Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Anaheim.net

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hotel 55 Project Development Project No. 2019-00148

Prepared for Planning Services Division City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California 92805

Prepared by Psomas 3 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 200 Santa Ana, California 92707-8794

July 2020

Hotel 55 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\MND\Hotel 55 MND-071420.docx i Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page

Section 1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Purpose of The Initial Study.................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Summary of Findings .............................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Public Review ......................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Report Organization................................................................................ 1-2

Section 2.0 Project Location, Background, and Environmental Setting ......................... 2-1

2.1 Project Location ...................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Project Background ................................................................................ 2-1 2.3 The Anaheim Resort ............................................................................... 2-1

i. Disneyland Resort Specific Plan (DRSP) ................................... 2-2 ii. Hotel Circle Specific Plan (HCSP) .............................................. 2-2 iii. Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (ARSP) ....................................... 2-2

2.4 Existing Project Site Conditions .............................................................. 2-5 2.5 Surrounding Land Uses .......................................................................... 2-5

Section 3.0 Project Description .......................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Physical Characteristics .......................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Hotel Use .................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Project Access, Circulation, and Parking .................................... 3-1 3.1.3 Utilities ........................................................................................ 3-2

3.2 Construction Activities and Project Phasing ........................................... 3-2 3.3 Discretionary Actions .............................................................................. 3-3

3.3.1 Project Components ................................................................... 3-3

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist.................................................................................. 4-1

Section 5.0 Environmental Evaluation ............................................................................... 5-1

I. Aesthetics ................................................................................... 5-1 II. Agriculture and Forest Land Resources ..................................... 5-5 III. Air Quality ................................................................................... 5-6 IV. Biological Resources ................................................................ 5-22 V. Cultural Resources ................................................................... 5-24 VI. Energy ....................................................................................... 5-27 VII. Geology and Soils ..................................................................... 5-33 VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................... 5-37 IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................ 5-44 X. Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................... 5-49 XI. Land Use and Planning ............................................................. 5-53 XII. Mineral Resources .................................................................... 5-53 XIII. Noise ......................................................................................... 5-54 XIV. Population and Housing ............................................................ 5-66 XV. Public Services ......................................................................... 5-67 XVI. Recreation ................................................................................. 5-73 XVII. Transportation/Traffic ................................................................ 5-74 XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources ....................................................... 5-102


R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\MND\Hotel 55 MND-071420.docx ii Table of Contents

XIX. Utilities and Service Systems .................................................. 5-106 XX. Wildfire .................................................................................... 5-116 XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................ 5-117

Section 6.0 Preparers ........................................................................................................... 6-1

Section 7.0 References ........................................................................................................ 7-1

TABLES Table Page 1 Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Land Use Summary1 ...................................................... 2-4 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Quality Significance Thresholds ....... 5-8 3 Air Quality Measurements at the Central Orange County—Anaheim Monitoring

Station ............................................................................................................................ 5-9 4 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin.......................... 5-10 5 California and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................................. 5-11 6 Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions ..................................................... 5-14 7 Peak Daily Operational Emissions ............................................................................... 5-15 8 Localized Significance Threshold Construction Emissions .......................................... 5-17 9 Localized Significance Threshold Operational Emissions ............................................ 5-18 10 Energy Use During Construction .................................................................................. 5-29 11 Transportation Energy (Gallons/year) .......................................................................... 5-30 12 Energy from Utilities ..................................................................................................... 5-31 13 Estimated GreenHouse Gas Emissions from Construction.......................................... 5-41 14 Estimated Annual GreenHouse Gas Emissions from Project Operation ...................... 5-41 15 Estimated Total Project Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................... 5-42 16 Typical Noise Levels .................................................................................................... 5-54 17 Monitored Noise Levels ................................................................................................ 5-55 18 Land Use Compatibility for Noise Exposure ................................................................. 5-59 19 Projected Traffic Noise Levels ..................................................................................... 5-61 20 Construction Noise Levels at Noise-Sensitive Uses .................................................... 5-62 21 Vibration Levels Per Construction Equipment .............................................................. 5-63 22 Vibration Annoyance Criteria at Sensitive Uses ........................................................... 5-63 23 Building Damage Criteria at Sensitive Uses ................................................................ 5-64 24 City of Anaheim Fire Services Facilities ....................................................................... 5-68 25 Student Generation Rates ............................................................................................ 5-69 26 Level of Service Criteria For Signalized Intersections .................................................. 5-75 27 Level of Service Criteria For Unsignalized Intersections .............................................. 5-76 28 Roadway Link Capacities ............................................................................................. 5-77 29 Existing Intersection Peak Hour Levels Of Service Summary ...................................... 5-78 30 Existing Roadway Segment Level Of Service Summary.............................................. 5-79 31 Project Traffic Generation Forecast ............................................................................. 5-80 32 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary ................. 5-81 33 Existing Plus Project Roadway Segment Level Of Service Summary ......................... 5-82 34 Existing Plus Cumulative Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis

Summary ...................................................................................................................... 5-84 35 Existing Plus Cumulative Plus Project Roadway Segment Level Of Service

Summary ...................................................................................................................... 5-85 36 Year 2022 Cumulative Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis

Summary ...................................................................................................................... 5-88


R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\MND\Hotel 55 MND-071420.docx iii Table of Contents

37 Year 2022 Cumulative Plus Project Roadway Segment Level Of Service Summary ...................................................................................................................... 5-89

38 General Plan Buildout Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary ...................................................................................................................... 5-93

39 General Plan Buildout Plus Project Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary ...................................................................................................................... 5-94

40 General Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary – Caltrans .................................................................................................... 5-96

41 Project Driveway Peak Hour Levels Of Service Summary ........................................... 5-98 42 Existing and Proposed Manhole Flow Loading .......................................................... 5-107 43 Existing and Proposed Flow Increases Due to Proposed Project .............................. 5-107

EXHIBITS

Exhibit Follows Page 1 Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................... 2-1 2 Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Boundaries .................................................................... 2-1 3 Aerial Photograph .......................................................................................................... 2-5 4 Site Plan ......................................................................................................................... 3-1 5a–g Building Plans ................................................................................................................ 3-1 6a–b Building Sections ............................................................................................................ 3-1 7a–c Exterior Elevations ......................................................................................................... 3-1 8 Renderings ..................................................................................................................... 3-1 9a–b Preliminary Landscape and Planting Plan ..................................................................... 3-1 10 Ground Level Parking Plan ............................................................................................ 3-1 11 Turning Movements ....................................................................................................... 3-1 12a–c Site Photographs ............................................................................................................ 5-1 13 Shade and Shadow Analysis ......................................................................................... 5-3 14 Noise Monitoring Locations .......................................................................................... 5-55 15 Project Traffic Distribution Pattern ............................................................................... 5-80 16 AM Peak Hour Project Traffic Volumes ........................................................................ 5-80 17 PM Peak Hour and Daily Project Traffic Volumes ........................................................ 5-80

APPENDICES Appendix A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Data B Cultural Resources and Historical Resources Evaluation C Energy Analysis D Geotechnical Report and Infiltration Rate E Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment F Water Quality Management Plan G Drainage Study H Noise Calculations I Traffic Impact Analysis, Parking Demand Analysis, and Valet Parking Plan J Sewer Study


R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\MND\Hotel 55 MND-071420.docx iv Table of Contents

This page intentionally left blank


R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\MND\Hotel 55 MND-071420.docx 1-1 Introduction

SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.) and its Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15000 et seq.), this Initial Study (IS) has been prepared as documentation for a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed Hotel 55 Project (Proposed Project). This IS includes a description of the Proposed Project; location of the Project Site; evaluation of the potential environmental impacts; findings from the environmental review; and proposed mitigation measures to lessen or avoid environmental impacts on the environment.

Pursuant to Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Anaheim (City) is the lead agency for the Proposed Project. The lead agency is the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The City, as the lead agency, shall have the authority for project approval and adoption of the accompanying environmental documentation.

The purpose of this document is to evaluate the demolition of an existing 10,616 square foot (sf) one-story industrial building and construction of the Proposed Project. Overall, the Proposed Project would involve construction of a six-story, 125-room hotel with approximately 380 square feet (sf) of accessory commercial retail space and 490 sf of fast casual restaurant space. As appropriate, this document incorporates by reference information that was presented in The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report No. 313 (EIR 313; Anaheim 1994b), Environmental Impact Report No. 340, Amendment No. 14 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (EIR 340; Anaheim 2012) and The City of Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update Environmental Impact Report No. 330 (EIR 330; Anaheim 2004b).

1.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Based on the environmental checklist form prepared for the Proposed Project (included in Section 4.0, Environmental Checklist) and supporting environmental analysis (provided in Section 5.0, Environmental Evaluation) the Proposed Project would have no impact or a less than significant impact on the following environmental impact areas: Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forest Resources, Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation/Traffic, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. It is noted that a mitigation measure has been identified in the Utilities and Service Systems due to its applicability, however this mitigation measure is not required to reduce a potentially significant impact.

The Proposed Project has the potential to have significant impacts to the following environmental impact areas: Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Paleontological Resources, and Tribal Cultural Resources, unless the recommended mitigation measures described herein are incorporated into the Proposed Project.

According to the State CEQA Guidelines, it is appropriate to prepare an MND for the Proposed Project because, after incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, potentially significant environmental impacts would be eliminated or reduced to a less than significant level.


R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\MND\Hotel 55 MND-071420.docx 1-2 Introduction

1.2 PUBLIC REVIEW

The public review period for the IS/MND in accordance with Section 15073(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines is July 16, 2020 to August 8, 2020. The Notice of Intent to Adopt the IS/MND has been mailed, published in the Anaheim Bulletin, posted at the Project Site, and at the Orange County Clerk/Recorder’s Office in accordance with Section 15072 (a) and (b) of the CEQA Guidelines. The IS/MND is available for public review on the City of Anaheim website (www.anaheim.net), the Anaheim Planning and Building Department (200 South Anaheim Boulevard), and the Anaheim Central Library (500 W. Broadway). In reviewing the IS/MND, the reviewer should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the potential impacts of the Proposed Project on the environment and the ways in which the potentially significant effects are avoided or mitigated. Comments on the analysis contained herein may be sent to:

Mr. Andy T. Uk, Associate Planner City of Anaheim Planning Services Division 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California 92805 Email: [email protected]

Following receipt and evaluation of comments from agencies, organizations and/or individuals, the City will determine whether any substantial new environmental issues have been raised. If not, or if the new issues do not provide substantial evidence that the Proposed Project will have a significant effect on the environment, the Planning Commission and City Council will consider the approval of the Proposed Project and environmental documentation.

1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION

This document has been organized into the following sections:

• Section 1 – Introduction. This section provides an introduction and overview describing the conclusions of the IS.

• Section 2 – Project Location and Environmental Setting. This section provides an overview of the Proposed Project location; a description of existing on-site and surrounding land uses; and a statement of purpose and need.

• Section 3 – Project Description. This section identifies key Project characteristics and includes a list of anticipated discretionary actions.

• Section 4 – Environmental Checklist. The completed City of Anaheim Environmental Checklist Form provides an overview of the potential impacts that may or may not result from Project implementation.

• Section 5 – Environmental Evaluation. This section contains an analysis of environmental impacts identified in the environmental checklist. As necessary, the narrative responses are followed by a mitigation program composed of mitigation measures (MMs), standard conditions of approval (SCs) and project design features (PDFs). In some cases, mitigation measures from previous environmental documents have been identified in the mitigation program.

• Section 6 – Report Preparers. This section identifies those individuals responsible for preparing the IS/MND.

• Section 7 – References. The References section identifies resources used to prepare this document.


R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\MND\Hotel 55 MND-071420.docx 2-1 Project Location, Background, and Environmental Setting

SECTION 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION, BACKGROUND, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION

The Project Site (APN 082-431-23) encompasses 0.68 acres located at 1730 South Clementine Street, approximately 650 feet south of Disney Way, 600 feet north of Katella Avenue, and west of the Interstate 5 (I-5) freeway, in the City of Anaheim in Orange County. The Project Site is as shown on Exhibit 1, Vicinity Map. The Proposed Project is located within an area of the City referred to as The Anaheim Resort®. The Anaheim Resort includes three specific plan areas: The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan (DRSP), Hotel Circle Specific Plan (HCSP) and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (ARSP). The ARSP regulates the Project Site. The Anaheim Resort and its specific plans are described in detail below.

2.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND

In September 1994, the Anaheim City Council certified Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 313 (State Clearinghouse No. 91091062) in support of the adoption of the ARSP. Two validation reports were prepared (1999 and 2004) to evaluate the continued relevance and accuracy of EIR 313. In December 2012, the Anaheim City Council certified EIR 340, a Supplemental EIR to EIR 313, in conjunction with its approval of the Amendment No. 14 to the ARSP Project. EIR 340 reevaluated all the environmental changes that have occurred in and around The Anaheim Resort since certification of EIR 313. EIR 340 also evaluated an expansion of the Anaheim Convention Center and an update of the ARSP document. The Anaheim City Council adopted findings and a statement of overriding considerations; Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C; and, a water supply assessment in conjunction with the certification of EIR 340.

The Project Site was identified in EIR 340 as APN 082-431-23 and was analyzed for the development of up to 75 rooms on 0.68 gross acres. The Applicant is proposing demolition of the existing one-story industrial building and the construction of a 125-room hotel, which would exceed the 75-rooms analyzed in EIR 340 by 50 rooms.

In order to construct the Proposed Project, the Applicant is requesting the appropriate entitlements to authorize both the density analyzed by this IS/MND and the density proposed as part of the Proposed Project. A complete list of entitlements requested by the Applicant is listed in Section 3.3, Discretionary Actions.

2.3 THE ANAHEIM RESORT

The Anaheim Resort is a 1,078-acre portion of the City of Anaheim specially designated for recreation and tourist/convention-related activities and supporting uses. As shown in Exhibit 2, Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Boundaries, The Anaheim Resort is located generally west of the Interstate (I)-5 corridor, south of Vermont Avenue, east of Walnut Street, and north of Chapman Avenue. The Anaheim Resort is designated for Commercial Recreation land use by the General Plan. This land use designation provides for tourist and entertainment industries, such as theme parks, hotels, tourist-oriented retail, restaurants, theaters, and other visitor-serving facilities.

The Anaheim Resort includes three specific plan areas: The DRSP, HCSP and the ARSP. Exhibit 2, Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Boundaries, shows the Project Site in context to the ARSP area and the boundaries of all three of the specific plan areas within The Anaheim Resort. The Anaheim Resort Identity Program and The Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape

Disneyland

DisneylandConvention

Center

Project Location

H ar b

o rB l

v d

E Katella Ave

SHarb orB lvd

W Katella Ave

Santa Ana FwyDisney Way

E Ball Rd

W Orangewood Ave

W Ball Rd

Manchester Ave

Anaheim Way

Anah

eimBo

ul var

d

S Lew

is St

Gene Autry Way

SCl em

e ntin

e St

Haste

r St

S Manchester Ave

§̈5

D:\Pr

ojects

\3ANA

\0091

12\M

XD\IS

MND\

ex_L

V_RL

_202

0021

3.mxd

²

Seal Beach

Project Location

San Bernardino

Riverside

PA C I F I C O C E A N

ST39

§̈5

ST91

§̈405

§̈5ST1 ST73

ST19

ST241

ST90

ST261

ST142ST72

ST71

ST55

ST133

ST57

ST241

Los AngelesOrange

BeachHuntington

Anaheim

Viejo

Downey

Irvine

Mission

Whittier

Lakewood

Santa Ana

Costa Mesa

Buena Park

Westminster

Yorba Linda

Laguna Beach

Vicinity MapHotel 55 Project

Exhibit 1

(Rev: 2-13-2020 MMD) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\Graphics\ISMND\ex_LV_RL.pdf

1,000 0 1,000500Feet

Project BoundaryAerial Source: Hexagon Geosystems 2018

Source: City of Anaheim, February 2017 D:\Pr

ojects

\3ANA

\0091

12\G

RAPH

ICS\I

SMND

\ex_A

nahe

imRe

sort_

Spec

ificPla

n_20

2002

07.ai

(02/07/2020 MMD) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\Graphics\ISMND\ex_AnaheimResort_SpecificPlan.pdf

Exhibit 2Hotel 55 Project

Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Boundaries

§̈5

BALL RD

KATELLA AVE

HARB

OR

BLVD

LEW

IS S

T

WA

LNU

T ST

WES

T ST

ORANGEWOOD AVE

ANAH

EIM BLVD

HAS

TER

ST

CHAPMAN AVE

DIS

NEY

LAN

D D

R

CERRITOS AVE

MANCHESTER AVE

DISNEY WAY

DISN

EYLA

ND

DR

HARBOR BLVD

DISN

EYLA

ND

DR

DISNEYLAND DR

LEW

IS S

T

CHAPMAN AVE

CERRITOS AVE

°0 500 1,000

Feet

The Anaheim ResortARSP No. 92-2City Boundary

Project Location



Program work together to create a uniform identity and landscape program to improve the visual quality of the entire Anaheim Resort. These two documents provide visual consistency between the three specific plans. Below is a description of each of the specific plans.

I. DISNEYLAND RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN (DRSP)

The DRSP, adopted in 1993, encompasses approximately 489.7 acres of The Anaheim Resort. It provides for the development of an international vacation destination resort (The Disneyland Resort®) that allows the development of a second theme park (Disney California Adventure), additional hotel and entertainment areas, administrative office facilities, back-of-house facilities, new public and private parking facilities, an internal transportation system, and the on-going modification of Disneyland. EIR 311 was certifed in conjunction with the adoption of the DRSP. The City Council also adopted findings and a statement of overriding considerations, Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 67 and standard Conditions of Approval per Ordinance No. 5377, as last amended by Ordinance No. 6022.

At the time the DRSP was adopted, it included four districts: the Theme Park District, the Hotel District, the Parking District, and the Future Expansion District; and, the C-R Overlay. Following the adoption of the DRSP, the document has been modified with eight specific plan amendments and 12 specific plan adjustments. The modifications added District A and the Anaheim GardenWalk Overlay. City Council approved the third amendment in 1996 in conjunction with the approval of Development Agreement No. 96-01 by and between the City of Anaheim and Walt Disney World Company. An addendum to EIR 311 was prepared in conjunction with this request. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and several addenda were prepared or relied upon as the environmental documentation for Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 pertaining to the Anaheim GardenWalk Overlay. City Council approved Adjustment No. 6 concurrently with a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan and its related EIR (EIR 330). The City Council determined that all other amendments and adjustments were either exempt from CEQA or analyzed by EIR 311.

II. HOTEL CIRCLE SPECIFIC PLAN (HCSP)

The HCSP, adopted in 1994, encompasses approximately 6.8 acres of The Anaheim Resort and provides for the development of a total of 969 hotel rooms (818 rooms currently exist). City Council approved an MND as the environmental document for the HCSP.

III. ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN (ARSP)

The ARSP was adopted in 1994 and provides for the development of hotels, motels, convention and conference facilities, including the Anaheim Convention Center, as well as restaurants, retail shops, and entertainment uses. The ARSP is divided into two development areas: the Public Recreation (PR) District, which includes the Anaheim Convention Center and the Anaheim Hilton; and, the Commercial Recreation (C-R) District, which includes the remainder of the ARSP, including the Project Site.

As discussed previously, the City Council certified EIR 313 as the environmental documentation for the adoption of the ARSP. At the time City Council adopted the ARSP, the specific plan area encompassed approximately 549.5 acres and EIR 313 assumed that future development on the Project Site would include development of up to 75 hotel rooms. Since the approval of the ARSP, it has been modified with 15 amendments and 10 adjustments (Adjustment No. 11 is currently in review), which have increased the total ARSP area to 581.3 acres. Two validation reports were prepared (1999 and 2004) to evaluate the continued relevance and accuracy of EIR 313. In addition, MNDs were prepared for Amendment Nos. 1, 3, 7, 12 and 13. An addendum to the MND prepared for Amendment No. 7 was prepared for Amendment No. 8. Amendment Nos. 4 and 5



were processed concurrently with a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan and its related EIR (EIR 330). All other amendments and adjustments, with the exception of Amendment No. 14 and No. 15 discussed below, were either exempt from CEQA or relied upon EIR 313 as the environmental documentation for the project. The Proposed Project is requesting an amendment to the ARSP and would be considered Amendment No. 16 to the ARSP, for which this document, an MND, is being prepared.

In December 2012, the Anaheim City Council certified EIR 340 in support of the approval of the Amendment No. 14 to the ARSP Project, which included amendments to the following documents:

Anaheim General Plan (Case No. GPA2010-00482); Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (Case No. SPN2010-00060); Title 18 (Zoning Code) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (Case No. ZCA2010-00093); The Anaheim Resort Identity Program (Case No. MIS2010-00478); The Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape Program (Case No. MIS2010-00479); and Ordinance No. 5454 Conditions of Approval (Case No. MIS2010-00484).

The amendments identified above reflect an increase in the permitted development intensity within the ARSP area to allow for expansion of the Anaheim Convention Center; streamlining of development standards, guidelines and requirements to reduce redundancy within and between documents; and, an update to the above documents to reflect current conditions within the Anaheim Resort.

EIR 340 is a supplemental EIR that reevaluated all the environmental changes that have occurred in and around The Anaheim Resort since certification of EIR 313. Consistent with EIR 313, EIR 340 assumed that future development on the Project Site would include development of up to 75 hotel rooms. EIR 340 also evaluated an expansion of the Anaheim Convention Center and an update of the ARSP document. The Anaheim City Council adopted findings and a statement of overriding considerations; Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C; and, a water supply assessment in conjunction with the certification of EIR 340. Accordingly, all references within this IS/MND for the Proposed Project reflect conditions inclusive of all previously approved amendments and adjustments to the ARSP and EIR 340 includes all additional environmental analysis associated with these amendments. Pursuant to Section 15179(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, EIR 340, as a Master EIR, is still valid and represents an accurate assessment of the significant environmental effects associated with buildout of the ARSP. EIR 340 is incorporated by reference and mitigation measures from EIR 340 (MMRP 85C) that are applicable to the Proposed Project to mitigate an impact to a less than significant level are included in the IS/MND. However, to avoid confusion, new numbering has been applied to mitigation for the Proposed Project. If the measure was taken from EIR 340 (MMRP 85C), the original mitigation measure numbering is provided in parentheses at the end of the measure.

Amendment No. 15 was completed for the Hilton Garden Inn and Home2 Suites Hotel Project (DEV2016-00114), which was approved in 2018. The Applicant constructed the 101-room Holiday Inn Express in 2014, which included the recordation of Parcel Map 2013-150 that subdivided the Project Site into two parcels. The Hilton Garden Inn and Home2 Suites Hotel (Dual Hilton) Project proposed the construction of a 223-room hotel, which exceeded the number of rooms analyzed in EIR 340, which was up to 220 rooms. During the early development of the Proposed Project, the Applicant proposed a hotel with 225 rooms and 11,000 square feet of ancillary hotel uses; the studies associated with the Dual Hilton Project evaluated the potential impacts for a project with these characteristics. Therefore, the CEQA document analyzed the potential impacts of an



additional 106 rooms and 11,000 square feet of ancillary hotel uses (equivalent to 125 rooms, including the ancillary hotel uses, based on the definition of “Density” in Chapter 18.116 of the Anaheim Municipal Code) on the site. For purposes of the General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Specific Plan Adjustment, the Dual Hilton Project was analyzed for up to 225 rooms and 11,000 square feet of ancillary hotel uses. Therefore, the site, including the Holiday Inn Express, was analyzed for up to 326 rooms and 11,000 square feet of ancillary hotel uses, or a 345-room equivalent (based on the definition of “Density” in Chapter 18.116 of the Anaheim Municipal Code). As part of the Dual Hilton Project, a General Plan Amendment was approved to amend Table LU-4: General Plan Density Provisions for Specific Areas of the City, Note No. 2 to create a new density category, “Medium Density (Modified)” for the Project Site, including an increase in the allowable density of the site from 75 rooms/acre to up to 345 rooms. Additionally, Specific Plan Amendment No. 15 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (ARSP) (SPN92-2X) was approved to amend Exhibit 3.3-2 Commercial Recreation (C-R) Development Density Plan to create a new density category, “Medium Density (Modified)” for the Project Site, including an increase in the allowable density of the site from 75 rooms/acre to up to 345 rooms. Due to these requested amendments to the General Plan and Specific Plan, an IS/MND was prepared and approved.

Table 1, ARSP Land Use Summary, indicates the permitted amount of development analyzed by EIR 340. As shown in this table, at the time EIR 340 was prepared, the C-R District was developed with 11,587 hotel rooms or hotel room equivalents. The existing development in the PR District represents the Anaheim Convention Center and the Anaheim Hilton Hotel. The total allowable development in the PR District is intended to provide for expansion of the Anaheim Convention Center and supporting facilities. A 200,000-square foot addition to the Anaheim Convention Center was recently completed in 2017.

TABLE 1 ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE SUMMARY1

District Current Existing Development Total Allowable Development

C-R District • 11,587 hotel rooms2 • 32,500 hotel rooms PR District • 1,600 hotel rooms

• 1,712,004 sf convention center • 2,500 hotel rooms • 2,118,363 sf convention center • 180,000 sf commercial development • 40,000 sf hotel meeting/ballroom space • 100,000 sf outdoor programmable space

Total • 13,187 hotel rooms • 1,712,004 sf convention center

• 35,000 hotel rooms • 2,118,363 sf convention center • 180,000 sf commercial development • 40,000 sf hotel meeting/ballroom space • 100,000 sf outdoor programmable space

sf: square feet 1 At the time EIR 340 was being prepared, as of 2012. 2 Commercial uses are converted to hotel room equivalents on a ratio of 600 square feet of commercial development = one

hotel room Source: Anaheim 2012.

The Project Site is located within the Commercial-Recreation District of the ARSP and is designated for Medium Density hotel development. As stated previously, the proposed hotel exceeds the allowed density of 75 rooms and requests an ARSP amendment and General Plan amendment to allow the increased density.



2.4 EXISTING PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS

Existing development on the Project Site includes a 10,616-sf vacant one-story industrial building. The building is approximately 55 years old and was formerly a dry cleaner that has been out of service for several years. Exhibit 3, Aerial Photograph, represents an aerial view of the Project Site and surrounding land uses.

The site is located within the Commercial Recreation (C-R) District of the ARSP and is within the Medium density category. This density category allows development of up to 75 rooms per acre or per parcel, whichever is greater. As stated previously, the proposed hotel exceeds the allowed density of 75 rooms and requests an ARSP amendment and General Plan amendment to allow the increased density.

2.5 SURROUNDING LAND USES

Surrounding land include existing hotels to the north, south, and east, and a fire station and a large hotel development site to the west (JW Marriott). Exhibit 3, Aerial Photograph provides an aerial view of the Project Site and its immediate surroundings.

S Clem

entin

e St

D:\Pr

ojects

\3ANA

\0091

12\M

XD\IS

MND\

ex_A

erial_

2020

0207

.mxd

²Aerial PhotographHotel 55 Project

Exhibit 3

(Rev: 2-10-2020 RMB) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\Graphics\ISMND\ex_Aerial.pdf

100 0 10050Feet

Project BoundaryAerial Source: Hexagon Geosystems 2018





R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\MND\Hotel 55 MND-071420.docx 3-1 Project Description

SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

3.1.1 HOTEL USE

The Proposed Project would involve demolition of the existing 10,616-sf vacant one-story industrial building and construction of a six-story, 125-room select-service hotel catering to tourists and business travelers. The hotel would be designed to appear visually as a boutique hotel and is expected to have rates comparable to local Upscale and Upper Upscale hotels (e.g. Courtyard, Indigo). The hotel would utilize car stackers for most of its on-site parking. As shown on Exhibit 4, Site Plan, the hotel would include various guest amenities, such as a rooftop pool deck with guest lounge adjacent to pool, and a fitness room, which are limited for use by hotel guests. The hotel would also include accessory commercial uses, which include a small market (380-sf) and a fast casual café (490-sf) with an outdoor seating area, both open to the public.

The floor plans are provided in Exhibits 5a through 5g, Building Plans. As shown in Exhibit 5a, Building Plans – Ground Floor, the ground floor includes drop-off and loading areas, hotel lobby, the market, kitchen, and dining area. Exhibit 5b, Building Plans – Mezzanine, includes the mezzanine, administrative/back of house uses, an employee lounge, and restrooms. The second through fifth floors, shown in Exhibits 5c through 5f, include guest rooms and the gym, which can be found on second floor. As shown in Exhibit 5g, Building Plans – Sixth Floor, the sixth floor includes guest rooms, the pool and rooftop deck, pool house, and restrooms.

The architectural style is a modern interpretation of classic American farmhouse, emphasizing the history of Anaheim as an agricultural area. Exhibits 6a and b, Building Sections, presents the proposed building sections. The conceptual building exterior elevations for the Proposed Project are presented in Exhibits 7a through 7c, Exterior Elevations. The proposed structure would be approximately 90 feet tall at its highest point, which includes stair tower and parapet. The top occupied floor is at 68.5 ft. Exhibit 8, Renderings, presents the renderings of the Proposed Project from four vantage points.

Exhibits 9a and b, Preliminary Landscape and Planting Plan, provides the proposed conceptual landscape plan for the Project. The landscape plan incorporates various species of trees, shrubs and groundcover along the perimeter of the Project Site, including palm trees on South Clementine Street, consistent with surrounding landscaping. As noted previously, an outdoor patio and pool area are located on the sixth floor of the hotel and open to hotel guests only.

3.1.2 PROJECT ACCESS, CIRCULATION, AND PARKING

The Proposed Project would provide vehicular access to the site via one existing curb cut on Clementine Street at the northern end of the site’s western boundary. The second existing curb cut would be closed and landscaped. Vehicular circulation would go through the drop off and loading area, where there would be a valet stand, and cars would be taken to the back of the site where they would be parked. Exhibit 10, Ground Level Parking Plan, shows the ground level parking plan for the Proposed Project. Exhibit 11, Turning Movements, shows the turning movements for trash, fire, buses, and cars in addition to loading and valet.

The Proposed Project includes a bus stop for Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN) buses consisting of a concrete pad within the parkway area along the street frontage that would be approximately 35-ft in length. The bus stop would be constructed by the developer as part of the street improvement plans, which would include the landing area and bus pad.

Map not to scale

Source: AXIS/GFA Architecture 2020

(07/06/2020 MMD) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\Graphics\ISMND\ex_SitePlan.pdf

D:\P

roje

cts\

3AN

A\00

9112

\GR

APH

ICS\

ISM

ND

\ex_

Site

Plan

_202

0021

3.ai

Hotel 55 Project

Site Plan Exhibit 4

Map not to scale


(07/06/2020 MMD) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\Graphics\ISMND\ex_FloorPlans_GroundLevel.pdf

D:\P

roje

cts\

3AN

A\00

9112

\GR

APH

ICS\

ISM

ND

\ex_

Floo

rPla

ns_G

roun

dLev

el_2

0200

213.

ai

Hotel 55 Project

Building Plans – Ground Level Exhibit 5a

Map not to scale


(07/06/2020 MMD) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\Graphics\ISMND\ex_FloorPlans_Mezzanine.pdf

D:\P

roje

cts\

3AN

A\00

9112

\GR

APH

ICS\

ISM

ND

\ex_

Floo

rPla

ns_M

ezza

nine

_202

0021

3.ai

Hotel 55 Project

Building Plans – Mezzanine Exhibit 5b

Map not to scale


(07/06/2020 MMD) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\Graphics\ISMND\ex_FloorPlans_2ndFloor.pdf

D:\P

roje

cts\

3AN

A\00

9112

\GR

APH

ICS\

ISM

ND

\ex_

Floo

rPla

ns_2

ndFl

oor_

2020

0218

.ai

Hotel 55 Project

Building Plans – 2nd Floor Exhibit 5c

Map not to scale


(07/06/2020 MMD) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\Graphics\ISMND\ex_FloorPlans_3rdFloor.pdf

D:\P

roje

cts\

3AN

A\00

9112

\GR

APH

ICS\

ISM

ND

\ex_

Floo

rPla

ns_3

rdFl

oor_

2020

0218

.ai

Hotel 55 Project

Building Plans – 3rd Floor Exhibit 5d

Map not to scale


(07/06/2020 MMD) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\Graphics\ISMND\ex_FloorPlans_4thFloor.pdf

D:\P

roje

cts\

3AN

A\00

9112

\GR

APH

ICS\

ISM

ND

\ex_

Floo

rPla

ns_4

thFl

oor_

2020

0218

.ai

Hotel 55 Project

Building Plans – 4th Floor Exhibit 5e

Map not to scale


(07/06/2020 MMD) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\Graphics\ISMND\ex_FloorPlans_5thFloor.pdf

D:\P

roje

cts\

3AN

A\00

9112

\GR

APH

ICS\

ISM

ND

\ex_

Floo

rPla

ns_5

thFl

oor_

2020

0218

.ai

Hotel 55 Project

Building Plans – 5th Floor Exhibit 5f

Map not to scale


(07/06/2020 RMB) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\Graphics\ISMND\ex_FloorPlans_6thFloor.pdf

D:\

Pro

ject

s\3

AN

A\0

091

12

\GR

AP

HIC

S\I

SM

ND

\ex_

Flo

orP

lan

s_6

thF

loo

r_20

20

021

8.a

i

Hotel 55 Project

Building Plans – 6th Floor Exhibit 5g

Map not to scale


(07/06/2020 RMB) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\Graphics\ISMND\ex_BuildingSections.pdf

D:\

Pro

ject

s\3

AN

A\0

091

12

\GR

AP

HIC

S\I

SM

ND

\ex6

a_B

uild

ing

Se

ctio

ns_

202

00

218

.ai

Hotel 55 Project

Building Sections Exhibit 6a

Map not to scale


(07/06/2020 RMB) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\Graphics\ISMND\ex_BuildingSections.pdf

D:\

Pro

ject

s\3

AN

A\0

091

12

\GR

AP

HIC

S\I

SM

ND

\ex6

b_B

uild

ing

Se

ctio

ns_

202

00

218

.ai

Hotel 55 Project

Building Sections Exhibit 6b

Map not to scale


(07/06/2020 RMB) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\Graphics\ISMND\ex_ExteriorElevations.pdf

D:\

Pro

ject

s\3

AN

A\0

091

12

\GR

AP

HIC

S\I

SM

ND

\ex7

a_E

xte

rio

rEle

vatio

ns_

20

200

21

8.a

i

Hotel 55 Project

Exterior Elevations Exhibit 7a

Map not to scale



D:\

Pro

ject

s\3

AN

A\0

091

12

\GR

AP

HIC

S\I

SM

ND

\ex7

b_E

xte

rio

rEle

vatio

ns_

20

200

21

8.a

i

Hotel 55 Project

Exterior Elevations Exhibit 7b

Map not to scale



D:\

Pro

ject

s\3

AN

A\0

091

12

\GR

AP

HIC

S\I

SM

ND

\ex7

c_E

xter

iorE

leva

tions

_2

02

002

18

.ai

Hotel 55 Project

Exterior Elevations Exhibit 7c

Map not to scale (07/06/2020 RMB) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\Graphics\ISMND\ex_Renderings.pdf

D:\

Pro

ject

s\3

AN

A\0

091

12

\GR

AP

HIC

S\I

SM

ND

\ex8

_Ren

de

ring

s_2

020

02

18.

ai

Hotel 55 Project

Renderings Exhibit 8Source: AXIS/GFA Architecture 2020

Map not to scale


(07/06/2020 RMB) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\Graphics\ISMND\ex_PreliminaryLandscapePlantingPlan.pdf

D:\Pr

ojects

\3ANA

\0091

12\G

RAPH

ICS\I

SMND

\ex9a

_Prel

imina

ryLan

dsca

pePla

nting

Plan_

2020

0218

.ai

Hotel 55 Project

Preliminary Landscape and Planting Plan Exhibit 9a

HOTEL 55GROUNDFLOOR

S. CL

EMEN

TINE S

T.

LOADINGLOADING

TURN AROUNDSPACE

HOTEL 55GROUNDFLOOR

S. CL

EMEN

TINE S

T.

LOADINGLOADING

TURN AROUNDSPACE

(E)

(E)

(E)

HOTEL 55GROUNDFLOOR

S. CL

EMEN

TINE S

T.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

9

10 10

1011

12

(N)

13

SIGHTDISTANCE

LINELINE OF BUILDING

CANOPY

PROPERTY LINE

PROP

ERTY

LINE

PROPERTY LINE

7

14

1

PROPOSED PLANT LEGENDSYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE FORM/

HEIGHTWATER

USE DESCRIPTION

TREES

OLEA EUROPAEA'SWAN HILL'

SWAN HILLFRUITLESS OLIVE

48"BOX

MULTI./12' L MULTI-TRUNK

SPECIMEN

CITRUS X SINENSIS'VALENCIA' VALENCIA ORANGE 36"

BOXSTD./

8' M SMALLACCENT TREE

LOPHOSTEMONCONFERTUS BRISBANE BOX 36"

BOXSTD./

14' M SCREENINGTREE

LOPHOSTEMONCONFERTUS BRISBANE BOX 24"

BOXSTD./

10' M SCREENINGTREE

CUPRESSUSSEMPERVIRENS ITALIAN CYPRESS 36"

BOXCOLUMN

12' L VERTICALACCENT

CUPRESSUSSEMPERVIRENS ITALIAN CYPRESS 24"

BOXCOLUMN

8' L VERTICALACCENT

SHRUBS, GRASSES, & GROUNDCOVERS

SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING WATERUSE DESCRIPTION

ALOE 'BLUE ELF' BLUE ELF ALOE 1 GAL. 18" O.C. L ACCENTSHRUB

CAREX DIVULSA BERKELEY SEDGE 1 GAL. 18" O.C. L BIO-RETENTIONBASIN

FICUS PUMILA CREEPING FIG 5 GAL. 10' O.C. M VINELIGUSTRUMJAPONICUM 'TEXANUM' WAXLEAF PRIVET 5 GAL. 30" O.C. L EVERGREEN

HEDGEROSMARINUS OFF.'PROSTRATUS' CREEPING

ROSEMARY 1 GAL. 24" O.C. L LOW GROUNDCOVER

PHILODENDRON'XANADU' XANADU DWARF

PHILODENDRON 1 GAL. 24" O.C. M MID-GROUNDSHRUB

PHORMIUM TENAX'JACK SPRATT' JACK SPRATT NEW

ZEALAND FLAX 1 GAL. 18" O.C. L GROUNDCOVER

RAPHIOLEPIS INDICA'BALLERINA' BALLERINA DWARF

INDIAN HAWTHORN 1 GAL. 30" O.C. LTO MATCHEXISTINGPARKWAY

ROOF DECK PLANTING

ALOE 'BLUE ELF' BLUE ELF ALOE 1 GAL.

VARIES

L ORNAMENTALGRASS

GREVILLEA 'NOELLII'NOEL'S GREVILLEA 1 GAL. L FLOWERING

SHRUBPHORMIUM TENAX'JACK SPRATT' JACK SPRATT NEW

ZEALAND FLAX 1 GAL. L ORNAMENTALGRASS

LIMONIUM PEREZII SEA LAVENDER 1 GAL. L FLOWERINGSHRUB

SANTOLINA VIRENS GREEN LAVENDERCOTTON 1 GAL. L FLOWERING

SHRUBROSMARINUS O.'PROSTRATUS' CREEPING

ROSEMARY 1 GAL. VL GROUNDCOVER

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

NOTES:A. INDICATES THAT TREE / SHRUB IS IN ARSP MATRIXB. ANY PLANTS WITHIN THE LINE OF SIGHT TRIANGLE CLEAR

ZONE SHALL BE MAINTAINED TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 24".C. LANDSCAPE SCREENING WILL BE PROVIDED AROUND

TRANSFORMERS, BACKFLOW PREVENTERS, AND OTHERWATER ASSEMBLIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH REQUIREMENTSOF ORDINANCE No. 5156 AND CHAPTER 18.46 OF THEANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE.

*

******

*

*

*

WATER USE KEY:VL = VERY LOW WATER USE, L = LOW WATER USE, M = MODERATE WATERUSE, H = HIGH WATER USE. WATER USE STATED IS PER 'A GUIDE TOESTIMATING IRRIGATION WATER NEEDS OF LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS INCALIFORNIA' (ALSO REFERRED TO AS WUCOLS) FOR REGION 3.

*

1

LEGENDBIO-RETENTION PLANTER.NEW (N) INDIAN HAWTHORN GROUND COVER IN PARKWAY TOMATCH EXISTING (E).PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION TO SIDEWALK.ENHANCED PAVING AT DROP OFF AREA.DROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTING.ENTRY WITH ENHANCED PAVING AND BOLLARDS.ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL.VINES AT EXISTING SITE BOUNDARY WALL.PERIMETER EGRESS WALK.PERIMETER HEDGE.EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK. PROTECT IN PLACE.NEW CONCRETE SIDEWALK TO MATCH EXISTING.PROPOSED PATIO.DECORATIVE REMOVEABLE FENCE TO SCREEN TRANSFORMER.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

EXISTING TREE LEGENDSYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME

WASHINGTONIAROBUSTA MEXICAN FAN PALM

EXISTING PLANTING - TO BE PROTECTED IN PLACE.

Example: Green Screen Trellis with Vines as Screen for Parking

Map not to scale


(07/06/2020 RMB) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\Graphics\ISMND\ex_PreliminaryLandscapePlantingPlan.pdf

Hotel 55 Project

Preliminary Landscape and Planting Plan Exhibit 9b

Map not to scale


(02/18/2020 RMB) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\Graphics\ISMND\ex_GroundLevelParkingPlan.pdf

D:\Pr

ojects

\3ANA

\0091

12\G

RAPH

ICS\I

SMND

\ex_G

round

Leve

lParki

ngPla

n_20

2002

18.ai

Hotel 55 Project

Ground Level Parking Plan Exhibit 10

Map not to scale


(02/18/2020 RMB) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\Graphics\ISMND\ex_TurningMovements.pdf

D:\Pr

ojects

\3ANA

\0091

12\G

RAPH

ICS\I

SMND

\ex_T

urning

Move

ments

_202

0021

8.ai

Hotel 55 Project

Turning Movements Exhibit 11

Turning Movement - Trash Turning Movement - Fire

Turning Movement - Bus Turning Movement - Car

Turning Movement - Loading Turning Movement - Valet



A total of 86 private valet parking spaces would be provided to accommodate the parking demand for the Proposed Project via a series of single spaces (including 1 EV charging space) and double/triple puzzle stacker lift spaces (LLG 2020b).

The parking garage for the hotel would be for valet use only. No hotel guests or visitors would be allowed to self-park in the parking garage except for American with Disabilities Act (ADA) spaces, which are located on a separate drive aisle from the parking stackers. All of the parking would be accessed via the ground level (although vehicles in the stacking system go up or down once within the stacking system). Guests can request their vehicle at the valet stand, and when the valet inputs the vehicle’s reference code, the stacker system can bring the car to the ground level while the valet walks to the parking area, minimizing wait times. Guest’s vehicles are returned along the exit side of the same driveway, but further east where there is a lower likelihood of pedestrian conflicts with vehicles traveling to the ADA spaces or turning around.

The hotel has a single driveway off Clementine Street with a passenger drop off area. The area is large enough for valets to pick up guest vehicles in the designated Valet Drop Zone. The valet would then drive the vehicle from valet greeting zone directly into the garage located within the eastern portion of the hotel structure, where the valet would park the car in the vehicle stacker system.

Any vehicles that decide not to the valet service would be directed to utilize the vehicle turnaround in the non-valet drive aisle (LAZ 2020).

3.1.3 UTILITIES

The Proposed Project would be served by an on-site water system and sanitary sewer system and would connect to existing water and sewer lines. Proposed sewer lines would connect to the existing 24-inch (in) S.D. line in South Clementine Street. Additionally, the Proposed Project would connect to off-site electrical and gas lines. The on-site electrical and natural gas distribution system would be sized to serve the proposed development.

3.2 Construction Activities and Project Phasing

Demolition activities with the Proposed Project are planned to begin in early 2021 with Project completion in summer of 2022. Demolition of the existing vacant one-story industrial building is expected to occur over a two-week period beginning shortly after Project approval. Site preparation would occur for approximately two-weeks, grading/excavation would occur approximately for four-weeks, building construction would occur for approximately 78-weeks (18-months), paving would occur for approximately eight-weeks (two-months), and architectural decoration and coating would occur approximately for four-weeks. The Proposed Project would be constructed in one phase and there would not be overlapping phases during construction. Typical heavy equipment used during construction would include a vibratory roller, caisson drill, large bulldozer, small bulldozer, jackhammer, and loaded trucks. Construction activities are anticipated to occur for eight-hours a day, five-days a week. Construction staging and parking would occur on-site. Construction access would be available from an existing driveway on South Clementine Street.



3.3 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS

3.3.1 PROJECT COMPONENTS

The following discretionary actions would be required:

General Plan Amendment (GPA2019-00529) to amend Table LU-4: General Plan Density Provisions for Specific Areas of the City, Note No. 2 to create a new density category, “Medium Density (Modified A)” for the Project Site, to allow an increase in the allowable density of the site from 75 rooms/acre to up to 125 rooms;

Specific Plan Amendment No. 16 (SP92-2Y) to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 to amend the Exhibit 3.3-2: Commercial Recreation (C-R) Development Density Plan to create a new density category, “Medium Density (Modified A)” for the Project Site, to allow an increase in the allowable density of the site from 75 rooms/acre to up to 125 rooms;

Minor Conditional Use Permit (CUP2019-06041) to allow valet parking as an accessory use;

Variance (VAR2020-05132) to allow a reduction in the required street setback; Administrative Adjustment (ADJ2019-00437) to allow a reduction in the number of parking

spaces required by the code; and Final Site Plan (FSP2019-00001) to confirm that the Proposed Project complies with the

ARSP.





R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\MND\Hotel 55 MND-071420.docx 4-1 Environmental Checklist

SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

CITY OF ANAHEIM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM

Form Revision Date: 1/16/2019

PROJECT AND CASE NUMBERS: Development Case No. 2019-00148 General Plan Amendment No. 2019-00529 Specific Plan Amendment No. 92-2Y Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06041 Variance No. 2020-05132 Administrative Adjustment No. 2019-00437 Final Site Plan No. 2019-00001

SITE ADDRESS: 1730 South Clementine Street, Anaheim, CA 92802

PROJECT NAME: Hotel 55 Project

LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Anaheim, 200 S Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162, Anaheim, CA 92805

CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Mr. Andy T. Uk, Associate Planner City of Anaheim Planning Services Division 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California 92805 Phone: 714-765-5238 Email: [email protected]

PROJECT LOCATION:



PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: RH Anaheim Barn LLC 735 Merchant St. Los Angeles, CA 90021

GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial Recreation (C-R)

ZONING: Anaheim Resort Specific Plan C-R District: Medium Density (SP92-2 DA1)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Proposed Project involves construction of a six-story, 125-room hotel with accessory commercial uses, which include a small market (380-sf) and a fast casual café (490-sf) with an outdoor seating area.

PROJECT SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The Project Site is located within the central portion of Orange County, California. The site is specifically located along the eastern side of Clementine Street, 650 feet south of Disney Way, and 600 feet north of Katella Avenue in Anaheim, California. The Project Site is currently developed with a 10,616-sf, one-story industrial building, previously used as a dry cleaning business. Surrounding land include existing hotels to the north, south, and east, and a fire station and a large hotel development site to the west (JW Marriott).

OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED: Not Applicable



ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetic Agricultural & Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Mandatory Findings of Significance

Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire

DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

____________________________________ _________________ Signature of City of Anaheim Representative Date ____________________________________ _________________ Printed Name/Title Phone No. Andy Uk, Associate Planner

July 6, 2020

714-765-5238

Clementine Hotel Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration


EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

1) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

2) A list of “Supporting Information Sources” must be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the Narrative Summary for each section.

3) Response Column Heading Definitions: a) Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an

effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact”. The mitigation measures must be described, along with a brief explanation of how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.

c) Less Than Significant Impact applies where the project creates no significant impacts, only Less Than Significant impacts.

d) No Impact applies where a project does not create an impact in that category. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one proposed (e.g., the project falls outside of a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

4) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to a tiering, program EIR, Master EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15062(c)(3)(D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the checklist were within the

scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated”, describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

5) Incorporate into the checklist any references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., the General Plan, zoning ordinance). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

6) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.



Environmental Issues

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant

with Mitigation


Impact

No Impact

I. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway or local scenic expressway, scenic highway, or eligible scenic highway?

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

II. AGRICULTURE & FOREST RESOURCES -- In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard?

c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?





Impact


with Mitigation


Impact

No Impact

d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) 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 US Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and/or identified on the Qualified Historic Structures list of the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan (April 15, 2010)?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?

c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?

VI. ENERGY -- Would the project:

a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?

b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?





Impact


with Mitigation


Impact

No Impact

VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:

a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

iv) Landslides?

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

c) 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?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Section 1803.5.3 of the California Building Code (2010), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

d) 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?





Impact


with Mitigation


Impact

No Impact

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport), would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?

f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project:

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?

b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:

(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;

(iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or

(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?

d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?

e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project:

a) Physically divide an established community?

b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

XII. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?





Impact


with Mitigation


Impact

No Impact

XIII. NOISE -- Would the project result in:

a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport), would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project:

a) Induce substantial unplanned 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)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

XV. PUBLIC SERVICES -- Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, 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 any of the public services:

Fire protection?

Police protection?

Schools?

Parks?

Other public facilities?

XVI. RECREATION --

a) 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?

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

XVII. TRANSPORTATION -- Would the project:

a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

b)Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?





Impact


with Mitigation


Impact

No Impact

c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses?

d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:

Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section §21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section §5020.1(k), or

b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section §5024.1. In applying criterial set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section §5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project:

a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?

b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years (including large-scale developments as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21151.9 and described in Question No. 20 of the Environmental Information Form)?

c) 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?

d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

e) Comply with Federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

f) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to electricity?

g) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to natural gas?

h) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to telephone service?





Impact


with Mitigation


Impact

No Impact

i) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to television service/reception?

XX. WILDFIRE -- If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?

d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Fish and Wildlife Determination Per Section 21089(b) of the Public Resources Code, all project applicants and public agencies subject to CEQA shall pay a Fish and Wildlife filing fee for each proposed project that would adversely affect wildlife resources.* Based on the responses contained in this Environmental Checklist, there is no evidence that the project has a potential for a change that would adversely affect wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Has the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CCR 753.5(d) been rebutted by substantial evidence? X Yes (Certificate of Fee Exemption and County Administrative fee required) __ No (Pay fee) *Note: California Fish and Wildlife Code Section 711.4(c)(2)(A) states that projects that are Categorically Exempt from CEQA are also exempt from filing fee.





R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\MND\Hotel 55 MND-071420.docx 5-1 Environmental Evaluation

SECTION 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

I. AESTHETICS

Question A: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

Question B: Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway or local scenic expressway, scenic highway, or eligible scenic highway?

No Impact. The Project Site is located within an area that is highly urbanized and developed with Commercial-Recreation uses consistent with the ARSP. The Project Site includes a vacant one-story industrial building and existing surface parking areas located along the east (rear) and west side of the building, with a paved access driveway located along the south side of the building. There are no large areas of open space or noted visual resources in proximity to the Project Site. According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the City of Anaheim General Plan, none of the roadways in the vicinity of the Project Site are designated as scenic roadways, nor is the site located within the City’s Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone (Caltrans 2019 Anaheim 2004a). The Project Site has relatively flat topography, and there are no natural landscape features, visual resources, or vistas located on site or in the vicinity of the Proposed Project, nor are any visible from the Project Site. Therefore, although project implementation would represent a change to the visual appearance of the site with development of a hotel that is taller than the existing one-story industrial building, development of the Proposed Project would not impact a scenic vista or damage scenic resources within a State scenic highway or local scenic expressway, or eligible scenic highway. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

Question C: Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

Less Than Significant Impact. The aerial photograph presented on Exhibit 3, Aerial Photograph, shows the Project Site’s relationship to uses that surround the site. Due to the developed nature and relatively flat topography of the Project Site and the surrounding area, views of the Project Site are limited to immediately adjacent vantage points, which are further described below.

Existing Views and Visual Character

The Project Site is rectangular shaped, and currently developed with a one-story, industrial building, used previously as dry cleaner. Paved parking areas are located along the west side of the building, with a paved access driveway located along the south side of the building. The rear (east) portion of the site is primarily comprised of paved parking areas.

The northern, eastern and southern perimeters of the site are bound by 7-foot high, free-standing block walls. Beyond the block walls, the two-story Clementine Hotel & Suites can be seen to the north, and the five-story La Quinta Inn & Suites can be seen to the east and south.

View 1 on Exhibit 12a, Site Photographs, illustrates the view from the southern boundary of the Project Site looking southwest on South Clementine Street. This view is dominated by the existing La Quinta Inn & Suites, JW Marriott (currently under construction), and The Cheesecake Factory restaurant at Anaheim GardenWalk. Ornamental trees and shrubs are visible along South Clementine Street.

Site Photographs Exhibit 12aHotel 55 Project

View 2 - View from the existing La Quinta Inn & Suites driveway looking north on S. Clementine Street.

(02/13/2020 RMB) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\Graphics\ISMND\ex_SitePhotographs.pdf

D:\Pr

ojects

\3ANA

\0091

12\G

RAPH

ICS\I

SMND

\ex_1

1a_S

itePh

otogra

phs_

2020

0213

.ai

View 1 - View from the southern boundary of the Project Site looking south-west on South Clementine street.

<!

<!2 1

S Cl

emen

tine

St

Project Boundary

Site Photographs Exhibit 12bHotel 55 Project

View 4 - View of the Project Site form the western side of South Clementine Street.


D:\Pr

ojects

\3ANA

\0091

12\G

RAPH

ICS\I

SMND

\ex_1

1b_S

itePh

otogra

phs_

2020

0213

.ai

View 3 - View from the southwest corner of South Clementine Street and Katella Avenue.

<!

<! 3

4

S Cl

emen

tine

St

Project Boundary

Site Photographs Exhibit 12cHotel 55 Project

View 6 - View from the existing Clementine Hotel & Suites facing southwest along South Clementine Street.


D:\Pr

ojects

\3ANA

\0091

12\G

RAPH

ICS\I

SMND

\ex_1

1c_S

itePh

otogra

phs_

2020

0213

.ai

View 5 - View from the median along South Clementine Street facing south toward the Project Site.

<!

<!

S Cl

emen

tine

St

65

Project Boundary



View 2 on Exhibit 12a, Site Photographs, depicts the view from the existing La Quinta Inn & Suites driveway looking north on South Clementine Street. The Project Site and two-story Clementine Hotel and Suites can be seen in the foreground along with construction associated with the JW Marriott. Ornamental trees and shrubs are visible along South Clementine Street.

View 3 on Exhibit 12b, Site Photographs, illustrates the view from the southwest corner of South Clementine Street and Katella Avenue. The La Quinta Inn & Suites that fronts South Clementine Street Avenue and on-site ornamental vegetation is visible, as well as the as the Project Site and Clementine Hotel & Suites which can be seen in the background. To the west is The Cheesecake Factory at Anaheim GardenWalk and construction associated with the JW Marriott.

View 4 on Exhibit 12b, Site Photographs, shows the Project Site from western side of South Clementine Street. The existing building and surface parking lot are visible in this photograph, as well as the northern portion of the La Quinta Inn & Suites. Several mature, ornamental trees are visible in the photograph. Two hotels, the Extended Stay America and WorldMark Anaheim, are visible in the background.

View 5 on Exhibit 12c, Site Photographs, shows the view from median along South Clementine Street facing south toward the Project Site. This view shows existing Clementine Hotel & Suites, La Quinta Inn & Suites, and construction associated with the JW Marriott Hotel all of which front South Clementine Street. Ornamental trees and landscaping can be seen along South Clementine Street.

View 6 on Exhibit 12c, Site Photographs, shows the view from the existing Clementine Hotel & Suites facing southwest along South Clementine Street. The existing Fire Station #3 can be seen in the foreground and construction of the JW Marriott in the background. Ornamental trees and landscaping can be seen along South Clementine Street.

Visual Changes from the Proposed Project

Implementation of the Proposed Project would represent a change to the existing visual character of the Project Site through demolition of the existing vacant one-story building and construction of new 125-room, six-story hotel. During demolition and construction, there would be views of construction equipment; ongoing demolition and construction activities; short-term stockpiles of building materials and debris; and haul trucks to deliver building materials and remove debris. This visual change would be temporary in nature and typical of construction sites in an urban environment, therefore impacts would be less than significant.

Buildout of the Proposed Project would alter the visual character of the Project Site by replacing the existing one-story industrial building with a six-story hotel. The top of the roof would not exceed a maximum height of 90 feet above grade, which is an increase in height from existing on-site uses. As a result, surrounding hotel uses would have views of the Proposed Project, as well as motorists and pedestrians traveling along South Clementine Street.

While the Proposed Project would alter the existing visual character of the Project Site and views from surrounding vantage points, this change is not considered a degradation of the Project Site or its surroundings. This change includes the introduction of a new hotel building, site improvements, and landscaping, which would be visually compatible with the existing hotels and landscaping in the surrounding area, therefore, impacts would be less than significant.



Shade and Shadow

A Shade Shadow analysis was prepared for the Proposed Project and is shown in Exhibit 13, Shade and Shadow Analysis. The analysis included modeling the anticipated buildout conditions at 9:00 AM, 12:00 PM (noon), 3:00 PM and 5:00 PM (Summer) and 9:00 AM, 12:00 PM (noon), and 3:00 PM (Winter). The shade and shadow modeling illustrates both the existing shadows cast by the existing buildings as well as the anticipated shadows that would be cast by the Proposed Project.

By analyzing the shade and shadow effects at several different times of day, the earth’s rotation around the sun is illustrated. For example, during early morning hours (sunrise), the sun is positioned low in the sky and casts longer shadows. As the day progresses, shadow lengths become shorter as the sun approaches its highest point in the sky around midday (noon). From this point in the day, the sun’s position in the sky becomes progressively lower and the corresponding shadows become longer until the sun disappears beyond the horizon at sunset. As a rule, the longest shadows are cast during the winter months and the shortest shadows are cast during the summer months, with the longest shadows cast during the morning and afternoon hours and the shortest shadows cast during the noon hour.

As shown in Exhibit 13, Shade and Shadow Analysis, the longest shadows during the summer solstice would extend onto the proposed hotel itself or onto the adjacent Extended Stay America Hotel. Although the longest shadows would occur during the winter solstice, the shadows produced would not affect any shade sensitive uses, as nearby uses include adjacent hotels such as the Extend Stay America Hotel with pool and recreation area and Fire Station #3. A significant shade and shadow impact would occur when outdoor active areas (e.g., outdoor eating areas, hotel/motel swimming pools, and residential front and back yards) or structures that include sensitive uses (e.g., residences) have windows that normally receive sunlight are covered by shadows for more than 50 percent of the sunlight hours. Based on the Exhibit 13, the Proposed Project would not result in shade and shadow impacts nor would it degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Project Site and its surroundings. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Question D: Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is located in an area that is subject to nighttime lighting from existing on-site and surrounding uses, including street lights along South Clementine Street, lighting from passing vehicles along Clementine Street, and lighting from commercial uses located north, south, and east of the Project Site.

The Proposed Project would include exterior light sources typical to a hotel development, including decorative exterior lights, light standards in the surface parking areas, and pedestrian lighting along walkways. Proposed light sources would be consistent with the lighting levels at the existing hotels surrounding the Project Site. All light fixtures would be shielded to direct light down and to minimize light spillover on surrounding properties. Furthermore, all proposed lighting would be consistent with the City’s building code requirements. Therefore, impacts associated with new lighting from the Proposed Project would be less than significant.

Glare is caused by light reflections from pavement, vehicles, and building materials such as reflective glass and polished surfaces. During daylight hours, the amount of glare depends on intensity and direction of sunlight. Glare can create hazards to motorists and nuisances for pedestrians and other viewers. Potentially reflective surfaces in the vicinity of the Proposed Project include windows (including automobile and truck windows) at the Project Site and adjacent

Map not to scale


(07/06/2020 RMB) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\Graphics\ISMND\ex_ShadeAndShadowAnalysis.pdf

D:\Pr

ojects

\3ANA

\0091

12\G

RAPH

ICS\I

SMND

\ex_S

hade

AndS

hado

wAna

lysis_

2020

0218

.ai

Hotel 55 Project

Shade and Shadow Analysis Exhibit 13



buildings, and on automobiles traveling and parked on streets in the vicinity of the Project Site. Based on the proposed building materials, the Proposed Project would incorporate non-reflective textured surfaces such as wood, board and batten, fiber cement siding, and cement plaster and non-reflective glass, which would minimize the potential for glare. With the use of non-reflective glass, the Proposed Project would minimize the potential to create noticeable glare from sunlight or vehicle lights that would pose a hazard to motorists traveling in the vicinity of Proposed Project or that could affect surrounding uses. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program

No mitigation is required; however, the following mitigation measures from MMP 85C would be applicable to the Project as they are included within EIR 340:

MM 5.1.1 Prior to final site plan approval, the property owner/developer shall submit a shade and shadow analysis to the Planning and Building Department for review and approval demonstrating that the proposed structure(s) would avoid creating significant shade and shadow impacts on adjacent land uses to the maximum extent feasible. A significant shade and shadow impact would occur when outdoor active areas (e.g., outdoor eating areas, hotel/motel swimming pools, and residential front and back yards) or structures that include sensitive uses (e.g., residences) have windows that normally receive sunlight are covered by shadows for more than 50 percent of the sunlight hours.

MM 5.1-2 Prior to issuance of building permits, all plumbing or other similar pipes and fixtures located on the exterior of the building shall be shown on plans as fully screened from view of adjacent public rights-of-way and from adjacent properties by architectural devices and/or appropriate building materials. A note indicating that these improvements will be installed prior to final building and zoning inspections shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits.

MM 5.1-3 Ongoing, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for the removal of any on-site graffiti within 24 hours of its application.

MM 5.1-5 Prior to final building and zoning inspections, private streets within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area shall have street lights installed which are compatible with the design standards used for the public streets as determined by the Public Utilities Department.

MM 5.1-6 Prior to final building and zoning inspections, root and sidewalk barriers shall be provided for trees within seven feet of public sidewalks.

MM 5.1-7 Prior to final building and zoning inspections, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department a letter from a licensed landscape architect certifying that all landscaping and irrigation systems have been installed in accordance with landscaping plans approved in connection with the Final Site Plan.

MM 5.1-8 Ongoing, all on-site non-Public Realm landscaping and irrigation systems, and Public Realm landscaping and irrigation systems, within area in which dedication has not been accepted by the City, shall be maintained by the property owner/developer, in compliance with City standards.



MM 5.1-9 Ongoing, any tree planted within the Setback Realm shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead.

MM 5.1-10 Ongoing, a licensed arborist shall be hired by the property owner/developer to be responsible for all tree trimming.

MM 5.1-11 Prior to issuance of each building permits, unless records indicate previous payment, a fee for street tree purposes shall be paid or cause to be paid to the City of Anaheim based on the length of street frontage in an amount as established by City Council resolution or credit against the fee given for City authorized improvements installed by the property owner/developer.

MM 5.1-12 Prior to issuance of each building permit, all air conditioning facilities and other roof and ground-mounted equipment shall be shown on plans as shielded from public view and the sound buffered to comply with City of Anaheim noise ordinances from any adjacent residential or transient-occupied properties. A note indicating that these improvements shall be installed prior to final building and zoning inspections shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits.

MM 5.1-13 Prior to Final Site Plan approval, plans shall show that the rear elevations of buildings visible from off-site areas shall be architecturally accented to portray a finished look.

MM 5.1-14 Prior to Final Site Plan approval, plans shall show that no shuttle/bus/vehicular drop-off areas shall be permitted in hotel/motel or vacation resort front setback area.

II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST LAND RESOURCES

Question A: Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

Question B: Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

Question C: Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

Question D: Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Question E: Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?



No Impact. Data from the State of California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (2016) indicates that the Project Site does not contain any land designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Local Importance, nor is it zoned for agricultural use. The Project Site is designated as “Urban and Built Up Land”. No other designated farmland exists in the vicinity of the Proposed Project, and the Project Site is not subject to any California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act) contracts. No current agricultural operations exist in the vicinity of the Project Site.

The Project Site is not considered farmland of significance or land in agricultural use.

The Project Site is not defined as forest land according to Section 12220(g) of the California Public Resources Code, which defines forest land as “land that can support 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits”, nor is it zoned for Timberland Production as defined by Section 51104(g) of the California Government Code.

Since the Project Site is in an urban area, Project-related changes would not result in conversion of farm or forest land to non-agricultural or non-forest uses. No impacts related to agricultural and forest land resources would occur, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program

No mitigation is required.

III. AIR QUALITY

The following analysis is based on Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Data, prepared for the Proposed Project by Psomas (2020).

Air Quality Background Information

The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has established quantitative thresholds for short-term (construction) emissions and long-term (operational) emissions for the following criteria pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter 10 and 2.5 microns. The characteristics and health effects of these criteria pollutants are described below:

Ozone (O3) is a nearly colorless gas that is formed by photochemical reaction (when nitrogen dioxide or Volatile Organic Compounds under a chemical reaction with sunlight). Ground-level O3 exposure can cause a variety of health problems, including lung irritation, wheezing, coughing, pain when taking a deep breath, and breathing difficulties during exercise or outdoor activities; permanent lung damage; aggravated asthma; and increased susceptibility to respiratory illnesses.

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless and odorless toxic gas which, in the urban environment, is associated primarily with the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels in motor vehicles. CO combines with hemoglobin in the bloodstream and reduces the amount of oxygen that can be circulated through the body. High CO concentrations can lead to headaches, aggravation of cardiovascular disease, and impairment of central nervous system functions.



Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are yellowish-brown gases, which at high levels can cause breathing difficulties. NOx are formed when nitric oxide (a pollutant from internal combustion processes) combines with oxygen.

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent gas formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. Health effects include acute respiratory symptoms and difficulty in breathing for children.

Particulate Matter 10 (PM10) and Particulate Matter 2.5 (PM2.5) refer to particulate matter less than ten microns and two and one-half microns in diameter, respectively. Particulates of this size cause a greater health risk than larger-sized particles since fine particles can more easily cause irritation. Particulate matter includes both aerosols and solid particles. An example of particulate matter is fugitive dust. Short-term exposure to high PM2.5 levels is associated with premature mortality and increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits. Long-term exposure to high PM2.5 levels is associated with premature mortality and development of chronic respiratory disease. Short-term exposure to high PM10 levels is associated with hospital admissions for cardiopulmonary diseases, increased respiratory symptoms, and possible premature mortality.

Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment and in manufactured products. The major sources of lead emissions have historically been mobile and industrial sources. Lead is a stable compound that persists and accumulates both in the environment and in animals. In humans, it affects the body’s blood-forming, nervous, and renal systems. In addition, lead has been shown to affect the normal functions of the reproductive, endocrine, hepatic, cardiovascular, immunological and gastrointestinal systems, although there is significant individual variability in response to lead exposure.

The SCAQMD regulates air quality in Orange County and is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB). The SCAQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources, inspects emissions sources, and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary. The SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area and point), mobile, and indirect sources. It has responded to this requirement by preparing a sequence of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs).

The SCAQMD adopted the 2016 AQMP on March 3, 2017 (SCAQMD 2017). The 2016 AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG’s) 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts.

The two principal criteria for conformance to an AQMP are:

1. Whether a 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 emissions reductions in the AQMP.

2. Whether a project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the year of Project buildout.

To estimate if a project may adversely affect the air quality in the region, the SCAQMD has prepared the Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) to provide guidance to those who analyze the air quality impacts of projects (SCAQMD 2020). The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook provides significance thresholds for both construction and operation of projects



within the SCAQMD’s jurisdictional boundaries. The SCAQMD recommends that projects be evaluated in terms of the quantitative thresholds established to assess both the regional and localized impacts of project-related air pollutant emissions. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that any project in the SoCAB with daily emissions that exceed any of the identified significance thresholds may have an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. The City of Anaheim uses the current SCAQMD thresholds to determine whether a project would have a significant impact (SCAQMD 2019). These SCAQMD thresholds are identified in Table 2, South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Quality Significance Thresholds. This Table identifies those air pollutants listed as criteria air pollutants with the exception of ozone. Ozone is accounted for through the threshold for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides which results in the formation of ozone.

TABLE 2 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS

Mass Daily Thresholds (lbs/day) Pollutant Construction Operation

VOC 75 55 NOx 100 55 CO 550 550

PM10 150 150 PM2.5 55 55 SOx 150 150 Lead 3 3

lbs/day: pounds per day; VOC: volatile organic compound; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; PM10: respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SOx: sulfur oxides. Source: SCAQMD 2019.

Existing Air Quality Conditions

The monitoring data presented in Table 3, Air Quality Measurements at the Central Orange County—Anaheim Monitoring Station, were obtained from the SCAQMD and CARB (SCAQMD 2020, CARB 2020). Pollutants measured at this monitoring station include O3, PM10, PM2.5, NO2, CO. No monitoring data was recorded for lead at any of the monitoring stations within Orange County. Federal and State air quality standards are presented with the number of times those standards were exceeded.



TABLE 3 AIR QUALITY MEASUREMENTS AT THE CENTRAL ORANGE COUNTY—ANAHEIM

MONITORING STATION

Pollutant California Standard

National Standard Year Max. Levela

State Standard

Days Exceededb

National Standard

Days Exceededb, c

O3 (1 hour) 0.09 ppm None

2016 0.103 2 0 2017 0.090 0 0 2018 0.112 1 0

O3 (8 hour) 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm

2016 0.075 4 4 2017 0.076 4 4 2018 0.071 1 1

PM10 (24 hour) 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3

2016 74.0 3/18.4 0/0 2017 95.7 5/32.8 0/0 2018 94.6 2/12.0 0/0

PM10 (AAM) 20 µg/m3 None 2016 24.4 N/A N/A 2017 26.3 N/A N/A 2018 27.2 N/A N/A

NO2 (1 Hour) 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm

2016 0.064 0 0 2017 0.081 0 0 2018 0.066 0 0

NO2 (AAM) 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm

2016 0.015 – – 2017 0.014 – – 2018 0.014 – –

CO (8 hour) 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm

2016 2.1 – – 2017 2.1 – – 2018 1.9 – –

PM2.5 (24 Hour) None 35 µg/m3

2016 44.45 N/A 1 2017 53.90 N/A 6 2018 54.10 N/A 3

PM2.5 (AAM) 12 µg/m3 15 µg/m3

2016 9.47 N/A N/A 2017 11.39 N/A N/A 2018 11.02 N/A N/A

O3: ozone; ppm: parts per million; PM10: respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less; µg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter; AAM: annual arithmetic mean; NO2: nitrogen dioxide; CO: carbon monoxide; PM2.5: fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less “–” indicates that the data are not reported or there is insufficient data available to determine the value. N/A indicates that there is no applicable standard. a California maximum levels were used. b For annual averaging times, a “Yes” or “No” response is given if the annual average concentration exceeded the applicable

standard. c PM is measured once every 6 days. Where 2 values are shown for PM10 and PM2.5, the first is for the measured value, and

the second is the estimated value if monitored every day. Source: SCAQMD 2020, CARB 2020.

Regulatory Background

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) defines seven “criteria” air pollutants, as described above. These pollutants are called criteria pollutants because the USEPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the concentrations of these



pollutants (USEPA 2014). The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has also established standards for the criteria pollutants, known as California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), and the State standards are generally more restrictive than the NAAQS. When a region has air quality that fails to meet the standards, the USEPA and the CARB designate the region as “nonattainment” and the regional air quality agency must develop plans to attain the standards.

Based on monitored air pollutant concentrations, the USEPA and the CARB designate an area’s status in attaining the NAAQS and the CAAQS, respectively, for selected criteria pollutants. These attainment designations are shown in Table 4. As identified in Table 4, Orange County is a nonattainment area for O3, PM10, and PM2.5.

TABLE 4 ATTAINMENT STATUS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS

IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN

Pollutant State Federal O3 (1 hour) Nonattainment No standards O3 (8 hour) Nonattainment Nonattainment

PM10 Nonattainment Attainment/Maintenance PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment CO Attainment Unclassified/Attainment NO2 Attainment Unclassified/Attainment SO2 Attainment Attainment Lead Attainment Attainment/Nonattainment*

All others Attainment/Unclassified No standards O3: ozone; PM2.5: respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; CO: carbon monoxide; NO2: nitrogen dioxide; SO2: sulfur dioxide; SoCAB: South Coast Air Basin. * Los Angeles County is classified nonattainment for lead; the remainder of the SoCAB is in attainment of the

State and federal standards. Source: CARB 2018

CARB, a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), is responsible for coordinating and administering both the federal and State air pollution control programs in California. In this capacity, CARB conducts research, sets the CAAQS (as shown in Table 5), compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, oversees local programs, and prepares the State Implementation Plan (SIP). For regions that do not attain the CAAQS, CARB requires the air districts to prepare plans for attaining the standards. These plans are then integrated into the SIP. CARB establishes emissions standards for (1) motor vehicles sold in California, (2) consumer products (e.g., hair spray, aerosol paints, barbecue lighter fluid), and (3) various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions.

O3 is a secondary pollutant and is created when nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) react in the presence of sunlight. The predominant source of air emissions generated by Project development would be from vehicle emissions. Motor vehicles primarily emit CO, NOx, and VOCs. The NAAQS and CAAQS are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace within a reasonable margin of safety. The NAAQS and CAAQS for O3, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead are shown in Table 5.



TABLE 5 CALIFORNIA AND FEDERAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards

Federal Standards Primarya Secondaryb

O3 1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3) – –

8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3) 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3) Same as Primary

PM10 24 Hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 Same as Primary

AAM 20 µg/m3 – Same as Primary

PM2.5 24 Hour – 35 µg/m3 Same as Primary

AAM 12 µg/m3 12.0 µg/m3 15.0 µg/m3

CO

1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) – 8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) – 8 Hour

(Lake Tahoe) 6 ppm (7 mg/m3) – –

NO2 AAM 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3) Same as Primary

1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3) 0.100 ppm (188 µg/m3) –

SO2

24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3) – –

3 Hour – – 0.5 ppm (1,300 µg/m3)

1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3) 0.075 ppm (196 µg/m3) –

Lead 30-day Avg. 1.5 µg/m3 – –

Calendar Quarter – 1.5 µg/m3 Same as Primary

Rolling 3-month Avg. – 0.15 µg/m3

Visibility Reducing Particles

8 Hour

Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per km –

visibility ≥ 10 miles (0.07 per km – ≥30

miles for Lake Tahoe) No Federal

Standards Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3

Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3)

Vinyl Chloride 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3)

O3: ozone; ppm: parts per million; µg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter; PM10: respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; AAM: Annual Arithmetic Mean; –: No Standard; PM2.5: fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; CO: carbon monoxide; mg/m3: milligrams per cubic meter; NO2: nitrogen dioxide; SO2: sulfur dioxide; km: kilometer. a National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, within an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public

health. b National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated

adverse effects of a pollutant. Note: More detailed information in the data presented in this table can be found at the CARB website (www.arb.ca.gov). Source: SCAQMD 2016

Question A: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

Less Than Significant Impact. CEQA requires a discussion of any inconsistencies between a Proposed Project and applicable General Plans (GPs) and regional plans (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125). The regional plan that applies to the Proposed Project includes the SCAQMD’s AQMP, as discussed under Section III, Air Quality Background Information.



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 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, as discussed above under Section III, Air Quality Background Information:

(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.

(2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase.

Both of these criteria are evaluated for the Proposed Project, as shown below.

With respect to the first criterion, based on the air quality modeling analysis conducted for the Proposed Project (see the discussion provided below under Questions III.B and III.C), construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s CEQA thresholds of significance and consequently would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations nor cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions in the AQMP. Therefore, the Proposed Project is consistent with the first criterion.

With respect to the second criterion, the Proposed Project was assessed as to whether it would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP. The SCAQMD’s current air quality planning document is the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP). The 2016 AQMP is a regional and multi-agency effort among the SCAQMD, CARB, SCAG, and USEPA. The 2016 AQMP includes an analysis of emissions, meteorology, atmospheric chemistry, regional growth projections, and the impact of existing control measures. The purpose of the 2016 AQMP is to set forth a comprehensive program that would promote reductions in criteria pollutants, greenhouse gases, and toxic risk and efficiencies in energy use, transportation, and goods movement. The 2016 AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including SCAG’s 2016-2040 RTP/SCS; updated emission inventory methods for various source categories; and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts (SCAQMD 2017). The 2016 AQMP includes strategies and measures necessary to meet the NAAQS. The AQMP is based on projections of energy usage and vehicle trips from land uses within the SoCAB.

The Project Site is designated by the GP for Commercial Recreation (C-R) land use. The Project Site is located within the C-R District of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (ARSP). The zoning and development standards for the ARSP are codified in Chapter 18.116 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Although the proposed use of the Project Site would implement the GP C-R land use designation and is a use permitted by the ARSP, the Applicant is proposing an amendment to the GP and ARSP to allow for higher density of rooms, from the allowable 75 rooms per acre to 125 rooms per acre. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not be consistent with the assumptions in the 2016 AQMP. However, the Proposed Project would result in emissions which are substantially less than the significance thresholds adopted by the SCAQMD (as detailed in the following emissions analyses). In addition, the proposed hotel use primarily serves visitors traveling to the Disneyland theme park, located approximately a half-mile away. Development of hotel uses proximate to Disneyland would minimize travel to and from this destination, which would reduce transportation-related emissions and be consistent with the goals of the AQMP. As such, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP assumptions for the Project



Site and is found consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in an inconsistency with the SCAQMD’s 2016 AQMP. Less than significant impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required.

Question B: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard?

Less Than Significant Impact. Orange County is a nonattainment area for O3, PM10, and PM2.5, as shown in Table 4, Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin. The Proposed Project would generate PM10, PM2.5, NO2, and O3 precursors (NOx and VOC) during short-term construction and long-term operations.

Construction Impacts

Construction-Related Regional Impacts

A project may have a significant impact where project-related emissions would exceed federal, State, or regional standards or thresholds, or where project-related emissions would substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation.

A project with daily emission rates below the SCAQMD’s established air quality significance thresholds (shown in Table 2) would have a less than significant effect on regional air quality. Project emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2016.3.2 computer program (CAPCOA 2016). CalEEMod is designed to model construction and operational emissions for land development projects and allows for the input of project- and County-specific information. The CalEEMod input for construction emissions was based on the Project’s construction assumptions and default assumptions derived from CalEEMod. Demolition of the on-site buildings and asphalt was estimated to generate demolition debris of approximately 300 tons to be exported from the Project Site. Site preparation would require 80 truckloads to be exported from the Project Site, and grading and excavation would require 30 truckloads of soils to be exported from the Project Site.

Table 6, Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions, presents the estimated maximum daily emissions occurring both onsite and offsite during construction of the Proposed Project and compares the estimated emissions with the SCAQMD’s daily regional emission thresholds. As shown in Table 6, all criteria pollutants are below the SCAQMD’s respective thresholds.



TABLE 6 ESTIMATED MAXIMUM DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

Year Emissions (lbs/day)

VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 2020 2 21 18 <1 1 1 2021 2 18 17 <1 1 1 2022 26 16 17 <1 1 1 Maximum Emissions 26 21 18 <1 1 1 SCAQMD Thresholds (Table 2) 75 100 550 150 150 55

Exceeds SCAQMD Thresholds? No No No No No No

lbs/day: pounds per day; VOC: volatile organic compound; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SOx: sulfur oxides; PM10: respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SCAQMD: South Coast Air Quality Management District. Source: SCAQMD 2019 (thresholds); see Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Data, for CalEEMod model outputs.

Cumulative Construction Impacts

Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would result in less than significant construction-related regional and localized air quality impacts, as quantified above in Table 6, Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions, and Table 8, Localized Significance Threshold Construction Emissions (discussed under Threshold III.C), respectively. Short-term cumulative impacts related to air quality could occur if construction of the Proposed Project and other projects in the surrounding area were to occur simultaneously. In particular, with respect to local impacts, the consideration of cumulative construction particulate (PM10 and PM2.5) impacts is limited to cases when projects constructed simultaneously are within a few hundred yards of each other because of: (1) the combination of the short range (distance) of particulate dispersion (especially when compared to gaseous pollutants), and (2) the SCAQMD’s required dust-control measures, which further limit particulate dispersion from the Project Site. The JW Marriott is located proximate to the Project site and is undergoing construction but would be completed prior to the initiation of construction of the Proposed Project. Consequently, the development of the JW Marriott would not have concurrent construction activities with the Project and would likewise not result in cumulative construction emissions with the Project.

SCAQMD’s policy with respect to cumulative impacts associated with the above-referenced pollutants and their precursors is that impacts that would be directly less than significant on a project level would also be cumulatively less than significant (SCAQMD 2003). Because the Proposed Project’s construction emissions are below the SCAQMD’s regional and local significance thresholds, local construction emissions would not be cumulatively considerable, and the impact would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required.

Operational Impacts

The following section provides an analysis of potential long-term air quality impacts to regional air quality with the long-term operation of the Proposed Project. The potential operations-related air emissions have been analyzed below for the regional and local criteria pollutant emissions and cumulative impacts.



Operations-Related Regional Impacts

Operational emissions are comprised of area, energy, and mobile source emissions. The principal source of VOC and CO emissions associated with the Project would result from vehicle trips. Area and energy source emissions are based on CalEEMod assumptions for the specific land uses and size. Mobile source emissions are based on estimated Project-related trip generation forecasts, as contained in the Project traffic impact analysis. The Proposed Project would generate 1,045 daily trips (LLG 2020a). The peak day operational emissions for VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 daily emissions that would be created from the Proposed Project’s long-term operation have been calculated and are summarized below in Table 7, Peak Daily Operational Emissions.

TABLE 7 PEAK DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS

Source Emissions (lbs/day)*

VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Area sources 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Energy sources <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Mobile sources 1 4 16 <1 5 1

Total Operational Emissions* 3 4 16 <1 5 1 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds (Table 2) 55 55 550 150 150 55

Significant Impact? No No No No No No lbs/day: pounds per day; VOC: volatile organic compound; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SOx: sulfur oxides; PM10: respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SCAQMD: South Coast Air Quality Management District. * Some totals do not add due to rounding. Source: SCAQMD 2019 (thresholds); see Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Data, for CalEEMod model outputs.

The data provided in Table 7 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the regional emissions operational thresholds. Therefore, a less than significant regional air quality impact would occur from operation of the Proposed Project. No mitigation is required.

Cumulative Operational Impacts

As shown in Table 7, Peak Daily Operational Emissions, operational emissions of VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 would be below the SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds. Consistent with the approach described above (under Cumulative Construction Impacts), SCAQMD’s policy with respect to cumulative impacts associated with the above-referenced pollutants and their precursors is that impacts that would be directly less than significant on a project level would also be cumulatively less than significant. Therefore, because the Proposed Project’s operational emissions are less than the respective SCAQMD daily operational thresholds, the Proposed Project’s operations phase activities would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a pollutant for which the SoCAB is in nonattainment. Emissions of nonattainment pollutants or their precursors would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant; no mitigation would be required.



Cumulative Health Impacts

The SoCAB is designated as nonattainment for ozone, 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 (the elderly, children, and the sick). Therefore, when the concentrations of those pollutants exceed the standard, it is likely that some sensitive individuals in the population would experience health effects. These health effects are not identified for specific individual receptors nor does the analysis identify the magnitude of health effects. The regional analysis detailed above found that the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for VOC and NOx (ozone precursors), PM10, and PM2.5. As such, the Project would result in a less than significant cumulative health impact.

Question C: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur when a project would generate pollutant concentrations to a degree that would significantly affect sensitive receptors, which include populations that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the population at large. Exposure of sensitive receptors is addressed for construction and operation of the Proposed Project. To address construction activities, the analysis below includes the following analyses: localized air quality impacts from construction and toxic air contaminants (TACs), specifically diesel particulate matter (DPM) from on-site construction. To address operational emissions exposure to sensitive receptors, the analysis below discusses local air quality impacts from on-site operations, exposure to off-site TAC emissions; and CO hotspots. Operational, long-term TACs may be generated by some industrial land uses; commercial land uses (e.g., gas stations and dry cleaners); and diesel trucks on freeways. Hotel uses do not generate substantial quantities of TACs due to the lack of emission sources that generate substantial levels of TAC emissions. TAC emissions associated with the operation of the proposed hotel would involve diesel truck exhaust related to deliveries of supplies and to a lesser extent diesel fueled passenger vehicles. However, the low frequency of occurrence, the low quantity of vehicles and the brevity of exposure for these diesel fueled vehicles would result in very low levels of TACs from the Project site. As such, TACs from the Project site are therefore not addressed in this analysis.

Construction

Localized Criteria Pollutants from On-Site Construction

In addition to the mass daily emissions thresholds established by the SCAQMD, short-term local impacts to nearby sensitive receptors from on-site emissions of NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 are examined based on SCAQMD localized significance threshold (LST) methodology. To assess local air quality impacts for development projects without complex dispersion modeling, the SCAQMD developed screening (lookup) tables to assist lead agencies in evaluating impacts.

The LST method is limited to projects that are five acres or less. For the purposes of an LST analysis, the SCAQMD considers receptors where it is possible that an individual could remain for 1 hour for NO2 and CO exposure and 24 hours for PM10 and PM2.5 exposure. The emissions limits in the lookup tables are based on the SCAQMD’s Ambient Air Quality Standards (SCAQMD 2016). The closest receptor to the Project Site is a hotel use adjacent to the Project boundary’s southeastern-most corner; individuals at this hotel were evaluated for the exposure durations of 1 hour and 24 hours consistent with the exposure periods used for the aforementioned criteria pollutants. The emissions thresholds are for receptors within 25 meters (82 feet) of the Project



Site; the thresholds for receptors farther away would be higher, and the Proposed Project emissions would be a smaller fraction of the thresholds.

Table 8, Localized Significance Threshold Construction Emissions, shows the maximum daily on-site emissions for construction activities compared with the SCAQMD LSTs with receptors within 25 meters for a Project Site area of 1 acre. The Proposed Project’s maximum daily on-site emissions would occur during the building construction phase, in 2020. As shown in Table 8, the local emissions from the Proposed Project would be below the thresholds, and no significant impacts would result. No mitigation is required.

TABLE 8 LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

Emissions and Thresholds Emissions (lbs/day)

NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Project maximum daily on-site emissions 19 16 1 1

SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholda 81 485 4 3 Exceed threshold? No No No No

lbs/day: pounds per day; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; PM10: respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter. a Data is for SCAQMD Source Receptor Area 17, Central Orange County. Source: SCAQMD 2009 (thresholds); see Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Data, for CalEEMod outputs.

Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions from On-Site Construction

Construction activities would result in short-term, project-generated emissions of DPM from the exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment used for site preparation (e.g., demolition, excavation, and grading); paving; building construction; and other miscellaneous activities. CARB identified DPM as a TAC in 1998. The dose to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk. Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the duration of exposure to the substance. Thus, the risks estimated for a maximally exposed individual (MEI) are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer time period. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), health risk assessments—which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to TAC emissions—should be based on a 40-year exposure period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the Proposed Project.

There would be relatively few pieces of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment in operation, and the total construction period would be relatively short when compared to a 40-year exposure period. Combined with the highly dispersive properties of DPM and additional reductions in particulate emissions from newer construction equipment, as required by USEPA and CARB regulations, construction emissions of TACs would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial emissions of TACs. The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Operational

Localized Criteria Pollutants from On-site Operations

Project-related air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and federal air quality standards in the vicinity of the Proposed Project even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the SoCAB.



Project-related air emissions from on-site sources such as architectural coatings, landscaping equipment, and on-site usage of natural gas appliances may have the potential to generate emissions that exceed the State and federal air quality standards in the vicinity of the Proposed Project even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the SoCAB.

The local air quality emissions from on-site operations were analyzed using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate LST Look-up Tables and the LST Methodology. Table 9, Localized Significance Threshold Operational Emissions, shows the on-site operational emissions from area sources, energy usage, vehicles operating on-site, and the calculated emissions thresholds.

TABLE 9 LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS

On-Site Emission Source Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)

NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Area Sources 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Energy Sources 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 Mobile Sourcesa 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.1

Total Emissions 0.7 1.2 0.3 0.1 SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholdb 81.0 485.0 1.0 1.0

Exceeds Threshold? No No No No lbs/day: pounds per day; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; PM10: respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter. a Onsite vehicle emissions based on 5% of the gross vehicular emissions, which is the estimated portion of vehicle emissions

occurring within a quarter mile of the Project Site. b Data is for SCAQMD Source Receptor Area 17, Central Orange County, with a source receptor distance of 25-meters.

According to LST methodology, for any receptor closer than 25 meters, the 25-meter threshold should be used at a minimum.

Source: SCAQMD 2009 (thresholds); see Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Data, for CalEEMod outputs.

The data provided in Table 9 shows that the ongoing operations of the Proposed Project would not exceed the local NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 thresholds of significance. Therefore, operation of the Proposed Project would create a less than significant impact to local air quality due to on-site emissions, and no mitigation would be required.

Exposure to Off-Site Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions

The CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective provides guidance concerning land use compatibility with TAC sources (CARB 2005). While not a law or adopted policy, the handbook offers advisory recommendations for siting sensitive receptors near uses associated with TACs (such as freeways and high-traffic roads, commercial distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, dry cleaners, gasoline stations, and industrial facilities) to help keep children and other sensitive populations out of harm’s way.

Projects of concern for mobile sources of TACs are typically those located within 500 feet of the following types of facilities that emit significant quantities of DPM: urban roads with more than 100,000 vehicles per day; freeways or roads with a high heavy truck concentration; and/or near rail yards, ports, and/or distribution centers. The Project Site is not within 500 feet of urban roads with more than 100,000 vehicles per day, freeways or roads with a high heavy-truck concentration, or near a railyard, port and and/or a distribution center. The Project Site is located



approximately 900 feet from the I-5 freeway. CARB identifies sensitive land uses as schools, schoolyards, parks and playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, hospitals and residential communities. Hotels would provide lodging for sensitive receptors (elderly and children) but are considered transient uses due to the infrequency for which the same receptors would be exposed to pollutants as well as the relatively short amount of time of day that these receptors would be exposed.

With respect to proximity to emissions from railroad sources, CARB recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail yard; the Project Site is not located within 1,000 feet of this type of facility (CARB 2005). CARB recommends avoiding siting residences within 300 feet of a large gas station or within 500 feet of dry-cleaning operations with 2 machines using perchloroethylene. There are no large gas stations within 300 feet of the Project Site, or dry cleaners within 500 feet of the Project Site. As such, the Proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to the exposure of hotel guests to excessive levels of TACs.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspot

In an urban setting, vehicle exhaust is the primary source of CO. Consequently, the highest CO concentrations generally are found close to congested intersections. Under typical meteorological conditions, CO concentrations tend to decrease as the distance from the emissions source (e.g., congested intersection) increases. Therefore, for purposes of providing a conservative worst-case impact analysis, CO concentrations typically are analyzed at congested intersection locations. If impacts are less than significant close to congested intersections, impacts also would be less than significant at more distant sensitive-receptor and other locations. An initial screening procedure is provided in the Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (CO Protocol) to determine whether a project poses the potential to generate a CO hotspot (UCD ITS 1997). The key criterion is whether the Proposed Project would worsen traffic congestion at signalized intersections operating at level of service (LOS) E or F. If a project poses a potential for a CO hotspot, a quantitative screening is required. Per the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the Proposed Project, implementation of the Proposed Project would not worsen traffic at any of the analyzed signalized intersections operating at LOS E or F (LLG 2020a). The impact would be less than significant.

Question D: Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

Less than Significant Impact. Project construction would use equipment and activities that could result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors). However, these odors would be typical during construction and not extraordinarily objectionable. Potential construction odors include on-site construction equipment’s diesel exhaust emissions as well as roofing, painting, and paving operations. There may be situations where construction activity odors could be noticed. However, these odors would be temporary and would dissipate rapidly from the source with an increase in distance. Therefore, the impacts would be short-term; would not affect a substantial number of people; and would be less than significant.

According to the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, sewer treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding (SCAQMD 1993). The Project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors, and therefore, would not likely produce objectionable odors. During long-term Project operations, some minor odors associated with hotel uses could be expected to occur, such as from the café/restaurant uses and landscaping. Restaurant operations emit particulate matter and VOCs.



However, the Project uses would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 1138, which requires the control of emissions from any commercial cooking operations preparing food for human consumption. In addition, the Project uses are regulated from nuisance odors or other objectionable emissions by SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance. Rule 402 prohibits discharge from any source of air contaminants or other material which would cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to people or the public. Overall, there would be a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program


MM 5.2-1 Ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer shall implement measures to reduce emissions to the extent practical, schedule goods movements for off-peak traffic hours, and use clean fuel for vehicles and other equipment, as practicable.

MM 5.2-2 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit evidence that low emission paints and coatings are utilized in the design and construction of buildings, in compliance with SCAQMD regulations. The information shall be denoted on the project plans and specifications. The property owner/developer shall submit an architectural coating schedule and calculations demonstrating that VOC emissions from architectural coating operations would not exceed 75 pounds per day averaged over biweekly periods. The calculations shall show, for each coating, the surface area to be coated, gallons (or liters) of coating per unit surface area, and VOC content per gallon (or liter). The property owner/developer shall also implement the following to limit emissions from architectural coatings and asphalt usage:

a. Use non-solvent-based coatings on buildings, wherever appropriate; b. Use solvent-based coatings, where they are necessary.

MM 5.2-3 Ongoing during construction, the property owner/developer shall implement measures to reduce construction-related air quality impacts. These measures shall include, but are not limited to:

a. Normal wetting procedures (at least twice daily) or other dust palliative measures shall be followed during earth-moving operations to minimize fugitive dust emissions, in compliance with the City of Anaheim Municipal Code including application of chemical soil stabilizers to exposed soils after grading is completed and replacing ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as practicable.

b. For projects where there is excavation for subterranean facilities (such as parking) on-site haul roads shall be watered at least every two hours or the on-site haul roads shall be paved.

c. Enclosing, covering, watering twice daily, or applying approved soil binders, according to manufacturer’s specification, to exposed piles.

d. Roadways adjacent to the project shall be swept and cleared of any spilled export materials at least twice a day to assist in minimizing fugitive dust; and, haul routes shall be cleared as needed if spills of materials exported from the project site occur.



e. Where practicable, heavy duty construction equipment shall be kept onsite when not in operation to minimize exhaust emissions associated with vehicles repetitiously entering and exiting the project site.

f. Trucks importing or exporting soil material and/or debris shall be covered prior to entering public streets.

g. Taking preventive measures to ensure that trucks do not carry dirt on tires onto public streets, including treating onsite roads and staging areas.

h. Preventing trucks from idling for longer than 2 minutes. i. Manually irrigate or activate irrigation systems necessary to water and

maintain the vegetation as soon as planting is completed. j. Reduce Traffic speeds on all unpaved road surfaces to 15 miles per hour

or less. k. Suspend all grading operations when wind speeds (as instantaneous gust)

exceed 25 miles per hour and during first and second stage smog alerts. l. Comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which states that no dust impacts offsite

are sufficient to be called a nuisance, and SCAQMD Rule 403, which restricts visible emissions from construction.

m. Use low emission mobile construction equipment (e.g., tractors, scrapers, dozers, etc.) where practicable.

n. Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean-fuel generators rather than temporary power generators, where practicable.

o. Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them properly tuned. p. Use low sulfur fuel for equipment, to the extent practicable.

MM 5.2-4 Prior to issuance of each grading permit (for Import/Export Plan) and prior to issuance of demolition permit (for Demolition Plan), the property owner/developer shall submit Demolition and Import/Export plans. The plans shall include identification of offsite locations for materials export from the project and options for disposal of excess material. These options may include recycling of materials onsite, sale to a soil broker or contractor, sale to a project in the vicinity or transport to an environmentally cleared landfill, with attempts made to move it within Orange County. The property owner/developer shall offer recyclable building materials, such as asphalt or concrete for sale or removal by private firms or public agencies for use in construction of other projects, if not all can be reused on the project site.

MM 5.2-5 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall comply with all SCAQMD offset regulations and implementation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) for any new or modified stationary source. Copies of permits shall be given to the Planning and Building Department

MM 5.2-6 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall implement, and demonstrate to the City, measures that are being taken to reduce operation-related air quality impacts. These measures may include, but are not limited to the following:

a. Improve thermal integrity of structures and reduced thermal load through use of automated time clocks or occupant sensors.



b. Incorporate efficient heating and other appliances. c. Incorporate energy conservation measures in site orientation and in

building design, such as appropriate passive solar design. d. Use drought-resistant landscaping wherever feasible to reduce energy

used in pumping and transporting water. e. To the extent feasible, provide daycare opportunities for employees or

participate in a joint development daycare center f. Install facilities for electric vehicle recharging, unless it is demonstrated that

the technology for these facilities or availability of the equipment current at the time makes this installation infeasible.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Question A: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Project Site is located within a developed area and consists of an existing one-story, industrial building used previously as a dry cleaning business that would be demolished. The Project Site’s landscaping includes ornamental shrubs and mature ornamental trees. Due to the developed condition of the Project Site and the lack of native vegetation and connectivity to natural open space areas, the Project Site does not provide suitable habitat for special status plant and wildlife species and they are not expected to occur on the Project Site.

The Project Site contains ornamental shrubs and trees that have the potential for nesting birds and a limited potential for nesting raptors. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act protects nesting birds. In addition, the potential loss of an active raptor nest, including common raptor species, would be considered a violation of the California Fish and Game Code §§3503, 3503.5, and 3513. Impacts on an active bird/raptor nest would be considered potentially significant. This potential impact would be reduced to a level considered less than significant with implementation of MM 4-1 which requires a survey for active raptor nests and MM 4-2 which requires a letter detailing the proposed schedule for vegetation removal activities.

Question B: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

Question C: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

No Impact. The Project Site is composed entirely of developed and ornamental areas. No riparian habitat or sensitive communities identified in local or regional plans or policies by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) are located on the Project Site. Additionally, the Project Site does not support any federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; therefore, the Proposed Project would



not impact any marsh, vernal pool, or coastal habitats. No impact would occur, and no mitigation would be required.

Question D: Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

No Impact. The Project Site is located within a developed, urban context, surrounded by major roadways and buildings and lacks connectivity to natural open space areas. Therefore, the Project Site does not function as a wildlife movement corridor or a wildlife nursery site. No impact would occur, and no mitigation would be required.

Question E: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

Less Than Significant Impact. Ornamental trees may be removed as part of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would comply with Section 13.12.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code related to replacement of removed street trees. The Project Site is not located within a Scenic Corridor overlay area and would not be subject to any additional applicable policies or ordinances related to the protection of biological resources on the Project Site. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Question F: Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?

No Impact. According to the City of Anaheim General Plan, the Project Site is not located within a designated or proposed Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) area. Additionally, development of the Proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of any local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program

The following mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels and they will be incorporated into the Mitigation Program for this IS/MND. Where the measure is the same as the measure from EIR 340 (incorporated by reference, as stated in Section 2.3), the EIR 340 mitigation measure numbering is noted at the end of the measure in parentheses.

MM 4-1 Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, grading permit, or building permit, whichever occurs first, a survey for active raptor nests shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist and submitted to the Planning and Building Department 30 days prior to commencement of any demolition or construction activities during the raptor nesting season (February 1 to June 30) and within 500 feet of a fan palm, juniper, or canary island pine. Should an active nest be identified, restrictions defined by a qualified Biologist will be placed on construction activities in the vicinity of any active nest observed until the nest is no longer active, as determined by a qualified Biologist. These restrictions may include a 300- to 500-foot buffer zone designated around a nest to allow construction to proceed while minimizing disturbance to the active nest. Once the nest is no longer active, construction can proceed within the buffer zone. (ARSP EIR 340 MM 5.3-1)



MM 4-2 Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, grading permit, or building permit, whichever occurs first, a letter detailing the proposed schedule for vegetation removal activities shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department, verifying that removal shall take place between August 1 and February 28 to avoid the bird nesting season. This would ensure that no active nests would be disturbed. If this is not feasible, then a qualified Biologist shall inspect any trees which would be impacted prior to demolition, grading or construction activities to ensure no nesting birds are present. If a nest is present, then appropriate minimization measures shall be developed by the Biologist. (ARSP EIR 340 MM 5.3-2)

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES

Information in this section is based on the 2020 results from records searches and literature reviews of information available from the South-Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and the 1730 South Clementine Street Historical Resource Evaluation Report (HRER) prepared in 2019 by GPA Consulting (GPA). All documentation is compiled as Appendix B to this IS/MND.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

The Project Site (0.68-acres) is located at 1730 Clementine Street in Anaheim, Orange County, California. Currently, the Project Site includes a vacant one-story, 10,616 square feet (sf), commercial building constructed in 1964. The Project proposes to demolish the building, which has been out of service for several years and is in disrepair allowing for the development of a six-story, 125-room, independent hotel with approximately 380 sf of accessory commercial retail space and 490 sf of restaurant space with a fast-casual service model. The building is not listed under national, state, or local landmark programs, nor was it identified in any historic resources surveys of the area completed in the last five years. However, given the fact that the building on the property is over 45 years of age, GPA was retained to evaluate it for national, state, and local landmark designation.

South-Central Coastal Information Center Cultural Resources Records and Literature Review

A cultural resources records search was conducted by Psomas on February 6, 2020 at the South-Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton. The SCCIC is a designated branch of the California Historical Resources Information System and houses records regarding archaeological and historic resources recorded in San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Orange, and Ventura Counties. The 2020 review consisted of an examination of the U.S. Geological Survey’s 7.5-minute Anaheim Quadrangle to determine if any sites are recorded or if any cultural resources studies have been conducted on or within a ½-mile radius of the Project Site. Data sources consulted at the SCCIC include archaeological records, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility (DOE), historic maps, and the Historic Property Data File (HPDF) maintained by the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The HPDF contains listings for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and/or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Historical Landmarks (CHL), and California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI).

The records search and literature review conducted for the Proposed Project revealed that five cultural resource studies have been conducted within ½-mile of the Project Site; none of the studies included the Project Site. The studies consisted of surface surveys (n=2) conducted by Caltrans and cultural and paleontological resource compliance monitoring (n=3). The closest



study (OR-02213) was a requirement from the Hotel Circle Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 00790. The remaining four cultural resources studies are located to the south, west, north, and northeast of the Project Site and are all within ½-mile of the Project boundaries.

Four cultural resources are identified within the ½-mile search radius of the Proposed Project. These include one prehistoric lithic scatter (P-30-000840), two historic buildings (P-30-161816 and P-30-176610), and one historic structure (P-30-177039). One of the four cultural resources (P-30-161816) is determined eligible for listing on the NRHP. However, none of these cultural resources, including the one eligible property, are located within the Proposed Project Site. It should be noted that the location of these resources is confidential.

The closest cultural resource (P-30-176610) to the Project Site is a historic-era home built in 1925. The property is located on 1842 Mountain View and is ½-mile southeast of the Project Site. The home is designated as a single-family property and an example of the California Bungalow architectural style. Immediately east of the California bungalow is the Southern California Edison Katella Substation (P-30-161816). Constructed in 1917, the substation attributes are defined as HP08 (Industrial Building) and HP09 (Public Utility Building). The Edison substation has been determined eligible for listing on the NRHP. One mile northwest of the Katella Substation is a prehistoric lithic scatter (P-30-000840). The most western property (P-30-177039) is a historic-era circular brick structure identified as a standpipe used for flood irrigation. The structure was observed during the during mitigation monitoring for Disney’s California Adventure Expansion.

Historic plat maps for the area were also reviewed to determine the potential for historic archaeological sites to underlie the Project Site. A review of the 1896 and 1942 maps indicated that, although the site was in a developed portion of the City of Anaheim during those time periods, there is no indication of historic structures or features at the location of the Project Site.

Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Search

Psomas submitted a request to the NAHC on February 5, 2020 to review the Sacred Lands File database regarding the possibility of Native American cultural resources and/or sacred places in the project vicinity that are not documented on other databases. The results from the NAHC were received on February 24, 2020. The SLF search did not identify any known resources or sacred lands within the Project Site. However, the NAHC recommends that the lead agency contact tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area. The City contacted the tribes listed on their consultation list on March 10, 2020. The consultation results are discussed in Section XVIII, Tribal Cultural Resources.

IMPACT ANALYSIS

Question A: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

No Impact. A significant impact could occur if the Project were to disturb historic resources that presently exist within the Project Site. Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines generally defines a historic resource as a resource that is (1) listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register); (2) included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code); or (3) identified as significant in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code). Additionally, any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead



agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register. The California Register automatically includes all properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and those formally determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register.

The SCCIC record search and literature review identified four cultural resources within the ½-mile search radius of the Proposed Project. One of the cultural resources (P-30-16181) have been determined to be eligible for listing on the NRHP. However, none of these properties, including the one eligible property, are located within the Proposed Project Site.

Furthermore, GPA determined the existing building located on the Project Site is not listed under national, state, or local landmark programs, nor was it identified in any historic resources surveys of the area completed in the last five years. However, given the fact that the building on the property is over 45 years of age, the building was evaluated for national, state, and local landmark designation.

After careful inspection, investigation, and evaluation, GPA concluded that the property does not appear to be eligible for individual listing in the National Register and California Register, or eligible for local designation as a Historically Significant Structure due to a lack of significance. GPA recommended Status Code 6Z for the property, deeming it ineligible for national, state, and local designation through survey evaluation. Therefore, the property is not a historical resource subject to CEQA. All data considered; the Project will not cause an adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

Question B: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. A significant impact could occur if grading or excavation activities associated with the Project were to disturb archaeological resources that presently exist within the Project Site. There are no known archaeological sites on the Project Site. The SCCIC record search and literature review identified four resources located within a half-mile of the Project Site. These resources consist of prehistoric archaeological sites and historic-era buildings and structures that establish prehistoric and historic-era land use within the generalized area. As such, there is the possibility that undiscovered intact archaeological resources may be present below the surface in native (alluvial) sediments. These potential effects would be mitigated to a less than significant level with the implementation of MM 5-1, which requires archaeological monitoring when excavating in native sediment.

Question C: Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. A Project-related significant adverse effect could occur if grading or excavation activities associated with the Project were to disturb previously interred human remains. The Project Site is located within a developed area that has been subject to earth-moving activities in the past, and no known burial sites are located on or adjacent to the Project Site. In the unlikely event of an unanticipated encounter with human remains in Project Site, the California Health and Safety Code and the California Public Resources Code require that any activity in the area of a potential find be halted and the Orange County Coroner be notified, as described in RR 5-1. Implementation of MM 5-1 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.



Regulatory Requirement

RR 5-1 If human remains are found during ground-disturbing activities, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The County Coroner shall be notified of the discovery immediately. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are or believed to be Native American, s/he shall notify the NAHC in Sacramento within 24 hours of the discovery. In accordance with Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code, the NAHC must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants shall complete their inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site by the City. The City would meet and confer with the most likely descendant regarding their recommendations prior to disturbing the site by further construction activity.

Mitigation Program

Mitigation Measure

The following mitigation measure is required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels and will be incorporated into the Mitigation Program for this IS/MND.

MM 5-1 Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence to the City, the applicant has retained an Orange County-certified archaeologist, to observe grading activities and salvage and catalogue archaeological resources as necessary. The archaeologist shall be present at the pre-grade conference, shall establish procedures for archaeological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. If archaeological resources are inadvertently unearthed during excavation activities, the contractor shall immediately cease all earth-disturbing activities within a 100-foot radius of the area of discovery and the archaeologist and City shall be notified immediately. If the archaeological resources are found to be significant, the archeologist, in consultation with the City, shall determine appropriate actions for exploration and salvage. After the find has been appropriately avoided or mitigated, work in the area may resume.

VI. ENERGY

Energy efficiency is a priority for both the State of California and the City of Anaheim. The following are regulatory targets and requirements that have been adopted at the State and local level.

State

The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6 of the CCR) were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The current 2019 Standards, effective January 1, 2020, are projected to result in a 30 percent improvement in energy efficiency for nonresidential buildings over the 2016 standards. The 2019 standards require photovoltaic solar systems on single-family residences and on multifamily residential structures of three stories or less. Single-family homes built to the 2019 standards would be about 7 percent more efficient than homes built to the 2016 standards



without considering the required solar systems; and about 53 percent more efficient after factoring in the solar systems (CEC 2018).

The 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11), also known as the CALGreen code, contains mandatory requirements and voluntary measures for new residential and nonresidential buildings (including buildings for hotel, retail, office, public schools and hospitals) throughout California (CBSC 2019). The development of the CALGreen Code is intended to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the following construction practices: (1) planning and design; (2) energy efficiency; (3) water efficiency and conservation; (4) material conservation and resource efficiency; and (5) environmental quality (CBSC 2019). In short, the code is established to reduce construction waste; make buildings more efficient in the use of materials and energy; and reduce environmental impact during and after construction. The Anaheim Municipal Code adopts the CALGreen Code by reference with specific amendments. The Proposed Project would promote building energy efficiency through compliance with energy efficiency standards (Title 24 and CALGreen).

City of Anaheim

General Plan

The following policies of the City of Anaheim’s General Plan are relevant to energy efficiency and generation.

Green Element

Policy 15.1.1: Continue to maintain and update energy conservation programs and information provided on the City’s website.

Policy 15.2.1: 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).

Policy 15.2.2: Encourage energy-efficient retrofitting of existing buildings throughout the City.

Policy 15.2.3: Continue to provide free energy audits for the public.

Policy 17.1.1: Encourage designs that incorporate solar and wind exposure features such as daylighting design, natural ventilation, space planning and thermal massing.

Public Services and Facilities Element

Policy 3.1.1: Encourage the development and use of renewable energy resources.

Municipal Code

The 2019 California Energy Code (CCR Title 24 Part 6), which includes the Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, is adopted, with specified amendments, as Anaheim Municipal Code Section 15.03.10.0106. The 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CCR Title 24 Part 11) is adopted, with specified amendments, as Anaheim Municipal Code Section 15.03.10.0109.



Anaheim Public Utilities Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan

The Anaheim Public Utilities Department (APUD)’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GHGRP), approved in 2015, and updated in 2020, identifies renewable energy and energy conservation targets for APUD for the years 2020, 2030 and 2045. The GHGRP identifies renewables portfolio targets for increasing the APUD power supply generated from renewable sources up to 33 percent by year 2020, 60 percent by year 2030 and 100 percent by 2045. In 2020, 34,000 kilowatt (kW) of photovoltaic systems were installed, and 50,000 kW of photovoltaic systems installed by 2030 and 75,000 kW by 2045. The GHG Reduction Plan also establishes transportation-related goals for APUD to convert its fleet vehicles to result in emissions reductions of 500 MTCO2e in 2020, 1,200 MTCO2e in 2030 and 32,000 MTCO2e in 2045 (APUD 2020).

Question A: Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?

No Impact. Energy consumption related to the Project would occur during the construction and operations phases, as described in more detail below.

Construction Energy Use

Project construction would require the use of construction equipment for grading, hauling and building activities. Construction would also include the vehicles of construction workers and vendors traveling to and from the Project Site and on-road haul trucks for the export of materials from site clearing and demolition and the export and import of soil for grading.

Off-road construction equipment use was calculated from the equipment data (vehicle types, hours per day, horsepower, load factor) provided in the CalEEMod construction output files included in Appendix C. The total horsepower hours for construction equipment used for the Project was then multiplied by fuel usage rates to obtain the total fuel usage for off-road equipment.

Fuel consumption from construction worker, vendor, and delivery/haul trucks was calculated using the trip rates and distances provided in the CalEEMod construction output files. Total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was then calculated for each type of construction-related trip and divided by the fuel consumption factor from California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) EMission FACtors (EMFAC) 2017 model. EMFAC provides the total annual VMT and fuel consumed for each vehicle type. Construction vendor and delivery/haul trucks were assumed to be heavy-duty diesel trucks. As shown in Table 10, the Project would consume a total of 18,483 gallons of diesel fuel and 9,085 gallons of gasoline during construction.

TABLE 10 ENERGY USE DURING CONSTRUCTION

Source Gasoline -

gallons Diesel Fuel -

gallons Off-road Construction Equipment 52 17,673 Worker commute 7,451 33 Vendors 1,581 24 On-road haul 0 753

Total 9,085 18,483 Sources: Psomas 2020 based on data from CalEEMod, Offroad and EMFAC2017.



Fuel energy consumed during construction would be temporary in nature and would not represent a significant demand on energy resources. The Project also would implement MM 5.2-3 (Section III, Air Quality), which requires construction equipment to be properly maintained and to minimize idling. Furthermore, there are no unusual Project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than comparable equipment at construction sites in other parts of the State. Energy used in the construction of the Project would enable the development of buildings that meet the latest energy efficiency standards, as detailed in California’s Title 24 building standards. Therefore, the proposed construction activities would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption.

Operations Phase Energy Use

Energy consumption associated with the operations phase of the Project consists of electricity for lighting and electronic devices, natural gas for space heating and cooking, and transportation fuels. Electricity and natural gas consumption estimates were calculated by the CalEEMod model. Transportation related energy consumption of gasoline and diesel fuel was calculated based on the quantity of vehicles, average travel distance, vehicle class and fuel efficiency of each vehicle class as provided by the EMFAC model. Energy consumption calculations are included in Appendix C.

As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, the Proposed Project is a visitor-serving use that would provide lodging for visitors of the Disneyland Resort theme parks as well as local commercial uses. During Project operations, the following measures from EIR 340 would be implemented to reduce energy consumption: MM 5.2-6, MM 5.17-1, MM 5.17-3, and MM 5.17-4.

When taking into consideration the location of the Project, the infill nature of the development, and the compact land use pattern of the Project, the CalEEMod results estimates that Project-generated traffic would use 7,937 gallons of diesel fuel and 87,782 gallons of gasoline per year, as shown in Table 11, below. The development of lodging proximate to The Disneyland Resort theme parks would reduce transportation fuel use through the use of shuttle buses as compared to lodging options located further away from the theme parks, which would generally require personal transportation. Because the Project would provide lodging proximate to nearby theme parks and commercial uses, fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by the Project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary.

TABLE 11 TRANSPORTATION ENERGY

(GALLONS/YEAR)

Source Gasoline Fuel Diesel Fuel Project 87,782 7,937 Sources: CalEEMod, EMFAC2017

The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6 of the CCR) were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The current applicable standards are the 2019 Standards, effective January 1, 2020.

The 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11), also known as the CALGreen code, contains mandatory requirements and voluntary measures for new residential and nonresidential buildings (including buildings for hotel, retail, office, public schools and



hospitals) throughout California (CBSC 2019). The development of the CALGreen Code is intended to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the following construction practices: (1) planning and design; (2) energy efficiency; (3) water efficiency and conservation; (4) material conservation and resource efficiency; and (5) environmental quality (CBSC 2019). In short, the CALGreen Code was adopted to reduce construction waste, make buildings more efficient in the use of materials and energy, and reduce environmental impact during and after construction. The City’s Municipal Code adopts the mandatory provisions of the CALGreen Code by reference for all buildings and structures. The Project would promote building energy efficiency through compliance with energy efficiency standards (Title 24 and CALGreen).

As shown in Table 12, the Proposed Project would result in natural gas usage of 1,894,030 kilo-British thermal unit (kBTU) per year for heating needs. Electricity consumed is estimated to be 499,912 kilowatts per year (kWh/yr). These energy estimates are based on the 2016 Title 24 standards incorporated into the CalEEMod model. The Project would follow the 2019 Title 24 standards, which would result in less electricity and natural consumption than presented in Table 12. Development of buildings that comply with the latest energy efficiency standards adopted by the State California would not result in inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy.

TABLE 12 ENERGY FROM UTILITIES

Source Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Electricity (kWh/yr)

Project 1,894,030 499,912 Sources: CalEEMod

Question B: Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

No Impact. The Proposed Project would be required to comply with the State of California’s Title 24 Building Standards. As discussed previously, the latest building standards incorporate the California Energy Commission’s (CEC) building energy efficiency standards which would reduce energy consumption by over 30 percent compared to the existing Title 24 Building Standards. The Project would also be consistent with Goal 9.1 from the City of Anaheim’s General Plan Green Element. This is achieved by the Project’s development of lodging within walking distance of commercial uses and proximity to theme parks. This is also consistent with the goals of the City’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan of reducing air pollutant emissions associated with vehicle trips. Because the Project would comply with the latest State of California energy efficiency standards, provides infill development close to mass transit, and promotes pedestrian-oriented development to complementary commercial uses and proximity to theme parks, the Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or the City of Anaheim plan or policy for renewable energy or energy efficiency.



Mitigation Program


MM 5.2-6 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall implement, and demonstrate to the City, measures that are being taken to reduce operation-related air quality impacts. These measures may include, but are not limited to the following:

a. Improve thermal integrity of structures and reduced thermal load through use of automated time clocks or occupant sensors.

b. Incorporate efficient heating and other appliances. c. Incorporate energy conservation measures in site orientation and in building

design, such as appropriate passive solar design. d. Use drought-resistant landscaping wherever feasible to reduce energy used in

pumping and transporting water. e. Participate in marketing the existing Anaheim Telecenter (telecommuting/

video conferencing center) to guests in their hotels/businesses. To the extent feasible, provide daycare opportunities for employees or participate in a joint development daycare center

f. Install facilities for electric vehicle recharging, unless it is demonstrated that the technology for these facilities or availability of the equipment current at the time makes this installation infeasible

MM 5.17-1 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/develop shall consult with the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department, Resource Efficiency Business and Community Programs Division in order to review energy efficient measures to incorporate into the project design. Prior to the final building and zoning inspection, the property owner developer shall implement these energy efficient measures, which may include the following:

a. High-efficiency air-conditioning systems with EMS (computer) control b. Variable air volume (VAV) distribution c. Outside air (100%) economizer cycle d. Staged compressors or variable speed drives to flow varying thermal loads e. Isolated HVAC zone control by floors/separable activity areas f. Specification of premium-efficiency electric motors (i.e., compressor motors,

air-handling units, and fan-coil units) g. Occupancy sensors in appropriate spaces h. Use of compact fluorescent lamps i. Use of cold cathode fluorescent lamps j. Use of light emitting diode (LED) or equivalent energy-efficient lighting for

outdoor lighting k. Use of Energy Star® exit lighting or exit signage



l. Use of T-8 lamps and electronic ballasts where applications of standard fluorescent fixtures are identified

m. Use of lighting power controllers in association with metal-halide or high-pressure sodium (high intensity discharge) lamps for outdoor lighting and parking lots

n. Consideration of thermal energy storage air conditioning for spaces or facilities that may require air-conditioning during summer, day peak periods.

o. For swimming pools and spas, incorporate solar heating, automatic covers, and efficient pumps and motors, as feasible.

p. Consideration for participation in Advantage Services Programs such as: i. New construction design review, in which the City cost-shares engineering

for up to $10,000 for design of energy efficient buildings and systems ii. New Construction – cash incentives ($300 to $400 per kW reduction in

load) for efficiency that exceeds Title 24 requirements iii. Green Building Program – offers accelerated plan approval, financial

incentives, waived plan check fees and free technical assistance. (MEIR 313, MMs 3.9.9-1 and 3.9.9-2 in part, Public Services and Utilities)

MM 5.17-3 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit plans and calculations to the City of Anaheim Planning Department, Building Division, to demonstrate that the energy efficiency of each building will exceed the Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings current at the time of application by at least 10 percent.

MM 5.17-4 Prior to approval of a Final Site Plan, the property owner/developer shall coordinate with the Public Utilities Department to incorporate feasible renewable energy generation measures into the project. These measures may include but not be limited to use of solar and small wind turbine sources on new and existing facilities and the use of solar powered lighting in parking areas.

VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

The following analysis is based on Appendix D1, Geotechnical Report Update, Proposed Hotel Development, 1730 South Clementine Street, Anaheim, California, prepared for the Proposed Project by Global Geo-Engineering, Inc. (2019) and Appendix D2, Infiltration Rate, Proposed Hotel Development, 1730 South Clementine Street, Anaheim, California prepared for the Proposed Project by Global Geo-Engineering, Inc. (2019).

Question A: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

(i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site, as with the entire Southern California region, is subject to secondary effects from earthquakes. As stated in Appendix D1, Geotechnical Report Update, Proposed Hotel Project, 1730 South Manchester Avenue, Anaheim, California, the Project Site is not located within a mapped Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The closest



active faults are the Whittier Fault and the Newport-Inglewood Fault, located at distances of 9 and 10 miles, respectively, from the Project Site. Other potentially active faults include the Elsinore, and Sierra Madre-San Fernando fault, located at distances of about 12 and 23 miles, respectively, from the Project Site. Due to the distance of the closest active fault, ground rupture is not considered a significant hazard at the site. Implementation of the Proposed Project would be consistent with existing codes and regulations, including the Uniform Building Code, the Anaheim Municipal Code (Anaheim 2011), and the requirements of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act (California Public Resources Code §§2621 et seq.). Therefore, development of the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to rupture of a known earthquake fault, and no mitigation is required.

Question A: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

(ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The Project Site is situated in a seismically active area that has historically been affected by generally moderate to occasionally high levels of ground motion. The site is located proximate to several active faults; therefore, during the life of the Proposed Project, the property would likely experience similar moderate to occasionally high ground shaking from these fault zones as well as some background shaking from other seismically active areas in the Southern California region. Design and construction in accordance with current California Building Code (CBC) requirements is anticipated to address the issues related to potential ground shaking. Implementation of MM 6-1 requires review and approval showing that the proposed structure has been analyzed for earthquake loading and designed according to the most recent seismic standards in the CBC. Implementation of MM 6-2 requires all grading operations to be conducted in conformance with the recommendations contained in the applicable geotechnical investigation. Implementation of MM 6-1 and MM 6-2 would further reduce potential seismic or geologic hazards impacts to a less than significant level.

Question A: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: (iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (iv) Landslides?

Less Than Significant Impact. As stated in Appendix D1, Geotechnical Report Update, Proposed Hotel Project, 1730 South Clementine Street, Anaheim, California, no groundwater was encountered to the maximum depth explored of 50 feet on the Project Site. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction to occur beneath the Project Site is considered to be very low and groundwater is not anticipated to be a factor with construction of the Proposed Project elements. Furthermore, as stated in Appendix D1, a Seismic Hazards Zones Map indicates that the Project Site is not located within an area identified for earthquake induced landslides or liquefaction. The Project Site is relatively flat without any slopes and the site is not located in a designated slope stability area as shown on the State of California seismic hazard maps. Because of these conditions, the possibility of seismically induced liquefaction and landslides associated with construction of the Proposed Project is considered remote, resulting in a less than significant impact. No mitigation is required.

Question B: Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Less Than Significant Impact. As stated in Appendix F, Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, Clementine Hotel, 1730 South Clementine Street, Anaheim, California 92802, prepared by



Walden & Associates (2019), the majority of the Project Site exists as an impervious surface area. The entire Project Site which includes a one-story industrial building and existing surface parking area has an impervious percentage of 99 percent. With implementation of the Proposed Project, the surface of the site would be modified to decrease the impervious condition from approximately 99 percent to approximately 93 percent, thus creating more pervious surfaces through an increase in landscaped areas (refer to Exhibits 9a and b, Preliminary Landscape and Planting Plan). Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would be required to comply with standard construction practices as published by the California Stormwater Quality Association. The Proposed Project would comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit through the development and implementation of a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). As part of the SWPPP, erosion and sediment-control Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be required and are discussed in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality. Once construction is complete, the Project Site will comply with BMPs identified in the Proposed Project’s Preliminary WQMP to reduce erosion effects to less than significant levels (for further discussion, see Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality). No significant impacts related to erosion on the Project Site are anticipated.

Question C: 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?

Less Than Significant Impact. As stated in Appendix D1, Geotechnical Report Update, Proposed Hotel Project, 1730 South Clementine Street, Anaheim, California, the Project Site is underlain by fill soils and native alluvial soils. While no man-made fill was positively identified in the borings, it is considered likely that some fill previously placed during the development history of the property does exist. Underlying the fill are native alluvial soils, comprised of alternating layers of silty sand, sandy and clayey silt, and silty clay. The sand is generally found to be fine-grained while the silt and clay were observed as porous. As stated previously, the Project Site is not located within the State-designated zone liquefaction potential. The groundwater depth is reported to be greater than 50 feet below ground surface; therefore, the depth of the water table and the overlying dense, earthen materials make the potential for liquefaction very low. Potential impacts related to ground stability, including landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse, would be less than significant for the Project Site, and no mitigation is required.

Question D: Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Section 1803.5.3 of the California Building Code (2010), creating substantial risks to life or property?

Less Than Significant Impact. As stated in Appendix D1, Geotechnical Report Update, Proposed Hotel Project, 1730 South Clementine Street, Anaheim, California, the Project Site contains soils that possess a low to medium expansion potential. On-site soils encountered during the geotechnical investigation include non-expansive silty sands, sandy and clayey silt, and silty clay. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to creating substantial risks to life or property due to expansive soils.

Question E: Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

No Impact. The Proposed Project would not involve the use of septic tanks or an alternative wastewater disposal system. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required.



Question F: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. A paleontological records search was requested of Dr. Sam McLeod at the Natural History Museum (LACM) of Los Angeles County, Vertebrate Paleontology Department and results were received on February 19, 2020. The results indicate that there are no vertebrate fossil localities directly within the boundaries of the Project segment; however, three fossil-bearing localities are recorded near the Project Site. Furthermore, a search of the database of Late Pleistocene vertebrate localities for California (Jefferson 1991), which includes institutional records and published references, indicates that no additional previously recorded fossil localities have been recorded within one mile of the Project.

Therefore, the project would not impact known paleontological resources; however, surface sediments at and surrounding the Project Site consist of Pleistocene to Holocene alluvial deposits originating from the mountains to the southwest. Deep excavation that involves disturbance of native soils could result in the disturbance and/or destruction of paleontological resources that may be present in deeper Pleistocene alluvial deposits that underlie the Project Site. Implementation of MM 6-3 related to paleontological resources would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Program


MM 6-1 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Planning Department, Building Services Division for review and approval showing that the proposed structure has been analyzed for earthquake loading and designed according to the most recent seismic standards in the California Building Code adopted by the City of Anaheim. (ARSP EIR 340 MM 5.5-3)

MM 6-2 Prior to issuance of building or grading permits, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department, Building Services Division geologic and geotechnical investigations in areas of potential seismic or geologic hazards and provide a note on plans that all grading operations will be conducted in conformance with the recommendations contained in the applicable geotechnical investigation. (ARSP EIR 340 MM 5.5-6)

MM 6-3 In the event that paleontological resources are inadvertently unearthed during excavation activities, the contractor shall immediately cease all earth-disturbing activities within a 100-foot radius of the area of discovery and the contractor shall contact the City immediately. The City shall retain a qualified professional paleontologist to evaluate the significance of the find, and in consultation with the City, determine an appropriate course of action. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, the paleontologist, in consultation with the City, shall determine appropriate actions for exploration and salvage. After the find has been appropriately avoided or mitigated, work in the area may resume. (ARSP EIR 340 MM 5.4-2).



In addition to these measures which are required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels, the following mitigation measures from MMP 85C would also be applicable to the Project as they are included within EIR 340:

MM 5.5-1 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department, Building Services Division for review and approval, detailed foundation design information for the subject building(s), prepared by a civil engineer, based on recommendations by a geotechnical engineer.

MM 5.5-2 Prior to issuance of each foundation permit, the property owner/developer shall submit a report prepared by a geotechnical engineer to the Planning and Building Department, Building Services Division for review and approval, which shall investigate the subject foundation excavations to determine if soft layers are present immediately beneath the footing site and to ensure that compressibility does not underlie the footing.

MM 5.5-4 Prior to the final building and zoning inspection for a hotel/motel, the property owner/developer shall submit an earthquake emergency response plan for review and approval by the Fire Department. The plan shall require posted notices in all hotel rooms on earthquake safety procedures and incorporate ongoing earthquake training for hotel staff to the satisfaction of the Fire Department.

MM 5.5-5 Ongoing during grading activities, the property owner/developer shall implement standard practices for all applicable codes and ordinances to prevent erosion to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Department, Building Services Division.

VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

The following analysis is based on Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Data, prepared for the Proposed Project by Psomas (2020).

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Background Information

Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (e.g., average temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns) over a period of time. Climate change may result from natural factors, natural processes, and human activities that change the composition of the atmosphere and alter the surface and features of the land. Significant changes in global climate patterns have recently been associated with global warming, which is an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth’s surface; this is attributed to an accumulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the atmosphere. GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere which, in turn, increases the Earth’s surface temperature. Some GHGs occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes, while others are created and emitted solely through human activities. The emission of GHGs through fossil fuel combustion in conjunction with other human activities appears to be closely associated with global warming.

GHGs, as defined under California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 32, include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). General discussions on climate change often include water vapor, atmospheric ozone, and aerosols in the GHG category. Water vapor and atmospheric ozone are not gases that are formed directly in the construction or operation of development Projects, nor can they be controlled in these Projects. Aerosols are not gases. While these elements have a



role in climate change, they are not considered by either regulatory bodies, such as CARB, or climate change groups, such as the California Climate Action Registry, as gases to be reported or analyzed for control. Therefore, no further discussion of water vapor, atmospheric ozone, or aerosols is provided.

Regulatory Background

On June 1, 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order (EO) S-3-05, which calls for a reduction in GHG emissions to the year 2000 level by 2010, to year 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

The principal overall State plan and policy adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions is Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006). AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and establishes a cap on statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 recognizes that California is the source of substantial amounts of GHG emissions. The statute states the following:

Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health-related problems.

In order to avert these consequences, AB 32 establishes a State goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, codifying the goal of EO S-3-05.

CARB approved a Climate Change Scoping Plan as required by AB 32 in 2008; this plan is updated every five years as required. The Climate Change Scoping Plan proposes a “comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall carbon GHG emissions in California, improve our environment, reduce our dependence on oil, diversify our energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health” (CARB 2008). The Climate Change Scoping Plan has a range of GHG-reduction actions which include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system, and an AB 32 implementation regulation to fund the program. On February 10, 2014, CARB released the Draft Proposed First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan (CARB 2014). The board approved the final First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014. The first update describes California’s progress towards AB 32 goals, stating that “California is on track to meet the near-term 2020 greenhouse gas limit and is well positioned to maintain and continue reductions beyond 2020 as required by AB 32” (CARB 2014). The latest update occurred in January 2017 and incorporates the 40 percent reduction to 1990 emissions levels by 2030.

The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, Senate Bill (SB) 375, established a process to coordinate land use planning, regional transportation plans, and funding priorities in order to help California meet the GHG reduction goals established in AB 32. SB 375 required SCAG to incorporate a “sustainable communities strategy” (SCS) into its regional transportation plans (RTPs) that will achieve GHG emission reduction targets though several measures, including land use decisions. SCAG’s SCS is included in the SCAG 2016–2040 RTP/SCS (SCAG 2016). The goals and policies of the RTP/SCS that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) focus on transportation and land use planning that include building infill projects;



locating residents closer to where they work and play; and designing communities so there is access to high quality transit service.

On April 29, 2015, Governor Brown signed EO B-30-15, which ordered an interim statewide GHG emission reduction target to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 to ensure California meets its target of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Five key goals for reducing GHG emissions through 2030 include (1) increasing renewable electricity to 50 percent; (2) doubling the energy efficiency savings achieved in existing buildings and making heating fuels cleaner; (3) reducing petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50 percent; (4) reducing emissions of short-lived climate pollutants; and (5) managing farms, rangelands, forests and wetlands to increasingly store carbon. EO B-30-15 also directs CARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

On September 8, 2016, the Governor signed Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) to codify the GHG reduction goals of EO B-30-15, requiring the State to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (Health and Safety Code Section 38566). As stated above, this goal is expected to keep the State on track to meeting the goal set by EO S-3-05 of reducing GHG emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

AB 197 was signed at the same time to ensure that the SB 32 goals are met by requiring CARB to provide annual reports of GHGs, criteria pollutants, and TACs by facility, City and sub-county level, and sector for stationary sources and at the County level for mobile sources. It also requires the CARB to prioritize specified emission reduction rules and regulations and to identify specified information for emission reduction measures (e.g., alternative compliance mechanism, market-based compliance mechanism, and potential monetary and nonmonetary incentive) when updating the Scoping Plan.

SB 350, signed October 7, 2015, is the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015. SB 350 is the implementation of some of the goals of EO B-30-15. The objectives of SB 350 are as follows:

1. To increase from 33 percent to 50 percent, the procurement of our electricity from renewable sources

2. To double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas final end uses of retail customers through energy efficiency and conservation

The text of SB 350 sets a December 31, 2030, target for 50 percent of electricity to be generated from renewable sources. SB 350 also requires the State to double statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030. Additionally, SB 350 sets requirements for large utilities to develop and submit integrated resources plans (IRPs), which detail how utilities would meet their customers’ resource needs, reduce GHG emissions, and integrate clean energy resources (CEC 2020a).

On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown signed SB 100, the 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018. SB 100 requires renewable energy and zero-carbon resources to supply 100 percent of electric retail sales to end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve state agencies by December 31, 2045. This policy requires the transition to zero-carbon electric systems that do not cause contributions to increase of GHG emissions elsewhere in the western electricity grid (CEC 2020b). SB 100 also creates new standards for the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) goals established by SB 350 in 2015. Specifically, the bill increases required



energy from renewable sources for both investor-owned utilities and publicly owned utilities from 50 percent to 60 percent by 2030.

Further, on September 10, 2018, Governor Brown also signed California EO B-55-18, which sets a new statewide goal of carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045 and achieve net negative emissions thereafter. EO B-55-18 was added to the existing Statewide targets of reducing GHG emissions, including the targets previously established by Governor Brown of reducing emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (EO B-30-15 and SB 32), and by Governor Schwarzenegger of reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2040 (EO S-3-05).

SCAQMD Significance Criteria

On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board presented the staff proposal for a tiered threshold approach wherein Tier 1 determines if a project qualifies for an applicable CEQA exemption, Tier 2 determines consistency with GHG reduction plans, and Tier 3 proposes a numerical screening value as a threshold. At their September 28, 2010, meeting, the Working Group suggested a Tier 3 threshold of 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year for all land use types (SCAQMD 2010). Tier 4 determines if the project meets performance standards. Tier 4 has three options: Option 1—percent emission reduction target; Option 2—early implementation of applicable measures, and Option 3—sector-based standard. Tier 5 determines mitigation for CEQA offsets.

In the absence of adopted thresholds, the Tier 3 standard is used for this analysis (SCAQMD 2008). The development of project-level thresholds in accordance with CEQA is an ongoing effort at the State, Regional, and County levels, and significance thresholds may differ for future projects based on new or additional data and information that may be available at that time for consideration. The City of Anaheim has not officially adopted any GHG CEQA significance threshold. The City defers to assessment methods and significance thresholds developed by the SCAQMD. This impact analysis evaluates consistency with regulatory programs designed to reduce GHG emissions and that contribute to the achievement of AB 32’s and SB 32’s goals as the primary significance criterion. In addition, this impact analysis also evaluates the Project’s estimated emissions compared to the Tier 3 threshold (as discussed above) for impacts related to GHG emissions proposed by staff of the SCAQMD, but not adopted by the SCAQMD Board. The Tier 3 threshold is used as an industry standard for the assessment of potential GHG impacts within the South Coast Air Basin and represents the best available guidance in the assessment of potential GHG impacts.

Question A: Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

Less than Significant Impact. In developing methods for greenhouse gas (GHG) impact analysis, there have been suggestions from local air pollution control districts of quantitative thresholds, often referred to as screening levels, which define an emissions level below which it may be presumed that climate change impacts would be less than significant. Neither the SCAQMD, the City of Anaheim, nor the County of Orange has adopted a significance threshold for GHG emissions from non-industrial development projects. Consequently, pursuant to the discretion afforded by Sections 15064.4(a) and 15064.4(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the impact of the Proposed Project’s GHG emissions is assessed based on the methodologies proposed by SCAQMD’s GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group, as described above.



Based on the proposed construction activities described above, the principal source of construction GHG emissions would be internal combustion engines of construction equipment, on-road construction vehicles, and workers’ commuting vehicles. GHG emissions from construction activities were obtained from the CalEEMod model, described above. The estimated construction GHG emissions for the Proposed Project would be 624 MTCO2e, as shown in Table 13, Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Construction.

TABLE 13 ESTIMATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

FROM CONSTRUCTION

Year Emissions (MTCO2e)

2020 127 2021 379 2022 118

Total 624 MTCO2e: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent Notes: • Totals may not add due to rounding variances. • Detailed calculations in Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas

Emissions Modeling Data.

Operational GHG emissions would come primarily from vehicle trips; other sources include electricity and water consumption; natural gas for space and water heating; and gasoline-powered landscaping and maintenance equipment. Table 14, Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Project Operation, shows the annual GHG emissions from Proposed Project’s operations.

TABLE 14 ESTIMATED ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM PROJECT OPERATION

Source Emissions

(MTCO2e/yr) Area <1

Energy 383 Mobile 856 Waste 34 Water 26

Total Operational Emissions 1,299 MTCO2e/yr: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year Notes: • Totals may not add due to rounding variances. • Detailed calculations in Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas

Emissions Modeling Data.

Because impacts from construction activities occur over a relatively short period of time, they contribute a relatively small portion of the overall lifetime project GHG emissions. In addition, GHG emission reduction measures for construction equipment are relatively limited. The SCAQMD recommends that construction emissions be amortized over a 30-year project lifetime so that



GHG reduction measures address construction GHG emissions as part of the operational GHG reduction strategies (SCAQMD 2008). Therefore, construction and operational emissions are combined by amortizing the construction and operations over an assumed 30-year project lifetime. This combination is shown in Table 15, Estimated Total Project Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions, using the Proposed Project’s amortized construction and operational emissions.

TABLE 15 ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT ANNUAL

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Source Emissions

(MTCO2e/yra) Construction (Amortized) 21a Operations (Table 14) 1,299

Totalb 1,319 SCAQMD-Recommended Threshold (Tier 3) 3,000

Exceeds Threshold? No MTCO2e/yr: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year a Total derived by dividing construction emissions (see Table 13) by 30. b Total annual emissions are the sum of amortized construction emissions

and operational emissions.

It is noted that there are no established applicable quantitative federal, State, regional, or local CEQA significance criteria for GHG emissions for non-industrial projects in the SoCAB. The SCAQMD has proposed, but not adopted, a threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for non-industrial land use projects. As shown, the estimated GHG emissions from the Proposed Project would be less than this suggested threshold. The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Question B: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Anaheim has not adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP), and the SCAQMD has not adopted standards for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. There are a number of GHG reduction plans that have been adopted on the State and regional level. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) adopted this 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) for the six-county region including Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura Counties. The RTP/SCS seeks to improve the mobility, sustainability and economies of this region. This Plan demonstrates how the region would reduce transportation emissions to comply with Senate Bill 375 (SB 375). This is achieved by numerous transportation related programs and projects which seek to improve the operational efficiency of the transportation network, promote mass transit and non-automobile forms of transportation, and fulfill the requirements for the SCS to reduce GHG emissions.

The Anaheim Public Utilities Department (APUD) has also outlined a plan to transition their Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to clean energy resources and has increased the procurement of renewable resources since 2003 through its Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), approved by City Council and the California Energy Commission (CEC) in 2018 (APUD 2017). The IRP established goals such as a 50 percent RPS by 2030, which is consistent with the requirements of SB 350, which requires all California electric utilities to increase the use of renewable resources to serve customer load to 50 percent by 2030 (APUD 2017). Additionally,



APUD prepared a GHG Reduction Plan in 2020 to update the City’s 2015 GHG Reduction Plan and outline new GHG reduction targets (APUD 2020). The 2020 GHG Reduction Plan set targets for 2020, 2030 and 2045, which are consistent with the targets of SB 350 and SB 100 for increased RPS standards. Although APUD’s reduction goals are not directly applicable the Proposed Project, APUD’s GHG reductions would also reduce the Project’s GHG emissions because APUD is the utility provider for the Proposed Project. The regulations, plans, and polices adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions that are directly applicable to the Project include the 2019 Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings and the Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). The 2019 Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for non-residential buildings include requirements such as updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to exterior and vice versa; ventilation requirements; and lighting requirements. Under the 2019 Standards, nonresidential buildings will be 30 percent more energy efficient when compared to the 2016 Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards. CALGreen requirements include reductions in indoor and outdoor water use, diversion of construction and demolition waste, inclusion of electric vehicle charging spaces or designated spaces capable of supporting future charging stations. These codes are enforced by the City, and adherence to standard requirements for construction and operations would ensure that the Proposed Project would comply with both regulations. Therefore, through implementation of the State regulations mentioned above, the Proposed Project would be meet the energy use reduction goals outlined by the APUD.

Overall, the proposed Project is an infill development project. The Project’s proximity to nearby commercial uses, such as the Anaheim GardenWalk, would result in trip reductions by encouraging pedestrian activity. Since the Project would promote pedestrian activity in an area with complementary uses, this would reduce reliance on single-passenger vehicles. The Proposed Project would also participate in the City’s Anaheim Resort Transportation (ART) shuttle service to and from the nearby Disneyland theme parks. This would reduce vehicle emissions generated by the operation of the hotel. The Project Site is also located within ¼ -mile of multiple Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) stops, as detailed further in Section XVII, Transportation/Traffic, of this IS/MND. The proximity of the Project Site to Disneyland minimizes the trip length that hotel guests would have to travel to the theme park as well as provides an additional incentive to use the ART shuttle or OCTA buses, which would also reduce the number of vehicle trips. Additionally, the Project would provide bicycle parking and storage areas to encourage the reduction of fossil-fueled vehicle use by employees and hotel guests and the associated GHG emissions. As such, the Project would result in reduced vehicle trip lengths due to its proximity to commercial uses and theme parks, encourage nonvehicular travel options, as well as promote the use of mass transit which are consistent with the goals of the RTP/SCS.As discussed previously, Project related emissions would be less than the SCAQMD-recommended Tier 3 threshold and would result in less than significant impacts. As such, the SCAQMD does not consider the Project to result in a significant quantity of GHG emissions. Development of the Project would also meet the targets outlined in the GHG Reduction Plan through the incorporation of building energy efficiency and reductions in GHG emissions by use of mass transit and pedestrian travel. Thus, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of State, regional, or local agencies and the impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Program




IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

The information in this section is derived from Appendix E, Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, 1730 South Clementine Street, Anaheim, California 92802 prepared for the Proposed Project by EDI Consultants (2020).

Question A: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

Less Than Significant Impact. Demolition and construction activities for the Proposed Project would require the transport and use of standard construction equipment and materials, some of which may include a hazardous component such as transport and storage of fuels. These activities would be associated with construction activities and would, therefore, be temporary. These activities would be conducted in accordance with existing federal, State, and local regulations.

Long-term, operational hazards to the environment or the public through the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials are typically associated with operation of non-residential uses, such as industrial and some commercial uses. Once the Project is constructed, use of hazardous materials would be limited to normal household chemicals such as paint, pesticides, cleansers, and solvents and would be limited in quantities. The Proposed Project would not utilize, store, or generate hazardous materials or wastes in quantities that may pose a significant hazard to the public. Furthermore, the hazardous materials that would be generated used by the Proposed Project, such as those indicated above, would be disposed of at the appropriate landfills that accept those types of waste. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Question B: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project involves the demolition of an existing one-story industrial building and construction of a new hotel. During the demolition and construction phases of the Proposed Project, there is limited risk of accidental release of hazardous materials such as gasoline, oil, or other fluids in the operation and maintenance of construction equipment. However, use of these materials in limited quantities is typical during operation and maintenance of construction equipment and would be conducted in compliance with applicable State and local regulations. Additionally, the contractor would be required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures, which would avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release or spill of such substances into the environment. The level of risk associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances during construction is less than significant.

In January 2020, a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (Appendix E) was prepared for the Project Site by EDI Consultants. The objective of a Phase I ESA is to identify, to the extent feasible, recognized environmental conditions (RECs). A REC is defined in ASTM practice E 1527-131 standards as a condition that indicates an existing release, a past release, or a

1 The ASTM E1527-05 Standard is the industry standard used for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments. Fully

named “ASTM E1527-05 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process,” the Standard outlines the purpose and use of the Phase I ESA as well as the scope of work to be conducted, including: records review (historical and governmental records); site reconnaissance (inspection



material threat of a release of any hazardous substance or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the site.

Prior to construction of the existing improvements in 1964, the Project Site was orchard land from as far back as 1938 to at least 1953 and vacant land from at least 1960 to 1963. The current on-site building was historically occupied by a local publication, School of Theology and local television network from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s; a dry cleaning establishment (Satellite Cleaners) from at least 1998 to 2013; and unoccupied from 2014 to present.

Based on historical review, the Project Site was occupied by a former tenant, Satellite Cleaners, which operated as a dry cleaning facility. Dry cleaners typically utilize chlorinated solvents in their operations. Due to the high mobility of the principal solvent used in the dry cleaning process, tetrachloroethene (PCE), and its ability to readily pass through concrete, even incidental spills or minor past releases of the former dry cleaning tenant of at least 15 years represented a potential REC in connection with the Project Site.

The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB – Region 8), as the lead regulatory agency, issued a “No Further Action” determination letter for the Project Site on September 21, 2017 after a series of soil vapor samplings and investigations were performed and conducted by Geo-Engineering, Inc., Soil Pacific, Inc. and Andersen Environmental. The SARWQCB determined no further action (NFA) was necessary with respect to the low levels of VOCs in the shallow subsurface soil at the Project Site and issued their NFA determination letter for the Project Site on September 21, 2017. An NFA designation indicates that the site has been remediated to the satisfaction of the SARWQCB and no longer poses a threat to human health or the environment. Based on its current regulatory status, it is unlikely that the site poses a significant negative environmental impact to the Proposed Project, and therefore no further action is recommended at this time in connection with the former on-site dry cleaning operations.

As stated previously, there is a possibility that PCE in soil and soil vapor exists at the Project Site due to its previous use a dry cleaning facility. The Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (Appendix E) prepared for the Proposed Project, recommends that any construction activities or changes in site usage resulting in creating an exposure pathway for PCE in soil vapor beneath the site be adequately managed in accordance with all applicable provisions and regulations of the local, state and federal environmental authorities, and an appropriate management plan and health and safety plan should be prepared and implemented by a qualified environmental professional. In the future, should the land use change to other than a commercial or industrial setting, an environmental risk level may need to be re-evaluated with respect to the new land use. Implementation of MM 8-1 related to the handling and disposal of hazardous waste and/or hazardous materials would further reduce any potential impacts to a less than significant level.

of the property and adjacent sites); interviews (with owners and occupants and local government officials); evaluation and report preparation.

The ASTM E1527-05 Standard was created by the American Society for Testing and Materials (now simply ASTM International) and is designed to meet the EPA’s requirement for All Appropriate Inquiry for environmental due diligence. The E1527 Standard for Phase I ESAs has gone through several iterations, the latest being finalized in 2005. The standard is reviewed and revised by the ASTM Committee E50 on Environmental Risk Assessment, Risk Management and Corrective Action.



Question C: Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

No Impact. There are no schools within ¼-mile of the Project Site. The nearest school is John Marshall Elementary School at 1010 South Harbor Boulevard (0.6 miles northeast of the Project Site). The Proposed Project is a hotel that would not involve any uses that would emit or require the handling of hazardous materials in measurable quantities (refer to the discussion provided in Threshold “a” above). No impacts to nearby schools are anticipated, and no mitigation is required.

Question D: Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

Less Than Significant Impact. As part of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Appendix E) prepared for the Proposed Project, Envirosite Corporation conducted a search of all reasonably ascertainable records in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s All Appropriate Inquiries (EPA’s AAI) (40 CFR) requirements and the ASTM E-1527-13 Environmental Site Assessment standards. The complete list of databases and additional information regarding the identified site can be found in Appendix C of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Appendix E). A total of 114 sites are located within ¼-mile of the Project Site. As stated previously, one listing was reported within the boundaries of the Project Site: Satellite Cleaners, located at 1730 South Clementine Street. This site was identified on the following databases: DRYCLEANERS, CALEPA SITES – CA, SLIC REG 8 – CA, HAZNET, INDUSTRIAL CLEANUP, ECHO, FRS, and RCRA SQG. Based on historical review, the Project Site was formerly occupied by Satellite Cleaners – a dry cleaning facility. Dry cleaners typically utilize chlorinated solvents in their operations. Due to the high mobility of the principal solvent used in the dry cleaning process, PCE, and its ability to readily pass through concrete, even incidental spills or minor past releases of the former dry cleaning tenant of at least 15 years represented a potential REC in connection with the Project Site. However, of the hazardous materials sites identified in the vicinity of the Proposed Project, none of the identified sites pose a hazard to the Project Site. No impacts related to known hazardous materials sites would occur. No significant impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required.

Question E: For a project located within an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport), would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

No Impact. The Project Site is not located within an adopted Airport Land Use Plan or in the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport, or helistop. The nearest airport is Fullerton Municipal Airport located in the City of Fullerton, approximately 6 miles northwest of the site. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not impact the airport facilities or their operation; no mitigation would be required.

Question F: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

No Impact. The City of Anaheim’s Hazard Mitigation Plan was adopted by the Anaheim City Council on May 9, 2017. This plan provides guidance during emergency situations associated with natural disasters, public health emergencies, and industrial accidents. The Project Site is located along South Clementine Street, a secondary arterial in the City of Anaheim. Construction activity would be confined to the Project Site and would not interfere with vehicle movement or



emergency access along the roadway. The Proposed Project does not include characteristics that would physically impair or otherwise interfere with emergency response or evacuation in the vicinity of the Proposed Project. As detailed in Section XVII, Transportation/Traffic, any impacts related to the addition of traffic related to the Proposed Project would be less than significant; therefore, the Proposed Project would not interfere with the movement of emergency vehicles along local roadways. Therefore, these conditions preclude the possibility of the Proposed Project conflicting with an emergency response or evacuation plan, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Question G: Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

No Impact. The Project Site is located in an urban, developed area and would not be subject to wildland fire risks. According to the City of Anaheim General Plan, the Project Site is not located within a designated Special Protection Area or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (Anaheim 2004a). Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation would be required.

Mitigation Program


MM 8-1 Ongoing during project demolition and construction, in the event that hazardous waste, including asbestos, is discovered during site preparation or construction, the property owner/developer shall ensure that the identified hazardous waste and/or hazardous material are handled and disposed of in the manner specified by the State of California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5), and according to the requirements of the California Administrative Code, Title 30, Chapter 22. (ARSP EIR 340 MM 5.7-6)

In addition to this measure which is required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels, the following mitigation measures from MMP 85C would be applicable to the Project as they are included within EIR 340:

MM 5.7-1 Prior to issuance of the first grading or demolition permit, whichever occurs first, in areas of former service stations, in areas known or thought to have been previously occupied by USTs, and in areas where tank removal has not been verified prior to excavation or grading the property owner/developer shall retain the services of a qualified environmental professional to conduct an investigation for known, or the presence of, cryptic tanks, using geophysical methods. Soil sampling or a soil organic vapor survey may be required if soil sampling results are not available, or indicate contamination is present above regulatory guidelines. If warranted, subsurface investigation and sampling shall be undertaken in these areas, and appropriate remediation measures developed, if necessary, before demolition, excavation, or grading takes place in these areas.

MM 5.7-2 Prior to the removal of USTs, the property owner/developer shall obtain a permit from the Hazardous Materials Management Section of the Fire Department for the removal of such tanks. During the removal of USTs, a representative from the



Environmental Protection Section of the Fire Department shall be onsite to direct soil sampling.

MM 5.7-3 Ongoing during remediation all remediation activities of surface or subsurface contamination not related to USTs, conducted on behalf of the property owner/developer, shall be overseen by the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA). Information on subsurface contamination from USTs shall be provided to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) with a copy to Planning & Building.

Note: Per a memo dated October 22, 2014 from the Public Utilities Department, as of July 1, 2014, the Environmental Services Division of the Public Utilities Department is no longer responsible for overseeing the cleanup of new UST cases, and the responsibility has been delegated to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB). However, the Anaheim Fire Department will still be responsible for overseeing the removal of USTs. (amended February 26, 2015).

MM 5.7-4 Prior to issuance of the first grading or demolition permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall submit a plan for review and approval by the Fire Department which details procedures that will be taken if previously unknown USTs, or other unknown hazardous material or waste, is discovered onsite.

MM 5.7-5 Prior to issuance of the first grading or demolition permit, whichever occurs first for future developments within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area affecting any property on a published list of leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) that has not been officially closed or resolved, a qualified environmental professional, retained by the property owner/developer, shall attempt to contact the current and/or known former property/business owners to obtain information regarding the status of USTs and/or tank closures at these sites. If warranted, subsurface investigation and sampling shall be undertaken by a qualified environmental professional, and results of these analyses shall be submitted to the Fire Department and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB), for review and approval. Appropriate remediation measures will be developed, if necessary, before demolition, excavation, or grading takes place in these areas. A copy of the approval letter with any appropriate remediation measures shall be submitted to Planning & Building.

MM 5.7-7 Prior to issuance of any discretionary permit for a current or former hazardous waste disposal site or solid waste disposal site, the project property owner/developer shall submit a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment to the City. If possible hazardous materials are identified during the site assessments, the appropriate response/remedial measures will be implemented in accordance with the requirements of the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), as appropriate.



X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

The information in this section is derived from Appendix F, Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), Clementine Hotel, 1730 South Clementine Street, Anaheim, CA 92802 prepared for the Proposed Project by Walden & Associates (2019) and Appendix G, Preliminary Drainage Study for Hotel 55, 1730 South Clementine Street, Anaheim, CA prepared by Walden & Associates (2020).

Question A: Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?

Question D: Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. According to Appendix F, Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, Clementine Hotel, 1730 South Clementine Street, Anaheim CA 92802, potential pollutant sources associated with the construction and operation of the Proposed Project may include suspended-solid/sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, pathogens (bacteria/virus), pesticides, oil and grease, toxic organic compounds, and trash and debris. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would increase the potential for storm water runoff to transport these pollutants into the storm drain system, thus contributing to the degradation of water quality and the potential violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

With implementation of MM 9-1, short-term construction impacts from the Proposed Project would be minimized through compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit. This permit—which requires filing a notice of intent (NOI) with the State Water Resources Control Board—requires the development and implementation of an SWPPP, which must include (1) erosion and sediment-control BMPs that meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General Permit and (2) BMPs that control other potential construction-related pollutants. An SWPPP would be developed as required by, and in compliance with, the NPDES Construction General Permit. In addition to the requirements of the NPDES General Construction Permit, the California Building Code and grading permit requirements include provisions that require reduction of erosion and sedimentation impacts during construction. Full compliance with applicable local, State, and federal regulations and implementation of MM 9-1 would ensure that water quality impacts associated with construction would be less than significant.

As indicated in Appendix F, Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, Clementine Hotel, 1730 South Clementine Street, Anaheim CA 92802, the structural source control BMPs listed below would achieve long-term water quality enhancement through proposed drainage and treatment systems: provide storm drain stenciling and signage; design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction; use efficient irrigation systems and landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control; and incorporate requirements applicable to individual priority project categories (from SDRWQCB NPDES Permit). Non-structural BMPs (also identified in the Preliminary WQMP) would also reduce pollutant loading into storm water runoff. Therefore, compliance with the recommendations set forth in the Appendix F, Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, Clementine Hotel, 1730 South Clementine Street, Anaheim CA 92802, as well as implementation of MM 9-1 and MM 9-2 related to cleaning of all paved areas not maintained by the City of Anaheim would reduce potential impacts related to storm water to less than significant levels.

Figure 5.5-5 of the Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update EIR No. 330 identifies that the Project Site is located within the flood impact zone associated with the Prado Dam (Anaheim



2004b), which is located over 15 miles northeast of the Project Site. Although the Project Site is located within the designated flood impact zone, the actual threat of flooding is low due to the extensive development and natural features that exist between the dam and the Project Site, including several freeways, the Santa Ana River, and portions of the Santa Ana mountain range which would act to block, reduce, or slow the risk of flooding. Additionally, the Prado Dam is subject to annual safety inspections to ensure that the dam is safe, performing as intended, and is not developing problems (USACE 2015). Therefore, impacts associated with the risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding would be less than significant. The Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

The Project Site is located approximately 11 miles east of the Pacific Ocean and approximately 2 miles west of the Santa Ana River Channel; therefore, there is no potential for inundation of the Project Site by seiche. Additionally, the Project Site is located within a relatively flat, developed area of the city and would not be subject to mudflows.

Question B: Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?

Less Than Significant Impact. Under existing conditions, the Project Site which includes the one-story industrial building and existing surface parking areas is currently 99 percent impervious and does not contribute significantly to groundwater recharge due to the small amount of unpaved areas or pervious surfaces which are subject to surface water infiltration. As identified in Appendix F, Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, Clementine Hotel, 1730 South Clementine Street, Anaheim CA 92802, the surface of the site would be modified to decrease the impervious condition to approximately 93 percent. Additionally, the Project Site is not located in the City’s designated Groundwater Protection Zone, as depicted on Figure G-2 of the City of Anaheim General Plan (Anaheim 2004). Because of this and due to the nominal decrease in impervious surface area, development of the Proposed Project would not interfere with groundwater recharge through the elimination of surface water infiltration.

The Proposed Project would not withdraw directly from the groundwater basin; rather, water resources would be provided by the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department (refer to Section XIX, Utilities and Service Systems). The Proposed Project would connect to the City’s water system. Anaheim’s water supply comes primarily from groundwater pumped from local wells, with the balance coming from purchases of imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). Therefore, the related increase in demand for water would indirectly impact groundwater supplies.

Question C: Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:

(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;

(iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or



(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The Project Site is located within the Anaheim Bay-Huntington Harbor Watershed. The development area drains to the south to the Anaheim Barber City Channel. As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, the Proposed Project involves demolition of the existing one-story industrial building and construction of a 125-room hotel. The proposed improvements to the Project Site would convey subareas throughout the site into a proposed private storm drain system, which would capture the first flush runoff, but allowing the greater storm events to drain onto the existing driveway, ultimately conveying the runoff via curb and gutter to the existing public storm system within Clementine Street.

According to Appendix F, Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, Clementine Hotel, 1730 South Clementine Street, Anaheim CA 92802, development of the Proposed Project would not alter the course of a stream or river. The Proposed Project would generally maintain the same drainage pattern as the pre-development condition. At project completion the rooftops would drain to the building’s storm drain system connecting to the onsite storm drain. Surface drainage would sheet flow to curb and gutter flowing to grated inlets which connect to the same onsite storm drain system. The onsite storm drain leaves the site at a location north of the building and would be treated by a subsurface infiltration facility with prior to discharging into the public storm drain within Clementine Street. The biofiltration facility would be sized for low flows only, while the outlet pipe would be sized to allow the high flows to drain off-site. As described in Section II.4, Post Development Drainage Characteristics, of the WQMP, trash capture devices at CB087402 and CB087405 on South Clementine Street, south of the proposed development at 1730 South Clementine Street already exists. The public storm drain conveys to the Anaheim Barber City Channel, then Bolsa Chica Channel, then Westminster Channel and ultimately out to the Huntington State Beach (Pacific Ocean) all located in the Anaheim Bay-Huntington Harbor Watershed.

According to Appendix G, Preliminary Drainage Study for Hotel 55, 1730 South Clementine Street, Anaheim, CA prepared by Walden & Associates (2020), the existing peak flow for the 100-year storm is 3.24 cfs; however, this volume would decrease by 0.30 cfs to 2.94 cfs with the Proposed Project. The Project would result in a decrease of storm flows from the Project Site. The Proposed Project would not result in an impact to the capacity of the storm water drainage system. Implementation of MM 9-1 and MM 9-2, and compliance with the WQMP (Appendix F, Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, Clementine Hotel, 1730 South Clementine Street, Anaheim CA 92802), would reduce any erosion-related impacts to less than significant levels.

Question E: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Anaheim, including the Project Site, is served by a “comprehensive sanitary sewer system and no wastewater is discharged which would impact the quality of surface water or groundwater resources” (Anaheim 2004b). The Proposed Project involves the demolition of an existing one-story industrial building and development of a 125-room hotel. The wastewater generated from this use would be conveyed to Orange County Sanitation District’s (OCSD) Reclamation Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley. No pre-treatment is required for the wastewater from the Proposed Project since the proposed land uses would not (1) process any industrial wastewater; (2) involve dewatering or groundwater cleanup; (3) directly discharge sewage effluent; or (4) engage in other activities that would generate wastewater requiring treatment beyond what is provided at OCSD’s Reclamation Plant No. 1. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not exceed the RWQCB’s wastewater treatment requirements, and related impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.



Mitigation Program


MM 9-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit for sites that disturb more than one (1) acre of soil, the property owner/developer shall obtain coverage under the NPDES Statewide Industrial Stormwater Permit for General Construction Activities from the State Water Resources Control Board. The applicant shall prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A copy of the current SWPPP shall be kept at the Project Site and be available for City review on request. Evidence of permit attainment shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department, Building Services Division. (ARSP EIR 340 MM 5.8-2)

MM 9-2 Ongoing during project operations, the property owner/developer shall provide for the following: cleaning of all paved areas not maintained by the City of Anaheim on a monthly basis, including, but not limited to, private streets and parking lots. The use of water to clean streets, paved areas, parking lots, and other areas and flushing the debris and sediment down the storm drains shall be prohibited. (ARSP EIR 340 MM 5.8-3)

In addition to these measures which are required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels, the following mitigation measures from MMP 85C would also be applicable to the Project as they are included within EIR 340:

MM 5.8-1 Prior to issuance of the first grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall submit a Master Drainage and Runoff Management Plan (MDRMP) for review and approval by the Public Works Department, Development Services Division and Orange County (OC) Public Works/OC Engineering. The Master Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following items:

a. Backbone storm drain layout and pipe size, including supporting hydrology and hydraulic calculations for storms up to and including the 100-year storm; and,

b. A delineation of the improvements to be implemented for control of project-generated drainage and runoff.

MM 5.8-4 Prior to each final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall submit a letter from a licensed landscape architect to the City certifying that the landscape installation and irrigation systems have been installed as specified in the approved landscaping and irrigation plans.

MM 5.8-5 Prior to final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall install piping on-site with project water mains so that reclaimed water may be used for landscape irrigation, if and when it becomes available.

MM 5.8-6 Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner/developer shall provide written evidence that all storm drain, sewer, and street improvement plans shall be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.



XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING

Question A: Would the project physically divide an established community?

No Impact. As shown in the aerial photograph provided in Exhibit 3, Aerial Photograph, the Project Site is 0.68 acres and includes a vacant one-story industrial building. The Project Site is bound by hotels to the north, south, and east, and a fire station and a large hotel development site to the west (JW Marriott). Implementation of the Proposed Project would redevelop the Project Site with a hotel use, which would be similar to existing land uses surrounding the Project Site to the north, south, and east. The property is within The Anaheim Resort, which is an area of the City designated by the General Plan for Commercial Recreation land use, including hotels, restaurants and other visitor serving uses. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

Question B: Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is located within the Commercial-Recreation District of the ARSP and is designated for Medium Density hotel development. The proposed hotel exceeds the allowed density of 75 rooms. Therefore, the Applicant is requesting General Plan Amendment (GPA2019-00529) to amend Table LU-4: General Plan Density Provisions for Specific Areas of the City, Note No. 2 to create a new density category, “Medium Density (Modified A)” for the Project Site, to allow an increase in the allowable density of the site from 75 rooms/acre to up to 125 rooms. Additionally, the Applicant is also requesting Specific Plan Amendment No. 16 (SP92-2Y) to the ARSP 92-2 to amend the Exhibit 3.3-2: C-R Development Density Plan to create a new density category, “Medium Density (Modified A)” for the Project Site, to allow an increase in the allowable density of the site from 75 rooms/acre to up to 125 rooms. The Applicant is also requesting a Variance (VAR202-05132) to allow a reduction in the required street setback and an Administrative Adjustment (ADJ2019-00437) to allow a reduction in the number of parking spaces required by code. The Project would require a Minor Conditional Use Permit (CUP2019-06041) to allow valet as an accessory use. In addition, Final Site Plan (FSP2019-00001) review would be required to confirm that the Proposed Project complies with the ARSP. With the approval of these requests, the Proposed Project would be consistent with all applicable land use plans, policies or regulations for the Project Site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program


XII. MINERAL RESOURCES

Question A: Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

Question B: Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

No Impact. According to Figure G-3 of the City of Anaheim General Plan’s Green Element, the Project Site is not designated as a regionally significant aggregate resource area or a Mineral Resources Zone (MR-Z) (Anaheim 2004a). Therefore, development of the Proposed Project



would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan as there are no known mineral resources or mineral resource recovery sites on or near the Project Site. No related impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program


XIII. NOISE

Introduction

Noise is typically defined as unwanted sound and is described in terms of a sound’s intensity or loudness, pitch, and duration. The ambient noise environment is comprised of stationary and mobile noise sources. Stationary noise sources occur in a single location and may be constant or short-term in nature; mobile noise sources are typically transportation-related and are generally not considered a constant noise source.

The physical measure of sound, or sound level, is measured in decibels (dB), which are based on a logarithmic scale. Therefore, a doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dB; a halving of the energy would result in a 3 dB decrease. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dB (very quiet) to 100 dB (very loud). The A-weighted decibel scale relates noise to human sensitivity. Common noise levels are measured in terms of the “A-weighted decibel”, abbreviated dBA. Table 16, Typical Noise Levels, provides examples of various noises and their typical A-weighted noise level.

TABLE 16 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS

Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level

(dBA) Common Indoor Activities 110 Rock Band Jet fly-over at 300 m (1,000 ft) 100 Gas Lawn Mower at 1 m (3 ft) 90 Diesel Truck at 15 m (50 ft), at 80 km/hr (50 mph) 80 Food Blender at 1 m (3 ft)

Noisy Urban Area, Daytime Gas Lawn Mower at 30 m (100 ft) 70 Vacuum Cleaner at 3 m (10 ft)

Commercial Area Heavy Traffic at 90 m (300 ft) 60 Normal speech at 1 m (3 ft)

Quiet Urban Daytime 50 Large Business Office Dishwasher in Next Room

Quiet Urban Nighttime 40 Theater, Large Conference Room Quiet Suburban Nighttime 30 Library Quiet Rural Nighttime 20 Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall 10 Broadcast/Recording Studio Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing 0 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing dBA: A-weighted decibels; m: meter; km/hr: kilometers per hour; ft: feet; mph: miles per hour Source: Caltrans 2009.



Although human perception of sound is somewhat subjective, it is widely accepted that the average healthy ear (1) can barely perceive an increase or decrease of 3 dBA; (2) can perceive a change of 3 dBA in outdoor environments; and (3) can notice that an increase of 10 dBA sounds twice as loud.

Noise, or sound over a period of time, can be measured using a number of methods. The two most common methods are the community noise equivalent (CNEL) and the equivalent sound level (Leq). The average noise levels over a period of minutes or hours is expressed as dBA Leq. Leq can be measured for any time period. The CNEL scale represents the average of 24 hourly noise measurements and adjusts or penalizes the dBA during certain sensitive time periods to account for increased noise sensitivity during the evening and nighttime periods. The evening time period (7:00 PM to 10:00 PM) penalizes noises by 5 dBA, while nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) noises are penalized by 10 dBA.

Existing Noise Levels

The existing noise environment in and near the Project Site is primarily influenced by traffic noise on Clementine Street near the western site boundary and the Interstate 5 (I-5) freeway approximately 900 feet to the northeast, and people outdoors at surrounding hotels. For the purpose of this noise analysis, the study area includes the Project Site, the areas immediately adjacent to the Project Site, and the land uses adjacent to the roadway segments where the Project adds vehicular trips to the roadway system.

Psomas conducted ambient noise monitoring at the Project Site on February 27 and 28, 2020. Noise level measurements were taken using a Larson Davis Laboratories SoundTrack LxT sound level meter (LD LxT) and a Larson Davis Laboratories Model 831 integrating sound level meter (LD 831). These sound level meters were placed proximate to each of the Project Site’s property lines, approximately 5 feet above the ground. Exhibit 14, Noise Monitoring Locations, shows the noise monitoring locations relative to the Project site boundaries.

The noise level measurements were collected at each Project Site boundaries. The energy average (Leq), maximum noise level (Lmax), and minimum noise level (Lmin) values taken at each ambient noise measurement location are shown in Table 17 below.

TABLE 17 MONITORED NOISE LEVELS

Noise Monitoring Locations Minimum Leq (Average) Maximum Location 1 (near west property line along S. Clementine Street) 50 65 88 Location 2 (near north property line) 47 53 71 Location 3 (near south property line) 52 62 80 Location 4 (near east property line) 51 55 64

1 2

3

4

S Clem

entin

e St

D:\Pr

ojects

\3ANA

\0091

12\M

XD\IS

MND\

ex_N

oiseM

onito

ringL

ocati

ons_

2020

0706

.mxd

²Noise Monitoring LocationsHotel 55 Project

Exhibit 14

(Rev: 7-06-2020 RMB) RR:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\Graphics\ISMND\ex_NoiseMonitoringLocations.pdf

50 0 5025Feet

Project BoundaryNoise Monitoring Location

Aerial Source: Hexagon Geosystems 2018



Regulatory Setting

State of California

Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, also known as the California Building Standards Code, establishes building standards applicable to all occupancies throughout the state. Section 1207.11.2 requires that residential structures, other than detached single-family dwellings, be designed to prevent the intrusion of exterior noise so that the interior noise attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dBA CNEL in any habitable room. Section 1207.12 states, “if interior allowable noise levels are met by requiring that windows be unopenable or closed, the design for the structure must also specify a ventilation or air-conditioning system to provide a habitable interior requirement. The ventilation system must not compromise the dwelling unit or guest room noise reduction.”

City of Anaheim

The following sections of the City of Anaheim’s Municipal Code apply to the Proposed Project:

6.70.010 ESTABLISHED.

Sound produced in excess of the sound pressure levels permitted herein are 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 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 sounds 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 of 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.)



6.72.010 PURPOSE.

This City Council enacts this legislation for the sole purpose of securing and promoting the public health, comfort, safety, and welfare of its citizenry. While recognizing that certain uses of sound-amplifying equipment are protected by the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and assembly, the City Council, nevertheless, feels obligated to reasonably regulate the use of sound-amplifying equipment in order to protect the correlative constitutional rights of the citizens of this community to privacy and freedom from public nuisance of loud and raucous noise . (Ord. 4059 § 1 (part); October 9, 1979; Ord. 5941 § 1 (part); September 14, 2004.)

6.72.020 REGULATION OF AMPLIFIED SOUND.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 6.70 of this code, it shall be unlawful for any person to use or operate, or cause to be used or operated, within the City of Anaheim any sound-amplifying equipment in a fixed or movable position, or mounted upon any vehicle, except when used or operated in compliance with the following provisions:

.010 In all residential zones and within two hundred feet of any boundary thereof, no sound-amplifying equipment shall be operated or used for commercial purposes, except sound-amplifying equipment may be used for commercial purposes upon a moving vehicle between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. to announce the presence of such vehicle in an area or location for commercial purposes; provided that such sound-amplifying equipment shall not be used during periods that the vehicle is stopped, parked or otherwise in a stationary position..

.020 In all residential zones and within two hundred feet of any boundary thereof, no sound-amplifying equipment shall be operated or used for noncommercial purposes between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. of the following day.

.030 In all non-residential zones, except such portions thereof as may be included within two hundred feet of the boundary of any residential zone, the operation or use of sound-amplifying equipment for commercial purposes is prohibited between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. of the following day.

.040 In all non-residential zones, except such portions thereof as may be included within two hundred feet of the boundary of any residential zone, the operation or use of sound-amplifying equipment for noncommercial purposes is prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of the following day.

.050 Sound emanating from sound-amplifying equipment shall not be audible to a person of normal hearing acuity within an enclosed building (other than a building within which the sound emanate) at a distance in excess of two hundred feet from the sound-amplifying equipment.

.060 In no event shall the sound-amplifying equipment be unreasonably loud, raucous, jarring or disturbing to a person of normal sensitiveness within the area of audibility, or disturb the peace or quiet of any neighborhood.

.070 It shall be unlawful for any person to operate or use any sound-amplifying equipment within, upon or adjacent to the premises of any hospital, school, or publicly owned or operated arena, stadium, convention center or auditorium, while in use, in a manner which disturbs, disrupts or interferes with the conduct of any event, business or



activity of any nature then occurring within such building or premises. Nothing contained in this subsection shall be deemed to prohibit any conduct which is otherwise prohibited by California Penal Code Sections 302 or 403, or any other provision of State law. (Ord. 4059 § 1 (part); October 9, 1979; Ord. 5781 § 1; September 25, 2001; Ord. 5941 § 1 (part); September 14, 2004.)

6.73.020 NOISE RESTRICTIONS.

It shall be unlawful and constitute a public nuisance for any owner or responsible person to conduct or allow to be conducted any party or similar event from which loud and unreasonable noise originates between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Continuation of any activity prohibited by this section after written notification by a peace officer as provided in Section 6.73.030 that the activity is disturbing the comfort, health, peace, safety, quiet enjoyment or repose of one or more other persons shall be prima facie evidence of willful intent within the meaning of Section 6.73.010.010.(Ord. 5337 § 1 (part); October 20, 1992: Ord. 6259 § 1 (part); November 20, 2012.)

In the City of Anaheim General Plan Noise Element, the City adopted land use-noise compatibility standards shown in Table 18, Land Use Compatibility for Noise Exposure.



TABLE 18 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR NOISE EXPOSURE

Land Use Category

Community Noise Exposure Ldn or CNEL, dB

55 60 65 70 75 80 85 Residential – Low-Density Single-Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes

Residential – Multiple-Family Homes

Transient Lodging - Motels, Hotels

Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes

Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters

Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports

Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks

Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries

Office Buildings, Business, Commercial and Professional

Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture

Normally Acceptable

Conditionally Acceptable

Normally Unacceptable

Clearly Unacceptable

Specified land use is satisfactory based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal, conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.

New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirement is made and needed noise insulation features are included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice.

New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Outdoor areas must be shielded.

New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Construction costs to make the indoor environment acceptable would be prohibitive, and the outdoor environment would not be acceptable.

Ldn: day-night noise level; CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level; dB: decibels Source: Anaheim 2004a



The Noise Element, Goal 1.1, includes the following policies applicable to the Proposed Project:

4) Require mitigation where sensitive uses are to be placed along transportation routes to ensure that noise levels are minimized through appropriate means of mitigation, thereby maintaining quality of life standards.

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.

Impact Analysis

Question A: Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

Long-term (Permanent) Impacts

Impacts to Off-Site Land Uses

Less Than Significant Impact. Daily operation of the Proposed Project has the potential to result in an increased ambient noise level in the vicinity of the Proposed Project through the addition of stationary sources of noise as well as vehicular trips associated with the Proposed Project. Stationary sources of noise include heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) noise as well as noise associated with use of the rooftop patio and swimming pool. Noise associated with HVAC usage is required to comply with Municipal Code Section 6.70.010, which limits noise levels to 60 dBA Leq at the Project’s property line. Noise associated with the outdoor patio and pool area is subject to Municipal Code Section 6.73.020, which restricts noise from parties or similar events. Compliance with the noise limits within the Municipal Code would result in noise levels that are acceptable to the City and would result in less than significant impacts related to these stationary sources of noise.

Based on Appendix I1, Traffic Impact Analysis Hotel 55 Project (TIA) prepared for the Proposed Project by Linscott Law & Greenspan, the Proposed Project would generate a total of 1,045 daily trips daily trips. Table 19, Projected Traffic Noise Levels, depict the noise increase from the Proposed Project. Increases in noise levels related to traffic generated by the Proposed Project is anticipated to range from <0.1 to 0.4 dBA CNEL. These traffic noise increases are below the 3 dBA noise increase threshold and would not be perceptible or substantial. The impact on traffic noise levels would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.



TABLE 19 PROJECTED TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS

Roadways

Year 2022 Traffic Year 2022 Plus Project Traffic

Noise Increase

ADT dBA

CNEL ADT dBA

CNEL dBA

CNEL Disney Way between Clementine Street and I-5 SB

Off-Ramp 17,694 71.8 18,086 71.9 0.1

Disney Way between I-5 SB Off-Ramp and Anaheim Boulevard 19,494 72.2 20,043 72.3 0.1

Clementine Street between Disney Way and Katella Avenue 9,700 69.2 10,745 69.6 0.4

Anaheim Boulevard between Disney Way/I-5 Ramps/Manchester Avenue and Katella Avenue 29,319 74.0 29,528 74.1 <0.1

Katella Avenue between Clementine Street and Anaheim Blvd/Haster Street 48,066 76.2 48,458 76.2 <0.1

Katella Avenue between Anaheim Blvd/Haster Street and Manchester Avenue/I-5 SB Off-Ramp 47,679 76.1 47,966 76.2 <0.1

Katella Ave between Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Off-Ramp and Anaheim Way 51,696 76.5 52,036 76.5 <0.1

Manchester Avenue between Anaheim Boulevard and Katella Avenue 3,532 64.8 3,584 64.9 0.1

Anaheim Boulevard between I-5 NB On-Ramp/Anaheim Way and Disney Way/I-5 Ramps/Manchester Avenue

44,152 75.8 44,309 75.8 <0.1

Anaheim Boulevard between Cerritos Avenue and I-5 NB On-Ramp/Anaheim Way 43,476 75.7 43,476 75.7 <0.1

ADT: average daily traffic volume. CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level Note: Noise levels calculated from the FHWA’s RD-77-108 Traffic Noise Prediction Model (Calculations can be found in Attachment G of this report). Source: Psomas 2020.

Short-Term Construction Impacts

Less Than Significant Impact. Short-term construction noise would be generated on-site by construction equipment during demolition, excavation, site preparation, and building construction activities. Hotel uses are located adjacent to the Project site to the north and south. The degree to which noise-sensitive receptors are affected by construction activities depends heavily on their proximity. Estimated noise levels attributable to the development of the Project are shown in Table 20, Construction Noise Levels at Noise-Sensitive Uses, and calculations are included in Appendix H, Noise Calculations.



TABLE 20 CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS AT NOISE-SENSITIVE USES

Construction Phase

Noise Levels (Leq dBA) Hotel Uses

North of Project Site

Hotel Use South and East of

Project Site

Fire Station and Commercial Uses

West of Project Site Max (5 ft)

Avg (65 ft)

Max (5 ft)

Avg (65 ft)

Max (90 ft)

Avg (210 ft)

Ground Clearing/Demolition 104 82 104 82 79 72

Excavation 109 87 109 87 84 77

Foundation Construction 98 76 98 76 73 66

Building Construction 107 85 107 85 82 75

Paving and Site Cleanup 109 87 109 87 84 77 Leq dBA: Average noise energy level; Max: maximum; avg: average; ft: feet Note: Noise levels from construction activities do not take into account attenuation provided by intervening structures. Source: USEPA 1971.

Table 20, Construction Noise Levels at Noise-Sensitive Uses, shows both the maximum average and typical average noise levels. Maximum noise levels represent the noise levels from construction occurring near the property boundary closest to the noise sensitive use/receptor. Average noise levels represent the noise exposure to sensitive uses based on the distance to the center of all components of the Proposed Project. Noise levels from general construction activities related to the Proposed Project would range from 73 to 109 dBA Leq for the maximum noise levels when construction activities are occurring at the closest point to offsite receptors and 66 to 87 dBA Leq for the average noise levels when construction activities are occurring at the center of the Project Site. As per Municipal Code Section 6.70.010, the City exempts construction noise occurring between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Short-term construction noise also would be generated on local roadways by workers commuting to and from the job site and delivering construction materials. It is estimated that a maximum of approximately 30 worker trips, 12 vendor trips, and 16 haul truck trips would occur on a daily basis. Existing traffic volumes along South Clementine Street are approximately 6,651 average daily trips. The increase in volume of traffic and change in vehicular mix would result in less than 1 dBA increase in noise levels along South Clementine Street due to the infrequent and low volume of Project-related traffic. The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Because construction would only occur during the least noise sensitive portion of the day (daytime hours), and would represent a short-term, temporary impact, the impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Question B: Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Less Than Significant Impact. Groundborne vibration, expressed as peak particle velocity (ppv), consists of oscillatory waves that propagate from the source through the ground to adjacent structures. Vibration of building components can also take the form of an audible, low-frequency rumbling noise, which is referred to as groundborne noise. Vibration energy spreads out as it travels through the ground, causing the vibration level to decrease with the distance from the source.

Groundborne vibration and noise can be generated during construction activities and is generally highest during impact pile driving, blasting, and demolition-related activities. None of these activities are anticipated for the Proposed Project. Because the City of Anaheim does not have



regulatory standards for construction or operational vibration sources, thresholds for potential structural damage and human annoyance associated with vibration are based on the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) vibration limits. For purposes of this analysis, a threshold of 0.9 ppv is used as the threshold of significance related to human perception because this level of vibration represents a level that is strongly perceptible. A vibration level of 0.3 ppv is used for residential and commercial buildings, respectively, as the threshold of significance for structural damage, as this is the point at which continuous or frequent vibrations would begin to damage buildings (FTA 2018). Table 21, Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment, summarizes typical vibration levels measured during construction activities for various vibration-inducing pieces of equipment at a distance of 25 feet.

TABLE 21 VIBRATION LEVELS PER CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT

Equipment ppv at 25 ft (in/sec)

Vibratory roller 0.210 Caisson drill 0.089 Large bulldozer 0.089 Small bulldozer 0.003 Jackhammer 0.035 Loaded trucks 0.076 ppv: peak particle velocity; ft: feet; in/sec: inches per second. Source: FTA 2018.

As shown in Table 22, Vibration Annoyance Criteria at Sensitive Uses, vibration decibel levels would not exceed the criteria threshold under maximum conditions when activities are closest to affected uses. Vibration levels were calculated for vibratory rollers and large dozers operating at 25 feet or greater as per MM 5.10-11 from EIR 340. As such, vibration generated by the Proposed Project’s construction equipment would not result in a significant impact related to vibration induced annoyance prior to mitigation.

TABLE 22 VIBRATION ANNOYANCE CRITERIA AT SENSITIVE USES

Equipment

Vibration Level (ppv) Multifamily

Residential Uses North of Project Site


Project Site


West of Project Site (ppv @ 75 ft) (ppv @ 5 ft) (ppv @ 180 ft)

Vibratory Roller1 0.04 0.210 <0.01 Large bulldozer1 0.02 0.089 <0.01 Small bulldozer 0.00 0.03 <0.01 Jackhammer 0.01 0.39 <0.01 Loaded trucks 0.01 0.85 <0.01

Criteria 0.9 0.9 0.9 Exceeds Criteria? No No No

ppv: peak particle velocity; ft: feet 1 Calculated with vibratory rollers and large dozers operating at 25 feet or greater as per MM 5.10-11 from EIR 340. Source: Psomas 2020c.



Table 23, Building Damage Criteria at Sensitive Uses, shows the ppv levels relative to structural damage to sensitive uses from vibration activities.

TABLE 23 BUILDING DAMAGE CRITERIA AT SENSITIVE USES

Equipment

Vibration Levels (ppv) Multifamily

Residential Uses North of Project Site


Project Site


West of Project Site (ppv @ 75 ft) (ppv @ 5 ft) (ppv @ 180 ft)

Vibratory Roller1 0.04 0.210 <0.01 Large bulldozer1 0.02 0.089 <0.01 Small bulldozer 0.00 0.03 <0.01 Jackhammer 0.01 0.39 <0.01 Loaded trucks 0.01 0.85 <0.01

Criteria 0.3 0.3 0.3 Exceeds Criteria? No No No

ppv: peak particle velocity; ft: feet 1 Calculated with vibratory rollers and large dozers operating at 25 feet or greater as per MM 5.10-11 from EIR 340. Source: Psomas 2020c.

As shown in Table 23, all ppv levels would be below the structural damage threshold at all analyzed locations proximate to the Project Site. Vibration levels were calculated for vibratory rollers and large dozers operating at 25 feet or greater per MM 5.10-11 from EIR 340. As such, no building damage is anticipated related to construction activities associated with the Proposed Project.

The nature of daily operation of a hotel use does not involve activities that would create significant operational vibration impacts. Therefore, there would be no long-term vibration-related impacts, and no mitigation is required.

Question C: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport), would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

No Impact. The Project Site is not located within an adopted Airport Land Use Plan or in the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport, or helistop. The nearest airport is Fullerton Municipal Airport, which is located within the city of Fullerton approximately six miles northwest of the site. The Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center is located approximately 7 miles to the west of the Project Site. The Project Site would not be subject to excessive noise levels related to aircraft or airport operations from either facility. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program

The following mitigation measures are not required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels for this IS/MND. However, they are included within EIR 340 and MMP 85C and consequently are applicable to the Proposed Project. Where the measure is the same as the measure from EIR 340 (incorporated by reference, as stated in Section 2.3), the EIR 340 mitigation measure numbering is noted at the end of the measure in parentheses.



MM 12-1 Prior to approval of each final site plan, the property owner/developer shall submit a noise study prepared by a certified acoustical engineer to the satisfaction of the Building Division Manager identifying whether noise attenuation is required and defining the attenuation measures and specific performance requirements, if warranted, to comply with the Uniform Building Code and Sound Pressure Level Ordinance. Ultimate noise attenuation requirements, if any, shall depend on the final location of such buildings and noise-sensitive uses inside and surrounding the buildings. Attenuation measures shall be implemented by the property owner/developer prior to final building and zoning inspections. (ARSP EIR 340 MM 5.10-2)

MM 5.10-1 Ongoing during construction, the property owner/developer shall ensure that all internal combustion engines on construction equipment and trucks are fitted with properly maintained mufflers.

MM 5.10-3 Prior to issuance of each building permit, for structures that are adjacent to noise-sensitive areas such as residences, the property owner/developer shall ensure that all mechanical ventilation units are shown on plans and installed in compliance with Sound Pressure Level Ordinance.

MM 5.10-4 Prior to issuance of each building permit for a parking structure, the property owner/developer shall ensure that noise from parking structures adjacent to residential areas will be reduced by the provision of convenient access to parking facilities, sound attenuation devices (louvers and walls), the use of textured deck surfaces to reduce tire squalling, and tiering a parking facility to provide greater distance to the receptor.

MM 5.10-5 Prior to issuance of each building permit, a note shall be provided on building plans indicating that during construction, the property owner/developer shall install and maintain specially designed construction barriers at the project perimeter areas. The construction sound barriers shall be a minimum height of 8 feet with a minimum surface weight of 1.25 pounds per square foot or a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 25. The structure shall be a continuous barrier. Gates and other entry doors shall be constructed with suitable mullions, astragals, seals, or other design techniques to minimize sound leakage when in the closed position. Access doors should be self closing where feasible. Vision ports are permissible providing they are filled with an acceptable solid vision product.

MM 5.10-6 Ongoing during construction and project operation, pressure washing operations for purposes of building repair and maintenance due to graffiti or other aesthetical considerations shall be limited to daytime hours of operation between 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM.

MM 5.10-7 Ongoing during construction and project operation, sweeping operations in the parking facilities and private on-site roadways shall be performed utilizing sweeping/scrubbing equipment which operate at a level measured not greater than 60 dBA at the nearest adjacent property line.

MM 5.10-8 Ongoing during construction, property owners/developers shall pay for all reasonable costs associated with noise monitoring which shall include monitoring conducted by a certified acoustical engineer under the direction of the Planning and Building Department four times a year on a random basis to ensure that outdoor construction-related sound levels at any point on the exterior project



boundary property line do not exceed 60 dBA between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM of the following day where outside construction is occurring. If a complaint is received by the City, additional noise monitoring shall be conducted at the discretion of the City. If the monitoring finds that the 60 dBA threshold is being exceeded, construction activities will be modified immediately to bring the sound level below the 60 dBA requirement, with additional follow-up monitoring conducted to confirm compliance.

MM 5.10-9 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall present plans and calculations to the Planning Department, Building Division to demonstrate that noise levels would be less than 65 dBA CNEL for outdoor use areas (including dining patios, pools, playgrounds, or outdoor gathering areas). This requirement can be accomplished through shielding areas behind buildings or the construction of a noise barrier.

MM 5.10-10 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall present plans and calculations to the Planning and Building Department, Building Division to demonstrate that noise levels from planned mechanical ventilation equipment, loading docks, trash compactors, and other proposed on-site noise sources are designed to meet the City’s 60 dBA Sound Pressure Levels standard at the property line, and not create a noise increase greater than 5 dBA over existing ambient noise at the nearest noise sensitive receptor, whichever is more restrictive.

MM 5.10-11 Prior to issuance of each building permit, a note shall be provided on plans indicating that there shall be no operation of large bulldozers or vibratory rollers within 25 feet of any existing residence.

MM 5.10-12 Prior to issuance of each building permit if pile driving and blasting is anticipated during construction, a noise and vibration analysis must be prepared and submitted to the Planning and Building Department, Building Division, to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities.

XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING

Question A: 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)?

Less Than Significant Impact. EIR 340 assumed and evaluated that future development on the Project Site would include development of up to 75 hotel rooms. However, the Proposed Project proposes 125 hotel rooms. Based on an increase of 125 rooms and a generation factor of 0.90 employees per hotel or motel room used in EIR 340, implementation of the Proposed Project would generate approximately 113 employment positions. The Proposed Project would not include development of dwelling units; therefore, it would not result in a direct increase in population. The generation of new employment positions has the potential to indirectly result in new households, thereby indirectly increasing population. Based on a factor identified in EIR 340 that approximately 13.3 percent of new hotel and motel employees would choose to relocate into the City of Anaheim, approximately 15 employees would move their residences to Anaheim, resulting in a need for 15 dwelling units. Assuming 1 employee per household and an average of 3.1 persons per household, the new households would result in approximately 46 new residents. This growth is in addition to the growth evaluated in the EIR 340; however, the increase in housing demand and population generation is well within the projections for the City and County as



detailed in the Center for Demographic Research Orange County Projections. These nominal increases are not expected to create a major demand for goods and services in the City or to induce additional growth. Additionally, the Proposed Project does not involve the extension of roads or other infrastructure which would induce indirect growth. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Question B: Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No Impact. As stated in Section 2.2, Existing Project Site Conditions, the Proposed Project would demolish an existing one-story industrial building, formerly a dry cleaner. There are no residents that would be displaced by the Proposed Project. Furthermore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program


XV. PUBLIC SERVICES

Question A: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, 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 any of the public services:

Fire Protection?

Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Anaheim Fire Department (Fire Department) is a full-service organization designed to provide essential public safety and emergency services to the community and its visitors. Currently 10 engines, 6 trucks, 2 battalion chiefs, and 2 medic units (assigned to the Disneyland Resort 14 hours per shift) are staffed daily by 67 members from 11 fire stations. Please refer to Table 24, City of Anaheim Fire Services Facilities, for a summary of the Fire Protection resources in the City of Anaheim.

The Fire Department operates a 3-shift system and has established a minimum staffing of 67 suppression personnel per shift, per day, at least 95 percent of the time. This includes 2 battalion chiefs and the personnel assigned, under contract, to the Disneyland Resort. The Fire Department maintains a minimum of 4 firefighters on 13 front-line companies and 3 firefighters on three front-line companies (Anaheim 2013b and Zeoli 2020).

The Fire Department has adopted and follows the expectations of the National Incident Management System (NIMS), a program used in the United States to coordinate emergency preparedness and incident management among various federal, State, and local agencies (Anaheim 2013b and Zeoli 2020).



TABLE 24 CITY OF ANAHEIM FIRE SERVICES FACILITIES

Station Station Address Equipment

Downtown Station 1 500 East Broadway Street Paramedic Engine 1, Truck 1, Type-3301 and Ambulance 1

Brookhurst Station 2 2141 West Crescent Avenue Paramedic Engine 2 and US&R 2 Ambulance 2

Resort Station 3 1717 South Clementine Street Paramedic Engine 3, Truck 3, Type 3-309 Paramedic 3 (Disney), and Ambulance 3

Orange Station 4 2736 West Orange Avenue Paramedic Engine 4

La Palma Station 5 2540 La Palma Paramedic Engine 5 Type 3-305, MMRS 1 and Ambulance 5

Euclid Station 6 1330 South Euclid Street Paramedic Engine 6, Truck 6, Battalion 2, Ambulance 6, and Hazmat 6 Paramedic 6 (Disney)

Stadium Station 7 2222 East Ball Road Paramedic Engine 7 and Ambulance 7

Riverdale Station 8 4555 East Riverdale Avenue Battalion 1, Paramedic Engine 8, Truck 8, Type 6-601 and Type 3-308

Anaheim Hills Station 9 6300 East Nohl Ranch Road Paramedic Engine 9, Type 6-602 Water Tender 1 and Ambulance 9

Weir Canyon Station 10 8270 East Monte Vista Road Paramedic Engine Truck 10

Twila Reid Station 11 3078 West Orange Avenue Paramedic Engine 11 OES Engine 414 and Ambulance 11

USAR: Urban Search and Rescue; Hazmat: hazardous materials unit Source: Anaheim 2014 and Zeoli 2020

Fire stations are strategically located to ensure an efficient demand response to all risk hazards and to maintain recommendations for response times (Anaheim 2004a). National response time standards for emergency response requires first engine response within 5 minutes to 90 percent of all incidents and 8 minutes to the remaining 10 percent. The Fire Department also requires a maximum of 10 minutes for truck company response to 100 percent of all incidents (Anaheim 2004b and Zeoli 2020). Current response times average 3 minutes and 37 seconds for all calls (Zeoli 2020). The first responding station to the Project Site is Resort Station 3.

The Proposed Project involves the replacement of an existing vacant commercial building formerly occupied by a dry cleaner. Based on correspondence with Anaheim Fire and Rescue, the Proposed Project would not affect the Fire Department’s ability to maintain acceptable response times. In addition, the Proposed Project would not require the construction of new facilities, the expansion of existing facilities, or additional personnel or equipment to maintain acceptable response times (Zeoli 2020). Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.


Police Protection?

Less Than Significant Impact. Law enforcement and crime prevention services are provided by the Anaheim Police Department (APD). Officers operate out of four stations and patrol an area of



49.7 square miles, divided into three districts (West, Central, and East). The police stations are located as follows: Main Station, located at 425 S. Harbor Boulevard; East Station, located at 8201 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road; and, West Station, located at 320 S. Beach Blvd. 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 385 sworn officers, a support staff of over 195, and a 4-person Reserve Officer Detail. The ratio of sworn police officers is approximately 1.1 officers per 1,000 population. Based on consultation with the APD (Berger 2020), the Proposed Project would not generate demand for additional staffing. However, funding for any new personnel needed to maintain acceptable service levels would come from the City of Anaheim’s General Fund. Property taxes and other fees assessed for the property would contribute to the General Fund revenues. Existing Police Department facilities would be sufficient to serve the additional demand associated with the Proposed Project along with the existing demand of the area; therefore, a significant impact would not occur related to the construction of law enforcement facilities and no mitigation is required.


Schools?

Less Than Significant Impact. As previously stated, the Proposed Project does not involve the construction of new dwelling units. Therefore, direct impacts on the Anaheim Elementary School District (AESD) or the Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD) are not expected to occur as a result of the Proposed Project. However, development of the Proposed Project could produce an indirect impact, generating a population increase of 46 persons in the City. As detailed in Section 5.XIV, Population and Housing, of this IS/MND, the potential relocation of employees as a result of the Proposed Project could generate a need for 15 dwelling units to be constructed within the City limits. It is expected that students generated from this indirect impact would attend the AESD and the AUHSD. The current student generation rates used for planning purposes include a rate of 0.3609 student per household for elementary students and 0.07 student per household for junior high and high school students (Pidgen 2010; Oskoui 2010). These generation factors are a combination of the number of students per average residential dwelling unit, which includes all households, even those with no current students. The anticipated Student Generation Rate for the Proposed Project is detailed in Table 25, Student Generation Rates, below.

TABLE 25 STUDENT GENERATION RATES

School District Dwelling

Units Student Generation Rate (students per household)

No. of New Students

Anaheim City School Districta 15 0.3609 5 Anaheim Union High School Districtb 15 0.07 1

TOTAL 6 a Pidgen 2010 b Oskoui 2010 Note: Updated student generation rates were not available from either ACSD or AUHSD.



Approximately five elementary-aged students and one junior high or high school-aged student would be generated as an indirect result of the Proposed Project. As mandated by Senate Bill 50, and California Education Code 17620 (CEC 17620), school impact fees levied by AESD and AUHSD qualify for imposing the level one fee (developer fee), where 50 percent goes to AESD and 50 percent to AUHSD. The property owner/developer would be required to provide payment of impact fees as adopted by the Board of Trustees of the AESD and AUHSD, in compliance with SB 50 and CEC 17620. Therefore, the developer would reduce the potential impacts to the AESD and the AUHSD to less than significant levels and no mitigation is required.


Parks?

Less Than Significant Impact. The nearest park is Paul Revere Park, located at 140 West Guinida Lane, approximately 0.5 miles to the northeast of the Project Site, on the eastern side of I-5. As discussed above, the Proposed Project would generate approximately 46 new residents to the City; however, this increase is nominal and would not result in a significant impact to park facilities in the City. The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.


Other Public Facilities?

Less Than Significant Impact. Local public services include libraries. The Anaheim Public Library system includes a network of seven library branches serving the City of Anaheim and surrounding communities, a Mobile Library (Bookmobile), a book vending machine at the ARTIC transportation center and the Anaheim Heritage Center. The closest library branch to the Project Site is the Ponderosa-Joint Use Branch located at 240 East Orangewood Avenue (Anaheim 2020a). The Proposed Project would result in an incremental increase in demand for such services; however, these increases would not represent a significant impact. No impact would occur, and no mitigation would be required.

Mitigation Program


MM 5.12-1 Prior to the approval of each Final Site Plan and issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Police Department for review and approval for safety, accessibility, crime prevention, and security provisions during both the construction and operative phases for the purpose of incorporating safety measures in the project design including the concept of crime



prevention through environmental design (e.g., building design, circulation, site planning, and lighting of parking structures and parking areas).

MM 5.12-2 Prior to the issuance of each building permit for a parking structure, the property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Police Department for review and approval indicating the provision of closed-circuit television monitoring and recording or other substitute security measures as may be approved by the Police Department. Said measures shall be implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections.

MM 5.12-3 Ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer shall provide private security on the premises to maintain adequate security for the entire project subject to review and approval of the Police Department. The use of security patrols and electronic security devices (i.e., video monitors) should be considered to reduce the potential for criminal activity in the area.

MM 5.12-4 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the project design shall include parking lots and parking structures with controlled access points to limit ingress and egress if determined to be necessary by the Police Department, and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Police Department.

MM 5.12-5 Prior to commencement of structural framing on each parcel or lot, onsite fire hydrants shall be installed and charged by the property owner/developer as required and approved by the Fire Department.

MM 5.12-6 Prior to issuance of each grading permit, the property owner/developer shall submit an emergency fire access plan to the Fire Department for review and approval to ensure that service to the site is in accordance with Fire Department service requirements.

MM 5.12-7 Prior to issuance of each building permit; to be implemented prior to the final building and zoning inspection, plans shall indicate that all buildings, exclusive of parking structures, shall have sprinklers installed by the property owner/developer in accordance with the Anaheim Municipal Code. Said sprinklers shall be installed prior to each final building and zoning inspection.

MM 5.12-8 Prior to issuance of each building permit, plans shall be submitted to ensure that development is in accordance with the City of Anaheim Fire Department Standards, including:

a. Overhead clearance shall not be less than 14 feet for the full width of access roads.

b. Bridges and underground structures to be used for Fire Department access shall be designed to support Fire Department vehicles weighing 75,000 pounds.

c. All underground tunnels shall have sprinklers. Water supplies are required at all entrances. Standpipes shall also be provided when determined to be necessary by the Fire Department.

d. Adequate off-site public fire hydrants contiguous to the Specific Plan area and onsite private fire hydrants shall be provided by the property owner/developer. The precise number, types, and locations of the hydrants



shall be determined during building permit review. Hydrants are to be a maximum of 400 feet apart.

e. A minimum residual water pressure of 20 psi shall remain in the water system. Flow rates for public parking facilities shall be set at 1,000 to 1,500 gpm.

MM 5.12-9 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall enter into an agreement recorded against the property with the City of Anaheim to pay or cause to be paid their fair share of the funding to accommodate the following, which will serve the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area:

a. One additional fire truck company. b. One additional paramedic company. c. Modifications to existing fire stations to accommodate the additional fire

units, additional manpower, equipment and facilities. d. A vehicle equipped with specialty tools and equipment to enable the Fire

Department to provide heavy search and rescue response capability. e. A medical triage vehicle/trailer, equipped with sufficient trauma dressings,

medical supplies, stretchers, etc., to handle 1,000 injured persons, and an appropriate storage facility.

The determination of the allocable share of costs attributable to the property owner/developer shall be based on an apportionment of the costs of such equipment/facilities among property owners/developers in the Hotel Circle Specific Plan Area, the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan Area and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Area or the otherwise defined service area, as applicable, depending on the area served.

Note: To implement this mitigation measure, the City has adopted the Fire Protection Facilities and Paramedic Services Impact Fee Program. Compliance with this Program by the property owner/developer (per Ordinance No. 5496 and Resolution No. 95R-73 dated May 16, 1995) shall satisfy the requirements of this Mitigation Measure, or the City may enter into alternative financing arrangements.

MM 5.12-10 Prior to each final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall place emergency telephone service numbers in prominent locations as approved by the Fire Department.

MM .5.12-11 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit a Construction Fire Protection Plan to the Fire Department for review and approval detailing accessibility of emergency fire equipment, fire hydrant location, and any other construction features required by the Fire Marshal. The property owner/developer shall be responsible for securing facilities acceptable to the Fire Department and hydrants shall be operational with required fire flow.

MM 5.12-13 Prior to the placement of building materials on a building site, an all-weather road shall be provided from the roadway system to and on the construction site and for fire hydrants at all times, as required by the Fire Department. Such routes shall be paved or, subject to the approval of the Fire Department, shall otherwise provide adequate emergency access. Every building constructed must be accessible to Fire Department apparatus. The width and radius of the driving surface must meet



the requirements of Section 10.204 of the Uniform Fire Code, as adopted by the City of Anaheim.

MM 5.12-14 Prior to approval of building plans, the property owner/developer shall provide written evidence to the satisfaction of the Fire Department that all lockable pedestrian and/or vehicular access gates shall be equipped with “knox box” devices as required and approved by the Fire Department.

MM 5.12-15 Prior to approval of on-site water plans, unless each commercial building is initially connected to separate fire services, an unsubordinated covenant satisfactory to the City Attorney’s Office shall be recorded prohibiting any individual sale of buildings until separate fire services are installed in the building(s) subject to the sale.

MM 5.12-16 Prior to approval of water improvement plans, the water supply system shall be designed by the property owner/developer to provide sufficient fire flow pressure and storage for the proposed land use and fire protection services in accordance with Fire Department requirements.

MM 5.12-17 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall provide proof of compliance with Government Code Section 53080 (Schools).

MM 5.12-19 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner/developer shall comply with the Anaheim Municipal Code, Section 17.08.385, Public Library Facilities Services Areas – Payment of Fees Required.

XVI. RECREATION

Question A: 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?

Question B: Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

No Impact. As discussed above in Section XV, Public Services, no direct increase in demand for City parklands or recreational facilities would result from implementation of the Proposed Project because the Proposed Project would function primarily as a visitor-serving use. While the Project has the potential to indirectly increase the residential base of the City (as detailed above in Section XIV, Population and Housing), the number of potential new residents associated with the increase in employment positions would be so minor that related impacts to recreational facilities would be less than significant. Further, it is impossible to determine where, within the City, the new residents would choose to locate. The Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. No Impact would occur, and no mitigation would be required.

Mitigation Program




XVII. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

The following information is based on Appendix I1, Traffic Impact Analysis, Hotel 55 Project, Anaheim, California, prepared for the Proposed Project by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG) (2020).

Question A: Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian?

Less Than Significant Impact. The traffic study area for the Proposed Project includes 8 key study intersections and 10 key roadway segments:

Intersections Anaheim Boulevard at I-5 northbound (NB) On-Ramp/Anaheim Way Clementine Street at Disney Way I-5 SB Off-Ramps at Disney Way Anaheim Boulevard at Disney Way/I-5 Ramps/Manchester Avenue Clementine Street at Katella Avenue Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street at Katella Avenue Manchester Avenue/I-5 southbound (SB) Off-Ramp at Katella Avenue Anaheim Way at Katella Avenue

Roadway Segments Disney Way between Clementine Street and I-5 SB Off-Ramp Disney Way between I-5 SB Off-Ramp and Anaheim Boulevard Clementine Street, between Disney Way and Katella Avenue Anaheim Boulevard, between Disney Way/I-5 Ramps/Manchester Avenue and Katella

Avenue Katella Avenue, between Clementine Street and Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street Katella Avenue, between Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street and Manchester Avenue/I-5

SB Off-Ramp Katella Avenue, between Manchester Avenue/I-5 SB Off-Ramp and Anaheim Way Manchester Avenue, between Anaheim Boulevard and Katella Avenue Anaheim Boulevard, between I-5 NB On-Ramp/Anaheim Way and Disney Way/I-5

Ramps/Manchester Avenue Anaheim Boulevard, between Cerritos Avenue and I-5 NB Ramp/Anaheim Way

Intersection Capacity Utilization Method of Analysis (Signalized Intersections)

In conformance with the City of Anaheim, existing AM and PM peak hour operating conditions for the key signalized study intersections were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method. The ICU technique is intended for signalized intersection analysis and estimates the volume to capacity (V/C) relationship for an intersection based on the individual V/C ratios for key conflicting traffic movements.



The ICU numerical value represents the percent signal (green) time and thus capacity, required by existing and/or future traffic. It should be noted that the ICU methodology assumes uniform traffic distribution per intersection approach lane and optimal signal timing.

Per City of Anaheim requirements, the ICU calculations use a lane capacity of 1,700 vehicles per hour (vph) for through and all turn lanes. A clearance adjustment factor of 0.05 was added to each Level of Service calculation.

The ICU value translates to a Level of Service (LOS) estimate, which is a relative measure of the intersection performance. The ICU value is the sum of the critical volume to capacity ratios at an intersection; it is not indicative of the LOS of each of the individual turning movements. The six qualitative categories of Level of Service have been defined along with the corresponding ICU value range and are shown in Table 26.

TABLE 26 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

Level of Service

(LOS) Intersection Capacity Utilization Value (V/C) Level of Service Description

A ≤ 0.60 EXCELLENT. No vehicle waits longer than one red light, and no approach phase is fully used.

B 0.61 – 0.70

VERY GOOD. An occasional approach phase is fully utilized; many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles.

C 0.71 – 0.80

GOOD. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red light; backups may develop behind turning vehicles.

D 0.81 – 0.90

FAIR. Delays may be substantial during portions of the rush hours, but enough lower volume periods occur to permit clearing of developing lines, preventing excessive backups.

E 0.91 – 1.00

POOR. Represents the most vehicles intersection approaches can accommodate; may be long lines of waiting vehicles through several signal cycles.

F > 1.00

FAILURE. Backups from nearby locations or on cross streets may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approaches. Potentially very long delays with continuously increasing queue lengths.

Source: Transportation Research Board Circular 212 – Interim Materials on Highway Capacity.

Highway Capacity Manual 6 Method of Analysis (Unsignalized Intersections)

The HCM unsignalized methodology for stop-controlled intersections was utilized for the analysis of the unsignalized intersections (i.e. Proposed Project driveway). This methodology estimates the average control delay for each of the subject movements and determines the level of service for each movement. For all-way stop controlled intersections, the overall average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle, and level of service is calculated for the entire intersection. For one-way and two-way stop-controlled (minor street stop-controlled) intersections, this methodology estimates the worst side street delay, measured in seconds per vehicle and



determines the level of service for that approach. The HCM control delay value translates to a Level of Service (LOS) estimate, which is a relative measure of the intersection performance. The six qualitative categories of Level of Service have been defined along with the corresponding HCM control delay value range, as shown in Table 27.

TABLE 27 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

Level of Service

(LOS) Highway Capacity Manual

Delay Value (sec/veh) Level of Service Description A ≤ 10.0 Little or no delay B > 10.0 and ≤ 15.0 Short traffic delays C > 15.0 and ≤ 25.0 Average traffic delays D > 25.0 and ≤ 35.0 Long traffic delays E > 35.0 and ≤ 50.0 Very long traffic delays F > 50.0 Severe congestion

Source: Highway Capacity Manual.

Volume to Capacity Ratio Method of Analysis (Roadway Segments)

Existing daily operating conditions for the 10 key roadway segments have been investigated according to the daily volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio of each link. The daily V/C relationship is used to estimate the LOS of the roadway segment with the volume based on the 24-hour traffic count data and the existing daily capacity based on the City’s classification of each roadway. The roadway link capacity of each street classification according to Orange County’s Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) is presented in Table 28, along with the six corresponding service levels and associated V/C ratios.



TABLE 28 ROADWAY LINK CAPACITIES

Facility Type Number of

Lanes

Level of Service Criteria With Associated Roadway Capacity Daily Values (VPD)

Level of Service (LOS) A B C D E F

Principal 8-lanes divided 45,000 52,500 60,000 67,500 75,000 --

Major 6-lanes divided 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 --

Primary 4-lanes divided 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500 --

Secondary 4-lanes undivided 15,000 17,500 20,000 22,500 25,000 --

Commuter Local Arterial

2-lanes undivided 7,500 8,800 10,000 11,300 12,500 --

V/C Ratio ≤ 0.60 0.61-0.70 0.71-0.80 0.81-0.90 0.91-1.00 ≥ 1.00 Notes: VPD = vehicles per day Source: Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways.

Level of Service Criteria

According to the City of Anaheim’s Circulation Element and stated in the City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained during the morning and evening peak commute hours on all City intersections. The arterial roadway criteria for the City of Anaheim involves the use of average daily traffic (ADT) volume to capacity (V/C) ratios. LOS C (V/C not to exceed 0.80) is the performance standard that has been adopted for the study area circulation system by the City of Anaheim.

Existing Conditions

Intersections

Table 29 summarizes the existing peak hour service level calculations for the 8 key study intersections based on existing traffic volumes and current street geometry. Review of Table 29 indicates that all 8 key study intersections currently operate at acceptable LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours.

Appendix C of the TIA presents the ICU/LOS calculations for the 8 key study intersections for the AM peak hour and PM peak hour.



TABLE 29 EXISTING INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY

Key Intersections Time

Period

Minimum Acceptable

LOS Control

Type ICU LOS

1. Anaheim Boulevard at I-5 NB On-Ramp/Anaheim Way

AM D 3∅ Traffic

Signal 0.419 A

PM 0.614 B

2. Clementine Street at Disney Way

AM D 8∅ Traffic

Signal 0.227 A

PM 0.265 A

3. I-5 SB Off-Ramp at Disney Way

AM D 3∅ Traffic

Signal 0.207 A

PM 0.261 A

4. Anaheim Boulevard at Disney Way/I-5 Ramps/Manchester Ave

AM D 6∅ Traffic

Signal 0.471 A

PM 0.474 A

5. Clementine Street at Katella Avenue

AM D 8∅ Traffic

Signal 0.381 A

PM 0.507 A

6. Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street at Katella Avenue

AM D 8∅ Traffic

Signal 0.453 A

PM 0.521 A

7. Manchester Avenue/I-5 SB Off-Ramp at Katella Avenue

AM D 4∅ Traffic

Signal 0.620 B

PM 0.595 A

8. Anaheim Way at Katella Avenue

AM D 3∅ Traffic

Signal 0.456 A

PM 0.538 A Notes: Bold LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City LOS standards ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization ∅ = Phase Source: LLG 2020a

Roadway Segments

Table 30 summarizes the existing service level calculations for the 10 key roadway segments based on existing 24-hour traffic volumes and current roadway geometry. The table shows the number of lanes, the arterial classification and the existing LOS E capacity. The table also shows the daily volume, V/C ratio and resulting level of service. Review of Table 30 indicates that all 10 key roadway segments currently operate at acceptable service levels on a daily basis.



TABLE 30 EXISTING ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY

Key Roadway Segment

Min. Acc. LOS

No. of Existing Lanes

Arterial Class.

Existing Capacity

at LOS “E”

Existing

Traffic Conditions Daily

Volume V/C

Ratio LOS

A. Disney Way, between Clementine St and I-5 SB Off-Ramp C 6D Major 56,300 13,090 0.233 A

B. Disney Way, between I-5 SB Off-Ramp and Anaheim Blvd C 6D Major 56,300 15,481 0.275 A

C. Clementine St, between Disney Way and Katella Ave C 4D Secondary 25,000 6,651 0.266 A

D. Anaheim Blvd, between Disney Way/ I-5 Ramps/Manchester Ave and Katella Ave C 6D Major [a] 56,300 25,754 0.457 A

E. Katella Ave, between Clementine St and Anaheim Blvd/Haster St C 6D Major [b] 56,300 36,314 0.645 B

F. Katella Ave, between Anaheim Blvd/ Haster St and Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Off-Ramp

C 6D Major [b] 56,300 36,309 0.645 B

G. Katella Ave, between Manchester Ave/ I-5 SB Off-Ramp and Anaheim Way C 8D Principal [b] 75,000 39,486 0.526 A

H. Manchester Ave, between Anaheim Blvd and Katella Ave C 3

(One-Way) Commuter

Local Arterial [c] 28,150 2,296 0.082 A

I. Anaheim Blvd, between I-5 NB On-Ramp/ Anaheim Way and Disney Way/I-5 Ramps/ Manchester Ave

C 6D Major [a] 56,300 38,284 0.680 B

J. Anaheim Blvd, between Cerritos Ave and I-5 NB Ramp/Anaheim Way C 6D Major [a] 56,300 37,210 0.661 B

Notes: BOLD V/C ratio indicates unacceptable service level [a] = Anaheim Blvd is classified as a Primary Arterial in the City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element (June 2018) [b] = Katella Ave is classified as a Resort Smartstreet in the City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element (June 2018) [c] = Manchester Ave is classified as a Secondary Arterial (One-Way) in the City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element (June 2018) Source: LLG 2020a

Trip Generation

Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. Generation equations and/or rates used in the traffic forecasting procedure are found in the 10th Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).

Table 31 summarizes the trip generation rates used in forecasting the vehicular trips generated by the Proposed Project and also presents the forecast daily and peak hour project traffic volumes for a “typical” weekday. As shown in the middle portion of Table 31, the trip generation potential for the Proposed Project was estimated using ITE Land Use 310: Hotel trip rates. Review of the lower portion of Table 31 indicates that the Proposed Project is forecast to generate approximately 1,045 daily trips, with 59 trips (35 inbound, 24 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 75 trips (38 inbound, 37 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday.



Exhibit 15, Project Traffic Distribution Pattern, presents the traffic distribution pattern for the Proposed Project. Project traffic volumes both entering and exiting the site have been distributed and assigned to the adjacent street system based on the following considerations:

The site's proximity to major traffic carriers (i.e. Katella Avenue, etc.), Expected localized traffic flow patterns based on adjacent street channelization and

presence of traffic signals, Existing intersection traffic volumes, and Ingress/egress availability at the project site.

TABLE 31 PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST

ITE Land Use Code/ Project Description

Daily 2-Way

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total

Generation Factors: 310: Hotel (TE/Room) 8.36 59% 41% 0.47 51% 49% 0.60 Proposed Project Generation Forecast: Hotel 55 Project (125 DU) 1,045 35 24 59 38 37 75 Source: Trip Generation, 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C. (2017).

The anticipated AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes associated with the Project are presented in Exhibit 16, AM Peak Hour Project Traffic Volumes, and Exhibit 17, PM Peak Hour and Daily Project Traffic Volumes, respectively. Exhibit 17 also presents the daily project traffic volumes. The traffic volume assignments presented in Exhibits 16 and 17 reflect the traffic distribution characteristics shown in Exhibit 15 and the traffic generation forecast presented in Table 31.

Impact Analysis

Existing Traffic Conditions. As discussed previously and shown in Tables 29 and 30, all 8 key study intersections currently operate at acceptable LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours. All 10 key roadway segments currently operate at acceptable service levels (LOS C or better) on a daily basis.

Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions. As shown in Table 32, the Proposed Project would not significantly impact any of the 8 key study intersections when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in the TIA. The 8 key study intersections currently operate and are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours with the addition of Project generated traffic to existing traffic.

As shown in Table 33, the Proposed Project would not significantly impact any of the 10 key roadway segments when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in the TIA. The 10 key roadway segments are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS B or better on a daily basis with the addition of Project generated traffic to existing traffic.

Map not to scale

Source: Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers

(07/06/2020 RMB) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\Graphics\ISMND\ex_Project_Traffic_Distribution_Pattern.pdf

D:\P

roje

cts\

3AN

A\00

9112

\GR

APH

ICS\

ISM

ND

\ex_

Proj

ect_

Traf

fic_D

istri

butio

n_Pa

ttern

_202

0060

8.ai


Project Traffic Distribution Pattern

Map not to scale


(07/06/2020 RMB) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\Graphics\ISMND\ex_AM_Peak_Hour_Project_Traffic_Volumes.pdf

D:\P

roje

cts\

3AN

A\00

9112

\GR

APH

ICS\

ISM

ND

\ex_

AM_P

eak_

Hou

r_Pr

ojec

t_Tr

affic

_Vol

umes

_20

2006

08.a

i


AM Peak Hour Project Traffic Volumes

Map not to scale


(07/06/2020 RMB) R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\Graphics\ISMND\ex_PM_Peak_Hour_and_Daily_Project_Traffic_Volumes.pdf

D:\P

roje

cts\

3AN

A\00

9112

\GR

APH

ICS\

ISM

ND

\ex_

PM_P

eak_

Hou

r_an

d_D

aily

_Pro

ject

_Tra

ffic_

Volu

mes

_202

0060

8.ai


PM Peak Hour and Daily Project Traffic Volumes



TABLE 32 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION

CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Key Intersection Time

Period

Min

imum

A

ccep

tabl

e LO

S

Existing Traffic

Conditions

Existing Plus Project

Traffic Conditions Significant

Impact ICU LOS ICU LOS Increase Yes/No


AM D

0.419 A 0.421 A 0.002 No PM 0.614 B 0.617 B 0.003 No


AM D

0.227 A 0.231 A 0.004 No PM 0.265 A 0.270 A 0.005 No


AM D

0.207 A 0.210 A 0.003 No PM 0.261 A 0.270 A 0.009 No


AM D

0.471 A 0.473 A 0.002 No PM 0.474 A 0.478 A 0.004 No


AM D

0.381 A 0.381 A 0.000 No PM 0.507 A 0.510 A 0.003 No

6. Anaheim Blvd/Haster Street at Katella Avenue

AM D

0.453 A 0.454 A 0.001 No PM 0.521 A 0.525 A 0.004 No


AM D

0.620 B 0.620 B 0.000 No PM 0.595 A 0.596 A 0.001 No


AM D

0.456 A 0.457 A 0.001 No PM 0.538 A 0.540 A 0.002 No

Notes: Bold LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City LOS standards ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization Source: LLG 2020a



TABLE 33 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY

Key Roadway Segment

Min. Acc. LOS


Arterial Classification

Existing Capacity

at LOS “E”

Existing Traffic Conditions

Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions

Daily Volume

V/C Ratio LOS

Daily Volume

V/C Ratio LOS Increase

Significant (Yes/No)

A. Disney Way, between Clementine St and I-5 SB Off-Ramp C 6D Major 56,300 13,090 0.233 A 13,482 0.239 A 0.006 No

B. Disney Way, between I-5 SB Off-Ramp and Anaheim Blvd C 6D Major 56,300 15,481 0.275 A 16,030 0.285 A 0.010 No

C. Clementine St, between Disney Way and Katella Ave C 4D Secondary 25,000 6,651 0.266 A 7,696 0.308 A 0.042 No

D. Anaheim Blvd, between Disney Way/ I-5 Ramps/Manchester Ave and Katella Ave C 6D Major [a] 56,300 25,754 0.457 A 25,963 0.461 A 0.004 No

E. Katella Ave, between Clementine St and Anaheim Blvd/Haster St C 6D Major [b] 56,300 36,314 0.645 B 36,706 0.652 B 0.007 No

F. Katella Ave, between Anaheim Blvd/ Haster St and Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Off-Ramp

C 6D Major [b] 56,300 36,309 0.645 B 36,596 0.650 B 0.005 No

G. Katella Ave, between Manchester Ave/ I-5 SB Off-Ramp and Anaheim Way C 8D Principal [b] 75,000 39,486 0.526 A 39,826 0.531 A 0.005 No


(One-Way)

Commuter Local

Arterial [c] 28,150 2,296 0.082 A 2,348 0.083 A 0.001 No


C 6D Major [a] 56,300 38,284 0.680 B 38,441 0.683 B 0.003 No

J. Anaheim Blvd, between Cerritos Ave and I-5 NB Ramp/Anaheim Way C 6D Major [a] 56,300 37,210 0.661 B 37,210 0.661 B 0.000 No

Notes: BOLD V/C ratio indicates unacceptable service level [a] = Anaheim Blvd is classified as a Primary Arterial in the City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element (June 2018) [b] = Katella Ave is classified as a Resort Smartstreet in the City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element (June 2018) Source: LLG 2020a



Existing Plus Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions. As shown in Table 34, the Proposed Project would not significantly impact any of the 8 key study intersections when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in the TIA. All 8 key study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours with the addition of project generated traffic to existing traffic and cumulative traffic.

As shown in Table 35, the Proposed Project would not significantly impact any of the 10 key roadway segments when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in the TIA and accepted by the City of Anaheim. Although Roadway Segments E (Katella Avenue between Clementine Street and Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street) and F (Katella Avenue between Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street and Manchester Avenue/I-5 SB Off-Ramp) are forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS D on a daily basis, these locations are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS A with and without the Proposed Project during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. For roadway segments forecast to operate at unacceptable service levels, the level of significance is based on peak hour assessment and therefore would not be impacted by the Proposed Project. The remaining 8 key roadway segments are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) on a daily basis with the addition of cumulative project traffic and existing traffic.



TABLE 34 EXISTING PLUS CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Key Intersection

Time

Period


Existing Plus Cum. Projects

Traffic Conditions

Existing Plus Cum. Projects Plus Project

Traffic Conditions Significant

Impact

Existing Plus Cumulative Projects

Plus Project Plus Improvements

ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU

Increase Yes/No ICU LOS


AM 0.419 A 0.521 A 0.523 A 0.002 No -- -- PM 0.614 B 0.720 C 0.724 C 0.004 No -- --


AM 0.227 A 0.249 A 0.253 A 0.004 No -- -- PM 0.265 A 0.326 A 0.335 A 0.009 No -- --


AM 0.207 A 0.240 A 0.240 A 0.000 No -- -- PM 0.261 A 0.316 A 0.322 A 0.006 No -- --


AM 0.471 A 0.525 A 0.528 A 0.003 No -- -- PM 0.474 A 0.549 A 0.552 A 0.003 No -- --


AM 0.381 A 0.441 A 0.441 A 0.000 No -- -- PM 0.507 A 0.616 B 0.619 B 0.003 No -- --


AM 0.453 A 0.497 A 0.501 A 0.004 No -- -- PM 0.521 A 0.635 B 0.639 B 0.004 No -- --


AM 0.620 B 0.682 B 0.682 B 0.000 No -- -- PM 0.595 A 0.706 C 0.707 C 0.001 No -- --


AM 0.456 A 0.515 A 0.516 A 0.001 No -- -- PM 0.538 A 0.655 B 0.657 B 0.002 No -- --




TABLE 35 EXISTING PLUS CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY

Key Roadway Segment

Min. Acc. LOS



Existing Capacity

at LOS “E”

Existing Plus Cumulative

Traffic Conditions

Existing Plus Cumulative Plus Project


Volume V/C

Ratio LOS Daily

Volume V/C

Ratio LOS Inc. Significant (Yes/No)




D. Anaheim Blvd, between Disney Way/ I-5 Ramps/Manchester Ave and Katella Ave

C 6D Major [a] 56,300 28,546 0.507 A 28,755 0.511 A 0.004 No

E.

Katella Ave, between Clementine St and Anaheim Blvd/ Haster St

C 6D Major [b] 56,300 46,977 0.834 D 47,369 0.841 D 0.007

Peak Hour Assessment

AM

EB 4,8001 1,730 0.360 A 1,730 0.360 A 0.000 No WB 4,800 1,399 0.291 A 1,425 0.297 A 0.006 No

PM EB 4,800 1,672 0.348 A 1,672 0.348 A 0.000 No

WB 4,800 2,153 0.449 A 2,182 0.455 A 0.006 No

F.

Katella Ave, between Anaheim Blvd/Haster St and Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Off-Ramp

C 6D Major [b] 56,300 46,590 0.828 D 46,877 0.833 D 0.005


AM

EB 4,8001 1,853 0.386 A 1,855 0.386 A 0.000 No WB 4,800 1,246 0.260 A 1,262 0.263 A 0.003 No

PM EB 4,800 1,656 0.345 A 1,660 0.346 A 0.001 No

WB 4,800 1,988 0.414 A 2,005 0.418 A 0.004 No

G. Katella Ave, between Manchester Ave/ I-5 SB Off-Ramp and Anaheim Way C 8D Principal [b] 75,000 50,511 0.673 B 50,851 0.678 B 0.005 No


(One-Way)

Commuter Local

Arterial [c] 28,150 3,463 0.123 A 3,515 0.125 A 0.002 No



TABLE 35 EXISTING PLUS CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY

Key Roadway Segment

Min. Acc. LOS



Existing Capacity

at LOS “E”

Existing Plus Cumulative

Traffic Conditions

Existing Plus Cumulative Plus Project


Volume V/C

Ratio LOS Daily

Volume V/C

Ratio LOS Inc. Significant (Yes/No)

I.

Anaheim Blvd, between I-5 NB On-Ramp/ Anaheim Way and Disney Way/I-5 Ramps/ Manchester Ave

C 6D Major [a] 56,300 43,003 0.764 C 43,160 0.767 C 0.003 No

J. Anaheim Blvd, between Cerritos Ave and I-5 NB Ramp/Anaheim Way C 6D Major [a] 56,300 42,360 0.752 C 42,360 0.752 C 0.000 No

1 The directional (per lane) segment capacity is assumed at 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane (VPHPL). Thus, the total directional segment capacity is calculated at 4,800 vehicles per hour (i.e. 1,600 VPHPL x 3 lanes) for each direction along Katella Avenue.

Notes: BOLD V/C ratio indicates unacceptable service level For roadway segments forecast to operate unacceptable service levels, the level of significance is based on peak hour assessment [a] = Anaheim Blvd is classified as a Primary Arterial in the City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element (June 2018) [b] = Katella Ave is classified as a Resort Smartstreet in the City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element (June 2018) Source: LLG 2020a



Year 2022 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions. As shown in Table 36, the Proposed Project would not significantly impact any of the 8 key study intersections when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in the TIA. All 8 key study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours with the addition of project generated traffic in the Year 2022.

As shown in Table 37, the Proposed Project would not significantly impact any of the 10 key roadway segments when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in the TIA and accepted by the City of Anaheim. Although Roadway Segments E (Katella Avenue between Clementine Street and Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street) and F (Katella Avenue between Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street and Manchester Avenue/I-5 SB Off-Ramp) are forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS D on a daily basis, these locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS A with and without the Proposed Project during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. For roadway segments forecast to operate at unacceptable service levels, the level of significance is based on peak hour assessment and therefore would not be impacted by the Proposed Project. The remaining 8 key roadway segments are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS C or better) on a daily basis with the addition of Project generated traffic in the Year 2022 traffic condition.



TABLE 36 YEAR 2022 CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY


Period


Year 2022 Cumulative

Traffic Conditions

Year 2022 Cumulative Plus Project

Traffic Conditions

Significant

Impact

Year 2022 Cumulative Plus Project

Plus Improvements




AM 0.419 A 0.532 A 0.534 A 0.002 No -- -- PM 0.614 B 0.737 C 0.740 C 0.003 No -- --


AM 0.227 A 0.254 A 0.258 A 0.004 No -- -- PM 0.265 A 0.332 A 0.341 A 0.009 No -- --


AM 0.207 A 0.244 A 0.244 A 0.000 No -- -- PM 0.261 A 0.323 A 0.328 A 0.005 No -- --


AM 0.471 A 0.538 A 0.540 A 0.002 No -- -- PM 0.474 A 0.562 A 0.565 A 0.003 No -- --


AM 0.381 A 0.451 A 0.451 A 0.000 No -- -- PM 0.507 A 0.629 B 0.632 B 0.003 No -- --


AM 0.453 A 0.507 A 0.511 A 0.004 No -- -- PM 0.521 A 0.649 B 0.654 B 0.005 No -- --


AM 0.620 B 0.700 B 0.700 B 0.000 No -- -- PM 0.595 A 0.722 C 0.724 C 0.002 No -- --


AM 0.456 A 0.527 A 0.527 A 0.000 No -- -- PM 0.538 A 0.669 B 0.671 B 0.002 No -- --




TABLE 37 YEAR 2022 CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY

Key Roadway Segment

Min. Acc. LOS



Existing Capacity

at LOS “E”

Year 2022 Cumulative Traffic Conditions

Year 2022 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions

Daily Volume

V/C Ratio LOS

Daily Volume

V/C Ratio LOS Inc.





D. Anaheim Blvd, between Disney Way/ I-5 Ramps/Manchester Ave and Katella Ave C 6D Major [a] 56,300 29,319 0.521 A 29,528 0.524 A 0.003 No

E.

Katella Ave, between Clementine St and Anaheim Blvd/Haster St C 6D Major [b] 56,300 48,066 0.854 D 48,458 0.861 D 0.007


AM

EB 4,8001 1,774 0.370 A 1,774 0.370 A 0.000 No WB 4,800 1,428 0.298 A 1,454 0.303 A 0.005 No

PM EB 4,800 1,707 0.356 A 1,707 0.356 A 0.000 No

WB 4,800 2,206 0.460 A 2,235 0.466 A 0.006 No

F.

Katella Ave, between Anaheim Blvd/ Haster St and Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Off-Ramp

C 6D Major [b] 56,300 47,679 0.847 D 47,966 0.852 D 0.005


AM

EB 4,8001 1,902 0.396 A 1,904 0.397 A 0.001 No WB 4,800 1,271 0.265 A 1,287 0.268 A 0.003 No

PM EB 4,800 1,693 0.353 A 1,697 0.354 A 0.001 No

WB 4,800 2,037 0.424 A 2,054 0.428 A 0.004 No

G. Katella Ave, between Manchester Ave/ I-5 SB Off-Ramp and Anaheim Way C 8D Principal [b] 75,000 51,696 0.689 B 52,036 0.694 B 0.005 No


(One-Way)

Commuter Local

Arterial [c] 28,150 3,532 0.125 A 3,584 0.127 A 0.002 No


C 6D Major [a] 56,300 44,152 0.784 C 44,309 0.787 C 0.003 No



TABLE 37 YEAR 2022 CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY

Key Roadway Segment

Min. Acc. LOS



Existing Capacity

at LOS “E”

Year 2022 Cumulative Traffic Conditions

Year 2022 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions

Daily Volume

V/C Ratio LOS

Daily Volume

V/C Ratio LOS Inc.


J. Anaheim Blvd, between Cerritos Ave and I-5 NB Ramp/Anaheim Way C 6D Major [a] 56,300 43,476 0.772 C 43,476 0.772 C 0.000 No

1 The directional (per lane) segment capacity is assumed to be 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane (VPHPL). Thus, the total directional segment capacity is calculated to be 4,800 vehicles per hour (i.e. 1,600 VPHPL x 3 lanes) for each direction along Katella Avenue.

Notes: BOLD V/C ratio indicates unacceptable service level For roadway segments forecast to operate unacceptable service levels, the level of significance is based on peak hour assessment [a] = Anaheim Blvd is classified as a Primary Arterial in the City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element (June 2018) [b] = Katella Ave is classified as a Resort Smartstreet in the City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element (June 2018) Source: LLG 2020a



General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) Plus Project Traffic Conditions. As shown in Table 38, the Proposed Project would not significantly impact any of the 8 key study intersections, when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in TIA. Although the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street at Katella Avenue is forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS E during the PM peak hour with the addition of Project traffic, the Project is expected to add less than the allowable threshold to the ICU value. The remaining 7 key study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS with the addition of project generated traffic to General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) traffic conditions.

As shown in Table 39, the Proposed Project would not significantly impact any of the 10 key roadway segments when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in the TIA and accepted by the City of Anaheim. Although Roadway Segments E (Katella Avenue between Clementine Street and Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street), F(Katella Avenue between Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street and Manchester Avenue/I-5 SB Off-Ramp), G (Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue/I-5 SB Off-Ramp and Anaheim Way), I (Anaheim Boulevard between I-5 NB On-Ramp/Anaheim Way and Disney Way/I-5 Ramps/Manchester Avenue) and J (Anaheim Boulevard between Cerritos Avenue and I-5 NB Ramo/Anaheim Way) are forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS D, E or F on a daily basis, as shown in Table 39, these locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS A with and without the Proposed Project during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. For roadway segments forecast to operate at unacceptable service levels, the level of significance is based on peak hour assessment and therefore would not be impacted by the Proposed Project. The remaining 5 key roadway segments are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS C or better) on a daily basis with the addition of Project generated traffic in the General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) traffic condition.

Summary

Existing Traffic Conditions. All 8 key study intersections currently operate at acceptable LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours. All 10 key roadway segments currently operate at acceptable service levels on a daily basis. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions. The Proposed Project would not significantly impact any of the 8 key study intersections. The 8 key study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours with the addition of existing and Project generated traffic. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Existing Plus Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions. The Proposed Project would not significantly impact any of the 8 key study intersections. All 8 key study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours with the addition of Project generated traffic to existing traffic and cumulative traffic.

The proposed Project would not significantly impact any of the 10 key roadway segments. Although roadway segments E and F are forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS D on a daily basis, these locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS with and without the Proposed Project during the weekday AM and PM peak hours and therefore would not be impacted by the Proposed Project. The remaining eight 8 key roadway segments are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better on a daily basis with the addition of Project generated traffic to existing traffic and cumulative traffic. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.



Year 2022 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions. The Proposed Project would not significantly impact any of the 8 key study intersections. All 8 key study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours with the addition of Project generated traffic in the Year 2022.

The proposed Project would not significantly impact any of the 10 key roadway segments. Although Roadway Segments E and F are forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS D on a daily basis, these locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS with and without the Proposed Project during the weekday AM and PM peak commute hours and therefore would not be impacted by the Proposed Project. The remaining 8 key roadway segments are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better on a daily basis with the addition of Project generated traffic in the Year 2022 traffic condition. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) Plus Project Traffic Conditions. The proposed Project would not significantly impact any of the 8 key study intersections. Although the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street at Katella Avenue is forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS E during the PM peak hour with the addition of Project traffic, the Project is expected to add less than the allowable threshold to the ICU value. The remaining 7 key study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS with the addition of Project generated traffic to General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) traffic conditions.

The proposed Project would not significantly impact any of the 10 key roadway. Although Roadway Segments E, F, G, I and J are forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS D, E or F on a daily basis, these locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS with and without the Proposed Project during the weekday AM and PM peak hours and therefore would not be impacted by the Proposed Project. The remaining 5 key roadway segments are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better on a daily basis with the addition of Project generated traffic in the General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) traffic condition. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.



TABLE 38 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY


Period


General Plan Buildout

Traffic Conditions


Plus Project Traffic Conditions

Significant

Impact


Plus Project Plus Improvements




AM 0.419 A 0.451 A 0.450 A -0.001 No -- -- PM 0.614 B 0.694 B 0.695 B 0.001 No -- --


AM 0.227 A 0.552 A 0.624 B 0.072 No -- -- PM 0.265 A 0.513 A 0.638 B 0.125 No -- --


AM 0.207 A 0.445 A 0.450 A 0.005 No -- -- PM 0.261 A 0.437 A 0.434 A -0.003 No -- --


AM 0.471 A 0.619 B 0.623 B 0.004 No -- -- PM 0.474 A 0.765 C 0.763 C -0.002 No -- --


AM 0.381 A 0.680 B 0.685 B 0.005 No -- -- PM 0.507 A 0.890 D 0.883 D -0.007 No -- --


AM 0.453 A 0.841 D 0.844 D 0.003 No -- -- PM 0.521 A 0.956 E 0.954 E -0.002 No -- --


AM 0.620 B 0.868 D 0.876 D 0.008 No -- -- PM 0.595 A 0.849 D 0.844 D -0.005 No -- --


AM 0.456 A 0.818 D 0.820 D 0.002 No -- -- PM 0.538 A 0.870 D 0.872 D 0.002 No -- --




TABLE 39 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT PLUS PROJECT ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY

Key Roadway Segment

Min. Acc. LOS

No. of Lanes


Capacity at LOS “E”

General Plan Buildout Traffic Conditions

General Plan Buildout Plus Project Traffic Conditions

Daily Volume

V/C Ratio LOS

Daily Volume




B Disney Way, between I-5 SB Off-Ramp and Anaheim Blvd C 6D Major 56,300 34,100 0.606 B 34,100 0.606 B 0.000 No

C. Clementine St, between Disney Way and Katella Ave C 4D Secondary 25,000 12,000 0.480 A 11,800 0.472 A -0.008 No

D. Anaheim Blvd, between Disney Way/ I-5 Ramps/Manchester Ave and Katella Ave

C 6D Major [a] 56,300 30,200 0.536 A 30,400 0.540 A 0.004 No

E.

Katella Ave, between Clementine St and Anaheim Blvd/Haster St C 8D Principal [b] 75,000 69,800 0.931 E 70,000 0.933 E 0.002


AM

EB 6,4001 2,369 0.370 A 2,411 0.377 A 0.007 No WB 6,400 2,254 0.352 A 2,299 0.359 A 0.007 No

PM EB 6,400 2,514 0.393 A 2,485 0.388 A -0.005 No

WB 6,400 3,273 0.511 A 3,275 0.512 A 0.001 No

F.

Katella Ave, between Anaheim Blvd/ Haster St and Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Off-Ramp

C 8D Principal [b] 75,000 81,300 1.084 F 82,000 1.093 F 0.009


AM

EB 6,4001 2,807 0.439 A 3,016 0.471 A 0.032 No WB 6,400 2,421 0.378 A 2,456 0.384 A 0.006 No

PM EB 6,400 2,947 0.460 A 2,935 0.459 A -0.001 No

WB 6,400 3,786 0.592 A 3,768 0.589 A -0.003 No

G.

Katella Ave, between Manchester Ave/ I-5 SB Off-Ramp and Anaheim Way C 8D Principal [b] 75,000 91,400 1.219 F 91,500 1.220 F 0.001


AM

EB 6,4001 2,907 0.454 A 2,951 0.461 A 0.007 No WB 6,400 3,102 0.485 A 3,157 0.493 A 0.008 No

PM EB 6,400 2,979 0.465 A 2,964 0.463 A -0.002 No

WB 6,400 3,838 0.600 A 3,829 0.598 A -0.002 No



TABLE 39 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT PLUS PROJECT ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY

Key Roadway Segment

Min. Acc. LOS

No. of Lanes


Capacity at LOS “E”

General Plan Buildout Traffic Conditions

General Plan Buildout Plus Project Traffic Conditions

Daily Volume

V/C Ratio LOS

Daily Volume




(One-Way)

Commuter Local

Arterial [c] 28,150 13,000 0.462 A 12,700 0.451 A -0.011 No

I.

Anaheim Blvd, between I-5 NB On-Ramp/ Anaheim Way and Disney Way/I-5 Ramps/ Manchester Ave

C 6D Major [a] 56,300 46,800 0.831 D 46,300 0.822 D -0.009


AM

NB 4,8002 1,168 0.243 A 1,108 0.231 A -0.012 No SB 4,800 1,988 0.414 A 1,944 0.405 A -0.009 No

PM NB 4,800 1,727 0.360 A 1,713 0.357 A -0.003 No

SB 4,800 1,699 0.354 A 1,687 0.351 A -0.003 No 1 The directional (per lane) segment capacity is assumed to be 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane (VPHPL). Thus, the total directional segment capacity is calculated to be 4,800 vehicles per hour (i.e. 1,600 VPHPL x 3

lanes) for each direction along Katella Avenue. 2 The directional (per lane) segment capacity is assumed to be 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane (VPHPL). Thus, the total directional segment capacity is calculated to be 4,800 vehicles per hour (i.e. 1,600 VPHPL x 3

lanes) for each direction along Anaheim Boulevard. Notes: BOLD V/C ratio indicates unacceptable service level For roadway segments forecast to operate unacceptable service levels, the level of significance is based on peak hour assessment [a] = Anaheim Blvd is classified as a Primary Arterial in the City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element (June 2018) [b] = Katella Ave is classified as a Resort Smartstreet in the City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element (June 2018) [c] = Manchester Ave is classified as a Secondary Arterial (One-Way) in the City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element (June 2018) Source: LLG 2020a



TABLE 40 GENERAL EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION

CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY – CALTRANS


Period


Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions

Project Significant

Impact

HCM LOS HCM LOS Delay

Increase Yes/No


AM 16.9 s/v B 17.1 s/v B 0.2 s/v No PM 23.9 s/v C 24.0 s/v C 0.1 s/v No


AM 19.0 s/v B 19.0 s/v B 0.0 s/v No PM 16.2 s/v B 16.2 s/v B 0.0 s/v No


AM 42.0 s/v D 42.0 s/v D 0.0 s/v No PM 38.8 s/v D 38.8 s/v D 0.0 s/v No


AM 26.4 s/v C 28.0 s/v C 1.6 s/v No PM 21.2 s/v C 21.2 s/v C 0.0 s/v No


AM 19.4 s/v B 19.4 s/v B 0.0 s/v No PM 23.8 s/v C 23.8 s/v C 0.0 s/v No

Notes: s/v = seconds per vehicle Source: LLG 2020a

State of California (Caltrans) Methodology. As shown on Table 40, the results of the Caltrans analyses indicate that the Proposed Project would not significantly impact the 5 state-controlled study intersections under “Existing Plus Project”, “Existing Plus Cumulative Plus Project”, “Year 2022 Plus Project” and “General Plan Buildout Plus Project” traffic conditions. As there are no significant impacts, no traffic mitigation measures are required or recommended for the 5 state-controlled study intersections.

Pedestrian and Alternative Transportation Facilities

Pedestrian facilities, including sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian push buttons and indications at signalized intersections, are available in the vicinity of the Project Site. There is an existing sidewalk adjacent to the Project Site; the Proposed Project would include a landscaped sidewalk along South Clementine Street that would connect to the existing sidewalk to provide continuous sidewalk to the north and south of the Project Site in order to enhance pedestrian connection and safety adjacent to the Project Site. Additionally, as part of the Project a bus stop would be constructed by the developer as part of the street improvement plans, which would include the landing area and bus pad.

The Proposed Project would be located near various alternative transportation modes and routes, including transit stops and pedestrian facilities consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Anaheim General Plan Green Element (revised June 2018), including Goal 5.1 to “Promote bus service and paratransit improvements” and Goal 8.1 to “Protect and encourage pedestrian travel”. Additionally, there is a proposed Class 1 bike path to the north of the Project Site along Disney Way and travels to the east of I-5. (Bike ID 14A, Anaheim 2020b). Existing transit service in the vicinity of the Project Site is provided by the OCTA and Anaheim Resort Transit (ART). There are multiple OCTA stops within ¼ mile of the Project Site that provide access to Routes 543, 43, and 83. Route 543 is a BRAVO route and runs north-south along Harbor Boulevard from the Fullerton Transportation Center to Costa Mesa. Route 43 is a Local Fixed



Route and runs north-south along Harbor Boulevard from Fullerton to Costa Mesa. Route 83 is also a Local Fixed Route and runs from Anaheim to Laguna Hills with stops along Manchester Avenue near the Project Site (OCTA 2020).

ART also provides transportation service for residents, employees, and guests of the City of Anaheim and the greater Anaheim Resort area. ART is a fixed-route transportation system that provides service through a network of 20 routes. The Hotel Circle Clementine Line (Routes 6, 7, and 8) is the closest route to the Project Site, running along Manchester Avenue. This route provides service along Manchester Avenue, Katella Avenue, Harbor Boulevard, Disney Way, Clementine Street, Zeyn Street, and Anaheim Boulevard. This route includes stops at the Disneyland Resort Main Transportation Center, and Anaheim GardenWalk (ART 2017). The Proposed Project is limited to onsite improvements with limited off-site improvements along the street frontage and would not cause any changes to existing services. As such, no impacts to alternative transportation are anticipated, and no mitigation is required.

Question B: Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

Less Than Significant Impact. The California Natural Resources Agency adopted revised CEQA Guidelines on December 28, 2018. Among the changes to the guidelines was the removal of vehicle delay and Level of Service (LOS) from consideration for transportation impacts under CEQA. With the adopted guidelines, transportation impacts would be evaluated based on a project’s effect on vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Lead agencies were allowed to continue using their current impact criteria until June 30, 2020, or to opt into the revised transportation guidelines. On June 23, 2020, the City of Anaheim City Council adopted the VMT Thresholds of Significance for purpose of analyzing transportation impacts and also approved the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Analysis.

Based on the City Guidelines, the Proposed Project’s proximity to high quality transit is one of the screening thresholds that could be used for determining if a VMT analysis is required. CEQA Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1) states that lead agencies should generally presume that certain projects, including residential, will have a less than significant impact on VMT within one half mile of a fixed stop along a high-quality transit corridor. The Public Resources Code 21155 defines a high-quality transit corridor as a fixed route bus corridor with headways of 15 minutes or less during peak commute hours. The City Guidelines states that this presumption would not apply if any of the following is true:

Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75 Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than

required by the jurisdiction Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) (as

determined by the lead agency, with input from the Metropolitan Planning Organization)

The Proposed Project is located less than ½-mile from bus stops on Katella Avenue. The peak hour headways for buses on Katella Avenue are 15 minutes or less. The Proposed Project’s FAR is 1.86, so the FAR would exceed 0.75. The Proposed Project provides less parking than required by the City. Additionally, the Project is consistent with the applicable SCS as the Project’s land use is consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation. Therefore, the Project could be screened from a VMT analysis, and would be considered a less than significant impact on VMT, per the City of Anaheim TIA guidelines for CEQA analysis.



Question C: Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses?

Less Than Significant Impact. Access to the Project Site would be provided via one right-turn in/right-turn out only unsignalized driveway located along Clementine Street. The on-site circulation layout of the Proposed Project would be considered adequate. Additionally, curb return radii are considered adequate for small service/delivery (FedEx, UPS) trucks and trash trucks.

As shown in Table 41, the Proposed Project driveway is forecast to operate at LOS A during the AM and PM peak hours under Year 2022 plus Project and General Plan Buildout plus Project traffic conditions. As such, project access would be considered adequate. Motorists entering and exiting the Project Site would be able to do so without undue congestion. Motorists entering and exiting the Project Site would be able to do so comfortably, safely, and without undue congestion and the impact would be less than significant.

TABLE 41 PROJECT DRIVEWAY PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY

Project Driveway Time

Period Intersection

Control

(1) Year 2022

Plus Project Traffic Conditions

(2) General Plan

Buildout Plus Project

Traffic Conditions HCM LOS HCM LOS

-- Clementine Street at AM One – Way

Stop 9.1 s/v A 9.1 s/v A

Project Driveway No. 1 PM 9.3 s/v A 9.7 s/v A Notes: s/v = seconds per vehicle Source: LLG 2020a

Question D: Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?

No Impact. The Project Site is located along Clementine Street and is not in the vicinity of an established emergency response or evacuation plan. Construction activity would be confined to the Project Site and would not interfere with vehicle movement or emergency access along this roadway. Impacts related to the addition of traffic related to the Proposed Project would be less than significant; therefore, the Proposed Project would not interfere with the movement of emergency vehicles along local roadways. No impact related to inadequate emergency access would occur, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program


MM 5.14-1 Prior to approval of a Final Site Plan for any project forecast to generate 100 or more peak hour trips, as determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager utilizing Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model Trip Generation Rates, the property owner/developer shall prepare traffic improvement phasing analyses to identify when the improvements identified in this traffic analysis shall be designed and constructed.



MM 5.14-2 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for each building, the property owner/developer shall pay the appropriate Traffic Signal Assessment Fees and Transportation Impact and Improvement Fees to the City of Anaheim in amounts determined by the City Council Resolution in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit with credit given for City-authorized improvements provided by the property owner/developer. The property owner shall also participate in all applicable reimbursement or benefit districts, which have been established.

MM 5.14-4 Prior to the final building and zoning inspection, the property owner shall join and financially participate in a clean fuel shuttle program such as the Anaheim Resort Transit system, and shall participate in the Anaheim Transportation Network in conjunction with the on-going operation of the project. The property owner shall also record a covenant on the property that requires participation in these programs ongoing during project operation. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation.

MM 5.14-5 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the property owner/developer shall provide to the City of Anaheim Public Works Department a plan to coordinate rideshare services for construction employees with the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN) for review and approval and shall implement ATN recommendations to the extent feasible.

MM 5.14-7 Ongoing during construction, if the Anaheim Police Department or the Anaheim Traffic Management Center (TMC) personnel are required to provide temporary traffic control services, the property owner/developer shall reimburse the City, on a fair-share basis, if applicable, for reasonable costs associated with such services.

MM 5.14-8 Prior to the final building and zoning inspection, the property owner shall record a covenant on the property requiring that ongoing during project implementation, the property owner/developer shall implement and administer a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for all employees. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office. Objectives of the TDM program shall be:

a. Increase ridesharing and use of alternative transportation modes by guests.

b. Provide a menu of commute alternatives for employees to reduce project-generated trips.

c. Conduct an annual commuter survey to ascertain trip generation, trip origin, and Average Vehicle Ridership.

MM 5.14-9 Prior to the final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall provide to the City of Anaheim Public Works Department for review and approval a menu of TDM program strategies and elements for both existing and future employees’ commute options, and incentives for hotel patrons’ transportation options. These options may include, but are not limited to, the list below. The property owner shall also record a covenant on the property requiring that the approved TDM strategies and elements be implemented ongoing during project operation. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation.



a. On-site services. Provide, as feasible and permitted, on-site services such as the food, retail, and other services.

b. Ridesharing. Develop a commuter listing of all employee members for the purpose of providing a “matching” of employees with other employees who live in the same geographic areas and who could rideshare.

c. Vanpooling. Develop a commuter listing of all employees for the purpose of matching numbers of employees who live in geographic proximity to one another and could comprise a vanpool or participate in the existing vanpool programs.

d. Transit Pass. Promote Orange County Transportation Authority (including commuter rail) passes through financial assistance and on-site sales to encourage employees to use the various transit and bus services from throughout the region.

e. Shuttle Service. Generate a commuter listing of all employees living in proximity to the project, and offer a local shuttle program to encourage employees to travel to work by means other than the automobile. When appropriate, event shuttle service shall also be made available for guests.

f. Bicycling. Develop a Bicycling Program to offer a bicycling alternative to employees. Secure bicycle racks, lockers, and showers should be provided as part of this program. Maps of bicycle routes throughout the area should be provided to inform potential bicyclists of these options.

g. Guaranteed Ride Home Program. Develop a program to provide employees who rideshare, or use transit or other means of commuting to work, with a prearranged ride home in a taxi, rental car, shuttle, or other vehicle, in the event of emergencies during the work shift.

h. Target Reduction of Longest Commute Trip. Promote an incentive program for ridesharing and other alternative transportation modes to put highest priority on reduction of longest employee commute trips.

i. Work Shifts. Stagger work shifts. j. Compressed Work Week. Develop a “compressed work week” program,

which provides for fewer work days but longer daily shifts as an option for employees.

k. Telecommuting. Explore the possibility of a “telecommuting” program that would link some employees via electronic means (e.g., computer with modem).

l. Parking Management. Develop a parking management program that provides incentives to those who rideshare or use transit means other than single-occupant auto to travel to work.

m. Access. Provide preferential access to high occupancy vehicles and shuttles.

n. Financial Incentive for Ridesharing and/or Public Transit. Offer employees financial incentives for ridesharing or using public transportation. Currently, federal law provides tax-free status for up to $65 per month per employee contributions to employees who vanpool or use public transit including commuter rail and/or express bus pools.



o. Financial Incentive for Bicycling. Offer employees financial incentives for bicycling to work.

p. Special “Premium” for the Participation and Promotion of Trip Reduction. Offer ticket/passes to special events, vacations, etc. to employees who recruit other employees for vanpool, carpool, or other trip reduction programs.

q. Incentive Programs. Design incentive programs for carpooling and other alternative transportation modes so as to put highest priority on reduction of longest commute trips.

MM 5.14-12 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the location of any proposed gates across a driveway shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Gates shall not be installed across any driveway or private street in a manner which may adversely affect vehicular traffic on the adjacent public streets. Installation of any gates shall conform to the current version of Engineering Standard Detail No. 475.

MM 5.14-13 Prior to the issuance of building permits, plans shall show that all driveways shall be constructed with a minimum fifteen (15) foot radius curb returns as required by the City Engineer, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.

MM 5.14-14 Prior to the issuance of building permits or final map approval, whichever occurs first, security in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, completion guarantee, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City Engineer shall be posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim, including preparation of improvement plans and installation of all improvements, such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, water facilities, street grading and pavement, sewer and drainage facilities and other appurtenant work, as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with the specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer, as may be modified by the City Engineer. Installation of said improvements shall occur prior to final building and zoning inspections.

MM 5.14-16 Prior to approval of a Final Site Plan for any project forecast to generate 100 or more peak hour trips, as determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager utilizing Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model Trip Generation Rates, in conjunction with the preparation of any traffic improvement phasing analyses as required in MM 5.14-1, property owners/developers will determine when the intersection improvements shall be constructed, subject to the conditions identified in MM 5.14-1.

MM 5.14-17 Prior to approval of a Final Site Plan for any project forecast to generate 100 or more peak hour trips, as determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager utilizing Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model Trip Generation Rates, in conjunction with the preparation of any traffic improvement phasing analyses as required in MM 5.14-1, the following actions shall be taken in cooperation with the City of Orange:

a. The traffic improvement phasing analysis shall identify any impacts created by the project on facilities within the City of Orange. The fair-share percentage responsibility for mitigating these impacts shall be calculated in this analysis.



b. The City of Anaheim shall estimate the cost of the project’s fair-share responsibility in cooperation with the City of Orange.

c. The property owner/developer shall pay the City of Anaheim the fair-share cost prior to issuance of a building permit. 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 fair-share contribution to traffic mitigation programs that result in improved traffic flow at the impacted locations, via an agreement mutually acceptable to both cities.

MM 5.14-18 Prior to approval of a Final Site Plan for any project forecast to generate 100 or more peak hour trips, as determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager utilizing Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model Trip Generation Rates, in conjunction with the preparation of any traffic improvement phasing analyses as required in MM 5.14-1, and assuming that a regional transportation agency has not already programmed and funded the warranted improvements to the impacted freeway mainline or freeway ramp locations, property owners/developers and the City will take the following actions in cooperation with Caltrans:

a. The traffic study will identify the project’s proportionate impact on the specific freeway mainline and/or freeway ramp locations and its fair-share percentage responsibility for mitigating these impacts based on thresholds of significance, performance standards, and methodologies established in the Orange County Congestion Management Program and the City of Anaheim Traffic Study Guidelines.

b. The City shall estimate the cost of the project’s fair-share responsibility in cooperation with Caltrans.

MM 5.14-20 Prior to the approval of a Final Site Plan, the property owner/developer shall meet with the Traffic and Transportation Manager to determine whether a bus stop(s) is required to be placed adjacent to the property. If a bus stop(s) is required, it shall be placed in a location that least impacts traffic flow and may be designed as a bus turnout or a far side bus stop as required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager and per the approval of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA).

MM 5.14-21 Prior to the first final building and zoning Inspection every property owner and/or lessee shall designate an on-site contact that will be responsible for coordinating with the ATN and implementing all trip mitigation measures. The on-site coordinator shall be the one point of contact representing the project with the ATN. The TDM requirements shall be included in the lease or other agreement with all of the project participants.

XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

As discussed in Section V of this IS/MND, other cultural resources, including historical resources, archaeological resources, and human remains, were addressed, the impact analysis concluded that impacts on these resources would be less than significant. For historic resources, the existing Project site is not listed in the CRHR, the NRHP, California Historical Landmarks, or California Points of Historical Interests lists. Additionally, the Project site is not included in a Local Register of Historical Resources; on a map of Historical Resources; or on a map of Historic Districts. For archaeological resources, the Impact Analysis concluded the Project could result in unanticipated



discovery of previously unknown archaeological resources. To reduce this impact, the analysis required implementation of mitigation measure MM CULT-1, which includes retaining a professional archaeologist to evaluate the significance of archaeological resources and determine an appropriate course of action as necessary. For human remains, the regulatory requirements that address the handling of human remains if previously unknown human remains are encountered, as well as if the remains are determined to be Native American. Compliance with the state required regulations would ensure such impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. The following analysis addresses the potential for the discovery of tribal cultural resources (TCR) and the implementation of mitigation measures to reduce impacts to such discoveries to a less than significant level.

METHODOLOGY

As discussed in Section V of this IS/MND, the NAHC conducted a SLF search for the project. The search results are negative. Consistent with requirements of Senate Bill (SB) 18 (required for projects that involve an amendment to a general plan or specific plan) and Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (required for projects subject to CEQA analyses), the City has sent letters to tribes that have expressed an interest in being consulted regarding Native American resources for the projects being undertaken by City.

Letters were sent to interested tribal organizations on March 10, 2020. On March 24, 2020, the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians – Acjachemen Nation requested consultation with the City regarding the Project. A consultation meeting was conducted on April 15, 2020 via GoToMeeting with Joyce Perry on behalf of the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians – Acjachemen Nation.

On March 11, 2020, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation requested consultation with the City regarding the Project. Consultation was conducted via email on May 11, 2020 with Brandy Salas on behalf of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation.

IMPACT ANALYSIS

Question A: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).

No Impact. For purposes of impact analysis, a tribal cultural resource is considered a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object which is of cultural value to a California Native American Tribe and is either eligible for the CRHR or a local register. As indicated in Section V of this IS/MND, based on a 2020 SCCIC record search results there are no resources on the Project Site that are currently listed on the CRHR. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have an impact on a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing on the CRHR or a local register. No significant impacts were identified, and mitigation is not required.

b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code



Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The second component of this threshold is if the Proposed Project would impact a tribal cultural resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a Native American tribe. Subdivision (c) states:

A resource may be listed as an historical resource in the California Register if it meets any of the following CRHR 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 construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.

(4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Based on information available through the record searches at the SCCIC and the NAHC, and the long-term past use of the Project area, there is no information available that indicates there are significant tribal resources within the Project area that would be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1. However, as noted in Section above, the City requested consultation with tribes that notified the City of a desire to be consulted with regarding the Project.

The City received two responses. Ms. Joyce Perry (Tribal Manager, Cultural Resource Director) for the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians – Acjachemen Nation, responded on March 24, 2020. A consultation meeting was conducted on April 15, 2020 via GoToMeeting with Joyce Perry pertaining to AB 52 and SB 18. Ms. Brandy Salas (Admin Specialist) for the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation, responded on March 11, 2020. Consultation was conducted on May 11, 2020 via email with Brandy Salas, including confirmation from Mr. Salas pertaining to AB 52 and SB 18. Based on coordination with both tribal organizations, the parties agreed to implementation of MM 18-1, as outline below, which would reduce potential impacts related to tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Program

The following mitigation measure is required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels and they will be incorporated into the Mitigation Program for this IS/MND.

MM 18-1 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit in which native soil is disturbed, the Applicant shall provide written evidence to the City, that a Native American monitor has been retained to observe grading activities in native sediment and to recover and catalogue tribal cultural resources as necessary. The Native American monitor shall be present at the pre-grade conference, shall establish procedures for tribal cultural resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the City, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of the tribal cultural resource as appropriate. The



Tribal monitor will only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground-disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities are defined by the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation and Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, as activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the project area. The Tribal Monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when the Project Site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and monitor have indicated that the Project Site has a low potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources.

Upon discovery of any archaeological resources, construction activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and Tribal monitor approved by the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation shall coordinate with the Project Applicant regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request reburial or preservation for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of the Project Site while evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[f]). If a resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource,” time allotment and funding sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures, or appropriate mitigation, must be available. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and PRC Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.



XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Question A: Would the project require or result in the construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?

Question C: Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?

Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Anaheim provides water and wastewater services to the Project Site as described in more detail below.

Water

The Proposed Project consists of a 125-room hotel on a site that is currently developed with a 10,616-sf one-story industrial building. The Proposed Project would connect to existing water mains that are serviced by the Anaheim Public Utilities Department (APUD). APUD has indicated that there is adequate water capacity to serve the Proposed Project and that all new services would be required to be tapped into an existing 20-inch ductile iron pipe (DIP) main in Clementine Street (Kim 2020). Therefore, impacts related to existing water infrastructure would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Wastewater

The wastewater analysis is based on Appendix J1, Sewer Study – 1730 South Clementine Street Hotel City Project Tracking No: OTH2018-01031, (January 2018) and Appendix J2, Additional Impacts from 1730 South Clementine Sewer Study (February 2018), prepared by Psomas. According to the Combined Central Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers (CCAAMPSS), the Project Site’s sanitary sewer is currently served by an existing 8-inch vitrified clay pipe (VCP) sewer running along the westerly side of South Clementine Street. Sewage from the Proposed Project Site is proposed to be discharged to the same location as the existing site discharges to (the existing 8-inch VCP sewer running along the westerly side of South Clementine Street). Based on the CAMPSS computer model, the existing site was all loaded to one manhole, SW087403, on South Clementine Street. The Proposed Project would also be loaded to manhole SW087403 on South Clementine Street. The existing and proposed manhole loading with flow generation is summarized in Table 42, Existing and Proposed Manhole Flow Loading, and the existing and proposed flow increases are presented in Table 43, Existing and Proposed Flow Increases Due To Proposed Project.



TABLE 42 EXISTING AND PROPOSED MANHOLE FLOW LOADING

Manhole Number Existing/ Proposed

Units Flow Factor

(gpd/unit)

Existing Flow Rate

(gpd)

Proposed Flow Rate

(gpd) Acres Rooms ksf SW087403 Dry Cleaner Existing 0.67 830 556 Total Flow to SW087403 556 SW087403 Hotel Proposed 125 125 15,635 Retail/Restaurant Proposed 3.0 500 1,500 Total Flow to SW087403 17,125 Gpd: gallons per day; ksf: thousand square feet Source: Psomas 2018

TABLE 43 EXISTING AND PROPOSED FLOW INCREASES DUE TO PROPOSED PROJECT

Project Parcels Land Use Units Flow Factor

(gpd/unit) Flow Rate

(gpd) Acres Rooms ksf Existing Average Flow Dry Cleaner Industrial 0.67 830 556

Total Existing Flow 556 Proposed Project Average Flow

Hotel Commercial (Hotel)

125 125 15,625

Retail/Restaurant Commercial (Hotel) 3.0 500 1,500

Total Proposed Flow 17,125 Average Flow Increase 16,569

Based on the information in the tables above, the Proposed Project would result in an increase in the wastewater flow from the Project Site by 16,569 gpd. This would load manhole SW087403 by the same quantity.

The CCAAMPSS evaluated the existing scenario and the buildout system scenario. The existing condition scenario includes the current existing hotel loaded to the 8-inch VCP sewer running along the westerly side of South Clementine Street. In this scenario, the existing condition shows seven deficiencies in the northerly Katella Avenue line. In the buildout scenario, the same seven deficiencies are present in the northerly Katella Avenue line: the 8-inch connecting pipe and the same six other reaches in two separate areas in the northerly Katella Avenue line. Because of this, deficiencies in the deeper northerly line in Katella Avenue at a certain point are not deemed problematic. The increased flows resulting from the Proposed Project would not result in a significant impact and the existing lines could accommodate the increased flow. The Sewer Study notes that the connectivity between these two lines would be analyzed and improved by installing more frequent interties2 with larger inter-connective pipes between manholes in this system.

2 In any framed work, a horizontal tie other than sill and plate or other principal ties, securing uprights to one another.



These recommended interties are part of the City’s recommended Capital Improvement Program. Because a less than significant impact would occur related to wastewater, no mitigation is required; however, because of the Project’s location in The Anaheim Resort, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with MM 19-1, requiring participation in the City’s Master Plan of Sewers and related Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program.

As discussed previously in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, based on Appendix G, Preliminary Drainage Study for Hotel 55, 1730 South Clementine Street, Anaheim, CA prepared by Walden & Associates (2020), the Project Site which includes an and existing one-story industrial building and surface parking areas is approximately 99 percent impervious.

As discussed previously in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Proposed Project would result in a 0.30 cfs decrease in storm water flow over the existing condition. The Proposed Project would generally maintain the same drainage pattern as the pre-development condition. Therefore, because the Proposed Project would follow the same drainage pattern as under existing conditions and due to the reduction in anticipated storm water flow from the Project Site, the Proposed Project would not result in an impact to the capacity of the storm water drainage system.

Electricity

Less Than Significant Impact. The Anaheim Public Utilities Division APUD’s Electrical Services would provide electricity for the Proposed Project. The APUD’s distribution system consists of aboveground and underground transmission and distribution lines. APUD has confirmed that current facilities and supply are capable of meeting the future demands generated by the Proposed Project (Bass 2020). Therefore, a significant impact related to the need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations related to electricity would not occur, and no mitigation is required.

Natural Gas

Less Than Significant Impact. The Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) currently provides natural gas service to the City of Anaheim, including the Project Site (SCGC 2020). The service would be provided in accordance with SCGC’s policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission. Therefore, a significant impact related to the need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations related to natural gas would not occur, and no mitigation is required.

Telecommunications Facilities

Less Than Significant Impact. AT&T currently provides telephone service to the City of Anaheim, including the Project Site (AT&T 2020). Development of the Proposed Project would create an increase in the demand on the telephone service system. Telephone conduits would be installed in joint trenches on the Project Site. AT&T would provide joint trench design once specific development plans become available. Impacts related to telecommunication facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Question B: Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years (including large-scale developments as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21151.9 and described in Question No. 20 of the Environmental Information Form)?



No Impact. According to the City’s General Plan, the City utilizes two primary sources of water supply: groundwater produced from City-owned wells and imported water from the MWD. Based on the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), which reported a baseline water use of 203 gallons per capita day (GPCD) and an estimated 15 new residents as a result of the Proposed Project, water demand for the Proposed Project is approximately 3,045 gallons of water per day or 3.4 acre-feet per year (afy). According to the City of Anaheim’s 2015 UWMP, the City would have a projected water demand of 62,050 afy in 2020, 67,065 afy in 2030, and 67,143 afy in 2040 under normal year conditions. Imported water supplies would be available and are greater than the estimated water demand. The City’s UWMP indicates that the City’s water supply currently has and is expected to continue to have a substantial annual surplus of water. As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15155, the Proposed Project is not a residential development of more than 500 dwelling units and would not be considered a water-demand project. Water demand for the Proposed Project would equate to less than one percent of the total water supply identified in the 2015 UWMP. Based on the UWMP, it is not expected that expanded entitlements would be needed to provide water for the site. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required.

Question D: Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

Less Than Significant Impact. Based on a generation factor of 155 pounds per square foot (ppsf) for nonresidential demolition debris (USEPA 1998), demolition of the existing commercial building would generate approximately 823 tons of demolition debris. To determine construction debris, an average generation rate of 3.89 ppsf was applied to the proposed building square footage of 29,629 sf, resulting in approximately 58 tons of construction debris. Using a solid waste generation rate of 4 pounds per room per day for hotel use, the Proposed Project would generate approximately 500 pounds of solid waste per day during operation (CalRecycle 2013). OC Waste & Recycling has indicated that solid waste generated by the Proposed Project would go to the Olinda Alpha Landfill located at 1942 N. Valencia Avenue in the City of Brea and that adequate capacity is available within the Orange County landfill system to serve the Proposed Project (Arnau 2020). Therefore, a significant impact related to landfill capacity would not result from implementation of the Proposed Project, and no mitigation is required.

Question E: Would the project comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

No Impact. Solid waste practices in California are governed by multiple federal, State, and local agencies that enforce legislation and regulations to ensure that landfill operations minimize impacts to public health and safety and the environment. OC Waste & Recycling is obligated to obtain a Solid Waste Facilities Permit, a Storm Water Discharge Permit, and a permit to construct and operate gas management systems and meet Waste Discharge Requirements. The Local Enforcement Agency, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and the California Water Resources Control Board enforce landfill regulations related to health, air quality, and water quality, respectively. The Proposed Project would not inhibit OC Waste & Recycling’s compliance with the requirements of each of these governing bodies, and no impact would occur.

Question F: Would the project result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to electricity?

Less Than Significant Impact. The Anaheim Public Utilities Division APUD’s Electrical Services would provide electricity for the Proposed Project. The APUD’s distribution system consists of aboveground and underground transmission and distribution lines. APUD has confirmed that



current facilities and supply are capable of meeting the future demands generated by the Proposed Project (Bass 2020). Therefore, a significant impact related to the need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations related to electricity would not occur, and no mitigation is required.

Question G: Would the project result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to natural gas?

Less Than Significant Impact. The Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) currently provides natural gas service to the City of Anaheim, including the Project Site (SCGC 2020). The service would be provided in accordance with SCGC’s policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission. Therefore, a significant impact related to the need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations related to natural gas would not occur, and no mitigation is required.

Question H: Would the project result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to telephone service?

Less Than Significant Impact. AT&T currently provides telephone service to the City of Anaheim, including the Project Site (AT&T 2020). Development of the Proposed Project would create an increase in the demand on the telephone service system. Telephone conduits would be installed in joint trenches on the Project Site. AT&T would provide joint trench design once specific development plans become available. Impacts related to telephone service provider facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Question I: Would the project result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to television service/reception?

Less Than Significant Impact. Spectrum currently provides cable television, high speed internet, and digital telephone service to the Project Site (Spectrum 2020). Development of the Proposed Project would create an increase in the demand on the cable television service system. Within the Project Site, telephone conduits would be installed in joint trenches. Joint trench design would be provided by Spectrum once specific development plans become available. Impacts related to television service/reception would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program

Although the following mitigation measure is not required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels, it will be incorporated into the Mitigation Program for this IS. Where the measure is the same as the measure from EIR 340 (incorporated by reference, as stated in Section 2.3), the EIR 340 mitigation measure numbering is noted at the end of the measure in parentheses.

MM 19-1 Prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall participate in the City’s Master Plan of Sewers and related Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program to assist in mitigating existing and future sanitary sewer system deficiencies as follows:

The property owner/developer shall submit a report for review and approval of the City Engineer to assist in determining the following:

a. If the development/redevelopment (1) does not discharge into a sewer system that is currently deficient or will become deficient because of that



discharge and/or (2) does not increase flows or change points of discharge, then the property owner’s/developer’s responsibility shall be limited to participation in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program.

b. If the development/redevelopment (1) discharges into a sewer system that is currently deficient or will become deficient because of that discharge and/or (2) increases flows or changes points of discharge, then the property owner/developer shall be required to guarantee mitigation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney of the impact prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a grading or building permit whichever occurs first, pursuant to the improvements identified in the South Central Area Sewer Deficiency Study. The property owner/developer shall be required to install the sanitary sewer facilities, as recommended by the South Central Area Sewer Deficiency Study, prior to acceptance for maintenance of public improvements by the City or final building and zoning inspections for the building/structure, whichever comes first. Additionally, the property owner/developer shall participate in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program, as determined by the City Engineer, which may include fees, credits, reimbursements, or a combination thereof. As part of guaranteeing the mitigation of impacts for the sanitary sewer system, the property owner/developer shall submit a sanitary sewer system improvement phasing plan for the project to the City Engineer for review and approval which shall contain, at a minimum, (1) a layout of the complete system, (2) all facility sizes, including support calculations, (3) construction phasing, and (4) construction estimates. The study shall determine the impact of the project sewer flows for total build out of the project and identify local deficiencies for each project component (i.e., each hotel). (ARSP EIR 340 MM 5.16-1)

In addition to this measure, the following mitigation measures from MMP 85C would be applicable to the Project as they are included within EIR 340:

MM 5.15-1 Prior to issuance of each building permit (to be implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections, and continuing on an on-going basis during project operation), the property owner/ developer shall submit to the Public Utilities Department plans for review and approval which shall ensure that water conservation measures are incorporated. The water conservation measures to be shown on the plans and implemented by the property owner/developer, to the extent applicable include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Use of low-flow sprinkler heads in irrigation systems. b. Use of waterway recirculation systems. c. Low-flow fittings, fixtures, and equipment, including low flush toilets and

urinals. d. Use of self-closing valves on drinking valves. e. Use of efficient irrigation systems such as drip irrigation and automatic

systems which use moisture sensors. f. Use of low-flow shower heads in hotels. g. Water efficient ice-machines, dishwashers, clothes washers and other

water-using appliances.



h. Use of irrigation systems primarily at night when evaporation rates are lowest.

i. Provide information to the public in conspicuous places regarding water conservation.

j. Use of water conserving landscape plant materials wherever feasible.

MM 5.15-2 Prior to issuance of each building permit, all water supply planning for the project will be closely coordinated with, and be subject to the review and final approval of, the Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division and Fire Department.

MM 5.15-3 Prior to issuance of each building permit, water pressure greater than 80 pounds per square inch (psi) shall be reduced to 80 psi or less by means of pressure reducing valves installed at the property owner/developer’s service.

MM 5.15-4 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan which shall be prepared and certified by a licensed landscape architect. The irrigation plan shall specify methods for monitoring the irrigation system. The system shall ensure that irrigation rates do not exceed the infiltration of local soils, that the application of fertilizers and pesticides do not exceed appropriate levels of frequencies, and that surface runoff and overwatering is minimized. The landscaping and irrigation plans shall include water-conserving features such as low flow irrigation heads, automatic irrigation scheduling equipment, flow sensing controls, rain sensors, soil moisture sensors, and other water-conserving equipment. The landscaping and irrigation plans shall indicate that separate irrigation lines for recycled water shall be constructed and recycled water will be used when it becomes available. All irrigation systems shall be designed so that they will function properly with recycled water.

MM 5.15-5 Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan and building permits, plans shall specifically show that the water meter and backflow equipment and any other large water system equipment will be installed to the satisfaction of the Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division, aboveground and behind the building setback line in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys and in accordance with Ordinance No. 4156. Prior to the final building and zoning inspections, the water meter and backflow equipment and any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division, in accordance with the Final Site Plan and the building permit plans.

MM 5.15-6 Prior to issuance of each building permit, unless records indicate previous payment, the appropriate fees for Primary Mains, Secondary Mains and Fire Protection Service shall be paid to the Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division in accordance with Rule 15A, and Rule 20 of the Public Utilities Department Water Rates, Rules and Regulations.

MM 5.15-7 Prior to final building and zoning inspections, a separate water meter shall be installed for landscape water on all projects where the landscape area exceeds 2,500 square feet in accordance with Ordinance No. 6160.

MM 5.17-1 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/develop shall consult with the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department, Business and Community Programs Division, in order to review energy efficient measures to incorporate into



the project design. Prior to the final building and zoning inspection, the property owner developer shall implement these energy efficient measures which may include the following:

a. High-efficiency air-conditioning systems with EMS (computer) control b. Variable air volume (VAV) distribution c. Outside air (100%) economizer cycle d. Staged compressors or variable speed drives to flow varying thermal loads e. Isolated HVAC zone control by floors/separable activity areas f. Specification of premium-efficiency electric motors (i.e., compressor

motors, air-handling units, and fan-coil units) g. Use of occupancy sensors in appropriate spaces h. Use of compact fluorescent lamps i. Use of cold cathode fluorescent lamps j. Use of light emitting diode (LED) or equivalent energy-efficient lighting for

outdoor lighting k. Use of Energy Star® exit lighting or exit signage. l. Use of T-8 lamps and electronic ballasts where applications of standard

fluorescent fixtures are identified m. Use of lighting power controllers in association with metal-halide or high-

pressure sodium (high intensity discharge) lamps for outdoor lighting and parking lots

n. Consideration of thermal energy storage air-conditioning for spaces or facilities that may require air-conditioning during summer, day-peak periods.

o. For swimming pools and spas, incorporate solar heating, automatic covers, and efficient pumps and motors, as feasible.

p. Consideration for participation in Advantage Services Programs such as: a. New construction design review, in which the City cost-shares

engineering for up to $10,000 for design of energy efficient buildings and systems

b. New Construction – cash incentives ($300 to $400 per kW reduction in load) for efficiency that exceeds Title 24 requirements

c. Green Building Program – offers accelerated plan approval, financial incentives, waived plan check fees and free technical assistance

MM 5.17-2 Prior to final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall install an underground electrical service from the Public Utilities Distribution System. The Underground Service will be installed in accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates, Regulations and Electrical Specifications for Underground Systems. Electrical Service Fees and other applicable fees will be assessed in accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates, Regulations and Electrical Specifications for Underground Systems.



MM 5.17-3 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit plans and calculations to the City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department, Building Division, to demonstrate that the energy efficiency of each building will exceed the Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings current at the time of application by at least 10 percent.

MM 5.17-4 Prior to approval of a Final Site Plan, the property owner/developer shall coordinate with the Public Utilities Department to incorporate feasible renewable energy generation measures into the project. These measures may include but not be limited to use of solar and small wind turbine sources on new and existing facilities and the use of solar powered lighting in parking areas.

MM 5.18-1 Prior to approval of a final subdivision map, or issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall participate in the City’s Master Plan of Storm Drains and related Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program to assist in mitigating existing and future storm drainage system deficiencies as follows:

The property owner/developer shall submit a report for review and approval by the City Engineer to assist with determining the following:

a. If the specific development/redevelopment does not increase or redirect current or historic storm water quantities/flows, then the property owner/developer’s responsibility shall be limited to participation in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program to provide storm drainage facilities in 10- and 25-year storm frequencies and to protect properties/structures for a 100-year storm frequency.

b. If the specific development/redevelopment increases or redirects the current or historic storm water quantity/flow, then the property owner/developer shall be required to guarantee mitigation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney’s office of the impact prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, pursuant to the improvements identified in the Master Plan of Drainage for the South Central Area. The property owner/developer shall be required to install the storm drainage facilities as recommended by the Master Plan of Drainage for the South Central Area to provide storm drainage facilities for 10- and 25-year storm frequencies and to protect properties/structures for a 100-year storm frequency prior to acceptance for maintenance of public improvements by the City or final building and zoning inspection for the building/structure, whichever occurs first. Additionally, the property owner/developer shall participate in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program as determined by the City Engineer which could include fees, credits, reimbursements, or a combination thereof. As part of guaranteeing the mitigation of impacts on the storm drainage system, a storm drainage system improvement phasing plan for the project shall be submitted by the property owner/developer to the City Engineer for review and approval and shall contain, at a minimum, (1) a layout of the complete system; (2) all facility sizes, including support calculations; (3) construction phasing; and, (4) construction estimates.



MM 5.18-2 Ongoing, the City shall work with the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) to ensure that flood control facilities are well maintained and capable of accommodating, at a minimum, future 25-year storm flows for City-owned and maintained facilities, and 100-year storm flows for County facilities. Where improvements to local drainage facilities have the potential to increase discharges to County facilities, the City shall analyze potential impacts to County facilities in consultation with the Manager, County of Orange Flood Control Division. Encroachment Permits shall be obtained from the County’s Public Property Permits Section for any activity performed within OCFCD’s right of way.

MM 5.18-3 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City shall require that building plans indicate that new developments will minimize stormwater and urban runoff into drainage facilities by incorporating design features such as detention basins, on-site water features, and other strategies.

MM 5.19-1 Prior to issuance of each building permit; to be implemented prior to final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall submit project plans to the Public Works Department for review and approval to ensure that the plans comply with AB 939, the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989, as administered by the City of Anaheim and the County of Orange and City of Anaheim Integrated Waste Management Plans. Prior to final building and zoning inspection, implementation of said plan shall commence and shall remain in full effect. Waste management mitigation measures that shall be taken to reduce solid waste generation include, but are not limited to:

a. Detailing the location and design of on-site recycling facilities. b. Providing on-site recycling receptacles to encourage recycling. c. Complying with all Federal, State and City regulation for hazardous

material disposal. d. Participating in the City of Anaheim’s “Recycle Anaheim” program or other

substitute program as may be developed by the City.

In order to meet the requirements of the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989 (AB 939), the property owner/developer shall implement numerous solid waste reduction programs, as required by the Public Works Department, including, but not limited to:

a. Facilitating recycling by providing chutes or convenient locations for sorting and recycling bins.

b. Facilitating cardboard recycling (especially in retail areas) by providing adequate space and centralized locations for collection and storing.

c. Facilitating glass recycling (especially from restaurants) by providing adequate space for sorting and storing.

d. Providing trash compactors for non-recyclable materials whenever feasible to reduce the total volume of solid waste and the number of trips required for collection.

e. Prohibiting curbside pick-up.



MM 5.19-2 Ongoing during project operation, the following practices shall be implemented, as feasible, by the property owner/developer:

a. Usage of recycled paper products for stationary, letterhead, and packaging. b. Recovery of materials such as aluminum and cardboard. c. Collection of office paper for recycling. d. Collection of polystyrene (foam) cups for recycling. e. Collection of glass, plastics, kitchen grease, laser printer toner cartridges,

oil, batteries, and scrap metal for recycling or recovery.

MM 5.19-3 Prior to issuance of building permits, plans shall show that trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the City of Anaheim Department of Public Works, Operations Division. On an ongoing basis, trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department.

MM 5.19-4 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall demonstrate that the plans include provisions for the installation of trash and recycle receptacles near all benches and near high traffic areas such as plazas, transit stops and retail and dining establishments.

MM 5.19-5 Prior to issuance of each grading and building permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit to the Planning Director or Planning Services Manager for approval a Construction Waste Management Plan that, at a minimum, specifies that at least 75 percent of non-hazardous construction and demolition debris shall be recycled or salvaged and identifies the materials to be diverted from disposal and whether the materials will be sorted on site or co-mingled.

XX. WILDFIRE

If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

Question A: Would the project Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

No Impact. Based on review of the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas and State and Federal Responsibility Areas map, the Project Site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CalFire 2011). Furthermore, a review of the Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas map, the Project Site is not located in a Moderate, High or Very High fire hazard zone (CalFire 2007). The Proposed Project would not impair or impact any emergency response or emergency evacuation plan associated with an emergency response to a fire in this specific Very High fire hazard zone or any other designated local, State or federal fire hazard zone in Orange County. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.



Question B: Would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

No Impact. As discussed in Section XX ”A” above, the Project Site is not in a Moderate, High or Very High fire hazard zone. The Project site and surrounding properties are relatively flat with no significant topographic relief that would expose Project occupants to wildfire risks. Santa Ana winds could expose Project occupants to smoke and other pollutants associated with wildfires located east of the City. However, that exposure would not be site specific because much of the City and general geographic area would be exposed and not the Project specifically. The Project would not expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire due to slope, prevailing winds or other factors. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

Question C: Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?

No Impact. The Proposed Project would not be required to install and maintain any roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities to protect the Project and the immediate area from a wildfire because the Project is not located in a Moderate, High or Very High fire hazard zone. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

Question D: Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

No Impact. As discussed in XX “A” above, the Project is not located within a Moderate, High or Very High fire hazard zone. As also discussed in XIX “B” above, the Project Site and surrounding properties are generally flat with no significant topographic relief that would expose structures or Project occupants to significant risks due to downslope or downstream flooding or landslides. Because the Project is not located in a fire hazard zone or downstream of any hillsides of areas of topographic relief the Project would not expose either Project residents or proposed structures to significant risks due to downstream or downstream flooding or landslides due to post-fire slope instabilities. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program


XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Question A: Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. There are no sensitive biological resources, habitats, or species on the Project Site that would be affected by the Proposed Project. Migratory



birds that may nest on the Project Site would be protected by compliance with MM 4-1. Impacts on migratory birds would be less than significant after mitigation.

Due to the location of the Project Site in a developed, urban area that has been subjected to previous disturbance related to urban development, the potential for discovery of archaeological resources, disturbances of human resources, or paleontological resources is low and development of the Proposed Project is not expected to uncover any archaeological resources, human resources, or paleontological. However, mitigation is incorporated into the Proposed Project and outlines steps to take if archaeological resources (MM 5-1) or paleontological resources (MM 6-3) are discovered during construction. In addition, a Native American monitor will be retained to observe grading activities in native sediment and to recover and catalogue tribal cultural resources as necessary (MM 18-1). Implementation of MM 5-1 (archaeological resources), MM 6-3 (paleontological resources) and MM 18-1 (tribal cultural resources) would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.

Question B: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. As identified in the preceding analysis provided in Section 5 of this IS/MND, all project-level impacts have been determined to be less than significant or mitigated to a level considered less than significant. Specifically, the following mitigation measures as previously identified throughout this document would apply to reduce the Proposed Project’s impacts to less than significant levels: MMs 4-1 and 4-2 previously identified in Section IV, Biological Resources; MMs 5-1 and 5-2 previously identified in Section V, Cultural Resources; MMs 6-1 through 6-3 previously identified in Section VII, Geology and Soils; MM 8-1 previously identified in Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; MMs 9-1 and 9-2 previously identified in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality; MMs 12-1 and 12-2 previously identified in Section XIII, Noise; and MM 18-1 previously identified in Section XVIII, Tribal Cultural Resources. Thus, the Proposed Project’s impacts would be limited and its contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Question C: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. Based on the preceding analysis provided in Section 5.0, Environmental Evaluation, of this IS, implementation of the Proposed Project, as described in Section 3.0, Project Description, with adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, would have no impact or less than significant impacts for the following environmental issue areas: aesthetics; agriculture and forestry resources; air quality; energy; greenhouse gas emissions; land use and planning; mineral resources; population and housing; public services; recreation; transportation/traffic; utilities/service systems; and wildfire.

The Proposed Project’s impacts on the following issue areas would be less than significant with the implementation of project-specific mitigation measures: biological resources; cultural resources; geology and soils; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; noise; and tribal cultural resources. All impacts would be less than significant after mitigation.

Thus, the Proposed Project would not result in environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation of mitigation measures. All impacts would be less than significant after mitigation.


R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\MND\Hotel 55 MND-071420.docx 6-1 Preparers

SECTION 6.0 PREPARERS

City of Anaheim, Planning and Building Department

Principal Planner ................................................................................................ Susan Kim Senior Planner ........................................................................................... Joanne Hwang Associate Planner ............................................................................................ Andy T. Uk

Psomas (Environmental Document Preparation)

Senior Project Manager .............................................................................. Jennifer Marks Assistant Project Manager ............................................................................ Megan Larum Air Quality/Noise/Greenhouse Gas Analysis .................................................... Tin Cheung Air Quality/Noise/Greenhouse Gas Analysis .................................................... Daria Sarraf GIS/Graphics .................................................................................................... Mike Deseo Technical Editor ................................................................................................. Jan Powell Word Processor ............................................................................................. Sheryl Kristal


R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\MND\Hotel 55 MND-071420.docx 6-2 Preparers

This page is intentionally left blank


R:\Projects\ANA\3ANA009112\MND\Hotel 55 MND-071420.docx 7-1 References

SECTION 7.0 REFERENCES

Anaheim, City of. 2020a (May 7, date accessed). About Anaheim Public Library. Anaheim, CA: https://www.anaheim.net/1222/About.

———. 2020b (February 4, date accessed). Parks & Facilities. Anaheim, CA: http://www.anaheim.net/916/Parks-Facilities.

———. 2011 (November 15, last update). City of Anaheim Municipal Code. Anaheim, CA: the City.

———. 2004a (May). City of Anaheim General Plan. Anaheim, CA: the City.

———. 2004b (May). Final Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update – EIR No. 330.Anaheim, CA: the City.

Anaheim Public Utilities (APUD). 2020 (May). Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. Anaheim, CA: APU. https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/7987/Greenhouse-Gas-Reduction-Plan?bidId=.

———. 2017 (May 1). 2018 Integrated Resource Plan. Anaheim, CA: APUD. https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/20943/2018-Integrated-Resource-Plan.

Anaheim Resort Transit (ART). 2017. Anaheim Resort Transportation Route Map. Anaheim, CA: ART. http://www.rideart.org/route-map/.

Arnau, J. 2020. (February 4). Personal Communication. Email correspondence between J. Arnau (OC Waste & Recycling) and M. Larum (Psomas).

AT&T. 2018. AT&T Coverage Viewer. San Antonio, TX: AT&T. https://www.att.com/maps/wireless-coverage.html.

Bass, Tim. 2020 (February 13). Request for “Will Serve Letter” for Electric Service to the Proposed Hotel 55 Development Located at 1730 South Clementine Street. Anaheim, California.

Berger, M. 2020. April 2). Personal Communication. Email correspondence between M. Berger (Anaheim Police Department) and A. Uk (City of Anaheim).

CalFire. 2011 (October). Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Sacramento, CA: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5880/c30_anaheim_vhfhsz.pdf.

———. 2007 (November 7). Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA. Sacramento, CA: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6737/fhszs_map30.pdf.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2016. California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod)TM Version 2016.3.2, Developed by Trinity Consultants in Collaboration with SCAQMD and other California Air Districts. Sacramento, CA: CAPCOA.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020 (June 4, last accessed). Top 4 Summary: Anaheim—Pampas Lane Monitoring Station. Sacramento, CA: CARB. https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfourdisplay.php.



———. 2018 (October, last updated). Maps of State and Federal Area Designations. Sacramento, CA: CARB. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-designations.

———. 2014 (February). Proposed First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework. Sacramento, CA: CARB. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/draft_proposed_first_update.pdf.

———. 2008 (December). Climate Change Scoping Plan—Pursuant to AB 32. Sacramento, CA: CARB. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf.

———. 2005 (April). Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Sacramento, CA: CARB. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf.

California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). 2020 (May 4, access date). CALGreen. https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Resources/Page-Content/Building-Standards-Commission-Resources-List-Folder/CALGreen.

———. 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (Accessed June 5, 2020. https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Resources/Page-Content/Building-Standards-Commission-Resources-List-Folder/CALGreen.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection. 2016. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) Farmland Map: Orange County, California. Sacramento, CA: FMMP.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2020 (Accessed February 4). Estimated Solid Waste Generation and Disposal Rates. Sacramento, CA: CalRecycle. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates. Sacramento, CA: CalRecycle.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2019 (August). California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Sacramento, CA: Caltrans. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways.

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2020a (June 1, last accessed). Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act—SB 350. Sacramento, CA: CEC. https://www.energy.ca.gov/rules-and-regulations/energy-suppliers-reporting/clean-energy-and-pollution-reduction-act-sb-350.

———. 2020b (June 1, last accessed). SB 100 Joint Agency Report. Sacramento, CA: CEC. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sb100.

———. 2018 (Accessed 6-5-20) “2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions”. Sacramento, CA: CEC. https://www.energy.ca.gov/media/3452.

EDI Consultants. 2020 (January 29). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 1730 South Clementine Street, Anaheim, California 92802. Torrance, CA.

———. 2018 (January 23). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 1730 South Clementine Street, Anaheim, California 92802. Torrance, CA.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018 (September). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Washington, D.C.; FTA.



https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf.

Global Geo-Engineering, Inc. 2019 (December 13). Geotechnical Report Update, Proposed Hotel Development, 1730 South Clementine Street, Anaheim, California. Irvine, CA.

———. 2019 (November 11). Infiltration Rate, Proposed Hotel Development, 1730 South Clementine Street, Anaheim, California. Irvine, CA.

GPA Consulting. 2019 (December). Historical Resources Evaluation Report, 1730 South Clementine Street, Anaheim, California. Los Angeles, California.

LAZ Parking (LAZ). 2020 (May 15). Valet Parking Plan, 1730 South Clementine Street, Anaheim, California 92802. Los Angeles, CA.

Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG). 2020a (June 3). Traffic Impact Analysis, Hotel 55 Project, Anaheim, California. Los Angeles, California.

———.2020b (May 15). Updated Parking Demand Analysis for Proposed Hotel 55 Project Anaheim, California. Los Angeles, California.

Kim, D. 2020 (February 12). Personal Communication. Email correspondence from D. Kim (Anaheim Public Utilities Department) and M. Larum (Psomas).

Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). 2020. Routes and Schedules. Santa Ana, CA: OCTA. http://www.octa.net/Bus/Routes-and-Schedules/Overview/.

Oskoui, J. 2010 (April 14). Personal communication. Email correspondence from J. Oskoui, Director of Planning, Design and Construction (AUHSD) and A. Armanino (BonTerra Consulting).

Pidgen, K. 2010 (April 14). Personal communication. Email correspondence between K. Pidgen (Facilities Technician ACSD) and A. Armanino (BonTerra Consulting).

Psomas. 2020 (February 27). Cultural Resources Records Search for the Hotel 55 Project, 1730 South Clementine Street, Anaheim, Orange County, California. Santa Ana, CA.

———. 2019 (February 1). Additional Impacts from 1730 South Clementine Sewer Study. Santa Ana, CA.

———. 2019 (January 31). Subject: Sewer Study – 1730 South Clementine Street Hotel City Project Tracking No.: OTH2018-01031. Santa Ana, CA.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). (2020, March last accessed). Historical Data by Year—2016-2018. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/historical-air-quality-data/historical-data-by-year.

———. 2019 (April, Revision). SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2.



———. 2017 (June 4, 2018, last accessed). Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan

———. 2016 (February). National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/naaqs-caaqs-feb2016.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

———. 2010 (September 28). Minutes for the GHG Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD.

———. 2009. Localized Significance Thresholds. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds

———. 2008 (December 5). PROPOSAL: Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. http://www.aqmd. gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/ghgboardsynopsis.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

———. 2003 (August). White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Environmental-Justice/cumulative-impacts-working-group/cumulative-impacts-white-paper.pdf.

———. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016 (April). The 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy: A Plan for Mobility, Accessibility, Sustainability, and a High Quality of Life. Los Angeles, CA: SCAG. http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/FINAL2016RTPSCS.aspx.

Southern California Gas Company (SCGC). 2020. Company Profile. http://www.socalgas.com/about-us/company-info.shtml. San Diego, CA: Sempra Energy.

Spectrum. 2020 (February 20, date accessed). Spectrum Availability Map. https://www.cabletv.com/spectrum/availability-map.

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2020 (February 6, date accessed). Dam Safety Program for the Prado Dam. http://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Media/FactSheets/tabid/1321/Article/477349/dam-safety-program.aspx.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2014 (December 9). Clean Data Determination for 1997 PM2.5 Standards; California—South Coast; Applicability of Clean Air Act Requirements. Federal Register 79(236): 72999–73007. Washington, D.C.: USEPA. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-09/pdf/2014-28709.pdf#page=1.

———. 1971 (December 31). Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. Washington, D.C.: USEPA.

Walden & Associates. 2020 (April). Preliminary Drainage Study for Hotel 55, 1730 South Clementine Street, Anaheim, California. Irvine, CA.



———. 2019 (October). Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), Clementine Hotel, 1730 South Clementine Street, Anaheim, California 92802. Irvine, CA.

Zeoli, A.2020 (February 7, 2020). Personal Communication. Email correspondence between A. Zeoli (Staff Analyst, Anaheim Fire and Rescue) and M. Larum (Psomas).




Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Anaheim.net

Documents