to enforce Federal
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements has been delegated to California
OSHA (Cal OSHA), which has developed provisions that are at least as stringent as those enforced at the
federal level. Cal OSHA regulates and enforces occupational and public safety laws protecting the public
and workers from any safety hazards.
3.7.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Proposed
Project would have a significant impact related to hazards and hazardous materials if it would result in
any of the following:
▪ Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
▪ Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
▪ Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
▪ Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
▪ Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
EFFECTS DISMISSED IN THE INITIAL STUDY
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
178
The IS concluded that the following potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts were less than
significant or did not have an impact and did not need to be further addressed in the EIR:
▪ The project is not located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan had not been
adopted or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and would not result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
▪ The project is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
▪ The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands.
3.7.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
METHODOLOGY
Leighton Consulting performed a Phase I environmental site assessment (ESA) of the Project site which
included review of previous environmental reports, selected governmental databases, and historical
information. A search of selected government databases was conducted by Leighton Consulting using
the EDR® Radius Report, dated March 1, 2013. Details of the database search along with descriptions of
each database researched are provided in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report (Appendix
G). The report meets the government records search requirements of American Society of Testing and
Materials (ASTM) E1527-05 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment Process. The database listings were reviewed within the specified radii
established by the ASTM E1527-05.
A reconnaissance-level inspection of the Project site for evidence of release(s) of hazardous materials
and petroleum products and to assess the potential for onsite releases of hazardous materials and
petroleum products was also performed. On March 13, 2013, a representative of Leighton Consulting,
Ms. Meredith Church, a licensed Professional Geologist, conducted a reconnaissance–level assessment
of the Project site. The Project site reconnaissance consisted of the observation and documentation of
existing site conditions and nature of the neighboring property development within a quarter-mile
radius of the Project site.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
IMPACT HAZ-1: The Proposed Project would create a hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials.
Future development of the Project site could result in up to 425,000 square feet of commercial
development, which could involve the use or generation of hazardous materials and/or emissions, as
well as other hazards. During construction and/or operation of the project the use, transport and
disposal of hazardous materials shall be in accordance with local, state and federal regulations.
Compliance with these regulations would reduce any potential impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation measures would not be required.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
179
IMPACT HAZ-2: The Proposed Project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment.
Phase I ESA conducted for the Proposed Project discovered that a release of approximately 3,500 gallons
of JP-5 jet fuel to BRB occurred on September 19, 1989. BRB was filled with storm water at the time of
the release and an approximately two to three-foot layer of free-phase jet fuel spread across the Project
site. The OCWD assumed a lead agency role to assure adequate cleanup. IT Corporation conducted the
investigation and cleanup. Cleanup was reported to include the removal of jet fuel and contaminated
soil, water, and vegetation by various methods including the use of oil booms, a vacuum truck, hand
clearing, swamp cats, and excavation. Surface water, soil, and groundwater samples were collected
several times prior to and following cleanup activities. Soil samples were collected across the basin floor
following removal of the water and vegetation and lab results indicated contamination was limited to
two areas: near the storm drain inlet to the recharge basin and along the east embankment of the
recharge basin where prevailing west winds had driven the floating product.
Benzene was detected in five samples out of a total of 62 water and soil samples analyzed; four in -place
soil samples collected on October 5, 1989, and one contaminated soil stockpile sample. The maximum
detected concentration of benzene was 18 µg/kg. The presence of benzene was reported to have been
possibly attributed to something other than the jet fuel spill. It is unclear if the areas where benzene was
detected were excavated during the soil removal. Confirmation soil samples collected on October 30
and November 3, 1989, indicated that petroleum hydrocarbons and BTEX were below laboratory
detection limits; however, the areas of excavation and soil sampling locations are not well documented.
The OCWD noted a number of concerns in inspection letters including 1) improper water sampling
methods that did not include VOA bottle samples; 2) overflow of water into the basin during flushing of
the storm drain; 3) inadequate management of the soil stockpiles which were often improperly covered
and may have resulted in runoff of contaminants into the basin; and 4) inadequate management of used
oil booms which were observed on the ground and were not covered.
Four groundwater monitoring wells were installed in November, 1989. Laboratory analysis of samples
collected during well installation detected low levels of xylenes (up to 3 µg/kg) and toluene (up to 30
µg/kg) in soil and low levels of xylene (up to 6.3 µg/kg) in groundwater. Petroleum hydrocarbons and
other VOCs were not detected in the samples. The residual concentrations of xylenes and toluene were
well below RWQCB soil screening levels (SSLs) for sand at 20 feet above groundwater (toluene: 300
µg/kg; xylene: 1,750 µg/kg). Concentrations of xylene in groundwater were also well below the EPA
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for ground water of 1,000 µg/kg (RWQCB, 1996; EPA, 2013). The
maximum concentration of benzene detected in soil was 18 µg/kg, which is greater than the SSL for
benzene of 11 µg/kg in sands at a depth of 20 feet above highest groundwater. It is unclear if the
benzene impacted soil was included in the area excavated during cleanup activities. Approximately
2,000 cubic yards of soil was removed from the Project site and regulatory closure by the OCHCA is
reported to have been granted on June 13, 1990.
A four-inch groundwater monitoring well that is encased in a protective metal box is located in the
central portion of the Project site. The well was identified as MW-3 on the well cap. The well appears to
be one of four wells installed by IT Corporation to assess groundwater conditions following a release of
jet fuel to the Site in 1989. Evidence of the three other wells that had been installed were not observed
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
180
at the Project site and may have been removed or may be covered by sediment or vegetation
overgrowth.
A review of the EDR® Radius Report did not identify offsite releases of hazardous materials that would
appear likely to adversely affect the Project site by migration of hazardous materials in soil or
groundwater. However, the CSD empties into the northwest corner of the BRB and flows in a southerly
direction through approximately the center of the Project site. The CSD transmits stormwater runoff
from a largely commercial and light-industrial area located to the north of the Project site. Historically,
stormwater runoff also flowed from agricultural properties. There is the potential that the stormwater
runoff has carried contaminants from offsite properties and deposited them into BRB.
DOGGR maps indicate that there is a plugged and abandoned oil well located within the existing Santa
Ana River Channel approximately 150 feet east of the Project site. The well is identified as “Oliver-
Orange”, American Petroleum Institute Number (API) 05901262, owned by Chevron U.S.A. Inc. The
location of wells plotted on DOGGR maps may not be accurate and a review of the hard copy records
shall be conducted if a well appears to be within approximately 500 feet of the Project site. The OCFA
requires a methane survey for properties that are located within an oil field or a distance less than or
equal to 100 feet from any active or abandoned oil/gas well that is not located within the administrative
boundary of an oil field.
The potential for exposure to contaminated soils would be mitigated by the implementation of
mitigation measures MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-3, which requires the preparation of a Phase II ESA
for the Project, a review of the DOGGR records, and the abandonment of the groundwater monitoring
well would reduce potential impacts from contaminated soils to less than significant.
IMPACT HAZ-3: The Proposed Project would emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
The closest schools to the Proposed Project site include U.S. Colleges of Anaheim (0.26 mile southwest),
Westwood College – Anaheim Campus (0.54 mile southwest), the Orange Education Center (0.67 mile
southeast), and Calvary Baptist Church Pre-school (0.64 mile north). There are no schools within a
quarter mile of the Proposed Project. The Project would not expose schools within a quarter-mile of the
Project site to hazardous materials or substances. Impacts would be considered less than significant and
mitigation would not be required.
IMPACT HAZ-4: The Proposed Project would be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment.
A review of regulatory databases was conducted for the Phase I ESA. The Project site is not included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No impacts
would occur.
IMPACT HAZ-5: The Proposed Project would impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
The AFD permits and regulates the use of hazardous materials in order to ensure that risks associated
with the use of hazardous materials in the community are minimized. The hazardous materials control
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
181
and safety programs and available emergency response resources of the AFD, along with periodic
inspections to ensure regulatory compliance, reduce the potential risk of upset and exposure to
hazardous materials associated with nearby commercial and industrial businesses. Future developments
on the Project site would be required to comply with AFD regulations for use of hazardous materials.
State law also requires any businesses handling hazardous materials prepare a business plan to ensure
that hazardous materials are properly handled, used, stored, and disposed of and to prevent or mitigate
injury to human health or the environment in the event that such materials are accidentally released.
The Proposed Project would not interfere with any adopted emergency response plans. Impacts would
be considered less than significant and mitigation measures would not be required.
MITIGATION MEASURES
MM HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall prepare a Phase II
Environmental Site Assessment conducted under the oversight of the Department of Toxic Substance
Control, RWQCB, or the Orange County Health Care Agency and submit it to the Anaheim Planning and
Building Department for review. The Phase II ESA shall include soil and soil vapor sampling to assess the
Project site for potential contaminants, including, but not limited to, petroleum hydrocarbons, VOCs,
semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and
pesticides. A Phase II sampling plan shall consider the geotechnical requirements to prepare potentially
contaminated site soils for development of the Project site and shall also consider the thickness of soils
and soil types that will be imported to the Project site to achieve final grade. These factors will affect the
potential for exposure to potentially contaminated soils during earthwork activities and the post-
development potential for indoor air exposure to potentially contaminated soil vapor. Additionally, a
sampling plan shall be prepared and implemented prior to importing soil to the Project site for infill
purposes in order to verify that imported soils will meet regulatory screening levels for commercial
property use.
MM HAZ-2: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall conduct a review
of DOGGR records. A methane survey shall be conducted, under oversight from the OCFA, if it is
determined that the oil well is located within 100 feet from the Project site, or if the location of the well
cannot be accurately determined. A methane survey work plan shall be submitted to the OCFA, prior to
issuance of a grading permit. The methane survey and methane mitigation, if determined to be
required, shall be in accordance with the OCFA Combustible Soil Gas Hazard Mitigation Guideline C -03
(OCFA, 2008).
MM HAZ-3: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall abandon the
existing groundwater monitoring well in accordance with applicable City and OCWD requirements. A
Well Destruction Permit shall be obtained from the Environmental Services Division of the Anaheim
Public Utilities Department (APUD). Any other wells discovered during grading or demolition shall also
be destroyed under a revised Well Destruction Permit. Proof of proper abandonment shall be submitted
to the APUD.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Mitigation measures MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-3 would reduce potential impacts from the
contaminated soils due to the jet fuel release and CSD stormwater run-off to less than significant with
mitigation.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
182
The Proposed Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to hazards and
hazardous materials. Potential impacts from soil contamination are limited to the Project site and would
be mitigated with the implementation of the measures provided. The Proposed Project would not
contribute to hazardous conditions in a larger cumulative study area. Future development projects on
the Project site would be required to comply with applicable local, state, and federal requirements
concerning hazardous materials. Therefore, the Proposed Project’s contribution to impacts related to
hazards or hazardous materials would not be considerable and therefore, less than cumulatively
significant.
3.8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
3.8.1 INTRODUCTION
This section describes the hydrology and water quality characteristics within the project site. The
information used to prepare this section is based on the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP) Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change , City of Anaheim, County of
Orange, dated March 15, 2017 (Appendix K), Hydrology Technical Report Ball Road Basin General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, dated March 17, 2017 (Appendix L),
and City of Anaheim Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Hydrology & Water
Quality Technical Report, dated July 25, 2013, prepared by Fuscoe Engineering for the Proposed Project.
3.8.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
HYDROLOGY
BRB is an existing groundwater recharge facility located in the City. As previously stated, the BRB is the
most down-gradient recharge basin in OCWD’s Off-River system and lies southerly of the upstream
Burris Basin. The BRB is a rectangular shaped pit oriented in the north/south direction with an average
depth of 19 feet below surrounding grade. The BRB has a holding capacity of approximately 220 acre-
feet of water and flows enter at the northwest corner and the western side. At the southeastern end of
the basin is a 101-foot wide by six-foot high sharp crested concrete weir aligned in a north-south
direction. During large storm events, BRB fills up and eventually spills over the weir into a smaller “sub-
basin” before flowing through a 12-foot by 12-foot box culvert before discharging into the Santa Ana
River. Also, during historical flood events within the Santa Ana River, flows can overtop the center levee
and flow into the sub-basin associated with the BRB. Figure 3.8-1, Site Features depicts Project site
features over an existing aerial photo.
Existing Drainage Facilities
The BRB receives off-site runoff from three different drainage facilities including the regional Chantilly
Storm Drain (CSD) and two local drainage facilities.
Chantilly Storm Drain System
The largest storm drain facility draining into the BRB is the Chantilly storm drain (CSD) maintained by the
OCFCD. The CSD was originally constructed by Caltrans in 1968. CSD is a 12-foot wide box culvert
constructed of cast-in-place concrete and varies in height from 11 feet at the inlet to 9 ½ feet at the
outlet feeding into BRB. As shown in Figure 3.8-2, Chantilly Drain Drainage Area Map, the drainage area
of the CSD is approximately 1,316 acres and originates north of the BRB collecting flows from several
tributaries and generally flows south parallel to the 57-freeway before discharging into BRB.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
183
Based on a prior study by Boyle Engineering (2008), the original CSD was designed to accommodate a
peak flow rate of 1,165 cubic feet per second (cfs) when the primary land usage was agricultural . This
equates to an approximate 25-year storm for that time period. Since that time, urban development has
increased significantly within the drainage area, and flow rates have increased considerably. Based on
current standards, the 100-year flow rate is 2,156 cfs. However, the CSD is capable of only delivering
approximately half of this rate, which equates to an approximate 10-year storm under current
standards. Under a 100-year storm, there are limited overland pathways for flows to reach the BRB and
upstream areas adjacent to the CSD would likely flood due to the inefficiency of the existing storm drain.
The 2008
Figure 3.8-1: Site FeaturesCity of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
Draft EIR Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Orange County
Figure 3.8-2: Chantilly Drain Drainage Area MapCity of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
Draft EIR Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Orange County
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
186
Boyle study noted that for a 100-year flood, BRB has the capacity to route storm flows while maintaining
1.5 feet of freeboard with the 12-foot by 12-foot box culvert being the control point for the 100-year
flood.
Local 36-inch and 42-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)
Two local drainage facilities collect runoff from the adjacent commercial development area west of S.
Phoenix Drive. The 42-inch RCP is located in Sanderson Avenue and the 36-inch RCP is located in Auto
Center Drive. As shown in Figure 3.8-3, Local Off-Site Hydrology, the combined drainage area for these
two storm drain systems is approximately 47 acres. Flows drain in an easterly direction and enter the
Project site in two separate locations along the westerly side of BRB. Flows are combined with the input
from the CSD. The off-site area contributes approximately 140 cfs under a 100-year storm event.
Existing Peak Flow Discharges
Under the existing conditions, runoff from the Project site itself generates very little runoff based on its
low lying condition and since it acts as a storage basin for the off-site tributary areas. The off-site flows
originating from the CSD and the two local drainage facilities equate to approximately 1,305 cfs under a
100-year storm. In the event of a 100-year storm event, BRB can hold approximately 220 acre-feet of
water. As the basin fills up and water reaches the bottom elevation of the concrete weir, flows will begin
to spill over into the sub-basin before discharging into the Santa Ana River. For CEQA purposes, on-site
flows are considered negligible as compared to proposed conditions since the detention and overflow
weir components that regulate existing flows will be eliminated under proposed conditions.
Existing Easements
Under the existing conditions, the OCFCD has an easement over the entire property for flood control
purposes. This easement also includes a 100-foot wide area adjacent to the Santa Ana River covering the
levee. In order to have OCFCD relinquish the said easement, the CSD must be re-aligned and routed
around the Project site in order to allow for future land uses such as commercial development. The 2008
Boyle study focused heavily on this particular issue in order to allow OCWD to have greater flexibility
with the Project site.
In addition to the OCFCD easement, SCE has a 270-foot wide easement at the southern portion of the
site for multiple transmission lines. The SCE easement prohibits the placement of permanent structures
such as buildings within its easements but would allow for more passive uses such as driveways, at-
grade parking lots, trails, and water quality features.
Existing Floodplain Mapping
The National Flood Insurance Act (1968) established the National Flood Insurance Program, which is
based on the minimal requirements for flood plain management and is designed to minimize flood
damage within Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA). The FEMA is the agency that administrates the
National Flood Insurance Program. SFHA are defined as areas that have a one percent chance of flooding
within a given year, also referred to as the 100-year flood. Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) were
developed to identify areas of flood hazards within a community. According to the FIRM catalog, FIRM
Map Number 06059C0153J (revised December 3, 2009) covers the Project site.
Figure 3.8-4, FEMA Firm Map shows the flood zones designated for the Project site. As shown on Figure
3.8-4, the Project site is currently designated as a “Zone A” flood area which is subject to flooding. The
Figure 3.8-3: Local Off-Site HydrologyCity of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
Draft EIR Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Orange County
Figure 3.8-4: FEMA Firm MapCity of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
Draft EIR Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Orange County
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
189
Zone A designation occurs since detailed analyses have not been conducted and therefore, no depths or
base elevations are available. The surrounding development areas are currently designated as Zone X
which is not considered a flood area.
WATER QUALITY
Existing Surface Water Conditions
The Project site is located within Santa Ana River Reach 2 (Hydrologic Unit 801.11), which is part of the
larger Santa Ana River watershed, as shown in Figure 3.8-5, Santa Ana River Watershed. More
specifically, the Project site is immediately adjacent to the Santa Ana River, separated by a levee, which
runs along the east perimeter of the site. The Project site discharges directly into the river via a 12-foot
by 12-foot concrete box culvert through the levee. The Santa Ana River ultimately discharges into the
Pacific Ocean.
Beneficial Uses
The beneficial uses of the Santa Ana River Reach 2, as outlined in the Basin Plan, are:
▪ AGR – Agricultural Supply
▪ GWR – Groundwater Recharge
▪ REC1 – Contact Water Recreation
▪ REC2 – Non-Contact Water Recreation
▪ WARM – Warm Freshwater Habitat
▪ WILD – Wildlife Habitat
▪ RARE – Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species
Water Quality Objectives
General water quality objectives have been prescribed in the Basin Plan for all surface waters within the
Santa Ana Region, which covers parts of southwestern San Bernardino County, western Riverside County
and northwestern Orange County. The Santa Ana Region includes the upper and lower Santa Ana River
watersheds, the San Jacinto River watershed, and several other small drainage areas. In order to
maintain the beneficial uses listed in the previous section, surface waters must achieve these water
quality objectives. Qualitative and quantitative objectives have been set in the Basin Plan for the
following constituents:
▪ algae ▪ ammonia ▪ bacteria/coliform
▪ boron ▪ chemical oxygen demand ▪ chloride
▪ chlorine ▪ color ▪ total dissolved solids
▪ floatables ▪ fluoride ▪ hardness
▪ nitrogen ▪ metals ▪ nitrate
▪ oil & grease ▪ dissolved oxygen ▪ pH
▪ radioactivity ▪ sodium ▪ settleable solids
▪ sulfate ▪ sulfides ▪ surfactants
▪ taste & odor ▪ temperature ▪ toxic substances
▪ turbidity ▪ methylene blue-activated substances (MBAS)
Figure 3.8-5: Santa Ana River WatershedCity of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
Draft EIR Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Orange County
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
191
In addition to the general water quality objectives listed above, specific objectives have been set for
surface water quality for the Santa Ana River Reach 2, as summarized in Table 3.8-1.
Table 3.8-1 Surface Water Quality Objectives for Santa Ana River Reach 2
TDS Hardness Sodium Chloride Total Organic
Nitrogen Sulfate
Chemical
Oxygen
Demand
650* -- -- -- -- -- --
*Five-year moving average for Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
Notes: Units in mg/L unless otherwise noted. No specific water quality objectives established. Source: RWQCB Santa Ana Region.
Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (8). January 24, 1995, updated February 2008 and June 2011.
Current Surface Water Quality Conditions
As part of the Orange County Storm Water Program and the Orange County Drainage Area Management
Plan (OC DAMP), dry-weather surface water monitoring is conducted throughout the Santa Ana River
watershed. Currently, there is one monitoring location for Santa Ana River Reach 2 within the proximity
of the Project site. Location ANAE12@E01 is a targeted site that has been monitored since 2006, and is
located approximately two miles downstream of the Project site at a storm drain outfall near the
intersection of the I-5 and the SR-57. Under the County’s Monitoring Program (OC DAMP Section 11),
targeted sites are sampled approximately five times per year. A summary of the collected data is
provided in Table 3.8-2.
Table 3.8-2 Dry Weather Monitoring Data for Santa Ana River Sampling Location ANAE12@E01
Constituent* No. of Events
Sampled a Range Mean Basin Plan Criteria /
Tolerance Limit b
Dissolved Oxygen 35 3.94 – 20 8.88 5 / 5.03
Electrical Conductivity (S/cm) 35 905 – 1,544 1,102 3,734b
pH 35 7.45 – 8.64 8.05 6.5-9 / 7.11-8.48
Water Temperature (C) 35 17.44 – 26.59 21.15 26.67b
Turbidity (NTU) 35 1.03 – 31.7 9.26 20 / 19.4
Hardness as CaCO3 35 210 – 840 381 1,032b
Ammonia as N 35 <0.02 – 3.4 0.31 0.65b
Nitrate as N 35 0.7 – 7.2 3.5 5.4b
Surfactants (MBAS) 35 0.07 – 1.3 0.24 0.5 / 0.5
Reactive Phosphorous 35 0.09 – 3.58 1.00 0.1 / 2.83
Total Chlorine 35 <0.02 – 0.11 0.04 0.19b
Total Suspended Solids 35 <5 – 130 23 75 / 63.62
Oil & Grease 33 <5 – 6 5.33 5b
Total Coliform (CFU/100mL) 35 2,800 – 2,800,000 504,474 420,000b
Fecal Coliform (CFU/100mL) 35 220 – 1,200,000 95,153 79,260b
Enterococcus (CFU/100mL) 35 <10 – 59,000 10,922 34,000b
Diazinon (ng/L) 35 <2 – <20 13.67 20b
Chlorpyrifos (ng/L) 35 <1 – <20 8.31 20b
Malathion (ng/L) 35 <3 – <20 8.94 20b
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
192
Constituent* No. of Events
Sampled a Range Mean Basin Plan Criteria /
Tolerance Limit b
Dimethoate (ng/L) 35 <3 – <20 8.94 20b
Disulfoton (ng/L) 35 <1 – <20 7.94 20b
Chromium 34 <0.50 – 1.1 0.78 1.61b
Nickel 35 0.96 – 7.9 3.41 13.25b
Copper 34 2.1 – 23 6.81 15b
Zinc 35 8 – 140 22.3 73b
Silver 35 <0.15 – 0.65 0.49 0.5b
Cadmium 35 0.05 – <0.5 0.49 1.1b
Lead 35 0.05 – 0.83 0.51 0.85b
Selenium 35 <0.50 – <1.0 0.71 7.4 b
Note: Bold typeface denotes exceedance of basin plan objective or outside tolerance limit. Refer to Appendix B for full data summary.
ng/L = nanograms per liter
* Constituent quantities listed in milligrams per liter (mg/L) unless otherwise indicated.
a. County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD). (2013, November 15). 2011-12 Unified Annual Progress Report,
Program Effectiveness Assessment.
b. “Tolerance Intervals” which are set as the upper bound of the 90th percentile as calculated from random site data for each
constituent. The tolerance intervals are recalculated each time all of the random sites have been sampled. Used to guide City Storm
Water Program managers as to when source investigations are necessary. (County of Orange and OCFCD, 2010).
In general, exceedances of Basin Plan water quality objectives and tolerance levels were observed
consistently for reactive phosphorous, and exceedances were observed on occasion for turbidity,
bacteria indicators, surfactants and copper. However, it should be noted that exceedances for reactive
phosphorous were also observed at the majority of the monitoring locations throughout Orange County
streams and channels, indicating that the problems may be watershed-wide and not specific to Santa
Ana River Reach 2.
Existing Groundwater Conditions
The Project site is located within the Orange County Groundwater Management Zone of the Lower
Santa Ana River Basin. As defined in the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Basin Plan, the Orange County
Groundwater Management Zone is generally bounded by Irvine Groundwater Management Zone to the
south, the Santa Ana Mountains to the east, and the La Habra Groundwater Management Zone to the
north (See Figure 3.8-6, Orange County Groundwater Management Zone).
Beneficial Uses
The Basin Plan identifies the Orange County Groundwater Management Zone in the Lower Santa Ana
River Basin as having four beneficial uses. They are:
▪ MUN – Municipal and Domestic Supply;
▪ AGR – Agricultural Supply;
▪ IND – Industrial Service Supply; and
▪ PROC – Industrial Process Supply.
Figure 3.8-6: Orange County Groundwater Management ZoneCity of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
Draft EIR Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Orange County
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
194
Water Quality Objectives
Specific water quality objectives have been established for the Orange County Groundwater
Management Zone to maintain its beneficial uses, which are summarized in Table 3.8-3.
Table 3.8-3 Groundwater Quality Objectives for the Orange County Groundwater Management Zone
TDS Hardness Sodium Chloride Nitrate as
Nitrogen Sulfate
580 -- -- -- 3.4 --
Note: All units in mg/L unless otherwise stated
-- No specific water quality objectives established
Source: RWQCB Santa Ana Region. Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (8). January 24, 1995, updated February
2008 and June 2011.
In addition to specific numeric water quality objectives, narrative objectives for all groundwaters in the
Santa Ana Region also apply to the Orange County Groundwater Management Zone. Narrative
objectives have been established for the following constituents:
▪ arsenic ▪ bacteria, coliform ▪ barium
▪ boron ▪ chloride ▪ color
▪ cyanide ▪ fluoride ▪ hardness (as CaCO3)
▪ MBAS ▪ metals ▪ nitrate
▪ oil & grease ▪ pH ▪ radioactivity
▪ sodium ▪ sulfate ▪ taste & odor
▪ total dissolved solids ▪ toxicity
3.8.3 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
FEDERAL
Clean Water Act
Controlling pollution of the nation’s receiving water bodies has been a major environmental concern for
more than three decades. Growing public awareness of the impacts of water pollution in the United
States culminated in the establishment of the Federal CWA6 in 1972, which provided the regulatory
framework for surface water quality protection.
The United States Congress amended the CWA in 1987 to specifically regulate discharges to waters of
the United States from public storm drain systems and storm water flows from industrial facilities,
including construction sites, and require such discharges be regulated through permits under the
NPDES.7 Rather than setting numeric effluent limitations for storm water and urban runoff, CWA
regulation calls for the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce or prevent the
discharge of pollutants from these activities to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) for urban runoff
6 Also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972.
7 CWA Section 402(p).
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
195
and meeting the Best Available Technology Economically achievable (BAT) and Best Conventional
Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) standards for construction storm water. Regulations and permits
have been implemented at the federal, state, and local level to form a comprehensive regulatory
framework to serve and protect the quality of the nation’s surface water resources.
In addition to reducing pollution with the regulations described above, the CWA also seeks to maintain
the integrity of clean waters of the United States – in other words, to keep clean waters clean and to
prevent undue degradation of others. As part of the CWA, the Federal Antidegradation Policy [40 CFR
Section 131.12] states that each state “shall develop and adopt a statewide antidegradation policy and
identify the methods for implementing such policy…” [40 CFR § 131.12(a)]. Three levels of protection are
defined by the federal regulations:
1. Existing uses must be protected in all of the Nation’s receiving waters, prohibiting any
degradation that would compromise those existing uses;
2. Where existing uses are better than those needed to support propagation of aquatic wildlife and
water recreation, those uses shall be maintained, unless the state finds that degradation is
“…necessary to accommodate important economic or social development” [40 CFR §
131.12(a)(2)]. Degradation, however, is not allowed to fall below the existing use of the
receiving water; and
3. States must prohibit the degradation of Outstanding National Resource Waters, such as waters
of National and State parks, wildlife refuges, and waters of exceptional recreation or ecological
significance.
CWA 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments
Under Section 303(d) of the CWA, states are required to identify water bodies that do not meet their
water quality standards. Once a water body has been listed as impaired, a Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) for the constituent of concern (pollutant) must be developed for that water body. A TMDL is an
estimate of the daily load of pollutants that a water body may receive from point sour ces, non-point
sources, and natural background conditions (including an appropriate margin of safety), without
exceeding its water quality standard. Those facilities and activities that are discharging into the water
body, collectively, must not exceed the TMDL.
Storm water runoff from the Project site ultimately discharges into Santa Ana River Reach 2 located
immediately downstream of the Project site. According to the 2010 303(d) list of Limited Water Quality
Segments published by the Santa Ana RWQCB, Santa Ana River Reach 2 is listed as impaired for indicator
bacteria.8
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
Once a water body has been listed as impaired on the 303(d) list, a TMDL for the constituent of concern
(pollutant) must be developed for that water body. Those facilities and activities that are discharging
into the water body, collectively, must not exceed the TMDL. In general terms, municipal, small MS4,
8 Final 2010 Integrated Report. CWA Section 303(d) List / 305(b) Report (USEPA Final Approval: October 11, 2011). Category 5, 2010 Santa Ana
Region 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
196
and other dischargers within each watershed are collectively responsible for meeting the required
reductions and other TMDL requirements by the assigned deadline.
No TMDLs have been established specific to Santa Ana River Reach 2 as a receiving water body.
STATE
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act
In the State of California, the SWRCB and local RWQCBs have assumed the responsibility of
implementing US EPA’s NPDES Program and other programs under the CWA such as the Impaired
Waters Program and the Antidegradation Policy. The primary quality control law in California is the
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (Water Code § 13000 et seq.). Under Porter-Cologne, the SWRCB
issues joint federal NPDES Storm Water permits and state Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) to
operators of municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), industrial facilities, and construction sites
to obtain coverage for the storm water discharges from these operations.
General Construction Permit and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs)
The General Construction Permit (GCP), Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES Permit No. CAS000002,
updated by the SWRCB in September 2009, regulates storm water and non-storm water discharges
associated with construction activities disturbing one acre or greater of soil. Construction sites that
qualify must submit Permit Registration Documents (PRDs), which include a Notice of Intent (NOI), to
gain permit coverage or otherwise be in violation of the CWA.
The GCP requires the development and implementation of a SWPPP for each individual construction
project greater than or equal to one acre of disturbed soil area (regardless of the site’s Risk Level). The
SWPPP must list BMPs that the discharger will use to control sediment and other pollutants in storm
water and non-storm water runoff. The BMPs must meet the BAT and BCT performance standards.
Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring inspection program; a chemical monitoring
program for sediment and other "non-visible" pollutants to be implemented based on the Risk Level of
the site, as well as inspection, reporting, training and record-keeping requirements. Section XVI of the
GCP describes the elements that must be contained in a SWPPP. 9
In addition to the requirements above, the GCP contains requirements for construction sites based on
the site’s risk of discharging construction-related pollutants, as well as additional monitoring and
reporting requirements. Each construction project must complete a Risk Assessment prior to
commencement of construction activities, which assigns a Risk Level to the site and determines the level
of water quality protection/requirements with which the site must comply. The GCP also includes
provisions for meeting specific Numerical Effluent Limits and Action Levels for pollutants based on the
site’s Risk Level.
Since the Proposed Project will disturb greater than one acre of land area, it will be subject to the storm
water discharge requirements of the GCP. The project will require submittal of an NOI, SWPPP, Risk
Assessment, and other PRDs required by the GCP prior to the commencement of soil disturbing
9 California State Water Resources Control Board. (2008). Storm Water Program: Construction Program. Retrieved January 27, 2009 , from
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/construction.shtml
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
197
activities. In the Santa Ana Region, the SWRCB is the permitting authority, while the Santa Ana RWQCB
provides local oversight and enforcement of the GCP.
General WDR Permit for Groundwater Discharges
The Santa Ana RWQCB requires a permit for discharging wastes to surface waters from activities
involving de minimus or temporary groundwater related discharges. As required by Order No. R8-2009-
0003 (NPDES No. CAG998001), permittees shall be required to monitor their discharges from
groundwater extraction waste from construction and dewatering activities to ensure that proposed
effluent limitations for constituents are not exceeded.
During the design phase, the Proposed Project would be evaluated via site-specific boring tests to
determine the exact location and potential for groundwater during construction activities. Based on the
boring logs completed on-site, groundwater depths are approximately 25 feet or greater below the
bottom of BRB. Due to the introduction of fill that will be required to raise the project site up to the level
of surrounding grade, groundwater encounters are not anticipated during the fill operation or future
construction of commercial development on-site.
REGIONAL
Basin Plan for the Santa Ana Region
In addition to its permitting programs, the SWRCB, through its nine RWQCBs, developed Regional Water
Quality Control Plans (or Basin Plans) that designate beneficial uses and water quality objectives for
California’s surface waters and groundwater basins, as mandated by both the CWA and the state’s
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Water quality standards are thus established in these Basin
Plans and provide the foundation for the regulatory programs implemented by the state. The Santa Ana
RWQCB’s Basin Plan, which covers the Project site, is within the Santa Ana Region. This Basin Plan
specifically designates beneficial uses for surface waters and ground waters, sets narrative and
numerical objectives that must be met in order to protect the beneficial uses and conform to the state’s
antidegradation policy, and describes implementation programs to protect all waters in the Region.10 In
other words, the Santa Ana RWQCB Basin Plan provides all relevant information necessary to carry out
federal mandates for the antidegradation policy, 303(d) listing of impaired waters, and related TMDLs,
and provides information relative to NPDES and WDR permit limits.
County of Orange MS4 Permit, Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) & Runoff Management Plans
In May 2009, the Santa Ana RWQCB re-issued the North Orange County MS4 Storm Water Permit as
WDR Order No. R8-2009-0030 (NPDES Permit No. CAS618030) to the County of Orange, the
incorporated cities of Orange County, and the Orange County Flood Control District within the Santa Ana
Region. Pursuant to this fourth-term MS4 Permit, the co-permittees were required to develop and
implement a Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) for their jurisdiction, as well as Local
Implementation Plans (LIPs), which describe the co-permittees’ urban runoff management programs for
their local jurisdictions, such as the City.
10 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. (2008, February). Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin
(8). Retrieved January 27, 2009, from http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/index.shtml.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
198
Under the City’s LIP, land development policies pertaining to hydromodification and low impact
development (LID) apply to new developments and significant redevelopment projects. The term
“hydromodification” refers to changes in runoff characteristics from a watershed caused by changes in
land use conditions. More specifically, hydromodification refers to “the change in the natural watershed
hydrologic processes and runoff characteristics (i.e., interception, infiltration, overland flow, interflow
and groundwater flow) caused by urbanization or other land use changes that result in increased stream
flows and sediment transport.”11 The purpose of LID BMPs in project planning and design is to preserve
a site’s predevelopment hydrology by minimizing the loss of natural hydrologic processes such as
infiltration, evapotranspiration, and runoff detention. LID BMPs try to offset these losses by introducing
structural and non-structural design components that restore these water quality functions into the
project’s design. These land development requirements are detailed in the County-wide Model Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and Technical Guidance Document (TGD), approved in May 2011,
which cities have incorporated into their discretionary approval processes for new development and
redevelopment projects.
LOCAL
City of Anaheim Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
One component of the New Development / Significant Redevelopment Section of the City’s LIP is the
provision to prepare a project-specific WQMP for specified categories of development aimed at
reducing pollutants in post-development runoff. Specifically, a project-specific WQMP includes Santa
Ana RWQCB approved BMPs, where applicable, that address post-construction management of storm
water runoff water quality. This includes operation and maintenance requirements for all structural or
treatment control BMPs required for specific categories of developments (termed “Priority
Development Projects”) to reduce pollutants in post-development runoff to the Maximum Extent
Practicable (MEP). The categories of development that require preparation of a project-specific Priority
Project WQMP include:
▪ All significant redevelopment projects, where significant redevelopment is defined as the
addition or replacement of 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface on an already
developed site;
▪ New development projects that create 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface
(collectively over the entire project site) including commercial, industrial, residential housing
subdivisions, mixed-use, and public projects;
▪ Automotive repair shops (Standard Industrial Classification [SIC] Codes 5013, 5014, 5541,
7532-7534, and 7536-7539);
▪ Restaurants where the land area of development is 5,000 square feet or more including
parking area;
▪ Hillside development on 5,000 square feet or more, which are located on areas with known
erosive soil conditions or where natural slope is 25 percent or more;
11 Order No. R9-2009-0002, Attachment C, Definitions.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
199
▪ Developments of 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface, adjacent to (within 200
feet) or discharging directly into environmentally sensitive areas, such as areas designated in
the Ocean Plan as Areas of Special Biological Significance or water bodies listed on the CWA
Section 303(d) list of impaired waters;
▪ Parking lots of 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface exposed to storm water
runoff;
▪ Streets, roads, highways and freeways of 5,000 square feet or more of paved surface shall
incorporate US EPA guidance, “Managing Wet Weather with Green Infrastructure: Green
Streets” in a manner consistent with the MEP standard; and
▪ Retail gasoline outlets of 5,000 square feet or more with a projected average daily traffic of
100 vehicles or more per day.
As required by the City’s LIP and municipal ordinances on storm water quality management, project-
specific WQMPs must be submitted to the City for approval prior to the City issuing any building or
grading permits. Since the overall Proposed Project could include the development of several of the
categories listed above, future development projects on the Project site would be subject to the
requirements of the City’s LIP, requiring the development of a project-specific Priority Project WQMP.
Future development projects within the Project site would also be required to submit a project-specific
WQMP to ensure all of the requirements of the City’s LIP and ordinances on storm water quality are
addressed for that project. This includes meeting any new requirements associated with Priority
Projects, as well as the requirements of the fourth-term MS4 permit, which includes LID features and/or
hydromodification controls.
3.8.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Proposed
Project would have a significant impact to hydrology and water quality if it would result in any of the
following:
▪ Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
▪ Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would
drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
▪ Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
▪ Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the ra te or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
200
▪ Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
▪ Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
▪ Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
EFFECTS DISMISSED IN THE INITIAL STUDY
The Proposed Project was determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact with respect to
the following hydrology and water quality thresholds of significance, which were dismissed from the
analysis in the IS:
▪ The Proposed Project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map;
▪ The Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or
dam; or
▪ The Proposed Project would not be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
3.8.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
METHODOLOGY
The Proposed Project consists of a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment for the
proposed General Commercial land uses. The Proposed Project does not include a specific development
plan at this time, but in order to identify potential infrastructure impacts to drainage and water quality a
mass grade conceptual layout has been prepared. As illustrated in Figure 3.8-7, Earthwork and Figure
3.8-8, Conceptual Grading, this conceptual layout includes filling the Project site with approximately
386,000 cubic yards of earth material to bring the site up to a “mass grade” condition with proposed
elevations ranging from 182 feet above mean sea level at the northwest corner to 176 feet above mean
sea level at the southeast corner. Building pads for future development are proposed at elevation 180
feet to 181 feet at the northern portion and at elevations 177 feet to 178 feet at the southern portion of
the site. An infiltration basin within the SCE easement is also proposed at the southern portion of the
property to provide treatment for the entire development area. If the property is developed in separate
phases, the proposed infiltration basin may be replaced with smaller localized infiltration basins
adequately sized and associated with each phase of development. The infiltration basins may also be
replaced with functionally equivalent LID features such as permeable pavement, stormwater planters,
green roofs and other treatment and flow attenuation features. City regulations require approval of a
preliminary WQMP prior to obtaining grading plan approval. Regardless of whether a specific
development project requires discretionary approval, compliance with this requirement is necessary
prior to obtaining a grading or building permit.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
201
Potential infrastructure impacts were also identified based on the proposed conceptual improvements
to the on-site and off-site drainage facilities that would be required for the development of the Project
site. Based on the conceptual mass grading layout used as a framework for development of the site, an
on-site storm drain system would be required pursuant to the City. The proposed on-site system would
include a series of drainage inlets, swales, pipes and catch basins to collect flows from the proposed
development areas including roadways, parking areas, roof drains and landscape features, as shown in
Figure 3.8-9, Conceptual Storm Drain Exhibit. All flows will be conveyed in a southeast direction to the
Santa Ana River for discharge. Pipe sizes are anticipated to range from 18 inches to 42 inches. The
proposed storm drain system also includes a low flow diversion structure(s) to direct initial storm flows
into the proposed infiltration basin or functionally equivalent LID features per development phase. The
on-site system would ultimately discharge into the Santa Ana River through the existing 12-foot by 12-
foot box culvert or a new connection into the Santa Ana River downstream of the drop structure. Use of
the existing culvert is preferred and would require modification including removal of the west wall and
construction of an end wall to allow the new storm drain pipe to connect to the facility and allow flows
to enter the Santa Ana River. In conjunction with developing a site plan for a specific project, approvals
would need to be obtained by federal, county and City agencies. USACE permits would be required for
discharging into the Santa Ana River, encroachment permits would need to be approved by OCFCD, and
a WQMP, grading and drainage plans would need to be approved by the City.
The CSD system would be intercepted in Ball Road just upstream of the Project site and re -aligned
easterly along the north side of the Project site. The alignment will then turn sout h and parallel the
USACE’s existing ROW before entering the Santa Ana River downstream of the existing drop structure
within the Santa Ana River which is approximately 400 feet south of Ball Road. At this drop structure,
the Santa Ana River drops approximately 10 feet and the CSD invert requires the outlet structure to be
located at this lower elevation. The existing 12-foot by 9.5-foot box culvert will be doubled in size in the
proposed condition to include a double box culvert with each culvert being 12-foot by 9.5-foot with an
overall width of approximately 28 feet and an agreed upon easement of 38 feet. Exhibit 3 of the 2008
Boyle study shows the easement is 30 feet. However, this has since been corrected to 38 feet as written
above. The double box culvert would be sized to accommodate the current 100-year design flow of
2,156 cfs from the existing tributary area. A transition structure would be required within Ball Road to
connect the larger proposed on-site storm drain box to the existing facility. The CSD would also have to
cross under the existing 66-inch Groundwater Replenishment pipeline which is located near the levee
and Santa Ana River service road in a manner that does not cause any adverse impacts to the existing
GWRS (Groundwater Replenishment System) pipeline. The two local 36-inch and 42-inch RCP storm
drain pipes enter the westerly side of BRB and would be re-routed through or around the Project site
dependent upon further design. One option is to intercept the flows from the two pipes and ro ute them
northerly to the proposed re-alignment of the CSD and avoid bringing them through the Project site.
Existing inverts of these two storm drains may prohibit the ability to connect into the CSD. A second
option is to extend the 36-inch RCP in a southerly direction, intercept the flows from the 42-inch RCP
and extend them through the site in a new pipe to the existing 12-foot by 12-foot concrete box culvert
at the southeastern portion of the site. Flows would be combined with the on-site system and discharge
directly into the Santa Ana River through the modified culvert.
'JHVSF&BSUIXPSL$JUZPG"OBIFJN0SBOHF$PVOUZ8BUFS%JTUSJDU
&OWJSPONFOUBM"EWJTPST
--$
%SBGU&*3#BMM3PBE#BTJO(FOFSBM1MBO"NFOENFOU;POF$IBOHF
0SBOHF$PVOUZ
Figure 3.8-8: Conceptual GradingCity of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
Draft EIR Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Orange County
Figure 3.8-9: Conceptual Storm DrainCity of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
Draft EIR Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Orange County
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
205
IMPACT ANALYSIS
IMPACT HYDRO-1: The Proposed Project would violate water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements.
Clearing, grading, and excavation construction activities and the long term operational impacts
associated with the Proposed Project may impact water quality. Construction related activities can
cause sheet erosion of exposed soils and subsequent deposition of particulates in local drainages.
Grading activities, in particular, lead to exposed areas of loose soil, as well as sediment stockpiles, that
are susceptible to uncontrolled sheet flow. Although erosion occurs naturally in the environment,
primarily from weathering by water and wind action, improperly managed construction activities can
lead to substantially accelerated rates of erosion that are considered detrimental to the environment. In
addition, the long-term alteration of the existing pervious land use to a commercial land use will
increase imperviousness which leads to increased rates of runoff. Impervious surfaces from commercial
uses including parking lots and rooftops can cause degraded water quality. Project runoff that could
adversely affect beneficial uses in Santa Ana River Reach 2 are discussed below:
Sediment
Sediments are typically characterized into two main categories: course sediment that includes large
sand grains, pebbles, etc. and fine particulate sediments that include total suspended solids (TSS). Of
concern to water quality are the fine particulate sediments that are more typically associated with shee t
erosion. The land use change associated with the Proposed Project would significantly alter impervious
surfaces as compared to existing conditions; however, the Proposed Project would not result in an
increased sheet erosion potential through an increase in exposed areas. During the construction of
future commercial development on-site, sediment has the potential to move off-site due to the exposed
condition of the Project site. In order to reduce the amount of sediment discharged off-site due to
construction activities, future development on the Project site would be required to implement an
effective combination of erosion and sediment control BMPs in conformance with th e GCP. In the post-
development condition, any sediment and TSS generated from the development areas would be
collected in the proposed LID features and BMPs, which are considered effective for targeting pollutants
typically associated with impervious surfaces. Field data indicates sediment removals in the range of 90
percent for bioretention based BMPs and 100 percent for infiltration basins because all low flow runoff
is retained on-site (2003 CA BMP Handbook). As a result, sediment impacts to water quality are
considered to be less than significant.
Trash & Debris
Urban development can generate significant amounts of trash and debris if not properly managed. The
Proposed Project is expected to increase the amount of potential trash and debris generated by the
future commercial development on the Project site as compared to existing conditions. However, future
development would be required to implement additional measures, such as source control measures
and LID BMPs, to minimize the adverse impacts of trash and debris. Source control measures such as
periodic sweeping, litter patrol, and storm drain stenciling would be effective in reducing the amount of
trash and debris leaving the site. Site design and LID BMPs also possess moderate to high removal
effectiveness for trash and debris. Field data indicates high trash and debris removal us ing bioretention
based BMPs will capture or remove more than 95 percent of trash from storm water runoff (2003 CA
BMP Handbook). Infiltration basins typically trap the majority of gross pollutants within the sediment
forebay. Based on these proposed features, impacts from trash and debris for the Proposed Project are
considered to be less than significant.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
206
Oil and Grease
Oil and grease limits are defined as a qualitative standard (e.g., no film on surface waters) due to the
difficulties in setting single limit or composite sampling water quality standards. However, national
monitoring data collected from communities around Los Angeles County demonstrated that the
majority of samples taken from open space contain non-detect levels of oil and grease (less than 80
percent) and that hydrocarbons intermittently observed in runoff from developed areas are relatively
low in concentration.12
Future development at the Project site would be required by the City to implement several source
control measures to reduce the amount of oil and grease in storm water from the project sites.
Maintenance activities, vehicle and equipment fueling and waste handling that have the potential to
introduce oil and grease related compounds would be strictly prohibited in outdoor areas where they
could potentially come into contact with rain. With the incorporation of source control and LID BMPs,
levels of oil and grease or other hydrocarbons such as PAHs that could adversely affect beneficial uses of
the Proposed Project’s receiving waters or exceed water quality standards are not anticipated. In
addition, all low flow storm events would be routed through infiltration or biotreatment BMPs which are
highly effective at removing oils and grease from storm water. Field data indicates oil and grease
removals in the range of 80 percent for bioretention based BMPs and assumed to be 100 percent for
infiltration facilities since all low flow runoff is retained on-site (2003 CA BMP Handbook). Impacts on
water quality, as a result of the Proposed Project, would be considered to be less than significant.
Bacteria/Pathogens
Based on the existing conditions, and land use/pollutant categories, the Proposed Project may be a
source of pathogens, especially during storm water runoff conditions. There are numerous potential
natural and anthropogenic sources of bacteria indicators including birds, other wildlife, soils and plant
material, domesticated animals and pets, human sources from outdated septic systems, and improper
human waste disposal. Since natural sources of pathogens are difficult to control (such as wild animal
waste), the focus of the source control measures for the Project site is on human-related
(anthropogenic) and residential sources. In order to reduce the proposed pathogen contributions from
the Project site, the following source control measures are recommended for implementation:
▪ Landscaping with efficient irrigation design at the Project site to control runoff and allowing
for maximum infiltration opportunities;
▪ Proper monitoring and maintenance of landscaped areas to remove accumulated dead plant
material and debris;
▪ Landscape maintenance activities that include the removal of animal feces;
▪ Activity restrictions on outdoor mat washing and equipment cleaning related to restaurant
and dining activities, which potentially contribute bacteria entrained in storm water, as well
as waste accumulation and disposal methods; and
12 Pitt, R., Maestre, A., & Morquecho, R. (2003, February). The National Stormwater Quality Database. Presented at the National Conference on
Urban Stormwater, Chicago Botanical Gardens and the US EPA, Chicago.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
207
▪ Site design features and LID BMPs (e.g., pervious pavements, bioretention) to further treat
bacteria in storm water runoff via infiltration and filtration.
The available data on the effectiveness of the treatment control BMPs for bacteria indicators is limited.
The 2003 California BMP Handbook rates bioretention areas and infiltration BMPs as having high
removal efficiencies for bacteria and organics.13 Bioretention based BMPs and infiltration basins typically
reduce bacteria by 90 percent. Based on these considerations for future commercial development on
the Project site, the pathogen runoff potential for the Proposed Project would be considered to be less
than significant.
Pesticides
Pesticides can be of a concern based on potential uses as well as previous uses in the past. Using only
native drought-tolerant species for landscaping purposes minimizes the use of pesticides and uses less
irrigation that could potentially runoff. Low demand irrigation systems should also be used on-site to
ensure minimal runoff from irrigation that has the potential to transport pesticides. In addition, source
control measures such as provisions against applying pesticides prior to expected rain events, and the
use of properly certified pesticide workers are recommended. As a result of these and similar source
control measures, it is anticipated that water quality standards for pesticides would not be exceeded,
and potential pesticide impacts would be considered to be less than significant.
Nutrients
Nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorous found within common fertilizers, can be of concern
based on the potential for over-application and over use. Similar to the source control measures for
pesticides, using only native drought-tolerant species for landscaping purposes typically requires less
fertilizers and irrigation; thereby reducing the potential for runoff. The combination of low demand
irrigation systems and slow release fertilizers is recommended to be used on-site to ensure minimal
runoff from irrigation that has the potential to transport nutrients. Slow-release fertilizers are inorganic
fertilizers that release nutrients at a slower rate and are less susceptible to leaching and loss of fertilizer
during rain events. In addition, source control measures such as provisions against applying fertilizers
prior to expected rain events are also recommended. Further, filtration-based LID BMPs (e.g., rain
gardens, bioretention with underdrains, etc.) can provide some removal rates although nutrient removal
is challenging with commonly accepted LID BMPs based on the design necessity for internal water
storage zones and anoxic conditions.
Through the proper implementation of source control design measures , native drought-tolerant
landscaping, public education materials to commercial property management, and
infiltration/biotreatment BMPs, excessive nutrient loads from the Project site would not be anticipated
or expected. Field data indicates nutrient pollutant removals in the range of 70 percent to 80 percent for
phosphorous and 40 percent for nitrogen for bioretention based BMPs (2003 CA BMP Handbook).
Similarly, infiltration basin removal effectiveness for total phosphorus (TP) and total Kjeldahl nitrogen
(TKN) has been shown to be 51 percent and 65 percent, respectively, should there be any discharge of
stormwater from the basin.14 Nutrients would not be contained in project runoff at levels that could
13 California Stormwater Quality Association. (2003, January). Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook for New Development and
Redevelopment. Retrieved May 2013, from http://www.cabmphandbooks.com
14 Efficiency of an Infiltration Basin in Removing Contaminants from Urban Stormwater. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (2005) 101:
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
208
adversely affect water quality or beneficial uses in downstream receiving waters and potential nutr ient
impacts would be considered to be less than significant.
Metals
Copper, lead and zinc are the most common metals found in urban runoff. Other trace metals such as
chromium, mercury and nickel are not usually detected in urban runoff or are measured at very low
levels. The Proposed Project would not result in significant increases in metals. Incorporation of the site
design measures and LID BMPs in future developments on the Project site would provide a means for
the settling of metals attached to particulates as well as vegetative uptake of metals. Field data indicates
pollutant removals in the range of 93 to 98 percent for bioretention based BMPs and 85 to 90 percent
for infiltration basins (2003 CA BMP Handbook and US EPA Fact Sheet). Additional source control
measures, such as street and parking lot sweeping, would also reduce the potential for metals to reach
the storm drain system. As a result, it is anticipated that water quality standards would not be exceeded,
and potential impacts from metals would be considered to be less than significant.
Oxygen Demanding Substances
Oxygen-demanding substances include all organic materials, which consume oxygen as they decompose.
Animal droppings, sewage overflows, fallen leaves, and grass clippings are a few examples of oxygen-
demanding substances. The combination of site design features and source control measures LID BMPs
for future development projects on the Project site are aimed at reducing the potential for these types
of substances to be created on-site, and the structural measures including the LID BMPs would provide a
means to remove the potential for these substances to enter the downstream water bodies. Field data
indicates organics removals in the range of 90 percent for bioretention based BMPs and complete
removal can be assumed for infiltration basins as discharges are eliminated (2003 CA BMP Handbook). In
certain cases, additional pretreatment devices (screens, filters, etc.) may be necessary upstream of the
proposed biotreatment BMPs to reduce the potential for clogging. Impacts of oxygen demanding
substances would be considered to be less than significant.
Dry Weather Flow
Although the previous discussions have focused on wet weather flows, dry weather flows are also
important. Dry weather flows due to anthropogenic sources have the potential to impact local receiving
water bodies. Dry weather flows are typically low in coarse sediment due to the low flow rates but
pollutants associated with suspended solids such as phosphorous, trace metals, pesticides are typically
found in low concentrations in dry weather flows. The Proposed Project would not be expected to
generate significant amounts of dry weather flows after installation of drought tolerant landscaping, the
use of efficient irrigation systems, the lack of high intensive water use activities on-site, and the use of
integrated storm water landscaping features to collect, hold and treat these flows and eliminate dry
flow discharges from future commercial development (site design features and LID BMPs). Therefore,
significant impacts are not anticipated with respect to water quality as a result of dry weather flows.
Vector Control
23-38. Birch, G.F., Fazeli, M.S., and C. Matthai.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
209
The use of integrated storm water landscaping (e.g., LID features) for storm water treatment may
increase the potential for vector issues due to the potential for standing water in these features. The
potential for mosquito breeding is considered a risk when ponding water exists greater than 72 hours.
Thus, any site design features and LID BMPs would be designed to infiltrate and/or discharge from the
facility within 24 to 48 hours, in accordance with City and OC DAMP requirements. In the event
additional vector control is needed, a number of abatement measures will be used, including habitat
reduction (reconfiguring of plant palettes), temporary flooding and drying (draining) of the ponds,
trapping and killing pests, and biochemical pesticides (i.e., the bacteria Bacillus sphaericus [Bs] and
Bacillus thuringiensis israeliensus [Bti]). Through the design of the LID BMPs to drain in 48 hours or less
and the ability to provide treatment of mosquito if ponding occurs more than 48 hours, impacts to
vector control would be considered to be less than significant.
Groundwater Impacts
Literature regarding infiltration BMPs indicates that most pollutants in infiltrated water are effectively
treated in the uppermost soil layers of infiltration type BMPs. A component of the Nationwide Urban
Runoff Program Project conducted in Fresno, CA, indicated that chemicals tend to absorb to particulates
(e.g., trace metals) and are effectively removed in the upper few centimeters of the soil column. This
study was supplemented by a more recent study that also concluded that even chemicals such as
organochlorine pesticides and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in an industrial catchment in Fresno
were found to be adsorbed in the upper four centimeters of sediment.15
Infiltration BMPs, such as pervious pavement and infiltration trenches, require a depth of 10 feet or
greater to groundwater to minimize the impacts from storm water pollutants. For sites with shallow
groundwater, infiltration BMPs are not recommended unless designed with impermeable liners and
subdrains are utilized. For sites with greater than 10 feet depth to groundwater, infiltration BMPs may
be utilized on-site for water quality treatment. Based on these design requirements, pollutant
concentrations are expected to reach level of insignificance by the time they encounter groundwater
and groundwater quality impacts would be considered to be less than significant.
Impact Summary
The Proposed Project does not include a specific development plan for the Project site. Therefore, a
detailed, site-specific Risk Assessment to determine sediment risk and receiving water risk cannot be
performed at this time, since it is unclear how the future development will be constructed and phased.
However, based on the project location and low-risk receiving water body, it is anticipated that the
Proposed Project would be a Risk Level 2.
Mitigation measure MM HYDRO-1 requires the development of a program-level Preliminary WQMP for
the Proposed Project. The Preliminary WQMP would allow the Proposed Project to address water
quality on a regional-scale, while maintaining a comprehensive, consistent, and synergistic approach to
LID and water quality protection for the entire plan of development. This program-level Preliminary
WQMP will serve as the parent document of all subsequent project-specific WQMPs required for future
development. Future project-specific WQMPs, preliminary or final, would be prepared, consistent with
15 Schroeder, R.A. (1995) Potential for Chemical Transport Beneath a Storm-Runoff Recharge (Retention) Basin for an Industrial Cachment in
Fresno, CA. United States Geological Survey (USGS) Water-Resource Investigations Report 93-4140.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
210
the terms and content of the program-level Preliminary WQMP for the Proposed Project, while
developing specific water quality solutions for each individual development area. More specifically, LID
and water quality treatment solutions prescribed in project-specific WQMPs shall be designed to
supplement or enhance the regional LID BMPs prescribed in the program-level WQMP.
Mitigation measures MM HYDRO-2 and MM HYDRO-3 requires that prior to commencement of
construction activities, all future development on the Project site would be required to demonstrate
compliance with the most current GCP. This would include the performance of a Risk Assessment and
the preparation of an ESCP based on the final rough grading plans and erosion and sediment controls
proposed for each phase of construction.
Details of the WPMP approach and contents, procedures for the Risk Assessment and the requirements
of the ESCP are contained in the City of Anaheim Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone
Change Hydrology & Water Quality Technical Report prepared for the Proposed Project. A detailed list of
suggested BMPs are also proved in the technical report.
Implementation of MM HYDRO-1 through MM HYDRO-3 would ensure that impacts to water quality
would be less than significant.
IMPACT HYDRO-2: The Proposed Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level.
The BRB was previously used as a recharge facility as part of OCWD’s series of off-line recharge basins
adjacent to the Santa Ana River. Due to the presence of a large thick clay layer under the majority of the
basin floor, BRB does not provide sufficient groundwater recharge. Under the proposed conditions
described above, BRB would be filled to allow for future commercial development on-site. As part of the
project-wide development plan, an infiltration basin within the SCE easement is proposed to provide
treatment of runoff from the developed areas. Site-specific infiltration tests would be required to
determine if the soil profile within the area of the basin meets the minimum criteria for infiltration
based on the 2011 TGD criteria. Based on the limited infiltration for the recharge basin under the
existing conditions, the land use conversion to General Commercial, as conceptually proposed with an
infiltration basin within the SCE easement for small storm events, would not have a significant impact on
groundwater levels or supplies. Similarly, the replacement of one large infiltration basin with smaller
basins, or functionally equivalent LID features associated with each phase or parcel of development,
would not have an impact on groundwater levels or supplies. A preliminary WQMP would be required
by the City prior to obtaining grading and building permits for a specific development project. Therefore,
impacts to groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge would be considered less than significant.
IMPACT HYDRO-3: The Proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site, which would potentially result in substantial erosion or siltation, or substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site.
On-Site and Off-Site Proposed Peak Flow Discharges
On-site flows would increase based on future commercial development, which would result in a large
change in impervious condition and the change in Time of Concentration (Tc). To quantify these
changes, the conceptual mass grade layout was used to calculate the on-site flows related to 2-year, 25-
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
211
year and 100-year storm events. Table 3.8-4 summarizes the expected discharges, which are shown in
Figure 3.8-10, Onsite Hydrology Exhibit.
Table 3.8-4 On-site Peak Flow Discharges into the Santa Ana River
Storm Event Time of Concentration (Tc) Peak Flow Discharge
2-year 14.53 minutes 21.59 cfs
25-year 13.26 minutes 49.32 cfs
100-year 12.91 minutes 63.90 cfs
The increase of additional 64 cfs under the 100-year flood condition into the Santa Ana River would have
insignificant impacts to the Santa Ana River. As part of the USACE’s Santa Ana River Mainstem Project,
flood protection levels along the Santa Ana River were improved to withstand up to a 200-year flood
and, therefore, this portion of the Santa Ana River is considered stable.
Off-site peak flow discharges entering the Project site would remain unchanged. However, flows would
no longer be discharged into the detention basin and released into the Santa Ana River through the
existing weir and sub-basin. Off-site peak flows would be routed directly into the Santa Ana River
without this bypass. This would occur both with the CSD system (1,165 cfs) and the off-site storm drain
system (140 cfs). As part of the 2008 Boyle study, the USACE and OCFCD were engaged to provide input
and conditions on the proposed realignment of the CSD. The USACE approved the direct connection of
CSD into the Santa Ana River with the stated flows and determined there were negligible impacts to the
Santa Ana River in terms of creek hydraulics and floodplain impacts (Corps File No. E2008). USACE also
concluded that with the construction of a new outlet through the Santa Ana River levee embankment
would not adversely affect the operation of the Santa Ana River. Based on the study, the existing 12-foot
by 12-foot box culvert could be removed without any adverse impact to the Santa Ana River. Since that
time, subsequent studies have recommended the preservation of the existing box culvert to convey the
on-site flows from future development on the Project site, potentially in addition to the local off-site
flows from the existing 36-inch and 42-inch RCP systems. Any changes to the existing box culvert would
require final approval by the USACE.
Hydromodification Requirements and Analysis
A hydrologic conditions of concern (HCOC) is a combination of upland hydrologic conditions and stream
biological and physical conditions that presents a condition of concern for physical and/or biological
degradation of streams. In the North Orange County permit area, HCOCs are considered to exist if any
streams located downstream from the project are determined to be potentially susceptible to
hydromodification impacts and either of the following conditions exists:
▪ Post-development runoff volume for the 2-yr, 24-hr storm exceeds the pre-development runoff
volume for the 2-yr, 24-hr storm by more than 5 percent; or
▪ Time of concentration (Tc) of post-development runoff for the 2-yr, 24-hr storm event exceeds
the time of concentration of the pre-development condition for the 2-yr, 24-hr storm event by
more than 5 percent.
If these conditions do not exist or streams are not potentially susceptible to hydromodification impacts,
an HCOC does not exist and hydromodification does not need to be considered further. In the North
Orange County permit area, downstream channels are not considered susceptible to hydromodification,
Figure 3.8-9: Conceptual Storm DrainCity of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
Draft EIR Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Orange County
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
213
and therefore do not have the potential for a HCOC, given that all downstream conveyance channels
that would receive runoff from the Proposed Project are engineered, hardened, and regularly
maintained to ensure design flow capacity, and sensitive habitat areas would not be affected.
The Project site is located in an area of the Santa Ana River watershed that is not susceptible to
hydromodification impacts; therefore, hydromodification controls are not required. The Project site
discharges into a segment of the Santa Ana River that is identified as stable and not subject to
hydromodification. This portion of the Santa Ana River also actively promotes groundwater recharge
through the use of gravel berms. Low flows from the Project site would either infiltrate on-site or
undergo biotreatment and discharge into an actively managed groundwater recharge zone of the Santa
Ana River.
Impact Summary
Under the existing conditions and proposed conditions, flows would generally travel from the high end
of the Project site at the northwestern corner and travel downstream to the southwestern corner
before discharging into the Santa Ana River. All off-site peak flows would remain unchanged and would
discharge through the Project site into the Santa Ana River. All flows discharge into a highly managed
groundwater recharge portion of the Santa Ana River with 200-year flood protection. Implementation of
the Proposed Project would not result in erosion or siltation on or off-site. Impacts would be considered
to be less than significant and mitigation would not be required.
The Proposed Project would result in an increase of peak flow runoff based on the conversion of the
existing pervious basin to a filled condition with impervious surfaces. The analysis indicates that peak
flows into the Santa Ana River would increase by a maximum of 64 cfs for a 100-year condition. In
accordance with the City of Anaheim Public Works standards, the on-site storm drain system would be
designed to safely collect and convey the 100-year flood while protecting all proposed buildings,
structures and public safety. Off-site peak flows would remain unchanged and the proposed storm drain
alignments for the off-site flows would be intercepted and designed to safely convey the maximum peak
flows from off-site areas through or around the Project site into the Santa Ana River. The Proposed
Project’s on-site storm drain system would be designed in conjunction with the final WQMP and
drainage plan, both of which must be approved prior to obtaining building permits. The Project site is
located in an area that is not susceptible to HCOC and increases in runoff are not anticipated to cause
adverse impacts downstream. The Proposed Project could result in an increase the rate or the amount
of surface runoff; however, the increase would not be significant due to the improvements in the
existing storm drain system and the carrying capacity of the Santa Ana River, which is designed for a
200-year flood. In addition, adherence to the GCP requirements, as well as the preparation and
implementation of a site-specific ESCP would minimize any potential impacts during construction.
Therefore, impacts would be considered to be less than significant and mitigation would not be
required.
IMPACT HYDRO-4: The Proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff.
Under the existing conditions, the Project site serves as a groundwater recharge basin that receives off-
site flows from the CSD system and two local storm drain lines from off-site commercial areas. BRB
includes a large weir, sub-basin and culvert to convey flows into the Santa Ana River. Under the
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
214
proposed condition, BRB would be filled and the off-site storm drain systems that drain into the Project
site would be intercepted and aligned either around or through the Project site and discharged directly
into the Santa Ana River. The on-site storm drain system would be sized to convey the on-site flows and
directed into the Santa Ana River. The Santa Ana River has been designed for a 200-year flood and the
USACE has approved the direct connections into the Santa Ana River. In conjunction with developing a
site plan for a specific project, approvals would need to be obtained by federal, county and City
agencies. USACE permits would be required for discharging into the Santa Ana River, encroachment
permits would need to be approved by OCFCD, and a WQMP, grading and drainage plans would need to
be approved by the City. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff water
that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems (See also runoff
discussion under IMPACT HYDRO-3 above). Impacts would be considered less than significant and
mitigation would not be required.
IMPACT HYDRO-5: The Proposed Project would otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
As discussed under IMPACT HDYRO-1, water quality exceedances are not anticipated, and pollutants are
not expected in project runoff that would adversely affect beneficial uses in downstream receiving
waters. Implementation of MM HYDRO-1 through MM HYDRO-3 would ensure that impacts to water
quality from the Proposed Project are reduced to less than significant.
IMPACT HYDRO-6: The Proposed Project would not place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area.
Under the existing conditions, the Project site is located within a flood hazard area as defined by the
local FIRM Map. Under the Proposed Project, Project site would be backfilled and graded for
development and would be located outside of the flood zone. The ultimate flood zone determined for
the Project site would match the existing developed areas surrounding the Project site and would be a
Zone X designation which is not within a flood hazard area. Per FEMA requirements, the flood zone
maps must be updated in order to remove the Project site out of the flood zone. Updating the FEMA
map to reflect this change would require the Property Owner/Developer to file a Condition Letter of
Map Revision (CLOMR) and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) with FEMA in order to revise the official FIRM
for the Project area. The CLOMR and LOMR would be required prior to obtaining a grading permit and
would be coordinated with preparation of the grading plan for the Proposed Project. The on-site storm
drain system for the Proposed Project would also be designed to accommodate the 100-year flood.
Upon implementation of MM HYDRO-4, the Proposed Project would not place structures within a 100-
year flood hazard area. Impacts would be reduced to less than significant with incorporation of MM
HYDRO-4.
IMPACT HYDRO-7: The Proposed Project would substantially degrade water quality by contributing
pollutants from areas of mineral storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment
maintenance, or by discharge which affects the beneficial uses (i.e., swimming, fishing, etc.) of the
receiving or downstream waters.
Storm water runoff discharged from the project site during construction and post-construction of
Proposed Project are not anticipated to affect beneficial uses of the Santa Ana River.
As discussed under IMPACT HYDRO-1, the Proposed Project would be required to implement mitigation
measures MM HYDRO-1 through MM HYDRO-3. The Proposed Project will adhere to the GCP
requirements that require that the SWPPP include non-storm water management and material
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
215
management BMPs to control potential construction-related pollutants, and would help to prevent
potential impacts during construction. The Proposed Project would be required to control the
generation of pollutants from source areas such as those mentioned above, if they exist on -site. Non-
structural and structural source control BMPs, in particular, would be required at material storage areas,
vehicle or equipment fueling areas, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing) areas, trash
enclosures, hazardous materials handling or storage areas, delivery areas, loading docks and other
outdoor work areas. The SWPPP would also include erosion and sediment control BMPs that would
meet or exceed measures required by the GCP, as well as BMPs that control other potential
construction-related pollutants. Additionally, the Proposed Project will be designed to the standards of
the 2011 Model WQMP which requires the incorporation of site design, LID, source control and other
BMPs. With the incorporation of the LID features proposed (infiltration basin, bioretention basin, or
combination thereof), water quality exceedances are not anticipated, and pollutants are not expected in
project runoff that would degrade water quality in the Lower Santa Ana River (Reach 1 & 2). Therefore,
conformance with 2011 WQMP and TGD requirements along with local and state regulatory
requirements for construction and post-construction operations of the Proposed Project would ensure
that a less than significant impact would occur.
MITIGATION MEASURES
MM HYDRO-1: Prior to the issuance of a precise grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall
prepare and submit to the Anaheim Public Works Department a program-level WQMP consistent with
the existing Preliminary WQMP (March 17, 2017). It shall describe the menu of BMPs chosen for the
Proposed Project and includes operation and maintenance requirements for all structural and any
treatment control BMPs in compliance with the 2011 Model WQMP and Technical Guidance Document
(TGD). Future project-specific WQMPs, preliminary or final, shall also be prepared for future
development, consistent with the terms and content of the program-level Preliminary WQMP for the
Proposed Project, while developing specific water quality solutions for each individual development
area. More specifically, LID and water quality treatment solutions prescribed in project-specific WQMPs
shall be designed to supplement or enhance the regional LID BMPs prescribed in the program -level
Preliminary WQMP.
MM HYDRO-2: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall provide to
the Anaheim Public Works Department a Notice of Intent and WDID Number issued from the SWRCB in
accordance with the requirements of the GCP to ensure the potential for soil erosion and construction
impacts are minimized. In accordance with the updated GCP (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ), the following
PRDs are required to be submitted to the SWRCB prior to commencement of construction activities:
▪ Notice of Intent (NOI)
▪ Risk Assessment (Standard or Site-Specific)
▪ Particle Size Analysis (if site-specific risk assessment is performed)
▪ Site Map
▪ ESCP
▪ Post-Construction Water Balance Calculator (not required – project is covered under the
North Orange County MS4 permit Order No. R9-2009-0030)
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
216
▪ Active Treatment System (ATS) Design Documentation (if ATS is determined necessary)
▪ Annual Fee & Certification
MM HYDRO-3: In accordance with the existing and updated Anaheim Grading Code, prior to
commencement of construction activities, the Property Owner/Developer shall prepare and submit to
the Anaheim Public Works Department a construction ESCP. The ESCP shall be implemented and revised
as necessary, as administrative or physical conditions change. The ESCP shall describe construction
BMPs that address pollutant source reduction, and provide measures/controls necessary to mitigate
potential pollutant sources. These measures/controls include, but are not limited to erosion controls,
sediment controls, tracking controls, non-storm water management, materials & waste management,
and good housekeeping practices,16 including the following:
▪ Erosion control BMPs, such as hydraulic mulch, soil binders, and geotextiles and mats,
protect the soil surface by covering and/or binding the soil particles. Temporary earth dikes
or drainage swales may also be employed to divert runoff away from exposed areas and into
more suitable locations. If implemented correctly, erosion controls can effectively reduce the
sediment loads entrained in storm water runoff from construction sites.
▪ Sediment controls are designed to intercept and filter out soil particles that have been
detached and transported by the force of water. All storm drain inlets on the project site or
within the project vicinity (i.e., along streets immediately adjacent to the project boundary)
should be adequately protected with an impoundment (i.e., gravel bags) around the inlet and
equipped with a sediment filter (i.e., fiber roll). Bags should also be placed around areas of
soil disturbing activities, such as grading or clearing.
▪ Stabilize all construction entrance/exit points to reduce the tracking of sediments onto
adjacent streets. Wind erosion controls should be employed in conjunction with tracking
controls.
▪ Non-storm water management BMPs prohibit the discharge of materials other than storm
water, as well as reduce the potential for pollutants from discharging at their source.
Examples include avoiding paving and grinding operations during the rainy season (i.e.,
October 1 through April 30 each year) where feasible, and performing any vehicle equipment
cleaning, fueling and maintenance in designated areas that are adequately protected and
contained.
▪ Waste management consists of implementing procedural and structural BMPs for collecting,
handling, storing and disposing of wastes generated by a construction project to prevent the
release of waste materials into storm water discharges.
MM HYDRO-4: Prior to issuance of a grading permit in conjunction with a future development of the
project site, the Property Owner/Developer shall a) submit a floodplain analysis to the Anaheim Public
Works and Planning Departments for review and approval. The flood plain analysis will include (1) 200-
16 California Stormwater Quality Association. (2003, January). Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook for New Development
and Redevelopment. Retrieved January 27, 2009, from http://www.cabmphandbooks.com
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
217
yr water surface elevations approved by U.S. ACOE on the Santa Ana River along the project frontage ,
(2) possible impact of inlet closure of existing overflow bypass structure (crossing Ball Road) on the
recharging basin water surface north of Ball Road and any affected existing structures or Santa Ana River
levee, and (3) longitudinal and transverse sections of the entire proposed site with existing grades. The
recommendations contained in the analysis, including a CLOMR/LOMR if required, shall be implemented
prior to issuance of a building permit; and b) storm drain improvement plans shall be submitted for the
modification of the Chantilly Storm Drain and closure of the inlet structure from Burris Basin.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Implement mitigation measures MM HYDRO-1 through MM HYDRO-3 would adequately reduce all
project related impacts to water quality to a level less than significant. Based on the proposed land use
changes and the conceptual plans described above, the Proposed Project would not result in substantial
additional sources of pollutants or significant increases in project runoff. Adverse levels of pollutants are
not expected in project runoff that would violate water quality standards or adversely affect beneficial
uses of downstream receiving waters.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality are typically dependent on site specific development
and improvements. Groundwater encounters are not anticipated during the construction of the
Proposed Project. Therefore, adverse impacts to the beneficial uses of groundwater and to water quality
are not anticipated for the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would not contribute to cumulative
adverse impacts to the water quality of the surrounding area. Furthermore, the Proposed Project
includes improvements to the existing CSD system, which would increase the capacity of peak flows.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(e) states “if a cumulative impact was adequately addressed in a prior EIR
for a community plan, zoning action, or general plan, and the project is consistent with that plan or
action, then an EIR for such a project should not furth er analyze that cumulative impact.” The
cumulative impact analyses for hydrology and water quality contained in the EIR for the City of Anaheim
General Plan found that impacts to hydrology and water quality were cumulatively less than significant.
Therefore, impacts related to hydrology and water quality as a result of the Proposed Project would be
less than considerable. The Proposed Project would not have cumulative adverse impacts to the
hydrology or water quality of the City or region.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
218
3.9. LAND USE AND PLANNING
3.9.1 INTRODUCTION
This section of the EIR discusses the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project associated
with land use and planning. The analysis focuses on General Plan consistency and land use compatibility
with existing and surrounding land uses.
3.9.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City’s General Plan designation for the BRB is Open Space (see Figure 2-3, General Plan Land Use
Designations). The Open Space land use designation includes those areas intended to remain in natural
open space; utility easements that will provide recreational and trail access to Anaheim’s residents;
heavily landscaped freeway remnant parcels, and land areas surrounding major water features. The
Proposed Project site is designated Open Space due to its use as a recharge basin.
The Project site has two separate zoning designations (see Figure 2-4, Zoning Map). APN 375-221-09
does not have a zoning designation. APNs 253-473-01 and 253-641-39 are zoned Transitional (T) on the
City's zoning map. The City's Zoning Ordinance (Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code) describes the
“T” Zone as intended to provide for a zone to include land that is used for agricultural uses, in a
transitory or interim use, restricted to limited uses because of special conditions, or not zoned to one of
the zoning districts in contained in the City’s zoning code for whatever reason, including recent
annexation.
APN 253-631-32 is zoned Industrial (I) on the City's zoning map. The City's Zoning Ordinance describes
the "I" Zone as intending to provide for and encourage the development of industrial uses and their
related facilities, recognize the unique and valuable existing industrial land resources, and encourage
industrial employment opportunities within the City. Targeted industries include research and
development, repair services, wholesale activities, distribution centers, and manufacturing and
fabrication. In some situations, other types of uses are allowed with a conditional use permit.
Portions of APN 253-473-01 and 253-641-39 are also within a Flood Hazard Zone Overlay referred to in
the City’s zoning code as a Floodplain (FP) Overlay Zone. APN 375-221-09 is not zoned and therefore is
not within the City’s FP Overlay Zone. The whole Project site is located in FEMA FIRM Map Zone A flood
area, as discussed in Chapter 3.8, Hydrology. The FP Overlay Zone is combined with existing zones in
those areas within the City which, under present conditions, are subject to periodic flooding and
accompanying hazards. The zoning designation for the property constitutes the base or underlying zone
and the FP designation is the overlay zone. In the event of conflicting provisions between the underlying
“T” Zone and the (FP) Overlay Zone regulations, the more restrictive regulations shall apply.
Surrounding land uses include the Anaheim Auto Center and the SR-57 freeway to the west, Anaheim
Coves Nature Park and Trail, The Islands Golf Center, and OCWD Burris Basin to the north, the Santa Ana
River Center Levee and the Santa Ana River to the east, and commercial office uses, Honda Center, and
the Union Pacific Railroad to the south. General Plan designations for land uses surrounding the
Proposed Project site include General Commercial, Water Uses, Parks, Mixed Use and Office Low. Zoning
designations for surrounding land uses include: General Commercial, Transitional, Transitional – Flood
Hazard (FP) Overlay, Public Recreational, Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone, and Industrial.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
219
3.9.3 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
REGIONAL
Southern California Association of Governments
SCAG is the designated MPO and the regional governing body for six counties: Los Angeles, Orange, San
Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. of Orange, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and
Imperial. The region encompasses a population exceeding 18 million persons in an area of more than
38,000 square miles. As the MPO, SCAG is mandated by the federal government to research and draw
up plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and air quality.
SCAG adopted the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy in April
2016. The RTP/SCS is a regional growth management strategy that incorporates local land use projection
and circulation networks in the cities and counties general plans. The RTP/SCS was developed in order to
meet the requirements of SB 375, which requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) to
prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy that demonstrates how the region will meet its GHG
reduction targets as set forth by CARB.
LOCAL
City of Anaheim General Plan
The City of Anaheim General Plan is comprehensive plan that addresses issues associated with the City’s
physical, social, and economic development. By law, the General Plan must address the following seven
subject areas or elements: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety. It
may also address any other issues or include any other elements that relate to the physical development
of the city or county. The City of Anaheim General Plan includes the mandated elements as well as an
Economic Development Element, a Growth Management Element, a Public Services and Facilities
Element, and a Community Design Element. Each element is generally described below:
Land Use Element
The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the distribution and location of land uses
throughout the City and addresses permitted density and intensity of the various land use designations.
The incorporated area of the City comprises approximately 28,000 acres and the City’s sphere of
influence includes 2,431 acres. The Land Use Element identifies 12 types of land uses throughout the
City.
Circulation Element
The Circulation Element describes the existing circulation system and serves as an infrastructure plan
that addresses the mobility of people, goods and services, energy, water, sewage, storm drainage, and
communications. The major purpose of the Circulation Element is to design and improve a circulation
system to meet the current and future needs of all Anaheim residents, businesses and visitors. Such a
system should have the following four components: equity, effectiveness, efficiency and foresight.
Green Element
The Green Element combines the previous City of Anaheim’s General Plan Co nservation, Open Space,
Parks, and Recreation and Community Services Elements into a comprehensive plan to address the
conservation and protection of natural and recreational resources. The goals, objectives, and policies
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
220
contained within the Green Space Element address the conservation, development, and utilization of
natural resources as well as the management and conservation of open space areas . Specifically, this
element addresses water resources; wildlife resources; land resources; energy resources; air quality;
visual/scenic resources; waste management and recycling; parks and recreation; and trail systems.
Public Services and Facilities Element
The Public Services and Facilities Element identifies the City’s goals, policies, and programs concerning
the provision of public facilities and services, including fire protection, law enforcement, schools, water,
sewer, and storm drain systems as well as other utilities and services. This element provides guidance
for provision of new and expanded public facilities to support the continued growth of the City.
Growth Management Element
The Growth Management Element is not a State-mandated element of the General Plan, but is required
if the City is to receive funds for transportation improvements under Measure M. This element also
implements applicable goals of the Orange County Congestion Management Plan. The Growth
Management Element intended to ensure that capital facilities planning meets the needs of current and
future residents of Anaheim, and sets forth goals and policies related to growth management, and
provides implementation and monitoring provisions.
Safety Element
The Safety Element identifies potential risks of natural or man-made hazards in the City and contains
policies to address those hazards. This element specifically addresses the way in which the City will
respond to fire hazards, geologic and seismic hazards, flood hazards, and serves to address disaster
preparedness. The Safety Element provides background information related to each issue an d identifies
risk-reduction strategies, hazard abatement measures, and potential hazard locations within the City
that can ultimately be used while making future land use decisions.
Noise Element
The Noise Element is a comprehensive tool for achieving and maintaining environmental noise levels
compatible with land use. The Noise Element identifies noise sensitive land uses and noise sources, and
defines areas of noise impact. The element establishes goals, policies, and programs to ensure that
Anaheim residents will be protected from excessive noise.
Economic Development Element
The Economic Development Element is not a State-mandated Element of the General Plan. The purpose
of the Economic Development Element is to guide the City in expanding the local economy, which
provides jobs, attracts and retains businesses, supports diverse and vibrant commercial areas, and
brings in sufficient revenue to support various local programs and services. To achieve a balanced and
healthy economy, the Economic Development Element sets forth the goals and policies necessary to
ensure a prosperous economic future.
Community Design Element
The Community Design Element is not a required Element of the General Plan. The Community Design
Element recognizes the importance of community appearance and identity to its vitality, economic
health and overall quality of life and provides policy guidance for the built environment. It supports the
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
221
Land Use Element by providing design policies that complement the City’s diverse land uses, the
Circulation Element by providing guidance for aesthetically enhancing arterial corridors, and the
Economic Development Element by recognizing the relationship between quality design and economic
viability, stability and growth. The Community Design Element helps to establish a positive and strong
community identity for the City.
Housing Element
Housing Element provides for the identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and
articulates the policies for the preservation, conservation, improvement and production of housing
within the City. This element addresses adequate housing opportunities for present and future Anaheim
residents through 2021, and provides the primary policy guidance for local decision-making related to
housing.
3.9.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Proposed
Project would have a significant impact to land use if it would result in any of the following:
▪ Would the project physically divide an established community?
▪ Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
▪ Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
EFFECTS DISMISSED IN THE INITIAL STUDY
The IS concluded that the following potential land use impacts were less than significant or did not have
an impact and did not need to be further addressed in the EIR:
▪ The project would not physically divide an established community.
▪ The project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan.
3.9.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
METHODOLOGY
This section of the EIR discusses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project associated
with land use and planning. A project consistency analysis with all relevant SCAG 2016-2040 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy RTP/SCS and Anaheim General Plan policies was
prepared and presented in Table 3.9-1 and Table 3.9-2. Since the Proposed Project does not include a
specific development plan, a consistency analysis of the Community Design Element is not possible at
this time. All future development on the Project site would be required to comply with the goals and
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
222
policies contained in the Community Design Element. Furthermore, since the Proposed Project does not
include the construction of housing, a consistency analysis of the Housing Element is not included.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
IMPACT LU-1: The Proposed Project would conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect.
The Proposed Project would change the City’s General Plan Land Use designation for the Project site
from Open Space to General Commercial. Development of the Project site under the Proposed Project
would result in decreasing the amount of open space land in the City, however, the Project site is not
currently accessible to the public and does not provide existing opportunities for recreation or public
access to open space. The Proposed Project would also amend the General Plan Circulation and Green
Elements to add a Proposed Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area along the northern, eastern and souther n
edges of the Project site. The proposed multi-purpose trail would serve as a southern extension of the
Anaheim Coves Class 1 Bike Path/Riding and Hiking Trail located to the north across Ball Road. The
proposed location of the Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area would provide an opportunity for public
access to views from the Project site of the Santa Ana River and the Santa Ana Mountains that currently
are not publically accessible. Although the Proposed Project would result in development of the site an d
the reduction in the amount of open space within the City, the public would also have the opportunity
to gain greater access to other open space amenities, including views of the Santa Ana River and the
Santa Ana Mountains through the proposed Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study; therefore, impacts would be
considered less than significant.
The Proposed Project would amend the zoning designation of the site from Transitional (T) Zone and
Industrial (I) Zone to the General Commercial (C-G) Zone. The T Zone as intended to provide for land
that is restricted to limited uses because of special conditions (existing groundwater recharge basin), or
not zoned to one of the zoning districts in contained in the City’s zoning code. Removing the Project site
from the T Zone would not result in any significant impacts and is consistent with the land uses in the
surrounding area, which are zoned C-G and O-L (Low Intensity Office) as shown in Figure 2-4. The
amended General Plan land use designation and zoning designation are consistent with the
development pattern of the area surrounding the Project site. Future development on the Project site
would be required to comply with the development standards for the C-G Zone.
Portions of the Project site are within the Floodplain (FP) Overlay Zone and within a flood hazard area as
defined by the local FIRM Map. As discussed in Section 3.8-5, under the Proposed Project, Project site
would be backfilled and graded for development, which would result in the removal of the Project site
from the flood zone. The ultimate flood zone determined for the Project site would match the existing
Zone X designation of developed areas surrounding the Project site, which are not within a flood hazard
area. Therefore, removal of the Project site from the FP Overlay Zone would not result in any land use
impacts.
The proposed Project would not conflict with SCAG’s Final 2016 RTP/SCS’s land use policies. A project
consistency analysis with all relevant Final 2016 RTP/SCS’s land use policies is presented below in Table
3.9-1 Consistency with SCAG’s Final 2016 RTP/SCS Land Use Policies.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
223
Table 3.9-1 Consistency of the Proposed Project with SCAG’s Draft 2016 RTP/SCS Policies
Applicable RTP/SCS Policy Project Consistency Analysis
RTP/SCS Land Use Policy 2: Identify strategic centers based
on a three-tiered system of existing, planned, and potential
relative to transportation infrastructure
Consistent: The Proposed Project would allow future
development of commercial uses south of Ball Road, a
primary arterial highway, with regional access from the SR
57 Ball Road exit. The Project site is served by OCTA bus
route 46. An OCTA bus stop is located on Ball Road, adjacent
to the project site. The Proposed Project would amend the
General Plan Circulation and Green Elements to add a
Proposed Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area along the
northern, eastern and southern edges of the Project site.
The proposed multi-purpose trail would serve as a southern
extension of the Anaheim Coves Class 1 Bike Path/Riding
and Hiking Trail located to the north across Ball Road. In
addition, the Project site is located within an approximate
one mile bike ride or walk from the Anaheim Regional
Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) via the Santa Ana
River Trail.
RTP/SCS Land Use Policy 3: Develop “Complete
Communities.”
Consistent: The Proposed Project would amend the General
Plan Land Use designation for the Project site from Open
Space to General Commercial and the zoning designation
from Transitional (T) Zone and Industrial (I) Zone to the
General Commercial (C-G) Zone to allow for commercial
development of the Project site. As stated above, the
Proposed Project does not include a specific development
plan. Future development projects on the Project site would
be required to comply with the requirements of the
amended General Plan Land Use designation and zoning
designation. Future development would also be required to
adhere to established development standards contained in
the Anaheim Municipal Code and with the goals, policies,
and guidelines contained in the Community Design Element
of the General Plan in order to ensure compatible uses and
design with the surrounding area.
RTP/SCS Land Use Policy 4: Develop nodes on a corridor. Consistent: The Proposed Project would allow future
development of commercial uses south of Ball Road, a
primary arterial highway, with regional access from the SR
57 Ball Road exit. The Project site is served by OCTA bus
route 46. An OCTA bus stop is located on Ball Road, adjacent
to the project site. The Proposed Project would amend the
General Plan Circulation and Green Elements to add a
Proposed Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area along the
northern, eastern and southern edges of the Project site.
The proposed multi-purpose trail would serve as a southern
extension of the Anaheim Coves Class 1 Bike Path/Riding
and Hiking Trail located to the north across Ball Road. In
addition, the Project site is located within an approximate
one mile bike ride or walk from the Anaheim Regional
Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) via the Santa Ana
River Trail.
RTP/SCS Land Use Policy 5: Plan for additional housing and
jobs near transit.
Consistent: The Proposed Project would not include the
development of housing. However, upon buildout of the
Project site, the Proposed Project would provide up to 1,063
jobs. The Project site is served OCTA bus route 46. An OCTA
bus stop is located on Ball Road, adjacent to the Project site.
In addition, the Project site is located within an approximate
one mile bike ride or walk from the Anaheim Regional
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
224
Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) via the Santa Ana
River Trail.
RTP/SCS Land Use Policy 8: Ensure adequate access to open
space and preservation of habitat.
Consistent: The Proposed Project would change the City’s
General Plan Land Use designation for the Project site from
Open Space to General Commercial. Development of the
Project site under the Proposed Project would result in
decreasing the amount of open space land in the City,
however, the Project site is not currently accessible to the
public and does not provide existing opportunities for
recreation or public access to open space. The Proposed
Project would also amend the General Plan Circulation and
Green Elements to add a Proposed Class 1 Bike Path/Trail
Study Area along the northern, eastern and southern edges
of the Project site. The proposed multi-purpose trail would
serve as a southern extension of the Anaheim Coves Class 1
Bike Path/Riding and Hiking Trail located to the north across
Ball Road. The proposed location of the Class 1 Bike
Path/Trail Study Area would provide an opportunity for
public access to views from the Project site of the Santa Ana
River and the Santa Ana Mountains that currently are not
publically accessible. Although the Proposed Project would
result in development of the site and the reduction in the
amount of open space within the City, the public would also
have the opportunity to gain greater access to other open
space amenities, including views of the Santa Ana River and
the Santa Ana Mountains through the proposed Class 1 Bike
Path/Trail Study Area. The Proposed Project would not
result in any impacts to the Santa Ana River. Potential
impacts to wetlands would be mitigated with the
implementation of MM BIO-2.
RTP/SCS Land Use Policy 9: Incorporate local input and
feedback on future growth.
Consistent: Local input regarding the proposed Project has
been requested and received as part of the CEQA process for
the proposed Project.
The Proposed Project would not conflict with the goals and policies contained in the Anaheim General
Plan. A project consistency analysis with all relevant Anaheim General Plan policies is presented in Table
3.9-2 below.
Table 3.9-2 Consistency of the Proposed Project with the Anaheim General Plan
Applicable Goals and Policies Project Consistency Analysis
LAND USE ELEMENT
Goal 3.1: Pursue land uses along major corridors that enhance the City’s image and stimulate
appropriate development at strategic locations.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
225
Applicable Goals and Policies Project Consistency Analysis
Policies:
2. Concentrate commercial uses at key intersections.
3. Ensure quality development along corridors through
adherence to established development standards and
Community Design Element goals, policies and guidelines.
4. Continue to pursue additional open space, recreation, and
landscaping amenities along major transportation routes.
The Proposed Project would allow future development of
commercial uses south of Ball Road and east of SR-57. The
Proposed Project does not have a specific development plan.
Future development projects on the Project site would be
required to adhere to established development standards
contained in the Anaheim Municipal Code and with the
goals, policies, and guidelines contained in the Community
Design Element of the General Plan. Development of the
Project site under the Proposed Project would result in
decreasing the amount of open space land in the City,
however, the Project site is not currently accessible to the
public and does not provide existing opportunities for
recreation or public access to open space. The Proposed
Project would amend the General Plan Circulation and Green
Elements to add a Proposed Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study
Area along the northern, eastern and southern edges of the
Project site. The proposed multi-purpose trail would serve as
a southern extension of the Anaheim Coves Class 1 Bike
Path/Riding and Hiking Trail located to the north across Ball
Road. The proposed location of the Class 1 Bike Path/Trail
Study Area would provide an opportunity for public access
to views from the Project site of the Santa Ana River and the
Santa Ana Mountains that currently are not publically
accessible. Although the Proposed Project would result in
development of the site and the reduction in the amount of
open space within the City, the public would also have the
opportunity to gain greater access to other open space
amenities, including views of the Santa Ana River and the
Santa Ana Mountains through the proposed Class 1 Bike
Path/Trail Study Area.
Goal 3.2: Maximize development opportunities along transportation routes.
Policies:
1. Where appropriate, designate land adjacent to freeways,
proposed Bus Rapid Transit stops and Metrolink stations
for employment intensive land uses.
3. Encourage and provide incentives for the consolidation of
parcels to create development sites that are large enough
to support quality development.
Consistent: The Proposed Project would allow future
development of an obsolete groundwater recharge basin
located on four vacant parcels that are strategically located
in close proximity to SR-57 and has access to bus transit. In
addition, the Project site is located within an approximate
one mile bike ride or walk from the Anaheim Regional
Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) via the Santa Ana
River Trail. Upon buildout of the Project site, the Proposed
Project would provide up to 1,063 jobs.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
226
Applicable Goals and Policies Project Consistency Analysis
Goal 4.1: Promote development that integrates with and minimizes impacts to surrounding land uses.
Policies:
1. Ensure that land uses develop in accordance with the Land
Use Plan and Zoning Code in an effort to attain land use
compatibility.
2. Promote compatible development through adherence to
Community Design Element policies and guidelines.
3. Ensure that developers consider and address project
impacts upon surrounding neighborhoods during the
design and development process.
4. Require new or expanded uses to provide mitigation or
buffers between existing uses where potential adverse
impacts could occur.
5. Require landscape and/or open space buffers to maintain
a natural edge for proposed private development directly
adjacent to natural, public open space areas.
Consistent: The Proposed Project would amend the General
Plan Land Use designation for the Project site from Open
Space to General Commercial and the zoning designation
from Transitional (T) Zone and Industrial (I) Zone to the
General Commercial (C-G) Zone to allow for commercial
development of the Project site. As stated above, the
Proposed Project does not include a specific development
plan. Future development projects on the Project site would
be required to comply with the requirements of the
amended General Plan Land Use designation and zoning
designation. Future development would also be required to
adhere to established development standards contained in
the Anaheim Municipal Code and with the goals, policies,
and guidelines contained in the Community Design Element
of the General Plan in order to ensure compatible uses and
design with the surrounding area. Impacts upon surrounding
areas are evaluated in appropriate sections throughout this
EIR. However, no residential neighborhoods are located
immediately adjacent to the Project site.
Development of the Project site under the Proposed Project
would result in decreasing the amount of open space land in
the City, however, the Project site is not currently accessible
to the public and does not provide existing opportunities for
recreation or public access to open space. The Proposed
Project would amend the General Plan Circulation and Green
Elements to add a Proposed Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study
Area along the northern, eastern and southern edges of the
Project site. The proposed multi-purpose trail would serve as
a southern extension of the Anaheim Coves Class 1 Bike
Path/Riding and Hiking Trail located to the north across Ball
Road. The proposed location of the Class 1 Bike Path/Trail
Study Area would provide an opportunity for public access
to views from the Project site of the Santa Ana River and the
Santa Ana Mountains that currently are not publically
accessible. Although the Proposed Project would result in
development of the site and the reduction in the amount of
open space within the City, the public would also have the
opportunity to gain greater access to other open space
amenities, including views of the Santa Ana River and the
Santa Ana Mountains through the proposed Class 1 Bike
Path/Trail Study Area.
Goal 5.1: Create and enhance dynamic, identifiable places for the benefit of Anaheim residents, employees and visitors.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
227
Applicable Goals and Policies Project Consistency Analysis
Policies:
1. Encourage mixed-use and commercial development that
provides: a) Safe, protected places for pedestrians to walk;
b) Attractive surroundings; c) Opportunities for social
interaction; d) Comfortable places to sit and relax; and
e) Interplay between the interior uses of buildings and
outdoor activities, such as sidewalk cafes or tastefully
designed outdoor merchandise displays.
3. Promote development that is efficient, pedestrian-
friendly, and served by a variety of transportation options.
Consistent: The Proposed Project does not have a specific
development plan. Future development projects on the
Project site would be required to adhere to established
development standards contained in the Anaheim Municipal
Code and with the goals, policies, and guidelines contained
in the Community Design Element of the General Plan.
The Project site is located on Ball Road, a primary arterial
highway, with regional access via the SR 57 Ball Road exit.
The Project site is served by OCTA bus route 46. An OCTA
bus stop is located on Ball Road, adjacent to the project site.
The Proposed Project would amend the General Plan
Circulation and Green Elements to add a Proposed Class 1
Bike Path/Trail Study Area along the northern, eastern and
southern edges of the Project site. The proposed multi-
purpose trail would serve as a southern extension of the
Anaheim Coves Class 1 Bike Path/Riding and Hiking Trail
located to the north across Ball Road. In addition, the Project
site is located within an approximate one mile bike ride or
walk from the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal
Center (ARTIC) via the Santa Ana River Trail.
Goal 6.1: Enhance the quality of life and economic vitality in Anaheim through strategic infill development and revitalization of
existing development.
Policies:
2. Promote the assembly of parcels to allow for more
efficient development patterns wherever adjacent
neighborhoods are not adversely impacted.
Consistent: The Proposed Project would allow future
development of an obsolete groundwater recharge basin
located on four vacant parcels that are strategically located
in close proximity to SR-57. The Project site is located in an
existing commercial area. Surrounding uses include Honda
Center, a business park, the Anaheim Auto Center (primarily
sales with some auto repair), the El Bekel Shrine, the
Phoenix Club, and the Anaheim Equestrian Center Rancho
Del Rio Stable. Residential developments are located to the
west across SR-57 and to the northwest across Burris Basin.
The Proposed Project is intended to serve the existing
residential communities.
Goal 11.1: Preserve and enhance the character of East Anaheim neighborhoods and revitalize aging multiple-family residential
neighborhoods and commercial areas.
Policies:
2. Ensure quality development and enhance the area’s image
through Zoning Code standards and Community Design
Element policies and guidelines.
Consistent: As previously stated, the Proposed Project does
not have a specific development plan. Future development
projects on the Project site would be consistent with the
surrounding area and would be required to adhere to
established development standards contained in the
Anaheim Municipal Code and with the goals, policies, and
guidelines contained in the Community Design Element of
the General Plan.
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Goal 1.1: Provide a comprehensive multimodal transportation system that facilitates current and long-term circulation of
people and goods in and through the City.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
228
Applicable Goals and Policies Project Consistency Analysis
Policies:
3. Require that major new development proposals include
traffic impact analyses that identify measures and
financing to mitigate traffic impacts.
6. Ensure the provision of needed transportation
improvements through the site plan and environmental
review process.
Consistent: A traffic impact analysis was prepared for this
Project. Impacts to transportation and traffic from the
Proposed Project are evaluated in Section 3.14. Mitigation
measures are provided to reduce potential impacts. In
addition, the Proposed Project includes an amendment to
the General Plan Circulation and Green Elements to add a
Proposed Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area along the
northern, eastern and southern edges of the Project site.
The proposed multi-purpose trail would serve as a southern
extension of the Anaheim Coves Class 1 Bike Path/Riding and
Hiking Trail located to the north across Ball Road.
Goal 1.2: Support improvements to highways passing near and through the City.
Policies:
1. Continue working with Caltrans, the Federal Highway
Administration and the Federal Transit Administration to
address traffic flow along State highways that traverse the
City.
2. Work with Caltrans to identify needed improvements to
its facilities in the City as necessary.
3. Work with Caltrans and adjacent jurisdictions to improve
the operational performance of highways within and
adjacent to the City.
4. Work with Caltrans in analyzing the performance of
freeway interchanges located in the City and seek
appropriate improvements.
Consistent: The traffic impact analysis prepared for the
Proposed Project identified impacts to Caltrans facilities. A
detailed impact discussion and evaluation is provided in
Section 3.14. Mitigation measures are provided to reduce
impacts to Caltrans facilities.
Goal 2.1: Maintain efficient traffic operations on City streets and maintain a peak hour level of service not worse than D at
street intersections.
Policies:
1. Make improvements to streets and intersections
experiencing conditions worse than the applicable Level of
Service standard by providing appropriate improvements/
3. Install new warranted signals as funding permits, with
minimum preferred spacing of 1,000 feet apart.
Consistent: As previously stated, a traffic impact analysis
was prepared for this Project. Impacts to transportation and
traffic from the Proposed Project are discussed and analyzed
in Section 3.14. Roadways that would experience a peak
hour LOS worse than D would be required to implement
mitigation measures to reduce impacts.
Goal 2.3: Improve regional access for City residents and workers.
Policies:
1. Continue to implement the State-mandated Congestion
Management Program and Orange County’s Growth
Management Program.
Consistent: The traffic impact analysis prepared for the
Proposed Project identified impacts to CMP facilities. A
detailed impact discussion and evaluation is provided in
Section 3.14. Mitigation measures are provided to reduce
impacts to CMP facilities.
GREEN ELEMENT
Goal 2.1: Preserve views of ridgelines, natural open space and other scenic vistas wherever possible.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
229
Applicable Goals and Policies Project Consistency Analysis
Policies:
2. Encourage development that preserves natural contours
and views of existing backdrop ridgelines or prominent
views.
3. Site parks, nature centers and trails to take advantage of
natural vistas.
Consistent: The Proposed Project would amend the General
Plan Circulation and Green Elements to add a Proposed Class
1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area along the northern, eastern and
southern edges of the Project site. The proposed multi-
purpose trail would serve as a southern extension of the
Anaheim Coves Class 1 Bike Path/Riding and Hiking Trail
located to the north across Ball Road. The proposed location
of the Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area would provide an
opportunity for public access to views from the Project site
of the Santa Ana River and the Santa Ana Mountains that
currently are not publically accessible. Although the
Proposed Project would result in development of the site
and the reduction in the amount of open space within the
City, the public would also have the opportunity to gain
greater access to other open space amenities, including
views of the Santa Ana River and the Santa Ana Mountains
through the proposed Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area.
Goal 4.1: Maximize the recreational and scenic potential of existing reservoirs, basins and waterways.
Policies:
2. Support the County of Orange to continue in their efforts
to upgrade and maintain the Santa Ana River Trail.
3. Work with the County of Orange and the Orange County
Water District to maintain and improve the recreational
and scenic resources of the Anaheim Lakes and Five Coves
areas and other appropriate water resource areas,
including retarding basins and reservoirs.
Consistent: The Proposed Project would allow future
commercial development of an obsolete OCWD
groundwater recharge basin. The Proposed Project would
result in the reduction of open space, however, the Project
site is not currently accessible to the public and does not
provide existing opportunities for recreation or public access
to open space. The Proposed Project would amend the
General Plan Circulation and Green Elements to add a
Proposed Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area along the
northern, eastern and southern edges of the Project site.
The proposed multi-purpose trail would serve as a southern
extension of the Anaheim Coves Class 1 Bike Path/Riding and
Hiking Trail located to the north across Ball Road. The
proposed location of the Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area
would provide an opportunity for public access to views
from the Project site of the Santa Ana River and the Santa
Ana Mountains that currently are not publically accessible.
Although the Proposed Project would result in development
of the site and the reduction in the amount of open space
within the City, the public would also have the opportunity
to gain greater access to other open space amenities,
including views of the Santa Ana River and the Santa Ana
Mountains through the proposed Class 1 Bike Path/Trail
Study Area. In addition, the Project site is located within an
approximate one mile bike ride or walk from the Anaheim
Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) via the
Santa Ana River Trail.
Goal 8.1: Reduce locally generated emissions through improved traffic flows and construction management practices.
Policies:
2. Regulate construction practices, including grading, dust
suppression, chemical management, and encourage pre-
determined construction routes that minimize dust and
particulate matter pollution.
Consistent: An air quality analysis was prepared for the
Proposed Project. Impacts to air quality from the Proposed
Project are discussed in detail in Section 3.2. Mitigation
measures are provided to minimize emissions from the
Proposed Project.
Goal 9.1: Reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
230
Applicable Goals and Policies Project Consistency Analysis
Policies:
4. Encourage bicycle and pedestrian travel by improving the
City’s trail and bikeway master plan and by providing
convenient links between the trail system and desired
destinations.
Consistent: The Proposed Project would amend the General
Plan Circulation and Green Elements to add a Proposed Class
1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area along the northern, eastern and
southern edges of the Project site. The proposed multi-
purpose trail would serve as a southern extension of the
Anaheim Coves Class 1 Bike Path/Riding and Hiking Trail
located to the north across Ball Road.
Goal 11.1: Encourage land planning and urban design that support alternatives to the private automobile such as mixed-use,
provision of pedestrian amenities, and transit-oriented development.
Policies:
1. Encourage commercial growth and the development of
commercial centers in accordance with the Land Use
Element.
3. Encourage retail commercial uses in or near residential
areas and employment centers to lessen vehicle trips.
5. Encourage a diverse mix of retail uses within commercial
centers to encourage one-stop shopping.
Consistent: The Proposed Project would amend the General
Plan Land Use designation for the Project site from Open
Space to General Commercial and the zoning designation
from Transitional (T) Zone and Industrial (I) Zone to the
General Commercial (C-G) Zone to allow for commercial
development of the Project site. Future commercial
development on the Project site is intended to serve the
existing residential communities west of SR-57 and
northwest of Burris Basin.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT
Goal 1.1: Provide sufficient staffing, equipment and facilities to ensure effective fire protection, emergency medical and
rescue services, permitting and fire inspection, and hazardous material response services that keep pace with growth.
Policies:
1. Maintain adequate resources to enable the Fire
Department to meet response time standards, keep pace
with growth, and provide high levels of service.
Consistent: Future development on the Project site would
be required comply with requirements and pay the
appropriate impact fees in effect at the time building
permits are issued in order to reduce potential impacts to
fire services.
Goal 2.1: Meet the community’s needs for public safety and law enforcement by ensuring adequate resources for the
prevention, detection, and investigation of crime, and response to calls for service.
Policies:
1. Maintain adequate resources to enable the Police
Department to meet response time standards, keep pace
with growth, and provide high levels of service.
Consistent: Future development on the Project site would
be required comply with requirements and pay the
appropriate impact fees in effect at the time building
permits are issued in order to reduce potential impacts to
police services.
Goal 4.1: Provide a water system that produces high quality water, sufficient water pressure, and necessary quantities of
water to meet domestic demands.
Policies:
1. Provide for the efficient and economic distribution of
adequate water supply and pressure to all residential,
commercial, industrial, and public areas served by the
Public Utilities Department.
Consistent: The Proposed Project would allow future
development of an obsolete groundwater recharge basin. As
discussed in Section 3.15, based on the projected water
supply provided in the General Plan EIR, the APUD has
adequate supplies to serve 425,000 square feet of future
commercial development.
Goal 5.1: Provide a safe and effective sewer system that meets the needs of the City’s residents, businesses, and visitors.
Policies:
1. Ensure that appropriate sewer system mitigation
measures are identified and implemented in conjunction
with new development based on the recommendations of
prior sewer studies and/or future sewer studies that may
be required by the City Engineer.
Consistent: A sewer study was prepared for the Proposed
Project that incorporated the findings of prior sewer studies
completed for the Project site and for adjacent areas.
Impacts to the sewer system are discussed and analyzed in
detail in Section 3.15. The analysis concluded that impacts
were less than significant and mitigation measures were not
required.
Goal 6.1: Maintain a storm drain system that will adequately protect and enhance the health, safety and general welfare of
residents, visitors, employees, and their property.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
231
Applicable Goals and Policies Project Consistency Analysis
Policies:
1. Improve the City’s storm drain system to address current
deficiencies as well as long-term needs associated with
future development to minimize flood damage and
adequately convey rainfall and subsequent runoff from a
25-year frequency storm.
2. Develop Anaheim’s flood control system for multi-purpose
uses whenever practical and financially feasible (i.e.,
recreational, water quality/treatment, infiltration, etc.).
4. Minimize the disturbance of natural water bodies and
natural drainage systems, where feasible, resulting from
development including roads, highways, and bridges.
Consistent: The Proposed Project would reroute and
increase the capacity of the CSD system to accommodate
current 100-year peak flows. Off-site local drainage facilities
would also be rerouted. A detailed discussion of the
drainage system and potential Project impacts is provided in
Section 3.8.
Goal 7.1: Minimize, recycle and dispose of solid and hazardous waste in an efficient and environmentally sound manner.
Policies:
1. Ensure that solid waste generated within the City is
collected and transported in a cost-effective manner that
protects the public health and safety.
Consistent: The Proposed Project would not exceed the solid
waste capacity of the Olinda Alpha Landfill.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Goal 1.1 Provide a balance of housing options and job opportunities throughout the City.
Policies:
3. Ensure a balance of retail, office, industrial and residential
land uses to enhance the economic base of the City when
considering land use changes.
Consistent: The Proposed Project would promote the
development of retail and commercial uses that would serve
existing residential communities located west and northwest
of the Project site and would provide 1,063 additional jobs
at buildout that would enhance the economic base of the
City.
Goal 1.3: Establish Citywide development priorities that efficiently use existing infrastructure and public facilities.
Policies:
1. Encourage development of vacant and underutilized infill
sites where public services and infrastructure are available
or can be efficiently accommodated.
2. Focus redevelopment and/or revitalization efforts in areas
conducive to current or future employment and/or
housing opportunities as appropriate and continue to
provide incentives for private investment in those areas.
Consistent: The Proposed Project would allow future
development of an obsolete groundwater recharge basin.
Development of the Project site would include the
construction of onsite infrastructure that would connect to
the existing City infrastructure. Upon buildout of the Project
site, the Proposed Project would create up to 1,063 new jobs
in the City.
Goal 1.4: Develop land use strategies and incentives to reduce the amount of vehicle miles traveled within the City.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
232
Applicable Goals and Policies Project Consistency Analysis
Policies:
1. Promote the location of housing near and/or within
employment centers to enable shorter commutes and
encourage transit-oriented, home-to-work mobility.
Consistent: The Proposed Project would allow future
development of commercial uses that could result in
approximately 1,063 new jobs. The Project site is located
south of Ball Road, a primary arterial highway, with regional
access from the SR 57 Ball Road exit. The Project site is
served by OCTA bus route 46. An OCTA bus stop is located
on Ball Road, adjacent to the project site. In addition, the
Project site is located within an approximate one mile bike
ride or walk from the Anaheim Regional Transportation
Intermodal Center (ARTIC) via the Santa Ana River Trail.
Furthermore, the Proposed Project would amend the
General Plan Circulation and Green Elements to add a
Proposed Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area along the
northern, eastern and southern edges of the Project site.
The proposed multi-purpose trail would serve as a southern
extension of the Anaheim Coves Class 1 Bike Path/Riding and
Hiking Trail located to the north across Ball Road. In
addition to being accessible by transit, and providing
addition pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to existing
multipurpose trails, the Proposed Project is located close
proximity to existing residential communities to the west of
SR-57 and northwest of Burris Basin, which should further
reduce vehicle miles traveled by providing commercial uses
in close proximity to residential land uses.
Goal 2.2: Evaluate the traffic-related impacts of proposed developments and/or intensification of existing land uses and
address said impacts.
Policies:
1. Continue to review development projects to ensure
traffic-related impacts are addressed appropriately.
5. Require development projects that exceed LOS standards
beyond acceptable levels to provide necessary
improvements and/or funding to mitigate said impacts, if
determined necessary by the City.
Consistent: As previously stated, a traffic impact analysis
was prepared for this Project. Impacts to transportation and
traffic from the Proposed Project are discussed and analyzed
in Section 3.14. Roadways that would experience a peak
hour LOS worse than D would be required to implement
mitigation measures to reduce impacts.
SAFETY ELEMENT
Goal 1.1: Minimize the risk to public health and safety and disruptions to vital services, economic vitality, and social order
resulting from seismic and geologic activities.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
233
Applicable Goals and Policies Project Consistency Analysis
Policies:
1. Minimize the risk to life and property through the
identification of potentially hazardous areas, adherence to
proper construction design criteria, and provision of public
information.
2. Require geologic and geotechnical investigations in areas
of potential seismic or geologic hazards as part of the
environmental and/or development review process for all
structures and enforce structural setbacks from faults that
are identified through those investigations.
3. Enforce the requirements of the California Seismic
Hazards Mapping and Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Acts when siting, evaluating, and constructing new
projects within the City.
7. Require that new construction and significant alterations
to structures located within potential landslide areas
(Figure S-2) be evaluated for site stability, including the
potential impact to other properties, during project design
and review.
Consistent: A preliminary geotechnical assessment was
prepared for the Proposed Project. The Project is not located
within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake or within a landslide
area. Section 3.5 identifies geological impacts and provides
mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts.
Goal 3.1: Reduce, to the greatest extent possible, the risk to life, property, public investment, and social order created by
flood hazards.
Policies:
1. Evaluate all development proposals located in areas that
are subject to flooding to minimize the exposure of life
and property to potential flood risks.
2. Provide appropriate land use regulations and site
development standards for areas subject to flooding.
3. Encourage new development to maintain and enhance
existing natural streams, as feasible.
4. Continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance
Program.
5. Continue to comply with the Cobey-Alquist Floodplain
Management Act requirements and State of California
Model Ordinance.
6. Continue to work with the Orange County Flood Control
District and the United States Army Corps of Engineers to
receive and implement updated flood control measures
and information.
7. Utilize flood control methods that are consistent with
Regional Water Quality Control Board Policies and Best
Management Practices (BMPs).
Consistent: The Proposed Project would backfilled and
graded the BRB for development. Future development on
the Project site would be located outside of the flood zone.
The ultimate flood zoning of the Project site would match
the existing developed areas surrounding the Project site
and would receive a Zone X designation which is not within a
flood hazard area. The on-site storm drain system for the
Proposed Project would also be designed to accommodate
the 100-year flood.
Goal 4.1 Decrease the risk of exposure for life, property and the environment to hazardous materials and hazardous waste.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
234
Applicable Goals and Policies Project Consistency Analysis
Policies:
1. Follow the response procedures outlined within the
Anaheim Fire Department’s Hazardous Materials Area
Plan in the event of a hazardous materials emergency.
2. Promote the proper handling, treatment and disposal of
hazardous materials and hazardous waste.
3. Encourage businesses to utilize practices and technologies
that will reduce the generation of hazardous wastes at the
source.
4. Implement Federal, State and local regulations for the
disposal, handling, and storage of hazardous materials.
5. Promote the recovery and recycling of hazardous
materials.
6. Employ effective emergency preparedness and emergency
response strategies to minimize the impacts to health and
safety that can result from hazardous materials
emergencies such as spills or contamination.
7. Continually update maps of the City’s emergency facilities,
evacuation routes and hazardous areas to reflect additions
or modifications.
8. Continue to partner with the County of Orange to provide
needed programs such as the Regional Household
Hazardous Waste Collection Center to provide disposal of
household hazards at no cost to Anaheim residents and
participating agencies.
Consistent: Future development of the Project site could
result in up to 425,000 square feet of commercial
development, which could involve the use or generation of
hazardous materials and/or emissions, as well as other
hazards. During construction and/or operation of the project
the use, transport and disposal of hazardous materials shall
be in accordance with local, state and federal regulations.
Furthermore, the AFD permits and regulates the use of
hazardous materials in order to ensure that risks associated
with the use of hazardous materials in the community are
minimized. The hazardous materials control and safety
programs and available emergency response resources of
the AFD, along with periodic inspections to ensure
regulatory compliance, reduce the potential risk of upset
and exposure to hazardous materials associated with nearby
commercial and industrial businesses. Future developments
on the Project site would be required to comply with AFD
regulations for use of hazardous materials. State law also
requires any businesses handling hazardous materials
prepare a business plan to ensure that hazardous materials
are properly handled, used, stored, and disposed of and to
prevent or mitigate injury to human health or the
environment in the event that such materials are
accidentally released.
Goal 5.1 Minimize the risk to life and property through emergency preparedness and public awareness.
Policies:
1. Ensure the availability of both the Safety Element and City
emergency preparedness plans to employers and
residents of Anaheim.
2. Coordinate disaster preparedness and recovery with other
governmental agencies.
3. Evaluate the adequacy of access routes to and from
hazard areas relative to the degree of development or use
(e.g. road width, road type, length of dead-end roads,
etc.).
4. Assess the potential for disruption to evacuation routes
from landslide movement, fault ruptures, and failures
caused by earthquakes.
5. Appropriately locate and coordinate emergency services
including fire, police, and ambulance services.
Consistent: As stated previously, the AFD permits and
regulates the use of hazardous materials in order to ensure
that risks associated with the use of hazardous materials in
the community are minimized. The hazardous materials
control and safety programs and available emergency
response resources of the AFD, along with periodic
inspections to ensure regulatory compliance, reduce the
potential risk of upset and exposure to hazardous materials
associated with nearby commercial and industrial
businesses. Future developments on the Project site would
be required to comply with AFD regulations for use of
hazardous materials. State law also requires any businesses
handling hazardous materials prepare a business plan to
ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled, used,
stored, and disposed of and to prevent or mitigate injury to
human health or the environment in the event that such
materials are accidentally released.
NOISE ELEMENT
Goal 1.1 Protect sensitive land uses from excessive noise through diligent planning and regulation.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
235
Applicable Goals and Policies Project Consistency Analysis
Policies:
2. Continue to enforce acceptable noise standards consistent
with health and quality of life goals and employ effective
techniques of noise abatement through such means as a
noise ordinance, building codes, and subdivision and
zoning regulations.
3. Consider the compatibility of proposed land uses with the
noise environment when preparing, revising or reviewing
development proposals.
5. Encourage proper site planning and architecture to reduce
noise impacts.
7. Require that site-specific noise studies be conducted by a
qualified acoustic consultant utilizing acceptable
methodologies while reviewing the development of
sensitive land uses or development that has the potential
to impact sensitive land uses.
Consistent: A noise study was conducted for the Proposed
Project which evaluated impacts to adjacent land uses. A
discussion of impacts to noise levels as a result of the
Proposed Project is provided in Section 3.10. Mitigation
measures are provided to reduce potential impacts.
Goal 2.1: Encourage the reduction of noise from transportation-related noise sources such as motor vehicles, aircraft
operations, and railroad movements.
Policies:
3. Require that development generating increased traffic and
subsequent increases in the ambient noise level adjacent
to noise-sensitive land uses provide appropriate mitigation
measures.
4.
Consistent: The noise study conducted for the Proposed
Project found that ambient noise levels from increased
traffic as a result of future development would not exceed
established thresholds. A detailed discussion of noise
impacts is provided in Section 3.10.
Goal 3.1: Protect residents from the effects of “spill over” or nuisance noise emanating from the City’s activity centers.
Policies:
1. Discourage new projects located in commercial or
entertainment areas from exceeding stationary-source
noise standards at the property line of proximate
residential or commercial uses, as appropriate.
2.
3. Enforce standards to regulate noise from construction
activities. Particular emphasis shall be placed on the
restriction of the hours in which work other than
emergency work may occur. Discourage construction on
weekends or holidays except in the case of construction
proximate to schools where these operations could
disturb the classroom environment.
4. Require that construction equipment operate with
mufflers and intake silencers no less effective than
originally equipped.
5.
Consistent: The noise study found that construction noise
levels would exceed the City of Anaheim stationary noise
standard and impacts would be potentially significant.
Construction noise impacts would be less than significant in
the City of Orange. A mitigation measure is provided which
would require the Property Owner/Developer to restrict
construction activities from occurring between 7:00 p.m.
and 7:00 a.m. and require that all construction equipment
operate with mufflers and intake silencers. Further
discussion of noise impacts are provided in Section 3.10
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
Goal 2.2: Enhance the quality of commercial development along major corridors.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
236
Applicable Goals and Policies Project Consistency Analysis
Policies:
3. Ensure that the development of new commercial centers
provide for quality design, pedestrian amenities,
convenient access, and distinctive architecture.
Consistent: The Proposed Project would allow future
development of commercial uses south of Ball Road, a
primary arterial highway, with regional access from the SR
57 Ball Road exit. The Project site is served by OCTA bus
route 46. An OCTA bus stop is located on Ball Road, adjacent
to the project site. The Proposed Project would amend the
General Plan Circulation and Green Elements to add a
Proposed Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area along the
northern, eastern and southern edges of the Project site.
The proposed multi-purpose trail would serve as a southern
extension of the Anaheim Coves Class 1 Bike Path/Riding and
Hiking Trail located to the north across Ball Road. In
addition, the Project site is located within an approximate
one mile bike ride or walk from the Anaheim Regional
Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) via the Santa Ana
River Trail.
The Proposed Project does not have a specific development
plan. Future development projects on the Project site would
be required to adhere to established development standards
contained in the Anaheim Municipal Code and with the
goals, policies, and guidelines contained in the Community
Design Element of the General Plan.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation required.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Less Than Significant.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The Proposed Project would be consistent with applicable plans, programs, policies, and regulations of
the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and SCAG’s RTP/SCS, as provided in detail above. The Proposed
Project would allow commercial development of an obsolete groundwater recharge basin, on four
vacant parcels, strategically located on Ball Road, a primary arterial highway, in close proximity to SR-57
and nearby residential neighborhood. The Project site is served by OCTA bus route 46 and has a bus stop
is located on Ball Road, adjacent to the project site. In addition, the Project site is located within an
approximate one mile bike ride or walk from the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center
(ARTIC) via the Santa Ana River Trail. Development in accordance with the General Commercial land use
designation could result in development of up to 425,000 square feet of commercial uses and
approximately 1,063 new jobs.
Although, the Proposed Project would result in decreasing the amount of open space land i n the City
and associated aesthetic impacts, the Project site is not currently accessible to the public and does not
provide existing opportunities for recreation or public access to open space. The Proposed Project would
amend the General Plan Circulation and Green Elements to add a Proposed Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study
Area along the northern, eastern and southern edges of the Project site. The proposed multi-purpose
trail would serve as a southern extension of the Anaheim Coves Class 1 Bike Path/Riding and Hiking Trail
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
237
located to the north across Ball Road. The proposed location of the Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area
would provide an opportunity for public access of views from the Project site of the Santa Ana River and
the Santa Ana Mountains that currently are not publically accessible. Although the Proposed Project
would result in development of the site and the reduction in the amount of open space within the City,
the public would also have the opportunity to gain greater access to other open space amenities,
including views of the Santa Ana River and the Santa Ana Mountains through the proposed Class 1 Bike
Path/Trail Study Area. The Proposed Project allows for additional jobs, commercial uses, and other
support services and uses supported by necessary infrastructure and sustainable features. Future
development of the Proposed Project site would be subject to compliance with the local and regional
plans, programs, and policies reviewed in order to ensure orderly urban development. Implementation
of cumulative development in accordance with the City’s General Plan in conjunction with the Proposed
Project would not result cumulatively considerable land use impacts.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
238
3.10. NOISE
3.10.1 INTRODUCTION
This section describes the existing noise conditions at the Project site and analyzes potential noise
impacts as a result of the Proposed Project. Information presented in this section is based on the Noise
Impact Analysis prepared by Vista Environmental and dated February 15, 2017, and included as
Appendix H of this Draft EIR.
NOISE FUNDAMENTALS
Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal
activities, when it causes actual physical harm or when it has adverse effects on health. The vibration of
sound pressure waves in the air produces sound. Sound pressure levels are used to measure the
intensity of sound and are described in terms of decibels. The decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit that
expresses the ratio of the sound pressure level being measured to a standard reference level. A-
weighted decibel (dBA) approximates the subjective response of the human ear to a broad frequency
noise source by discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They
are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies that are audible to the human ear.
Noise Descriptors
Noise equivalent sound levels are not measured directly, but are calculated from sound pressure levels
typically measured in dBA. The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level
containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. The peak traffic
hour Leq is the noise metric used by Caltrans for all traffic noise impact analyses.
The Day-Night Average Level (Ldn) is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections
for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time of day corrections require the addition of ten
decibels to sound levels at night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The Community Noise Equivalent
Level (CNEL) is similar to the Ldn, except that it has another addition of 4.77 d B to sound levels during
the evening hours between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. These additions are made to the sound levels at
these time periods because during the evening and nighttime hours, when compared to daytime hours,
there is a decrease in the ambient noise levels, which creates an increased sensitivity to sounds. For this
reason, the sound appears louder in the evening and nighttime hours and is weighted accordingly. The
City relies on the CNEL noise standard to assess transportation-related impacts on noise sensitive land
uses.
Another noise descriptor that is used primarily for the assessment of aircraft noise impacts is the Sound
Exposure Level, which is also called the Single Event Level (SEL). The SEL descriptor represents the
acoustic energy of a single event (i.e., an aircraft overflight) normalized to one-second event duration.
This is useful for comparing the acoustical energy of different events involv ing different durations of the
noise sources. The SEL is based on an integration of the noise during the period when the noise first
rises within 10 dBA of its maximum value and last falls below 10 dBA of its maximum value. The SEL is
often greater than 10 dBA or more than the LMAX since the SEL logarithmically adds the Leq for each
second of the duration of the noise.
Tone Noise
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
239
A pure tone noise is a noise produced at a single frequency and laboratory tests have shown that
humans are more perceptible to changes in noise levels of a pure tone. For a noise source to contain a
“pure tone,” there must be a significantly higher A-weighted sound energy in a given frequency band
than in the neighboring bands, thereby causing the noise source to “stand out” again st other noise
sources. According to the Los Angeles County Municipal Code Section 12.08.310, the City of Larkspur
Municipal Code Section 9.54.010, the City of Long Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.80.020, Santa Clara
County Municipal Code Section B11-151, and the Los Banos Municipal Code Section 9-3.2702, a pure
tone occurs if the sound pressure level in the one-third octave band with the tone exceeds the average
of the sound pressure levels of the two contiguous one-third octave bands by:
▪ 5 dB for center frequencies of 500 hertz (Hz) and above
▪ 8 dB for center frequencies between 160 and 400 Hz
▪ 15 dB for center frequencies of 125 Hz or less
Noise Propagation
From the noise source to the receiver, noise changes both in level and frequency spectrum. The most
obvious is the decrease in noise as the distance from the source increases. The manner in which noise
reduces with distance depends on whether the source is a point or line source as well as ground
absorption, atmospheric effects and refraction, and shielding by natural and manmade features. Sound
from point sources, such as air conditioning condensers, radiate uniformly outward as it travels away
from the source in a spherical pattern. The noise drop-off rate associated with this geometric spreading
is 6 dBA per each doubling of the distance (dBA/DD). Transportation noise sources such as roadways are
typically analyzed as line sources, since at any given moment the receiver may be impacted by noise
from multiple vehicles at various locations along the roadway. Because of the geometry of a line source,
the noise drop-off rate associated with the geometric spreading of a line source is 3 dBA/DD.
Ground Absorption
The sound drop-off rate is highly dependent on the conditions of the land between the noise source and
receiver. To account for this ground-effect attenuation (absorption), two types of site conditions are
commonly used in traffic noise models, soft-site and hard-site conditions. Soft-site conditions account
for the sound propagation loss over natural surfaces such as normal earth and ground vegetation. For
point sources, a drop-off rate of 7.5 dBA/DD is typically observed over soft ground with landscaping, as
compared with a 6.0 dBA/DD drop-off rate over hard ground such as asphalt, concrete, stone and very
hard packed earth. For line sources a 4.5 dBA/DD drop-off rate is typically observed for soft-site
conditions compared to the 3.0 dBA/DD drop-off rate for hard-site conditions. According to Caltrans
Technical Noise Supplement, November 2009, that the use of soft-site conditions provides more
accurate results and is more appropriate for the application of the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) traffic noise prediction model used in this analysis.
GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION FUNDAMENTALS
Ground-borne vibrations consist of rapidly fluctuating motions within the ground that have an average
motion of zero. The effects of ground-borne vibrations typically only cause a nuisance to people, but at
extreme vibration levels damage to buildings may occur. Although ground-borne vibration can be felt
outdoors, it is typically only an annoyance to people indoors where the associated effects of the shaking
of a building can be notable. Ground-borne noise is an effect of ground-borne vibration and only exists
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
240
indoors; since it is produced from noise radiated from the motion of the walls and floors of a room and
may also consist of the rattling of windows or dishes on shelves.
Vibration Descriptors
There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibrat ion amplitude such as the maximum
instantaneous peak in the vibrations velocity, which is known as the peak particle velocity (PPV) or the
root mean square (rms) amplitude of the vibration velocity. Due to the typically small amplitudes of
vibrations, vibration velocity is often expressed in decibels and is denoted as (Lv) and is based on the
rms velocity amplitude. A commonly used abbreviation is “VdB”, which is when Lv is based on the
reference quantity of 1 micro inch per second.
Vibration Perception
Typically, developed areas are continuously affected by vibration velocities of 50 VdB or lower. These
continuous vibrations are not noticeable to humans since according to Transit Noise and Vibration
Impact Analysis, prepared by Federal Transit Administration, May 2006, the threshold of perception for
humans is around 65 VdB. Off-site sources that may produce perceptible vibrations are usually caused
by construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads, while smooth roads rarely
produce perceptible ground-borne noise or vibration.
3.10.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
To determine the existing noise level environment, noise measurements have been taken in the vicinity
of the Project site. The field survey noted that noise within the Proposed Project area is generally
characterized by vehicular traffic on the nearby roadways. The following describes the measurement
procedures, measurement locations, noise measurement results, and the modeling of the existing noise
environment.
NOISE MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT
The year 2013 noise measurements were taken using four Extech Model 407780 Type 2 integrating
sound level meters. The year 2016 noise measurements were taken using two Extech Model 407780
Type 2 integrating sound level meters and two Larson Davis Model LXT1 Type 1 sound level meters. All
sound level meters were programmed in “slow” mode. The Extech meters recorded the sound pressure
level at 3-second intervals and the Larson Davis meters recorded the sound pressure level at 1-second
intervals. All sound level meters recorded noise levels for approximately 24 hours in “A” weighted form.
In addition, the Leq averaged over the entire measuring time and Lmax were recorded with all sound level
meters. The sound level meters and microphones were mounted on trees or fences approximately six
feet above the ground and were equipped with windscreens during all measurements. The Extech sound
level meters were calibrated before and after the monitoring using an Extech calibrator, Model 407766
and the Larson Davis meters were calibrated before and after the monitoring using a Larson Davis
Cal200 calibrator. All noise level measurement equipment meets American National Standards Institute
specifications for sound level meters (S1.4-1983 identified in Chapter 19.68.020.AA).
Noise Measurement Locations
The noise monitoring locations were selected in order to obtain noise measurements of the current
noise levels in the Project study area and to provide a baseline for any potential noise impacts that may
be created by development of the Proposed Project. The noise measurement sites were selected to
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
241
provide a representative sampling of the noise levels created by nearby noise sources as well as
experienced by nearby sensitive receptors17. Descriptions of the noise monitoring sites are provided
below in Table 3.10-1 and Figure 3.10-1, Noise Measurement Locations shows the noise monitoring site
locations.
Noise Measurement Timing and Climate
The noise measurements were recorded between 3:48 p.m. on Monday March 4, 2013 and 4:30 p.m. on
Tuesday, March 5, 2013 and then were repeated between 9:51 a.m. on Monday, November 14, 2016
and 10:24 a.m. on Tuesday, November 15, 2016.
When the 2013 noise measurements were started the sky was partly cloudy, the temperature was 65
degrees Fahrenheit, the humidity was 54 percent, barometric pressure was 29.65 inches of mercury,
and there was no wind. Overnight the sky was partly cloudy and the temperature dropped to 48 degrees
Fahrenheit. At the conclusion of the 2013 noise measurements, the sky was cloudy, the temperature
was 63 degrees Fahrenheit, the humidity was 62 percent, barometric pressure was 29.83 inches of
mercury, and the wind was blowing around four miles per hour.
When the 2016 noise measurements were started the sky was partly cloudy, the temperature was 80
degrees Fahrenheit, the humidity was 19 percent, barometric pressure was 30.16 inches of mercury,
and the wind was blowing around 3 miles per hour. Overnight there were low clouds and the
temperature dropped to 56 degrees Fahrenheit. At the conclusion of the 2016 noise measurements, the
sky was partly cloudy, the temperature was 71 degrees Fahrenheit, the humidity was 53 percent,
barometric pressure was 30.08 inches of mercury, and there was no wind.
NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
The results of the 2013 noise level measurements are presented in Table 3.10-1 and the 2016 noise level
measurements are presented in Table 3.10-2. The measured sound pressure levels in dBA have been
used to calculate the minimum and maximum Leq averaged over 1-hour intervals. Table 3.10-1 also
shows the Leq, Lmax, and CNEL, based on the entire measurement time. Figure 3.10-2, 2013 Field Noise
Measurement Graph and Figure 3.10-3, 2016 Field Noise Measurement Graph, show graphs of the 24-
hour noise measurements, which is based on a running average of the 1-hour Leq, it is shorter than a 24-
hour period since due to using a running 1-hour Leq complete data was not available for the first 30
minutes and last 30 minutes (e.g. for the time represented as 10:30 a.m. on the graph, the graph shows
the one hour average from 10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m.). Figure 3.10-3 utilized two different types of noise
meters, so it was not possible to provide the data in one table as is shown in Figure 3.10-2. However, it
should be noted that 24 hours of data was used to prepare the graph.
17 Noise-sensitive receptors are generally considered to be humans who are engaged in activities or who are u tilizing land uses that may be
subject to the stress of significant interference from noise. Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include those uses where noise
exposure could result in health-related risks to individuals, as well as places where quiet is an essential element of the intended purpose.
Residential dwellings are of primary concern because of the potential for increased and prolonged exposure to excessive, dist urbing, or offensive
interior or exterior noise levels. Additional land uses such as parks, historic sites, cemeteries, and recreation areas are also considered sensitive
to increases in exterior noise levels. Schools, places of worship, hotels, libraries, offices, and other places where low interior noise levels are
essential are also considered noise-sensitive land uses. Commercial and industrial land uses are usually not considered noise-sensitive receptors.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
242
Table 3.10-1 Year 2013 (Ambient) Noise Level Measurements
Site
No. Site Description
Average
(dBA Leq)
Maximum
(dBA Lmax)
Min. 1-Hour
Interval (dBA
Leq/Time)
Max. 1-Hour
Interval (dBA
Leq/Time)
Average
(dBA
CNEL)
A
Located northwest of the Project site
approximately 10 feet from rear yard
of nearest home to Project site,
approximately 320 feet north of Ball
Road centerline and 490 feet east of
SR-57 centerline.
58.0 74.2 49.8
2:19 AM
61.5
11:36 AM 62.1
B
Located west of the Project site in the
parking lot for El Bekal Shrine Center,
approximately 100 feet west of
Phoenix Club Drive centerline and 110
feet south of Sanderson Avenue
centerline.
53.2 83.0 42.5
2:48 AM
58.2
12:41 PM 56.6
C
Located east of the Project site at the
northwest corner of 1590 Brian Street,
approximately 170 feet west of Brian
Street centerline.
54.4 88.6 41.4
1:22 AM
61.5
9:02 AM 56.9
D
Located northwest of the Project site
on the shared wall between the
homes on Hilda Street and the
commercial use at 2525 Ball Road,
approximately 200 feet north of Ball
Road centerline and 500 feet west of
Sunkist Street centerline.
63.7 86.2 56.5
2:43 AM
66.9
3:09 PM 68.7
Source: Noise measurements taken between Monday March 4, 2013 and Tuesday March 5, 2013.
Figure 3.10-1: Noise Measurement LocationsCity of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
Draft EIR Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Orange County
Figure 3.10-2: Year 2013 Field Noise Measurement GraphCity of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
Draft EIR Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Orange County
'JHVSF'JFME/PJTF.FBTVSFNFOU(SBQIT$JUZPG"OBIFJN0SBOHF$PVOUZ8BUFS%JTUSJDU
&OWJSPONFOUBM"EWJTPST
--$
%SBGU&*3#BMM3PBE#BTJO(FOFSBM1MBO"NFOENFOU;POF$IBOHF
0SBOHF$PVOUZ
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
246
Table 3.10-2 Year 2016 (Ambient) Noise Level Measurements
Site
No. Site Description
Average
(dBA Leq)
Maximum
(dBA Lmax)
Min. 1-Hour
Interval (dBA
Leq/Time)
Max. 1-Hour
Interval (dBA
Leq/Time)
Average
(dBA
CNEL)
A
Located northwest of the Project site
approximately 10 feet from rear yard
of nearest home to Project site,
approximately 320 feet north of Ball
Road centerline and 490 feet east of
SR-57 centerline.
58.5 77.0 52.5
1:11 a.m.
61.0
5:33 a.m. 64.4
B
Located west of the Project site in the
parking lot for El Bekal Shrine Center,
approximately 100 feet west of
Phoenix Club Drive centerline and 110
feet south of Sanderson Avenue
centerline.
55.5 83.4 50.6
2:02 a.m.
61.4
10:40 a.m. 61.5
C
Located east of the Project site at the
northwest corner of 1590 Brian Street,
approximately 170 feet west of Brian
Street centerline.
53.7 83.2 48.0
9:41 a.m.
57.7
8:17 a.m. 60.5
D
Located northwest of the Project site
on the shared wall between the
homes on Hilda Street and the
commercial use at 2525 Ball Road,
approximately 200 feet north of Ball
Road centerline and 500 feet west of
Sunkist Street centerline.
65.9 84.5 60.0
2:43 a.m.
67.7
8:36 p.m. 71.8
Source: Noise measurements taken between Monday November 14, 2016 and Tuesday November 15, 2016.
Tables 3.10-1 and 3.10-2 show that both Noise Measurement Sites A and D that are adjacent to
residential uses for both 2013 and 2016 conditions exceed the City’s normally acceptable noise standard
of 60 dBA CNEL for residential uses. Noise Measurements Sites B and C for both 2013 and 2016
conditions are within the City’s normally acceptable standard of 70 dBA CNEL for office and commercial
uses.
Modeled Existing Noise Levels
The noise contours of the nearby existing roadway have been calculated in order to provide a baseline
of the existing traffic noise levels. The distances to the 55, 60, 65, and 70 dBA CNEL noise contours were
calculated, plus the noise level at 100 feet from the centerline, which is the approximate distance to the
nearest structures on the roadway segments most impacted by the Proposed Project (e.g. nearest
homes on Ball Road west of State Route 57). Table 3.10-3 shows the existing traffic noise contours for
the Anaheim roadways and Table 3.10-4 shows the existing traffic noise contours for the Orange
roadways.
Table 3.10-3 Existing Roadway Noise Contours for Anaheim Roadways
CNEL at
100 Feet
(dBA)1
Distance to Contour (feet)
Roadway Segment
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
55 dBA
CNEL
Ball Road West of S West Street 65 RW 107 231 497
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
247
CNEL at
100 Feet
(dBA)1
Distance to Contour (feet)
Roadway Segment
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
55 dBA
CNEL
Ball Road West of Anaheim Boulevard 66 RW 113 244 525
Ball Road West of Lewis Street 66 56 121 261 562
Ball Road West of East Street 66 58 125 268 578
Ball Road West of State College Boulevard 66 58 125 269 580
Ball Road West of Sunkist Street 67 59 127 274 590
Ball Road West of SR-57 SB Ramps 68 72 156 335 723
Ball Road West of Phoenix Club Drive 66 56 121 260 560
Ball Road East of Phoenix Club Drive 66 RW 114 245 527
Katella Avenue West of Haster Street 66 RW 118 254 547
Katella Avenue West of I-5 SB Ramps 66 RW 124 268 577
Katella Avenue West of Lewis Street 67 RW 128 275 593
Katella Avenue West of State College Boulevard 66 RW 113 243 525
Anaheim Boulevard North of Ball Road 64 RW 81 174 375
S East Street North of Ball Road 62 RW 61 131 281
State College Boulevard North of Ball Road 65 RW 102 220 474
State College Boulevard South of Howell Avenue 65 RW 107 231 498
State College Boulevard South of Katella Avenue 66 RW 121 261 562
Sunkist Street North of Wagner Avenue 61 RW 57 123 265
Sunkist Street North of Ball Road 62 RW 68 145 313
Sunkist Street South of Ball Road 61 RW 56 121 261
Sunkist Street South of Cerritos Avenue 59 RW RW 86 185
Phoenix Club Drive South of Ball Road 51 RW RW RW 55
Notes:
1 Does not take into account existing noise barriers.
RW = Noise contour is located within ROW of roadway.
Source: FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model- FHWA-RD-77-108.
The calculated existing noise contours in Table 3.10-3 shows that all analyzed roadway segments except
Sunkist Street south of Cerritos Avenue and Phoenix Club Drive currently exceed the City’s 60 dBA CNEL
normally acceptable residential exterior noise standard at 100 feet from the centerline. Additionally,
Sunkist Street south of Cerritos Avenue currently exceeds the City’s 60 dBA CNEL normally acceptable
residential exterior noise standard at 86 feet from the centerline.
Table 3.10-4 Existing Roadway Noise Contours for Orange Roadways
CNEL at
100 Feet
(dBA)1
Distance to Contour (feet)
Roadway Segment
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
55 dBA
CNEL
Taft Avenue East of Main Street 67 RW 130 281 605
Taft Avenue East of Batavia Street 65 RW 103 222 479
Taft Avenue East of Glassell Street 64 RW 86 186 400
Taft Avenue East of Cambridge Street 64 RW 85 182 393
Taft Avenue East of Tustin Street 62 RW 60 129 277
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
248
CNEL at
100 Feet
(dBA)1
Distance to Contour (feet)
Roadway Segment
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
55 dBA
CNEL
Katella Avenue East of Main Street 66 RW 122 262 565
Katella Avenue East of Batavia Street 66 RW 120 258 555
Katella Avenue East of Glassell Street 67 RW 127 274 590
Katella Avenue East of Cambridge Street 67 RW 137 295 636
Katella Avenue East of Tustin Street 69 RW 186 400 862
Main Street South of Taft Avenue 62 RW RW 135 291
Main Street South of Katella Avenue 63 RW 76 163 351
Main Street South of Collins Avenue 64 RW 89 191 412
Main Street South of Walnut Avenue 65 RW 99 214 460
Main Street South of Chapman Avenue 66 RW 118 255 550
Batavia Street North of Taft Avenue 62 RW 67 145 312
Batavia Street South of Katella Avenue 62 RW 61 132 285
Glassell Street North of Taft Avenue 66 53 115 248 534
Glassell Street South of Katella Avenue 64 RW 83 179 385
Cambridge Street North of Taft Avenue 60 RW RW 107 230
Cambridge Street South of Katella Avenue 60 RW RW 93 201
Tustin Street North of Taft Avenue 67 RW 137 296 638
Tustin Street South of Katella Avenue 67 RW 138 298 641
Notes:
1 Does not take into account existing noise barriers.
RW = Noise contour is located within ROW of roadway.
Source: FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model- FHWA-RD-77-108.
The calculated existing noise contours in Table 3.10-4 shows that the analyzed roadway segments of:
Taft Avenue east of Main Street; Katella Avenue from east of Main Street to east of Tustin Street; Main
Street south of Chapman Street; and Tustin Street south of Katella Avenue and north of Taft Avenue
currently exceed the City of Orange’s 65 dBA CNEL residential standard. In addition, Taft Avenue from
east of Glassell Street to east of Tustin Street, Main Street from south of Katella Avenue to south of
Collins Avenue, Batavia Street from north of Taft Avenue to south of Katella Avenue, and Glassell Street
south of Katella Avenue currently exceed the City of Orange’s 65 dBA CNEL normally acceptable
residential exterior noise standard.
3.10.3 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
FEDERAL
Noise Control Act of 1972
The adverse impact of noise was officially recognized by the federal government in the Noise Control Act
of 1972, which serves three purposes:
▪ Promulgating noise emission standards for interstate commerce
▪ Assisting state and local abatement efforts
▪ Promoting noise education and research
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
249
The Federal Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) was initially tasked with implementing the
Noise Control Act. However, the ONAC has since been eliminated, leaving the development of federal
noise policies and programs to other federal agencies and interagency committees. For example, OSHA
prohibits exposure of workers to excessive sound levels. The Department of Transportation (DOT)
assumed a significant role in noise control through its various operating agencies. The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) regulates noise of aircraft and airports. Surface transportation system noise is
regulated by a host of agencies, including the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The federal Urban
Mass Transit Administration (UMTA) regulates transit noise, while freeways that are part of the
interstate highway system are regulated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Finally, the
federal government actively advocates that local jurisdictions use their land use regulatory authority to
arrange new development in such a way that “noise sensitive” uses are either prohibited from being
sited adjacent to a highway or, alternately that the developments are planned and constructed in such a
manner that potential noise impacts are minimized.
Since the federal government has preempted the setting of standards for noise levels that can be
emitted by the transportation sources, the City is restricted to regulating the noise generated by the
transportation system through nuisance abatement ordinances and land use planning.
STATE
Noise Standards
California Department of Health Services Office of Noise Control
Established in 1973, the California Department of Health Services Office of Noise Control (ONC) was
instrumental in developing regularity tools to control and abate noise for use by local agencies. One
significant model is the “Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Matrix,” which
allows the local jurisdiction to clearly delineate compatibility of sensitive uses with various incremental
levels of noise and which is shown below in Figure 3.10-4, Land Use Compatibility Matrix.
California Noise Insulation Standards
Title 24, Chapter 1, Article 4 of the California Administrative Code (California Noise Insulation Standards)
requires noise insulation in new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings (other than single-
family detached housing) that provides an annual average noise level of no more than 45 dBA CNEL.
When such structures are located within a 60-dBA CNEL (or greater) noise contour, an acoustical
analysis is required to ensure that interior levels do not exceed the 45-dBA CNEL annual threshold. In
addition, Title 21, Chapter 6, Article 1 of the California Administrative Code requires that all habitable
rooms, hospitals, convalescent homes, and places of worship shall have an interior CNEL of 45 dB or less
due to aircraft noise.
Figure 3.10-4: Land Use Compatibility MatrixCity of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
Draft EIR Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Orange County
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
251
Government Code Section 65302
Government Code Section 65302 mandates that the legislative body of each county and city in California
adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan. The local noise element must
recognize the land use compatibility guidelines published by the California Department of Health
Services. The guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of normally acceptable, conditionally
acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable.
Vibration Standards
Title 14 of the California Administrative Code Section 15000 requires that all state and local agencies
implement CEQA Guidelines, which requires the analysis of exposure of persons to excessive
groundborne vibration. However, no statute has been adopted by the state that quantifies the level at
which excessive groundborne vibration occurs.
Caltrans issued the Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual in 2004. The
manual provides practical guidance to Caltrans engineers, planners, and consultants who must address
vibration issues associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of Caltrans projects.
However, this manual is also used as a reference poi nt by many lead agencies and CEQA practitioners
throughout California, as it provides numeric thresholds for vibration impacts. Thresholds are
established for continuous (construction-related) and transient (transportation-related) sources of
vibration, which found that the human response becomes distinctly perceptible at 0.25 inch per second
PPV for transient sources and 0.04 inch per second PPV for continuous sources.
LOCAL
The Project site is located in the City, with the City of Orange located just east of the Santa Ana River.
The Cities of Anaheim and Orange General Plans and Municipal Codes establish the following applicable
policies related to noise and vibration. The City of Orange standards were included in order to address
the State CEQA Guidelines, which requires the analysis of applicable standards of the City and other
agencies.
City of Anaheim General Plan
The City has the authority to set land use noise standards and place restrictions on private activities that
generate excessive or intrusive noise. Chapter 9, Noise Element, of the General Plan states that “the
control of noise, therefore, is an essential component in creating a safe, compatible, and productive
environment.” The City has adopted the State’s Noise Compatibility Guidelines shown above in Figure
3.10-4 and although Figure 3.10-4 is shown in terms of Ldn or CNEL, the City prefers the use of CNEL,
since it is more restrictive. The following goals and policies are set forth in the No ise Element of the
General Plan:
Goal 1.1: Protect sensitive land uses from excessive noise through diligent planning and regulation.
Policies:
2) Continue to enforce acceptable noise standards consistent with health and quality of life goals
and employ effective techniques of noise abatement through such means as a noise ordinance,
building codes, and subdivision and zoning regulations.
3) Consider the compatibility of proposed land uses with the noise environment when preparing,
revising or reviewing development proposals.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
252
5) Encourage proper site planning and architecture to reduce noise impacts.
7) Require that site-specific noise studies be conducted by a qualified acoustic consultant utilizing
acceptable methodologies while reviewing the development of sensitive land uses or
development that has the potential to impact sensitive land uses.
Goal 2.1: Encourage the reduction of noise from transportation-related noise sources such as motor
vehicles, aircraft operations, and railroad movements.
Policies:
3) Require that development generating increased traffic and subsequent increases in the ambient
noise level adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses provide appropriate mitigation measures.
11) Encourage the development of alternative transportation modes that minimize noise within
residential areas.
Goal 3.1: Protect residents from the effects of “spill over” or nuisance noise emanating from the City’s
activity centers.
Policies:
1) Discourage new projects located in commercial or entertainment areas from exceeding
stationary-source noise standards at the property line of proximate residential or commercial
uses, as appropriate.
2) Prohibit new industrial uses from exceeding commercial or residential stationary-source noise
standards at the most proximate land uses, as appropriate. (Industrial noise may spill over to
proximate industrial uses so long as the combined noise does not exceed the appropriate
industrial standards.)
3) Enforce standards to regulate noise from construction activities. Particular emphasis shall be
placed on the restriction of the hours in which work other than emergency work may occur.
Discourage construction on weekends or holidays except in the case of construction proximate
to schools where these operations could disturb the classroom environment.
4) Require that construction equipment operate with mufflers and intake silencers no less effective
than originally equipped.
5) Encourage the use of portable noise barriers for heavy equipment operations performed within
100 feet of existing residences or make applicant provide evidence as to why the use of such
barriers is infeasible.
City of Anaheim Municipal Code
The Anaheim Municipal Code establishes the following applicable standards related to noise.
6.70.010 Established.
Sound produced in excess of the sound pressure levels permitted herein is hereby determined to be
objectionable and constitute an infringement upon the right and quiet enjoyment of property in this
City.
No person shall within the City create any sound radiated for extended periods from any premises which
produces a sound pressure level at any point on the property line in excess of sixty decibels (Re 0.0002
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
253
Microbar) read on the A-scale of a sound level meter. Readings shall be taken in accordance with the
instrument manufacturer’s instructions, using the slowest meter response.
The sound level measuring microphone shall be placed at any point on the property line, but not closer
than three (3) feet from any wall and not less than three (3) feet above the ground, where the above
listed maximum sound pressure level shall apply. At any point the measured level shall be the average of
not less than three (3) readings taken at two (2) minute intervals. To have valid readings, the levels must
be five (5) decibels or more above the levels prevailing at the same point when the sources of the
alleged objectionable sound are not operating.
Sound pressure levels shall be measured with a sound level meter manufactured according to American
Standard S1.4-1961 published by the American Standards Association, Inc., New York City, New York.
Traffic sound created by emergency activities and sound created by governmental units or their
contractors shall be exempt from the applications of this chapter. Sound created by construction or
building repair of any premises within the City shall be exempt from the applications o f this chapter
during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Additional work hours may be permitted if deemed necessary
by the Director of Public Works or Building Official. (Ord. 2526 § 1 (part); June 18, 1968; Ord. 3400 §1;
February 11, 1975: Ord. 6020 § 1; April 25, 2006.)
City of Orange General Plan
The City of Orange has developed its own land use compatibility standards based on recommended
parameters from the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research that rate compatibility. Using
the state’s land use compatibility guidelines, the City of Orange has established interior and exterior
noise standards. The City of Orange’s compatibility standards provide only for normally acceptable
conditions based on State recommendations and City land use designations. The City of Orange’s Land
Use Compatibility standards are presented in Table 3.10-5, Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure –
Transportation Sources.
Table 3.10-5 City of Orange Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure – Transportation Sources
Land Use CNEL (dBA)
Land Use Designations Uses Interior1,3 Exterior2
Estate Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Low Medium Density Residential
Single-family, duplex, and multiple-family 45 65
Mobile home park N/A 65
Medium Density Residential Neighborhood
Mixed-Use
Neighborhood Office Professional
Old Towne Mixed-use
General Commercial
Yorba Commercial Overlay
Urban Mixed-use
Urban Office Professional
Single-family 45 65
Mobile home park N/A 65
Multiple-family, mixed use 45 654,5
Transient lodging-motels, hotels 45 65
Sports arenas, outdoor spectator sports N/A N/A
Auditoriums, concert halls, amphitheaters 45 N/A
Office buildings, business, commercial and
professional 50 N/A
Light Industrial
Industrial Manufacturing, utilities, agriculture N/A N/A
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
254
Land Use CNEL (dBA)
Land Use Designations Uses Interior1,3 Exterior2
Public Facilities and Institutions
Schools, nursing homes, day care facilities,
hospitals, convalescent facilities, dormitories 45 65
Government Facilities-offices, fire stations,
community buildings 45 N/A
Places of Worship, Churches 45 N/A
Libraries 45 N/A
Utilities N/A N/A
Cemeteries N/A N/A
Recreation Commercial
Open Space
Open Space-Park
Open Space-Ridgeline
Resource Area
Playgrounds, neighborhood parks N/A 70
Golf courses, riding stables, water
recreation, cemeteries N/A N/A
Notes:
(1) Interior habitable environment excludes bathrooms, closets and corridors.
(2) Exterior noise level standard to be applied at outdoor activity areas; such as private yards, private patio or balcony of a multi-
family residence. Where the location of an outdoor activity area is unknown or not applicable, the noise standard shall be applied inside
the property line of the receiving land use.
(3) Interior noise standards shall be satisfied with windows in the closed position. Mechanical ventilation shall be provided per
Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements.
(4) Within the Urban Mixed-Use, Neighborhood Mixed-Use, Old Towne Mixed-Use, and Medium Density Residential land use
designations, exterior space standards apply only to common outdoor recreational areas.
(5) Within Urban Mixed-Use and Medium Density Residential land use designations, exterior noise levels on private patios or
balconies located within 250 feet of freeways (I-5, SR-57, SR-55, SR-22, or SR-241) and Smart Streets and Principal Arterial
identified in the Circulation & Mobility Element that exceed 70 dB should provide additional common open space.
N/A=Not Applicable to specified land use category or designation.
Source: City of Orange General Plan Table N-3.
The City of Orange’s maximum allowable noise exposure levels from stationary sources are defined in
Table 3.10-6 below.
Table 3.10-6 City of Orange Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure – Stationary Sources
Noise Level Descriptor Daytime (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) Nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.)
Hourly Equivalent Level (Leq), dBA 55 45
Maximum Level (Lmax), dBA 70 65
Notes:
(1) These standards apply to new or existing noise sensitive land uses affected by new or existing non-transportation noise sources, as
determined at the outdoor activity area of the receiving land use. However, these noise level standards do not apply to residential units
established in conjunction with industrial or commercial uses (e.g. caretaker dwellings).
(2) Each of the noise levels specified above should be lowered by five dB for simple tone noises, noises consisting primarily of speech or
music, or for recurring impulsive noises. Such noises are generally considered by residents to be particularly annoying and are a primary
source of noise complaints. These noise level standards do not apply to residential units established in conjunction with industrial or
commercial uses (e.g. caretaker dwellings).
(3) No standards have been included for interior noise levels. Standards construction practices that comply with exterior noise levels
identified in this table generally result in acceptable interior noise levels.
(4) The City may impose noise level standards which are more or less restrictive than those specified above based upon determination of
existing low or high ambient noise levels. If the existing ambient noise level exceeds the standards listed in Table N-4, then the noise level
standards shall be increased at 3 dB increments to encompass the ambient noise environment. Noise level standards incorporating
adjustments for existing ambient noise levels shall not exceed a maximum of 70 dB Leq.
Source: City of Orange General Plan Table N-4.
For the City of Orange, analysis of noise impacts and determining appropriate mitigation under CEQA, in
addition to the maximum allowable noise level standards outlined in Table 3.10-5 and Table 3.10-6, an
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
255
increase in ambient noise levels is assumed to be a significant noise impact if a project causes ambient
noise levels to exceed the following:
▪ Where the existing ambient noise level is less than 60 dBA, a project related permanent
increase in ambient noise levels of 5 dBA CNEL or greater.
▪ Where the existing ambient noise level is greater than 65 dBA, a project related permanent
increase in ambient noise levels of 3 dBA CNEL or greater.
In addition to the standards provided above, the City of Orange General Plan includes the following
goals and policies that are applicable to the Proposed Project. Goals 3.0, relating to train noise, 4.0,
relating to aircraft noise, 5.0, relating to mixed-use development, and 6.0 relating to industrial noise
were not pertinent to this project and thus not presented below.
GOAL 1.0: Promote a pattern of land uses compatible with current and future noise levels.
▪ Policy 1.1 – Consider potential excessive noise levels when making land use planning
decisions.
▪ Policy 1.2 – Encourage new development projects to provide sufficient spatial buffers to
separate excessive noise generating land uses and noise-sensitive land uses.
▪ Policy 1.4 – Ensure that acceptable noise levels are maintained near noise-sensitive uses.
▪ Policy 1.5 – Reduce impacts of high noise activity centers located near residential areas.
▪ Policy 1.6 – Require an acoustical study for proposed developments in areas where the
existing and projected noise level exceeds or would exceed the maximum allowable levels
identified in Table N-3 (Table B). The acoustical study shall be performed in accordance with
the requirements set forth within this Noise Element.
GOAL 2.0: Minimize vehicular traffic noise in residential areas and near noise sensitive land uses.
▪ Policy 2.1 – Encourage noise-compatible land uses along existing and future roadways,
highways, and freeways.
▪ Policy 2.2 – Encourage site planning and traffic control measures that minimize traffic noise
in noise-sensitive land use areas.
▪ Policy 2.3 – Encourage the use of alternative transportation modes such as walking, bicycling,
mass transit, and alternative fuel vehicles to minimize traffic noise.
GOAL 7.0: Minimize construction, maintenance vehicle, and nuisance noise in residential areas and
near noise-sensitive land uses.
▪ Policy 7.2 – Require developers and contractors to employ noise-minimizing techniques
during construction and maintenance operations.
▪ Policy 7.3 – Limit the hours of construction and maintenance operations located adjacent to
noise-sensitive land uses.
▪ Policy 7.4 – Encourage limitations on the hours of operations and deliveries for commercial,
mixed-use, and industrial uses abutting residential zones.
City of Orange Municipal Code
The Orange Municipal Code establishes the following applicable standards related to noise:
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
256
Section 8.24.050 Exterior Noise Standards.
A. The following noise standards (Table 3.10-7), unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all
residential property within a designated noise zone:
Table 3.10-7 City of Orange Municipal Code Exterior Noise Standards
Noise Zone 1 Noise Level Time Period
1 55 dB (A) 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
50 dB (A) 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.
Notes:
1 Noise Zone 1 only applies to residential uses.
Source: City of Orange Municipal Code Section 8.24.050.
B. It is unlawful for any person at any location within the City to create any noise, or to allow the
creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person,
which causes the noise level when measured on any other residential property to exceed:
1. The noise standard for a cumulative period of more than thirty minutes in any hour; or
2. The noise standard plus five dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than fifteen minutes in any
hour; or
3. The noise standard plus ten dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any
hour; or
4. The noise standard plus fifteen dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any
hour; or
5. The noise standard plus twenty dB(A) for any period of time.
C. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds any of the five noise limit categories, designated in
Subsection B of this section, the cumulative period applicable to said category shall be increased to
reflect the ambient noise level. Furthermore, the maximum permissible noise level shall never exceed
the maximum ambient noise level.
D. Each of the noise limits specified in Subsection B shall be reduced by five dB(A) for impact or simple
tone noises, or for noises consisting of speech or music.
8.24.060 Interior Noise Standards.
A. The following noise standards (Table 3.10-8), unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all
residential property within a designated noise zone:
Table 3.10-8 City of Orange Municipal Code Interior Noise Standards
Noise Zone1 Noise Level Time Period
1 55 dB (A) 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
45 dB (A) 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.
Notes:
1 Noise Zone 1 only applies to residential uses.
Source: City of Orange Municipal Code Section 8.24.060.
B. It is unlawful for any person at any location within the City to create any noise or to allow the creation
of any noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
257
controlled by such person that causes the noise level when measured within a dwelling unit on any
residential property to exceed:
1. The noise standard for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour; or
2. The noise standard plus five dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour;
or
3. The noise standard plus ten dB(A) for any period of time.
C. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds any of the above three noise limit categories designated
in Subsection B of this section, the cumulative period applicable to the category shall be increased to
reflect the ambient noise level. Furthermore, the maximum permissible noise level shall never exceed
the maximum ambient noise level.
D. Each of the noise limits specified above shall be reduced by five dB(A) for impact or simple tone
noises, or for noises consisting of speech or music.
8.24.070 Exemptions from Chapter Provisions.
The following activities shall be exempted from the provisions of this chapter:
D. Any mechanical device, apparatus or equipment used, related to or connected with emergency
machinery, vehicle or work;
E. Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property,
provided said activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. on weekdays,
including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a Federal holiday;
I. Noise sources associated with the maintenance of real property, provided such activities take place
between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. on any day except Sunday or a Federal holiday, or
between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. on Sunday or a Federal holiday;
J. Any activity to the extent regulation thereof has been preempted by State or Federal Law.
8.24.080 Special Provisions for Schools, Hospitals and Churches.
It is unlawful for any person to create any noise which causes the noise level at any school, hospital or
church, while the same is in use, to exceed the noise limits as specified in Section 8.24.050 prescribed
for the assigned noise zone in which the school, hospital or church is located, or which noise level
unreasonably interferes with the use of such institutions or which unreasonably disturbs or annoys
patients in the hospital, provided conspicuous signs are displayed in three separate locations within one-
tenth of a mile of the institution indicating the presence of a school, church or hospital. (Ord. 17-74:
Prior Code 9500.8)
3.10.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Proposed
Project would have a significant impact to noise if it would result in any of the following:
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
258
▪ Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
▪ Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
▪ Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
▪ Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
EFFECTS DISMISSED IN THE INITIAL STUDY
The IS concluded that the following potential noise impacts would not occur and did not need to be
further addressed in the EIR:
▪ The project would not be located within an airport land use plan and would not expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
▪ The project would not be located within the vicinity of a private air strip, heliport or helistop,
and would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
3.10.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
METHODOLOGY
Construction Noise
The noise impacts from construction of the Proposed Project have been analyzed through use of the
Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). The FHWA
compiled noise measurement data regarding the noise generating characteristics of several different
types of construction equipment used during the Central Artery/Tunnel project in Boston. Table 3.10-9
below provides a list of the construction equipment anticipated to be used for each phase of
construction as detailed in Air Quality and Global Climate Change Impact Analysis Ball Road Basin
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Project, prepared by Vista Environmental, February 15,
2017. Table 3.10-9 also shows the associated measured noise emissions for each piece of equipment
from the RCNM model and measured percentage of typical equipment use per day.
Table 3.10-9 Construction Equipment Noise Emissions and Usage Factors
Equipment Description
Number of
Equipment
Acoustical Use
Factor1 (percent)
Spec 721.560 Lmax at 50
feet2 (dBA, slow3)
Actual Measured Lmax at
50 feet4 (dBA, slow3)
Grading
Excavator 2 40 85 81
Grader 2 40 85 --N/A--
Dozer 2 40 85 82
Scrapper 3 40 85 84
Tractor, Loader or Backhoe5 2 40 84 --N/A--
Trenching
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
259
Equipment Description
Number of
Equipment
Acoustical Use
Factor1 (percent)
Spec 721.560 Lmax at 50
feet2 (dBA, slow3)
Actual Measured Lmax at
50 feet4 (dBA, slow3)
Excavator 2 40 85 81
Loader 1 40 80 79
Tractor, Loader or Backhoe5 1 40 84 --N/A--
Building Construction
Crane 1 16 85 81
Forklift (Gradall) 3 40 85 83
Generator 1 50 82 81
Welder 1 40 73 74
Tractor, Loader or Backhoe5 3 40 84 --N/A--
Paving
Paver 2 50 85 77
Paving Equipment (Loader) 2 40 80 79
Roller 2 20 85 80
Architectural Coating
Air Compressor 1 40 80 78
Notes:
1 Acoustical use factor is the percentage of time each piece of equipment is operational during a typical workday.
2 Spec 721.560 is the equipment noise level utilized by the RCNM program.
3 The “slow” response averages sound levels over 1-second increments. A “fast” response averages sound levels over 0.125-second
increments.
4 Actual Measured is the average noise level measured of each piece of equipment during the Central Artery/Tunnel project in Boston,
Massachusetts primarily during the 1990s.
5 For the tractor/loader/backhoe, the tractor noise level was utilized, since it is the loudest of the three types of equipment.
Source: Federal Highway Administration, 2006 and Vista Environmental, 2017.
Construction noise impacts to the nearby sensitive receptors have been calculated according to the
equipment noise levels and usage factors listed in Table 3.10-9 and through use of the RCNM. The
equipment was placed at the nearest locations to the nearby sensitive receptors and each piece of
subsequent piece of equipment was placed an additional 100 feet apart since it is unlikely that at any
time these pieces of construction equipment would operate closer together than that for any significant
duration of time.
Operations-Related Noise
The Proposed Project would result in increases in traffic noise as well as introduce new stationary noise
sources to the Project site. Both types of noise sources have been analyzed in this report.
Vehicular Noise
In order to quantify the potential noise impacts created and received by the Proposed Project and
compare them to the existing noise levels, the existing roadway noise environment was modeled using
the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model - FHWA-RD-77-108 (FHWA Model). The FHWA Model arrives at
a predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the Reference Energy Mean Emission Level
(REMEL). Adjustments are then made to the reference energy mean emission level to account for: the
roadway active width (i.e., the distance between the center of the outermost travel lanes on each side
of the roadway), the total average daily traffic (ADT) and the percentage of ADT which flows during the
day, evening and night, the travel speed, the vehicle mix on the roadway, which is a percentage of the
volume of automobiles, medium trucks and heavy trucks, the roadway grade, the angle of view of the
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
260
observer exposed to the roadway and site conditions ("hard" or "s oft" relates to the absorption of the
ground, pavement or landscaping). The following section provides a discussion of the software and
modeling input parameters used in this analysis and a discussion of the resultant existing noise model.
FHWA Model Traffic Noise Prediction Model Inputs
The roadway parameters used for this analysis are presented in Table 3.10-10 for the City roadways and
Table 3.10-11 for the City of Orange roadways. The roadway classifications are based on each respective
City’s General Plan Circulation Element. The roadway speeds are based on the posted speed limits. Soft
site conditions were used to develop noise contours and analyze noise impacts to the Project site. Soft
sites have an absorptive ground surface such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees.
Table 3.10-10 FHWA Model Roadway Parameters for Anaheim Roadways
Roadway Segment General Plan Classification
Vehicle Speed
(MPH)
Ball Road West of S West Street Primary Arterial 40
Ball Road West of Anaheim Boulevard Primary Arterial 40
Ball Road West of Lewis Street Primary Arterial 40
Ball Road West of East Street Primary Arterial 40
Ball Road West of State College Boulevard Primary Arterial 40
Ball Road West of Sunkist Street Primary Arterial 40
Ball Road West of SR-57 SB Ramps Primary Arterial 40
Ball Road West of Phoenix Club Drive Primary Arterial 40
Ball Road East of Phoenix Club Drive Primary Arterial 40
Katella Avenue West of Anaheim Boulevard Resort Smartstreet 40
Katella Avenue West of I-5 SB Ramps Resort Smartstreet 40
Katella Avenue West of Lewis Street Stadium Smartstreet 40
Katella Avenue West of State College Boulevard Stadium Smartstreet 40
Anaheim Boulevard North of Ball Road Primary Arterial 35
S East Street North of Ball Road Secondary Arterial 40
State College Boulevard North of Ball Road Primary Arterial 40
State College Boulevard South of Howell Avenue Major Arterial 40
State College Boulevard South of Katella Avenue Major Arterial 40
Sunkist Street North of Wagner Avenue Secondary Arterial 35
Sunkist Street North of Ball Road Secondary Arterial 35
Sunkist Street South of Ball Road Secondary Arterial 40
Sunkist Street South of Cerritos Avenue Secondary Arterial 40
Phoenix Club Drive South of Ball Road Local 25
Source: City of Anaheim, 2004.
Table 3.10-11 FHWA Model Roadway Parameters for Orange Roadways
Roadway Segment General Plan Classification
Vehicle Speed
(MPH)
Taft Avenue East of Main Street Augmented Primary 45
Taft Avenue East of Batavia Street Augmented Primary 45
Taft Avenue East of Glassell Street Augmented Primary 45
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
261
Roadway Segment General Plan Classification
Vehicle Speed
(MPH)
Taft Avenue East of Cambridge Street Augmented Primary 45
Taft Avenue East of Tustin Street Secondary 40
Katella Avenue East of Main Street Major 40
Katella Avenue East of Batavia Street Major 40
Katella Avenue East of Glassell Street Major 40
Katella Avenue East of Cambridge Street Major 40
Katella Avenue East of Tustin Street Augmented Major 40
Main Street South of Taft Avenue Primary 40
Main Street South of Katella Avenue Primary 40
Main Street South of Collins Avenue Augmented Primary 40
Main Street South of Walnut Avenue Augmented Primary 40
Main Street South of Chapman Avenue Augmented Primary 40
Batavia Street North of Taft Avenue Secondary 40
Batavia Street South of Katella Avenue Secondary 40
Glassell Street North of Taft Avenue Secondary 45
Glassell Street South of Katella Avenue Primary 40
Cambridge Street North of Taft Avenue Secondary 40
Cambridge Street South of Katella Avenue Secondary 40
Tustin Street North of Taft Avenue Augmented Primary 40
Tustin Street South of Katella Avenue Augmented Primary 40
Source: City of Orange, 2010.
The ADT volumes on the study area roadways were obtained from the Traffic Impact Analysis Ball Road
Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Project (Traffic Impact Analysis), (Appendix I),
prepared by Transpo Group, February 2017. For the roadway segments where only the peak hour
volumes were provided, the ADT was calculated by multiplying the p.m. peak hour traf fic volumes by 12.
The ADT volumes have been provided for the existing year, year 2035 baseline, and year 2035 with
project scenarios. The ADT volumes used in this analysis are shown in Table 3.10-12 for the Anaheim
roadway segments and Table 3.10-13 for the Orange roadway segments. The 2035 Plus Project traffic
volumes are lower than the 2035 Baseline traffic volumes for some roadway segments, which is due to
re-routing of pass-by trips to the Project site.
Table 3.10-12 Average Daily Traffic Volumes for Anaheim Roadways
Roadway Segment
Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Existing Existing +
Project
2035
Baseline
2035 Plus
Project
Ball Road West of S West Street 31,800 31,900 39,300 39,400
Ball Road West of Anaheim Boulevard 34,500 34,800 35,300 35,300
Ball Road West of Lewis Street 38,200 38,300 38,200 38,300
Ball Road West of East Street 39,900 40,300 43,300 43,700
Ball Road West of State College Boulevard 40,100 40,100 44,200 44,200
Ball Road West of Sunkist Street 41,100 41,500 44,100 44,500
Ball Road West of SR-57 SB Ramps 55,700 56,600 56,800 57,700
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
262
Roadway Segment
Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Existing Existing +
Project
2035
Baseline
2035 Plus
Project
Ball Road West of Phoenix Club Drive 38,000 41,500 51,500 55,000
Ball Road East of Phoenix Club Drive 34,700 35,700 47,600 48,600
Katella Avenue West of Anaheim Boulevard 32,500 32,600 49,400 48,700
Katella Avenue West of I-5 SB Ramps 35,200 35,400 61,900 61,500
Katella Avenue West of Lewis Street 36,700 37,100 65,300 65,300
Katella Avenue West of State College Boulevard 30,500 31,200 58,700 59,100
Anaheim Boulevard North of Ball Road 29,200 29,900 41,400 41,900
S East Street North of Ball Road 14,300 14,500 21,400 21,500
State College Boulevard North of Ball Road 29,600 29,600 37,500 36,900
State College Boulevard South of Howell Avenue 30,300 31,100 44,700 45,200
State College Boulevard South of Katella Avenue 36,400 36,800 39,100 39,200
Sunkist Street North of Wagner Avenue 18,300 18,800 23,500 23,900
Sunkist Street North of Ball Road 23,600 24,200 28,100 28,500
Sunkist Street South of Ball Road 12,800 13,000 16,200 16,400
Sunkist Street South of Cerritos Avenue 7,600 8,500 17,700 18,300
Phoenix Club Drive South of Ball Road 5,200 12,600 7,900 15,300
Source: Transpo Group, 2016.
Table 3.10-13 Average Daily Traffic Volumes for Orange Roadways
Roadway Segment
Average Daily Traffic
Existing
Existing +
Project
2035
Baseline
2035 Plus
Project
Taft Avenue East of Main Street 27,500 28,300 41,100 41,900
Taft Avenue East of Batavia Street 19,400 19,500 21,800 21,900
Taft Avenue East of Glassell Street 14,800 15,100 18,700 19,000
Taft Avenue East of Cambridge Street 14,400 14,700 16,000 16,300
Taft Avenue East of Tustin Street 13,900 14,000 15,000 15,000
Katella Avenue East of Main Street 31,400 31,600 56,400 56,600
Katella Avenue East of Batavia Street 30,600 30,800 55,000 55,200
Katella Avenue East of Glassell Street 33,500 33,700 46,200 46,100
Katella Avenue East of Cambridge Street 37,500 37,600 48,800 48,600
Katella Avenue East of Tustin Street 48,600 49,300 56,100 56,200
Main Street South of Taft Avenue 13,200 13,600 28,100 28,100
Main Street South of Katella Avenue 17,500 18,500 24,000 23,900
Main Street South of Collins Avenue 21,000 22,500 36,100 36,900
Main Street South of Walnut Avenue 24,800 25,300 43,200 43,600
Main Street South of Chapman Avenue 32,400 32,700 47,900 47,700
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
263
Roadway Segment
Average Daily Traffic
Existing
Existing +
Project
2035
Baseline
2035 Plus
Project
Batavia Street North of Taft Avenue 16,600 16,800 18,200 18,400
Batavia Street South of Katella Avenue 14,500 15,000 23,200 23,100
Glassell Street North of Taft Avenue 26,500 26,900 31,400 31,700
Glassell Street South of Katella Avenue 20,100 20,700 23,000 23,300
Cambridge Street North of Taft Avenue 10,500 10,500 9,800 9,900
Cambridge Street South of Katella Avenue 8,600 8,700 9,900 9,700
Tustin Street North of Taft Avenue 40,500 40,500 46,600 46,100
Tustin Street South of Katella Avenue 40,800 41,500 49,000 49,200
Source: Transpo Group, 2016.
The vehicle mixes used in the FHWA-RD-77-108 Model are shown in Table 3.10-14 and are based on
typical vehicle mixes observed in Southern California.
Table 3.10-14 Roadway Vehicle Mix
Vehicle Type
Traffic Flow Distributions
Day
(7 a.m. to 7 p.m.)
Evening
(7 p.m. to 10 p.m.)
Night
(10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) Overall
Secondary, Collector and Local
Automobiles 73.60% 13.60% 10.22% 97.42%
Medium Trucks 0.90% 0.04% 0.90% 1.84%
Heavy Trucks 0.35% 0.04% 0.35% 0.74%
Arterials
Automobiles 69.50% 12.90% 9.60% 92.00%
Medium Trucks 1.44% 0.06% 1.50% 3.00%
Heavy Trucks 2.40% 0.10% 2.50% 5.00%
Source: Vista Environmental.
FHWA Model Source Assumptions
To assess the roadway noise generation in a uniform manner, all vehicles are analyzed at the single lane
equivalent acoustic center of the roadway being analyzed. In order to determine the height above the
road grade where the noise is being emitted from, each type of vehicle has been analyzed
independently with autos at road grade, medium trucks at 2.3 feet above road grade, and heavy trucks
at 8 feet above road grade. These elevations were determined through a noise-weighted average of the
elevation of the exhaust pipe, tires and mechanical parts in the engine, which are the primary noise
emitters from a vehicle.
Stationary Noise
The Proposed Project would consist of the development of up to 425,000 square feet of commercial
uses. The Proposed Project may introduce the following stationary noise sources to the Project site. The
noise levels from the stationary sources were calculated at the nearest receptor based on a point source
drop-off rate for hard site conditions of 6 dB per doubling of distance between source to reference
measurement and source to receiver.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
264
Parking Lots
The Proposed Project would require onsite parking lots. In order to determine the noise impacts from a
commercial center parking lot, a 24-hour noise measurement was taken approximately five feet from
the Fresno Walmart parking lot, which measured noise levels of 60.7 dBA Leq, 66.1 dBA CNEL and 86.9
dBA Lmax. The maximum noise level most likely occurred during street sweeper operations.
Truck Loading Areas
The Proposed Project would require an onsite truck loading area. In order to determine the noise
impacts from a general commercial use truck loading area a noise measurement was taken of a tractor
trailer operating at the Fresno Walmart loading dock, which is representative of a typical commercial
operation. The noise measurement was taken approximately five feet from a tractor trailer unloading,
which measured noise levels of 64.9 dBA Leq and 83.1 dBA Lmax. The entire truck visit lasted for
approximately 15 minutes.
Forklift Operations and Pallet Areas
The Proposed Project would likely require the use of forklifts and pallet storage areas. In order to
determine the noise impacts from commercial center forklift operations and pallet storage areas a noise
measurement was taken of a forklift operating at the Fresno Walmart between the building and pallet
area. The noise measurement was taken approximately 10 feet from an operational forklift while it
moved pallets to the pallet storage area, which measured noise levels of 74.4 dBA Leq and 87.9 dBA
Lmax. The maximum noise level that was measured included the operation of the backup beeper.
Rooftop Mechanical Equipment
The Proposed Project would require the use of rooftop mechanical equipment for building ventilation
and possibly for refrigeration units for food sales. In order to determine the noise impacts from a
commercial center rooftop mechanical equipment a noise measurement was taken of a rooftop
mechanical equipment at the San Bernardino Walmart. The noise measurement was taken
approximately 10 feet from an operational rooftop unit, which measured noise levels of 59.5 dBA Leq
and 60.3 dBA Lmax.
Trash Compactor
The Proposed Project would likely require the use of trash compactors. In order to determine the noise
impacts from a commercial center trash compactor a noise measurement was taken of a trash
compactor at a Fresno Walmart. The noise measurement was taken approximately 10 feet from an
operational trash compactor, which measured noise levels of 76.3 dBA Leq and 79.8 dBA Lmax. The
trash compactor cycle lasts for approximately 1 minute and may run as often as three times per hour.
Drive Through Speakers
The Proposed Project may include a drive through restaurant, pharmacy or bank that would require the
use of drive through speakers. In order to determine the noise impacts from a drive through speaker a
noise measurement was taken of a drive through speaker at the Santa Rosa McDonalds. The noise
measurement was taken approximately 10 feet from an operational drive through speaker, which
measured noise levels of 61.2 dBA Leq and 73.6 dBA Lmax.
Vibration
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
265
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment
used on the site. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the
ground and diminish in strength with distance. Buildings in the vicinity of the construction site respond
to these vibrations with varying results ranging from no perceptible effects at the low levels to slight
damage at the highest levels. Table 3.10-15 gives approximate vibration levels for particular
construction activities. The data in Table 3.10-15 provides a reasonable estimate for a wide range of soil
conditions.
Table 3.10-15 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity
(inches/second)
Approximate Vibration Level
(Lv)at 25 feet
Pile driver (impact) Upper range
typical
1.518
0.644
112
104
Pile driver (sonic) Upper range
typical
0.734
0.170
105
93
Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94
Hydromill
(slurry wall)
In soil
In rock
0.008
0.017
66
75
Vibratory Roller 0.210 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson drill 0.089 87
Loaded trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small bulldozer 0.003 58
Source: Federal Transit Administration, May 2006.
The construction-related and operational vibration impacts have been calculated through the vibration
levels shown above in Table 3.10-15 and through typical vibration propagation rates. The equipment
assumptions were based on the equipment lists provided in the Air Quality and Global Climate Change
Impact Analysis Ball Road Basin Project.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
IMPACT NOISE-1: The Proposed Project would result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies.
Construction-Related Noise
The Proposed Project is a program level analysis that does not include any specific plans for
development. However for analysis purposes, the worst-case potential construction activities that may
occur on the Project site have been analyzed. The construction activities for the Proposed Project are
anticipated to include: grading of the approximately 19.5-acre Project site, which will include the import
of 386,000 cubic yards of fill material and take between 127 and 527 days to complete; trenching of the
extension of the Chantilly Storm Drain and two storm drains from Auto Center Drive across the Project
site to the River, which would take approximately one month to complete; building construction of up to
425,000 square feet of commercial space, which would take approximately 14 months to complete;
paving of up to 6.5 acres of parking lots and onsite roads, which would take approximately one month to
complete; and application of architectural coatings, which would take approximately three months to
complete.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
266
Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would be a function of
the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and
the timing and duration of the construction activities. The nearest receptors to the Project site in the
City where the City provides noise standards are commercial uses (auto sales) as near as 80 feet west of
the Project site and residential uses as near as 900 feet northwest of the Project site. The nearest
receptors to the Project site in the City of Orange are light industrial and office uses as near as 540 feet
east of the Project site.
Construction noise impacts to the nearby receptors have been calculated through use of the RCNM and
the parameters and assumptions detailed in Section 3.10.5, and the results are shown below in Table
3.10-16.
Table 3.10-16 Average Construction Noise Levels at Nearby Receptors
Receptor Description
Distance to
Receptor (feet)
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq) Ambient
Noise
Levels1 Grading Trenching
Building
Construction Paving Painting
Auto Sales 80 75 74 73 72 70 55.5
Office Uses (Orange) 540 64 61 63 59 59 53.7
Single-Family Homes 900 60 57 60 55 55 58.5
1 Ambient noise levels from year 2016 noise measurements, shown above in Table 3.10-2.
Source: RCNM, Federal Highway Administration, 2006
Table 3.10-16 shows that construction noise levels would exceed the City’s stationary noise standard of
60 dBA Leq at the property line of the nearby auto sales properties and at the nearest single-family
homes, located as close as 900 feet northwest of the Project site. Table 3.10-16 also shows that
construction noise levels would exceed the existing ambient noise levels that were measured in 2016
and shown above in Table 3.10-2. Construction noise that occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. are
exempt from the stationary noise standard of 60 dB at the nearby property line for all land uses. Any
construction activities that occur outside of the allowable times and could result in a significant impact
in the City.
Table 3.10-16 also shows that construction noise at the nearby office and light industrial uses in the City
of Orange would be as high as 64 dBA Leq. The City of Orange only provides stationary noise standards
for residential, schools, hospitals, and churches and does not provide a stationary noise standard for
office and light industrial uses. Impacts would be less than significant in the City of Orange.
Operations-Related Noise
The Proposed Project would consist of the development of up to 425,000 square feet of general
commercial uses. The Proposed Project would generate noise from additional vehicular trips on the
nearby roadways and from onsite stationary noise sources. The Cities of Anaheim and Orange provide
noise standards for the noise sources that would occur onsite from development of the Proposed
Project.
Potential noise sources from a general commercial uses typically include: rooftop mechanical
equipment, parking lots, truck loading areas, forklifts and pallet storage areas, trash compactors, and
possibly drive through speakers. In order to determine the anticipated noise level impacts from these
sources reference noise measurements were taken of each noise source and detailed Section 3.10.5.
Table 3.10-17 shows the reference noise measurements, the distance between the reference noise
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
267
measurement and the source, the nearest distance each noise source would likely be placed to the
nearest receptor (auto sales on west side of Phoenix Club Drive), the calculated noise levels at the
nearest receptor, and the worst-case combined noise levels, which is based on all noise sources
occurring continuously at the nearest possible location.
As shown in Table 3.10-17, the worst-case operations-related stationary noise level would be 57 dBA
Leq at the nearest receptor (auto sales on west side of Phoenix Club Drive), which would not exceed the
City’s stationary noise standard of 60 dBA Leq. Impacts would be less than significant in the City. Impacts
would also be less than significant in the City of Orange.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
268
Table 3.10-17 Possible Operational Stationary Noise Sources Average Noise Levels
Noise Source
Reference Measurement1 Nearest Receptor2
Distance
(feet)
Average Noise (dBA
Leq) Distance (feet)
Average Noise (dBA
Leq)
Rooftop Mechanical Equipment 10 59.5 120 38
Parking Lot 5 60.7 80 37
Truck Loading Area 5 64.9 120 37
Forklift and Pallet Area 10 74.4 120 53
Trash Compactor 10 76.3 120 55
Drive Through Speaker 10 61.2 80 43
Combined Worst-Case Average Noise Level 57
City of Anaheim Stationary Noise Standard3,4 60
Notes:
1 Reference noise measurements detailed in Section 5.2.
2 Nearest Receptors are the auto sales properties on the west side of Phoenix Club Drive.
3 Based on City of Anaheim Municipal Code Section 6.70.010, which is applicable to all private property.
4 The City of Orange exterior noise standards only apply to residential uses, so the nearby office and industrial uses in the City of Orange were
not analyzed.
Impact Summary
Construction noise levels would exceed the City’s stationary noise standard and impacts would be
potentially significant. Construction noise impacts would be less than significant in the City of Orange.
Implementation of mitigation measure MM NOISE-1 would reduce construction noise impacts in the
City to less than significant.
The worst-case combined operations-related noise levels at the nearest receptors located in the City
would not exceed the City stationary noise standard. Operations-related impacts would be less than
significant in the City and the City of Orange, and mitigation would not be required.
IMPACT NOISE-2: The Proposed Project would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
Construction-Related Vibration Impacts
Construction activities can produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent uses. The closest receptors to
the proposed construction activities are the auto sales on the west side of Phoenix Club Drive that are
located as near as 80 feet from the proposed grading activities. The primary source of vibration during
construction would be from the operation of a bulldozer during the grading phase. From Table 3.10-15
above a large bulldozer would create a vibration level of 0.089 inch per second PPV at 25 fee t. Based on
typical propagation rates, the vibration level at the nearest receptor would be 0.025 inch per second
PPV. This vibration level is below the 0.25 inch per second PPV threshold of perception for transient
sources used by Caltrans and is also below the 0.2 inch per second PPV threshold used in the City of
Anaheim General Plan EIR. Therefore, construction-related vibration impacts would be less than
significant and mitigation measures would not be required.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
269
Operations-Related Vibration Impacts
The Proposed Project would result in the operation of a retail shopping center requiring the use of
delivery trucks. These additional truck trips would operate as near as 40 feet from the existing
commercial properties located on the west side of Phoenix Clu b Drive. According to Table 3.10-15, a
loaded truck on a dirt or poorly maintained paved road produces a vibration level of 0.076 inch per
second PPV at 25 feet from a roadway. Based on the typical propagation of vibration described above in
Section 3.10-1, this would result in a worst-case vibration level of 0.045 inch per second PPV at the
nearest commercial uses to Phoenix Club Drive. This vibration level is below the 0.25 inch per second
PPV threshold of perception for transient sources used by Caltrans and is also below the 0.2 inch per
second PPV threshold used in the City of Anaheim General Plan EIR. Therefore, operations -related
vibration impact would be less than significant and mitigation measures would not be required.
Impact Summary
Construction and operations-related vibration levels for the Proposed Project would be below the PPV
thresholds used by Caltrans and the City. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation measures
would not be required.
IMPACT NOISE-3: The Proposed Project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
Potential noise impacts associated with the operations of the Proposed Project would be from Project-
generated vehicular traffic on the Project vicinity roadways from onsite stationary noise sources, which
have been analyzed separately.
Offsite Vehicular Noise Impacts
Vehicle noise is a combination of the noise produced by the engine, exhaust and tires. The level of traffic
noise depends on three primary factors: (1) the volume of traffic, (2) the speed of traffic, and (3) the
number of trucks in the flow of traffic. The Proposed Project does not propose any uses that would
require a substantial number of truck trips. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would not alter the
speed limit on any existing roadway. Therefore, potential offsite noise impacts have been focused on
the noise impacts associated with the change of volume of traffic that would occur with developme nt of
the Proposed Project.
The City’s General Plan EIR utilized a mobile-source noise threshold of: a change of 5 dBA would denote
a significant impact were to remain within the objectives of the General Plan (e.g., 65 dBA CNEL at a
residential location), or 3 dBA if the resultant noise level were to meet or exceed the objectives of the
General Plan.
The Orange General Plan details that an increase in ambient noise levels is assumed to be a significant
noise impact if a project causes ambient noise levels to exceed the following:
• Where the existing ambient noise level is less than 65 dBA, a project related permanent increase
in ambient noise levels of 5 dBA CNEL or greater; or
• Where the existing ambient noise levels is greater than 65 dBA, a project related permanent
increase in ambient noise levels of 3 dBA CNEL or greater.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
270
The potential offsite traffic noise impacts created by the on-going operations of the Proposed Project
have been analyzed through utilization of the FHWA Model and parameters described above in Section
3.10.5. The Proposed Project’s offsite traffic noise impacts have been analyzed for existing and year
2035 conditions and are discussed below.
Existing Conditions
The Proposed Project’s potential offsite noise impacts have been calculated through a comparison of the
Existing scenario to the Existing With Project scenario. The results of this comparison are shown in The
Proposed Project’s potential offsite noise impacts have been calculated through a comparison of the
Existing scenario to the Existing With Project scenario. The results of this comparison are shown in Table
3.10-18 for the roadway segments located in the City and in Table 3.10-19 for the roadway segments
located in the City of Orange.
Table 3.10-18 Existing Project Traffic Noise Contributions to Anaheim Roadways
dBA CNEL at 50 feet Potential
Significant
Impact? Roadway Segment No Project With Project
Project
Contribution
Ball Road West of S West Street 65 65 0 No
Ball Road West of Anaheim Boulevard 66 66 0 No
Ball Road West of Lewis Street 66 66 0 No
Ball Road West of East Street 66 66 0 No
Ball Road West of State College Boulevard 67 66 0 No
Ball Road West of Sunkist Street 67 67 0 No
Ball Road West of SR-57 SB Ramps 68 68 0 No
Ball Road West of Phoenix Club Drive 66 67 0 No
Ball Road East of Phoenix Club Drive 66 66 0 No
Katella Avenue West of Anaheim Boulevard 66 66 0 No
Katella Avenue West of I-5 SB Ramps 66 66 0 No
Katella Avenue West of Lewis Street 67 67 0 No
Katella Avenue West of State College Boulevard 66 66 0 No
Anaheim Boulevard North of Ball Road 64 64 0 No
S East Street North of Ball Road 62 62 0 No
State College Boulevard North of Ball Road 65 65 0 No
State College Boulevard South of Howell Avenue 66 66 0 No
State College Boulevard South of Katella Avenue 66 66 0 No
Sunkist Street North of Wagner Avenue 61 61 0 No
Sunkist Street North of Ball Road 62 63 0 No
Sunkist Street South of Ball Road 61 61 0 No
Sunkist Street South of Cerritos Avenue 59 59 0 No
Phoenix Club Drive South of Ball Road 51 55 4 No
Source: FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model- FHWA-RD-77-108.
The City’s General Plan EIR utilized a mobile-source noise threshold of a change of 5 dBA would denote a
significant impact if the resultant noise level were to remain within the objectives of the General Plan
(e.g., 65 dBA CNEL at a residential location), or 3 dBA if the resultant noise level were to meet or exceed
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
271
the objectives of the General Plan. Table 3.10-18 shows that for the analyzed roadway segments located
in the City the Proposed Project would only provide a quantifiable noise contribution of 4 dB to Phoenix
Club Drive south of Ball Road, which has commercial uses along the entire roadway segment. According
to Figure 3.10-4, commercial uses are normally acceptable up to 70 dBA CNEL, since the with Project
noise level along Phoenix Club Drive is 60 dBA CNEL, the significance threshold for this roadway segment
would be if the Proposed Project would increase the noise level by 5 dB or more. Since the Proposed
Project would only increase the noise level along this roadway segment by 4 dB, this would result in a
less than significant impact in the City.
Table 3.10-19 Existing Project Traffic Noise Contributions to Orange Roadways
dBA CNEL at 50 feet Potential
Significant
Impact? Roadway Segment No Project With Project
Project
Contribution
Taft Avenue East of Main Street 67 67 0 No
Taft Avenue East of Batavia Street 65 65 0 No
Taft Avenue East of Glassell Street 64 64 0 No
Taft Avenue East of Cambridge Street 64 64 0 No
Taft Avenue East of Tustin Street 62 62 0 No
Katella Avenue East of Main Street 66 66 0 No
Katella Avenue East of Batavia Street 66 66 0 No
Katella Avenue East of Glassell Street 67 67 0 No
Katella Avenue East of Cambridge Street 67 67 0 No
Katella Avenue East of Tustin Street 69 69 0 No
Main Street South of Taft Avenue 62 62 0 No
Main Street South of Katella Avenue 63 63 0 No
Main Street South of Collins Avenue 64 65 0 No
Main Street South of Walnut Avenue 65 65 0 No
Main Street South of Chapman Avenue 66 66 0 No
Batavia Street North of Taft Avenue 62 62 0 No
Batavia Street South of Katella Avenue 62 62 0 No
Glassell Street North of Taft Avenue 66 66 0 No
Glassell Street South of Katella Avenue 64 64 0 No
Cambridge Street North of Taft Avenue 60 60 0 No
Cambridge Street South of Katella Avenue 60 60 0 No
Tustin Street North of Taft Avenue 67 67 0 No
Tustin Street South of Katella Avenue 67 67 0 No
Source: FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model- FHWA-RD-77-108.
Table 3.10-19 shows that for the analyzed roadway segments located in the City of Orange the project
contribution to all analyzed roadway segments would be less than 1 dB, which is within both the less
than 65 dBA CNEL and greater than 65 dBA CNEL conditions detailed a bove. Impacts would be less than
significant in the City of Orange.
Year 2035 Conditions
The Proposed Project’s potential offsite noise impacts have been calculated through a comparison of the
Existing scenario to the Existing With Project scenario. The results of this comparison are shown in Table
3.10-20 for the roadway segments located in the City and in Table 3.10-21 for the roadway segments
located in the City of Orange. Table 3.10-20 shows that for the analyzed roadway segments located in
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
272
the City the Project would only provide a quantifiable noise contribution of 4 dB to Phoenix Club Drive
south of Ball Road, which has commercial uses along the entire roadway segment. According to Figure
3.10-4 above, commercial uses are normally acceptable up to 70 dBA CNEL, since the with Project noise
level along Phoenix Club Drive is 60 dBA CNEL, the significance threshold for this roadway segment
would be if the Proposed Project would increase the noise level by 5 dB or more. Since the Proposed
Project would only increase the noise level along this roadway segment by 4 dB, this would result in a
less than significant impact in the City.
Table 3.10-20 Year 2035 Project Traffic Noise Contributions to Anaheim Roadways
dBA CNEL at 100 feet Potential
Significant
Impact? Roadway Segment
Year 2035
Baseline
Year 2035
Plus Project
Project
Contribution
Ball Road West of S West Street 66 66 0 No
Ball Road West of Anaheim Boulevard 66 66 0 No
Ball Road West of Lewis Street 66 66 0 No
Ball Road West of East Street 67 67 0 No
Ball Road West of State College Boulevard 67 67 0 No
Ball Road West of Sunkist Street 67 67 0 No
Ball Road West of SR-57 SB Ramps 68 68 0 No
Ball Road West of Phoenix Club Drive 68 68 0 No
Ball Road East of Phoenix Club Drive 67 67 0 No
Katella Avenue West of Anaheim Boulevard 68 68 0 No
Katella Avenue West of I-5 SB Ramps 69 69 0 No
Katella Avenue West of Lewis Street 69 69 0 No
Katella Avenue West of State College Boulevard 69 69 0 No
Anaheim Boulevard North of Ball Road 65 65 0 No
S East Street North of Ball Road 64 64 0 No
State College Boulevard North of Ball Road 66 66 0 No
State College Boulevard South of Howell Avenue 67 67 0 No
State College Boulevard South of Katella Avenue 67 67 0 No
Sunkist Street North of Wagner Avenue 62 62 0 No
Sunkist Street North of Ball Road 63 63 0 No
Sunkist Street South of Ball Road 62 62 0 No
Sunkist Street South of Cerritos Avenue 63 63 0 No
Phoenix Club Drive South of Ball Road 53 56 3 No
Source: FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model- FHWA-RD-77-108.
Table 3.10-21 shows that for the analyzed roadway segments located in the City of Orange, the Project
contribution to all analyzed roadway segments would be less than 1 dB, which is within both the less
than 65 dBA CNEL and greater than 65 dBA CNEL conditions detailed above. Impacts would be less than
significant in the City of Orange.
Table 3.10-21 Year 2035 Project Traffic Noise Contributions to Orange Roadways
dBA CNEL at 100 feet Potential
Significant
Impact? Roadway Segment
Year 2035
Baseline
Year 2035
Plus Project
Project
Contribution
Taft Avenue East of Main Street 69 69 0 No
Taft Avenue East of Batavia Street 66 66 0 No
Taft Avenue East of Glassell Street 65 65 0 No
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
273
dBA CNEL at 100 feet Potential
Significant
Impact? Roadway Segment
Year 2035
Baseline
Year 2035
Plus Project
Project
Contribution
Taft Avenue East of Cambridge Street 64 64 0 No
Taft Avenue East of Tustin Street 62 62 0 No
Katella Avenue East of Main Street 69 69 0 No
Katella Avenue East of Batavia Street 69 69 0 No
Katella Avenue East of Glassell Street 68 68 0 No
Katella Avenue East of Cambridge Street 68 68 0 No
Katella Avenue East of Tustin Street 70 70 0 No
Main Street South of Taft Avenue 65 65 0 No
Main Street South of Katella Avenue 65 65 0 No
Main Street South of Collins Avenue 67 67 0 No
Main Street South of Walnut Avenue 67 67 0 No
Main Street South of Chapman Avenue 68 68 0 No
Batavia Street North of Taft Avenue 63 63 0 No
Batavia Street South of Katella Avenue 64 64 0 No
Glassell Street North of Taft Avenue 67 67 0 No
Glassell Street South of Katella Avenue 64 64 0 No
Cambridge Street North of Taft Avenue 60 60 0 No
Cambridge Street South of Katella Avenue 60 60 0 No
Tustin Street North of Taft Avenue 68 68 0 No
Tustin Street South of Katella Avenue 68 68 0 No
Source: FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model- FHWA-RD-77-108.
Onsite Stationary Noise Impacts
The Proposed Project would consist of the development of up to 425,000 square feet of general
commercial uses. Potential noise sources from a general commercial use typically include: rooftop
mechanical equipment, parking lots, truck loading areas, forklifts and pallet storage areas, trash
compactors, and possibly drive through speakers. The potential noise impacts at the nearest receptor
were discussed and analyzed above under IMPACT NOISE-1. According to the analysis, the combined
worst-case stationary noise sources would create a noise level of 57 dBA Leq at the nearest receptor,
which would not exceed the City’s stationary noise standard of 60 dBA Leq. Impacts would be less than
significant in the City.
The City of Orange only provides stationary noise standards for residential, schools, hospitals, and
churches and does not provide a stationary noise standard for the nearby office and light industrial uses.
Impacts would be less than significant in the City of Orange.
Impact Summary
Offsite vehicular noise levels and onsite stationary noise levels would not exceed the establish
thresholds for both the City and the City of Orange. Impacts would be less than significant and
mitigation measures would not be required.
IMPACT NOISE-4: The Proposed Project would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
274
The Proposed Project may create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in
the Project vicinity above noise levels existing without the Proposed Project from either construction or
operational activities, which have been analyzed separately below. The City of Anaheim General Plan
does not define what constitutes a substantial temporary noise increase nor does it provide any
thresholds of significance for temporary noise level increases. The City of Orange provides a maximum
allowable noise exposure levels of 70 dBA Lmax between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 65 dBA Lmax
between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. for noise sensitive residential land uses, but provides no standards or
thresholds for the nearby office and light industrial uses. The Federal Occupational Safety and Health
Administration has determined that for short duration and instantaneous noise impacts, a noise level of
115 dB that lasts for 15 minutes or less is the threshold for causing hearing damage. However , in order
to provide a conservative analysis, the measured existing ambient maximum noise levels provided above
in Table 3.10-1 have been utilized as the significance threshold. Table 3.10-1 shows the maximum noise
levels currently experienced at the commercial uses on the west side of Phoenix Club Drive is 83.0 dBA
Lmax and the maximum noise levels currently experienced at the nearby offi ce and light industrial uses
in the City of Orange is 88.6 dBA Lmax. In order to provide a worst-case analysis, this analysis has utilized
the lower recorded ambient maximum noise level of 83.0 dBA Lmax to determine if a significant
temporary noise impact would occur from construction and operation of the Proposed Project.
Construction Noise Impacts
The construction activities for the Proposed Project are anticipated to include grading of the 19.5 acre
Project site, which will include the import of 386,000 cubic yards of fill material; trenching of the
extension of the Chantilly Storm Drain and two storm drains from Auto Center Drive across the Project
site to the Santa Ana River; building construction of up to 425,000 square feet of commercial retail
space; paving of up to 6.5 acres of parking lots and onsite roads; and application of architectural
coatings.
Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would be a function of
the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and
the timing and duration of the construction activities. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site
in the City are residential uses as near as 900 feet northwest of the Project site. There are no sensitive
receptors in the nearby vicinity located in the City of Orange.
Table 3.10-16 above found that construction activities would create a noise level as high as 60 dBA Leq
at the homes northwest of the Project site. Table 3.10-1 shows that the existing noise level at the
nearest home is 58.0 dBA Leq. Construction activities are anticipated to increase the noise level by as
much as 2 dB at the nearest homes. Since the City does not define what constitutes a substantial noise
increase, the substantial noise increases defined in Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment,
prepared by the FTA, May 2006 has been utilized in this analysis. The FTA report found that a significant
noise level increase would occur if the Proposed Project would increase the noise level by more than 2
dB where the existing noise is between 56 and 60 dB. Therefore, construction activities associated with
the Proposed Project would not cause a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. Impacts
would be less than significant.
Operations-Related Noise Impacts
The Proposed Project would consist of the development of up to 425,000 square feet of general
commercial uses. Potential noise sources from a general commercial use typically include: rooftop
mechanical equipment, parking lots, truck loading areas, forklifts and pallet storage areas, trash
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
275
compactors, and possibly drive through speakers. In order to determine the anticipated maximum noise
level impacts from these sources reference noise measurements were taken of each noise source and
detailed above in Section 3.10.5. Table 3.10-22 shows the reference noise measurements, the distance
between the reference noise measurement and the source, the nearest distance each noise source
would likely be placed to the nearest receptor (homes as near as 900 feet northwest of the Project site),
and the calculated noise levels at the nearest receptor. The maximum noise levels typically would last
around a second and only occur only a few times a day. Therefore, it is very unlikely to have maximum
noise levels from multiple sources occurring simultaneously. Because of this, the maximum noise level
from each source has been analyzed separately.
Table 3.10-22 Possible Operational Stationary Noise Sources Maximum Noise Levels
Noise Source
Reference Measurement1 Nearest Sensitive Receptor2
Distance
(feet)
Maximum Noise
(dBA Lmax) Distance (feet)
Maximum Noise
(dBA Lmax)3
Rooftop Mechanical Equipment 10 60.3 950 21
Parking Lot 5 86.9 900 42
Truck Loading Area 5 83.1 950 38
Forklift and Pallet Area 10 87.9 900 49
Trash Compactor 10 79.8 950 40
Drive Through Speaker 10 73.6 950 34
Maximum Noise Threshold4 74
Notes:
1 Reference noise measurements detailed in Section 3.10.5.
2 Nearest sensitive Receptors are the homes as near as 900 feet northwest of the Project site.
3 Maximum noise level calculated through use of typical point source attenuation of 6 dB per doubling of distance. Calculated noise levels do
not account for walls or structures, which would provide additional attenuation.
4 Based on the existing maximum noise level at Site B, shown above in Table 3.10-1
Table 3.10-22 shows that the worst-case operations-related maximum noise level would be from the
forklift and pallet area, which could create a noise level as high as 49 dBA Lmax Leq at the nearest
receptor (homes as near as 900 feet northwest of the Project site). This would not exceed the existing
ambient maximum noise level of 74 dBA Lmax at the nearby homes. This noise level is based on a worst-
case scenario and forklift operations and pallet areas are typically at the rear of commercial buildings or
placed behind walls, which would reduce the noise level created from forklift operations. Impacts would
be less than significant and mitigation measures would not be required.
Impact Summary
Construction noise is temporary and would not exceed the ambient noise threshold. Furthermore,
worst-case operations-related maximum noise level would not exceed the existing ambient maximum
noise level. Therefore, the Proposed Project’s construction and operations-related activities would not
cause a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels.
MITIGATION MEASURE
MM NOISE-1: Prior to issuance of all demolition, grading and building permits, the Property
Owner/Developer shall indicate on plans adherence to the following noise attenuation requirements:
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
276
▪ All construction equipment shall operate with mufflers and intake silencers no less effective
than originally equipped.
▪ All construction activities shall be restricted from occurring between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.,
unless the contractor obtains authorization from the Director of Public Works or Building
Official to extend construction work hours.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Operations-related noise impacts and construction and operations-related vibration impacts would be
less than significant without mitigation. Permanent and temporary increases in ambient noise would
also be less than significant without mitigation.
Construction noise levels would exceed the City’s stationary noise standard and impacts would be
potentially significant. Mitigation measure MM NOISE-1 would reduce construction noise impacts in the
City to less than significant after mitigation.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative noise impacts to the surrounding area would occur if there was a significant increase in
ambient noise levels as a result of the Proposed Project. Increases in ambient noise levels due to
construction activities are temporary and would not be cumulatively considerable. The noise analysis for
the project provided a comparison of the Year 2035 Baseline noise levels with Year 2035 Baseline noise
levels. Offsite vehicular and onsite stationary noise levels would not exceed the establish thresholds for
ambient noise levels prescribed by the City and the City of Orange. Impacts to ambient noise levels as a
result of the Proposed Project would not be cumulatively significant.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
277
3.11. POPULATION AND HOUSING
3.11.1 INTRODUCTION
This section addresses potential impacts to population and housing as a result of the Proposed Project.
Information present in this section is derived from the US Census Bureau 2010 Census, the State
Department of Finance, and SCAG.
3.11.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
POPULATION AND HOUSING TRENDS
The Proposed Project site is located in the City. Table 3.11-1 shows the population and housing counts
from the 2010 US Census and the estimates for 2016 provided by the California Department of Finance
for the City. According to the US Census Bureau, the City had a total population of 336,265 and an
average household size of 3.38 persons in 2010. Of the 104,237 housing units in the City, a total of
98,294 were occupied. The California Department of Finance provided population and housing
estimates for the City for 2016. According to these estimates, the City has a total population of 358,136
in 2016, which is 6.5 percent increase from the 2010 population count. The 2016 average household size
(3.46) increased between 2010 and 2016 by 2.4 percent. Total housing units in 2016 also increased by
2.3 percent; however, the 2016 vacancy rate decreased by 33.3 percent.
Table 3.11-1 Population and Housing: 2010 and 2016
Year Percent
Change 20101 20162
Total Population 336,265 358,136 6.5%
Average Household Size 3.38 3.463.43 2.4%
Total Housing Units 104,237 106,626 2.3%
Occupied Housing Units 98,294 102,540 4.30.9%
Vacancy Rate 5.7% 3.8% (33.3)%
1 US Census Bureau, 2010 Census
2 California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2015-2016
EMPLOYMENT
According to the State of California Employment Development Department the City had a total civilian
labor force of 170,000 and an unemployment rate of 4.9 percent in January 2017, which is higher than
the County’s unemployment rate of 3.5 percent.
Table 3.11-2 Employment Status
Anaheim Orange County
Labor Force 170,000 1,593,100
Employment 161,600 1,531,400
Percent unemployed 4.9% 3.9%
Source: California Employment Development Department, Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places January 2017 –
Preliminary. March 3, 2017.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
278
REGIONAL GROWTH FORECAST
The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS contains growth forecast for the SCAG region, including the City and Orange
County. SCAG’s growth forecasts for Orange County were based on the Center for Demographic
Research Orange County Projections 2014-Modied. As shown in Table 3.11-3, population and
households for the City are estimated to increase approximately 16.8 percent and 23.6 percent,
respectively, between 2012 and 2040. The City’s population and household growth rates between 2012
and 2040 are greater than Orange County’s estimated growth of approximately 12.7 percent and 15.3
percent for population and households, respectively. By 2040, the City’s employment is expected to
increase by 38.1 percent from the 2012 numbers. By contrast, Orange County employment is expected
to grow 24.4 percent.
Table 3.11-3 Growth Forecast
Year Percent Change
Between 2012
and 2040 2012 2020 2035 2040
Population
Anaheim 345,300 403,400 16.8%
Orange County 3,072,000 3,271,000 3,431,000 3,461,000 12.7%
Households
Anaheim 99,200 122,600 23.6%
Orange County 999,000 1,075,000 1,135,000 1,152,000 15.3%
Employment
Anaheim 177.900 245,600 38.1%
Orange County 1,526,000 1,730,000 1,870,000 1,899,000 24.4%
Source: SCAG 2016 2040 RTP/SCS Growth Forecast Appendix. April 2016
3.11.3 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
REGIONAL
Southern California Association of Governments
SCAG is the designated MPO and the regional governing body for six counties: Los Angeles, Orange, San
Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. The region encompasses a population exceeding 18 million
persons in an area of more than 38,000 square miles. As the MPO, SCAG is mandated by the federal
government to research and draw up plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous waste
management, and air quality.
2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
SCAG adopted the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)
on April 2016. The RTP/SCS is a regional growth management strategy that incorporates local land use
projection and circulation networks in the cities and counties general plans. The RTP/SCS was developed
in order to meet the requirements of SB 375, which requires MPOs to prepare a SCS that demonstrates
how the region will meet its GHG reduction targets as set forth by CARB.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
279
The Regional Growth Forecast is used as a key guide for developing regional plans and strategies
mandated by federal and state governments such as the RTP/SCS, the Program EIR for the RTP/SCS, the
Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP), and the
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is a key tool for SCAG and its member governments to
plan for growth. The RHNA quantifies the need for housing within each jurisdiction. Communities then
plan, consider, and decide how they will address this need through the process of completing the
Housing elements of their General Plans. The RHNA does not necessarily encourage or promote growth
but allows communities to anticipate growth so that they can grow in ways that enhance quality of life,
improve access to jobs, transportation, and housing, and not adversely impact the environment.
LOCAL
City of Anaheim Housing Element
Housing Element provides for the identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and
articulates the policies for the preservation, conservation, improvement and production of housing
within the City. This element addresses adequate housing opportunities for present and future Anaheim
residents through 2021, and provides the primary policy guidance for local decision-making related to
housing.
3.11.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Proposed
Project would have a significant impact to population and housing if it would result in any of the
following:
▪ Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads
or other infrastructure)?
▪ Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
▪ Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
EFFECTS DISMISSED IN THE INITIAL STUDY
The IS concluded that the following potential impacts to population and housing would not occur and
did not need to be further addressed in the EIR:
▪ The project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
▪ The project would not displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
280
3.11.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
METHODOLOGY
Construction and operation of a 425,000 square foot commercial development, based on the City’s
maximum FAR for the General Commercial land use designation and C-G Zone, was used for the analysis
of potential impacts.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
IMPACT POP-1: The Proposed Project would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly or indirectly.
The Proposed Project would change the City’s General Plan Land Use designation for the Project site
from Open Space to General Commercial and the zoning designation of the site from Transitional (T)
Zone and Industrial (I) Zone to the General Commercial (C-G) Zone. Amendments to the General Plan
and zoning would allow the construction and operation of up to 425,000 square foot of commercial
development. Based on the ratio of 400 square feet per employee contained in the City of Anaheim
General Plan Land Use Element, the Proposed Project could generate up to 1,063 employees.
The number of jobs created a result of the Proposed Project is not expected to induce population
growth in the area. It is expected that the majority of the workforce needed to fill the jobs created by
the Proposed Project would be supplied by residents of the City, which had a January 2017
unemployment rate of 4.9 percent, or by residents of neighboring cities who would commute.
Furthermore, any nominal population growth induced by the creation of new jobs would be adequately
absorbed by the current housing market in the City, which had a vacancy rate of 3.8 percent. Impacts to
population growth would be considered less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURE
No mitigation required.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Not applicable.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The Proposed Project would result in the construction and operation of up to 425,000 square feet of
commercial development and create up to 1,063 new jobs. The creation of new jobs would not induce a
significant increase in population growth in the City. It is expected that these new jobs would be filled by
the City’s existing workforce. Furthermore, the projections contained in the adopted General Plan
account for development and growth in the City. Job growth as a result of the Proposed Project is not
substantial enough to result in a significant population growth that would be cumulatively significant
and would exceed the growth projections in the Anaheim General Plan.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
281
3.12. PUBLIC SERVICES
3.12.1 INTRODUCTION
This section provides an overview of public facilities surrounding the Project site and evaluates potential
impacts that could result from Proposed Project implementation. Public service facilities include fire
protection, police protection, schools, libraries, and recreational facilities. Information presented in this
section is derived from the Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR.
3.12.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The locations of the following public facilities are shown in Figure 3.12-1, Public Service Facilities.
Fire Protection Services
Fire protection services are provided to the Proposed Project site by the AFD. The AFD operates 11 fire
stations and employs a total of 231 safety and 54 full-time personnel. In addition, the AFD staffs 12
engine companies, ten of which are designated paramedic companies; five truck companies; one
contract paramedic company; one hazardous materials unit; one technical rescue unit; and two
Battalions, housed in Fire Station 6 (Euclid Fire Station) and Station 8 (Riverdale Station).
The closest fire stations are as follows:
▪ Stadium Station 7: 2222 E. Ball Road, 0.78 mile from the site;
▪ Resort Station 3: 1717 S. Clementine Street, 2.28 miles from the site; and
▪ Downtown Station 1: 500 E. Broadway Street, 2.45 miles from the site.
In addition, the AFD has plans to construct three new fire stations to serve the Platinum Triangle area ,
which is located immediately south of the Project site.
The AFD requires first engine response within five minutes to 90 percent of all incidents and eight
minutes to the remaining 10 percent. The AFD also requires a maximum of 10 minutes for truck
company response to 100 percent of all incidents.
Police Protection Services
Law enforcement and crime prevention services are provided by the Anaheim Police Department (APD).
Police services provided include patrol, investigations, traffic enforcement, traffic control, vice and
narcotics enforcement, airborne patrol, crime suppression, community policing, tourist oriented
policing, and detention facilities. The APD currently employs approximately 370 sworn officers, a
support staff of over 195, and a Reserve Officer Detail of 36. The ratio of sworn police officers is
approximately 1.13 officers per 1,000 population.
Officers operate out of four stations and patrol an area of 49.7 square miles, divided into four districts
(West, Central, South, and East). The police stations are located as follows: Central Station, located at
425 S. Harbor Boulevard; East Station, located at 8201 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road; Resort Station,
located at 1520 S. Disneyland Drive; and, West Station, located at 3150 W. Lincoln Avenue.
Legend: Fire Station Police Station Schools Libraries Parks Ball Road Basin
Figure 3.12-1: Public Service FacilitiesCity of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
Draft EIR Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Orange County
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
283
The closest police stations are as follows:
▪ Central Station: 425 S. Harbor Boulevard, 2.92 miles from the site; and
▪ Resort Station: 1520 S. Disneyland Drive, 3.05 miles from the site.
The approximate average response time of patrol units to Priority 1 emergency calls throughout the
jurisdiction is an average of 6.1 minutes. The response times for non-emergency Priority 2 and Priority 3
calls are an average of 8.6 minutes and 19.2 minutes respectively.
School Services
School services for the Project site would be provided by the Anaheim City School District (ACSD) and
the Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD). ACSD operates 24 elementary schools within the City
and is the largest elementary district in Orange County. The AUHSD operates eight high schools, eight
junior high schools, seven alternative schools, and adult education programs within the City. The AUHSD
covers approximately 46 square miles, including the cities of Anaheim, Buena Park, Cypress, Garden
Grove, La Palma, Orange and Stanton.
The Project site is currently within the attendance boundaries of Guinn Elementary School, South Junior
High School, and Katella High School. Guinn Elementary is located at 1051 S. Sunkist Street. South Junior
High School is located at 2320 E South Street. Katella High School is located at 2200 E Wagner Avenue.
Libraries
The Anaheim Public Library System consists of one Central Branch Library, six branch libraries, a
Bookmobile, Books on the Go at ARTIC, the Anaheim Heritage Center, and Founders Park. The libraries
nearest to the Proposed Project site are the Sunkist Branch Library on 901 S. South Sunkist, the Central
Branch on 500 W. Broadway, and the Euclid Branch on 1340 S. South Euclid.
Parks
There are three City parks within one mile of the Proposed Project. Juarez Park is a 9.5-acre
neighborhood park located at 841 South Sunkist Street, Boysen Park is a 24.6 acres community park
located at 951 S. State College Boulevard, and Anaheim Coves is a 14-acre passive nature park which
surrounds the perimeter of Burris Basin between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue. Additional details on
park facilities are provide in Section 3.13 below.
3.12.3 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
STATE
The Quimby Act
The California Legislature first established the Quimby Act in 1975 and amended the act in 1982. Per the
Quimby Act, California allows a City or County to pass an ordinance that requires, as a condition of
approval of a subdivision, the dedication of land, the payment of a fee in lieu of dedication, or a
combination of both for park or recreational purposes (California Government Code §66477). This
legislation establishes maximum parkland dedication standards for new subdivision development unless
the amount of existing neighborhood and community parkland exceeds the limit.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
284
LOCAL
City of Anaheim General Plan, Public Services and Facilities Element
The Public Services and Facilities Element identifies the City’s goals, policies, and programs concerning
the provision of public facilities and services, including fire protection, law enforcement, schools, and
library services. The following goals and policies are related to public services and facilities available to
the Proposed Project:
Goal 1.1: Provide sufficient staffing, equipment and facilities to ensure effective fire protection,
emergency medical and rescue services, permitting and fire inspection, and hazardous material
response services that keep pace with growth.
Policies:
1) Maintain adequate resources to enable the Fire Department to meet response time standards,
keep pace with growth, and provide high levels of service.
Goal 2.1: Meet the community’s needs for public safety and law enforcement by ensuring adequate
resources for the prevention, detection, and investigation of crime, and response to calls for service.
Policies:
1) Maintain adequate resources to enable the Police Department to meet response time
standards, keep pace with growth, and provide high levels of service.
Goal 11.1: Coordinate with public and private educational entities to provide a variety of high quality
education and training opportunities to meet the needs of a diverse community and economy.
Policies:
1) Continue to assist school districts in their long-range planning for school facilities.
Goal 12.1: Maintain and expand library facilities and services to meet the community’s needs.
Policies:
1) Enhance library facilities to improve inventory, services, accessibility, and public image.
3.12.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Proposed
Project would have a significant impact to public services and facilities if it would result in any of the
following:
▪ Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives for fire protection, police protection, schools,
parks or other public facilities?
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
285
3.12.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
IMPACT ANALYSIS
IMPACT PUB-1: The Proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks or
other public facilities.
The Proposed Project would change the City’s General Plan Land Use designation for the Project site
from Open Space to General Commercial and the zoning designation of the site from Transitional (T)
Zone and Industrial (I) Zone to the General Commercial (C-G) Zone. Amendments to the General Plan
and zoning would allow the construction and operation of up to 425,000 square foot of commercial
development. Based on the ratio of 400 square feet per employee contained in the City of Anaheim
General Plan Land Use Element, the Proposed Project could generate up to 1,063 employees. As
discussed in Section 3.11 above, the number of jobs created a result of the Proposed Project is not
expected to induce population growth in the area. It is expected that the majority of the workforce
needed to fill the jobs created by the Proposed Project would be supplied by residents of the City, which
had a January 2017 unemployment rate of 4.9 percent, or by residents of neighboring cities who would
commute. Since the Proposed Project would not generate additional population, school and library
services would not be impacted by the Project.
The development of 425,000 square feet of new commercial uses on the Project site would increase the
need for fire and police services over existing conditions at the Project site. The Proposed Project only
involves changes to the General Plan and zoning designations for the Project site and does not include a
specific development plan for BRB. Estimating project-specific demands and associated need for
additional personnel, equipment, and facilities would be assessed when a specific development plan is
reviewed by the City.18 Future development on the Project site would be reviewed by the City on an
individual basis and would be required comply with requirements and pay the appropriate impact fees
in effect at the time building permits are issued.
It is anticipated that the overall increase in property tax revenue from future commercial development
would be used to cover and additional staffing, equipment, or facility needs. However, impact fees may
be assessed depending on the intensity of the uses proposed and the demand for fire and police
services. Furthermore, all future development plans would be required to comply with the policies
contained in the General Plan and with the Anaheim Municipal Code. Impacts to public facilities would
be to be considered less than significant and mitigation measures would not be required.
MITIGATION MEASURE
No mitigation required.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Not applicable.
18 Based on telephone conversation with Captain Eric Carter, Community Services Division Commander, February 24, 20 17.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
286
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The Proposed Project would result in the construction and operation of up to 425,000 square feet of
commercial development and create up to 1,063 new jobs. The creation of new jobs would not induce a
significant increase in population growth in the City. It is expected that these new jobs would be filled by
the City’s existing workforce. Furthermore, the projections contained in the adopted General Plan
account for development and growth in the City. Job growth as a result of the Proposed Project is not
substantial enough to result in a population growth that would result in cumulatively significant impacts
to school or library services. Future project-specific impacts to Public Services would be reduced by the
payment of applicable impact fees and adherence to the General Plan and Anaheim Municipal Code, and
would not result in cumulatively significant impacts.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
287
3.13. RECREATION
3.13.1 INTRODUCTION
This section provides an overview of the recreational resources surrounding the Project site and
evaluates potential impacts that could result from Proposed Project implementation. Recreational
resources include facilities developed for recreation, such as designated parks, trails, and picnic areas, as
well as land where dispersed recreational activities such as hiking, biking, and horseback riding, etc. may
take place. Information presented in this section is derived from the Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code
Update EIR and the City of Anaheim website (http://www.anaheim.net/comm_svc/parks/)
3.13.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
REGIONAL RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
Regional parks are large parks usually 50 acres or more in size that attract users within and beyond the
City limits. Orange County owns and operates three regional parks located within or near the East
Anaheim portion of the City. Yorba Regional Park is a 166-acre park located on the north side of Santa
Ana River in East Anaheim. Featherly Regional Park is a 150-acre park located in the City of Yorba Linda,
just north of SR-91. Santiago Oaks Regional Park is 135 acres and is located along Santiago Creek in the
City of Orange.
The eastern edge of the City is also adjacent to the Chino Hills State Park, a 12,500-acre park in Orange
Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
LOCAL RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
The City owns and operates nearly 50 developed parks totaling almost 700 acres and over 50 miles of
developed and proposed trails. These trails link residents to parks and community facilities, as well as to
the regional park system, the Cleveland National Forest, and the inter-county Santa Ana River and
Anaheim Coves Trails.
The City has different types of public recreational open space areas, including neighborhood park s,
community parks, and special use parks such as nature centers. Neighborhood parks are the most
common type of park in the City. They are typically five to 15 acres and have a service radius of a half
mile. Community parks range from 15 to 30 acres and have a service radius of up to two miles. There are
three city parks with a mile of the Project site: Juarez Park, Boysen Park, and Anaheim Coves. Figure
3.13-1, Recreational Resources shows the location of recreational facilities within a mile of the Project
site.
Juarez Park is a 9.5-acre neighborhood park located at 841 South Sunkist Street, east of State College
Boulevard and south of Lincoln Avenue. Juarez Park offers an unlighted softball field, children's play
area, barbecue facilities, football/soccer area, basketball court, and restrooms
Boysen Park is a 24.6 acres community park located at 951 S. State College Boulevard. Boysen Park
offers lighted and unlighted softball fields, lighted baseball field, children’s play areas, barbecue
facilities, a volleyball court, football/soccer area, and restrooms. The park is also adjacent to the
Anaheim Tennis Center, which has 12 lighted tennis courts open to the public.
Legend: Boysen Park Juarez Park Anaheim Coves Ball Road Basin
Figure 3.13-1: Recreational ResourcesCity of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
Draft EIR Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Orange County
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
289
Anaheim Coves is a 14-acre passive nature park which surrounds the perimeter of Burris Basin between
Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue. Anaheim Coves includes a 1.5 mile recreational trail, interpretive panels,
observation areas, native plant landscaping, restrooms, and access to the Santa Ana River. The Anaheim
Cove Trail runs between Lincoln Avenue and Ball Road and terminates at the northern boundary of
Burris Basin.
The Project site is also located adjacent to the Santa Ana River, a major open space resource, which
includes the Santa Ana River Riding and Hiking Trail, a national recreation trail that, when completed,
would incorporate 110 miles of trail system from San Bernardino County to Orange County. This trail is
owned and operated by the County of Orange.
3.13.3 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
STATE
The Quimby Act
The California Legislature first established the Quimby Act in 1975 and amended the act in 1982. Per the
Quimby Act, California allows a City or County to pass an ordinance that requires, as a condition of
approval of a subdivision, the dedication of land, the payment of a fee in lieu of dedication, or a
combination of both for park or recreational purposes (California Government Code §66477). This
legislation establishes maximum parkland dedication standards for new subdivision development unless
the amount of existing neighborhood and community parkland exceeds the limit.
LOCAL
City of Anaheim General Plan, Green Element
The City of Anaheim General Plan’s Green Element addresses the provision of open space, conservation,
recreation, and landscaping resources. It includes existing parks and open space, and also potential
recreational opportunities such as schools, utility easements, water uses, and vacant land. The City
currently maintains park dedication standards that require new development within the City to ensure
that two acres of parkland will be developed for each 1,000 residents. The dedication may be in the
form of improved land, the payment of fees in lieu of dedication, or a combination of both. The
following goals and policies are related to parks and recreational resources surrounding the Project site:
Goal 18.1: Provide sufficient indoor and outdoor park, recreation and community service opportunitie s
for existing and future residents and employees.
Policies:
1) Maintain a Citywide standard of at least two acres of parkland per thousand residents.
2) Locate neighborhood parks within walking distance of the surrounding neighborhood.
3) Locate parks adjacent to schools, where possible, to facilitate joint-use of publicly owned land
and facilities.
4) Design new facilities to serve as many compatible, overlapping uses a possible such as
baseball/softball outfields also serving as soccer fields.
5) Develop a network of at least one 10,000 square-foot multi-use, indoor facility (e.g.,
gymnasium) per 25,000 residents.
6) Continue to provide a variety of park types and facilities, especially dedicated sports fields and
practice fields, that serve the diverse needs of Anaheim’s neighborhoods.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
290
7) Encourage development of park and community service facilities in areas of high employment
concentrations to serve workers and residents alike.
8) Consider acquiring properties adjacent to schools, properties available on an opportunity basis,
or excess freeway rights-of-way, when available, for park purposes.
Goal 19.1: Provide a broad range of recreation programs including fee and non -fee based sports
activities, cultural programs, arts and crafts and Citywide events.
Policies:
1) Provide a wide variety of recreational facilities – in both active and passive areas of parks to
satisfy diverse needs and activities.
2) Design and redesign parks to reflect the latest recreational features, responsive to population
trends and community needs.
3) Continue to ensure responsive management practices that include staff training, efficient
scheduling, and coordination with other City departments.
4) Tailor recreation programs to serve the community and include specialized populations, such as
pre-school and elementary school children, teens, senior citizens, families, young adults and
those with special needs.
5) Develop non-traditional approaches to provide supplementary services and programs where
facility deficiencies exist (e.g., mobile programs, street events, entertainment, storefront
operations).
6) Continue to develop public/private partnerships to expand recreational programs and
opportunities.
7) Encourage the development of recreation programs aimed at serving the needs of businesses
and employees within Anaheim.
8) Provide disability access to all park and recreation facilities.
Goal 20.1: Vigorously maintain and upgrade Anaheim’s parks and recreation facilities to better serve the
needs of residents and workers.
1) Continue to promote safety through active ordinance enforcement, risk management reviews,
improved signage, park security programs and neighborhood park stewardship and community -
based safety programs.
2) Continue to improve and maintain proper lighting in park facilities and fields without undue
glare impacts on adjoining residential areas.
3) Reduce potential for injury by careful selection of equipment and timely repair of facilities.
4) Continue to conduct safety reviews of each park on a regular basis.
5) Convert underutilized areas within existing parks to better meet the needs of the community.
6) Continue to conduct regular reviews of existing public parks to determine maintenance needs,
funding priorities, and long-term rehabilitation costs.
7) Reduce potential for vandalism through continued police patrols, neighborhood w atch
programs, stewardship programs and public outreach.
3.13.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
291
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Proposed
Project would have a significant impact to recreational resources if it would result in any of the
following:
• Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
• Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
existing recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
3.13.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
IMPACT ANALYSIS
IMPACT REC-1: The Proposed Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated.
The Project site is not located in a residential area or identified as a Park Deficiency Area in the City of
Anaheim General Plan Green Element. The build-out of the Proposed Project could result in up to
425,000 square feet of commercial development, which would generate an increase of up to 1,063
employees as discussed under Section 3.11, Population and Housing. The number of employees
generated by the Proposed Project would not result in significant increases in the population. While
employees may use nearby recreational facilities such as the Anaheim Coves or the Santa Ana River
Riding and Hiking Trail, use of these facilities would not be intensive enough to result in substantial
physical deterioration of the facilities. Future commercial development on the Project site would be
designed to support the recreational goals and policies of the Green Element. Furthermore, the
Proposed Project would amend the General Plan Circulation and Green Elements to designate a Class 1
Bike Path/Trail Study Area along the northern, eastern and southern perimeter of the Project site. The
proposed multi-purpose trail would serve as a southern extension of the Anaheim Coves Class 1 Bike
Path/Riding and Hiking Trail located to the north across Ball Road. Impacts to recreation would be
considered less than significant and mitigation would not be required.
IMPACT REC-2: The Proposed Project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction
or expansion of existing recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment.
The Proposed Project would amend the General Plan Circulation and Green Elements to designate a
Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area along the northern, eastern and southern perimeter of the Project
site. The proposed multi-purpose trail would serve as a southern extension of the Anaheim Coves Class 1
Bike Path/Riding and Hiking Trail located to the north across Ball Road. Trail Study Areas depict potential
trail locations that connect residents with recreational opportunities, schools and activity centers.
Although they are mapped, the feasibility of their implementation has yet to be determined. Future
implementation of the Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area will potentially include analysis of necessary
intergovernmental or joint use agreements (i.e. lease, license, easement, joint use agreement); law
enforcement jurisdiction; potential property acquisition; maintenance responsibilities; cost sharing;
allowable trail uses; physical obstacles; ownership constraints; and, funding issues to determine
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
292
feasibility. Therefore, impacts to recreation would be considered less than significant and mitigation
would not be required.
MITIGATION MEASURE
No mitigation required.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Not applicable.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The Proposed Project would amend the General Plan Circulation and Green Elements to designate a
Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area along the northern, eastern and southern perimeter of the Project
site. The proposed multi-purpose trail would serve as a southern extension of the Anaheim Coves Class 1
Bike Path/Riding and Hiking Trail located to the north across Ball Road. Trail Study Areas depict potential
trail locations that connect residents with recreational opportunities, schools and activity centers.
Although they are mapped, the feasibility of their implementation has yet to be determined. Future
implementation of the Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area will potentially include analysis of necessary
intergovernmental or joint use agreements (i.e. lease, license, easement, joint use agreement); law
enforcement jurisdiction; potential property acquisition; maintenance responsibilities; cost sharing;
allowable trail uses; physical obstacles; ownership constraints; and, funding issues to determine
feasibility.
The Proposed Project is not located within a Park Deficiency Area, as identified in the City of Anaheim
General Plan Green Element, and does not include the construction of new or expanded recreational
facilities, only the designation of a Class 1 Bike Path/Trail Study Area, as described above. Furthermore,
the Proposed Project would not result in population growth that exceeds the projections contained in
the adopted General Plan, or result in a significant increase in demand for recreational amenities such
that new or expanded recreational facilities would be needed to meet the City’s park standards and
adequately serve the Proposed Project. Project-specific impacts to existing recreational resources as a
result of future development on the Project site would be required to comply with park dedication
standards or in-lieu fees developed for non-residential development. Any foreseeable impacts to
recreation would be localized and would not result in cumulative impacts to regional recreational
facilities.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
293
3.14. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
3.14.1 INTRODUCTION
This section describes the existing traffic conditions of the Project area and analyzes the potential
impacts to the circulation system as a result of the Proposed Project. The information presented in this
section is based on the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Update, dated February 20, 2017, and the Technical
Memorandum - Traffic Analysis: Engineered Fill of Basin Construction Analyses for: 1) Model Year 2007
or Newer Trucks; and, 2) Model Year 2010 or Newer Trucks, dated July 3, 2013 prepared by Transpo
Group for the Proposed Project. The findings of the reports and the technical memorandum are
summarized below and the documents are provided in Appendix I of this EIR.
3.14.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Proposed Project is located in the south central portion of the City in Orange County, California. The
Proposed Project site is bounded by the Santa Ana River Center Levee and the Santa Ana River to the
east, Ball Road and the Burris Basin to the north, the Union Pacific Railroad to the south, and Phoenix
Club Drive to the west. Regional access to the Project site is provided by SR-57, while local access is
provided by Ball Road – Taft Avenue. Figure 3.14-1, Transportation Study Area Intersections and
Roadway Segments shows the intersections and roadway segments included in the transportation study
area established for this analysis. These facilities have been determined based on the analysis criteria of
the Cities of Anaheim and Orange, and the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP). The
Public Works Departments of both Cities have been consulted in the determination of the intersections
and roadways included in the transportation study area.
The 43 intersections included in the transportation study area are as follows:
1. Disneyland Drive/Ball Road
2. Harbor Boulevard/Ball Road
3. Anaheim Boulevard/Ball Road
4. Lewis Street/Ball Road
5. East Street/Ball Road
6. State College Boulevard/Ball Road
7. Sunkist Street/Ball Road
8. SR-57 southbound ramps/Ball Road
9. SR-57 northbound ramps/Ball Road
10. Phoenix Club Drive/Ball Road
11. Sunkist Street/Wagner Avenue
12. Anaheim Boulevard/Cerritos Avenue
13. Lewis Street/Cerritos Avenue
14. State College Boulevard/Cerritos Avenue
15. Sunkist Street/Cerritos Avenue
16. State College Boulevard/Howell Avenue
17. Sunkist Street/Howell Avenue
18. Anaheim Boulevard/Katella Avenue
19. Manchester Avenue/Katella Avenue
20. Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue
21. Lewis Street/Katella Avenue
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
294
22. State College Boulevard/Katella Avenue
23. Howell Avenue/Katella Avenue
24. SR-57 southbound ramps/Katella Avenue
25. SR-57 northbound ramps/Katella Avenue
26. Douglass Road/Katella Avenue
27. Main Street/Taft Avenue
28. Batavia Street/Taft Avenue
29. Glassell Street/Taft Avenue
30. Cambridge Street/Taft Avenue
31. Tustin Street – south/Taft Avenue
32. Tustin Street – north/Taft Avenue
33. Main Street/Katella Avenue
34. Batavia Street/Katella Avenue
35. Glassell Street/Katella Avenue
36. Cambridge Street/Katella Avenue
37. Tustin Street/Katella Avenue
38. SR-55 southbound ramps/Katella Avenue
39. SR-55 northbound ramps/Katella Avenue
40. Main Street/Collins Avenue
41. Main Street/Walnut Avenue – Orangewood Avenue
42. Main Street/Chapman Avenue
43. Main Street/Struck Avenue
Intersections 1 to 26 are within the city limits of the City of Anaheim, and intersections 27 to 43 are
within the city limits of the City of Orange. The ramp intersections with I-5 (at Katella Avenue), SR-57 (at
Ball Road and Katella Avenue), and SR-55 (at Katella Avenue) are under Caltrans jurisdiction.
Figure 3.14-1 also shows the 21 transportation study area roadway segments, which are as follows:
1. Ball Road, Anaheim Boulevard to Lewis Street
2. Ball Road, Lewis Street to East Street
3. Ball Road, East Street to State College Boulevard
4. Ball Road, State College Boulevard to Sunkist Street
5. Ball Road, Sunkist Street to SR-57 southbound ramps
6. Ball Road, SR-57 southbound ramps to SR-57 northbound ramps
7. Ball Road, SR-57 northbound ramps to Phoenix Club Drive
8. Ball Road, Phoenix Club Drive to Main Street
9. Taft Avenue, Main Street to Batavia Street
10. Taft Avenue, Batavia Street to Glassell Street
11. Taft Avenue, Glassell Street to Cambridge Street
12. Taft Avenue, Cambridge Street to Tustin Street
13. Katella Avenue, west of Main Street
14. Katella Avenue, Main Street to Batavia Street
15. Katella Avenue, Batavia Street to Glassell Street
16. Sunkist Street, Ball Road to Cerritos Avenue
17. Phoenix Club Drive, south of Ball Road
18. Main Street, Taft Avenue to Katella Avenue
19. Main Street, Katella Avenue to Collins Avenue
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
295
20. Main Street, Collins Avenue to Walnut Avenue – Orangewood Avenue
21. Main Street, Walnut Avenue – Orangewood Avenue to Chapman Avenue
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
Freeways and Arterials
Regional access within the study area is provided by State Route 57 (SR-57). The major arterials that
serve local east-west traffic in the transportation study area include Ball Road – Taft Avenue and Katella
Avenue. The primary north-south arterials in the transportation study area are State College Boulevard,
Sunkist Street, and Main Street. The Proposed Project is located east of SR-57 on the south side of Ball
Road, adjacent to the SR-57/Ball Road interchange. Direct access from the SR-57 freeway is provided at
Ball Road.
Rail
The City and the transportation study area are currently served by rail transit at the Anaheim Regional
Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC). ARTIC is a gateway transportation hub that serves expanded
shuttle, bus, commuter, and future high-speed rail services. Located on the north side of the Angel
Stadium parking lot, across from Honda Center, the station serves both Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner from
San Luis Obispo to San Diego and Metrolink’s Orange County Line from Los Angeles to Oceanside. There
are 22 Amtrak and 33 Metrolink trains per day serving the Anaheim Station. Metrolink has recently
added four more trains per day during special event days at Angel Stadium.
Bus
In addition to Metrolink and Amtrak services, public transportation services operated by OCTA are also
available to future patrons wishing to use public transit. The Project site is currently served by OCTA Bus
Route #46 on Ball Road. Route #46 extends from the City of Orange, east of the Project site, to the City
of Long Beach to the west. There are bus stops located along Ball Road in each of the cities served by
this route. There are existing bus stops on Ball Road, in each direction, east of its intersection with
Phoenix Club Drive.
Bicycle Trails
The City currently has three classifications of bikeways, Class I, Class II, and Class III. Class I Bikeways
provide for bicycle travel on ROW completely separated from the street. Class II Bikeways provide
striped and signed lanes within the street ROW. Class III Bikeways are commonly signed only bike routes.
Just east of the Project site is the Santa Ana River and the Santa Ana River Riding and Hiking Trail, which
is classified as a Class I Bikeway, and provides a continuous path between Huntington Beach and
Riverside County. North of the Project site is the Anaheim Coves Riding and Hiking Trail, which is
currently being expanded to provide a Class 1 Bikeway facility between Ball Road and Frontera Street, as
well as to the Santa Ana River Biking and Hiking Trail via Lincoln Avenue. Connectivity to this trail could
be provided from the Proposed Project site by adding a trail connection at Phoenix Club Drive and Ball
Road and along the Santa Ana River within the Proposed Project.
Moreover, the Fourth Supervisorial District Bikeways Collaborative was initiated to identify, prioritize
and implement regional bikeway improvements within this area of Orange County. The Collaborative
includes OCTA, the County of Orange, Caltrans and the cities of Anaheim, Brea, Buena Park, Fullerton, La
Habra, and Placentia. The Collaborative will work together to identify opportunities and constraints
associated with bicycle facilities in the Fourth District. Among the bikeway corridors proposed is a Class
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
296
II bike lane along Douglass Road north of Katella Avenue and Katella Avenue east of Douglass Road.
These proposed bike lanes are also shown on the City of Anaheim’s Existing and Proposed Bicycle
Facilities Map contained in the General Plan Circulation Element.
Pedestrian Access
Pedestrian access to and from the Project site is generally gained from Ball Road. Sidewalks are available
on both side of Ball Road and extend uninterrupted into the City of Orange to the east and to parts of
the City west of SR-57. Pedestrian access to the Project site may also be gained using the Santa Ana
River Riding and Hiking Trail, by exiting the trail at Ball Road and transitioning to the site along the Ball
Road sidewalk. In addition, pedestrian access is available from the Anaheim Coves Riding and Hiking
Trail, however, it currently requires crossing the Ball Road using the crosswalk at the signalized
intersection of Phoenix Club Drive and Ball Road.
Figure 3.14-1: Study Area Intersections and Roadway SegmentsCity of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
Draft EIR Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Orange County
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
298
CALTRANS FACILITIES
The following Caltrans facilities are located in the transportation study area and are analyzed in this
section:
Ramp Intersections
8. SR-57 southbound ramps/Ball Road
9. SR-57 northbound ramps/Ball Road
19. Manchester Avenue/Katella Avenue (I-5 southbound ramps)
20. Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue (I-5 northbound ramps)
24. SR-57 southbound ramps/Katella Avenue
25. SR-57 northbound ramps/Katella Avenue
38. SR-55 southbound ramps/Katella Avenue
39. SR-55 northbound ramps/Katella Avenue
Freeway Mainline Segments
▪ SR-57
o I-5 to Orangewood Avenue
o Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue
o Katella Avenue to Ball Road
o Ball Road to Lincoln Avenue
o Lincoln Avenue to SR-91
Freeway Weaving Segments
▪ SR-57 northbound, between Orangewood Avenue and Katella Avenue
▪ SR-57 northbound, between Katella Avenue and Ball Road
▪ SR-57 southbound, between Orangewood Avenue and Katella Avenue
▪ SR-57 southbound, between Katella Avenue and Ball Road
EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE
The existing LOS for the study intersections and roadway segments in the transportation study area
were determined using the methodology described in Section 3.14.5.
Table 3.14-1 presents the results of the existing intersection LOS analysis. Based on the existing LOS
analysis, all of the transportation study area intersections within the jurisdiction of the Cities of Anaheim
and Orange are currently operating with satisfactory LOS at LOS D or better, with the exception of the
Caltrans intersection at SR-55 SB Ramp and Katella Ave.
Table 3.14-1 Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary
Intersection Control
Existing Condition
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS
1. Disneyland Drive/Ball Road signal 0.554 A 0.811 D
2. Harbor Boulevard/Ball Road signal 0.646 B 0.821 D
3. Anaheim Boulevard/Ball Road signal 0.611 B 0.740 C
4. Lewis Street/Ball Road signal 0.500 A 0.606 B
5. East Street/Ball Road signal 0.628 B 0.734 C
6. State College Boulevard/Ball Road signal 0.706 C 0.730 C
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
299
7. Sunkist Street/Ball Road signal 0.774 C 0.819 D
8. SR-57 SB ramps/Ball Road 1 signal 0.618 B 0.710 C
9. SR-57 NB ramps/Ball Road 1 signal 0.512 A 0.783 C
10. Phoenix Club Drive/Ball Road signal 0.520 A 0.556 A
11. Sunkist Street/Wagner Avenue signal 0.590 A 0.494 A
12. Anaheim Boulevard/Cerritos Avenue signal 0.509 A 0.693 B
13. Lewis Street/Cerritos Avenue signal 0.303 A 0.329 A
14. State College Boulevard/Cerritos Avenue signal 0.435 A 0.523 A
15. Sunkist Street/Cerritos Avenue signal 0.326 A 0.491 A
16. State College Boulevard/Howell Avenue signal 0.405 A 0.449 A
17. Sunkist Street/Howell Avenue 1-way stop 15.5 sec C 18.5 sec C
18. Anaheim Boulevard/Katella Avenue signal 0.407 A 0.550 A
19. Manchester Avenue/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.582 A 0.556 A
20. Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.414 A 0.591 A
21. Lewis Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.544 A 0.711 C
22. State College Boulevard/Katella Avenue signal 0.611 B 0.594 A
23. Howell Avenue/Katella Avenue signal 0.447 A 0.632 B
24. SR-57 SB ramps/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.389 A 0.437 A
25. SR-57 NB ramps/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.423 B 0.476 A
26. Douglass Road/Katella Avenue signal 0.447 A 0.472 A
27. Main Street/Taft Avenue signal 0.710 C 0.675 B
28. Batavia Street/Taft Avenue signal 0.670 B 0.673 B
29. Glassell Street/Taft Avenue signal 0.591 A 0.595 A
30. Cambridge Street/Taft Avenue signal 0.432 A 0.465 A
31. Tustin Street-south/Taft Avenue signal 0.738 C 0.664 B
32. Tustin Street-north/Taft Avenue signal 0.605 B 0.660 B
33. Main Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.501 A 0.497 A
34. Batavia Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.531 A 0.683 B
35. Glassell Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.593 A 0.672 B
36. Cambridge Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.555 A 0.644 B
37. Tustin Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.620 B 0.762 C
38. SR-55 SB ramps/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.951 E 0.987 E
39. SR-55 NB ramps/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.671 B 0.898 D
40. Main Street/Collins Avenue signal 0.477 A 0.611 B
41. Main Street/Walnut Avenue signal 0.647 B 0.785 C
42. Main Street/Chapman Avenue signal 0.591 A 0.700 C
43. Main Street/Struck Avenue signal 0.546 A 0.546 A
Notes:
ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization, is also expressed at V/C - volume to capacity ratio.
Delay - Delay reported as Control Delay and expressed in seconds.
LOS - Level of Service. Intersections #1 - #26 are within the City of Anaheim city limits; and, intersections #27 - #43 are within the City of
Orange city limits.
1 Caltrans intersection; see Caltrans Facilities section of TIA for LOS under Highway Capacity Manual (HCM2010) Operations method.
X Bold value indicates exceedance of respective jurisdiction’s LOS standard.
Table 3.14-2 presents the existing roadway segment level of service summary. Per the City of Anaheim
criteria, the minimum satisfactory LOS for a roadway segment is LOS C. For the City of Orange, the
minimum satisfactory LOS is LOS D. Based on the analysis, the following roadway segments are currently
operating below an LOS standard:
▪ Ball Road, State College Boulevard to Sunkist Street (5D, LOS D)
▪ Ball Road, Sunkist Street to SR-57 southbound ramps (6D, LOS E)
▪ Ball Road, Phoenix Club Drive to Main Street (4D, LOS E)
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
300
All other study area roadway segments are currently operating with satisfactory LOS at LOS C or better
in the City of Anaheim, or at LOS D or better in the City of Orange, during an average day.
Table 3.14-2 Existing Roadway Segment Levels of Service
Existing
Roadway Segment Lanes Capacity 1 Volumes V/C LOS
1. Ball Road Anaheim Boulevard to Lewis Street 2 6D 56,300 38,200 0.679 B
2. Lewis Street to East Street 2 6D 56,300 39,900 0.709 C
3. East Street to State College Boulevard 2 6D 56,300 40,100 0.712 C
4. State College Boulevard to Sunkist Street 2 5D 46,000 41,100 0.893 D
5. Sunkist Street to SR-57 SB ramps 2 6D 56,300 55,700 0.989 E
6. SR-57 SB ramps to SR-57 NB ramps 2 6D 56,300 42,800 0.760 C
7. SR-57 NB ramps to Phoenix Club Drive 2 6D 56,300 38,000 0.675 B
8. Phoenix Club Drive to Main Street 3 4D 37,500 34,700 0.925 E
9. Taft Avenue Main Street to Batavia Street 3 4D 37,500 27,500 0.733 C
10. Batavia Street to Glassell Street 3 4D 37,500 19,400 0.517 A
11. Glassell Street to Cambridge Street 3 4D 37,500 14,800 0.395 A
12. Cambridge Street to Tustin Street 3 4D 37,500 14,400 0.384 A
13. Katella Avenue west of Main Street 3, 4 6D 56,300 28,400 0.504 A
14. Main Street to Batavia Street 3, 4 6D 56,300 31,400 0.558 A
15. Batavia Street to Glassell Street 3, 4 6D 56,300 30,600 0.544 A
16. Sunkist Street Ball Road to Cerritos Avenue 2 4D 37,500 12,800 0.342 A
17. Phoenix Club Drive south of Ball Road 2 2D 18,750 5,200 0.277 A
18. Main Street Taft Avenue to Katella Avenue 3 4D 37,500 12,200 0.325 A
19. Katella Avenue to Collins Avenue 3 4D 37,500 16,400 0.437 A
20. Collins Avenue to Walnut Avenue 3 4D 37,500 16,400 0.437 A
21. Walnut Avenue to Chapman Avenue 3 4D 37,500 21,900 0.584 A
Notes:
1 Roadway capacity is based on respective City criteria and are LOS E capacity values. The City of Anaheim roadway segment threshold LOS is LOS
C. The City of Orange roadway segment threshold LOS is LOS D.
2 Roadway segment is within the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim.
3 Roadway segment is within the jurisdiction of the City of Orange.
4 Roadway segment is a CMP facility.
XXX Indicates roadway segment that is over-capacity (worse than LOS C in Anaheim, and LOS D in Orange).
Caltrans Ramp Intersections
The existing LOS for the Caltrans ramp intersections in the transportation study area were determined
using the HCS 2010 software and methodology described in Section 3.14.5.
Table 3.14-3 presents the results of the existing ramp intersection LOS analysis. According to Caltrans
criteria, any intersection operating below LOS D (LOS E or F) is considered deficient. Based on the
existing LOS analysis, the following ramp intersections are currently operating at LOS E or F:
▪ SR-57 northbound ramps/Katella Avenue (LOS E in a.m. peak hour)
▪ SR-55 southbound ramps/Katella Avenue (LOS F in both peak hours)
▪ SR-55 northbound ramps/Katella Avenue (LOS F in p.m. peak hour)
Table 3.14-3 Existing Caltrans Ramp Intersection Level of Service Summary
Existing Condition
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection 1 Control Delay LOS Delay LOS
8 . SR-57 SB ramps/Ball Road signal 17.3 B 31.7 C
9 . SR-57 NB ramps/Ball Road signal 9.0 A 30.2 C
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
301
19 . Manchester Avenue/Katella Avenue signal 31.2 C 21.8 C
20 . Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue signal 21.1 C 37.0 D
24 . SR-57 SB ramps/Katella Avenue signal 22.1 C 43.1 D
25 . SR-57 NB ramps/Katella Avenue signal 70.1 E 10.9 B
38 . SR-55 SB ramps/Katella Avenue signal 245.4 F 179.1 F
39 . SR-55 NB ramps/Katella Avenue signal 37.4 D 113.9 F
Notes: Delay - Delay reported as Control Delay and expressed in seconds.
1 Caltrans intersection; analyzed using Highway Capacity Manual (HCM2010) Operations method.
X Bold value indicates exceedance of Caltrans LOS standard.
Caltrans Freeway Mainline Segments
The existing LOS for the Caltrans freeway mainline segments in the transportation study area were
determined using the HCS 2010 software and methodology described in Section 3.14.5.
According to Caltrans criteria, any segment operating below LOS D (LOS E or F) is considered deficient.
Based on the mainline analysis presented in Table 3.14-4, the following segments are operating at
unsatisfactory LOS:
▪ SR-57 northbound between Katella Avenue and Ball Road (p.m. peak hour)
▪ SR-57 northbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue (p.m. peak hour)
▪ SR-57 northbound between Lincoln Avenue and SR-91 (p.m. peak hour)
▪ SR-57 southbound between I-5 and Orangewood Avenue (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
▪ SR-57 southbound between Orangewood Avenue and Katella Avenue (a.m. and p.m. peak
hours)
▪ SR-57 southbound between Katella Avenue and Ball Road (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
▪ SR-57 southbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
▪ SR-57 southbound between Lincoln Avenue and SR-91 (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
302
Table 3.14-4 Existing Freeway Mainline Segment Level of Service Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Freeway From To
Density
(pc/ln/mi) 1 LOS
Density
(pc/ln/mi) 1 LOS
Northbound
SR-57 I-5 Orangewood Ave 23.5 C 33.1 D
Orangewood Ave Katella Ave 25.6 C 42.1 E
Katella Ave Ball Road 26.6 D >45.0 F
Ball Road Lincoln Ave 27.0 D >45.0 F
Lincoln Ave SR-91 27.0 D >45.0 F
Southbound
SR-57 I-5 Orangewood Ave >45.0 F >45.0 F
Orangewood Ave Katella Ave >45.0 F >45.0 F
Katella Ave Ball Road >45.0 F >45.0 F
Ball Road Lincoln Ave >45.0 F 41.9 E
Lincoln Ave SR-91 >45.0 F 34.4 D
Notes: LOS based on HCM methodology, analyzed in the 2010 Highway Capacity Software (HCS).
XXX – Mainline segment operates with unsatisfactory LOS.
1 – Density is presented in “passenger cars per lane per mile”.
Caltrans Freeway Weaving Segments
The existing LOS for the Caltrans freeway weaving segments in the transportation study area were
determined using the HCS 2010 software and methodology described in Section 3.14.5.
Table 3.14-5 presents the existing freeway weaving analysis summary. According to Caltrans criteria, any
segment operating below LOS D (LOS E or F) is considered deficient. Based on the weaving analysis, the
weaving LOS for the northbound and southbound segments along SR-57 currently operate at LOS F in
the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
Table 3.14-5 Existing Freeway Weaving Segment Level of Service Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Freeway From To
Density
(pc/ln/mi) 1
LOS Density
(pc/ln/mi) 1 LOS
Northbound AM
SR-57 Orangewood Ave Katella Ave -- F -- F
Katella Ave Ball Road 38.1 E -- F
Southbound AM
SR-57 Orangewood Ave Katella Ave -- F -- F
Katella Ave Ball Road -- F 69.6 F
Notes: LOS based on HCM methodology, analyzed in the 2010 Highway Capacity Software (HCS).
XXX – Mainline segment operates with unsatisfactory LOS.
-- Demand exceeds capacity = LOS F
1 – Density is presented in “passenger cars per lane per mile”.
3.14.3 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
REGIONAL
Southern California Association of Governments
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
303
SCAG is the regional governing body for the south coast region, which includes the counties of Orange,
Los Angeles, Ventura, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Imperial. Regional associations of governments
were created by the state to guide land use decisions that overlap multiple local jurisdictions and to
provide policy guidance to the region. The SCAG serves as southern California’s forum for addressing
regional issues concerning transportation, the economy, community development, and the
environment. SCAG’s responsibilities under federal law as a MPO include developing and adopting a
long range RTP every four years. The RTP is a long-range transportation plan that provides a vision for
regional transportation investments over a period of 20 years or more. Using growth forecasts and
economic trends, the RTP considers the role of transportation in a more holistic light, including
economic factors, environmental issues and quality-of-life goals. The RTP also provides for the adoption
of transportation improvement programs that allocate state and federal funds for highway, transit, and
other surface transportation projects.
SCAG adopted the 2016−2040RTP/SCS in April 2016. The RTP/SCS is a regional growth management
strategy that incorporates local land use projection and circulation networks in the cities and counties
general plans. The RTP/SCS was developed in order to meet the requirements of SB 375, which requires
MPO to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy that demonstrates how the region will meet its
GHG reduction targets as set forth by CARB. At the same time, Senate Bill 375 requires that SCAG, as the
region’s MPO, strive to develop a vision of regional development patterns that integrate with and
support planned transportation investments. As part of that mandate, an overall land use pattern has
been developed that respects local control, but also incorporates best practices for achieving state-
mandated reductions in GHG emissions through decreases in per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
regionally. The RTP/SCS presents the transportation vision through the year 2040 and provides a long-
term investment framework for addressing the region’s transportation and related challenges.
Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP)
The OCTA is responsible for adopting the Congestion Management Program (CMP) for Orange County.
The CMP is designed to reduce traffic congestion and to provide a mechanism for coordinating land use
and transportation decisions. In Anaheim the CMP roadway system includes all or part s of seven streets
(Harbor Boulevard, State College Boulevard, Katella Avenue, Tustin Avenue north of SR-91,
Orangethorpe Avenue, Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway north of State Route 91) and thirteen
intersections. At a minimum, LOS E must be met at these intersections; if it is not met, the City is
responsible for developing a deficiency plan to address the impacted intersections in order to remain
eligible for funding.
LOCAL
City of Anaheim General Plan, Circulation Element
The Circulation Element of the City of Anaheim General Plan calls for the development of a circulation
system that meets the current and future needs of all Anaheim residents, businesses, and visitors. The
Circulation Element includes goals and policies that support the City’s vision of an efficient
transportation system that would accommodate the transportation and circulation needs of current
developments and future growth, as established by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The
Circulation Element establishes a standard of LOS D or better for major intersections in the City.
Anaheim Municipal Code (Transportation Fee Program)
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
304
Chapter 17.32 - Transportation Impact and Improvement Fee of the Anaheim Municipal Code requires
the payment of transportation impact fees by the developer of new projects to pay for their fair share of
the costs of needed roadway and intersection improvements identified in the City of Anaheim
Circulation Element.
City of Orange
The Circulation and Mobility Plan within the City of Orange General Plan r efers to the LOS levels
discussed in the Orange County Management Program (City of Orange, 2010). The circulation and
Mobility Plan describes goals, policies, and implementation programs that seek to achieve a better
balance between vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle travel, and provides a wide range of viable
transportation options to City of Orange residents. The specific issues discussed include: enhancing the
local circulation system; maintaining the regional circulation system; maintaining a viable public
transportation network; creating a comprehensive system of sidewalks, trails, and bikeways; providing
adequate parking facilities; and improving circulation system aesthetics and safety.
3.14.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Proposed
Project would have a significant impact to transportation and traffic if it would result in any of the
following:
▪ Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measure of
effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the
circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
▪ Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but
not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
▪ Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
EFFECTS DISMISSED IN THE INITIAL STUDY
The IS concluded that the following potential impacts to transportation and traffic would not occur and
did not need to be further addressed in the EIR:
▪ The project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.
▪ The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
▪ The project would not result in inadequate emergency access.
3.14.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
305
METHODOLOGY
Project Site
The Orange County Water District (OCWD) is proposing to amend the City of Anaheim’s General Plan
Land Use Element Map and Zoning Map for Ball Road Basin (BRB) to allow the eventual commercial
development of the Ball Road Basin. The Proposed Project wou ld change the City’s General Plan Land
Use designation for the Project site from Open Space to General Commercial and the zoning from the
Transitional (T) and Industrial (I) Zones to the General Commercial (C-G) Zone. In addition, the Proposed
Project includes amending the General Plan Circulation and Green Elements to add a Proposed Class 1
Bike Path/Trail Study Area along the northern, eastern and southern edges of the Project site. The
Proposed Project does not include a specific development plan for Project site.
Future studies will be required to define project access, driveway location and design, and other site
specific circulation measures that cannot be analyzed without a specific site development plan.
For traffic modeling purposes, access to the Project site was assumed to take place entirely from
Phoenix Club Drive No other connections, other than Phoenix Club Drive, have been assumed as access
for the proposed Project.
Trip Generation
Weekday daily, a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip generation estimates for the Proposed Project were
developed in using the current Anaheim Transportation Analysis Model (ATAM). Development of the
project trip generation estimates in ATAM also considers pass-by, internal trip capture, and diverted link
trips from the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would generate approximately 10,148 net daily
trips, 408 net a.m. peak hour trips (281 inbound and 127 outbound), and 605 net p.m. peak hour trips
(274 inbound and 331 outbound).
Intersections
The transportation study area intersections under the jurisdiction of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange
were analyzed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology for signalized intersections,
or the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) “Operations” methodology for unsignalized intersections. Per
Caltrans requirements, Caltrans facilities were analyzed using the HCM 2010 Operations methodology.
CMP intersections (signalized freeway ramp intersections) were analyzed using the ICU method.
The ICU method determines the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio on a critical lane basis and determines
LOS associated with each critical V/C ratio at the signalized intersection. The HCM method determines
the average control delay a driver may experience at the intersection.
The degree of congestion at an intersection is described by the LOS, which ranges from LOS A to LOS F,
with LOS A representing free-flow conditions with little delay and LOS F representing over-saturated
traffic flow throughout the peak hour. Brief descriptions of the six levels of service for signalized
intersections (ICU methodology) and for Caltrans intersections (HCM methodology) are shown in Table
3.14-6. Table 3.14-7 below provides detailed descriptions of each LOS.
Table 3.14-6 Level of Service Definitions
Level of Service
V/C Ratio or ICU
(signalized)
Control Delay in Seconds
(signalized)
Control Delay in Seconds
(unsignalized)
A 0.00 – 0.60 0.0 – 10.0 seconds 0.0 – 10.0 seconds
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
306
B 0.61 – 0.70 10.1 – 20.0 seconds 10.1 – 15.0 seconds
C 0.71 – 0.80 20.1 – 35.0 seconds 15.1 – 25.0 seconds
D 0.81 – 0.90 35.1 – 55.0 seconds 25.1 – 35.0 seconds
E 0.91 – 1.00 55.1 – 80.0 seconds 35.1 – 50.0 seconds
F 1.01 or greater 80.1 seconds or greater 50.1 seconds or greater
Table 3.14-7 Level of Service Descriptions
LOS Description
A No approach phase is fully utilized by traffic, and no vehicle waits longer than one red indication.
Typically, the approach appears quite open, turns are made easily, and nearly all drivers find
freedom of operation.
B This service level represents stable operation, where an occasional approach phase is fully
utilized and a substantial number are nearing full use. Many drivers begin to feel restricted
within platoons of vehicles.
C This level still represents stable operating conditions. Occasionally drivers may have to wait
through more than one red signal indication, and backups may develop behind turning vehicles.
Most drivers feel somewhat restricted, but not objectionably so.
D This level encompasses a zone of increasing restriction approaching instability at the
intersection. Delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial during short peaks within the
peak period; however, enough cycles with lower demand occur to permit periodic clearance of
developing queues, thus preventing excessive backups.
E Capacity occurs at the upper end of this service level. It represents the most vehicles that any
particular intersection approach can accommodate. Full utilization of every signal cycle is seldom
attained no matter how great the demand.
F This level describes forced flow operations at low speeds, where volumes exceed capacity. These
conditions usually result from queues of vehicles backing up from a restriction downstream.
Speeds are reduced substantially, and stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time due
to the congestion. In the extreme case, both speed and volume can drop to zero.
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Special Report No. 209, Washington, D.C., 2000.
According to the established thresholds for the City, the Proposed Project would create a significant
impact if it causes an intersection to operate from LOS C (minimum satisfactory LOS) or better, to LOS D,
E or F with addition of project traffic, or if the project contributes the following V/C increases at LOS C,
D, E, or F:
▪ Increase ≥ 0.050 if final V/C ratio > 0.700 – 0.800 (LOS C)
▪ Increase ≥ 0.030 if final V/C ratio > 0.800 – 0.900 (LOS D)
▪ Increase ≥ 0.010 if final V/C ratio > 0.900 (LOS E and F)
Under the thresholds established for the City of Orange, the Proposed Project would create a significant
impact if it causes an intersection to operate from LOS D or better, to LOS E or F with addition of project
traffic, or if the project contributes 0.010 V/C or more when the performance standard (LOS D) is
exceeded.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
307
For Caltrans ramp intersections, the Proposed Project would create a significant impact if it causes a
Caltrans intersection to operate from LOS D or better, to LOS E or F with addition of project traffic; or, if
the Proposed Project would add delay to a Caltrans intersection that is already operating at LOS E or F in
the baseline condition.
Roadway Segments
All roadway segments under both Cities of Anaheim and Orange were analyzed using the V/C method
based on the following average daily traffic (ADT) capacities:
▪ Six-Lane Divided Highway (6D) – 56,300 ADT
▪ Five-Lane Divided Highway (5D) – 46,000 ADT
▪ Four-Lane Divided Highway (4D) – 37,500 ADT
▪ Two-Lane Divided Highway (2D) – 18,750 ADT
The City of Anaheim considers LOS C, or daily V/C to not exceed 0.80 V/C, as the satisfactory LOS
standard for roadway segments in its jurisdiction. The City of Orange considers LOS D, or daily V/C to not
exceed 0.90 V/C, as the satisfactory LOS standard for roadway segments in its jurisdiction . According to
the established thresholds for the City of Anaheim, the Proposed Project would create a significant
impact if it causes a roadway segment to operate from LOS C (minimum satisfactory LOS) or better, to
LOS D, E or F with addition of project traffic, or if the project contributes the following V/C in creases at
LOS C, D, E, or F:
▪ Increase ≥ 0.050 if final V/C ratio > 0.700 – 0.800 (LOS C)
▪ Increase ≥ 0.030 if final V/C ratio > 0.800 – 0.900 (LOS D)
▪ Increase ≥ 0.010 if final V/C ratio > 0.900 (LOS E and F)
The City of Orange has established specific thresholds for project related increases in the V/C of
roadway segments. The Proposed Project would cause a significant impact if it causes a roadway
segment to have a capacity from LOS D or better, to LOS E or F with addition of project traffic; or, if the
project adds 0.010 V/C to a roadway segment that is operating at LOS E or F in the baseline condition.
Since the primary method to analyze roadway operations is the performance and operations of
intersections during peak commute hours, the daily analysis of roadway segments is to determine
whether the daily capacity of a specific roadway segment would have satisfactory daily capacity under
its current and/or General Plan roadway classification.
Freeway Mainline Analysis
Although the project-added volumes to the nearby CMP facilities would not meet the minimum volumes
in the CMP requirements, for comparative purposes to the 2013 Draft TIA, the SR-57 freeway
northbound and southbound mainline segments, from I-5 to SR-91, as well as, weaving segments of
freeway ramps, were analyzed for delay and LOS using the 2010 HCM methodology for basic freeway
mainline segments. For consistency with ATAM, the peak hour congested speeds on the study segments
of SR-57 (from Caltrans Performance Measuring Software – “PeMS”) were input into the mainline LOS
calculations, in addition, the peak hour factors of those segments were obtained from the freeway
mainline analysis conducted as part of the Honda Center Enhancement EIR traffic study.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
308
Existing (2015) Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes were obtained from the Caltrans Traffic and
Vehicle Data Systems Unit webpage. The “K” and “D” factors used to get the peak hour directional
volumes were obtained from the Peak Hour Volume Data Report on the Caltrans Traffic Data Branch
website. Future post-processed Buildout 2035 traffic volume forecasts from the ATAM were provided by
the City of Anaheim. The number of lanes for each freeway mainline segment in the future was based on
the number of lanes for that segment in ATAM, which is based on the Orange County Transportation
Analysis Model (OCTAM).
For Caltrans mainline segments, the Proposed Project would create a significant impact if it causes a
mainline segment to operate from LOS D or better, to LOS E or F with addition of project traffic; or, if the
Proposed Project would add traffic to a mainline or weaving segment that is already operating at LOS E
or F in the baseline condition.
Freeway Weaving Analysis
A freeway weaving analysis was conducted for the following weaving segme nts for the Existing and
Buildout 2035 (with and without project) conditions:
▪ SR-57 northbound, between Orangewood Avenue and Katella Avenue
▪ SR-57 northbound, between Katella Avenue and Ball Road
▪ SR-57 southbound, between Orangewood Avenue and Katella Avenue
▪ SR-57 southbound, between Katella Avenue and Ball Road
SR-57 northbound and southbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue was not analyzed since its
weaving distance is greater than 2,500 feet which is beyond the parameters of the HCS 2010 software.
For Caltrans weaving segments, the Proposed Project would create a significant impact if it causes a
mainline segment to operate from LOS D or better, to LOS E or F with addition of project traffic; or, if the
Proposed Project would add traffic to a mainline or weaving segment that is already operating at LOS E
or F in the baseline condition.
Traffic Analysis Scenarios
The following describes the scenarios used for this analysis. Since no specific site development plan is
proposed for approval, no short-term Opening Year analysis has been prepared. This analysis will be
prepared at the time a specific development plan for the project site is proposed.
Existing Condition
The existing condition is based on adjustments of volumes from the 2011 existing condition of the 2013
Draft TIA prepared by Arch Beach Consulting. A technical memorandum documenting the traffic growth
in the study area was submitted to the City Engineering Department, which also recommended
appropriate growth rates for use in this TIA. The existing traffic scenario constitutes the environmental
setting in accordance with the CEQA analysis at the time that the hearing body reviews the Proposed
Project.
Existing Plus Project Condition
Per City and CEQA requirements, an Existing Plus Project Condition is required for analysis. Traffic in this
condition was developed by replacing the currently designated land uses on the Project site (Open
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
309
Space) with the Proposed Project’s land use (General Commercial) and re-running the ATAM model with
those changes. Those project trips were added to the existing traffic volumes and evaluated for impacts.
This scenario was the basis for determining project-specific impacts if the Proposed Project were in
operation today.
Buildout 2035 Baseline (without Project) Condition
The long-term Buildout 2035 Baseline condition is based on the buildout of the City of Anaheim’s
General Plan and includes the developments of the Platinum Triangle, including the LT Platinum and
Trumark on Lewis projects. Traffic volumes for this scenario were provided by the City Traffic Engineer
and were developed using the ATAM which is derived from the OCTAM. This scenario assumes the
original designated open space land use on the Project site.
Buildout 2035 Plus Project Condition
The Buildout 2035 Plus Project Condition traffic was developed by replacing the currently designated
land uses on the Project site (Open Space) with the Proposed Project’s land use (General Commercial)
and re-running the ATAM model with those changes. This scenario was the basis for determining
cumulative impacts.
Construction Phases
This TIA also analyzes two construction phases of the Proposed Project: 1) peak construction activities
related to the engineered fill of the basin; and, 2) peak construction activities related to the theoretical
construction of 425,000 square feet of General Commercial buildings.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
IMPACT TRAF-1: The Proposed Project would conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measure of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system.
For traffic modeling purposes, access to the Project site was assumed to take place entirely from
Phoenix Club Drive. Modeling is also based on the assumption of a 425,000 square foot commercial
development.
Weekday daily, a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip generation estimates were developed for the Proposed
Project using the ATAM. According to the modeling, the Proposed Project would generate approximately
10,148 net daily trips, 408 net a.m. peak hour trips (281 inbound and 127 outbound), and 605 net p.m.
peak hour trips (274 inbound and 331 outbound).
Existing Plus Project
Table 3.14-8 presents the results of the Existing Plus Project intersection LOS analysis. Based on the
Existing plus Project LOS analysis, the Proposed Project would create a significant impact at one study
area intersection.
Phoenix Club Drive/Ball Road (0.156 V/C increase at LOS C in the p.m. peak hour)Table 3.14-9 presents
the Existing Plus Project roadway segment LOS analysis. Based on the analysis, the following roadway
segments would be significantly impacted by the Proposed Project:
▪ Ball Road, Sunkist Street to SR-57 southbound ramps (0.016 V/C increase at LOS F)
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
310
▪ Ball Road, SR-57 northbound ramps to Phoenix Club Drive (0.062 V/C increase at LOS C)
▪ Ball Road, Phoenix Club Drive to Main Street (0.027 V/C increase at LOS E)
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
311
Table 3.14-8 Existing Plus Project Intersection Level of Service Summary
Intersection Control
Existing Condition Existing Plus Project
ICU Difference
Impact?
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS AM PM
1. Disneyland Drive/Ball Road signal 0.554 A 0.811 D 0.561 A 0.819 D 0.007 0.008 no
2. Harbor Boulevard/Ball Road signal 0.646 B 0.821 D 0.649 B 0.821 D 0.003 0.000 no
3. Anaheim Boulevard/Ball Road signal 0.611 B 0.740 C 0.627 B 0.751 C 0.016 0.011 no
4. Lewis Street/Ball Road signal 0.500 A 0.606 B 0.513 A 0.607 B 0.013 0.001 no
5. East Street/Ball Road signal 0.628 B 0.634 C 0.632 B 0.741 C 0.004 0.007 no
6. State College Boulevard/Ball Road signal 0.706 C 0.730 C 0.725 C 0.733 C 0.019 0.003 no
7. Sunkist Street/Ball Road signal 0.774 C 0.819 D 0.782 C 0.840 D 0.008 0.021 no
8. SR-57 SB ramps/Ball Road 1 signal 0.618 B 0.710 C 0.636 B 0.726 C 0.018 0.016 no
9. SR-57 NB ramps/Ball Road 1 signal 0.512 A 0.783 C 0.555 A 0.804 D 0.043 0.021 no
10. Phoenix Club Drive/Ball Road signal 0.520 A 0.556 A 0.605 B 0.712 C 0.085 0.156 YES
11. Sunkist Street/Wagner Avenue signal 0.590 A 0.494 A 0.599 A 0.504 A 0.009 0.010 no
12. Anaheim Boulevard/Cerritos Avenue signal 0.509 A 0.693 B 0.546 A 0.697 B 0.037 0.004 no
13. Lewis Street/Cerritos Avenue signal 0.303 A 0.329 A 0.317 A 0.344 A 0.014 0.015 no
14. State College Boulevard/Cerritos Avenue signal 0.435 A 0.523 A 0.437 A 0.528 A 0.002 0.005 no
15. Sunkist Street/Cerritos Avenue signal 0.326 A 0.491 A 0.332 A 0.500 A 0.006 0.009 no
16. State College Boulevard/Howell Avenue signal 0.405 A 0.449 A 0.414 A 0.460 A 0.009 0.011 no
17. Sunkist Street/Howell Avenue 1-way stop 15.50 sec C 18.50 sec C 15.70 sec C 18.70 sec C -- -- no
18. Anaheim Boulevard/Katella Avenue signal 0.407 A 0.550 A 0.419 A 0.557 A 0.012 0.007 no
19. Manchester Avenue/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.582 A 0.556 A 0.597 A 0.579 A 0.015 0.023 no
20. Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.414 A 0.591 A 0.414 A 0.592 A 0.000 0.001 no
21. Lewis Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.544 A 0.711 C 0.549 A 0.712 C 0.005 0.001 no
22. State College Boulevard/Katella Avenue signal 0.611 B 0.594 A 0.612 B 0.606 B 0.001 0.012 no
23. Howell Avenue/Katella Avenue signal 0.447 A 0.632 B 0.447 A 0.643 B 0.00 0.011 no
24. SR-57 SB ramps/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.389 A 0.437 A 0.393 A 0.440 A 0.004 0.003 no
25. SR-57 NB ramps/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.423 B 0.476 A 0.424 A 0.478 A 0.001 0.002 no
26. Douglass Road/Katella Avenue signal 0.447 A 0.472 A 0.456 A 0.484 A 0.009 0.012 no
27. Main Street/Taft Avenue signal 0.710 C 0.675 B 0.716 C 0.687 B 0.006 0.012 no
28. Batavia Street/Taft Avenue signal 0.670 B 0.673 B 0.687 B 0.675 B 0.017 0.002 no
29. Glassell Street/Taft Avenue signal 0.591 A 0.595 A 0.596 A 0.601 B 0.005 0.006 no
30. Cambridge Street/Taft Avenue signal 0.432 A 0.465 A 0.444 A 0.469 A 0.012 0.004 no
31. Tustin Street-south/Taft Avenue signal 0.738 C 0.664 B 0.748 C 0.664 B 0.010 0.000 no
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
312
Intersection Control
Existing Condition Existing Plus Project
ICU Difference
Impact?
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS AM PM
32. Tustin Street-north/Taft Avenue signal 0.605 B 0.660 B 0.614 B 0.661 B 0.009 0.001 no
33. Main Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.501 A 0.497 A 0.501 A 0.541 A 0.000 0.044 no
34. Batavia Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.5311 A 0.683 B 0.544 A 0.696 B 0.013 0.013 no
35. Glassell Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.593 A 0.672 B 0.603 B 0.683 B 0.010 0.011 no
36. Cambridge Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.555 A 0.644 B 0.579 A 0.645 B 0.024 0.001 no
37. Tustin Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.620 B 0.762 C 0.631 B 0.768 C 0.011 0.006 no
38. SR-55 SB ramps/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.951 E 0.987 E 0.957 E 1.004 F 0.006 0.017 no
39. SR-55 NB ramps/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.671 B 0.898 D 0.771 B 0.900 E 0.000 0.002 no
40. Main Street/Collins Avenue signal 0.477 A 0.611 B 0.495 A 0.633 B 0.018 0.022 no
41. Main Street/Walnut Avenue signal 0.647 B 0.785 C 0.654 B 0.803 D 0.007 0.018 no
42. Main Street/Chapman Avenue signal 0.691 A 0.700 C 0.597 A 0.704 C 0.006 0.004 no
43. Main Street/Struck Avenue signal 0.546 A 0.546 A 0.557 A 0.548 A 0.011 0.002 no
Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization, is also expressed at V/C - volume to capacity ratio.
Delay - Delay reported as Control Delay and expressed in seconds.
LOS - Level of Service.
Intersections #1 - #26 are within the City of Anaheim city limits; and, intersections #27 - #43 are within the City of Orange city limits.
1 Caltrans intersection; see Caltrans Facilities section of TIA for LOS under Highway Capacity Manual (HCM2010) Operations method.
X Bold value indicates exceedance of respective jurisdiction’s LOS standard. X
X Reverse bold value indicates significant project impact per respective jurisdiction's Significance Criteria.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
313
Table 3.14-9 Existing Plus Project Roadway Segment Levels of Service
Existing Existing Plus Project
Roadway Segment Lanes Capacity 1 Volumes V/C LOS Volumes V/C LOS Change in
V/C
Impact
1. Ball Road Anaheim Boulevard to Lewis Street 2 6D 56,300 38,200 0.679 B 38,300 0.680 B 0.002 no
2. Lewis Street to East Street 2 6D 56,300 39,900 0.709 C 40,300 0.716 C 0.007 no
3. East Street to State College Boulevard 2 6D 56,300 40,100 0.712 C 40,100 0.712 C 0.000 no
4. State College Boulevard to Sunkist Street 2 5D 46,000 41,100 0.893 D 41,500 0.902 E 0.009 no
5. Sunkist Street to SR-57 SB ramps 2 6D 56,300 55,700 0.989 E 56,600 1.005 F 0.016 YES
6. SR-57 SB ramps to SR-57 NB ramps 2 6D 56,300 42,800 0.760 C 45,000 0.799 C 0.039 no
7. SR-57 NB ramps to Phoenix Club Drive 2 6D 56,300 38,000 0.675 B 41,500 0.737 C 0.062 YES
8. Phoenix Club Drive to Main Street 3 4D 37,500 34,700 0.925 E 35,700 0.952 E 0.027 YES
9. Taft Avenue Main Street to Batavia Street 3 4D 37,500 27,500 0.733 C 28,300 0.755 C 0.021 no
10. Batavia Street to Glassell Street 3 4D 37,500 19,400 0.517 A 19,500 0.520 A 0.003 no
11. Glassell Street to Cambridge Street 3 4D 37,500 14,800 0.395 A 15,100 0.403 A 0.008 no
12. Cambridge Street to Tustin Street 3 4D 37,500 14,400 0.384 A 14,700 0.392 A 0.008 no
13. Katella Avenue west of Main Street 3, 4 6D 56,300 28,400 0.504 A 28,600 0.508 A 0.004 no
14. Main Street to Batavia Street 3, 4 6D 56,300 31,400 0.558 A 31,600 0.561 A 0.004 no
15. Batavia Street to Glassell Street 3, 4 6D 56,300 30,600 0.544 A 30,800 0.547 A 0.004 no
16. Sunkist Street Ball Road to Cerritos Avenue 2 4D 37,500 12,800 0.341 A 13,000 0.347 A 0.005 no
17. Phoenix Club Drive south of Ball Road 2 2D 18,750 5,200 0.277 A 12,600 0.672 B 0.395 no
18. Main Street Taft Avenue to Katella Avenue 3 4D 37,500 12,200 0.325 A 12,600 0.336 A 0.011 no
19. Katella Avenue to Collins Avenue 3 4D 37,500 16,400 0.437 A 16,300 0.435 A -0.003 no
20. Collins Avenue to Walnut Avenue 3 4D 37,500 18,400 0.491 A 18,400 0.491 A 0.000 no
21. Walnut Avenue to Chapman Avenue 3 4D 37,500 21,900 0.584 A 22,300 0.595 A 0.011 no
Notes:
1 Roadway capacity is based on respective City criteria and are LOS E capacity values. The City of Anaheim roadway segment thre shold LOS is
LOS C. The City of Orange roadway segment threshold LOS is LOS D.
2 Roadway segment is within the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim.
3 Roadway segment is within the jurisdiction of the City of Orange.
4 Roadway segment is a CMP facility.
XXX Indicates roadway segment that is over-capacity (worse than LOS C in Anaheim and LOS D in Orange).
XXX Indicates roadway segment significantly impacted by the Proposed Project.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
314
Caltrans Facilities
Ramp Intersections
Table 3.14-10 presents the results of the Existing Plus Project Caltrans ramp intersection LOS analysis.
Based on the Existing Plus Project LOS analysis, and the established significance criteria for Caltrans
ramp intersections, the Proposed Project would create a significant impact at the following ramp
intersections:
▪ SR 55 southbound ramps/Katella Avenue (5.5 second delay increase at LOS F in a.m. peak
hour and 7.0 second delay increase at LOS F in p.m. peak hour)
Mainline Segments
Table 3.14-11 presents the Existing Plus Project freeway LOS summary. According to Caltrans criteria,
any segment operating below LOS D (LOS E or F) is considered deficient. Based on Table 3.14-11, the
following segments would continue to operate at unsatisfactory LOS:
▪ SR-57 northbound between Katella Avenue and Ball Road (p.m. peak hour)
▪ SR-57 northbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue (p.m. peak hour)
▪ SR-57 northbound between Lincoln Avenue and SR-91 (p.m. peak hour)
▪ SR-57 southbound between I-5 and Orangewood Avenue (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
▪ SR-57 southbound between Orangewood Avenue and Katella Avenue (a.m. and p.m. pe ak
hours)
▪ SR-57 southbound between Katella Avenue and Ball Road (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
▪ SR-57 southbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
▪ SR-57 southbound between Lincoln Avenue and SR-91 (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
▪ SR 57 southbound between Lincoln Avenue and SR 91 (a.m. peak hour)
All southbound mainline segments currently operate with unsatisfactory LOS in both peak hours with
the exception of the segment between Lincoln Avenue and the SR 91. All other northbound mainline
segments on SR-57 northbound are operating with satisfactory LOS in one or both peak hours.
Freeway Weaving Segments
Table 3.14-12 presents the Existing Plus Project freeway weaving analysis summary. According to
Caltrans criteria, any segment operating below LOS D (LOS E or F) is considered deficient. Based on the
weaving analysis, the weaving LOS for the northbound and southbound segments along SR -57 would
continue to operate at LOS F in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with addition of traffic from the Proposed
Project.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
315
Table 3.14-10 Existing Plus Project Freeway Ramp Intersection Level of Service Summary
Intersection 1
Existing Condition Existing plus Project Delay
Difference
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Control Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS AM PM Impact?
8. SR-57 SB ramps/Ball Road signal 17.3 B 31.7 C 18.2 B 33.3 C 0.9 1.6 no
9. SR-57 NB ramps/Ball Road signal 9.0 A 30.2 C 9.9 A 33.7 C 0.9 3.5 no
19. Manchester Ave/Katella Ave signal 31.2 C 21.8 C 35.0 D 24.4 B 3.8 2.6 no
20. Anaheim Way/Katella Ave signal 21.1 C 37.0 D 21.2 C 37.3 D 0.1 0.3 no
24. SR-57 SB ramps/Katella Ave signal 22.1 B 43.1 D 22.0 C 42.8 D -0.1 -0.3 no
25. SR-57 NB ramps/Katella Ave signal 70.1 E 10.9 B 69.8 E 10.9 B -0.3 0.0 no
38. SR-55 SB ramps/Katella Ave signal 245.4 F 179.1 F 250.9 F 186.1 F 5.5 7.0 YES
39. SR-55 NB ramps/Katella Ave signal 37.4 D 113.9 F 37.4 D 113.7 F 0.0 -0.2 no
Notes: Delay - Delay reported as Control Delay and expressed in seconds.
LOS - Level of Service.
1 Caltrans intersection; analyzed using Highway Capacity Manual (HCM2010) Operations method.
X Bold value indicates exceedance of Caltrans LOS standard.
X Reverse bold value indicates significant project impact per Caltrans Significance Criteria.
Table 3.14-11 Existing Plus Project Freeway Mainline Segment Level of Service Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Freeway From To
Density
(pc/ln/mi) 1 LOS
Density
(pc/ln/mi) 1 LOS
Northbound
SR-57 I-5 Orangewood Ave 23.6 C 33.3 D
Orangewood Ave Katella Ave 21.4 C 35.3 E
Katella Ave Ball Road 22.3 C >45.0 F
Ball Road Lincoln Ave 22.5 C >45.0 F
Lincoln Ave SR-91 22.5 C >45.0 F
Southbound
SR-57 I-5 Orangewood Ave >45.0 F >45.0 F
Orangewood Ave Katella Ave >45.0 F >45.0 F
Katella Ave Ball Road >45.0 F >45.0 F
Ball Road Lincoln Ave >45.0 F 42.0 E
Lincoln Ave SR-91 >45.0 F 34.5 D
Notes: LOS based on HCM methodology, analyzed in the 2010 Highway Capacity Software (HCS).
XXX – Mainline segment operates with unsatisfactory LOS.
1 – Density is presented in “passenger cars per lane per mile”.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
316
Table 3.14-12 Existing plus Project Freeway Weaving Segment Level of Service Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Freeway From To
Density
(pc/ln/mi) 1
LOS Density
(pc/ln/mi) 1 LOS
Northbound AM
SR-57 Orangewood Ave Katella Ave -- F -- F
Katella Ave Ball Road 38.4 E -- F
Southbound AM
SR-57 Orangewood Ave Katella Ave -- F -- F
Katella Ave Ball Road -- F -- F
Notes: LOS based on HCM methodology, analyzed in the Highway Capacity Software (HCS).
XXX – Mainline segment operates with unsatisfactory LOS.
-- Demand exceeds capacity = LOS F
1 – Density is presented in “passenger cars per lane per mile”.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
317
Buildout 2035 Baseline
ATAM “total volume” link plots and post-processed traffic volumes for daily, a.m. and p.m. peak hours were
provided by the City for use in the analysis of Buildout 2035 Baseline and plus Project conditions. Prior to
finalizing the traffic volume output, a post-processing procedure was conducted that was applied to forecast
model traffic volumes to correct minor model validation discrepancies. This procedure is based on the
“increment method” outlined in NCHRP’s Circular 255. The travel demand model estimated the growth
increment in traffic volumes, which were added to existing traffic counts thereby correcting for any small
differences between actual traffic counts and the model’s estimated Existing Conditions (validation year) traffic
volumes.
Intersections
Table 3.14-13 presents the results of the Buildout 2035 Baseline intersection LOS analysis. Based on the Buildout
2035 Baseline LOS analysis, the following intersections are forecast to operate at LOS E or F during one or both
peak hours:
▪ Disneyland Drive/Ball Road (LOS E in both peak hours)
▪ Harbor Boulevard/Ball Road (LOS E in both peak hours)
▪ Sunkist Street/Howell Avenue (LOS F in p.m. peak hour)
▪ Main Street/Taft Avenue (LOS E in the p.m. peak hour)
Table 3.14-13 Buildout Year 2035 Baseline Intersection Level of Service Summary
Intersection Control
Buildout Year 2035 Baseline
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS
1. Disneyland Drive/Ball Road signal 0.690 B 0.946 E
2. Harbor Boulevard/Ball Road signal 0.928 E 0.916 E
3. Anaheim Boulevard/Ball Road signal 0.648 B 0.737 C
4. Lewis Street/Ball Road signal 0.736 C 0.861 D
5. East Street/Ball Road signal 0.770 C 0.836 D
6. State College Boulevard/Ball Road signal 0.824 D 0.738 C
7. Sunkist Street/Ball Road signal 0.855 D 0.704 C
8. SR 57 SB ramps/Ball Road 1 signal 0.705 C 0.606 B
9. SR 57 NB ramps/Ball Road 1 signal 0.540 A 0.572 A
10. Phoenix Club Drive/Ball Road signal 0.615 B 0.586 A
11. Sunkist Street/Wagner Avenue signal 0.771 C 0.557 A
12. Anaheim Boulevard/Cerritos Avenue signal 0.706 C 0.751 C
13. Lewis Street/Cerritos Avenue signal 0.627 B 0.537 A
14. State College Boulevard/Cerritos Avenue signal 0.611 B 0.620 B
15. Sunkist Street/Cerritos Avenue signal 0.604 B 0.721 C
16. State College Boulevard/Howell Avenue signal 0.521 A 0.605 B
17. Sunkist Street/Howell Avenue signal 0.396 A 1.042 F
18. Anaheim Boulevard/Katella Avenue signal 0.660 B 0.704 C
19. Manchester Avenue/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.750 C 0.671 B
20. Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.809 D 0.791 C
21. Lewis Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.651 B 0.819 D
22. State College Boulevard/Katella Avenue signal 0.835 D 0.811 D
23. Howell Avenue/Katella Avenue signal 0.767 C 0.821 D
24. SR 57 SB ramps/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.666 B 0.590 A
25. SR 57 NB ramps/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.583 A 0.592 A
26. Douglass Road/Katella Avenue signal 0.671 B 0.799 C
27. Main Street/Taft Avenue signal 0.777 C 0.935 E
28. Batavia Street/Taft Avenue signal 0.779 C 0.660 B
29. Glassell Street/Taft Avenue signal 0.580 A 0.592 A
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
318
Intersection Control
Buildout Year 2035 Baseline
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS
30. Cambridge Street/Taft Avenue signal 0.433 A 0.483 A
31. Tustin Street-south/Taft Avenue signal 0.667 B 0.639 B
32. Tustin Street-north/Taft Avenue signal 0.612 B 0.660 B
33. Main Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.589 A 0.731 C
34. Batavia Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.733 C 0.868 D
35. Glassell Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.751 C 0.683 B
36. Cambridge Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.658 B 0.707 C
37. Tustin Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.744 C 0.873 D
38. SR 55 SB ramps/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.863 D 0.864 D
39. SR 55 NB ramps/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.699 B 0.833 D
40. Main Street/Collins Avenue signal 0.648 B 0.808 D
41. Main Street/Walnut Avenue signal 0.539 A 0.709 C
42. Main Street/Chapman Avenue signal 0.597 A 0.743 C
43. Main Street/Struck Avenue signal 0.555 A 0.574 A
Notes:
ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization, is also expressed at V/C - volume to capacity ratio.
Delay - Delay reported as Control Delay and expressed in seconds.
LOS - Level of Service.
Intersections #1 - #26 are within the City of Anaheim city limits; and, intersections #27 - #43 are within the City of Orange city limits.
1 Caltrans intersection; see Caltrans Facilities section of TIA for LOS under Highway Capacity Manual (HCM2010) Operations method.
X Bold value indicates exceedance of respective jurisdiction’s LOS standard.
Roadway Segments
Table 3.14-14 presents the Buildout 2035 Baseline roadway segment LOS summary. Per the criteria of the City,
the minimum satisfactory level of service for a roadway segment is LOS C , while LOS D is the threshold for the
City of Orange. Based on the analysis, the following roadway segments are forecast to operate below the
respective City’s LOS standard:
▪ Ball Road, Ball Road, Sunkist Street to SR 57 SB ramps (LOS F)
▪ Ball Road, SR 57 SB ramps to SR 57 NB ramps (LOS D)
▪ Ball Road, SR 57 NB ramps to Phoenix Club Drive (LOS E)
▪ Ball Road, Phoenix Club Drive to Main Street (LOS D)
▪ Katella Avenue, west of Main Street (LOS E)
▪ Katella Avenue, Main Street to Batavia Street (LOS F)
▪ Katella Avenue, Batavia Street to Glassell Street (LOS E)
Table 3.14-14 Buildout 2035 Baseline Roadway Segment Levels of Service
Roadway Segment Lanes Capacity 1
Buildout 2035 Baseline
Volumes V/C LOS
1. Ball Road Anaheim Boulevard to Lewis Street 2 6D 56,300 38,200 0.679 B
2. Lewis Street to East Street 2 6D 56,300 43,300 0.769 C
3. East Street to State College Boulevard 2 6D 56,300 44,200 0.785 C
4. State College Boulevard to Sunkist Street 2 6D 56,300 44,100 0.783 C
5. Sunkist Street to SR 57 SB ramps 2 6D 56,300 56,800 1.009 F
6. SR 57 SB ramps to SR 57 NB ramps 2 6D 56,300 47,400 0.842 D
7. SR 57 NB ramps to Phoenix Club Drive 2 6D 56,300 51,500 0.915 E
8. Phoenix Club Drive to Main Street 3 6D 56,300 47,600 0.845 D
9. Taft Avenue Main Street to Batavia Street 3 6D 56,300 41,100 0.730 C
10. Batavia Street to Glassell Street 3 6D 56,300 21,800 0.387 A
11. Glassell Street to Cambridge Street 3 6D 56,300 18,700 0.332 A
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
319
12. Cambridge Street to Tustin Street 3 6D 56,300 16,000 0.284 A
13. Katella Avenue west of Main Street 3, 4 6D 56,300 51,000 0.906 E
14. Main Street to Batavia Street 3, 4 6D 56,300 56,400 1.002 F
15. Batavia Street to Glassell Street 3, 4 6D 56,300 55,000 0.977 E
16. Sunkist Street Ball Road to Cerritos Avenue 2 4D 37,500 16,200 0.432 A
17. Phoenix Club Drive south of Ball Road 2 2D 18,750 7,900 0.421 A
18. Main Street Taft Avenue to Katella Avenue 3 4D 37,500 16,500 0.440 A
19. Katella Avenue to Collins Avenue 3 4D 37,500 22,800 0.608 B
20. Collins Avenue to Walnut Avenue 3 6D 56,300 24,700 0.439 A
21. Walnut Avenue to Chapman Avenue 3 6D 56,300 31,100 0.552 A
Notes:
1 Roadway capacity is based on respective City criteria and are LOS E capacity values. The City of Anaheim roadway segment threshold LOS is LOS C. The
City of Orange roadway segment threshold LOS is LOS D.
2 Roadway segment is within the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim.
3 Roadway segment is within the jurisdiction of the City of Orange.
4 Roadway segment is a CMP facility.
XXX Indicates roadway segment that is over-capacity (worse than LOS C).
Buildout 2035 Baseline for Caltrans Facilities
ATAM “total volume” link plots and post-processed traffic volumes for daily, a.m. and p.m. peak hours were
provided by the City for use in the analysis of Buildout 2035 Baseline and plus Project conditions. Prior to
finalizing the traffic volume output, a post-processing procedure was conducted that was applied to forecast
model traffic volumes to correct minor model validation discrepancies. This procedure is based on the
“increment method” outlined in NCHRP’s Circular 255. The travel demand model estimated the growth
increment in traffic volumes, which were added to existing traffic counts thereby correcting for any small
differences between actual traffic counts and the model’s estimated Existing Conditions (validation year) traffic
volumes.
Ramp Intersections
Table 3.14-15 presents the results of the Buildout 2035 ramp intersection LOS analysis. Based on the Buildout
2035 Baseline LOS analysis, the following ramp intersections are forecast to operate at LOS E or F:
▪ Manchester Avenue/Katella Avenue (LOS F in a.m. peak hour)
▪ Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue (LOS E in a.m. peak hour)
▪ SR 57 northbound ramps/Katella Avenue (LOS E in a.m. peak hour)
▪ SR 55 southbound ramps/Katella Avenue (LOS E in a.m. peak hour and LOS F in p.m. peak hour)
▪ SR 55 northbound ramps/Katella Avenue (LOS E in a.m. peak hour and LOS F in p.m. peak hour)
Table 3.14-15 Buildout 2035 Baseline Caltrans Ramp Intersection Level of Service Summary
Buildout 2035 Baseline Condition
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection 1 Control Delay LOS Delay LOS
8. SR 57 SB ramps/Ball Road signal 22.3 C 30.0 C
9. SR 57 NB ramps/Ball Road signal 12.2 B 28.2 C
19. Manchester Avenue/Katella Avenue signal 95.8 F 42.3 D
20. Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue signal 74.0 E 39.0 D
24. SR 57 SB ramps/Katella Avenue signal 38.3 D 38.3 D
25. SR 57 NB ramps/Katella Avenue signal 64.5 E 9.9 A
38. SR 55 SB ramps/Katella Avenue signal 145.8 F 110.4 F
39. SR 55 NB ramps/Katella Avenue signal 30.4 C 83.8 F
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
320
Notes:
Delay - Delay reported as Control Delay and expressed in seconds.
LOS - Level of Service.
1 Caltrans intersection; analyzed using Highway Capacity Manual (HCM2010) Operations method.
X Bold value indicates exceedance of Caltrans LOS standard.
Mainline Segments
Table 3.14-16 presents the Buildout 2035 Baseline freeway level of service summary. According to Caltrans
criteria, any segment operating below LOS D (LOS E or F) is considered deficient. As shown in Table 3.14-16, the
following segments are forecast to continue to operate at unsatisfactory LOS:
▪ SR 57 northbound between Katella Avenue and Ball Road (p.m. peak hour)
▪ SR 57 northbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue (p.m. peak hour)
▪ SR 57 northbound between Lincoln Avenue and SR 91 (p.m. peak hour)
▪ SR 57 northbound between Orangewood Avenue and Katella Avenue (p.m. peak hour)
▪ SR 57 southbound between I-5 and Orangewood Avenue (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
▪ SR 57 southbound between Orangewood Avenue and Katella Avenue (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
▪ SR 57 southbound between Katella Avenue and Ball Road (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
▪ SR 57 southbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
▪ SR 57 southbound between Lincoln Avenue and SR 91 (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
Table 3.14-16 Buildout 2035 Baseline Freeway Segment Level of Service Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Freeway From To Density
(pc/ln/mi) 1 LOS Density
(pc/ln/mi) 1 LOS
Northbound
SR 57 I-5 Orangewood Ave 22.8 C 31.4 D
Orangewood Ave Katella Ave 21.6 C 35.3 E
Katella Ave Ball Road 21.9 C 45.0 F
Ball Road Lincoln Ave 23.9 C >45.0 F
Lincoln Ave SR 91 25.0 C >45.0 F
Southbound
SR 57 I-5 Orangewood Ave >45.0 F >45.0 F
Orangewood Ave Katella Ave >45.0 F >45.0 F
Katella Ave Ball Road >45.0 F >45.0 F
Ball Road Lincoln Ave >45.0 F 42.3 E
Lincoln Ave SR 91 >45.0 F 35.0 E
Notes: LOS based on HCM methodology, analyzed in the 2010 Highway Capacity Software (HCS).
XXX – Mainline segment operates with unsatisfactory LOS.
1 – Density is presented in “passenger cars per lane per mile”.
Freeway Weaving Segments
Table 3.14-17 presents the Buildout 2035 Baseline freeway weaving analysis summary. According to Caltrans
criteria, any segment operating below LOS D (LOS E or F) is considered deficient. Based on the data in Table
3.14-17, the weaving analysis for the northbound and southbound segments along SR 57 are forecast to
continue to operate at LOS E or F in the a.m. and/or p.m. peak hours.
Specifically, the weaving analysis concluded that the following segments are forecast to operate at an
unsatisfactory LOS:
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
321
▪ SR 57 northbound between Orangewood Avenue and Katella Avenue (p.m. peak hour)
▪ SR 57 northbound between Katella Avenue and Ball Road (p.m. peak hour)
▪ SR 57 southbound between Orangewood Avenue and Katella Avenue (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
▪ SR 57 southbound between Katella Avenue and Ball road (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
Table 3.14-17 Buildout 2035 Baseline Freeway Weaving Segment Level of Service Summary
Freeway From To
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Density
(pc/ln/mi) 1
LOS Density
(pc/ln/mi) 1 LOS
Northbound AM
SR 57 Orangewood Ave Katella Ave 29.0 D -- F
Katella Ave Ball Road 29.2 D -- F
Southbound AM
SR 57 Orangewood Ave Katella Ave -- F -- F
Katella Ave Ball Road -- F 91.7 E
Notes: LOS based on HCM methodology, analyzed in the 2010 Highway Capacity Software (HCS).
XXX – Mainline segment operates with unsatisfactory LOS.
-- Demand exceeds capacity = LOS F
1 – Density is presented in “passenger cars per lane per mile”.
Buildout 2035 Plus Project
For the Buildout 2035 Plus Project condition, traffic generated by the Proposed Project was determined by
modifying the land use tables in ATAM. The plus project traffic condition was developed by replacing the
currently designated land uses on the Project site (Open Space) with the Proposed Project’s land use (General
Commercial) and re-running the ATAM model with those changes.
Intersections
Table 3.14-18 presents the results of the Buildout 2035 Plus Project intersection LOS analysis. Based on the
Buildout 2035 Plus Project LOS analysis, and the significance criteria of the respective jurisdiction (Cities of
Anaheim and Orange) for each intersection, the Proposed Project would create a significant impact at the
following intersections:
▪ Phoenix Club Drive/Ball Road (0.119 V/C increase at LOS C in a.m. peak hour, and 0.192 V/C increase
at LOS C in p.m. peak hour)
Roadway Segments
Table 3.14-19 presents the Buildout 2035 plus Project roadway segment LOS analysis. Per the criteria of the City,
the Proposed Project would create a significant impact if it causes a roadway segment to operate from LOS C
(minimum satisfactory LOS) or better, to LOS D, E or F with addition of project traffic, or if the project
contributes the following V/C increases at LOS C, D, E, or F:
▪ Increase ≥ 0.050 if final V/C ratio > 0.700 – 0.800 (LOS C)
▪ Increase ≥ 0.030 if final V/C ratio > 0.800 – 0.900 (LOS D)
▪ Increase ≥ 0.010 if final V/C ratio > 0.900 (LOS E and F)
For the City of Orange, the Proposed Project would have a significant impact if the Proposed Project causes a
roadway segment operating at LOS D or better in the baseline condition, to operate at LOS E or F with the
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
322
addition of project traffic; or, if the Proposed Project adds 0.010 or more V/C to a roadway segment that is
already operating at LOS E or F in the baseline condition. Based on the analysis, the following roadway segments
would be significantly impacted by the Proposed Project:
▪ Ball Road, Sunkist Street to SR 57 southbound ramps (0.016 V/C increase at LOS F)
▪ Ball Road, SR 57 southbound ramps to SR 57 northbound ramps (0.039 V/C increase at LOS D)
▪ Ball Road, SR 57 northbound ramps to Phoenix Club Drive (0.062 V/C increase at LOS E)
▪ Phoenix Club Drive, south of Ball Road (0.395 V/C increase at LOS D)
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
323
Table 3.14-18 Buildout Year 2035 Plus Project Intersection Level of Service Summary
Intersection Control
Buildout Year 2035 Baseline Buildout Year 2035 Plus Project
Impact?
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU Difference
ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS AM PM
1. Disneyland Drive/Ball Road signal 0.690 B 0.946 E 0.688 B 0.950 E -0.002 0.004 no
2. Harbor Boulevard/Ball Road signal 0.928 E 0.916 E 0.931 E 0.898 D 0.003 -0.018 no
3. Anaheim Boulevard/Ball Road signal 0.648 B 0.737 C 0.661 B 0.739 C 0.013 0.002 no
4. Lewis Street/Ball Road signal 0.736 C 0.861 D 0.744 C 0.852 D 0.008 -0.009 no
5. East Street/Ball Road signal 0.770 C 0.836 D 0.770 C 0.836 D 0.000 0.000 no
6. State College Boulevard/Ball Road signal 0.824 D 0.738 C 0.827 D 0.734 C 0.003 -0.004 no
7. Sunkist Street/Ball Road signal 0.855 D 0.704 C 0.857 D 0.708 C 0.002 0.004 no
8. SR 57 SB ramps/Ball Road 1 signal 0.705 C 0.606 B 0.729 C 0.615 B 0.024 0.009 no
9. SR 57 NB ramps/Ball Road 1 signal 0.540 A 0.572 A 0.565 A 0.599 A 0.025 0.027 no
10. Phoenix Club Drive/Ball Road signal 0.615 B 0.586 A 0.734 C 0.778 A 0.119 0.192 YES
11. Sunkist Street/Wagner Avenue signal 0.771 C 0.557 A 0.755 C 0.562 A -0.016 0.005 no
12. Anaheim Boulevard/Cerritos Avenue signal 0.706 C 0.751 C 0.727 C 0.753 C 0.021 0.002 no
13. Lewis Street/Cerritos Avenue signal 0.627 B 0.537 A 0.635 B 0.525 A 0.008 -0.012 no
14. State College Boulevard/Cerritos Avenue signal 0.611 B 0.620 B 0.601 B 0.607 B -0.010 -0.013 no
15. Sunkist Street/Cerritos Avenue signal 0.604 B 0.721 C 0.608 B 0.728 C 0.004 0.007 no
16. State College Boulevard/Howell Avenue signal 0.521 A 0.605 B 0.512 A 0.604 B -0.009 -0.001 no
17. Sunkist Street/Howell Avenue signal 0.396 A 1.042 F 0.399 A 1.044 F 0.003 0.002 no
18. Anaheim Boulevard/Katella Avenue signal 0.660 B 0.704 C 0.628 B 0.689 B -0.032 -0.015 no
19. Manchester Avenue/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.750 C 0.671 B 0.751 C 0.665 B 0.001 -0.006 no
20. Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.809 D 0.791 C 0.806 D 0.792 C -0.003 0.001 no
21. Lewis Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.651 B 0.668 B 0.634 B 0.660 D -0.017 -0.007 no
22. State College Boulevard/Katella Avenue signal 0.835 D 0.811 D 0.828 D 0.821 D -0.007 0.010 no
23. Howell Avenue/Katella Avenue signal 0.767 C 0.821 D 0.769 C 0.828 D 0.002 0.007 no
24. SR 57 SB ramps/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.666 B 0.590 A 0.670 B 0.584 A 0.004 -0.006 no
25. SR 57 NB ramps/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.583 A 0.592 A 0.587 A 0.594 A 0.004 0.002 no
26. Douglass Road/Katella Avenue signal 0.671 B 0.799 C 0.677 B 0.815 D 0.006 0.016 no
27. Main Street/Taft Avenue signal 0.777 C 0.935 E 0.787 C 0.919 E 0.010 -0.016 no
28. Batavia Street/Taft Avenue signal 0.779 C 0.660 B 0.764 C 0.678 B -0.015 0.018 no
29. Glassell Street/Taft Avenue signal 0.580 A 0.592 A 0.583 A 0.595 A 0.003 0.003 no
30. Cambridge Street/Taft Avenue signal 0.433 A 0.483 A 0.427 A 0.476 A -0.006 -0.007 no
31. Tustin Street-south/Taft Avenue signal 0.667 B 0.639 B 0.671 B 0.633 B 0.004 -0.006 no
32. Tustin Street-north/Taft Avenue signal 0.612 B 0.660 B 0.626 B 0.656 B 0.014 -0.004 no
33. Main Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.589 A 0.731 C 0.592 A 0.710 C 0.003 -0.021 no
34. Batavia Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.733 C 0.868 D 0.755 C 0.888 D 0.022 0.020 no
35. Glassell Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.751 C 0.683 B 0.756 C 0.693 B 0.005 0.010 no
36. Cambridge Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.658 B 0.707 C 0.663 B 0.712 C 0.005 0.005 no
37. Tustin Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.744 C 0.873 D 0.736 C 0.885 D -0.008 0.012 no
38. SR 55 SB ramps/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.863 D 0.864 D 0.856 D 0.877 D -0.007 0.013 no
39. SR 55 NB ramps/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.699 B 0.833 D 0.693 B 0.834 D -0.006 0.001 no
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
324
Table 3.14-18 Buildout Year 2035 Plus Project Intersection Level of Service Summary
Intersection Control
Buildout Year 2035 Baseline Buildout Year 2035 Plus Project
Impact?
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU Difference
ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS AM PM
40. Main Street/Collins Avenue signal 0.648 B 0.808 D 0.638 B 0.822 D -0.010 0.014 no
41. Main Street/Walnut Avenue signal 0.539 A 0.709 C 0.539 A 0.708 C 0.000 -0.001 no
42. Main Street/Chapman Avenue signal 0.597 A 0.743 C 0.595 A 0.735 C -0.002 -0.008 no
43. Main Street/Struck Avenue signal 0.555 A 0.574 A 0.558 A 0.583 A 0.003 0.009 no
Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization, is also expressed at V/C - volume to capacity ratio.
Delay - Delay reported as Control Delay and expressed in seconds.
LOS - Level of Service.
Intersections #1 - #26 are within the City of Anaheim city limits; and, intersections #27 - #43 are within the City of Orange city limits.
1 Caltrans intersection; see Caltrans Facilities section of TIA for LOS under Highway Capacity Manual (HCM2010) Operations method.
X Bold value indicates exceedance of respective jurisdiction’s LOS standard. X
X Reverse bold value indicates significant project impact per respective jurisdiction's Significance Criteria.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
325
Table 3.14-19 Buildout 2035 Plus Project Roadway Segment Levels of Service
Buildout 2035 Baseline Buildout 2035 Plus Project
Roadway Segment Lanes Capacity 1 Volumes V/C LOS Volumes V/C LOS Change
in V/C
Impact
1. Ball Road Anaheim Boulevard to Lewis Street 2 6D 56,300 38,200 0.679 B 38,300 0.680 B 0.002 no
2. Lewis Street to East Street 2 6D 56,300 43,300 0.769 C 43,700 0.776 C 0.007 no
3. East Street to State College Boulevard 2 6D 56,300 44,200 0.785 C 44,200 0.785 C 0.000 no
4. State College Boulevard to Sunkist Street 2 6D 56,300 44,100 0.783 C 44,500 0.790 C 0.007 no
5. Sunkist Street to SR 57 SB ramps 2 6D 56,300 56,800 1.009 F 57,700 1.025 F 0.016 YES
6. SR 57 SB ramps to SR 57 NB ramps 2 6D 56,300 47,400 0.842 D 49,600 0.881 D 0.039 YES
7. SR 57 NB ramps to Phoenix Club Drive 2 6D 56,300 51,500 0.915 E 55,000 0.977 E 0.062 YES
8. Phoenix Club Drive to Main Street 3 6D 56,300 47,600 0.845 D 48,600 0.863 D 0.018 YES
9. Taft Avenue Main Street to Batavia Street 3 6D 56,300 41,100 0.730 C 41,900 0.744 C 0.014 no
10. Batavia Street to Glassell Street 3 6D 56,300 21,800 0.387 A 21,900 0.389 A 0.002 no
11. Glassell Street to Cambridge Street 3 6D 56,300 18,700 0.332 A 19,000 0.337 A 0.005 no
12. Cambridge Street to Tustin Street 3 6D 56,300 16,000 0.284 A 16,300 0.290 A 0.005 no
13. Katella Avenue west of Main Street 3, 4 6D 56,300 51,000 0.906 E 51,200 0.909 E 0.004 no
14. Main Street to Batavia Street 3, 4 6D 56,300 56,400 1.002 F 56,600 1.005 F 0.004 no
15. Batavia Street to Glassell Street 3, 4 6D 56,300 55,000 0.977 E 55,200 0.980 E 0.004 no
16. Sunkist Street Ball Road to Cerritos Avenue 2 4D 37,500 16,200 0.432 A 16,400 0.437 A 0.005 no
17. Phoenix Club Drive south of Ball Road 2 2D 18,750 7,900 0.421 A 15,300 0.816 D 0.395 YES
18. Main Street Taft Avenue to Katella Avenue 3 4D 37,500 16,500 0.440 A 16,900 0.451 A 0.011 no
19. Katella Avenue to Collins Avenue 3 4D 37,500 22,800 0.608 B 22,700 0.605 B -0.003 no
20. Collins Avenue to Walnut Avenue 3 6D 56,300 24,700 0.439 A 24,700 0.439 A 0.000 no
21. Walnut Avenue to Chapman Avenue 3 6D 56,300 31,100 0.552 A 31,500 0.560 A 0.007 no
Notes:
1 Roadway capacity is based on respective City criteria and are LOS E capacity values. The City of Anaheim roadway segment thre shold LOS is LOS C. The City of Orange roadway segment threshold LOS is
LOS D.
2
Roadway segment is within the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim.
3 Roadway segment is within the jurisdiction of the City of Orange.
4 Roadway segment is a CMP facility.
XXX Indicates roadway segment that is over-capacity (worse than LOS C).
XXX Indicates roadway segment significantly impacted by the Proposed Project.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
326
Buildout 2035 Plus Project for Caltrans Facilities
ATAM “total volume” link plots and post-processed traffic volumes for daily, a.m. and p.m. peak hours were
provided by the City for use in the analysis of Buildout 2035 Baseline and plus Project conditions. Prior to
finalizing the traffic volume output, a post-processing procedure was conducted that was applied to forecast
model traffic volumes to correct minor model validation discrepancies. This procedure is based on the
“increment method” outlined in NCHRP’s Circular 255. The travel demand model estimated the growth
increment in traffic volumes, which were added to existing traffic counts thereby correcting for any small
differences between actual traffic counts and the model’s estimated Existing Conditions (validation year) traffic
volumes.
Ramp Intersections
Table 3.14-20 presents the results of the Buildout 2035 plus Project ramp intersection LOS analysis. Based on the
Buildout 2035 plus Project LOS analysis, the Proposed Project would create a significant impact at the following
ramp intersections:
▪ SR 55 southbound ramps/Katella Avenue (2.3 second delay increase at LOS F in a.m. peak hour and
5.7 delay increase at LOS F in p.m. peak hour)
▪ SR 55 northbound ramps/Katella Avenue (0.1 second delay increase at LOS F in a.m. peak hour)
Mainline Segments
Table 3.14-21 presents the Buildout 2035 Plus Project freeway LOS summary. According to Caltrans criteria, any
segment operating below LOS D (LOS E or F) is considered deficient. Based on the date in Table 3.14-21, the
following segments would continue to operate at unsatisfactory LOS:
▪ SR 57 northbound between Katella Avenue and Ball Road (p.m. peak hour)
▪ SR 57 northbound Orangewood to Katella Avenue (p.m. peak hour)
▪ SR 57 northbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue (p.m. peak hour)
▪ SR 57 northbound between Lincoln Avenue and SR 91 (p.m. peak hour)
▪ SR 57 southbound between Orangewood Avenue and Katella Avenue (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
▪ SR 57 southbound between Katella Avenue and Ball Road (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
▪ SR 57 southbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
▪ SR 57 southbound between Lincoln Avenue and SR 91 (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
All southbound mainline segments are forecast to continue to operate with unsatisfactory LOS in both peak
hours, except for SR 57, Lincoln Avenue to SR 91 in the p.m. peak hour. All other northbound mainline segments
on SR 57 northbound are forecast to continue to operate with satisfactory LOS in one or both peak hours.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
327
Table 3.14-20 Buildout 2035 Plus Project Freeway Ramp Intersection Level of Service Summary
Buildout 2035 Baseline Condition Buildout 2035 plus Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay Difference
Intersection 1 Control Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS AM PM Impact?
8. SR 57 SB ramps/Ball Road signal 22.3 C 30.0 C 22.9 C 30.5 C 0.6 0.5 no
9. SR 57 NB ramps/Ball Road signal 12.2 B 28.2 C 14.9 B 29.7 C 2.7 1.5 no
19. Manchester Ave/Katella Ave signal 95.8 F 42.3 D 92.7 F 46.4 D -3.1 4.1 no
20. Anaheim Way/Katella Ave signal 74.0 D 39.0 D 75.4 E 40.1 D 1.4 1.1 YES
24. SR 57 SB ramps/Katella Ave signal 38.3 D 38.3 D 38.3 D 35.1 D 0.0 -3.2 no
25. SR 57 NB ramps/Katella Ave signal 64.5 E 9.9 A 64.4 E 9.8 A -0.1 -0.1 no
38. SR 55 SB ramps/Katella Ave signal 145.8 E 110.4 F 148.1 F 116.1 F 2.3 5.7 YES
39. SR 55 NB ramps/Katella Ave signal 30.4 E 83.8 F 29.8 C 83.5 F -0.6 -0.3 no
Notes: Delay - Delay reported as Control Delay and expressed in seconds.
LOS - Level of Service.
1 Caltrans intersection; analyzed using Highway Capacity Manual (HCM2010) Operations method.
X Bold value indicates exceedance of Caltrans LOS standard.
X Reverse bold value indicates significant project impact per Caltrans Significance Criteria.
Table 3.14-21 Buildout 2035 Plus Project Freeway Mainline Segment Level of Service Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Freeway From To
Density
(pc/ln/mi) 1 LOS
Density
(pc/ln/mi) 1 LOS
Northbound
SR 57 I-5 Orangewood Ave 22.7 C 31.3 D
Orangewood Ave Katella Ave 21.8 C 35.5 E
Katella Ave Ball Road 22.0 C >45.0 F
Ball Road Lincoln Ave 24.0 C >45.0 F
Lincoln Ave SR 91 25.3 C >45.0 F
Southbound
SR 57 I-5 Orangewood Ave >45.0 F >45.0 F
Orangewood Ave Katella Ave >45.0 F >45.0 F
Katella Ave Ball Road >45.0 F >45.0 E
Ball Road Lincoln Ave >45.0 F 41.8 E
Lincoln Ave SR 91 >45.0 F 35.1 E
Notes: LOS based on HCM methodology, analyzed in the 2010 Highway Capacity Software (HCS).
XXX – Mainline segment operates with unsatisfactory LOS.
1 – Density is presented in “passenger cars per lane per mile”.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
328
Freeway Weaving Segments
Table 3.14-22 presents the Buildout 2035 Plus Project freeway weaving analysis summary. According to
Caltrans criteria, any segment operating below LOS D (LOS E or F) is considered deficient. Based on the
weaving analysis, all northbound and southbound segments in both peak hours are forecast to continue to
operate at LOS E or F except for the SR 57 northbound segments during the a.m. peak hour.
Table 3.14-22 Buildout 2035 Plus Project Freeway Weaving Segment Level of Service Summary
Freeway From To
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Density
(pc/ln/mi) 1
LOS Density
(pc/ln/mi) 1 LOS
Northbound AM
SR 57 Orangewood Ave Katella Ave 29.2 D -- F
Katella Ave Ball Road 29.4 D -- F
Southbound AM
SR 57 Orangewood Ave Katella Ave -- F -- F
Katella Ave Ball Road -- F -- F
Notes: LOS based on HCM methodology, analyzed in the Highway Capacity Software (HCS).
XXX – Mainline segment operates with unsatisfactory LOS.
-- Demand exceeds capacity = LOS F
1 – Density is presented in “passenger cars per lane per mile”.
Construction Phases
The engineered fill of the existing basin and the construction of the retail/commercial buildings, were analyzed
to determine whether the temporary construction activities related to the peak construction phases of the
Proposed Project would have a significant, but temporary, impact on the transportation study area street
network. For purposes of this analysis, the short-term horizon years of 2020 for the engineered fill of basin and
2022 for the construction of retail/commercial buildings were used as the base year of the construction
analyses. Project construction activities would include: grading (including the filling of the basin), trenching,
building construction, paving, and architectural coating over a period of approximately three years. The
building construction activity would generate the highest amount of traffic, due to the number of construction
workers needed, compared to the other activities. The building construction would occur after the completion
of the grading phase.
Engineered Fill of Basin
The Engineered Fill of Basin Construction Phase was modeled based on the grading/filling activities required
for a basin that could hold up to 220 acre-feet of water, equivalent to 386,000 cubic yards of fill. The filling of
the basin would require up to 10 construction workers and 46 haul trucks destined to the site per day for 527
work days. The filling of the basin construction phase would have operating hours from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday. All construction worker- and vendor-related traffic would be confined to those daily
operating hours. Construction worker traffic was conservatively assumed at 1.0 average vehicle occupancy
(AVO), and vendor truck traffic was analyzed with a passenger-car equivalence (PCE) factor of 3.0 PCE.
Trip Generation
Table 3.14-23 provides the trip generation estimates for the Engineered Fill of Basin Construction Phase for the
Proposed Project, which shows that construction activities required for the engineered fill of the basin would
generate approximately 296 daily trips, 46 a.m. peak hour trips (28 inbound and 18 outbound), and 46 p.m.
peak hour trips (18 inbound and 28 outbound) for 527 work days.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
329
Table 3.14-23 Engineered Fill of Basin Construction Trip Generation Estimates
Building Phase
Size
Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Construction workers (with 1.0 AVO) 10 workers 20 10 0 10 0 10 10
Vendor trucks 1 46 trucks
- without Passenger-Car Equivalence (PCE) 92 6 6 12 6 6 12
- with PCE (3.0 PCE) 276 18 18 36 18 18 36
TOTAL TRIP GENERATION with PCE 296 28 18 46 18 28 46
Notes: Trip generation estimates based on operational construction information provided by the Property Owner/Developer.
1 – The 46 vendor trucks will be limited to deliveries from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. The deliveries would be evenly spread over the eight-hour period (six
trucks per hour). In addition, a Passenger-Car Equivalency (PCE) factor of 3.0 was applied to the trucks.
Traffic Volumes
Peak hour traffic volumes for the 2020 baselines (i.e., without construction traffic) for the Engineered Fill of
Basin Construction Phase were forecast by applying an ambient growth rate of 0.5 percent per year to the
existing traffic volumes for a growth factor of 1.5 percent for 2020. The trip generation estimates in Table 3.14-
23 above were applied to the distribution percentages and the trip assignments were determined. The trip
assignments were added to the 2020 baseline condition to derive the 2020 Plus Project for Engineered Fill of
Basin Construction Phase.
Table 3.14-24 presents the results of the 2020 Engineered Fill of Basin Construction Phase intersection LOS
analysis. Based on the 2020 peak construction activity for the engineered fill of the basin, and the significance
criteria of the respective jurisdiction (Cities of Anaheim and Orange) for each intersection, the proposed peak
construction phase any of the alternatives analyzed would not create a significant impact to the transportation
study area intersections.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
330
Table 3.14-24 Construction (Engineered Fill of Basin Construction Phase) Year 2020 Intersection Level of Service Summary
Intersection Control
Construction Year 2020 Baseline 2020 Baseline Plus Construction
ICU Difference
Impact?
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS AM PM
1. Disneyland Drive/Ball Road signal 0.555 A 0.823 D 0.557 A 0.823 D 0.002 0.000 no
2. Harbor Boulevard/Ball Road signal 0.656 B 0.832 D 0.656 B 0.832 D 0.000 0.000 no
3. Anaheim Boulevard/Ball Road signal 0.619 B 0.750 C 0.621 B 0.752 C 0.002 0.002 no
4. Lewis Street/Ball Road signal 0.507 A 0.615 B 0.508 A 0.616 B 0.001 0.001 no
5. East Street/Ball Road signal 0.637 B 0.745 C 0.638 B 0.746 C 0.001 0.001 no
6. State College Boulevard/Ball Road signal 0.716 C 0.741 C 0.717 C 0.742 C 0.001 0.001 no
7. Sunkist Street/Ball Road signal 0.785 C 0.831 D 0.786 C 0.833 D 0.001 0.002 no
8 SR-57 SB ramps/Ball Road 1 signal 0.626 B 0.720 C 0.631 B 0.724 C 0.005 0.004 no
9. SR-57 NB ramps/Ball Road 1 signal 0.519 A 0.794 C 0.528 A 0.797 C 0.009 0.003 no
10. Phoenix Club Drive/Ball Road signal 0.527 A 0.563 A 0.533 A 0.571 A 0.006 0.008 no
11. Sunkist Street/Wagner Avenue signal 0.598 A 0.501 A 0.598 A 0.501 A 0.000 0.000 no
12. Anaheim Boulevard/Cerritos Avenue signal 0.516 A 0.703 C 0.516 A 0.703 C 0.000 0.000 no
13. Lewis Street/Cerritos Avenue signal 0.307 A 0.333 A 0.307 A 0.333 A 0.000 0.000 no
14. State College Boulevard/Cerritos Avenue signal 0.440 A 0.530 A 0.440 A 0.530 A 0.000 0.000 no
15. Sunkist Street/Cerritos Avenue signal 0.330 A 0.497 A 0.330 A 0.497 A 0.000 0.000 no
16. State College Boulevard/Howell Avenue signal 0.422 A 0.455 A 0.422 A 0.455 A 0.000 0.000 no
17. Sunkist Street/Howell Avenue 1-way stop 15.800 C 18.900 C 15.800 C 18.900 C -- -- no
18. Anaheim Boulevard/Katella Avenue signal 0.413 A 0.558 A 0.413 A 0.558 A 0.000 0.000 no
19. Manchester Avenue/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.590 A 0.564 A 0.590 A 0.564 A 0.000 0.000 no
20. Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.419 A 0.599 A 0.419 A 0.599 A 0.000 0.000 no
21. Lewis Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.552 A 0.721 C 0.552 A 0.721 C 0.000 0.000 no
22. State College Boulevard/Katella Avenue signal 0.620 B 0.602 B 0.620 B 0.602 B 0.000 0.000 no
23. Howell Avenue/Katella Avenue signal 0.453 A 0.641 B 0.453 A 0.641 B 0.000 0.000 no
24. SR-57 SB ramps/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.394 A 0.443 A 0.394 A 0.443 A 0.000 0.000 no
25. SR-57 NB ramps/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.429 A 0.483 A 0.429 A 0.483 A 0.000 0.000 no
26. Douglass Road/Katella Avenue signal 0.453 A 0.478 A 0.453 A 0.478 A 0.000 0.000 no
27. Main Street/Taft Avenue signal 0.720 C 0.684 B 0.72 C 0.684 B 0.000 0.000 no
28. Batavia Street/Taft Avenue signal 0.679 B 0.682 B 0.679 B 0.682 B 0.000 0.000 no
29. Glassell Street/Taft Avenue signal 0.600 A 0.603 B 0.600 A 0.603 B 0.000 0.000 no
30. Cambridge Street/Taft Avenue signal 0.437 A 0.471 A 0.437 A 0.471 A 0.000 0.000 no
31. Tustin Street-south/Taft Avenue signal 0.748 C 0.673 B 0.748 C 0.673 B 0.000 0.000 no
32. Tustin Street-north/Taft Avenue signal 0.613 B 0.669 B 0.613 B 0.669 B 0.000 0.000 no
33. Main Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.508 A 0.504 A 0.508 A 0.504 A 0.000 0.000 no
34. Batavia Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.538 A 0.693 B 0.538 A 0.693 B 0.000 0.000 no
35. Glassell Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.601 B 0.675 B 0.601 B 0.675 B 0.000 0.000 no
36. Cambridge Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.563 A 0.653 B 0.563 A 0.653 B 0.000 0.000 no
37. Tustin Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.629 B 0.773 C 0.629 B 0.773 C 0.000 0.000 no
38. SR-55 SB ramps/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.964 E 1.002 F 0.964 E 1.002 F 0.000 0.000 no
39. SR-55 NB ramps/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.681 B 0.910 E 0.681 B 0.91 E 0.000 0.000 no
40. Main Street/Collins Avenue signal 0.484 A 0.619 B 0.484 A 0.619 B 0.000 0.000 no
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
331
41. Main Street/Walnut Avenue signal 0.656 B 0.796 C 0.656 B 0.796 C 0.000 0.000 no
Intersection Control
Construction Year 2020 Baseline 2020 Baseline Plus Construction
ICU Difference
Impact?
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS AM PM
42. Main Street/Chapman Avenue signal 0.599 A 0.710 C 0.599 A 0.71 C 0.000 0.000 no
43. Main Street/Struck Avenue signal 0.553 A 0.554 A 0.553 A 0.554 A 0.000 0.000 no
Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization, is also expressed at V/C - volume to capacity ratio.
Delay - Delay reported as Control Delay and expressed in seconds.
LOS - Level of Service.
Intersections #1 - #26 are within the City of Anaheim city limits; and, intersections #27 - #43 are within the City of Orange city limits.
1 Caltrans intersection; see Caltrans Facilities section of TIA for LOS under Highway Capacity Manual (HCM2010) Operations method.
X Bold value indicates exceedance of respective jurisdiction’s LOS standard. X
X Reverse bold value indicates significant project impact per respective jurisdiction's Significance Criteria.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
332
Construction of General Commercial Buildings
The building construction phase was modeled based on the construction of a 425,000 square feet
retail/commercial center. The building construction would require up to 68 construction workers and 35 vendor
trucks destined to the site per day. The onsite equipment would consist of cranes, forklifts, generator sets,
welders, and tractors (e.g., loaders and/or backhoes).
The building construction phase would have operating hours from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday th rough
Friday. All construction worker- and vendor-related traffic would be confined to those daily operating hours.
Construction worker traffic was conservatively assumed at 1.0 average vehicle occupancy (AVO), and vendor
truck traffic was analyzed with a passenger-car equivalence (PCE) factor of 3.0 PCE.
Trip Generation
Table 3.14-25 provides the trip generation estimates for the building construction phase of the Proposed
Project, which shows that building construction activities would generate approximately 346 daily trips, 95 a.m.
peak hour trips (83 inbound and 12 outbound), and 95 p.m. peak hour trips (12 inbound and 83 outbound).
Table 3.14-25 Building Construction Trip Generation Estimates
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Building Phase Size Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Construction workers (with 1.0 AVO) 68 workers 136 68 0 68 0 68 68
Vendor trucks 1 35 trucks
- without Passenger-Car Equivalence (PCE) 70 5 4 9 4 5 9
- with PCE (3.0 PCE) 210 15 12 27 12 15 27
TOTAL TRIP GENERATION with PCE 346 83 12 95 12 83 95
Notes: Trip generation estimates based on operational construction information provided by the Property Owner/Developer.
1 – The 35 vendor trucks will be limited to deliveries from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. The deliveries would be evenly spread over the eight-hour period (five
trucks per hour). In addition, a Passenger-Car Equivalency (PCE) factor of 3.0 was applied to the trucks.
Traffic Volumes
Peak hour traffic volumes for the baseline (i.e., without construction traffic) 2022 for building construction were
forecast by applying an ambient growth rate of 0.5 percent per year to the existing traffic volumes for a growth
factor of 2.5 percent for 2022.
Levels of Service
Table 3.14-26 presents the results of the 2022 Construction of General Commercial Buildings Construction Phase
intersection LOS analysis. Based on the 2022 Construction of General Commercial Buildings peak construction
activities, the proposed peak Construction of Commercial Buildings construction phase would not create a
significant impact to the transportation study area intersections.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
333
Table 3.14-26 Construction (Buildings) Year 2022 Intersection Level of Service Summary
Intersection Control
Construction Year 2022 Baseline 2022 Baseline Plus Construction
Impact?
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU Difference
ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS AM PM
1. Disneyland Drive/Ball Road signal 0.560 A 0.830 D 0.564 A 0.831 D 0.004 0.001 no
2. Harbor Boulevard/Ball Road signal 0.660 B 0.840 D 0.665 B 0.840 D 0.005 0.000 no
3. Anaheim Boulevard/Ball Road signal 0.625 B 0.757 C 0.629 B 0.761 C 0.004 0.004 no
4. Lewis Street/Ball Road signal 0.511 A 0.620 B 0.516 A 0.621 B 0.005 0.001 no
5. East Street/Ball Road signal 0.643 B 0.751 C 0.643 B 0.756 C 0.000 0.005 no
6. State College Boulevard/Ball Road signal 0.722 C 0.747 C 0.727 C 0.752 C 0.005 0.005 no
7. Sunkist Street/Ball Road signal 0.792 C 0.839 D 0.793 C 0.845 D 0.001 0.006 no
8 SR-57 SB ramps/Ball Road 1 signal 0.632 B 0.727 C 0.647 B 0.732 C 0.015 0.005 no
9. SR-57 NB ramps/Ball Road 1 signal 0.524 A 0.802 D 0.550 A 0.811 D 0.026 0.009 no
10. Phoenix Club Drive/Ball Road signal 0.531 A 0.568 A 0.536 A 0.593 A 0.005 0.025 no
11. Sunkist Street/Wagner Avenue signal 0.604 B 0.505 A 0.604 B 0.505 A 0.000 0.000 no
12. Anaheim Boulevard/Cerritos Avenue signal 0.521 A 0.709 C 0.521 A 0.709 C 0.000 0.000 no
13. Lewis Street/Cerritos Avenue signal 0.309 A 0.335 A 0.309 A 0.335 A 0.000 0.000 no
14. State College Boulevard/Cerritos Avenue signal 0.444 A 0.535 A 0.444 A 0.535 A 0.000 0.000 no
15. Sunkist Street/Cerritos Avenue signal 0.333 A 0.502 A 0.333 A 0.502 A 0.000 0.000 no
16. State College Boulevard/Howell Avenue signal 0.426 A 0.456 A 0.426 A 0.456 A 0.000 0.000 no
17. Sunkist Street/Howell Avenue 1-way stop 16.100 C 16.900 C 16.100 C 16.100 C -- -- no
18. Anaheim Boulevard/Katella Avenue signal 0.416 A 0.563 A 0.416 A 0.563 A 0.000 0.000 no
19. Manchester Avenue/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.595 A 0.569 A 0.595 A 0.569 A 0.000 0.000 no
20. Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.423 A 0.604 B 0.423 A 0.604 B 0.000 0.000 no
21. Lewis Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.556 A 0.728 C 0.556 A 0.728 C 0.000 0.000 no
22. State College Boulevard/Katella Avenue signal 0.625 B 0.607 B 0.625 B 0.607 B 0.000 0.000 no
23. Howell Avenue/Katella Avenue signal 0.457 A 0.647 B 0.457 A 0.647 B 0.000 0.000 no
24. SR-57 SB ramps/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.397 A 0.446 A 0.397 A 0.446 A 0.000 0.000 no
25. SR-57 NB ramps/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.432 A 0.487 A 0.432 A 0.487 A 0.000 0.000 no
26. Douglass Road/Katella Avenue signal 0.457 A 0.483 A 0.457 A 0.483 A 0.000 0.000 no
27. Main Street/Taft Avenue signal 0.726 C 0.691 B 0.727 C 0.691 B 0.001 0.000 no
28. Batavia Street/Taft Avenue signal 0.685 B 0.689 B 0.685 B 0.689 B 0.000 0.000 no
29. Glassell Street/Taft Avenue signal 0.605 B 0.608 B 0.605 B 0.608 B 0.000 0.000 no
30. Cambridge Street/Taft Avenue signal 0.441 A 0.471 A 0.441 A 0.471 A 0.000 0.000 no
31. Tustin Street-south/Taft Avenue signal 0.755 C 0.679 B 0.755 C 0.679 B 0.000 0.000 no
32. Tustin Street-north/Taft Avenue signal 0.619 B 0.675 B 0.619 B 0.675 B 0.000 0.000 no
33. Main Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.512 A 0.508 A 0.512 A 0.509 A 0.000 0.001 no
34. Batavia Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.543 A 0.699 B 0.543 A 0.7 B 0.000 0.001 no
35. Glassell Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.606 B 0.687 B 0.607 B 0.688 B 0.001 0.001 no
36. Cambridge Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.568 A 0.659 B 0.568 A 0.66 B 0.000 0.001 no
37. Tustin Street/Katella Avenue signal 0.634 B 0.780 C 0.635 B 0.78 C 0.001 0.000 no
38. SR-55 SB ramps/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.973 E 1.011 F 0.973 E 1.011 F 0.000 0.000 no
39. SR-55 NB ramps/Katella Avenue 1 signal 0.687 B 0.919 E 0.687 B 0.919 E 0.000 0.000 no
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
334
Intersection Control
Construction Year 2022 Baseline 2022 Baseline Plus Construction
Impact?
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU Difference
ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS AM PM
40. Main Street/Collins Avenue signal 0.488 A 0.625 B 0.488 A 0.625 B 0.000 0.000 no
41. Main Street/Walnut Avenue signal 0.662 B 0.804 D 0.662 B 0.804 D 0.000 0.000 no
42. Main Street/Chapman Avenue signal 0.604 B 0.717 C 0.604 B 0.717 C 0.000 0.000 no
43. Main Street/Struck Avenue signal 0.558 A 0.559 A 0.558 A 0.559 A 0.000 0.000 no
Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization, is also expressed at V/C - volume to capacity ratio.
Delay - Delay reported as Control Delay and expressed in seconds.
LOS - Level of Service.
Intersections #1 - #26 are within the City of Anaheim city limits; and, intersections #27 - #43 are within the City of Orange city limits.
1 Caltrans intersection; see Caltrans Facilities section of TIA for LOS under Highway Capacity Manual (HCM2010) Operations method.
X Bold value indicates exceedance of respective jurisdiction’s LOS standard. X
X Reverse bold value indicates significant project impact per respective jurisdiction's Significance Criteria.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
335
Impact Summary
Existing Plus Project Intersections
The Proposed Project would create a significant impact at the following intersection:
▪ Phoenix Club Drive/Ball Road (0.156 V/C increase at LOS C in p.m. peak hour)
Implementation of the improvements at Phoenix Club Drive/Ball Road would reduce impacts to less than
significant:
▪ Widen the northbound approach and construct dual left turn lane and a dedicated right turn lane.
▪ Widen the eastbound approach and construct a dedicated right turn lane.
▪ Add overlap phasing for the northbound and eastbound right turn lanes.
▪ Construct a westbound dual left turn lane.
Existing Plus Project Roadway Segments
The following roadway segments would be significantly impacted by the Proposed Project:
▪ Ball Road, Sunkist Street to SR 57 southbound ramps (0.016 V/C increase at LOS F)
▪ Ball Road, SR 57 northbound ramps to Phoenix Club Drive (0.062 V/C increase at LOS C)
▪ Ball Road, Phoenix Club Drive to Main Street (0.027 V/C increase at LOS E)
Implementation of the following improvements would achieve the following and reduce impacts to less than
significant:
▪ Ball Road, Sunkist Street to SR 57 southbound ramps
o Construct a fourth travel lane in the westbound direction to make this segment a 7-lane, divided
segment (7D).
o It should be noted that this roadway segment is ultimately planned to be a 6-lane, divided
roadway under the City of Anaheim’s General Plan Circulation Element.
▪ Ball Road, SR 57 northbound ramps to Phoenix Club Drive
o Construct a fourth travel lane in the westbound direction to make this segment a 7-lane, divided
segment (7D).
o It should be noted that this roadway segment is ultimately planned to be a 6-lane, divided
roadway under the City of Anaheim’s General Plan Circulation Element.
▪ Ball Road, Phoenix Club Drive to Main Street
Construct a third travel lane in the eastbound direction to make this segment a 6-lane divided
segment (6D) consistent with the City of Anaheim’s General Plan Circulation Element.
Existing Plus Project Ramp Intersections
The following Caltrans ramp intersection would be significantly impacted by the Proposed Project:
▪ SR-55 southbound ramps/Katella Avenue (5.5 second delay increase at LOS F in p.m. peak hour and
7.0 second delay increase at LOS F in p.m. peak hour)
Implementation of the following improvements would achieve the following and reduce impacts to less than
significant:
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
336
▪ SR-55 southbound ramps/Katella Avenue- convert second SB left turn lane to shared left-right turn
lane, add westbound left turn lane. Intersection would operate at LOS F in both peak hours with a
contribution of -115.4 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour and -69.7 seconds of delay in the p.m.
peak hour.
Because all ramp intersections are exclusively controlled by the State, there is no mechanism by which the City
can construct or guarantee the construction of any of these improvements. Therefore, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations will be developed for the impacted Caltrans ramp intersections.
Existing Plus Project Freeway Mainline Segments
With addition of project trips to SR-57 in the Existing Plus Project condition, the following segments are forecast
to continue to operate with unsatisfactory LOS:
▪ SR-57 northbound between Katella Avenue and Ball Road (p.m. peak hour)
▪ SR-57 northbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue (p.m. peak hour)
▪ SR-57 northbound between Lincoln Avenue and SR-91 (p.m. peak hour)
▪ SR-57 southbound between I-5 and Orangewood Avenue (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
▪ SR-57 southbound between Orangewood Avenue and Katella Avenue (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
▪ SR-57 southbound between Katella Avenue and Ball Road (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
▪ SR-57 southbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
▪ SR-57 southbound between Lincoln Avenue and SR-91 (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
The baseline (without project) LOS is LOS E or F, and it remains LOS E or F with addition of project trips. The
Proposed Project would not create a significant impact at these locations as mainline segment LOS would
remain the same. However, the Proposed Project would contribute to a significant cumulative impact.
The mainline/weaving analysis revealed that several mainline/weaving areas operate at deficient levels of
service under 2035 With and No Project conditions as a result of high mainline forecast volumes and cumulative
growth. To address cumulative deficiencies associated with the freeway mainline and weaving segments,
freeway capacity enhancements such as widening the facilities by one lane in each direction would require
consideration:
▪ SR-57 northbound between Orangewood Avenue and SR-91 – widen by one lane
▪ SR-57 southbound between SR-91 and SR-22 Ramps – widen by one lane
Improvements have been recommended to reduce the level of impact to less than significant levels. Potential
additional capacity enhancements include the implementation of auxiliary lanes within weaving areas to
improve operations on the merge/diverge areas as well as the mainline and weaving areas.
A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already
anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based
on the evaluation improvements identified may not be feasible due to ROW acquisition needs, impacts to
established land uses, and environmental constraints.
All of the weaving segment and ramp improvements needed are likely not feasible due to ROW or other
constraints. Caltrans has not identified any further improvements beyond those already assumed in the buildout
analysis for SR-57. The City has limited control over State facilities. Because SR-57 is exclusively controlled by the
State, there is no mechanism by which the City can construct or guarantee the construction of any
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
337
improvements to any State facilities. Pursuant to Caltrans’ Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies
(2002), consultation between the City and Caltrans will be necessary to reach consensus on any potential
operational improvement measures that can be implemented in the study area to assist in mitigation of traffic
increases related to implementation of the Proposed Project. Beyond jurisdictional limitation, additional
capacity improvements are assumed infeasible due to physical, ROW, and environmental constraints.
Additionally, the City does not have any jurisdiction over any deficient areas within Caltrans jurisdiction.
Therefore, the City cannot ensure completion of any mitigation measures on State owned facilities. Therefore,
the Proposed Project would create a Significant Unavoidable Impact to the impacted freeway mainline
segments.
Existing Plus Project Freeway Weaving Segments
The weaving areas for the northbound and southbound segments along SR-57 are forecast to continue to
operate at unsatisfactory LOS (LOS E or F) in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with addition of project tra ffic in the
Existing Plus Project conditions. The Proposed Project would not create a significant impact at these locations as
weaving segment LOS would remain the same. However, the Proposed Project would contribute to a significant
cumulative impact.
As previously stated under the impact discussion for freeway mainline segments, all of the weaving segment
improvements needed to reduce impacts are likely not feasible due to ROW or other constraints. Therefore, the
Proposed Project would create a Significant Unavoidable Impact to the impacted freeway weaving segments.
Buildout 2035 Plus Project Intersections
The Proposed Project would create a significant impact at the following intersection:
▪ Phoenix Club Drive/Ball Road (0.119 V/C increase at LOS C in a.m. peak hour, and 0.192 V/C increase at
LOS C in p.m. peak hour)
Implementation of the following improvements would achieve the following and reduce impacts to less than
significant:
▪ Phoenix Club Drive/Ball Road - widen NB approach to provide 2 left, 1 through, and 1 right turn lane,
add EB right turn lane, add WB left turn lane, add SB departure lane, add NBR and EBR overlap phases.
Intersection would operate at LOS A in both peak hours, with a project contribution of -0.055 V/C in the
a.m. peak hour and a project contribution of -0.019 in the p.m. peak hour.
Buildout 2035 Plus Project Roadway Segments
The following roadway segments would be significantly impacted by the Proposed Project:
▪ Ball Road, Sunkist Street to SR 57 southbound ramps (0.016 V/C increase at LOS F)
▪ Ball Road, SR 57 southbound ramps to SR 57 northbound ramps (0.039 V/C increase at LOS D)
▪ Ball Road, SR 57 northbound ramps to Phoenix Club Drive (0.062 V/C increase at LOS E)
▪ Phoenix Club Drive, south of Ball Road (0.395 V/C increase at LOS D)
Implementation of the following improvements would achieve the following and reduce impacts to less than
significant:
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
338
▪ Ball Road, Sunkist Street to SR 57 southbound ramps - add 1 westbound lane. Street would operate at
LOS D, with a project contribution of -0.129 V/C.
▪ Ball Road, SR 57 southbound ramps to SR 57 northbound ramps - add 1 westbound lane. Street would
operate at LOS C, with a project contribution of -0.086 V/C.
▪ Ball Road, SR 57 northbound ramps to Phoenix Club Drive - add 1 westbound lane. Street would operate
at LOS D, with a project contribution of -0.076 V/C.
▪ Phoenix Club Drive, south of Ball Road – widen to a six lane divided arterial. Street would operate at LOS
A, with a project contribution of -0.150 V/C.
Buildout 2035 Plus Project Ramp Intersections
Based on the Buildout 2035 plus Project LOS analysis, and the established significance criteria for Caltrans ramp
intersections, the Proposed Project would create a significant impact at the following ramp intersections:
▪ Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue (1.4 second delay increase at LOS E in the a.m. peak hour)
▪ SR 55 southbound ramps/Katella Avenue (2.3 second delay increase at LOS F in a.m. peak hour and 5.7
second delay increase at LOS F in p.m. peak hour)
Implementation of the following improvements would achieve the following and reduce impacts to less than
significant:
▪ Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue- add a northbound right turn lane, convert NB shared through right into a
right turn lane. Intersection would operate at LOS D in the a.m. peak hour with a contribution of -29.0
seconds of delay; and, LOS D in the p.m. peak hour with a contribution of +7.6 seconds of delay.
▪ SR 55 southbound ramps/Katella Avenue- convert second SB left turn lane to shared left-right turn lane,
add westbound left turn lane. Intersection would operate at LOS E in the a.m. peak hour with a
contribution of -90.5 seconds of delay and LOS D in the p.m. peak hour with -58.6 seconds of delay.
Because all ramp intersections are exclusively controlled by the State, there is no mechanism by which the City
can construct or guarantee the construction of any of these improvements. Therefore, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations will be developed for the impacted Caltrans ramp intersections.
Buildout 2035 Plus Project Freeway Mainline Segments
With addition of project trips to SR 57 in the Buildout 2035 Plus Project condition, the following segments are
forecast to continue to operate with unsatisfactory LOS:
▪ SR 57 northbound between Katella Avenue and Ball Road (p.m. peak hour)
▪ SR 57 northbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue (p.m. peak hour)
▪ SR 57 northbound between Lincoln Avenue and SR 91 (p.m. peak hour)
▪ SR 57 southbound between I-5 and Orangewood Avenue (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
▪ SR 57 southbound between Orangewood Avenue and Katella Avenue (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
▪ SR 57 southbound between Katella Avenue and Ball Road (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
▪ SR 57 southbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
▪ SR 57 southbound between Lincoln Avenue and SR 91 (a.m. peak hour)
The baseline (without project) LOS is LOS E or F, and it remains LOS E or F with addition of project trips. The
Proposed Project would not create a significant impact at these locations as mainline segment LOS would
remain the same. However, the Proposed Project would contribute to a significant cumulative impact.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
339
The mainline/weaving analysis revealed that several mainline/weaving areas operate at deficient levels of
service under 2035 With and No Project conditions as a result of high mainline forecast volumes and cumulative
growth. To address cumulative deficiencies associated with the freeway mainline and weaving segments,
freeway capacity enhancements such as widening the facilities by one lane in each direction would require
consideration:
▪ SR-57 northbound between Orangewood Avenue and SR-91 – widen by one lane
▪ SR-57 southbound between SR-91 and SR-22 Ramps – widen by one lane
Mitigation strategies have been recommended to reduce the level of impact to less than significant levels.
Potential additional capacity enhancements include the implementation of auxiliary lanes within weaving areas
to improve operations on the merge/diverge areas as well as the mainline and weaving areas.
A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as conside ration of already
anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the needed improvements (additional
weaving, or auxiliary, lane for each impacted segment) to achieve LOS D or better. Based on the evaluation, the
improvements identified may not be feasible due to ROW acquisition needs, impacts to established land uses,
and environmental constraints.
All of the weaving segment improvements needed are likely not feasible due to ROW or other constraints.
Caltrans has not identified any further improvements beyond those already assumed in the buildout analysis for
SR-57. The City has limited control over State facilities. Because SR-57 is exclusively controlled by the State,
there is no mechanism by which the City can construct or guarantee the construction of any improvements to
any State facilities. Pursuant to Caltrans’ Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (2002), consultation
between the City and Caltrans will be necessary to reach consensus on any potential operational improvement
measures that can be implemented in the study area to assist in mitigation of traffic increases related to
implementation of the Proposed Project. Beyond jurisdictional limitation, additional capacity improvements are
assumed infeasible due to physical, ROW, and environmental constraints. Additionally, the City does not have
any jurisdiction over any deficient areas within Caltrans jurisdiction. Therefore, the City cannot ensure
completion of any mitigation measures on State owned facilities. Therefore, the Proposed Project would create
a Significant Unavoidable Impact to the impacted freeway mainline segments.
Buildout 2035 Plus Project Freeway Weaving Segments
With addition of project trips to SR 57, the weaving LOS for the northbound and southbound segments along SR
57 are forecast to continue to operate at unsatisfactory LOS in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with addition of
project traffic in both the Existing- and Buildout 2035 plus Project conditions. The project would not create a
significant impact at these locations as weaving segment LOS would remain the same. However, the Proposed
Project would contribute to a significant cumulative impact.
All of the weaving segment improvements (additional weaving, or auxiliary, lane for each impacted segment)
needed to achieve LOS D or better to reduce impacts are likely not feasible due to ROW or other constraints. As
previously stated, Caltrans has not identified any further improvements beyond those already assumed in the
buildout analysis for SR 57. The City has limited control over State facilities. Beyond jurisdictional limitation,
additional capacity improvements are assumed infeasible due to physical, ROW, and environmental constraints.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would create a Significant Unavoidable Impact to the impacted freeway
weaving segments.
Construction Phases
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
340
Based on the 2020 Engineered Fill of Basin peak construction and the 2022 Construction of General Commercial
Buildings peak construction analysis proposed peak Engineered Fill of Basin and peak Construction of
Commercial Buildings construction phases would not create a significant impact to the transportation study area
intersections. Impacts would be considered less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required.
The following Conditions of Approval will be required of the project for the Engineered Fill of Basin construction
phase:
▪ The work affecting the roads, utilities, and the embankments between the basins needs to be reviewed,
approved, and permitted by the owner of the affected rights-of-way/utility as established by proper title
research.
▪ Haul routes for grading and demolition shall be reviewed by City staff to best determine how to
minimize pavement damage, and the best traffic route to minimize impacts to drivers and pedestrians.
▪ The amount of truck trips may generate excessive tear and wear on the pavement reducing pavement
life. The applicant shall reconstruct/restore the pavement and utilities in City streets to conditions prior
to development, or reimburse the City in an amount determined by the City Engineer.
IMPACT TRAF-2: The Proposed Project would conflict with an applicable congestion management program.
Per review of the 2009 Orange County Congestion Management Program, the nearest CMP facilities in the
Project vicinity are I-5, SR-57, SR-55, Katella Avenue, and Harbor Boulevard. In addition, the ramp intersections
at Katella Avenue with I-5, SR-57, and SR-55 are also CMP intersections. Per review of Appendix B-1 of the CMP,
a CMP traffic analysis is required for CMP segments where the Proposed Project would add 120 peak hour trips,
or three percent of the level of impact of a generalized capacity of 40,000 vehicles per day. For intersections, a
three percent level of impact applied to the sum of critical volume (1,700 vehicles per hour) would be 51
vehicles per hour.
Based on the project trip assignment developed, the Proposed Project would not add 120 or more peak hour
trips to segments of SR-57, between I-5 and SR-91; and, would not add 51 or more peak hour trips to the ramp
intersections of Katella Avenue at I-5, SR-57, and SR-55. Impacts to the following CMP facilities were analyzed:
▪ CMP ramp intersections
o SR-57 southbound ramps/Katella Avenue
o SR-57 northbound ramps/Katella Avenue
o SR-55 southbound ramps/Katella Avenue
o SR-55 northbound ramps/Katella Avenue
▪ CMP roadway segments
o Katella Avenue, west of Main Street
o Katella Avenue, Main Street to Batavia Street
o Katella Avenue, Batavia Street to Glassell Street
Existing Plus Project
Since the project does not add 51 or more peak hour trips to any CMP intersection, and the study CMP
intersections do not operate at LOS F, the project will not create a significant impact at any CMP intersection
under this scenario.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
341
Buildout 2035 Plus Project.
Since the project does not add 51 or more peak hour trips to any CMP intersection, and the study CMP
intersections do not operate at LOS F, the project will not create a significant impact at any CMP intersection
under this scenario.
IMPACT TRAF-3: The Proposed Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities
supporting alternative transportation.
The Project site is located adjacent to the Santa Ana River Riding and Hiking Trail, a national recreation trail that
would link San Bernardino County to Orange County when completed. The Figure C-5 in the City of Anaheim
Circulation Element depicts the Santa Ana River Riding and Hiking Trail as an existing Class 1 Bikeway. Figure G-1
in the City of Anaheim Green Element designates the Santa Ana River Riding and Hiking Trail as Riding/Hiking,
Pedestrian and Mountain Bike Trail. Impacts to the Santa Ana River Riding and Hiking Trail could occur as a result
of the Proposed Project. However, as discussed in Section 3.13 above, future commercial development on the
Project site would be designed to support the recreational goals and policies of the Circulation Element and the
Green Element. Furthermore, future development on the Project site would be required to provide linkages to
the Santa Ana River Riding and Hiking Trail. Impacts to the Santa Ana River Riding and Hiking Trail would be
considered less than significant and mitigation would not be required.
MITIGATION MEASURES
For the mitigation measures recommended in the Existing plus Project section below, the Property
Owner/Developer shall pay or construct 100 percent of the recommended improvements.
For the mitigation measures recommended in the Buildout 2035 plus Project section below, the Property
Owner/Developer shall pay their equitable fair-share cost for the recommended improvements. The total
improvement costs shall be determined and payment of the project's fair-share (based on the equitable share
formula below) to the (to be determined) total improvement costs shall be made.
P=
T
TB - TE
Where:
P = The equitable share for the Proposed Project’s traffic impact.
T = The vehicle trips generated by the project during peak hour of adjacent street, vph.
TB = General Plan build-out forecast traffic volume (i.e., 20-year model or the furthest future model date
feasible), vph.
TE = Existing traffic volume plus approved projects that have not been constructed or occupied, vph.
Table 3.14-27 provides the fair-share calculations of the impacted intersections and roadway segments
identified below in the Buildout 2035 plus Project section.
Table 3.14-27 Buildout 2035 plus Project Fair-Share Calculations
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
342
Intersection
Project
Traffic
Buildout
2035
plus
Project Existing
Fair
Share
%
Project
Traffic
Buildout
2035
plus
Project Existing
Fair
Share
%
10 - Phoenix Club Drive/Ball Road 408 3,771 2,573 34.1% 605 4,595 3,129 41.3%
20 - Anaheim Way/Katella Ave 5 5,921 3,462 0.2% 21 7,539 4,755 0.8%
38 - SR 55 SB Ramps/Katella Ave 16 5,114 4,599 3.1% 43 6,294 5,646 6.6%
Average Daily Traffic
Roadway Segments
Project
Traffic
Buildout
2035
plus
Project Existing
Fair
Share
%
Ball Road - Sunkist to SR 57 SB Ramps 900 57,700 55,700 45.0%
Ball Road - SR 57 SB rmps to SR 57 NB rmps 2,200 49,600 42,800 32.4%
Ball Road - 57 NB rmps to Phoenix Club Dr 3,500 55,000 38,000 20.6%
Phoenix Club Drive - South of Ball Road 7,400 15,300 5,200 73.3%
Note: Fair-Share formula is Project Traffic ÷ (Buildout plus Project Traffic - Existing Traffic).
MM TRAF-1: Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection, the Property Owner/Developer shall
implement the following improvements, identified in the Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone
Change Project Traffic Impact Study, Transpo Group, February 2017 (Appendix I of this EIR), under the Existing
Plus Projects scenario, that are required by the Anaheim Municipal Code:
1. Ball Road between Phoenix Club Drive and Orange City Limits- add one westbound lane and one
eastbound lane.
2. Phoenix Club Drive, south of Ball Road- widen street to six lane divided arterial.
The Property Owner/Developer is responsible for the full cost of these improvements. The Property
Owner/Developer shall construct, bond for or enter into a funding agreement for necessary circulation system
improvements, as determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager.
MM TRAF-2: Prior to issuance of the first grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit to the City
Traffic and Transportation Manager a traffic improvement phasing analysis to identify when the improvements
identified in the Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Project Traffic Impact Study,
Transpo Group, February 2017 (Appendix I of this EIR), but not included in MM TRAF-3, shall be designed and
constructed.
a) The improvements below are required under the Existing Plus Projects scenario. The Property
Owner/Developer is responsible for the full cost of these improvements:
1. Phoenix Club Drive/Ball Road- stripe northbound approach to provide 2 left, 1 through, and 1 right turn
lane, add one eastbound right turn lane, add one westbound left turn lane, add northbound and
eastbound right turn overlap phases.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
343
2. Ball Road between Sunkist St and SR-57 Southbound Off Ramp- add one westbound lane
3. Ball Road between SR-57 Northbound On Ramp and Phoenix Club Drive- add one westbound lane
4. Taft Avenue between Anaheim City Limits and Main Street- add one westbound lane and one eastbound
lane.
b) The improvements below are required under the General Plan Buildout plus Project scenario. The Property
Owner/Developer is responsible for the fair share cost of these improvements:
1. Ball Road between SR-57 Southbound Off Ramp and SR-57 Northbound On Ramp - add one westbound
lane
2. Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue- add one northbound right turn lane, convert northbound shared through
right into a right turn lane
3. Katella Avenue/SR-55 SB Ramps- convert second southbound left turn lane to shared left-right turn lane,
add one westbound left turn lane.
The traffic improvement phasing analysis will specify the timing for construction for these traffic improvements
when necessary to maintain satisfactory levels of service within the Cities of Anaheim and Orange as defined by
the City’s General Plan, based on thresholds of significance, performance standards and methodologies utilized
in EIR No. 345, Orange County Congestion Management Program and established in Cities of Anaheim and
Orange Traffic Study Guidelines. The analysis shall also include fair-share responsibilities for the improvements
identified in MM TRAF 2(b).
A cost estimate for these improvements shall be provided for approval by the City Traffic and Transportation
Manager, which shall include intersection improvements, rights-of-way, and construction costs, unless
alternative funding sources have been identified to help pay for the improvement. The Property
Owner/Developer shall construct, bond for or enter into a funding agreement for necessary circulation system
improvements, as determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager.
MM TRAF-3: Prior to issuance of the first grading permit, and in conjunction with the preparation of the traffic
improvement phasing analysis required by MM TRAF-2, the Property Owner/Developer shall take the following
actions in cooperation with the Cities of Anaheim and Orange:
a) The traffic improvement phasing analysis shall identify any impacts created by the project on facilities within
the City of Orange.
b) The traffic improvement phasing analysis shall calculate the project’s responsibility for mitigating these
impacts.
c) The Property Owner/Developer shall estimate the cost of the improvements in cooperation with the Cities
of Anaheim and Orange.
d) The Property Owner/Developer shall pay the cost responsible for the improvements to City of Anaheim prior
to issuance of a building permit.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
344
e) The City of Anaheim shall hold the amount received in trust, and then, once a mutually agreed upon joint
program is executed by both cities, the City of Anaheim shall allocate the project contribution to traffic
mitigation programs that result in improved traffic flow at the impacted locations, via an agreement
mutually acceptable to both cities.
MM TRAF-4: Prior to issuance of the first grading permit, and in conjunction with the preparation of the traffic
improvement phasing analysis required by MM TRAF-2, the Property Owner/Developer shall take the following
actions in cooperation with Caltrans and the City of Anaheim:
a) The traffic improvement phasing analysis shall identify the project’s proportionate impact on the specific
freeway mainline and/or freeway ramp locations.
b) The traffic improvement phasing analysis shall determine the Property Owner/Developer’s responsibility for
mitigating project impacts based on thresholds of significance, performance standards and methodologies
utilized in EIR No. 345 and established in the Orange County Congestion Management Program and City of
Anaheim Traffic Study Guidelines.
c) The traffic improvement phasing analysis shall determine if a regional transportation agency has
programmed and funded the warranted improvements to the impacted freeway mainline or freeway ramp
locations
d) The Property Owner/Developer shall estimate the cost of the project’s respon sibility in cooperation with
Caltrans and the City of Anaheim.
e) The Property Owner/Developer shall pay the cost responsible for the improvements to City of Anaheim as
determined above prior to issuance of a building permit.
f) The City shall allocate the property owners/developers contribution to traffic mitigation programs that
result in improved traffic flow on the impacted mainline and ramp locations, via an agreement mutually
acceptable to Caltrans and the City of Anaheim.
MM TRAF-5: Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection, as identified in the approved traffic
improvement phasing analysis prepared as part of MM TRAF-2, the Property Owner/Developer shall implement
traffic improvements to maintain satisfactory levels of services, as identified in the project traffic improvement
phasing analysis.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Under the Existing Plus Project and Buildout Plus Project scenarios, mitigation measures MM TRAF-1 through
MM TRAF-5 would reduce impacts to intersections, roadways segments, and Caltrans ramp intersections to less
than significant. However, impacts to Caltrans freeway mainline segments and weaving segments would be
potentially significant and cannot be mitigated due to the infeasibility of the recommended improvements.
Because all facilities under the jurisdiction of Caltrans are exclusively controlled by those agencies, there is no
mechanism by which the City can construct or guarantee the construction of any improvements to any of the
impacted facilities outside the jurisdiction of the City. Therefore, under the Existing Plus Project and Buildout
Plus Project scenarios, impacts to Caltrans controlled facilities would remain significant and unavoidable.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
345
As discussed under IMPACT TRAF-1, the Proposed Project would not result in a significant impact to Caltrans
freeway mainline or weaving segments since the baseline LOS without the Proposed Project is LOS E or F for
each of the identified segments, and would remain the same at LOS E or F even with the addition of project
trips. However, the Proposed Project would contribute to a significant cumulative impact at each of these
segments, which would remain significant and unavoidable because needed improvements are likely not
feasible due to ROW or other constraints.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
346
3.15. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
3.15.1 INTRODUCTION
This section provides an overview of the utilities and service systems available and analyzes potential project
impacts. The information present in this section is based on the City of Anaheim Ball Road Basin General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change Sewer Assessment Report, dated July 25, 2013, prepared by Fuscoe Engineering
for the Proposed Project and included as Appendix J of this EIR, the Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update
EIR, and the 2015 City of Anaheim Urban Water Management Plan.
3.15.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City’s General Plan contains policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating utility and service
impacts resulting from planned development within the City. All commercial development allowed by the
proposed land use designation and zoning would be subject to the utility and service policies listed in the Public
Services and Facilities Element of the City’s General Plan.
Utilities and services are furnished to the Project area by the following providers:
▪ Wastewater Treatment: Orange County Sanitation District regional facilities
▪ Wastewater Collection (Local Sanitary Sewer System): City of Anaheim
▪ Water Service: City of Anaheim
▪ Storm Drainage: Anaheim Department of Public Works and Orange County Department of Public Works
▪ Solid Waste: Republic Waste Services
▪ Natural Gas: Southern California Gas Company
▪ Electricity: City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department
▪ Telephone Service: AT&T
▪ Cable Television: Time Warner Cable
Wastewater/Sewer
The City’s local sanitary sewer system serves the Project vicinity and is tributary to the Orange County Sanitation
District (OCSD), District 2. The entire OCSD system encompasses 479 square miles of northern and central
Orange County. OCSD operates the third largest sewer system on the west coast, consisting of over 582 miles of
sewer lines, 15 offsite pumping station, two regional wastewater treatment plants, and an ocean disposal
system. Sewer flow from the City sewer system is conveyed to the county trunk and interceptor sewer to
regional treatment and disposal facilities.
OCSD maintains two wastewater treatment plants within Orange County. Reclamation Plant No. 1 is located at
10844 Ellis Avenue in the City of Fountain Valley, about four miles northeast of the ocean. This plant receives
sewage from six major sewer pipes and provides advanced primary and secondary treatment. Secondary
effluent is either blended with advanced primary effluent and routed the ocean disposal system, or is sent to the
OCWD for further treatment and distribution for reclaimed water uses. Reclamation Plant No. 2 is located at
22212 Brookhurst Street in the City of Huntington Beach, about 1,500 feet from the ocean. This plant receives
sewage from five major sewer pipes, and all of the effluent from the plant discharged to the ocean outfall
disposal system.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
347
Under current conditions, the Project site does not generate any sewer flows and does not have any
connections into the existing sewer lines adjacent to the Project. The adjacent sewer system (shown in Figure
3.15-1, Existing Sewer System) that would ultimately serve the Project site is part of the Douglass Road sewer
system. The sewer line originates on the north side of Ball Road as a 6-inch line (Manhole No. 126202) and turns
into an 8-inch line on the south side of Ball Road. The 8-inch line flows south and turns into a 10-inch line after
the intersection of S. Phoenix Club Drive and Auto Center Drive. The 10-inch sewer line flows westerly in Auto
Center Drive before turning south within Douglass Road. The line remains a 10-inch line all the way to the OCSD
30-inch trunk sewer in Katella Avenue. One main tributary line (8-inch) originates in Sanderson Avenue and ties
into the 10-inch line south of Auto Center Drive.
Water
Water service to the Project site would be provided by the APUD. The APUD water system includes
approximately 752 miles of water mains, 62,900 active water meters and over 7,800 fire hydrants. The system
facilities also include eight water connections to the Metropolitan Water District (MWD), 17 active wells, one
920 million gallon (MG) reservoir for untreated water, one 15 MG per day water treatment plant, 13 reservoirs
with a total capacity of more than 38 MG for treated water, chlorination facilities at various locations, and nine
booster pump stations.
The City utilizes two primary sources of water supply: groundwater produced from City-owned wells and
imported water from the MWD. Typically, the City pumps most (over 60%) of its drinking water from local
groundwater basins and purchases the remainder from MWD. The Lenain Filtration Plant filters untreated water
received from MWD, providing up to 15 mg of drinking water per day for Anaheim residents. In addition to these
sources, the City maintains 14 interconnections with adjacent water purveyors that are available for emergency
service.
The Santa Ana River, Orange County’s major river, flows through Anaheim and plays a vital role in recharging the
groundwater basin. Several retention basins formed by levees along the river help to replenish the water table.
The Orange County Water District (OCWD) has the responsibility for manag ing and conserving the groundwater
basin and it uses approximately 750 acres of the Santa Ana Riverbed between Katella Avenue and Imperial
Highway for ponding imported water from the Metropolitan Water District and natural flows of the river. As
previously stated, the BRB is a groundwater recharge basin owned and managed by the OCWD.
Landfills
Orange County owns and operates three active landfills. These are Olinda Alpha Landfill near Brea, the Frank R.
Bowerman Landfill near Irvine, and the Prima Deschecha Landfill in San Juan Capistrano. The Olinda Alpha
Landfill is the closest facility to the Project site and would most likely receive waste from the Proposed Project.
This landfill has a daily tonnage maximum of 8,000 tons per day (tpd).
Natural Gas
Southern California Gas Company provides gas service in the City and has facilities throughout the City. The
availability of natural gas service is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a
public utility, the Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of Public Utilities Commission and Federal regulatory
agencies. Should these agencies take any action that affects gas supply, or the conditions under which service is
available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions.
Figure 3.15-1: Existing Sewer SystemCity of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
Draft EIR Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Orange County
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
349
Electricity
Electricity for the Proposed Project would be provided by the APUD’s Electrical Division. APUD’s distribution
system consists of approximately 1,500 circuit miles of transmission and distribution lines, over 500 miles of
which are underground. In order to facilitate the safe and efficient transfer of electricity to residences and
businesses, eleven distribution substations are located throughout the City. APUD provides its current customer
base with more than 577,000 kilowatts (kW) and 2.7 billion kilowatt-hours annually.
3.15.3 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
STATE
California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939)
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires all counties to prepare an
Integrated Waste Management Plan. The County of Orange has an adopted plan that includes the f ollowing
mandated components: a Source Reduction and Recycling Element; a Household Hazardous Waste Element; a
countywide Siting Element that identifies 15 years of available disposal capacity; and a statement of significant
solid waste disposal problems facing the jurisdiction.
The Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) of the Integrated Waste Management Plan is required by
AB 939 to identify how each jurisdiction would meet the mandatory State waste diversion goals of 25 percent by
the year 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000. The purpose of AB 939 was to “reduce, recycle, and re -use solid
waste generated in the state to the maximum extent feasible”. Noncompliance with the goals and timelines set
forth within AB 939 can be severe, as the bill imposes fines of up to $10,000 per day on jurisdictions (cities and
counties) not meeting these recycling and planning goals.
California Urban Water Management Planning Act (Act)
Sections 10610 through 10656 of the California Urban Water Management Planning Act requires "every urban
water supplier providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than
3,000 acre-feet of water annually” to prepare, adopt, and file an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) with
the California Department of Water Resources every five years. The UWMP Act applies to municipal water
suppliers that serve more than 3,000 customers or that provide more than 3,000 acre feet per year (afy) of
water. The UWMP Act requires these suppliers to update their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) every
five years to demonstrate an appropriate level of reliability in supplying anticipated short-term and long-term
water demands during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.
LOCAL
City of Anaheim General Plan, Public Services and Facilities Element
The Public Services and Facilities Element of the City of Anaheim General Plan addresses the provision of
utilities, including water, sewer, storm drains, and private utilities. Applicable goals and policies from the Public
Services and Facilities Element that are related to natural gas and that are related to utilities are as follows:
Goal 4.1: Provide a water system that produces high quality water, sufficient water pressure, and necessary
quantities of water to meet domestic demands.
Policies:
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
350
1) Provide for the efficient and economic distribution of adequate water supply and pressure to all
residential, commercial, industrial, and public areas served by the Public Utilities Department.
9) Continue to provide municipal water service that meets or exceeds State and Federal health standards
and monitor water quality according to established criteria, with respect to health standards.
10) Examine and utilize the use of alternative water supplies, such as grey water and reclaimed water,
where appropriate and feasible.
11) Continue to sponsor and provide water conservation and education programs.
Goal 5.1: Provide a safe and effective sewer system that meets the needs of the City’s residents, businesses, and
visitors.
Policies:
1) Ensure that appropriate sewer system mitigation measures are identified and implemented in
conjunction with new development based on the recommendations of prior sewer studies and/or future
sewer studies that may be required by the City Engineer.
Goal 6.1: Maintain a storm drain system that will adequately protect and enhance the health, safety and general
welfare of residents, visitors, employees, and their property.
Policies:
1) Improve the City’s storm drain system to address current deficiencies as well as long-term needs
associated with future development to minimize flood damage and adequately convey rainfall and
subsequent runoff from a 25-year frequency storm.
12) Develop Anaheim’s flood control system for multi-purpose uses whenever practical and financially
feasible (i.e., recreational, water quality/treatment, infiltration, etc.).
13) Minimize the amount of impervious surfaces in conjunction with new development.
14) Minimize the disturbance of natural water bodies and natural drainage systems, where feasible,
resulting from development including roads, highways, and bridges.
Goal 7.1: Minimize, recycle and dispose of solid and hazardous waste in an efficient and environmentally sound
manner.
Policies:
1) Ensure that solid waste generated within the City is collected and transported in a cost-effective manner
that protects the public health and safety.
15) Reduce the volume of material sent to solid waste sites in accordance with State law by continuing
source reduction and recycling programs and by ensuring the participation of all resid ents and
businesses.
Goal 8.1: Coordinate with private utilities to provide adequate natural gas and communications infrastructure to
existing and new development in a manner compatible with the surrounding community.
Policies:
1) Coordinate with private utilities to provide Anaheim residents with highspeed, high-capacity information
systems and adequate natural gas infrastructure.
16) Coordinate with private utilities on site design and land use compatibility issues.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
351
3.15.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Proposed Project
would have a significant impact to utilities and service systems if it would result in any of the following:
▪ Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
▪ Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities
(including sewer (waste water) collection facilities) or expansion of existing facilities, the con struction of
which could cause significant environmental effects?
▪ Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
▪ Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project (including large-scale
developments as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21151.9 and described in Question No. 20 of
the Environmental Information Form) from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
▪ Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may
serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
▪ Would the project be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
▪ Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid wastes?
▪ Would the project result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations related to
electricity?
▪ Would the project result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to
natural gas?
▪ Would the project result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to
telephone service?
▪ Would the project result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to
television service/reception?
3.15.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
METHODOLOGY
The Proposed Project consists of a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment for the proposed
General Commercial land uses. The Proposed Project does not include a specific development plan for BRB. The
mass grade conceptual layout used in Section 3.8 above to model and identify potential infrastructure impacts
to the drainage and water quality also includes a proposed on-site sewer system, which would be constructed to
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
352
connect into the City’s public sewer system. The system would include a series of pipes, manholes and
connections to the existing sewer systems in Sanderson Avenue and Auto Center Drive. The connection into the
8-inch line in Sanderson Avenue would require an extension of approximately 350 feet. An 8-inch sewer would
be proposed to take flows from the southern portion of the site and flow in a northerly direction to the
proposed extension of the 8-inch line in Sanderson Avenue. A separate 8-inch line is proposed to take flows
from the northerly portion of the site into the existing 10-inch line at the intersection of Auto Center Drive and
Phoenix Club Drive.
Based in the mass grade conceptual layout, mass grading and overall drainage pattern including storm drain
facilities would generally slope from northwest to southeast. Because the existing sewers are located on the
western side of the property, the slope of the sewer lines would generally be from west to east. The proposed
pad elevations have taken into consideration the required depth of the sewer system and storm drain system.
Sewer Design Requirements
The sewer design requirements below are required by the City for future development. The term “d/D” is the
proportional depth of flow in relation to the pipe diameter and is a common design parameter for sewer
systems.
▪ The maximum allowable d/D is 0.67 for existing sewer pipe with diameters less than 12 inches.
▪ The maximum allowable d/D is 0.50 for all new pipe for diameters less than 12 inches.
Proposed Sewer Capacity
In order to properly study the projected sewer flows originating from the Proposed Project’s land uses and
potential impacts on existing systems, the following three analyses are necessary.
▪ Do the total projected flows generated from the full commercial development of the project site
cause any sewer impacts to the downstream sewer system down to Katella Avenue? If so, would the
proposed flows require the existing 10-inch line in Douglass Road to be upgraded to a 12-inch line?
▪ Do the total projected flows generated from the full commercial development of the project site
cause any impacts to the 8-inch and 10-inch connection points in Sanderson Avenue Auto Center
Drive respectively?
▪ Can the existing downstream sewer systems support a portion of the project site to include hotel
uses which have higher sewer generation factors than traditional commercial uses?
In order to assess these impacts, a sewer system hydraulic model was constructed by Psomas. H20Map Sewer
was used to model the proposed sewer flows into the existing system. Figure 3.15-2, Conceptual Utility Plan
shows the conceptual site plan and the approximate sewer drainage areas for each proposed connection.
Approximately eight gross acres (Area 1) would collect into an existing 10-inch line in Auto Center Drive
(Manhole 126210) and the remaining acreage (Area 2 – 11.5 acres) would collect into the existing 8-inch line in
Sanderson Avenue. A portion of Area 2 could ultimately feed into the 10-inch line in Auto Center Drive
depending on the final grading plans. However, the entire 11.5 acres was modeled into t he smaller 8-inch line in
Sanderson Ave in order to be conservative.
Figure 3.15-2: Conceptual Utility PlanCity of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
Draft EIR Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Orange County
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
354
Two scenarios were proposed for the model. Scenario 1 includes eight acres of commercial use within Area 1
and 11.5 acres of commercial use within Area 2 for a total of 19.5 acres. Scenario 2 includes four acres of hotel
use with 150 rooms and four acres of commercial use for Area 1. Area 2 would remain the same and include
11.5 acres of commercial use.
Commercial use was modeled using a flow factor of 2,262 gpd/acre with a peaking factor of 1.7 and hotel use
was modeled as a flow factor of 150 gpd/room. Based on the modeling results, Scenario 2 would generate an
average flow of 57,561 gpd while Scenario 1 would generate only 44,109 gpd, see Table 3.15-1, Proposed Loads,
below.
Table 3.15-1 Proposed Loads
Land Use Acres/Room
Average
Flows (gpd)1 Peak Flow (cfs)2
Scenario 1
Area 1 Commercial 8 18,096 0.048
Area 2 Commercial 11.5 26,013 0.068
Total 44,109 0.116
Scenario 1
Area 1 Commercial 4 9,048 0.24
Area 1 Hotel 4 22,500 0.059
Area 2 Commercial 11.5 26,013 0.068
Total 57,561 0,151
(1) Average flow based on CCAAMPSS flow factors: 2,262 gpd/acre for commercial and 150
gpd/room for hotel
(2) Peaking factor of 1.7 for commercial use as recommended in the CCAAMPSS
Source: Sewer Assessment Report, Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change,
Fuscoe Engineering, March 17, 2017.
The sewer model results indicate that under the proposed condition, both scenarios (no hotel and with hotel)
meet the City’s sewer system requirements and no downstream upgrades are necessary. The model also
identifies that the 8-inch sewer in Sanderson Avenue can accommodate the full 11.5 acres of development with
additional capacity to accept additional flows from the remaining area if needed based on final grading plans. In
all cases, the d/D remained under the maximum allowable design flow of 0.67 and only one segment exceeded
0.60 d/D. In addition, the proposed 8-inch sewer line for the on-site system remained well under the maximum
allowable design flow of 0.50 d/D for new pipes under 12 inches. The analysis showed the d/D never exceeded
0.24.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
IMPACT UTIL-1: The Proposed Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
All proposed sewer flows would be collected into the City’s sewer system and delivered into OCSD’s 30-inch
sewer force main. All sewer flows within the force main are treated at OCSD’s main treatment plant in Fountain
Valley to the specified level of treatment approved by the SARWQB. The Proposed Project would not exceed the
wastewater treatment requirements of the SARWQB. Impacts would be considered less than significant an d
mitigation measures would not be required.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
355
IMPACT UTIL-2: The Proposed Project would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities (including sewer (waste water) collection facilities) or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
All proposed onsite water facilities for the Proposed Project shall be private, with separate water services for fire
protection, domestic water and irrigation water. The public water system shall terminate at the Phoenix Club
Drive ROW. The Property Owner/Developer shall submit to the APUD Water Engineering Division an estimate of
the maximum fire flow rate and maximum day and peak hour water demands for the Proposed Project. This
information will be used to determine the adequacy of the existing water system to provide the estimated water
demands. Any off-site water system improvements required to serve the Proposed Project shall be done in
accordance with Rule No. 15A.6 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations and the Property
Owner/Developer shall be responsible for the cost of the upgrades and improvements.
The proposed development of the 19.5 acre Project site with commercial uses would result in an increase of
approximately 57,561 gpd of sewer flow when accounting for a potential hotel component as part of the
commercial land use. This represents the most conservative increase in sewer based on inclusion of the hotel
and use of all 19.5 acres for commercial development. However, under final design, all 19.5 acres may not be
available for development due to site constraints such as existing and future easements. The addition of up
57,561 gpd of sewer flow to the existing sewer system would not cause any negative impacts to the Douglass
Road sewer system which was analyzed all the way to the 30” OCSD trunk sewer in Katella (see Sewer
Assessment Report in Appendix J). All sewer design criteria related to sewer capacity and flow depths are met. In
addition, the proposed 8-inch on-site system meets the d/D ratio criteria of 0.5 based on the projected sewer
flows. Therefore, impacts to existing water and sewer facilities are considered to be less than significant.
IMPACT UTIL-3: The Proposed Project would not require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects.
As discussed in Section 3.8, on-site and off-site drainage facilities would be required for the development of the
Project site. The proposed on-site system includes a series of drainage inlets, swales, pipes and catch basins to
collect flows from the proposed development areas including roadways, parking areas, roof drains and
landscape features, as shown in Figure 3.8-9. All flows will be conveyed in a south east direction to the Santa
Ana River for discharge.
CSD was designed to accommodate a peak flow rate of 1,165 cfs. However, flow rates have increased
considerably. Based on current standards, the 100-year flow rate is 2,156 cfs. Since, CSD is capable of only
delivering approximately half of this flow, under a 100-year storm, CSD would likely flood due to the inefficiency
of the existing storm drain. The conceptual storm drain improvements proposed for the Project site would
double the existing 12-foot by 9.5-foot box culvert and would be sized so that the improved CSD could
accommodate the current 100-year design flow from the existing tributary area.
The Proposed Project would reroute the local 42 inch RCP is located in Sanderson Ave and the 36 inch RCP
located in Auto Center Drive, which currently conveys offsite flows into BRB before discharging into the Santa
River, to discharge directly into the Santa Ana River. The off-site area contributes approximately 140 cfs under a
100-year storm event.
On-site flows would increase based on the mass grading to raise the Project site to support future commercial
development. On-site flows would be routed to the improved CSD then discharged into the Santa Ana River. The
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
356
increased flows under the 100-year flood condition into the Santa Ana River would not have significant impacts
to the Santa Ana River. Off-site flows would remain the same but would discharge directly to the Santa Ana
River, which would also have a negligible impact to the river. In addition, construction of Proposed Project storm
drainage improvements will comply with applicable federal, State, and local storm drainage guidelines and
requirements. Impacts resulting from the improvements of the drainage facilities are considered less than
significant and mitigation measures would not be required.
IMPACT UTIL-4: The Proposed Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, and would not require new or expanded entitlements.
Based on the water demand factor for commercial uses of 195 gallons per day per thousand square feet19,
development of 425,000 square feet of commercial uses would require approximately 82,875 gpd of water or 93
afy20. According to the City’s 2015 UWMP, the City would have a projected water supply and demand of 62,050
afy in 2020 and 67,065 afy in 2030 under normal year conditions. Imported water supplies would be available
and is expected to be greater than the estimated water demand. Furthermore, the City’s UWMP states that the
City’s water supply would not be exceeded by estimated demand under multiple dry year conditions. Water
demand for the Proposed Project would equate to less than one percent of the total water supply. Any
proposed onsite water facilities for the Proposed Project shall be private, with separate water services for fire
protection, domestic water and irrigation water. The public water system shall terminate at the Phoenix Club
Drive ROW. The Property Owner/Developer shall submit to the APUD Water Engineering Division an estimate of
the maximum fire flow rate and maximum day and peak hour water demands for the Proposed Project. This
information will be used to determine the adequacy of the existing water system to provide the estimated water
demands. Any off-site water system improvements required to serve the Proposed Project shall be done in
accordance with Rule No. 15A.6 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations and the Property
Owner/Developer shall be responsible for the cost of the upgrades and improvements. Therefore, impacts to
water supplies would be considered less than significant and no mitigation would be required.
IMPACT UTIL-5: The Proposed Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
that it has adequate capacity to serve the projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments .
OCSD is the regional wastewater treatment provider. The OCSD Strategic Plan Update (April 2006) analyzed
capacity within the force mains and trunk lines of the OCSD system. This included the 30-inch OCSD Katella line
to which the City’s Douglass Road sewer system connects. The study indicated capacity in the near term but
potential capacity issues in the long term when evaluating build out scenarios up to 2030. The capacity issues
and surcharge conditions occur under future build out conditions and wet weather simulations using the 10-year
storm event as the basis for evaluation.
The 2009 Revised Platinum Triangle Sewer Study by CH2M Hill evaluated the impact of the proposed Platinum
Triangle flows and the potential surcharge issues for the 10-year wet weather condition within City’s sewer lines
near the Katella/Newhope-Placentia trunk lines. The analysis revealed the depth of the sewers for this area
ranged from six to nine feet deep and the amount of surcharge was two feet or less. The study concluded there
is no potential for spills as the hydraulic grade line is below the ground surface for a 10-year event.
19 Commercial water demand factor is based on the factor used in The Platinum Triangle Water Supply Assessment prepared by Psoma s and dated
September 2009.
20 1 acre-foot = 325,851 gallons
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
357
Due to the potential for future surcharge conditions under future projections, regional flow diversions may be
required to divert some flows into the Santa Ana Interceptor Line (SARI) and reduce excess flows in the
Katella/Newhope-Placentia trunk lines if future flow projections necessitate such diversions. No capacity
improvements projects were recommended for the 30-inch Katella sewer main. Direct impacts to the existing
treatment capacity are considered less than significant based on the available capacity.
IMPACT UTIL-6: The Proposed Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs.
The Olinda Alpha Landfill is the closest facility to the Project site and would most likely receive waste from the
Proposed Project. This landfill has a daily tonnage maximum of 8,000 tons per day (tpd). Based on a solid waste
generation rate of 0.046 pounds per square feet per day21, a 425,000 square-foot commercial development
project would generate approximately 9.8 tpd22, which is less than one percent of the daily tonnage maximum
for the Olinda Alpha Landfill. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant and mitigation measures
would not be required.
IMPACT UTIL-7: The Proposed Project would not result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial
alterations related to electricity.
Electricity for the Proposed Project would be provided by APUD. The Proposed Project does not include a
specific site plan, but would allow the future development of up to 425,000 square feet of commercial uses.
Based on the retail usage rate for electricity of 13.55 kilowatt hours per square-foot per year23, which is the
highest usage rate for commercial uses and thus the most conservative estimate, a 425,000 square-foot
commercial development would require approximately 5,759 megawatt24 hours per year. It is anticipated that
APUD would have the capabilities to meet future demands. Impacts would be less than significant and
mitigation measures would not be required.
IMPACT UTIL-8: The Proposed Project would not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations related to natural gas.
Natural gas service to the Project site is provided by the Southern California Gas Company (SCG). In a letter
dated April 11, 2013, SCG stated that facilities are available to service the Proposed Project. It is anticipated that
SCG would have the capabilities to meet future demands. Future development on the project site would be
required to comply with standard regulatory requirements related to natural gas. Impacts would be less than
significant and mitigation measures would not be required.
IMPACT UTIL-9: The Proposed Project would not result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial
alterations related to telephone service.
Telephone service for the Proposed Project would be provided by AT&T. It is anticipated that AT&T would have
sufficient capabilities to provide service for future development on the Project site. Impacts would be less than
significant and mitigation measures would not be required.
21 Commercial solid waste generation factor is based on the factor used in the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report No. 339 prepared by The Planning Center and dated August 2010.
22 1 ton = 2,000 pounds
23 Electricity usage rate was obtained from South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993, Table A9-11-A.
24 1 megawatt = 1,000 kilowatt
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
358
IMPACT UTIL-10: The Proposed Project would not result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial
alterations related to television/reception.
Television and data service for the Proposed Project would be provided by Time Warner Cable (TWC). It is
anticipated that TWC would have sufficient capabilities to provide service for future development on the project
site. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation measures would not be required.
MITIGATION MEASURE
No mitigation required
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Not applicable.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The geographic area for the cumulative analysis of impacts related to utilities and service syste ms is the City.
Based on the above analysis and the growth projections contained in the adopted General Plan, the Proposed
Project would not result in impacts that would exceed the current capacities of the existing services systems.
Furthermore, future development on the Project site would be required to comply with all standard regulatory
requirements concerning any utility purveyor’s ability to provide service. The Proposed Project along with other
cumulative development could result in increases in wastewater generation and water demand that could be
cumulatively significant. However, increased demands have been planned and future projects are not expected
to exceed the current capacities of the existing services systems; therefore, cumulative impacts are not
expected.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
359
CHAPTER 4.0 – ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
4.1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the
project, which could feasibly avoid or lessen any significant environmental impacts while substantially attaining
the basic objectives of the project. An EIR should also evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. This
chapter describes potential alternatives to the Proposed Project that were considered, identifies alternatives
that were eliminated from further consideration and reasons for dismissal, and analyzes available alternatives in
comparison to the potential environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Project.
Key provisions of the CEQA Guidelines pertaining to the alternatives analysis are summarized below:
▪ The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the Proposed Project or its location that are
capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the Proposed Pr oject, even if
these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the Proposed Project objectives, or
would be more costly.
▪ The No Project Alternative shall be evaluated along with its impact. The No Project analysis shall discuss
the existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation is published. Additionally, the analysis shall
discuss what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the Proposed Project
were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community
services.
▪ The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason”; therefore, the EIR must
evaluate only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. Alternatives shall be limited to
ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Proposed Project.
▪ For alternative locations, only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant
effects of the Proposed Project need to be considered for inclusion in the EIR.
▪ An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose
implementation is remote and speculative.
The range of feasible alternatives is selected and discussed in a manner to fo ster meaningful public participation
and informed decision-making. Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the
feasibility of alternatives are environmental impacts, site suitability, economic viability, availability of
infrastructure, general plan contingency, regulatory limitation, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the
proponent could reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site. An EIR need not
consider an alternative whose effects cannot be reasonably identified, whose implementation is remote or
speculative, and that would not achieve the basic project objectives.
4.2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The following objectives have been established for the Proposed Project:
1. Allow commercial development of the Project site.
2. Permit a viable and productive use of an obsolete groundwater recharge basin.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
360
3. Generate non-operating revenues for the Orange County Water District
4.3. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The alternatives identified below, with the exception of t he mandatory No Project Alternative, were selected
due to their potential to attain the basic project objectives discussed above, and to lessen or avoid significant
environmental effects resulting from implementation of the Proposed Project. Alternatives considered in this
EIR include:
▪ No Project Alternative – This alternative assumes that improvements described for the Proposed Project
would not be implemented.
▪ Reduced Project Alternative – This alternative would reduce the overall land use intensity by 50 percent
and density from 0.5 FAR assumed for the Proposed Project to 0.25 FAR.
▪ Mixed Use Alternative – This alternative would allocate four acres of the 19.5-acre Project site to multi-
family residential. The remaining 15.5 acres would contain commercial uses.
The Preferred Alternative (Proposed Project) is discussed in detail in Chapter 3.
Table 4.1 Summary of Alternatives
Issue Area
Preferred
(Proposed Project) No Project Reduced Project Mixed Use
Aesthetics LTS NI LTS LTS
Air Quality LTS NI LTS LTS
Biological Resources LTSM NI LTSM LTSM
Cultural Resources LTSM NI LTSM LTSM
Geology and Soils LTSM NI LTSM LTSM
Greenhouse Gas Emissions LTSM NI LTSM LTSM
Hazards and Hazardous Materials LTSM NI LTSM LTSM
Hydrology and Water Quality LTSM NI LTSM LTSM
Land Use and Planning LTS NI LTS LTS
Noise LTSM NI LTSM LTSM
Population and Housing LTS NI LTS LTS
Public Services LTS NI LTS LTS
Recreation LTSM NI LTSM LTSM
Transportation PS NI PS PS
Utilities and Service Systems LTS NI LTS LTS
NI = No Impact
LTS = Less Than Significant
LTSM = Less Than Significant with Mitigation
PS = Potentially Significant/Significant and Unavoidable
4.3.1 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
361
According to the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(e)(3)(b)), the No Project Alternative is defined as the
“circumstance under which the project does not proceed.” The impacts of the No Project Alternative shall be
analyzed “by projecting what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project
were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community
services.” The purpose of describing and analyzing the No Project Alternative is “to allow decision makers to
compare the impacts of approving the Proposed Project with the impacts of not approving the Proposed
Project.” Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires analysis of a No Project alternative that (1)
discusses existing site conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is prepared or the EIR is
commenced, and (2) analyzes what is reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future based on
current plans if the Proposed Project were not approved. Under the No Project Alternative, the Proposed Project
would not be implemented and the current General Plan Land Use and zoning designations for the Project site
would not be amended to allow for commercial development. The existing General Plan land use and zoning
designations does not allow the development of commercial uses on the Project site. Absent the Proposed
Project, the OCWD would elect for the BRB to remain vacant as an inactive groundwater recharge basin.
Potential impacts for the No Project Alternative are discussed below.
IMPACT DISCUSSION
Aesthetics
This alternative would not result in changes to the visual character and quality of the Project area. The Project
site would remain vacant as an obsolete groundwater recharge basin. Existing views would not be altered as no
construction activities are proposed which would introduce new land uses to the Project site. There would be no
impact to aesthetics.
Air Quality
Implementation of this alternative would not create new sources of regional air emissions. The Project site is
vacant and does not contain any land uses that would generate air emissions. There would be no impact to air
quality.
Biological Resources
The majority of the Project area has been disturbed. Suitable habitat for sensitive mammal, reptile, amphibian,
or fish species does not exist on the Project site. The Project site is located adjacent to the Santa Ana River
Wash, which is known to connect large blocks of natural open space that are considered essential for long -term
plant and wildlife viability in the southern California. Raptors and passerine species appear to have some
suitable nesting, roosting, refuge, and foraging habitats within the biological study area. Since no land uses are
proposed under this alternative, impacts to existing biological resources on or surrounding the Project site
would not occur.
Cultural Resources
There are no eligible cultural or paleontological resources on the Project site. This alternative would not include
any ground-disturbing activities that could impact undiscovered cultural resources. No impacts to cultural
resources would occur.
Geology and Soils
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
362
The existing geology and soil conditions of the Project site are described in Section 3.5. This alternative does not
proposed any land uses on the Project site. The Project site would remain vacant as an inactive recharge basin.
There would be no impact to geology or soils.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This alternative does not include uses that would create new sources of regional air emissions and contribute to
global climate change. The Project site is vacant and does not contain any land uses that would generate air
emissions. There would be no impact to global climate change.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The existing conditions of the Project site are described in Section 3.7. Under this alternative, the Project site
would remain an inactive recharge basin. Since there would be no construction or operational activities
occurring on the Project site, the risk of exposure to hazardous materials or contaminated soils from previous
soils would not occur. Furthermore, this alternative would not conflict with any emergency response plans since
the Project site would remain vacant and no activities would occur. Impacts related to hazards and hazardous
materials would not occur.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The existing hydrology and water quality of the Project site are described in Section 3.8. This alternative does
that propose any land uses that would alter the hydrology or impact the water quality of the Project site. No
impacts to hydrology or water quality would occur.
Land Use and Planning
This alternative would not involve any changes to land use designations on the Project site. The Project site
would continue to be designated open space under the General Plan and zoned Industrial (I) and Transitional (T).
No impacts to land use regulations would occur.
Noise
This alternative would not introduce new land uses that would generate construction or operational noise that
would increase the ambient noise levels in the surrounding area. No impacts to existing noise levels would
occur.
Population and Housing
This alternative does not include the construction of new housing and would not result in population growth.
Under this alternative, the Project site would remain an inactive recharge basin and the land would continue to
remain vacant. No impacts to population or housing would occur.
Public Services
This alternative would not result in additional demand for fire protection, police protection, school, or library
services. No land uses are proposed for the Project site. The Project site would remain vacant and no impacts to
public services would occur.
Recreation
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
363
This alternative would not create land uses on the Project site that would generate population growth in the
area and result in increased use of existing recreational facilities such that deterioration would occur. The
Project site would remain vacant under this alternative and no recreational facilities would be constructed under
this alternative. No impacts to recreation would occur.
Transportation and Traffic
Under this alternative, development of the Project site would not occur. The Project site would remain vacant
and traffic volumes in the surrounding area would not increase as a result of this alternative . This alternative
would not have any impacts to the existing transportation system or traffic volumes.
Utilities and Service Systems
The existing Project site is a vacant parcel of land previously used as a groundwater recharge basin. Commercial
development under this alternative would not occur. Utility services would not be necessary. There would be no
impacts to utilities and service systems in the City.
CONCLUSION AND RELATIONSHIP TO PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The No Project Alternative would result in the continuation of existing conditions on the Project site. This would
be the environmentally superior alternative as no impacts would occur if the Project site were to remain a
vacant recharge basin. However, the three objectives developed for the Proposed Project would not be met.
4.3.2 REDUCED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
The Reduced Project alternative would reduce the intensity of anticipated commercial uses within the Project
site from 0.50 FAR to 0.25 FAR. In general, this alternative would reduce the number of businesses and
employment opportunities on the Project site. Specifically, the Reduced Project Alternative would reduce the
amount of commercial square-footage allowed on the Project site from 425,000 square feet to approximately
210,900 square feet. This alternative would require the same site improvements described under the Proposed
Project (mass grading, building pads, drainage facilities, and sewer).
Aesthetics
Under this alternative, the types of impacts associated with the degradation of scenic vistas, changes in visual
character and quality, and increased light and glare would be roughly similar to the Proposed Project). Maximum
allowable building height would remain the same, at 75 feet or six stories. The overall character of the Project
area at buildout would be similar, although land uses would be less intense. Buildout of this alternative would
not obstruct views of the Santa Ana River from public vantage points. Future development would incorporate
and provide views of the river from the Project site through site design.
Construction of this alternative would impact the visual quality of the Project area with construction activities
and equipment. However, impacts would be temporary and would be considered less than significant.
Construction-related visual impacts associated with this alternative would be equal to the Proposed Project.
Upon buildout of this alternative, views of the vacant, disturbed Project site would be replaced with high quality
design similar to the Proposed Project. This alternative would also help to screen the views of the cement
factory and industrial buildings from commercial viewers at the intersection of Auto Center Drive and Phoenix
Club Drive, which are typically considered views of low visual quality. Similar to the Proposed Project, this
alternative would not degrade the visual quality or character of the Project site or surrounding. Impacts to
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
364
aesthetic resources as a result of this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project and would be
considered less than significant.
Future development under this alternative would also be required to comply with the development standards
related to lighting and glare contained in the Anaheim Municipal Code. Impacts to lighting and glare are
considered less than significant and mitigation measures would not be required.
Air Quality
The reduction of intensity would reduce the duration of construction activities associated with this alternative.
However, impacts related to daily construction emissions would remain similar to the impacts identified under
the Proposed Project since daily construction activities would be assumed to be similar to the Proposed Project,
but would occur over a shorter duration due to the reduction of development. Impacts would be considered less
than significant and mitigation measures would not be required.
Operations-related emissions impacts from this alternative would also be similar to the Proposed Project since
this alternative would also proposed general commercial uses on the Project site. Although the reduction in land
use intensity would likely reduce the amount of vehicle trips, the reduction may not be substantially less than
the vehicle trips estimated for the Proposed Project. However, it is expected that impacts would be considered
less than significant and mitigation measures would not be required which would be similar to the Proposed
Project.
In addition, development under this alternative would not be expected to generate objectionable odors that
would affect a substantial number of people. This impact would be less than significant.
Biological Resources
Implementation of this alternative would develop the same Project site and acreage as the Proposed Project.
This alternative would also require the same site improvements required for the Proposed Project, Thus,
impacts to biological resources on the Project site would remain the same as those identified for the Proposed
Project. Mitigation measures similar to those identified in Section 3.3 would be required, which would reduce
impacts related biological resources to less than significant levels. Impacts to biological resources under this
alternative would be the same as the impacts identified for the Proposed Project.
Cultural Resources
Implementation of this alternative would develop the same Project site and acreage as the Proposed Project.
This alternative would also require the same site improvements required for the Proposed Project, Thus,
impacts to cultural resources on the Project site would remain the same as those identified for the Proposed
Project. Mitigation measures similar to those identified in Section 3.4 would be required, which would reduce
impacts related to cultural resources to less than significant levels. Impacts to biological resources under this
alternative would be the same as the impacts identified for the Proposed Project.
Geology and Soils
Implementation of this alternative would develop the same Project site and acreage as the Proposed Project.
This alternative would also require the same site improvements required for the Proposed Project, Thus,
impacts to geology and soils on the Project site would remain the same as those identified for the Proposed
Project. Mitigation measures similar to those identified in Section 3.5 would be required, which would reduce
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
365
impacts related geology and soils to less than significant levels. Impacts to geology and soils under this
alternative would be the same as the impacts identified for the Proposed Project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under this alternative, development intensity would be reduced, which would potentially reduce the number of
vehicle trips. In addition, need for electricity would be expected to be reduced. Although the amount of
reduction cannot be quantified at this time, development under this alternative would likely be similar to the
Proposed Project and remain significant and unavoidable.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Implementation of this alternative would develop the same Project site and acreage as the Proposed Project.
This alternative would also require the same site improvements required for the Proposed Project, Thus,
impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials on the Project site would remain the same as those
identified for the Proposed Project. Mitigation measures similar to those identified in Section 3.7 would be
required, which would reduce impacts related hazards and hazardous materials to less than significant levels.
Impacts to hazards and hazardous materials under this alternative would be the same as the impacts identified
for the Proposed Project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Implementation of this alternative would develop the same Project site and acreage as the Proposed Project.
This alternative would also require the same mass grading and onsite drainage systems as the Proposed Project
in order to prepare the Project site for future development. The two local drainage facilities would be rerouted.
CSD would also be rerouted and improved to accommodate current peak flows. Thus, impacts related to
hydrology and water quality on the Project site would remain the same as those identified for the Proposed
Project. Mitigation measures similar to those identified in Section 3.8 would be required, which would reduce
impacts related hydrology and water quality to less than significant levels. Impacts to hydrology and water
quality under this alternative would be the same as the impacts identified for the Proposed Project.
Land Use and Planning
Implementation of this alternative would result in development of the same commercial uses as the Proposed
Project. Development would be consistent with the Anaheim General Plan. Similar to the Proposed Project, this
alternative would result in less than significant impacts related to land use and planning.
Noise
The reduction of intensity would reduce the duration of construction activities associated with this alternative.
However, impacts related to construction noise impacts would remain s imilar to the impacts identified under
the Proposed Project since daily construction activities would be assumed to be similar to the Proposed Project,
but would occur over a shorter duration due to the reduction of development. Mitigation measures similar to
those identified in Section 3.10 for the Proposed Project would be required, which would reduce construction -
related impacts to less than significant.
Operations-related noise impacts from this alternative would also be similar to the Proposed Project since this
alternative would also proposed general commercial uses on the Project site. Operations-related noise impacts
would be less than significant under the Proposed Project and mitigation would not be required. Since this
alternative would reduce the allowable development on the Project site, operations-related noise impacts
would also be considered less than significant under this alternative.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
366
Furthermore, construction and operations-related vibration levels and ambient noise levels for the Proposed
Project would be below established thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation measures
would not be required. Therefore, vibration or ambient noise level impacts under this alternative, which
proposed a reduction in development, would also be less than significant impacts and would not require
mitigation.
Population and Housing
The commercial development on the Project site under this alternative would create approximately 527 new
employment opportunities (based on a factor of 400 square feet per employee), which is nearly 50 percent less
than the number of jobs created by the Proposed Project. Similar to the Proposed Project, the number of jobs
created as result of this alternative is not expected to induce population growth in the a rea. It is expected that
the majority of the workforce needed to fill the jobs created by this alternative would be supplied by residents
of the City, which had a January 2017 unemployment rate of 4.9 percent, or by residents of neighboring cities
who would commute. Furthermore, any nominal population growth induced by the creation of new jobs would
be adequately absorbed by the current housing market in the City, which had a vacancy rate of 5.7 percent.
Impacts to population growth would be considered less than significant.
Public Services
Under this alternative, the reduction in development intensity would result in a decreased demand for public
services and utilities. As discussed in Section 3.15, the Proposed Project would not result in significant impacts to
fire protection, police protection, schools, and library services. Mitigation measures would not be required.
Impacts under this alternative would be less than the impacts identified under the Proposed Project due to the
decreased demand. Therefore, impacts to public services as a result of this alternative would also be less than
significant.
Recreation
The Project site is not located in a residential area or identified as a Park Deficiency Area in the City General Plan
Green Element. The build-out of this alternative could result in up to 210,900 square feet of commercial
development, which would generate an increase of up to 527 employees. The number of employees generated
by this alternative would not result in significant increases in the population. While employees may use nearby
recreational facilities, use of these facilities would not be intensive enough to result in substantial physical
deterioration of the facilities. Future commercial development on the Project site would be designed to support
the recreational goals and policies of the Green Element.
Similar to the Proposed Project, this alternative does not include the construction of new or expanded
recreational facilities. However, future development on the Project site would be required to support the
recreational goals and policies of the City of Anaheim General Plan Green Element and to provide linkages to the
Santa Ana River and Anaheim Coves Trails adjacent to the Project site. Impacts would be similar to the Proposed
Project and would be considered less than significant.
Transportation and Traffic
Compared to the Proposed Project, this alternative would reduce the development intensity of the Project site
which would lead to a reduction in project-generated average daily trips. However, cumulative traffic impacts
would likely remain significant in the buildout condition. As identified in Section 3.14, similar mitigation
measures would be required for this alternative to reduce impacts to local roadway facilities to less than
significant. The traffic analysis identified impacts to Caltrans freeway mainline and weaving segments that would
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
367
be cumulatively significant and unavoidable. There are no mitigation measures available to reduce these
impacts. Despite the reduction in land use intensity under this alternative, it is assumed that these significant
and unavoidable impacts that were identified under the Proposed Project would also be applicable to this
alternative. Thus, impacts to transportation and traffic would be significant and unavoidable.
Utilities and Service Systems
Under this alternative, the development density on the Project site would be reduced. This alternative would
reduce wastewater generation, water demand, solid waste generation, and demand for private utilities such as
electricity, natural gas, telephone and cable services. Impacts to utilities and service systems under the Proposed
Project would be considered less than significant. Since, this alternative would reduce the intensity of land uses,
thereby reducing the demand for utilities and service, impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than
the impacts under the Proposed Project, and would also be less than significant.
CONCLUSION AND RELATIONSHIP TO PROJECT OBJECTIVES
This alternative would result in a marginal reduction in environmental impacts. However, most impacts are
largely similar to the Proposed Project. Thus, the Reduced Project Alternative would not be considered an
environmentally superior alternative since the reduction of impacts cannot be quantified at this time. This
alternative would achieve all of the objectives of the Proposed Project but would result in less revenue (Project
Objective #3).
4.3.3 MIXED USE ALTERNATIVE
Under the Mixed Use Alternative, the General Plan land use designation of four acres of the 19.5-acre Project
site would be amended from Open Space to Medium Density Residential. The zoning designation would also be
amended from Industrial (I) and Transitional (T) to Multi-Family Residential (RM-4). The General Plan land use
and zoning amendments would allow both commercial and multi-family residential development to be
constructed on the Project site. The City permits a density of up to 36 units per acre for multi-family residential
uses. This equates to a maximum of 144 apartment units that would be constructed on four acres. The
remaining 15.5 acres would contain commercial uses. Based on a F.A.R of 0.5 established by the City for
commercial uses, the Mixed Use Alternative would allow a maximum of 337,590 square feet of commercial
development on the remain 15.5 acres of the BRB.
Aesthetics
Impacts from the implementation of this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project and the Reduced
Project Alternative. Existing views of the Project site would be substantially altered by the development of
vacant land. However, the visual character and quality of the area is expected to increase. Future development
would introduce high quality construction and design to the Project site. Views of the Santa Ana River would be
provided on the Project site and would not be obstructed by the development of this alternative.
Construction of this alternative would impact the visual quality of the Project area with construction activities
and equipment. However, impacts would be temporary and would be considered less than significant.
Construction-related visual impacts associated with this alternative would be equal to the Proposed Project.
Upon buildout of this alternative, views of the vacant, disturbed Project site would be replaced with high quality
design similar to the Proposed Project. This alternative would also help to screen the views of the cement
factory and industrial buildings from commercial viewers at the intersection of Auto Center Drive and Phoenix
Club Drive, which are typically considered views of low visual quality. Similar to the Proposed Project, this
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
368
alternative would not degrade the visual quality or character of the Project site or surrounding. Impacts to
aesthetic resources as a result of this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project and would be
considered less than significant.
Future development under this alternative would also be required to comply with the development standards
related to lighting and glare contained in the Anaheim Municipal Code. Impacts to lighting and glare are
considered less than significant and mitigation measures would not be required.
Air Quality
This alternative would maximize the allowable density on the Project site. Daily construction emissions would
remain similar to the impacts identified under the Proposed Project since daily construction activities would be
assumed to be similar to the Proposed Project. Impacts would be considered less than significant and mitigation
measures would not be required.
Operations-related emissions impacts from multi-family residential and commercial land uses would likely be
similar to the Proposed Project. Impacts would be considered less than significant and mitigation measures
would not be required.
In addition, development under this alternative would not be expected to generate objectionable odors that
would affect a substantial number of people. This impact would be less than significant.
Biological Resources
Implementation of this alternative would develop the same Project site and acreage as the Proposed Project.
This alternative would also require the same site improvements required for the Proposed Project, Thus,
impacts to biological resources on the Project site would remain the same as those identified for the Proposed
Project. Mitigation measures similar to those identified in Section 3.3 would be required, which would reduce
impacts related biological resources to less than significant levels. Impacts to biological resources under this
alternative would be the same as the impacts identified for the Proposed Project.
Cultural Resources
Implementation of this alternative would develop the same Project site and acreage as the Proposed Project.
This alternative would also require the same site improvements required for the Proposed Project, Thus,
impacts to cultural resources on the Project site would remain the same as those identified for the Proposed
Project. Mitigation measures similar to those identified in Section 3.4 would be required, which would reduce
impacts related to cultural resources to less than significant levels. Impacts to biological resources under this
alternative would be the same as the impacts identified for the Proposed Project.
Geology and Soils
Implementation of this alternative would develop the same Project site and acreage as the Proposed Project.
This alternative would also require the same site improvements required for the Proposed Project . Thus,
impacts to geology and soils on the Project site would remain the same as those identified for the Proposed
Project. Mitigation measures similar to those identified in Section 3.5 would be required, which would reduce
impacts related geology and soils to less than significant levels. Impacts to geology and soils under this
alternative would be the same as the impacts identified for the Proposed Project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
369
Under this alternative, development intensity would be maximized, which would likely result in the similar
number of vehicle trips as the Proposed Project. In addition, energy usage would be expected to remain similar
to the Proposed Project. Thus, GHG emissions under this alternative would likely be similar to the Proposed
Project and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Implementation of this alternative would develop the same Project site and acreage as the Proposed Project.
This alternative would also require the same site improvements required for the Proposed P roject, Thus,
impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials on the Project site would remain the same as those
identified for the Proposed Project. Mitigation measures similar to those identified in Section 3.7 would be
required, which would reduce impacts related hazards and hazardous materials to less than significant levels.
Impacts to hazards and hazardous materials under this alternative would be the same as the impacts identified
for the Proposed Project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Implementation of this alternative would develop the same Project site and acreage as the Proposed Project.
This alternative would also require the same mass grading and onsite drainage systems as the Proposed Project
in order to prepare the Project site for future development. The two local drainage facilities would be rerouted.
CSD would also be rerouted and improved to accommodate current peak flows. Thus, impacts related to
hydrology and water quality on the Project site would remain the same as those identified for the Proposed
Project. Mitigation measures similar to those identified in Section 3.8 would be required, which would reduce
impacts related hydrology and water quality to less than significant levels. Impacts to hydrology and water
quality under this alternative would be the same as the impacts identified for the Proposed Project.
Land Use and Planning
Unlike the Proposed Project, this alternative includes residential land uses. Implementation of this alternative
would result in development of the four acres of multi-family residential land uses and 15.5 acres of commercial
uses. However, development under this alternative would also be consistent with the Anaheim General Plan and
would result in less than significant impacts related to land use and planning.
Noise
Similar to the Proposed Project, this alternative proposes maximum density on the Project site. Thus, impacts
related to construction noise impacts would remain similar to the impacts identified under the Proposed Project
since daily construction activities would be assumed to be similar to the Proposed Project. Mitigation measures
similar to those identified in Section 3.10 for the Proposed Project would be required, which would reduce
construction-related impacts to less than significant.
Operations-related noise impacts from this alternative would also be similar to the Proposed Project since this
alternative would also result in maximum density development. Operations-related noise impacts would be less
than significant under the Proposed Project and mitigation would not be required.
Furthermore, construction and operations-related vibration levels and ambient noise levels for the Proposed
Project would be below established thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation measures
would not be required. Therefore, vibration or ambient noise level impacts under this alternative would also be
less than significant impacts and would not require mitigation.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
370
Population and Housing
This alternative would construct 144 multi-family residential units. Using the 2013 average household size of
3.43 persons, this alternative would result in a population of 493 persons on the Project site. At Project
operation in 2025, the projected population of the City is expected to be 369,100 persons. The increase in
population that this alternative would generate would be less than .01% of the total population of the City in
2025. This nominal increase in population would not have significant impacts to population and housing.
The commercial development on the Project site under this alternative would also create approximately 844
new employment opportunities (based on a factor of 400 square feet per employee), which is approximately 20
percent less than the number of jobs created by the Proposed Project. Similar to the Proposed Project, the
number of jobs created as result of this alternative is not expected to induce population growth in the area. It is
expected that the majority of the workforce needed to fill the jobs created by this alternative would be supplied
by residents of the City, which had an unemployment rate 201 6 of 4.6 percent, or by residents of neighboring
cities who would commute. Furthermore, any nominal population growth induced by the creation of new jobs
would be adequately absorbed by the housing market in the City, which had a vacancy rate of 5.7 percent.
Impacts to population growth would be considered less than significant.
Public Services
This alternative would allow the Project site to be developed at maximum intensity, similar to the Proposed
Project. However, this alternative would develop four acres of residential development, which would equate to
maximum of 144 apartment units and 493 residents. Based on the student generation rates contained in the
Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update EIR of 0.116 (K-6), 0.013 (Junior High 7-8), and 0.032 (High
School 9-12), this alternative would generate approximately 24 students and increase demand for school
services. An increase of 24 students 493 residents in the Project area is unlikely to result in a demand for school,
library, and parks services such that new facilities would be required. Therefore, it is anticipated that impacts to
public services would only be slightly greater than under the Proposed Project, but would remain less than
significant.
Recreation
The Project site is not located in a residential area or identified as a Park Deficiency Area in the City of Anaheim
General Plan Green Element. However, this alternative would construct up to 144 multi-family residential units,
which would generate approximately 493 residents on the Project site. This alternative would also construct
337,590 square feet of commercial development, which would generate up to 844 employees. The number of
residents and employees generated by this alternative would not result in significant use of nearby recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur. Future commercial
development on the Project site would be designed to support the recreational goals and policies of the Green
Element.
Similar to the Proposed Project, this alternative does not include the construction of new or expanded
recreational facilities. However, future development on the Project site would be required to support the
recreational goals and policies of the City of Anaheim General Plan Green Element and to provide linkages to the
Santa Ana River and Anaheim Coves Trails adjacent to the Project site. Impacts would be similar to the Proposed
Project and would be considered less than significant.
Transportation and Traffic
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
371
This alternative would maximize the development intensity on the Project site and would be expected to result
in similar project-generated average daily trips as the Proposed Project. Although, a quantitative analysis has
been not been performed for this alternative, it is assumed roadway impacts under this alternative would be
similar to the Proposed Project and the buildout condition. As identified in Section 3.14, similar mitigation
measures would be required for this alternative to reduce impacts to local roadway facilities to less than
significant. The traffic analysis identified impacts to Caltrans freeway mainline and weaving segments that would
be cumulatively significant and unavoidable. There are no mitigation measures available to reduce these
impacts. It is assumed that these significant and unavoidable impacts that were identified under the Proposed
Project would also be applicable to this alternative. Thus, impacts to transportation and traffic under this
alternative would be significant and unavoidable.
Utilities and Service Systems
Similar to the Proposed Project, this alternative would maximize the development intensity on the Project site
but would reduce the acreage of commercial uses in order to construct multi-family residential uses. Demand
for utilities and services would be similar to, or marginally greater than, the demand under the Proposed
Project. Since impacts to utilities and service systems under the Proposed Project would be less than significant,
it is anticipated that the utility and service demands under this alternative would also be less than significant.
CONCLUSION AND RELATIONSHIP TO PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Since this alternative would maximize the development intensity on the Project site, the environmental impacts
for this alternative would likely be similar to those identified for the Proposed Project. Impacts resulting from
the implementation of this alternative cannot be quantified at this time. However, it can be assumed that the
Mixed Use Alternative would not be considered an environmentally superior alternative. This alternative would
only partially achieve Project Objective #1 since a portion of the Project site would be allocated to residential
uses. This alternative would also result in less revenue (Project Objective #3).
4.4. ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION
The following alternatives were considered and have been eliminated from further consideration and discussion
in this EIR:
Alternate Location
As the primary objective of the Proposed Project is to allow future development on an obsolete groundwater
recharge basin currently owned by OCWD, an alternative site would not be appropriate as an alternative to the
Proposed Project. An alternative site would not meet the specific objective of developing an existing OCWD-
owned recharge basin. Alternatives for complete residential development of the Project site were also
eliminated from consideration because none of the established objectives for commercial development would
be met.
Electrical Generation Station
In December 2013, OCWD authorized a Lease Option Agreement with Orange County Energy Park, LLC (OCEP),
allowing OCEP to conduct due diligence as to the potential leasing or purchasing of the Project site for an
electrical generation station. The City requested that OCWD include in the Proposed Project EIR analysis of an
electrical generation station alternative. In November 2014 OCEP terminated the Lease Option Agreement.
Under the Proposed Project (General Plan Amendment and Zone Change), an electrical generation station would
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
372
be permitted subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the City, or separate State permitting, and
subsequent and related environmental analysis pursuant to CEQA. Given the additional discretionary review
required for an electrical generation station, analysis of this alternative would be speculative at this time
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15163.6(f)(3), which states that “an EIR need not consider an alternative
whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.”
Public Park
On February 13, 2014, the City released a NOP of an EIR for a Ball Road Basin Park Project. The proposed Ball
Road Basin Park Project involves the development of the BRB as an active public park with lighted playing fields
and associated parking, concession areas, playgrounds, and an adjacent riding/hiking trail and bike path. As part
of this project, the BRB would be filled with engineered soil and the City would develop a park facility to serve
City residents with the ability to remain open 24-hours a day. Also as part of this project, the City proposed a
General Plan Amendment (Case No. GPA2014-00491) to designate the BRB as Parks and a Zoning Reclassification
to rezone the BRB to “PR” Public Recreation (Case No. RCL2014-00261). Approval of this project would require
amendments to the Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Map. This alternative was also eliminated from
consideration because none of the established objectives for commercial development would be met.
4.5. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
An EIR is required to identify the environmentally superior alternative from among the range of reasonable
alternatives that are evaluated. This would ideally be the alternative that results in fewer (or no) significant and
unavoidable impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d)(2) states that if the environmentally superior
alternative is the no project alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative from
among the other alternatives.
Table 4.1 shows a comparison of the issue areas for each alternative. The No Project Alternative would result in
no impacts to any of the issue areas. The Reduced Project Alternative would reduce the potential impacts of the
Proposed Project, although not to the degree of reducing a significant and unavoidable impact to less than
significant. The Mixed Use Alternative would result in similar environmental impacts as the Proposed Project.
The No Project Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative, but would not meet any of the
project objectives. The environmentally superior development alternative would likely be the Reduce d Project
Alternative since this alternative would decrease the development intensity on the Project site. However, the
reduction of impacts cannot be quantified at this time since a specific development plan is not proposed.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
373
CHAPTER 5.0 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
This chapter presents the evaluation of other types of environmental impacts required by CEQA that are not
covered within the other chapters of this EIR. The other CEQA considerations include environmental effects that
were found to not be significant, growth-inducing impacts, and significant and unavoidable adverse impacts.
5.1. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
The IS for the Proposed Project, completed in February 2013, which is included in the EIR as Appendix A,
determined that the Proposed Project would result in no impact or a less than significant impact to two of 17
environmental issue areas. The IS for the Proposed Project discusses why the project would have no impact or
less than significant impacts for these issue areas, which are subsequently not discussed in detail in this EIR. The
issue areas determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact in the IS analysis include the
following:
▪ Agriculture and Forest Resources
▪ Mineral Resources
After a more detailed evaluation of the environmental issues associated with the Proposed Project, the EIR
determined that impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of project design features and
mitigation measures for the following environmental issue areas:
▪ Aesthetics
▪ Biological Resources
▪ Cultural Resources
▪ Geology and Soils
▪ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
▪ Hydrology and Water Quality
▪ Land Use and Planning
▪ Noise
▪ Population and Housing
▪ Public Services
▪ Recreation
▪ Utilities and Service Systems
5.2. IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
According to CEQA Guidelines, “[u]ses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the
project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter
unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides
access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible
damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of
resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.” Therefore, the purpose of
this analysis is to identify any significant irreversible environmental effects of project implementation that
cannot be avoided.
Both construction and operation of the Proposed Project would lead to the consumption of limited, slowly
renewable, and non-renewable resources, committing such resources to uses that future generations would be
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
374
unable to reverse. The new development would require the commitment of resources that include: (1) building
materials; (2) fuel and operational materials/resources; and (3) the transportation of goods and people to and
from the Proposed Project site.
For construction of the Proposed Project, fossil fuels for construction vehicles and equipment would be
consumed. In terms of project operations, no slowly renewable or nonrenewable resources would be required.
Title 24 of the California Administrative Code regulates the amount of energy c onsumed by new development.
Nevertheless, the consumption of such resources would represent a long-term commitment of those resources.
The commitment of resources required for the construction and operation of the Proposed Project would limit
the availability of such resources for future generations or for other uses during the life of the project. However,
continued use of such resources is consistent with the anticipated growth and planned changes on the Proposed
Project site and within the general vicinity. Furthermore, impacts to the energy supply would be less than
significant given the existing levels of development within the Proposed Project area.
5.3. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines: an EIR must address whether a project will directly or indirectly foster growth
as follows:
[An EIR shall] discuss the ways in which the Proposed Project could foster economic or population growth, or the
construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this
are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of wastewater treatment
plant, might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas). Increases in the population may further
tax existing community service facilities so consideration must be given to this impact. Also, discuss the
characteristic of some projects, which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect
the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is
necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.
As discussed below, this analysis evaluates whether the Proposed Project would directly, or indirectly, induce
economic, population, or housing growth in the surrounding environment.
5.3.1 DIRECT GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS IN THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT
Direct growth-inducing impacts occur when the development of a project induces population growth or the
construction of additional developments in the same area of a Proposed Project, and produces related growth-
associated impacts. Growth-inducing projects remove physical obstacles to population growth, such as the
construction of a new road into an undeveloped area, a wastewater treatment plant expansion, and projects
that allow new development in the service area. Construction of such infrastructure projects are considered in
relation to the potential development and the potential environmental impacts.
Implementation of the Proposed Project would amend the existing General Plan land use and zoning designation
of the Project site to allow for future development of commercial uses on an obsolete groundwater recharge
basin site. The Proposed Project does not include residential development and would not directly induce
population growth. However, the Proposed Project would result in infrastructure improvements on the Project
site, which would foster and support future development. At buildout, the Proposed Project is anticipated to
create up to 1,063 jobs in the City, which would contribute to the economic growth of the surrounding area.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
375
5.3.2 INDIRECT GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS IN THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT
At buildout, the Proposed Project would create 1,063 new employment opportunities. Although it is expected
that most of these opportunities would be filled by residents of communities adjacent to the Project site, the
Proposed Project could result in a minimal growth in population of the immediate area.
5.4. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The potentially adverse effects of the Proposed Project are discussed in Chapter 3.0 of this EIR. Mitigation
measures have been recommended that would reduce impacts to less than significant based on each set of
significance criteria. The Proposed Project would result in significant unavoidable impacts in the following areas:
5.4.1 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The GHG emissions would be primarily created from additional motor vehicles that would be generated from
operation of the Proposed Project. GHG emissions from motor vehicles operated on public roads are regulated
by the state and not by local jurisdictions. There is no feasible mitigation available to a local jurisdiction that
could be incorporated to reduce the GHG emission levels from the on-going operations of a commercial retail
project of this size to a less than significant level. The GHG emissions may be reduced through incorporation of
the example reduction measures in mitigation measure MM GHG-1, but not to a less than significant level. GHG
emission levels would remain a significant and unavoidable impact.
5.4.2 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
The Proposed Project would not create a significant impact at Caltrans freeway mainline or weaving segments
identified in Section 3.14 since the baseline (without project) LOS is LOS E or F and the LOS would remain the
same with the implementation of the Proposed Project. However, the Proposed Project would contribute to a
significant cumulative impact. All of the weaving segment and ramp improvements needed are likely not
feasible due to ROW or other constraints. Caltrans has not identified any further improvements beyond those
already assumed in the buildout analysis for SR-57. The City has limited control over State facilities. Beyond
jurisdictional limitation, additional capacity improvements are assumed infeasible due to physical, ROW, and
environmental constraints. Therefore, the Proposed Project would create a significant unavoidable impact to the
impacted freeway mainline and weaving segments.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
376
CHAPTER 6.0 – BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams Streeter Civil Engineers. 2013. Orange County Water District Ball Road Basin – Site Development Analysis. April 2013
Altschul, Jeffrey H., David D. Ferraro, and Christopher J. Doolittle. 1998. Environmental Background. In House Pits and
Middens: A Methodological Study of Site Structure and Formation Processes at CA-ORA-116, Newport Bay, Orange
County, California, edited by Donn R. Grenda, Christopher J. Doolittle, and Jeffrey H. Altschul, pp. 7–11.Technical
Series 69. Statistical Research, Tucson.
Americast. 2008. Filterra Bioretention Systems -- Filterra Pollutant Removal Overview
______. 2009. Filterra Bioretention Systems Engineering Design Assistance Kit (DAKit) v08-WZ.
Anaheim Chamber of Commerce. 2013. History. Electronic document, http://www.anaheimchamber.org/history.asp,
accessed March 6, 2013.
Anaheim Colony Historic District. 2013a. Location of the Historic District. Electronic document,
http://www.anaheimcolony.com/ColonyStories/Map.html, accessed March 6 and 7, 2013.
______. 2013b Early Anaheim. Electronic document, http://anaheimcolony.com/EarlyAnaheim/1EarlyLinks.html, accessed
March 6 and 7, 2013.
______. 2013c Orange County Railroads. Electronic document,
http://www.anaheimcolony.com/ColonyStories/TrainOC.htm, accessed March 6 and 7, 2013.
Arch Beach Consulting. 2013a. Draft Traffic Impact Analysis, June 25, 2013.
______. 2013b. Technical Memorandum – Traffic Analysis: Engineered Fill of Basin Construction Analyses for: 1) Model Year
2007 or Newer Trucks; and, 2) Model Year 2010 or Newer Trucks, July 3, 2013
Ashby, G.E. and J.W. Winterbourne. 1966. A Study of Primitive Man in Orange County and Some of Its Coastal Areas. Pacific
Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 2(1):5-52
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). 2005. Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment Process, Designation E1527-05, dated November 1, 2005.
Baldwin, J., D. Goldman, D. Keil, R. Patterson and T. Rosatti. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Ballester, Daniel and Bai “Tom” Tang. 2002. Department of Parks and Recreation Resource Record for 30-176663:
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. On file at the SCCIC.
Bean, Lowell John and Charles Smith. 1978. Gabrielino. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California, Robert F.
Heizer (volume editor) and William C. Sturtevant (general editor), pp. 538-549. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
Becker, Kenneth M. John Goodman, Kristin Sewell, and Sarah Van Galder. 2007. Cultural Resources Monitoring Report,
Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System, Orange County, California.
Berry, John C. 1989. The Dowsing of Orange County. In Proceedings of the Conference of Orange County History 1988, pp.
5-8. Edited by Robert A. Slayton and Leland L. Estes. Department of History. Chapman College, Orange, California.
On file at the SCCIC.
Bissell, Ronald M. 2000a. Cultural Resources Reconnaissance for the Groundwater Replenishment System, Orange County,
California. RMW Paleo Associates, Mission Viejo, California. Submitted to Camp Dresser and McKee, Irvine,
California.
______. 2000b Discovery Plan: Groundwater Replenishment System, Orange County, California. RMW Paleo Associates,
Mission Viejo, California. Submitted to Camp Dresser and McKee, Irvine, California.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
377
BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2013a. General Land Office Records for Section 18 of Township 4S, Range 9W of the
San Bernardino Base Meridian. Electronic document,
http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/results/default.aspx?searchCriteria=type=patent|st=CA|cty=059|twp_nr=4|twp_
dir=S|rng_nr=9|rng_dir=W|sec=18|sp=true|sw=true|sadv=false, accessed March 7, 2013.
______. 2013b. General Land Office Records for Section 24 of Township 4S, Range 10W of the San Bernardino Base
Meridian. Electronic document, http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/details/patent/default.aspx?accession=CACAAA
084587&docClass=SER&sid=mniaqayn.wxx, accessed March 7, 2013.
Bolton, Herbert Eugene. 1927. Fray Juan Crespi: Missionary Explorer on the Pacific Coast, 1769-1771.University of California
Press, Berkeley (Reprinted in 1971 by AMS Press New York
Boscana, Gerónimo. 1933. Chinigchinich (Chi-ñi'ch-ñich). A Revised and Annotated Version of Alfred Robinson's Translation
of Father Geronimo Boscana's Historical Account of the Beliefs, Usages, Customs and Extravagancies of the Indians
of the Mission of San Juan Capistrano, Called the Acagchemem Tribe. Annotation and bibliography by J. P.
Harrington. Santa Ana: Fine Arts Press, Reprinted by Malki Museum Press, Banning, California, 1978.
Burt, W.H. and R. P. Grossenheider. 1980. A Field Guide to Mammals: North America; North of Mexico. New York, NY:
Houghton Mifflin Company.
Butler, R. W. 1992. Great blue heron. In The Birds of North America, No. 25 (A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill, Eds.).
Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, DC: The American Ornithologists' Union.
Bryant, W.A., and Hart, E.W., 2007, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
with Index to Earthquake Zones Maps, Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Special
Publication 42, 2007 Interim Revision.
Byrd, Brian F. and L. Mark Raab. 2007. Prehistory of the Southern Bight: Models for a New Millennium. In California
Prehistory, pp. 215-227. Altamira Press, Maryland.
California Department of Conservation. 2000. A General Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California – Areas More Likely to
Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos, August, 2000.
California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2013
California Department of Water Resources. 1957. The California Water Plan: Bulletin 3, 246p.
California Environmental Resources Evaluation System. 2013. Coastal Scrub. Electronic document,
http://ceres.ca.gov/ceres/calweb/coastal/plants.html, accessed February 28, 2013.
California Geological Survey (formerly California Division of Mines and Geology). 1997. Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the
Orange 7.5-Minute Quadrangles, Orange County, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 11.
. 1998. Seismic Hazard Zone Map for the Orange Quadrangle, April 15, 1998.
California Office of Historic Preservation. 1990. Archaeological Resource Management Reports: Recommended Contents
and Format. Sacramento, CA: California Office of Historic Preservation. Available at
<http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/armr.pdf>.
______. 1995. Instructions for Recording Historical Resources
California Resources Agency. 2004. CEQA Guidelines. Electronic documents, see also
http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/art9.html,
http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/CEQA_Handbook_2012_wo_covers.pdf,
http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/more/tas/appen1.html, http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/more/tas/page3.html, accessed
January through April 2013.
______. 2005. Lead Agency Adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Electronic document,
http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/flowchart/la_mmrp.html, accessed April 11, 2013.
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2009. Technical Noise Supplement, November 2009.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
378
______. 2004. Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual, June, 2004
CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2000. Appendix VII Risk Characterization Scenarios, October 2000.
______. 2008. Resolution 08-43, December 12, 2008.
Carpenter, Virginia L. 1989. The Dowsing of Orange County. In Proceedings of the Conference of Orange County History
1988, pp. 205-210. Edited by Robert A. Slayton and Leland L. Estes. Department of History. Chapman College,
Orange, California. On file at the SCCIC.
CASQA (California Stormwater Quality Association). 2009. Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook Portal:
Construction. November 2009.
______. (2003, January). Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook for New Development and Redevelopment.
Retrieved May 2013, from http://www.cabmphandbooks.com
Castillo, Edward D. 1998. Short Overview of California Indian History. Electronic document,
http://www.nahc.ca.gov/califindian.html, accessed February 23, 2013.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2013. RareFind California Department of Fish and Game Natural
Diversity Database (CNDDB). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game, Biogeographic Data
Branch.
CDHS (California Department of Health Services) Radon Program, Statewide Radon Database,
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/environhealth/Documents/Radon/CaliforniaRadonDatabase.pdf, updated
May 4, 2010.
Chambers Group, Inc. And Environmental Advisors, LLC. 2013. Initial Study for the Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment
and Zone Change. On file at APRMI.
Chartkoff, Joseph L. and Kerry Kona Chartkoff. 1984. The Archaeology of California. Stanford University Press, Stanford,
California.
CH2MHill. 2006. Combined Central Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers. September 2006.
______. 2009. Combined Central Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers – Analysis of Models for the Revised
Platinum Triangle Expansion Project (DSEIR No. 339), June 2009.
City of Anaheim. 2003. Anaheim Colony Vision, Principles and Design Guidelines
______. 2004a. City of Anaheim General Plan, May 2004.
______. 2004b. Final Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update Environmental Impact Report No. 330 SCH
#2003041105. Certified May 25, 2004.
______. 2009. Sewer Design Manual, Department of Public Works. September 2009.
______. 2010a. City of Anaheim General Plan Land Use Plan (map). Adopted: May 25, 2004, City Council Resolution No.
2004-95 Latest Revision Date: November 30, 2010 City Council Resolution No. 2010-130. Print Date: November 30,
2010
______. 2010b. City of Anaheim Citywide Historic Preservation Plan
______. 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2016.
______. 2012. Initial Study for the Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
______. 2013. Anaheim Municipal Code, February 2013
______. Property Permit Records, http://www.anaheim.net/articlenew2222.asp?id=1626, reviewed March 14, 2013.
City of Orange. 2006. City of Orange Local CEQA Guidelines, April 11, 2006.
______. 2010a. City of Orange General Plan, March 9, 2010.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
379
______. 2010b. Orange General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report, March, 2010.
Clarke, Oscar F., Danielle Svehla, Greg Ballmer, and Arlee Monralvo. 2007. Flora of the Santa Ana River and Environs with
References to World Botany. Heyday Books, Berkeley, California.
CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2013. CNPS Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants: CNPS.
County of Orange Environmental Management Agency. (1986, October). Orange County Hydrology Manual.
County of Orange, the Cities of Orange County and the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD). 2003. Drainage Area
Management Plan (DAMP). July 1, 2003.
County of Orange. 2011. Model Water Quality Management Plan (Model WQMP). May 19. 2011.
______. 2011. Exhibit 7.III, Technical Guidance Document for the Preparation of Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project
Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs). May 19. 2011.
County or Orange – Treasurer-Tax Collector, reviewed on March 14, 2013. http://tax.ocgov.com/tcweb/search_page.asp,
Davila, Amelia L. 1893. Historic Yorba. Santa Ana Weekly Blade 1 June 1893. Available at
http://yorbalindahistory.org/gsdl/cgi-bin/library?e=d-000-00---0tescol--00-0-0--0prompt-10---4------0-1l--1-en-50---
20-about---00031-001-1-0utfZz-8-00&cl=CL1&d=HASH8311e9c3bbd66d9fb60a75&v=1&hl=0#start, accessed
March 6, 2013.
Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Online Mapping System, http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doms/doms-
app.html, reviewed March 14, 2013.
Dominguez, Arnold O. 1985. José Antonio Yorba I, Second Edition, Orange County Historical Society, Santa Ana.
Dunk, J. R. 1995. White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). In The Birds of North America, No. 178 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The
Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C.
Eckmann E.C., Strahorn, A.C., Holmes, L.C., and Guernsey, J.E. 1919. Soils Map of the Anaheim area, California: United
States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Soils, in cooperation with University of California, Agricultural
Experiment Station, scale: 1:62,500.
EDR® Aerial Photo Decade Package, March 4, 2013.
EDR® City Directories, March 1, 2013.
EDR® Historical Topographic Map Report, March 1, 2013.
EDR® Radius Map with Geocheck, March 1, 2013.
EDR® Sanborn Map Report, February 28, 2013.
EL (Environmental Laboratory). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Elbroch, M. 2003. Mammal Tracks & Sign, A Guide to North American Species. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005. Nonattainment Major New Source Review Implementation Under 8-
Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard: Reconsideration, June 30, 2005.
______. 2013. Enviromapper for Water. <URL: http://map24.epa.gov/EMR/>
ESD-CDFW (Environmental Services Division, CDFW). 1994. A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements
Sections 1600-1607, California Fish and Game Code. Sacramento, California. January.
Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1996. Q3 Flood data 100-Year flood zone map.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
380
Fugro Geosciences, Inc. 1998. Reports for Cone Penetration Testing (CPT) and Related Services, Santa Ana River Recharge,
Sana Ana Canyon, California, dated October 19, 1998.
Fulton, Terri. 2009. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Burris Basin Interpretive Loop Trail and the Lincoln Avenue Multi-
use Staging Area, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California. Report Number LA-4091. On file at the SCCIC.
Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. 2017. Hydrology Technical Report, Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change,
Anaheim, California, dated March 17, 2017.
_______. 2017. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone
Change, Anaheim, California, dated March 15, 2017.
_______. 2017 Sewer Assessment Report, Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, Anaheim, California,
dated March 15, 2017.
GeoTracker, State Water Resources Control Board, http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/, March 14, 2013.
Goldberg, Susan K. 1999. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Headquarters Facility Project, The People
of Yaanga?, Archaeological Investigations at CA-LAn-1575/H. On file, South Central Coast Information Center,
California State University-Fullerton.
Google Earth. 2012. Imagery of Project area. Accessed at Google Earth, various dates in 2012 and 2013.
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 1998. CEQA, California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines.
From, <http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa>, accessed April 9, 2010.
Grenfell, W.E. Jr. 1988. Montane Riparian in A guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection. 166 pp
Grinnell, J. and A.H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California. Pacific Coast Avifauna 27.
Halfpenny, J.C. 2000. Scats and Tracks of the Desert Southwest, A Field Guide to the Signs of 70 Wildlife Species. Helena,
MT: Falcon Publishing, Inc.
Hansen, George. 1855. Rancho San Juan Cajon de Santa Ana : situated in Los Angeles County, California, claimed by Dn. Juan
Pacifico Ondiveras [sic]: U.S. District Court. California, Southern District. Land case 140 SD, page 131; land case map
E-1151. On file at Bancroft Library. Available at http://content.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/hb6n39p008/?, accessed
March 6, 2013.
Harrington, John Peabody 1933 Annotations, in Boscana 1933.
______. 1986. A Guide to the Field Notes: Native American History, Language and Culture of Southern California/Great
Basin. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington in the Smithsonian Institution, 1907-1957, Vol.3. Edited by Elaine L.
Mills and Ann J. Brickfield. Kraus International Publications.
Holland, V.L. and D.J. Keil. 1995. California Vegetation. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa. 516 pp.
Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of
Fish and Game. The Resources Agency. Sacramento, CA.
Hudson, Dee Travis. 1969. The Archaeological Investigations During 1935 and 1937 at ORA-237, ORA-238, and ORA-239,
Santiago Canyon, Orange County, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 5(1):1-68.
Incayawar, Mario, Mark Acuña, Barbara Drake, Lise Bouchard, Zach Hurwitz, and Cristina Leal. 2010. Tongva Medicinal
Plants. Electronic document, http://www.runajambi.net/tongva/, accessed March 6, 2013.
Johnson, Brent D. 2009. Department of Parks and Recreation Resource Records for 30-177703. On file at the SCCIC
Johnston, Bernice Eastman. 1962. California’s Gabrielino Indians. Southwest Museum Press, Los Angeles.
Jones, Wendy. 2007. Department of Parks and Recreation Record for Resource 30-100402. On file at the SCCIC.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
381
JRP Historical Consulting Services and California Department of Transportation. 2000. Water Conveyance Systems in
California: Historic Context Development and Evaluation Procedures
Kroeber, A.L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California [1976]. Dover Publications, Inc., New York.
Lander, Bruce. 2006. Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program: Final Technical Report of Results and Findings
Prepared in Support of Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System Project, Huntington
Beach, Orange County, California. PEAI, submitted to SRI.
Laylander, Don. 2000. Early Ethnography of the Californias: 1533-1825. Coyote Press Archives of California Prehistory, no.
47.
Leighton Consulting, Inc. 2010. Foundation Report for the Proposed Retaining wall No. 55E0111 at Abutment 3 of Ball Road
Overcrossing (Bridge No. 55-0524), Northbound State Route 57, Orange County, California, Project No. 602231-
001, dated August 5, 2010.
______. 2013. Geotechnical Exploration and Analysis Burris Pump Station Project for Orange County Water District,
Anaheim, California, Project No. 10064.001, dated March 11, 2013.
______. 2017. Slope Stability Analysis for OCWD Ball Road Basin Project, Anaheim, California, September 2017.
Leonard, N. Nelson III and Matthew C. Hall. 1975. Description and Evaluation of Cultural Resources within the US Army
Corps of Engineers Santa Ana River Project. Report Number LA-270. On file at the SCCIC.
Lichvar, R.W. and J.S. Wakely. (Eds.). 2004. Review of ordinary high water mark indicators for delineating arid streams in the
southwestern United States. ERDC/CRREL TR-04-1. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC),
Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL), Hanover, NH. 127p. <URL:
http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/techpub/CRREL_Reports/reports/ERDC-TR-04-1.pdf
Lichvar, R.W., D.C.Finnegan, M.P. Ericsson, and W. Ochs. 2006. Distribution of Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM)
Indicators and Their Reliability in Identifying the Limits of “Waters of the United States” in Arid Southwestern
Channels. ERDC/CRREL Technical Report 06-5. 21p.
<URL: http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/techpub/CRREL_Reports/reports/TR06-5.pdf >
Lichvar, R.W. and S.M. McColley. 2008. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the
Arid West Region of the Western United States. ERDC/CRREL TR-08-12. U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center (ERDC), Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL), Hanover, NH. 72p. <URL:
www.crrel.usace.army.mil/library/.../ERDC-CRREL-TR-08-12.pdf
Masters, Nathan. 2012. The Santa Ana River: How It Shaped Orange County. Electronic document,
http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/history/la-as-subject/how-orange-county-tamed-the-santa-ana-
river.html, accessed March 7, 2013.
McCawley, William. 1996. The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum Press/Ballena Press,
Banning, California.
McLeod Samuel A. McLeod, Ph.D. 2013. Paleontological resources for the proposed Orange County Water District Ball Road
Project, APRM project # 2013-01, in the City of Anaheim, Orange County, project area. Dated January 31, 2013.
Microsoft Corporation, 2013. Bing Maps Aerial Imagery. Redmond, WA
Moratto, Michael J. 2004. California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando.
Morton, P.K., and Miller, R.V. 2006. Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30’ x 60’ Quadrangles, California
showing mines and mineral deposits: US Geological Survey.
Moyle, P. 1976. Inland fishes of California. Univ. Cal. Berkeley Press, Berkeley, California. 405pp
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
382
Moyle, P., R. M. Yoshiyama, Jack E. Williams, and Eric D. Wikramanayake. 1995. Fish Species of Special Concern in California.
The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. Final Report for Contract No. 2128IF.
Munsell Color. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Gretag Macbeth: New Windsor, New York.
Munz, Philip A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley.
MWH Americas, Inc. 2006. Orange County Sanitation District Strategic Plan Update. April 2006.
Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. 2013. Historic Aerials by NETR Online. From,
<http://www.historicaerials.com>, accessed on February and March, 2013.
NOREAS Inc. 2013a. Technical Report for Orange County Water District’s Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment And
Zone Change Project Anaheim, California.
______. 2013b. Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for the Orange County Water District’s Ball Road Basin General
Plan Amendment and Zone Change Project in Anaheim, California.
O'Leary, J. F. 1990. California coastal sage scrub: general characteristics and considerations for biological conservation. Pp.
24-41 in Endangered Plant Communities of southern California. Southern California Botanists Special Publication
No.3 (A.A. Schroeder, ed.)
OCTA (Orange County Transportation Authority). 2009. Congestion Management Program (CMP).
______. 2011. Transit System Map.
OCSD (Orange County Sanitation District). 2006. Strategic Plan Update. April 2006.
OCWD (Orange County Water District). 2006. Lithology Logs for Ball Road Basin B-1 & B-2.
P & D Consultants. 2000 . Final Program EIR/EIS for the Groundwater Replenishment System.
Paule, Dorothea Jean. 1952. The German Settlement at Anaheim. M.A. Thesis, University of Southern California. Available at
http://anaheimcolony.com/EarlyAnaheim/anaheimthesis2.htm, accessed February and March 2013
PB Americas, Inc. 2012. Final Traffic Impact Study Report for Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR, January 2012.
______. 2010. Draft Traffic Study Report for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, August 2010.
Pitt, R., Maestre, A., & Morquecho, R. 2003. The National Stormwater Quality Database. Presented at the National
Conference on Urban Stormwater, Chicago Botanical Gardens and the US EPA, Chicago. February 2003.
Pleasants, Adelene. 1931. History of Orange County, California. Vol. 1, J. R. Finnell & Sons Publishing Company, Los Angeles.
Psomas. 2013. Ball Road Basin Development Sewer Study. May 9, 2013.
Raab, L. Mark and Dan O. Larson. 1997. Medieval Climatic Anomaly and Punctuated Cultural Evolution in Coastal
Southern California. American Antiquity 62:319-336.
Reed, P.B. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: California (Region 0). US Fish and Wildlife Service
Biology Report 88(26.10). 135p.
Reynolds, William P. 1868. Map of the Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana. 19 x 23 1/4 in., ink on tracing cloth. On file at the
Huntington Library, San Marino, California. Available at
http://hdl.huntington.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15150coll4/id/11646/rec/15, accessed March 6, 2013.
Rogers, Malcolm J. 1939. Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Areas. San Diego
Museum Papers No. 3. San Diego.
Rogers, Thomas H. 1965. Geologic map of California, Olaf P. Jenkins edition, Santa Ana sheet, scale 1:250,000.
RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board), Santa Ana Region. 2011. 2010 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of
Limited Water Quality Segments. October 11, 2011.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
383
______. 1994. Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (8). March 11, 1994. With Amendments in February
2008 and June 2011.
Sawyer, John O., Todd Keeler-Wolf, and Julie Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation. Second Edition. California
Native Plant Society, Sacramento.
SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments. 2016. 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy, April 2016.
SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 2014. Draft Report Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South
Coast Air Basin, MATES-IV, October 2014.
______. 2012. Revised Draft 2012 Air Quality Management Plan, September, 2012.
______. 2011. Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod, February 2011.
______. 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Revised July 2008.
______. 2008a. Draft Report Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin, MATES III, January 2008.
______. 2007. Air Quality Management Plan, June 1, 2007.
______. 2005. Rule 403 Fugitive Dust, Amended June 3, 2005.
______. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993.
______. 1976. Rule 402 Nuisance, Adopted May 7, 1976.
______. Facility Information Detail (FIND) Database, http://www.aqmd.gov/webappl/fim/default.htm, March 14, 2013.
Schoenherr, Allan A. 1992. A Natural History of California. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Schroeder, R.A. (1995) Potential for Chemical Transport Beneath a Storm-Runoff Recharge (Retention) Basin for an
Industrial Cachment in Fresno, CA. United States Geological Survey (USGS) Water-Resource Investigations Report
93-4140.
Scott, M. B. 1977. Development of Water Facilities in the Santa Ana River Basin, California. 1810–1968: A Compilation of
Historical Notes Derived from Many Sources Describing Ditch and Canal Companies, Diversion and Water Rights.
Open File report 77–398. U.S. Geological Survey. Menlo Park, California. Prepared in cooperation with the
California Department of Water Districts Western Municipal Water District of Riverside County.
Sibley, D.A. 2000. National Audubon Society. The Sibley Guide to Birds. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
Smith, G. R. 1966. Distribution and evolution of the North American Catastomid fishes of the subgenus Pantosteus, genus
Catostomus. University of Michigan Mus. Zool. Misc. Publ. 129: 1-33.
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 1995. Assessment and mitigation of adverse impacts to nonrenewable paleontological
resources – standard guidelines: Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin, vol. 163, p. 22-27. Electronic
document, http://vertpaleotest.sherwood-group.com/ConformableImpactMitigationGuidelinesCommittee.htm,
accessed July 24, 2012.
______. 1996. Conditions of receivership for paleontologic salvage collections: Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News
Bulletin, vol. 166, p. 31-32.
______. 2009a Guidelines from the ethics education committee for collecting, documenting and curating fossils.
Electronic document, http://vertpaleotest.sherwood-
group.com/GuidelinesFromtheEthicsEducation_Committee.htm, accessed July 24, 2012.
______. 2009b. Article 12: Member bylaw on ethics statement. Electronic document, http://vertpaleotest.sherwood-
group.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=StatementsandGuidelines&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID
=1238, accessed July 24, 2012.
South Coast Wildlands. 2008; Regional South Coast Missing Linkages Project Report
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
384
State of California. 1998. California Register of Historical Resources: Public Resources Code §5024.1.
______. 2001. California Native American Graves and Repatriation Act (Cal NAGPRA); Health and Safety Code Section 8010-
8011.
______. 2004. Senate Bill 18
______. 2006. State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 (as amended 2006).
______. 2010. Public Resources Code Section 5097-5097.993: Native American Historic Resource Protection Act:
Archaeological, Paleontological, and Historical Sites; Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites.
______. 2012. California Environmental Quality Act: California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000 - 21178, and Title 14
CCR, Section 753, and Chapter 3, Sections 15000 - 15387; last updated 2012
State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research. 2004. Thresholds of Significance. Electronic document,
http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/more/tas/Threshold.html#thresholds, accessed April 11, 2013.
______. 2005. Tribal Consultation Guidelines
______. 2012. CEQA and Archaeological Resources: Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1. Electronic document,
http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/more/tas/Arcpage2.html, accessed September 4, 2012.
SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2001. Effect of SWANCC V. United States on the 401 Certification Program.
Memorandum January 25, 2001.
______. 2004. Guidance for Regulation of Discharges to “Isolated Waters”. Memorandum June 25, 2004.
______. 2010. 2010 Integrated Report Clean Water Act Sections 303(d) and 305(b). April 19, 2010 Staff Report. Approved by
SWRCB Resolution No. 2010-0040, August 4, 2010.
Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.
Supernowicz, Dana E. 2010. Department of Parks and Recreation Resource Record for 30-177113: Angel Stadium. On file at
the SCCIC.
Surveyor-General of the State Of California. 1886. Report of the Surveyor-General of The State Of California. From August 1,
1884, to August 1, 1886. Sacramento State Office, James J. Ayers, Supt. State Printing. Available at
http://www.slc.ca.gov/Misc_Pages/Historical/Surveyors_General/reports/Willey_1884_1886.pdf, accessed March
6, 2013.
Temple, Thomas Workman II. 1960. The Founding of Misión San Gabriel Archángel Part II: Padre Cambon’s Contemporary
Report of the Founding. The Masterkey 34(1):153-161. Southwest Museum Press, Los Angeles.
Transpo Group. 2017. Traffic Impact Analysis Update, February 20, 2017.
Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 209,
Washington, D.C., 2000.
UC (University of California). 2013. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Statewide Integrated Pest
Management Program, California Weather Report for Irvine, California CIMIS Weather Station #75.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2005. Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-05. Ordinary High Water Mark Identification. 7
December, 2005. 4p.
______. 2007a. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination (JD) Form Instructional Guidebook. 60p. +
Appendices A – H.
<URL: http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwo/reg/cwa_guide/jd_guidebook_051207final.pdf
______. 2007b. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Questions and Answers for Rapanos and Carabell Decision. 21p.
<URL: http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwo/reg/cwa_guide/rapanos_qa_06-05-07.pdf
______. 2007c. Lower Santa Ana River, Reach 9IIA Design Documentation Report Appendix A, dated November 2007.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
385
______. 2008a. Memorandum Re: CWA Jurisdiction Following U.S. Supreme Court discussion in Rapanos v. United States.
12p.
______. 2008b. Interim regional supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region
(Version 2.0). J. S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble (Eds.). ERDC/EL TR-08-28. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center.
______. 2008c, Regulatory Guidance Letter 08-02
______. 2009. Plans for Santa Ana Mainstem Lower Santa Ana River Channel Reach – 9 Phase 2B (Along Green River Golf
Course), Orange and Riverside Counties, California, approved on August 2009.
US Census Bureau, 2010 Census
______. 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP03 Selected Economic Characteristics
U.S. Department of Transportation. 2006. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide, January, 2006.
USFWS (U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012. National Wetlands Inventory-Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the Conterminous United States. Vector digital data: CONUS_wet_poly. Division of Habitat
and Resource Conservation, Washington, D.C.
<URL: http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/NWI/download.html>
______. 2013a. Critical Habitat Portal. USFWS
______. 2013b. San Diego Fish and Wildlife Office Endangered and Threatened Species List. In: U.S. Department of the
Interior, editor. Carlsbad, CA: USFWS.
United States District Court (California: Southern District). 184?. Diseño del Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana: California.
Oriented with north toward the lower left. Pen-and-ink and watercolor on tracing paper. U.S. District Court.
California, Southern District. Land case 346 SD, page 66; land case map D-1395. On file at the Bancroft Library,
Berkeley, California. Available at http://content.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/hb496nb220/?, accessed February and
March 2013.
University of California, Davis. 1997. Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol, December 1997.
USDA-NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service). 1971. Soil Survey of Western
Riverside Area California.
______. 2005. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. <URL: http://SoilDataMart.nrcs.usda.gov >
______. 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0. G.W. Hurt and L.M. Vasilas (eds.).
USDA,NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. 47p.
<URL: ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NSSC/Hydric_Soils/FieldIndicators_v6_0.pdf>
______. 2013a. Watershed Boundary Dataset
<URL: http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/watershed/index.html>
______. 2013b. PLANTS Profile Schoenoplectus californicus (C.A. Mey.) Palla California bulrush. Electronic document,
http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=SCCA11&mapType=nativity&photoID=scca_001_ahp.tif, accessed
March 5, 2013.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1898. Anaheim, Calif. 30-Minute Topographic Quadrangle.
______. 1901. Anaheim, Calif. 30-Minute Topographic Quadrangle.
______. 1902. Corona, Calif. 30-minute Topographic Sheet, Reprinted 1946.
______. 1942. Anaheim, Calif. 15-Minute Topographic Quadrangle.
______. 1964. Orange, CA 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. Photorevised 1981.
______. 1965. Anaheim, CA 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. Photorevised 1981.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
386
______. 1978. 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Map Orange, California.
______. 2008, Interactive Deaggregation Online Program - Beta Version, http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/index.php.
U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Names Committee. 2007. Divisions of geologic time—Major chronostratigraphic and
geochronologic units: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2007-3015. Available at
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2007/3015/, accessed June 19, 2012.
U.S. Secretary of the Interior. 2013. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Electronic document,
http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation/rehab/stand.htm, accessed March 1, 2013
Vista Environmental. 2013. Air Quality and Global Climate Change Impact Analysis Ball Road Basin Project, September 27,
2013.
Wallace, William. 1955. Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of
Anthropology 11:214–230.
______. 1978. Post-Pleistocene Archaeology, 9000 to 2000 B.C. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California,
Robert F. Heizer (volume editor) and William C. Sturtevant (general editor), pp. 25-36. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
Warren, Claude N. 1968. Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. In Archaic
Prehistory in the Western United States, edited by C. Irwin-Williams, pp. 1–14. Eastern New Mexico University
Contributions in Anthropology No. 1. Portales.
Westman, W. E. 1983. Factors influencing the distribution of species of California coastal sage scrub. Ecology 62: 439-455
Wilson, Bert. 2013. Coastal Sage Scrub. Electronic document, http://www.laspilitas.com/nature-of-
california/communities/coastal-sage-scrub, accessed March 1, 2013.
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
387
CHAPTER 7.0 – ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
City of Anaheim Police Department
Captain Eric Carter, Community Services Division Commander
City of Orange
Ed Knight, Interim Community Development Director
City of Santa Ana, Planning & Building Agency
Maciel Medina, Planning Intern
Orange County Public Works
Polin Modanlou, Manager Strategic Land Planning
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Ian MacMillan, Program Supervisor, CEQA Inter-Governmental Review
California Public Utilities Commission
Ken Chiang, P.E., Utilities Engineer
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Marilyn Fluharty, Acting Environmental Program Manager
California Native America Heritage Commission
Dave Singleton, Program Analyst
Caltrans, District 12
Christopher Herre, Branch Chief
Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County
Kari A. Rigoni, Executive Officer
The Gas Company
Armando Torrez, Technical Services Supervisor
Anaheim Equestrian Center
Jayne Jones
Orange County Water District
Greg Woodside, P.G., C.HG, Executive Director of Planning and Natural Resources
Bruce Dosier, Director Of Information Services and Property Management
Draft EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC
388
CHAPTER 8.0 – REPORT PREPARATION
Name Project Role/EIR Chapter
Lead Agency/Reviewers
City of Anaheim
Christine Saunders Associate Planner / Project Manager
Susan Kim Principal Planner
Jonathan Borrego Planning Services Manager
PlaceWorks
William Halligan, Esq., Principal, Environmental Services Third-Party Review of Draft EIR
CEQA Consultant
Environmental Advisors
Greg McCafferty Director
Josh Haskins Planning Manager
Paula Fell Senior Environmental Planner
Vista Environmental Air Quality and Global Climate Change Impact Analysis; Noise
Impact Analysis
Transpo Group Traffic Impact Analysis
Noreas Environmental Engineering and Science Biological Technical Report; Preliminary Jurisdictional
Determination
ArchaeoPaleo Resource Management Inc. Cultural Resources and Paleontolgical Resources Phase I
Assessment
Leighton Consulting, Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment; Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment Report
Fuscoe Hydrology and Water Quality Technical Report; Sewer Assessment
Report
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
BALL ROAD BASIN
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT & ZONE CHANGE
Anaheim, CA
(Orange County)
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2011-00035
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2013021026
Prepared for:
CITY OF ANAHEIM
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, California 92805
Prepared by:
2390 E. Orangewood Ave., Suite 510
Anaheim, California 92806
July 2018
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 2 of 80
This page intentionally left blank.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 3 of 80
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION 4
2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 4
2.1 CEQA Requirements Regarding Comments and Reponses 4
2.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report 5
2.2.1 Comment Letter A – South Coast Air Quality Management District .............................. 6
2.2.2 Comment Letter B – Native American Heritage Commission ...................................... 13
2.2.3 Comment Letter C – Department of Toxic Substances Control ................................... 16
2.2.4 Comment Letter D - Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and
Geothermal Resources ........................................................................................................... 24
2.2.5 Comment Letter E - Department of Transportation, District 12 (Caltrans) .................. 28
2.2.6 Comment Letter F - Office of Planning and Research .................................................. 44
2.2.7 Comment Letter G – City of Orange ............................................................................. 58
2.2.8 Comment Letter H – County of Orange, OC Public Works ........................................... 62
2.2.9 Comment Letter I – California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc. .............. 66
3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR 69
ATTACHMENTS (Separately on Compact Disc)
Attachment A - Ramp Intersection Cycle Length Surveys
Attachment B – Ramp Intersection LOS Worksheets
Attachment C – HCM Merge, Diverge, and Weaving Analysis Worksheets
Attachment D – Crommelin Methodology Graph
Attachment E – Off-Ramp Queuing
Attachment F – Freeway Mainline Analysis Worksheets
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 4 of 80
1. INTRODUCTION
The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) No. 345 for the Ball Road Basin General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change has been prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.) and the State
CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) (14 Cal. Code Regs §§ 15000, et seq.).
CEQA Guidelines § 15132 specify that the FEIR shall consist of:
(a) The draft EIR or a revision of the draft.
(b) Comments and recommendations received on the draft EIR either verbatim or in summary.
(c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the draft EIR.
(d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review
and consultation process.
(e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.
CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5 details the circumstances by which an EIR would be required to be
recirculated prior to certification. The City of Anaheim, as Lead Agency, affirms that none of the
criteria for recirculation have been met and the preparation of this FEIR is appropriate.
This document contains responses to comments received on the DEIR No. 345 for the Ball Road
Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change during the public review period from June 7,
2018 through July 23, 2018. This document represents the independent judgement of the Lead
Agency, the City of Anaheim, and together with the DEIR, comprise the FEIR in accordance with
CEQA Guidelines, § 15132.
2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
CEQA Guidelines § 15088 requires the Lead Agency, the City of Anaheim, to evaluate comments
on environmental issues received from public agencies and interested parties who reviewed the
DEIR. This section provides all comments received on the DEIR and the responses to each
comment. A list of agencies, organizations, and persons that submitted comments on the DEIR
during the public review period is presented in Table 1, Organizations, Persons, and Public
Agencies that Commented on the DEIR.
2.1 CEQA Requirements Regarding Comments and Reponses
CEQA Guidelines, § 15204(a) CEQA Guidelines § 15204(a) outlines parameters for submitting
comments, and notes that the focus of review and comment of DEIRs should be:
…on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the
environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or
mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or
mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant
environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR
is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible…CEQA does not require a lead agency to
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 5 of 80
conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or
suggested by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to
significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by
reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.
Table 1 - Organizations, Persons, and Public Agencies that Commented on the DEIR
Comment Letter Commenting Organization, Person, or Public Agency Date
A South Coast Air Quality Management District June 15, 2018
B Native American Heritage Commission June 19, 2018
C Department of Toxic Substances Control June 25, 2018
D Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and
Geothermal Resources July 18, 2018
E Department of Transportation, District 12 (Caltrans) July 18, 2018
F Office of Planning and Research July 19, 2018
G City of Orange July 23, 2018
H County of Orange, OC Public Works July 23, 2018
I California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc. July 30, 2018
CEQA Guidelines § 15204(c) further advises that, “Reviewers should explain the basis for their
comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based
on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines § 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial
evidence;” CEQA Guidelines § 15204(d) also notes that, “Each responsible agency and trustee
agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency’s
statutory responsibility.” CEQA Guidelines § 15204(e) states that, “This section shall not be
used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or
of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by [CEQA Guidelines §
15204].”
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15088(b), copies of the written responses shall be provided to
commenting public agencies at least ten (10) days prior to certifying the FEIR. The responses
shall be provided along with an electronic copy of this FEIR, as permitted by CEQA, and shall
conform to the legal standards established for response to comments on DEIRs.
2.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report
CEQA Guidelines § 15088 requires the Lead Agency (City of Anaheim) to evaluate comments on
environmental issues received from public agencies and interested parties who review the DEIR
and to provide written response to any substantive comments received. Nine (9) comment
letters were received in response to the DEIR’s public review period. A copy of each letter with
bracketed comment numbers on the right margin is followed by the response for each
comment as indexed in the letter. Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and
numbers for reference purposes.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 6 of 80
2.2.1 Comment Letter A – South Coast Air Quality Management District
Comment Letter A
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 11 of 80
Responses to Comment Letter A – South Coast Air Quality Management District
A-1: Summary of Project Description comment acknowledged. No further response is required.
A-2: SCAQMD Staff’s Summary of Air Quality Analysis comment acknowledged. No further
response is required.
A-3: Recommendation to revise MM AIR-1 to require that all off-road diesel-powered
construction equipment of 50 horsepower (hp) or greater meets or exceeds the CARB and
USEPA Tier 4 off-road emissions standards during Project construction. The comment is
acknowledged, MM AIR-1 and all textual references to it in the DEIR are revised as follows, with
strikeout showing deletions and underline showing additions:
MM AIR-1: Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall
require in the construction bid documents that the construction contractor to use large
off-road diesel equipment with a horsepower (hp) rating of 160 50 hp or higher that
meets the U.S. EPA-Certified emission standard for Tier 3 4 off-road equipment or
higher. Any model year 2006 or later off-road diesel equipment meets the tier 3
standard. The construction contractor shall maintain on-site a list of construction
equipment by type and model year that will be made available for inspection by the City
during construction. MM AIR-1 shall not apply to any equipment that is utilized on the
Project site that is licensed to operate on public roadways, such as water trucks.
A-4: Recommendation to include requirement for Tier 4 construction equipment or better to be
used during Project construction in applicable bid documents as well as reporting and
inspection during construction is acknowledged. MM AIR-1 and all textual references to it in the
DEIR are revised as noted in Response to Comment A-3 above.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 12 of 80
A-5: Inconsistencies in Table 3.2-6, Construction-Related Criterial Pollutant Emissions,
acknowledged and corrected as follows, with strikeout showing deletions and underline
showing additions:
Table 3.2-6 Construction-Related Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Grading
On-Site1 7.00 79.61 45.36 0.09 10.76 6.31
Off-Site2 0.85 26.19 7.73 0.07 3.57 0.99
Total 7.85 105.80 53.09 0.17 14.33 7.30
Trenching
On-Site 1.40 13.93 12.31 0.02 0.67 0.62
Off-Site 0.05 0.55 0.43 0.00 0.15 0.04
Total 1.45 14.48 12.74 0.02 0.83 0.66
Building Construction
On-Site 1.71 15.62 16.36 0.03 0.81 0.76
Off-Site 1.29 10.82 10.08 0.05 3.63 1.01
Total 3.00 26.43 26.44 0.08 4.44 1.77
Paving
On-Site 1.88 10.19 14.58 0.02 0.51 0.47
Off-Site 0.06 0.03 0.40 0.00 0.17 0.05
Total 1.94 10.22 14.98 0.02 0.68 0.51
Architectural Coatings
On-Site 67.17 1.30 1.81 0.00 0.07 0.07
Off-Site 0.19 0.10 1.35 0.00 0.57 0.15
Total 67.35 1.40 3.16 0.00 0.64 0.23
SCQAMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No Yes No No No No
1 On-site emissions from equipment not operated on public roads.
2 Off-site emissions from vehicles operating on public roads.
Source: CalEEMod Version 2011.1.1 2016.3.1.
A-6: Request for responses to comments be provided to SCAQMD staff prior to the certification
of the Final EIR per California Public Resources Code § 21092.5(a) and CEQA Guidelines §
15088(b) is acknowledged and such response to comments will be provided to SCAQMD staff
accordingly.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 13 of 80
2.2.2 Comment Letter B – Native American Heritage Commission
1
Susan Kim
From:Totton, Gayle@NAHC <Gayle.Totton@nahc.ca.gov>
Sent:Tuesday, June 19, 2018 1:57 PM
To:Susan Kim
Subject:SCH# 2013021026 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Good afternoon Ms. Kim,
I have just finished reviewing the Draft EIR on the project referenced above and have one slight change in
the text under the mitigation for finds of human remains. The MLD has 48 hours from the time they are given
access to the site to make their recommendations, not from the time they are notified. That time does not
start running until they have a chance to inspect the remains. Please make that small correction in the text of
the cultural resources section.
The rest of the document was substantially in compliance so I did not want to send a formal comments
letter for such a small change.
Thank you very much,
Gayle Totton, M.A., Ph.D.
Associate Governmental Program Analyst
Native American Heritage Commission
(916)373‐3714
Comment Letter B
B-1
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 15 of 80
Response to Comment Letter B – Native American Heritage Commission
B-1: Request to revise MM CUL-3 to reflect that the Most Likely Descendant shall make their
recommendations to the disposition of human remains within 48 hours of the time they are
given access to the site, not from the time they are notified. Comment is acknowledged and
MM CUL-3 is revised as follows, with strikeout showing deletions and underline showing
additions:
MM CUL-3: In the event human remains are discovered, the Construction Contractor
shall notify the County Coroner of the find immediately and no further disturbance shall
occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition
pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98 (State of California 2006). If human remains are found
during grading, all work in the immediate area (a radius of at least 100 feet) shall stop,
and all parties shall follow all applicable state laws regarding human remains. If the
remains are Native American, the coroner is responsible for contacting the NAHC within
24 hours. The NAHC, pursuant to Section 5097.98, shall immediately notify those
persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the
inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification being allowed access to the site and
shall recommend preservation in place, reburial, or the scientific removal and
nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American
burials.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 16 of 80
2.2.3 Comment Letter C – Department of Toxic Substances Control
Comment Letter C
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 21 of 80
Response to Comment Letter C – Department of Toxic Substances Control
C-1: Summary of Project Description comment acknowledged. No further response is required.
C-2: Request for the EIR to identify and determine whether current or historic uses at the
project site may have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes/substances and that proper
investigation, sampling and remedial actions overseen by the appropriate regulatory agencies
should be conducted prior to the new development of any construction if there are any
recognized environmental concerns in the project area is acknowledged.
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed for the Project Site on August 9,
2013 by Leighton Consulting, Inc. and is included as Appendix G to the Draft Environmental
Impact Report. Section 3.7.2 of the DEIR provides a summary of the findings of the Hazardous
Database Review conducted as part of the Phase I ESA.
The Phase I ESA disclosed that the Project Site was identified in the Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. (EDR®) Radius Report in the Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanup (SLIC)
database. This listing comes from the California Regional Water Control Board and is identified
as Case Number “SLT8R107”. The case type is listed as “soil and groundwater”, and the case
status is reported to be “Case Closed” as of June 17, 2009. Regulatory records documented a
release of approximately 3,500 gallons of JP-5 jet fuel into BRB that occurred on September 19,
1989. BRB was filled with storm water at that time and an approximately two to three-foot
layer of free-phase jet fuel spread across the Project site. The OCWD assumed a lead agency
role to assure adequate cleanup and IT Corporation conducted the investigation and cleanup.
Cleanup was reported to include removal of the jet fuel, contaminated soil, water, and
vegetation; however, investigation and remediation reports were not included in the file
provided by the OCWD. The release was reportedly remediated and a regulatory closure was
issued on June 13, 1990. However, the cleanup activities were not well documented,
deficiencies in sampling and contaminant containment were noted by the OCWD, and benzene
was identified in onsite soil at concentrations of up to 18 µg/kg. These deficiencies were not
addressed in the case closure rationale.
Given the potentially significant impact for exposure to contaminated soils during project
construction, MM HAZ-1 requires the preparation of a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment,
which will provide for the requested investigation, sampling and remedial actions overseen by
the appropriate regulatory agencies, including DTSC, to be conducted prior to the new
development of any constriction if there are any recognized environmental concerns identified
in the Phase II ESA.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 22 of 80
C-3: The comment states that DTSC is not able to evaluate whether this benzene impacted soil
is properly mitigated and no residual contamination is left in place at the project area.
Given the potentially significant impact for exposure to contaminated soils during project
construction, including benzyne impacted soil, MM HAZ-1 requires the preparation of a Phase II
Environmental Site Assessment, which will provide for the requested investigation, sampling
and remedial actions overseen by the appropriate regulatory agencies, including DTSC, to be
conducted prior to the new development of any constriction if there are any recognized
environmental concerns identified in the Phase II ESA.
C-4: The comment states that DTSC is not able to evaluate whether vapor sampling and/or
potential vapor intrusion risk was adequately addressed and that it recommends soil gas
sampling and vapor intrusion risk evaluate on sites with releases of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) or total petroleum hydrocarbons.
Given the potentially significant impact for exposure to contaminated soils during project
construction, including soil vapors, MM HAZ-1 requires the preparation of a Phase II
Environmental Site Assessment, which will provide for the requested investigation, sampling
and remedial actions overseen by the appropriate regulatory agencies, including DTSC, to be
conducted prior to the new development of any constriction if there are any recognized
environmental concerns identified in the Phase II ESA.
C-5: The comment states that railroad easements and rail yards [like the adjacent Union Pacific
Railroad] are commonly impacted due to spillage of chemicals, fuels, and lubricants, and use of
pesticides and herbicides along the tracks for weed control, and recommend
assessment/investigation and/or cleanup for any residual contamination associated with rail
operation.
The Phase I ESA included an exhaustive Hazardous Database Review that is summarized in
Section 3.7.2 of the DEIR. None of these databases contained record of contamination due to
railroad operations, including a rail yard. Nonetheless, given the potentially significant impact
for exposure to contaminated soils during project construction, including from rail operations,
MM HAZ-1 requires the preparation of a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, which will
provide for the requested investigation, sampling and remedial actions overseen by the
appropriate regulatory agencies, including DTSC, to be conducted prior to the new
development of any constriction if there are any recognized environmental concerns identified
in the Phase II ESA.
C-6: The comment states that proper evaluation of imported/exported soil is required and
contaminated soil should be properly disposed of. Additionally, imported soil should be
evaluated/sampled to ensure that backfill material is free of contamination.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 23 of 80
Given the potentially significant impact for exposure to contaminated soils during project
construction, MM HAZ-1 requires the preparation of a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment,
which will provide for the requested investigation, sampling and remedial actions overseen by
the appropriate regulatory agencies, including DTSC, to be conducted prior to the new
development of any constriction if there are any recognized environmental concerns identified
in the Phase II ESA.
Regarding imported soil, the Conceptual Grading Plan, shown in Figures 3.8-7, Earthwork, and
Figure 3.8-8, Conceptual Grading, (Section 3.8.5, Page 203-204), identify that approximately
386,000 cubic yards of earth material would be required to bring the site up to a “mass grade”
condition with proposed elevations ranging from 182 feet above mean sea level at the
northwest corner to 176 feet above mean sea level at the southeast corner. MM HAZ-1
addresses this comment, which states in part:
MM HAZ-1 – “… Additionally, a sampling plan shall be prepared and implemented prior
to importing soil to the Project site for infill purposes in order to verify that imported
soils will meet regulatory screening levels for commercial property use.”
C-7: Request to identify any required investigation and/or remediation for suspected
contamination of soil and/or groundwater during construction/demolition of the project is
acknowledged. To address this comment, the following MM HAZ-4 shall be added as shown in
underline:
MM HAZ-4: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Property Owner/Developer
shall include a note on the plans that in the event contamination of soil and/or
groundwater is suspected, the Construction Contractor shall cease
construction/demolition in the area and contact the City of Anaheim Planning and
Building Department. The Property Owner/Developer shall perform soil/groundwater
sampling with regulatory oversight by the appropriate government agency, i.e. the DTSC
and/or RWQCB and obtain a Letter of No Further Action prior to resuming
construction/demolition activities.
The addition of MM HAZ-4 does not require the recirculation of the DEIR prior to Certification
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(a)(3), as the mitigation measure is not considerably
different from MM HAZ-1, and the project proponent has agreed to adopt MM HAZ-4.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 24 of 80
2.2.4 Comment Letter D - Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources
Comment Letter D
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 27 of 80
Response to Comment Letter D - Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and
Geothermal Resources
D-1: The description of the role of the Department of Conservation’s Division of Oil, Gas, and
Geothermal Resources (Division) is acknowledged. No further response is required.
D-2: The comment that the project area is not within an administrative oil field boundary and
Division records indicate that there are no oil, gas, or geothermal wells located within the
project boundary is acknowledged. No further response is required.
D-3: The comment is acknowledged. No further response is required.
D-4: The comment to contact the Division’s district office to obtain information on the
requirements and approval to perform remedial plugging operations of any plugged,
abandoned, or unrecorded wells that may be damaged or uncovered during excavation or
grading is acknowledged. No further response is required.
D-5: The comment to make a diligent effort to avoid building over any plugged and abandoned
well is acknowledged. No further response is required.
D-6: The comment is acknowledged. No further response is required.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 28 of 80
2.2.5 Comment Letter E - Department of Transportation, District 12 (Caltrans)
Comment Letter E
E-1
E-2
E-3
E-4
E-5
E-6
E-7
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-11
E-12
E-13
E-14
E-15
E-16
E-17
E-18
E-19
E-20
E-21
E-22
E-23
E-24
E-25
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 33 of 80
Response to Comment Letter E - Department of Transportation, District 12 (Caltrans)
E-1: The comment is acknowledged. No further response is required.
E-2: The comment is acknowledged. No further response is required.
E-3: The comment that connection to the Santa Ana River Trail on the eastern banks of the
Santa Ana River is acknowledged. The Santa Ana River Trail is located in the City of Orange at
this location and any connections would require coordination with the City of Orange. No
further response is required.
E-4: The comment to change all bicycle facilities on Ball Road to be either Class I or Class II for
the purposes of a uniform bicycle path is acknowledged. The Class II bike lane on Ball Road
would be within the public street right-of-way and provide the potential connection to the
Santa Ana River Trail as noted in Comment E-3. The Class I bike path on the project site would
serve the north/south connection on the project site. No further response is required.
E-5: The comment to provide a barrier between the rail line and a bicycle facility on the
southern border on the project site is acknowledged. No further response is required.
E-6: The comment to add a sidewalk on the western border of the project site along Phoenix
Club Drive is acknowledged. The Property Owner/Developer would be required to improve
Phoenix Club Drive to City standards, which would include sidewalk, curb, and gutter, upon
development of the project site. No further response is required.
E-7: The comment to coordinate with transit providers to promote transit use to and from the
project site is acknowledged. No further response is required.
E-8: The comment that OCTA Bus Route 46 stops on Ball Road is acknowledged. No further
response is required.
E-9: The comment that the City and the Anaheim Resort Transportation should consider adding
a stop at the project site is acknowledged. No further response is required.
E-10: The comment to establish a connection to the Anaheim Regional Transportation
Intermodal Center is acknowledged. No further response is required.
E-11: The comment to circulate future development documents in the project area to Caltrans
for review and concurrence is acknowledged. No further response is required.
E-12: The comment regarding Existing Plus Project scenario traffic volumes for the westbound
Ball Road onramp to the northbound SR-57 would result in greater impacts to the Ball Road
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 34 of 80
onramp than disclosed is acknowledged. Future traffic volumes were derived using the
Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM), which is a traffic model certified by OCTA to be
consistent with the OCTA regional model. It is a socio-economic based model, as required by
OCTA and SCAG. The traffic assignment is dynamic, being that if a route is too congested, it will
actively look for other routes, which similar to actual driver behavior. For the 2035 Buildout
Baseline (no project) conditions, Ball Road is congested in ATAM. Therefore, as the Proposed
Project increases traffic on Ball Road, it is expected that through traffic on Ball Road will divert
to other east-west streets. ATAM identified Katella Avenue as the route that would absorb
some of the through traffic on Ball Road, which is why there are several study intersections on
Katella Avenue. This traffic diversion is why the ramp volumes do not drastically change during
the peak hours. Project traffic volumes can be derived from the figures in the DEIR, and the
post-processed ATAM traffic volumes are provided in Appendix B of the Traffic Impact Analysis
Update (TIA, updated February 20, 2017).
E-13: The comment regarding balance of intersection volumes is acknowledged. The Proposed
Project’s TIA update analyzed the AM and PM peak hours of the study area intersections. In the
case of adjacent intersections with no intermediate driveways, the peak hour interval will
usually be different, even though the counts are typically collected on the same day. In most
cases where the neighboring ramp volumes differ, if the same peak hour interval was used,
then one of the intersections would not be analyzed during its actual peak hour. As a result,
the DEIR/TIA would not be able to analyze the full potential impact at that intersection since
the true peak hour would not be used in the analysis. Project traffic volumes can be derived
from the figures in the DEIR, and the post-processed ATAM traffic volumes are provided in
Appendix B of the Traffic Impact Analysis Update (TIA, updated February 20, 2017).
E-14: The request to use actual Peak Hour Factor from project traffic counts and the signal cycle
lengths from Caltrans Electrical Systems Branch for Caltrans signalized intersection analysis is
acknowledged. The LOS analysis of the signalized Caltrans intersections was re-analyzed with
the actual peak hour factors (PHF) from the traffic counts, and signal cycle lengths from either
timing cards from the Caltrans Electrical Systems Branch (SR-57/Katella Avenue ramps) or
observed peak hour cycle lengths (SR-57/Ball Road ramps and SR-55/Katella Avenue ramps).
The raw cycle length observation sheets and revised LOS worksheets are included in
Attachment A – Ramp Intersection Cycle Length Surveys and Attachment B – Ramp Intersection
LOS Worksheets. This was done for the Existing and Existing plus Project scenarios. For the
Buildout 2035 Baseline and 2035 plus Project conditions, cycle lengths were optimized, and a
default PHF of 0.92 was used. According to HCM 2010, Section 18, the PHF should be based on
local traffic peaking trends. Local traffic peaking trends are expected to change in 2035 from
the existing conditions due to the buildout of land uses in the City, as well as, changes in traffic
patterns due to buildout of the City’s street network, and County’s regional transportation
network. Table 1 – Caltrans Ramp Intersection LOS Summary provides the revised intersection
LOS results. Based on the revised LOS analysis, the findings remain the same, in that the
Proposed Project would not significantly impact any of the signalized Caltrans ramp
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 35 of 80
intersections with the exception of SR-55 southbound ramps/Katella Avenue which was already
identified as being impacted by the Proposed Project in the DEIR. The intersection of SR-55
northbound ramps/Katella Avenue is currently operating, and is forecast to operate, with LOS
E/F conditions, however, the Proposed Project’s addition to delay would be 0.0 to 0.4 seconds,
which would not have a measurable impact to LOS.
E-15: The comment that freeway mainline facilities are to be analyzed using the Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 to provide merge and diverge analysis is acknowledged and
further addressed in responses E-16 and E-17. The following are the results, shown in Table 2 –
Freeway Segment Merge, Diverge, Weave LOS Summary of the Buildout 2035 Baseline and
Buildout 2035 plus Project freeway facilities analysis using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM
2010) methodology. Segments were analyzed as basic, merge, diverge, or weaving per the
HCM. Freeway facilities analysis worksheets are attached. Based on the table, the results are
generally consistent with the DEIR in that significant unavoidable impacts were found on the
freeway mainline facilities.
E-16: According to HCM 2010 methodology and discussions with the City of Anaheim, the
northbound and southbound segments of SR-57, between Katella Avenue and Ball Road, have
been analyzed as weaving segments due to the distances and traffic volumes between the on-
ramps and off-ramps (in both directions). The calculated Lmax, value for this segment is
greater than the short length (SL) of the segment which warranted a weaving analysis per the
HCM. Specifically, the northbound SR-57 segment from the Katella Avenue on-ramp to the Ball
Road off- ramp, which contains a 2,130 foot SL, with an Lmax of 3,608 feet. Attachment C –
HCM Merge, Diverge, and Weaving Analysis Worksheets provide the Lmax and LS values. The
analysis of this segment of SR-57 is consistent with the freeway analyses prepared for the
Platinum Triangle Expansion Project.
E-17: Per HCM, the northbound segment of SR-57, Ball Road to Lincoln Avenue, was analyzed as
merge/diverge segment, while the southbound segment was analyzed as weaving segment due
to the Lmax/LS comparison and a presence of an existing exit-only (auxiliary) lane. See
response to Comment E-16 regarding the analysis of weaving distance. The calculated Lmax,
values for the northbound and southbound segments of SR-57, between Katella Avenue and
Ball Road, are greater than the short length (SL) of the segment which warranted a weaving
analysis per the HCM. Attachment C – HCM Merge, Diverge, and Weaving Analysis Worksheets
provide the Lmax and LS values. The analysis of this segment of SR-57 is consistent with the
freeway analyses prepared for the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project.
E-18: Use of ITE Trip Generation rates and pass-by and diverted links trips that would have been
manually assigned to the buildout street network would have overstated project traffic
impacts. As previously discussed in the response to Comment E-12, traffic volumes were
appropriately derived using the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM), which is a traffic
model certified by OCTA to be consistent with the OCTA regional model. It is a socio-economic
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 36 of 80
based model, as required by OCTA and SCAG. Since project impacts were determined for the
Buildout 2035 year, use of ATAM for project trip generation and assignment was the
appropriate tool to determine project impacts. The project traffic assignment in ATAM is
dynamic, simulating actual driver behavior, including pass-by and diverted trip making.
Whereas, use of the ITE Trip Generation manual would have overstated project traffic impacts
in the buildout condition.
E-19: A 95th percentile queue analysis was prepared at Caltrans off-ramp intersections using
Synchro, while the methodology in the Caltrans Ramp Meter Design Manual (2016),
supplemented with the Crommelin queuing methodology, included in Attachment D –
Crommelin Methodology Graph, was used for the on-ramp queue analysis. The Crommelin
methodology calculates minimum vehicle storage reservoirs based on the ratio of vehicle
demand and service rate at different confidence intervals. In order to display the most
conservative queuing calculations, the highest confidence level of 99% was used. Table 3 -
Buildout 2035 Intersection Off-Ramp Queuing Level of Service Summary presents the results of
the Buildout 2035 plus Project off-ramp queue analysis. Table 4 - Buildout 2035 Intersection
On-Ramp Queuing Level of Service Summary presents the results of the Buildout 2035 plus
Project on-ramp queue analysis. Attachment E – Off-Ramp Queuing includes the ramp queuing
analysis worksheets.
Based on the off-ramp queuing analysis in Table 3 - Buildout 2035 Intersection Off-Ramp
Queuing Level of Service Summary, the northbound and southbound off-ramps at SR-55/Katella
Avenue are forecast to have queues that would exceed their existing lane storage lengths.
Based on the on-ramp queuing analysis in Table 4 - Buildout 2035 Intersection On-Ramp
Queuing Level of Service Summary, all metered on-ramp queues would be sufficiently stored
within their existing storage lanes.
E-20: The freeway mainline segment analysis was re-analyzed using existing traffic volumes
from the Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS). Table 5 - Existing plus Project
Mainline Segment LOS Summary presents the results of the revised Existing and Existing plus
Project freeway mainline segment analysis, detailed in Attachment F – Freeway Mainline
Analysis Worksheets. The DEIR identified deficient mainline segments of SR-57 in the Existing
Condition, and the Proposed Project would contribute traffic volumes to those segments.
However, based on the revised analysis using PeMS traffic data, all the study area freeway
mainline segments are currently operating, and are forecast to operate with project traffic, at
LOS D or better in both peak hours.
E-21: The comment for the City to coordinate with Caltrans concerning future developments in
the Proposed Project area to ensure compatibility with the identified future improvements on
the NB SR-57 onramp at Ball Road is acknowledged. No further response is required.
E-22: The comment that all facilities and features constructed on Caltrans Right-of-Way shall
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 37 of 80
conform to Caltrans’ design standards, manuals, guides, policies, and procedures is
acknowledged. No further response is required.
E-23: The comment that Caltrans conditionally concurs with the project to realign the Chantilly
Storm Drain (CSD), provided that the Caltrans Stormwater/NPDES and Hydraulic Branch have
the opportunity to review the realignment of the CSD, is acknowledged. No further response is
required.
E-24: The comment that any project work proposed in the vicinity of the State ROW would
require an encroachment permit and all environmental concerns must be adequately
addressed is acknowledged. The City/Property Owner/Developer would coordinate with
Caltrans for any work within or near the State ROW. No further response is required.
E-25: The comment is acknowledged. No further response is required.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 38 of 80
Table 1 – Caltrans Ramp Intersection LOS Summary
Baseline (no project) Condition Baseline plus Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay Difference
Intersection Control Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS AM PM Impact?
Existing plus Project
8. SR 57 SB ramps/Ball Road Signal 14.6 B 17.9 B 15.5 B 18.8 B 0.9 0.9 no
9. SR 57 NB ramps/Ball Road Signal 9.6 A 21.2 C 10.7 B 22.2 C 1.1 1.0 no
24. SR 57 SB ramps/Katella Avenue Signal 10.8 B 12.5 B 10.9 B 12.6 B 0.1 0.1 no
25. SR 57 NB ramps/Katella Avenue Signal 16.4 B 18.1 B 16.4 B 18.1 B 0.0 0.0 no
38. SR 55 SB ramps/Katella Avenue Signal 195.9 F 55.2 E 196.0 F 56.7 E 0.1 1.5 yes
39. SR 55 NB ramps/Katella Avenue Signal 57.1 E 87.0 F 57.1 E 87.4 F 0.0 0.4 no1
Buildout 2035 plus Project
8. SR 57 SB ramps/Ball Road Signal 15.6 B 14.1 B 16.9 B 14.3 B 1.3 0.2 no
9. SR 57 NB ramps/Ball Road Signal 9.2 A 11.2 B 9.7 A 12.0 B 0.5 0.8 no
24. SR 57 SB ramps/Katella Avenue Signal 15.0 B 13.6 B 15.2 B 13.4 B 0.2 -0.2 no
25. SR 57 NB ramps/Katella Avenue Signal 15.0 B 12.8 B 15.0 B 12.9 B 0.0 0.1 no
38. SR 55 SB ramps/Katella Avenue Signal 43.2 D 44.4 D 42.8 D 46.8 D -0.4 2.2 no
39. SR 55 NB ramps/Katella Avenue Signal 40.9 D 65.3 E 41.4 D 65.6 E 0.5 0.3 no1
Notes: Delay – Delay reported as Control Delay and expressed in seconds
LOS – Level of Service
XXX - Mainline segment operates with unsatisfactory LOS.
1 The project’s addition to delay would be 0.0 to 0.4 seconds, which would not have a
measurable impact to LOS.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 39 of 80
Table 2 – Freeway Segment Merge, Diverge, Weave LOS Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Freeway Ramp or Segment Analysis Density
(pc/ln/mi) 1 LOS Density
(pc/ln/mi) 1 LOS
Buildout 2035 Baseline (no project)
SR-57
Northbound
Katella Ave on-ramp (EB Katella Ave) Merge 27.1 C 28.0 C
WB Katella Ave on-ramp to Ball Rd off-
ramp Weave 33.9 D -- F
Ball Road on-ramp (EB Ball Rd) Merge 26.2 C -- F
Ball Road on-ramp (WB Ball Rd) Merge 24.8 C -- F
Lincoln Avenue off-ramp Diverge 32.5 D -- F
SR-57
Southbound
Lincoln on-ramp to Ball Rd off-ramp Weave -- F -- F
Ball Road on-ramp (WB Ball Rd) Merge -- F -- F
EB Ball Road on-ramp to Katella off-
ramp Weave -- F -- F
Buildout 2035 plus Project
SR-57
Northbound
Katella Ave on-ramp (EB Katella Ave) Merge 27.1 C 28.0 C
WB Katella Ave on-ramp to Ball Rd off-
ramp Weave 34.6 D -- F
Ball Road on-ramp (EB Ball Rd) Merge 26.2 C -- F
Ball Road on-ramp (WB Ball Rd) Merge 24.7 C -- F
Lincoln Avenue off-ramp Diverge 32.4 D -- F
SR-57
Southbound
Lincoln on-ramp to Ball Rd off-ramp Weave -- F -- F
Ball Road on-ramp (WB Ball Rd) Merge -- F -- F
EB Ball Road on-ramp to Katella off-
ramp Weave -- F -- F
Notes: LOS based on HCM methodology, analyzed in the 2010 Highway Capacity Software (HCS).
XXX – Mainline segment operates with unsatisfactory LOS.
-- Demand exceeds capacity = LOS F
1 – Density is presented in “passenger cars per lane per mile.”
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 40 of 80
Table 3 – Buildout 2035 Intersection Off-Ramp Queuing Level of Service Summary
Buildout 2035
Baseline
Conditions1
Buildout 2035
plus Project1 Change
Exceeds Turn
Pocket
Length?
Intersection Movement
Existing
Pocket
Length2
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
8. SR 57 SB ramps/Ball Road SBL 600 269 173 400 198 131 25 no no
SBR 600 173 282 271 301 98 19 no no
9. SR 57 NB ramps/Ball Road NBL 600 123 221 143 228 20 7 no no
NBR 600 162 178 194 213 32 35 no no
24. SR 57 SB ramps/Katella Avenue SBL 750 194 217 188 222 -6 5 no no
SBR 750 241 270 268 270 27 0 no no
25. SR 57 NB ramps/Katella Avenue NBL 600 318 111 304 98 -14 -13 no no
NBR 600 349 139 351 114 2 -25 no no
38. SR 55 SB ramps/Katella Avenue SBL 500 698 195 961 272 263 77 yes no
SBR 500 623 360 616 443 -7 83 yes yes
39. SR 55 NB ramps/Katella Avenue NBL 400 618 609 626 620 8 11 yes yes
NBR 400 536 436 554 431 18 -5 yes yes
1 – Based on 95th Percentile Queue length in SimTraffic 10.
2 – Measured in Feet.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 41 of 80
Buildout 2035
Baseline
Conditions1
Buildout 2035
plus Project1 Change
Exceeds Turn
Pocket
Length?
Intersection Movement
Existing
Pocket
Length2
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
8. SR 57 SB ramps/Ball Road SBL 600 269 173 400 198 131 25 no no
SBR 600 173 282 271 301 98 19 no no
9. SR 57 NB ramps/Ball Road NBL 600 123 221 143 228 20 7 no no
NBR 600 162 178 194 213 32 35 no no
24. SR 57 SB ramps/Katella Avenue SBL 750 194 217 188 222 -6 5 no no
SBR 750 241 270 268 270 27 0 no no
25. SR 57 NB ramps/Katella Avenue NBL 600 318 111 304 98 -14 -13 no no
NBR 600 349 139 351 114 2 -25 no no
38. SR 55 SB ramps/Katella Avenue SBL 500 698 195 961 272 263 77 yes no
SBR 500 623 360 616 443 -7 83 yes yes
39. SR 55 NB ramps/Katella Avenue NBL 400 618 609 626 620 8 11 yes yes
NBR 400 536 436 554 431 18 -5 yes yes
1 – Based on 95th Percentile Queue length in SimTraffic 10.
2 – Measured in Feet.
XX – Off-Ramp queue exceeds storage length and spills onto mainline freeway.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 42 of 80
Table 4 – Buildout 2035 Intersection On-Ramp Queuing Level of Service Summary
Buildout 2035 Baseline Conditions1 Buildout 2035 plus Project1
Intersection Storage
Length
Peak
Hour Vol. Discharge
Rate1
Intensity
Factor2
No. of
Veh3 Length4 Vol. Discharge
Rate1
Intensity
Factor2
No. of
Veh3 Length4
8. SR 57 SB/Ball Rd (WB) 550 AM 205 900 0.23 1 22 219 900 0.24 1 22
PM 625 900 0.69 5 110 653 900 0.73 5 110
8. SR 57 SB/Ball Road (EB) 785 AM 613 900 0.68 5 110 624 900 0.69 5 110
PM 535 900 0.59 3 66 530 900 0.59 3 66
9. SR 57 NB/Ball Rd (WB) 1,100 AM 364 900 0.40 2 44 360 900 0.40 2 44
PM 850 900 0.94 15 330 859 900 0.95 15 330
9. SR 57 NB/Ball Road (EB) 600 AM 411 900 0.46 2 44 413 900 0.46 2 44
PM 647 900 0.72 5 110 639 900 0.71 5 110
24. SR 57 SB/Katella (WB) 680 AM 347 900 0.39 2 44 357 900 0.40 2 44
PM 780 900 0.87 11 242 770 900 0.86 11 242
24. SR 57 SB/Katella (EB) 800 AM 649 900 0.72 5 110 644 900 0.72 5 110
PM 833 900 0.93 15 330 827 900 0.92 15 330
25. SR 57 SB/Katella (WB) 750 AM 133 900 0.15 1 22 141 900 0.16 1 22
PM 621 900 0.69 5 110 644 900 0.72 5 110
25. SR 57 NB/Katella (EB) 610 AM 707 900 0.79 7 154 715 900 0.79 7 154
PM 824 900 0.92 14 308 824 900 0.92 14 308
38. SR 55 SB/Katella 350 AM 1083 2700 0.40 2 44 1090 2700 0.40 2 44
PM 1561 2700 0.58 3 66 1551 2700 0.57 3 66
39. SR 55 NB/Katella (WB) 975 AM 448 900 0.50 2 44 456 900 0.51 2 44
PM 360 900 0.40 2 44 360 900 0.40 2 44
39. SR 55 NB/Katella (EB) 750 AM 291 1800 0.16 1 22 291 1800 0.16 1 22
PM 921 1800 0.51 2 44 921 1800 0.51 2 44
1 – Discharge rate of 900 vehicles per hour per lane is based on a typical Caltrans meter rate of 4 seconds per vehicle.
2 – Intensity Factor = Volume/Discharge
3 – Calculated according to Crommelin Methodology 99% confidence level
4 – Measured in feet, approximately 22 feet per vehicle
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 43 of 80
Table 5 – Existing plus Project Mainline Segment LOS Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Freeway From To
Density
(pc/ln/mi)
1
LOS Density
(pc/ln/mi) 1 LOS
Existing Condition
SR-57
Northbound
I-5 Orangewood Ave 20.3 C 20.6 C
Orangewood Ave Katella Ave 19.8 C 20.1 C
Katella Ave Ball Rd 20.8 C 20.5 C
Ball Rd Lincoln Ave 18.8 C 19.0 C
Lincoln Ave SR-91 25.2 C 24.3 C
SR-57
Southbound
I-5 Orangewood Ave 31.8 D 30.2 D
Orangewood Ave Katella Ave 28.1 D 27.0 D
Katella Ave Ball Rd 23.8 C 23.6 C
Ball Rd Lincoln Ave 24.4 C 23.7 C
Lincoln Ave SR-91 20.6 C 20.6 C
Existing plus Project
SR-57
Northbound
I-5 Orangewood Ave 20.4 C 20.8 C
Orangewood Ave Katella Ave 19.9 C 20.3 C
Katella Ave Ball Rd 21.0 C 20.7 C
Ball Rd Lincoln Ave 18.8 C 19.0 C
Lincoln Ave SR-91 25.2 C 24.3 C
SR-57
Southbound
I-5 Orangewood Ave 32.0 D 30.4 D
Orangewood Ave Katella Ave 28.2 D 27.2 D
Katella Ave Ball Rd 24.0 C 23.8 C
Ball Rd Lincoln Ave 24.5 C 23.8 C
Lincoln Ave SR-91 20.7 C 20.6 C
Notes: LOS based on HCM methodology, analyzed in the 2010 Highway Capacity Software (HCS).
XXX - Mainline segment operates with unsatisfactory LOS.
1 - Density is presented in "passenger cars per lane per mile".
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 44 of 80
2.2.6 Comment Letter F - Office of Planning and Research
Comment Letter F
F-1
F-2
F-3
F-4
state of California • Natural Resources Agency
Department of Conservation
Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resol6Ces
Southern District
5816 Corporate Avenue• Suite 100
Cwress, CA 90630
(714)816-6847 • FAX(714)816-6853
July 18, 2018
VIA EMAIL
Ms. Susan Kim, Principal Planner
City of Anaheim
Planning & Building Department
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, MS 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Skim@anaheim.net
Dear Ms. Kim:
V\t&'-f' 1 \ \<ti \\'6 t
Edmurxf G. Brown Jr., Govemor
I'\ �ovemor's Office of Pkin nmg & ResearchJUL 18 2018STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
Draft EIR -DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW
BALL ROAD BASIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT & ZONE CHANGE
SCH: 2013021026
The Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (Division)
has reviewed the above referenced project for impacts with Division jurisdictional authority.
The Division supervises the drilling, maintenance, and plugging and abandonment of oil, gas,
and geothermal wells in California. The Division offers the following comments for your
consideration.
The project area is in Orange County and is not within an administrative oil field boundary.
Division records indicate that there is no oil, gas or geothermal wells located within the project
boundary as identified in the application. Division information can be found at:
W'Nw.conservation.ca.oov. Individual well records are also available on the Division's web site,
or by emailing DOGDIST1@conservation.ca.gov.
The scope and content of information that is germane to Division's responsibility are contained
in Section 3000 et seq. of the Public Resources Code, and administrative regulations under
Title 14, Division 2, Chapters 2, 3 and 4 of the California Code of Regulations.
If any wells, including any plugged, abandoned or unrecorded wells, are damaged or
uncovered during excavation or grading, remedial plugging operations may be required. If
such damage or discovery occurs, the Division's district office must be contacted to obtain
information on the requirements and approval to perform remedial operations.
The possibility for future problems from geothermal wells that have been plugged and
abandoned, or reabandoned, to the Division's current specifications are remote. However, the
Division recommends that a diligent effort be made to avoid building over any plugged and
abandoned well.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 57 of 80
Response to Comment Letter F – Office of Planning and Research
F-1: The comment regarding the state agencies who reviewed and commented on the Draft EIR
is acknowledged. No further response is required.
F-2: The comment is acknowledged. No further response is required.
F-3: The comment regarding the enclosed comment letters from commenting agencies is
acknowledged. The enclosed comment letters were from the Department of Conservation
(Comment Letter D), The Department of Toxic Substances Control (Comment Letter C), and the
Department of Transportation District 12 (Caltrans) (Comment Letter E). The responses to
comments on each of those letters are listed with their respective comment letters. No further
response is required.
F-4: The comment is acknowledged. No further response is required.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 58 of 80
2.2.7 Comment Letter G – City of Orange
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
L
e
t
t
e
r
G
G
-
1
G
-
2
G
-
3
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 61 of 80
Response to Comment Letter G – City of Orange
G-1: Summary of Project Description comment acknowledged. No further response is required.
G-2: The land uses immediately to the west of the Project Site across Phoenix Club Drive are
zoned for General Commercial (C-G), which is consistent with the proposed zone for the
Proposed Project. As such, these parcels are also allowed a maximum structural height of 75
feet per Anaheim Municipal Code 18.08.050. The uses located to the east across the Santa Ana
River in the City of Orange are all a minimum of approximately 500 feet away from the Project
Site and are industrial and commercial in nature. The general public would have limited access
to viewpoints in Orange looking west towards the Project Site. Views from the Santa Ana River
Trail looking towards the Project Site from Orange would be similar to the views of the Honda
Center. Additionally, the eastern edge of the Project Site would include a Class I bike trail, which
would be a visual amenity against the backdrop of commercial development, similar to the
views from Anaheim to the east with the Santa Ana River Trail providing a visual amenity
against the backdrop of commercial and industrial development in Orange. This would result in
a less than significant impact and would not require mitigation.
G-3: The comment is acknowledged. No further response is required.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 62 of 80
2.2.8 Comment Letter H – County of Orange, OC Public Works
Comment Letter H
H-1
H-2
H-3
H-4
H-5
H-6
H-7
H-8
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 65 of 80
Response to Comment Letter H – County of Orange, OC Public Works
H-1: The comment that future change in land use and new improvements to local drainage
facilities have the potential to deliver more flows and negatively impact the Orange County
Flood Control District facilities is acknowledged. Implementation of MMs HYDRO-1 through MM
HYDRO-4 would ensure that potential impacts to OCFCD facilities would be analyzed and
mitigated to a level of less than significant at the time of implementation of a specific project.
No further response is required.
H-2: The comment regarding City review and approval of all local hydrology and hydraulic
analysis including the need for 100-year flood protection is acknowledged. Implementation of
MMs HYDRO-1 through MM HYDRO-4 would ensure that potential impacts to flooding would
be analyzed and mitigated to a level of less than significant at the time of implementation of a
specific project. No further response is required.
H-3: The comment regarding existing agreements or changes is acknowledged. No further
response is required.
H-4: The comment regarding right-of-way encroachment permits is acknowledged. No further
response is required.
H-5: The comment regarding a Section 408 permit is acknowledged. Implementation of MM
NIO-2 would determine if a Section 408 permit would be required from the Army Corps of
Engineers. No further response is required.
H-6: The comment regarding the City and appropriate regulatory agency review of potential
impacts, if any, to the sensitive habitat within the area is acknowledged. Implementation of
MMs BIO-1 through MM BIO-3 would ensure that potential impacts to biological resources
would be less than significant. No further response is required.
H-7: The comment regarding potential impacts to hydrologic and hydraulic flow or capacities
within the area is acknowledged. Implementation of MMs HYDRO-1 through MM HYDRO-4
would ensure that potential impacts to hydrologic and hydraulic flow or capacities would be
analyzed and mitigated to a level of less than significant at the time of implementation of a
specific project. No further response is required.
H-8: The comment is acknowledged. No further response is required.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 66 of 80
2.2.9 Comment Letter I – California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc.
California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc.
P.O. Box 54132 An alliance of American Indian and scientific communities working for
Irvine, CA 92619-4132 the preservation of archaeological sites and other cultural resources.
July 30, 2018
Susan Kim
City of Anaheim
Planning Department
Re: Draft EIR for the Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Dear Ms. Kim:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the above-mentioned project. We concur with the determination
that there remains the possibility that buried archaeological resources may be encountered during
construction. This is particularly possible if the present structures and parking features were constructed
prior to the enactment of CEQA which would have required an inspection of the surface prior to any
ground disturbance. Therefore, we also agree with the recommendations that in the event of the discovery
of archaeological resources construction is stopped and a qualified archaeologist be retained to determine
the significance and treatment of the resources. In the event human remains are discovered, we concur
with the provisions for compliance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code.
Sincerely,
Patricia Martz, Ph.D.
President
Comment Letter I
A-1
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 68 of 80
Response to Comment Letter I – California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc.
A-1: The commenter concurs with the determinations in the DEIR regarding potential discovery
of archaeological resources and/or human remains. No further response is required.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 69 of 80
3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
This section contains revisions to the DEIR based upon (1) additional or revised information
required to prepare a response to a specific comment; (2) applicable updated information that
was not available at the time of DEIR publication; and/or (3) typographical errors.
Changes are made with strikeout showing deletions and underline showing additions.
Page 8:
3.2 AIR QUALITY
IMPACT AIR-1: The Proposed
Project would conflict with or
obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan.
Potentially
Significant
MM AIR-1: Prior to issuance of the grading
permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall
require in the construction bid documents
that the construction contractor to use large
off-road diesel equipment with a
horsepower (hp) rating of 160 50 hp or
higher that meets the U.S. EPA-Certified
emission standard for Tier 3 4 off-road
equipment or higher. Any model year 2006
or later off-road diesel equipment meets
the tier 3 standard. The construction
contractor shall maintain on-site a list of
construction equipment by type and model
year that will be made available for
inspection by the City during construction.
MM AIR-1 shall not apply to any equipment
that is utilized on the Project site that is
licensed to operate on public roadways,
such as water trucks.
Less Than Significant
Page 13:
IMPACT CUL-4: Construction of
the Proposed Project would
potentially impact unknown
human remains within the
Proposed Project site.
Potentially
Significant
MM CUL-1 (see above) and MM CUL-3: In
the event human remains are discovered,
the Construction Contractor shall notify the
County Coroner of the find immediately and
no further disturbance shall occur until the
County Coroner has made a determination
of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC
Section 5097.98 (State of California 2006). If
human remains are found during grading, all
work in the immediate area (a radius of at
least 100 feet) shall stop, and all parties
shall follow all applicable state laws
regarding human remains. If the remains
are Native American, the coroner is
responsible for contacting the NAHC within
24 hours. The NAHC, pursuant to Section
5097.98, shall immediately notify those
persons it believes to be the Most Likely
Descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete
the inspection of the site within 48 hours of
notification being allowed access to the site
Less Than Significant
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 70 of 80
and shall recommend preservation in place,
reburial, or the scientific removal and
nondestructive analysis of human remains
and items associated with Native American
burials.
Page 16-18:
IMPACT HAZ-2: The Proposed
Project would create a
significant hazard to the public
or the environment through
reasonable foreseeable upset
and accident conditions
involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment.
Potentially
Significant
MM HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of a grading
permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall
prepare a Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment conducted under the oversight
of the Department of Toxic Substance
Control, RWQCB, or the Orange County
Health Care Agency and submit it to the
Anaheim Planning and Building Department
for review. The Phase II ESA shall include
soil and soil vapor sampling to assess the
Project site for potential contaminants,
including, but not limited to, petroleum
hydrocarbons, VOCs, semi-volatile organic
compounds (SVOCs), heavy metals,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and
pesticides. A Phase II sampling plan shall
consider the geotechnical requirements to
prepare potentially contaminated site soils
for development of the Project site and
shall also consider the thickness of soils and
soil types that will be imported to the
Project site to achieve final grade. These
factors will affect the potential for exposure
to potentially contaminated soils during
earthwork activities and the post-
development potential for indoor air
exposure to potentially contaminated soil
vapor. Additionally, a sampling plan shall be
prepared and implemented prior to
importing soil to the Project site for infill
purposes in order to verify that imported
soils will meet regulatory screening levels
for commercial property use.
MM HAZ-2: Prior to issuance of a grading
permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall
conduct a review of DOGGR records. A
methane survey shall be conducted, under
oversight from the OCFA, if it is determined
that the oil well is located within 100 feet
from the Project site, or if the location of
the well cannot be accurately determined. A
methane survey work plan shall be
submitted to the OCFA, prior to issuance of
a grading permit. The methane survey and
methane mitigation, if determined to be
required, shall be in accordance with the
OCFA Combustible Soil Gas Hazard
Mitigation Guideline C-03 (OCFA, 2008).
Less Than Significant
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 71 of 80
MM HAZ-3: Prior to issuance of a grading
permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall
abandon the existing groundwater
monitoring well in accordance with
applicable City and OCWD requirements. A
Well Destruction Permit shall be obtained
from the Environmental Services Division of
the Anaheim Public Utilities Department
(APUD). Any other wells discovered during
grading or demolition shall also be
destroyed under a revised Well Destruction
Permit. Proof of proper abandonment shall
be submitted to the APUD.
MM HAZ-4: Prior to the issuance of grading
permits, the Property Owner/Developer
shall include a note on the plans that in the
event contamination of soil and/or
groundwater is suspected, the Construction
Contractor shall cease
construction/demolition in the area and
contact the City of Anaheim Public Works
Department. The Property
Owner/Developer shall perform
soil/groundwater sampling with regulatory
oversight by the appropriate government
agency, i.e. the DTSC and/or RWQCB and
obtain a Letter of No Further Action prior to
resuming construction/demolition activities.
Page 91:
Impact Summary
Mitigation measure MM AIR-1 requires that prior to issuance of the grading permit, the
Property Owner/Developer shall require in the construction bid documents that the
construction contractor to use large off-road diesel equipment with a horsepower (hp) rating of
160 50 hp or higher that meets the U.S. EPA-Certified emission standard for Tier 3 4 off-road
equipment or higher. Any model year 2006 or later off-road diesel equipment meets the tier 3
standard. The construction contractor shall maintain on-site a list of construction equipment by
type and model year that will be made available for inspection by the City during construction.
MM AIR-1 shall not apply to any equipment that is utilized on the Project site that is licensed to
operate on public roadways, such as water trucks.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 72 of 80
Page 92:
Table 3.2-6 Construction-Related Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Grading
On-Site1 7.00 79.61 45.36 0.09 10.76 6.31
Off-Site2 0.85 26.19 7.73 0.07 3.57 0.99
Total 7.85 105.80 53.09 0.17 14.33 7.30
Trenching
On-Site 1.40 13.93 12.31 0.02 0.67 0.62
Off-Site 0.05 0.55 0.43 0.00 0.15 0.04
Total 1.45 14.48 12.74 0.02 0.83 0.66
Building Construction
On-Site 1.71 15.62 16.36 0.03 0.81 0.76
Off-Site 1.29 10.82 10.08 0.05 3.63 1.01
Total 3.00 26.43 26.44 0.08 4.44 1.77
Paving
On-Site 1.88 10.19 14.58 0.02 0.51 0.47
Off-Site 0.06 0.03 0.40 0.00 0.17 0.05
Total 1.94 10.22 14.98 0.02 0.68 0.51
Architectural Coatings
On-Site 67.17 1.30 1.81 0.00 0.07 0.07
Off-Site 0.19 0.10 1.35 0.00 0.57 0.15
Total 67.35 1.40 3.16 0.00 0.64 0.23
SCQAMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No Yes No No No No
1 On-site emissions from equipment not operated on public roads.
2 Off-site emissions from vehicles operating on public roads.
Source: CalEEMod Version 2011.1.1. 2016.3.1
Page 93:
Mitigation measure MM AIR-1 requires that prior to issuance of the grading permit, the
Property Owner/Developer shall require in the construction bid documents that the
construction contractor to use large off-road diesel equipment with a horsepower (hp) rating of
160 50 hp or higher that meets the U.S. EPA-Certified emission standard for Tier 3 4 off-road
equipment or higher. Any model year 2006 or later off-road diesel equipment meets the tier 3
standard. The construction contractor shall maintain on-site a list of construction equipment by
type and model year that will be made available for inspection by the City during construction.
MM AIR-1 shall not apply to any equipment that is utilized on the Project site that is licensed to
operate on public roadways, such as water trucks. Table 3.2-7 shows that with application of
mitigation measure MM AIR-1, the construction-related criteria pollutant emissions would be
reduced to less than significant.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 73 of 80
Page 97:
Impact Summary
Mitigation measure MM AIR-1 requires that prior to issuance of the grading permit, the
Property Owner/Developer shall require in the construction bid documents that the
construction contractor to use large off-road diesel equipment with a horsepower (hp) rating of
160 50 hp or higher that meets the U.S. EPA-Certified emission standard for Tier 3 4 off-road
equipment or higher. Any model year 2006 or later off-road diesel equipment meets the tier 3
standard. The construction contractor shall maintain on-site a list of construction equipment by
type and model year that will be made available for inspection by the City during construction.
MM AIR-1 shall not apply to any equipment that is utilized on the Project site that is licensed to
operate on public roadways, such as water trucks.
Page 101:
MITIGATION MEASURES
MM AIR-1: Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall require
in the construction bid documents that the construction contractor to use large off-road diesel
equipment with a horsepower (hp) rating of 160 50 hp or higher that meets the U.S. EPA-
Certified emission standard for Tier 3 4 off-road equipment or higher. Any model year 2006 or
later off-road diesel equipment meets the tier 3 standard. The construction contractor shall
maintain on-site a list of construction equipment by type and model year that will be made
available for inspection by the City during construction. MM AIR-1 shall not apply to any
equipment that is utilized on the Project site that is licensed to operate on public roadways,
such as water trucks.
Page 139:
MM CUL-3: In the event human remains are discovered, the Construction Contractor shall
notify the County Coroner of the find immediately and no further disturbance shall occur until
the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section
5097.98 (State of California 2006). If human remains are found during grading, all work in the
immediate area (a radius of at least 100 feet) shall stop, and all parties shall follow all applicable
state laws regarding human remains. If the remains are Native American, the coroner is
responsible for contacting the NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC, pursuant to Section 5097.98,
shall immediately notify those persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The
MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification being allowed
access to the site and shall recommend preservation in place, reburial, or the scientific removal
and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American
burials.
Page 180:
The potential for exposure to contaminated soils/groundwater would be mitigated by the
implementation of mitigation measures MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-3 4, which requires the
preparation of a Phase II ESA for the Project, a review of the DOGGR records, and the
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 74 of 80
abandonment of the groundwater monitoring well, and handling suspected contamination,
would reduce potential impacts from contaminated soils/groundwater to less than significant.
Page 181-182:
MM HAZ-4: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Property Owner/Developer shall
include a note on the plans that in the event contamination of soil and/or groundwater is
suspected, the Construction Contractor shall cease construction/demolition in the area and
contact the City of Anaheim Public Works Department. The Property Owner/Developer shall
perform soil/groundwater sampling with regulatory oversight by the appropriate government
agency, i.e. the DTSC and/or RWQCB and obtain a Letter of No Further Action prior to resuming
construction/demolition activities.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Mitigation measures MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-3 4 would reduce potential impacts from the
contaminated soils due to the jet fuel release, and CSD stormwater run-off, and suspected
groundwater and/or soil contamination to less than significant with mitigation.
City of Anaheim
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
September 26, 2018
Scott Shelley
Branch Chief, Regional-IGR-Transit Planning
District 11
1750 East Fourth Street, Suite 100
Santa Ana, CA 92705
SENT VIA E-MAIL TO JUDE.MIRANDA@DOT.CA.GOV
Dear Mr. Shelley,
Thank you for your letter dated September 9, 2018 regarding the Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the proposed Ball Road Basin General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change. Comments 1, 2 and 5 are similar to the comments
that Caltrans provided on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). None of
these comments raises issues related to the environmental analysis in the DEIR or the
FEIR. The responses to comments 1, 2 and 5 remain the same as responses E-3, E-6
and E-11, in the FEIR, respectively. Comments 3 and 4 relate to the methodology for
the traffic analysis performed for this project. Dudek, a sub-consultant to OCWD’s
environmental consultant Sagecrest Planning and Environmental, has prepared the
attached response to these comments. City staff has reviewed the memo and analysis
spreadsheet and concur with Dudek’s findings.
The Planning Commission will receive your comments and this letter as part of its
staff report for the Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. The
Planning Commission will review this item at a public hearing on October 1, 2018.
Staff will also provide this information to the City Council in advance of its review
of this item, which staff has tentatively scheduled for November 13, 2018.
Please contact me at skim@anaheim.net or 714-765-4958 if you have any additional
questions regarding this project.
Sincerely,
Susan Kim
Principal Planner
Attachment
1. Dudek Memorandum
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
11314
1 September 2018
MEMORANDUM
To: Christine Saunders, Sagecrest Planning+Environmental
Greg McCafferty, Sagecrest Planning+Environmental
From: Dennis Pascua, Transportation Services Manager
Mladen Popovic, Transportation Planner
Subject: Responses to Caltrans Traffic Operations Comments for Ball Road Basin EIR
Date: September 19, 2018
cc: David Kennedy, P.E., City of Anaheim
Attachment(s): A – September 9, 2018 Caltrans Comment Letter
B – HCM 2010 Analysis Spreadsheets
The following memorandum contains responses to comments from Caltrans’ (District 12) September 9, 2018
comment letter for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) No. 345 for the Orange County Water District –
Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change (Environmental Advisors, May 2018). A copy of the
comment letter is attached (Attachment A) to this memorandum. Specifically, this memorandum provides
responses to the comments from Caltrans Traffic Operations, comment numbers 3 and 4.
Response to Comment 3
According to HCM 2010 methodology and discussions with the City of Anaheim’s Engineering Department, the
northbound and southbound segments of SR-57, between Katella Avenue and Ball Road, have been analyzed as
separate segments that share overlapping influence areas. An influence area of a specific merge or diverge
segment is approximately 1,500 feet, and since the distance between these on- and off-ramps overlaps, a focused
analysis is required. Chapter 13 of HCM 2010 describes special case examples where influence areas for on-ramp
segments and influence areas for off-ramp segments merge. Therefore, these segments have been analyzed in
conjunction with one another, as per the methodology outlined on page 1 3-43 of Chapter 13 of HCM 2010. Table
1 displays the Buildout 2035 Baseline and Buildout 2035 plus Project freeway facilities analysis using the Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM 2010) methodology described above. The most impacted ramp influence area is reported
and indicates the overall level of service for these segments. Worksheets for the specialized analysis are provided
(Attachment B).
Response to Comment 4
Please see response for Comment 3. Worksheets for the specialized analysis are provided (Attachment B).
Memorandum
Subject: Responses to Caltrans Traffic Operations Comments for Ball Road Basin EIR
11314
2 September 2018
Table 1 – Freeway Segment Merge, Diverge, Weave LOS Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Freeway Ramp or Segment Analysis Density
(pc/ln/mi) 1 LOS Density
(pc/ln/mi) 1 LOS
Buildout 2035 Baseline (no project)
SR-57
Northbound
Katella Ave on-ramp (EB Katella Ave) Merge 27.1 C 28.0 C
Westbound Katella Avenue on-ramp 2 29.9 D 20.1 C
Ball Road off-ramp 39.9 E -- F
Ball Road on-ramp (EB Ball Rd) Merge 26.2 C -- F
Ball Road on-ramp (WB Ball Rd) Merge 24.8 C -- F
Lincoln Avenue off-ramp Diverge 32.5 D -- F
SR-57
Southbound
Lincoln on-ramp to Ball Rd off-ramp Weave -- F -- F
Ball Road on-ramp (WB Ball Road) Merge -- F -- F
Ball Road on-ramp (EB Ball Road)
2 -- F -- F
Katella off-ramp 39.5 E 39.8 E
Buildout 2035 plus Project
SR-57
Northbound
Katella Ave on-ramp (EB Katella Ave) Merge 27.1 C 28.0 C
WB Katella Ave on-ramp
2 30.1 D 20.3 C
Ball Rd off-ramp 40.1 E -- F
Ball Road on-ramp (EB Ball Rd) Merge 26.2 C -- F
Ball Road on-ramp (WB Ball Rd) Merge 24.7 C -- F
Lincoln Avenue off-ramp Diverge 32.4 D -- F
SR-57
Southbound
Lincoln on-ramp to Ball Rd off-ramp Weave -- F -- F
Ball Road on-ramp (WB Ball Rd) Merge -- F -- F
Ball Road on-ramp (EB Ball Road)
2 -- F -- F
Katella off-ramp 39.6 E 39.5 E
Notes: LOS for Merge and Diverge analyses are based on HCM methodology, analyzed in the 2010 Highway
Capacity Software (HCS).
XXX – Segment operates with unsatisfactory LOS.
-- Demand exceeds capacity = LOS F
1 – Density is presented in “passenger cars per lane per mile.”
2 – Segments contain overlapping ramp influence areas (merge and diverge influence areas, and analysis
methodology is consistent with HCM 2010, Chapter 13 Page 13-43. The most impacted ramp influence
area indicates the overall ramp influence level of service.
Attachment A
September 9, 2018 Caltrans Comment Letter
Attachment B
HCM 2010 Analysis Spreadsheets
SR-57 Northbound, WB Katella Ave on-ramp to Ball Rd off-Ramp (2035 AM Peak Hour)
On-Ramp Off-Ramp
Freeway Demand Volume eq 13-5 P FM = 0.199 eq 13-8 ν 12 = 4302 pc/h
ƒ HV = 0.942 eq 13-5 ν 12 = 1726 pc/h
ν F = 8672 pc/h eq 13-19 ν 12a = 3469 pc/h
On-Ramp Demand Volume
ƒ HV = 0.942
ν F = 150 pc/h
Off-Ramp Demand Volume
ƒ HV = 0.942
ν F = 808 pc/h On-Ramp LOS Off-Ramp LOS
eq 13-21 29.9 D eq 13-22 39.9 E
* Methodology consistent with HCM 2010 Chapter 13 Page 13-43. The most pessimistic predictions governs the operation of the segment and is bolded.
SR-57 Northbound, WB Katella Ave on-ramp to Ball Rd off-Ramp (2035 PM Peak Hour)
On-Ramp Off-Ramp
Freeway Demand Volume eq 13-5 P FM = 0.132 eq 13-8 ν 12 = 4545 pc/h
ƒ HV = 0.961 eq 13-5 ν 12 = 1716 pc/h
ν F = 13011 pc/h
On-Ramp Demand Volume
ƒ HV = 0.961
ν F = 687 pc/h CALCULATIONS EXCEED CAPACITY FOR FREEWAY FLOW RATE AND SECOND RAMP, LOS F
Off-Ramp Demand Volume
ƒ HV = 0.961
ν F = 1239 pc/h On-Ramp LOS Off-Ramp LOS
eq 13-21 20.1 C eq 13-22 -F
* Methodology consistent with HCM 2010 Chapter 13 Page 13-43. The most pessimistic predictions governs the operation of the segment and is bolded.
SR-57 Southbound, EB Ball Rd on-ramp to Katella Ave off-ramp (2035 AM Peak Hour)
On-Ramp Off-Ramp
Freeway Demand Volume eq 13-5 P FM = 0.135 eq 13-8 ν 12 = 4258 pc/h
ƒ HV = 0.990 eq 13-5 ν 12 = 1975 pc/h
ν F = 14581 pc/h eq 13-19 ν 12a = 5832 pc/h
On-Ramp Demand Volume
ƒ HV = 0.990
ν F = 659 pc/h CALCULATIONS EXCEED CAPACITY FOR FREEWAY FLOW RATE AND FIRST RAMP, LOS F
Off-Ramp Demand Volume
ƒ HV = 0.990
ν F = 731 pc/h On-Ramp LOS Off-Ramp LOS
-F eq 13-22 39.5 E
* Methodology consistent with HCM 2010 Chapter 13 Page 13-43. The most pessimistic predictions governs the operation of the segment and is bolded.
SR-57 Southbound, EB Ball Rd on-ramp to Katella Ave off-ramp (2035 PM Peak Hour)
On-Ramp Off-Ramp
Freeway Demand Volume eq 13-5 P FM = 0.146 eq 13-8 ν 12 = 4293 pc/h
ƒ HV = 0.991 eq 13-5 ν 12 = 1498 pc/h
ν F = 10260 pc/h eq 13-19 ν 12a = 4104 pc/h
On-Ramp Demand Volume
ƒ HV = 0.991
ν F = 574 pc/h CALCULATIONS EXCEED CAPACITY FOR FREEWAY FLOW RATE AND FIRST RAMP, LOS F
Off-Ramp Demand Volume
ƒ HV = 0.991
ν F = 792 pc/h On-Ramp LOS Off-Ramp LOS
-F eq 13-22 39.8 E
* Methodology consistent with HCM 2010 Chapter 13 Page 13-43. The most pessimistic predictions governs the operation of the segment and is bolded.
SR-57 Northbound, WB Katella Ave on-ramp to Ball Rd off-Ramp (2035 plus Project AM Peak Hour)
On-Ramp Off-Ramp
Freeway Demand Volume eq 13-5 P FM = 0.198 eq 13-8 ν 12 = 4330 pc/h
ƒ HV = 0.942 eq 13-5 ν 12 = 1728 pc/h
ν F = 8730 pc/h eq 13-19 ν 12a = 3492 pc/h
On-Ramp Demand Volume
ƒ HV = 0.942
ν F = 159 pc/h
Off-Ramp Demand Volume
ƒ HV = 0.942
ν F = 858 pc/h On-Ramp LOS Off-Ramp LOS
eq 13-21 30.1 D eq 13-22 40.1 E
* Methodology consistent with HCM 2010 Chapter 13 Page 13-43. The most pessimistic predictions governs the operation of the segment and is bolded.
SR-57 Northbound, WB Katella Ave on-ramp to Ball Rd off-Ramp (2035 plus Project PM Peak Hour)
On-Ramp Off-Ramp
Freeway Demand Volume eq 13-5 P FM = 0.129 eq 13-8 ν 12 = 4566 pc/h
ƒ HV = 0.961 eq 13-5 ν 12 = 1710 pc/h
ν F = 13284 pc/h
On-Ramp Demand Volume
ƒ HV = 0.961
ν F = 713 pc/h CALCULATIONS EXCEED CAPACITY FOR FREEWAY FLOW RATE AND SECOND RAMP, LOS F
Off-Ramp Demand Volume
ƒ HV = 0.961
ν F = 1275 pc/h On-Ramp LOS Off-Ramp LOS
eq 13-21 20.3 C eq 13-22 -F
* Methodology consistent with HCM 2010 Chapter 13 Page 13-43. The most pessimistic predictions governs the operation of the segment and is bolded.
SR-57 Southbound, EB Ball Rd on-ramp to Katella Ave off-ramp (2035 plus Project AM Peak Hour)
On-Ramp Off-Ramp
Freeway Demand Volume eq 13-5 P FM = 0.134 eq 13-8 ν 12 = 4262 pc/h
ƒ HV = 0.990 eq 13-5 ν 12 = 1938 pc/h
ν F = 14466 pc/h eq 13-19 ν 12a = 5786 pc/h
On-Ramp Demand Volume
ƒ HV = 0.990
ν F = 670 pc/h CALCULATIONS EXCEED CAPACITY FOR FREEWAY FLOW RATE AND FIRST RAMP, LOS F
Off-Ramp Demand Volume
ƒ HV = 0.990
ν F = 737 pc/h On-Ramp LOS Off-Ramp LOS
-F eq 13-22 39.6 E
* Methodology consistent with HCM 2010 Chapter 13 Page 13-43. The most pessimistic predictions governs the operation of the segment and is bolded.
SR-57 Southbound, EB Ball Rd on-ramp to Katella Ave off-ramp (2035 plus Project PM Peak Hour)
On-Ramp Off-Ramp
Freeway Demand Volume eq 13-5 P FM = 0.147 eq 13-8 ν 12 = 4256 pc/h
ƒ HV = 0.991 eq 13-5 ν 12 = 1509 pc/h
ν F = 10285 pc/h eq 13-19 ν 12a = 4114 pc/h
On-Ramp Demand Volume
ƒ HV = 0.991
ν F = 569 pc/h CALCULATIONS EXCEED CAPACITY FOR FREEWAY FLOW RATE AND FIRST RAMP, LOS F
Off-Ramp Demand Volume
ƒ HV = 0.991
ν F = 727 pc/h On-Ramp LOS Off-Ramp LOS
-F eq 13-22 39.5 E
* Methodology consistent with HCM 2010 Chapter 13 Page 13-43. The most pessimistic predictions governs the operation of the segment and is bolded.
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
Pa
g
e
1 of
16
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MO
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
AN
D
RE
P
O
R
T
I
N
G
PR
O
G
R
A
M
NO
.
35
8
FO
R
OR
A
N
G
E
CO
U
N
T
Y
WA
T
E
R
DI
S
T
R
I
C
T
BA
L
L
RO
A
D
BA
S
I
N
GE
N
E
R
A
L
PL
A
N
AM
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
AN
D
ZO
N
E
CH
A
N
G
E
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
CA
S
E
NO
.
DE
V
2
0
1
1
‐00
0
3
5
CE
Q
A
Ac
t
i
o
n
:
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
Im
p
a
c
t
Re
p
o
r
t
No
.
34
5
(S
t
a
t
e
Cl
e
a
r
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
# 20
1
3
0
2
1
0
2
6
)
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
–
GP
A
2
0
1
1
‐00
4
8
4
:
Am
e
n
d
th
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
La
n
d
Us
e
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
fo
r
th
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
si
t
e
fr
o
m Op
e
n
Sp
a
c
e
to
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
and amend the General
Pl
a
n
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
Gr
e
e
n
El
e
m
e
n
t
s
to
ad
d
a Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Cl
a
s
s
1 Bi
k
e
w
a
y
/
T
r
a
i
l
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
al
o
n
g
th
e
no
r
t
h
e
r
n
,
ea
s
t
e
r
n
an
d
so
u
t
h
e
r
n
edges of the
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Si
t
e
.
RC
L
2
0
1
1
‐00
2
4
2
:
Re
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
y
th
e
Zo
n
i
n
g
on
th
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Si
t
e
fr
o
m
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
(T
)
an
d In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
(I
)
Zo
n
e
s
to
th
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
(C ‐G) Zone
2.
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
– An
y
ow
n
e
r
or
de
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
of
re
a
l
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
wi
t
h
i
n
th
e
Ba
l
l
Ro
a
d
Ba
s
i
n
bo
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
3.
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
Eq
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
/
T
i
m
i
n
g
– An
y
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
an
d
ti
m
i
n
g
th
e
r
e
o
f
,
su
b
j
e
c
t
to
th
e
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
,
wh
i
c
h
wi
l
l
ha
v
e
the same or superior
re
s
u
l
t
an
d
wi
l
l
ha
v
e
th
e
sa
m
e
or
su
p
e
r
i
o
r
ef
fe
c
t
on
th
e
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
.
Th
e
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
,
in
co
n
j
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
an
y
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
agencies or City
de
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
,
sh
a
l
l
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
th
e
ad
e
q
u
a
c
y
of
an
y
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
“e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
eq
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
/
t
i
m
i
n
g
”
an
d
,
if
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
,
ma
y
re
f
e
r
said determination to
th
e
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
An
y
co
s
t
s
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
wi
t
h
in
f
o
r
ma
t
i
o
n
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
in
or
d
e
r
to
ma
k
e
a de
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
of
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
eq
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
c
y
/
t
i
m
i
n
g
shall be
bo
r
n
e
by
th
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
ow
n
e
r
/
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
.
St
a
f
f
ti
m
e
fo
r
re
v
i
e
w
s
wi
l
l
be
ch
a
r
g
e
d
on
a ti
m
e
an
d
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
ba
s
i
s
at
th
e
ra
t
e
in
th
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
adopted fee schedule.
4.
Ti
m
i
n
g
– Th
i
s
is
th
e
po
i
n
t
wh
e
r
e
a mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
on
me
a
s
u
r
e
mu
s
t
be
mo
n
i
t
o
r
e
d
fo
r
co
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
.
In
th
e
ca
s
e
wh
e
r
e
mu
l
t
i
p
l
e
ac
t
i
o
n
it
e
m
s
are indicated, it is the first
po
i
n
t
wh
e
r
e
co
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
wi
t
h
th
e
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
me
a
s
u
r
e
mu
s
t
be
mo
n
i
t
o
r
e
d
.
On
c
e
th
e
in
i
t
i
a
l
ac
t
i
o
n
it
e
m
ha
s
be
e
n
co
m
p
l
i
e
d
with, no additional
mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
pu
r
s
u
a
n
t
to
th
e
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
wi
l
l
oc
c
u
r
be
c
au
s
e
ro
u
t
i
n
e
Ci
t
y
pr
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
an
d
pr
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
wi
l
l
en
s
u
r
e
th
a
t
the intent of the measure
ha
s
be
e
n
co
m
p
l
i
e
d
wi
t
h
.
Fo
r
ex
a
m
p
l
e
,
if
th
e
ti
m
i
n
g
is
“t
o
be
sh
o
w
n
on
ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
pl
a
n
s
”
su
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
to
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
th
e
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
permit consistent with
th
e
ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
pl
a
n
s
wi
l
l
be
fi
n
a
l
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
an
d
zo
n
i
n
g
in
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
pu
r
s
u
a
nt
to
th
e
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
to
en
s
u
r
e
co
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
.
5.
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
fo
r
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
– Sh
a
l
l
me
a
n
th
a
t
co
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
th
e
su
b
j
e
c
t
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
me
a
s
u
r
e
(
s
)
sh
a
l
l
be
re
v
i
e
w
e
d
an
d
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
adequate by all
de
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
li
s
t
e
d
fo
r
ea
c
h
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
me
a
s
u
r
e
.
6.
On
g
o
i
n
g
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
– Th
e
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
th
a
t
ar
e
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
to
oc
c
u
r
on
an
on
g
o
i
n
g
ba
s
i
s
as
pa
r
t
of
th
i
s
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n monitoring program will
be
mo
n
i
t
o
r
e
d
in
th
e
fo
r
m
of
an
an
n
u
a
l
le
t
t
e
r
fr
o
m
th
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
ow
n
e
r
/
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
in
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
of
ea
c
h
ye
a
r
st
a
t
i
n
g
ho
w
co
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
the subject measures(s)
ha
s
be
e
n
ac
h
i
e
v
e
d
.
Wh
e
n
co
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
a me
a
s
u
r
e
ha
s
be
e
n
de
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
d
fo
r
a pe
r
i
o
d
of
on
e
ye
a
r
, mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
of
th
e
me
a
s
u
r
e
wi
l
l
be deemed to be
sa
t
i
s
f
i
e
d
an
d
no
fu
r
t
h
e
r
mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
wi
l
l
oc
c
u
r
.
Fo
r
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
th
a
t
ar
e
to
be
mo
n
i
t
o
r
e
d
“O
n
g
o
i
n
g
Du
r
i
n
g
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
”
th
e
an
n
u
a
l
le
t
t
e
r
will review those
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
on
l
y
wh
i
l
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
is
oc
c
u
r
r
i
n
g
.
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
wi
l
l
be
di
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
af
t
e
r
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
is
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
.
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
N
O
.
6
Pa
g
e
2 of
16
7.
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Pe
r
m
i
t
– Fo
r
pu
r
p
o
s
e
s
of
th
i
s
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
pr
o
g
r
a
m
,
a bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
sh
a
l
l
be
de
f
i
n
e
d
as
an
y
pe
r
m
i
t
is
s
u
e
d
fo
r
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
of a new
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
or
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
or
mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
an
y
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
bu
t
sh
a
l
l
no
t
in
c
l
u
d
e
an
y
pe
r
m
i
t
s
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
fo
r
in
t
e
r
i
o
r
te
n
a
n
t
improvements or minor
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
to
an
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
or
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
.
Th
i
s
MM
RP
ha
s
be
e
n
pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
pu
r
s
u
a
n
t
to
Se
c
t
i
o
n
21
0
8
1
.
6
of
th
e
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
Pu
b
l
i
c
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Co
d
e
wh
i
c
h
re
q
u
i
r
e
s
pu
b
l
i
c
ag
e
n
c
i
e
s
to
“adopt a reporting and
mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
pr
o
g
r
a
m
fo
r
th
e
ch
a
n
g
e
s
ma
d
e
to
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
or
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
of
pr
o
j
e
c
t
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
,
ad
o
p
t
e
d
in
or
d
e
r
to
mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
or
av
o
i
d
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
ef fects on the
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
.
”
An
MM
R
P
is
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
fo
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
pr
o
j
e
c
t
be
c
a
u
s
e
th
e
DE
I
R
ha
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
ad
v
e
r
s
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
,
an
d
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
have been identified
to
mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
th
o
s
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
.
Th
e
nu
m
b
e
r
i
n
g
of
th
e
in
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
fo
l
l
o
w
s
th
e
nu
m
b
e
r
i
n
g
se
q
u
e
n
c
e
as
fo
u
n
d
in
th
e
DE
I
R
.
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MO
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
AN
D
RE
P
O
R
T
I
N
G
PR
O
G
R
A
M
NO
.
35
8
OR
A
N
G
E
CO
U
N
T
Y
WA
T
E
R
DI
S
T
R
I
C
T
BA
L
L
RO
A
D
BA
S
I
N
GE
N
E
R
A
L
PL
A
N
AM
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
AN
D
ZO
N
E
CH
A
N
G
E
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
CA
S
E
NO
.
DE
V
2
0
1
1
‐00
0
3
5
Pa
g
e
3 of
16
Ti
m
i
n
g
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
fo
r
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Monitoring/ Reporting Action
3.
2
AI
R
QU
A
L
I
T
Y
Pr
i
o
r
to
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
th
e
fi
r
s
t
gr
a
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
MM
AI
R
‐1:
Pr
i
o
r
to
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
th
e
gr
a
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
,
th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
re
q
u
i
r
e
in
th
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
bi
d
do
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
th
a
t
th
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
us
e
la
r
g
e
of
f
‐ro
a
d
di
e
s
e
l
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
wi
t
h
a ho
r
s
e
p
o
w
e
r
(h
p
)
ra
t
i
n
g
of
50
hp
or
hi
g
h
e
r
th
a
t
me
e
t
s
th
e
U.
S.
EP
A
‐Ce
r
t
i
f
i
e
d
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
fo
r
Ti
e
r
3 of
f
‐ro
a
d
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
or
hi
g
h
e
r
.
Th
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
sh
a
l
l
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
on
‐si
t
e
a li
s
t
of
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
by
ty
p
e
an
d
mo
d
e
l
ye
a
r
th
a
t
wi
l
l
be
ma
d
e
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
fo
r
in
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
by
th
e
Ci
t
y
du
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
MM
AI
R
‐1 sh
a
l
l
no
t
ap
p
l
y
to
an
y
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
th
at
is
ut
i
l
i
z
e
d
on
th
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Si
t
e
th
a
t
is
li
c
e
n
s
e
d
to
op
e
r
a
t
e
on
pu
b
l
i
c
ro
a
d
w
a
y
s
,
su
c
h
as
wa
t
e
r
tr
u
c
k
s
.
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
an
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
Pr
i
o
r
to
th
e
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
gr
a
d
i
n
g
or
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
s
MM
AI
R
‐2:
Th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
pr
o
v
i
d
e
a no
t
e
on
pl
a
n
s
in
d
i
c
a
t
i
n
g
th
a
t
th
e
wo
r
k
da
y
s
fo
r
im
p
o
r
t
of
fi
l
l
an
d
gr
a
d
i
n
g
of
th
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
si
t
e
is
re
d
u
c
e
d
fr
o
m
th
e
an
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
ra
t
e
of
52
7
wo
r
k
da
y
s
an
d
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
ab
o
v
e
th
e
an
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
av
e
r
a
g
e
of
46
ha
u
l tr
u
c
k
de
l
i
v
e
r
i
e
s
pe
r
da
y
(9
2
tw
o
‐wa
y
tr
i
p
s
)
,
th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
wi
l
l
re
q
u
i
r
e
th
a
t
al
l
ha
u
l
tr
u
c
k
s
us
e
d
to
im
p
o
r
t
fi
l
l
to
th
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
si
t
e
ar
e
mo
d
e
l
ye
a
r
20
1
0
or
ne
w
e
r
.
Th
e
wo
r
k
da
y
s
sh
a
l
l
no
t
be
de
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
be
l
o
w
12
7
wo
r
k
da
y
s
an
d
tr
u
c
k
de
l
i
v
e
r
i
e
s
sh
a
l
l
no
t
be
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
be
yo
n
d
19
0
ha
u
l
tr
u
c
k
de
l
i
v
e
r
i
e
s
pe
r
da
y
.
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
an
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
Pr
i
o
r
to
th
e
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
s
fo
r
an
y
fu
t
u
r
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
on
th
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
si
t
e
th
a
t
ha
s
th
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
to
ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
10
0
or
mo
r
e
di
e
s
e
l
tr
u
c
k
tr
i
p
s
pe
r
da
y
or
ha
v
e
40
or
mo
r
e
tr
u
c
k
tr
i
p
s
pe
r
da
y
wi
t
h
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
re
f
r
i
g
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
un
i
t
s
(T
R
U
s
)
MM
AI
R
‐3:
Th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
su
b
m
i
t
a he
a
l
t
h
ri
s
k
as
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
(H
R
A)
to
th
e
An
a
h
e
i
m
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
an
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
.
Th
e
HR
A
sh
a
l
l
be
pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
in
ac
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
po
l
i
c
i
e
s
an
d
pr
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
of
th
e
St
a
t
e
of
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
’
s
Of
f
i
c
e
of
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
He
a
l
t
h
Ha
z
a
r
d
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
(O
E
H
H
A
)
an
d
th
e
SC
A
Q
M
D
.
If
th
e
HR
A
sh
o
w
s
th
a
t
th
e
in
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
ca
n
c
e
r
ri
s
k
ex
c
e
e
d
s
on
e
in
on
e
h un
d
r
e
d
th
o
u
s
a
n
d
(1
.
0
E
‐05
)
,
PM
co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
wo
u
l
d
ex
c
e
e
d
2.
5
μ
g/
m
3
,
or
th
e
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
no
n
‐ca
n
c
e
r
ha
z
a
r
d
in
d
e
x
ex
c
e
e
d
s
1.
0
,
th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
id
e
n
t
i
f
y
an
d
de
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
th
a
t
be
s
t
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
co
n
t
r
o
l
te
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
fo
r
to
x
i
c
s
(T
‐
BA
C
T
s
)
wi
l
l
re
d
u
c
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
ca
n
c
e
r
an
d
no
n
‐ca
n
c
e
r
ri
s
k
s
to
an
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
le
v
e
l
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
en
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
me
c
h
a
n
i
s
m
s
.
T ‐BA
C
T
s
ma
y
in
cl
u
d
e
,
bu
t
ar
e
no
t
li
m
i
t
e
d
to
,
re
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
n
g
id
l
i
n
g
on
s
i
t
e
,
el
e
c
t
r
i
f
y
i
n
g
lo
a
d
i
n
g
do
c
k
s
to
re
d
u
c
e
di
e
s
e
l
pa
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
ma
t
t
e
r
,
or
re
q
u
i
r
i
n
g
us
e
of
ne
w
e
r
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
an
d
/
o
r
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
.
Th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
re
c
o
r
d
a co
v
e
n
a
n
t
on
th
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
th
a
t
re
q
u
i
r
e
s
on
g
o
i
n
g
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
T ‐BA
C
T
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
in
th
e
HR
A
.
Th
e
fo
r
m
of
th
e
co
v
e
n
a
n
t sh
a
l
l
be
ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
by
th
e
Ci
t
y
At
t
o
r
n
e
y
’
s
Of
f
i
c
e
pr
i
o
r
to
re
c
o
r
d
a
t
i
o
n
.
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
an
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
an
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
Ci
t
y
At
t
o
r
n
e
y
’
s
Of
f
i
c
e
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MO
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
AN
D
RE
P
O
R
T
I
N
G
PR
O
G
R
A
M
NO
.
35
8
OR
A
N
G
E
CO
U
N
T
Y
WA
T
E
R
DI
S
T
R
I
C
T
BA
L
L
RO
A
D
BA
S
I
N
GE
N
E
R
A
L
PL
A
N
AM
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
AN
D
ZO
N
E
CH
A
N
G
E
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
CA
S
E
NO
.
DE
V
2
0
1
1
‐00
0
3
5
Pa
g
e
4 of
16
Ti
m
i
n
g
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
fo
r
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Monitoring/ Reporting Action
3.
3
BI
O
L
O
G
I
C
A
L
RE
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
Pr
i
o
r
to
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
gr
a
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
s
MM
BI
O
‐1:
Th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
su
b
m
i
t
a bi
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
su
r
v
e
y
pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
by
a qu
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
bi
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
.
Th
e
bi
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
su
r
v
e
y
sh
a
l
l
as
s
e
s
s
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
im
p
a
c
t
s
to
se
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
ve
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
an
d
/
o
r
sp
e
c
i
a
l
st
a
t
u
s
sp
e
c
i
e
s
an
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
to
re
d
u
c
e
an
y
im
p
a
c
t
s
to
le
s
s
th
a
n
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
.
Su
c
h
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
sh
a
l
l
id
e
n
t
i
f
y
as
ap
p
r
o
pr
i
a
t
e
,
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
fo
r
av
o
i
d
a
n
c
e
,
re
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
an
d
/
o
r
re
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
in
ac
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
th
e
US
F
W
S
an
d
CD
F
W
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
an
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
Pr
i
o
r
to
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
gr
a
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
s
MM
BI
O
‐2:
Th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
hi
r
e
a qu
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
bi
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
to
co
n
d
u
c
t
a ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
de
l
i
n
e
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
di
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
ar
e
a
at
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
wh
e
r
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
co
u
l
d
af
f
e
c
t
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
wa
t
e
r
s
.
Th
e
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
de
l
i
n
e
a
t
i
o
n
sh
a
l
l
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
if
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
ar
e
un
d
e
r
th
e
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
US
Ar
m
y
Co
r
p
s
of
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
(A
C
OE
)
,
th
e
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Wa
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Co
n
t
r
o
l
Bo
a
r
d
(R
W
Q
C
B
)
,
an
d
/
o
r
th
e
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
of
Fi
s
h
an
d
Wi
l
d
l
i
f
e
(C
D
F
W
)
.
Th
e
re
s
u
l
t
sh
a
l
l
be
a
pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
de
l
i
n
e
a
t
i
o
n
re
p
o
r
t
th
a
t
sh
a
l
l
be
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
to
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
An
a
h
e
i
m
an
d
an
y
re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
ag
e
n
c
y
,
AC
O
E
,
RW
Q
C
B
,
an
d
CD
F
W
,
as
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
,
fo
r
re
v
i
e
w
an
d
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
.
Ba
s
e
d on
th
e
re
s
u
l
t
s
of
th
e
pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
de
l
i
n
e
a
t
i
o
n
,
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
of
th
e
si
t
e
sh
a
l
l
be
de
s
i
g
n
e
d
so
th
a
t
im
p
a
c
t
s
to
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
wa
t
e
r
s
ar
e
mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
d
in
co
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
th
e
AC
O
E
,
RW
Q
C
B
,
an
d
CD
F
W
.
Pr
i
o
r
to
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
s
,
pe
r
m
i
t
s
sh
a
l
l
be
ob
t
a
i
n
e
d
fr
o
m
ea
c
h
ag
e
n
c
y
wh
e
r
e
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
.
Th
e
af
o
r
e
m
e
n
t
i
o
n
e
d
pe
r
m
i
t
s
an
d ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
s
wi
l
l
en
s
u
r
e
no
ne
t
lo
s
s
of
we
t
l
a
n
d
s
an
d
wa
t
e
r
wa
y
s
,
by
de
f
i
n
i
n
g
ad
e
q
u
a
t
e
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
co
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
i
o
n
to
im
p
a
c
t
ra
t
i
o
s
.
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
an
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
an
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
US
Ar
m
y
Co
r
p
s
of
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
(A
C
O
E
)
,
th
e
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Wa
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Co
n
t
r
o
l
Bo
a
r
d
(R
W
Q
C
B
)
,
an
d
/
o
r
th e
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
of
Fi
s
h
an
d
Wi
l
d
l
i
f
e
(C
D
F
W
)
Pr
i
o
r
to
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
an
y
gr
a
d
i
n
g
or
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
s
,
fo
r
an
y
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
se
t
to
oc
c
u
r
du
r
i
n
g
ne
s
t
i
n
g
se
a
s
o
n
(t
y
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
be
t
w
e
e
n
Ma
r
c
h
15
an
d
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
15
)
MM
BI
O
‐3:
T he
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
be
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
to
co
n
d
u
c
t
ne
s
t
i
n
g
bi
r
d
su
r
v
e
y
s
in
ac
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
th
e
CD
F
W
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
an
d
su
b
m
i
t
sa
i
d
su
r
v
e
y
s
to
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
An
a
h
e
i
m
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
an
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
.
Su
c
h
su
r
v
e
y
s
sh
a
l
l
id
e
n
t
i
f
y
av
o
i
d
a
n
c
e
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
to
pr
o
t
e
c
t
ac
t
i
v
e
ne
s
t
s
.
Th
e
s
e
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
sh
a
l
l
be
co
m
p
l
i
e
d
wi
t
h
by
th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
.
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
an
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
nt
/
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MO
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
AN
D
RE
P
O
R
T
I
N
G
PR
O
G
R
A
M
NO
.
35
8
OR
A
N
G
E
CO
U
N
T
Y
WA
T
E
R
DI
S
T
R
I
C
T
BA
L
L
RO
A
D
BA
S
I
N
GE
N
E
R
A
L
PL
A
N
AM
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
AN
D
ZO
N
E
CH
A
N
G
E
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
CA
S
E
NO
.
DE
V
2
0
1
1
‐00
0
3
5
Pa
g
e
5 of
16
Ti
m
i
n
g
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
fo
r
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Monitoring/ Reporting Action
3.
4
CU
L
T
U
R
A
L
RE
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
Pr
i
o
r
to
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
a
gr
a
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
fo
r
an
y
gr
o
u
n
d
‐di
s
t
u
r
b
i
n
g
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
MM
CU
L
‐1:
T he
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
re
t
a
i
n
an
ar
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
me
e
t
i
n
g
th
e
Se
c
r
e
t
a
r
y
of
th
e
In
t
e
r
i
o
r
’
s
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
Qu
a
l
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
(t
h
e
“A
r
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
”
)
,
an
d
wh
o
sh
a
l
l
be
ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
by
th
e
An
a
h
e
i
m
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
an
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
r
e
c
t
o
r
.
Th
e
Ar
c
h
e
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
sh
a
l
l
mo
n
i
t
o
r
gr
o
u
n
d
‐di
s
t
u
r
b
i
n
g
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
wi
t
h
i
n
th
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
si
t
e
,
in
cl
u
d
i
n
g
di
g
g
i
n
g
,
gr
u
b
b
i
n
g
,
or
ex
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
in
t
o
na
t
i
v
e
se
d
i
m
e
n
t
s
th
a
t
ha
v
e
no
t
be
e
n
pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
di
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
fo
r
th
e
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
.
In
th
e
ev
e
n
t
th
a
t
cu
l
t
u
r
a
l
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
ar
e
en
c
o
u
n
t
e
r
e
d
,
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
in
th
a
t
ar
e
a
mu
s
t
st
o
p
un
t
i
l
th
e
ar
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
as
s
e
s
s
e
s
th
e
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
an
d
de
e
m
s
it
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
fo
r
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
to
co
n
ti
n
u
e
.
Wo
r
k
sh
a
l
l
be
al
l
o
w
e
d
to
co
n
t
i
n
u
e
ou
t
s
i
d
e
of
th
e
vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
of
th
e
fi
n
d
.
Al
l
cu
l
t
u
r
a
l
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
un
e
a
r
t
h
e
d
by
pr
o
j
e
c
t
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
sh
a
l
l
be
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
by
th
e
Ar
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
.
If
th
e
Ar
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
s
th
a
t
th
e
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
ma
y
be
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
,
th
e
Ar
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
sh
a
l
l
no
t
i
f
y
th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
an
d
th
e
An
a
h
e
i
m
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
an
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
r
e
c
t
o
r
,
an
d
s ha
l
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
an
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
tr
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
pl
a
n
fo
r
th
e
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
Th
e
Ar
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
sh
a
l
l
co
n
s
u
l
t
wi
t
h
an
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
Na
t
i
v
e
Am
e
r
i
c
a
n
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
in
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
i
n
g
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
tr
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
fo
r
un
e
a
r
t
h
e
d
cu
l
t
u
r
a
l
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
if
th
e
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
ar
e
pr
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
or
Na
t
i
v
e
Am
e
r
i
c
a
n
in
na
t
u
r
e
.
A re
p
o
r
t
co
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
th
e
mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
re
s
u
l
t
s
an
d
an
y
cu
l
t
u
r
a
l
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
re
co
r
d
s
,
if
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
ar
e
ob
s
e
r
v
e
d
,
sh
a
l
l
be
wr
i
t
t
e
n
af
t
e
r
wo
r
k
is
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
an
d
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
to
th
e
An
a
h
e
i
m
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
an
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
.
An
y
ar
t
i
f
a
c
t
s
co
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
du
r
i
n
g
mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
sh
a
l
l
be
pr
o
p
e
r
l
y
re
c
o
r
d
e
d
,
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
,
ca
t
a
l
o
g
e
d
,
an
d
cu
r
a
t
e
d
at
an
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
in
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
.
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
an
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
Pr
i
o
r
to
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
a
gr
a
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
fo
r
an
y
gr
o
u
n
d
‐di
s
t
u
r
b
i
n
g
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
MM
CU
L
‐2:
T he
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
re
t
a
i
n
a qu
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
pa
l
e
o
n
t
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
me
e
t
i
n
g
th
e
cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
by
th
e
So
c
i
e
t
y
fo
r
Ve
r
t
e
b
r
a
t
e
Pa
l
e
o
n
t
o
l
o
g
y
wh
o
sh
a
l
l
be
ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
by
An
a
h
e
i
m
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
an
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
r
e
c
t
o
r
.
Th
e
pa
l
e
o
n
t
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
sh
a
l
l
mo
n
i
t
o
r
gr
o
u
n
d
‐di
s
t
u
r
b
i
n
g
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
wi
t
h
i
n
th
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
si
t
e
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
di
g
g
i
n
g
,
gr
u
b
b
i
n
g
,
or
ex
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
in
t
o
ol
d
e
r
Qu
a
t
e
r
n
a
r
y
al
l
u
v
i
a
l
se
d
i
m
e
n
t
ty
p
e
s
.
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
sh
a
l
l
co
n
s
i
s
t
of
vi
s
u
a
l
l
y
in
s
p
e
c
t
i
n
g
fr
e
s
h ex
p
o
s
u
r
e
s
of
ro
c
k
fo
r
la
r
g
e
r
fo
s
s
i
l
re
m
a
i
n
s
an
d
,
wh
e
r
e
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
,
co
l
l
e
c
t
i
n
g
we
t
or
dr
y
sc
r
e
e
n
e
d
se
d
i
m
e
n
t
sa
m
p
l
e
s
of
pr
o
m
i
s
i
n
g
ho
r
i
z
o
n
s
fo
r
sm
a
l
l
e
r
fo
s
s
i
l
re
m
a
i
n
s
.
Th
e
fr
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
of
mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
in
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
sh
a
l
l
be
ba
s
e
d
on
th
e
ra
t
e
of
ex
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
gr
a
d
i
n
g
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
,
th
e
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
an
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Se
r
v
i
c
es
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MO
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
AN
D
RE
P
O
R
T
I
N
G
PR
O
G
R
A
M
NO
.
35
8
OR
A
N
G
E
CO
U
N
T
Y
WA
T
E
R
DI
S
T
R
I
C
T
BA
L
L
RO
A
D
BA
S
I
N
GE
N
E
R
A
L
PL
A
N
AM
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
AN
D
ZO
N
E
CH
A
N
G
E
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
CA
S
E
NO
.
DE
V
2
0
1
1
‐00
0
3
5
Pa
g
e
6 of
16
Ti
m
i
n
g
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
fo
r
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Monitoring/ Reporting Action
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
be
i
n
g
ex
c
a
v
a
t
e
d
,
an
d
th
e
de
p
t
h
of
ex
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
an
d
if
fo
u
n
d
,
th
e
ab
u
n
d
a
n
c
e
an
d
ty
p
e
of
fo
s
s
i
l
s
en
c
o
u
n
t
e
r
e
d
.
If
a po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
fo
s
s
i
l
is
fo
u
n
d
,
th
e
pa
l
e
o
n
t
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
sh
a
l
l
te
m
p
o
r
a
r
i
l
y
di
v
e
r
t
or
re
d
i
r
e
c
t
gr
a
d
i
n
g
an
d
ex
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
in
th
e
ar
e
a
of
th
e
ex
p
o
s
e
d
fo
s
s
i
l
to
fa
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
,
if
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
,
sa
l
v
a
g
e
th
e
fi
n
d
.
Th
e
pa
l
e
o
n
t
o
l
og
i
s
t
sh
a
l
l
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
th
e
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
of
ne
w
l
y
di
s
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
pa
l
e
o
n
t
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
de
p
o
s
i
t
s
an
d
pr
e
p
a
r
e
an
d
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a tr
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
pl
a
n
fo
r
th
o
s
e
de
p
o
s
i
t
s
,
as
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
.
A pa
l
e
o
n
t
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
re
s
u
l
t
s
re
p
o
r
t
sh
a
l
l
be
wr
i
t
t
e
n
af
t
e
r
wo
r
k
is
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
an
d
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
to
th
e
An
a
h
e
i
m
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
an
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
.
An
y
fo
s
s
i
l
s
co
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
du
r
i
n
g
mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
sh
a
l
l
be
pr
op
e
r
l
y
re
c
o
r
d
e
d
,
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
,
an
d
ca
t
a
l
o
g
e
d
by
th
e
co
m
p
a
n
y
th
a
t
is
co
n
d
u
c
t
i
n
g
th
e
mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
an
d
th
e
n
cu
r
a
t
e
d
at
th
e
Na
t
u
r
a
l
Hi
s
t
o
r
y
Mu
s
e
u
m
of
Lo
s
An
g
e
l
e
s
Co
u
n
t
y
.
In
th
e
ev
e
n
t
hu
m
a
n
re
m
a
i
n
s
ar
e
di
s
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
MM
CU
L
‐3:
T he
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
sh
a
l
l
no
t
i
f
y
th
e
Co
u
n
t
y
Co
r
o
n
e
r
of
th
e
fi
n
d
im
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y
an
d
no
fu
r
t
h
e
r
di
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
sh
a
l
l
oc
c
u
r
un
t
i
l
th
e
Co
u
n
t
y
Co
r
o
n
e
r
ha
s
ma
d
e
a de
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
of
or
i
g
i
n
an
d
di
s
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
pu
r
s
u
a
n
t
to
PR
C
Se
c
t
i
o
n
50
9
7
.
9
8
(S
t
a
t
e
of
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
20
0
6
)
.
If
hu
m
a
n
re
m
a
i
n
s
ar
e
fo
u
n
d
du
r
i
n
g
gr
a
d
i
n
g
,
al
l
wo
r
k
in
th
e
im
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
ar
e
a
(a
ra
d
i
us
of
at
le
a
s
t
10
0
fe
e
t
)
sh
a
l
l
st
o
p
,
an
d
al
l
pa
r
t
i
e
s
sh
a
l
l
fo
l
l
o
w
al
l
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
st
a
t
e
la
w
s
re
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
hu
m
a
n
re
m
a
i
n
s
.
If
th
e
re
m
a
i
n
s
ar
e
Na
t
i
v
e
Am
e
r
i
c
a
n
,
th
e
co
r
o
n
e
r
is
re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
fo
r
co
n
t
a
c
t
i
n
g
th
e
NA
H
C
wi
t
h
i
n
24
ho
u
r
s
.
Th
e
NA
H
C
,
pu
r
s
u
a
n
t
to
Se
c
t
i
o
n
50
9
7
.
9
8
,
sh
a
l
l
im
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y
no
t
i
f
y
th
o
s
e
pe
r
s
o
n
s
it
be
l
i
e
v
e
s
to
be
th
e
Mo
s
t
Li
k
e
l
y De
s
c
e
n
d
a
n
t
(M
L
D
)
.
Th
e
ML
D
sh
a
l
l
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
th
e
in
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
si
t
e
wi
t
h
i
n
48
ho
u
r
s
of
be
i
n
g
al
l
o
w
e
d
ac
c
e
s
s
to
th
e
si
t
e
an
d
sh
a
l
l
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
in
pl
a
c
e
,
re
b
u
r
i
a
l
,
or
th
e
sc
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
re
m
o
v
a
l
an
d
no
n
d
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
v
e
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
of
hu
m
a
n
re
m
a
i
n
s
an
d
it
e
m
s
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
wi
t
h
Na
t
i
v
e
Am
e
r
i
c
a
n
bu
r
i
al
s
.
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
an
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
an
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
3.
5
GE
O
L
O
G
Y
AN
D
SO
I
L
S
Pr
i
o
r
to
th
e
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
a
gr
a
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
MM
GE
O
‐1:
Th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
co
n
d
u
c
t
ge
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
fi
e
l
d
ex
p
l
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
wh
i
c
h
sh
a
l
l
in
c
l
u
d
e
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
Pe
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
Te
s
t
s
(S
P
T
s
)
an
d
CP
T
s
to
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
an
d
qu
a
n
t
i
f
y
th
e
ex
t
e
n
t
of
li
q
u
e
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
.
Th
e
te
s
t
re
s
u
l
t
s
sh
a
l
l
be
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
to
th
e
An
a
h
e
i
m
Pu
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
fo
r
re
v
i
e
w
an
d
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
.
If
te
s
t
re
s
u
l
t
s
sh
o
w
th
a
t li
q
u
e
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
is
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
,
th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
sh
a
l
l
be
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
:
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
of
Pu
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
/
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MO
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
AN
D
RE
P
O
R
T
I
N
G
PR
O
G
R
A
M
NO
.
35
8
OR
A
N
G
E
CO
U
N
T
Y
WA
T
E
R
DI
S
T
R
I
C
T
BA
L
L
RO
A
D
BA
S
I
N
GE
N
E
R
A
L
PL
A
N
AM
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
AN
D
ZO
N
E
CH
A
N
G
E
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
CA
S
E
NO
.
DE
V
2
0
1
1
‐00
0
3
5
Pa
g
e
7 of
16
Ti
m
i
n
g
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
fo
r
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Monitoring/ Reporting Action
Re
m
o
v
a
l
an
d
re
c
o
m
p
a
c
t
i
o
n
of
lo
w
‐de
n
s
i
t
y
ne
a
r
‐su
r
f
a
c
e
,
lo
o
s
e
sa
n
d
De
s
i
g
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
to
ac
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
li
q
u
e
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
‐in
d
u
c
e
d
se
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
Co
m
p
a
c
t
i
o
n
gr
o
u
t
i
n
g
De
e
p
dy
n
a
m
i
c
co
m
p
a
c
t
i
o
n
Us
e
of
st
o
n
e
co
l
u
m
n
s
Pr
i
o
r
to
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
a
gr
a
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
MM
GE
O
‐2:
Th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
su
b
m
i
t
a fi
n
a
l
ge
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
re
p
o
r
t
to
th
e
An
a
h
e
i
m
Pu
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
g
th
e
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
co
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
in
th
e
Sl
o
p
e
St
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
by
Le
i
g
h
t
o
n
(S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
20
1
7
,
re
v
i
s
e
d
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
20
1
7
)
,
in
co
n
j
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
an
y
fu
t
u
r
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
of
th
e
pr
o
je
c
t
si
t
e
.
Th
e
s
e
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
sh
a
l
l
al
s
o
be
in
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
in
t
o
th
e
gr
a
d
i
n
g
pl
a
n
pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
fo
r
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
si
t
e
.
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
of
Pu
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
/
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
3.
6
GR
E
E
N
H
O
U
S
E
GA
S
EM
I
S
S
I
O
N
S
Pr
i
o
r
to
Ce
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
of
Oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
MM
GH
G
‐1:
T he
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
or
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
de
s
i
g
n
e
e
(e
.
g
.
,
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
ma
n
a
g
e
r
)
,
fo
r
fu
t
u
r
e
te
n
a
n
t
s
on
th
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
si
t
e
th
a
t
em
p
l
o
y
20
or
mo
r
e
pe
o
p
l
e
,
wh
i
c
h
is
ty
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
eq
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
to
16
,
0
0
0
sq
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
of
re
t
a
i
l
sp
a
c
e
,
sh
a
l
l
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
an
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
co
m
m
u
t
e
tr
i
p
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
(C
T
R
)
pr
o
g
r
a
m
.
Th
e
CT
R
sh
a
l
l
id
e
n
t
i
f
y
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
mo
d
e
s
of
tr
a
ns
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
to
th
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
si
t
e
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
tr
a
n
s
i
t
sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
s
,
bi
k
e
an
d
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
ro
u
t
e
s
,
an
d
ca
r
p
o
o
l
/
v
a
n
p
o
o
l
av
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
.
In
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
re
g
a
r
d
to
th
e
s
e
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
sh
a
l
l
be
re
a
d
i
l
y
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
to
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
an
d
cl
i
e
n
t
s
(e
.
g
.
,
Go
5
1
1
.
c
o
m
)
.
Th
i
s
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
sh
a
l
l
be
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
to
th
e
An
a
h
e
i
m
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
an
d
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
pr
i
o
r
to
th
e
fi
r
s
t
ce
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
of
oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
fo
r
th
e Pr
o
j
e
c
t
.
Th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
or
de
s
i
g
n
e
e
sh
a
l
l
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
in
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
fo
r
co
m
m
u
t
e
r
s
as
pa
r
t
of
th
e
CT
R
pr
o
g
r
a
m
:
Ri
d
e
‐ma
t
c
h
i
n
g
as
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
(e
.
g
.
,
su
b
s
i
d
i
z
e
d
pu
b
l
i
c
tr
a
n
s
i
t
pa
s
s
e
s
)
;
Va
n
p
o
o
l
as
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
or
em
p
l
o
y
e
r
‐pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
va
n
p
o
o
l
/
s
h
u
t
t
l
e
(O
C
T
A
va
n
p
o
o
l
pr
o
g
r
a
m
pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
a su
b
s
i
d
y
of
$4
0
0
to
ea
c
h
va
n
p
o
o
l
)
;
Ca
r
‐sh
a
r
i
n
g
pr
og
r
a
m
(e
.
g
.
,
Zi
p
c
a
r
or
ot
h
e
r
si
m
i
l
a
r
co
m
p
a
n
i
e
s
)
;
an
d
/
o
r
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
en
d
‐tr
i
p
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
bi
k
e
pa
r
k
i
n
g
an
d
lo
c
k
e
r
s
.
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
of
Pu
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
/
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
an
d
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
Pr
i
o
r
to
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
s
MM
GH
G
‐2:
T he
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
de
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
th
a
t
th
e
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wi
l
l
me
e
t
al
l
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
GH
G
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
s
at
th
e
ti
m
e
of
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
pe
r
m
i
t
s
or
if
th
e
s
e
th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
s
ca
n
n
o
t
be
me
t
,
th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
wi
l
l
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
an
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MO
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
AN
D
RE
P
O
R
T
I
N
G
PR
O
G
R
A
M
NO
.
35
8
OR
A
N
G
E
CO
U
N
T
Y
WA
T
E
R
DI
S
T
R
I
C
T
BA
L
L
RO
A
D
BA
S
I
N
GE
N
E
R
A
L
PL
A
N
AM
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
AN
D
ZO
N
E
CH
A
N
G
E
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
CA
S
E
NO
.
DE
V
2
0
1
1
‐00
0
3
5
Pa
g
e
8 of
16
Ti
m
i
n
g
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
fo
r
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Monitoring/ Reporting Action
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
to
re
d
u
c
e
th
e
GH
G
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
gr
e
a
t
e
s
t
ex
t
e
n
t
fe
a
s
i
b
l
e
by
su
b
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
a GH
G
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
pl
a
n
to
th
e
An
a
h
e
i
m
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
an
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
.
Th
i
s
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
sh
a
l
l
be
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y
sh
o
w
n
on
pl
a
n
s
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
fo
r
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
s
.
Ex
a
m
p
l
e
s
of
qu
a
n
t
i
f
i
a
b
l
e
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
ar
e
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
be
l
o
w
:
Re
q
u
i
r
e
al
l
fu
t
u
r
e
te
n
a
n
t
s
to
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a r ec
y
c
l
i
n
g
pr
o
g
r
a
m
th
a
t
di
v
e
r
t
s
50
pe
r
c
e
n
t
of
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
wa
s
t
e
fr
o
m
la
n
d
f
i
l
l
s
;
Re
q
u
i
r
e
al
l
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
be
de
s
i
g
n
e
d
to
ex
c
e
e
d
th
e
cu
r
r
e
n
t
Ti
t
l
e
24
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
at
th
e
ti
m
e
of
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
;
Re
q
u
i
r
e
al
l
li
g
h
t
i
n
g
us
e
d
on
th
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
si
t
e
to
be
hi
g
h
ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
li
g
h
t
i
n
g
th
a
t
is
a mi
n
i
m
u
m
of
15
pe
r
c
e
nt
mo
r
e
ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
th
a
n
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
li
g
h
t
i
n
g
;
Re
q
u
i
r
e
al
l
di
s
h
w
a
s
h
e
r
s
,
fa
n
s
,
re
f
r
i
g
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
,
an
d
ot
h
e
r
ap
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
to
be
En
e
r
g
y
St
a
r
ce
r
t
i
f
i
e
d
ap
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
;
an
d
Re
q
u
i
r
e
th
e
on
‐si
t
e
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
el
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y
us
a
g
e
th
r
o
u
g
h
us
e
of
ph
o
t
o
v
o
l
t
a
i
c
pa
n
e
l
s
,
co
‐ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
pl
a
n
t
s
,
fu
e
l
ce
l
l
s
or
ot
h
e
r
me
a
n
s
.
3.
7
HA
Z
A
R
D
S
AN
D
HA
Z
A
R
D
O
U
S
MA
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
Pr
i
o
r
to
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
a
gr
a
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
MM
HA
Z
‐1:
Pr
i
o
r
to
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
a gr
a
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
,
th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
pr
e
p
a
r
e
a Ph
a
s
e
II
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
Si
t
e
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
co
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
un
d
e
r
th
e
ov
e
r
s
i
g
h
t
of
th
e
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
of
To
x
i
c
Su
b
s
t
a
n
c
e
Co
n
t
r
o
l
,
RW
Q
C
B
,
or
th
e
Or
a
n
g
e
Co
u
n
t
y
He
a
l
t
h
Ca
r
e
Ag
e
n
c
y
an
d
su
b
m
i
t
it
to
th
e
An
a
h
e
i
m
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
an
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
nt
fo
r
re
v
i
e
w
.
Th
e
Ph
a
s
e
II
ES
A
sh
a
l
l
in
c
l
u
d
e
so
i
l
an
d
so
i
l
va
p
o
r
sa
m
p
l
i
n
g
to
as
s
e
s
s
th
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Si
t
e
fo
r
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
co
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t
s
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
,
bu
t
no
t
li
m
i
t
e
d
to
,
pe
t
r
o
l
e
u
m
hy
d
r
o
c
a
r
b
o
n
s
,
VO
C
s
,
se
m
i
‐vo
l
a
t
i
l
e
or
g
a
n
i
c
co
m
p
o
u
n
d
s
(S
V
O
C
s
)
,
he
a
v
y
me
t
a
l
s
,
po
l
y
c
h
l
o
r
i
n
a
t
e
d
bi
p
h
e
n
y
l
s
(P
C
B
s
)
,
an
d
pe
s
t
i
c
i
d
e
s
.
A Ph
a
s
e
II
sa
m
p
l
i
n
g
pl
a
n
sh
a
l
l
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
th
e ge
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
to
pr
e
p
a
r
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
co
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
si
t
e
so
i
l
s
fo
r
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
of
th
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Si
t
e
an
d
sh
a
l
l
al
s
o
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
th
e
th
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
of
so
i
l
s
an
d
so
i
l
ty
p
e
s
th
a
t
wi
l
l
be
im
p
o
r
t
e
d
to
th
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Si
t
e
to
ac
h
i
e
v
e
fi
n
a
l
gr
a
d
e
.
Th
e
s
e
fa
c
t
o
r
s
wi
l
l
af
f
e
c
t
th
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
fo
r
ex
p
o
s
u
r
e
to
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
co
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
so
i
l
s
du
r
i
n
g
ea
r
th
w
o
r
k
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
an
d
th
e
po
s
t
‐de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
fo
r
in
d
o
o
r
ai
r
ex
p
o
s
u
r
e
to
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
co
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
so
i
l
va
p
o
r
.
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
,
a
sa
m
p
l
i
n
g
pl
a
n
sh
a
l
l
be
pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
an
d
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
pr
i
o
r
to
im
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
so
i
l
to
th
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Si
t
e
fo
r
in
f
i
l
l
pu
r
p
o
s
e
s
in
or
d
e
r
to
ve
r
i
f
y
th
a
t
im
p
o
r
t
e
d
so
i
l
s
wi
l
l
me
e
t
re
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
sc
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
le
v
e
l
s
fo
r
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
pr
o
p
er
t
y
us
e
.
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
an
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
an
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
of
To
x
i
c
Su
b
s
t
a
n
c
e
Co
n
t
r
o
l
,
RW
Q
C
B
,
or
th
e
Or
a
n
g
e
Co
u
n
t
y
He
a
l
t
h
Ca
r
e
Ag
e
n
c
y
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MO
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
AN
D
RE
P
O
R
T
I
N
G
PR
O
G
R
A
M
NO
.
35
8
OR
A
N
G
E
CO
U
N
T
Y
WA
T
E
R
DI
S
T
R
I
C
T
BA
L
L
RO
A
D
BA
S
I
N
GE
N
E
R
A
L
PL
A
N
AM
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
AN
D
ZO
N
E
CH
A
N
G
E
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
CA
S
E
NO
.
DE
V
2
0
1
1
‐00
0
3
5
Pa
g
e
9 of
16
Ti
m
i
n
g
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
fo
r
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Monitoring/ Reporting Action
Pr
i
o
r
to
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
a
gr
a
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
MM
HA
Z
‐2:
Pr
i
o
r
to
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
a gr
a
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
,
th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
co
n
d
u
c
t
a re
v
i
e
w
of
DO
G
G
R
re
c
o
r
d
s
.
A me
t
h
a
n
e
su
r
v
e
y
sh
a
l
l
be
co
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
,
un
d
e
r
ov
e
r
s
i
g
h
t
fr
o
m
th
e
OC
F
A
,
if
it
is
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
th
a
t
th
e
oi
l
we
l
l
is
lo
c
a
t
e
d
wi
t
h
i
n
10
0
fe
e
t
fr
o
m
th
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Si
t
e,
or
if
th
e
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
we
l
l
ca
n
n
o
t
be
ac
c
u
r
a
t
e
l
y
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
.
A me
t
h
a
n
e
su
r
v
e
y
wo
r
k
pl
a
n
sh
a
l
l
be
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
to
th
e
OC
F
A
,
pr
i
o
r
to
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
a gr
a
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
.
Th
e
me
t
h
a
n
e
su
r
v
e
y
an
d
me
t
h
a
n
e
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
,
if
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
to
be
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
,
sh
a
l
l
be
in
ac
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
th
e
OC
F
A
Co
m
bu
s
t
i
b
l
e
So
i
l
Ga
s
Ha
z
a
r
d
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Gu
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
C ‐03
(O
C
F
A
,
20
0
8
)
.
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
an
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
Or
a
n
g
e
Co
u
n
t
y
Fi
r
e
Au
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
Pr
i
o
r
to
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
a
gr
a
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
MM
HA
Z
‐3:
Pr
i
o
r
to
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
a gr
a
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
,
th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
ab
a
n
d
o
n
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
we
l
l
in
ac
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
Ci
t
y
an
d
OC
W
D
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
A We
l
l
De
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
m
i
t
sh
a
l
l
be
ob
t
a
i
n
e
d
fr
o
m
th
e
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
of
th
e
An
a
h
e
i
m
Pu
b
l
i
c
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
nt
(A
P
U
D
)
.
An
y
ot
h
e
r
we
l
l
s
di
s
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
du
r
i
n
g
gr
a
d
i
n
g
or
de
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
sh
a
l
l
al
s
o
be
de
s
t
r
o
y
e
d
un
d
e
r
a re
v
i
s
e
d
We
l
l
De
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
m
i
t
.
Pr
o
o
f
of
pr
o
p
e
r
ab
a
n
d
o
n
m
e
n
t
sh
a
l
l
be
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
to
th
e
AP
U
D
.
An
a
h
e
i
m
Pu
b
l
i
c
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
Pr
i
o
r
to
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
a
gr
a
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
MM
HA
Z
‐4:
Pr
i
o
r
to
th
e
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
gr
a
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
s
,
th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
in
c
l
u
d
e
a no
t
e
on
th
e
pl
a
n
s
th
a
t
in
th
e
ev
e
n
t
co
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
of
so
i
l
an
d
/
o
r
gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
is
su
s
p
e
c
t
e
d
,
th
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
sh
a
l
l
ce
a
s
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
/
d
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
in
th
e
ar
e
a
an
d
co
n
t
a
c
t
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
An
a
he
i
m
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
an
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
.
Th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
pe
r
f
o
r
m
so
i
l
/
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
sa
m
p
l
i
n
g
wi
t
h
re
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
ov
e
r
s
i
g
h
t
by
th
e
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
ag
e
n
c
y
,
i.
e
.
th
e
DT
S
C
an
d
/
o
r
RW
Q
C
B
an
d
ob
t
a
i
n
a Le
t
t
e
r
of
No
Fu
r
t
h
e
r
Ac
t
i
o
n
pr
i
o
r
to
re
s
u
m
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
/
d
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
An
a
h
e
i
m
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
an
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
3.
8
HY
D
R
O
L
O
G
Y
AN
D
WA
T
E
R
QU
A
L
I
T
Y
Pr
i
o
r
to
th
e
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
a
pr
e
c
i
s
e
gr
a
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
MM
HY
D
R
O
‐1:
Pr
i
o
r
to
th
e
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
a pr
e
c
i
s
e
gr
a
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
,
th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
pr
e
p
a
r
e
an
d
su
b
m
i
t
to
th
e
An
a
h
e
i
m
Pu
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
a pr
o
g
r
a
m
‐le
v
e
l
WQ
M
P
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
wi
t
h
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
Wa
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Pl
a
n
(W
Q
M
P
)
(M
a
r
c
h
15
,
20
1
7
)
.
It
sh
a
l
l
de
s
c
r
i
b
e
th
e
me
n
u
of
Be
s
t
Ma
na
g
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
(B
M
P
’
s
)
ch
o
s
e
n
fo
r
th
e
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
an
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
fo
r
al
l
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
an
d
an
y
tr
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
co
n
t
r
o
l
BM
P
s
in
co
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
th
e
20
1
1
Mo
d
e
l
WQ
M
P
an
d
Te
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
Gu
i
d
a
n
c
e
An
a
h
e
i
m
Pu
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MO
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
AN
D
RE
P
O
R
T
I
N
G
PR
O
G
R
A
M
NO
.
35
8
OR
A
N
G
E
CO
U
N
T
Y
WA
T
E
R
DI
S
T
R
I
C
T
BA
L
L
RO
A
D
BA
S
I
N
GE
N
E
R
A
L
PL
A
N
AM
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
AN
D
ZO
N
E
CH
A
N
G
E
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
CA
S
E
NO
.
DE
V
2
0
1
1
‐00
0
3
5
Pa
g
e
10
of
16
Ti
m
i
n
g
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
fo
r
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Monitoring/ Reporting Action
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
(T
G
D
)
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
‐sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
WQ
M
P
s
,
pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
or
fi
n
a
l
,
al
s
o
sh
a
l
l
be
pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
fo
r
fu
t
u
r
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
wi
t
h
th
e
te
r
m
s
an
d
co
n
t
e
n
t
of
th
e
pr
o
g
r
a
m
‐le
v
e
l
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
WQ
M
P
fo
r
th
e
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
wh
i
l
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
wa
t
e
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
so
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
fo
r
ea
c
h
in
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
ar
e
a
.
Mo
r
e
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y
,
lo
w
im
p
a
c
t
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
(L
I
D
)
an
d
wa
t
e
r
qu
a
l
it
y
tr
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
so
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
pr
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
in
pr
o
j
e
c
t
‐sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
WQ
M
P
s
sh
a
l
l
be
de
s
i
g
n
e
d
to
su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
or
en
h
a
n
c
e
th
e
re
g
i
o
n
a
l
LI
D
BM
P
s
pr
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
in
th
e
pr
o
g
r
a
m
‐le
v
e
l
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
WQ
M
P
.
Pr
i
o
r
to
th
e
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
a
gr
a
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
MM
HY
D
R
O
‐2:
Pr
i
o
r
to
th
e
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
a gr
a
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
,
th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
pr
o
v
i
d
e
to
th
e
An
a
h
e
i
m
Pu
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
a No
t
i
c
e
of
In
t
e
n
t
an
d
WD
I
D
Nu
m
b
e
r
is
s
u
e
d
fr
o
m
th
e
St
a
t
e
Wa
t
e
r
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Co
n
t
r
o
l
Bo
a
r
d
(S
W
R
C
B
)
in
ac
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
th
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
of
th
e Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
m
i
t
(G
C
P
)
to
en
s
u
r
e
th
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
fo
r
so
i
l
er
o
s
i
o
n
an
d
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
im
p
a
c
t
s
ar
e
mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
d
.
In
ac
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
th
e
up
d
a
t
e
d
GC
P
(O
r
d
e
r
No
.
20
0
9
‐00
0
9
‐DW
Q
)
,
th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
PR
D
s
ar
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
to
be
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
to
th
e
SW
R
C
B
pr
i
o
r
to
co
m
m
e
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
of
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
:
No
t
i
c
e
of
In
t
e
n
t
(N
O
I
)
Ri
s
k
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
(St
a
n
d
a
r
d
or
Si
t
e
‐Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
)
Pa
r
t
i
c
l
e
Si
z
e
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
(i
f
si
t
e
‐sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
ri
s
k
as
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
is
pe
r
f
o
r
m
e
d
)
Si
t
e
Ma
p
Er
o
s
i
o
n
an
d
Se
d
i
m
e
n
t
Co
n
t
r
o
l
Pl
a
n
(E
S
C
P
)
Po
s
t
‐Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Wa
t
e
r
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
o
r
(n
o
t
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
–
pr
o
j
e
c
t
is
co
v
e
r
e
d
un
d
e
r
th
e
No
r
t
h
Or
a
n
g
e
Co
u
n
t
y
MS
4
pe
r
m
i
t
Or
d
e
r
No
.
R9
‐20
09
‐
00
3
0
)
Ac
t
i
v
e
Tr
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
Sy
s
t
e
m
(A
T
S
)
De
s
i
g
n
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
f
AT
S
is
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
)
An
n
u
a
l
Fe
e
& Ce
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
An
a
h
e
i
m
Pu
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
In
ac
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
an
d
up
d
a
t
e
d
An
a
h
e
i
m
Gr
a
d
i
n
g
Co
d
e
,
pr
i
o
r
to
co
m
m
e
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
of
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
MM
HY
D
R
O
‐3:
In
ac
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
an
d
up
d
a
t
e
d
An
a
h
e
i
m
Gr
a
d
i
n
g
Co
d
e
,
pr
i
o
r
to
co
m
m
e
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
of
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
,
th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
pr
e
p
a
r
e
an
d
su
b
m
i
t
to
th
e
An
a
h
e
i
m
Pu
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
a co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
ES
C
P
.
Th
e
ES
CP
sh
a
l
l
be
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
an
d
re
v
i
s
e
d
as
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
,
as
ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
or
ph
y
s
i
c
a
l
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
ch
a
n
g
e
.
Th
e
ES
C
P
sh
a
l
l
de
s
c
r
i
b
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
BM
P
s
th
a
t
ad
d
r
e
s
s
po
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
so
u
r
c
e
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
an
d
pr
o
v
i
d
e
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
/
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
s
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
to
mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
po
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
so
u
r
c
e
s
.
Th
e
s
e
An
a
h
e
i
m
Pu
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MO
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
AN
D
RE
P
O
R
T
I
N
G
PR
O
G
R
A
M
NO
.
35
8
OR
A
N
G
E
CO
U
N
T
Y
WA
T
E
R
DI
S
T
R
I
C
T
BA
L
L
RO
A
D
BA
S
I
N
GE
N
E
R
A
L
PL
A
N
AM
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
AN
D
ZO
N
E
CH
A
N
G
E
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
CA
S
E
NO
.
DE
V
2
0
1
1
‐00
0
3
5
Pa
g
e
11
of
16
Ti
m
i
n
g
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
fo
r
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Monitoring/ Reporting Action
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
/
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
s
in
c
l
u
d
e
,
bu
t
ar
e
no
t
li
m
i
t
e
d
to
er
o
s
i
o
n
co
n
t
r
o
l
s
,
se
d
i
m
e
n
t
co
n
t
r
o
l
s
,
tr
a
c
k
i
n
g
co
n
t
r
o
l
s
,
no
n
‐st
o
r
m
wa
t
e
r
ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
& wa
s
t
e
ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
an
d
go
o
d
ho
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
pr
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
,
1 in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
:
Er
o
s
i
o
n
co
n
t
r
o
l
BM
P
s
,
su
c
h
as
hy
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
mu
l
c
h
,
so
i
l
bi
n
d
e
r
s
,
an
d
ge
o
t
e
x
t
i
l
e
s
an
d
ma
t
s
,
pr
o
t
e
c
t
th
e
so
i
l
su
r
f
a
c
e
by
co
v
e
r
i
n
g
an
d
/
o
r
bi
n
d
i
n
g
th
e
so
i
l
pa
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
.
Te
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
ea
r
t
h
di
k
e
s
or
dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
sw
a
l
e
s
ma
y
al
s
o
be
em
p
l
o
y
e
d
to
di
v
e
r
t
ru
n
o
f
f
aw
a
y
fr
o
m
ex
p
o
s
e
d
ar
e
a
s
an
d
in
t
o
mo
r
e
su
i
t
a
b
l
e
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
If
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
co
r
r
e
c
t
l
y
,
er
o
s
i
o
n
co
n
tr
o
l
s
ca
n
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
re
d
u
c
e
th
e
se
d
i
m
e
n
t
lo
a
d
s
en
t
r
a
i
n
e
d
in
st
o
r
m
wa
t
e
r
ru
n
o
f
f
fr
o
m
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
si
t
e
s
.
Se
d
i
m
e
n
t
co
n
t
r
o
l
s
ar
e
de
s
i
g
n
e
d
to
in
t
e
r
c
e
p
t
an
d
fi
l
t
e
r
ou
t
so
i
l
pa
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
th
a
t
ha
v
e
be
e
n
de
t
a
c
h
e
d
an
d
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
e
d
by
th
e
fo
r
c
e
of
wa
t
e
r
.
Al
l
st
o
r
m
dr
a
i
n
in
l
e
t
s
on
th
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
si
t
e
or
wi
th
i
n
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
(i
.
e
.
,
al
o
n
g
st
r
e
e
t
s
im
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
to
th
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
bo
u
n
d
a
r
y
)
sh
o
u
l
d
be
ad
e
q
u
a
t
e
l
y
pr
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
wi
t
h
an
im
p
o
u
n
d
m
e
n
t
(i
.
e
.
,
gr
a
v
e
l
ba
g
s
)
ar
o
u
n
d
th
e
in
l
e
t
an
d
eq
u
i
p
p
e
d
wi
t
h
a se
d
i
m
e
n
t
fi
l
t
e
r
(i
.
e
.
,
fi
b
e
r
ro
l
l
)
.
Ba
g
s
sh
o
u
l
d
al
s
o
be
pl
a
c
e
d
ar
o
u
n
d
ar
e
a
s
of
so
i
l
di
s
t
u
r
b
i
n
g
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
,
su
c
h
as
gr
a
d
i
n
g
or
cl
e
a
r
i
n
g
.
St
a
b
i
l
i
z
e
al
l
co
ns
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
en
t
r
a
n
c
e
/
e
x
i
t
po
i
n
t
s
to
re
d
u
c
e
th
e
tr
a
c
k
i
n
g
of
se
d
i
m
e
n
t
s
on
t
o
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
st
r
e
e
t
s
.
Wi
n
d
er
o
s
i
o
n
co
n
t
r
o
l
s
sh
o
u
l
d
be
em
p
l
o
y
e
d
in
co
n
j
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
tr
a
c
k
i
n
g
co
n
t
r
o
l
s
.
No
n
‐st
o
r
m
wa
t
e
r
ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
BM
P
s
pr
o
h
i
b
i
t
th
e
di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
of
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
ot
h
e
r
th
a
n
st
o
r
m
wa
t
e
r
,
as
we
l
l
as
re
d
u
c
e
th
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
fo
r
po
l
l
u
ta
n
t
s
fr
o
m
di
s
c
h
a
r
g
i
n
g
at
th
e
i
r
so
u
r
c
e
.
Ex
a
m
p
l
e
s
in
c
l
u
d
e
av
o
i
d
i
n
g
pa
v
i
n
g
an
d
gr
i
n
d
i
n
g
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
du
r
i
n
g
th
e
ra
i
n
y
se
a
s
o
n
(i
.
e
.
,
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
1 th
r
o
u
g
h
Ap
r
i
l
30
ea
c
h
ye
a
r
)
wh
e
r
e
fe
a
s
i
b
l
e
,
an
d
pe
r
f
o
r
m
i
n
g
an
y
ve
h
i
c
l
e
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
cl
e
a
n
i
n
g
,
fu
e
l
i
n
g
an
d
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
in
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
ar
e
a
s
th
a
t
ar
e
ad
e
q
u
a
t
e
l
y
pr
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
an
d
co
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
.
Wa
s
t
e
ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
co
n
s
i
s
t
s
of
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
g
pr
o
c
e
du
r
a
l
an
d
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
BM
P
s
fo
r
co
l
l
e
c
t
i
n
g
,
ha
n
d
l
i
n
g
,
st
o
r
i
n
g
an
d
di
s
p
o
s
i
n
g
of
wa
s
t
e
s
ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
by
a
1
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
St
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
.
(2
0
0
3
,
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
)
.
St
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
Be
s
t
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
Ha
n
d
b
o
o
k
fo
r
Ne
w
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
and
Re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
. Re
t
r
i
e
v
e
d
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
27
,
20
0
9
,
fr
o
m
ht
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
c
a
b
m
p
h
a
n
d
b
o
o
k
s
.
c
o
m
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MO
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
AN
D
RE
P
O
R
T
I
N
G
PR
O
G
R
A
M
NO
.
35
8
OR
A
N
G
E
CO
U
N
T
Y
WA
T
E
R
DI
S
T
R
I
C
T
BA
L
L
RO
A
D
BA
S
I
N
GE
N
E
R
A
L
PL
A
N
AM
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
AN
D
ZO
N
E
CH
A
N
G
E
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
CA
S
E
NO
.
DE
V
2
0
1
1
‐00
0
3
5
Pa
g
e
12
of
16
Ti
m
i
n
g
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
fo
r
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Monitoring/ Reporting Action
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
pr
o
j
e
c
t
to
pr
e
v
e
n
t
th
e
re
l
e
a
s
e
of
wa
s
t
e
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
in
t
o
st
o
r
m
wa
t
e
r
di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
s
.
Pr
i
o
r
to
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
a
gr
a
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
in
co
n
j
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
a
fu
t
u
r
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
of
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
si
t
e
MM
HY
D
R
O
‐4:
Pr
i
o
r
to
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
a gr
a
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
in
co
n
j
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
a fu
t
u
r
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
of
th
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Si
t
e
,
th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
a)
su
b
m
i
t
a
fl
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
to
th
e
An
a
h
e
i
m
Pu
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
an
d
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
an
d Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
fo
r
re
v
i
e
w
an
d
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
.
Th
e
fl
o
o
d
pl
a
i
n
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
wi
l
l
in
c
l
u
d
e
(1
)
20
0
‐
yr
wa
t
e
r
su
r
f
a
c
e
el
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
by
U.
S
.
AC
O
E
on
th
e
Sa
n
t
a
An
a
Ri
v
e
r
al
o
n
g
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
,
(2
)
po
s
s
i
b
l
e
im
p
a
c
t
of
in
l
e
t
cl
o
s
u
r
e
of
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
ov
e
r
f
l
o
w
by
p
a
s
s
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
(c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
Ba
l
l
Ro
a
d
)
on
th
e
re
c
h
a
r
g
i
n
g
ba
s
i
n
wa
t
e
r
su
r
f
a
c
e
no
r
t
h of
Ba
l
l
Ro
a
d
an
d
an
y
af
f
e
c
t
e
d
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
or
Sa
n
t
a
An
a
Ri
v
e
r
le
v
e
e
,
an
d
(3
)
lo
n
g
i
t
u
d
i
n
a
l
an
d
tr
a
n
s
v
e
r
s
e
se
c
t
i
o
n
s
of
th
e
en
t
i
r
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
si
t
e
wi
t
h
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
gr
a
d
e
s
.
Th
e
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
co
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
in
th
e
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
a CL
O
M
R
/
L
O
M
R
if
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
,
sh
a
l
l
be
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
pr
i
o
r
to
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
a bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
;
an
d b)
st
o
r
m
dr
a
i
n
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
pl
a
n
s
sh
a
l
l
be
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
fo
r
th
e
mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
Ch
a
n
t
i
l
l
y
St
o
r
m
Dr
a
i
n
an
d
cl
o
s
u
r
e
of
th
e
in
l
e
t
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
fr
o
m
Bu
r
r
i
s
Ba
s
i
n
.
An
a
h
e
i
m
Pu
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
an
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
3.
1
0
NO
I
S
E
Pr
i
o
r
to
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
al
l
de
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
,
gr
a
d
i
n
g
an
d
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
s
MM
NO
I
S
E
‐1:
Th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
on
pl
a
n
s
ad
h
e
r
e
n
c
e
to
th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
no
i
s
e
at
t
e
n
u
a
t
i
o
n
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
:
Al
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
sh
a
l
l
op
e
r
a
t
e
wi
t
h
mu
f
f
l
e
r
s
an
d
in
t
a
k
e
si
l
e
n
c
e
r
s
no
le
s
s
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
th
a
n
or
i
g
i
n
a
l
l
y
eq
u
i
p
p
e
d
.
Al
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
sh
a
l
l
be
re
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
fr
o
m
oc
c
u
r
r
i
n
g
be
t
w
e
e
n
7:
00
p.
m
.
an
d
7:
0
0
a.
m
.
,
un
l
e
s
s
th
e
co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
ob
t
a
i
n
s
au
t
h
o
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
fr
o
m
th
e
Di
r
e
c
t
o
r
of
Pu
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
or
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Of
f
i
c
i
a
l
to
ex
t
e
n
d
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
wo
r
k
ho
u
r
s
.
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
an
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
3.
1
4
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
AN
D
TR
A
F
F
I
C
Pr
i
o
r
to
th
e
fi
r
s
t
fi
n
a
l
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
an
d
zo
n
i
n
g
in
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
MM
TR
A
F
‐1:
Th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
,
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
in
th
e
Ba
l
l
Ro
a
d
Ba
s
i
n
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
an
d
Zo
n
e
Ch
a
n
g
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
Im
p
a
c
t
St
u
d
y
,
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
Gr
o
u
p
,
Fe
b
r
u
a
r
y
20
1
7
(A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
I of
th
i
s
EI
R
)
,
un
d
e
r
th
e
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pl
u
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
,
th
at
ar
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
by
th
e
An
a
h
e
i
m
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
Co
d
e
:
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
of
Pu
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
/
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
an
d
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MO
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
AN
D
RE
P
O
R
T
I
N
G
PR
O
G
R
A
M
NO
.
35
8
OR
A
N
G
E
CO
U
N
T
Y
WA
T
E
R
DI
S
T
R
I
C
T
BA
L
L
RO
A
D
BA
S
I
N
GE
N
E
R
A
L
PL
A
N
AM
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
AN
D
ZO
N
E
CH
A
N
G
E
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
CA
S
E
NO
.
DE
V
2
0
1
1
‐00
0
3
5
Pa
g
e
13
of
16
Ti
m
i
n
g
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
fo
r
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Monitoring/ Reporting Action
Ba
l
l
Ro
a
d
be
t
w
e
e
n
Ph
o
e
n
i
x
Cl
u
b
Dr
i
v
e
an
d
Or
a
n
g
e
Ci
t
y
Li
m
i
t
s
‐
ad
d
on
e
we
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
la
n
e
an
d
on
e
ea
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
la
n
e
Ph
o
e
n
i
x
Cl
u
b
Dr
i
v
e
,
so
u
t
h
of
Ba
l
l
Ro
a
d
‐
wi
d
e
n
st
r
e
e
t
to
si
x
la
n
e
di
v
i
d
e
d
ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
.
Th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
is
re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
fo
r
th
e
fu
l
l
co
s
t
of
th
e
s
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
Th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
,
bo
nd
fo
r
or
en
t
e
r
in
t
o
a fu
n
d
i
n
g
ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
fo
r
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
sy
s
t
e
m
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
,
as
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
by
th
e
Ci
t
y
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
an
d
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Ma
n
a
g
e
r
.
Pr
i
o
r
to
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
th
e
fi
r
s
t
gr
a
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
MM
TR
A
F
‐2 : Th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
su
b
m
i
t
to
th
e
Ci
t
y
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
an
d
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Ma
n
a
g
e
r
a tr
a
f
f
i
c
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
ph
a
s
i
n
g
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
to
id
e
n
t
i
f
y
wh
e
n
th
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
in
th
e
Ba
l
l
Ro
a
d
Ba
s
i
n
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
an
d
Zo
n
e
Ch
a
n
g
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
Im
p
a
c
t
St
u
d
y
,
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
Gr
o
u
p
,
Fe
b
r
u
a
r
y 20
1
7
(A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
I of
th
i
s
EI
R
)
,
bu
t
no
t
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
MM
TR
A
F
‐3 , sh
a
l
l
be
de
s
i
g
n
e
d
an
d
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
.
Th
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
be
l
o
w
ar
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
un
d
e
r
th
e
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pl
u
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
.
Th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
is
re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
fo
r
th
e
fu
l
l
co
s
t
of
th
e
s
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
:
Ph
o
e
n
i
x
Cl
u
b
Dr
i
v
e
/
B
a
l
l
Ro
a
d
‐
st
r
i
p
e
no
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
to
pr
o
v
i
d
e
2 le
f
t
,
1
th
r
o
u
g
h
,
an
d
1 ri
g
h
t
tu
r
n
la
n
e
,
ad
d
on
e ea
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
ri
g
h
t
tu
r
n
la
n
e
,
ad
d
on
e
we
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
le
f
t
tu
r
n
la
n
e
,
ad
d
no
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
an
d
ea
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
ri
g
h
t
tu
r
n
ov
e
r
l
a
p
ph
a
s
e
s
.
Ba
l
l
Ro
a
d
be
t
w
e
e
n
Su
n
k
i
s
t
St
an
d
SR
‐57
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Of
f
Ra
m
p
‐
ad
d
on
e
we
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
la
n
e
Ba
l
l
Ro
a
d
be
tw
e
e
n
SR
‐57
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
On
Ra
m
p
an
d
Ph
o
e
n
i
x
Cl
u
b
Dr
i
v
e
‐
ad
d
on
e
we
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
la
n
e
Ta
f
t
Av
e
n
u
e
be
t
w
e
e
n
An
a
h
e
i
m
Ci
t
y
Li
m
i
t
s
an
d
Ma
i
n
St
r
e
e
t
‐
ad
d
on
e
we
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
la
n
e
an
d
on
e
ea
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
la
n
e
.
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
of
Pu
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
/
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
an
d
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MO
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
AN
D
RE
P
O
R
T
I
N
G
PR
O
G
R
A
M
NO
.
35
8
OR
A
N
G
E
CO
U
N
T
Y
WA
T
E
R
DI
S
T
R
I
C
T
BA
L
L
RO
A
D
BA
S
I
N
GE
N
E
R
A
L
PL
A
N
AM
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
AN
D
ZO
N
E
CH
A
N
G
E
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
CA
S
E
NO
.
DE
V
2
0
1
1
‐00
0
3
5
Pa
g
e
14
of
16
Ti
m
i
n
g
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
fo
r
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Monitoring/ Reporting Action
Th
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
be
l
o
w
ar
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
un
d
e
r
th
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
Bu
i
l
d
o
u
t
pl
u
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
.
Th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
is
re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
fo
r
th
e
fa
i
r
sh
a
r
e
co
s
t
of
th
e
s
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
:
Ba
l
l
Ro
a
d
be
t
w
e
e
n
SR
‐57
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Of
f
Ra
m
p
an
d
SR
‐57
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
On
Ra
m
p
‐
ad
d
on
e
we
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
la
n
e
An
a
h
e
i
m
Wa
y
/
K
a
t
e
l
l
a
Av
e
n
u
e
‐
ad
d
on
e
no
r
t
hb
o
u
n
d
ri
g
h
t
tu
r
n
la
n
e
,
co
n
v
e
r
t
no
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
sh
a
r
e
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
ri
g
h
t
in
t
o
a ri
g
h
t
tu
r
n
la
n
e
Ka
t
e
l
l
a
Av
e
n
u
e
/
S
R
‐55
SB
Ra
m
p
s
‐
co
n
v
e
r
t
se
c
o
n
d
so
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
le
f
t
tu
r
n
la
n
e
to
sh
a
r
e
d
le
f
t
‐ri
g
h
t
tu
r
n
la
n
e
,
ad
d
on
e
we
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
le
f
t
tu
r
n
la
n
e
.
Th
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
ph
a
s
i
n
g
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
wi
l
l
sp
e
c
i
f
y
th
e
ti
m
i
n
g
fo
r
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
fo
r
th
e
s
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
wh
e
n
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
to
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
sa
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
o
r
y
le
v
e
l
s
of
se
r
v
i
c
e
wi
t
h
i
n
th
e
Ci
t
i
e
s
of
An
a
h
e
i
m
an
d
Or
a
n
g
e
as
de
f
i
n
e
d
by
th
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
,
ba
s
e
d
on
th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
s
of
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
,
pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
an
d
me
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
ut
i
l
i
z
e
d
in
EI
R
No
.
34
5
,
Or
a
n
g
e
Co
u
n
t
y
Co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
an
d
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
in
Ci
t
i
e
s
of
An
a
h
e
i
m
an
d
Or
a
ng
e
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
St
u
d
y
Gu
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
.
Th
e
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
sh
a
l
l
al
s
o
in
c
l
u
d
e
fa
i
r
‐sh
a
r
e
re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
fo
r
th
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
in
MM
TR
A
F
2(
b
)
.
A co
s
t
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
fo
r
th
e
s
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
sh
a
l
l
be
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
fo
r
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
by
th
e
Ci
t
y
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
an
d
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Ma
n
a
g
e
r
,
wh
i
c
h
sh
a
l
l
in
c
l
u
d
e
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
,
ri
g
h
t
s
‐of
‐wa
y
,
an
d
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
co
s
t
s
,
un
l
e
s
s al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
fu
n
d
i
n
g
so
u
r
c
e
s
ha
v
e
be
e
n
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
to
he
l
p
pa
y
fo
r
th
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
.
Th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
,
bo
n
d
fo
r
or
en
t
e
r
in
t
o
a fu
n
d
i
n
g
ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
fo
r
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
sy
s
t
e
m
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
,
as
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
by
th
e
Ci
t
y
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
an
d
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Ma
n
a
g
e
r
.
Pr
i
o
r
to
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
th
e
fi
r
s
t
gr
a
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
an
d
in
co
n
j
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
th
e
pr
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
ph
a
s
i
n
g
MM
TR
A
F
‐3:
T he
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
ta
k
e
th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
ac
t
i
o
n
s
in
co
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
th
e
Ci
t
i
e
s
of
An
a
h
e
i
m
an
d
Or
a
n
g
e
:
a)
Th
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
ph
a
s
i
n
g
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
sh
a
l
l
id
e
n
t
i
f
y
an
y
im
p
a
c
t
s
cr
e
a
t
e
d
by
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
on
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
wi
t
h
i
n
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
Or
a
n
g
e
.
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
of
Pu
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
/
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
an
d
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MO
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
AN
D
RE
P
O
R
T
I
N
G
PR
O
G
R
A
M
NO
.
35
8
OR
A
N
G
E
CO
U
N
T
Y
WA
T
E
R
DI
S
T
R
I
C
T
BA
L
L
RO
A
D
BA
S
I
N
GE
N
E
R
A
L
PL
A
N
AM
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
AN
D
ZO
N
E
CH
A
N
G
E
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
CA
S
E
NO
.
DE
V
2
0
1
1
‐00
0
3
5
Pa
g
e
15
of
16
Ti
m
i
n
g
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
fo
r
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Monitoring/ Reporting Action
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
by
MM
TR
A
F
‐2
b)
Th
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
ph
a
s
i
n
g
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
sh
a
l
l
ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
’
s
re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
fo
r
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
n
g
th
e
s
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
.
c)
Th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
th
e
co
s
t
of
th
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
in
co
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
th
e
Ci
t
i
e
s
of
An
a
h
e
i
m
an
d
Or
a
n
g
e
.
d)
Th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
pa
y
th
e
co
s
t
re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
fo
r
th
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
to
Ci
t
y
of
An
a
h
e
i
m
pr
i
o
r
to
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
a bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
.
e)
Th
e
Ci
t
y
of
An
a
h
e
i
m
sh
a
l
l
ho
l
d
th
e
am
o
u
n
t
re
c
e
i
v
e
d
in
tr
u
s
t
,
an
d
th
e
n
,
on
c
e
a
mu
t
u
a
l
l
y
ag
r
e
e
d
up
o
n
jo
i
n
t
pr
o
g
r
a
m
is
ex
e
c
u
t
e
d
by
bo
t
h
ci
t
i
e
s
,
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
An
a
h
e
i
m
sh
a
l
l
al
l
o
c
a
t
e
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
to
tr
a
f
f
i
c
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
th
at
re
s
u
l
t
in
im
p
r
o
v
e
d
tr
a
f
f
i
c
fl
o
w
at
th
e
im
p
a
c
t
e
d
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
vi
a
an
ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
mu
t
u
a
l
l
y
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
to
bo
t
h
ci
t
i
e
s
.
Ci
t
y
of
Or
a
n
g
e
Pr
i
o
r
to
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
th
e
fi
r
s
t
gr
a
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
an
d
in
co
n
j
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
th
e
pr
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
ph
a
s
i
n
g
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
by
MM
TR
A
F
‐2
MM
TR
A
F
‐4:
Th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
ta
k
e
th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
ac
t
i
o
n
s
in
co
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
an
d
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
An
a
h
e
i
m
:
a)
Th
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
ph
a
s
i
n
g
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
sh
a
l
l
id
e
n
t
i
f
y
th
e pr
o
j
e
c
t
’
s
pr
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
a
t
e
im
p
a
c
t
on
th
e
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
fr
e
e
w
a
y
ma
i
n
l
i
n
e
an
d
/
o
r
fr
e
e
w
a
y
ra
m
p
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
b)
Th
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
ph
a
s
i
n
g
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
sh
a
l
l
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
’
s
re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
fo
r
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
n
g
pr
o
j
e
c
t
im
p
a
c
t
s
ba
s
e
d
on
th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
s
of
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
,
pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
an
d
me
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
ut
i
l
i
z
e
d
in
EI
R
No
.
34
5
an
d
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
in
th
e
Or
a
n
g
e
Co
u
n
t
y
Co
ng
e
s
t
i
o
n
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
an
d
Ci
t
y
of
An
a
h
e
i
m
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
St
u
d
y
Gu
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
.
c)
Th
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
ph
a
s
i
n
g
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
sh
a
l
l
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
if
a re
g
i
o
n
a
l
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
ag
e
n
c
y
ha
s
pr
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
d
an
d
fu
n
d
e
d
th
e
wa
r
r
a
n
t
e
d
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
to
th
e
im
p
a
c
t
e
d
fr
e
e
w
a
y
ma
i
n
l
i
n
e
or
fr
e
e
w
a
y
ra
m
p
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
d)
Th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
th
e
co
s
t
of
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
’
s
re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
in
co
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
an
d
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
An
a
h
e
i
m
.
e)
Th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
pa
y
th
e
co
s
t
re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
fo
r
th
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
to
Ci
t
y
of
An
a
h
e
i
m
as
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
ab
o
v
e
pr
i
o
r
to
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
a
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
.
f)
Th
e
Ci
t
y
sh
a
l
l
al
l
o
c
a
t
e
th
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
ow
n
e
r
s
/
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
to
tr
a
f
f
i
c
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
th
a
t
re
s
u
l
t
in
im
p
r
o
v
e
d
tr
a
f
f
i
c fl
o
w
on
th
e
im
p
a
c
t
e
d
ma
i
n
l
i
n
e
an
d
ra
m
p
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
vi
a
an
ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
mu
t
u
a
l
l
y
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
to
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
an
d
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
An
a
h
e
i
m
.
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
of
Pu
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
/
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
an
d
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MO
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
AN
D
RE
P
O
R
T
I
N
G
PR
O
G
R
A
M
NO
.
35
8
OR
A
N
G
E
CO
U
N
T
Y
WA
T
E
R
DI
S
T
R
I
C
T
BA
L
L
RO
A
D
BA
S
I
N
GE
N
E
R
A
L
PL
A
N
AM
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
AN
D
ZO
N
E
CH
A
N
G
E
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
CA
S
E
NO
.
DE
V
2
0
1
1
‐00
0
3
5
Pa
g
e
16
of
16
Ti
m
i
n
g
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
fo
r
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Monitoring/ Reporting Action
Pr
i
o
r
to
th
e
fi
r
s
t
fi
n
a
l
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
an
d
zo
n
i
n
g
in
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
,
as
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
in
th
e
ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
tr
a
f
f
i
c
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
ph
a
s
i
n
g
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
as
pa
r
t
of
MM
TR
A
F
‐2
MM
TR
A
F
‐5:
Th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
tr
a
f
f
i
c
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
to
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
sa
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
o
r
y
le
v
e
l
s
of
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
as
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
in
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
tr
a
f
f
i
c
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
ph
a
s
i
n
g
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
.
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
of
Pu
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
/
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
an
d
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
BALL ROAD BASIN
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT & ZONE CHANGE
Anaheim, CA
(Orange County)
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2011-00035
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2013021026
Prepared for:
CITY OF ANAHEIM
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, California 92805
Prepared by:
2390 E. Orangewood Ave., Suite 510
Anaheim, California 92806
September 2018
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 2 of 85
This page intentionally left blank.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 1 – Introduction and Summary
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 3 of 85
This document presents findings that must be made by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of the project
pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and
Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. Under CEQA the Lead Agency (City of Anaheim) is required
to make written findings concerning each alternative and each significant environmental impact identified
in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The City
of Anaheim may find that:
• Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project to avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the DEIR/FEIR;
• Such changes or alterations are within the purview and jurisdictions of another agency and have
been adopted, or can and should be adopted, by that agency; or
• Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the DEIR/FEIR.
Each of these findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. Evidence
from the DEIR, FEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and City's General Plan is
used to meet these criteria.
1.1 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub Resc. Code §§ 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA
Guidelines (Guidelines) (14 Cal. Code Regs §§ 15000, et seq.) promulgated thereunder, require that the
environmental impacts of a project be examined before a project is approved. Specifically, regarding
findings, Guidelines Section 15091 provides:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been
certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project
unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those
significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each
finding. The possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as
identified in the final EIR.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdict ion of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. 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, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible
the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 1 – Introduction and Summary
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 4 of 85
(b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in
the record.
(c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding
has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified fea sible
mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subdivision (a)(3) shall describe the
specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives.
(d) When making the findings required in subdivison (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a
program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in
the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant
environmental effects. These measures must 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
materials 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 findings
required by this section.
The “changes or alterations” referred to in Section 15091(a)(1) above, that are required in, or
incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects of the project,
may include a wide variety of measures or actions as set forth in Guidelines Section 15370, including:
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an
action.
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation.
(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted
environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the action.
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or
environments.
Regarding a Statement of Overriding Considerations, Guidelines Section 15093 provides:
(a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the benefits of a Proposed
Project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to
approve the project. If the benefits of a proposal project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 1 – Introduction and Summary
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 5 of 85
may be considered "acceptable".
(b) Where the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of
significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or
substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to
support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record.
The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement
should be included in the record of the project approval and should be
mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute
for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 150 91.
Having received, reviewed and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Ball Road Basin
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, State Clearinghouse No. 2013021026 (FEIR), as well as all
other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the following Findings and Statement of
Overriding Considerations (Findings) are hereby adopted by the City of Anaheim (City) in its capacity as
the CEQA Lead Agency. These Findings set forth the environmental basis for current and subsequent
discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City and responsible agencies for the implementation of the
Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change (Proposed Project).
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
In conformance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Anaheim CEQA Guidelines, the City
of Anaheim conducted an extensive environmental review of the Proposed Project. The environmental
review process has included the following:
• Completion of an Initial Study by the City of Anaheim, which concluded that an EIR should be
prepared, and the Notice of Preparation (NOP) which was released for a 30 -day public review
period from February 8, 2013 to March 11, 2013. Section 1.2 of the EIR describes the issues
identified for analysis in the EIR through the Initial Study, Notice of Preparation and public scoping
process.
• Completion of a scoping process in which the public and public agencies were invited by the City
of Anaheim to participate. The scoping meeting for the EIR was held on February 13, 2013.
• Preparation of a Draft EIR by the City of Anaheim, which was made available for a 45 -day public
review period From June 7, 2018 to July 23, 2018. The draft EIR consisted of two volumes. Volume
I contains the text of the draft EIR. Volume II contains the Appendices, including the NOP,
responses to the NOP and analysis of the following subjects: air quality and global climate change
impact analysis; biological technical report; cultural and paleontological resources; geotechnical
assessment and slope stability analysis; Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment; Noise Impact
Analysis; and, Traffic Impact Analysis. Notice of the availability of the draft EIR was sent to
interested persons and organizations: it was also published in one newspaper of general
circulation, and was posted at the Office of the Clerk of Orange County.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 1 – Introduction and Summary
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 6 of 85
• Preparation of a final EIR, including the Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR.
The Final EIR/Response to Comments contains the following: comments on the Draf t EIR;
responses to those comments; revisions to the Draft EIR; and appended documents. The Final
EIR/Response to Comments was released for a 10-day public review period on August 24, 2018.
• Public hearings on the Proposed Project.
1.3 PROJECT SUMMARY
The OCWD is proposing to amend the City of Anaheim’s General Plan and Zoning Map to allow the
eventual commercial development of the Ball Road Basin. The Proposed Project would change the City’s
General Plan Land Use designation for the Project Site from Open Space to General Commercial and the
zoning from the Transitional (T) and Industrial (I) Zones to the General Commercial (C -G) Zone. In addition,
the Proposed Project includes amending the General Plan Circulation and Green Elements to add a
Proposed Class 1 Bikeway/Trail Study Area along the northern, eastern and southern edges of the Project
Site. The Proposed Project does not include a specific development plan for Project Site.
General Plan Land Use Designation
The City of Anaheim General Plan has three separate land use designations related to Open Space and
Recreation. These land use designations are Open Space, Parks and Water Uses. The Open Space land use
designation includes those areas intended to remain in natural open space; utility easements that will
provide recreational and trail access to Anaheim’s residents; heavily landscaped freeway remnant parcels,
and land areas surrounding major water features. The Parks designation allows for active and passive
recreational uses such as parks, trails, athletic fields, interpretive centers and golf courses. The Water Uses
designation applies to water bodies, such as the Santa Ana River, lakes, and reservoirs, and other water -
related uses such as flood control channels and drainage basins. Th e General Plan designates the subject
property for Open Space land use.
The Proposed Project would change the General Plan designation of the property from Open Space to
General Commercial. Areas designated for General Commercial land use may, but do no t necessarily,
serve the adjacent neighborhood or surrounding clusters of neighborhoods. General Commercial land
uses include a variety of land uses, including neighborhood-serving food markets, drug stores, restaurants,
small hardware stores, child care centers, health clubs, large grocery stores, appliance stores,
neighborhood-serving restaurants, bakeries, banks, specialty shops, some low intensity civic uses, and
other retail and professional uses. In addition, these areas may include highway -serving uses such as fast
food restaurants, auto-oriented uses such as tire stores, service stations, auto parts stores, and other
stand-alone retail uses.
Zone Change
The Proposed Project would change the zoning designation of the site from Transitional (T) Zone a nd
Industrial (I) Zone to the General Commercial (C-G) Zone. The "T" Zone includes land used for agricultural
uses, a transitory or interim use, or restricted to limited uses because of special conditions. The “I” Zone
is for industrial uses and their rel ated facilities. Targeted industries include research and development,
repair services, wholesale activities, distribution centers, and manufacturing and fabrication. In some
situations, the City allows other types of uses through the approval of a conditional use permit. The “C-G”
Zone allows a variety of commercial land uses by right (without further discretionary approval), including
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 1 – Introduction and Summary
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 7 of 85
commercial retail centers, convenience stores, grocery stores, offices, personal services and restaurants,
at a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.5. Additional uses permitted within the C -G Zone are subject to
the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. This zone implements the General Commercial land use
designation contained in the Land Use Element of the Anaheim General P lan. A portion of the site is also
within the Floodplain (FP) Overlay Zone. No change is proposed to the overlay zone.
Class 1 Bikeway/Trail Study Area
The Proposed Project would amend the General Plan Circulation and Green Elements to designate a Class
1 Bikeway/Trail Study Area along the northern, eastern and southern perimeter of the Project Site. The
proposed multi-purpose trail would serve as a southern extension of the Anaheim Coves Class 1
Bikeway/Riding and Hiking Trail located to the north across Ball Road. Class I Bikeways are identified within
the Circulation Element in Figure C-5: Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities. Class 1 Bikeways provide for
bicycle travel on right-of-way completely separated from the street. Trail Study Areas are ident ified in the
Green Element in Figure G-5: Equestrian, Riding and Hiking Trails Plan. Trail Study Areas depict potential
trail locations that connect residents with recreational opportunities, schools and activity centers such as
Downtown, Anaheim Canyon, The Anaheim Resort and the Platinum Triangle. The locations of these study
areas are based on existing utility easements, railroad rights-of-way and flood control channels. Although
they are mapped, the feasibility of their implementation has yet to be det ermined. Future implementation
of the Class 1 Bikeway/Trail Study Area will potentially include analysis of necessary intergovernmental or
joint use agreements (i.e. lease, license, easement, joint use agreement); law enforcement jurisdiction;
potential property acquisition; maintenance responsibilities; cost sharing; allowable trail uses; physical
obstacles; ownership constraints; and, funding issues to determine feasibility.
Site Development
The Proposed Project does not include a specific development p lan for Ball Road Basin (BRB). The intent
of the commercial zoning is to allow a variety of land uses either “by right” as a permitted use or
discretionary by Conditional Use Permit. Uses permitted by right that are within the C -G Zone and that
comply with the development standards of the C-G Zone may not be subject to further environmental
review under CEQA and could be implemented upon approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment
and Zone change. Only uses and development that require discretionary app roval will require future
environmental review under CEQA.
In order to evaluate potential environmental impacts resulting from the change in land use, this EIR uses
the intensity threshold in the Anaheim General Plan for the General Commercial land use de signation and
the maximum FAR permitted by the Anaheim Municipal Code for development within the C -G Zone. The
Anaheim General Plan Land Use Map and Element and the C-G Zone limit commercial development to a
maximum FAR of 0.5. This translates into 425,000 square feet of commercial development for the 19.5 -
acre Project Site. This analysis also anticipates a Project operation date of 2025. All direct and indirect
impacts resulting from the construction of a 425,000 square foot commercial project including re quired
street, sewer, storm drain, water and other infrastructure requirements will be analyzed.
In order to facilitate development of the Project Site, the existing Orange County Flood Control District
Chantilly Storm Drain (OCFCD CSD) and other storm drain facilities that currently flow into the Proposed
Project Site would be relocated. Burris Basin has an existing spillway structure that diverts water to BRB
and eventually to the Santa Ana River in the event of an overflow. The overflow water is conveye d to BRB
through an existing vehicular access tunnel, which is a 14 -foot wide by 13-foot high reinforced concrete
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 1 – Introduction and Summary
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 8 of 85
box underneath Ball Road. This vehicular access tunnel would be abandoned as part of the
implementation of the Proposed Project. A new outlet for Burris Basin would be constructed to provide
an outlet to the Santa Ana River. This new facility would include an inlet and outlet structure, piping,
valves, and appurtenances. A 100-foot wide construction and maintenance easement, surrounding the
inlet and outlet structure at Santa Ana River, would be retained as a multi-use area, with an OCFCD
easement. In addition, commercial development of the Project Site would require an engineered fill to
provide useable building pad areas as well as street sewer, water and other infrastructure improvements.
To model and assess impacts resulting from the Proposed Project, a mass grade conceptual layout was
prepared which included building pads, on-site drainages facilities, an on-site sewer system, the rerouting
of two local drainage facilities, and the reloca tion of the existing CSD. Details of the conceptual plans and
assumptions used for modeling purposes are discussed and analyzed in Chapter 3 of the DEIR.
1.4 DOCUMENT FORMAT
This document summarizes the significant 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 significant environmental impacts. All impacts are
considered potentially significant prior to mitigation unless otherwise stated in the findings.
This document is divided into the following five sections:
Section 1.0 Introduction and Summary;
Section 2.0 Findings on the Project Alternatives Considered in the Environmental Impact Report;
Section 3.0 Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project Identified in the
DEIR/FEIR;
Section 4.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations;
Section 5.0 References; and,
Section 6.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations.
Section 2.0, Findings on the Project Alternatives Considered in the Environmental Impact Report, presents
alternatives to the project and evaluates them in relation to the findings set forth in Section 15091(a)(3)
of the State CEQA Guidelines, which no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR
has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless
the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied
by a brief explanation. Possible findings include specific economic, legal, social, technological or other
considerations.
Section 3.0, Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project Identified in the DEIR/FEIR ,
presents significant impacts of the Proposed Project that were identified in the FEIR, the mitigation
measures identified in the MMP, the findings for the impacts, and the rationales for the findings.
Section 4.0, Statement of Overriding Considerations, presents the overriding considerations for significant
impacts related to the project that cannot be or have not been mitigated 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
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 1 – Introduction and Summary
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 9 of 85
determining whether to approve the project.
Section 5.0, References, identifies all references cited in this document.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 10 of 85
This page intentionally left blank
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 11 of 85
The following discussion is intended to provide a summary of the alternatives considered and rejected in
the Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change EIR, including the “No-Project”
Alternative, the Reduced Project Alternative, and the Mixed Use Alternative.
2.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE SCOPING/PROJECT PLANNING
PROCESS
The following objectives have been established for the Proposed Project:
1. Allow commercial development of the Project site.
2. Permit a viable and productive use of an obsolete groundwater recharge basin.
3. Generate non-operating revenues for the Orange County Water District.
As described below, use of an alternative site for commercial development , and the potential
development of the Project Site as a an electrical generation station or public park, were considered but
rejected from consideration in this EIR because none of the established objectives for the Proposed
Project would be met.
2.1.1 Alternative Sites
CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the project or its location, which
are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project. The key question
and first step in the analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or
substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Because an EIR must identify ways to
mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environme nt (Public Resources
Code Section 21002.1) the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its
location which are capable avoiding or significantly lessening any significant effects of the project, even if
these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be
more costly (Guidelines Sec. 15126.6 (b). In general, any development of the size and type proposed by
the project would have substantially the same impacts on air quality, lan d use/planning, noise,
population/ housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic and utilities/service systems.
Without a site specific analysis, impacts on aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources,
geology/soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality and mineral resources cannot
be evaluated.
As the primary objective of the Proposed Project is to allow future development on an obsolete
groundwater recharge basin currently owned by OCWD, an alternative site wou ld not be appropriate as
an alternative to the Proposed Project. An alternative site would not meet the specific objective of
developing an existing OCWD-owned recharge basin. Alternatives for complete residential development
of the Project Site were also eliminated from consideration because none of the established objectives
for commercial development would be met.
2.1.2 Electrical Generation Station
In December 2013, OCWD authorized a Lease Option Agreement with Orange County Energy Park, LLC
(OCEP), allowing OCEP to conduct due diligence as to the potential leasing or purchasing of the Project
Site for an electrical generation station. The City requested that OCWD include in the Proposed Project
EIR analysis of an electrical generation station alternative. In November 2014 OCEP terminated the Lease
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 12 of 85
Option Agreement. Under the Proposed Project (General Plan Amendment and Zone Change), an
electrical generation station would be permitted subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the
City, or separate State permitting, and subsequent and related environmental analysis pursuant to CEQA.
Given the additional discretionary review required for an electrical generation station, analysis of this
alternative would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(3), which
states that “an EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and
whose implementation is remote and speculative.”
2.1.3 Public Park
On February 13, 2014, the City released a NOP of an EIR for a Ball Road Basin Park Project. The proposed
Ball Road Basin Park Project involves the development of the BRB as an active public par k with lighted
playing fields and associated parking, concession areas, playgrounds, and an adjacent riding/hiking trail
and bikway. As part of this project, the BRB would be filled with engineered soil and the City would develop
a park facility to serve City residents with the ability to remain open 24 -hours a day. Also as part of this
project, the City proposed a General Plan Amendment (Case No. GPA2014 -00491) to designate the BRB
as Parks and a Zoning Reclassification to rezone the BRB to “PR” Public Recreation (Case No. RCL2014-
00261). Approval of this project would require amendments to the Anaheim General Plan and Zoning
Map. This alternative was also eliminated from consideration because none of the established objectives
for commercial development would be met.
2.2 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS
The CEQA Guidelines indicate that “an EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project,
or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project
but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, a nd evaluate the
comparative merits of the alternatives." [Guidelines Sec. 15126.6(a)] Accordingly, the alternatives
selected for review pursuant to this EIR focus on: (a) the specific General Plan policies pertaining to Project
Site; and, (b) alternatives that could eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts to a level of
insignificance, consistent with the project objectives (i.e. the alternatives could impede to some degree
the attainment of project objectives, but still would enable the projec t to obtain its basic objectives). The
alternatives analyzed in the following sections include:
1. “No-Project” Alternative;
2. The Reduced Project Alternative;
3. Mixed Use Alternative.
2.2.1 “No-Project” Alternative
According to the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(e)(3)(b)), the No Project Alternative is defined as the
“circumstance under which the project does not proceed.” The impacts of the No Project Alternative shall
be analyzed “by projecting what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the
project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and
community services.” The purpose of describing and analyzing the No Project Alternative is “to allo w
decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the Proposed Project with the impacts of not
approving the Proposed Project.” Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires analysis of a No
Project alternative that (1) discusses existing site con ditions at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP)
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 13 of 85
is prepared or the EIR is commenced, and (2) analyzes what is reasonably be expected to occur in the
foreseeable future based on current plans if the Proposed Project were not approved. Under the No
Project Alternative, the Proposed Project would not be implemented and the current General Plan Land
Use and zoning designations for the Project Site would not be amended to allow for commercial
development. The existing General Plan land use and zoning designations does not allow the development
of commercial uses on the Project Site. Absent the Proposed Project, the OCWD would elect for the BRB
to remain vacant as an inactive groundwater recharge basin.
Finding: Alternative less than Desirable
The City Council finds that the “No-Project” Alternative is less desirable than the Proposed Project and
rejects this Alternative for the following reasons:
• This Alternative would not achieve many of the objectives established for the project.
2.2.2 Reduced Project Alternative
The Reduced Project alternative would reduce the intensity of anticipated commercial uses within the
Project Site from 0.50 FAR to 0.25 FAR. In general, this alternative would reduce the number of businesses
and employment opportunities on the Project Site. Specifically, the Reduced Project Alternative would
reduce the amount of commercial square-footage allowed on the Project Site from 425,000 square feet
to approximately 210,900 square feet. This alternative would require the same sit e improvements
described under the Proposed Project (mass grading, building pads, drainage facilities, and sewer).
Finding: Alternative less than Desirable
The City Council finds that the Reduced Project Alternative is less desirable than the Proposed Project and
rejects this Alternative for the following reasons:
• This alternative would result in a marginal reduction in environmental impacts. However, most
impacts are largely similar to the Proposed Proj ect. Thus, the Reduced Project Alternative would
not be considered an environmentally superior alternative since the reduction of impacts cannot
be quantified at this time.
• This alternative would achieve all of the objectives of the Proposed Project but would result in less
revenue (Project Objective #3).
• Unavoidable adverse impacts to greenhouse gas emissions and transportation/traffic would still
occur and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations would still be required.
2.2.3 Mixed Use Alternative
Under the Mixed Use Alternative, the General Plan land use designation of four acres of the 19.5 -acre
Project Site would be amended from Open Space to Medium Density Residential. The zoning designation
would also be amended from Industrial (I) and Transitional (T) to Multi-Family Residential (RM-4). The
General Plan land use and zoning amendments would allow both commercial and multi -family residential
development to be constructed on the Project Site. The City permits a density of up to 36 uni ts per acre
for multi-family residential uses. This equates to a maximum of 144 apartment units that would be
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 14 of 85
constructed on four acres. The remaining 15.5 acres would contain commercial uses. Based on a F.A.R of
0.5 established by the City for commercial uses, the Mixed Use Alternative would allow a maximum of
337,590 square feet of commercial development on the remain 15.5 acres of the BRB.
Finding: Alternative less than Desirable
The City Council finds that the Mixed-Use Alternative is less desirable than the Proposed Project and
rejected this Alternative for the following reasons:
• Since this alternative would maximize the development intensity on the Project Site, the
environmental impacts for this alternative would lik ely be similar to those identified for the
Proposed Project. Impacts resulting from the implementation of this alternative cannot be
quantified at this time. However, it can be assumed that the Mixed -Use Alternative would not be
considered an environmentally superior alternative.
• This alternative would only partially achieve Project Objective #1 since a portion of the Project
Site would be allocated to residential uses.
• This alternative would result in less revenue (Project Objective #3).
• Unavoidable adverse impacts to greenhouse gas emissions and transportation/traffic would still
occur and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations would still be required.
This section identifies the findings on impact categories analyzed in the DEIR/FEIR inclu ding potentially
significant impacts of the project.
3.1 AESTHETICS
IMPACT AES-1: The Proposed Project would have a substantially adverse effect on a scenic vista.
Build-out of the Project Site could result in up to 425,000 square feet of commercial development with
maximum building heights of up to six stories or 75 feet. This would directly modify the existing views of
the undeveloped Project Site. Although the Proposed Project would convert undeveloped land historically
used for water uses/recharge to commercial uses, development would be consistent with the existing
land use pattern in the area. Future development design would be compatible with the surrounding area
and would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Community Design Element of the General
Plan, as well as all development and design standards contained in the Anaheim Municipal Code.
In addition, the Proposed Project would amend the General Plan Circulation and Green E lements to
designate a Class 1 Bikeway/Trail Study Area along the northern, eastern and southern perimeter of the
Project Site. The proposed multi-purpose trail would serve as a southern extension of the Anaheim Coves
Class 1 Bikeway/Riding and Hiking Trail located to the north across Ball Road. The proposed location of
the Class 1 Bikeway/Trail Study Area would provide an opportunity for public access to views from the
Project Site of the Santa Ana River and the Santa Ana Mountains that currently not publi cly accessible.
Although the Proposed Project would result in development of the site which may obscure certain views
of the Santa Ana River and the Santa Ana Mountains, the public would also have the opportunity to gain
greater access to views of the Santa Ana River and the Santa Ana Mountains through the proposed Class
1 Bikeway/Trail Study.
Mitigation Measures:
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 15 of 85
No additional mitigation measures are required.
Finding: Adherence to the proposed General Plan Goals and Policies, Zoning Code, existing codes and
regulations, and designating a Class 1 Bike way/Trail Study Area will prevent the occurrence of any
significant impacts related to scenic vistas for the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
IMPACT AES-2: The Proposed Project would degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings.
The proposed General Plan amendment and zone change would allow for development of general
commercial uses on the Project Site. The Proposed Project would facilitate the change in visual character
of the site by providing for the opportunity to develop and operate commercial uses on the site. Although
a specific site plan is not proposed at this time, commercial build out of the Project Site would result in a
change in visual character from vacant undeveloped land to 425,000 square feet of commercial
development.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 16 of 85
Construction of the Proposed Project would adversely impact the visual quality of the Project area with
construction activities and equipment. However, impacts would be temporary and would be considered
less than significant.
Development of the Project Site would change the visual characteristic of the Project Site by introducing
commercial buildings and landscaping that would be consistent with existing commercial development to
the west across Phoenix Club Drive and the office uses and Honda Ce nter to the south and would be
required to comply with adopted goals and policies in the Community Design Element and with Anaheim’s
Zoning Code and development standards.
The undeveloped open space aspect of the Project Site is a visual amenity that provides visual relief form
the surrounding built environment. Development of the Project Site would result of a loss of this visual
amenity from Viewpoints A, B D, and G, resulting in a potentially significant impact. However, the
Proposed Project would amend the General Plan Circulation and Green Elements to designate a Class 1
Bikeway/Trail Study Area along the northern, eastern and southern perimeter of the Project Site.
Although the Proposed Project would result in development of the site that would change the open space
character of the site, the public would have the opportunity to gain greater access to the remaining open
space in the area, through the proposed Class 1 Bikeway/Trail Study; therefore, impacts would be
considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
No additional mitigation measures are required.
Finding: Adherence to the proposed General Plan Goals and Policies, Zoning Code, existing codes and
regulations, and designating a Class 1 Bike way/Trail Study Area will prevent the occurrence of any
significant impacts related to scenic vistas for the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
IMPACT AES-3: The Proposed Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Proposed commercial development would include lighting for security, signage and site recognition. These
sources would likely consist of outdoor lighting of parking areas, driveways, and walkways, and lighted
commercial signage. The increase in night light from new development would increase ambient light levels
in the area, and the significance would depend on the amount and type of lighting, which would be similar
to the existing sources of lighting on adjacent properties. The Anaheim Auto Center, located adjacent to
the Project Site, contributes a significant amount of nighttime lighting to the area’s ambient light levels.
Compared to the Anaheim Auto Center, the increase in nighttime lighting from the Proposed Project
would be minimal. Furthermore, night lighting for commercial development would be regulated by the
City’s policies and regulations regarding outdoor lighting and signage.
The Proposed Project does not include a specific site plan. Future development on the Project Site would
be required to comply with the development standards related to lighting and glare contained in the
Anaheim Municipal Code. Impacts to lighting and glare are considered less than significant and mitigation
measures would not be required.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 17 of 85
Mitigation Measures:
No additional mitigation measures are required.
Finding: Adherence to the proposed General Plan Goals and Policies, Zoning Code, and existing codes
and regulations will prevent the occurrence of any significant impacts related to light and glare for the
reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
3.2 AIR QUALITY
IMPACT AIR-1: The Proposed Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan.
Based on the air quality modeling analysis present under IMPACT AIR -2 below, with implementation of
mitigation measure MM AIR-1, short-term construction impacts would not result in significant impacts
based on the SCAQMD regional and local thresholds of significance. The ongoing operation of the
Proposed Project would generate air pollutant emissions that are inconsequential on a regional basis and
would not result in significant impacts based on SCAQMD thresholds of significance. The analysis for long -
term local air quality impacts showed that local pollutant concentrations would not be projected to
exceed the air quality standards. Therefore, no long-term impact would occur and no mitigation would be
required for on-going operations at the Project Site. Therefore, based on the information provided above,
with implementation of mitigation measure MM AIR-1, the Proposed Project would be consistent with
Criterion 1 - Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations.
The Proposed Project would amend the Ci ty's General Plan and change Project Site zoning designations
to eliminate potential conflicts with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect the Proposed Project would hav e a less than
significant impact relating to conflicting with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations.
Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur for the Criterion 2 - Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP
and mitigation would not be required.
Mitigation Measures:
MM AIR-1: Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall require in the
construction bid documents that the construction contractor use large off-road diesel equipment with a
horsepower (hp) rating of 50 hp or higher that meets the U.S. EPA-Certified emission standard for Tier 3
off-road equipment or higher. The construction contractor shall maintain on -site a list of construction
equipment by type and model year that will be made available for inspection by the City during
construction. MM AIR-1 shall not apply to any equipment that is utilized on the Project Site that is licensed
to operate on public roadways, such as water trucks.
Finding: With implementation of mitigation measure MM AIR-1, the Proposed Project would be
consistent with both Criterion 1 and Criterion 2, therefore impacts would be less than significant.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 18 of 85
IMPACT AIR-2: The Proposed Project would violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to
an existing or projected air quality violation.
According to Table 3.2-6 in the DEIR, only NOx would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance for
the grading phase, all other criteria pollutant emissions and phases would be within the SCAQMD
thresholds. This would be considered a significant impact. Table 3.2-7 in the DEIR shows that with
application of mitigation measure MM AIR-1, the construction-related criteria pollutant emissions would
be reduced to less than significant.
Mitigation measure MM AIR-2 has been provided in case there is a need to complete the import of fill in
less time than the anticipated rate of 527 days. This mitigation measure would consist of requiring all haul
trucks to be either model year 2010 or newer. Requiring all haul trucks to be mod el year 2010 or newer
would allow up to 190 haul truck deliveries (380 two-way) trips per day and would allow the grading phase
to be shortened to 127 work days from 527 days.
Construction-related air emissions from fugitive dust and on-site diesel emissions may have the potential
to exceed the state and federal air quality standards in the Project vicinity, even though these pollutant
emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Basin. None of the analyzed
criteria pollutants would exceed the calculated local emissions thresholds at the nearest sensitive
receptors. Therefore, a less than significant local air quality impact would occur from construction of the
Proposed Project.
The greatest potential for TAC emissions would be related to diesel particulate emissions associated with
heavy equipment operations during construction of the Proposed Project. Given the relatively limited
number of heavy-duty construction equipment and the short-term construction schedule, the Proposed
Project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 70 years) substantial source of TAC emissions and
corresponding individual cancer risk. Therefore, TAC emissions impacts during construction of the
Proposed Project would be considered less than signif icant.
None of the operations related criteria pollutants would exceed the regional emissions thresholds.
Therefore, a less than significant regional air quality impact would occur from operation of the Proposed
Project.
The nearby intersections to the Proposed Project are smaller with less traffic than what was analyzed by
the SCAQMD, no local CO Hotspot are anticipated to be created from the Proposed Project and no CO
Hotspot modeling was performed. Therefore, a less than significant long -term air quality impact is
anticipated to local air quality with the on-going use of the Proposed Project.
Project-related air emissions from on-site sources such as architectural coatings, landscaping equipment,
and onsite usage of natural gas appliances may have the potential to create emissions areas that exceed
the state and federal air quality standards in the Project vicinity. The on-going operations of the Proposed
Project would not exceed the local NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds of significance. Therefore, t he
on-going operations of the Proposed Project would create a less than significant operations -related
impact to local air quality due to on-site emissions and mitigation would not be required.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 19 of 85
Particulate matter from diesel exhaust is the predominate T AC in urban areas and based on a statewide
average, in 2000, It was estimated to represent about two-thirds of cancer risk from TACs. Diesel
particulate matter (DPM) is not directly measured but is indirectly estimated based on fine particulate
matter measurements and special studies on the chemical speciation of ambient data along with receptor
modeling techniques. Although the locations of the nearby sensitive receptors are known and includes
offsite workers as near as 70 feet west, and single-family homes as near as 900 feet northwest of the
Project Site, the location of the on-site DPM sources are unknown at this time, since this Project is a
program level analysis that is limited to a General Plan Amendment and zone change , and does not
provide Project level details for the Project Site. Therefore, it is not possible to provide a quantitative
analysis of the operational DPM levels and resultant cancer risks at the nearby receptors from the
Proposed Project at this time. As detailed in the operational cri teria pollutant analysis, the CalEEMod
default vehicle mix found that the Project would generate 184 semi -truck trips per day and 267 vendor
truck trips per day. Therefore, potential future development on the Project Site may exceed CAPCOA
screening thresholds of where potential cancer and non-cancer (acute and chronic) health risks may occur
from Project-related TAC emissions. This would be considered a significant impact. Through
implementation of mitigation measure MM AIR-3, operational TAC impacts would be reduced to less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures:
MM AIR-1: Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall require in the
construction bid documents that the construction contractor use large off-road diesel equipment with a
horsepower (hp) rating of 50 hp or higher that meets the U.S. EPA-Certified emission standard for Tier 3
off-road equipment or higher. The construction contractor shall maintain on -site a list of construction
equipment by type and model year that will be made available for inspection by the City during
construction. MM AIR-1 shall not apply to any equipment that is utilized on the Project Site that is licensed
to operate on public roadways, such as water trucks.
MM AIR-2: Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the Property Owner/Developer shall
provide a note on plans indicating that the work days for import of fill and grading of the Project Site is
reduced from the anticipated rate of 527 work days and increased above the anticipated average of 46
haul truck deliveries per day (92 two -way trips), the Property Owner/Developer will require that all haul
trucks used to import fill to the Project Site are model year 2010 or newer. The work days shall not be
decreased below 127 work days and truck deliveries shall not be increased beyond 190 haul truck
deliveries per day.
MM AIR-3: Prior to the issuance of building permits for any future development on the Project Site that
has the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more truck trips per day
with operational transport refrigeration units (TRUs), the Property Owner/Developer shall submit a health
risk assessment (HRA) to the Anaheim Planning and Building Department. The HRA shall be prepared in
accordance with policies and procedures of the State of California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (OEHHA) and the SCAQMD.
If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds on e in one hundred thousand (1.0E-05), PM
concentrations would exceed 2.5 μg/m3, or the appropriate non-cancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the
Property Owner/Developer shall identify and demonstrate that best available control technologies for
toxics (T-BACTs) will reduce potential cancer and non -cancer risks to an acceptable level, in cluding
appropriate enforcement mechanisms. T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to, restricting idling
onsite, electrifying loading docks to reduce diesel particulate matter, or requiring use of newer equipment
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 20 of 85
and/or vehicles. The Property Owner/Developer shall record a covenant on the property that requires
ongoing implementation of T-BACTs identified in the HRA. The form of the covenant shall be approved by
the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation.
Finding: With implementation of mitigation measure MM AIR-1, MM AIR-2, and MM AIR-3, air quality
standard violations or substantial contributions to an existing or projected air quality violation would
be less than significant.
IMPACT AIR-3: The Proposed Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria.
Construction-Related Cumulative Impacts
The Project Site is located in the Basin, which is currently designated by the US EPA for federal standards
as a non-attainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. The regional ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions
associated with construction of the Proposed Project have been calculated above under IMPACT AIR -2.
The above analysis found that development of the Proposed Project, with implementation of mitigation
measures MM AIR-1 and MM AIR-2, would result in less than significant regional emissions of VOC and
NOx (ozone precursors), PM10, and PM2.5 during construction of the Proposed Project. Therefore, a less
than significant cumulative impact would occur from construction of the Proposed Project.
Operational-Related Impacts
The greatest cumulative operational impact on the air quality of the Basin will be the incremental addition
of pollutants mainly from increased traffic from residential, commercial, and industrial development. In
accordance with SCAQMD methodology, projects that do not exceed SCAQMD criteria or can be mitigated
to less than criteria levels are not significant and do not add to the overall cumulative impact. The regional
zone, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions created from the on-going operation of the Proposed Project have been
calculated above. The analysis found that the development of the Proposed Project would result in less
than significant regional emissions of VOC and NOx (ozone precursors), PM10, and PM2.5 during
operation of the Proposed Project. With respect to long -term emissions, this Proposed Project would
create a less than significant cumulative impact.
The Proposed Project would amend the City's General Plan and change the Project Site zoning designation
to eliminate potential conflicts with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect the Proposed Project would have a less than
significant impact relating to conflicting with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations.
Therefore, with the approval of the proposed amendments, the Proposed Project would not result in an
inconsistency with the current land use designations with respect to th e regional forecasts utilized by the
AQMPs.
The regional analysis detailed above found that the Proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD
regional significance thresholds for VOC and NOx (ozone precursors), PM10, and PM2.5. As such, the
Proposed Project would result in a less than significant cumulative health impact.
Mitigation Measures:
MM AIR-1 (see Impact AIR-2)
MM AIR-2 (see Impact AIR-2)
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 21 of 85
Finding: With implementation of MM AIR-1 and MM AIR-2, cumulative impacts associated with the
Proposed Project would be less than significant for the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
IMPACT AIR-4: The Proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations.
The nearest sensitive receptors that may be impacted by the Proposed Project are single-family homes
located as near as 900 feet northwest of the Project Site and offsite workers located as near as 70 feet
west of the Project Site. The above analysis for IMPACT AIR -2 found that none of the analyzed criteria
pollutants would exceed the calculated local emissions thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptors for
construction and operational activities. Therefore, construction and operation of the Proposed Project
would result in less than significant impacts to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Finding: Since none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the calculated local emissions
thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptors for construction and operational activities , no significant
impacts are anticipated for the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
IMPACT AIR-5: The Proposed Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people.
The Proposed Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people
during construction activities or during the on-going operations of the Proposed Project.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Finding: The Proposed Project would not create objectionable odors and no significant impacts are
anticipated for the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 22 of 85
3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
IMPACT BIO-1: The Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species.
The Proposed Project is limited to a zone change and General Plan Amendment and no specific
development of the Project Site is proposed. Impacts associated with future development of the Project
Site consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would be considered less
than significant with implementation of mitigation measure MM BIO-1.
Mitigation Measures:
MM BIO-1: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit a biological
survey prepared by a qualified biologist. The biological survey shall assess potential impacts to sensitive
vegetation communities and/or special status species and include measures to reduce any impacts to less
than significant. Such measures shall identify as appropriate, measures for avoidance, restoration, and/or
relocation in accordance with the USFWS and CDFW requirements.
Finding: Mitigation measures are feasible and avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant
biological resources impacts to a less-than-significant level for the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
IMPACT BIO-2: The Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on an y riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community.
The Proposed Project is located within an inactive groundwater recharge basin. The majority of the Project
Site consists of disturbed lands, with small amounts of freshwater marsh and seasonal wetland. The
Proposed Project is limited to a zone change and G eneral Plan Amendment and no specific development
of the Project Site is proposed. Impacts associated with future development of the Project Site consistent
with the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would be considered less than significant
with the implementation of mitigation measure MM BIO-2.
Mitigation Measures:
MM BIO-2: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Property Owner/Developer shall hire a qualified
biologist to conduct a jurisdictional delineation of the potential disturban ce area at locations where
construction activity could affect jurisdictional waters. The jurisdictional delineation shall determine if
features are under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB), and/or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The result shall
be a preliminary jurisdictional delineation report that shall be submitted to the City of Anaheim and any
responsible agency, ACOE, RWQCB, and CDFW, as appropriate, for r eview and approval. Based on the
results of the preliminary jurisdictional delineation, development of the site shall be designed so that
impacts to jurisdictional waters are minimized in consultation with the ACOE, RWQCB, and CDFW. Prior
to issuance of building permits, permits shall be obtained from each agency where applicable. The
aforementioned permits and approvals will ensure no net loss of wetlands and water ways, by defining
adequate mitigation and compensation to impact ratios.
Finding: Mitigation measures are feasible and avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant
biological resources impacts to a less-than-significant level for the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 23 of 85
IMPACT BIO-3: The Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands.
The 2013 PJD details the presence of 1.6 -acres of included wetlands, and 6.5-acres of WoUS and WoS
within the Project Site. The freshwater marsh and seasonal wetland land cover types within the Project
Site have increased in size since their previous delineation in 2013. The Proposed Project is limited to a
zone change and General Plan Amendment and no specific development of the Project Site is proposed.
Impacts associated with future development of the Project Site consistent with the proposed General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change would be considered less than significant with the implementation of
mitigation measure MM BIO-2.
Mitigation Measures:
MM BIO-2: See above.
Finding: Mitigation measures are feasible and avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant
biological resources impacts to a less-than-significant level for the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
IMPACT BIO-4: The Proposed Project would not interfere sub stantially with the movement of fish or
wildlife species or with established wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
The Santa Ana River supports the movement and dispersal of common and special status species within
the region and is known to connect large blocks of natural open space that are considered essential for
long-term plant and wildlife viability in southern California. The Project Site, while immediately adjacent
to the Santa Ana River, is separated from the River by a levee, which runs along the east perimeter of the
site. No conversion of habitats in the River is proposed.
The Proposed Project is limited to a zone change and General Plan Amendment and no specific
development of the Project Site is proposed. Impacts associated with future development of the Project
Site consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would be considered les s
than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures MM BIO -2 and MM BIO-3.
Mitigation Measures:
MM BIO-2: See above.
MM BIO-3: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, for any construction activity set to occur
during nesting season (typically between February 1 and September 15), the Property Owner/Developer
shall be required to conduct nesting bird surveys in accordance with the CDFW requirements, and submit
said surveys to the City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department. Such surveys shall identify
avoidance measures to protect active nests. These measures shall be complied with by the Property
Owner/Developer.
Finding: Mitigation measures are feasible and avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant
biological resources impacts to a less-than-significant level for the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 24 of 85
3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
IMPACT CUL-1: Construction of the Proposed Project would not potentially cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a historical resource.
Three historic-age resources were recorded within one mile of the Project Site. None of these resources
have been deemed eligible for listing in the City as a Historic Districts/Qualified Historic Structure,
Historically Significant Structure/Qualified Historic Structure, or Structure of Historical Interest, or eligible
for listing in the NRHP or CRHR. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would not result in alteration or
demolition of any recorded resources. Impacts to a historical resource would be considered less than
significant and would not require mitigation.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Finding: The Proposed Project would not create impacts to historical resources and no significant
impacts are anticipated for the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
IMPACT CUL-2: Construction of the Proposed Project would potentially cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an archaeological resource.
One cultural resource, an isolated mano, was previously discovered within the Project Site but was not
considered eligible for listing on the CRHR. No cultural resources (historic buildings, structures or objects;
archaeological sites; or historical resources) were identifi ed during the archaeological survey of the
Project Site.
The environmental setting of the Project Site has changed drastically since prehistoric and historic times,
and areas may have been excavated to below levels that may have contained archaeological r esources.
However, the location of the Project Site along the banks of the original course of the Santa Ana River and
fairly close to the village of Hotuuknga makes it an extremely sensitive area for the encounter of buried
archaeological resources. Construction excavation could adversely impact as -yet undocumented
resources. Impacts to archaeological resources could be potentially significant. Implementation of
mitigation measure MM CUL-1.
Mitigation Measures:
MM CUL-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any ground-disturbing activities, the Property
Owner/Developer shall retain an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualification Standards (the “Archaeologist”), and who shall be approved by the Anaheim Planning and
Building Director. The Archeologist shall monitor ground‐disturbing activities within the Project Site,
including digging, grubbing, or excavation into native sediments that have not been previously disturbed
for the Proposed Project.
In the event that cultural resources are encountered, construction in that area must stop until the
archaeologist assesses the resource and deems it appropriate for construction to continue. Work shall be
allowed to continue outside of the vicinity of the find. All cultural resources unearthed by project
construction activities shall be evaluated by the Archaeologist. If the Archaeologist determines that the
resources may be significant, the Archaeologist shall notify the Property Owner/Developer and the
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 25 of 85
Anaheim Planning and Building Director, and shall develop an appropriate treatment plan for the
resources. The Archaeologist shall consult with an appropriate Native American representative in
determining appropriate treatment for unearthed cultural resources if the resources are prehistoric or
Native American in nature.
A report containing the monitoring results and any cultural resources records, if resources are observed,
shall be written after work is completed and submitted to the Anaheim Planning and Building Department.
Any artifacts collected during monitoring shall be properly recorded, identified, cataloged, and curated at
an appropriate institution.
Finding: Mitigation measure is feasible and avoids or substantially lessens potentially significant
archaeological resource impacts to a less-than-significant level for the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
IMPACT CUL-3: Construction of the Proposed Project would potentially cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a paleontological resource.
The Quaternary alluvial sediment types within the Project Site typically do not contain significant
vertebrate fossils in the uppermost layers, but are highly sensitive for the discovery of Pleistocene
vertebrate fossil remains at depths that may be reached as a result of the Proposed Project. The Project
Site has been disturbed by previous excavation activities and no paleontological deposits were apparent
during the survey. The Project Site has been excavated to approximately 20 feet below its original surface
and may be excavated up to 10 feet below its current level, which may be relatively undisturbed. Previous
excavations in the vicinity of the Project Site have encountered native soils anywhere from two feet to
seven feet below the street-level surface. Significant fossil remains representing a Pleistocene sheep and
a Pleistocene horse have been recovered from similar soils at similar depths to the depths of possible
future excavation of the Project Site. Therefore, it is a likely possibility that significant vertebrate fossils
may be present within the Project Site and impacts to paleontological resources could be potentially
significant. Implementation of mitigation measure MM CUL-2, which requires monitoring by a qualified
paleontologist during excavation activities, would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources
to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
MM CUL-2: Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any ground-disturbing activities, the Property
Owner/Developer shall retain a qualified paleontologist meeting the criteria established by the Society
for Vertebrate Paleontology who shall be approved by Anaheim Pl anning and Building Director. The
paleontologist shall monitor ground‐disturbing activities within the Project Site including digging,
grubbing, or excavation into older Quaternary alluvial sediment types. Monitoring shall consist of visually
inspecting fresh exposures of rock for larger fossil remains and, where appropriate, collecting wet or dry
screened sediment samples of promising horizons for smaller fossil remains. The frequency of monitoring
inspections shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, the materials being excavated,
and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of fossils encountered.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 26 of 85
If a potential fossil is found, the paleontologist shall temporarily divert or redirect grading and excavation
activities in the area of the exposed fossil to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage the find. The
paleontologist shall evaluate the significance of newly discovered paleontological deposits and prepare
and implement a treatment plan for those deposits, as appropriate. A paleontological resources
monitoring results report shall be written after work is completed and submitted to the Anaheim Planning
and Building Department. Any fossils collected during monitoring shall be properly recorded, identi fied,
and cataloged by the company that is conducting the monitoring and then curated at the Natural History
Museum of Los Angeles County.
Finding: Mitigation measure is feasible and avoids or substantially lessens potentially significant
paleontological resource impacts to a less-than-significant level for the reasons set forth in the Draft
EIR.
IMPACT CUL-4: Construction of the Proposed Project would potentially impact unknown human
remains within the Proposed Project Site.
The Proposed Project Site does not contain any formal cemeteries. Archival research and the
archaeological survey in connection with the present Project did not indicate the presence of any known
human remains in the Project Site. However, the location of the Project Site along the banks of the original
course of the Santa Ana River and fairly close to the village of Hotuuknga makes it an extremely sensitive
area for the encounter of archaeological resources and human remains. Construction activities could
impact human remains if they are present within the Project Site. Implementation of mitigation measures
MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-3 would ensure that impacts to unknown human remains are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
MM CUL-1: See above.
MM CUL-3: In the event human remains are discovered, the Construction Contractor shall notify the
County Coroner of the find immediately and no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner
has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98 (State of California
2006). If human remains are found during grading, all work in the immediate area (a radius of at least 100
feet) shall stop, and all parties shall follow all applicable state laws regarding human remains. If the
remains are Native American, the coroner is responsible for contacting the NAHC within 24 hours. The
NAHC, pursuant to Section 5097.98, shall immediately notify those persons it believes to be the Most
Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site wi thin 48 hours of being
allowed access to the site and shall recommend preservation in place, reburial, or the scientific removal
and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.
Finding: Mitigation measure is feasible and avoids or substantially lessens potentially significant
impacts to unknown human remains to a less-than-significant level for the reasons set forth in the Draft
EIR.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 27 of 85
3.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
IMPACT GEO-1: The Proposed Project Site would not experience rupture of a known earthquake fault
in the vicinity.
Surface slip along a fault plane can damage structures that cross the fault trace by surface rupture and
offset. As shown in Figure 3.5-2, no active or sufficiently active faults are known to cross the Proposed
Project. The Project Site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Bryant and Hart,
2007). The nearest active or sufficiently active faults are Puente Hills Blind Thrust and Elsinore faults
located approximately 4.7 and 7.6 miles, respectively, from the Project Site. The geotechnical hazard
posed by ground surface rupture from direct fault offset is considered to be low. Therefore, impacts from
the rupture of a known earthquake fault would be considered less than significant
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Finding: The Proposed Project would not create impacts to historical resources and no significant
impacts are anticipated for the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
IMPACT GEO-2: The Proposed Project Site would not experience strong seismic ground shaking during
seismic events on regional faults in the vicinity.
The Proposed Project is located within a seismically active region and has the potential to be subjected to
ground shaking hazards associated with earthquake events on active faults throughout the region. Seismic
hazards that could affect the site include strong ground shaking resulting from an earthquake occurring
along one of several major active faults in the region. Although ground shaking could create a potentially
significant impact, impacts are not anticipated to be greater than any other sites in so uthern California
and are not considered to pose an unusual risk to the Project Site. Furthermore, there is no realistic way
in which the seismic shaking hazard can be avoided. Proper design and construction of the Proposed
Project in accordance with current regulations and codes would reduce the effects of ground shaking to
the degree feasible. Thus, impacts from ground shaking would be considered less than significant and
mitigation would not be required.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Finding: Adherence to the proposed General Plan Goals and Policies, Zoning Code, and existing codes
and regulations will prevent the occurrence of any significant impacts related to seismic ground shaking
for the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 28 of 85
IMPACT GEO-3: The Proposed Project Site would potentially experience seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction or landslides.
The effects of liquefaction are expected to be potentially significant. Future placement of 15 to 25 feet of
compacted fill will increase overburden pressures that tend to reduce liquefaction potential and the
associated surface manifestation. Furthermore, implementation of mitigation measure MM GEO-1, which
includes the removal and recompaction of near-surface, loose sand, design of the proposed structures to
accommodate liquefaction-induced settlement, compaction grouting, deep dynamic compaction or stone
columns would reduce the effects of liquefaction to less than significant.
The potential hazard from seismically induced landslides is considered to be potentially significant.
Implementation of mitigation measure MM GEO-2, which requires the application of slope stability
measures recommended by the Slope Stability Analysis to be implemented would reduce impacts to less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
MM GEO-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall cond uct
geotechnical field explorations, which shall include Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) and CPTs to
evaluate and quantify the extent of liquefaction. The test results shall be submitted to the Anaheim Public
Works Department for review and approval. If test results show that liquefaction potential is significant,
the following measures shall be implemented:
1. Removal and Recompaction of low-density near-surface, loose sand
2. Design of the proposed structures to accommodate liquefaction -induced settlement
3. Compaction grouting
4. Deep dynamic compaction
5. Use of stone columns
MM GEO-2: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit a final
geotechnical report to the Anaheim Public Works Department implementing the recommendations
contained in the Slope Stability Analysis prepared by Leighton (September 2017, revised November 2017),
in conjunction with any future proposed development of the Project Site. These recommendations shall
also be incorporated into the grading plan prepared for the Project Site.
Finding: Impacts from liquefaction on the Project Site are potentially significant. Implementation of
mitigation measures MM GEO-1 and MM GEO-2 would reduce impacts to less than significant.
IMPACT GEO-4: The Proposed Project would not result in soil erosion or loss of topsoil during sediment
removal activities.
Erosion is a normal and inevitable geologic process whereby earth mater ials are loosened, worn away,
decomposed or dissolved, and are removed from one place and transported to another location. The
majority of the City and its Sphere-of-Influence enjoys a relatively flat topography and minimal potential
for erosion impacts. Development on the Project Site would be subject to local and state codes and
requirements for erosion control and grading. In addition, the Proposed Project would be required to
comply with a NPDES permit and develop an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (E SCP). With adherence
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 29 of 85
to these codes and regulations and implementation of the General Plan Goals and Policies, impacts would
be reduced to less than significance and mitigation measures would not be required.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Finding: Adherence to the proposed General Plan Goals and Policies, Zoning Code, and existing codes
and regulations will prevent the occurrence of any significant impacts related to soil erosion or loss of
topsoil for the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
IMPACT GEO-5: The Proposed Project would potentially be located on a geologic unit that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and could potentially result in on - or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
Lateral spreading is a phenomenon where large blocks of soil translate laterally along or through a layer
of liquefied soil. The mass moves downslope toward an unconfined area, such as a descending slope or
river, and is known to move on slope gradients as gentle as one degree. For lateral spreading to occur, the
layer of liquefied soil needs to be continuous. As mentioned under the discussion for IMPACT GEO -3
above, the Project Site is bordered by the Center Levee on the east, which slopes down into the Santa Ana
River Channel, and located in an area susceptible to liquefaction. The slope stability analysis shows that a
setback zone of approximately 60 feet from the property line should be considered in preli minary
development planning of the site. Implementation of mitigation measures MM GEO -1 and MM GEO-2
would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
MM GEO-1: See Above
MM GEO-2: See Above
Finding: Impacts from landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse on the Project
Site are potentially significant. Implementation of mitigation measures MM GEO -1 and MM GEO-2
would reduce impacts to less than significant.
IMPACT GEO-4: The Proposed Project would not result in soil erosion or loss of topsoil during sediment
removal activities.
Future development on the Project Site would be designed for the appropriate expansion potential. The
City implements a number of existing codes and policies that serve to mitigate the impacts of
development within areas containing expansive soils. Current codes and regulations relating to geology
and soils are identified in the Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 17 – Land Development and Resources. These
codes address grading, excavation, fills and watercourses as well as applicable geotechnical report
preparation and submittal. Application of the existing regulations identified in the Municipal Code and
Uniform Building Code and grading regulations would minimize the risk associated with any development
proposed within areas containing expansive soils. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation
would not be required.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 30 of 85
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Finding: Adherence to the proposed General Plan Goals and Policies, Zoning Code, and existing codes
and regulations will prevent the occurrence of any significant impacts related to soil erosion or loss of
topsoil for the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
3.6 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
IMPACT GHG-1: The Proposed Project would generate greenhouse gas emissions.
The Proposed Project would create a peak of 2,029.78 metric tons of construction related GHG emissions
in 2021. This is within the 3,000 metric tons per year significance threshold. Therefore, GHG emissions
from construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would be less than significant and
mitigation measures would not be required.
The Proposed Project would create 12,441.82 metric tons per year of operational GHG emissions. This
would exceed the 3,000 metric tons per year significance threshold and would be considered a significant
impact. The GHG emissions would be primarily created from additional motor vehicles that would be
generated from operation of the proposed commercial retail project. GHG emissions from motor vehicles
operated on public roads are regulated by the state and not by local jurisdictions. There is no feasible
mitigation available to a local jurisdiction that could be incorporated to reduce the GHG emission levels
from the on-going operations of a commercial retail project of this size to a less than significant level. The
GHG emissions may be reduced through incorporation of the example reduction measures in m itigation
measures MM GHG-1 and MM GHG-2, above, but not to a less than significant level. Impacts would remain
a significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures:
MM GHG-1: Prior to Certificate of Occupancy, the Property Owner/Developer or applicable designee (e.g.,
building manager), for future tenants on the Project Site that employ 20 or more people, which is typically
equivalent to 16,000 square feet of retail space, shall implement an employee commute trip reduction
(CTR) program. The CTR shall identify alternative modes of transportation to the Project Site, including
transit schedules, bike and pedestrian routes, and carpool/vanpool availability. Information with regard
to these programs shall be readily available to employees and clients (e.g., Go 511.com). This information
shall be submitted to the Anaheim Traffic and Transportation Division prior to the first certificate of
occupancy for the Project. The Property Owner/Developer or designee shall consider the following
incentives for commuters as part of the CTR program:
• Ride-matching assistance (e.g., subsidized public transit passes);
• Vanpool assistance or employer-provided vanpool/shuttle (OCTA vanpool program provides a
subsidy of $400 to each vanpool);
• Car-sharing program (e.g., Zipcar or other similar companies); and/or
• Bicycle end-trip facilities, including bike parking and lockers.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 31 of 85
MM GHG-2: Prior to issuance of issuance of building permits, the Property Owner/Developer shall
demonstrate that the Proposed Project will meet all applicable GHG emissions thresholds at the time of
issuance of permits or if these thresholds cannot be met, the Property Owner/Developer will implement
measures to reduce the GHG emissions to the greatest extent feasible by submitting a GHG reduction plan
to the Anaheim Planning and Building Department. This information shall be specifically shown on plans
submitted for building permits.
Examples of quantifiable reduction measures are provided below:
• Require all future tenants to implement a recycling program that diverts 50 percent of the project
waste from landfills;
• Require all building structures be designed to exceed the current Title 24 standards at the time of
construction;
• Require all lighting used on the Project Site to be high efficiency lighting that is a minimum of 15
percent more efficient than standard lighting;
• Require all dishwashers, fans, refrigerators, and other appliances to be Energy star appliances;
and
• Require the on-site generation of the Project electricity usage through use of photovoltaic panels,
co-generation plants, fuel cells or other means.
Finding: The Proposed Project would exceed and conflict with the SCAQMD draft threshold of 3,000
MTCO2e. Implementation of MM GHG-1 and MM GHG-2 would reduce the operational GHG emissions
but not below the adopted threshold. Impacts would remain a significant after mitigation.
IMPACT GHG-2: The Proposed Project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
The Proposed Project would not conflict with SCAG’s Final 2016 RTP/SCS’s land use policies, see Table 3.9 -
1 Consistency with SCAG’s Final 2016 RTP/SCS Land Use Policies in the DEIR.
The City of Anaheim’s GHG Reduction Plan provides reduction targets for energy usage, water
conservation, photovoltaic (PV) rooftop installations, and transportation emissions. For energy usage, the
GHG Reduction Plan provides a target of a 15 percent reduction by 2020 and a 30 percent reduct ion by
2030 of the energy utilized by businesses and homes in Anaheim. This target will be met through
implementation of mitigation measures MM GHG -1 and MM GHG-2.
The Proposed Project would be required to meet State regulations that include Title 24, Par t 6 California’s
Energy Efficiency Standards for Buildings and Title 24, Part 11, California’s Green Building Standards, which
require a variety of energy efficiency measures to be installed on new businesses. The GHG Reduction
Plan also includes water conservation targets of a 30 percent reduction by 2020 and a 25 percent
reduction by 2030. The GHG Reduction Plan also includes a 2020 target of 27,000 kW of PV systems
installed by 2020 and 37,000 kW of PV systems installed by 2030. In addition, the 2013 Tit le 24 Building
Standards require that new non-residential buildings are constructed to be solar ready to facilitate the
installation of rooftop solar systems. The GHG Reduction Plan also includes a 2020 target of a 6,000
MTCO2e reduction in vehicle emissions and a 2030 target of 20,000 MTCO2e reduction in vehicle
emissions. Future CalGreen Building Standards are anticipated to require that all new non -residential
projects provide electric vehicle charging stations. Therefore, through implementation of mitigation
measures MM GHG-1 and MM GHG-2 and State regulations, the Proposed Project will meet the energy
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 32 of 85
use reduction, water conservation, and vehicle emission targets provided in the GHG Reduction Plan.
There is no feasible mitigation available to a local jurisdiction that could be incorporated to reduce the
GHG emission levels from the on-going operations of the Proposed Project to a less than significant level.
The Proposed Project would result in a conflict with the SCAQMD adopted threshold of 3,000 MTCO 2e.
With implementation of MM GHG-1 and MM GHG-2, the operation-related GHG emissions would be
reduced; however not to within the adopted thresholds and would remain a significant unavoidable
impact.
Mitigation Measures:
MM GHG-1: See above.
MM GHG-2: See above.
Finding: The Proposed Project would exceed and conflict with the SCAQMD draft threshold of 3,000
MTCO2e. Implementation of MM GHG-1 and MM GHG-2 would reduce the operational GHG emissions
but not below the adopted threshold. Impacts would remain a significant after mitigation.
3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
IMPACT HAZ-1: The Proposed Project would create a hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials.
Future development of the Project Site could result in up to 425,000 square feet of commercial
development, which could involve the use or generation of hazardous materials and/or emissions, as well
as other hazards. During construction and/or operation of the project the use, transport and disposal of
hazardous materials shall be in accordance with local, state and federal regulations. Compliance with
these regulations would reduce any potential impacts to less than significant. Mitigation measures would
not be required.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Finding: Adherence to the proposed General Plan Goals and Policies, Zoning Code, and existing codes
and regulations will prevent the occurrence of any significant impacts relate d to hazardous materials
for the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
IMPACT HAZ-2: The Proposed Project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment.
Phase I ESA conducted for the Proposed Project discovered that a release of approximately 3,500 gallons
of JP-5 jet fuel to BRB occurred on September 19, 1989. BRB was filled with storm water at the time of t he
release and an approximately two to three-foot layer of free-phase jet fuel spread across the Project Site.
Approximately 2,000 cubic yards of soil was removed from the Project Site and regulatory closure by the
OCHCA is reported to have been granted on June 13, 1990. There is the potential that stormwater runoff
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 33 of 85
has carried contaminants from offsite properties and deposited them into BRB. DOGGR maps indicate
that there is a plugged and abandoned oil well located within the existing Santa Ana River Channel
approximately 150 feet east of the Project Site. The location of wells plotted on DOGGR maps may not be
accurate and a review of the hard copy records shall be conducted if a well a ppears to be within
approximately 500 feet of the Project Site. The OCFA requires a methane survey for properties that are
located within an oil field or a distance less than or equal to 100 feet from any active or abandoned oil/gas
well that is not located within the administrative boundary of an oil field.
Mitigation Measures
MM HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall prepare a Phase II
Environmental Site Assessment conducted under the oversight of the Department of Toxic Substance
Control, RWQCB, or the Orange County Health Care Agency and submi t it to the Anaheim Planning and
Building Department for review. The Phase II ESA shall include soil and soil vapor sampling to assess the
Project Site for potential contaminants, including, but not limited to, petroleum hydrocarbons, VOCs,
semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and pesticides.
A Phase II sampling plan shall consider the geotechnical requirements to prepare potentially
contaminated site soils for development of the Project Site and shall also consider the thickness of soils
and soil types that will be imported to the Project Site to achieve final grade. These factors will affect the
potential for exposure to potentially contaminated soils during earthwork activities and the post -
development potential for indoor air exposure to potentially contaminated soil vapor. Additionally, a
sampling plan shall be prepared and implemented prior to importing soil to the Project Site for infill
purposes in order to verify that imported soils will meet regula tory screening levels for commercial
property use.
MM HAZ-2: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall conduct a review
of DOGGR records. A methane survey shall be conducted, under oversight from the OCFA, if it is
determined that the oil well is located within 100 feet from the Project Site, or if the location of the well
cannot be accurately determined. A methane survey work plan shall be submitted to the OCFA, prior to
issuance of a grading permit. The methane survey and methane mitigation, if determined to be required,
shall be in accordance with the OCFA Combustible Soil Gas Hazard Mitigation Guideline C -03 (OCFA, 2008).
MM HAZ-3: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall abandon the
existing groundwater monitoring well in accordance with applicable City and OCWD requirements. A Well
Destruction Permit shall be obtained from the Environmental Services Division of the Anaheim Public
Utilities Department (APUD). Any other wells discovered d uring grading or demolition shall also be
destroyed under a revised Well Destruction Permit. Proof of proper abandonment shall be submitted to
the APUD.
MM HAZ-4: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Property Owner/Developer shall include a note
on the plans that in the event contamination of soil and/or groundwater is suspected, the Cons truction
Contractor shall cease construction/demolition in the area and contact the City of Anaheim Planning and
Building Department. The Property Owner/Developer shall perform soil/groundwater sampling with
regulatory oversight by the appropriate government agency, i.e. the DTSC and/or RWQCB and obtain a
Letter of No Further Action prior to resuming construction/demolition activities.
Finding: The potential for exposure to contaminated soils would be mitigated by the implementation
of mitigation measures MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-3, which requires the preparation of a Phase II ESA
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 34 of 85
for the Project, a review of the DOGGR records, and the abandonment of the ground water monitoring
well would reduce potential impacts from contaminated soils to less than significant.
IMPACT HAZ-3: The Proposed Project would emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
The closest schools to the Proposed Project Site include U.S. Colleges of Anaheim (0.26 mile southwest),
Westwood College – Anaheim Campus (0.54 mile southwest), the Orange Education Center (0.67 mile
southeast), and Calvary Baptist Church Pre-school (0.64 mile north). There are no schools within a quarter
mile of the Proposed Project. The Project would not expose schools within a quarter -mile of the Project
Site to hazardous materials or substances. Impacts would be considered less than significant and
mitigation would not be required.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Finding: Adherence to the proposed General Plan Goals and Policies, Zoning Code, and existing codes
and regulations will prevent the occurrence of any significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous
materials to schools for the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
IMPACT HAZ-4: The Proposed Project would be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would c reate
a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
A review of regulatory databases was conducted for the Phase I ESA. The Project Site is not included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No impacts
would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Finding: Adherence to the proposed General Plan Goals and Policies, Zoning Code, and existing codes
and regulations will prevent the occurrence of any significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous
materials to schools for the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
IMPACT HAZ-5: The Proposed Project would impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
The AFD permits and regulates the use of hazardous materials in order to ensure that risks associated with
the use of hazardous materials in the community are minimized. The hazardous materials control and
safety programs and available emergency response resources of the AFD, along with periodic inspections
to ensure regulatory compliance, reduce the potential risk of upset and exposure to hazardous materials
associated with nearby commercial and industrial businesses. Future develop ments on the Project Site
would be required to comply with AFD regulations for use of hazardous materials. State law also requires
any businesses handling hazardous materials prepare a business plan to ensure that hazardous materials
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 35 of 85
are properly handled, used, stored, and disposed of and to prevent or mitigate injury to human health or
the environment in the event that such materials are accidentally released. The Proposed Project would
not interfere with any adopted emergency response plans. Impacts would be considered less than
significant and mitigation measures would not be required.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Finding: Adherence to the proposed General Plan Goals and Policies, Zoning Code, and existing codes
and regulations will prevent the occurrence of any significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous
materials for the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
IMPACT HYDRO-1: The Proposed Project would violate water quality stan dards or waste discharge
requirements.
Clearing, grading, and excavation construction activities and the long term operational impacts associated
with the Proposed Project may impact water quality. Construction related activities can cause sheet
erosion of exposed soils and subsequent deposition of particulates in local drainages. Grading activities,
in particular, lead to exposed areas of loose soil, as well as sediment stockpiles, that are susceptible to
uncontrolled sheet flow. Although erosion occurs naturally in the environment, primarily from weathering
by water and wind action, improperly managed construction activities can lead to substantially
accelerated rates of erosion that are considered detrimental to the environment. In addition, the long-
term alteration of the existing pervious land use to a commercial land use will increase imperviousness
surface, which leads to increased rates of runoff. Impervious surfaces from commercial uses including
parking lots and rooftops can cause degraded water quality. The Proposed Project does not include a
specific development plan for the Project Site. Therefore, a detailed, site-specific Risk Assessment to
determine sediment risk and receiving water risk cannot be performed at this time, since it is unclear how
the future development will be constructed and phased. However, based on the project location and low -
risk receiving water body, it is anticipated that the Proposed Project would be a Risk Level 2.
Mitigation Measures:
MM HYDRO-1: Prior to the issuance of a precise grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall
prepare and submit to the Anaheim Public Works Department a program-level WQMP consistent with the
existing Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) (March 15, 2017). It shall describe the
menu of Best Management Practices (BMP’s) chosen for the Proposed Project and includes operation and
maintenance requirements for all structural and any treatment control BMPs in compliance with the 2011
Model WQMP and Technical Guidance Document (TGD). Future project -specific WQMPs, preliminary or
final, also shall be prepared for future development, cons istent with the terms and content of the
program-level Preliminary WQMP for the Proposed Project, while developing specific water quality
solutions for each individual development area. More specifically, low impact development (LID) and
water quality treatment solutions prescribed in project-specific WQMPs shall be designed to supplement
or enhance the regional LID BMPs prescribed in the program -level Preliminary WQMP.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 36 of 85
MM HYDRO-2: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer s hall provide to
the Anaheim Public Works Department a Notice of Intent and WDID Number issued from the State Water
Regional Control Board (SWRCB) in accordance with the requirements of the General Construction Permit
(GCP) to ensure the potential for soil erosion and construction impacts are minimized. In accordance with
the updated GCP (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ), the following PRDs are required to be submitted to the
SWRCB prior to commencement of construction activities:
• Notice of Intent (NOI)
• Risk Assessment (Standard or Site-Specific)
• Particle Size Analysis (if site-specific risk assessment is performed)
• Site Map
• Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP)
• Post-Construction Water Balance Calculator (not required – project is covered under the North
Orange County MS4 permit Order No. R9-2009-0030)
• Active Treatment System (ATS) Design Documentation (if ATS is determined necessary)
• Annual Fee & Certification
MM HYDRO-3: In accordance with the existing and updated Anaheim Grading Code, prior to commencement of
construction activities, the Property Owner/Developer shall prepare and submit to the Anaheim Public Works
Department a construction ESCP. The ESCP shall be implemented and revised as necessary, as administrative or physical
conditions change. The ESCP shall describe construction BMPs that address pollutant source reduction, and provide
measures/controls necessary to mitigate potential pollutant sources. These measures/controls include, but are not
limited to erosion controls, sediment controls, tracking controls, non-storm water management, materials & waste
management, and good housekeeping practices,1 including the following:
▪ Erosion control BMPs, such as hydraulic mulch, soil binders, and geotextiles and mats, protect the soil surface by
covering and/or binding the soil particles. Temporary earth dikes or drainage swales may also be employed to divert
runoff away from exposed areas and into more suitable locations . If implemented correctly, erosion controls can
effectively reduce the sediment loads entrained in storm water runoff from construction sites.
▪ Sediment controls are designed to intercept and filter out soil particles that have been detached and transport ed by
the force of water. All storm drain inlets on the Project site or within the project vicinity (i.e., along streets
immediately adjacent to the Project boundary) should be adequately protected with an impoundment (i.e., gravel
bags) around the inlet and equipped with a sediment filter (i.e., fiber roll). Bags should also be placed around areas of
soil disturbing activities, such as grading or clearing.
▪ Stabilize all construction entrance/exit points to reduce the tracking of sediments onto adjacent st reets. Wind
erosion controls should be employed in conjunction with tracking controls.
▪ Non-storm water management BMPs prohibit the discharge of materials other than storm water, as well as reduce
the potential for pollutants from discharging at their sou rce. Examples include avoiding paving and grinding
operations during the rainy season (i.e., October 1 through April 30 each year) where feasible, and performing any
vehicle equipment cleaning, fueling and maintenance in designated areas that are adequatel y protected and
contained.
1 California Stormwater Quality Association. (2003, January). Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook for New Development and Redevelopment .
Retrieved January 27, 2009, from http://www.cabmphandbooks.com
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 37 of 85
▪ Waste management consists of implementing procedural and structural BMPs for collecting, handling, storing and
disposing of wastes generated by a construction project to prevent the release of waste materials into storm water
discharges.
Finding: Implementation of MM HYDRO-1 through MM HYDRO-3 would ensure that impacts to water
quality would be less than significant for the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
IMPACT HYDRO-2: The Proposed Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level.
The BRB was previously used as a recharge facilit y as part of OCWD’s series of off-line recharge basins
adjacent to the Santa Ana River. Due to the presence of a large thick clay layer under the majority of the
basin floor, BRB does not provide sufficient groundwater recharge. Under the proposed conditio ns
described above, BRB would be filled to allow for future commercial development on -site. As part of the
project-wide development plan, an infiltration basin within the SCE easement is proposed to provide
treatment of runoff from the developed areas. Site-specific infiltration tests would be required to
determine if the soil profile within the area of the basin meets the minimum criteria for infiltration based
on the 2011 TGD criteria. Based on the limited infiltration for the recharge basin under the exi sting
conditions, the land use conversion to General Commercial, as conceptually proposed with an infiltration
basin within the SCE easement for small storm events, would not have a significant impact on
groundwater levels or supplies. Similarly, the replacement of one large infiltration basin with smaller
basins, or functionally equivalent LID features associated with each phase or parcel of development,
would not have an impact on groundwater levels or supplies. A preliminary WQMP would be required by
the City prior to obtaining grading and building permits for a specific development project.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Finding: Impacts to groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge would be considered less than
significant for the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 38 of 85
IMPACT HYDRO-3: The Proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site, which would potentially result in substantial erosion or siltation, or substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off-site.
On-site flows would increase based on future commercial development, which would result in a large
change in impervious condition and the change in Time of Concentration (Tc). Off -site peak flow
discharges entering the Project Site would remain unchanged. However, flows would no longer be
discharged into the detention basin and released into the Santa Ana River through the existing weir and
sub-basin. Off-site peak flows would be routed directly into the Santa Ana River without this bypass. The
Project Site is located in an area of the Santa Ana River watershed that is not susceptible to
hydromodification impacts; therefore, hydromodification controls are not required. The Project Site
discharges into a segment of the Santa Ana River that is identified as st able and not subject to
hydromodification. This portion of the Santa Ana River also actively promotes groundwater recharge
through the use of gravel berms. Low flows from the Project Site would either infiltrate on-site or undergo
biotreatment and discharge into an actively managed groundwater recharge zone of the Santa Ana River.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Finding: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in erosion or siltation on or off -site,
adherence to the GCP requirements, as well as the preparation and implementation of a site -specific
ESCP would minimize any potential impacts during constructio n. Therefore, impacts would be
considered to be less than significant for the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
IMPACT HYDRO-4: The Proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff water , which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff.
Under the existing conditions, the Project Site serves as a groundwater recharge basin that receives off -
site flows from the CSD system and two local storm drain lines from off -site commercial areas. BRB
includes a large weir, sub-basin and culvert to convey flows into the Santa Ana River. Under the proposed
condition, BRB would be filled and the off-site storm drain systems that drain into the Project Site would
be intercepted and aligned either around or through the Project Site and discharged directly into the Santa
Ana River. The on-site storm drain system would be sized to convey the on-site flows and directed into
the Santa Ana River. The Santa Ana River has been designed for a 200 -year flood and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) has approved the direct connections into the Santa Ana River. In conjunction with
developing a site plan for a specific p roject, approvals would need to be obtained by federal, county and
City agencies.
Mitigation Measures:
No additional mitigation measures are required.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 39 of 85
Finding: Adhering to the requirements of USACE permits for discharging into the Santa Ana River, OCF CD
encroachment permits, and City requirements for a WQMP, grading and drainage plans, would prevent
the occurrence of any significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality for the reasons set
forth in the Draft EIR.
IMPACT HYDRO-5: The Proposed Project would otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
As discussed under IMPACT HDYRO-1, water quality exceedances are not anticipated, and pollutants are
not expected in project runoff that would adversely affect beneficial uses in downstream receiving waters.
Implementation of MM HYDRO-1 through MM HYDRO-3 would ensure that impacts to water quality from
the Proposed Project are reduced to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
No additional mitigation measures are required.
Finding: Implementation of MM HYDRO-1 through MM HYDRO-3 will prevent the occurrence of any
significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality for the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
IMPACT HYDRO-6: The Proposed Project would not place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area.
Under the existing conditions, the Project Site is located within a flood hazard area as defined by the local
FIRM Map. Under the Proposed Project, Project Site would be backfilled and graded for development, and
would be located outside of the flood zone. The ultimate flood zone determined for the Project Site would
match the existing developed areas surrounding the Project Site and would be a Zone X designation which
is not within a flood hazard area. Per FEMA re quirements, the flood zone maps must be updated in order
to remove the Project Site out of the flood zone. Updating the FEMA map to reflect this change would
require the Property Owner/Developer to file a Condition Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and Letter of
Map Revision (LOMR) with FEMA in order to revise the official FIRM for the Project area. The CLOMR and
LOMR would be required prior to obtaining a grading permit and would be coordinated with preparation
of the grading plan for the Proposed Project. Th e on-site storm drain system for the Proposed Project
would also be designed to accommodate the 100-year flood. Upon implementation of MM HYDRO-4, the
Proposed Project would not place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area.
Mitigation Measures:
MM HYDRO-4: Prior to issuance of a grading permit in conjunction with a future development of the
Project Site, the Property Owner/Developer shall a) submit a floodplain analysis to the Anaheim Public
Works and Planning and Building Departments for review and approval. The flood plain analysis will
include (1) 200-yr water surface elevations approved by U.S. ACOE on the Santa Ana River along the
project frontage, (2) possible impact of inlet closure of existing overflow bypass structure (crossing Ball
Road) on the recharging basin water surface north of Ball Road and any affected existing structures or
Santa Ana River levee, and (3) longitudinal and transverse sections of the entire proposed site with existing
grades. The recommendations contained in the analysis, including a CLOMR/LOMR if required, shall be
implemented prior to issuance of a building permit; and b ) storm drain improvement plans shall be
submitted for the modification of the Chantilly Storm Drain and closure of the inlet structure from Burris
Basin.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 40 of 85
Finding: Implementation of MM HYRDRO-4 will prevent the occurrence of any significant impacts
related to hydrology and water quality for the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
IMPACT HYDRO-7: The Proposed Project would substantially degrade water quality by contributing
pollutants from areas of mineral storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or e quipment
maintenance, or by discharge which affects the beneficial uses (i.e., swimming, fishing, etc.) of the
receiving or downstream waters.
Storm water runoff discharged from the Project Site during construction and post-construction of
Proposed Project are not anticipated to affect beneficial uses of the Santa Ana River.
Mitigation Measures:
No additional mitigation measures are required.
Finding: Conformance with 2011 WQMP and TGD requirements along with local and state regulatory
requirements for construction and post-construction operations of the Proposed Project will prevent
the occurrence of any significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality for the reasons set
forth in the Draft EIR.
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
IMPACT LU-1: The Proposed Project would conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordin ance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect.
The Proposed Project would change the City’s General Plan Land Use designation for the Project Site from
Open Space to General Commercial. Development of the Project Site under the Proposed Project would
result in decreasing the amount of open space land in the City, however, the Project Site is not currently
accessible to the public and does not provide existing opportunities for recreation or public access to open
space. The Proposed Project would also amend the General Plan Circulation and Green Elements to add a
Proposed Class 1 Bikeway/Trail Study Area along the northern, eastern and southern edges of the Project
Site. The proposed multi-purpose trail would serve as a southern extension of the Anaheim Coves Class 1
Bikeway/Riding and Hiking Trail located to the north across Ball Road. The proposed location of the Class
1 Bikeway/Trail Study Area would provide an opportunity for public access to views from the Project Site
of the Santa Ana River and the Santa Ana Mountains that currently are not publically accessible. Although
the Proposed Project would result in development of the site and the reduction in the amount of open
space within the City, the public would also have the opportunity to gain greater access to other open
space amenities, including views of the Santa Ana River and the Santa Ana Mountains through the
proposed Class 1 Bikeway/Trail Study.
The Proposed Project would amend the zoning designation of the site from Transitional (T) Zone and
Industrial (I) Zone to the General Commercial (C-G) Zone. The T Zone as intended to provide for land that
is restricted to limited uses because of special conditions (existing groundwater recharge basin), or not
zoned to one of the zoning districts in contained in the City’s zoning code. Removing the Project Site from
the T Zone would not result in any significant impacts and is c onsistent with the land uses in the
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 41 of 85
surrounding area, which are zoned C-G and O-L (Low Intensity Office). The amended General Plan land
use designation and zoning designation are consistent with the development pattern of the area
surrounding the Project Site. Future development on the Project Site would be required to comply with
the development standards for the C-G Zone.
Portions of the Project Site are within the Floodplain (FP) Overlay Zone and within a flood hazard area as
defined by the local FIRM Map. The Project Site would be backfilled and graded for development, which
would result in the removal of the Project Site from the flood zone.
The Proposed Project would not conflict with SCAG’s Final 2016 RTP/SCS’s land use policies or the
Anaheim General Plan.
Mitigation Measures:
No additional mitigation measures are required.
Finding: Adherence to the proposed General Plan Goals and Policies, Zoning Code, and existing codes
and regulations will prevent the occurrence of any significant impacts related to land use and planning
for the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
3.10 NOISE
IMPACT NOISE-1: The Proposed Project would result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies.
Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would be a function of
the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and
the timing and duration of the construction activities. Construction noise that occurs between 7:00 a.m.
and 7:00 p.m. are exempt from the stationary noise standard of 60 dB at the nearby property line for all
land uses. Any construction activities that occur outside of the allowable times could result in significant
impacts to the City. Construction noise levels would exceed the City’s stationary noise standard and
impacts would be potentially significant. Construction noise impacts would be less than significant in the
City of Orange. Implementation of mitigation measure MM NOISE -1 would reduce construction noise
impacts in the City to less than significant.
The Proposed Project would generate noise from additional vehicular t rips on the nearby roadways and
from onsite stationary noise sources. The Cities of Anaheim and Orange provide noise standards for the
noise sources that would occur onsite from development of the Proposed Project. Potential noise sources
from a general commercial uses typically include: rooftop mechanical equipment, parking lots, truck
loading areas, forklifts and pallet storage areas, trash compactors, and possibly drive through speakers.
The worst-case operations-related stationary noise level would be 5 7 dBA Leq at the nearest receptor
(auto sales on west side of Phoenix Club Drive), which would not exceed the City’s stationary noise
standard of 60 dBA Leq. Impacts would be less than significant in the City. Impacts would also be less than
significant in the City of Orange.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 42 of 85
Mitigation Measures:
MM NOISE-1: Prior to issuance of all demolition, grading and building permits, the Property
Owner/Developer shall indicate on plans adherence to the following noise attenuation requirements:
• All construction equipment shall operate with mufflers and intake silencers no less effective than
originally equipped.
• All construction activities shall be restricted from occurring between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.,
unless the contractor obtains authorization from the Director of Public Works or Building Official
to extend construction work hours.
Finding: Implementation of mitigation measure MM NOISE -1 would reduce construction noise impacts
in the City to less than significant.
IMPACT NOISE-2: The Proposed Project would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
Construction activities can produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent uses. The closest receptors to
the proposed construction activities are the auto sales on the west side of Phoenix Club Drive that are
located as near as 80 feet from the proposed grading activities. The primary source of vibration during
construction would be from the operation of a bulldoz er during the grading phase. This vibration level is
below the 0.25 inch per second PPV threshold of perception for transient sources used by Caltrans , and is
also below the 0.2 inch per second PPV threshold used in the City of Anaheim General Plan EIR. Th erefore,
construction-related vibration impacts would be less than significant and mitigation measures would not
be required.
The Proposed Project would result in the operation of a retail shopping center requiring the use of delivery
trucks. A loaded truck on a dirt or poorly maintained paved road would produce a vibration level below
the 0.25 inch per second PPV threshold of perception for transient sources used by Caltrans and is also
below the 0.2 inch per second PPV threshold used in the City of Anaheim General Plan EIR. Therefore,
operations-related vibration impact would be less than significant and mitigation measures would not be
required.
Mitigation Measures:
No additional mitigation measures are required.
Finding: Adherence to the proposed General Plan Goals and Policies, Zoning Code, and existing codes
and regulations will prevent the occurrence of any significant impacts related to vibration or noise for
the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
IMPACT NOISE-3: The Proposed Project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels, in the project vicinity, above levels existing without the project.
Potential noise impacts associated with the operations of the Proposed Project would be from Project -
generated vehicular traffic on the Project vicinity roadways from onsite stationary noise sources. The
Proposed Project does not propose any uses that would require a substantial number of truck trips.
Furthermore, the Proposed Project would not alter the speed limit on any existing roadway. The Proposed
Project would consist of the development of up to 425,000 square feet of general commercial uses.
Potential noise sources from a general commercial use typically include: rooftop mechanical equipment,
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 43 of 85
parking lots, truck loading areas, forklifts and pallet storage areas, trash compactors, and possibly drive
through speakers. The potential noise impacts at the nearest receptor were discussed and analyzed
above, under IMPACT NOISE-1. According to the analysis, the combined worst-case stationary noise
sources would create a noise level of 57 dBA Leq at the nearest receptor, which would not exceed the
City’s stationary noise standard of 60 dBA Leq. Impacts would be less than significant in the City.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Finding: Adherence to the proposed General Plan Goals and Policies, Zoning Code, and existing codes
and regulations will prevent the occurrence of any signifi cant impacts related to ambient noise for the
reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
IMPACT NOISE-4: The Proposed Project would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels, in the project vicinity, above levels existing without the project.
The Proposed Project may create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in
the Project vicinity above noise levels existing without the Proposed Project from either construction or
operational activities. Construction noise is temporary and would not exceed the ambient noise threshold.
Furthermore, worst-case operations-related maximum noise level would not exceed the existing ambient
maximum noise level. Therefore, the Proposed Project’s construction and operations-related activities
would not cause a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Finding: Adherence to the proposed General Plan Goals and Policies, Zoning Code, and existing codes
and regulations will prevent the occurrence of any significant impacts related to ambient noise for the
reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
IMPACT POP-1: The Proposed Project would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly or indirectly.
The Proposed Project would change the City’s General Plan Land Use designation for the Project Site from
Open Space to General Commercial and th e zoning designation of the site from Transitional (T) Zone and
Industrial (I) Zone to the General Commercial (C-G) Zone. Amendments to the General Plan and zoning
would allow the construction and operation of up to 425,000 square foot of commercial develo pment.
Based on the ratio of 400 square feet per employee contained in the City of Anaheim General Plan Land
Use Element, the Proposed Project could generate up to 1,063 employees.
The number of jobs created a result of the Proposed Project is not expected to induce population growth
in the area. It is expected that the majority of the workforce needed to fill the jobs created by the
Proposed Project would be supplied by residents of the City, which had a January 2017 unemployment
rate of 4.9 percent, or by residents of neighboring cities who would commute. Furthermore, any nominal
population growth induced by the creation of new jobs would be adequately absorbed by the current
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 44 of 85
housing market in the City, which had a vacancy rate of 3.8 percent. Impacts to population growth would
be considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Finding: Impacts to population growth would be considered less than si gnificant for the reasons set
forth in the Draft EIR.
3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES
IMPACT PUB-1: The Proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection, police protection,
schools, parks or other public facilities.
It is anticipated that the overall increase in property tax revenue from future commercial development
would be used to cover additional staffing, equipment, or facility needs. However, impact fees may be
assessed depending on the intensity of the uses pro posed and the demand for fire and police services.
Furthermore, all future development plans would be required to comply with the policies contained in
the General Plan and with the Anaheim Municipal Code. Impacts to public facilities would be considered
less than significant and mitigation measures would not be required.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Finding: Future project-specific impacts to Public Services would be reduced by the payment of
applicable impact fees and adherence to the General Plan and Anaheim Municipal Code, and would not
result in cumulatively significant impacts.
3.13 RECREATION
IMPACT REC-1: The Proposed Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated.
The Project Site is not located in a residential area or identified as a Park Deficiency Area in the City of
Anaheim General Plan Green Element. The build-out of the Proposed Project could result in up to 425,000
square feet of commercial development, which would generate an increase of up to 1,063 employees.
The number of employees generated by the Proposed Project would not result in sign ificant increases in
the population. While employees may use nearby recreational facilities such as the Anaheim Coves or the
Santa Ana River Riding and Hiking Trail, use of these facilities would not be intensive enough to result in
substantial physical deterioration of the facilities. Future commercial development on the Project Site
would be designed to support the recreational goals and policies of the Green Element. Furthermore, the
Proposed Project would amend the General Plan Circulation and Green Ele ments to designate a Class 1
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 45 of 85
Bikeway/Trail Study Area along the northern, eastern and southern perimeter of the Project Site. The
proposed multi-purpose trail would serve as a southern extension of the Anaheim Coves Class 1
Bikeway/Riding and Hiking Trail located to the north, across Ball Road. Impacts to recreation would be
considered less than significant and mitigation would not be required.
Mitigation Measures:
No additional mitigation measures are required.
Finding: Implementation of the Green Element Goals and Policies and compliance with the City’s park
dedication ordinance reduces any impacts to recreational facilities to a less -than-significant level for
the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
IMPACT REC-2: The Proposed Project would not in clude recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of existing recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment.
The Proposed Project would amend the General Plan Circulation and Green Elements to designate a Class
1 Bikeway/Trail Study Area along the northern, eastern and southern perimeter of the Project Site. The
proposed multi-purpose trail would serve as a southern extension of the Anaheim Coves Class 1
Bikeway/Riding and Hiking Trail located to the north, across Ball Road. Trail Study Areas depict potential
trail locations that connect residents with recreational opportunities, schools and activity centers.
Although they are mapped, the feasibility of their implementation has yet to be determ ined. Future
implementation of the Class 1 Bikeway/Trail Study Area will potentially include analysis of necessary
intergovernmental or joint use agreements (i.e. lease, license, easement, joint use agreement); law
enforcement jurisdiction; potential property acquisition; maintenance responsibilities; cost sharing;
allowable trail uses; physical obstacles; ownership constraints; and, funding issues to determine
feasibility. Therefore, impacts to recreation would be considered less than significant and mitig ation
would not be required.
Mitigation Measures:
No additional mitigation measures are required.
Finding: Implementation of the Green Element Goals and Policies and compliance with the City’s park
dedication ordinance reduces any impacts to recreational facilities to a less-than-significant level for
the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 46 of 85
3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
IMPACT TRAF-1: The Proposed Project would conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measure of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system.
Existing Plus Project Intersections
The Proposed Project would create a significant impact at the following intersection:
• Phoenix Club Drive/Ball Road (0.156 V/C increase at LOS C in p.m. peak hour)
Implementation of the improvements at Phoenix Club Drive/Ball Road would reduce impacts to less than
significant:
• Widen the northbound approach and construct dual left turn lane and a dedicated right turn lane.
• Widen the eastbound approach and construct a dedicated right turn lane.
• Add overlap phasing for the northbound and eastbound right turn lanes.
• Construct a westbound dual left turn lane.
Existing Plus Project Roadway Segments
The following roadway segments would be significantly impacted by the Proposed Project:
• Ball Road, Sunkist Street to SR 57 southbound ramps (0.016 V/C increase at LOS F)
• Ball Road, SR 57 northbound ramps to Phoenix Club Drive (0.062 V/C increase at LOS C)
• Ball Road, Phoenix Club Drive to Main Street (0.027 V/C increas e at LOS E)
Implementation of the following improvements would achieve the following and reduce impacts to less
than significant:
• Ball Road, Sunkist Street to SR 57 southbound ramps
o Construct a fourth travel lane in the westbound direction to make this se gment a 7-
lane, divided segment (7D).
o It should be noted that this roadway segment is ultimately planned to be a 6 -lane,
divided roadway under the City of Anaheim’s General Plan Circulation Element.
• Ball Road, SR 57 northbound ramps to Phoenix Club Drive
o Construct a fourth travel lane in the westbound direction to make this segment a 7 -
lane, divided segment (7D).
o It should be noted that this roadway segment is ultimately planned to be a 6 -lane,
divided roadway under the City of Anaheim’s General Plan Circulation Element.
• Ball Road, Phoenix Club Drive to Main Street
o Construct a third travel lane in the eastbound direction to make this segment a 6 -lane
divided segment (6D) consistent with the City of Anaheim’s General Plan Circulation
Element.
Existing Plus Project Ramp Intersections
The following Caltrans ramp intersection would be significantly impacted by the Proposed Project:
• SR-55 southbound ramps/Katella Avenue (5.5 second delay increase at LOS F in p.m. peak hour
and 7.0 second delay increase at LOS F in p.m. peak hour)
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 47 of 85
Implementation of the following improvements would achieve the following and reduce impacts to less
than significant:
• SR-55 southbound ramps/Katella Avenue- convert second SB left turn lane to shared left -right
turn lane, add westbound left turn lane. Intersection would operate at LOS F in both peak hours
with a contribution of -115.4 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour and -69.7 seconds of delay in
the p.m. peak hour.
Because all ramp intersections are exclusively controlled by the State, there is no mechanism by which
the City can construct or guarantee the construction of any of these improvements. Therefore, a
Statement of Overriding Considerations will be developed for the impacted Caltrans ramp intersections.
Existing Plus Project Freeway Mainline Segments
With addition of project trips to SR-57 in the Existing Plus Project condition, the following segments are
forecast to continue to operate with unsatisfactory LOS:
• SR-57 northbound between Katella Avenue and Ball Road (p.m. peak hour)
• SR-57 northbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue (p.m. peak hour)
• SR-57 northbound between Lincoln Avenue and SR-91 (p.m. peak hour)
• SR-57 southbound between I-5 and Orangewood Avenue (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
• SR-57 southbound between Orangewood Avenue and Katella Avenue (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
• SR-57 southbound between Katella Avenue and Ball Road (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
• SR-57 southbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
• SR-57 southbound between Lincoln Avenue and SR-91 (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
The baseline (without project) LOS is LOS E or F, and it remains LOS E or F with addition of project trips.
The Proposed Project would not create a significant impact at these locations as mainline segment LOS
would remain the same. However, the Proposed Project would contribute to a significant cumulative
impact.
The mainline/weaving analysis revealed that several mainline/weaving areas operate at deficient levels
of service under 2035 With and No Project conditions as a result of high mainline forecast volumes and
cumulative growth. To address cumulative deficiencies associated with the freeway mainline and weaving
segments, freeway capacity enhancements such as widening the facilities by one lane in each direction
would require consideration:
• SR-57 northbound between Orangewood Avenue and SR-91 – widen by one lane
• SR-57 southbound between SR-91 and SR-22 Ramps – widen by one lane
Improvements have been recommended to reduce the level of impact to less than significant levels.
Potential additional capacity enhancements include the implementation of auxiliary lanes within weaving
areas to improve operations on the merge/diverge areas as well as the mainline and weaving areas .
A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already
anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements.
Based on the evaluation improvements identified may not be feasible due to ROW acquisition needs,
impacts to established land uses, and environmental constraints.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 48 of 85
All of the weaving segment and ramp improvements needed are likely not feasible due to ROW or other
constraints. Caltrans has not identified any further improvements beyond those already assumed in the
buildout analysis for SR-57. The City has limited control over State facilities. Because SR -57 is exclusively
controlled by the State, there is no mechanism by which the City can construct or guar antee the
construction of any improvements to any State facilities. Pursuant to Caltrans’ Guide for the Preparation
of Traffic Impact Studies (2002), consultation between the City and Caltrans will be necessary to reach
consensus on any potential operational improvement measures that can be implemented in the study
area to assist in mitigation of traffic increases related to implementation of the Proposed Project. Beyond
jurisdictional limitation, additional capacity improvements are assumed infeasible due to physical, ROW,
and environmental constraints. Additionally, the City does not have any jurisdiction over any deficient
areas within Caltrans jurisdiction. Therefore, the City cannot ensure completion of any mitigation
measures on State owned facilities. Therefore, the Proposed Project would create a Significant
Unavoidable Impact to the impacted freeway mainline segments.
Existing Plus Project Freeway Weaving Segments
The weaving areas for the northbound and southbound segments along SR -57 are forecast to continue to
operate at unsatisfactory LOS (LOS E or F) in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with addition of project traffic
in the Existing Plus Project conditions. The Proposed Project would not create a significant impact at these
locations as weaving segment LOS would remain the same. However, the Proposed Project would
contribute to a significant cumulative impact.
As previously stated under the impact discussion for freeway mainline segments, all of the weaving
segment improvements needed to reduce impacts are likely not feasible due to ROW or other constraints.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would create a Significant Unavoidable Impact to the impacted freeway
weaving segments.
Buildout 2035 Plus Project Intersections
The Proposed Project would create a significant impact at the following intersection:
• Phoenix Club Drive/Ball Road (0.119 V/C increase at LOS C in a.m. peak hour, and 0.192 V/C
increase at LOS C in p.m. peak hour)
Implementation of the following improvements would achieve the following and reduce impacts to less
than significant:
• Phoenix Club Drive/Ball Road - widen NB approach to provide 2 left, 1 through, and 1 right turn
lane, add EB right turn lane, add WB left turn lane, add SB departure lane, add NBR and EBR
overlap phases. Intersection would operate at LOS A in both peak hours, with a project
contribution of -0.055 V/C in the a.m. peak hour and a project contribution of -0.019 in the p.m.
peak hour.
Buildout 2035 Plus Project Roadway Segments
The following roadway segments would be significantly impacted by the Proposed Project:
• Ball Road, Sunkist Street to SR 57 southbound ramps (0.016 V/C increase at LOS F)
• Ball Road, SR 57 southbound ramps to SR 57 northbound ramps (0.039 V/C increase at LOS D)
• Ball Road, SR 57 northbound ramps to Phoenix Club Drive (0.062 V/C increase at LOS E)
• Phoenix Club Drive, south of Ball Road (0.395 V/C increase at LOS D)
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 49 of 85
Implementation of the following improvements would achieve the following and reduce impacts to less
than significant:
• Ball Road, Sunkist Street to SR 57 southbound ramps - add 1 westbound lane. Street would
operate at LOS D, with a project contribution of -0.129 V/C.
• Ball Road, SR 57 southbound ramps to SR 57 northbound ramps - add 1 westbound lane. Street
would operate at LOS C, with a project contribution of -0.086 V/C.
• Ball Road, SR 57 northbound ramps to Phoenix Club Drive - add 1 westbound lane. Street would
operate at LOS D, with a project contribution of -0.076 V/C.
• Phoenix Club Drive, south of Ball Road – widen to a six lane divided arterial. Street would operate
at LOS A, with a project contribution of -0.150 V/C.
Buildout 2035 Plus Project Ramp Intersections
Based on the Buildout 2035 plus Project LOS analysis, and the established significance criteria for Caltrans
ramp intersections, the Proposed Project would create a significant impact at the following ramp
intersections:
• Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue (1.4 second delay increase at LOS E in the a.m. peak hour)
• SR 55 southbound ramps/Katella Avenue (2.3 second delay increase at LOS F in a.m. peak hour
and 5.7 second delay increase at LOS F in p.m. peak hour)
Implementation of the following improvements would achieve the following and reduce impacts to less
than significant:
• Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue- add a northbound right turn lane, convert NB shared through right
into a right turn lane. Intersection would operate at LOS D in the a.m. peak hour with a
contribution of -29.0 seconds of delay; and, LOS D in the p.m. peak hour with a contribution of
+7.6 seconds of delay.
• SR 55 southbound ramps/Katella Avenue- convert second SB left turn lane to shared left -right
turn lane, add westbound left turn lane. Intersection would operate at LOS E in the a.m. peak hour
with a contribution of -90.5 seconds of delay and LOS D in the p.m. peak hour with -58.6 seconds
of delay.
Because all ramp intersections are exclusively controlled by the State, there is no mechanism by which
the City can construct or guarantee the construction of any of these improvements. Therefore, a
Statement of Overriding Considerations will be developed for the impacted Caltrans ramp intersections.
Buildout 2035 Plus Project Freeway Mainline Segments
With addition of project trips to SR 57 in the Buildout 2035 Plus Project condition, the following se gments
are forecast to continue to operate with unsatisfactory LOS:
• SR 57 northbound between Katella Avenue and Ball Road (p.m. peak hour)
• SR 57 northbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue (p.m. peak hour)
• SR 57 northbound between Lincoln Avenue and SR 91 (p.m. peak hour)
• SR 57 southbound between I-5 and Orangewood Avenue (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
• SR 57 southbound between Orangewood Avenue and Katella Avenue (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
• SR 57 southbound between Katella Avenue and Ball Road (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
• SR 57 southbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
• SR 57 southbound between Lincoln Avenue and SR 91 (a.m. peak hour)
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 50 of 85
The baseline (without project) LOS is LOS E or F, and it remains LOS E or F with addition of project trips.
The Proposed Project would not create a significant impact at these locations as mainline segment LOS
would remain the same. However, the Proposed Project would contribute to a significant cumulative
impact.
The mainline/weaving analysis revealed that several mainline/weaving areas operate at deficient levels
of service under 2035 With and No Project conditions as a result of high mainline forecast volumes and
cumulative growth. To address cumulative deficiencies associated with the freeway mainline and weaving
segments, freeway capacity enhancements such as widening the facilities by one lane in each direction
would require consideration:
• SR-57 northbound between Orangewood Avenue and SR-91 – widen by one lane
• SR-57 southbound between SR-91 and SR-22 Ramps – widen by one lane
Mitigation strategies have been recommended to reduce the level of impact to less than significant levels.
Potential additional capacity enhancements include the implementation of auxiliary lanes within weaving
areas to improve operations on the merge/diverge areas as well as the mainline and weaving areas.
A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already
anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the needed improvements
(additional weaving, or auxiliary, lane for each impacted segment) to achieve LOS D or better. Based on
the evaluation, the improvements identified may not be feasible due to ROW acquisition needs, impacts
to established land uses, and environmental constraints.
All of the weaving segment improvements needed are likely not feasible due to ROW or other constraints.
Caltrans has not identified any further improvements beyond those already assumed in the buildout
analysis for SR-57. The City has limited control over State facilities. Because SR -57 is exclusively controlled
by the State, there is no mechanism by which the City can construct or guarantee the construction of any
improvements to any State facilities. Pursuant to Caltrans’ Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact
Studies (2002), consultation between the City and Caltrans will be necessary to reach consensus on a ny
potential operational improvement measures that can be implemented in the study area to assist in
mitigation of traffic increases related to implementation of the Proposed Project. Beyond jurisdictional
limitation, additional capacity improvements are assumed infeasible due to physical, ROW, and
environmental constraints. Additionally, the City does not have any jurisdiction over any deficient areas
within Caltrans jurisdiction. Therefore, the City cannot ensure completion of any mitigation measures on
State owned facilities. Therefore, the Proposed Project would create a Significant Unavoidable Impact to
the impacted freeway mainline segments.
Buildout 2035 Plus Project Freeway Weaving Segments
With addition of project trips to SR 57, the weaving LOS for the northbound and southbound segments
along SR 57 are forecast to continue to operate at unsatisfactory LOS in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with
addition of project traffic in both the Existing - and Buildout 2035 plus Project conditions. The project
would not create a significant impact at these locations as weaving segment LOS would remain the same.
However, the Proposed Project would contribute to a significant cumulative impact.
All of the weaving segment improvements (additional weaving, or auxilia ry, lane for each impacted
segment) needed to achieve LOS D or better to reduce impacts are likely not feasible due to ROW or other
constraints. As previously stated, Caltrans has not identified any further improvements beyond those
already assumed in the buildout analysis for SR 57. The City has limited control over State facilities. Beyond
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 51 of 85
jurisdictional limitation, additional capacity improvements are assumed infeasible due to physical, ROW,
and environmental constraints. Therefore, the Proposed Project would create a Significant Unavoidable
Impact to the impacted freeway weaving segments.
Construction Phases
Based on the 2020 Engineered Fill of Basin peak construction and the 2022 Construction of General
Commercial Buildings peak construction analysis p roposed peak Engineered Fill of Basin and peak
Construction of Commercial Buildings construction phases would not create a significant impact to the
transportation study area intersections. Impacts would be considered less than significant and no
mitigation measures would be required.
The following Conditions of Approval will be required of the project for the Engineered Fill of Basin
construction phase:
• The work affecting the roads, utilities, and the embankments between the basins needs to be
reviewed, approved, and permitted by the owner of the affected rights -of-way/utility as
established by proper title research.
• Haul routes for grading and demolition shall be reviewed by City staff to best determine how to
minimize pavement damage, and the best traffic route to minimize impacts to drivers and
pedestrians.
• The amount of truck trips may generate excessive tear and wear on the pavement reducing
pavement life. The applicant shall reconstruct/restore the pavement and utilities in City streets to
conditions prior to development, or reimburse the City in an amount determined by the City
Engineer.
Mitigation Measures:
For the mitigation measures recommended in the Existing plus Project section below, the Property
Owner/Developer shall pay or construct 100 percent of the recommended improvements.
For the mitigation measures recommended in the Buildout 2035 plus Project section below, the Property
Owner/Developer shall pay their equitable fair-share cost for the recommended improvements. The total
improvement costs shall be determined and payment of the project's fair-share (based on the equitable
share formula below) to the (to be determined) total improvement costs shall be made.
P=
T
TB
-
TE
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 52 of 85
Where:
P = The equitable share for the Proposed Project’s traffic impact.
T = The vehicle trips generated by the project during peak hour of adjacent street, vph.
TB = General Plan build-out forecast traffic volume (i.e., 20-year model or the furthest future model date
feasible), vph.
TE = Existing traffic volume plus approved projects that have not been constructed or occupied, vph.
MM TRAF-1: Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection, the Property Owner/Developer shall
implement the following improvements, identified in the Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and
Zone Change Project Traffic Impact Study, Transpo Group, February 2017 (Appendix I of this EIR), under
the Existing Plus Projects scenario, that are required by the Anaheim Municipal Code:
• Ball Road between Phoenix Club Drive and Orange City Limits- add one westbound lane and one
eastbound lane.
• Phoenix Club Drive, south of Ball Road- widen street to six lane divided arterial.
The Property Owner/Developer is responsible for the full cost of these improvements. The Pro perty
Owner/Developer shall construct, bond for or enter into a funding agreement for necessary circulation
system improvements, as determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager.
MM TRAF-2: Prior to issuance of the first grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit to
the City Traffic and Transportation Manager, a traffic improvement phasing analysis to identify when the
improvements identified in the Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Project Traffic
Impact Study, Transpo Group, February 2017 (Appendix I of this EIR), but not included in MM TRAF-3, shall
be designed and constructed.
a) The improvements below are required under the Existing Plus Projects scenario. The Property
Owner/Developer is responsible for the full cost of these improvements:
1. Phoenix Club Drive/Ball Road- stripe northbound approach to provide 2 left, 1 through, and 1
right turn lane, add one eastbound right turn lane, add one westbound left turn lane, add
northbound and eastbound right turn overlap phases.
2. Ball Road between Sunkist St and SR-57 Southbound Off Ramp- add one westbound lane
3. Ball Road between SR-57 Northbound On Ramp and Phoenix Club Drive- add one westbound
lane
4. Taft Avenue between Anaheim City Limits and Main Stree t- add one westbound lane and one
eastbound lane.
b) The improvements below are required under the General Plan Buildout plus Project scenario.
The Property Owner/Developer is responsible for the fair share cost of these improvements:
1. Ball Road between SR-57 Southbound Off Ramp and SR-57 Northbound On Ramp - add one
westbound lane
2. Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue- add one northbound right turn lane, convert northbound
shared through right into a right turn lane
3. Katella Avenue/SR-55 SB Ramps- convert second southbound left turn lane to shared left-right
turn lane, add one westbound left turn lane.
The traffic improvement phasing analysis will specify the timing for construction for these traffic
improvements when necessary to maintain satisfactory levels of service within the Cities of Anaheim and
Orange, as defined by the City’s General Plan, based on thresholds of significance, performance standards
and methodologies utilized in EIR No. 345, Orange County Congestion Management Program and
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 53 of 85
established in Cities of Anaheim and Orange Traffic Study Guidelines. The analysis shall also include fair -
share responsibilities for the improvements identified in MM TRAF 2(b).
A cost estimate for these improvements shall be provided for approval by the City Traffic and
Transportation Manager, which shall include intersection improvements, rights -of-way, and construction
costs, unless alternative funding sources have been identified to help pay for the improvement. The
Property Owner/Developer shall construct, bond for or enter into a funding agreement for necessary
circulation system improvements, as determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager.
MM TRAF-3: Prior to issuance of the first grading permit, and in conjunction with the preparation of the
traffic improvement phasing analysis required by MM TRAF -2, the Property Owner/Developer shall take
the following actions in cooperation with the Cities of Anaheim and Orange:
a) The traffic improvement phasing analysis shall identify any impacts creat ed by the project on
facilities within the City of Orange.
b) The traffic improvement phasing analysis shall calculate the project’s responsibility for
mitigating these impacts.
c) The Property Owner/Developer shall estimate the cost of the improvements i n cooperation
with the Cities of Anaheim and Orange.
d) The Property Owner/Developer shall pay the cost responsible for the improvements to City of
Anaheim prior to issuance of a building permit.
e) The City of Anaheim shall hold the amount received in tr ust, and then, once a mutually agreed
upon joint program is executed by both cities, the City of Anaheim shall allocate the project
contribution to traffic mitigation programs that result in improved traffic flow at the impacted
locations, via an agreement mutually acceptable to both cities.
MM TRAF-4: Prior to issuance of the first grading permit, and in conjunction with the preparation of the
traffic improvement phasing analysis required by MM TRAF -2, the Property Owner/Developer shall take
the following actions in cooperation with Caltrans and the City of Anaheim:
a) The traffic improvement phasing analysis shall identify the project’s proportionate impact on
the specific freeway mainline and/or freeway ramp locations.
b) The traffic improvement phasing analysis shall determine the Property Owner/Developer’s
responsibility for mitigating project impacts based on thresholds of significance, performance
standards and methodologies utilized in EIR No. 345 and established in the Orange County
Congestion Management Program and City of Anaheim Traffic Study Guidelines.
c) The traffic improvement phasing analysis shall determine if a regional transportation agency
has programmed and funded the warranted improvements to the impacted freeway mainline or
freeway ramp locations
d) The Property Owner/Developer shall estimate the cost of the project’s responsibility in
cooperation with Caltrans and the City of Anaheim.
e) The Property Owner/Developer shall pay the cost responsible for the improvements to City of
Anaheim as determined above prior to issuance of a building permit.
f) The City shall allocate the property owners/developers contribution to traffic mitigation
programs that result in improved traffic flow on the impacted mainline and ramp locations, via an
agreement mutually acceptable to Caltrans and the City of Anaheim.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 54 of 85
MM TRAF-5: Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection, as identified in the approved traffic
improvement phasing analysis prepared as part of MM TRAF-2, the Property Owner/Developer shall
implement traffic improvements to maintain satisfactory levels of services, as identified in the project
traffic improvement phasing analysis.
Finding: Additional capacity improvements are assumed infeasible due to physical, ROW, and
environmental constraints. Additionally, the City does not have any jurisdiction over any deficient areas
within Caltrans jurisdiction. Therefore, the City cannot ensure completion of any mitigation measures
on State owned facilities. Therefore, even with the implementation of MM TRAF -1 through MM TRAF-
5, the Proposed Project would create a Significant Unavoidable Impact to the impacted freeway
mainline segments and weaving segments.
IMPACT TRAF-2: The Proposed Project would conflict with an applicable congestion management
program.
Per review of the 2009 Orange County Congestion Managem ent Program, the nearest CMP facilities in
the Project vicinity are I-5, SR-57, SR-55, Katella Avenue, and Harbor Boulevard. In addition, the ramp
intersections at Katella Avenue with I-5, SR-57, and SR-55 are also CMP intersections.
Existing Plus Project
Since the project does not add 51 or more peak hour trips to any CMP intersection, and the study CMP
intersections do not operate at LOS F, the project will not create a significant impact at any CMP
intersection under this scenario.
Buildout 2035 Plus Project.
Since the project does not add 51 or more peak hour trips to any CMP intersection, and the study CMP
intersections do not operate at LOS F, the project will not create a significant impact at any CMP
intersection under this scenario.
Mitigation Measures:
No additional mitigation measures are required.
Finding: The Proposed Project does not generate enough peak hour trips to result in any significant
impacts related to CMP intersections for the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
IMPACT TRAF-3: The Proposed Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities supporting alternative transportation.
The Project Site is located adjacent to the Santa Ana River Riding and Hiking Trail, a national recreation
trail that would link San Bernardino County to Orange County when completed. Impacts to the Santa Ana
River Riding and Hiking Trail could occur as a result of the Proposed Project. However, as discussed in
Section 3.13 above, future commercial development on the Project Site would be designed to support the
recreational goals and policies of the Circulation Element and the Green Element. Furt hermore, future
development on the Project Site would be required to provide linkages to the Santa Ana River Riding and
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 55 of 85
Hiking Trail. Impacts to the Santa Ana River Riding and Hiking Trail would be considered less than
significant and mitigation would not be required.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Finding: Adherence to the proposed General Plan Goals and Policies, Zoning Code, and existing codes
and regulations will prevent the occurrence of any significant impacts related to alternative
transportation for the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
IMPACT UTIL-1: The Proposed Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board.
All proposed sewer flows would be collected into the City’s sewer system and delivered into OCSD’s 30 -
inch sewer force main. All sewer flows within the force main are treated at OCSD’s main treatment plant
in Fountain Valley to the specified level of treatment approved by the SARWQB. The Proposed Project
would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the SARWQB. Impacts would be considered
less than significant and mitigation measures would not be required.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Finding: The Proposed Project would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the
SARWQB. Impacts would be considered less than significant and mitigation measures would not be
required for the reasons set forth in the Draft EI R.
IMPACT UTIL-2: The Proposed Project would not require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities (including sewer (waste water) collection facilities) or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which cou ld cause significant environmental effects.
All proposed on-site water facilities for the Proposed Project shall be private, with separate water services
for fire protection, domestic water and irrigation water. The public water system shall terminate at the
Phoenix Club Drive ROW. The Property Owner/Developer shal l submit to the APUD Water Engineering
Division an estimate of the maximum fire flow rate and maximum day and peak hour water demands for
the Proposed Project. This information will be used to determine the adequacy of the existing water
system to provide the estimated water demands.
The proposed development of the 19.5-acre Project Site with commercial uses would result in an increase
of approximately 57,561 gpd of sewer flow when accounting for a potential hotel component as part of
the commercial land use. This represents the most conservative increase in sewer based on inclusion of
the hotel and use of all 19.5 acres for commercial development. However, under final design, all 19.5
acres may not be available for development due to site constraints such as existing and future easements.
The addition of up 57,561 gpd of sewer flow to the existing sewer system would not cause any negative
impacts to the Douglass Road sewer system which was analyzed all the way to the 30” OCSD trunk sewer
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 56 of 85
in Katella (see Sewer Assessment Report in Appendix J). All sewer design criteria related to sewer capacity
and flow depths are met. In addition, the proposed 8-inch on-site system meets the d/D ratio criteria of
0.5 based on the projected sewer flows. Therefore, impacts to existing water and sewer facilities are
considered to be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Finding: Adherence to the proposed General Plan Goals and Policies, Zoning Code, and existing codes
and regulations will prevent the occurrence of any significant impacts related to water or wastewater
treatment facilities for the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
IMPACT UTIL-3: The Proposed Project would not require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects.
On-site flows would increase based on the mass grading to raise the Project Site to support future
commercial development. On-site flows would be routed to the improved CSD then discharged into the
Santa Ana River. The increased flows under the 100 -year flood condition into the Santa Ana River would
not have significant impacts to the Santa Ana River. Off -site flows would remain the same but would
discharge directly to the Santa Ana River, which would also have a negligible impact to the river. In
addition, construction of Proposed Project storm drainage improvements will comply with applicable
federal, State, and local storm drainage guidelines and requirements. Impacts resulting from the
improvements of the drainage facilities are considered less than significant and mitigation measures
would not be required.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Finding: Adherence to the proposed General Plan Goals and Policies, Zoning Code, and existing codes
and regulations will prevent the occurrence of any significant impacts related to stormwater facilities
for the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
IMPACT UTIL-4: The Proposed Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, and would not require new or expanded entitlements.
Based on the water demand factor for commercial uses of 195 gallons per day per thousand square feet,
development of 425,000 square feet of commercial uses would require approximately 82,875 gpd of
water or 93 afy . According to the City’s 2015 UWMP, the City would have a projected water supply and
demand of 62,050 afy in 2020 and 67,065 afy in 2030 under normal year conditions. Imported water
supplies would be available and is expected to be greater than the estimated water demand. Furthermore,
the City’s UWMP states that the City’s water supply would not be exceeded by estimated demand under
multiple dry year conditions. Water demand for the Proposed Project would equate to less than one
percent of the total water supply. Any off-site water system improvements required to serve the Proposed
Project shall be done in accordance with Rule No. 15A.6 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations
and the Property Owner/Developer shall be responsible for the cost of the upgrades and improvements.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 57 of 85
Therefore, impacts to water supplies would be considered less than significant and no mitigation would
be required.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Finding: Adherence to the proposed General Plan Goals and Policies, Zoning Code, and existing codes
and regulations will prevent the occurrence of any significant impacts related to water supply for the
reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
IMPACT UTIL-5: The Proposed Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider that it has adequate capacity to serve the projected demand in addition to the provider’s
existing commitments.
OCSD is the regional wastewater treatment provider. The OCSD Strategic Plan Update (April 2006)
analyzed capacity within the force mains and trunk lines of the OCSD system. This included the 30 -inch
OCSD Katella line to which the City’s Douglass Road sewer system connects. The study indicated capacity
in the near term but potential capacity issues in the long term when evaluating build out scenarios up to
2030. The capacity issues and surcharge conditions occur under future build out conditions and wet
weather simulations using the 10-year storm event as the basis for evaluation.
The 2009 Revised Platinum Triangle Sewer Study by CH2M Hill evaluated the impact of the proposed
Platinum Triangle flows and the potential surcharge issues for the 10 -year wet weather condition within
City’s sewer lines near the Katella/Newhope-Placentia trunk lines. The analysis revealed the depth of the
sewers for this area ranged from six to nine feet deep and the amount of surcharge was two feet or less.
The study concluded there is no potential for spills as the hydraulic grade line is b elow the ground surface
for a 10-year event.
Due to the potential for future surcharge conditions under future projections, regional flow diversions
may be required to divert some flows into the Santa Ana Interceptor Line (SARI) and reduce excess flows
in the Katella/Newhope-Placentia trunk lines if future flow projections necessitate such diversions. No
capacity improvements projects were recommended for the 30-inch Katella sewer main. Direct impacts
to the existing treatment capacity are considered less than significant based on the available capacity.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Finding: Adherence to the proposed General Plan Goals and Policies, Zoning Code, and existing codes
and regulations will prevent the occurrence of any significant impacts related to wasterwater treatment
capacity for the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 58 of 85
IMPACT UTIL-6: The Proposed Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs.
The Olinda Alpha Landfill is the closest facility to the Project Site and would most likely receive waste from
the Proposed Project. This landfill has a daily tonnage maximum of 8,000 tons per day (tpd). Based on a
solid waste generation rate of 0.046 pounds per square feet per day, a 425,000 square-foot commercial
development project would generate approximately 9.8 tpd, which is less than one percent of the daily
tonnage maximum for the Olinda Alpha Landfill. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant
and mitigation measures would not be required.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Finding: Adherence to the proposed General Plan Goals and Policies, Zoning Code, and existing codes
and regulations will prevent the occurrence of any significant impacts related to landfill capacity for the
reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
IMPACT UTIL-7: The Proposed Project would not result in a need for new systems or supplies or
substantial alterations related to electricity.
Electricity for the Proposed Project would be provided by APUD. The Proposed Project does not include a
specific site plan, but would allow the future development of up to 425,000 square feet of commercial
uses. Based on the retail usage rate for electricity of 13.55 kilowatt hours per square-foot per year, which
is the highest usage rate for commercial uses and thus the most conservative estimate, a 425,000 square -
foot commercial development would require approximately 5,759 megawatt hours per year. It is
anticipated that APUD would have the capabilities to meet future demands. Impacts would be less than
significant and mitigation measures would not be required.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Finding: Adherence to the proposed General Plan Goals and Policies, Zoning Code, and existing codes
and regulations will prevent the occurrence of any significant impacts related to electricity for the
reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
IMPACT UTIL-8: The Proposed Project would not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations related to natural gas.
Natural gas service to the Project Site is provided by the Southern California Gas Company (SCG). In a
letter dated April 11, 2013, SCG stated that facil ities are available to service the Proposed Project. It is
anticipated that SCG would have the capabilities to meet future demands. Future development on the
Project Site would be required to comply with standard regulatory requirements related to natural gas.
Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation measures would not be required.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3 – Findings on the Potentially Significant Impacts
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 59 of 85
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Finding: Adherence to the proposed General Plan Goals and Policies, Zoning Code, and existing codes
and regulations will prevent the occurrence of any significant impacts related to natural gas for the
reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
IMPACT UTIL-9: The Proposed Project would not result in a need for new systems or supplies or
substantial alterations related to telephone service.
Telephone service for the Proposed Project would be provided by AT&T. It is anticipated that AT&T would
have sufficient capabilities to provide service for future development on the Project Site. Impacts would
be less than significant and mitigation measures would not be required.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Finding: Adherence to the proposed General Plan Goals and Policies, Zoning Code, and existing codes
and regulations will prevent the occurrence of any significant impacts related to telephone service for
the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
IMPACT UTIL-10: The Proposed Project would not result in a need for new systems or supplies or
substantial alterations related to television/reception.
Television and data service for the Proposed Project would be provided by Time Warner Cable (TWC). It
is anticipated that TWC would have sufficient capabilities to provide service for future development on
the Project Site. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation measures would not be required.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Finding: Adherence to the proposed General Plan Goals and Policies, Zoning Code, and existing codes
and regulations will prevent the occurrence of any significant impacts related to television/reception
for the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 4 – Statement of Overriding Considerations
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 60 of 85
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the lead agency to balance the benefits of a
Proposed Project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the
project. Despite incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the EIR for the proposed Orange County
Water District Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change concludes that the Proposed
Project will still result in significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas emissions and traffic impacts on
Caltrans facilities.
4.1 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
The City of Anaheim has balanced the benefits of the Proposed Project against the following unavoidable
adverse impacts associated with the Proposed Project, and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures
with respect to those impacts:
(1) operation-related greenhouse gas emissions, and
(2) operation-related cumulative impacts to Caltrans freeway mainline and weaving segments.
The Proposed Project would exceed and conflict with the SCAQMD draft threshold of 3,000 million metric
tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. Changes and alterations are required in or incorporated into
the project to reduce project impacts to the maximum extent feasible. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure GHG-1 and Mitigation Measure GHG-2 would reduce the operational GHG emissions but not
below the adopted threshold. Impacts would remain significant after mitigation. The project’s GHG
emissions were significant even with mitigation and the Project’s GHG emissions and contribution to
global climate change would also be cumulatively significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation
measures to address greenhouse gas emissions.
The Proposed Project would contribute to a significant cumulative impact o n Caltrans freeway mainline
segments on northbound and southbound SR-57. To address cumulative deficiencies associated with the
freeway mainline and weaving segments, freeway capacity enhancements such as widening the facilities
by one lane in each direction would require consideration:
• SR-57 northbound between Orangewood Avenue and SR-91 – widen by one lane
• SR-57 southbound between SR-91 and SR-22 Ramps – widen by one lane
Potential additional capacity enhancements include the implementation of auxiliar y lanes within weaving
areas to improve operations on the merge/diverge areas as well as the mainline and weaving areas.
Consideration of already anticipated future improvements and other information were used to evaluate
the feasibility of the needed improvements (additional weaving, or auxiliary, lane for each impacted
segment). Based on the evaluation, the improvements identified are not feasible due to Right of Way
acquisition needs, impacts to established land uses, and environmental constraints. Caltr ans has not
identified any further improvements beyond those already assumed in the buildout analysis for SR -57.
The City has limited control over State facilities. Because SR-57 is exclusively controlled by the State, there
is no mechanism by which the City can construct or guarantee the construction of any improvements to
any State facilities. Pursuant to Caltrans’ Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (2002),
consultation between the City and Caltrans will be necessary to reach consensus on any potential
operational improvement measures that can be implemented in the study area to assist in mitigation of
traffic increases related to implementation of the project. The City does not have any jurisdiction over any
deficient areas within Caltrans jurisdiction. Therefore, the City cannot ensure completion of any mitigation
measures on State owned facilities. Implementation of Mitigation Measures TRAF -1, TRAF-2, TRAF-3,
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 4 – Statement of Overriding Considerations
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 61 of 85
TRAF-4, and TRAF-5 would reduce the impacts but impacts would remain significan t and unavoidable.
The Caltrans freeway weaving areas for northbound and southbound segments along SR -57 are forecast
to continue to operate at unsatisfactory Level of Service in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with the addition
of Project traffic in the Existing Plus Project conditions. The Proposed Project would not create a significant
impact at these locations as weaving segment Level of Service would remain the same. However, the
Proposed Project would contribute to a significant cumulative impact for th e Caltrans weaving segments.
All of the weaving segment improvements needed to reduce impacts are likely not feasible due to Right
of Way or other constraints. Therefore, the Proposed Project would create a Significant Unavoidable
Impact to the impacted freeway weaving segments. Changes and alterations are required in or
incorporated into the project to reduce traffic impacts to the maximum extent feasible. Implementation
of Mitigation Measures TRAF-1, TRAF-2, TRAF-3, TRAF-4, and TRAF-5 would reduce the impacts but these
impacts would remain significant and unavoidable with these mitigation measures.
4.2 CONSIDERATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Even though these adverse impacts are not reduced to a level considered less than significant, the
Anaheim City Council finds, after balancing these impacts with the benefits of the project, that those
impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the project. Further, the alternatives which were identified in
the EIR would not meet either in part or in whole to the same extent as the Proposed Project, the project
objectives, and/or would not substantially lessen identified environmental impacts.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and the Guidelines Section 15093, the City has
balanced the benefits of the Proposed Project against the following unavoidable adverse impacts
associated with the Proposed Project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures.
The City also has examined alternatives to the Proposed Project, none of which both meet the Project
objectives and are environmentally superior to the Proposed Project. The City, after balancing the specific
economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Proposed Project, has determined that
the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above may be considered “acceptable” due to
the following specific considerations which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of
the Proposed Project. Each of the separate benefits of the Proposed Project, as stated herein, is
determined to be, unto itself and independent of the other Project benefits, a basis for overriding all
unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified in these Findings. The City Council and City
Planning Staff have independently verified the existence of all facts stated below to justify the State of
Overriding Considerations. Project benefits include:
The Project Will Provide Sales Tax and Property Tax Revenue to Provide Funding for Needed City
Services:
The City’s General Plan Economic Development Element includes area-specific strategies, including a
strategy to “Continue discussions with the Orange County Water Di strict in an effort to explore the
commercial viability of strategically-located groundwater recharge basins.” (Economic Development (ED)
Element, Area Specific Land Use Strategies, page ED-3). The site, an obsolete recharge basin, currently
does not generate any sales tax or property tax revenue for the City. Changing the General Plan and
zoning will facilitate future commercial development of the site and increase the property value of the
site and generate sales and property (or possessory interest) taxes, a portion of which accrue to the City.
The provision of sales tax and property tax revenue to the City will provide funding for needed City services
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 4 – Statement of Overriding Considerations
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 62 of 85
such as police and fire.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 4 – Statement of Overriding Considerations
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 63 of 85
The Project Will Implement the City’s General Plan:
The City’s General Plan contains the following goals in regard to land use with which the project is
consistent:
a) Land Use (LU) Element, Goal 3.1: Pursue land uses along major corridors that enhance the
City’s image and stimulate appropriate development a t strategic locations.
b) LU Element, Goal 3.2: Maximize development opportunities along transportation routes.
c) LU Element, Goal 4.1: Promote development that integrates with and minimizes impacts to
surrounding land uses.
d) LU Element Goal 5.1: Create and enhance dynamic, identifiable places for the benefit of
Anaheim residents, employees and visitors.
e) LU Element, Goal 6.1: Enhance the quality of life and economic vitality in Anaheim through
strategic infill development and revitalization of existing developmen t
The Project Will Increase Recreational Opportunities:
The project will increase local and regional recreational opportunities by creating increased recreational
trail connectivity. The Project includes amendments to the General Plan Circulation and Gr een Elements
to designate a Class 1 Bikeway/Trail Study Area along the northern, eastern and southern perimeter of
the Project Site. The proposed multi-purpose trail would serve as a southern extension of the Anaheim
Coves Class 1 Bikeway/Riding and Hiking Trail located to the north across Ball Road. This will also
implement the City’s General Plan Green Element Goal 4.1: Maximize the recreational and scenic potential
of existing reservoirs, basins and waterways.
4.3 CONCLUSION
Therefore, the Anaheim City Council, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the
EIR and the public record, concludes that the Project will result in beneficial addition of commercial uses
providing additional sales and property tax rev enues to support needed public services, and increased
local and regional recreational opportunities, which outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts of the
project. Therefore, the City of Anaheim has adopted this Statement of Overriding Considerations.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 5 – References
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 64 of 85
The following reference materials were reviewed to obtain information included in or considered during
the preparation of this environmental impact report. To arrange for the review one or more of these
references, please contact Susan Kim, City of Anaheim Planning Department, at (714) 765-4958.
Adams Streeter Civil Engineers. 2013. Orange County Water District Ball Road Basin –
Site Development Analysis. April 2013
Altschul, Jeffrey H., David D. Ferraro, and Christopher J. Doolittle. 1998.
Environmental Background. In House Pits and Middens: A Methodological Study of
Site Structure and Formation Processes at CA -ORA-116, Newport Bay, Orange
County, California, edited by Donn R. Grenda, Christopher J. Doolittle, and Jeffrey H.
Altschul, pp. 7–11.Technical Series 69. Statistical Research, Tucson.
Americast. 2008. Filterra Bioretention Systems -- Filterra Pollutant Removal Overview
______. 2009. Filterra Bioretention Systems En gineering Design Assistance Kit (DAKit)
v08-WZ.
Anaheim Chamber of Commerce. 2013. History. Electronic document,
http://www.anaheimchamber.org/history.asp, accessed March 6, 2013.
Anaheim Colony Historic District. 2013a. Location of the Historic District. Electronic
document, http://www.anaheimcolony.com/ColonyStories/Map.html, accessed
March 6 and 7, 2013.
______. 2013b Early Anaheim. Electronic document,
http://anaheimcolony.com/EarlyAnaheim/1EarlyLinks.html, accessed March 6 and 7,
2013.
______. 2013c Orange County Railroads. Electronic document,
http://www.anaheimcolony.com/ColonyStories/TrainOC.htm, accessed March 6 and
7, 2013.
Arch Beach Consulting. 2013a. Draft Traffic Impact Analysis, June 25, 2013.
______. 2013b. Technical Memorandum – Traffic Analysis: Engineered Fill of Basin
Construction Analyses for: 1) Model Year 2007 or Newer Trucks; and, 2) Model Year
2010 or Newer Trucks, July 3, 2013
Ashby, G.E. and J.W. Winterbourne. 1966. A Study of Primitive Man in Orange County
and Some of Its Coastal Areas. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 2(1):5 -
52
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). 2005. Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process,
Designation E1527-05, dated November 1, 2005.
Baldwin, J., D. Goldman, D. Keil, R. Patterson and T. Rosatti. 2012. The Jepson
Manual: Higher Plants of California. Berkeley: University of Californi a Press.
Ballester, Daniel and Bai “Tom” Tang. 2002. Department of Parks and Recreation
Resource Record for 30-176663: Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. On file at the
SCCIC.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 5 – References
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 65 of 85
Bean, Lowell John and Charles Smith. 1978. Gabrielino. In Handbook of Nor th
American Indians, Vol. 8: California, Robert F. Heizer (volume editor) and William C.
Sturtevant (general editor), pp. 538-549. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Becker, Kenneth M. John Goodman, Kristin Sewell, and Sarah Van Galder. 2007.
Cultural Resources Monitoring Report, Orange County Water District
Groundwater Replenishment System, Orange County, California.
Berry, John C. 1989. The Dowsing of Orange County. In Proceedings of the
Conference of Orange County History 1988, pp. 5-8. Edited by Robert A. Slayton and
Leland L. Estes. Department of History. Chapman College, Orange, California. On file
at the SCCIC.
Bissell, Ronald M. 2000a. Cultural Resources Reconnaissance for the Groundwater
Replenishment System, Orange County, California. RMW Paleo Associates, Mission
Viejo, California. Submitted to Camp Dresser and McKee, Irvine, California.
______. 2000b Discovery Plan: Groundwater Replenishment System, Orange County,
California. RMW Paleo Associates, Mission Viejo, California. Submitted to Camp
Dresser and McKee, Irvine, California.
BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2013a. General Land Office Records for Section
18 of Township 4S, Range 9W of the San Bernardino Base Meridian. Electronic
document,
http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/results/default.aspx?searchCriteria=type=patent|st
=CA|cty=059|twp_nr=4|twp_dir=S|rng_nr=9|rng_dir=W|sec=18|sp=true|sw=true|
sadv=false, accessed March 7, 2013.
______. 2013b. General Land Office Records for Section 24 of Township 4S, Range
10W of the San Bernardino Base Meridian. Electronic document,
http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/details/patent/default.aspx?accession=CACAAA
084587&docClass=SER&sid=mniaqayn.wxx, accessed March 7, 2013.
Bolton, Herbert Eugene. 1927. Fray Juan Crespi: Missionary Explorer on the Pacific
Coast, 1769-1771.University of California Press, Berkeley (Reprinted in 1971 by AMS
Press New York
Boscana, Gerónimo. 1933. Chinigchinich (Chi -ñi'ch-ñich). A Revised and Annotated
Version of Alfred Robinson's Translation of Father Geronimo Boscan a's Historical
Account of the Beliefs, Usages, Customs and Extravagancies of the Indians of the
Mission of San Juan Capistrano, Called the Acagchemem Tribe. Annotation and
bibliography by J. P. Harrington. Santa Ana: Fine Arts Press, Reprinted by Malki
Museum Press, Banning, California, 1978.
Burt, W.H. and R. P. Grossenheider. 1980. A Field Guide to Mammals: North America;
North of Mexico. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Butler, R. W. 1992. Great blue heron. In The Birds of North America, No. 25 (A. Poole,
P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences;
Washington, DC: The American Ornithologists' Union.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 5 – References
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 66 of 85
Bryant, W.A., and Hart, E.W., 2007, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Zones Maps,
Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42,
2007 Interim Revision.
Byrd, Brian F. and L. Mark Raab. 2007. Prehistory of the Southern Bight: Models for a
New Millennium. In California Prehistory, pp. 215-227. Altamira Press, Maryland.
California Department of Conservation. 2000. A General Guide for Ultramafic Rocks
in California – Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos, August,
2000.
California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,
Counties, and the State, 2011-2013
California Department of Water Resources. 1957. The California Water Plan: Bulletin
3, 246p.
California Environmental Resources Evaluation System. 2013. Coastal Scrub.
Electronic document, http://ceres.ca.gov/ceres/calweb/coastal/plants.html,
accessed February 28, 2013.
California Geological Survey (formerly California Division of Mines and Geology).
1997. Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Orange 7.5-Minute Quadrangles, Orange
County, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 11.
. 1998. Seismic Hazard Zone Map for the Orange Quadrangle, April 15, 1998.
California Office of Historic Preservation. 1990. Archaeological Resource
Management Reports: Recommended Contents and Format. Sacramento, CA:
California Office of Historic Preservation. Available at
<http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/armr.pdf>.
______. 1995. Instructions for Recording Historical Resources
California Resources Agency. 2004. CEQA Guidelines. Electronic documents, see also
http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/art9.html,
http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/CEQA_Handbook_2012_wo_covers.pdf,
http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/more/tas/appen1.html,
http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/more/tas/page3.html, accessed January through April
2013.
______. 2005. Lead Agency Adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Electronic document, http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/flowchart/la_mmrp.html, accessed
April 11, 2013.
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2009. Technical Noise
Supplement, November 2009.
______. 2004. Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance
Manual, June, 2004
CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2000. Appendix VII Risk Characterization
Scenarios, October 2000.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 5 – References
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 67 of 85
______. 2008. Resolution 08-43, December 12, 2008.
Carpenter, Virginia L. 1989. The Dowsing of Orange County. In Proceedings of the
Conference of Orange County History 1988, pp. 205-210. Edited by Robert A. Slayton
and Leland L. Estes. Department of History. Chapman College, Orange, California. On
file at the SCCIC.
CASQA (California Stormwater Quality Association). 2009. Stormwater Best
Management Practice Handbook Portal: Construction. November 2009.
______. (2003, January). Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook for New
Development and Redevelopment. Retrieved May 2013, from
http://www.cabmphandbooks.com
Castillo, Edward D. 1998. Short Overview of California Indian History. Electronic
document, http://www.nahc.ca.gov/califindian.html, accessed February 23, 2013.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2013. RareFind California
Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Sacramento, CA:
California Department of Fish and Game, Biogeographic Data Branch.
CDHS (California Department of Health Services) Radon Program, Statewide Radon
Database,
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/environhealth/Documents/Radon/CaliforniaRad
onDatabase.pdf, updated May 4, 2010.
Chambers Group, Inc. And Environmental Advisors, LLC. 2013. Initial Study for the
Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. On file at APRMI.
Chartkoff, Joseph L. and Kerry Kona Chartkoff. 1984. The Archaeology of California.
Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
CH2MHill. 2006. Combined Central Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers.
September 2006.
______. 2009. Combined Central Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers –
Analysis of Models for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project (DSEIR No.
339), June 2009.
City of Anaheim. 2003. Anaheim Colony Vision, Principles and Design Guidelines
______. 2004a. City of Anaheim General Plan, May 2004.
______. 2004b. Final Anaheim Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone
Change Environmental Impact Report No. 330 SCH #2003041105. Certified May 25,
2004.
______. 2009. Sewer Design Manual, Department of Public Works. September 2009.
______. 2010a. City of Anaheim General Plan Land Use Plan (map). Adopted: May 25,
2004, City Council Resolution No. 2004-95 Latest Revision Date: November 30, 2010
City Council Resolution No. 2010-130. Print Date: November 30, 2010
______. 2010b. City of Anaheim Citywide Historic Preservation Plan
______. 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2016.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 5 – References
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 68 of 85
______. 2012. Initial Study for the Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and
Zone Change
______. 2013. Anaheim Municipal Code, February 2013
______. Property Permit Records,
http://www.anaheim.net/articlenew2222.asp?id=1626, reviewed March 14, 2013.
City of Orange. 2006. City of Orange Local CEQA Guidelines, April 11, 2006.
______. 2010a. City of Orange General Plan, March 9, 2010.
______. 2010b. Orange General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report, March,
2010.
Clarke, Oscar F., Danielle Svehla, Greg Ballmer, and Arlee Monralvo. 2007. Flora of
the Santa Ana River and Environs with References to World Botany. Heyday Books,
Berkeley, California.
CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2013. CNPS Electronic Inventory of Rare and
Endangered Plants: CNPS.
County of Orange Environmental Management Agency. (1986, October). Orange
County Hydrology Manual.
County of Orange, the Cities of Orange County and the Orange County Flood Control
District (OCFCD). 2003. Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). July 1, 2003.
County of Orange. 2011. Model Water Quality Management Plan (Model WQMP).
May 19. 2011.
______. 2011. Exhibit 7.III, Technical Guidance Document for the Preparation of
Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project Water Qual ity Management Plans (WQMPs).
May 19. 2011.
County or Orange – Treasurer-Tax Collector, reviewed on March 14, 2013.
http://tax.ocgov.com/tcweb/search_page.asp,
Davila, Amelia L. 1893. Historic Yorba. Santa Ana Weekly Blade 1 June 1893. Available
at http://yorbalindahistory.org/gsdl/cgi-bin/library?e=d-000-00---0tescol--00-0-0--
0prompt-10---4------0-1l--1-en-50---20-about---00031-001-1-0utfZz-8-
00&cl=CL1&d=HASH8311e9c3bbd66d9fb60a75&v=1&hl=0#start, accessed March 6,
2013.
Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Online Mapping System,
http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doms/doms-app.html, reviewed March 14, 2013.
Dominguez, Arnold O. 1985. José Antonio Yorba I, Second Edition, Orange County
Historical Society, Santa Ana.
Dunk, J. R. 1995. White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). In The Birds of North America,
No. 178 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia,
and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 5 – References
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 69 of 85
Eckmann E.C., Strahorn, A.C., Holmes, L.C., and G uernsey, J.E. 1919. Soils Map of the
Anaheim area, California: United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Soils,
in cooperation with University of California, Agricultural Experiment Station, scale:
1:62,500.
EDR® Aerial Photo Decade Package, March 4, 2013.
EDR® City Directories, March 1, 2013.
EDR® Historical Topographic Map Report, March 1, 2013.
EDR® Radius Map with Geocheck, March 1, 2013.
EDR® Sanborn Map Report, February 28, 2013.
EL (Environmental Laboratory). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimental
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Elbroch, M. 2003. Mammal Tracks & Sign, A Guide to North American Species.
Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005. Nonattainment Major New
Source Review Implementation Under 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard: Reconsideration, June 30, 2005.
______. 2013. Enviromapper for Water. <URL: http://map24.epa.gov/E MR/>
ESD-CDFW (Environmental Services Division, CDFW). 1994. A Field Guide to Lake and
Streambed Alteration Agreements Sections 1600-1607, California Fish and Game
Code. Sacramento, California. January.
Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment,
May 2006.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1996. Q3 Flood data 100 -Year
flood zone map.
Fugro Geosciences, Inc. 1998. Reports for Cone Penetration Testing (CPT) and
Related Services, Santa Ana River Recharge, Sana Ana Canyon, California, dated
October 19, 1998.
Fulton, Terri. 2009. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Burris Basin Interpretive
Loop Trail and the Lincoln Avenue Multi-use Staging Area, City of Anaheim, Orange
County, California. Report Number LA-4091. On file at the SCCIC.
Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. 2017. Hydrology Technical Report, Ball Road Basin General
Plan Amendment and Zone Change, Anaheim, California, dated March 17, 2017.
_______. 2017. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), Ball Road
Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, Anaheim, California, dated March
15, 2017.
_______. 2017 Sewer Assessment Report, Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment
and Zone Change, Anaheim, California, dated March 15, 2017.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 5 – References
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 70 of 85
GeoTracker, State Water Resources Control Board, http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/,
March 14, 2013.
Goldberg, Susan K. 1999. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Headquarters Facility Project, The People of Yaanga?, Archaeological Investig ations
at CA-LAn-1575/H. On file, South Central Coast Information Center, California State
University-Fullerton.
Google Earth. 2012. Imagery of Project area. Accessed at Google Earth, various dates
in 2012 and 2013.
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 1998. CEQA, California Environmental
Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines. From, <http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa>, accessed
April 9, 2010.
Grenfell, W.E. Jr. 1988. Montane Riparian in A guide to Wildlife Habitats of California.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 166 pp
Grinnell, J. and A.H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California. Pacific
Coast Avifauna 27.
Halfpenny, J.C. 2000. Scats and Tracks of the Desert Southwest, A Field Guide to the
Signs of 70 Wildlife Species. Helena, MT: Falcon Publishing, Inc.
Hansen, George. 1855. Rancho San Juan Cajon de Santa Ana : situated in Los Angeles
County, California, claimed by Dn. Juan Pacifico Ondiveras [sic]: U.S. District Court.
California, Southern District. Land case 140 SD, page 131; land case map E-1151. On
file at Bancroft Library. Available at
http://content.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/hb6n39p008/?, accessed March 6, 2013.
Harrington, John Peabody 1933 Annotations, in Boscana 1933.
______. 1986. A Guide to the Field Notes: Native American History, Language and
Culture of Southern California/Great Basin. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington
in the Smithsonian Institution, 1907-1957, Vol.3. Edited by Elaine L. Mills and Ann J.
Brickfield. Kraus International Publications.
Holland, V.L. and D.J. Keil. 1995. California Vegetation. Kendall/Hunt Publishing
Company, Dubuque, Iowa. 516 pp.
Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities
of California. California Department of Fish and Game. The Resources Agency.
Sacramento, CA.
Hudson, Dee Travis. 1969. The Archaeological Investigations During 1935 and 1937 at
ORA-237, ORA-238, and ORA-239, Santiago Canyon, Orange County, California.
Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 5(1):1 -68.
Incayawar, Mario, Mark Acuña, Barbara Drake, Lise Bouchard, Zach Hurwitz, and
Cristina Leal. 2010. Tongva Medicinal Plants. Electronic document,
http://www.runajambi.net/tongva/, accessed March 6, 2013.
Johnson, Brent D. 2009. Department of Parks and Recreation Resource Records for
30-177703. On file at the SCCIC
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 5 – References
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 71 of 85
Johnston, Bernice Eastman. 1962. California’s Gabrielino Indians. Southwest Museum
Press, Los Angeles.
Jones, Wendy. 2007. Department of Parks and Recreation Record for Resource 30 -
100402. On file at the SCCIC.
JRP Historical Consulting Services and California Department of Transportation. 2000.
Water Conveyance Systems in California: Historic Context Development and
Evaluation Procedures
Kroeber, A.L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California [1976]. Dover Publications,
Inc., New York.
Lander, Bruce. 2006. Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program: Final
Technical Report of Results and Findings Prepared in Support of Orange County
Water District Groundwater Replenishment System Project, Huntington Beach,
Orange County, California. PEAI, submitted to SRI.
Laylander, Don. 2000. Early Ethnography of the Californias: 1533-1825. Coyote Press
Archives of California Prehistory, no. 47.
Leighton Consulting, Inc. 2010. Foundation R eport for the Proposed Retaining wall
No. 55E0111 at Abutment 3 of Ball Road Overcrossing (Bridge No. 55 -0524),
Northbound State Route 57, Orange County, California, Project No. 602231 -001,
dated August 5, 2010.
______. 2013. Geotechnical Exploration and Analysis Burris Pump Station Project for
Orange County Water District, Anaheim, California, Project No. 10064.001, dated
March 11, 2013.
______. 2017. Slope Stability Analysis for OCWD Ball Road Basin Project, Anaheim,
California, September 2017.
Leonard, N. Nelson III and Matthew C. Hall. 1975. Description and Evaluation of
Cultural Resources within the US Army Corps of Engineers Santa Ana River Project.
Report Number LA-270. On file at the SCCIC.
Lichvar, R.W. and J.S. Wakely. (Eds.). 2004. Review of ordinary high water mark
indicators for delineating arid streams in the southwestern United States.
ERDC/CRREL TR-04-1. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC),
Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL), Hanover, NH. 127p.
<URL: http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/techpub/CRREL_Reports/reports/ERDC -TR-
04-1.pdf
Lichvar, R.W., D.C.Finnegan, M.P. Ericsson, and W. Ochs. 2006. Distribution of
Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Indicators and Their Reliability in Identifying t he
Limits of “Waters of the United States” in Arid Southwestern Channels. ERDC/CRREL
Technical Report 06-5. 21p.
<URL: http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/techpub/CRREL_Reports/reports/TR06 -5.pdf
>
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 5 – References
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 72 of 85
Lichvar, R.W. and S.M. McColley. 2008. A Field Guide to the Identification of the
Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United
States. ERDC/CRREL TR-08-12. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center
(ERDC), Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL), Hanover, NH .
72p. <URL: www.crrel.usace.army.mil/library/.../ERDC-CRREL-TR-08-12.pdf
Masters, Nathan. 2012. The Santa Ana River: How It Shaped Orange County.
Electronic document, http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/history/la-as-
subject/how-orange-county-tamed-the-santa-ana-river.html, accessed March 7,
2013.
McCawley, William. 1996. The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles.
Malki Museum Press/Ballena Press, Banning, California.
McLeod Samuel A. McLeod, Ph.D. 2013. Paleontological resources for the proposed
Orange County Water District Ball Road Project, APRM project # 2013 -01, in the City
of Anaheim, Orange County, project area. Dated January 31, 2013.
Microsoft Corporation, 2013. Bing Maps Aerial Imagery. Redmond, WA
Moratto, Michael J. 2004. California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando.
Morton, P.K., and Miller, R.V. 2006. Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa
Ana 30’ x 60’ Quadrangles, California showing mines and mineral deposits: US
Geological Survey.
Moyle, P. 1976. Inland fishes of California. Univ. Cal. Berkeley Press, Berkeley,
California. 405pp
Moyle, P., R. M. Yoshiyama, Jack E. Williams, and Eric D. Wikramanayake. 1995. Fish
Species of Special Concern in California. The Resources Agency, Department of Fish
and Game. Final Report for Contract No. 2128IF.
Munsell Color. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Gretag Macbeth: New Windsor, New
York.
Munz, Philip A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press,
Berkeley.
MWH Americas, Inc. 2006. Orange County Sanitation District Strategic Plan Update.
April 2006.
Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. 2013. Historic Aerials by NETR Online.
From, <http://www.historicaerials.com>, accessed on February and March, 2013.
NOREAS Inc. 2013a. Technical Report for Orange County Water District’s Ball Road
Basin General Plan Amendment And Zone Change Project Anaheim, California.
______. 2013b. Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for the Orange County
Water District’s Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Project
in Anaheim, California.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 5 – References
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 73 of 85
O'Leary, J. F. 1990. California coastal sage scrub: general characteristics and
considerations for biological conservation. Pp. 24-41 in Endangered Plant
Communities of southern California. Southern California Botanists Special Publication
No.3 (A.A. Schroeder, ed.)
OCTA (Orange County Transportation Authority). 2009. Congestion Management
Program (CMP).
______. 2011. Transit System Map.
OCSD (Orange County Sanitation District). 2006. Strategic Plan Update. April 2006.
OCWD (Orange County Water District). 2006. Lithology Logs for Ball Road Basin B -1 &
B-2.
P & D Consultants. 2000 . Final Program EIR/EIS for the Groundwater Replenishment
System.
Paule, Dorothea Jean. 1952. The German Settlement at Anaheim. M.A. Thesis,
University of Southern California. Available at
http://anaheimcolony.com/EarlyAnaheim/anaheimthesis2.htm, accessed February
and March 2013
PB Americas, Inc. 2012. Final Traffic Impact Study Report for Honda Center
Enhancement Project EIR, January 2012.
______. 2010. Draft Traffic Study Report for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion
Project, August 2010.
Pitt, R., Maestre, A., & Morquecho, R. 2003. The National Stormwater Quality
Database. Presented at the National Conference on Urban Stormwater, Chicago
Botanical Gardens and the US EPA, Chicago. February 2003.
Pleasants, Adelene. 1931. History of Orange County, California. Vol. 1, J. R. Finnell &
Sons Publishing Company, Los Angeles.
Psomas. 2013. Ball Road Basin Development Sewer Study. May 9, 2013.
Raab, L. Mark and Dan O. Larson. 1997. Medieval Climatic Anomaly and Punctuated
Cultural Evolution in Coastal Southern California. American Antiquity 62:319 -336.
Reed, P.B. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: California
(Region 0). US Fish and Wildlife Service Biology Report 88(26.10). 135p.
Reynolds, William P. 1868. Map of the Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana. 19 x 23 1/4 in.,
ink on tracing cloth. On file at the Huntington Library, San Marino, California.
Available at
http://hdl.huntington.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15150coll4/id/11646/rec/15,
accessed March 6, 2013.
Rogers, Malcolm J. 1939. Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado
River and Adjacent Areas. San Diego Museum Papers No. 3. San Diego.
Rogers, Thomas H. 1965. Geologic map of California, Olaf P. Jenkins edition, Santa
Ana sheet, scale 1:250,000.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 5 – References
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 74 of 85
RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board), Santa Ana Region. 2011. 2010 Clean
Water Act Section 303(d) List of Limited Water Quality Segments. October 11, 2011.
______. 1994. Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (8). March
11, 1994. With Amendments in February 2008 and June 2011.
Sawyer, John O., Todd Keeler-Wolf, and Julie Evens. 2009. A Manual of California
Vegetation. Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento.
SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments. 2016. 2016-2040 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, April 2016.
SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 2014. Draft Report Multiple
Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin, MATES -IV, October 2014.
______. 2012. Revised Draft 2012 Air Quality Management Plan, September, 2012.
______. 2011. Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod, February 2011.
______. 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Revised July
2008.
______. 2008a. Draft Report Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast
Air Basin, MATES III, January 2008.
______. 2007. Air Quality Management Plan, June 1, 2007.
______. 2005. Rule 403 Fugitive Dust, Amended June 3, 2005.
______. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993.
______. 1976. Rule 402 Nuisance, Adopted May 7, 1976.
______. Facility Information Detail (FIND) Database,
http://www.aqmd.gov/webappl/fim/default.htm, March 14, 2013.
Schoenherr, Allan A. 1992. A Natural History of California. University of California
Press, Berkeley.
Schroeder, R.A. (1995) Potential for Chemical Transport Beneath a Storm-Runoff
Recharge (Retention) Basin for an Industrial Cachment in Fresno, CA. United States
Geological Survey (USGS) Water-Resource Investigations Report 93-4140.
Scott, M. B. 1977. Development of Water Facilities in the Santa Ana River Basin,
California. 1810–1968: A Compilation of Historical Notes Derived from Many Sources
Describing Ditch and Canal Companies, Diversion and Water Rights. Open File report
77–398. U.S. Geological Survey. Menlo Park, California. Prepared in cooperation with
the California Department of Water Districts Western Municipal Water District of
Riverside County.
Sibley, D.A. 2000. National Audubon Society. The Sibley Guide to Birds. New York,
NY: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
Smith, G. R. 1966. Distribution and evolution of the North American Catastomid
fishes of the subgenus Pantosteus, genus Catostomus. University of Michigan Mus.
Zool. Misc. Publ. 129: 1-33.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 5 – References
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 75 of 85
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 1995. Assessment and mitigation of adverse
impacts to nonrenewable paleontological resources – standard guidelines: Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin, vol. 163, p. 22 -27. Electronic document,
http://vertpaleotest.sherwood-
group.com/ConformableImpactMitigationGuidelinesCommittee.htm, accessed July
24, 2012.
______. 1996. Conditions of receivership for paleontologic salvage collections:
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin, vol. 166, p. 31-32.
______. 2009a Guidelines from the ethics education committee for collecting,
documenting and curating fossils. Electronic document,
http://vertpaleotest.sherwood-
group.com/GuidelinesFromtheEthicsEducation_Committee.htm, accessed July 24,
2012.
______. 2009b. Article 12: Member bylaw on ethics statement. E lectronic document,
http://vertpaleotest.sherwood-
group.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=StatementsandGuidelines&Template=/CM/C
ontentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=1238, accessed July 24, 2012.
South Coast Wildlands. 2008; Regional South Coast Missing Linkages Project Report
State of California. 1998. California Register of Historical Resources: Public Resources
Code §5024.1.
______. 2001. California Native American Graves and Repatriation Act (Cal NAGPRA);
Health and Safety Code Section 8010-8011.
______. 2004. Senate Bill 18
______. 2006. State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 (as amended
2006).
______. 2010. Public Resources Code Section 5097-5097.993: Native American
Historic Resource Protection Act: Archaeological, Paleontological, and Historical
Sites; Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites.
______. 2012. California Environmental Quality Act: California Public Resources
Code, Sections 21000 - 21178, and Title 14 CCR, Section 753, and Chapter 3, Sections
15000 - 15387; last updated 2012
State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research. 2004. Thresholds of
Significance. Electronic document,
http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/more/tas/Threshold.html#thresholds, accessed April 11,
2013.
______. 2005. Tribal Consultation Guidelines
______. 2012. CEQA and Archaeological Resources: Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1.
Electronic document, http://ceres.ca.gov/ceq a/more/tas/Arcpage2.html, accessed
September 4, 2012.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 5 – References
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 76 of 85
SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2001. Effect of SWANCC V. United
States on the 401 Certification Program. Memorandum January 25, 2001.
______. 2004. Guidance for Regulation of Discharges to “Isolated Waters”.
Memorandum June 25, 2004.
______. 2010. 2010 Integrated Report Clean Water Act Sections 303(d) and 305(b).
April 19, 2010 Staff Report. Approved by SWRCB Resolution No. 2010 -0040, August 4,
2010.
Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. New York,
NY: Houghton Mifflin.
Supernowicz, Dana E. 2010. Department of Parks and Recreation Resource Record
for 30-177113: Angel Stadium. On file at the SCCIC.
Surveyor-General of the State Of California. 1886. Report of the Surveyor-General of
The State Of California. From August 1, 1884, to August 1, 1886. Sacramento State
Office, James J. Ayers, Supt. State Printing. Available at
http://www.slc.ca.gov/Misc_Pages/Historical/Surveyors_General/reports/Willey_18
84_1886.pdf, accessed March 6, 2013.
Temple, Thomas Workman II. 1960. The Founding of Misión San Gabriel Archángel
Part II: Padre Cambon’s Contemporary Report of the Founding. The Masterkey
34(1):153-161. Southwest Museum Press, Los Angeles.
Transpo Group. 2017. Traffic Impact Analysis Update, February 20, 2017.
Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 209,
Washington, D.C., 2000.
UC (University of California). 2013. University of California Agriculture and Natural
Resources Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program, California Weather
Report for Irvine, California CIMIS Weather Station #75.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2005. Regulatory Guidance Letter 05 -05.
Ordinary High Water Mark Identification. 7 December, 2005. 4p.
______. 2007a. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination (JD) Form
Instructional Guidebook. 60p. + Appendices A – H.
<URL:
http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwo/reg/cwa_guide/jd_guidebook_051207final.p
df
______. 2007b. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Questions and Answers for Rapanos
and Carabell Decision. 21p.
<URL: http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwo/reg/cwa_guide/rapanos_qa_06-05-
07.pdf
______. 2007c. Lower Santa Ana River, Reach 9IIA Design Documentation Report
Appendix A, dated November 2007.
______. 2008a. Memorandum Re: CWA Jurisdiction Following U.S. Supreme Court
discussion in Rapanos v. United States. 12p.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 5 – References
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 77 of 85
______. 2008b. Interim regional supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). J. S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and
C. V. Noble (Eds.). ERDC/EL TR-08-28. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research
and Development Center.
______. 2008c, Regulatory Guidance Letter 08-02
______. 2009. Plans for Santa Ana Mainstem Lower Santa Ana River Channel Reach –
9 Phase 2B (Along Green River Golf Course), Orange and Riverside Counties,
California, approved on August 2009.
US Census Bureau, 2010 Census
______. 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP03
Selected Economic Characteristics
U.S. Department of Transportation. 2006. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model
User’s Guide, January, 2006.
USFWS (U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012.
National Wetlands Inventory-Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the Conterminous
United States. Vector digital data: CONUS_wet_poly. Division of Habitat and
Resource Conservation, Washington, D.C.
<URL: http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/NWI/download.html >
______. 2013a. Critical Habitat Portal. USFWS
______. 2013b. San Diego Fish and Wildlife Office Endangered and Threatened
Species List. In: U.S. Department of the Interior, editor. Carlsbad, CA: USFWS.
United States District Court (California: Southern District). 184?. Diseño del Rancho
Santiago de Santa Ana: California. Oriented with north toward the lower left. Pen-
and-ink and watercolor on tracing paper. U.S. District Court. California, Southern
District. Land case 346 SD, page 66; land case map D -1395. On file at the Bancroft
Library, Berkeley, California. Available at
http://content.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/hb496nb220/?, accessed February and March
2013.
University of California, Davis. 1997. Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide
Protocol, December 1997.
USDA-NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service). 1971. Soil Survey of Western Riverside Area California.
______. 2005. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. <URL:
http://SoilDataMart.nrcs.usda.gov >
______. 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0. G.W.
Hurt and L.M. Vasilas (eds.). USDA,NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical
Committee for Hydric Soils. 47p.
<URL: ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NSSC/Hydric_Soils/FieldIndicators_v6_0.pdf>
______. 2013a. Watershed Boundary Dataset
<URL: http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/watershed/index.html>
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 5 – References
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 78 of 85
______. 2013b. PLANTS Profile Schoenoplectus californicus (C.A. Mey.) Palla
California bulrush. Electronic document,
http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=SCCA11&mapType=nativity&photoID=sc
ca_001_ahp.tif, accessed March 5, 2013.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1898. Anaheim, Calif. 30 -Minute Topographic
Quadrangle.
______. 1901. Anaheim, Calif. 30-Minute Topographic Quadrangle.
______. 1902. Corona, Calif. 30-minute Topographic Sheet, Reprinted 1946.
______. 1942. Anaheim, Calif. 15-Minute Topographic Quadrangle.
______. 1964. Orange, CA 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. Photorevised 1981.
______. 1965. Anaheim, CA 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. Photorevised 1981.
______. 1978. 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Map Orange, California.
______. 2008, Interactive Deaggregation Online Program - Beta Version,
http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/index.php.
U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Names Committee. 2007. Divisions of geologic
time—Major chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units: U.S. Geological Survey
Fact Sheet 2007-3015. Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2007/3015/, accessed
June 19, 2012.
U.S. Secretary of the Interior. 2013. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation. Electronic document,
http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation/rehab/stand.htm, accessed March
1, 2013
Vista Environmental. 2013. Air Quality and Global Climate Change Impact Analysis
Ball Road Basin Project, September 27, 2013.
Wallace, William. 1955. Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal
Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214–230.
______. 1978. Post-Pleistocene Archaeology, 9000 to 2000 B.C. In Handbook of
North American Indians, Vol. 8: California, Robert F. Heizer (volume editor) and
William C. Sturtevant (general editor), pp. 25-36. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
Warren, Claude N. 1968. Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the
Southern California Coast. In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, edited
by C. Irwin-Williams, pp. 1–14. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in
Anthropology No. 1. Portales.
Westman, W. E. 1983. Factors influencing the distribution of species of California
coastal sage scrub. Ecology 62: 439-455
Wilson, Bert. 2013. Coastal Sage Scrub. Electronic document,
http://www.laspilitas.com/nature-of-california/communities/coastal-sage-scrub,
accessed March 1, 2013.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 6 – Acronyms and Abbreviations
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 79 of 85
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AB 32 Assembly Bill 32
ACSD Anaheim City School District
ADT average daily traffic
AFD Anaheim Fire Department
APD Anaheim Police Department
APS alternate planning strategy
APUD Anaheim Public Utilities Department
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ARTIC Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center
ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials
ATAM Anaheim Transportation Analysis Model
ATS Active Treatment System
AUHSD Anaheim Union High School District
BMPs Best Management Practices
BRB Ball Road Basin
CAA Federal Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
Cal EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
Cal OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
CARB California Air Resources Board
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Responsibility, Compensation, and Liability Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 6 – Acronyms and Abbreviations
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 80 of 85
CFCs chlorofluorocarbons
CFGC California Fish and Game Code
cfs cubic feet per second
CH4 methane
CHL California Historical Landmarks
CHRIS California Historic Resources Information System
CLOMR Condition Letter of Map Revision
CMP Congestion Management Program
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
COC chemicals of concern
CORRACTS Corrective Action Sites
CPHI California Points of Historical Interest
CPTs Cone Penetration Tests
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CSD Chantilly Storm Drain
CTR Commute Trip Reduction
CWA Clean Water Act
DAMP Drainage Area Management Plan
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DOGGR California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources
DOT Department of Transportation
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 6 – Acronyms and Abbreviations
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 81 of 85
EFZs Earthquake Fault Zones
EIR Environmental Impact Report
ESCP Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR floor area ratio
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FID Facility Inventory Database
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FSliq Factor of Safety Against Liquefaction
GCP General Construction Permit
GHG greenhouse gas
GPS Global Positioning System
GWP global warming potential
HCOC hydrologic conditions of concern
HFCs hydrofluorocarbons
hp horsepower
HRA health risk assessment
Hz hertz
IPCC International Panel on Climate Change
IS Initial Study
kW kilowatt
Ldn Day-Night Average Level
Leq equivalent sound level
LID low impact development
LOS Level of Service
LQG Large Quantity Generator
LSTs Localized Significant Thresholds
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 6 – Acronyms and Abbreviations
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 82 of 85
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MEP Maximum Extent Practicable
MG million gallon
mg/L milligrams per liter
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MTCO2e 427 million metric tons of CO2e
MWD Metropolitan Water District
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
N2O nitrous oxide
NO₂ nitrogen dioxide
NOx nitrogen oxides
NOA Notice of Availability
NOI Notice of Intent
NOP Notice of Preparation
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL National Priorities List
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NWI National Wetland Inventory
O₃ ozone
OC DAMP Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan
OC SCS Orange County Sustainable Communities Strategies
OCCOG Orange County Council of Governments
OCFA Orange County Fire Authority
OCFCD Orange County Flood Control District
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 6 – Acronyms and Abbreviations
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 83 of 85
OCSD Orange County Sanitation District
OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority
OCWD Orange County Water District
OHP Office of Historic Preservation
OHWM ordinary high water mark
ONAC Federal Office Noise Abatement and Control
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls
PCE tetrachloroethene
PFCs perfluorocarbons
PHGA Peak Horizontal Ground Accelerations
PJD preliminary jurisdictional determination
PM particulate matter
ppt parts per trillion
PPV peak particle velocity
PRC Public Resources Code
PRDs Permit Registration Documents
PTMU Platinum Triangle Mixed Use
RCP reinforced concrete pipe
RCPG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide
RCRA Resource Conservation Recovery Act
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment
rms root mean square
ROW right-of-way
RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Plan
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB18 Senate Bill 18
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 6 – Acronyms and Abbreviations
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 84 of 85
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
SCE Southern California Edison
SCS sustainable communities strategy
SEL Single Event Level
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SFHA Special Flood Hazard Areas
SIP State Implementation Plan
SLIC Spills, Leaks, Investigation and Cleanup
SO₂ sulfur dioxide
SOx sulfur oxide
SPTs Standard Penetration Tests
SQG small quantity generators
SVOCs Semi-volatile organic compounds
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TACs toxic air contaminants
TDS total dissolved solids
TMDL total maximum daily loads
tpd tons per day
TRUs transport refrigeration units
TSDs treatment, storage, or disposal sites
UMTA Urban Mass Transit Administration
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USC United States Code
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank
EIR No. 345 Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 6 – Acronyms and Abbreviations
City of Anaheim/Orange County Water District
Environmental Advisors, LLC Page 85 of 85
US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
V/C volume to capacity
VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program
VOC volatile organic compounds
WoS Waters of the State
WoUS Waters of the United States
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
There is no new correspondence
regarding this item.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 3
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE: OCTOBER 1, 2018
SUBJECT: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2018-00154
LOCATION: The Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone, which is defined as the area
east of the intersection of the State Route (SR) 55 and SR 91, west of the Orange
County line, south of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way, and
north of the southern city limits of the City of Anaheim, with the exception of those
properties within Anaheim Canyon.
APPLICANT: City of Anaheim
REQUEST: This is a City-initiated amendment to Chapter 18.18 (Scenic Corridor
(SC) Overlay Zone) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code to minimize
safety and fire hazards, related to Specimen Trees by 1) no longer classifying
Eucalyptus trees as Specimen Trees; and, 2) streamlining and clarifying the permitting
process for the removal and replacement of Specimen Trees.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission, by
motion, determine that the subject Zoning Code Amendment is exempt from the
requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing
Facilities) and Section 15304, Class 4 (Minor Alterations to Land); and recommend
City Council approval of Zoning Code Amendment (ZCA) No. 2018-00154.
BACKGROUND: In October 2017, the Canyon 2 Fire started in the City of Anaheim
and spread rapidly into multiple jurisdictions. When finished, the Canyon 2 Fire was
the largest Orange County wildland fire in nearly a decade, consuming 9,217 acres.
Despite the severe conditions and rapid progress of the fire, no lives were lost.
However, 14 homes were destroyed, another 44 homes damaged, one commercial
building damaged, and 21 other outbuildings damaged or destroyed.
The Anaheim Fire Department prepared the Canyon Fire After Action Plan following
the fire. The report included several recommendations to protect this area from future
fire devastation. The Canyon Fire After Action Plan identified the need for further
evaluation of the City’s current tree preservation requirements with regards to fire
resistive trees. The report found that during the Canyon 2 Fire, the type of vegetation
(i.e., plants and trees) that surrounds a home dramatically affected the spread of fire.
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2018-00154
October 1, 2018
Page 2 of 3
At the February 27, 2018 City Council meeting, in response to the Canyon Fire After Action
Plan, the City Council directed staff to initiate amendments to the Anaheim Municipal Code to
amend the City’s tree preservation requirements, which are implemented by AMC Chapter
18.18. (Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone) with respect to fire resistive plantings in the SC
Overlay Zone. As an interim measure, Council directed staff to apply the Recommended
Acceptable Fire Resistive Plant Species List when processing requests for landscape
modification and restoration within the City’s Very High Fire Severity Zone. Attachment No. 2
is the February 27, 2018 staff report to City Council, which includes this Plant Species List. The
list includes both recommended and not recommended plants for High Fire Potential Areas.
PROPOSAL: Staff has drafted the proposed amendments to the SC Overlay Zone to minimize
safety and fire hazards related to Specimen Trees. The SC Overlay Zone currently identifies four
types of trees as specimen trees: Eucalyptus, Oak, Pepper and Sycamore trees. The proposed
ZCA would remove Eucalyptus trees from the list of Specimen Trees. In addition, the proposed
amendments clarify the permitting process for the removal and replacement of all other Specimen
Trees. Attachment No. 1 provides the specific changes to the amended Code sections.
ANALYSIS: As mentioned above, the Canyon Fire After Action Plan identified the need for
further evaluation of the City’s current tree preservation requirements with regards to fire
resistive trees. City staff in various departments evaluated and collaboratively discussed the
City’s current ordinance and for the reasons described below recommends the following
revisions to Section 18.18.040 (Tree Preservation) of the SC Overlay Zone.
Removal of Eucalyptus Trees from the list of Specimen Trees
Within the SC Overlay Zone, Section 18.18.040 (Tree Preservation) currently classifies
Eucalyptus Trees as “Specimen Trees” that cannot be removed by a property owner without
going through the City’s Specimen Tree Removal Permit process. The previously mentioned
Recommended Acceptable Fire Resistive Plant Species List does not recommend the planting of
Eucalyptus Trees in High Fire Potential Areas. Attachment No. 3 shows the boundaries of the
SC Overlay Zone and Attachment No. 4 shows the boundaries of the City’s Fire Protection Areas.
As shown in these maps the boundaries are generally the same, although the SC Overlay Zone is
slightly larger. By removing Eucalyptus Trees from the list of specimen trees, there will be fewer
barriers to their removal. In addition, the change will discourage their preservation or planting in
light of their potential as a fire hazard.
Streamlining and Improving Tree Preservation Requirements
In order to ensure that the City’s remaining Specimen Trees (Oak, Pepper and Sycamore trees)
do not also become a potential safety hazard, staff is recommending several other changes to the
Tree Preservation section of the SC Overlay Zone. The proposed amendment includes revisions
to several definitions, as well as new definitions to provide further clarity and detail concerning
tree preservation. For instance, the amendment defines the qualifications and the role of a City
Arborist, and his or her authority. The revisions to the subsections related to administrative and
discretionary Specimen Tree Removal Permits, explain the process, what is required, and who
the City authorizes to approve such permits.
The proposed amendment would update the list of allowable replacement trees in the event that
a property owner removes a Specimen Tree. The revised list is limited to trees from the
Recommended Acceptable Fire Resistive Plant Species List. In addition, the proposed
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2018-00154
October 1, 2018
Page 3 of 3
amendment provides a specific list of allowable replacement trees for slopes. The trees on these
lists are in addition to the replacement of Specimen Trees with the same or other Specimen Trees.
Finally, to clarify the number of replacement tree required when a property owner removes a
tree, the Code would measure the proposed replacement tree ratio by circumference instead of
diameter. This change provides a clearer picture of the size of the trees destroyed, and number
of trees replaced. For example, the Code currently indicates that a property owner must replace
a tree under 12 inches in diameter with two trees. The proposed amendment indicates that a
property owner shall replace a tree under 38 inches in circumference with one tree. In addition,
the amendment provides some flexibility in the ratio of replacement trees required. The
amendment allows a City Arborist to determine the number of replacement trees, in place of the
prescribed ratio, based on the site characteristics and size, the type of the Specimen Trees
destroyed, and whether the prescribed number of trees is not feasible or the trees would not be
able to mature properly.
Environmental Impact Analysis: Staff recommends the Planning Commission find that the
effects of the proposed Zoning Code Amendment are typical of those generated within the Class
1 (Existing Facilities) and Class 4 (Minor Alterations to Land) Categorical Exemptions. Class
1 consists of maintenance of existing landscaping and native growth. Class 4 consists of minor
public or private alterations to the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation, which do not
involve the removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes.
Although Eucalyptus trees are currently Specimen Trees within a “Scenic Corridor” Overlay
Zone, Council has directed staff to amend the overlay zone to remove this type of tree from this
definition in order to allow fire resistant landscaping. This change fits within subsection (b) of
the Class 4 exemption: “New gardening or landscaping, including the replacement of existing
conventional landscaping with water efficient or fire resistant landscaping.” Therefore, there is
more emphasis on the fire resistant merits of the proposed amendment that the scenic character
of the Eucalyptus trees. Pursuant to Section 15300.02 (c) and 15303 of Title 14 of the California
Code of Regulations, there are no unusual circumstances in respect to the proposed project for
which staff would anticipate a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed
project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
CONCLUSION: Staff prepared the proposed Zoning Code Amendment at the direction of the
City Council. The amendment balances the scenic value of trees within the SC Overlay Zone
against the need to provide reasonable regulations to minimize safety risks and fire hazards to
the public and personal property. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the Zoning Code Amendment to the City Council.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Ignacio Rincon Susan Kim
Associate Planner Principal Planner
Attachments:
1. Draft Ordinance Amending AMC Chapter 18.18
2. City Council Report (February 27, 2018)
3. SC Overlay Zone
4. Fire Protection Areas Map
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
REDLINED TO SHOW
REVISIONS TO CURRENT
MUNICIPAL CODE
ORDINANCE
NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING
CHAPTER 18.18 (SCENIC CORRIDOR (SC) OVERLAY
ZONE) OF TITLE 18 (ZONING) OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TREE
PRESERVATION IN THE THE SCENIC
CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE AND MAKING
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH
WHEREAS, pursuant to the City’s police power, as granted broadly under Article XI,
Section 7 of the California Constitution, the City Council of the City of Anaheim ("City
Council") has the authority to enact and enforce ordinances and regulations for the public peace,
morals and welfare of the City of Anaheim (the "City") and its residents; and
WHEREAS, on February 9, 2016, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6258 setting
the boundaries of the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone as that as that area lying easterly of the
intersection of the State Route 55/Costa Mesa and State Route 91/Riverside Freeways, westerly
of the Orange County line, southerly of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way,
and northerly of the present or any future south city limits of the City of Anaheim, with the
exception of those properties within the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan No. 2015-01 (SP2015-
01) Zone; and
WHEREAS, the stated purpose of the (SC) Overlay Zone is to provide for and promote
orderly growth in an area designated as being of distinctive, scenic importance and of a distinctive
natural and rural beauty characterized and exemplified by the interrelationship between such
primary natural features as the rolling terrain, winding river, trees and the profusion of natural
vegetation; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.18 (Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone) of the Anaheim
Municipal Code contains regulations that apply in addition to, and, where inconsistent therewith,
supercede any regulations of the zone in which the (SC) Overlay Zone is combined; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.18.040 (Tree Preservation) of the Anaheim Municipal Code
provides that the preservation of specified trees in the (SC) Overlay Zone is necessary to preserve
the natural beauty of the Santa Ana Canyon environment, increase the visual identity and quality
of the area, and protect the remaining natural amenities from premature removal or destruction;
and
WHEREAS, in October 2017, the Canyon 2 Fire started in the City and spread rapidly
into multiple jurisdictions. The Canyon 2 Fire consumed 9,217 acres, and despite the severe
conditions and rapid progress of the fire, no lives were lost. However, 14 homes were destroyed,
another 44 homes damaged, one commercial building damaged, and 21 other outbuildings
damaged or destroyed; and
WHEREAS, following the Canyon 2 Fire, the Anaheim Fire Department prepared the
Canyon Fire After Action Plan, which included several recommendations to protect against
future fire devastation, and identified the need for further evaluation of the City’s current tree
preservation requirements with regards to fire resistive trees in the SC Overlay Zone; and
WHEREAS, because some species of trees are undesirable and invasive, and can easily
transmit fire between each other and/or to structures, the City Council desires to amend Chapter
18.18 (Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code
to: no longer classify Eucalyptus trees as Specimen Trees; and, streamline the permitting process
for the removal and replacement of Specimen Trees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that this ordinance is not subject to
the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code Section
21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), because adoption of this ordinance will not result
in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and therefore is
not a project as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines. Further, pursuant to Section
15301 (Class 1) and Section 15304 (Class 4) of the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3), this ordinance is catoagorically exempt from CEQA. Class 1
consists of maintenance of existing landscaping and native growth. Class 4 consists of minor
public or private alterations to the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation, which do not involve
the removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes. Although
Eucalyptus trees are currently Specimen Trees within a “Scenic Corridor” Overlay Zone, Council
has directed staff to amend the overlay zone to remove this type of tree from this definition in
order to allow fire resistant landscaping. This change fits within subsection (b) of the Class 4
exemption: “New gardening or landscaping, including the replacement of existing conventional
landscaping with water efficient or fire resistant landscaping.” Pursuant to Section 15300.02 (c)
and 15303 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, there are no unusual circumstances
in respect to the proposed project for which staff would anticipate a significant effect on the
environment and, therefore, the proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of
CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determines that this ordinance is in accord with the public
purposes and provisions of applicable State and local laws and requirements.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That Section 18.18.010 of Chapter 18.18 (Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay
Zone) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be amended to read as follows:
18.18.010 PURPOSE.
The purpose of this chapter, Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone, is to provide for and
promote orderly growth in certain areas of the City designated as being of distinctive, scenic
importance, while implementing local governmental agency actions for the protection,
preservation and enhancement of the unique and natural scenic assets of these areas as a valuable
resource to the community. This area has been designated as an area of distinctive natural and
rural beauty, characterized and exemplified by the interrelationship between such primary natural
features as the rolling terrain, winding river, Eucalyptus tree windbreaks Specimen Trees, and
the profusion of natural vegetation.
SECTION 2. That Section 18.18.040 of Chapter 18.18 (Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay
Zone) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be amended to read as follows:
18.18.040 TREE PRESERVATION.
Preservation of significant stands and single specified trees in the (SC) Overlay Zone is
necessary to preserve the natural beauty of the Santa Ana Canyon environment, increase the
visual identity and quality of the area, and protect the remaining natural amenities from
premature removal or destruction.
.010 Definitions. For purposes of this chapter, the following words, terms and phrases shall
have the meanings ascribed herein:
.0101 "Specimen Tree" shall mean any tree of the Eucalyptus varieties (Eucalyptus),
Quercus varieties (Oak), with a trunk measuring twenty-five (25) inches or greater in
circumference; or any tree of the Schinus varieties (Pepper), and or Platanus varieties
(Sycamore), with a trunks measuring fifty (50) eight (8) inches or greater in
circumferencediameter;, measurements of circumference shall be taken measured at a point four
(4) feet above ground level, or, in the case of Eucalyptus varieties, twenty (20) inches or greater
in diameter, measured at a point four (4) feet above ground level.
.0102 "Stand" shall mean five (5) or more specimen trees located on any parcel of land.
.01023 "Destroy" shall mean to include, but not be limited to, cutting down, removing,
trimming, topping or pruning any Sspecimen Ttree to a height of less than twenty-five (25) feet
above ground level as measured at the base of the trunk of the tree or to a height that may do
damage to a particular variety of tree as determined by a City Arborist, whichever is higher.
.0103 “City Arborist” shall mean a City staff member who is a certified Arborist by the
International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) to serve as the City’s tree specialist.
.0104 “Topping” shall mean a reduction of tree size by cutting live branches and leaders
to stubs without regard to long-term tree health or structural integrity.
.020 Scope. Except as provided in subsection .030, it shall be unlawful for any person to
destroy or otherwise direct or permit the destruction of one (1) or more trees from any stand of
Eucalyptus specimen trees, or one (1) or more Oak, Pepper, or Sycamore Sspecimen Ttrees
growing within the boundaries of the "SC" Overlay Zone, without a permit issued by the City of
Anaheim pursuant to the provisions of this section.
.030 Administrative Specimen Tree Removal Permit. A Specimen Tree Removal Permit is
required to remove Sspecimen Ttrees as defined in this Chapter
Section 18.18.040.010. Applications for authority to destroy Sspecimen Ttrees shall be filed
with the Planning and Building Department on forms provided for such purpose, together with a
filing fee as established by resolution of the City Council. The following Sspecimen Ttrees may
be destroyed lawfully; provided that, prior to such destruction, a report certificate obtained from
the City Arborist, or an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture and
authorized to do business within the City, is submitted along with an application. Any Specimen
Trees Trees that are removed before a report certificate is reviewed and approved by the City
must obtain a Discretionary Specimen Tree Removal Permit as identified in Section .040 below.
The report certificate shall attest that the tree(s) fit into at least one of the following categories:
.0301 Trees that have died;
.0302 Diseased trees whose condition is a source of present danger to healthy trees in the
immediate vicinity;
.0303 Trees so weakened by age, disease, storm, fire, excavation, removal of adjacent trees,
or any injury so as to cause imminent danger to persons or property;
.0304 Trees whose general health and condition are a source of present danger of falling
onto existing or proposed structures or utility lines;
.0305 Trees that have caused structural damage to a single-family residence or a required
driveway for that residence; provided an arborist has attested that removal of the tree roots would
threaten the health of the tree, or that the tree would be a source of continued damage to the
structure; or
.0306 Trees removed pursuant to lawful order of the Fire Department
.035 Exemptions. Trees that were planted or caused to be planted by the homeowner or
previous homeowner as part of an original landscape plan, and are not located in the area
between the main dwelling unit and a public or private right-of-way or in a commonly viewed
and maintained slope are exempt from the requirements of a Specimen Tree Removal
Permit. The maximum number of trees that may be removed is limited to two (2) trees, and shall
not include windrows or required trees. An arborist certificate is not required for this provision,
but other materials such as photographs shall be provided to demonstrate eligibility.Specimen
Trees planted by the current or previous homeowner as part of an original landscape plan, and
are not located in an area visible from a public or private right-of-way and/or in a commonly
viewed and maintained slope, are exempt from the requirements for a Specimen Tree Removal
Permit.
.040 Discretionary Specimen Tree Removal Permit. Applications for authority to destroy
Sspecimen Ttrees shall be filed with the Planning and Building Department on forms provided
for such purpose, together with a filing fee as established by resolution of the City Council. A
City Arborist shall review and provide a recommendation for all Discretionary Specimen Tree
Removal Permits. Applications that do not meet the requirements of subsection .030 above shall
be referred directly to the Planning Commission for determination. The determination of the
Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council pursuant to Chapter
18.60 (Procedures). Permits are valid for a period of one (1) year from the date of issuance. A
new application shall be filed for requests that have not been exercised within the established
time frames.
.050 Findings and Issuance of Permit by Planning Commission or City Council. As a
prerequisite to granting any permit to destroy any Sspecimen Ttree, the Planning Commission or
City Council may impose conditions, and shall make one (1) or more of the following findings:
.0501 That principles of good forest management will best be served by the proposed
destruction;
.0502 That a reasonable and practical development of the property on which the tree is
located requires destruction of the tree or trees;
.0503 That the character of the immediate neighborhood in respect to treescape will not be
materially affected by the proposed destruction;
.0504 That the topography of the building site renders destruction reasonably necessary; or
.0505 That regard for the safety of persons or property requires the destruction.
.060 Replacement of Trees. Any Sspecimen Ttrees destroyed pursuant to a permit issued by
the City shall be replaced on the same parcel, or in the public right-of-way located in the
immediate vicinity, as directed by the City. Any replacement trees in the public right-of-way
must be approved by the Department of Public Works. The replacement trees shall comply with
the following provisions:
.0601 The replacement trees shall be a minimum thirty-six (36) twenty-four (24) inch box
size at time of planting, or larger if appropriate to the tree.
.0602 The number of trees shall be as identified in Table 18-A (Number of Replacement
Trees), unless the City Arborist Community Services Department determines that the number of
replacement trees, based on the site characteristics and the size of the Specimen Trees destroyed,
is not feasible or cannot be properly nurtured through maturity.
Table 18-A
NUMBER OF REPLACEMENT TREES
Circumference Diameter of Tree Destroyed
(4 feet above ground level)
Number of Replacement Trees Required For
Each Tree Destroyed
Under 3812 inches 21
Table 18-A
NUMBER OF REPLACEMENT TREES
Circumference Diameter of Tree Destroyed
(4 feet above ground level)
Number of Replacement Trees Required For
Each Tree Destroyed
38-64 12 to 20 inches 23
Over 6420 inches 34
.0603 Specimen Trees on private property must be replaced with The replacement trees
shall be one of the Sspecimen Ttrees identified in Table 18-B (Allowable Replacement Trees:
Private Properties). The City may, at its discretion, require that only Sspecimen Ttrees be used
as replacement trees, based on the size of the tree removed and the trees in the general area of the
removal.
Table 18-B
ALLOWABLE REPLACEMENT TREES
Botanical Name Common Name
Acer paxii Evergreen Maple
Albizia julibrissin Silk Tree
Bauhinia variegate Purple Orchid Tree
Brachychiton aerifolius Flame Tree
Calodendrum capense Cape Chestnut
Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree
Cercis Canadensis Eastern Redbud
Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree
Eucalyptus species Gum Tree
Fraxinus angustifolia Raywood Ash
Geijera parviflora Australian Willow
Ginko biloba “Autumn Gold” Maidenhair Tree
Gleditsia triacanthos Honey Locust
Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda
Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua American Sweet Gum
Lophostemon confertus Brisbane Box
Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine
Platanus racemosa California Sycamore
Platanus acerifolia London Plane Tree
Podocarpus gracilior Fern Pine
Pyrus kawakamii Evergreen Pear
Quercus agrifolia California Live Oak
Quercus virginiana Southern Live Oak
Schinus molle California Pepper
Tipuana tipu Tipu Tree
Zelkova serrata Sawleaf Zelkova
Table 18-B
ALLOWABLE REPLACEMENT TREES: PRIVATE PROPERTIES
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
Acer macrophyllum Big Leaf Maple
Alnus cordata Italian Alder
Alnus rhombifolia White Alder
Arbutus unedo Strawberry Tree
Ceratonia silique Carob
Citrus species Citrus
Eriobotrya japonica Loquat
Erythrina species Coral Tree
Table 18-B
ALLOWABLE REPLACEMENT TREES: PRIVATE PROPERTIES
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
Ginkgo biloba MaidenhairTree
Juglans californica California Black Walnut
Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle
Lagunaria patersonii Primrose Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua American Sweet Gum
Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree
Lyonothamnus floribundus ssp. Asplenifolius Fernleaf Ironwood
Macadamia integrifolia Macadamia Nut
Maytenus boaria Mayten Tree
Metrosideros excelsus New Zealand Christmas Tree
Parkinsonia florida Cercidium floridum/Blue Palo Verde
Pistacia chinesis Chinese Pistache
Pittosporum undulatum Victorian Box
Plantanus racemose California Sycamore
Popolus fremontii Western Cottonwood
Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak
Quercus engelmannii Engelmann Oak
Quercus suber Cork Oak
Rhus lancea African Sumac
Sambucus Mexicana Mexican Elderberry
Stenicarpus sinuatus Firewheel Tree
Umbellularia californica California Laurel
Acer paxii Evergreen Maple
Albizia julibrissin Silk Tree
Bauhinia variegate Purple Orchid Tree
Brachychiton aerifolius Flame Tree
Calodendrum capense Cape Chestnut
Table 18-B
ALLOWABLE REPLACEMENT TREES: PRIVATE PROPERTIES
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree
Cercis Canadensis Eastern Redbud
Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree
Eucalyptus species Gum Tree
Fraxinus angustifolia Raywood Ash
Geijera parviflora Australian Willow
Ginko biloba “Autumn Gold” Maidenhair Tree
Gleditsia triacanthos Honey Locust
Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda
Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree
Lophostemon confertus Brisbane Box
Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine
Platanus acerifolia London Plane Tree
Podocarpus gracilior Fern Pine
Pyrus kawakamii Evergreen Pear
Quercus virginiana Southern Live Oak
Schinus molle California Pepper
Tipuana tipu Tipu Tree
Zelkova serrata Sawleaf Zelkova
.0604 Specimen Trees on slopes must be replaced with the trees in Table 18-C (Allowable
Replacement Trees: Slopes) in the recommended replacement areas. The City may, at its
discretion, require that Specimen Trees be used as replacement trees, based on the recommend
locations and in the general area of the removal.
Table 18-C
ALLOWABLE REPLACEMENT TREES: SLOPES
Botanical Name Common Name
Albiaia Julibrissin Silk Tree
Alnus Rhombifolia White Alder
Arbutus Menziesli Madrone
Brachychiton Aerifotium Flame Tree
Ceratonia Sitiqua Carob Tree
Cercis Occidentalis Western Redbud
Chorisia Speciosa Floss Silk Tree
Cinnomonum Camphora Camphor Tree
Erythrina caffra Coral Tree
Gleditsia Triacamthos Honey Locust
Jacaranda Acutifolia Jacaranda
Liquidambar Rotundiloba American Sweet Gum
Plantanus Racemosa California Sycamore
Quercus Agrifolia California Live Oak
Tipuana Tipu Tipu Tree
(Walnut) Juglans
California
Ca. Black Walnut
.070 Appeal. Any The decision of the Planning and Building Director under this section
Planning Commission shall be final, unless appealed to the Planning Commission City Council
by either the applicant or any one dissatisfied with the decision of the Planning and Building
Director an opponent pursuant to Chapter 18.60 (Procedures). No permit to destroy a Sspecimen
Ttree that is approved by action of the Planning and Building DirectorPlanning Commission, as
provided in this section, shall be issued prior to the expiration of the appeal period.
.080 Replacement Trees. Any required replacement tree planted on-site, which is
subsequently removed, damaged, diseased and/or dies, shall be replaced in a timely manner.
.090 Injuring Specimen Trees. It is unlawful for any person to injure or damage, or otherwise
authorize or direct the injuring or damaging of, any Sspecimen Ttree by any means, as
Determined by a City Arborist, including, but not limited to, the following:
.0901 Constructing a concrete, asphalt, brick or gravel sidewalk, patio, driveway or
roadway, or otherwise filling up the ground area around any tree so as to shut off air, light or
water from its roots;
.0902 Piling building equipment, material or other substances around any tree so as to
damage the tree;
.0903 Pouring any deleterious matter on or around any tree or on the surrounding ground,
lawn or sidewalk;
.0904 Posting any sign, poster, notice or other matter on any tree, tree stake or guard, or by
fastening any guy wire, cable, rope, nails, screws or other device to any tree, tree stake or guard;
.0905 Causing or permitting any wire charged with electricity to come in contact with any
tree;
.0906 Causing or permitting any fire or burning near or around any tree;
.0907 Topping or pruning of any tree to the point of injuring a tree; and
.0908 Causing damage to any tree resulting in weakening or disease such that the tree has to
be removed.
.100 Punishment of Violations. It shall be a misdemeanor for any person to violate the
provisions of this section. A violation shall be subject to the enforcement and penalties as set
forth in Section 1.01.370 (Violation of Code–Penalty) of Chapter 1.01 (Code Adoption and
Construction).
SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim hereby declares that should any section,
paragraph, sentence, phrase, term or word of this ordinance be declared for any reason to be
invalid, it is the intent of the City Council that it would have adopted all other portions of this
ordinance independent of the elimination herefrom of any such portion as may be declared
invalid. If any section, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance
is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would
have passed this Ordinance, and each section, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause and
phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one (or more) section, subdivision, paragraph,
sentence, clause or phrase had been declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 3. CERTIFICATION
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause the same
to be printed once within fifteen (15) days after its adoption in the Anaheim Bulletin, a
newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Anaheim.
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days from and after its final
passage.
THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Anaheim held on the ____ day of ______________, 2018, and thereafter passed and
adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the ____ day of ______________, 2018,
by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CITY OF ANAHEIM
By: __________________________________
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
______________________________________
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
201 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #300
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-4000
Fax: (714) 765-4008
www.anaheim.net
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
City of Anaheim
FIRE & RESCUE DEPARTMENT
DATE: FEBRUARY 27, 2018
FROM:FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 6, CHAPTER 6.16
(WEED ABATEMENT) AND AUTHORIZATION FOR STAFF TO
APPLY FIRE AND RESCUE’S RECOMMENDED LIST OF FIRE
RESISTIVE PLANTING MATERIALS IN THE CITY’S VERY
HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE
ATTACHMENT (Y/N): YES ITEM # 23
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council, by Motion:
1.Introduce an ordinance amending the City of Anaheim Municipal Code Title
6, Chapter 6.16 (Weed Abatement) to ensure the City can respond to and
correct potentially hazardous conditions in a timely manner and;
2. Direct the Planning and Building, Public Works, and Fire and Rescue
Departments’ to initiate amendments to the Municipal Code, as necessary, to
require fire-resistant planting materials, and, as an interim measure, apply
the Recommended Acceptable Fire Resistive Plant Species List published by
the Cal. Fire State of California when processing requests for landscape
modification and restoration applications within the City’s Very High Fire
Severity Zone.
DISCUSSION:
As requested by Council Member Murray at the October 24 council meeting, staff
has identified an improvement opportunity in the City’s weed abatement process as
part of the Canyon Fires After Action Plan. The proposed amendments to the
Anaheim Municipal Code (AMC) Title 6, Chapter 6.16 (Weed Abatement) update
the existing ordinance that require property owners to keep their property free of
brush, noxious growth and refuse, and allows the City to abate the same on an
expedited basis in the case of an extreme fire hazard if the property owner fails to do
so after having been given notice. The revision of Chapter 6.16 (Attachments 1 and
2) would primarily do two things:
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC TITLE 6, CHAPTER 6.16 (WEED ABATEMENT) AND AUTHORIZATION TO
APPLY THE RECOMMENDED FIRE RESISTIVE PLANTING MATERIALS LIST IN THE CITY’S VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY
ZONE
February 27, 2018
Page 2 of 3
1. Add emergency provisions shortening the notice time of ten (10) days to 72 hours, in
cases of "extreme fire danger", and give the City the right to abate the issue if the
property owner fails to do so and no written objections are filed.
2. Retains the mechanism for the collection of abatement costs by a special assessment as a
lien on the property.
The Canyon Fires After Action Report also identifies the need to evaluate the City’s current tree
preservation requirements, which are implemented by AMC Chapter 18.18. (Scenic Corridor
Overlay Zone) with respect to fire resistive plantings. During the Canyon Fires, the spread of
fire was dramatically impacted by the type of vegetation (i.e., plants and trees) that surrounds a
home.
Planting for fire safety through proper plant selection, placement, and maintenance can diminish
the possibility of ignition, lower fire intensity, and reduce how quickly a fire spreads, all of
which increase a home’s survivability. This concept is generally referred to in the industry as
“firescaping.” In “firescaping”, plant selection is primarily determined by a plant’s ability to
reduce the wildfire threat. Other considerations may be important such as appearance, ability to
hold the soil in place, and wildlife habitat value.
Attachment 3 includes Fire and Rescue’s Recommended Fire Resistant, Undesirable and
Invasive Planting materials list for use in the City’s High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, which
generally coincides with the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone in the eastern portion of the City.
Implementing this list would ensure the use of “fire smart” plants and trees in fire prone areas.
The recommended shrubs and groundcover have a high moisture content, are generally low
growing, and their stems and leaves are not resinous, oily, or waxy. The recommended trees are
mostly deciduous species, which are generally considered more fire resistant and preferred over
evergreen trees.
When reviewing requests for landscape modifications and restorations in the City’s Very High
Fire Severity Zone, staff implements the requirements set forth in AMC Chapter 18.18 (Scenic
Corridor Overlay Zone) and AMC Section 17.06 (Grading, Excavations, and Fills in Hillside
Areas), when applicable. Based on staffs’ preliminary assessments of these code requirements,
the required planting materials and tree species conflict with the “firescaping” concepts
described above. Specially, some required replacement trees within the Scenic Corridor Overlay
Zone are highly flammable due to their physical characteristics such as rough or peeling bark and
the production of copious amounts of litter. AMC 17.06.130 also requires planting materials that
have highly flammable characteristics.
Due to public life and safety concerns, staff is recommending that amendments to Chapter 18.18,
17.06, and three specific plans that govern the Scenic Corridor Overlay be initiated to ensure the
use of “fire smart” plants and trees in the High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Staff anticipates it
will take approximately 90 to 120 days to prepare these amendments and present them for
consideration by the City Council. In the interim, staff is requesting that the City Council
authorize the implementation and use of Fire and Rescue’s recommended list of acceptable fire
resistant planting materials (Attachment 3) in-lieu of the existing code requirements.
INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC TITLE 6, CHAPTER 6.16 (WEED ABATEMENT) AND AUTHORIZATION TO
APPLY RECOMMENDED FIRE RESISTIVE PLANTING MATERIALS LIST IN THE CITY’S VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY
ZONE
February 27, 2018
Page 3 of 3
This plant list would only apply to new landscape review requests, including landscape
modifications and restorations. Overall, this comprehensive list does offer diversity for planting
options and over time, will not add to the water needs of the landscape.
Staff will continue with its post-fire educational outreach efforts, including the dissemination of
informational materials to provide property owners with guidance on maintaining vegetation on
their properties to reduce the potential for future fire risk. In November 2017, Planning and
Building, Public Works and the Fire and Rescue Department sent a newsletter to homeowner
associations related to vegetation management and storm season preparedness. In the following
months, staff will continue its educational outreach efforts to provide property owners with
additional guidance on the benefits of “firescaping” in fire prone areas and will solicit public
input on the necessary municipal code amendments.
IMPACT ON BUDGET:
There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended actions. Should the City initiate the
abatement of a hazardous condition, the City would be able to recover its costs through the
special assessment process. The cost of initiating and completing amendments to the Anaheim
Municipal Code would be nominal. Sufficient funds are available in the Planning and Building,
Public Works and Fire and Rescue Departments’ budgets.
Respectfully submitted,Concurred by,
Randy Bruegman David Belmer
Fire and Rescue Chief Planning and Building Director
Attachments:
1. Draft Ordinance
2.Red-lined Draft Ordinance (marked to show changes from current Chapter 6.16)
3. Recommended List of Fire Resistant, Undesirable and Invasive Planting Materials
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING CHAPTER 6.16 (WEED ABATEMENT) OF
TITLE 6 (PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY) OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIRING
LANDOWNERS TO KEEP THEIR PROPERTY FREE OF
BRUSH, REFUSE AND/OR NOXIOUS GROWTH AND
ALLOWING THE CITY TO ABATE THE SAME ON AN
EXPEDITED BASIS IN CASES OF EXTREME FIRE
DANGER, AND FINDING AND DETERMINING
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) THAT
THIS ORDINANCE IS NOT A PROJECT PURSUANT TO
SECTIONS 15060(C)(2), 15060(C)(3) AND 15378 OF
THE CEQA GUIDELINES
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 39501 and 39502 of the California Government Code,
the City Council of the City of Anaheim may compel the owner, lessee or occupant of buildings,
grounds or lots in the City of Anaheim (herein referred to as the "City") to remove from the
property and adjacent sidewalks dirt, rubbish, weeds, and/or other material dangerous or injurious
to neighboring property or to the health and welfare of residents of the vicinity. In the event of
default after notice, the City Council may authorize the removal or destruction of that matter by a
city officer at the owner's expense, may prescribe a procedure for its removal or destruction, and
may make the expense a lien on the property or the abutting property, as the case may be, which
lien may be enforced by sale of the property; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority conferred upon cities by Sections 39501 and 39502
of the California Government Code and under its police powers, the City Council enacted the
City's "weed and refuse control ordinance" in 1971 by the adoption of Ordinance No. 2907, which
is codified as Chapter 6.16 (Weed Abatement) of Title 6 (Public Health and Safety) of the Anaheim
Municipal Code (herein referred to as the "Code"). The weed and refuse control ordinance
prohibits (1) the high growth of weeds, vines, grasses or certain brush that are a fire menace when
dry, or that contain poisonous oils that are dangerous to the life and health of the community; and
(2) the placement of rubbish, garbage, rubble and refuse on private property; and, establishes a
procedure for the abatement thereof, making the owner of such property or the person having
control or possession thereof liable to the City for the costs of abatement, which, if not paid, may
constitute a lien against such property; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority conferred by Sections 38771 and 38773 of the
California Government Code, the City Council adopted Chapter 6.44 (Public Nuisances) of Title
6 (Public Health and Safety) of the Code and deemed the following conditions, inter alia, to be
public nuisances: (A) the presence of any dry or dead shrub, palm frond or tree, combustible refuse
or waste, or any growing material which by reason of its size, manner of growth or location
constitutes a potential fire hazard to a building, structure, crop or other property; (B) the keeping
2
of any refuse or waste on any property for a period in excess of three (3) consecutive days; (C)
Maintaining property with overgrown vegetation which (i) causes detriment to neighboring
properties or obstructs pedestrian and/or vehicular traffic; (ii) is likely to harbor rats, vermin or
other nuisances; (iii) prevents, impedes or otherwise restricts access to electric, water or gas
meters, or to any other public equipment or facilities; or (iv) causes visual obstruction of any street
sign and/or light so as to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare; and
WHEREAS, by the adoption of Ordinance No. 6429 on February 6, 2018, the City Council
updated the noticing, procedural and cost-recovery provisions regarding how public nuisances
abatement actions are initiated and completed by amending certain provisions of Chapter 6.44
(Nuisances) of Title 6 (Public Health and Safety) of the Code. Ordinance No. 6429 will become
effective on March 8, 2018 and requires the City to provide notice to the property owner and an
opportunity for the owner to correct the condition within thirty-five days, or such other time as the
City deems appropriate. If the conditions are not remedied within the stated time, the City will
schedule a hearing to determine whether or not a nuisance exists; and
WHEREAS, all of the area within the City of Anaheim located east of the Costa Mesa
Freeway (State Route 55) and south of the Riverside Freeway (State Route 91) is located within a
"Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area", as designated by the City Council and defined in Chapter
16.08 (California Fire Code) of Title 16 (Fire) of the Code. In addition and pursuant to the
recommendation of the California Director of Forestry and Fire Protection, the City Council has
heretofore classified certain areas within the City of Anaheim as "Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zones", which zones are defined and designated in Chapter 16.40 (Designation of Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zones) of Title 16 (Fire) of the Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the City's weed and refuse control
ordinance in order to provide greater consistency in the noticing, procedural and cost-recovery
provisions of Chapters 6.16 and 6.44, and also provide the City the ability to abate, on an expedited
basis, brush, noxious growth and/or refuse posing an extreme fire danger within the Wildland-
Urban Interface Fire Area and the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones; and
WHEREAS, the California Constitution grants charter cities the power to make and enforce
all ordinances and regulations with respect to municipal affairs. Section 7 of Article XI of the
California Constitution provides that a city may make and enforce within its limits all police,
sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws; and
WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim, as a charter city, by and through its City Council, has
and may exercise all powers necessary to ensure the general welfare of its inhabitants; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code
Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as ''CEQA") and the State of California Guidelines for
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (commencing with Section 15000 of
Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; herein referred to as the "State CEQA Guidelines"),
the City is the "lead agency'' for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for
this ordinance; and
3
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that this ordinance is not subject to
CEQA pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, because
it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment
and is not a "project", as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determines that this ordinance is a matter of City-wide
importance and necessary for the preservation and protection of the public health, safety and
welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and is enacted pursuant to California Health and
Safety Code Sections 11362.5(c)(2) and 11362.83 and the City's police power as granted broadly
under Section 7 of Article XI of the California Constitution.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Chapter 6.16 (Weed Abatement) of Title 6 (Public Health and Safety) of the Anaheim
Municipal Code be, and the same is, hereby amended to read in full as follows:
Chapter 6.16
WEED ABATEMENT
Sections:
6.16.001 Title.
6.16.010 Definitions.
6.16.015 Noxious growth and refuse.
6.16.020 Notice requiring removal of noxious growth and/or
refuse.
6.16.030 Hearing.
6.16.040 Abatement by City.
6.16.050 Appeal of Abatement Order
6.16.060 Cost of Abatement.
6.16.070 Hearing on Costs of Abatement.
6.16.080 Alternative Abatement Procedures for Property Located
Within the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area, Very
High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, or High Hazard Fire
Areas.
6.16.090 Special assessments—Lien.
6.16.100 Cost assessment.
6.16.110 Cost paid to City.
6.16.120 Correction of erroneous assessment.
4
6.16.001 TITLE.
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "weed and refuse control ordinance" of
the City of Anaheim.
6.16.010 DEFINITIONS.
For the purpose of this chapter, the following terms, phrases, words and their derivations shall
have the meaning given herein, unless the context indicates that a different meaning is intended:
.010 "abatement order" means an order issued by a Hearing Officer pursuant to Section
6.16.030 or Section 6.16.080 of this Chapter.
.020 "designated officer" means appointed by the City Manager.
.030 "Lot" means any lot, parcel, tract or piece of land, improved or unimproved, including
the sidewalk area abutting or adjoining the lot, parcel, tract or piece of land; and the parkways, or
areas lying between the curbline and the street line of the adjoining or abutting lot, bounded on
the sides by the prolongations in straight lines of the side lines of the lot in front of which such
parkway or area exists.
.040 "Private premises" means:
.0401 Any dwelling, house, building or other structure, designed or used either wholly or in
part for private residential purposes, whether inhabited or temporarily or continuously
uninhabited or vacant, and shall include any yard, grounds, walk, driveway, porch, steps or
vestibule belonging or appurtenant to such dwelling, house, building or other structure;
.0402 Business establishments, commercial, industrial or manufacturing buildings, lots, yards,
grounds, walks, driveway, porch, steps belonging or appurtenant to such establishment or
adjacent thereto.
.050 "Public place" means any and all streets, sidewalks, boulevards, alleys or other public
ways and any and all parks, public squares, spaces, grounds and buildings.
.060 "Brush" means branches of trees sheared therefrom, a thicket of shrubs or bushes.
.070 "Noxious growth" means weeds, vines, grasses or brush which bear seeds of a wingy or
downy nature, or which attain a high growth as to become a fire menace when dry, or which
contain poisonous oils that become dangerous to the life and health of the community.
.080 "Refuse" includes rubbish, garbage, rubble or any refuses, rejected or discarded matter or
property.
.090 "Street line" means the boundary line between a public street right-of-way and an
abutting lot, or between a private street open to public use and an abutting lot.
6.16.015 NOXIOUS GROWTH AND REFUSE.
No owner or person managing or having control, charge, occupancy or possession of any lot or
private premises shall:
.010 Allow noxious growth or growths otherwise dangerous to the life, health, comfort or
convenience of the community to grow or remain upon such lot or private premises;
5
.020 Sow or disseminate, or allow or permit to mature, any noxious growth upon such lot or
private premises;
.030 Suffer or permit any noxious growth to grow or exist in excess of six inches above the
grade in the area of growth;
.040 Allow or place refuse, rubbish, or rubble, etc. on any lot or private premises or in such
quantity as to be unsightly, unhealthful, or so as to interfere with the abatement of noxious
growth under this chapter.
It is the duty of every such owner or person to prevent such growth or existence. To establish a
prima facie violation of this section, it shall not be necessary to establish any facts except that the
accused person owned, managed or had charge, control or occupancy of a lot or private premises
whereon such condition existed or occurred.
6.16.020 NOTICE REQUIRING REMOVAL OF NOXIOUS GROWTH AND/OR
REFUSE.
.010 If and when it shall appear to the designated officer that noxious growth and/or refuse
exist upon or are growing upon or have been placed upon or in front of any lot or private
premises, in violation of any of the provisions of this chapter (or any other provision of this
Code) the designated officer may, by appropriate written notice, direct the removal thereof and
shall cause notices to be served upon the owner and concurrently posted upon or in front of such
lot to the effect that such noxious growth and/or refuse must be removed within ten days from
and after the date of such service and posting.
Notice shall be in substantially the following form:
NOTICE TO DESTROY NOXIOUS GROWTH
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on the date set forth below and in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 6.16 (Weed Abatement) of
Title 6 (Public Health and Safety) of the Anaheim Municipal Code, the
________________ [insert title of designated officer] determined that
"noxious growth" such as weeds, vines, grasses or brush are growing
upon or have accumulated upon or exist on or in front of the premises
situated in the City of Anaheim, known and designated as
__[address]________ in said City, and more particularly described as
___________ ____ in violation of said chapter. Said alleged violations
consist of the following:
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the owner shall without delay remove
such noxious growth; otherwise, if the owner shall fail to remove such
6
noxious growth within ten (10) days after the date of this notice, such
noxious growth will be removed, destroyed and abated by the City in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 6.16 (Weed Abatement) of
Title 6 (Public Health and Safety) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. All
costs of abatement including those for inspection, administration,
destruction and removal will be assessed upon the premises from which,
or in front of which, such noxious growth was removed, destroyed and
abated, such costs will constitute a lien upon such premises until paid.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the owner having any objections or
protests to the proposed destruction of noxious growth is hereby
notified to file a written statement of such objections or protests,
specifying the address or description of the property concerned, the
reasons for objections, accompanied by any required fee or fees
established by resolution of the City Council, and the name, address,
phone number (if any), email address (if any), and status (owner,
manager, lessee, tenant, or other) of the objector and any authorized
representatives of the objector, which statement must be received by the
City Clerk within five (5) calendar days of the date the written notice is
served upon the owner.
Dated: ____________
CITY OF ANAHEIM
By:____________________
____________________ [insert name and title of
designated officer or his or her authorized representative]
NOTICE TO REMOVE REFUSE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on the date set forth below and in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 6.16 (Weed Abatement) of
Title 6 (Public Health and Safety) of the Anaheim Municipal Code, the
________________ [insert title of designated officer] determined that
"refuse", as defined in Chapter 6.16 (Weed Abatement) of Title 6 (Public
Health and Safety) of the Anaheim Municipal Code, exists upon or has
accumulated upon or has been left deposited or abandoned on or in front
of the premises situated in the City of Anaheim, known and designated
as _[address]_________ in said City, and more particularly described as
________________ in violation of said chapter. Said alleged violations
consist of the following:
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________.
7
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the owner shall without delay remove
such refuse; otherwise, if the owner shall fail to remove such refuse
within ten (10) days after the date of this notice, such refuse will be
removed by the City in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 6.16
(Weed Abatement) of Title 6 (Public Health and Safety) of the Anaheim
Municipal Code. All costs of abatement including those for inspection,
administration, destruction and removal will be assessed upon the
premises from which or in front of which such refuse was removed or
abated and such costs will constitute a lien upon such premises until paid.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the owner having any objections or
protests to the proposed removal of refuse is hereby notified to file a
written statement of such objections or protests, specifying the address
or description of the property concerned, the reasons for objections,
accompanied by any required fee or fees established by resolution of the
City Council, and the name, address, phone number (if any), email
address (if any), and status (owner, manager, lessee, tenant, or other) of
the objector and any authorized representatives of the objector, which
statement must be received by the City Clerk within five (5) calendar days
of the date of this notice.
Dated: ___________
CITY OF ANAHEIM
By:____________________
____________________ [insert name and title of
designated officer or his or her authorized representative]
Such notices shall be conspicuously posted on or in front of the lot on or in front of which the
condition exists, as follows:
.0101 One notice shall be posted on or in front of each separately owned lot or parcel;
.0102 Not more than two notices shall be posted to any parcel of fifty to one hundred feet
frontage;
.0103 Notices shall be placed at intervals of not more than two hundred feet if the frontage of
a parcel is greater than one hundred feet, with one notice for each two hundred feet of frontage.
.020 The person effecting posting and service of any notice under this Section may
memorialize the service by written declaration under penalty of perjury, declaring the date, time,
and manner that service was made, and the date and place of posting, if applicable. The
declaration, along with any receipt card returned in acknowledgment of receipt by certified mail,
shall be affixed to a copy of the notice and retained by the designated officer.
.030 The failure of the owner to accept or receive notice by regular or certified mail shall not
8
affect the power of the City or its officers or employees to proceed as provided in this chapter.
Such notice shall be mailed not less than (10) ten days prior to the date set for performing the
noxious growth and refuse abatement work.
6.16.030 HEARING.
.010 Any owner of property in receipt of a Notice to Destroy Noxious Growth and/or Remove
Refuse and having any objections or protests to the removal, destruction and abatement of noxious
growth and/or refuse (as the case may be) is hereby notified to file a written statement of such
objections or protests, specifying the address or description of the property concerned, the reasons
for objections, accompanied by any required fee or fees established by resolution of the City
Council, and the name, address, phone number (if any), email address (if any), and status (owner,
manager, lessee, tenant, or other) of the objector and any authorized representatives of the objector,
which statement must be received by the City Clerk within five (5) calendar days of the date the
written notice is served upon the owner.
.020 Upon receipt of a written statement from the owner setting forth objections or protests, the
City Clerk shall designate an "Employee Hearing Officer" or, if the City Attorney shall consent,
a "Stipulated Hearing Officer", as said terms are defined in subsection .010 of Section 1.12.110
(Appointment of Hearing Officer) of this code (each of these is hereinafter referred to as the
"Hearing Officer"), to hear the objections or protests at an administrative hearing and will serve
notice upon the owner of the time and place of the date at which said Hearing Officer will hear
and consider such objections or protests. Such hearing shall not be sooner than three (3) days
after such notice has been served upon the owner.
.030 On the date and at the time and place stated in the notice served upon the owner by the
City Clerk, the Hearing Officer shall hear and consider all objections to the proposed removal
and abatement of conditions. The Hearing Officer may continue the hearing from time to time.
.040 The failure of the objector to appear at the hearing shall constitute a failure to exhaust his
or her administrative remedies.
.050 At the conclusion of the hearing, the Hearing Officer shall issue a decision, based on the
preponderance of evidence, to uphold or overturn the determination of the designated officer. If
the Hearing Officer upholds the determination of the designated official, he or she may direct the
owner of the property upon which the noxious growth or refuse exists to abate it within seven (7)
days after the date of the service of the order of the Hearing Officer or within such additional time
as the Hearing Officer may grant if, in his or her opinion, good cause for an extension exists (herein
referred to as the "abatement order"). If the determination of the designated officer is not upheld
by the Hearing Officer, he or she may remand the matter to the designated officer with directions
to modify or withdraw the notice.
.060 The abatement order shall specify that, unless the noxious growth and/or refuse is removed
and abated within seven (7) days (or such longer period of time as the Hearing Officer may grant)
after the date of the service of the abatement order upon the owner, the designated officer is
authorized and ordered to abate same and, if necessary, to enter upon or onto the private property
of the owner without further notice or liability therefor in order to remove, destroy and abate the
noxious growth and/or refuse. The designated officer shall serve by registered or certified mail,
return receipt requested, postage prepaid, a copy of the abatement order forthwith upon those
9
persons who have filed written statements of objections. The abatement order shall include
notification of the owner’s right to appeal the decision of the Hearing Officer.
.070 The decision of the Hearing Officer shall be final and conclusive unless appealed in
accordance with Section 6.16.050.
6.16.040 ABATEMENT BY CITY.
.010 If the nuisance is not abated within the time set forth in the notice(s) required under Section
6.16.020 where the owner fails to timely file his or her written statement of objections or protests
or, following the timely filing of the owner's written statement of objections or protests and the
holding of a hearing in accordance with Section 6.16.030 and the issuance of an abatement order
by the Hearing Officer, the City may proceed to abate the nuisance, unless in the case of the
issuance of an abatement order by the Hearing Officer an appeal has been filed pursuant to Section
6.16.050.
.020 Abatement by the City pursuant to an abatement order or following an appeal of the
abatement order, if any, may, in the discretion of the designated officer, be performed by City
employees and/or one or more private contractors hired by the City. The designated officer and/or
one or more private contractors hired by the City, and their work force and equipment may enter
upon any private property and abate any nuisance found thereon, or in front thereof, provided that
either the time given by the designated officer in the notice to abate such nuisance under Section
6.16.020 or, in the case of the issuance of an abatement order by the Hearing Officer under Section
6.16.030, has expired and no timely appeal of the abatement order of the Hearing Officer has been
filed pursuant to Section 6.16.050.
6.16.050 APPEAL OF ABATEMENT ORDER
.010 The decision of the Hearing Officer rendered in accordance with Section 6.16.030 may be
appealed to the City Council by the owner of the property or by any member of the City Council.
Notice of the appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar days after the
decision of the Hearing Office rendered in accordance with Section 6.16.030 has been served upon
the owner. Late notices of appeal will not be considered. Hearings on such appeals shall be limited
to those issues raised in the notice of appeal. Notice of the hearing on an appeal shall be served
upon the owner by the City Clerk not less than ten (10) calendar days prior thereto.
.020 The filing of a timely notice of appeal shall stay any further proceedings under the
determination appealed from until the City Council or its appointed Hearing Officer (as the case
may be) has made its determination.
.030 Pursuant to Section 1.12.110, the City Council may appoint a Hearing Officer to conduct
such appeal hearings; provided, however, that the Hearing Officer shall not be the same Hearing
Officer who rendered the decision from which the appeal is being taken.
.040 At the hearing, the owner shall be given the opportunity to testify and to present evidence
concerning the determination that is the subject of the appeal. The owner shall raise any and all
legal and factual issues and claims concerning the determination that is the subject of the appeal.
The hearing need not be conducted in accordance with the technical rules of evidence. Any
relevant evidence may be admitted if it is evidence on which reasonable persons are accustomed
10
to rely in the conduct of serious affairs, regardless of the existence of any common law or statutory
rule which might consider such admission improper in a civil action.
.050 After considering the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, the City Council or
its appointed Hearing Officer (as the case may be) shall issue a written decision, including the
findings on which the decision was made, based on the preponderance of evidence, to uphold or
overturn the original determination that is the subject of appeal. If the determination is overturned,
the City Council or its appointed Hearing Officer (as the case may be) may remand the action to
the designated officer with directions to modify the determination.
.060 The decision made by the City Council or its appointed Hearing Officer (as the case may be)
shall become final and conclusive when served upon the owner.
6.16.060 COST OF ABATEMENT.
The designated officer shall cause to be kept an itemized account of the costs of abatement. The
designated officer shall cause to be posted conspicuously on the property and shall also serve the
owner of the property by certified mail a statement showing the cost of the abatement.
6.16.070 HEARING ON COST OF ABATEMENT.
.010 The owner may protest the cost of abatement by filing a written request with the City Clerk
for a hearing before the Hearing Officer who issued an abatement order pursuant to Section
6.16.030 within ten (10) calendar days of the service of the statement of costs described in Section
6.16.060. Upon receipt of such a request, the City Clerk shall schedule a hearing before the
Hearing Officer and serve upon the owner written notice by certified mail of no less than ten (10)
calendar days from the date of the notice.
.020 At the time fixed for the hearing on the statement of costs, the Hearing Officer shall consider
the statement and protests or objections raised by the person liable to be assessed for the cost of
the abatement. The Hearing Officer may revise, correct, or modify the statement as it considers
just and thereafter shall confirm the cost. The decision of the Hearing Officer shall be issued in
writing, shall be final and conclusive, and shall be served upon the owner by the City Clerk by
certified mail.
6.16.080 ALTERNATIVE ABATEMENT PROCEDURES FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED WITHIN THE WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE FIRE
AREA, VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES, OR HIGH
HAZARD FIRE AREAS
.010 If and when it appears, in the opinion of the Fire Chief, or his or her authorized
representatives, that any condition of noxious growth and/or refuse described in this chapter
constitutes an extreme fire hazard and/or an immediate threat, menace or danger to public health,
safety and welfare on property located within the "Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area", "Very
High Fire Hazard Severity Zones" (as such terms are defined in Title 16 (Fire) of this code), or on
property otherwise designated by the Fire Chief as "high hazard fire areas", and it is deemed
necessary by the Fire Chief, or his or her authorized representatives, to abate such condition or
nuisance as promptly as possible, the Fire Chief, or his or her authorized representatives, may by
written notice direct the removal thereof and shall cause such notice to be posted in the locations
described in Section 6.16.020, which notice shall also be given either: (1) by personal delivery to
11
the owner (and a receipt therefor obtained, unless refused to be given), or (2) delivered by
overnight delivery service, or (3) dispatched by both regular and certified mail, postage prepaid,
return receipt requested, addressed to the owner, whichever the Fire Chief, or his or her authorized
representatives, shall determine to be the best means of reaching the actual owner. The person
effecting service of any notice under this Section 6.16.080 may memorialize the service by written
declaration under penalty of perjury, declaring the date, time, and manner that service was made,
and the date and place of dispatching or posting, if applicable. The declaration, along with any
receipt card returned in acknowledgement of receipt by certified mail or receipt returned by
overnight delivery service, shall be affixed to a copy of the notice of violation and retained by the
Fire Chief, or his or her authorized representatives. Service of any such notice so made by personal
delivery, overnight delivery service, or by regular and certified mail, shall be deemed complete on
the date of actual delivery or at the expiration of the third (3rd) business day after the date of
dispatch, whichever is earlier in time. Such condition or public nuisance shall be abated within
such time as the Fire Chief deems appropriate and prescribes in the written notice requiring
abatement but not sooner than seventy-two (72) hours after dispatch of such notice.
.020 Notices given pursuant to subsection .010 of this Section 6.16.060 shall be in the same form
as set forth in 6.16.020 except that time period provided to the owner to remove, destroy or abate
the noxious growth and/or refuse must be at least 72 hours. The notice shall include information
as to the (i) date and time of posting; and, (ii) other deliver method. The notice shall specify that
any objections or protests to the proposed removal of noxious growth and/or refuse, must consist
of a written statement of such objections or protests, specifying the address or description of the
property concerned, the name, address, phone number (if any), email address (if any), and status
(owner, manager, lessee, tenant, or other) of the objector and any authorized representatives of the
objector, which statement must be received by the City Clerk within two (2) calendar days after
the date a copy of the notice has been served upon the owner
.030 Any owner of property upon which a public nuisance has been declared to exist pursuant to
this Section 6.16.080 having any objections or protests to the proposed removal of noxious growth
and/or refuse (as the case may be) is hereby notified to file a written statement of such objections
or protests, specifying the address or description of the property concerned, the reasons for
objections, accompanied by any required fee or fees established by resolution of the City Council,
and the name, address, phone number (if any), email address (if any), and status (owner, manager,
lessee, tenant, or other) of the objector and any authorized representatives of the objector, which
statement must be received by the City Clerk within two (2) calendar days of (a) the date the
written notice is personally served upon the owner, or (b) the date of actual delivery by overnight
delivery service or by regular and certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested,
whichever is earlier in time.
.040 Owner's Statement of Objections or Protests; Assignment of Hearing Officer. Upon receipt,
if at all, of a written statement from the owner setting forth the owner's objections or protests to
the Notice to Remove Noxious Growth and/or Refuse, the City Clerk shall designate an "Employee
Hearing Officer" or, if the City Attorney shall consent, a "Stipulated Hearing Officer", as said
terms are defined in subsection .010 of Section 1.12.110 (Appointment of Hearing Officer) of this
code (each of these is hereinafter referred to as the "Hearing Officer"), to hear the objections or
protests at an administrative hearing and will notify the owner or the person aggrieved in writing
of the time and place of the date at which said Hearing Officer will hear and consider such
objections or protests. Such hearing shall not be sooner than three (3) days after the earlier to
12
occur of the date such notice has been either (a) personally served upon the owner by the City
Clerk or the City Attorney, or one of their representatives, or by a private contractor hired by either
the City Clerk or the City Attorney, or (b) the date that such notice is delivered to the owner by
either overnight delivery service or by regular and certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt
requested.
.050 At the conclusion of the hearing, the Hearing Officer shall issue a decision, based on the
preponderance of evidence, to uphold or overturn the determination of the designated officer. If
the Hearing Officer upholds the determination of the designated officer, he or she may direct the
owner of the property upon which the noxious growth or refuse exists to abate it within such time
as the Hearing Officer determines based on good cause (the "abatement order"). If the
determination of the designated officer is not upheld by the Hearing Officer, he or she may remand
the matter to the designated officer with directions to modify or withdraw the notice. All provisions
of 6.16.030 shall apply unless otherwise provided for in this section.
.060 The abatement order shall be delivered to the owner by the Fire Chief, or his or her
authorized representatives, either: (1) by personal delivery to the owner, or (2) dispatched by either
overnight delivery service or by regular and certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt
requested.
.070 The abatement order shall specify that, unless the nuisance is removed and abated within
such time as the Hearing Officer shall order, the City is authorized and ordered to abate same and,
if necessary, to enter upon or onto the private property of the owner without further notice or
liability therefor in order to abate the nuisance. Abatement of the nuisance may, in the discretion
of the Fire Chief, be performed by City employees and/or one or more private contractors hired by
the City.
.080 The decision of the Hearing Officer shall be deemed final and conclusive.
6.16.090 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS — LIEN.
The cost of abatement upon or in front of each lot constitutes a special assessment against that
lot. After the assessment is made and confirmed, it is then a lien on the lot.
6.16.100 COST ASSESSMENT.
After confirmation of the report, a certified copy of the same shall be filed with the County
Assessor on or before August tenth of each year. The descriptions of the parcels reported shall be
those used for the same parcels on the County Assessor's Map Book for the current year. The
County Assessor shall enter each assessment on the County Tax Roll opposite the parcel of land.
The amount of the assessment shall be collected at the time and in the manner of ordinary
municipal taxes. If delinquent, the amount is subject to the same penalties and procedures of
foreclosure and sale provided for ordinary municipal taxes. As an alternative method, the County
Tax Collector, in his discretion, may collect the assessments without reference to the general
taxes by issuing separate bills and receipts for the assessments. Laws relating to the levy,
collection and enforcement of County taxes shall apply to such special assessment taxes.
6.16.110 COST PAID TO CITY.
The designated officer shall receive the amount due on the abatement cost and shall issue
receipts2 at any time after the confirmation of the report. The designated officer may bill the
owner of record directly at any time he shall desire.
13
6.16.120 CORRECTION OF ERRONEOUS ASSESSMENT.
.010 Any assessment erroneously made may be canceled or reduced so as to correct any error,
and the tax paid on account thereof, not including any penalties or interest, may be refunded to
the person who paid the assessment, in accordance with the following procedure:
.0101 A claim of error may be filed with the City Clerk at any time before the expiration of
one year following April tenth of the tax year in which such assessment appears or would first
appear on the tax bill for the affected property. Such claim shall be in writing, in such form and
detail as shall be required by the City Clerk and shall be verified.
.0102 Any claim filed shall be forwarded to the designated officer for review and report to the
Finance Director. If the designated officer shall determine that such assessment was erroneously
made, in whole or in part, the Finance Director shall request the Orange County Board of
Supervisors to direct the County Auditor-Controller to correct the tax rolls as to the affected
property by removing or reducing the erroneous assessment, and the direction of the Finance
Director shall be authority for the Auditor-Controller so to correct the tax rolls. If such
assessment shall have been paid, the part determined to be erroneously levied shall be refunded
to the person who paid the same, by the Finance Director. In lieu of proof otherwise, the Finance
Director may presume that the person or persons to whom the abatement cost was assessed was
the person or persons who paid the same.
.0103 Any claimant whose claim is not favorably acted upon in whole or in part within sixty
days after the filing of the same, or whose claim is denied in whole or in part by the Finance
Director, may, within ten days after such denial or after the expiration of such period, appeal
such denial or failure to act favorably to the City Council by written letter filed with the City
Clerk.
.0104 The City Council shall consider such disputed assessment at an open meeting, upon
reasonable notice to the claimant, and shall afford the claimant an opportunity to be heard. If the
City Council shall find the disputed assessment to be erroneous in whole or in part, it may direct
the Finance Director to correct the assessment accordingly, to cause the tax rolls to be corrected,
and to make a refund of any portion of the assessment paid, all in the manner as hereinabove
provided for such corrections and refunds.
.0105 Not later than thirty days after the correction of any assessment or refund of any
moneys hereunder, except by direction of the City Council, the Finance Director shall transmit to
the City Council a report of such action, together with the report of the designated officer.
.020 Whenever the tax rolls have been corrected or a refund has been made hereunder by
reason of an erroneous assessment, a corrected written report of the type required by Section
6.16.120 relating to the work for which such erroneous assessment was levied may be prepared
by the officer who prepared the original report. Such report shall show the cost of abatement
upon, or in front of the lot where the work has been done and shall state that it is proposed to
assess such cost against such lot. A copy of such corrected report shall be mailed to the owner of
the lot as shown upon the current assessment roll.
SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim hereby declares that should any section,
paragraph, sentence or word of this ordinance hereby adopted be declared for any reason to be
14
invalid, it is the intent of the City Council that it would have passed all other portions of this
ordinance independent of the elimination herefrom of any such portion as may be declared invalid.
SECTION 3. SAVINGS CLAUSE.
Neither the adoption of this ordinance nor the repeal of any other ordinance of this City
shall in any manner affect the prosecution for violations of ordinances, which violations were
committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any license or penalty
or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof. The provisions of this ordinance,
insofar as they are substantially the same as ordinance provisions previously adopted by the City
relating to the same subject matter, shall be construed as restatements and continuations, and not
as new enactments.
SECTION 4. CERTIFICATION; PUBLICATION BY CLERK.
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance
or a summary thereof to be printed once within fifteen (15) days after its adoption in the Anaheim
Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Anaheim.
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days from and after its
final passage.
THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Anaheim held on the ____ day of ______________, 2018, and thereafter passed and
adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the ____ day of ______________, 2018,
by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CITY OF ANAHEIM
By:_________________________________
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
15
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
126313/LM
Chapter 6.16
WEED ABATEMENT
Sections:
6.16.001 Title.
6.16.010 Definitions.
6.16.015 Noxious growthgrewt-ks and refuse.
6.16.020 Notice requiring removal of noxious urowthgrowths
and/or refuse.
6.16.030 _HearingNot-lee-form.
6.16.040 Abatement by CityNearing.
6.16.050 Appeal of Abatement Order order.
—6.16.060 Cost—Service of Abatementorder.
6.16.070 Hearing on Costs of Abatement by City.
6.16.080 Alternative Abatement Procedures for Property Located
Within the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area, Very
High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, or High Hazard Fire
Areas.
—6,1-6:080—Cos-t--ef-abatement.
6.16.090 Special assessments—Lien.
6.16.100 Cost assessment.
6.16.110 _.-Cost paid to City.
6.16.120 Correction of erroneous assessment.
* Weed, rubbish, elift abatement See C
Prior ordinance history: Ords. 188, 1112 and 3506.
6.16.001 -TITLE.
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "weed and refuse control ordinance" of
the City of Anaheim.
6.16.010 -DEFINITIONS.
For the purpose of this chapter, the following terms, phrases, words and their derivations shall
have the meaning given herein, unless the context indicates that a different meaning is intended:
.010 "abatement order" means an order issued by a Hearing Officer pursuant to Section
6.16.030 or Section 6.16.080 of this Chapter.
.020 "designatedDesignateel officer" means appointed by the City Manager.
.030020 "Lot" means any lot, parcel, tract or piece of land, improved or unimproved,
e : I. • ."
including the sidewalk area abutting or adjoining the lot, parcel, tract or piece of land; and the
parkways, or areas lying between the curbline and the street line of the adjoining or abutting lot,
bounded on the sides by the prolongations in straight lines of the side lines of the lot in front of
which such parkway or area exists.
.04003-0 "Private premises" means:
.04010301 Any dwelling, house, building or other structure, designed or used either wholly or
in part for private residential purposes, whether inhabited or temporarily or continuously
uninhabited or vacant, and shall include any yard, grounds, walk, driveway, porch, steps or
vestibule belonging or appurtenant to such dwelling, house, building or other structure;
.040203-02 Business establishments, commercial, industrial or manufacturing buildings, lots,
yards, grounds, walks, driveway, porch, steps belonging or appurtenant to such establishment or
adjacent thereto.
.050010 "Public place" means any and all streets, sidewalks, boulevards, alleys or other
public ways and any and all parks, public squares, spaces, grounds and buildings.
.060050 "Brush" means branches of trees sheared therefrom, a thicket of shrubs or bushes.
.07006.0 "Noxious growth" means weeds, vines, grasses or brush which bear seeds of a wingy
or downy nature, or which attain a high growth as to become a fire menace when dry, or which
contain poisonous oils that become dangerous to the life and health of the community.
.0800-7-0 "Refuse" includes rubbish, garbage, rubble or any refuses, rejected or discarded
matter or property.
.090080 "Street line" means the boundary line between a public street right-of-way and an
abutting lot, or between a private street open to public use and an abutting lot. (Ord. 2907 § 1
(part); February 16, 1971.)
6.16.015 -NOXIOUS GROWTHGROW-THS AND REFUSE.
No owner or person owning, managing or having controlf ew charge-of occupancy or
possession of any lot or private premises shall:
.010 Allow noxious growthgrowths or growths otherwise dangerous to the life, health,
comfort or convenience of the community to grow or remain upon such lot or private premises;
.020 Sow or disseminate, or allow or permit to mature, any noxious growth upon such lot or
private premises;
.030 Suffer or permit any noxious growth to grow or exist in excess of six inches above the
grade in the area of growth;
.040 Allow or place refuse, rubbish, or rubble, etc,7 on any lot or private premises or in such
quantity as to be unsightly, unhealthful, or so as to interfere with the abatement of noxious
growth under this chapter.
It is the duty of every such owner or person to prevent such growth or existence. To establish a
prima facie violation of this section, it shall not be necessary to establish any facts except that the
accused person owned, managed or had charge, control or occupancy of a lot or private premises
whereon such condition existed or occurred. (Ord. 2907 § 1 (part); February 16, 1971.)
6.16.020 -NOTICE REQUIRING REMOVAL OF NOXIOUS GROWTHGRO-WTHS
AND/OR REFUSE.
.010 If and when it shall appear to the designated officer that noxious growth and/or
refusegrowths exist upon 3 or are growing upon or have been placed upon or in front of any lot or
private premises, in violation of any of the provisions of this chapter (or any other provision of
this Code) the designated officer may, by appropriate written noticeorder, direct the removal
thereof and shall cause notices to be served upon the owner and concurrently posted upon or in
front of such lot to the effect that such noxious growthweeds, vines, grasses or brush and/or
refuse must be removed within ten days from and after the date of such service and posting.
Notice shall be in substantially the following form:
NOTICE TO DESTROY NOXIOUS GROWTI-I
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on the date set forth below and in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 6.16 (Weed Abatement) of
Title 6 (Public Health and Safety) of the Anaheim Municipal Code, the
[insert title of designated officer] determined that
'noxious growth" such as weeds, vines, grasses or brush are growing
upon or have accumulated upon or exist on or in front of the premises
situated in the City of Anaheim, known and designated as
[address] in said City, and more particularly described as
in violation of said chapter. Said alleged violations
consist of the following:
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the owner shall without delay remove
such noxious growth; otherwise, if the owner shall fail to remove such
noxious growth within ten (10) days after the date of this notice, such
noxious growth will be removed, destroyed and abated by the City in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 6.16 (Weed Abatement) of
Title 6 (Public Health and Safety) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. All
costs of abatement including those for inspection, administration,
destruction and removal will be assessed upon the premises from
which, or in front of which, such noxious growth was removed,
destroyed and abated, such costs will constitute a lien upon such
premises until paid.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the owner having any objections or
protests to the proposed destruction of noxious growth is hereby
notified to file a written statement of such objections or protests,
specifying the address or description of the property concerned, the
reasons for obiections, accompanied by any required fee or fees
established by resolution of the City Council, and the name, address,
phone number (if any), email address (if any), and status (owner,
manager, lessee, tenant, or other) of the objector and any authorized
representatives of the objector, which statement must be received by
the City Clerk within five (5) calendar days of the date the written notice
is served upon the owner.
Dated:
CITY OF ANAHEIM
By:
[insert name and title of
designated officer or his or her authorized representative]
NOTICE TO REMOVE REFUSE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on the date set forth below and in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 6.16 (Weed Abatement) of
Title 6 (Public Health and Safety) of the Anaheim Municipal Code, the
[insert title of designated officer/ determined that
"refuse'", as defined in Chapter 6.16 (Weed Abatement) of Title 6 (Public
Health and Safety) of the Anaheim Municipal Code, exists upon or has
accumulated upon or has been left deposited or abandoned on or in
front of the premises situated in the City of Anaheim, known and
designated as [address) in said City, and more particularly
described as in violation of said chapter. Said
alleged violations consist of the following:
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the owner shall without delay remove
such refuse; otherwise, if the owner shall fail to remove such refuse
within ten (10) days after the date of this notice, such refuse will be
removed by the City in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 6.16
(Weed Abatement) of Title 6 (Public Health and Safety) of the Anaheim
Municipal Code. All costs of abatement including those for inspection,
administration, destruction and removal will be assessed upon the
premises from which or in front of which such refuse was removed or
abated and such costs will constitute a lien upon such premises until
paid.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the owner having any objections or
protests to the proposed removal of refuse is hereby notified to file a
written statement of such objections or protests, specifying the address
or description of the property concerned, the reasons for objections,
accompanied by any required fee or fees established by resolution of
the City Council, and the name, address, phone number (if any), email
address (if any), and status (owner, manager, lessee, tenant, or other) of
the objector and any authorized representatives of the objector, which
statement must be received by the City Clerk within five (5) calendar
days of the date of this notice.
Dated:
CITY OF ANAHEIM
By:
Jinsert name and title of
designated officer or his or her authorized representative'
—Such notices shall be conspicuously posted on or in front of the lot on or in front of which the
condition exists, as follows:
.0101 One notice shall be posted on or in front of each separately owned lot or parcel;
.0102 Not more than two notices shall be posted to any parcel of fifty to one hundred feet
frontage;
.0103 Notices shall be placed at intervals of not more than two hundred feet if the frontage of
a parcel is greater than one hundred feet, with one notice for each two hundred feet of frontage.
.020 The person effecting posting and service of any notice under this Section may
memorialize the service by written declaration under penalty of perjury, declaring the date, time,
and manner that service was made, and the date and place of posting, if applicable. The
declaration, along with any receipt card returned in acknowledgment of receipt by certified mail.
shall be affixed to a copy of the notice and retained by the designated officer.
.030 The failure of the owner to accept or receive notice by regular or certified mailln lieu of
propept-y-as-shown upon any City record, o
: -
through the United States mail, but the failure of shall not affect
the power of the City or its officers or employees to proceed as provided in this chapter. Such
notice shall be mailed not less than (10) ten days prior to the date set for performing the noxious
growthweed and refuse abatement work. (Ord. 2907 § I (part); February 16, 1971.)
6.16.030 HEARING NOTICE-F.ORM.
.010 Any owner of property in receipt of a Notice to Destroy Noxious Growth and/or Remove
Refuse and having any objections or protests to the removal, destruction and abatement of
VEED-S AND REMOVE REFUSE," in lett
or in front of this property in
If written notice is to be given in a e above notice, a description of tho-
noxious growth and/or refuse (as the case may be) is hereby The heading of the notice shall be
AND
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to Title 6 of Chapter 6.16, Section 6.16.015, of the
property, by tax description, street address, if known, lot number, parcel number or other
"
substance the following:
• C ; :
: • ;
. :
' •• ' . ; • ;
the removal thereof, or the cutting of oversize gr:
C
C
t
: • t
ulars. A copy-of-said-Code-is-
- --
the proposed removal of said noxious growths or refusc;
as aforesaid, arc hereby notified to file a written statement of such objections or protests,
specifying the address or description of the property concerned, the reasons for objections,
accompanied by any required fee or fees established by resolution of the City Council, and and
the name, address, phone number (if any), email address (if any), and status (owner, manager,
lessee, tenant, or other) of the objector and any authorized representatives of the objector, which
statement must be received by the City Clerk within five (5) calendar days of the date the written
notice is served upon the owner.
.020 Upon receipt of a written statement from the owner setting forth objections or protests,
shall be filed with the City Clerk shall designate an "Employee Hearing Officer" or, if the City
Attorney shall consent, a "Stipulated Hearing Officer", as said terms are defined in subsection
.010 of Section 1.12.110 (Appointment of Hearing Officer) of this code (each of these is
hereinafter referred to as the "Hearing Officer"), to hear the objections or protests at an
administrative hearing and will serve notice upon the owner of the time and place of the date at
which said Hearing Officer will hear and consider such objections or protests. Such hearing
• -
shall not be sooner than three (3) days after such notice has been served upon the owner. not
later-than-a-date-not more than five (5) days after the posting of this notice.
.030 On the date and at the Upon receipt of such written statement, the City Clerk
will hear and consider such objection. Such tneetinshall not be sooner than three
(Ord. 2907 § 1 (part); February 16, 197-L)
6:1-6A440-HEAR-ING7
At the time and place stated in the notice served upon the ownemotices mailed by the City
Clerk, the Hearing OfficerCity Council shall hear and consider all objections to the proposed
removal and abatement or-correction of said public nuisance or conditions. The Hearing
OfficerThey may continue the hearing from time to time.
.040 The failure of the objector to appear at the hearing shall constitute a failure to exhaust his
or her administrative remedies.
.050 At the By motion or resolution at the conclusion of the hearing, the Hearing OfficerGity
Council shall issue aallow or overru - decision, based on the preponderance
of evidence, to uphold or overturn the determination of the designated officer. If the Hearing
Officer upholds the determination of the designated official, he or she may direct the owner of
the property upon which the noxious growth or refuse exists to abate it within seven (7) days
after the date of the service of the order of the Hearing Officer or within such additional time as
the Hearing Officer may grant if, in his or her opinion, good cause for an extension exists (herein
referred to as the "abatement order"). If the determination of the designated officer is not upheld
by the Hearing Officer, he or she may remand the matter to the designated officer with directions
to modify or withdraw the notice. of the City Council shall be final and conclusive. (Ord. 2907
§ 1 (part); February 16, 1971.)
.060 The abatement order shall specify that, unless the noxious growth and/or refuse is removed
and abated within seven (7) days (or such longer period of time as the Hearing Officer may
grant) after the date of the service of the abatement order upon the owner, the designated officer
is authorized and ordered to abate same and, if necessary, to enter upon or onto the private
property of the owner without further notice or liability therefor in order to remove, destroy and
abate the noxious growth and/or refuse.
The designated officer shall serve by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested,
postage prepaid, a copy of the abatement order forthwith upon those persons who have filed
written statements of objections. The abatement order shall include notification of the owner's
right to appeal the decision of the Hearing Officer.The abatement order shall specify that unless
February 16, 1971.)
.070 The decision of the Hearing Officer shall be final and conclusive unless appealed in
accordance with Section 6.16.050.
6.16.040 070-ABATEMENT BY CITY.
.010 If the nuisance is not abated within the time set forth in the notice(s) required under
Section 6.16.020 where the owner fails to timely file his or her written statement of objections or
protests or, following the timely filing of the owner's written statement of objections or protests
and the holding of a hearing in accordance with Section 6.16.030 and the issuance of an
abatement order by the Hearing Officer, the City may proceed to abate the nuisance, unless in the
case of the issuance of an abatement order by the Hearing Officer an appeal has been filed
pursuant to Section 6.16.050.
.020 Abatement by the City pursuant to an abatement order or following an appeal of the
abatement order, if any, may, in the discretion of the The designated officer, be performed by
City employees and/or one or more private contractors hired by the City. The designated officer
and/or one or more private contractors hired by the City, and their his work force and their
equipment may enter upon any private property and abate any nuisance found thereon, or in front
thereof, provided that either the time given by the designated officer in theten days' notice to
abate such nuisance under Section 6.16.020 or, in the case of the issuance of an abatement order
by the Hearing Officer under Section 6.16.030, has expired and no timely appeal of the
abatement order of the Hearing Officer has been filed pursuant to Section 6.16.050.
6.16.050 APPEAL OF ABATEMENT ORDER
.010 The decision of the Hearing Officer rendered in accordance with Section 6.16.030 may be
appealed to the City Council by the owner of the property or by any member of the City Council.
Notice of the appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar days after the
decision of the Hearing Office rendered in accordance with Section 6.16.030 has been served
upon the owner. Late notices of appeal will not be considered. Hearings on such appeals shall
be limited to those issues raised in the notice of appeal. Notice of the hearing on an appeal shall
be served upon the owner by the City Clerk not less than ten (10) calendar days prior thereto.
.020 The filing of a timely notice of appeal shall stay any further proceedings under the
determination appealed from until the City Council or its appointed Hearing Officer (as the case
my be) has made its determination.
.030 Pursuant to Section 1.12.110, the City Council may appoint a Hearing Officer to conduct
such appeal hearings; provided, however, that the Hearing Officer shall not be the same Hearing
Officer who rendered the decision from which the appeal is being taken.
040 At the hearing, the owner shall be given the opportunity to testify and to present evidence
concerning the determination that is the subject of the appeal. The owner shall raise any and all
legal and factual issues and claims concerning the determination that is the subject of the appeal.
The hearing need not be conducted in accordance with the technical rules of evidence. Any
relevant evidence may be admitted if it is evidence on which reasonable persons are accustomed
to rely in the conduct of serious affairs, regardless of the existence of any common law or
statutory rule which might consider such admission improper in a civil action.
.050 After considering the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, the City Council or
its appointed Hearing Officer (as the case may be) shall issue a written decision, including the
findings on which the decision was made, based on the preponderance of evidence, to uphold or
overturn the original determination that is the subject of appeal. If the determination is
overturned, the City Council or its appointed Hearing Officer (as the case may be) may remand
the action to the designated officer with directions to modify the determination.
.060 The decision made by the City Council or its appointed Hearing Officer (as the case may
be) shall become final and conclusive when served upon the owner.
6.16.060 COST OF ABATEMENT.
The designated officer shall cause to be kept an itemized account of the costs of abatement.
The designated officer shall cause to be shall have been posted conspicuously on the property
and shall also serve the owner of the property by certified mail a statement showing the cost of
the abatement.
6.16.070 HEARING ON COST OF ABATEMENT.
.010 The owner may protest the cost of abatement by filing a written request with the City
Clerk for a hearing before the Hearing Officer who issued an abatement order pursuant to
Section 6.16.030 within ten (10) calendar days of the service of the statement of costs described
in Section 6.16.060. Upon receipt of such a request, the City Clerk shall schedule a hearing
before the Hearing Officer and serve upon the owner written notice by certified mail of no less
than ten (10) calendar days from the date of the notice.
.020 At the time fixed for the hearing on the statement of costs, the Hearing Officer shall
consider the statement and protests or objections raised by the person liable to be assessed for the
cost of the abatement. The Hearing Officer may revise, correct, or modify the statement as it
considers just and thereafter shall confirm the cost. The decision of the Hearing Officer shall be
issued in writing, shall be final and conclusive, and shall be served upon the owner by the City
Clerk by certified mail.
6.16.080 ALTERNATIVE ABATEMENT PROCEDURES FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED WITHIN THE WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE FIRE
AREA, VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES, OR HIGH
HAZARD FIRE AREAS
.010 If and when it appears, in the opinion of the Fire Chief, or his or her authorized
representatives, that any condition of noxious growth and/or refuse described in or mailed as
feEpiired-b-y-this chapter constitutes an extreme fire hazard and/or an immediate threat, menace or
danger to public health, safety and welfare on property located within the "Wildland-Urban
Interface Fire Area", "Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones" (as such terms are defined in Title
16 (Fire) of this code), or on property otherwise designated by the Fire Chief as "high hazard fire
areas", and it is deemed necessary by the Fire Chief, or his or her authorized representatives, to
abate such condition or nuisance as promptly as possible, the Fire Chief, or his or her authorized
representatives, may by written notice direct the removal thereof and shall cause such notice to
be posted in the locations described in Section 6.16.020, which notice shall also be given either:
(I) by personal delivery to the owner (and a receipt therefor obtained, unless refused to be
given), or (2) delivered by overnight delivery service, or (3) dispatched by both regular and
certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the owner, whichever the
Fire Chief, or his or her authorized representatives, shall determine to be the best means of
reaching the actual owner. The person effecting service of any notice under this Section
6.16.080 may memorialize the service by written declaration under penalty of perjury, declaring
the date, time, and manner that service was made, and the date and place of dispatching or, the
time allowed by the notice shall have expired, and
of objections as herein provided within five days after posting, if applicable. The declaration,
along with any receipt card returned in acknowledgement of receipt by certified mail or receipt
returned by overnight delivery service, shall be affixed to a copy of the notice of violation and
retained by the Fire Chief, or his or her authorized representatives. Service of any such notice
so made by personal delivery, overnight delivery service, or by regular and certified mail, shall
be deemed complete on the date of actual delivery or at the expiration of the third (31.d ) business
day after the date of dispatch, whichever is earlier in time. Such condition or public nuisance
shall be abated within such time as the Fire Chief deems appropriate and prescribes in the written
notice requiring abatement but not sooner than seventy-two (72) hours after dispatch of such
notice.
.020 Notices given pursuant to subsection .010 of this Section 6.16.060 shall be in the same
form as set forth in 6.16.020 except that time period provided to the owner to remove, destroy or
abate the noxious growth and/or refuse must be at least 72 hours. The notice shall include
information as to the (i) date and time of posting; and, (ii) other deliver method. The notice
shall specify that any objections or protests to the proposed removal of noxious growth and/or
refuse, must consist of a written statement of such objections or protests, specifying the address
or description of the property concerned, the name, address, phone number (if any), email
address (if any), and status (owner, manager, lessee, tenant, or other) of the objector and any
authorized representatives of the objector, which statement must be received by the City Clerk
within two (2) calendar days after the date a copy of the notice has been served upon the owner
.030 Any owner of property upon which a public nuisance has been declared to exist pursuant
to this Section 6.16.080 having any objections or protests to the proposed removal of noxious
growth and/or refuse (as the case may be) is hereby notified to file a written statement of such
objections or protests, specifying the address or description of the property concerned, the
reasons for objections, accompanied by any required fee or fees established by resolution of the
City Council, and the name, address, phone number (if any), email address (if an J,and status
(owner, manager, lessee, tenant, or other) of the objector and any authorized representatives of
the objector, which statement must be received by the City Clerk within two (2) calendar days of
(a) the date the written notice is personally served upon the owner, or (b) the date of actual
delivery by overnight delivery service or by regular and certified mail, postage prepaid, return
receipt requested, whichever is earlier in time.
.040 Owner's Statement of Objections or Protests; Assignment of Hearing Officer. Upon
receipt, if at all, of a written statement from the owner setting forth the owner's objections or
protests to the Notice to Remove Noxious Growth and/or Refuse, the City Clerk shall designate
an "Employee Hearing Officer" or, if the City Attorney shall consent, a "Stipulated Hearing
Officer", as said terms are defined in subsection .010 of Section 1.12.110 (Appointment of
Hearing Officer) of this code (each of these is hereinafter referred to as the "Hearing Officer"), to
hear the objections or protests at an administrative hearing and will notify the owner or the
person aggrieved in writing of the time and place of the date at which said Hearing Officer will
- -
6.16.090
SI
-SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS — LIEN.
A copy of the report shall be
any objections of the 22- -
may modify the report if final and conclusive
hear and consider such objections or protests. Such hearing shall not be sooner than three (3)
days after the earlier to occur of the date such notice has been either (a) personally served upon
the owner by the City Clerk or the City Attorney, or one of or mailing; in the event objections
. -
force -and their representatives, or by a private contractor hired by either the City Clerk or the
City Attorney, or (b) the date that such notice is delivered to the owner by either overnight
delivery service or by regular and certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested.
.050 At the conclusion of the hearing, the Hearing Officer shall issue a decision, based on the
preponderance of evidence, to uphold or overturn the determination of the designated officer. If
the Hearing Officer upholds the determination of the designated officer, he or she may direct the
owner of the property upon which the noxious growth or refuse exists to abate it within such
time as the Hearing Officer determines based on good cause (the "abatement order"). If the
determination of the designated officer is not upheld by the Hearing Officer, he or she may
remand the matter to the designated officer with directions to modify or withdraw the notice. All
provisions of 6.16.030 shall apply unless otherwise provided for in this section.
.060 The abatement order shall be delivered to the owner by the Fire Chief, or his or her
authorized representatives, either: (1) by personal delivery to the owner, or (2) dispatched by
either overnight delivery service or by regular and certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt
requested.
.070 The abatement order shall specify that, unless the nuisance is removed and abated within
such time as the Hearing Officer shall order, the City is authorized and ordered to abate same
and, if necessary, toequipment-may enter upon or onto theany such private property of the owner
without further notice or liability thereforarid,, in accordance with the order toof-the City, abate
the nuisance. Abatement of the nuisance may, found thereon, or in the discretion of the Fire
Chief, be performed by City employees and/or one or more private contractors hired by the
City.front thereof. (Ord. 2907 § 1
6A-6.080 _COST-OF-ABATEMENT,
—The decisiondesignated officer shall keep a separate account of the Hearing Officereost of
The cost of abatement upon or in front of each lot constitutes a special assessment against that
lot. After the assessment is made and confirmed, it is then a lien on the lot. (Ord. 2907 § I (part);
February 16, 1971.)
6.16.100 -COST ASSESSMENT.
After confirmation of the report, a certified copy of the same shall be filed with the County
Assessor on or before August tenth of each year. The descriptions of the parcels reported shall be
'• • -
those used for the same parcels on the County Assessor's Map Book for the current year. The
County Assessor shall enter each assessment on the County Tax Roll opposite the parcel of land.
The amount of the assessment shall be collected at the time and in the manner of ordinary
municipal taxes. If delinquent, the amount is subject to the same penalties and procedures of
foreclosure and sale provided for ordinary municipal taxes. As an alternative method, the County
Tax Collector, in his discretion, may collect the assessments without reference to the general
taxes by issuing separate bills and receipts for the assessments. Laws relating to the levy,
collection and enforcement of County taxes shall apply to such special assessment taxes. (Ord.
2907 § I (part); February 16, 1971.)
6.16.110 COST PAID TO CITY.
The designated officer shall receive the amount due on the abatement cost and shall issue
receipts2receipts at any time after the confirmation of the report. The designated officer may bill
the owner of record directly at any time he shall desire. (Ord. 2907 § I (part); February 16,
4-97-1-0
6.16.120 —CORRECTION OF ERRONEOUS ASSESSMENT.
.010 Any assessment erroneously made may be canceled or reduced so as to correct any error,
and the tax paid on account thereof, not including any penalties or interest, may be refunded to
the person who paid the assessment, in accordance with the following procedure:
.0101 A claim of en-or may be filed with the City Clerk at any time before the expiration of
one year following April tenth of the tax year in which such assessment appears or would first
appear on the tax bill for the affected property. Such claim shall be in writing, in such form and
detail as shall be required by the City Clerk and shall be verified.
.0102 Any claim filed shall be forwarded to the designated officer for review and report to the
Finance Director. If the designated officer shall determine that such assessment was erroneously
made, in whole or in part, the Finance Director shall request the Orange County Board of
Supervisors to direct the County Auditor-Controller to correct the tax rolls as to the affected
property by removing or reducing the erroneous assessment, and the direction of the Finance
Director shall be authority for the Auditor-Controller so to correct the tax rolls. If such
assessment shall have been paid, the part determined to be erroneously levied shall be refunded
to the person who paid the same, by the Finance Director. In lieu of proof otherwise, the Finance
Director may presume that the person or persons to whom the abatement cost was assessed was
the person or persons who paid the same.
.0103 Any claimant whose claim is not favorably acted upon in whole or in part within sixty
days after the filing of the same, or whose claim is denied in whole or in part by the Finance
Director, may, within ten days after such denial or after the expiration of such period, appeal
such denial or failure to act favorably to the City Council by written letter filed with the City
Clerk.
.0104 The City Council shall consider such disputed assessment at an open meeting, upon
reasonable notice to the claimant, and shall afford the claimant an opportunity to be heard. If the
City Council shall find the disputed assessment to be erroneous in whole or in part, it may direct
the Finance Director to correct the assessment accordingly, to cause the tax rolls to be corrected,
and to make a refund of any portion of the assessment paid, all in the manner as hereinabove
provided for such corrections and refunds.
.0105 Not later than thirty days after the correction of any assessment or refund of any
moneys hereunder, except by direction of the City Council, the Finance Director shall transmit to
the City Council a report of such action, together with the report of the designated officer.
.020 Whenever the tax rolls have been corrected or a refund has been made hereunder by
reason of an erroneous assessment, a corrected written report of the type required by Section
6.16.120 relating to the work for which such erroneous assessment was levied may be prepared
by the officer who prepared the original report. Such report shall show the cost of abatement
upon, or in front of the lot where the work has been done and shall state that it is proposed to
assess such cost against such lot. A copy of such corrected report shall be mailed to the owner of
the lot as shown upon the current assessment roll. In all other respects, Sections 6.16.020 through
6.16.080 shall apply to such corrected asscssmc
2907 § 1 (part); February 16, 1971.)
Violation of this ch
in Part 3 of Division 4 of the Civil Code of the State of Califernia and in Chapter 2 of Part 2 of
CC'
C C
other remedy provided in this chapter or by State law, including Section 372 of the Penal Code
of the State. (Ord. 2907 § 1 (part); February 16, 1971.)
ANAHEIM FIRE & RESCUE
201 S. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 300, Anaheim, CA 92805
Recommended Acceptable
Fire Resistive Plant Species
Date: February 6, 2018
Attachment 2
Anaheim Fire & Rescue
201 S. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 300, Anaheim, Ca 92805
Recommended Acceptable Fire Resistive Plant Species
2 | P a g e
PURPOSE
To provide a list of trees and plants for homes that are fire resistive when combined with plant arrangement, installation
and maintenance that do not easily transmit fire between each other or to the home.
GENERAL INFORMATION
GENERAL INFORMATION
This plant list was created by various State of California Agencies. Although the plant list was designed specifically for
landscape fuel modification zones, the species identified on the list are also a good choice for ornamental vegetation for
use around your home in areas subjected to the effects of wildfires.
Fire resistance could also be maintained or improved through appropriate irrigation frequencies. The best plant forms to
reduce the effects of wildfire are succulents such as Aloe, Agave, and Cactus along with others such as Yucca or other
low growing ground covers from the approved plant list.
FIRE-RESISTANT LANDSCAPING
A fire-safe landscape isn’t necessarily the same thing as a well-maintained yard. A fire-safe landscape uses fire-
resistant plants that are strategically planted to resist the spread of fire to your home. Fire resistant plants are great
in California because they are often drought tolerant as well.
Planting for Fire Safety Through proper plant selection, placement, and maintenance, we can diminish the
possibility of ignition, lower fire intensity, and reduce how quickly a fire spreads, all of which increase a home’s
survivability. In firescaping, plant selection is primarily determined by a plant’s ability to reduce the wildfire threat.
Other considerations may be important such as appearance, ability to hold the soil in place, and wildlife habitat
value. Avoid evergreens near the house. The traditional foundation planting of junipers is not a viable solution in a
firescape design. Minimize use of evergreen shrubs and trees within 30 feet of a structure, because junipers, other
conifers, and broadleaf evergreens contain oils, resins, and waxes that make these plants burn with great intensity.
Use ornamental grasses and berries sparingly because they also can be highly flammable. Choose “fire smart”
plants. These are plants with a high moisture content. They are low growing. Their stems and leaves are not
resinous, oily, or waxy. Deciduous trees are generally more fire resistant than evergreens because they have a
higher moisture content when in leaf, a lower fuel volume when dormant, and typically do not contain flammable
oils. Choose “fire smart” plants Placement and maintenance of trees and shrubs is as important as actual plant
selection. When planning tree placement in the landscape, remember the tree’s size at maturity. Keep tree limbs at
least 15 feet from chimneys, power lines, and structures. Specimen trees can be used near a structure if pruned
properly and well irrigated.
Anaheim Fire & Rescue
201 S. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 300, Anaheim, Ca 92805
Recommended Acceptable Fire Resistive Plant Species
3 | P a g e
PLANT SPECIES RECOMMENDED FOR WILDFIRE IN HIGH FIRE POTENTIAL AREAS
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME PLANT FORM
Acer macrophyllum Big Leaf Maple Tree
Alnus cordata Italian Alder Tree
Alnus rhombifolia White Alder Tree
Arbutus unedo Strawberry Tree Tree
Ceratonia siliqua Carob Tree
Citrus species Citrus Tree
Eriobotrya japonica Loquat Tree
Erythrina species Coral Tree Tree
Ginkgo biloba Maidenhair Tree Tree
Juglans californica California Black Walnut Tree
Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Tree
Lagunaria patersonii Primrose Tree Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua American Sweet Gum Tree
Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree Tree
Lyonothamnus floribundus ssp. Asplenifolius Fernleaf Ironwood Tree
Macadamia integrifolia Macadamia Nut Tree
Maytenus boaria Mayten Tree Tree
Metrosideros excelsus New Zealand Christmas Tree Tree
Parkinsonia aculeata Mexican Palo Verde Tree
Pistacia chinesis Chinese Pistache Tree
Pittosporum undulatum Victorian Box Tree
Plantanus racemosa California Sycamore Tree
Anaheim Fire & Rescue
201 S. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 300, Anaheim, Ca 92805
Recommended Acceptable Fire Resistive Plant Species
4 | P a g e
PLANT SPECIES RECOMMENDED FOR WILDFIRE IN HIGH FIRE POTENTIAL AREAS
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME PLANT FORM
Popolus fremontii Western Cottonwood Tree
Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Tree
Quercus engelmannii Engelmann Oak Tree
Quercus suber Cork Oak Tree
Rhus lancea African Sumac Tree
Sambucus mexicana Mexican Elderberry Tree
Stenicarpus sinuatus Firewheel Tree Tree
Umbellularia californica California Laurel Tree
Abelia x grandiflora Glossy Abelia Shrub
Acacia redolens desert carpet Desert Carpet Shrub
Achillea millefolium Common Yarrow Low Shrub
Achillea tomentosa Woolly Yarrow Low Shrub
Aloe arborescens Tree Aloe Shrub
Alogyne huegeii Blue Hibiscus Shrub
Amorpha fruticosa Western False Indigobush Shrub
Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. Eastwood Manzanita Shrub
Arctostaphylos hookeri ‘Monterey Carpet’ Monterey Carpet Manzanita Low Shrub
Arctostaphylos pungens no common name Shrub
Arctostaphylos refugioensis Refugio Manzanita Shrub
Arctostaphylos x ‘Greensphere’ Greensphere Manzanita Shrub
Atriplex canescens Four-Wing Saltbush Shrub
Atriplex lentiformis ssp. breweri Brewer Saltbush Shrub
Anaheim Fire & Rescue
201 S. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 300, Anaheim, Ca 92805
Recommended Acceptable Fire Resistive Plant Species
5 | P a g e
PLANT SPECIES RECOMMENDED FOR WILDFIRE IN HIGH FIRE POTENTIAL AREAS
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME PLANT FORM
Bougainvillea spectabilis Bougainvillea Shrub
Ceanothus gloriosus ‘Point Reyes’ Point Reyes Ceanothus Shrub
Ceanothus griseus var. horizontalis Carmel Creeper Ceanothus Shrub
Ceanothus griseus var. horizontalis ‘Yankee Point’
Yankee Point Ceanothus
Shrub Shrub
Ceanothus griseus ‘Louis Edmunds’ Louis Edmunds Ceanothus Shrub
Ceanothus megarcarpus Big Pod Ceanothus Shrub
Ceanothus prostratus Squaw Carpet Ceanothus Shrub
Ceanothus spinosus Green Bark Ceanothus Shrub
Ceanothus verrucosus Wart-Stem Ceanothus Shrub
Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud Shrub/Tree
Cistus hybridus White Rockrose Shrub
Cistus incanus no common name
(Pink Rockrose)
Shrub
Cistus incanus ssp. Corsicus no common name
(Hairy Rockrose)
Shrub
Cistus salviifolius Sageleaf Rockrose Shrub
Cistus x purpureus Orchid Rockrose Shrub
Cneoridium dumosum Bushrue
(Bush Rue)
Shrub
Comarostaphylis diversifolia Summer Holly Shrub
Convolvulus cneorum Bush Morning Glory Shrub
Cotoneaster aprneyi no common name Shrub
Cotoneaster buxifolius no common name Shrub
Dendromecon rigida Bush Poppy Shrub
Dodonaea viscosa Hopseed Bush Shrub
Anaheim Fire & Rescue
201 S. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 300, Anaheim, Ca 92805
Recommended Acceptable Fire Resistive Plant Species
6 | P a g e
PLANT SPECIES RECOMMENDED FOR WILDFIRE IN HIGH FIRE POTENTIAL AREAS
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME PLANT FORM
Encelia californica California Encelia Small Shrub
Eriodictycon crassifolium Thick Leaf Yerba Santa Shrub
Eriodictycon trichocalyx Yerba Santa Shrub
Eriophyllum confertiflorum no common name Shrub
Escallonia species Several varieties Shrub
Feijoa sellowiana Pineapple Guava Shrub/Tree
Fremontondendron californicum California Flannelbush Shrub
Galvezia speciosa Bush Snapdragon Shrub
Garrya ellipta Silktassel Shrub
Grewia occidentalis Starflower Shrub
Hakea suaveolens Sweet Hakea Shrub
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon Shrub
Hypericum calycimum Aaron’s Beard Shrub
Isocoma menziesii Coastal Goldenbush Small Shrub
Isomeris arborea Bladderpod Shrub
Keckiella antirrhinoides Yellow Bush Penstemon Subshrub
Keckiella cordifolia Heart Leaved Penstemon Subshrub
(Vining Shrub)
Keckiella ternata Blue Stemmed Bush Penstemon Subshrub
Lantana camara cultivars Yellow Sage Shrub
Lantana montevidensis Trailing Lantana Shrub
Lavandula dentata French Lavender Shrub
Leptospermum laevigatum Australian Tea Tree Shrub
Anaheim Fire & Rescue
201 S. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 300, Anaheim, Ca 92805
Recommended Acceptable Fire Resistive Plant Species
7 | P a g e
PLANT SPECIES RECOMMENDED FOR WILDFIRE IN HIGH FIRE POTENTIAL AREAS
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME PLANT FORM
Lotus scoparius Deerweed Shrub
Mahonia aquifolium ‘Golden Abundance’ Golden Abundance Oregon Grape Shrub
Mahonia nevenii Nevin Mahonia Shrub
Malacothamnus Fasciculatus
(Malacothamnus fasciculatus)
Chapparal Mallow Shrub
Melaleuca nesophila Pink Melaleuca Shrub
Myoporum debile no common name Shrub
Myoporum insulare Boobyalla Shrub
Nerium Oleander
(Nerium oleander)
Oleander Shrub
Nolina cismontana Chapparal Nolina Shrub
Nolina species Mexican Grasstree Shrub
Osmanthus fragrans Sweet Olive Shrub
Photinia fraseria no common name Shrub
Plumbago auritulata Plumbago Cape Shrub
Prunus caroliniana Carolina Cherry Laurel Shrub/Tree
Prunus ilicifolia ssp. Ilicifolia Holly Leafed Cherry Shrub
Prunus lyonii Catalina Cherry Shrub/Tree
Punica granatum Pomegranate Shrub/Tree
Pyracantha species Firethorn Shrub
Quercus berberdifolia California Scrub Oak Shrub
Quercus dumosa Coastal Scrub Oak Shrub
Rhamnus alaternus Italian Buckthorn Shrub
Rhamnus californica California Coffee Berry Shrub
Anaheim Fire & Rescue
201 S. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 300, Anaheim, Ca 92805
Recommended Acceptable Fire Resistive Plant Species
8 | P a g e
PLANT SPECIES RECOMMENDED FOR WILDFIRE IN HIGH FIRE POTENTIAL AREAS
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME PLANT FORM
Rhaphiolepis species Indian Hawthorne Shrub
Rhus integrifolia Lemonade Berry Shrub
Rhus ovata Sugarbush Shrub
Ribes aureum Golden Currant Shrub
Ribes indecorum White Flowering Currant Shrub
Ribes speciosum Fuschia Flowering Goosebberry Shrub
Ribes viburnifolium Evergreen currant Shrub
Romneya coulteri Matilija Poppy Shrub
Romneya coulteri ‘White Cloud’ White Cloud Matilija Poppy Shrub
Rosmarinus officinalis Rosemary Shrub
Salvia greggii Autums Sage Shrub
Santolina virens Green Lavender Cotton Shrub
Solanum douglasii Douglas Nightshade Shrub
Symphoricarpos mollis Creeping Snowberry Shrub
Tecoma stans (Stenolobium stans) Yellow Bells Shrub/Small Tree
Trachelospermum jasminoides Star Jasmine Shrub
Trichosstems lanatum
(Trichostema lanatum)
Woolly Blue Curls Shrub
Westringia fruticosa no common name Shrub
Xylosma congestum Shiny Xylosma Shrub
Aeonium decorum Aeonium Ground Cover
Aeonium simsii no common name Ground Cover
Agave attenuata Century Plant Succulent
Anaheim Fire & Rescue
201 S. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 300, Anaheim, Ca 92805
Recommended Acceptable Fire Resistive Plant Species
9 | P a g e
PLANT SPECIES RECOMMENDED FOR WILDFIRE IN HIGH FIRE POTENTIAL AREAS
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME PLANT FORM
Aloe aristata no common name Ground Cover
Aloe brevifoli no common name Ground Cover
Aloe Vera Medicinal Aloe Succulent
Aptenia cordifolia x ‘Red Apple’ Red Apple Aptenia Ground Cover
Arctostaphylos ‘Pacific Mist’ Pacific Mist Manzanita Ground Cover
Arctostaphylos edmundsii Little Sur Manzanita Ground Cover
Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Bearberry Ground Cover
Artemisia caucasica Caucasian Artesmisia Ground Cover
Baccharis pilularis var. pilularis ‘Twin Peaks #2’ Twin
Peaks
Ground Cover Ground Cover
Baileya Multiradiata Desert Marigold Ground Cover
Carissa macrocarpa Green Carpet Natal Plum Ground Cover/Shrub
Carpobrotus chilensis Sea Fig Ice Plant Ground Cover
Ceanothus griseus horizontalis Yankee Point Ground Cover
Cerastium tomentosum Snow-in-Summer Ground Cover/Shrub
Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Oxeye Daisy Ground Cover
Cistus Crispus no common name Ground Cover
Coprosma kirkii Creeping Coprosma Ground Cover/Shrub
Coprosma pumila Prostrate Coprosma Low shrub
Corea pulchella Australian Fuscia Ground Cover
Coreopsis lanceolata Coreopsis Ground Cover
Cotoneaster congestus ‘Likiang’ Likiang Cotoneaster Ground Cover/Vine
Crassula lactea no common name Ground Cover
Anaheim Fire & Rescue
201 S. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 300, Anaheim, Ca 92805
Recommended Acceptable Fire Resistive Plant Species
10 | P a g e
PLANT SPECIES RECOMMENDED FOR WILDFIRE IN HIGH FIRE POTENTIAL AREAS
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME PLANT FORM
Croton californicus California Croton Ground Cover
Delosperma ‘alba’ White trailing Ice Plant Ground Cover
Distinctis buccinatoria Blood-Red Trumpet Vine Vine/Climbing vine
Drosanthemum floribundum Rosea Ice Plant Ground Cover
Drosanthemum hispidum no common name Ground Cover
Drosanthemum speciosus Dewflower Ground Cover
Dudleya lanceolata Lance-leaved Dudleya Succulent
Dudleya pulverulenta Chalk Dudleya Succulent
Euonymus fortunei Winter Creeper Euonymus Ground Cover
Fragaria chiloensis Wild Strawberry/Sand Strawberry Ground Cover
Frankenia salina Alkali Heath Ground Cover
Gaillardia x grandiflora Blanketflower Ground Cover
Gazania hybrids South African Daisy
(Gazania)
Ground Cover
Gazania rigens leucolaena Training Gazania
(Trailing Gazania)
Ground Cover
Grindelia stricta Gum Plant Ground Cover
Hardenbergia comptoniana Lilac Vine Shrub
(Vine)
Heliathemum muutabile
(Helianthemum nummularium mutabile)
Sunrose Ground Cover/Shrub
Heliotropium curassavicum Salt Heliotrope Ground Cover
Helix Canariensis English Ivy Ground Cover
Iberis sempervirens Edging Candytuft Ground Cover
Iberis umbellatum Globe Candytuft Ground Cover
Iva hayesiana Poverty Weed Ground Cover
Lampranthus filicaulis Redondo Creeper Ground Cover
Anaheim Fire & Rescue
201 S. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 300, Anaheim, Ca 92805
Recommended Acceptable Fire Resistive Plant Species
11 | P a g e
PLANT SPECIES RECOMMENDED FOR WILDFIRE IN HIGH FIRE POTENTIAL AREAS
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME PLANT FORM
Lampranthus spectabilis Trailing Ice Plant Ground Cover
Lamprathus aurantiacus Bush Ice Plant Ground Cover
Limonium pectinatum no common name Ground Cover
Lonicera japonica ‘Halliana’ Hall’s Japanese Honeysuckle Vining Shrub
Lotus corniculatus Bird’s Foot Trefoil Ground Cover
Malephora luteola Training Ice Plant Ground Cover
Myoporum ‘Pacificum’ no common name Ground Cover
Myoporum parvilfolium no common name Ground Cover
Oenothera belandieri Mexican Evening Primrose Ground Cover
Ophiopogon japonicus Mondo Grass Ground Cover
Opuntia littoralis Prickly Pear Cactus
Opuntia oricola Oracle Cactus Cactus
Opuntia prolifera Coast Cholla Cactus
Osteospermum fruticosum Training African Daisy Ground Cover
Pelargonium peltatum Ivy Geranium Ground Cover
Plantago sempervirens Evergreen Plantain Ground Cover
Portulacaria Afra
(Portulacaria afra)
Elephant’s Food Shrub
(Succulent)
Potentilla tabernaemontanii Spring Cinquefoil Ground Cover
Salvia sonomensis Creeping Sage Ground Cover
Santolina chamaecyparissus Lavender Cotton Ground Cover
Sedum acre Goldmoss Sedum Ground Cover
Sedum album Green Stonecrop Ground Cover
Sedum confusum no common name Ground Cover
Anaheim Fire & Rescue
201 S. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 300, Anaheim, Ca 92805
Recommended Acceptable Fire Resistive Plant Species
12 | P a g e
PLANT SPECIES RECOMMENDED FOR WILDFIRE IN HIGH FIRE POTENTIAL AREAS
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME PLANT FORM
Senecio serpens no common name Ground Cover
Sisyrinchium bellum Blue Eyed Grass Ground Cover
Tecomaria capensis Cape Honeysuckle Ground Cover
Teucarium chamedrys Germander Ground Cover
Thymus serpyllum Lemon Thyme Ground Cover
Trifolium fragerum ‘O’Connor’s’ O’Connor’s Legume Ground Cover
Trifolium hirtum ‘Hyron’ Hyron Rose Clover Ground Cover
Verbena peruviana no common name Ground Cover
Verbena species Verbena Ground Cover
Vinca Minor Dwarf Periwinkle Ground Cover
Vitis girdiana Desert Wild Grape Vine
Yucca Species Yucca Shrub
(Succulent)
Yucca whipplei Yucca Shrub
(Succulent)
Ambrosia chammissonis Beach Bur-Sage Perennial
Anigozanthus flavidus Kangaroo Paw Perennial/accent
Antirrhinum nuttalianum ssp. no common name
(Wild Snapdragon)
(Beard Tongue)
Subshrub
Artemisia pycnocephala Beach Sagewort Perennial
Brickellia californica no common name
(Brickellbush)
Subshrub
Camissonia cheiranthifiloa Beach Evening Primrose Perennial Shrub
Clarkia bottae Showy Fairwell to Spring Annual
Collinsia heterophyllia Chinese Houses Annual
Coreopsis californica Califiornia Coreopsis Annual
Dichelostemma capitatum Blue Dicks Herb
Anaheim Fire & Rescue
201 S. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 300, Anaheim, Ca 92805
Recommended Acceptable Fire Resistive Plant Species
13 | P a g e
PLANT SPECIES RECOMMENDED FOR WILDFIRE IN HIGH FIRE POTENTIAL AREAS
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME PLANT FORM
Epilobium canum [Zauschneria californica] Hoary California Fuschia Shrub
(Subshrub)
Eriastrum Sapphirinum Mojave Woolly Star Annual
Eschscholzia californica California Poppy Flower
Eschscholzia mexicana Mexican Poppy Herb
Gilia leptantha Showy Gilia Perrenial
Gilia tricolor Bird’s Eyes Perrenial
Gillia capitata Globe Gilia Perrenial
Gnaphalium Californicum California Everlasting Annual
Helianthemum scoparium Rush Rose Shrub
(Perennial)
Hesperaloe parviflora Red Yucca Perennial
Juncus acutus Spiny Rush Perrenial
Kniphofia uvaria Red Hot Poker Perennial
Lasthenia californica Dwarf Goldfields Annual
Limonium perezii Sea Lavender Shrub
(Perennial)
Lotus hermannii Northern Woolly Lotus Perennial
Lupinus arizonicus Desert Lupine Annual
Lupinus benthamii Spider Lupine Annual
Lupinus bicolor Sky Lupine Flowering annual
Lupinus sparsiflorus Loosely Flowered Annual Lupine/Coulter’s
Lupine Annual
Annual
Mimulus species Monkeyflower Flower
Mirabilis californica Wishbone Bush Perrenial
Nemophilia menziesii Baby Blue Eyes Annual
Oenothera hookeri California Evening Primrose Flower
Anaheim Fire & Rescue
201 S. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 300, Anaheim, Ca 92805
Recommended Acceptable Fire Resistive Plant Species
14 | P a g e
PLANT SPECIES RECOMMENDED FOR WILDFIRE IN HIGH FIRE POTENTIAL AREAS
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME PLANT FORM
Oenothera speciosa Show Evening Primrose Perrenial
Penstemon species Beard Tongue Shrub
(Perennial)
Plantago erecta California Plantain Annual
Plantago insularis Woolly Plantain Annual
Potentilla glandulosa Sticky Cinquefoil Subshrub (Perennial)
Puya species Puya Succulent/Shrub
(Perennial)
Satureja chandleri San Miguel Savory Perennial
Scirpis scutus Hard Stem Bulrush Perennial
Scirpus californicus California Bulrush Perennial
Solanum xantii Purple nightshade Perennial
Strelitzia nicolai Giant Bird of Paradise Perennial
Strelitzia reginae Bird of Paradise Perennial
Verbena lasiostachys Western Vervain Perennial
Xannithorrhoea species Grass Tree Perennial accent/shrub
Bromus carinatus California Brome Grass
Leymus condensatus Giant Wild Rye Large Grass
Nassella (stipa) lepidra Foothill Needlegrass Ground Cover
(Bunch Grass)
Nassella (stipa) pulchra Purple Needlegrass Ground Cover
(Bunch Grass)
Vulpia myuros ‘Zorro’ Zorro Annual Fescue Grass
Oenothera speciosa Show Evening Primrose Perrenial
Penstemon species Beard Tongue Shrub
(Perennial)
Plantago erecta California Plantain Annual
Plantago insularis Woolly Plantain Annual
Anaheim Fire & Rescue
201 S. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 300, Anaheim, Ca 92805
Recommended Acceptable Fire Resistive Plant Species
15 | P a g e
UNDESIRABLE and INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES
Certain plants are considered to be undesirable and invasive due to their characteristics. Th ese characteristics can be
either physical or chemical. Physical properties that would contribute to high flammability include large amounts of
dead material retained within the plant, rough or peeling bark, and the production of copious amounts of litter . Chemical
properties include the presence of volatile substances such as oils, resins, wax, and pitch. Certain native plants are
notorious for containing these volatile substances.
Plants with these characteristics shall not be planted in any fuel modification zones. Should these species already exist
within these areas, it is recommended that they be removed because of their invasiveness or potential threat they pose to
any structures.
PLANT SPECIES NOT RECOMMENDED FOR WILDFIRE IN HIGH FIRE POTENTIAL AREAS
Botanical Name Common Name
Adenostoma Fasciculatum Chamise
Adenostoma Sparsifolium Red Shanks
Anthemix Cotula Mayweed
Arecaceae (all palm species) Palms
Artemisia Californica California Sagebrush
Brassica Nigra Black Mustard
Brassica Rapa Wild Turnip, Yellow Mustard, Field Mustard
Cardaria Draba Noary Cress, Perennial Peppergrass
Cirsium Vulgare Wild Artichoke
Conyza Canadensis Horseweed
Cortaderia Pampas Grass
Cortaderia Selloana Pampas Grass
Cupressus sp Cypress
Cynara Cardunculus Artichoke Thistle
Eriogonum Fasciculatum Common Buckwheat
Eucalyptus sp Eucalyptus
Heterothaca Grandiflora Telegraph Plant
Juniperus sp Juniper
Lactuca Serriola Prickly Lettuce
Anaheim Fire & Rescue
201 S. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 300, Anaheim, Ca 92805
Recommended Acceptable Fire Resistive Plant Species
16 | P a g e
Nassella/Stipa tenuissima Mexican Feathergrass
Nicotiana Bigelevil Indian Tobacco
Nicotiana Glauca Tree Tobacco
Pinus sp Pine
Ricinus Communis Castor Bean Plant
Sacsola Austails Russian Thistle/Tumblewood
Salvia Mellifera Black Sage
Silybum Marianum Milk Thistle
Urtica Urens Burning Nettle
FRE
E
W
A
Y
55 FRE
E
W
A
Y
91 FREEWAY
2
4
1
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone
DEV No. 2018-00101
Subject Property APN: Properties within the Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone
°0 0.5 1
Miles
Aerial Photo:May 2016
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
T
ustin
A
ve
Va
n
B
u
r
e
n
S
t
N
L
a
k
e
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Ke
l
lo
gg
D
r
Espe r a n z a R dOrangethorpe Ave
La Palma Ave
Imperial Hwy
S a n t i a g o B l
M e a t s A v e
I m p e r i a l H w y
Nohl Ranch R d
Santa Ana Canyon Rd
F
air
m
ont Blvd
C a n y o n R im Rd S e
r
r a n o A v e
W
eir
C
a
n
yon Rd
O a k C a nyon D r
241
91
90
55
S a n t a A n a R i v e r
Walnut CanyonReservoir
A
n
a
h
e
i
m
H
ill
s
R
d
Fire Protection Areas
City of Anaheim
General Plan ProgramFigure S-5 Page S-19
Miles00.5 1
Note:
Information is for general reference only; for more information, refer to Ordinance No. 5523for the legal description of the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, and Title 16,Section 16.08.270 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relative to the Special Protection Area.
Source:
Anaheim Fire Department, October, 1995.
City Boundary
River/Reservoir
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
Special Protection Area
Sphere-of-Influence
Adopted: May 25, 2004Revised: December 27, 2005
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
There is no new correspondence
regarding this item.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 4
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE: OCTOBER 1, 2018
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4156D
LOCATION: 5401, 5403, 5425, 5427, 5429, 5431 East La Palma Avenue
(Anaheim Hills Jaguar/Land Rover)
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Len Silvernail of Anaheim
Hills Jaguar/Land Rover, Inc. The property owner is Uyemura Living Trust and Sachi
E. Uyemura Living Trust.
REQUEST: The applicant requests to amend a previously-approved conditional use
permit (CUP) for an existing auto dealership to: 1) modify the location and number of
outdoor vehicle spaces for display, retail sales, and service/repair; 2) convert an
existing vehicle storage area to a service and repair facility; and, 3) permit off-site
parking for employees.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the
attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt from further
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Section
15301, Class 1 – Existing Facilities), and approving CUP 4156D.
BACKGROUND: This 13.2-acre property is developed with two automotive
dealerships within a multi-tenant industrial business complex. The property is located
in the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Overlay zone, Development Area 1 (Industrial
Area). The site is designated for Industrial land uses by the General Plan. The
property is surrounded by a railroad and multi-family residences to the north,
Mercedes Benz dealership to the west, industrial businesses to the south across La
Palma Avenue, and a medical office building and industrial businesses to the east.
Conditional Use Permit No. 4156 was approved by the Planning Commission in 1999
to establish an automobile dealership at 5425-5427 East La Palma Avenue.
Anaheim Hills Jaguar Land Rover, Inc. took over the location in August 2012 and has
since been selling and leasing new and used cars, providing auto repair services, and
selling retail parts to customers.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP4156D
October 1, 2018
Page 2 of 11
As shown on the site plan below, the automobile dealership has expanded over the years with new
showroom space, a parts department, three service centers, and vehicle inventory storage areas.
When the franchise first opened in 1999, it was considered a low volume dealership selling 30 to
40 vehicles per month and servicing 10-20 vehicles per day. The dealership has grown three times
its size over the last 19 years and now sells 125 new and used vehicles per month and services
approximately 35 cars per day.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP4156D
October 1, 2018
Page 3 of 11
The table shown below outlines the history of the approved entitlements for the dealership, with
colors corresponding to building locations on the previous site plan.
PC Approval
Date
Case Number Address Entitlement
10/25/1999 CUP4156A 5425, 5427 E. La Palma
Ave.
To permit two auto dealerships with
accessory parts sales and servicing and
waivers to: 1) location of freestanding
monument sign, 2) parking lot
landscaping, and 3) permitted
encroachment into required yards.
7/17/2000 CUP2000‐04240 5425 E. La Palma Ave. To approve final landscape, lighting and
sign plans
1/17/2001 CUP2000‐04272 5401 E. La Palma Ave. To permit showroom and office area at
5401 E. La Palma for auto dealership
(Formerly Caliber Motors Mercedes
Benz)
3/10/2003 CUP2003‐04666 5425, 5427 E. La Palma
Ave.
To amend conditions of approval
pertaining to signage and 10 year
limitation, waiver of maximum number of
wall signs, and renovation of existing
facility to business condominiums
3/10/2003 CUP2003‐04666 5429 E. La Palma Ave. To permit new administrative offices,
storage of new vehicles, and parts
department
3/10/2003 CUP2003‐04666 5431 E. La Palma Ave. To permit outdoor vehicle storage
(replacing with service and storage)
3/10/2003 N/A 5403 E. La Palma Ave. New car storage permitted by right if
screened from view (Section 18.120.040)
2/24/2014 CUP4156C
(CUP4156B –
never used)
5401 E. La Palma Ave. Amend CUP to expand automotive
dealership with new 2,000 square feet
showroom
12/15/2014 VAR2014‐04990 5401 E. La Palma Ave. Variance to permit a larger freestanding
sign than allowed by Code
The auto dealership business occupies six units totaling 65,240 square feet within the 22-unit
Canyon Commerce Center. The company employs 67 employees, divided between the various
departments: 17 employees in sales, 39 employees in service, seven employees in parts, and four
employees in administration. The hours of operation for the business are as follows:
Department Hours
Sales M‐F: 9 a.m. ‐ 8 p.m.
SAT: 9 a.m. ‐ 7 p.m.
SUN: 10 a.m. ‐ 6 p.m.
Service M‐F: 7 a.m. ‐ 6 p.m.
Parts M‐F: 7 a.m. ‐ 6 p.m.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP4156D
October 1, 2018
Page 4 of 11
In January 2018, Code Enforcement received a complaint by a neighboring business owner
regarding numerous auto transport and flatbed tow trucks blocking entrances when loading and
unloading cars to the automobile dealership. Some of these trucks were known to park along La
Palma Avenue. The complaint also included reports of excess storage of vehicles on the property
for display and servicing that did not adhere to the conditions of approval for CUP2003-04666.
Code Enforcement issued a courtesy notice in January 2018 with a revision in February 2018. A
Civil Notice was issued to the business and the property owners in March 2018. In May 2018, the
applicant submitted an application to amend their CUP to address these issues. The Code
Enforcement case remains active, pending a determination on this application.
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to amend their existing CUP by identifying parking spaces
by use type (display, sales, service, and customer parking) and adjusting the restriction of vehicles
that can be parked outdoors overnight. They are also requesting approval for a Shared Parking
Agreement at 5515 East La Palma to be used as an off-site location for employee parking. The
dealership has grown and would like to expand their automobile service center into a portion of
5431 East La Palma, which is currently used for vehicle storage. Since there have been six
amendments to the original CUP granted in 1999 and one variance, staff is requesting to
consolidate the conditions of approval for clarity and have this CUP amendment supersede all
previous conditions of approval.
ANALYSIS: The Zoning Code requires approval of a CUP to allow automobile dealerships,
including expansion and modifications, in the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan, Development Area
1 zone in order to determine compatibility with the surrounding area and to place appropriate
conditions to ensure compatibility. With the placement of appropriate conditions, the proposed
modifications would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development
of the surrounding area since the proposed modifications would address the loading, unloading
and parking issues which affected the other businesses in the center. The proposed modifications
relating to outdoor storage and display, auto transport and delivery, auto servicing, and off-site
parking are analyzed in more detail below.
Outdoor Storage and Display of Vehicles:
A CUP is required for any outdoor storage of
cars that is not screened from public view.
The applicant received a CUP in 2003 for
outdoor vehicle storage and was conditionally
approved with a limit of 49 inventory
vehicles, excluding the 9 display vehicles
(Condition #11). Additionally, outdoor
storage was only permitted behind the 65-foot
building setback along La Palma Avenue.
With the business growing in sales and
service volume, the dealership was unable to
adhere to this condition and displayed and
stored sales and service vehicles throughout
the property.
Outdoor Storage
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP4156D
October 1, 2018
Page 5 of 11
As shown below, the new Outdoor Storage Parking Plan identifies by color the proposed parking
uses on the property. The dealership would like to maintain nine display cars, which are not
colored, within the front landscaping setback abutting La Palma Avenue, but modify the permitted
number of cars in front of the buildings. They propose three cars in front of the west building and
six cars in front of the east building. The dealership would also like flexibility in their parking
uses should it have more sales vehicles than cars needing repair at any given time or vice-versa.
The plan identifies these as accessory uses. The dealership would also like to remove the 49-car
limitation and its location behind the 65-foot building setback line.
This condition no longer applies and is an obsolete requirement that is over-restrictive. The new
Parking Plan reflects the distribution by the Condominium Association Board and allocates these
spaces as follows: nine non- colored display vehicles within the landscaping setback, 22 blue
customer parking spaces located at the entrances of the two showrooms, and 80 green parking
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP4156D
October 1, 2018
Page 6 of 11
spaces for retail sales or accessory service that are along La Palma and the west driveway. The
remaining 116 red parking spaces are designated for cars needing repair or accessory sales
inventory, featured at the rear portion of the middle driveway and along the east driveway. Overall,
the nine display vehicles would remain the same while outdoor storage would increase from a total
of 49 inventory cars to 80 inventory and 116 service vehicles.
Auto Transport Delivery Plan: As part of the CUP in 1999 and the amendment in 2003, the
dealership was conditioned to implement an Auto Transport Delivery Plan approved by the City’s
Traffic and Transportation Manager. Staff could not find this plan on file and staff’s research of
previous entitlements revealed that truck haulers loaded and unloaded cars after regular business
hours. This schedule did not impact neighboring businesses or cause traffic issues. As the
dealership grew, this schedule changed and truck haulers began to unload and load cars throughout
the day during normal business hours (see photos below). This became a continuous problem as
transport and tow trucks were frequently parked in the driveways and on La Palma Avenue, which
are both no parking and loading zones.
As part of this CUP amendment, the applicant submitted an Auto Transport Delivery Plan to
address this loading and unloading issue. The plan indicates that the west driveway would
accommodate an 8-foot wide loading zone with a 24-foot wide two-way aisle along the west side
of the building. Trucks would enter in the property from the west driveway and exit out of the
middle driveway onto La Palma Avenue. In addition, a tow truck drop-off location is proposed in
front of the service repair buildings. This plan was reviewed and approved by the Condominium
Association Board and Traffic Engineering staff. A letter validating its approval is attached to the
staff report as Attachment 5.
The applicant also installed extra signage to direct tow truck drivers and transport haulers to the
proper loading zones. “No Parking” signs were installed and red curbs were painted along the
middle driveway as additional efforts to also deter dealership customers from blocking traffic.
West Driveway Middle Driveway
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP4156D
October 1, 2018
Page 7 of 11
Proposed Auto Service Center: The applicant received their CUP for automobile service and
repair at 5425, 5427, and 5429 East La Palma in 1999 with an amendment in 2003. The current
proposal would expand the repair shop to the north into the 5431 East La Palma tenant space. No
new building floor area is being proposed. The dealership would dedicate this portion of the repair
center to vehicles needing larger repairs that take more than one day. The proposed space would
be comprised of 1,128 square feet of vehicle storage space and 6,160 square feet of service center
space, containing eight auto bays. This proposal would meet their servicing needs and staff
believes that this modified service area, including the tow truck drop off area, would be compatible
with existing uses on the site.
Tow Truck Signage Auto Transport Signage
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP4156D
October 1, 2018
Page 8 of 11
Staff analyzed parking code requirements for the entire complex to determine if there is sufficient
on-site parking to accommodate the proposed service center combined with all of the other
businesses within the complex. The applicant submitted a Parking Condominium Plan for the
commercial complex as part of their parking study. The property was converted into condominium
ownership in 2003 and each unit was assigned its own number of parking spaces. The parking
spaces are assigned by the Canyon Commerce Center Board and are not regulated by the City.
Attachment 7 reflects the most current version, with the dealership spaces highlighted in blue. The
parking code for vehicle storage is 4 spaces/1,000 square feet of building floor area while auto
repair is 3.5 spaces/1,000 square feet of building floor area. Auto repair will require slightly fewer
spaces with the change in use. Staff determined that the complex meets on-site parking
requirements, with 605 spaces required for the entire property and 588 spaces are required by
Code.
Off-Site Shared Parking: The applicant is requesting approval of a Shared Parking Agreement
that permits 50 employees to park off-site to allow for more vehicles to be displayed for sale on
the site. The applicant provided a copy of their month-to-month agreement with Hines Interests
Limited Partnership, who owns the property at 5515 East La Palma Avenue. The property is
located approximately 300 feet east of the dealership and the office building has a current vacancy
rate of 27%. The property has both a surface parking lot and a 3-story parking structure.
Dealership employees have been using the surface parking lot since December 2016. Staff
analyzed the property’s parking requirement and determined that the Hines property has excess
spaces to share. There is a total of 806 parking spaces on the property and 453 spaces are currently
required per Code.
Shared Parking Agreements are permitted by Code as long as the shared site can accommodate the
additional parking and will not negatively impact the property or adjacent businesses, cause traffic
congestion, or restrict access. Any Shared Parking Agreement must be reviewed by the City
Attorney and be recorded at the County Recorder’s Office. Staff contacted the landlord who
confirmed that the shared parking is currently working out well and they have had no issues with
the dealership, nor have adjacent businesses been impacted by the shared parking agreement.
Due to limited on-site parking, the dealership has also secured additional month-to-month
agreements for vehicle inventory on the Hines property. The applicant is able to park
approximately 250 cars on the upper levels of the 3-story parking structure. Staff has not included
this off-site inventory parking as part of the CUP application since the business meets parking code
requirements on-site. Additionally, the dealership may choose to move their inventory parking to
another location, which would not affect the on-site operations or parking on the dealership
property.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP4156D
October 1, 2018
Page 9 of 11
Loading Zone Issues: Per the proposed Auto Transport Delivery Plan, the applicant painted an
8-foot, 11 inch wide loading zone for truck haulers. The dealership stores their smallest vehicles,
the Land Rover Discovery, directly across the loading zone to allow for an adequate driveway
width of 24 feet per the Code requirements. The rear wheels are backed up against the curb and
the overall car length is 13 feet. This allows 5 feet of extra parking space to be devoted to the 24-
feet minimum two-lane drive aisle that serves as a fire lane. This plan was approved by Traffic
Engineering staff and the dealership repainted the loading zone accordingly. As seen in the
following photos, truck haulers now have the sufficient width to load and unload cars without
impacting vehicle access.
Staff also requested that the applicant provide a traffic analysis to determine if the west driveway
was the best option for the loading zone. The applicant provided a two week parking count that
tabulated how frequently the two-way
driveway was utilized with parked
truck haulers. The study was completed
in August and is included as
Attachment 8 to this report.
The results of the study showed that
deliveries occurred throughout the day
during normal business hours, with
three to four vehicles passing the
occupied loading zone in one direction.
There were no occasions where two
vehicles were crossing one another in
the driveway while transports loaded or
unloaded cars. Both the neighboring
business owners and the dealership
have found this route to be the most
viable option in alleviating ingress and
egress issues on-site.
Painted Loading Zone Parked Truck Hauler
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP4156D
October 1, 2018
Page 10 of 11
The painted loading zone has been utilized for about three weeks. The applicant has indicated that
approximately 80% of the drivers for the truck haulers have been cooperative in parking in the
loading zone. However, there are occasions when new drivers who are not familiar with property
will load or unload cars outside of the loading zone. Employees have instructed drivers to redirect
these trucks to the designated loading area; however, some are not as compliant and ignore the
directions. The applicant has provided specific instructions for their Fleet Car Vendors to follow
and have tried to correct this problem with management staff (see Attachment 6). Staff
recommends a condition of approval to include more directional signage at each of the driveway
entrances to indicate clearly the correct entrance for truck haulers. There is already signage
identifying the service area and staff believes more directional signage will guide unfamiliar
drivers to the appropriate loading area. Staff has informed the applicant that it is their sole
responsibility to adequately enforce the plan with all drivers and vendors. A Board member also
mentioned to staff that there is not a dedicated parking location for trucks delivering parts to the
Auto Parts Department. Staff has included a condition of approval for the applicant to identify
this parking location on their site plan. Staff has also recommends a condition for the applicant to
return to the Planning Commission in six months for an update on the implementation of the Auto
Transport Delivery Plan and its impact on the neighboring businesses.
Environmental Impact Analysis: Staff recommends the Planning Commission find that the effects
of the proposed project are typical of those generated within the Class 1, Existing Facilities,
Categorical Exemption. Class 1 consists of the repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration of
existing public or private structures or facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of use
beyond that existing at the time of this determination. The proposed project is a request to amend
a CUP for an existing auto dealership. As such, the proposed project meets the criteria for a Class
1 categorical exemption. Pursuant to Section 15300.02 (c) and 15301 of Title 14 of the California
Code of Regulations, there are no unusual circumstances in respect to the proposed project for
which staff would anticipate a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed
project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
CONCLUSION: Staff believes that the proposed Parking and Auto Transport Delivery Plan
along with the Shared Parking Agreement will be consistent with the goals of the Anaheim Canyon
Specific Plan, which are intended to encourage the growth of existing businesses. The auto
dealership has been operating at this location for almost 20 years and the proposed amendment
and service expansion has been designed in a manner that is compatible with surrounding uses.
Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 4156D.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Lucita Y. Tong David See
Contract Planner Principal Planner
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP4156D
October 1, 2018
Page 11 of 11
Attachments:
1. Draft CUP Resolution
2. CUP Justification Letter
3. Parking and Auto Transport Delivery Plan
4. Letter from Condominium Association Board
5. Correspondence to Fleet Car Vendor
6. Canyon Commerce Center Parking Study
7. Traffic Study of Transport Delivery
The following attachments were provided to the Planning Commission and are available for
public review at the Planning Department at City Hall or on the City of Anaheim’s website at
www.anaheim.net/planning.
8. Photographs
SP 2015-1DA1MERCEDES BENZCAR DEALERSHIP
SP 2015-1DA1MERCEDES BENZCAR DEALERSHIP
SP 2015-1DA1Canyon Commerce Center – Jaguar/LandRover Dealership
SP 2015-1DA1INDUSTRIAL
SP 2015-1DA1ANAHEIMHILLSHEALTHPLAZA
SP 2015-1DA1INDUSTRIAL
SP 2015-1DA1INDUSTRIAL
SP 2015-1DA1OFFICES
SP 2015-1DA1OFFICES
SP 2015-1DA1INDUSTRIAL
SP 2015-1DA1INDUSTRIAL
SP 2015-1DA1INDUSTRIAL
SP 2015-1DA1MERCEDES BENZCAR DEALERSHIP
SP 2015-1DA1CANYONOFFICECENTER
SP 2015-1DA1CANYONOFFICECENTER
E L A P A L M A A V E
E ORANGETHORPE AVE
N B R A S H E R S T
E HUNTER AVE
E. LA PALMA AVE
N . I M P E R I A L H W Y
N
.
L
A
K
E
V
I
E
W
A
V
E
E. ORANGETHORPE AVE
E .S A N T A A N A C A N Y O N R D
E .L A P A L M A A V E
E.S A N T A A N A CA N Y O N RD5401-5 4 4 9 E L a P a lm a A ve a n d5401, 5 4 0 3 , 5 4 2 5 , 5 4 2 7 , 5 4 2 9 , a n d 5 4 3 1 E a st l a P a lm a A ve
D E V N o . 2 0 1 8 -0 0 05 5
Subject Property APN: 346-261-06
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Pho to:May 20 16
E L A P A L M A A V E
E ORANGETHORPE AVE
N B R A S H E R S T
E HUNTER AVE
E. LA PALMA AVE
N . I M P E R I A L H W Y
N
.
L
A
K
E
V
I
E
W
A
V
E
E. ORANGETHORPE AVE
E .S A N T A A N A C A N Y O N R D
E .L A P A L M A A V E
E.S A N T A A N A CA N Y O N RD5401-5 4 4 9 E L a P a lm a A ve a n d5401, 5 4 0 3 , 5 4 2 5 , 5 4 2 7 , 5 4 2 9 , a n d 5 4 3 1 E a st l a P a lm a A ve
D E V N o . 2 0 1 8 -0 0 05 5
Subject Property APN: 346-261-06
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Pho to:May 20 16
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1
- 1 - PC2018-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2018-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 4156D AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS
IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2018-00055)
(5401, 5403, 5425, 5427, 5429, 5431 EAST LA PALMA AVENUE)
WHEREAS, on October 25, 1999, and subject to certain conditions of approval,
the Anaheim City Council, by its Resolution No. PC99-187, did approve Conditional Use Permit
No. 4156 (“CUP 4156”) to permit an automobile dealership within an existing industrial/office
complex with waiver of required parking lot landscaping, permitted location of a freestanding sign,
and permitted encroachment of display vehicles into required yards (referred to herein as the
"Original CUP") for that certain real property located at 5401 East La Palma Avenue in the City
of Anaheim; and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved a
final landscape, lighting and sign plans for that real property located at 5425 East La Palma Avenue
as part of CUP 4156 (CUP Tracking No. 2000-04240); and
WHEREAS, on January 3, 2001, the Planning Commission, by its Resolution 2001-
6, did approve Conditional Use Permit 2000-0272 to permit the expansion of another automobile
dealership on certain property referred as Portion A (located at 5375 East La Palma Avenue),
Portion B(located at 5395 East La Palma Avenue), and 1370-1400 North Brasher Street, and
Portion C (located at 5401 East La Palma Avenue) in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange,
State of California, and
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2003, the Planning Commission, by its Resolution No.
PC2003-41, did approve Conditional Use Permit CUP2003-04666, as an amendment to the
Original CUP to permit an expansion of the auto dealership and permit a freestanding sign and
permitted encroachment into required yards and amend the conditions of approval in their entirety
(including deletion the 10-year time limitation) for that certain real property located 5425, 5427,
5429 and 5431 East La Palma Avenue; and
WHEREAS, on February 24, 2014, the Planning Commission, by its Resolution
No. PC2014-021, approved an amendment to the Original CUP to permit a 2,000 square foot
showroom expansion area for that certain property located at 5401 East La Palma Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did receive a verified petition to amend
Conditional Use Permit No. 4156 (“CUP 4156D”) for an existing auto dealership to: 1) modify the
location and number of outdoor vehicle spaces for display, retail sales, and service/repair; 2)
convert an existing vehicle storage area to a service and repair facility; and, 3) permit off-site
parking for employees (herein referred to collectively as the "Proposed Project") at the premise
located at 5401, 5403, 5425, 5427, 5429, 5431 East La Palma Avenue in the City of Anaheim,
County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit
A and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Property”); and
- 2 - PC2018-***
WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 13.21 acres in size and is currently
developed with an auto dealership as part of a multi-tenant industrial business complex. The
Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for Industrial land uses. The Property is located in
the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Zone, Development Area 1. As such, the Property is subject
to the zoning and development standards described in Chapter 18.120 (Anaheim Canyon Specific
Plan) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code"); and
WHEREAS, the above entitlements are hereby referred to as “Previous Conditions
of Approval”.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center
in the City of Anaheim on October 1, 2018 at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been
duly given in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Code, to hear
and consider evidence for and against proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 4156D and to
investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, as the "lead agency" under the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the Planning
Commission finds and determines that the Proposed Project is within that class of projects (i.e.,
Class 1 – Existing Facilities) which consist of the repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration of
existing public or private structures or facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of use
beyond that existing at the time of this determination, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section 15301
of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Proposed Project will not cause a significant
effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and
study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing to permit modifications to an existing automobile dealer in conjunction
with Conditional Use Permit No. 4156D, does find and determine the following facts:
1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is
authorized by this code as an amendment to a conditional use permit is permitted under Section
18.60.190 (Amendment of Permit Approval) of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Code.
2. The Proposed Project, as conditioned herein, would not adversely affect the
abutting businesses or residences, nor the growth and development of the area in which it is
proposed to be located because the Proposed Project will improve on-site parking and circulation
so as to minimize any impacts on adjacent businesses.
3. The size and shape of the site for the Proposed Project is adequate to allow the
full development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the
health and safety because the facility would continue to operate within an existing industrial
business complex without any additions or new construction.
- 3 - PC2018-***
4. The traffic generated by the Proposed Project will not impose an undue burden
upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the
traffic generated by this use will not exceed the anticipated volumes of traffic on the surrounding
streets.
5. The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will
not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim as the proposed
use will continue to be integrated within the existing automobile dealership and would not pose a
health or safety risk to the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
and;
WHEREAS, this Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record
constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this
Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the
record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report
and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts,
that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. This Planning Commission expressly
declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due
consideration of all evidence presented to it.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does
hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 4156D, contingent upon and subject to the conditions
of approval described in Exhibit B attached hereto referred to as “Revised Conditions of Approval”
and incorporated herein by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite
to the proposed use of the Property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of
the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval
may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Code. Timing for compliance with
conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause
provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the
condition (s), (ii) the modification complies with the Code and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated
significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the conditions of approval as set forth in
Resolution 2001-6 that otherwise would be applicable to Portion C of 5375 East La Palma, and
the conditions of approval set forth in Resolution No. PC99-187, Resolution No. PC2003-41,
Resolution No. PC2014-021 are hereby deleted in their entirety and replaced with the Revised
Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit B.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, effective upon the effective date of this
Resolution, the Revised Conditions of Approval hereby amend the Previous Conditions of
Approval and hereby replace the Previous Conditions of Approval in their entirety. All references
to the conditions of approval for the CUP shall be to the Revised Conditions of Approval attached
to this Resolution as Exhibit B, which shall control and govern the CUP, as amended by
Conditional Use Permit No. 4156D.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any amendment, modification or revocation
of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit
Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim
Municipal Code.
- 4 - PC2018-***
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find
and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance
with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part
thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent
jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and
void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes
approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal
Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any
action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable
ordinance, regulation or requirement.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission
meeting of October 1, 2018. Said Resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter
18.60 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a
City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRPERSON, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby
certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Anaheim held on October 1, 2018, by the following vote of the
members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 1st day of October, 2018.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 5 - PC2018-***
EXHIBIT “A”
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4156D
(DEV2018-00055)
- 6 - PC2018-***
EXHIBIT “B”
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4156D
(DEV2018-00055)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
1 All on-site landscaping shall be in conformance with Chapter 18.46
“Landscape and Screening” of the Anaheim Municipal Code and
shall be maintained in perpetuity. Landscaping shall be replaced in a
timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased
and/or dead.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
2 No required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for
outdoor storage use.
Planning and Building
Department,
Code Enforcement
Division
3 An on-site trash truck turn around area shall be maintained in
accordance with Engineering Standard Detail No. 610 and as required
by the Department of Public Works, Street Sweeping and Sanitation
Division.
Public Works
Department,
Sanitation Division
4 Ongoing during project operations, vehicle deliveries including
loading and unloading shall be performed on site in the approved
designated area per the approved Transport Delivery Plan. Designated
loading areas shall be preserved as loading areas only. Delivery
vehicles shall not block any part of the driveways and/or public right
of way. The applicant shall designate a location on the plan for Parts
Delivery Trucks. It is the sole responsibility of the dealership to
enforce this plan and obtain cooperation.
Public Works
Department,
Traffic Engineering
Division
5 Within 30 days from the date of this CUP amendment approval,
directional signage for truck haulers to enter the west driveway only
shall be installed at each entrance of the driveways along La Palma
Avenue.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
6 Ongoing during project operations, vehicle deliveries including
loading and loading shall not occur on any public roadway.
Planning and Building
Department,
Code Enforcement
Division
- 7 - PC2018-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
7 On-site maintenance of vehicles shall be permitted inside the building
only; no outdoor servicing or repair shall be permitted on the
premises.
Planning and Building
Department,
Code Enforcement
Division
8 No “compact” or “small car” parking spaces shall be permitted. Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services and
Building Divisions
9 The storage of vehicle parts, or business-related materials and all
work on vehicles (including the washing of vehicles) shall be
confined entirely to the interior of the building. No vehicular body
work, painting or other business-related activities, or storage of
vehicle parts or materials (other than vehicle inventory and service)
shall be allowed outdoors.
Planning and Building
Department,
Code Enforcement
Division
10 A maximum of nine (9) display vehicles may be stored outside the
building. A maximum of twenty-two (22) parking spaces are
designated for customers; eighty (80) parking spaces are designated
for sales inventory or accessory service; and one-hundred sixteen
(116) parking spaces are permitted for service cars or accessory sales.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
11 All properties used for off-site employee parking shall be under
agreement approved as to form by the City Attorney. The agreements
shall be recorded at the Office of the County Recorder, and a copy
filed with the Planning Department and, further, shall specify the
number and location of the off-site parking spaces and assure that the
spaces shall be accessible for parking in conjunction with the use for
which the parking spaces are required.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
12 Prior to the expiration of any shared parking agreement, the applicant
must present the City with an extended agreement or submit an
alternative parking arrangement to the Planning Department, subject
to review by the Planning Director. If the applicant can demonstrate
that the 50 off-site spaces are sufficient, the applicant may
administratively request to delete the requirement for a notarized
parking agreement and replace it with a new Shared Parking
Agreement, subject to approval by the City Attorney.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
13 The property owner shall submit a letter requesting the termination
of all previously approved Conditions of Approval.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
- 8 - PC2018-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
14 No Special Event Permits (including inflatable balloons) shall be
issued for temporary outdoor advertising or other events at this site.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
15 The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City
and its officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively referred
to individually and collectively as “Indemnitees”) from any and all
claims, actions or proceedings brought against Indemnitees to attack,
review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of the Indemnitees
concerning this permit or any of the proceedings, acts or
determinations taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or to
determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition
attached thereto. The Applicant’s indemnification is intended to
include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded
against or incurred by Indemnitees and costs of suit, claim or
litigation, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and other costs,
liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection with
such proceeding.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
16 Adequate lighting of parking lots, passageways, recesses, and
grounds contiguous to buildings shall be maintained with lighting of
sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly
visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the
hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all
person, property, and vehicles on-site.
Police Department
17 The hours of operation of the dealership shall be limited to 7:00 a.m.
to 8:00 p.m. Any changes to these hours of operation shall be subject
to review and approval by the Planning and Building Director to
ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
18 This permit shall be subject to a six (6) month review by the Planning
Commission, commencing from the date of this approval. Planning
Department staff will report back to the Planning Commission as a
“Reports and Recommendations” (R&R) item in order to verify that
the auto dealership is operating without negative impacts to the
surrounding businesses. Surrounding properties shall be notified in
advance of the Planning Commission meeting and the applicant shall
pay for the cost of processing this R&R item. Future compliance
reviews may be required if significant violations are identified in the
future or if required by the Planning Commission.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
- 9 - PC2018-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
19 Permits shall be obtained for any tenant improvements completed
without proper building permits, or if required by the Building
Official related to Building Code compliance.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services and
Building Divisions
20 Any graffiti painted or marked upon the business premises or on any
adjacent area under the control of the business owner shall be
removed or painted over within 24 hours of being applied or
discovered by the business owner.
Planning and Building
Department,
Code Enforcement
Division
GENERAL CONDITIONS
21 The auto dealership shall be operated in accordance with the Letter
of Operation submitted as part of this application. Any changes to the
business operation as described in the Letter of Operation shall be
subject to review and approval by the Planning and Building Director.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
22 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the
processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the
issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building
permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all
charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or
may result in the revocation of the approval of this application.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
23 The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City
and its officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively referred
to individually and collectively as “Indemnitees”) from any and all
claims, actions or proceedings brought against Indemnitees to attack,
review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of the Indemnitees
concerning this permit or any of the proceedings, acts or
determinations taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or to
determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition
attached thereto. The Applicant’s indemnification is intended to
include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded
against or incurred by Indemnitees and costs of suit, claim or
litigation, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and other costs,
liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection with
such proceeding.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
24 The Property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the
applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning Department
and as conditioned herein.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, CA 92805
May 23, 2018
Anaheim Hills Jaguar Land Rover, Inc.
P.O. Box 70489
Pasadena, CA 91117-7489
RE: Justification for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit #4156,
In response to the City of Anaheim’s “Justification for Conditional Use Permit” outline, items 1 through
5, the following information is being provided to demonstrate meeting the listed criteria.
1. The use of the properties that are leased by Anaheim Hills Jaguar Land Rover, Inc. (5401, 5403,
5425, 5427, 5429 and 5431 E. La Palma Ave) are authorized by the Zoning Code under
Conditional Use Permit #4156. This Permit has been amended twice before, once in 2003 and
again in 2014. We are seeking a third amendment to add all of our leased addresses, outline
parking spaces associated with our lease agreements, to clarify the use of those parking spaces,
and to add an off-site parking location to the Permit.
2. The current use of the properties have not significantly changed over the past 19 years. What
started out as a Land Rover car dealership offering sales, leasing, service and parts continues to
provide those same services today to our customers. The original Conditional Use Permit was
approved in 1999, was amended in 2003 (to remove an expiration date and clarify a sign issue),
and amended again in 2014 with a construction project to 5401 E. La Palma Ave expanding the
showroom square footage. The use did not in the beginning, nor does it today adversely affect
the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area. Our neighbor to the west
operates a Mercedes-Benz dealership.
3. The Canyon Commerce Center, of which Anaheim Hills Jaguar Land Rover, Inc., is a part of,
consists of many individual “suites”, and future growth is limited to the availability of additional
suites. The Center, and its individual suites, have been designed to accommodate businesses of
various types, and each have pre-determined square footages. Any future growth into available
suites would not affect any other businesses operations within the Center, nor pose any health
or safety issues.
4. The traffic generated by the current use of the properties leased by Anaheim Hills Jaguar Land
Rover, Inc., does not impose a undue burden upon the surrounding road systems, as they have
been designed and constructed to handle the traffic from not only our car dealership, but the
traffic from the multitude of other businesses within the Center, as well as our neighbors. East
La Palma Ave is a 5-lane roadway, consisting of 2 lanes in each eastern and western direction,
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
with a center turn lane. The Canyon Commerce Center has 3 drives into the Center (east, west
and center), that accommodate all the suites customers, employees, and daily deliveries.
5. The amendment to Conditional Use Permit #4156, with any ensuing Conditions of Approval, will
not harm the health and safety of any of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. There has been no
change in operation since the original Conditional Use Permit was approved, and amended
twice before. We have invested a great deal of revenue over the years to ensure the areas we
lease at the Canyon Commerce Center meet and exceed all code requirements, are appealing to
the general public, and are inviting to our customers, and those entering the Center.
Thank you for your time.
Len Silvernail, CFM
Director of Facilities and Engineering
Rusnak Auto Group
Anaheim Hills Jaguar Land Rover, Inc.
Len Silvernail CFM
(West Driveway)
(Middle Driveway)
Legend
Green = Primary Sales/ Accessory Svc.
Blue = Customer Parking
Red = Primary Service/ Accessory Sales
(East Driveway)
Attachment 4: Proposed Parking Plan & Auto Transport Delivery
65’ Setback 65’ Setback
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
1
Lucita Tong
From:Seaman, Doris <dseaman1@jaguarlandrover.com>
Sent:Thursday, August 02, 2018 9:08 AM
To:Sven Larson
Cc:Len Silvernail; Brian Beatt; John Beed
Subject:Re: Fleet Car transport not following drop off instructions
Sven,
I will address with Fleet Car.
Regards,
Doris Seaman
Logistics Coordinator - Vehicles
T: +1.201.818.8063 | F: +1.201.818.9074
Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC
100 Jaguar Land Rover Way, Mahwah, NJ 07495-1100
JaguarUSA.com | LandRoverUSA.com
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Sven Larson <slarson@rusnakautogroup.com> wrote:
Good morning Doris,
We had an issue this morning with a driver who did not follow the delivery instructions and refused to reposition his
transport truck when asked by my head porter, Martin Cendejas. Attached is the bill of lading.
Thanks again for your help.
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
2
Sven Larson
General Manager
Jaguar Land Rover Anaheim Hills
Part of the Rusnak Auto Group
Main: (714) 693-4646 ext. 223
Fax: (626) 229-2797
5401 La Palma Ave
Anaheim, CA 92807
www.jlrah.com
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution,
or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to us immediately by e-mail, and delete the
original message.
Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
From: Seaman, Doris [mailto:dseaman1@jaguarlandrover.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2018 6:40 AM
To: Sven Larson <slarson@rusnakautogroup.com>
Cc: Len Silvernail <lsilvernail@rusnakgroup.com>; Brian Beatt <bbeatt@rusnakautogroup.com>; John Beed
<jbeed@rusnakgroup.com>
Subject: Re: Fleet Car transport not following drop off instructions
Sven,
I will discuss with Fleet Car again. Going forward, if any drivers don't comply with the
new instructions, please send a couple of vins from the delivery this way we can
address the specific drivers.
Regards,
Doris Seaman
Logistics Coordinator - Vehicles
T: +1.201.818.8063 | F: +1.201.818.9074
3
Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC
100 Jaguar Land Rover Way, Mahwah, NJ 07495-1100
JaguarUSA.com | LandRoverUSA.com
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Sven Larson <slarson@rusnakautogroup.com> wrote:
Hi Doris,
Despite having clear instruction on their tablets, many of Fleet Car’s drivers are ignoring the entrance/loading
zone/exit directive. Worse is the fact that when some bring their trucks in to our business park incorrectly, the
drivers refuse to reposition their transport truck after we ask them to do so.
Would you kindly speak to a supervisor at Fleet Car and communicate the importance their drivers following
our approved parking plan? Plus their drivers need to be courteous and if in the business park incorrectly,
they need to reposition their transporters without giving my employees static or refusal to reposition.
Thanks for your help in this important matter.
Sven Larson
General Manager
Jaguar Land Rover Anaheim Hills
Part of the Rusnak Auto Group
Main: (714) 693-4646 ext. 223
Fax: (626) 229-2797
5401 La Palma Ave
Anaheim, CA 92807
www.jlrah.com
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to us immediately by e-mail,
and delete the original message.
Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
7:
Ca
n
y
o
n
Co
m
m
e
r
c
e
Ce
n
t
e
r
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
Un
i
t
pe
r
CC
R
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
U
s
e
S
q
.
Ft
.
S
h
o
w
r
o
o
m
Au
t
o
Re
p
a
i
r
Wa
r
e
h
o
u
s
e
Of
f
i
c
e
/
S
a
l
e
s
Ca
r
St
o
r
a
g
e
Of
f
i
c
e
< 10
%
Sh
o
w
r
o
o
m
pa
r
k
i
n
g
(2
.
5
/
1
0
0
0
s
.
f
.
)
Au
t
o
Re
p
a
i
r
3.
5
sp
a
c
e
/
1
,
0
0
0
s
.
f
.
)
Wa
r
e
h
o
u
s
e
or
Of
f
i
c
e
<1
0
%
1.
5
5
sp
a
c
e
/
1
0
0
0
s.
f
.
)
Of
f
i
c
e
,
Sa
l
e
s
& Storage
(4
sp
a
c
e
/
1
,
0
0
0
s.f.)Parking RequiredParking Provided CCR
1
5
4
0
1
E.
La
P Ca
r
Sh
o
w
r
o
20
1
8
8
1
3
3
5
1
68
3
7
33
27 61
6
7
2
5
4
0
3
E.
La
Au
t
o
St
o
r
a
g
46
3
3
46
3
3
19 19
1
4
3
5
4
0
5
E.
La
P Wa
r
e
h
o
u
s
e
55
0
7
40
0
7
1
5
0
0
6612 13
4
5
4
0
7
E.
La
P Wa
r
e
h
o
u
s
e
65
6
0
47
7
4
1
7
8
6
7715 16
5
5
4
0
9
E.
La
P Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
S a
65
6
0
49
2
0
1
6
4
0
8714 15
6
5
4
1
1
E.
La
P Va
c
a
n
t
4
9
6
0
33
4
0
1
6
2
0
5612 12
7
5
4
1
3
E.
La
P Of
f
i
c
e
/
W
a
r
58
4
0
34
1
0
2
4
3
0
51015 15
8
5
4
1
5
E.
La
P Of
f
i
c
e
5
8
4
0
0
5
8
4
0
23
2
3
23
9
5
4
1
7
E.
La
P Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
1
3
1
2
0
69
2
0
6
2
0
0
11
2
5
3
6
34
10
5
4
1
9
E.
La
P Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
1
3
1
2
0
11
4
2
0
1
7
0
0
18
7
2
5
34
11
5
4
4
5
E.
La
P Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
7
3
6
0
66
8
6
6
7
4
*
11
0
1
1
18
12
5
4
4
3
E.
La
P Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
7
3
6
0
65
1
5
8
4
5
10
3
1
3
17
13
5
4
4
1
E.
La
P Ti
l
e
Wa
r
e
h
9
9
2
0
88
1
4
1
1
0
6
14
4
1
8
25
14
5
4
3
9
E.
L a
Wa
r
e
h
o
u
s
e
99
2
0
87
5
5
1
1
6
5
14
5
1
8
23
15
5
4
3
7
E.
La
P Wa
r
e
h
o
u
s
e
77
2
3
59
5
2
1
7
7
1
9716 19
16
5
4
3
5
E.
La
P Me
r
c
h
a
n
d
i
7
7
2
3
68
7
8
8
4
5
11
3
1
4
17
17
5
4
3
3
E.
La
P To
y
Co
m
p
a
99
2
0
88
1
6
1
1
0
4
14
4
1
8
22
18
5
4
3
1
E.
La
Au
t
o
St
o
r
a
g
72
8
8
61
6
0
11
2
8
22
5 26
1
8
19
5
4
2
9
E.
La
Ca
r
Pa
r
t
s
D
72
8
8
59
5
4
13
3
4
21
5 26
2
2
20
5
4
2
7
E.
La
Se
r
v
i
c
e
De
p
93
4
4
82
4
2
11
0
2
29
4 33
3
0
21
5
4
2
5
E.
La
P Sh
o
w
r
o
o
m
/
16
4
9
9
5
1
2
9
5
5
9
3
57
7
7
13
20
23 56
6
7
22
5
4
4
9
E.
La
P Sl
a
b
Fa
b
r
i
c
a
31
5
0
0
76
0
0
23
9
0
0
12
96 107
8
4
TO
T
A
L
46
91
15
4
297 588
6
0
5
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
N
O
.
6
Date Day Time/Duration Minutes
Vehicles Passing
Transports
Single/Two‐way
Driveway Use
8/6/2018 Monday 10:55am‐11:34am 39 3 vehicles Single
8/7/2018 Tuesday 4:41pm‐5:09pm 28 4 vehicles Single
8/8/2018 Wednesday 12:13pm‐12:28pm
12:38pm‐1:07pm
5:07pm‐5:14pm
15
29
7
2 vehicles
4 vehicles
No vehicles
Single
Single
None
8/9/2018 Thursday 10:29am‐11:05am 36 No vehicles None
8/10/2018 Friday 8:28am‐8:33am 5 1 vehicle Single
8/11/2018 Saturday No transports N/A N/A
8/12/2018 Sunday No transports N/A N/A
8/13/2018 Monday 10:40am‐10:55am 15 6 vehicles Single
8/14/2018 Tuesday 2:25pm‐2:49pm 25 9 vehicles Single
8/15/2018 Wednesday 2:55pm‐3:27pm 32 6 vehicles Single
8/16/2018 Thursday No transports N/A N/A
8/17/2018 Friday 8:23am‐9:01am 38 5 vehicles Single
8/18/2018 Saturday 10:13am‐10:39am 26 1 vehicle Single
8/19/2018 Sunday No transports N/A N/A
Ave. Vehicles/Day 3.42
Attachment 8: Transport Delivery Schedule
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
1
Elly Morris
From:Lucita Tong
Sent:Monday, October 01, 2018 8:36 AM
To:David See; Elly Morris
Subject:FW: Continuance for Upcoming October 1st Meeting (CUP 4156D)
Here is the request for continuance of the Rusnak Jaguar‐LandRover CUP.
Lucita Y. Tong
Contract Planner
Planning & Building Department City of Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
(714) 765‐5423 | Ltong@anaheim.net
From: Len Silvernail <lsilvernail@rusnakgroup.com>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2018 8:35 AM
To: Lucita Tong <LTong@anaheim.net>
Cc: John Beed <jbeed@rusnakgroup.com>; Basil Newburn <basil@tidemarkcapital.com>
Subject: RE: Continuance for Upcoming October 1st Meeting (CUP 4156D)
Lucita,
Rusnak here‐by requests a continuance of the hearing to discuss CUP 4156D until October 29th. We are in the process of
finalizing internal discussions with the Association and need the additional time in order to be prepared.
Thank you,
Len Silvernail, CFM
Director of Facilities and Engineering
Rusnak Group
Office: (626) 229-2519
Main: (626) 449-2377
Cell: (626) 660-4393
267-337 West Colorado Blvd.
Pasadena, CA 91105
www.rusnakonline.com
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution,
or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to us immediately by e-mail, and delete the
original message.
Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
ITEM NO. 4 ~ Request for Continuance