12. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) — Anaheim City Council, November 1, 2022

NORTH AMERICA | EUROPE | AFRICA | AUSTRALIA | ASIA
WWW.FIRSTCARBONSOLUTIONS.COM
DRAFT
Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Anaheim, Orange County, California
Prepared for:

City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92805
714.765.5238
Contact: Andy Uk, Associate Planner
Prepared by:

FirstCarbon Solutions
250 Commerce, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92602
714.508.4100
Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director
Cecilia So, Senior Project Manager
Report Date: August 11, 2022

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table of Contents

FirstCarbon Solutions iii
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ v Section 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 - Purpose.............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 - Project Location ................................................................................................................. 1

1.3 - Environmental Setting ....................................................................................................... 1

1.4 - Project Description ............................................................................................................ 3

1.5 - Required Discretionary Approvals ..................................................................................... 5

1.6 - Intended Uses of this Document ....................................................................................... 5 Section 2: Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation ............................................... 17

2.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................... 18

2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ........................................................................... 21

2.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................................... 24

2.4 Biological Resources ................................................................................................... 43

2.5 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources ...................................................... 47

2.6 Energy ......................................................................................................................... 55

2.7 Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................... 61

2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................ 67

2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................. 77

2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................................................................... 84

2.11 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................... 94

2.12 Mineral Resources ...................................................................................................... 98

2.13 Noise ......................................................................................................................... 100

2.14 Population and Housing ........................................................................................... 114

2.15 Public Services .......................................................................................................... 116

2.16 Recreation ................................................................................................................ 121

2.17 Transportation .......................................................................................................... 123

2.18 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................... 128

2.19 Wildfire ..................................................................................................................... 137

2.20 Mandatory Findings of Significance ......................................................................... 139 Section 3: List of Preparers ....................................................................................................... 143

Appendix A: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Health Risk Assessment, and Energy Impact Analysis
Appendix B: Biological Resources Supporting Information Appendix C: Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Supporting Information Appendix D: Geotechnical Investigation Report
Appendix E: Phase I Environmental Assessment Reports
Appendix F: Hydrology Supporting Information
F.1 - Preliminary WQMP
F.2 - Hydrology/Drainage Study
F.3 - Sewer Study
Appendix G: Noise Study
City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project
Table of Contents Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

iv FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Appendix H: Public Services Supporting Information
Appendix I: Traffic Supporting Information
I.1 - Traffic Study
I.2 - VMT Assessment

List of Tables
Table 1: Required Residential Parking ..................................................................................................... 4 Table 2: Parking Types ............................................................................................................................. 4 Table 3: Daily Regional Construction Emissions .................................................................................... 33 Table 4: Regional Operational Emissions .............................................................................................. 34 Table 5: Construction Localized Significance Screening Analysis .......................................................... 37 Table 6: Operational Localized Screening Significance Analysis ............................................................ 38 Table 7: Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources ........................................................................... 40 Table 8: Estimated Annual Project Energy Consumption ...................................................................... 57 Table 9: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Existing Land Uses ............................................... 68 Table 10: Construction GHG Emission of Proposed Project .................................................................. 69 Table 11: Operational GHG Emissions of Proposed Project .................................................................. 70 Table 12: Consistency with SB 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update ............................................................... 73 Table 13: Traffic Noise Model Results Summary ................................................................................... 96 Table 14: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure (dBA CNEL or Ldn) ........................ 102 Table 15: State of California Interior and Exterior Noise Standards ................................................... 104 Table 16: Construction Noise Impacts–Grading .................................................................................. 107 Table 17: Peak-hour Traffic Noise Model Results Summary ................................................................ 109 Table 18: City of Anaheim Fire Service Facilities ................................................................................. 117 Table 19: City of Anaheim Water Supply and Demand Assessment ................................................... 132 Table 20: Orange County Sanitation District Sewer Treatment Availability ........................................ 133 Table 21: Orange County Landfill Availability ...................................................................................... 134

List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map ............................................................................................................ 7 Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................... 9 Exhibit 3: General Plan Land Use Map .................................................................................................. 11 Exhibit 4: Zoning Map ........................................................................................................................... 13 Exhibit 5: Site Plan ................................................................................................................................. 15

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Acronyms and Abbreviations

FirstCarbon Solutions v
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
°C degrees Celsius (Centigrade)
°F degrees Fahrenheit
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
AB Assembly Bill
ACM asbestos-containing material
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
AERMOD American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model AFY acre-feet per year
AHERA Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
APU Anaheim Public Utilities
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ARB California Air Resources Board
BACM Best Available Control Measures
BERD California Built Environment Resource Directory
BMP Best Management Practice
BPP Basin Production Percentage
BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
Cal/OSHA California Division of Occupational Safety and Health CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAMPSS Central Anaheim Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers
CAP Climate Action Plan
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CBC California Building Standards Code
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
C-G General Commercial
City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project
Acronyms and Abbreviations Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

vi FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx CH4 methane
CMP Congestion Management Program
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CNPSEI California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CUP Conditional Use Permit
DAMP Drainage Area Management Plan
dBA A-weighted decibel
DPM diesel particulate matter
DPR California Department of Parks and Recreation
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
du/ac dwelling units per acre
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMFAC EMission FACtors mobile source emissions model
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
EV electric vehicle
EVSE electric vehicle supply equipment
FAR floor area ratio
FCS FirstCarbon Solutions
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GAMAQI Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts GFA gross floor area
GHG Rx Greenhouse Gas Reduction Exchange
GHG greenhouse gas
GPA General Plan Amendment
GPD gallons per day
City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Acronyms and Abbreviations

FirstCarbon Solutions vii
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx gpm gallons per minute
HFC hydrofluorocarbons
HQTA High Quality Transit Areas
HRA Health Risk Assessment
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization
IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation
IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
kBTU kilo-British Thermal Unit
ksf thousand square foot
kWh kilowatt-hour
LBP lead-based paint
lbs pounds
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Ldn day/night average sound level
lead Pb
Leq equivalent continuous sound level
LID Low Impact Development
LOS Level of Service
LRA Local Responsibility Area
LST localized significance threshold
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MATES V Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study V
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MEP Maximum Extent Practicable
MICR Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk
MIR Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MM Mitigation Measure
MMT million metric tons
mph miles per hour
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MT metric tons
MU Mixed Use
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
MWQMP Model Water Quality Management Plan
City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project
Acronyms and Abbreviations Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

viii FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx MWS Modular Wetland System
N2O nitrogen oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC California Native American Heritage Commission
NIMS National Incident Management System
NO nitric oxide
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOI Notice of Intent
NOX nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
O3 ground-level ozone
OC Basin Orange County Groundwater Basin
OC San Orange County Water District
OCFCD Orange County Flood Control District
OCHCA Orange County Health Care Agency
OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority
OCTAM Orange County Transportation Analysis Model
OCWD Orange County Water District
OEHHA California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PFAS polyfluoroalkyl substances
PFC perfluorocarbon
PM10 particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter
PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter PPV peak particle velocity
RCL Reclassification
RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REC Recognized Environmental Condition
ROG reactive organic gases
RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Acronyms and Abbreviations

FirstCarbon Solutions ix
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCASS South Central Anaheim Sewer Study
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SLCP Short-lived Climate Pollutant
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SoCAB South Coast Air Basin
SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company
SOX sulfur oxides
SR State Route
SRA State Responsibility Area
SRRE Source Reduction and Recycling Element
State Water Board California State Water Resources Control Board SUBTM Subdivision Tract Map
SWIS Solid Waste Information System
SWMP Storm Water Management Plan
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TAC toxic air contaminant
TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone
TCR Tribal Cultural Resource
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
TPA Transit Priority Area
TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
UST underground storage tank
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
Valley Air District San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC volatile organic compounds
WEAP Worker Environmental Awareness Program
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
ZEV Zero-Emission Vehicles

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction

FirstCarbon Solutions 1
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 - Purpose
The purpose of this Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft IS/MND) is to identify any potential environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project (proposed project) in the City of Anaheim, California. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15367, the City of Anaheim has discretionary authority over the proposed project and is the Lead Agency in the preparation of this Draft IS/MND and any additional environmental documentation required for the proposed project.

This document is intended to apply to the listed project approvals, as well as to any other approvals that may be necessary or desirable to implement the proposed project.

The remainder of this section provides a brief description of the project location and the primary project characteristics. Section 2 includes an environmental checklist that provides an overview of the potential impacts that may result from project implementation, elaborates on the information contained in the environmental checklist, and provides justification for each checklist response; and Section 3 contains the List of Preparers.

1.2 - Project Location
The project site is located at 1200–1354 South Anaheim Boulevard, 200 East Ball Road, and 1207 South Claudina Street, generally, the southeast corner of the intersection of South Anaheim Boulevard and East Ball Road in the City of Anaheim, in Orange County, California (Exhibit 1). The maximum 10.1-acre project site consists of up to seven contiguous parcels, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 082-461-23, -24, -25, -31, -34, -35, and -39. The project site is located 0.44 mile east of Interstate 5 (I-5), the Santa Ana Freeway. As shown in Exhibit 2, the project site is in the western/central portion of the City. Regional access to the project site would be from I-5 via South Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue exits.

1.3 - Environmental Setting
Land Uses and Zoning
The project site currently developed with approximately 85,400 square feet of existing commercial and industrial buildings as well as associated parking lots and landscaping. The existing commercial and industrial buildings include a transportation service, auto parts store, tire shop, automobile service centers, furniture wholesaler, and vacant lots. The General Plan currently designates the project site for General Commercial land use (Exhibit 3). 1 The proposed project is requesting a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the land use designation from General Commercial to Mixed-Use Medium (36 dwelling units per acre [du/ac]). The Mixed-Use Medium land use designation is intended to allow flexibility for parcels that could transition from strip commercial uses to residential or a mix of residential, commercial, and office development. This designation

1 City of Anaheim. 2004. City of Anaheim General Plan, Land Use Element. Figure LU-4, Land Use Plan. Revised March 9, 2021.

Website: http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/9522. Accessed March 30, 2022.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project
Introduction Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

2 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx allows residential uses in either a stand-alone or mixed-use configuration at a density of up to 36 du/ac, and emphasizes quality and offers a variety of amenities. A mix of commercial uses would continue to allow for a range of community-serving retail, office, and service commercial uses. The nonresidential component of mixed-use development is permitted at a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.35. The implementing zones for the Mixed-Use Medium land use designation are the Downtown Mixed-Use Overlay; the Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use Overlay; and, for areas outside of the Platinum Triangle or Downtown areas (like the proposed project site), the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone. 2 The proposed project would be subject to the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone, as discussed below.

The majority of the project site is currently within the General Commercial (C-G) Zone, with the exception of APN 082-461-39, which is within the Industrial Zone (Exhibit 4). The proposed project would require a Reclassification (RCL) to change the zoning on APN 082-461-39 from the Industrial Zone to the C-G Zone and to add the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone to all parcels within the project site so that the entire project site would be within the C-G Zone and the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone.

The C-G Zone implements the General Commercial land use designation in the General Plan.3 The intent of the C-G Zone is to allow a variety of land uses. Areas designated as C-G do not necessarily serve the adjacent neighborhood or surrounding clusters of neighborhoods. In addition to some of the uses described in the commercial center zones, they typically include highway-serving uses such as fast food restaurants, auto-oriented uses such as tire stores and auto parts stores, and stand- alone retail uses.

The purpose of the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone is to implement the Mixed-Use Mid Density, Mixed-Use Medium Density, and Mixed-Use High Density General Plan Land Use Designations; and to define allowable land uses and property development standards, including intensity of development for mixed-use areas in order to produce healthy, safe, and attractive neighborhoods within the City of Anaheim, consistent with the policy direction in the Anaheim General Plan. 4 Surrounding Land Uses
North East Ball Road, commercial and retail buildings, and Brownson Technical School in the General Commercial land use designation.

South Administrative office, commercial and industrial buildings in the General Commercial land use designation.

East Commercial and industrial buildings in the General Commercial and Industrial land use designations.

West South Anaheim Boulevard, multi-family residential uses, fast food restaurants, and commercial buildings in the Medium Density Residential and General Commercial land use designation.

2 City of Anaheim. 2004. City of Anaheim General Plan, Land Use Element. Website:
http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/9522. Accessed March 30, 2022. 3 City of Anaheim. 2004. Anaheim Municipal Code, Section 18.08.020, Intent of Individual Zones. Website:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/anaheim/latest/anaheim_ca/0-0-0-65904#JD_18.08.020. Accessed April 19, 2022. 4 City of Anaheim. 2018. Anaheim Municipal Code, Section 18.32.010, Purpose. Website:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/anaheim/latest/anaheim_ca/0-0-0-67563#JD_18.32.010. Accessed March 30, 2022.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction

FirstCarbon Solutions 3
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx

1.4 - Project Description
The applicant, Greenlaw Partners, is proposing to demolish the existing commercial and industrial buildings (approximately 85,400 square feet) and to develop a 4,500-square-foot retail building and up to 249 for-sale residential flats and townhomes. The retail building would be located on the ground floor of the mixed-use building(s) along the Ball Road entrance to the project site, as shown in Exhibit 5. The proposed project would also include a recreational amenity area with outdoor functions. The residential component of the proposed project would consist of two residential building types as described below:

1. Flats–The flats would consist of 36 residential units in three 4-story buildings located at the northwest corner of the project site. Buildings would contain a minimum of 10 residential units and a maximum of 16 residential units. Residential units would consist of nine 2- bedroom flats, 17 3-bedroom flats, and 10 4-bedroom flats and would include Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant residential units. Each flat would include a minimum of 100 square feet of balcony space.

2. Townhomes–The Townhomes would consist of 213 residential units in 30 three-story buildings. Each building would contain a minimum of four residential units and a maximum of 12 residential units. Residential units would consist of 62 1-bedroom residential units, 83 2- bedroom residential units, and 68 3-bedroom residential units, and would include ADA- compliant residential units. Each townhome unit would include a minimum of 70 square feet of balcony space.

The proposed project would provide private roadways and parking, pedestrian walkways, common space and amenity areas throughout the project site, landscaping, and a recreational amenity area in the center of the project site. Density on the project site would be 24.57 du/ac, which would not exceed the maximum density of the Mixed-Use Medium land use designation of 36 du/ac. The proposed project would provide a trash enclosure on the north side of the project site near the entrance at East Ball Road.

An Affordable Housing component is proposed with this development. A total of 10 percent of the for-sale townhomes would be sold to moderate-income buyers. The applicant will enter into a density bonus housing agreement with the City to ensure compliance with the Density Bonus Ordinance.

Parking and Circulation
Vehicles would access the project site via four driveways, including one entry from East Ball Road at the north side of the project site, two entries from South Anaheim Boulevard on the west side of the project site, and one entry from South Claudina Street on the northeast side of the project site. The driveways on East Ball Road and South Anaheim Boulevard would be restricted to right-in-right-out access only. An internal private roadway system would provide two-way access to the surface parking lots and to the parking garages. The proposed project would have 524 on-site parking spaces, consisting of 430 garage spaces, 74 surface parking spaces, and 19 retail spaces. The proposed parking spaces would meet the code requirement as shown in Table 1 and Table 2, City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project
Introduction Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx respectively. Parking would include six ADA-accessible surface parking spaces. Pedestrians would circulate within the proposed project via internal pedestrian walkways and sidewalks located throughout the site. Table 1 compares the required and provided parking for the residential units, and Table 2 shows the types of parking spaces that would be provided as part of the proposed project.

Table 1: Required Residential Parking
Unit Type Unit Count Required Spaces Garage Spaces Provided 1-bedroom Townhomes 62 124 62
2-bedroom Townhomes 83 187 166
3-bedroom Townhomes 68 204 136
2-bedroom Flats 9 21 12
3-bedroom Flats 17 51 34
4-bedroom Flats 10 35 20
Total Residential 249 622 430

Table 2: Parking Types
Parking Space Type Spaces Required Spaces Provided
Parking stalls required 441 –
Garage Parking Stalls – 430
Surface Parking Spaces – 74
Retail Parking Spaces 19 20
Total Parking Spaces 460 524

A minimum of 10 percent of the total units proposed would be Affordable Housing units and therefore the proposed project has been designed to meet the Reduced Parking Ratios set forth in Anaheim Municipal Code 18.52.100.

Open Space and Landscaping
The proposed project incorporates amenities including open space passive park areas, private patios, common amenity areas, and various landscaping. The required recreation-leisure area for 249 units is 49,800 square feet.
5 The proposed project would provide 118,955 square feet of total qualified recreation-leisure area, including 101,595 square feet of common area and 17,360 square feet of private areas.

5 200 square feet required per unit.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction

FirstCarbon Solutions 5
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Infrastructure and Utilities
The site is currently served by existing utilities. The proposed project would connect to existing water and sanitary lines and would include the installation of stormwater management systems on- site. To provide a conservative analysis, this document analyzes the proposed demand for services as 100 percent net new, without subtracting out the demand currently generated by existing uses.

Construction
The applicant anticipates that construction of the proposed project would begin in March 2023, and the duration of construction would last approximately 22 months. Construction activities would include demolition of the existing paved surfaces and structures, site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coatings, and paving. Construction of the proposed project would require no imported soil/fill material because the site would be balanced.

1.5 - Required Discretionary Approvals
As mentioned previously, the City of Anaheim has discretionary authority over the proposed project and is the CEQA Lead Agency for the preparation of this Draft IS/MND. In order to implement the project, the proposed project would need the following permits/approvals:
• Density Bonus Housing Agreement to ensure compliance with the Density Bonus Ordinance. • General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Commercial to Mixed-Use Medium (36 du/ac).
• Reclassification to change the zoning on APN 082-461-39 from the Industrial Zone to General Commercial (CG) and add the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone to all parcels within the project site so that the entire project site would be within the C-G Zone and the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone. • Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to permit a mixed-use project that would include development of up to 249 unit residential flats and townhomes, and 4,500 square feet of retail. • Subdivision Tract Map (SUBTM) to allow the sale of residential units for condominium purposes.

1.6 - Intended Uses of this Document
This Draft IS/MND has been prepared to determine the appropriate scope and level of detail required in completing the environmental analysis for the proposed project. This document will also serve as a basis for soliciting comments and input from members of the public and public agencies regarding the proposed project. The Draft IS/MND will be circulated for a minimum of 20 days, during which comments concerning the analysis contained in the Draft IS/MND should be sent to:

Andy Uk, Associate Planner
City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92805
Phone: 714.765.5238
Email: [email protected]

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Los Angeles

OrangeCounty
SanBernardinoCounty
Orange County
Los Angeles County
91 83
91 55
57 241
261
241
405
5 OrangeCounty
RiversideCounty
60 110
710
5 605
10 5
405
22 133
1 1
210
P a c i f i c O c e a n
72 Prado Flood
Control Basin
Santiago
Reservoir Cleveland
National
Forest
San Dimas
CovinaAlhambra
El Monte
Pomona OntarioEast Los
Angeles
Walnut
ChinoCommerce
Whittier
Norwalk
Yorba LindaFullerton
Anaheim
Orange
Long Beach
Garden Grove
Seal Beach
Santa Ana
Fountain
Valley
Huntington
Beach
Costa Mesa Irvine
Lake Forest
Newport Beach
Laguna Hills
Laguna Niguel
San Juan
Capistrano
Bell
Chino Hills
UplandClaremont
Montclair
Laguna Woods
Exhibit 1
Regional Location Map
Text
Project Site
Source: Census 2000 Data, The California Spatial Information Library (CaSIL).

CITY OF ANAHEIM

ANAHEIM BALL MIXED USE PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
00550089 • 04/2022 | 1_regional.mxd
Project Site
5 0 52.5
Miles

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
00550089 • 08/2022 | 2_local_vicinity.mxd
Exhibit 2
Local Vicinity Map
Source: Bing Aerial Imagery.

CITY OF ANAHEIM

ANAHEIM BALL MIXED USE PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Legend
Project Site
1,000 0 1,000500
Feet

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
00550089 • 04/2022 | 3_general_plan_land_use.cdr
Source: City of Anaheim General Plan, Adopted May 25, 2004; Revised March 9, 2021.

CITY OF ANAHEIM

ANAHEIM BALL MIXED USE PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 3
General Plan Land Use Map
Project Site

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
00550089 04/2022 | 4_zoning.cdr•
Source: City of Anaheim Zoning, Adopted June 8, 2004; Revised April 22, 2021.

CITY OF ANAHEIM

ANAHEIM BALL MIXED USE PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 4
Zoning Map
Project Site

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
00550089 08/2022 | 5_site_plan.cdr•
Source: C&V Consulting, Inc. Civil Engineering, 06/07/2022.

CITY OF ANAHEIM

ANAHEIM BALL MIXED USE PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 5
Site Plan

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 17
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx SECTION 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND ENVIRONMENTAL

EVALUATION
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.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards/Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Services Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
Environmental Determination
O
n 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 measure 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.

Date: Signed: August 11, 2022
Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

18 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.1 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 building within a State Scenic Highway?

c) In non-urbanized areas, 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?

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The City of Anaheim General Plan Green Element specifies that natural slopes located in the City’s Hill and Canyon Area are considered the primary aesthetic resource in the City.6 Additional scenic amenities such as golf courses and the Santa Ana River also provide visual relief from the built environment and are important visual amenities and landmarks.

Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No impact. As shown in Exhibit 2, the project site is in the western/central portion of the City, approximately 8 miles west of the City’s Hill and Canyon Area and would not be located within these areas. Furthermore, the nearest golf course is Dad Miller Golf Course, located approximately 5 miles northwest of the project site and would not impede on its visual relief from the built environment.

General Plan Green Element Goal 2.1 aims to preserve views of ridgelines, natural open space and other scenic vistas wherever possible. The project site is relatively flat and is developed with commercial and industrial uses. Surrounding uses include other commercial, industrial, and

6 City of Anaheim. May 2004. City of Anaheim General Plan. Green Element. Website:
http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/9521/F-Green-Element?bidId=. Accessed April 6, 2022.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 19
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx residential uses. Because of intervening development, there are no scenic views of the natural slopes or the golf course from the project site or the surrounding area. Therefore, the proposed project would not affect public views of these scenic vistas. No impact would occur. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a State Scenic Highway?
No impact. According to the City of Anaheim General Plan Figure C-3, Scenic Highways, State Route (SR) 55 and SR-91 are designated scenic highways from the City boundary to Weir Canyon Road.7 SR- 91 from Weir Canyon Road to the eastern City boundary is designated an eligible scenic highway.

Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road are designated as scenic expressways. However, the project site is not located along any designated or eligible scenic highway or expressways. The project site is a developed with commercial and industrial uses, and there are no scenic resources such as trees of significance, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings on-site. Additionally, unique visual resources or historic structures do not characterize the project site and surrounding area, and, therefore, no impact would occur to scenic or historic resources. c) In non-urbanized areas, 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? No impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area. As such, this analysis will discuss whether the proposed project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The City of Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Ordinance defines the permitted land uses and the corresponding development standards within the City. The project site is currently designated General Commercial and zoned C-G and Industrial. Currently, residential mixed-use development is not permitted within the C-G and Industrial Zones or the Commercial General land use designation.

Thus, the project applicant is seeking a GPA to amend the land use designation from General Commercial to Mixed-Use Medium. The proposed project would also require an RCL to rezone APN 082-461-39 from Industrial to C-G, and to add the Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone to all parcels within the project site, so that the entire project site would be within the C-G Zone and the MU Overlay Zone.

The proposed project would comply with all Anaheim Municipal Code requirements related to scenic quality as part of the design review process, to ensure the project design is consistent with adopted design guidelines. With the GPA and RCL, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations pertaining to scenic quality, and no impacts would occur. d) 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 urbanized area with existing light sources, which include streetlights, lighting on the interiors and exteriors of existing and surrounding

7 City of Anaheim. May 2004. General Plan Circulation Element Figure C-3, Scenic Highways. .

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

20 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx buildings, as well as vehicle headlights and traffic signals. No nighttime construction is proposed, and construction activities would be subject to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 6.70.010, which restricts construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Therefore, the proposed project would not require construction lighting, except security and safety lighting.

The proposed project would generate lighting from two primary sources: lighting from building interiors that would pass through windows, and lighting from exterior sources (e.g., street lighting, parking area lighting, building illumination, security lighting, and landscape lighting). This proposed lighting is typical of residential and commercial developments. The proposed development would replace current existing sources of light and glare with new high-quality development and lighting.

The proposed project’s outdoor parking area lighting would be subject to compliance with Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.42.090.030, which lists requirements related to lighting of parking areas including limiting lighting adjacent to residential areas.8 In addition, the City’s Planning and Building Department would review any proposed lighting to ensure conformance with the California Building Standards Code (CBC), Title 24, as well as the California Green Building Standard Code (CALGreen) (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 24, Part 11), such that only the minimum amount of lighting is used and no light spillage occurs. Although the proposed project would replace existing structures with new buildings that would introduce new light sources, the surrounding area is urban and already illuminated, and the proposed lighting conditions would be similar to that currently used surrounding the project site and would also incorporate the Anaheim Municipal Code, CBC, and CALGreen, which would not cause adverse effects; therefore, a less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Sunlight or artificial light reflecting from finished surfaces such as window glass or other reflective materials can cause reflected light (glare). Buildings constructed of highly reflective materials from which the sun reflects at a low angle commonly cause adverse glare. The proposed project does not propose use of materials known to cause glare, such as mirrored/reflective glass. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.

8 City of Anaheim. 2022. Anaheim Municipal Code. Website: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/anaheim/latest/anaheim_ca/0-0- 0-51668. Accessed June 10, 2022.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 21
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporate
d
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.2 Agriculture and Forestry 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 Dept. 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.

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 nonagricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Environmental Evaluation
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 (CAL FIRE) regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

22 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx 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 (ARB).

Setting
The project site is currently developed with commercial and industrial uses. Both the project site and surrounding area are located in a developed urbanized area. The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) designates the project site as Urban and Built-Up Land, which is defined as land developed at a density of at least one dwelling unit (du) per 1.5 acres, or approximately six structures to a 10.1-acre parcel. 9 The project site does
not contain any Farmland or forest land.

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 nonagricultural use?
No impact. There is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Farmland of Local Importance on the project site or in its vicinity. In addition, the proposed project would not convert any farmland to nonagricultural use. Therefore, no impact would occur. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? No impact. The project site is not under a Williamson Act Contract and is not zoned for agricultural uses. Therefore, no impact would occur.
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))? No impact. The City of Anaheim does not contain any land that is zoned for forest land or timberland. The project site is within the C-G and Industrial Zones and is currently occupied with commercial and industrial uses; therefore, there would be no impact to land zoned for forest or timberland.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No impact. As discussed above, the project site does not contain forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned for production. The proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses. Therefore, there would be no impact.

9 California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed June 30, 2022.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 23
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No impact. The project site and surrounding area do not contain Farmland or forest land. Therefore, project implementation would not result in the conversion of Farmland or forest land from agricultural or timberland uses to nonagricultural or non-forest land uses. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

24 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.3 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 nonattainment under an applicable
federal or State ambient air quality standard?

c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?

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

Environmental Evaluation
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.

Setting
The proposed project is located in the City of Anaheim, California, situated in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), which is under the jurisdiction of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). To the west of SoCAB is the Pacific Ocean. To the north and east of the basin are the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto mountains, while the southern limit of the basin is the San Diego County line. The SoCAB consists of Orange County, all of Los Angeles County except for the Antelope Valley, the non-desert portion of western San Bernardino County, and the western portions of Riverside County. Air quality in the SoCAB is impacted by dominant airflows, topography, atmospheric inversions, location, season, and time of day.

Air quality is measured by the ambient concentrations of seven pollutants that have been identified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) due to their potentially harmful effects on public health and the environment. These “criteria air pollutants” include carbon monoxide (CO), ground-level ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10), particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5), and lead. The following descriptions of each criteria air pollutant and their health effects are based on information provided by the EPA and SCAQMD.10

10 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2017. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 25
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx • Ozone is a gas that is formed when reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX)— both byproducts of internal combustion engine exhaust—undergo slow photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. Ozone concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light wind, and warm temperature conditions are conducive to its formation. Its effects can include the following: irritate respiratory system; reduce lung function; cause breathing pattern changes; reduce breathing capacity; inflame and damage cells that line the lungs; make lungs more susceptible to infection; aggravate asthma; aggravate other chronic lung diseases; cause permanent lung damage; cause some immunological changes; increase mortality risk; and cause vegetation and property damage. • CO is a colorless, odorless gas produced by the incomplete combustion of fuels. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during winter mornings, with little to no wind, when surface-based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. Because CO is emitted directly from internal combustion engines—unlike ozone—and motor vehicles operating at slow speeds are the primary source of CO in the SoCAB, the highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near congested transportation corridors and intersections. Potential health effects from CO ranges depending on exposure: slight headaches; nausea; aggravation of angina pectoris (chest pain) and other aspects of coronary heart disease; decreased exercise tolerance in persons with peripheral vascular disease and lung disease; impairment of central nervous system functions; possible increased risk to fetuses; and death. • NO2 is primarily a byproduct of fossil fuel combustion and is therefore emitted by automobiles, power plants, and industrial facilities. The principal form of nitrogen oxide produced by fossil fuel combustion is nitric oxide (NO), which reacts quickly to form NO 2,
creating the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOX. NO2 absorbs blue light and results in reduced visibility and a brownish-red cast to the atmosphere. NO2 also contributes to the formation of PM10. Nitrogen oxides irritate the nose and throat and increase susceptibility to respiratory infections, especially in people with asthma. Longer exposures to elevated concentrations of NO2 may even contribute to the development of asthma. The principal concern of NOX, though, is as a precursor to the formation of ozone. • Sulfur Oxides (SOX) are compounds of sulfur and oxygen molecules. SO2 is the predominant form found in the lower atmosphere and is a product of burning sulfur or sulfur-containing materials. Major sources of SO2 include power plants, large industrial facilities, diesel vehicles, and oil-burning residential heaters. SO2 may aggravate lung diseases, especially bronchitis. It also constricts breathing passages, especially in asthmatics and people involved in moderate to heavy exercise. SO2 may cause wheezing, shortness of breath, and coughing. High levels of particulates appear to worsen the effect of SO2, and long-term exposure to both pollutants leads to higher rates of respiratory illnesses.
• PM10 and PM2.5 consist of extremely small, suspended particles or droplets 10 microns and

2.5 microns or smaller in diameter, respectively. Some sources of particulate matter, like pollen and windstorms, are naturally occurring. However, in populated areas, most particulate matter is caused by road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, abrasion of tires and brakes, and construction activities. Health effects from short-term exposure (hours per days) can include the following: irrigation of the eyes, nose, throat; coughing; phlegm; chest tightness; Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

26 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx shortness of breath; aggravation of existing lung disease causing asthma attacks and acute bronchitis; those affected with heart disease can suffer heart attacks and arrhythmias. Health effects from long-term exposure can include the following: reduced lung function; chronic bronchitis; changes in lung morphology; and death.
• Airborne lead (Pb) is emitted from industrial facilities and from the sanding or removal of old lead-based paint. Smelting and other metal processing activities are the primary sources of lead emissions. The lead effects most commonly encountered in current populations are neurological effects in children and cardiovascular effects in adults (e.g., high blood pressure and heart disease). Infants and young children are especially sensitive to even low levels of lead, which may contribute to behavioral problems, learning deficits, and lowered IQ.

Federally, the EPA’s Clean Air Act governs the establishment, review, and revision (as appropriate) of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). NAAQS are based on quantitative characterizations of criteria pollutant exposures and their associated risks to human health and the environment and are established based on a comprehensive review of available studies on air quality impacts to human health and the environment. Air quality in California is also governed by the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), which is administered by the ARB at the State level and by air quality management districts and air pollution control districts at the regional and local levels. The ARB is responsible for meeting the State requirements of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), administering the CCAA, and establishing California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). CAAQS are generally as stringent or more stringent than their corresponding NAAQS, and incorporate additional standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. CAAQS define clean air: they represent the maximum amount of a pollutant averaged over a specified period of time that can be present in outdoor air without any harmful effects on people or the environment.

Toxic air contaminants (TACs) refer to a diverse group of “non-criteria” air pollutants that can affect human health but have not had ambient air quality standards established for them. This is not because they are fundamentally different from the criteria air pollutants discussed above, but because their effects tend to be local rather than regional. The ARB and the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) determine if a substance should be formally identified, or “listed,” as a TAC in California. A complete list of these substances is maintained on the ARB’s website.
11 One key TAC is diesel particulate matter (DPM), which is emitted in diesel engine exhaust. Published by SCAQMD in 2021, the Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study V (MATES V) determined that about 88 percent of the carcinogenic risk from air toxics in SoCAB is attributable to mobile source emissions.

Of the three carcinogenic TACs that constitute the majority of known health risk from gas- and diesel-powered vehicle emissions—DPM from mainly trucks, and benzene and 1,3-butadiene from passenger vehicles—DPM is responsible for most of the potential cancer risk. Overall, DPM was found to account for, on average, about 50 percent of the air toxics risk in the SoCAB. 12 In addition to

11 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2022. ARB Identified Toxic Air Contaminants. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm.

Accessed June 27, 2022.
12 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2021. Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast AQMD (MATES V Final Report). August.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 27
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx its carcinogenic potential, DPM may also contribute to increased respiratory and cardiovascular hospitalizations, worsened asthma and other respiratory symptoms, decreased lung function in children, and premature death for people already with heart or lung disease. Those most vulnerable to the non-cancer health effects of DPM are children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other chronic health problems.13
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are typically formed from the combustion of fuels and/or released through the evaporation of organic liquids. Some VOCs are also classified by the State as TACs, though there are no VOC-specific ambient air quality standards. Once emitted, VOCs can mix in the air with other pollutants (e.g., NOX, CO, SO2, etc.) and contribute to the formation of photochemical smog.

Construction and operation of the proposed project would be subject to applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations. The SCAQMD Air Quality Analysis Handbook and multiple updated guidelines were developed to assist local jurisdictions and lead agencies in complying with the requirements of CEQA regarding potentially adverse impacts to air quality and have been utilized in the below analysis of the potential air quality impacts of the proposed project. 14 City of Anaheim General Plan
The City adopted its General Plan in 2004 and a General Plan Update is underway. The City's General Plan addresses a multitude of land use-related issues and provides the following policies related to air quality in the chapter of “Green Element.”
15 GOAL 8.1 Reduce locally generated emissions through improved traffic flows and construction management practices.

Policy 1 Reduce vehicle emissions through traffic flow improvements, such as traffic signal synchronization, Intelligent Transportation Systems, the Scoot Adaptive Traffic Control System, and related capital improvements.

Policy 2 Regulate construction practices, including grading, dust suppression, chemical management, and encourage pre-determined construction routes that minimize dust and particulate matter pollution.

GOAL 9.1 Reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips.

GOAL 10.1 Improve the efficiency and ridership of public transit within the City.

13 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2022. Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health. Website: ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview- diesel-exhaust-and-health. Accessed June 27, 2022.
14 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2022. CEQA Air Quality Analysis Handbook (1993). Website:
https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/ceqa-air-quality-handbook-(1993). Accessed June 27, 2022.
15 City of Anaheim. May 2004. City of Anaheim General Plan. Green Element. Website:
http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/9521/F-Green-Element?bidId=. Accessed April 6, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

28 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx GOAL 11.1 Encourage land planning and urban design that support alternatives to the private automobile such as mixed-use, provision of pedestrian and bicycle amenities, and transit-oriented development.

Policy 1 Encourage commercial growth and the development of commercial centers in accordance with the Land Use Element.

Policy 2 Encourage mixed-use development in accordance with the Land Use Element.

Policy 3 Encourage retail commercial uses in or near residential areas and employment centers to lessen vehicle trips.

Policy 4 Encourage higher densities and mixed-use development in the vicinity of major rail and transit stops.

Policy 5 Encourage a diverse mix of retail uses within commercial centers to encourage one- stop shopping.

Policy 6 Locate new public facilities with access to mass transit service and other alternative transportation services, including rail, bus, bicycles and pedestrian use.

Policy 7 Provide everyday opportunities to connect with nature through the promotion of trails, bicycle routes, and habitat friendly landscaping.

GOAL 12.1 Continue to be a County leader in the use of electric and alternative fuel vehicles.

Policy 1 Continue and expand the program to convert City vehicle fleets to alternative fuel and/or electric power.

Policy 2 Continue the City’s program of providing a clean fuel Resort Transit Fleet.

Policy 3 Continue to work with Anaheim businesses to assist with fleet conversion to alternative fuels.

Policy 4 Work with the U.S. Department of Energy to achieve a Clean City designation for the City of Anaheim.

GOAL 12.1 Continue to be a County leader in the use of electric and alternative fuel vehicles.

GOAL 13.1 Expand citizen and business outreach programs relating to policies that improve air quality.

Policy 1 Continue to update and improve the City’s transit programs and informational resources – both web-based and print media.

Policy 2 Disseminate air quality educational materials to residents, businesses, and schools.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 29
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx GOAL 15.1 Continue to lead the County in energy conservation programs, practices, and community outreach.

GOAL 15.2 Continue to encourage site design practices that reduce and conserve energy.

Policy 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 2 Encourage energy efficient retrofitting of existing buildings throughout the City.

Policy 3 Continue to provide free energy audits for the public.

GOAL 16.1 Continue to monitor and improve the Anaheim Recycle program.

Policy 1 Continue educational outreach programs for Anaheim’s households, businesses, and schools on the need for recycling solid waste.

Policy 2 Provide adequate solid waste collection and recycling for commercial areas and construction activities.

GOAL 17.1 Encourage building and site design standards that reduce energy costs.

Policy 1 Encourage designs that incorporate solar and wind exposure features such as daylighting design, natural ventilation, space planning and thermal massing.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than significant impact. A potentially significant impact to air quality would occur if the proposed project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

The proposed project is located in Orange County. The EPA has classified the Orange County portion of SoCAB as a nonattainment area for ozone and PM2.5. Concerning State criteria, SCAQMD has designated this area as nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5.16 To evaluate whether or not a project conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality management plan (2016 Air Quality Management Plan [AQMP] for SoCAB), the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook states that there are two key indicators. These indicators are identified by the criteria discussed below.
• Indicator 1: Whether a project will not 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 .

16 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2017. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

30 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx • Indicator 2: According to Chapter 12 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the purpose of the General Plan consistency findings is to determine whether a project is inconsistent with the growth assumptions incorporated into the AQMP, and thus, whether it would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with federal and California air quality standards.

Considering the recommended criteria in the SCAQMD’s 1993 Handbook, this analysis uses the following criteria to address this potential impact:
• Criterion 1: Project’s contribution to air quality violations (SCAQMD’s first indicator); • Criterion 2: Assumptions in AQMP (SCAQMD’s second indicator); and • Criterion 3: Compliance with applicable emission control measures in the AQMPs.

Criterion 1: Project’s Contribution to Air Quality Violations According to the SCAQMD, a project is consistent with the AQMP if a project would not 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 .17 Based on criteria set forth in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, if a project’s emissions do not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds for VOC, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, or PM2.5, then the project would not be considered to violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing violation. In other words, a project would not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of ambient air quality standards – the primary goal of air quality plans – if its emissions do not exceed the regional thresholds. As shown in Impact 2.3(b), the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s regional thresholds of significance during construction nor operation. Furthermore, and as also discussed under Impact 2.3(b), the proposed project’s localized construction and operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s localized significance thresholds (LSTs). Given these considerations, the proposed project’s construction and operational emissions would neither cause nor materially contribute to any ambient air quality violations, nor would they interfere with the AQMPs attainment of air quality standards or interim emissions reductions.

Criterion 2: Assumptions in the AQMP
The 2016 AQMPs projections for achieving State and federal air quality goals are based on population, housing, and employment trend assumptions in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), which are themselves largely based on growth forecasts from local governments like the City of Anaheim. These assumptions and growth forecasts are developed, in part, from land use patterns contained within local general plans. Ultimately, a project is consistent with the 2016 AQMP if it is consistent with the population, housing, and employment assumptions and smart growth policies that were used in the formation of the AQMP .
18 As part of the proposed project, the proposed project site’s General Plan land use designation would be changed from “Commercial” to “Mixed-Use Medium.” The zoning associated with APN 082-461- 39 would be changed from Industrial Zone to General Commercial (CG), and a Mixed-Use Overlay

17 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2017. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. 18 At the time of this air quality analysis, the 2016 AQMP is the most recently adopted plan for achieving air quality standards in the SoCAB. A draft 2022 AQMP has been released by the SCAQMD, but this document has not yet been finalized or adopted.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 31
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Zone would be applied to all parcels comprising the proposed project site. This way, the entire proposed project site would be within the CG Zone and the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone. The fact that the proposed project would not be consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designations that existed at the time of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS does not mean that the proposed project would be inconsistent with population, housing, and employment assumptions that were utilized by the 2016- 2040 RTP/SCS and the 2016 AQMP . This is because the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS (as well as the updated 2020-2045 RTP/SCS) assumed a significant increase in multi-family housing built in infill locations near bus corridors and other transit infrastructure, in some cases even outpacing what was anticipated at the time by local general plans. Development of the proposed project would be consistent with this forward-thinking land use pattern and smart growth policies to increase housing density within High Quality Transit Areas (HQTAs). Not only would the proposed project be located within an HQTA, but it would also contribute to the RTP/SCS goal of encouraging growth of mixed- use communities with ready access to transit infrastructure.

The latest RTP/SCS specifically encourages the development of medium and high-density housing to create strategic nodes along existing or future transit corridors to better leverage transit investments and allow for the replacement of under-performing, auto-oriented, low-intensity uses. By developing dense residential housing in a low-intensity infill location (i.e., a maximum 10.1-acre site that contains auto-oriented commercial uses and vacant lots) that is also within an HQTA, the proposed project would contribute directly to the goals of SCAG’s RTP/SCS. The proposed project’s location would provide abundant opportunity for residents, employees, and other guests and visitors to reduce vehicle trips, specifically Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Given that the proposed project is consistent with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS land use pattern and supportive of its smart growth policies, the proposed project is therefore consistent with the assumptions in the 2016 AQMP.

Criterion 3: Control Measures
The AQMP contains several control measures which are enforceable requirements through the adoption of rules and regulations. As a matter of mandatory regulatory compliance, the proposed project would comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations. For example, because construction of the proposed project would involve grading activities that generate fugitive dust, SCAQMD Rule 403 would apply. Rule 403 requires all sources of fugitive dust to implement Best Available Control Measures (BACMs). Some examples of BACMs include but are not limited to pre- watering soils prior to cut and fill activities, stabilizing soils during and after cut and fill activities, stabilizing all off-road traffic and parking areas, and covering haul vehicles prior to exiting construction sites. The proposed project’s compliance with applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations (including Rule 403) would result in its consistency with applicable AQMP control measures.

To summarize the analysis in respect to Threshold (a): (1) proposed project-related growth would be consistent with 2016 AQMP projections that are themselves based on 2016-2040 RTP/SCS projections; (2) the proposed project’s development of dense residential and mixed uses in an infill location that is also within a HQTA would be consistent with the latest regional land use planning strategies to reduce VMT and associated air emissions; and (3) to be discussed further below, air emissions associated with the proposed project’s construction and operations would neither exceed nor materially contribute to any exceedance of ambient air quality standards and thresholds, nor Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

32 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx would they interfere with the AQMP’s attainment of air quality standards or interim emissions reductions. As a result, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of any applicable air quality plans, and its impact with respect to Threshold (a) would be less than significant.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard? Less than significant impact. This impact is related to the cumulative effect of a project’s regional criteria pollutant emissions. As described above, the region is currently nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. By its nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact resulting from emissions generated over a large geographic region. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development within the air basin, and this regional impact is a cumulative impact. In other words, new development projects (such as the proposed project) within the air basin would contribute to this impact only on a cumulative basis. No single project would be sufficient in size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of regional air quality standards. Instead, a project’s emissions may be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when taken in combination with past, present, and future development projects.

The cumulative analysis focuses on whether a specific project would result in cumulatively considerable emissions. According to Section 15064(h)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, the existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone does not constitute substantial evidence that a project’s incremental effects would be cumulatively considerable. Rather, the determination of cumulative air quality impacts for construction and operational emissions is based on whether a project would result in regional emissions that exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance for construction and operations on a project level. Projects that generate emissions below the SCAQMD significance thresholds would be considered consistent with regional air quality planning efforts and would not generate cumulatively considerable emissions. The SCAQMD provides similar guidance with respect to LSTs, which are addressed later in this analysis. In short, if a project would not exceed SCAQMD regional and localized thresholds, its air quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

The proposed project’s regional construction and operational emissions, which include both on- and off-site emissions, are evaluated separately below. Construction and operational emissions from the proposed project were estimated using CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0. A detailed description of the assumptions used to estimate emissions and the complete CalEEMod output files are contained in Appendix A.

Cumulative Construction Emissions
Construction emissions are described as “short-term” or temporary in duration; however, they have the potential to represent a significant impact with respect to air quality. Construction of the proposed project would result in the temporary generation of VOC, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities such as demolition, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and asphalt paving. Fugitive dust emissions are primarily associated with earth disturbance and grading activities, and vary as a function of soil silt content, soil moisture, wind City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 33
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx speed, acreage of disturbance area, and miles traveled by construction vehicles on-site and off-site.

Construction-related NOX emissions are primarily generated by exhaust emissions from heavy-duty construction equipment, material and haul trucks, and construction worker vehicles. VOC emissions are mainly generated by exhaust emissions from construction vehicles, off-gas emissions associated with architectural coatings, and asphalt paving. The proposed project would reduce criteria pollutant and ozone precursor emissions through the implementation of a variety of construction emission reduction measures such as using low emission equipment, utilizing existing power sources, and managing construction traffic in a way to avoid or reduce traffic impacts and subsequent emissions.

Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to last approximately 22 months. The proposed project is expected to be operational immediately after construction, in early 2025 (construction is anticipated to finish at the end of 2024). The anticipated construction schedule is based on estimates provided by the project applicant. The duration of construction activity and associated equipment represent a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required by CEQA Guidelines. Because the SCAQMD’s regional (and LSTs) are representative of maximum daily emissions that would not be expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent NAAQS or CAAQS for pollutants, the objective of the proposed project’s CalEEMod analysis is to determine whether the proposed project’s maximum one-day construction emissions would have the potential to exceed these thresholds. As such, the proposed project’s CalEEMod analysis relies on conservative construction assumptions and generalized equipment scenarios that likely overestimate maximum daily construction emissions in an effort to conclusively rule out the possibility that threshold exceedances could occur. Construction is a dynamic process and day-to-day emissions can vary widely—even within the same construction phase or sub-phase. This analytical approach therefore minimizes the potential for inadvertently underestimating daily construction emissions, which are the basis of SCAQMD’s air pollutant thresholds. The likelihood that the maximum daily construction emissions estimated by this analysis would occur on a given construction workday is low.

Table 3 presents the proposed project’s maximum daily construction emissions during the entire construction duration using the worst-case summer or winter daily construction-related criteria pollutant emissions for each phase of construction. Complete CalEEMod output files are included as part of Appendix A.

Table 3: Daily Regional Construction Emissions
Construction Year
Regional Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day)
VOCs NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
2023 2.38 26.37 24.88 0.07 3.96 2.23
2024 26.78 26.04 42.73 0.10 2.62 1.52
Winter
2023 2.38 26.57 24.28 0.07 3.96 2.23
2024 26.86 26.21 42.05 0.10 2.62 1.52
Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

34 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Construction Year
Regional Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day)
VOCs NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 26.86 26.57 42.73 0.10 3.96 2.23 Year 2024 2023 2024 2024 2023 2023
Season Winter Winter Summer Both Both Both
SCAQMD Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:

CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOX = sulfur oxides
VOC = volatile organic compound
The PM10 and PM2.5 emissions reflect the combined exhaust and mitigated fugitive dust emissions in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403.

Source of Table: Appendix A.

As shown above in Table 3, the proposed project’s regional construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for VOC, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, or PM2.5. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the proposed project’s construction emissions on regional air quality would be less than significant.

Cumulative Operational Emissions
Following construction, long-term operations of the proposed project would generate daily emissions. Operational emissions for land use development projects are typically distinguished as mobile-, area-, and energy-source emissions. Mobile source emissions are those associated with automobiles that would travel to and from the project site. Assumptions used to estimate mobile source emissions that would be generated by the proposed project were consistent with those presented in the project-specific traffic study. For example, the proposed project was estimated to generate 2,776 trips per day. Area-source emissions include those associated with natural gas combustion for space and water heating, landscape maintenance activities, and periodic architectural coatings. Energy-source emissions are those associated with electricity consumption and are more pertinent for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than air quality pollutants. Table 4 presents the proposed project’s maximum daily operational emissions.

Table 4: Regional Operational Emissions
Operational Activity
Regional Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day)1
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
Area 11.43 0.24 20.53 <0.01 0.11 0.11
City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 35
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Operational Activity
Regional Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day)1
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Energy 0.12 1.01 0.56 0.01 0.08 0.08
Mobile 7.85 7.76 78.33 0.19 21.40 5.79
Summer Max Total 19.39 9.01 99.42 0.20 21.60 5.98
Winter
Area 11.43 0.24 20.53 <0.01 0.11 0.11
Energy 0.12 1.01 0.56 0.01 0.08 0.08
Mobile 7.79 8.33 77.54 0.18 21.28 5.79
Winter Max Total 19.34 9.58 98.64 0.19 21.60 5.98
Maximum Operational Emissions 19.39 9.58 99.42 0.20 21.60 5.98 SCAQMD Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:

VOC = volatile organic compound
NOX = nitrogen oxides
CO = carbon monoxide
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOX = sulfur oxides
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter 1 Emissions shown represent the maximum daily emissions from summer and winter seasons for each operational emission source and pollutant. Therefore, total daily operational emissions represent maximum daily emissions that could occur throughout the year. Some figures may not add up due to rounding.

Source of Table: Appendix A.

As shown in Table 4, the proposed project’s regional operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for VOC, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, or PM2.5. Furthermore, the proposed project would incorporate energy conservation techniques and alternative transportation infrastructure into the design to reduce associated emissions. The proposed project would be required to comply with the building design requirements contained in the CBC, which includes the installation of solar panels on new residential development, energy efficient building designs, and the installation of bicycle racks and other alternative transportation mode infrastructure on nonresidential development. The cumulative impact of the proposed project’s operational emissions on regional air quality would be less than significant. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. This impact evaluates the potential for the proposed project’s construction and operational emissions to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depending on the population groups and the activities involved. Sensitive land uses, or “sensitive receptors,” are those where sensitive individuals are most likely to spend time.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

36 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Individuals most susceptible and/or sensitive to poor air quality include children, the elderly, athletes, and those with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. As a result, land uses sensitive to air quality may include schools (i.e., elementary schools or high schools), childcare centers, parks and playgrounds, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation facilities, convalescent facilities, retirement facilities, residences, and athletic facilities. For the purposes of CEQA analysis, the SCAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a receptor such as a residence, hospital, or convalescent facility where it is possible that an individual could remain for 24 hours. The SCAQMD does not consider commercial or industrial facilities to be sensitive receptors because employees do not typically remain on-site at such facilities for 24 hours but are present for shorter periods, such as 8-hour shifts. However, the SCAQMD suggests that LSTs based on shorter averaging periods, such as the NO
2 and CO LSTs, may also be applied to receptors such as commercial and industrial facilities since it is reasonable to assume that workers at these sites may be present for up to 8 hours.19 To result in a less than significant impact, the following criteria must be true:
• Criterion 1: LST assessment: emissions and air quality impacts during project construction or operation must be below the applicable LSTs to screen out of needing to provide a more detailed air quality analysis. If the proposed project exceeds any applicable LST when the mass rate lookup tables are used as a screening analysis, then project-specific air quality modeling may be performed to determine significance.
• Criterion 2: A CO hotspot assessment must demonstrate that the project would not result in the development of a CO hotspot that would result in an exceedance of the CO ambient air quality standards.
• Criterion 3: TAC analysis must demonstrate that the project would not result in significant health risk impacts to sensitive receptors during construction.

Criterion 1: Localized Significance Threshold Analysis—Criteria Pollutants The localized construction and operational analyses use thresholds (i.e., LSTs) that represent the maximum emissions for a project that would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard.20 They are developed based on the ambient concentrations of a given pollutant for a Source Receptor Area and distances to the nearest receptor. The SCAQMD provides LSTs for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAQMD does not provide a LST for SO2 because land use development projects typically result in negligible construction and long-term operational emissions of this pollutant. There is no ambient standard or SCAQMD LST for VOCs because VOCs are not a criteria pollutant. If the proposed project’s construction and/or operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD LSTs, then the proposed project would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of a federal or State ambient air quality standard and would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

19 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. Revised July 2008. Accessed June 10, 2022.
20 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2009. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Appendix C.

Revised October 21, 2009. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/home /regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized- significance-thresholds. Accessed February 1, 2022.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 37
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Localized Construction Analysis
Table 5 presents the proposed project’s maximum daily on-site emissions compared with the applicable LSTs for Source Receptor Area No. 17, “Central Orange County.” The LSTs assume a 1.5- acre maximum daily disturbed acreage, consistent with guidance contained in the SCAQMD’s “Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds” document. LSTs for this acreage were interpolated per SCAQMD guidance. After grading, subsequent construction activities would be more widespread across the maximum 10.1-acre site. Therefore, the application of 1.5-acre LSTs to subsequent construction activities (e.g., building construction, paving, architectural coatings, etc.) represents a conservative approach that relies on more stringent thresholds for a smaller project size. The nearest land uses where individuals may be present for up to 8 hours include a multitude of industrial and commercial uses that border the proposed project to the east. The nearest sensitive land uses where individuals may be present for 24 hours include multi-family residential uses located approximately 100 feet (approximately 30 meters) west of the proposed project, across Anaheim Boulevard (1315 to 1331 South Anaheim Boulevard). The LSTs utilized for the proposed project are based on a 25-meter receptor distance, which is the shortest distance used for analysis in the LST guidance document. The CalEEMod analysis assumes that all construction activities would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust, as is mandatory for all construction projects in the SoCAB.

Table 5: Construction Localized Significance Screening Analysis Activity
On-site Emissions (pounds per day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
2023
Demolition 21.48 19.64 2.85 1.21
Grading 22.60 17.47 3.89 2.21
Building Construction 12.96 14.57 0.64 0.60
2024
Building Construction 12.06 14.50 0.57 0.53
Paving 9.52 14.63 0.47 0.43
Architectural Coating 1.22 1.81 0.06 0.06
Overlap (Building Construction,
Paving, and Architectural Coating) 22.80 30.94 1.10 1.02 Total Construction Duration (2023-2024)
Maximum Daily On-site
Construction Emissions 22.80 30.94 3.89 2.21
Localized Significance Thresholds 98 600 5 3.5
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

38 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Activity
On-site Emissions (pounds per day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Notes:

CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = oxides of nitrogen
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter Source of emissions: Appendix A.

Source of thresholds: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2009. LST Methodology Appendix C – Mass Rate LST Look-Up Table. October.

As shown in Table 5, the proposed project’s maximum daily on-site emissions would not exceed SCAQMD LSTs for NOX, CO, PM10 and PM2.5; therefore, localized construction impacts related to these air pollutants would be less than significant.

Localized Operational Analysis
Similar to the construction LST analysis above, the applicable operational LSTs were obtained for a project located in Source Receptor Area No. 17 with the nearest sensitive receptor being 25 meters away. The LSTs assumed a 5-acre project size, which is the largest project size used for analysis in the LST guidance document. Table 6 presents the proposed project’s maximum daily on-site emissions compared with the appropriate LSTs.

Table 6: Operational Localized Screening Significance Analysis Emissions Source
Pounds per Day
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Area 0.24 20.53 0.11 0.11
Energy 1.01 0.56 0.08 0.08
Maximum Daily On-site
Operational Emissions 1.25 21.09 0.19 0.19
Localized Significance Thresholds 183 1,253 3 2
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Notes:

CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = oxides of nitrogen
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter Source of Emissions: Appendix A.

Source of thresholds: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2009. LST Methodology Appendix C – Mass Rate LST Look-Up Table. October.

As shown in Table 6, the proposed project’s maximum daily on-site emissions would not exceed SCAQMD LSTs for NO
X, CO, PM10 and PM2.5; therefore, localized operational impacts related to these air pollutants would be less than significant.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 39
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Criterion 2: Carbon Monoxide Hotspot Analysis
The proposed project would generate traffic that produces and contributes to off-site emissions, but this traffic generation would not result in exceedances of CO air quality standards at nearby roadways due to three key factors. First, CO hotspots are rare and only occur in the presence of unusual atmospheric conditions and extremely cold conditions, neither of which applies to the surrounding area. Second, auto-related emissions of CO continue to decline because of advances in fuel combustion technology and the increasing penetration of this technology in the vehicle fleet. CO levels in the proposed project’s area are well below federal and State standards, as are CO levels in SoCAB itself. No exceedances of CO have been recorded at nearby monitoring stations for some time, and SoCAB is currently designated as a CO attainment area for both CAAQS and NAAQS. Finally, the proposed project would not contribute to the levels of congestion and emissions necessary to trigger a potential CO hotspot. Therefore, the proposed project’s potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial CO concentrations as a result of CO hotspots would be less than significant.

Criterion 3: TAC Analysis
The primary TAC that would be generated by the proposed project’s construction activities is DPM, which would be emitted from the exhaust pipes of diesel-powered construction vehicles and equipment. A significant impact could occur if the proposed project’s construction would generate a cancer risk at a sensitive receptor that is greater than or equal to the SCAQMD’s Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk (MICR) threshold of 10 in one million. A construction Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was prepared for the proposed project, in accordance with guidelines published by the OEHHA and the SCAQMD. The American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD) air dispersion model was utilized to model the effect of the proposed project’s construction-related DPM emissions at surrounding sensitive receptors. The HRA concluded that the proposed project’s construction-related impact at the Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor (MIR) would be 9.6 in one million, which is below the SCAQMD’s 10 in one million threshold of significance for excess cancer risk. Therefore, the impact of the proposed project’s construction-related TAC emissions would be considered less than significant.

Nonetheless, the proposed project would result in construction exhaust emissions during project construction for a duration of approximately 22 months near sensitive receptors, including an assisted living facility approximately 100 feet west of the project site across Anaheim Boulevard.

While the proposed project’s localized construction emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s LSTs and the proposed project’s construction exhaust emissions would not result in a potentially significant health risk impact in accordance with the SCAQMD’s recommended thresholds, the cancer risk resulting from project construction is close enough to the recommended significance threshold that should any minor project construction information change (e.g., incremental increase in equipment operation, slight overlap of two or more activities), construction of the proposed project could result in the potential exceedance of the SCAQMD’s significance threshold of 10 excess cancer cases for every one million people.

The proposed project would be required to use low emission construction equipment. MM AQ-1 would specify the extent of low emission construction equipment use necessary to reduce potential cancer risk impacts resulting from sensitive receptor exposure to construction exhaust, such as DPM.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

40 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx MM AQ-1 would require that all project construction equipment 50 horsepower or greater meet or exceed EPA Tier 4 Interim standards for nonroad engines (as applicable). This would substantially reduce construction-related NOX emissions, as well as PM10 and PM2.5 emissions associated with construction equipment exhaust. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than significant impact. Odor impacts on residential areas and other sensitive receptors, such as hospitals, daycare centers, or schools warrant the closest scrutiny, but consideration should also be given to other land uses where people may congregate, such as recreational facilities, worksites, and commercial areas.

Two situations create a potential for odor impact. The first occurs when a new odor source is located near an existing sensitive receptor. The second occurs when a new sensitive receptor locates near an existing source of odor. The proposed project applies to both of the situations.

Odors can cause a variety of responses. The impact of an odor is dependent on interacting factors such as frequency (how often), intensity (strength), duration (in time), offensiveness (unpleasantness), location, and sensory perception. While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they still can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and regulatory agencies.

The SCAQMD does not provide a suggested screening distance for a variety of odor-generating land uses and operations. However, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District) does have a screening distance for odor sources. Those distances are used as a guide to assess whether nearby facilities could be sources of significant odors, and the screening distances by type of odor generator are listed in Table 7. Projects that would site a new sensitive receptor farther than the applicable screening distances from an existing odor source would not likely have a significant impact.

The SCAQMD considers residences, schools, daycare centers, playgrounds, and medical facilities as sensitive receptor land uses. The closest sensitive receptor is an assisted living facility approximately 100 feet west of the project site, across Anaheim Boulevard.

Table 7: Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources
Odor Generator Screening Distance
Wastewater Treatment Facilities 2 miles
Sanitary Landfill 1 mile
Transfer Station 1 mile
Composting Facility 1 mile
Petroleum Refinery 2 miles
Asphalt Batch Plant 1 mile
Chemical Manufacturing 1 mile
City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 41
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Odor Generator Screening Distance
Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 mile
Painting/Coating Operations (e.g., auto body shop) 1 mile Food Processing Facility 1 mile
Feed Lot/Dairy 1 mile
Rendering Plant 1 mile
Source: Source: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). 2015.

Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI). February.

Construction-Related Odors
Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include exhaust from diesel construction equipment. However, because of the temporary nature of these emissions, the intermittent nature of construction activities, and the highly diffusive properties of DPM exhaust, nearby receptors would not be affected by diesel exhaust odors associated with project construction. Odors from these sources would be localized and generally confined to the immediate area surrounding the proposed project site. The proposed project would utilize typical construction techniques, and the odors would be typical of most construction sites and temporary in nature.

Operational-Related Odors
The proposed project includes the construction and development of residential uses with a modest retail mixed-use component that would be less than 5,000 square feet. Land uses that are typically identified as sources of objectionable odors include landfills, transfer stations, sewage treatment plants, wastewater pump stations (the proposed project would include a small on-site private sewer lift station), composting facilities, feedlots, coffee roasters, asphalt batch plants, and rendering plants. The operation of the proposed project could lead to odors from associated laundry cleaning, vehicle exhaust, cooking, waste disposal, and other odors typical of being generated at residences. However, such odors generated by project operation would be small in quantity and duration and would not pose an objectionable odor impact to future and existing receptors. Therefore, the proposed project would not produce any offensive odor-emitting end uses such as composting, feed lots, refining, sewage treatment, or solid waste management and would not be considered an odor generator as identified in Table 7.

Therefore, the proposed project would not be a generator of objectionable odors during operations, nor would the sensitive land uses be subject to any significant odor sources. The odor impact of the proposed project would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure is adopted by the proposed project:

MM AQ-1 Prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading, or building permits (whichever occurs earliest), the Owner/Developer and/or construction contractor shall provide Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

42 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx the City with documentation demonstrating that all off-road equipment with engines greater than 50 horsepower used during project construction meet or exceed the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or California Air Resources Board (ARB) Tier 4 Interim off-road emission standards. The construction contractor shall maintain records concerning its efforts to comply with this requirement during construction, including equipment lists. Off-road equipment descriptions and information may include but are not limited to equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment identification number, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, and engine serial number.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 43
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.4 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 Wildlife or United States 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, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or United States 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 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?

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The biological characterization of the project site was based, in part, on a field visit conducted by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) Staff Biologist Blake Claypool on April 21, 2022. The project site is located Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

44 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx in an urbanized area in the City of Anaheim. The project site is developed and contains numerous older, commercial land industrial abandoned buildings and parking lots. There are no natural surfaces or vegetation communities on-site, nor are there large areas of exposed soil upon which vegetation could grow. Vegetation on the project site consists of Street Trees and ground cover plants around its perimeter and includes Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia), and blue flax lily (Dianella caerulea). Wildlife observed on the project site included common species tolerant of urbanized areas, including rock pigeon (Columba livia), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), and house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus). There were no special-status species or habitat for any special-status species observed on-site during the site visit.

The biological characterization of the project site also included an analysis of the potential for special-status species to occur there. To generate a list of special-status species that occur in the project vicinity, an FCS Biologist reviewed the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), a special-status species and plant community account database, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system, and the California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI) of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California database for the Anaheim, California USGS 7.5- minute Topographic Quadrangle Map and its eight neighboring quads. 21, 22, 23 The IPaC query
returned three listed species and 14 migratory birds (Appendix B: Table B-1). The CNPSEI query returned 49 special-status plant species in the nine-quad search area (Appendix B: Table B-2). The CNDDB query returned 32 special-status plant species and 66 special-status animal species in the nine-quad search area (Appendix B: Table B-3). Of these species, three special-status plants and 15 special-status animal species have been recorded within 5 miles of the project site (Appendix B:

Table B-4). None of these species are expected to occur due to the lack of suitable habitat on the project site and extensive urbanization and habitat modification in the surrounding area.

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 Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service?
No impact. There is no suitable habitat on or adjacent to the project site for any special-status species that occur in the region, and no special-status species are expected to occur on-site. The proposed project would not have a substantial effect on any special-status species.

21 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2021. CNDDB RareFind 5 California Natural Diversity Database Query for Special- Status Species. Website: https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view /RareFind.aspx. Accessed May 3, 2022. 22 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021 Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). Website:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed May 3, 2022.
23 California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2020. California Native Plant Society Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory (CNPSEI). Website:
http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/. Accessed May 3, 2022.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 45
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service? No impact. There are no riparian habitats or sensitive natural vegetation communities on or adjacent to the project site. The proposed project would not have a substantial effect on any riparian habitats or sensitive natural vegetation communities.
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?
No impact. There are no wetlands protected under State or federal law on or adjacent to the project site. The proposed project would not have a substantial effect on any wetlands. 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 wildlife nursery sites?
Less than significant impact. The project site contains abandoned buildings and Street Trees that could potentially provide nesting platforms or substrates for native and migratory birds that are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and/or Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3513 of the CDFW Code. These laws prohibit disturbances to or destruction of nests, eggs, or young of actively breeding birds. Implementation of the proposed project could disturb the activities of nesting birds, leading to the abandonment of their nests, or could destroy active nests if site preparation activities are conducted during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31). As required by these existing regulations, if site preparation activities are proposed during the nesting/breeding season, a qualified Biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey within 72 hours prior to removal of buildings and vegetation on-site to determine whether active nests of species protected by the MBTA or the CDFW Code are present in the construction zone. If no active nests are found during the survey, no further action is necessary. If active nests of avian species protected under the federal MBTA and Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3513 are discovered during the survey, a qualified Biologist shall establish an avoidance buffer using Environmentally Sensitive Area fencing, pin flags, or yellow caution tape. The buffer zone shall be maintained around the active nest site(s) until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. No construction activities or construction foot traffic is allowed to occur within the avoidance buffer(s). The qualified Biologist shall monitor the active nest during construction activities to prevent any potential impacts that may result from the construction of the proposed project until the young have fledged. The qualified Biologist shall have the authority to stop or divert any construction activities that would cause the adults to abandon the nest.

Adherence to regulatory requirements would reduce potential project impacts to a less than significant level.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

46 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than significant impact. The project site contains trees in parkways that may qualify as Street Trees under Chapter 13.12 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. This ordinance establishes the Community Services Department as the authority, defines the Department’s duties in surveying and maintaining the City’s Street Trees, establishes a Street Tree species list, requires that Street Tree planting and removal be implemented according to a master plan for the City’s urban forest, requires that any new private development with a parkway between the sidewalk and curb plant Street Trees, and prohibits maintenance or removal of existing Street Trees without permission from the Community Services Department. Implementation of the proposed project would remove existing Street Trees, which, if conducted without permission, would violate the City’s Street Tree Ordinance.

Thus, the Developer would be required to obtain permission from the Community Services Department prior to removal of any Street Trees. Compliance with the City’s regulatory requirements would reduce potential project impacts to a less than significant. 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? No impact. The proposed project is not located within or adjacent to a conservation plan area.

Project implementation would not conflict with or have a substantial effect on any conservation plans.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 47
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.5 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as pursuant
to Section 15064.5?

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

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

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:
d) 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

e) 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 I of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision I of Public Resource Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider
the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
This section describes the existing cultural resources setting and potential effects from project implementation on the project site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on information provided by the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), California Historic Landmarks list, California Points of Historical Interest list, California Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD), the California Historical Resources Inventory, and the Historic Built Environment Assessment Report prepared by South Environmental. Non-confidential records search results and other correspondence are included in Appendix C.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

48 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx South Central Coastal Information Center
A records search and literature review were conducted on May 13, 2022, at the SCCIC located at California State University, Fullerton, for the project site and a 0.5-mile radius surrounding it. The purpose of this review was to access existing cultural resource survey reports, archaeological site records, historic aerial photographs, and historic maps and evaluate whether any previously documented prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, architectural resources, cultural landscapes, or other resources exist within or near the project site.

The results from the records search indicate that there are three historic resources recorded within the 0.5-mile search radius, none of which are located within the project boundaries. In addition, eight area-specific survey reports are on file with the SCCIC, none of which are located within the project boundaries, suggesting that the project site has not been previously surveyed for cultural resources. A records search map identifying the project boundaries and a 0.5-mile search radius along with relevant non-confidential records search results can be found in Appendix C.

Native American Heritage Commission
On March 21, 2022, FCS contacted the NAHC to determine whether any sacred sites were located within the project site or its vicinity. A response was received on May 5, 2022, indicating that the Sacred Lands File search was negative for Native American cultural resources in the project site. The NAHC included a list of 18 Tribal Representatives that may offer additional information regarding the project site. On April 20, 2022, the City distributed letters to the 18 Tribal Representatives identified by the NAHC, notifying each tribe of the opportunity to consult with the City regarding the proposed project. Two responses were received on May 9, 2022, and May 18, 2022, from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation and the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen, respectively, requesting initiation of AB 52 consultation. As a result of the consultation process it has been determined that the project has the potential to impact Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs). The City and the consulting tribes have provided mitigation measures that would reduce potential impacts to TCRs to a less than significant level. Consultation between both tribes concluded on July 13, 2022, and July 19, 2022, respectively. NAHC correspondence and copies of the NAHC letters can be found in Appendix C.

Pedestrian Survey
On May 19, 2022, FCS Archaeologist Natalie Adame conducted the pedestrian survey for unrecorded cultural resources within the project boundaries of the Anaheim Ball Mixed Used Project. The survey began on the northeast corner of East Ball Road and South Claudia Street and headed west to the northwest corner of East Ball Road and South Anaheim Boulevard. Because of the hardscaped nature of the project site and accessibility issues, the entirety of the survey was conducted on the northern border and western border. Photos of structures located at 1200 South Anaheim Boulevard, 1234 South Anaheim Boulevard, 1280 South Anaheim Boulevard, 1300 South Anaheim Boulevard, and 1354 South Anaheim Boulevard were taken and recorded. Several of the structures were still in operation and being used. Particular attention was paid to the built environment and structures that appeared to be more than 45 years of age. A review of historic aerials indicates that there are two structures over the age of 45 located within the project boundaries that have not been previously City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 49
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx evaluated. Subsequently, a Historic Built Environmental Assessment Report was prepared by South Environmental for the structures on-site that are more than 45 years in age (Appendix C).

Survey conditions were documented using digital photographs and field notes. During the survey, Ms. Adame examined all areas of the exposed ground surface for prehistoric artifacts (e.g., fire- affected rock, milling tools, flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, ceramics), soil discoloration and depressions that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, faunal and human osteological remains, and features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., postholes, standing exterior walls, foundations) or historic debris (e.g., glass, metal, ceramics).

To the extent possible, all areas of the project site were inspected for culturally modified soils or other indicators of potential historic or prehistoric resources. No historic or prehistoric cultural resources or raw materials commonly used in the manufacture of tools (e.g., obsidian, Franciscan chert, etc.) were found within the project site. Pedestrian survey photos can be found in Appendix C.

Historic Built Environment Assessment
FCS retained South Environmental to prepare a Historic Built Environment Assessment Report for structures over 45 years in age identified during the pedestrian survey that was conducted by FCS.

South Environmental determined that five built environment resources more than 45 years old were identified within the project site. The buildings are located at 1200, 1234, 1300, and 1354 South Anaheim Boulevard, and 200 East Ball Road. The buildings were evaluated and recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Forms for historical significance in consideration of CRHR and City designation criteria and integrity requirements. South Environmental determined that all the buildings within the project site were found ineligible under all State and local designation criteria due to lack of significant historical associations and architectural merit. The Historic Built Environment Assessment Report can be found in Appendix C.

Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than significant impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 defines “historical resources” as resources listed in the CRHR, a local register, determined significant by the Lead Agency, or determined to be eligible by the California Historical Resources Commission for listing in the CRHR.

The criteria for eligibility are generally set by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which established the NRHP , and which recognizes properties that are significant at the federal, State, and local levels. To be eligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR, a district, site, building, structure, or object must possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association relative to American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. In addition, unless the property possesses exceptional significance, it must be at least 50 years old to be eligible.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

50 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx The results of the SCCIC records search results indicate that there are three historic resources recorded within the 0.5-mile radius of the project site, none of which are located within the project boundaries. The pedestrian survey determined that there are buildings located within the project boundaries that are over 45 years in age and may be potentially historic. Samantha Murray of South Environmental was contacted to conduct an evaluation of the buildings. Five buildings more than 45 years in age were identified, evaluated, and recorded as part of the Historic Built Environment Assessment Report prepared by South Environmental. The results of the evaluation determined that all the buildings within the project site were found ineligible under all State and local designation criteria due to lack of significant historical associations and architectural merit. No historical resources were identified within the project site as a result of the evaluation. Therefore, impacts to built environment resources within the proposed project are less than significant. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines defines significant archaeological resources as resources that meet the criteria for historical resources, as discussed above, or resources that constitute unique archaeological resources. A project-related significant adverse effect could occur if a project were to affect archaeological resources that fall under either of these categories.

The records search conducted at the SCCIC for the project site and its 0.5-mile surrounding radius, identify three historic resources, none of which are prehistoric. In addition, the results of the pedestrian survey did not locate or identify any prehistoric resources. Nevertheless, it is possible that earthmoving activities associated with project construction could encounter previously undiscovered archaeological resources. Archaeological resources can include but are not limited to stone, bone, wood or shell artifacts or features, including hearths and structural elements. Damage or destruction of these resources would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of MM CUL-1 would ensure that this potential impact is reduced to a less than significant level. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than significant impact. No human remains or cemeteries are known to exist within or near the project site. Although human remains within the project site are unlikely, there is always the possibility that earthmoving activities associated with project construction could potentially damage or destroy previously undiscovered human remains.

In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 must be followed. Consistent with established law, once project-related earthmoving begins and if there is inadvertent discovery or recognition of any human remains, compliance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 would be required. Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 identified the procedure that must be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of human remains and determination of the remains to be Native American. Compliance City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 51
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx with these procedures as required by statute would reduce potential impacts related to human remains to a less than significant level.

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:
d) 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 Less than significant impact. The records search conducted at the SCCIC, which included a search of the CRHR, did not identify any listed or eligible TCRs that would be adversely affected by the proposed project. Additionally, the NAHC Sacred Lands File search produced a negative result for TCRs in the project vicinity. The pedestrian survey conducted by FCS on May 19, 2022, similarly, did not identify any TCRs. Therefore, impacts of the proposed project are less than significant. e) 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 Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No TCRs significant to the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 have been identified by the Lead Agency.

The City distributed letters to the 18 Tribal Representatives identified by the NAHC , including those that have previously requested notification for AB 52 consultation, notifying each tribe of the opportunity to consult with the City regarding the proposed project. Consultation letters were mailed on April 20, 2022. Two responses were received on May 9, 2022, and May 18, 2022, from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation and the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen, respectively, requesting initiation of AB 52 consultation. As a result of the consultation process and because implementation of the proposed project would remove the existing artificial fill on the project site and the uppermost portions of the young alluvium underlying the project site on the Santa Ana floodplain, it has been determined that the project has the potential to impact TCRs.

The City and the consulting tribes have provided mitigation measures that would reduce potential impacts to TCRs to a less than significant level. Consultation between both tribes concluded on July 13, 2022, and July 19, 2022, respectively. Furthermore,. To reduce potential impacts, should any undiscovered TCRs be encountered during project construction, implementation of MM TCR-1 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1 An Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology shall perform a “tailgate” Worker Environmental Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

52 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Awareness Program (WEAP) training to all construction personnel directly involved with project-related ground disturbance activities. The training shall include visual aids, a discussion of applicable laws and statutes relating to archaeological resources, types of resources that may be found within the project site, and procedures that shall be followed in the event such resources are encountered.

In the event that inadvertent discoveries are found, an Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology shall perform an inspection of the site for potential archaeological resources once grubbing, ground clearing, and demolition are complete, and prior to any grading or project-related ground disturbance. In the event exposed soils indicate cultural materials may be present, this shall be followed by regular or periodic archaeological monitoring as determined by the Archaeologist, but full-time archaeological monitoring is not required at this time.

It is always possible that ground-disturbing activities during construction may uncover previously unknown, buried cultural resources. In the event that buried cultural resources are discovered during construction, operations shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified Archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified Archaeologist shall make recommendations to the Lead Agency on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction within the project area shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria.

If the resources are determined to be unique historic resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures shall be identified by the Archaeological Monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources shall include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds.

No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by the Lead Agency where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientific study.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 53
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx MM TCR-1 Retention of a Native American Monitor(s) Prior to Commencement of Ground- Disturbing Activities
Prior to the commencement of any grading and/or construction activity, the Owner/Developer shall coordinate with the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation Native American tribe and the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation Native American tribe in retention of Native American Monitors (Tribal Monitors) and a copy of the executed contract shall be submitted to the City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department. The Tribal Monitors shall only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground- disturbing activities within disturbed and undisturbed sediments. Ground-disturbing activities may include, but are not limited to, potholing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the project site.

The Tribal Monitors shall complete daily monitoring logs that shall 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 Monitors have indicated that the project site has a low potential for impacting archaeological or tribal cultural resources.

Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects Upon discovery of any archaeological or tribal cultural resources, construction activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All archaeological and/or tribal cultural resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified Archaeologist and Tribal Monitors. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Tribal Representative shall coordinate with the Owner/Developer regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the tribes 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, shall be available. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and Public Resources Section 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 shall 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, the Copper Center, or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

54 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.

Procedures for Burials and Funerary Remains
In the event that human remains are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities, the Owner/Developer shall cease ground-disturbing activities and contact the County Coroner, Tribal Monitors, and Archaeologist to inform of the discovery. The Owner/Developer shall coordinate and consult with the County Coroner, Tribal Monitors and Archaeologist for advisory on the matter, protocol, and any applicable mitigating requirements. Additionally, If the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), as the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be contacted by the Owner/Developer to determine proper treatment and disposition of the remains. To protect the area in which the Native American human remains are present, development activity shall cease until consultation with the MLD is complete regarding recommendations pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Discovery of human remains shall also follow CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5; Public Resources Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Section 5097.98.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 55
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.6 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?

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
Energy use, especially through fossil fuel consumption and combustion, relates directly to environmental quality since it can adversely affect air quality and generate GHG emissions that contribute to climate change. Electrical power is generated through a variety of sources, including fossil fuel combustion, hydropower, wind, solar, biofuels, and others. Natural gas is widely used to heat buildings, prepare food in restaurants and residences, and fuel vehicles, among other uses. Fuel use for transportation is related to the fuel efficiency of cars, trucks, and public transportation; choice of different travel modes such as auto, carpool, and public transit; and miles traveled by these modes and is generally based on petroleum-based fuels such as diesel and gasoline. Electric vehicles (EVs) may not have any direct emissions but do have indirect emissions via the source of electricity generated to power the vehicle. Construction and routine operation and maintenance of transportation infrastructure also consume energy.

Anaheim Public Utilities provides electricity and water services to the City, and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides natural gas to the City and project site.

The City of Anaheim has not adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP). The City’s General Plan includes a range of policies that promote energy efficiency that are presented in Section 2.3, Air Quality Setting. These policies will be referenced herein to evaluate the energy impacts of the proposed project.

City of Anaheim Municipal Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan The City of Anaheim’s “Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan: Sustainable Electric & Water Initiatives” (GHG Reduction Plan), published in 2020, identifies reduction targets for years 2020 and 2030 to be achieved by the Anaheim Public Utilities Department (APU). To meet the emissions targets, the GHG Reduction Plan also identifies renewables portfolio targets of increasing the APU power supply generated from renewable sources up to 33 percent by year 2020 and 40 to 50 percent by year 2030.

The GHG Reduction Plan also establishes transportation-related goals for APU to convert its fleet Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

56 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx vehicles to consist of 10 percent low to zero emissions vehicles by year 2020 and up to 20 percent by year 2030. This GHG Reduction Plan has no direct applicability to the proposed project because it applies only to municipal activities and not individual development projects; however, the proposed project’s GHG emissions would benefit from the GHG Reduction Plan’s increased renewables targets because the proposed project would be served by APU.

City of Anaheim Sustainability Programs
• Anaheim Public Utilities Incentive Programs: The program encompasses more than 45 rebates and incentive programs offered to businesses and residents in the City of Anaheim to assist them in water and energy savings.
• Electric Vehicle Charging: The City of Anaheim developed a streamlined process to promote use of EVs in addition to creation of a rebate program for installation of EV chargers. The City currently offers rebate programs of private and public use EV chargers. • Green Building Program/Incentives: This program provides rebates for buildings certified as a green building by the U.S. Green Building Council, California Green Build, Build It Green, or other rating programs.
• Residential Rooftop Solar Systems: The City developed a streamlined permitting process for small residential rooftop solar energy systems.

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? Less than significant impact. A discussion of the proposed project’s anticipated energy usage is presented below. Energy use consumed by the proposed project was estimated and includes natural gas, electricity, and fuel consumption for project construction and operation. Energy calculations are included as part of Appendix A.

Construction Impacts
The project construction schedule was assumed to begin in March 2023 and conclude in December 2024. If the construction schedule moves to later years, construction emissions would likely decrease because of improvements in technology and more stringent regulatory requirements as older, less efficient equipment is replaced by newer and cleaner equipment. The proposed project would require demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving. The construction phase would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of building materials, preparation of the site (e.g., demolition, site clearing, and grading), and the actual construction of the building. Petroleum-based fuels such as diesel fuel and gasoline would be the primary sources of energy for these tasks.

The types of on-site equipment used during construction of the proposed project could include gasoline- and diesel-powered construction and transportation equipment, including trucks, City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 57
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx bulldozers, frontend loaders, forklifts, and cranes. Construction equipment is estimated to consume a total of 57,205 gallons of diesel fuel over the entire construction duration (Appendix A).

Fuel use associated with construction vehicle trips generated by the proposed project was also estimated; trips include construction worker trips, haul truck trips for material transport, and vendor trips for construction material deliveries. Fuel use from these vehicles traveling to the project site was based on (1) the projected number of trips the proposed project would generate during construction, (2) average trip distances by trip type, and (3) fuel efficiencies estimated in the ARB Emission Factors (EMFAC) mobile source emission model. The specific parameters used to estimate fuel usage are included in Appendix A. In total, the proposed project is estimated to generate 2,151,563 VMT and a combined 83,133 gallons of combined gasoline and diesel for vehicle travel during the 22-month construction period.

Other equipment could include construction lighting, field services (office trailers), and electrically driven equipment such as pumps and other tools. Section 6.73.020 of the Anaheim Municipal Code defines permissible hours of construction as between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. 24 As on-
site construction activities would be restricted to these hours; it is anticipated that the use of construction lighting would be less than significant. Single-wide mobile office trailers, which are commonly used in construction staging areas, generally range in size from 160 square feet to 720 square feet. A typical 720-square-foot office trailer would consume approximately 17,058 kilowatt- hour (kWh) during the 22-month construction phase (Appendix A).

The overall construction schedule and process is already designed to be efficient in order to avoid excess monetary costs. For example, equipment and fuel are not typically used wastefully due to the added expense associated with renting the equipment, maintaining it, and fueling it. Therefore, the opportunities for future efficiency gains during construction are limited. Moreover, the proposed project would reduce energy impacts through the implementation of a variety of construction emission reduction measures such as utilizing existing power sources and managing construction traffic in a way to avoid or reduce traffic impacts and subsequent unnecessary energy consumption.

Therefore, it is anticipated that the construction phase of the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Construction-related energy impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Impacts
The proposed project would consume energy as part of building operations and transportation activities. Project energy consumption is summarized in Table 8.

Table 8: Estimated Annual Project Energy Consumption
Energy Consumption Activity Annual Consumption
Electricity Consumption 1,192,835 kWh/year
Natural Gas Consumption 3,939,644 kBTU/year

24 City of Anaheim. Municipal Code, Chapter 6.73. Website: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/anaheim/latest/anaheim_ca/0-0- 0-58010. Accessed March 29, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

58 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Energy Consumption Activity Annual Consumption
Total Fuel Consumption
(Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, and other vehicles Combined) 10,098,457 VMT
346,269 gallons of gasoline and diesel
Notes:
kBTU = kilo-British Thermal Unit
kWh = kilowatt-hour
VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled
Source: Appendix A.

Operation of the proposed project would consume an estimated 1,192,835 kWh of electricity and an estimated 3,939,644 kilo-British Thermal Unit (kBTU) of natural gas on an annual basis. The proposed project’s building would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s latest adopted energy efficiency standards, which are based on the State’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards. These are widely regarded as the most advanced building energy efficiency standards and compliance would ensure that building energy consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

Moreover, the proposed project would include the incorporation of energy conservation techniques and alternative transportation infrastructure into the proposed project’s design to reduce associated emissions. The proposed project would be required to comply with the building design requirements contained in the CBC, which includes the installation of solar panels on new residential development, energy efficient building designs, and the installation of bicycle racks and other alternative transportation mode infrastructure on nonresidential development. These project design features would further ensure that building energy consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

Project-related vehicle trips would consume an estimated 346,269 gallons of gasoline and diesel annually and would involve activities and travel routes typical of a residential project. As discussed under Section 2.17, Transportation, the proposed project is located in a Transit Priority Area (TPA), which is defined as areas within a half mile around an existing major transit stop 25 or an existing stop
along a high-quality transit corridor.26 The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) operates Bus Route 47 along Anaheim Boulevard adjacent to the project site. Bus Route 47 services the project site at the “Anaheim Boulevard and Ball Road” stop with headways of 15 minutes in the AM peak period (7:00-9:00 a.m.) and PM peak period (4:00-6:00 p.m.). Thus, transportation fuel consumption would be minimized through use of the nearby existing transit system and would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Impacts would be less than significant.

25 Public Resources Code Section 21064.3 - ‘Major transit stop’ means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. 26 Public Resources Code Section 21155 - For purposes of this section, a ‘high-quality transit corridor’ means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 59
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than significant impact. California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) required that 33 percent of electricity retail sales be served by renewable energy sources by 2020. The proposed project would be served with electricity provided by Anaheim Public Utilities. In 2020, Anaheim Public Utilities’ power mix included 32.3 percent eligible renewable (biomass and biowaste, geothermal, eligible hydroelectric, solar, and wind), 46 percent coal, 19.9 percent natural gas, and

1.8 percent large hydroelectric.27
The proposed project would be served with gas provided by SoCalGas. SoCalGas offers renewable natural gas captured from sources like dairies, wastewater treatment plants and landfills.28 The City of Anaheim has not adopted a CAP . The City’s General Plan sets forth a section of “Energy Conservation: Green Power and Saving Electricity” within the “Green Element” Chapter and will be referenced herein to determine project consistency with the applicable energy efficiency or renewable energy policy or plan. Goals 9, 10, 11, 12 of the General Plan’s Green Element and their underlying policies aim to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips and promote clean air vehicles, mass transit, and alternative transportation modes such as bicycling and walking, which altogether reduces fuel-based energy consumption.

SCAG’s Connect SoCal RTP/SCS establishes GHG emission reduction goals for automobiles and light- duty trucks for 2020 and 2045 as well as an overall GHG target for the project region consistent with both the post-2020 GHG reduction goals of Executive Order 5-03-05 and B-30-15. The proposed project is within a few miles of several large job centers and HQTAs in Orange County. Considering the proposed project’s location within a HQTA, the proposed project is consistent with regional strategies to reduce passenger VMT and transportation fuel consumption as well as Goals 9 through 12 of the General Plan’s Green Element.

Also contained in the General Plan’s Green Element, Goal 15.2 encourages site design practices that reduce and conserve energy. Goal 15.2 includes policies that encourage increased use of passive and active solar design in existing and new development, encourage energy efficient retrofitting of existing buildings throughout the City, and continue to provide free energy audits for the public.

All land use development in the City is required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code, which contains rules and regulations regarding energy efficiency. Chapter 10.10 of the City’s Municipal Code encourages the redirection of recyclable materials generated during construction away from landfills. Chapter 10.18 includes regulations to support water conservation. Chapter 15.03 adopts the 2019 California Energy Code and Green Building Standards. Chapter 15.04 includes the Solar Energy regulations and Section 15.04.060 promotes a streamlined permitting process for small residential rooftop solar energy systems. As the proposed project would be compliant with these

27 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2020 Power Content Label. Website: https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and- topics/programs/power-source-disclosure/power-content-label/annual-power-content-1. Accessed February 3, 2022. 28 Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). Renewable Gas. Website: https://www.socalgas.com/sustainability/renewable-gas.

Accessed February 3, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

60 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx codes and regulations, it would be consistent with the General Plan’s Green Element Goal 15.2 to encourage energy efficient design.

Goal 16.1 aims to continue to monitor and improve the Anaheim Recycle program that would reduce solid waste from households, businesses, commercial areas and construction activities. This goal would apply to the City’s waste collection service provider, which is required to provide recycling and organic waste collection services compliant with AB 341—which required the State to recycling, reduce, or compost no less than 75 of solid waste collected in 2020—and Senate Bill (SB) 1383— which requires local waste collection agencies to provide organic waste collection services.

Finally, as previously discussed, the City has a series of sustainability programs, which are listed below.
• Anaheim Public Utilities Incentive Programs: The program encompasses more than 45 rebates and incentive programs offered to businesses and residents in the City of Anaheim to assist them in water and energy savings.
• Electric Vehicle Charging: The City of Anaheim developed a streamlined process to promote use of EVs in addition to creation of a rebate program for installation of EV chargers. The City currently offers rebate programs of private and public use EV chargers. • Green Building Program/Incentives: This program provides rebates for buildings certified as a green building by the U.S. Green Building Council, California Green Build, Build It Green, or other rating programs.
• Residential Rooftop Solar Systems: The City developed a streamlined permitting process for small residential rooftop solar energy systems.

The proposed project would neither conflict with nor obstruct the implementation of these sustainability programs. These programs are primarily established by the City to facilitate the use of energy efficient technologies and designs in existing development through rebate programs and streamlined permitting processes. They would not place any requirement on the proposed project and would be available to be utilized by future occupants of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s overall sustainability efforts.

Therefore, compliance with the General Plan policies and programs, and adherence to the development standards in the Municipal Code would ensure that the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact under this criterion.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 61
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.7 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 Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
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?

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The analysis in this section is based, in part, on the Geotechnical Feasibility Report prepared by Alta California Geotechnical Inc. in June 2021, for the proposed project. The report is included in Appendix D of this Draft IS/MND and is summarized below. Additionally, this section references the Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

62 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Paleontological Records Search prepared for the proposed project by Kenneth L. Finger, PhD, on March 24, 2022, which is included in Appendix C of this report.

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.

Less than significant impact. The project site is located in Southern California, which is a seismically active area. The type and magnitude of seismic hazards affecting a site are dependent on the distance to the causative fault and the intensity and magnitude of the seismic event. The seismic hazard may be primary, such as surface rupture and/or ground shaking, or secondary, such as liquefaction and/or ground lurching.

Active faults are not known to exist within the project site. According to the Geotechnical Feasibility Report, the project site is not within a California State designated earthquake fault zone. Accordingly, the potential for fault surface rupture on the subject site is very low. Furthermore, according to the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and Seismic Hazard Zone Map, a known earthquake fault is not located near the project site or known to traverse the project site.29 Therefore, there would be less than significant impacts related to rupture of a known earthquake fault.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The City, as well as most of Southern California, is located in a region of historic seismic activity. The nearest zoned fault to the project site is the Peralta Hills structure located 2.15 miles northeast of the project site. Other nearby faults include Lower Elysian Park thrust located 3.5 miles northwest of the project site, and the Puente Hills blind thrust system, located approximately 3.95 miles north of the project site.30 During seismic events, the project site could experience moderate ground shaking associated with the faults described above. Strong levels of seismic ground shaking can cause damage to buildings. The intensity of ground shaking on the project site would depend upon the earthquake’s magnitude, distance to the epicenter, and geology of the area between the project site and epicenter. The proposed project would be subject to the current CBC, as adopted by the City’s Planning and Building Department, with respect to seismic design parameters. Conformance with these standard engineering practices and design criteria would reduce the effects of seismic ground shaking.

29 California Geologic Survey. 2022. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Map. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed May 25, 2022. 30 Ibid.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 63
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Section 5 of the Geotechnical Feasibility Report makes site-specific recommendations concerning grading, earthwork, stormwater infiltration systems, as well as structural design and pavement design. The Geotechnical Feasibility Report concluded that the proposed project would be feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, with the incorporation of site-specific recommendations. MM GEO-1 requires implementation of the recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Feasibility Report.

Compliance with MM GEO-1 and applicable regulations would reduce potential impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking to a less than significant level.

Following compliance with standard engineering practices, the CBC, and the site-specific recommendations referenced in MM GEO-1, potential impacts concerning exposure of people or structures to potential adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No impact. Liquefaction is a phenomenon where earthquake-induced ground vibrations increase the pore pressure in saturated, granular soils until it is equal to the confining, overburden pressure.

When this occurs, the soil can completely lose its shear strength and enter a liquefied state. For liquefaction to occur, a project site must be subject to three factors: underlying loose, coarse-grained (sandy) soils, a groundwater depth of approximately 25 feet, and a potential for seismic shaking from nearby large-magnitude earthquakes.

The project site is not located in a Liquefaction Hazard Zone.31 Additionally, according to the Geotechnical Feasibility Report, the site is not located within an area that is susceptible to liquefaction due to the depth of groundwater. Furthermore, the General Plan indicates that the project site is not located within an area with liquefaction potential.32 Therefore, the proposed project would not cause potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. There would be no impact. iv) Landslides?
No impact. Landslides can occur if ground shaking and/or heavy rainfall disturb areas of steep slopes consisting of unstable soils. According to the General Plan, earthquake-induced landslides have the potential to occur in the City’s Hill and Canyon Area. Generally, these types of failures consist of rock falls, landslides, and debris flows. Areas having the potential for earthquake-induced landsliding generally occur in areas of previous landslide movement, or where topographic, geological, geotechnical, and subsurface water conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements.33 The project site is not located in the City’s Hill and Canyon Area and is not mapped

31 State of California. 2022. CGS Seismic Hazards Program: Liquefaction Zones. Website:
https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/b70a766a60ad4c0688babdd47497dbad_0/explore?location=33.819912%2C-117.901236%2C14.33.

Accessed May 25, 2022.
32 City of Anaheim. May 2004. Anaheim General Plan Figure S-3, Seismic and Geological Hazards. Website:
http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/2039/I-Safety-Element-?bidId=. Accessed May 25, 2022. 33 City of Anaheim. May 2004. Anaheim General Plan Safety Element. Website:
http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/2039/I-Safety-Element-?bidId=. Accessed May 25, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

64 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx within an area with earthquake-induced landslide potential.34 Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to landslides. There would be no impact. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The Geotechnical Feasibility Report indicates that the project site is underlain by alluvium. Minor amounts of artificial fill are likely present. The artificial fill and the uppermost portions of the alluvium are considered compressible and unsuitable to support the proposed improvements. The proposed project would be required to implement the site-specific recommendations referenced in MM GEO-1, which includes site preparation and removal of unsuitable soils.

During construction, the proposed project would be required to comply with erosion and siltation control measures outlined in Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 17.04: Grading, Excavation, Fills, Watercourses. Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 17.04 requires that excavations and fills that may affect drainage and watercourses be performed in accordance with good engineering practice, thereby reducing to a minimum the hazards and damage to public and private property. This would include measures such as sandbagging to reduce project site runoff or hold topsoil in place prior to final grading and construction. Additionally, the proposed project would be subject to compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009-0009- DWQ, and all subsequent amendments) (Construction General Permit); see Impact 4.10(a). The Construction General Permit requires development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and monitoring plan, which must include erosion-control and sediment- control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General Permit to control potential construction-related pollutants. Following compliance with the established regulatory framework including the Anaheim Municipal Code and Construction General Permit, and with implementation of MM GEO-1, potential impacts concerning soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant. 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?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The project site would not be subject to seismically induced liquefaction, as discussed in Impact 4.7(a)(iii) above, or landslides, as discussed in Impact 2.7(a)(iv) above. Subsidence occurs when the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas vertically displaces a large portion of land. Soils that are particularly subject to subsidence include those with high silt or clay content. Alluvium and minor amounts of artificial fill underlie the project site. The Geotechnical Feasibility Report evaluated site conditions and identified the potential for unstable soils. To address potential impacts related to unstable soil conditions, the Geotechnical Feasibility Report recommends disposal of unsuitable soils and fill materials to a depth of 4 to 6 feet, recompaction, and placement of additional engineered fill where appropriate.

34 City of Anaheim. May 2004. Anaheim General Plan Figure S-3, Seismic and Geological Hazards. Website:
http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/2039/I-Safety-Element-?bidId=. Accessed May 25, 2022.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 65
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Earthwork would be required to meet compaction standards and import soils must be approved by a Geotechnical Consultant. Compliance with these recommendations would be required by implementation of MM GEO-1 and would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.

Furthermore, the Anaheim Building Division would review construction plans to verify compliance with standard engineering practices, the Municipal Code, the CBC, and the site-specific recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Feasibility Report, as referenced in MM GEO-1.

Following compliance with standard engineering practices, the established regulatory framework, and MM GEO-1, the proposed project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that would become unstable. Therefore, with implementation of MM GEO-1, impacts would be less than significant.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The Geotechnical Feasibility Report anticipated that the expansion potential would range from “very low” to “medium.” As discussed previously, the artificial fill and the uppermost portions of the alluvium underlaying the project site are considered compressible and unsuitable to support the proposed improvements. Therefore, the Geotechnical Feasibility Report provides recommendations concerning site preparation, earthwork, grading, removal of unsuitable soil, and fill material. The proposed project would be required to implement MM GEO-1, which require implementation of these recommendations concerning site preparation and removal of unsuitable soils, as well as earthwork to reduce potential impacts related to soils on-site. Furthermore, the Anaheim Building Division would review construction plans to verify compliance with standard engineering practices, the Anaheim Municipal Code, the CBC, and MM GEO-1. Therefore, the proposed project would not be located on expansive soils that could result in risks to life or property. With implementation of the recommendations required in MM GEO-1, impacts would be less than significant.
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? No impact. Sewers are available for disposal of the proposed project’s wastewater . The proposed project would connect to the existing sanitary sewer system for wastewater disposal and would not include the use of septic tanks. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The project site has been previously developed. According to the Paleontological Records Search, the natural surface of the project site is completely obscured by prior commercial development. The records search suggests that the young alluvium on the Santa Ana floodplain has no paleontological sensitivity or potential for significant paleontological resources. On that basis, paleontological monitoring of construction activities was not recommended, as paleontological resources are very unlikely to be present at the project site.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

66 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx However, there is always a potential for project construction activities to affect unidentified paleontological resources. Therefore, implementation of MM GEO-2, which addresses the actions that the Developer would take in the event that construction uncovers previously undiscovered paleontological resources. Implementation of MM GEO-2 would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-1 The Owner/Developer shall implement the recommendations provided in Section 5, Preliminary Recommendations, and Section 6, Design Considerations, in the Geotechnical Feasibility Report prepared by Alta California Geotechnical Inc. These include general earthwork requirements for site preparation, soil removal, fill material, grading, foundation, design, and all relevant construction permits, as well as requirements related to structural design and pavement design. The Geotechnical Feasibility Report that is included in Appendix D is incorporated herein by reference as fully set forth in this mitigation measure.

MM GEO-2 In the event that any significant paleontological resources (i.e., bones, teeth, or unusually abundant and well-preserved invertebrates or plants) be unearthed, the construction crew shall not attempt to remove them. All work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be diverted at least 15 feet until a professional Paleontologist assesses the find and, if deemed appropriate, salvages it in a timely manner. All recovered fossils shall be deposited in an appropriate repository, where they shall be properly curated and made accessible for future study.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 67
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.8 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 any applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The “greenhouse effect” is the natural process that retains heat in the troposphere, the bottom layer of the atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, thermal energy would “leak” into space resulting in a much colder and inhospitable planet. With the greenhouse effect, the global average temperature is approximately 61˚ F (degrees Fahrenheit) (16˚ C [degrees Celsius]). GHGs are the components of the atmosphere responsible for the greenhouse effect. The amount of heat retained is proportional to the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere. As human activities and natural sources release more GHGs into the atmosphere, GHG concentrations increase and the atmosphere retains more heat, increasing the effects of climate change. The Kyoto Protocol identified six gases for emission reduction targets: carbon dioxide (CO
2), methane (CH4), nitrogen oxide (N2O),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). When accounting for GHGs, all types of GHG emissions are expressed in terms of CO2e and are typically quantified in metric tons (MT) or million metric tons (MMT).

In 2010, SCAQMD’s GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group recommended an interim screening level, consisting of a numeric, bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e annually. In addition, the Working Group recommended an efficiency-based threshold of 4.8 MT CO2e per service population (residents plus employees) per year in 2020 and 3.0 MT CO2e per service population per year in 2035. The SCAQMD formed the Working Group to assist the SCAQMD’s efforts to develop a GHG significance threshold with a wide variety of stakeholders. The Working Group developed the numeric bright line and efficiency-based thresholds to be consistent with CEQA requirements for developing significance thresholds. Substantial evidence supports the recommended thresholds, which provide guidance to CEQA practitioners and lead agencies when determining whether GHG emissions from a proposed project are significant.

Would the project:

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

68 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than significant impact with mitigation. The proposed project is located in the SoCAB, which is under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD. GHG emissions are generated during project construction and operation (e.g., mobile emissions, emissions from generation of electricity for operations, and emissions of from the manufacturing and transport of building materials). Since the City has not adopted a CAP or any project-specific significance thresholds, the SCAQMD’s proposed 3,000 MT CO
2e/year non-industrial screening threshold is used as the significance threshold for the proposed project.

Existing Land Uses
The proposed project site is currently occupied by a range of uses, only one of which is identified as being currently operational: a used car dealership. Annual GHG emissions associated with this use were estimated using CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0. As shown in Table 9, annual GHG emissions are estimated to be approximately 203 MT CO
2e.

Table 9: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Existing Land Uses GHG Emissions Source GHG Emissions (MT CO2e per year)
Area <1
Energy 31
Mobile 157
Waste 9
Water 7
Total Estimated Existing Site Emissions 203
Notes:

GHG = greenhouse gas
MT CO2e = metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent
Some values may not add up due to rounding.

Source: Appendix A.

Construction GHG Emissions
The proposed project’s construction GHG emissions were also estimated with CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0. As shown in Table 10, construction of the proposed project is estimated to generate an estimated 1,424 MT CO
2e. As recommended by the SCAQMD, this total construction-related GHG emissions estimate was amortized over an assumed 30-year lifetime of the proposed project (i.e., the total construction-related GHG emissions estimate was divided by 30 to determine an “annual” construction emissions estimate that can be added to the proposed project’s annual operational emissions) to determine the proposed project’s annual GHG emissions inventory. This results in an annual proposed project-related construction emission estimate of approximately 47 MT CO 2e.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 69
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Table 10: Construction GHG Emission of Proposed Project Construction Phase Total MT CO2e/year
Demolition (2023) 93
Grading (2023) 53
Building Construction (2023) 457
Building Construction (2024) 748
Architectural Coatings (2024) 52
Paving (2024) 21
Total Construction Emissions 1,424
Emissions Amortized Over 30 Years 47
Notes:

GHG = greenhouse gas
MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
Because of rounding, total MT CO2e may be marginally different from CalEEMod Output.

Construction GHG emissions are amortized over the 30-year lifetime of the project.

Source: CalEEMod Output (Appendix A).

As previously discussed, the proposed project would minimize GHG emissions generated during project construction through the implementation of a variety of construction emission reduction measures such as utilizing existing power sources rather than on-site generators and managing construction traffic in a way to avoid or reduce traffic impacts and subsequent GHG emissions.

Operational GHG Emissions
Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of a project. Proposed project operations were modeled for the 2025 operational year, immediately following the completion of construction.

Sources for operational GHG emissions include:
• Motor Vehicles: These emissions refer to GHG emissions contained in the exhaust from the cars and trucks that would travel to and from the project site. • Natural Gas: These emissions refer to the GHG emissions that occur when natural gas is burned on the project site. Natural gas uses could include heating water, space heating, dryers, stoves, or other uses.
• Indirect Electricity: These emissions refer to those generated by off-site power plants to supply electricity required for the project.
• Area Sources: These emissions refer to those produced during activities such as landscape maintenance.
• Water Transport: These emissions refer to those generated by the electricity required to transport and treat the water to be used on the project site.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

70 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx • Waste: These emissions refer to the GHG emissions produced by decomposing waste generated by the project.

As previously discussed, the proposed project would include the incorporation of energy conservation techniques and alternative transportation infrastructure into the proposed project’s design to reduce associated emissions. The proposed project would be required to comply with the building design requirements contained in the CBC, which includes the installation of solar panels on new residential development, energy efficient building designs, and the installation of bicycle racks and other alternative transportation mode infrastructure on nonresidential development. These project design features would help minimize the generation of GHG emissions by providing on-site sources of renewable energy and infrastructure to encourage the use of modes of transportation alternative to single-occupancy vehicles. Table 11 presents the estimated annual GHG emissions from the proposed project’s operations. As shown in Table 11, proposed project operations are estimated to result in an annual GHG emissions inventory of approximately 4,080 MT CO 2e.

Table 11: Operational GHG Emissions of Proposed Project GHG Emissions Source GHG Emissions (MT CO2e per year)
Area 4
Energy 736
Mobile 3,118
Waste 88
Water 290
Amortized Construction Emissions 47
Existing Operational Emissions -203
Total Annual Project Emissions 4,080
SCAQMD Threshold 3,000
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? Yes
Notes:

GHG = greenhouse gas
MT CO2e = metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
Source: Appendix A.

As previously discussed, the SCAQMD’s recommended significance threshold for projects like the proposed project is 3,000 MT CO2e per year; therefore, without mitigation this would be considered a potentially significant impact. To reduce the proposed project’s annual GHG emissions to below the adopted 3,000 MT CO2e threshold of significance, MM GHG-1 would be required, which stipulates that the Owner/Developer purchase carbon credits, include additional sustainability features, or otherwise offset project GHG emissions in an amount sufficient to reduce or offset the proposed project’s annual GHG emissions to below the 3,000 MT CO2e threshold of significance.

Measures that the Owner/Developer could implement that are contained in MM GHG-1 include City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 71
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx installing solar beyond what is required by Title 24 standards, installing solar water heaters, or a commitment to purchasing 100 percent renewable electricity, among others. Based on the current estimate of the proposed project’s annual GHG emissions inventory, shown in Table 11, this would be equivalent to no less than 1,080 MT CO2e per year for the first 30 years of proposed project operations, or 32,400 MT CO2e total. Implementation of MM GHG-1 would offset the impact of the proposed project’s GHG emissions to below the 3,000 MT CO2e threshold of significance and therefore result in a less than significant impact.
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than significant impact. The City has not adopted a CAP or Citywide GHG Reduction Plan applicable to land use development projects. As such, this consistency analysis focuses on the ARB 2017 Scoping Plan, SCAG’s Connect SoCal RTP/SCS, the City’s General Plan, and Municipal Code.

ARB Scoping Plan
The principal State plan and policy for GHG emission reduction targets are set forth in Executive Order S-03-05, AB 32, and the subsequent SB 32. The quantitative goal of AB 32 was to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 required the ARB to develop a Scoping Plan that describe’ California's approach to reduce GHGs to achieve the 2020 emission target. SB 32 then accelerated the GHG emission reduction goals of AB 32. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update, the most recent update to the ARB Scoping Plan, reflects the 2030 target of a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels as set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. It is applicable to State agencies but is not directly applicable to cities/counties and individual projects (i.e., the Scoping Plan does not require the City to adopt policies, programs, or regulations to reduce GHG emissions). However, new regulations adopted by the State agencies outlined in the Scoping Plan result in GHG emissions reductions at the local level. As a result, local jurisdictions benefit from reductions in transportation emissions rates, increases in water efficiency in the building and landscape codes, and other Statewide actions that affect a local jurisdiction’s emissions inventory from the top down.

Transportation Sector
Passenger Vehicles
Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles and the transportation sector in general include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and changes in the corporate average fuel economy standards (e.g., Pavley I and Pavley California Advanced Clean Cars program).35 Energy/Commercial-Residential Sectors
Energy use generated by the proposed project represents the second largest source of emissions after transportation emissions. New buildings under the proposed project would meet the current CALGreen and Building Energy Efficiency standards. The proposed project would include solar facilities that are consistent with the most currently applicable CALGreen requirements. General Plan Goal 15.2 encourages site design practices that reduce and conserve energy. The Goal includes

35 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2015. Low Carbon Fuel Standard Regulation. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2015/lcfs2015/lcfs2015.htm. Accessed February 3, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

72 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx policies that encourage increased use of passive and active solar design in existing and new development. Municipal Code Chapter 15.04 includes the Solar Energy regulations and Section

15.04.060 promotes a streamlined permitting process for small residential rooftop solar energy systems. Municipal Code Chapter 15.03 adopts the 2019 California Energy Code, Green Building Standards, and an array of other standards to reduce energy consumption as well as GHG emissions.

Other Sources
Other sources of GHG emissions include solid waste disposal, which is associated with landfilling municipal solid waste. The amount of methane emitted to the atmosphere as a fraction of the total amount of methane generated from the decomposition of accumulated waste has gradually declined over time as more landfills install landfill gas collection and control systems and existing systems are operated more efficiently as a result of ARB’s Landfill Methane Control Measure.36 Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the State’s goals for the recycling and waste sector.

General Plan Goal 16.1 aims to continue to monitor and improve the Anaheim Recycle program that would reduce solid waste from households, businesses, commercial areas, and construction activities.

SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy In September 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, also known as SB 375, to align regional planning efforts for housing and transportation with the GHG reduction goals outlined by AB 32. SB 375 requires each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to adopt an SCS encouraging compact development that reduces passenger VMT and trips, all for the purpose of meeting ARB-determined regional GHG emissions reduction targets.

SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial counties and is tasked with addressing regional issues related to transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment.

The ARB set GHG reduction targets of 8 percent by 2020 and 19 percent by 2035 (compared with 2005 levels) for the SCAG region, effective as of October 2018. Adopted on September 3, 2020, SCAG’s latest long-range plan, the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020-2045 RTP/SCS or “Connect SoCal”), serves as the roadmap for fulfilling the region’s compliance with these latest GHG reduction targets. To this end, the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS recognizes that transportation investments and future land use patterns are inextricably linked, and it acknowledges how this relationship can help the region make choices that sustain existing resources while expanding efficiency, mobility, and accessibility for all people across the region. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS land use pattern continues the trend of focusing new housing and employment growth in the region’s HQTAs and aims to enhance and buildout the region’s transit network. At the time of the previous 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, HQTAs accounted for just 3 percent of total land in the SCAG region, but they are projected to accommodate 46 percent of the region’s future household growth and 55 percent of the region’s future employment growth by 2040. HQTAs are a cornerstone of land use

36 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2022. Landfill Methane Regulation. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/landfill-methane-regulation/about. Accessed March 8, 2022.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 73
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx planning best practice in the SCAG region, and studies by the California Department of Transportation, the EPA, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission have found that focusing development in areas served by transit can result in local, regional, and Statewide benefits including reduced air pollution and energy consumption. In addition, HQTAs concentrate roadway repair investments, leverage transit and active transportation investments, reduce regional life cycle infrastructure costs, improve accessibility, create local jobs, and have the potential to improve public health and housing affordability. As a result, HQTAs are vital to the attainment of regional GHG emissions targets: successful implementation of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS would result in more complete communities with a variety of transportation and housing choices, which would reduce automobile use and—crucially—associated GHG emissions.

As noted, implementation of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is projected to reduce per capita vehicle GHG emissions by 19 percent by 2035, thus enabling the region to fulfill its portion of SB 375 compliance.

Implementation is also projected to reduce daily VMT per capita by 5 percent by 2045. Generally, projects are considered consistent with the provisions and policies of applicable land use plans and regulations if they are compatible with the general intent of the plans and would not preclude the attainment of their primary goals. The land use pattern emphasized by the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS involves concentrating new, dense housing and/or job growth in infill locations and HQTAs in an effort to facilitate alternative transportation modes and reduce vehicle trips and VMT. Development of the proposed project would be consistent with this land use pattern and related smart growth policies to increase housing density within HQTAs. By developing dense residential housing in an existing low-intensity infill location (i.e., a maximum 10.1-acre site that contains auto-oriented commercial uses and vacant lots) that is also with a HQTA, the proposed project would contribute directly to the goals of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. The proposed project is appropriately located and supports the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and its smart growth strategies to efficiently coordinate land usage and transportation in an effort to reduce VMT and related GHG emissions.

Senate Bill 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update
The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update addressing the SB 32 targets was adopted on December 14, 2017. Table 12 provides an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Update measures. As shown in Table 12, many of the measures are not applicable to the proposed project, and the proposed project is consistent with strategies that are applicable.

Table 12: Consistency with SB 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update 2017 Scoping Plan Update Reduction Measure Project Consistency SB 350: 50 Percent Renewable Mandate. Utilities
subject to the legislation will be required to
increase their renewable energy mix from 33
percent in 2020 to 50 percent in 2030.

Not applicable. Anaheim Public Utilities would provide
electricity service to the project site. Because Anaheim Public Utilities is tasked with achieving the latest SB 100 renewable mandates that exceed the prior SB 350
mandates, the proposed project would use electricity
that goes beyond the renewable requirements of SB
350.

SB 350 Double Building Energy Efficiency by 2030.

This is equivalent to a 20 percent reduction from
Not applicable. This measure applies to existing
buildings. New structures are required to comply with
Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

74 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx 2017 Scoping Plan Update Reduction Measure Project Consistency 2014 building energy usage compared to current
projected 2030 levels.

Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards that are expected to increase in stringency over time. The proposed project
would comply with the applicable Title 24 Energy
Efficiency Standards in effect at the time building
permits are received.

Low Carbon Fuel Standard. This measure requires
fuel providers to meet an 18 percent reduction in
carbon content by 2030.

Not applicable. This is a Statewide measure that cannot be implemented by a project applicant or lead agency.

However, vehicles accessing the proposed project site
would benefit from the standards.

Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and
Fuels Scenario). Vehicle manufacturers will be
required to meet existing regulations mandated by
the LEV III and Heavy-Duty Vehicle programs. The
strategy includes a goal of having 4.2 million Zero-
Emission Vehicles (ZEVs) on the road by 2030 and
increasing numbers of ZEV trucks and buses.

Not applicable. This measure is not applicable to the
proposed project; however, vehicles accessing the
project site would benefit from the increased
availability of cleaner technology and fuels. In addition, as stipulated by the 2019 California Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11, Chapter 4, Section 4.106.4.1,
new one-family dwellings, such as the proposed project, would be required to implement the applicable
provisions of Title 24, Part 6, Section 4.106.4 of the
2019 California Building Standards Code to support
future electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE).

Sustainable Freight Action Plan. The plan’s target is
to improve freight system efficiency 25 percent by
increasing the value of goods and services
produced from the freight sector, relative to the
amount of carbon that it produces by 2030. This
would be achieved by deploying over 100,000
freight vehicles and equipment capable of zero-
emission operation and maximize near zero-
emission freight vehicles and equipment powered
by renewable energy by 2030.

Not Applicable. This strategy calls upon State agencies and regulators to implement recommendations of the
California Sustainable Freight Action Plan. The proposed project would not include freight transportation, freight infrastructure, or warehousing uses.

Short-lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP) Reduction
Strategy. The strategy requires the reduction of
SLCPs by 40 percent from 2013 levels by 2030 and
the reduction of black carbon by 50 percent from
2013 levels by 2030.

Consistent. Consistent with SCAQMD Rule 445, no
wood-burning devices are proposed as part of the
proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project
would not include major sources of black carbon.

SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies.

Requires Regional Transportation Plans to include a
Sustainable Communities Strategy for reduction of
per capita VMT.

Not applicable. The proposed project does not include
the development of a Regional Transportation Plan.

Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program. The Post 2020
Cap-and-Trade Program continues the existing
program for another 10 years. The Cap-and-Trade
Program applies to large industrial sources such as
power plants, refineries, and cement
manufacturers.

Not applicable. The proposed project is not one
targeted by the cap-and-trade system regulations, and,
therefore, this measure does not apply to the proposed
project. However, the post-2020 Cap-and-Trade
Program indirectly affects people and entities who use
the products and services produced by the regulated
industrial sources when increased cost of products or
services (such as electricity and fuel) are transferred to the consumers.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 75
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx 2017 Scoping Plan Update Reduction Measure Project Consistency Natural and Working Lands Action Plan. The ARB is
working in coordination with several other agencies
at the federal, State, and local levels, stakeholders,
and with the public, to develop measures as
outlined in the Scoping Plan Update and the
governor’s Executive Order B-30-15 to reduce GHG
emissions and to cultivate net carbon sequestration
potential for California’s natural and working land.

Not applicable. The proposed project is in a built-up
urban area and would not be considered natural or
working lands.

Source of ARB 2017 Scoping Plan Update Reduction Measures: California Air Resource Board (ARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November. Website: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf.

Accessed March 8, 2022.

As shown in Table 12, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the reduction measures proposed in SB 32.

The proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, Municipal Code, and would not conflict with the provisions of SB 32. Therefore, the proposed project does not conflict with any plans to reduce GHG emissions and the impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
MM GHG-1 Prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the proposed project, the Owner/Developer shall provide the City with documentation, to the City’s satisfaction, that demonstrates the proposed project would achieve GHG emission reductions equivalent to no less than 1,080 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year for 30 years, or 32,400 MT CO2e total, based on current estimates of the proposed project’s annual GHG emissions inventory contained in this analysis. GHG emission reductions may be achieved through any combination of the following measures or other measures approved by the City:
• Commit to purchasing 100 percent renewable electricity. • Install on-site solar panels that provide electricity beyond the minimum requirements according to the current version of Title 24. • Install solar water heaters or other renewable energy technologies. • Install on-site charging infrastructure consistent with the Tier 2 standards contained in California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Section A4.106.6.8.
• Design and construct all residences to be all-electric, precluding the installation of natural gas plumbing for space and water heating and appliance operation.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

76 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx • Purchase voluntary carbon credits from a verified GHG emissions credit broker in an amount sufficient to offset operational GHG emissions of no less than 1,080 MT CO2e per year for 30 years, or 32,400 MT CO22e total.

Should the Owner/Developer elect to purchase carbon credits, all purchased carbon credits shall be pursuant to the following performance standards and requirements:
(i) the carbon credits shall achieve real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, enforceable, and additional reductions as set forth in California Health and Safety Code Sections 38562(d)(1) and (d)(2). Such credits shall be based on protocols consistent with the criteria set forth by Section 95972, subdivision (a), of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations, as determined by an expert qualified to make such a determination, and shall not include credits originating outside of California, except to the extent that the quality of the credits, and their sufficiency under the standards set forth herein, can be verified by an expert qualified to make such a determination. In no event shall credits from outside the United States be used.

Carbon credits must be purchased through one of the following: (i) a California Air Resources Board (ARB) approved registry, such as the Climate Action Reserve, the American Carbon Registry, or Verra (formerly known as the Verified Carbon Standard); and (ii) any registry approved by the ARB to act as a registry under the California Cap-and-Trade Program; or (iii) the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Exchange (GHG Rx) or any program adopted or approved by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).

As an alternative to purchasing carbon credits, the Owner/Developer may elect to contribute to carbon offsets through a local or regional program or institution in an amount sufficient to offset the proposed project’s GHG emissions by the previously identified amounts. Contributions to a local or regional program or institution may include, but are not limited to, funding for renewable energy infrastructure or technologies beyond what would otherwise be required for compliance with existing laws and regulations. Carbon offsets, expressed in an amount of MT CO 2e per year,
realized due to contributions made by the Owner/Developer for this purpose shall reduce the required MT CO2e reductions contained in this mitigation by an equal amount and be pursuant to the following performance standards and requirements:
(i) the carbon offsets shall achieve real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceable reductions as set forth in California Health and Safety Code Sections 38562(d)(1) and (d)(2); and (ii) one carbon offset shall mean the past reduction or sequestration of one MT CO
2e that is “not otherwise required” (CEQA Guidelines §
15126.4(c)(3)).

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 77
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.9 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?

e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
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?

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The analysis in this section is based, in part on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) prepared by Partner Engineering and Science, Inc., on February 5, 2020, included as Appendix E. According to available historical sources, the subject property was formerly agricultural land (orchards) with two apparent rural residences from at least 1938 to 1953. Between 1959 and 1963, the subject property was developed with two of the present-day structures originally used as a bank and an automobile dealership. By 1972, all of the subject property parcels had been developed with Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

78 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx the current commercial and/or industrial structures, except the 1280 South Anaheim parcel. By 1983, all of the present-day structures had been developed. Tenants on the subject property have included various automotive dealership and repair businesses.

Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Construction of the proposed project would include the transport, use, and disposal of limited quantities of hazardous materials necessary for construction, including fuel and solvents. The use of these hazardous materials would be typical of construction projects, would be short-term, and would be handled in accordance with standard construction practices, as well as with applicable federal, State, and local regulations. Rregulatory requirements would include California Code of Regulations Title 22, Division 4.5, for appropriate management of hazardous materials, as well as the requirements of the EPA, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Furthermore, MM HAZ-1, as further described below under Impact 2.9(b), requires sampling to evaluate soil, soil vapor, or groundwater contamination related to the historical uses of the project site. Compliance with the applicable hazardous material laws and regulations, as well as MM HAZ-1, would ensure that the proposed project would not create a hazard to the public or the environment through transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, construction impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of MM HAZ-1.

The proposed project would include residential and retail mixed use development which do not typically use or store large quantities of hazardous materials. During the operational phase of the proposed project, hazardous materials may be handled on the project site. Hazardous materials that would likely be used during operation would likely be limited to fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, solvents, household cleaning agents, and similar materials used for maintenance and operation of the apartments, apartment building facilities, amenities, and landscaping. These types of materials are common and represent a low risk to people and the environment when used as intended. The proposed project would also be required to adhere to State and federal regulatory requirements as discussed above. Therefore, impacts associated with hazardous materials would be less than significant.
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? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. As discussed above, the Phase I ESA determined that the project site was previously used for agricultural purposes (orchards) from 1938 to 1963. The Phase I ESA determined that the previous orchards are not considered a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC). Specifically, the Phase I ESA determined that there is a potential that agricultural chemicals such as pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers may have been used and stored on-site. The project site is paved and developed with building structures that minimize direct contact City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 79
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx to any potential remaining concentrations in the soil. Additionally, during previous site development activities, near surface soils (where residual agricultural chemical concentrations would have most likely been present, if at all) were likely mixed with fill material or disturbed during grading. Also, engineered fill material is commonly placed over underlying soils as part of development activities.

These variables reduce any potential for exposure to residual agricultural chemicals. Based on the conclusions of the Phase I ESA, the previous agricultural uses are not considered a REC; impacts related to previous agricultural uses are less than significant.

Additionally, the Phase I ESA determined that three areas have been used for an automotive dealership, automotive repair, or autobody/collision operations. These areas include 1200 South Anaheim Boulevard, which is at the northwest corner of the project site; 1280-1300 South Anaheim Boulevard, which is located along the western side of the project site adjacent to South Anaheim Boulevard; and 1354 South Anaheim Boulevard, which is located on the southern end of the project site. The Phase I ESA notes that there is a potential for previously unknown USTs or other subsurface features to be encountered during future redevelopment activities due to the log history of vehicle repair operations. Should a previously unknown UST be discovered, in addition to compliance with federal, State, and local regulations discussed in Impact 2.9(s), a UST removal permit must be obtained from the Anaheim Fire Department.37
Specifically, on the 1280-1300 South Anaheim Boulevard property, a 550-gallon waste oil underground storage tank (UST) and a 280-gallon waste oil UST were removed from the back lot of 1300 South Anaheim Boulevard on December 7, 1989, in accordance with Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) permit. Soil samples taken below the tank were analyzed and determined to be below the allowable levels for total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) and non-detectable for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX), and non-detectable halogenated VOCs and purgeable aromatics and trichloroethene. On September 5, 1990, the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) issued the responsible party, Walt Cadman, a No Further Action letter for the 280- gallon and 550-gallon waste oil USTs. However, Partner Engineering and Science, Inc., notes that soil vapor sampling was not previously required to be evaluated and the No Further Action letter advises that changes in the present or proposed use of the site may require further site characterization and mitigation activity. Therefore, the proposed project would require sampling to evaluate soil, soil vapor, or groundwater contamination related to the former waste oil USTs pursuant to MM HAZ-1.

Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 10.20, a soil boring permit must be obtained from the Anaheim Public Utilities Department for any borings extending to groundwater, or are deeper than 20 feet.

Similarly, a permit must be obtained from the Anaheim Fire Department prior to the start of any UST removal activities.

Additionally, the Phase I ESA indicates that the automotive repair operations included the use of an in-ground hydraulic lift at 1200 South Anaheim Boulevard. Based on the likely date of installation, there is a potential for polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs) to have been present in the hydraulic fluid used in current and/or former lifts. The condition at 1200 South Anaheim Boulevard represents a REC. Therefore, prior to redevelopment of the property, the in-ground hydraulic lift shall be properly

37 City of Anaheim. 2008. Memorandum: Underground Storage Tank Removal Guidelines. Website:
http://anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/1371/UST-Removal-Guidelines. Accessed June 15, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

80 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx removed from the project site, and confirmatory sampling shall be required to determine the current conditions of soil and groundwater due to the use of current and former hydraulic lifts at the project site pursuant to MM HAZ-2.

The Phase I ESA determined that due to the age of the buildings on the project site, there is a potential that asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and/or lead-based paint (LBP) are present.

Therefore, as detailed in MM HAZ-3, a comprehensive, pre-demolition ACM survey in accordance with the sampling protocol of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) and SCAQMD Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities) would be conducted prior to any activities with the potential to disturb building materials, in order to determine whether ACM are present. Further, in the event ACM is detected, proper removal and disposal of the materials identified would occur prior to any demolition. In addition, any LBP at the project site would be removed in accordance with all applicable laws, including Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines. As such, impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of MM HAZ-3.

As discussed in Impact 2.9(a), federal, State, and local laws, regulations address the storage, use, handling, and disposal of any hazardous materials that might be used during construction. Therefore compliance with applicable laws and regulations, in addition to MM HAZ-1, MM HAZ-2, and MM HAZ-3, would reduce the risk of hazardous material incidents during construction to a less than significant level. Therefore, project construction activities would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Operational impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

During operation, the proposed project would not generate or facilitate the generation of hazardous materials. The proposed project could involve the transport and use of materials associated with routine maintenance of the project site; however, the types and quantities of materials used and stored on-site would not be of a significant quantity to create a reasonably foreseeable upset or accident. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Operational impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required for operations of the proposed project.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The nearest schools to the project site include Paul Revere Elementary School, located at 140 West Guinida Lane, which is 0.25 mile south of the project site; and Orange Grove Elementary School, located at 1000 South Harbor Boulevard, which is 0.3-mile northwest of the project site. As discussed in Impacts 2.9(a) and (b), compliance with applicable local, State, and federal regulations, in addition to MM HAZ-1, MM HAZ-2, and MM HAZ-3, would reduce the risk of hazardous material incidents during construction to a less than significant level. During operation of the proposed project, limited use of hazardous materials would likely be used for building maintenance. Similarly, these hazardous materials would be stored, City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 81
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx handled, and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. Thus, the proposed project does not propose any uses, which could potentially generate hazardous materials in significant quantities that would have an impact to surrounding schools. Therefore, the schools in close proximity to the project site would not be affected by hazardous emission or materials. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
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?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Government Code Section 65962.5 refers to the Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List, commonly known as the Cortese List. The Cortese List contains hazardous waste and substance sites including public drinking water wells with detectable levels of contamination; sites with known USTs having a reportable release; and solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a known migration. The Cortese List also includes hazardous substance sites selected for remedial action; historic Cortese sites; and sites with known toxic material identified through the abandoned site assessment program. The California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) GeoTracker List of Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTs) is a data resource that provides information regarding the facilities or sites identified as meeting the “Cortese List” requirements.
38 As previously discussed, on the 1280-1300 South
Anaheim Boulevard property, a 550-gallon waste oil UST and a 280-gallon waste oil UST were removed from the back lot of 1300 South Anaheim Street on December 7, 1989. Soil samples taken below the tank were analyzed and determined to be below the allowable levels for TPH and non- detectable for BTEX, and non-detectable halogenated VOCs and purgeable aromatics and trichloroethene. On September 5, 1990, the OCHCA issued the responsible party, Walt Cadman, a no further action letter for the 280-gallon and 550-gallon waste oil USTs. Although the case has been closed since September 5, 1990, it remains on the Cortese List. Implementation of MM HAZ-1, identified in Impact 2.9(b) would ensure impacts would be less than significant. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No impact. The nearest airport is the Fullerton Municipal Airport located approximately 5.5 miles northeast of the project site; the Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos, 8.6 miles southwest of the project site; and the Long Beach Airport, located 14 miles west of the project site. The project site is not within 2 miles of an airport. The project site is not within the Airport Influence Areas of these airports and is not located within an airport land use plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people working or living at the project site. No impact would occur.

38 California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). 2022. Cortese List Data Resources. Website:
https://calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/. Accessed July 17, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

82 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than significant impact. The City’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), adopted in 2017, establishes a comprehensive framework of policy and guidance for emergency and disaster response operations.39 The EOP provides comprehensive policy and guidance for emergency and response operations, and details the responsibilities of residents, organizations, and City departments. The City uses Anaheim Alert to contact residents immediately during emergencies to provide information regarding evacuations. During construction of the proposed project, construction activities would not require the complete closure of South Anaheim Boulevard, East Ball Road, or any other public or private streets and would be temporary in nature. Thus, construction of the proposed project would not impede the use surrounding roadways for emergencies or access for emergency response vehicles. Operation of the proposed project would not interfere with roadways and would provide internal circulation for emergency vehicle access.

The EOP does not contain specific evacuation routes; however, the City of Anaheim has emergency evacuation zones for the eastern portion of the City, where there is more open space and a greater wildland fire hazard risk.
40 The project site is not located in any of the evacuation zones because it is in the western portion of the City. Therefore, because the proposed project would not impede the use surrounding roadways for emergencies or access for emergency response vehicles, the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. g) 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 urbanized, flat area and does not contain slopes that could contribute to wildfire. The project site is not located along an urban-wildland interface and is not located in the eastern portion of the City, where wildfires are of the greatest risk. While the eastern portion of the City has historically been subject to wildfire, the project site and its surrounding areas do not have a history of wildfire.
41 CAL FIRE has mapped fire threat potential
throughout California and ranks fire threats on a scale of no fire threat, moderate, high, and very high fire severity. According to the CAL FIRE Hazard Severity Zone Map Viewer, the project site is not located in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ).42
The project site is located within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA). Land within an LRA is either located within a Very High FHSZ or a non-Very High FHSZ. The project site is designated as a non-

39 City of Anaheim. 2017. Emergency Operation Plan. Accessed June 14, 2022. Website:
https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/21657/City-of-Anaheim-EOP-2017. Accessed August 2, 2022. 40 City of Anaheim. Know Your Way Evacuation Zones. Website: http://www.anaheim.net/6063/Know-Your-Way-Evacuation-Zones.

Accessed May 2, 2022.
41 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2022. California Fire Perimeters through 2021. Website:
https://calfire-forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=e3802d2abf8741a187e73a9db49d68fe. Accessed June 22, 2022.
42 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). Fire Hazard Severity Zones Viewer. Website:
https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed June 14, 2022.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 83
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Very High FHSZ.43 Further, the project site is in a developed, built-up urban area that is not adjacent to any Very High FHSZ or areas in the wildland-urban interface. Therefore, the proposed project is not likely to expose people or structures to wildland fire hazards. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
MM HAZ-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a limited subsurface investigation shall be conducted in order to determine the presence or absence of soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater contamination due to the historical use of the subject property in connection with underground storage tanks (USTs) including but not limited to the property located at 1280 - 1300 South Anaheim Boulevard and 1354 South Anaheim Boulevard. A Health Risk Assessment (HRA) or similar shall be prepared by Owner/Developer summarizing investigation findings. If contamination is present, the Owner/Developer shall request oversight from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC),the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and/or the Orange County Health Care Agency OCHCA, as applicable, and comply with all requirements to remove and/or remediate contamination to appropriate levels prior to issuance of grading plan for the proposed project with any required operational controls included on construction plans. .

MM HAZ-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the in-ground hydraulic lift located at 1200 South Anaheim Boulevard shall be properly removed from the project site, and confirmatory sampling shall be required to determine the current conditions of soil and groundwater due to the use of current and former hydraulic lifts at the project site. A Health Risk Assessment (HRA) or similar shall be prepared by Owner/Developer summarizing investigation findings. If contamination is present, the Owner/Developer shall request oversight from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and/or the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA), as applicable, and comply with all requirements to remove and/or remediate contamination prior to the issuance of a grading permit.

MM HAZ-3 Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the Owner/Developer shall conduct a comprehensive, pre-demolition asbestos-containing materials (ACM) survey in accordance with the sampling protocol of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities) prior to any activities with the potential to disturb building materials, in order to determine whether ACMs are present. In the event that ACMs are detected, the proper removal and disposal, consistent with existing regulations, of the building materials shall occur prior to any activities with the potential to disturb them.

43 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA As Recommended by CAL FIRE. Website: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5880/c30_anaheim_vhfhsz.pdf. Accessed May 2, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

84 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or groundwater 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 off-site;

(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?

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The information in this section is based in part on the Sewer Study Technical Memorandum prepared for the proposed project by Psomas on April 12, 2022; the Preliminary Hydrology and Drainage Study prepared by C&V Consulting Inc., in March 2022; and the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared in June 2022 by C&V Consulting, Inc. These reports are provided in Appendix F and are summarized below.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 85
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Aside from nominal landscaping associated with existing uses, the project site is fully covered with impervious surfaces (buildings, structures, and asphalt).44 Drainage from the project site enters East Ball Road and South Anaheim Boulevard. The northeasterly portion of the site generally sheet flows to East Ball Road, traveling via on-site ribbon gutter and discharging through an existing parkway culvert. Once stormwater enters East Ball Road, it flows in a westerly direction in East Ball Road until it is intercepted by a curb inlet catch basin located on the south side of East Ball Road at its intersection with Technology Circle. This catch basin is connected to an existing 51-inch City of Anaheim Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP). Flows are then directed through the Anaheim Barber City Channel, ultimately converging to the Bolsa Chica Channel and discharged into Huntington Harbor.

The remaining portions of the site discharge into different locations along South Anaheim Boulevard.

Once flows enter South Anaheim Boulevard, they are intercepted by curb inlet catch basins. The catch basins are located approximately 200 feet south of the intersection of East Ball Road and South Anaheim Boulevard; approximately 750 feet south of the intersection of East Ball Road and South Anaheim Boulevard; and at the intersection of East Palais Road and South Anaheim Boulevard. These catch basins are connected to an existing 3-inch City of Anaheim RCP that flows in a southerly direction until it converges with an existing 96-inch City of Anaheim RCP draining in the westerly direction along Katella Avenue. Flows are then directed through the Anaheim Barber City Channel, ultimately converging to the Bolsa Chica Channel discharging into Huntington Harbor.

According to the Central Anaheim Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers (CAMPSS), dated December 2017, and the updated modeling from the South Central Anaheim Sewer Study (SCASS) dated May 2020, sewer generation from the project site and adjacent parcels to the north and south flow to the existing 15-inch sewer flowing west on Ball Road and the 8-inch sewer flowing south on Anaheim Boulevard.

Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Less than significant impact. Project impacts related to water quality could occur over three different periods:
• During the earthwork and construction phase, where the potential for erosion, siltation, and sedimentation would be the greatest;
• Following construction, before the establishment of ground cover, when the erosion potential may remain relatively high; and
• After project completion, when impacts related to sedimentation would decrease markedly but those associated with urban runoff would increase.

44 C&V Consulting Inc. 2022. Preliminary Hydrology and Drainage Study, East Ball Road and South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA.

March.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

86 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Polluted runoff can have harmful effects on drinking water, recreational water, and wildlife. Urban runoff pollution includes a wide array of environmental, stormwater characteristics depending on- site conditions (e.g., land use, impervious cover, and pollution prevention practices), rain events (duration, amount of rainfall, intensity, and time between events), soil type and particle sizes, the amount of vehicular traffic, and atmospheric deposition. Major pollutants typically found in runoff from urban areas include sediments, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, pathogens, and bacteria. Most urban stormwater discharges are non-point sources.

Construction
As discussed under Section 3.8, Geology and Soils, construction of the proposed project would include removal of existing asphalt surfaces, grading, and earthwork, which could expose large amounts of soil and result in soil erosion. Short-term impacts related to water quality could occur during the earthwork and construction phases when the potential for erosion, siltation, and sedimentation would be the greatest. Additionally, impacts could occur prior to the establishment of ground cover when the erosion potential may remain relatively high. Construction activities could produce common pollutants such as nutrients, heavy metals, pesticides and herbicides, and chemicals related to construction and cleaning, waste materials such as wash water, paints, wood, paper, concrete, food container, sanitary wastes, fuel, and lubricants. Impacts to stormwater quality could occur from construction, associated earthmoving activities, and increased pollutant loading.

The Construction General Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit) includes any construction or demolition activity, including but not limited to clearing, grading, grubbing, excavation, or any other activity that results in a land disturbance of equal to or greater than one acre. The proposed project would disturb up to 10.1 acres; therefore, the proposed project would be subject to the Construction General Permit. The Construction General Permit requires development and implementation of a SWPPP and monitoring plan, which must include erosion-control and sediment-control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General Permit to control potential construction-related pollutants. Erosion-control BMPs prevent erosion, whereas sediment controls trap sediment once it has been mobilized. The types of required BMPs are relative to the amount of soil disturbed, the types of pollutants used or stored at the project site, and proximity to water bodies. Additionally, the proposed project would be subject to compliance with Anaheim Municipal Code Section 10.09.070, which requires compliance with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and any conditions and requirements established by the City in order to meet federal and State water quality requirements related to stormwater runoff. The DAMP reduces the pollution content of stormwater to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). The purpose of the Orange County DAMP is to satisfy NPDES permit conditions for creating and implementing a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to reduce pollutant discharges to the MEP . The DAMP contains guidelines on structural and nonstructural BMPs for meeting the NPDES goals. BMPs include erosion controls, sediment controls, wind erosion controls, tracking controls, non-stormwater management, and waste and materials management. Following compliance with NPDES and Anaheim Municipal Code requirements, which include implementation of BMPs, the proposed project’s construction-related activities would not violate any water quality standards or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 87
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx quality. As discussed above, the proposed project would comply with the General Construction Permit, NPDES requirements, and the requirements contained within the Orange County DAMP , which require the use of BMPs to reduce the proposed project’s impact on water quality, as well as a SWPPP. Therefore, construction-related impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Additionally, although mitigation would not be required to prevent impacts to surface or groundwater quality, the applicant would implement the measures related to site preparation and grading contained within the Geotechnical Feasibility Report in accordance with MM GEO-1, which would further minimize any degradation of water quality from potential soil erosion associated with the removal of the existing impervious surfaces, grading, and excavation.

Operations
The Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD), Orange County, and the City of Anaheim along with 25 incorporated cities therein (Permittees) discharge pollutants from their Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (drain) System (MS4s). Stormwater and non-stormwater enter and are conveyed through the MS4s and discharged to Santa Ana Region surface water bodies. These discharges are subject to countywide waste discharge requirements contained in Order No. R8-2010-0062 (NPDES Permit No. CAS618030), Waste Discharge Requirements for “The County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff, Orange County,”
45 which was adopted on January 29, 2020.

The MS4 Permit Order provides the revised waste discharge requirements for MS4 discharges within the Orange County watersheds, which includes the City of Anaheim. The MS4 Permit Order supersedes Order No. R8-2009-0030.

The MS4 Permit Order requires development and implementation of a WQMP for all “New Development” and “Redevelopment” projects subject to the Order. New development and redevelopment projects/activities subject to Orange County’s Low Impact Development (LID) requirements include all development projects equal to 1 acre or greater of disturbed area; and new development that creates 10,000 square feet or greater of new impervious surface on a previously undeveloped site. In addition, significant redevelopment that adds or replaces 5,000 square feet or greater of impervious surface on an already developed site is also subject Orange County’s LID requirements. Orange County uses its LID Ordinance to require that projects comply with NPDES MS4 Permit water quality requirements. Because the proposed project would disturb up to 10.1 acres and replace more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area, the proposed project is subject to Orange County’s Model Water Quality Management Program (MWQMP) requirements.

As discussed in the Preliminary WQMP prepared for the proposed project in June 2022 by C&V Consulting, Inc. (Appendix F), the BMPs for the project site would include biotreatment systems, catch basins and Modular Wetland Biofiltration Systems, infiltration BMPs, and nonstructural source control BMPs such as common area landscape management, employee and property owner training, and catch basin inspections. Structural source control BMPs would include storm drain signage, trash

45 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana RWQCB). 2020. The County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff, Orange County. Website:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/board_decisions/adopted_orders/orders/2009/09_030_OC_MS4_as_amended_by_10_ 062.pdf. Accessed June 15, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

88 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx and waste storage areas designed to reduce pollution, and efficient irrigation systems and water conservation.

The following is a list of materials anticipated to be used or generated during project operations, which would potentially contribute to pollutants, other than sediment, to stormwater runoff. • Vehicle fluids, including oil, grease, petroleum, and coolants from personal vehicles; • Landscaping materials and wastes (topsoil, plant materials, herbicides, fertilizers, mulch, pesticides);
• General trash debris and litter; and
• Pet waste (bacteria/ fecal coliforms).

The project site would be graded to convey stormwater as surface flow toward proposed curb inlet catch basins located at relative low points on-site. The proposed drainage pattern would mirror the existing drainage pattern as closely as possible, with a portion of the project site draining into East Ball Road and a portion draining into South Anaheim Boulevard. The curb inlet type Modular Wetland Systems (MWS) would treat low flows for quality treatment and allow larger storm events to bypass the MWS and enter the storm drain system.

Flows from the northeastern portion of the project site would be directed to one low point along East Ball Road and another along South Claudina Street. The curb inlet MWS along Claudina Street driveway entrance would convey flows via storm drainpipe to a stormwater lift station located at the East Ball Road driveway entrance. At this point, flows from the East Ball Road curb inlet MWS would confluence at the stormwater lift station. Flows would then be pumped out of the site via a proposed parkway culvert into East Ball Road. Once flows from this portion enter East Ball Road, they would follow the historic drainage pattern.

Similarly, the western portion of the project site would convey flows in a westerly direction to eight curb inlet MWSs located at the end of drive aisles adjacent to South Anaheim Boulevard. All eight of these MWSs would be connected via storm drainpipe to a single stormwater lift station located at the southerly driveway entrance into South Anaheim Boulevard. Like the northeastern portion of the project site, flows would then be pumped out of the site via a proposed parkway culvert into South Anaheim Boulevard. Once flows enter East Ball Road, they would follow the historic drainage pattern.

Stormwater generated from small rainfalls, or first flush of heavy rainfalls would be treated on-site via proposed on-site curb inlet MWS Biofiltration Vaults prior to discharging to either South Anaheim Boulevard or East Ball Road. In the event the storm drain system becomes clogged or overwhelmed by extraordinary storm events, emergency overflow would be directed as sheet flow toward East Ball Road and South Anaheim Boulevard and overflow into the right-of-way via each proposed driveway entrance.

The County’s LID Ordinance requires projects comply with NPDES MS4 Permit water quality requirements. Thus, all new developments and redevelopments that would have at least one acre of City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 89
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx impervious surfaces are required to prepare a WQMP , including the proposed project. The WQMP for the proposed project is included in Appendix F. Furthermore, the City requires that all significant redevelopment projects, defined as projects that add or replaces 5,000 or more square feet of impervious surfaces, to comply with Orange County’s LID requirements. Therefore, with implementation of the described BMPs, compliance with the applicable permits and plans described above, the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required. Additionally, although mitigation is not required, implementation of the site-specific recommendations related to site preparation and grading identified in MM GEO-1, which include measures that would minimize water quality impacts from erosion, would further reduce impacts. b) 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. The project site’s water purveyor is the City, which uses imported water, local groundwater, and recycled water to meet its water needs. The City works with two primary agencies to supply water to the community: the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and the Orange County Water District (OCWD) to ensure a reliable water supply that would continue to serve the City in periods of drought and water shortage. The City’s main source of water supply is groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin (OC Basin).

Historically, the City’s water supply primarily came from a mixture of groundwater (70 percent) and imported water (30 percent) from MWD; however, the City has taken many of its wells off-line as of March 2020 and is operating closer to a 60/40 split. As of April 2021, there are only four active wells, while the remaining wells have been taken off-line due to either mechanical issues or a group of chemicals referred to as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Over the next several years, the City will construct groundwater treatment facilities to remove PFAS to acceptable State-mandated levels after which groundwater usage will meet or exceed historical levels consistent with increased groundwater supplies due to the expansion of OCWD’s Groundwater Replenishment System. 46 OCWD regulates groundwater levels in the OC Basin by regulating the annual amount of pumping.

The regulation is based on establishing the Basin Production Percentage (BPP), the percentage of each producer’s total water supply that comes from groundwater pumped from the OC Basin. The BPP is set based on groundwater conditions, availability of imported water supplies, and basin management objectives. The project site is located on the OC Basin. Typically, basin recharge occurs through either the natural percolation of rainwater through the ground or the artificial recharge that occurs at spreading grounds, modular wetlands, etc., which results in the percolation of that captured water into the ground.

Aside from nominal landscaping associated with existing uses, the existing project site is fully covered with impervious surfaces (buildings, structures, and asphalt). The proposed project would result in an increase of pervious surfaces and lower stormwater peak flows as compared to the existing condition. This increase in the amount of pervious surfaces would improve groundwater

46 City of Anaheim. 2020. Urban Water Management Plan. Website:
https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/37199/Anaheim-2020-UWMP?bidId=. Accessed June 14, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

90 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx recharge through the introduction of stormwater basins that would allow for passive recharge.

Therefore, the proposed project would not increase impervious areas at the project site and would increase the amount of pervious area available for groundwater recharge through percolation of stormwaters. As such the proposed project would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge.

Further, as discussed in the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), groundwater levels are managed within a safe basin operating range to protect the long-term sustainability of the OC Basin and to protect against land subsidence. The OCWD regulates groundwater levels in the OC Basin by regulating the annual amount of pumping. Thus, the proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the proposed project would impede the basins’ sustainable groundwater management. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of 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; Less than significant impact. The proposed project would not result in a significant change to the project site’s drainage pattern. As described in Impact 2.10(a), the proposed drainage pattern would mirror the existing drainage pattern as closely as possible, with a portion of the project site draining into East Ball Road and a portion draining into South Anaheim Boulevard. The proposed project would not involve the alteration of the course of a stream or river. The proposed drainage pattern would be similar to the project site’s existing drainage patterns and would include stormwater basins that would further reduce off-site flow from existing conditions, in accordance with current BMPs.

Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site and impacts would be less than significant.
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
Less than significant impact. Runoff from the project site is captured by existing City of Anaheim catch basins. According to the Preliminary Hydrology and Drainage Study, the proposed condition stormwater peak flows from the subject site were determined to be lower than the existing condition stormwater peak flows due to the increase of pervious surface in the proposed development and elongation of the flow path in the proposed condition. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff or result in flooding on- or off-site. Impacts would be less than significant.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 91
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx (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
Less than significant impact. The City is primarily built out and has an existing stormwater drainage system. According to the Preliminary Hydrology and Drainage Study, the proposed condition stormwater peak flows from the project site would be lower than the existing condition stormwater peak flows. This is mainly due to the increase of pervious surface in the proposed development and elongation of the flow path in the proposed condition. Furthermore, the proposed project would use an on-site biofiltration system to treat off-site runoff and minimize impacts to existing stormwater drainage facilities. Since the peak flow runoff from the proposed conditions is less than that of the existing condition, the proposed project would not result in runoff water that would exceed the capacity of stormwater drainage systems or result in additional sources of polluted runoff. During construction, the proposed project would be required to comply with NPDES requirements to ensure that any potential impacts associated with runoff and water quality during grading and project construction would be addressed, as described in Impact 2.10(a). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than significant impact. The project site is not located within the 100-year hazard flood zone area. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) rate map Number 06059C0133J, revised December 3, 2009, indicates that the site is located within Zone X – “0.2 percent Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1 percent annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than 1 square mile.”47 Therefore, the project site is not in a flood hazard zone and would not impede or redirect flood flows. As such, impacts would be less than significant.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No impact. As previously discussed, according to the FEMA FIRM rate map Number 06059C0133J, revised December 3, 2009, the site is located within Zone X – “0.2 percent Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1 percent annual chance flood with average depth less than 1 foot or with drainage areas of less than 1 square mile.”. Therefore, the project site is not in a flood hazard zone. General Plan Safety Element Figures S-6 and S-7 depict flood hazard areas and dam failure inundation areas for Prado Dam, Carbon Canyon Dam, and the Walnut Canyon Reservoir, respectively. Figures S-6 and S-7 indicate the project site is outside of the flood hazard area and the inundation zones zone associated with dam failure.48
Tsunamis are sea waves that are generated in response to large-magnitude earthquakes. When these waves reach shorelines, they sometimes produce coastal flooding. Seiches are the oscillation

47 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. Flood Map Number 06059C0133J. Website:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/downloadProduct?productTypeID=FINAL_PRODUCT&productSubTypeID=FIRM_PANEL&productID=06 059C0133J. Accessed June 14, 2022.
48 City of Anaheim. May 2004. Anaheim General Plan Safety Element. Website:
http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/2039/I-Safety-Element-?bidId=. Accessed May 25, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

92 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx of large bodies of standing water, such as lakes, which can occur in response to ground shaking. The project site is approximately 10 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean and there are no nearby bodies of standing water.

The project proposes a residential development that would involve only limited use of materials associated with routine property maintenance, such as janitorial supplies for cleaning purposes and/or herbicides and pesticides for landscaping. The project site is not in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone, and would not risk the release of pollutants. Therefore, no impact would occur. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than significant impact. Based on the UWMP methodology,49 the proposed project would generate a water demand of 40,215.7 gallons per day (GPD) or approximately 45.05 acre-feet per year (AFY). According to the UWMP , the total water supply for the City is approximately 62,302 AFY .

The proposed project’s additional water demand constitutes approximately 0.07 percent of the total demand.

The City’s main source of water supply is groundwater from the OC Basin. Historically, the City’s water supply primarily came from a mixture of groundwater (70 percent) and imported water (30 percent) from MWD; however, the City has taken many of its wells off-line as of March 2020 and is operating closer to a 60/40 split. As of April 2021, there are only four active wells, while the remaining wells have been taken off-line due to either mechanical issues or a group of chemicals referred to as PFAS. Over the next several years, the City will construct groundwater treatment facilities to remove PFAS to acceptable State-mandated levels after which groundwater usage will meet or exceed historical levels consistent with increased groundwater supplies due to the expansion of OCWD’s Groundwater Replenishment System. The City does not have its own Groundwater Management Plan; however, the OCWD maintains a Groundwater Management Plan, which was most recently updated in 2015.50 According to the OCWD Groundwater Management Plan, OCWD regulates groundwater levels in the OC Basin by regulating the annual amount of pumping.51 The primary mechanism used by OCWD to manage pumping is the BPP . The BPP is a percentage of each producer’s water supply that comes from groundwater pumped from the basin.

The BPP is set on an annual basis and is uniform for all Producers. Groundwater pumping above the BPP is assessed an additional charge that creates a disincentive for over-producing.

According to the UWMP , by 2025 the BPP for the City would be 82 percent. However, the City’s 2025 water supply and demand forecast in the UWMP projected the local groundwater supply as the amount needed to meet projected demands after subtracting the available supply from Metropolitan (14,000 AFY) and recycled water supply (120 AFY), rather than using the amount of

49 City of Anaheim. 2020. Urban Water Management Plan. Website:
https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/37199/Anaheim-2020-UWMP?bidId=. Accessed June 1, 2022. 50 Orange County Water District (OCWD). 2022. Groundwater Management Plan, SGMA Alternative Plan, Santa Ana River Watermaster, & Imported Water Recharge Report. Website: https://www.ocwd.com/what-we-do/groundwater- management/groundwater-management-plan/. Accessed June 15, 2022. 51 Orange County Water District (OCWD). 2015. Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update. Website:
https://www.ocwd.com/media/3622/groundwatermanagementplan2015update_20150624.pdf. Accessed June 15, 2022.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 93
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx groundwater available to the City based on the BPP . The City would utilize local groundwater supplies first and supplement with imported water as needed to meet demands. Given this information, water supply from groundwater is expected to be approximately 48,182 AFY in 2025, which is approximately 77 percent of the total water supply for the City, which approximately 62,302 AFY . For the same year, the City’s total demand is expected to be 58,878 AFY . The proposed project would create an additional demand of approximately 45.05 AFY , which is approximately 0.07 percent of the total demand. Thus, there is excess groundwater supply available for the City, and the water supply demanded by the proposed project would be negligible. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

94 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.11 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?

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The General Plan currently designates the project site as General Commercial. The proposed project would require a GPA to change the land use designation from General Commercial to Mixed-Use Medium. The Mixed-Use Medium land use designation is intended to allow flexibility for parcels that could transition from strip commercial uses to residential or a mix of residential, commercial, and office development. This designation allows residential uses in either a stand-alone or mixed-use configuration at a density of up to 36 du/ac. The nonresidential component of mixed-use development is permitted at a maximum FAR of 0.35.

The majority of the project site is currently within the C-G Zone, with the exception of APN 082-461- 39, which is within the Industrial Zone. The proposed project would require an RCL to change the zoning on APN 082-461-39 from the Industrial Zone to the C-G Zone and to add the MU Overlay Zone to all parcels within the project site so that the entire project site would be within the C-G Zone and the MU Overlay Zone.

The proposed project would also include a CUP to permit a mixed-use project that would include development of up to 249 unit residential flats and townhomes and a 4,500-square-foot retail building on the ground floor of the mixed-use building(s) along the Ball Road entrance to the project site.

Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Less than significant impact. The project site is in a highly developed and urbanized area. The surrounding area is urbanized and contains retail and residential uses, similar to the project site. The project site is not large enough or otherwise configured in such a way that would create a physical barrier within an established community. A typical example of such a barrier would be a project that involved a continuous right-of-way, such as a roadway, which would divide a community and impede access between parts of the community. Implementation of the proposed project would not disrupt City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 95
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx the surrounding land uses or divide the physical arrangement of the established communities to the north, south, and east of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community, and impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
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? Less than significant impact. The proposed project would include a GPA to change the General Plan land use designation from General Commercial to Mixed-Use Medium and RCL to change the zoning on APN 082-461-39 from the Industrial Zone to the C-G Zone and to add the MU Overlay Zone to all parcels within the project site so that the entire project site would be within the C-G Zone and the MU Overlay Zone. As described above, the land uses to the north, south, and east of the project site are designated by the General Plan for General Commercial, Residential, and Industrial uses. As such, the proposed GPA would be consistent with the existing surrounding land uses, and with approval of these changes, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. Impacts are therefore considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Noise Land Use Compatibility
For a discussion of the characteristics of noise and further information regarding the applicable noise regulatory framework, refer to the Noise impact discussion in Section XII of this document.

A significant impact would occur for the proposed Residential Multiple-Family land use development if the proposed project would be exposed to transportation noise levels in excess of the City’s “normally acceptable” land use compatibility standard of 65 A-weighted decibel (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) in accordance with Anaheim Municipal Code 18.40.090, or if the project were exposed to interior noise levels that would exceed the State of California’s interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL.
52 According to the Noise Element of the General Plan, environments with ambient noise levels up to 65 dBA CNEL are considered “normally acceptable” for Residential Multiple-Family land uses and environments with ambient noise levels from 60 dBA to 70 dBA CNEL are considered “Conditionally Acceptable.” In the event that conditions for the proposed type of land use have been designated “Conditionally Acceptable,” construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements 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. Environments with ambient noise levels from 70 dBA to 75 dBA CNEL are considered “Normally Unacceptable,” while environments with ambient noise levels above 75 dBA CNEL are considered “Clearly Unacceptable,” for Residential Multiple- Family land uses.

52 City of Anaheim. 2020. Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.40.090 Sound Attenuation for Residential Developments. Website:
https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/1407c9d4-ee21-4b17-88d6-e85c39f4360c/download/. Accessed July 14, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

96 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Mobile Source Operational Noise Impacts
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) highway traffic noise prediction model (FHWA RD-77- 108) was used to evaluate existing and future traffic noise conditions in the project vicinity. The projected future traffic noise levels adjacent to the project site were analyzed to determine compliance with the City’s noise and land use compatibility standards. The average daily traffic volumes were provided by Fehr & Peers in their Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the proposed project in July 2022 (Appendix I). The resultant noise levels were weighed and summed over a 24-hour period in order to determine the CNEL values. The traffic noise modeling input and output files are included in Appendix G of this document. Table 13shows a summary of the traffic noise levels for existing year and future year 2035 traffic conditions without and with the proposed project.

Table 13: Traffic Noise Model Results Summary
Roadway Segment
CNEL (dBA) 50 feet from Centerline of Outermost Lane
Existing (dBA)
CNEL
Existing Plus
Project (dBA)
CNEL
Future No
Project (Year
2035) (dBA)
CNEL
Future Plus Project
(Year 2035) (dBA)
CNEL
Anaheim Boulevard–south of Ball Road 66.0 66.1 67.6 67.5 Ball Road–east of Anaheim Boulevard 68.8 68.9 69.2 69.2 Notes:

CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA = A-weighted decibel
1 Modeling results do not account for mitigating features such as topography, vegetative screening, fencing, building design, or structure screening. Rather, they assume a worst-case condition of having direct line of sight on flat terrain.

Source: FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) 2022.

The proposed residential units would be exposed to traffic noise levels ranging up to 69.2 dBA CNEL under year 2035 traffic conditions. These noise levels are within the City’s “Conditionally Acceptable” range of 60 dBA to 70 dBA CNEL.

Based on the EPA’s Protective Noise Levels,53 with a combination of walls, doors, and windows, standard construction in accordance with CBC requirements for multi-family residential developments would provide a minimum of 25 dBA in exterior-to-interior noise reduction with windows closed and 15 dBA or more with windows open. The proposed project would include mechanical ventilation systems that would permit windows to remain closed for prolonged periods of time, and still maintain minimum air circulation requirements. Therefore, with windows shut, the interior noise level standard of 45 dBA CNEL would be maintained (i.e., 69.2 dBA–25 dBA = 44.2 dBA). Therefore, no mitigation would be required to reduce interior noise impacts from traffic on adjacent roadways. The proposed project would not conflict with the City’s noise land use

53 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Protective Noise Levels. EPA 550/9-79-100, November 1978. Website:
https://www.nonoise.org/library/levels/levels.htm.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 97
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx compatibility standards adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and this impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Regarding exterior residential areas, Anaheim Municipal Code 18.40.090 establishes a 65 dBA CNEL noise standard for exterior noise within common outdoor recreational areas for multi-family residential land uses. The proposed project’s common outdoor recreational areas would be setback nearly 100 feet or more from Ball Road and Anaheim Boulevard, and the proposed project’s own massing would also shield these areas from these roadways’ traffic noise. The massing of the proposed project alone would be capable of attenuating exterior noise levels from traffic conservatively by at least 10 dBA at the location of the common outdoor recreational areas. Distance attenuation would provide a reduction of 6 dBA per doubling of distance from a source. Given these factors, the proposed project’s common outdoor areas would be subject to exterior noise levels that are substantially less than the noise levels shown in Table 13and the 65 dBA CNEL standard, as well.

Therefore, no mitigation would be required to reduce exterior noise impacts from traffic on adjacent roadways. The proposed project would not conflict with Anaheim Municipal Code 18.40.090’s 65 dBA CNEL noise standard for exterior noise within common outdoor recreational areas for multi- family residential land uses, and this impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

98 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.12 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?

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The information and analysis for Mineral Resources impacts is based on the Anaheim General Plan Green Element. The project site is located in an urbanized area in the City of Anaheim, and no known mineral resources are present on-site.

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?
No impact. According to the General Plan, mineral resources are located in parts of East Anaheim, Anaheim Canyon, and the City’s Hill and Canyon Areas. These areas are identified as being within Mineral Resource Zone, Class 2 (MRZ-2). The MRZ-2 designation represents, “areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists.”54 The project site is located in the western/central portion of the City and is not located in either of these zones; therefore, project implementation would not affect any known mineral deposits. Additionally, the project site is currently zoned C-G and would be rezoned so that the entire project site would be within the C-G Zone and the MU Overlay Zone; therefore, project implementation would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Thus, no impacts would occur.
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? No impact. The project site is currently developed. General Plan Figure G-3, Mineral Resource Map, does not identify any known State or locally designated mineral resources or locally important

54 City of Anaheim. May 2004. Anaheim General Plan Green Element. Website:
http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/9521/F-Green-Element?bidId=. Accessed May 27, 2022.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 99
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx mineral resource recovery site on or near the project site.55 The project site is designated General Commercial and would be changed to Mixed-Use Medium. The entire project site would be zoned C- G. These designations do not permit mineral extraction. Furthermore, the project site is in an urbanized area and does not support mineral extraction operations. Therefore, there would be no loss of a known mineral resource with project implementation. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.

55 City of Anaheim. May 2004. Anaheim General Plan Figure G-3, Mineral Resource Map. Website:
http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/9521/F-Green-Element?bidId=. Accessed May 27, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

100 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.13 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 or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The analysis is based on noise modeling prepared by FCS technicians and the traffic report prepared for the proposed project. Existing noise sources at the project site include stationary noise from surrounding land uses and traffic noise along adjacent roadway segments. The dominant noise source is noise from traffic on I-5, Ball Road, and Anaheim Boulevard.

North of the project site is the East Ball Road, commercial and retail buildings, and Brownson Technical School in General Commercial land use designation. South of the project site includes a salvage yard, commercial and industrial buildings in the General Commercial land use designation.

East of the project site sits several commercial and industrial buildings in the Industrial land use designation. West of the project site is the South Anaheim Boulevard, multi-family residential uses, fast food restaurants, and commercial buildings in the Medium Density Residential and General Commercial land use designation.

Based on the surrounding land uses, potential noise source could be from traffic noise, typical parking lot activities, truck deliveries, and loading/unloading activities.

Regulatory Framework
The City of Anaheim addresses noise in the Noise Element of its General Plan adopted in 2004 and in the Anaheim Municipal Code. Temporary and long-term noise impacts resultant from the proposed City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 101
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx project would be regulated or otherwise evaluated by City of Anaheim standards designed to protect public well-being and health.

General Plan
The City of Anaheim General Plan Noise Element contains a variety of goals, policies, and other guidance pertaining to the control of noise. The following is a list of the City’s noise-related goals and policies. Certain goals and policies have been omitted, as they are not relevant to the proposed project (i.e., policies instructing the City to adopt various noise standard, policies related to heliports, etc.).

Goal 1.1 Protect sensitive land uses from excessive noise through diligent planning and regulation.

Policies
3) Consider the compatibility of proposed land uses with the noise environment when preparing, revising or reviewing development proposals. 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.
5) Encourage proper site planning and architecture to reduce noise impacts. 6) Discourage the siting of sensitive uses in areas in excess of 65 dBA CNEL without appropriate mitigation.
7) Require that site-specific noise studies be conducted by a qualified acoustic consultant utilizing acceptable methodologies while reviewing the development of sensitive land uses or development that has the potential to impact sensitive land uses.

Goal 2.1 Encourage the reduction of noise from transportation-related noise sources such as motor vehicles, aircraft operations, and railroad movements.

Policies
2) Employ noise mitigation practices, as necessary, when designing future streets and highways, and when improvements occur along existing road segments. Mitigation measures should emphasize the establishment of natural buffers or setbacks between the arterial roadways and adjoining noise-sensitive areas.
3) Require that development generating increased traffic and subsequent increases in the ambient noise level adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses provide appropriate mitigation measures.
4) Maintain roadways so that the paving is in good condition to reduce noise-generating cracks, bumps, and potholes.
5) Require sound walls, berms and landscaping along existing and future freeways and railroad rights-of-way to beautify the landscape and reduce noise, where appropriate.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

102 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Goal 3.1 Protect residents from the effects of “spill over” or nuisance noise emanating from the City’s activity centers.

Policies
1) Discourage new projects located in commercial or entertainment areas from exceeding stationary source noise standards at the property line of proximate residential or commercial uses, as appropriate.
3) Enforce standards to regulate noise from construction activities. Particular emphasis shall be placed on the restriction of the hours in which work other than emergency work may occur. Discourage construction on weekends or holidays except in the case of construction proximate to schools where these operations could disturb the classroom environment. 4) Require that construction equipment operate with mufflers and intake silencers no less effective than originally equipped.
5) Encourage the use of portable noise barriers for heavy equipment operations performed within 100 feet of existing residences or make applicant provide evidence as to why the use of such barriers is infeasible.

The Noise Element also contains the City’s exterior noise and land use compatibility standards, which are based on the State’s recommended considerations for various land use categories. These standards are shown in Table 14. The Noise Element notes that the City prefers the CNEL descriptor, “as it is slightly more conservative (i.e., restrictive) in protecting sensitive land uses.” The Noise Element also adopts the State’s interior and exterior noise standards for land uses. These standards are shown in Table 15. It should be noted that these standards differ slightly from those contained in Table 14. For example, the Table 15 standards establish a 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard for residential uses, whereas the Table 14 standards permit noise exposure of up to 75 dBA CNEL for these same uses. The Noise Element explains that the Table 15 “exterior noise levels are to be attained in ‘habitable’ exterior areas and need not encompass the entirety of a property and that special consideration should be given in the case of infill residential development located along the City’s arterial corridors. . . in order to achieve an appropriate balance between providing a quality living environment and attractive project design.”
Table 14: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure (dBA CNEL or Ldn) Land Use Category 55 60 65 70 75 80
Residential—Low-Density
Single-Family, Duplex, and
Mobile Homes

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 103
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Land Use Category 55 60 65 70 75 80
Residential—Multi-Family

Transient Lodging—Hotels,
Motels

Schools, Libraries, Churches,
Hospitals, Nursing Homes

Auditoriums, Concert Halls,
Amphitheaters

Sports Arenas, Outdoor
Spectator Sports

Playgrounds, Neighborhood
Parks

Golf Courses, Riding Stables,
Water Recreation,
Cemeteries

Office Buildings, Businesses,
Commercial and Professional

Industrial, Manufacturing,
Utilities, Agriculture

Source: Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2003. State of California General Plan Guidelines, Appendix C, Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of the Noise Element of the General Plan. October 2003. This table is contained in Figure N-2 of the City of Anaheim General Plan Noise Element.

Key:

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

Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.

Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Outdoor environment will seem noisy.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

104 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Land Use Category 55 60 65 70 75 80
Normally Unacceptable: New construction and development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made with needed noise insulation features included in the design. Outdoor areas must be shielded.

Clearly Unacceptable: 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 usable.

Table 15: State of California Interior and Exterior Noise Standards Land Use CNEL (dBA)
Categories Uses Interior1 Exterior2
Residential Single- and multiple-family, duplex 453 65
Mobile homes – 654
Commercial Hotel, motel, transient housing 45 –
Commercial retail, bank, restaurant 55 –
Office building, research and development, professional offices
50 –
Amphitheater, concert hall, auditorium, movie theater 45 – Gymnasium (Multipurpose) 50 –
Sports Club 55 –
Manufacturing, warehousing, wholesale, utilities 65 –
Movie Theaters 45 –
Institutional/Public Hospital, school classrooms/playgrounds 45 65 Church, library 45 –
Open Space Parks – 65
Notes:

CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA = A-weighted decibel
1 Indoor environment excluding: bathrooms, kitchens, toilets, closets, and corridors 2 Outdoor environment limited to:
• Private yard of single-family dwellings
• Multiple-family private patios or balconies accessed from within the dwelling (Balconies 6 feet deep or less are exempt) • Mobile home parks
• Park picnic areas
• School playgrounds
• Hospital patios
3 Noise level requirement with closed windows, mechanical ventilation or other means of natural ventilation shall be provided as per Chapter 12, Section 1205 of the Uniform Building Code. 4 Exterior noise levels should be such that interior noise levels will not exceed 45 dBA CNEL.

Source: City of Anaheim. 2004. General Plan, Noise Element. Table N-3.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 105
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Municipal Code
The Anaheim Municipal Code contains a limited set of regulations that would apply to the proposed project’s noise impacts.

Anaheim Municipal Code Section 6.70.010 establishes that no person shall create any sound for extended periods from any premises that produces a sound pressure level in excess of 60 dBA at any point on the property line, in accordance with the noise measurement requirements outlined by this ordinance. These requirements essentially establish that the offending noise must be at least 5 dBA greater than existing ambient noise levels sans the offending noise source. For example, a 61 dBA noise source would not be a violation of Section 6.70.010 in an instance where existing ambient noise levels are greater than 70 dBA.

However, the City has provided certain exemptions from the Section 6.70.010 noise standard.

Among these exemptions is construction or building repair. Construction or building repair activities occurring between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. are exempt from the 60 dBA regulatory standard.

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?
Less than significant impact.

Construction Noise Impacts
The City has not adopted construction-related noise thresholds of significance for CEQA consideration. Section 6.70.010 of the Anaheim Municipal Code establishes a 60 dBA regulatory noise standard, but it also exempts daytime construction activities from this standard.56 Therefore, Section 6.70.010 cannot be utilized to assess the proposed project’s construction-related noise impacts. The General Plan Noise Element contains noise standards for various land use categories, but it is evident that the General Plan does not intend these limits to apply to temporary construction noise sources.

Given these factors, the following analysis utilizes the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) “Detailed Analysis Construction Noise Criteria” as thresholds of significance to assess the effect of the proposed project’s construction-related noise impacts at nearby sensitive receptors. For residential uses, which are the nearest noise-sensitive land use types in the project vicinity, the FTA’s criteria are an 80 dBA equivalent continuous sound level (Leq (8 hour)) daytime limit, a 70 dBA nighttime limit, and a 75 dBA day/night average sound level (Ldn) 30-day average.

Construction of the proposed project would generate noise during the estimated 22 months of demolition, grading, building construction, and other construction phases. Construction activities

56 Nighttime construction activities that take place between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. would be subject to Section 6.70.010, but the project is not anticipated to require nighttime construction.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

106 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx would occur during regular construction hours, which are generally between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. Construction would also utilize a standard 5-day work week. Therefore, the proposed project’s construction would be consistent with Goal 3.1, Policy 3 of the City’s General Plan Noise Element, which discourages construction on weekends or holidays.

Noise from grading activities is typically the foremost concern when evaluating a project’s construction noise impact, as grading activities often require extensive use of heavy-duty, diesel- powered earthmoving equipment. For this project, grading would have the greatest–and noisiest– construction vehicle requirements, as a fleet of grading vehicles would be required to grade the up to 10.1-acre project site. Other construction phases would have reduced vehicle requirements. For example, building construction could at times require a crane truck, several construction forklifts, and several skid steer loaders. These vehicles are much less powerful than the types of heavy-duty excavators, graders, and bulldozers that would be required to grade the project site. Given this consideration, the following analysis assesses noise impacts that may result from the proposed project’s grading activities.

Grading for the proposed project is estimated to last approximately 6 weeks. During this time, graders would be utilized to level the site and establish proper slopes and drainages. Excavators would trench for utilities and excavate for the project’s foundation pads. A bulldozer may assist with all grading tasks. Ultimately, these vehicles would operate across the up to 10.1-acre site from hour to hour and day to day. As this occurs, construction noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors would fluctuate depending on these vehicles’ distances from them. Noise levels would be greater when these vehicles are in proximity of sensitive receptors and lower when they are positioned farther away. Notwithstanding this fact, the noise impact associated with the proposed project’s grading has been conservatively modeled by assuming that a grader and a bulldozer—the two noisiest grading vehicles—would spend an entire workday operating at minimum project-to-receptor distances.

Table 16shows the proposed project’s estimated grading-related noise impacts at a selection of nearby noise-sensitive receptors. As shown, noise impacts would not exceed thresholds of significance for daytime construction activities at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors. Impacts to more-distant receptors would be lower than the impacts shown in Table 16 and also not in excess of thresholds of significance. Concerning the FTA’s 70 dBA nighttime criteria, the proposed project would not require nighttime construction. Therefore, the proposed project would have no potential to result in exceedances of this criteria. The proposed project would also have no potential to exceed the FTA’s criteria that is a 75 dBA Ldn 30-day average. At Paul Revere Elementary School and Happy Hippo Preschool, construction-related noise levels would not exceed 65 dBA Leq at any time.

Therefore, there would be no potential for 30-day average noise levels to exceed 75 dBA Ldn. At the nearest sensitive receptor, construction-related noise levels would not exceed 75.4 dBA Leq during daytime hours. 24-hour Ldn impacts (i.e., the effect of the proposed project’s construction noise as averaged over a 24-hour period) would be lower–approximately 72.0 dBA Ldn–because the proposed project would not generate construction noise after 5:00 p.m. or before 7:00 a.m. Given that construction noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors, an assisted living facility approximately 100 feet west of the project site across Anaheim Boulevard, would not exceed approximately 72.0 dBA Ldn on a reasonable worst-case construction day scenario, there would be no potential for 30- day average noise levels at these receptors to exceed the FTA’s 75 dBA Ldn criteria. The 30-day City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 107
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx average noise levels would be far lower, because the activities of grading vehicles during any 30-day period would be spread across the maximum 10.1-acre site. Therefore, the average distance between these vehicles and the nearest sensitive receptors would be far greater than the minimum distance utilized in this analysis.

Table 16: Construction Noise Impacts–Grading
Sensitive Receptors
Construction
Noise Level
(dBA Leq-8hr)
Daytime
Threshold of
Significance
(dBA Leq-8hr)1 Significant?
Assisted Living Facility (1315 South Anaheim Boulevard) 75.4 80.0 No Assisted Living Facility(1321-1331 South Anaheim Boulevard) 75.4 80.0 No Paul Revere Elementary School (140 West Guinida Lane) 64.2 80.0 No Happy Hippo Preschool (1401 South Anaheim Boulevard) 63.8 80.0 No Notes:
dBA = A-weighted decibel
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
1 The FTA “Detailed Analysis Construction Noise Criteria” do not contain criteria for school land uses. To assess the proposed project’s impact to nearby schools, the FTA’s 80 dBA Leq-8hr criteria for residential land uses is utilized.

The modeling results do not account for mitigating features such as topography, vegetative screening, fencing, building design, or structure screening. Rather, they assume a worst-case condition of having direct line of sight on flat terrain.

Source: FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) 2022.

Trucks and other construction-related vehicles would access the project site over the course of all construction phases. During the proposed project’s 30-day demolition phase, an average of approximately 22 haul trucks per day would be required to remove demolition debris from the project site. The grading phase would not generate a substantial number of haul truck trips because the site’s cut and fill would be balanced.
57 Building construction could generate up to 75 vendor trips per day. Concerning worker trips, the overlapping period of building construction, paving, and architectural coatings could generate up to approximately 378 worker trips per day. Typically, a doubling of traffic volumes is necessary to increase roadside noise levels by 3 dBA, which correlates with a barely perceptible noise increase. Anaheim Boulevard and Ball Road, the primary roadways that access the project site, are major arterial roadways that, based on the traffic noise modeling data contained in Appendix G, have an average of 25,100 and 34,700 vehicle trips per day respectively. The proposed project’s construction-related vehicle trip generation would therefore not come close to doubling traffic volumes along these roadways. Off-site construction noise increases due to the proposed project’s on-road construction vehicles would be just fractions of a decibel and therefore less than significant.

57 Cut and fill balanced on-site refers to the project assumption that neither export nor import of soils would be required for this implementation of the proposed project on the project site.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

108 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Mobile Source Operational Noise Impacts
The City has not adopted Citywide operations-related noise thresholds of significance for CEQA consideration. Section 6.70.010 of the Anaheim Municipal Code establishes a 60 dBA regulatory noise standard that would apply to the proposed project’s stationary noise sources, but it would have no applicability to the proposed project’s mobile source operational noise impacts from trip generation. The General Plan Noise Element contains noise standards for various land use categories, but it does not establish how these standards may be applied to CEQA-related analysis.

Therefore, for purposes of this project, the following analysis determines whether a significant operational noise impact would occur by assessing whether the proposed project would cause substantial increases in off-site ambient noise levels.

This could occur in two ways:
(1) Project operations would cause ambient noise levels at off-site locations to increase by 3 dBA CNEL or more to or within their “normally unacceptable” or “clearly unacceptable” noise and land use compatibility categories, as defined by the City’s General Plan Noise Element (see Table 15), or
(2) Project operations would cause any 5 dBA or greater noise increase. As a 3 dBA increase represents a barely noticeable change in noise level, this threshold considers any increase in ambient noise levels to or within a land use’s “normally unacceptable” or “clearly unacceptable” noise and land use compatibility categories to be significant so long as the increase can be considered barely perceptible.

For instances when the noise level increase would not necessarily result in “normally unacceptable” or “clearly unacceptable” noise and land use compatibility, a 5 dBA perceptible increase would still be considered significant. Pursuant to this threshold, any increases less than 3 dBA CNEL would be less than significant, as these increases would not be perceptible.

The proposed project would generate operational noise from off-site mobile sources associated with its daily vehicle trip generation. On a typical weekday, the proposed project is forecast to generate an estimated 2,776 daily vehicle trips, including 210 AM peak-hour trips and 176 PM peak-hour trips.
58 The noise impact of these vehicle trips on nearby roadways was modeled using the FHWA’s TNM 2.5 noise model (FHWA RD-77-108). As shown in Table 17, project-related traffic would have a nominal impact on existing roadside ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Based on these findings, 24-hour CNEL impacts would be well below the minimum 3 dBA CNEL threshold of significance. At the time of project buildout, which is currently anticipated to occur in 2025, project- related noise impacts would be similar or less-pronounced because ambient background traffic growth would increase surrounding ambient noise levels by a modest degree. Project-related traffic would also have no potential to substantially contribute to any cumulatively considerable increases in future roadside ambient noise levels. First, as shown, project-related traffic would individually have a minimal impact on roadside ambient noise levels. Second, an assessment of traffic forecasts through the year 2035—which accounts for both ambient background traffic growth and traffic that

58 Fehr & Peers. 2022. Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Draft Transportation Impact Assessment. July.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 109
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx would be associated with known related projects—indicates that no nearby roadway would experience a doubling of traffic volume. As explained earlier, a doubling of traffic volumes is typically necessary to increase roadside traffic noise levels by 3 dBA, or 3 dBA CNEL. As such a doubling would not occur, nor would a 3 dBA CNEL increase, which is the minimum threshold of significance. Given these considerations, the proposed project’s impact with regard to off-site operational noise would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Table 17: Peak-hour Traffic Noise Model Results Summary Roadway Segment
All noise levels in dBA Leq
Existing
AM Peak-
hour–No
Project
Existing
AM Peak-
hour–Plus
Project Increase
Year 2024
PM Peak-
hour–No
Project
Year 2024
PM Peak-
hour–Plus
Project Increase
Anaheim Boulevard, south of Ball
Road–50 feet west of centerline

66.8 67.0 + 0.2 67.8 68.0 +0.2
Ball Road, east of Anaheim
Boulevard–50 feet north of centerline

67.6 68.3 + 0.7 69.3 69.9 +0.6
Ball Road, east of Anaheim
Boulevard–50 feet south of centerline

68.2 68.9 + 0.7 68.4 69.2 +0.8
Ball Road, west of Anaheim
Boulevard–50 feet north of centerline

67.5 68.5 + 1.0 69.5 70.2 +0.7
Ball Road, west of Anaheim
Boulevard–50 feet south of centerline

67.8 68.7 + 0.9 68.6 69.5 +0.9
Notes:
dBA = A-weighted decibels
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
1 Modeling results do not account for mitigating features such as topography, vegetative screening, fencing, building design, or structure screening. Rather, they assume a worst-case condition of having direct line of sight on flat terrain.

Source: FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) 2022.

Stationary Source Operational Noise Impacts
The proposed project’s potential stationary on-site operational noise sources are identified and discussed below:

Typical residential-grade mechanical ventilation units can generate noise levels up to approximately 70 dBA at a reference distance of 3 feet. Given that the proposed project’s mechanical ventilation units would be shielded with screens or parapets and located over 100 feet from the nearest sensitive receptors, which are located along a busy roadway (Anaheim Boulevard), it is unlikely that these units would be capable of increasing off-site noise levels by a discernible degree. Noise levels from these mechanical units at the nearest sensitive receptors would be below 40 dBA Leq and not capable of contributing to substantial noise increases. Additionally, it is worth noting that surrounding properties also contain heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and other mechanical equipment. Therefore, the proposed project’s inclusion of mechanical ventilation systems would not introduce a new type of stationary noise source to the location.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

110 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx The proposed project’s parking facilities and the intermittent noises associated with them (e.g., doors slamming, engines starting, trash truck activity, van/small truck deliveries, emergency work, etc.) would have a nominal effect on surrounding ambient noise levels. The majority of the proposed project’s parking would be contained in, and confined to, residential garages. Seventy-four surface parking spaces would be interspersed throughout the site. Surface parking areas would be located hundreds of feet from nearby sensitive receptors and shielded from them by masonry walls or the massing of the proposed project’s multi-story residential buildings. The nearest proposed surface parking lot would be approximately 225 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor located along Anaheim Boulevard (1315-1331 South Anaheim Boulevard), and it would contain just 26 parking spaces. According to FTA equations for the prediction of parking facility noise impacts, a facility with an hourly activity of 26 vehicles—equivalent to the entire capacity of this surface parking lot—would be expected to result in a noise level of just 40.5 dBA Leq at a reference distance of 50 feet. At the location of the noise-sensitive multi-family residential land uses, the noise level would be below 30 dBA Leq and incapable of causing or contributing to substantial noise increases. Additionally, it is worth noting that the existing site is comprised mainly of unshielded surface parking lot area.

Therefore, the proposed project’s inclusion of surface parking areas would not introduce a new type of stationary noise source to the location.

The proposed project would contain 4,500 square feet of retail uses. Any potential outdoor dining patios for these uses would be located hundreds of feet from the nearest sensitive receptors. Vocal noise from speech/conversation averages between 55 and 67 dBA at a reference distance of one meter, in proportion to background noise levels.59 Given the rapid attenuation of speech/conversation noise, surrounding noise levels, and distances to receptors, it is unlikely that vocal noises from outdoor users would be audible at sensitive receptors, let alone capable of causing or contributing to substantial noise increases. Reasonable use of the proposed project’s dining areas would not result in discernible noise increases at sensitive receptors.

The primary source of noise associated with the proposed project’s outdoor recreational common space areas would also be speech/conversation. And as these areas would also be located hundreds of feet from the nearest sensitive receptors, there is similarly no realistic potential that noise emanating from these areas would be capable of causing or contributing to substantial noise increases at sensitive receptors. Reasonable use of the proposed project’s outdoor recreational common space areas would not result in discernible noise increases at sensitive receptors. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than significant impact with mitigation. There are no federal, State, or City standards that would regulate the proposed project’s vibration impacts from temporary construction activities or long-term operations. Therefore, in order to assess the effect of project-related groundborne vibration, the following analysis adopts the FTA’s vibration impact criteria as thresholds of significance for building/structural damage. The FTA construction vibration damage criteria are as follows:

59 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Speech Levels in Various Noise Environments, May 1977.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 111
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx • 0.5 inches per second peak particle velocity (PPV) for “reinforced concrete, steel or timber” buildings.
• 0.3 inches per second PPV for “engineered concrete and masonry buildings.” • 0.2 inches per second PPV for “nonengineered timber and masonry buildings.” • 0.12 inches per second PPV for “buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage.”

Groundborne vibrations consist of rapidly fluctuating motions within the ground that have an average motion of zero. Vibrating objects in contact with the ground can radiate vibration waves through various soil and rock strata to the foundations of nearby buildings. In extreme cases, excessive groundborne vibration has the potential to cause structural damage to buildings. Common sources of groundborne vibration include trains, construction activities, and certain industrial operations. Vibration from traffic on smooth roadways is rarely perceptible, even from larger vehicles such as buses or trucks. The proposed project’s construction and operational groundborne vibration impacts are analyzed separately below.

Short-term Construction Vibration Impacts
Construction of the proposed project would require a variety of large, steel-tracked earthmoving vehicles and vibratory rollers. Of the proposed project’s construction vehicles, vibratory rollers would produce the greatest groundborne vibration levels. According to the FTA, vibratory rollers can generate groundborne vibration levels up to 0.21 inches per second PPV at a reference distance of 25 feet.

For the proposed project, vibratory rollers would be utilized to compact soils during grading and asphalt during paving. This could expose nearby structures to groundborne vibrations caused by such compacting activities. The nearest structures to the project site are two commercial warehouse buildings, a furniture wholesale store located at 1303 South Claudina Street (“M&J Design Furniture”) and a store located at 1315 South Claudina Street (“Classic Scooter Parts”). The FTA construction vibration damage criteria that would apply to these structures is the 0.3 inch per second PPV criteria for “engineered concrete and masonry” buildings. As noted, vibratory rollers can generate groundborne vibration levels up to 0.21 inch per second PPV at a distance of 25 feet.

Because the store located at 1315 South Claudina Street is over 40 feet east of the project site, it follows that it would not be exposed to vibratory roller-related groundborne vibration levels in excess of 0.21 inch per second PPV. And because this groundborne vibration level is below the 0.3 inch per second PPV criteria for this structure, it follows that it would not be exposed to substantial construction-related groundborne vibrations. Therefore, impacts to this structure would be less than significant.

However, the furniture wholesale store located at 1303 South Claudina Street is located just 5 feet east of the project site. The proposed project’s vibratory rollers would not operate exactly at the property line and 5 feet from this building, but they may nevertheless operate within approximately 15 feet of this structure. At this distance, vibratory rollers could expose 1303 South Claudina Street to groundborne vibration levels up to 0.452 inch per second PPV, which would exceed this Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

112 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx structure’s 0.3 inch per second PPV threshold of significance. Without mitigation, this impact would be potentially significant.

To ensure that the furniture wholesale store located at 1303 South Claudina Street is not exposed to potentially damaging, and therefore significant, levels of groundborne vibration, MM NOI-1 is adopted to establish setback restrictions for vibratory rollers operating in the vicinity of this building.

MM NOI-1 would require that vibratory rollers maintain a setback of at least 25 feet from 1303 South Claudina Street at all times. This would ensure that it is not exposed to construction-related groundborne vibrations in excess of 0.21 inch per second PPV, which is below the 0.3 inch per second PPV threshold of significance for this structure. Therefore, after the implementation of MM NOI-1, the proposed project’s construction-related groundborne vibration impact would be less than significant.

Other structures in the vicinity of the proposed project are located farther from the project site than the aforementioned two commercial warehouse buildings and would be at no risk of experiencing potentially damaging levels of groundborne vibration due to the proposed project’s construction activities.

Operational Vibration Impacts
During project operations, there would be no significant stationary sources of groundborne vibration, such as heavy equipment or industrial operations. The proposed project’s related vehicle travel would not be considered a significant source of vibration, as vehicle travel rarely generates perceptible groundborne vibration. As a result, the proposed project’s potential to generate excessive groundborne vibration levels due to its operations would be less than significant. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Less than significant impact. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels for a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport.

The nearest public airport to the project site is the Fullerton Municipal Airport, located approximately 5.8 miles northwest of the project site. Because of the distance from and orientation of the airport runways, the project site is located well outside of the 65 dBA CNEL airport noise contours. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. While aircraft noise is occasionally audible on the project site from aircraft flyovers, aircraft noise associated with nearby airport activity would not expose people residing or working near the project site to excessive noise levels. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose persons residing or working in the project vicinity to noise levels from airport activity that would be in excess of normally acceptable standards for multi-family residential land use development. Impacts associated with public airport noise would be less than significant.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 113
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Mitigation Measures
MM NOI-1 P rior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, a note shall be provided on grading and building plans indicating that, during grading and construction, the property Owner/Developer shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to limit construction-related vibration impacts:

Vibratory rollers shall maintain a setback of and not be utilized within a distance of at least 30 feet from the commercial warehouse building located at 1303 South Claudina Street. Site shall be staked or otherwise marked to clearly delineate area in which vibratory rollers cannot be used to compact soils during grading and asphalt during paving.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

114 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.14 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?

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
According to the California Department of Finance, the City had a population of 341,245 persons as of January 1, 2022.60
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)?
Less than significant impact. As described above, the City had a population of 341,245 persons as of January 1, 2022.61 The City has an average of 3.16 persons per household.62 The project proposes to construct up to 249 residential flats and townhomes, meaning it would increase the City’s population by up to 787 persons.63 This is approximately 0.2 percent of the City’s existing population. The City’s 2014–2021 Housing Element projected that the City would reach a population of 369,107 persons by 2020.64 Because the City has not yet reached this population in 2022, and the proposed project would not result in an exceedance of this projection, the population growth resulting from the proposed project can be considered planned growth.

60 City of Anaheim. 2022. Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State – January 1, 2021 and 2022. Website:
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates-e1/. Accessed May 2, 2022. 61 Ibid.
62 City of Anaheim. 2022. Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State. Website:
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates-e5-2010-2021/. Accessed May 2, 2022. 63 3.16 persons per residential unit* 249 residential units= 786.94 persons. 64 City of Anaheim. Housing Element. Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis. Figure 2-1 City of Anaheim Population Growth Forecasts, 1980-2030. Website: http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/2138/Z4-2014-2021-Housing-Element-Adopted- 2414?bidId=. Accessed May 2, 2022.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 115
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx The 2016 SCAG population projections for the City of Anaheim estimates a population of 416,800 by 2045 and employment of 250,500 by 2045.65 The proposed retail uses would create new employment opportunities. However, because of the nature and location of the project, employees would likely be from the surrounding areas, and the numbers employed would not exceed the planned growth as estimated by SCAG. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce unplanned population growth either directly or indirectly. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No impact. There are no existing residences on-site. Therefore, no people or housing would be displaced. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.

65 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020 Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast. September 3.

Website: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf.

Accessed July 15, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

116 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.15 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:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The information in this section is based, in part, on correspondence with City of Anaheim public service providers, included as Appendix H of this report.

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:
a) Fire protection?
Less than significant impact. Anaheim Fire & Rescue provides fire protection services to the project site. Anaheim Fire & Rescue is a full-service organization designed to provide essential public safety and emergency services to the community and its visitors.

Anaheim Fire and Rescue 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. 66 66 Young, Lindsey. Interim Fire Marshal, Anaheim Fire & Rescue. Personal communication: email. August 19, 2021.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 117
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Table 18: City of Anaheim Fire Service Facilities
Station Address Equipment
Downtown Station 1 500 East Broadway Street Paramedic Engine 1, Truck 1, Type 3-301, Ambulance 1, and Rehab-1
Brookhurst Station 2 2141 West Crescent Avenue Paramedic Engine 2 and Truck 2 US&R 2, and Ambulance 2
Resort Station 3 1717 South Clementine Street Paramedic Engine 3, Truck 3, Type 3-309, Paramedic 3 (Disney),
Ambulance 3, and Light Air 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 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 Truck 10, Type 3-310 Twila Reid Station 11 3078 West Orange Avenue Paramedic Engine 11 OES Engine 414, Ambulance 11, and OES Type
3-1211
Source: Anaheim Fire & Rescue 2021.

Fire stations are strategically located in the City of Anaheim to ensure an efficient demand response to all risk hazards and to maintain recommendations for response times. The project site is currently serviced by Anaheim Fire & Rescue via the existing infrastructureAdditionally, both automatic and mutual aid agreements exist with surrounding jurisdictions.

The nearest station to the project site is Fire Station No. 7, located 1.30 miles east of the project site at 2222 East Ball Road. The proposed project would be required to comply with all currently adopted codes and standards at the time of plan submittal and to pay Fire Department development fees.

Because the proposed project would comply with the required development fees and all codes and standards and project site is currently serviced by Anaheim Fire & Rescue via the existing infrastructure, impacts associated with fire protection services would be less than significant.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

118 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx b) Police protection?
Less than significant impact. The Anaheim Police Department provides law enforcement and crime prevention services to the project site. Officers operate out of four stations and patrol an area of

49.7 square miles, divided into four districts – West, Central, South, and East. The police stations are located as follows:
• Main Station, located at 425 South Harbor Boulevard
• East Station, located at 8201 East Santa Ana Canyon Road • West Station, located at 320 South Beach Boulevard
• South Station, located at 198 South West Place

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. Based on consultation with the Anaheim Police Department, the proposed project would not generate demand for additional staffing, as the existing site already receives service and the potential net increase in calls resulting from the proposed project would not be substantially higher. However, in the future if additional police staff are needed, 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.

The project site is served by the Anaheim Police Department. The nearest police station to the project site is the main station, located 1.6 miles north of the project site at 425 South Harbor Boulevard. 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. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in a need for new or expanded police protection facilities.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Schools?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project is within the Anaheim Elementary School District boundary. The current district-wide enrollment is 15,252 students; current capacity is 17,725. The project site is within the enrollment boundaries of Paul Revere Elementary School. Paul Revere Elementary School is located at 140 West Guinida Lane, which is 0.25 mile south of the project site.

Paul Revere Elementary School has a current enrollment of 744 students in grades K-6 for the 2021- 22 school year.67 Current student generation factors used by the Anaheim Elementary School District are 0.23 per unit for single-family attached homes, and 0.15 per unit for multi-family units. Based on the higher generation rate of 0.23 students per unit for a more conservative estimate, the proposed project would generate 58 students in grades K-6. The increase of students as a result of the proposed project would not cause the elementary school district to exceed the enrollment capacity; therefore, the proposed project would not significantly impact school services. Furthermore, the

67 National Center for Education Statistics. 2022. Revere (Paul) Elementary. Website:
https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_detail.asp?ID=060261000164. Accessed May 31, 2022.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 119
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx proposed project would be required to pay the current school district development fees for single- family and multi-family attached housing.

The proposed project is within the Anaheim Union High School District. Student generation factors are 0.0806 for junior high schools and 0.1548 for high schools. Based on these student generation factors; the proposed project would generate approximately 20 junior high school students and 39 high school students. This increase of students would not cause the high school district to exceed the enrollment capacity. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to pay the current development impact fees for residential and commercial space. Payment of the fees would satisfy the requirements of AB 2926 and SB 50 to offset impacts to school services. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d) Parks?
Less than significant impact. The City of Anaheim’s Citywide standard of parkland is 2 acres per 1,000 residents. Further discussed in Section 2.16, Recreation, the City is currently meetings its parkland standard. The project site is not located within a Park Deficiency Area (defined as areas outside of a 0.5-mile radius of a public park), according to the General Plan Green Element Figure G-

1.68 The proposed project would bring new residents, which would create additional demand on park and recreational facilities. The nearest parks are Paul Revere Park, located at 160 West Guinida Lane, which is 0.25 mile south of the project site, and Walnut Grove Park, located at 905 South Anaheim Boulevard, which is 0.3 mile north of the project site. The City of Anaheim has adopted a park in lieu fees resolution. The proposed project would comply with the impact fees for the proposed residential units, as discussed in further detail in Section 2.16, Recreation.

Furthermore, the proposed project would provide amenities including open space passive park areas, private patios, common amenity areas. The proposed project would provide 118,955 square feet of total qualified recreation-leisure areas, which would provide an alternative to public community gathering areas for residents of the proposed project. Furthermore, the proposed project is located 0.25 mile south of Paul Revere Elementary School and 0.3 mile northwest of Orange Grove Elementary School, which would provide additional recreational opportunities and community space through formal and informal joint use agreements with the City. 69 According to the City of Anaheim Development Impact Fee Justification Study, impact fees are used for the acquisition, installation, and construction of public facilities identified on a needs lists and appropriate administrative costs to mitigate the direct and cumulative impacts of new development in the City. Fees are based on an equivalent development unit method to fairly allocate costs to new development and determine the appropriate fee levels that would provide a source of funds to pay

68 City of Anaheim. 2020. General Plan Program Figure G-1, Green Plan. Website:
http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/9521/F-Green-Element?bidId=. Accessed May 31, 2022. 69 City of Anaheim. May 2004. General Plan Green Element. Website:
https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/9521#:~:text=he%20Green%20Element%20combines%20Anaheim’s,philosophy %20is%20broad%20and%20inclusive. Accessed March 11, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

120 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx for the proposed facilities.70 With payment of the required fees, impacts would be less than significant.
e) Other public facilities?
Less than significant impact. The Anaheim Public Library system includes a central library and six branch libraries, along with the Anaheim Heritage Center, Books on the Go! (self-service kiosk at Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center), and a mobile library. The Anaheim Public Library system has 308,223 library card holders, with 1.3 million annual visits in Fiscal Year 2018/2019. Central Library, which is located at 500 West Broadway, would serve the proposed project. Central Library is located 1.14 miles northwest of the project site. Additionally, Euclid Library is 1.8 miles west of the project site.

Population growth affects online library resources because the basis for licensing fees for databases, e-books, and other digital resources are generally the population of the library’s service area. With additional residents to serve, the proposed project would reduce the overall availability per capita of books, media, computers, and library public service space. Therefore, in order to maintain current per capita levels and licensing agreements, the City would need to provide additional physical and virtual resources to the Anaheim library system.

The proposed project’s impacts to the overall availability per capita of books, media, computers, and library public service space would not result in significant physical or environmental impacts, as the population growth resulting from the proposed project is within current City projections. Therefore, project-related impacts to library facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.

70 David Tausig & Associates, Inc. 2017. Development Impact Fee Justification Study. September. Website:
https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/21273/Development-Impact-Fee-Study. Accessed May 31, 2022.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 121
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.16 Recreation
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?

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?

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The City of Anaheim owns and operates 57 parks totaling nearly 800 acres. Park facilities include neighborhood, community, and special use parks, and riding and hiking trails.71 The City currently maintains park dedication standards that require new development in the City to ensure that 2 acres of parkland will be developed for each 1,000 residents.72 Depending on the magnitude of residential development, the dedication may be in the form of direct dedication of improved land, the payment of fees in lieu of dedication, or a combination of both. The City has a park dedication ordinance, and every year the City Council adopts a resolution setting park dedication fees.

The nearest park to the proposed project is Paul Revere Park, located at 160 West Guinida Lane, which is 0.25 mile south of the project site. Paul Revere Park, Anaheim’s newest park, is 0.5 acres.

Recreational amenities include a children’s play area, fitness zone, picnic tables, and volleyball. 73 Future residents would also utilize Walnut Grove Park, located at 905 South Anaheim Boulevard, which is 0.3 mile north of the project site. Walnut Grove Park opened in 2001 and is 3 acres.

Recreational amenities include a children’s play area, outdoor basketball court, picnic shelters, picnic tables, restrooms, and volleyball.74

71 City of Anaheim. 2022. Parks & Facilities. Website: https://www.anaheim.net/916/Parks-Facilities. Accessed May 27, 2022. 72 City of Anaheim. 2018. Anaheim Parks Plan. May 15. Website: https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/33927/Anaheim- Parks-Plan---Final---5-21-2018_low-res. Accessed May 27, 2022. 73 City of Anaheim. 2022. Facilities: Paul Revere Park. Website: https://www.anaheim.net/facilities/facility/details/Paul-Revere-Park-

49. Accessed May 31, 2022.
74 City of Anaheim. 2022. Walnut Grove Park. Website: https://www.anaheim.net/Facilities/Facility/Details/Walnut-Grove-Park-32.

Accessed May 27, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

122 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx 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?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project would include up to 249 residential flats and townhomes. The City has an estimated population of 341,245 people as of January 1, 2022. The approximate persons per household as of 2020 is estimated to be 3.16 persons.75 As discussed previously in Section 2.14, Population and Housing, given that the proposed project would develop up to 249 dwelling units, the proposed project is estimated to generate up to 787 new residents, which would increase the demand on existing neighborhood and regional parks.76 Based on the City’s park dedication standards of 2 acres per 1,000 residents,77 the City would need to provide approximately 682.49 acres of parkland to serve the current population of the City. Because the City currently owns and operates nearly 800 acres of parkland,78 the City is currently exceeding park dedication standards.

The proposed project would provide 118,955 square feet of total qualified recreation-leisure area, which consists of 101,595square feet of common area and 17,360 square feet of private areas. The required recreation-leisure area for 249 units is 49,800 square feet.79 However, the proposed project would not develop additional parks. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with the City’s park dedication ordinance, which requires developers to pay in lieu fees for each residential unit.

Because the City is currently exceeding park standards and with payment of the required fees, impacts would be less than significant.
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. The proposed project does not propose the construction or expansion of public recreational facilities. The proposed project would result in up to 249 new residential units and up to 787 new residents, which would place additional demand on the existing parks, including the nearest parks, Paul Revere Park and Walnut Grove Park. The City is currently meeting its park dedication standards. Furthermore, the proposed project would comply with the City’s park dedication ordinance and pay in lieu fees to the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with such facilities. There would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.

75 California Department of Finance. 2022. Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State. Website:
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates-e5-2010-2021/. Accessed May 31, 2022. 76 3.16 persons per residential unit*249 residential units= 786.94 persons. 77 City of Anaheim. 2018. Anaheim Parks Plan. May 15. Website: https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/33927/Anaheim- Parks-Plan---Final---5-21-2018_low-res. Accessed May 27, 2022. 78 City of Anaheim. 2022. Parks & Facilities. Website: https://www.anaheim.net/916/Parks-Facilities. Accessed May 27, 2022. 79 200 square feet required per unit.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 123
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.17 Transportation
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
of 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)?

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

d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The analysis contained in this section is partially based on the TIA prepared for the proposed project by Fehr & Peers in July 2022, and the VMT Analysis prepared by Fehr & Peers in June 2022 included in Appendix I. The City’s applicable project-specific thresholds are described below.

Changes to the CEQA Guidelines were adopted in December 2018 to implement SB 743. CEQA Guideline 15064.3, which describes criteria for evaluating a project's transportation impacts, provides that VMT is generally "the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts," and that except for roadway capacity projects, a project's effect on traffic delays "shall not constitute a significant environmental impact." These provisions went into effect July 1, 2020. The VMT Analysis evaluated the applicable City of Anaheim screening thresholds to determine whether the proposed project would be expected to create impacts related to VMT. Although LOS is no longer a CEQA issue, LOS is discussed in the City’s Congestion Management Program (CMP) and is provided here as an impact analysis for consistency with the City’s CMP requirements.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less than significant impact. The Orange County CMP aims to support regional mobility objectives by reducing traffic congestion, to provide a mechanism for coordinating land use and development decisions that support the regional economy, and to support gas tax funding eligibility. The CMP contains a number of policies designed to monitor and address system performance issues. The Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

124 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx OCTA developed the policies that makeup Orange County’s CMP in coordination with local jurisdictions, Caltrans, and the SCAQMD.

According to the 2021 Orange County CMP , the Level of Service (LOS) standard for CMP intersections is LOS E or better (i.e., an Intersection Capacity Utilization [ICU] of 1.00 or better). The following intersections are identified as CMP intersections:
• Harbor Boulevard and I-5 Northbound Ramps
• Harbor Boulevard and I-5 Southbound Ramps

The TIA evaluated the LOS at the CMP intersections and determined that they are operating at acceptable LOS under General Plan Development (2035) conditions. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to CMP consistency.

Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signals and multiuse trails. The roadways in the study area generally provide sidewalks on both sides of the street. Curbside sidewalks are provided on Anaheim Boulevard and Ball Road along the project site frontage. The proposed project would provide a pedestrian path internally between the residential units, recreational amenity area and retail stores.

Anaheim Boulevard and Ball Road both provide Class II bike facilities under the existing conditions.

The City proposes future Class II facilities extension on Anaheim Boulevard to the south and Ball Road to the east and west which would close the bike lane gap near the project site. Bicycle parking would be provided consistent with Anaheim Municipal Code requirements.

Two transit routes serve the project site. Route 46 has stops on Ball Road and Route 47 has stops on Anaheim Boulevard. The closest bus stop to the project site is located on Ball Road approximately 130 feet east of the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard and Ball Road. The proposed project is not expected to conflict with the existing bus stops or bus route or degrade transit circulation or access to transit.

The proposed project would not result in any adverse impacts to public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project is located in a TPA, which is defined by areas within a 0.5-mile radius around an existing major transit stop80 or an existing stop along a high- quality transit corridor..
81 The OCTA operates Bus Route 47 along Anaheim Boulevard adjacent to the project site. Bus Route 47 services the project site at the “Anaheim Boulevard and Ball Road” stop

80 Public Resources Code Section 21064.3 - ‘Major transit stop’ means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. 81 Public Resources Code Section 21155 - For purposes of this section, a ‘high-quality transit corridor’ means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 125
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx with headways of 15 minutes in the AM peak period (7:00 a.m. through 9:00 a.m.) and PM peak period (4:00 p.m. through 6:00 p.m.).

Per the City’s Guidelines, if the proposed project is located within a TPA and satisfies the four requirements below, then the proposed project is presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT.82

1. Has a FAR of greater than 0.75;

2. Includes less parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the City (if the City requires the project to supply parking);

3. Is consistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the Lead Agency, with input from the MPO); or

4. Does not replace affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate or high- income residential units.

1. FAR Greater Than 0.75
The project proposes a total gross floor area (GFA) of 452,179 square feet on a 465,220-square-foot lot, resulting in a FAR of 0.97. Therefore, the overall project FAR is greater than 0.75 that satisfies this requirement.

2. Includes Less Parking Than Required
Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.42.030 establishes residential parking ratios for calculating the required number of residential parking spaces, and Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.42.040 requires four spaces per 1,000 square feet of general retail sales. The proposed project requires 622 residential parking spaces and 19 nonresidential parking spaces. The proposed project would provide approximately 430 garage parking spaces, 74 surface lot parking spaces, and 20 retail spaces (total of 524), which are fewer than the 622 residential parking spaces and 19 retail spaces. Although the proposed project would provide more retail parking spaces than the Anaheim Municipal Code requires, the total number of parking spaces for the entire project is less than the combined required number of parking spaces. The proposed project is providing fewer parking spaces than required; however, the proposed project is also taking advantage of a density bonus that allows for fewer parking spaces than the code requires. Under the density bonus 441 parking spaces are required and therefore the proposed project satisfies this requirement.

3. Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency
The proposed project was reviewed against the assumptions in the SCAG 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The land use growth assumptions were reviewed in the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) Version 5.0 which reflects the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS data set. The Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) where the proposed project is located was reviewed and the growth proposed by the proposed project would not exceed the

82 City of Anaheim. 2020. Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act Analysis. June. Website:
https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/32774/City-of-Anaheim-TIA-Guidelines-for-CEQA-Analysis-62020. Accessed June 14, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

126 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx land use growth for the TAZ where the proposed project is located. The proposed project is also well within the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS growth assumptions for the City of Anaheim as a whole. The proposed project also does not conflict with any SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS roadway network, pedestrian, bicycle, or transit projects. Therefore, the proposed project is considered consistent with the current SCS.

4. Replacing Affordable Units
The proposed project is not replacing any residential units and therefore satisfies this requirement.

The proposed project meets all of requirements of TPA screening and can be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact related to VMT, and no mitigation is required. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than significant impact. Vehicles would access the project site via four driveways, including one entry from East Ball Road at the north side of the project site, two entries from South Anaheim Boulevard on the west side of the project site, and one entry from South Claudina Street on the northeast side of the project site. An internal private roadway system would provide two-way access to the surface parking lots and to the parking garages. The proposed project driveway and internal roadways would be developed to comply with the City Building Division and Fire & Rescue Department standards. The proposed project would develop a 4,500-square-foot retail building and up to 249 residential flats and townhomes and would not include the use of any incompatible vehicles or equipment, such as farm equipment. The proposed project is surrounded by commercial, residential, and industrial uses. Therefore, the proposed project’s mixed use development would be compatible with the surrounding uses. Thus, the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to design or incompatible uses, impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project would provide emergency access via four driveways, including one entry from East Ball Road at the north side of the project site, two entries from South Anaheim Boulevard on the west side of the project site, and one entry from South Claudina Street on the northeast side of the project site. The proposed project would have 26-foot- wide fire access lanes throughout the project site with turning radiuses that are compliant with City Building Division and Fire & Rescue Department standards. This compliance includes that the proposed project driveways and internal circulation would accommodate standard fire lane turning radiuses and hammerhead turnaround maneuvers. To ensure compliance, the Anaheim Fire & Rescue would review project plans for final approval prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Further, it is not anticipated that construction of the proposed project would require the closure of any public roadways. Temporary construction activities would not impede the use of the road for emergencies or access for emergency response vehicles. Thus, impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 127
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

128 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.18 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment
or stormwater 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?

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?

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
According to the City’s UWMP , the City relies on a combination of imported water, local groundwater, and a small amount of recycled water to meet its water needs. The City works together with two primary agencies, Metropolitan and the OCWD, to ensure a reliable water supply that would continue to serve the City during periods of drought and water shortages. Historically, the City’s water supply primarily came from a mixture of groundwater (70 percent) and imported water (30 percent) from MWD; however, the City has taken many of its wells off-line as of March 2020 and is operating closer to a 60/40 split. As of April 2021, there are only four active wells, while the remaining wells have been taken off-line due to either mechanical issues or a group of chemicals referred to as PFAS. Over the next several years, the City will construct groundwater treatment facilities to remove PFAS to acceptable State-mandated levels after which groundwater usage will City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 129
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx meet or exceed historical levels consistent with increased groundwater supplies due to the expansion of OCWD’s Groundwater Replenishment System.83 The City’s Sewer and Storm Drain Maintenance Division is responsible for maintenance of the City’s sewer and storm drain lines. The proposed project is within the CAMPSS, adopted in December 2017. The CAMPSS study area consists of approximately 10,627 gross acres and a cumulative total of 23,777 linear feet of sewer pipelines that serve a population of approximately 134,000 people.84 The area is essentially fully developed except for future development consisting mainly of the Platinum Triangle and Anaheim Resort areas. The project site drains into the trunk sewer on Ball Road and Walnut Street.85 The City recycles a small portion of wastewater at the downtown Water Recycling Facility; however, the City sends most of its collected wastewater to the Orange County Sanitation District (OC San) for treatment and disposal.86
The APU Department’s Electrical Division currently provides electricity to residents and business industry, including the project site. The project site is currently fully built out and is served by the APU Department Electrical Division. The distribution system consists of approximately 1,200 circuit miles of transmission and distribution lines, over 700 miles of which are underground. To facilitate the safe and efficient transfer of electricity to residences and businesses, 13 distribution substations are located throughout the City. Anaheim obtains its electric supply from its resources located in or near Anaheim and across the western United States. To round out its electric supply, the City of Anaheim participates in seasonal power exchanges as well as additional market purchases where necessary.87 Telecommunication services are provided to the City through various companies including AT&T, Spectrum, Cox Communications, and Frontier.

Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project would connect to existing water and sanitary lines and would include the installation of stormwater management systems on-site.

Water
The proposed project’s water needs would be met by the City. The proposed project would connect to existing 10-inch water lines on South Claudina Street and the existing 18-inch water lines on East Ball Road, and the existing 12-inch water lines on South Anaheim Boulevard and would not require additional water infrastructure to be built of expanded. Further, as described previously in Impact

83 City of Anaheim. 2020. Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Website:
https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/37199/Anaheim-2020-UWMP?bidId=. Accessed June 1, 2022. 84 City of Anaheim. 2017. Central Anaheim Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers. Website:
https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/20610/CAMPSS_12182017_FINAL-revised. Accessed June 1, 2022. 85 Ibid.
86 City of Anaheim. 2020. Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Website:
https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/37199/Anaheim-2020-UWMP?bidId=. Accessed June 1, 2022. 87 City of Anaheim. May 2004. Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR, Section 5.2, Air Quality.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

130 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx

2.14(a), the proposed project is estimated to result in approximately 787 new residents. As discussed in Section 2.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, using the UWMP methodology,88 the proposed project would generate a total water demand of 40,215.7 GPD or approximately 45.05 AF Y. This represents a conservative estimate, which does not account for the existing water demand currently generated by the project site. According to the UWMP , the total water supply for the City is approximately 62,302 A F Y. The proposed project’s additional demand constitutes approximately 0.07 percent of the total demand. Therefore, the proposed project does not require and would not result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Wastewater
The City’s Sewer and Storm Drain Maintenance Division is responsible for maintenance of the City’s sewer and storm drain lines. The project site is currently developed, and the proposed project is within the CAMPSS.89 The proposed project would connect to the existing sewer lines on Ball Road and Anaheim Boulevard. The average flow factor for townhome units is 240 GPD per dwelling unit (GPD/du) based on the CAMPSS and 195 GPD/thousand square feet (ksf) for commercial. According to the Sewer Study prepared for the proposed project (Appendix F), sewage from the proposed 139 townhomes would add an average flow of 23.17 gallons per minute (gpm), or 33,360 GPD, to a proposed manhole on Anaheim Blvd and Winston Road. The use of an on-site private lift station is not needed since the residential flow is proposed to be split between the two discharge manholes for the proposed project. The remaining proposed 110 townhomes, and 4,500 square feet of retail space would add an average flow of 18.94 gpm, or 27,278 GPD, to a manhole on Ball Road. The average daily flow increase (net additional flow) to the Ball Road sewer collection system would be 21,541 GPD, and the average daily flow increase to the Anaheim Blvd. sewer collection system would be 21,280 GPD. The total flow from the proposed project would be 60,638 GPD, for a total average daily flow increase to the sewer collection system of 42,821 GPD.

According to the Sewer Study, sewer system improvements are not required on Ball Road. However, there is a capacity deficient sewer segment on the northerly Katella Avenue line. Sewer system improvements upstream of the Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue intersection are not required for the proposed project. However, model results based on the existing conditions show that there is currently insufficient capacity within certain segments of the northerly Katella sewer of the parallel Katella system that would be exacerbated by the increased sewer flow generated by the proposed project for both existing and buildout scenarios. A proposed residential development, Midway Apartments, is anticipated to address the recommended diversion improvements at the Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue intersection to alleviate these capacity deficient sewer segments. Prior to issuance of the first Building Permit for the proposed project, if the diversion at Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue is not fully constructed and operational, the Owner/Developer shall construct the diversion and make it operational (MM UTL-1). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

88 City of Anaheim. 2020. Urban Water Management Plan. Website:
https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/37199/Anaheim-2020-UWMP?bidId=. Accessed June 1, 2022. 89 City of Anaheim. 2017. Central Anaheim Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers. Website:
https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/20610/CAMPSS_12182017_FINAL-revised. Accessed June 1, 2022.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 131
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Stormwater
The proposed project would include the installation of stormwater management systems on-site. As discussed in Section 2.7, Geology and Soils, and Section 2.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project would prepare and implement a SWPPP and implement BMPs, which would ensure that impacts related to stormwater would be less than significant. Additionally, the proposed project would implement MM GEO-1 to further reduce the less than significant impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase stormwater drainage such that new or expanded facilities or relocation would be required. Impacts would be less than significant.

Electric Power, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications Facilities APU, SoCalGas, and local telecommunications companies operate and maintain transmission and distribution infrastructure in the project area and currently serve the existing uses on the project site. Impacts associated with the proposed project’s electricity demand and natural gas demand are discussed in Section 2.6, Energy.

The site is currently fully developed and served by telecommunications infrastructure. The proposed project would connect to the existing telecommunications infrastructure. Therefore, the proposed project would not require the installation or development of new or improved telecommunications facilities such that environmental impacts would occur. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less than significant impact. As discussed previously, the City relies on a combination of imported water, local groundwater, and a small amount of recycled water to meet its water needs. The City works together with two primary agencies, MWD and OCWD to ensure a safe and reliable water supply that would continue to serve the community in periods of drought and shortage. The City’s main source of water supply is groundwater from the OC Basin. The City has historically relied on approximately 70 percent groundwater (previous 10-year average) and 30 percent imported water from MWD to supply its customersalthough the City has taken many of its wells off-line as of March 2020 to address concentrations of PFAS in the groundwater. Over the next several years, the City will construct groundwater treatment facilities to remove PFAS to acceptable State-mandated levels after which groundwater usage will meet or exceed historical levels consistent with increased groundwater supplies due to the expansion of OCWD’s Groundwater Replenishment System, reducing the percentage imported from MWD. MWDs principal sources of water are the Colorado River via the Colorado River Aqueduct and the Lake Oroville watershed in Northern California through the State Water Project. Storage is also a major component of MWD dry year resource management strategy. MWDs likelihood of having adequate supply capability to meet projected demands is highly dependent on its storage resources.

Based on a conservative estimate that does not account for the current water demand of the project site, the proposed project would generate a water demand of 40,215.7 GPD or approximately 45.05 AFY , which is approximately 0.07 percent of the total demand. Thus, there is water supply available for the City, and the water supply demanded by the proposed project can be accommodated by the existing supply.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

132 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx The UWMP describes the City’s plans to meet full service demands under all foreseeable hydrologic conditions, meeting single dry year and multiple dry year reliability. Table 19below shows the comparison between the supply and demand for projected years between 2025 and 2045 for different hydrologic scenarios.

Table 19: City of Anaheim Water Supply and Demand Assessment Supply and Demand Assessment 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison
Supply totals 62,302 65,436 66,648 67,954 68,418
Demand totals 58,878 62,700 64,178 65,771 66,337
Difference 3,424 2,736 2,470 2,183 2,081
Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison
Supply totals 64,952 68,258 69,537 70,915 71,404
Demand totals 62,110 66,142 67,701 69,382 69,979
Difference 2,842 2,116 1,836 1,533 1,425
Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison
First Year Supply totals 63,169 66,359 67,593 68,923 69,395 Demand totals 59,936 63,826 65,331 66,953 67,529
Difference 3,233 2,533 2,262 1,970 1,866
Second Year Supply totals 64,036 67,283 68,539 69,892 70,373 Demand totals 60,993 64,953 66,484 68,134 68,721
Difference 3,043 2,330 2,055 1,758 1,652
Third Year Supply totals 63,940 67,180 68,433 69,784 70,264 Demand totals 60,876 64,828 66,356 68,003 68,588
Difference 3,064 2,352 2,077 1,781 1,676
Fourth Year Supply totals 62,253 65,384 66,595 67,900 68,364 Demand totals 58,819 62,637 64,114 65,705 66,271
Difference 3,434 2,747 2,481 2,195 2,093
Fifth Year Supply totals 62,783 65,949 67,173 68,492 68,961 Demand totals 59,466 63,326 64,819 66,428 66,999
Difference 3,317 2,623 2,354 2,064 1,962
Source: City of Anaheim Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) 2020.

City demands are projected to be met with groundwater, imported water, and recycled water supplies with available Metropolitan surplus supplies. The proposed project’s water demand would be accommodated in multiple dry year scenarios. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 133
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx 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?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The City’s Sewer and Storm Drain Maintenance Division is responsible for maintenance of the City’s sewer and storm drain lines. The proposed project is within the CAMPSS study area, which consists of approximately 10,627 gross acres and a cumulative total of 23,777 linear feet of sewer pipelines that serve a population of approximately 134,000 people.
90 The project site is currently fully built out and is currently served by the City’s Sewer and Storm Drain Maintenance Division. The Sewer Study prepared for the proposed project calculated flow the increase as compared to the existing uses on the project site. According to the Sewer Study prepared for the proposed project, the sewer collection system is currently deficient in the Katella Avenue sewer under the existing conditions, and the additional flow generated by the proposed project to the sewer collection system would exacerbate this deficiency. According to the Sewer Study, the average daily flow increase (net additional flow) to the Ball Road sewer collection system would be 21,541 GPD, and the average daily flow increase to the Anaheim Blvd. sewer collection system would be 21,280 GPD. The total flow from the proposed project would be 60,638 GPD, for a total average daily flow increase to the sewer collection system of 42,821 GPD. It is anticipated that the deficiency in the North Katella sewer would be relieved through currently planned developments. As previously discussed, prior to issuance of the first Building Permit for the proposed project, if the diversion at Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue is not fully constructed and operational, the Owner/Developer shall construct the diversion and make it operational (MM UTL-1).

Table 20 below describes the availability of sewer treatment at the OC San plants for the proposed project based on the proposed project’s total average daily flow increase.

Table 20: Orange County Sanitation District Sewer Treatment Availability Plant
2020-2021
Average Daily
Flow (mgd)
Total Capacity
(mgd)
Remaining
Capacity (mgd)
Project Average
Daily Flow (mgd)
Project’s
Percentage of
Remaining
Capacity (mgd)
Plant No. 1 118 144 26 0.04 0.15%
Plant No. 2 64 108 44 0.04 0.09%
Total 182 252 70 – –
Notes:
mgd = million gallons per day
Source: California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) 2022.

90 City of Anaheim. 2017. Central Anaheim Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers. Website:
https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/20610/CAMPSS_12182017_FINAL-revised. Accessed June 1, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

134 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx As shown in the table above, there would be adequate treatment capacity for the proposed project’s sewer flows. Additionally, as demonstrated in the Sewer Study, there is adequate sewer capacity available to accommodate sewer flows from the proposed project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
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? Less than significant impact. Republic Services is a private recycling and nonhazardous solid waste hauler and provides solid waste services to the City. Republic Services collects solid waste for all residential, commercial, and industrial waste and recycling services. Solid waste is disposed of in Orange County landfills. Currently, there are three active landfills that are owned and operated by the County, including Frank R. Bowerman Landfill in Irvine, Olinda Alpha Landfill in Brea, and Prima Deshecha Landfill in San Juan Capistrano. In order to ensure that the maximum permitted daily tonnage at a particular landfill is not exceeded, refuse trucks may have to transport material to one or the other.
91 The majority of this waste is taken to the Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill, which is located in the City of Brea. The Olinda Alpha Landfill is the closest facility to the City and would likely be the solid waste facility most often receiving waste from the project site. 92 According to the California
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Solid Waste Information System (SWIS), the landfills that serve the City have the following capacities, as described in Table 21.

Table 21: Orange County Landfill Availability
Landfill Landfill Address
Closure
Date
Maximum Daily
Permitted Throughput
(tons per day)
Maximum
Permitted Capacity
(cubic yards)
Remaining
Capacity
(cubic yards)
Frank R.

Bowerman
11002 Bee Canyon
Access Road, Irvine CA
92618
2053 11,500 266,000,000 205,000,000
Olinda
Alpha
1942 North Valencia
Avenue, Brea CA 92823 2036 8,000 148,800.000 17,500,000 Prima
Deshecha
32250 Avenida La Pata,
San Juan Capistrano, CA
92675
2102 4,000 172,100,000 134,300,000
Source: California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) Facility Search, 2022.

CalRecycle provides a solid waste generation factor to estimate the amount of solid waste generated by residential projects. Using the generation rate of 12.23 pounds (lbs) per household per day for residential development, the residential component of the proposed project would generate approximately 3,045.27 lbs per day of solid waste, or approximately 1.52 tons per day. Additionally,

91 City of Anaheim. 2004. Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR. Website:
http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/2195/513-Public-Services-and-Facilities?bidId=. Accessed June 1, 2022. 92 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2022. Solid Waste Information System (SWIS). Website:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2750?siteID=2085. Accessed June 1, 2022.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 135
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx using the generation rate of 2.5 lbs per square foot per day for commercial retail use, the retail component of the proposed project would generate 11,250 lbs per day of solid wastes, or approximately 5.63 tons per day. Therefore, the combined 7.15 tons of waste per day would represent approximately 0.09 percent of the maximum daily permitted throughput for the Olinda Alpha Landfill, which would likely receive the most solid waste from the project site. Therefore, the existing landfills have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project and solid waste generated during construction and operations would represent a negligible increase compared to the daily permitted tonnage at landfills. Additionally, the proposed project would also include recycling programs to reduce solid waste and comply with all applicable regulations for solid waste. Thus, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. e) Comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than significant impact. The City complies with all federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Regulations specifically applicable to the proposed project include the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), SB 2202, SB 1016, 2019 CALGreen Section 4.408, and AB 341, which requires multiple-family residential development and commercial uses to implement recycling programs.

In 1989, the Legislature adopted the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), in order to “reduce, recycle, and re-use solid waste generated in the State to the maximum extent feasible.” AB 939 established a waste management hierarchy and required that each county prepare a new Integrated Waste Management Plan and each city prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) by July 1, 1991. The SRRE is required to identify how each jurisdiction would meet the mandatory State waste diversion goal of 50 percent by and after the year 2000.

SB 2202 made a number of changes to the municipal solid waste diversion requirements under AB 939. These changes included a revision to the statutory requirement for 50 percent diversion of solid waste to clarify that local governments shall continue to divert 50 percent of all solid waste on and after January 1, 2000.

SB 1016 introduced a per capita disposal measurement system that measures the 50 percent diversion requirement using a disposal measurement equivalent. The Bill repealed the State Water Board 2-year process, requiring instead that the State Water Board make a finding whether each jurisdiction was in compliance with the Act’s diversion requirements for calendar year 2006 and to determine compliance for the 2007 calendar year and beyond, based on the jurisdiction’s change in its per capita disposal rate. The State Water Board is required to review a jurisdiction’s compliance with those diversion requirements in accordance with a specified schedule, which is conditioned upon the State Water Board finding that the jurisdiction complies with those requirements or has implemented its SRRE and household hazardous waste element. The Bill requires the State Water Board to issue an order of compliance if the State Water Board finds that the jurisdiction has failed to make a good faith effort to implement its SRRE or its household hazardous waste element, pursuant to a specified procedure. The per capita disposal rate is a jurisdiction-specific index, which is used as one of several “factors” in determining a jurisdiction’s compliance with the intent of AB Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

136 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx 939 and allows CalRecycle and jurisdictions to set their primary focus on successful implementation of diversion programs.

SB 1383 requires counties to take the lead collaborating with the jurisdictions located within the county in planning for the necessary organic waste recycling and food recovery capacity needed to divert organic waste from landfills into recycling activities and food recovery organizations. California has a 2025 goal to redirect to people in need 20 percent of edible food currently thrown away.93 CALGreen Section 4.408 requires preparation of a Construction Waste Management Plan that provides an overview of ways in which the applicant would recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition debris. During the construction phase, the proposed project would be required to comply with CALGreen through the recycling and reuse of at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition debris from the project site.

Participation in the City’s recycling programs during project construction and operation, including CalRecycle’s requirements, would ensure that the proposed project would not conflict with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Additionally, solid waste would be disposed of at existing Orange County Waste and Recycling landfills. Disposal of solid waste would comply with all federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. During operation, the proposed project would include receptacles for recyclables and garbage. Thus, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures
MM UTL-1 A proposed residential development, Midway Apartments, is anticipated to address the recommended diversion improvements at the Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue intersection to alleviate these capacity deficient sewer segments. However, if the diversion at Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue is not fully constructed and operational, prior to issuance of first the Building Permit for the proposed project, the Owner/Developer shall construct the diversion and make it operational.

93 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2022. Capacity Planning. Website:
https://calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/slcp/capacityplanning/. Accessed August 8, 2022.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 137
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.19 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?

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map indicates that the project site is not within a State Responsibility Area (SRA). The closest SRA is 8 miles east of the project site.94 The site is located in a an LRA in a non-Very High FHSZ.95
Would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No impact. The City of Anaheim has emergency evacuation zones for the eastern portion of the City, where there is more open space and a greater wildland fire hazard risk.96 The project site is not located in any of the evacuation zones because it is in the western portion of the City, where the City

94 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2022. State Responsibility Area (SRA) Viewer. Website:
https://calfire-forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=468717e399fa4238ad86861638765ce1. Accessed June 22, 2022.
95 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2022. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA As Recommended by CAL FIRE. Website: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5880/c30_anaheim_vhfhsz.pdf. Accessed May 2, 2022. 96 City of Anaheim. Know Your Way Evacuation Zones. Website: http://www.anaheim.net/6063/Know-Your-Way-Evacuation-Zones.

Accessed May 2, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

138 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx is flatter and more urbanized, and there are fewer fire hazards. As described above, the project site is not located in a SRA. It is located within an LRA in a non-Very High FHSZ. No impact would occur. 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?
No impact. The project site is located in an urbanized, flat area. The site and its surrounding area have no history of wildfire.97 As described above, the project site is not located in an SRA. It is located within an LRA in a non-Very High FHSZ. No impact would occur. 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? No impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area of the City and would connect to existing infrastructure that currently serves the site and surrounding area. As described above, the project site is located within an LRA in a non-Very High FHSZ. No impact would occur. 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? No impact. The project site is flat and is not located within an area identified as having a potential for landslides by the California Geological Survey.98 As described above, the project site is not located in an SRA. It is located within an LRA in a non-Very High FHSZ. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.

97 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2022. California Fire Perimeters through 2021. Website:
https://calfire-forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=e3802d2abf8741a187e73a9db49d68fe. Accessed June 22, 2022.
98 California Geological Survey, California Department of Conservation. Geologic Hazards. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/geologichazards/. Accessed May 2, 2022.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 139
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.20 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?

Environmental Evaluation
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 incorporated. Based on the analysis provided in Section

2.4, Biological Resources, the proposed project would have no impact related to candidate, sensitive, or special-status species; riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities; or State or federally protected wetlands. The proposed project’s impacts on nesting birds would be less than significant with adherence to regulatory requirements. Furthermore, the proposed project’s impacts related to the City’s Street Tree Ordinance would be less than significant with compliance to the City’s regulatory requirements, which requires the Owner/Developer to obtain permission from the Environmental Checklist and City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

140 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx Community Services Department in the event that maintenance or removal of existing Street Trees is required.99
The proposed project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, reduce fish or wildlife habitat, reduce fish or wildlife populations below self-sustaining levels, eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.

Based on the analysis provided in Section 2.5, Cultural Resources, the proposed project’s impacts related to historical resources would be less than significant with implementation of MM CUL-1. A pedestrian survey determined that that there are buildings located within the project boundaries, and a subsequent Historic Built Environmental Assessment Report determined that the buildings were ineligible under all State and local designation criteria due to lack of significant historical associations and architectural merit. While unlikely, subsurface construction activities always have the potential to destroy or damage previously undiscovered historical resources. Implementation of MM CUL-1 would ensure that potential impacts on historic resources are reduced to a less than significant level. Additionally, there are no known archaeological resources on the project site, but there is always a possibility that subsurface excavation could result in the discovery of previously undiscovered prehistoric archaeological resources. Implementation of MM CUL-1 would ensure that potential impacts on prehistoric archaeological resources are reduced to a less than significant level.

Additionally, although there are no known human remains or cemeteries within or near the project site, there is always a potential that subsurface construction activities, such as grading or trenching, could potentially damage or destroy previously undiscovered human remains. Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 specifies the procedures to follow in the event human remains are uncovered.

Compliance with required guidelines and statutes would reduce potential impacts on human remains to a less than significant level. In addition to reducing impacts on historic and prehistoric resources, implementation of MM TCR-1 for tribal monitoring would also reduce any impacts on TCRs.

Based on the discussion provided above, compliance with required guidelines and statutes and implementation of the mitigation measures, the proposed project would not 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. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with compliance with existing regulations and incorporation of MM CUL-1 and MM TCR-1.

99 Anaheim Municipal Code. 2021. Chapter 13.12 STREET TREES*. City of Anaheim. Website:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/anaheim/latest/overview. Accessed June 22, 2022.

City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions 141
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx 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. The analysis in this Draft IS/MND includes a review of the proposed project’s potential impacts regarding air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise, and transportation, among other environmental issue areas. As presented throughout this Draft IS/MND, the proposed project’s cumulative impacts would either be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, less than significant, or there would be no impacts.

Section 2.3, Air Quality, analyzed cumulative impacts related to regional criteria pollutant emissions and determined that these cumulative impacts would be less than significant. The region is currently nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. As discussed in Section 2.3, the proposed project’s regional construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for VOC, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, or PM2.5. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the proposed project’s construction emissions on regional air quality would be less than significant. Furthermore, Section

2.3 determined that the proposed project’s regional operations emissions would not exceed SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for VOC, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, or PM2.5. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the proposed project’s operations emissions on regional air quality would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are needed.

Section 2.13, Noise, determined that project-related traffic would have no potential to substantially contribute to any cumulatively considerable increases in future roadside ambient noise levels, and that no mitigation measures are needed.

As discussed throughout this Draft IS/MND, the proposed project’s cumulative impacts would be less than significant. No additional mitigation measures would be required to reduce cumulative impacts.

Therefore, the proposed project would cause less than significant cumulative impacts. 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 incorporated. Based on the discussion provided in the Project Description and the analysis presented in Sections 2.1 through 2.19 of this Draft IS/MND, the proposed project would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, because the proposed project’s potential impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Therefore, with implementation of MM AQ-1, MM CUL-1, MM TCR-1, MM GEO-1, MM GEO-2, MM GHG-1, MM HAZ-1, MM HAZ-2, MM HAZ-3, MM NOI-1, and MM UTL-1 the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse effects on human beings. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures
Implementation of MM AQ-1, MM CUL-1, MM TCR-1, MM GEO-1, MM GEO-2, MM GHG-1, MM HAZ- 1, MM HAZ-2, MM HAZ-3, MM NOI-1, and MM UTL-1.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Anaheim—Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration List of Preparers

FirstCarbon Solutions 143
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0055/00550089/ISMND/00550089 Anaheim Ball Mixed Use ISMND.docx SECTION 3: LIST OF PREPARERS
FirstCarbon Solutions
250 Commerce, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92602
Phone: 714-508-4100
Project Director ....................................................................................................................... Mary Bean Project Manager ........................................................................................................................ Cecilia So Legal Counsel ................................................................................................................... Megan Starr, JD Director of Cultural Resources .......................................................................... Dana DePietro, PhD, RPA Director of Noise and Air Quality ............................................................................. Phil Ault, LEEDTM AP Assistant Project Manager .......................................................................................... Stephanie Shepard Publications Manager ............................................................................................................ Susie Harris Word Processor .............................................................................................................. Melissa Ramirez GIS/Graphics ................................................................................................................ Karlee McCracken Alta California Geotechnical, Inc.—Geotechnical Subconsultant 170 North Maple Street, Suite 108
Corona, CA 92880
Phone: 951.509.7090
Partner Engineering and Science, Inc.—Phase I ESA Technical Subconsultant 2154 Torrance Boulevard, Suite 200
Torrance, CA 90501
Phone: 800.419.4923
Fax: 866.928.7418
C&V Consulting, Inc.—Civil Engineering Subconsultant
9830 Irvine Center Drive
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: 949.916.3800
Psomas–Sewer Study Subconsultant
5 Hutton Centre, Suite 300
Santa Ana, CA 92707
Phone: 714.481.7979
Fehr & Peers–Traffic Subconsultant
101 Pacifica, Suite 300
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: 949.308.6318

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Anaheim City CouncilNovember 1, 2022

Anaheim City Council
November 1, 2022