Item No. 1 - DEV2021-00123 - Responses1
From: Tsui Li <tli@fcs‐intl.com>
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2022 4:06 PM
To: Ivan Orozco <IOrozco@anaheim.net>; Cecilia So <cso@fcs‐intl.com>; Heather R. Allen <HAllen@anaheim.net>
Cc: Mary Bean <mbean@fcs‐intl.com>; Megan Starr <mstarr@fcs‐intl.com>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Anaheim Ball and PC
Hi Ivan –
FCS has reviewed the comment letter and here are our responses:
Global response:
The comments do not identify any specific information regarding potentially significant environmental impacts. To show
that an EIR is required by CEQA, commenters must demonstrate that the record contains substantial evidence
supporting a fair argument that the project may have a significant adverse environmental impact. For purposes of CEQA,
“substantial evidence includes fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact”
(Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21080(e)(1)). “Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated
opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts that do
not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment” (PRC § 21080(e)(2)).
The comment letter, received after the close of the public comment period, contains 272 pages of information, including
three attachments. However, Exhibit A is general background information and does not address the proposed project or
adequacy of the analysis in the IS/MND. Exhibits B and C are not related to the proposed project and provide no project
specific information. Because no new environmental issues were identified, no further analysis is necessary. Therefore,
no revisions are required for the IS/MND.
The comment suggests the City require the project establish local hiring. It is beyond the City’s legal authority to require
such hiring restrictions on private developers within the City.
The following are specific comments related to the project IS/MND and FCS’s responses.
A. The MND Fails to Adequately Demonstrate Less than Significant
Impact to Sensitive Receptors with Regard to Air Quality
Response: Air quality impacts to sensitive receptors are thoroughly analyzed in Draft IS/MND Section 2.3 Air Quality
Question c) (Draft IS/MND p36 – 41) and the project‐specific Health Risk Assessment was prepared. The proposed
project’s construction‐related toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions would be before South Coast Air Quality
Management District’s (SCAQMD) cancer risk thresholds. Nonetheless, the proposed project would implement MM AQ‐
1, which would require that all project construction equipment 50 horsepower or greater meet or exceed EPA Tier 4
Interim standards for nonroad engines (as applicable). This would substantially reduce construction‐related NOX
emissions, as well as PM10 and PM2.5 emissions associated with construction equipment exhaust. Therefore, this
impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
B. The MND Fails to Demonstrate Less than Significant Impact for
Geological Concerns
Response: As discussed in Draft IS/MND Section 2.7 Geology and Soils, the project‐specific Geotechnical Feasibility
Report analyzed the project’s geologic conditions and determined that the site’s geological conditions could support the
proposed project with the implementation of its design and construction recommendations. The proposed project
would comply with erosion and siltation control measures outlined in Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 17.04: Grading,
Excavation, Fills, Watercourses. Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 17.04 requires that excavations and fills that may
2
affect drainage and watercourses be performed in accordance with good engineering practice, thereby reducing to a
minimum the hazards and damage to public and private property. This would include measures such as sandbagging to
reduce project site runoff or hold topsoil in place prior to final grading and construction. Additionally, the proposed
project would be subject to compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General
Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009‐0009‐
DWQ, and all subsequent amendments) (Construction General Permit). These measures would sufficient maintain less‐
than‐significant impacts related to loss of top soil and soil erosion.
C. The MND Fails to Properly Analyze Green House Gases for
Significant Impact.
Response: Purchase of carbon credits has strict performance standards and requirements set forth in the California
Health and Safety Code Sections 38562(d)(1) and (d)(2) to reduce GHG significance thresholds to less‐than‐significance
levels. The analysis does not need to discuss whether the reduction comes from mobile, energy, water, waste or area.
GHG offsets may be an appropriate mitigation measure where they are enforceable, verifiable, and additional. Golden
Door Props., LLC v County of San Diego (2020) 50 CA5th 467, 506. 14 Cal Code Regs §15064.4(b)(3); see also Our
Children's Earth Found. v California Air Resources Bd. (2015) 234 CA4th 870, 880 (rejecting challenge to inclusion of
offsets in cap‐and‐trade program).
D. The MND Fails to Mitigate for Hazardous Materials with a School
within one-quarter mile.
Response: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the City would review the subsurface investigation, health risk
assessment summarizing investigation findings, and documentation related to the in‐ground hydraulic lift removal to
ensure that all hazardous materials are properly removed in accordance with Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and/or the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA)
regulations. Methods for HazMat removal would need to be reviewed and approved by applicable regulatory agencies.
I will be out of the office on October 14, and October 24 – November 2
Tsui Li
Project Manager