Based on the focused surveys conducted for the proposed project, sensitive plant species can be categorized as follows:
x Covered or Conditionally Covered by the NCCP/HCP and Observed within the Project Site (listed in Table 4.6-3)
x Covered by the NCCP/HCP and Potentially Occurring within the Project Site (listed in Table 4.6-4)
x Not Covered by the NCCP/HCP and Observed with the Project Site (listed in Table
4.6-5)
x Not Covered by the NCCP/HCP and Potentially Occurring within the Project Site (listed in Table 4.6-6)
x Not Expected to Occur
As identified in Table 4.6-3, there are three species of sensitive plants that were observed on the project site and are Covered under the NCCP/HCP: Tecate Cypress, Coulter’s matilija poppy, and Catalina mariposa lily. The foothill mariposa lily is Conditionally Covered under the NCCP/HCP and was also observed on-site.
As identified in Table 4.6-4, three sensitive plant species Covered by the NCCP/HCP were not observed on-site, but have the potential to occur: Santa Monica Mountains dudleya, Nuttall’s scrub oak, and heart-leaved pitcher sage.
There are five sensitive plant species Not Covered by the NCCP/HCP that were observed on the project site (refer to Table 4.6-5): Braunton’s milk-vetch, Palmer’s grapplinghook, manystemmed dudleya, long-spined spineflower, and chaparral nolina. Two additional sensitive Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-21 Biological Resources species Not Covered under the NCCP/HCP were not observed during focused surveys but have the potential to occur (refer to Table 4.6-6): Robinson’s peppergrass and Hall’s monardella.
Based on the results of the literature review and the focused plant surveys conducted for the proposed project, the following sensitive plant species were not observed and are not expected to occur within the project site: Payson’s jewelflower, Coulter’s saltbush, Laguna Beach dudleya, Santiago Peak phacelia, Santa Ana River woollystar, small-flowered mountain mahogany, thread-leaved brodiaea, and Plummer’s mariposa lily. Information regarding these species is provided in Appendix E.
Sensitive Wildlife Species
Sensitive wildlife include those species listed as Endangered or Threatened under the FESA or CESA, candidates for listing by the USFWS or CDFG, and species of special concern to the CDFG. A number of sensitive wildlife species from the region were reported in the CNDDB.
Many of the sensitive species addressed are also included as “Identified Species” and are Covered under the NCCP/HCP. In addition, a few species that have no Federal or State status are Covered by the NCCP/HCP. These are included and analyzed in this document to provide a comprehensive list of species that could be impacted by the proposed project regardless of their Federal or State status.
Sensitive wildlife species can be categorized as follows for the proposed project:
x Covered or Conditionally Covered by the NCCP/HCP and Observed within the Project Site (listed in Table 4.6-7)
x Covered by the NCCP/HCP and Potentially Occurring within the Project Site (listed in Table 4.6-8)
x Not Covered by the NCCP/HCP and Observed within the Project Site (listed in Table
4.6-9)
x Not Covered by the NCCP/HCP and Potentially Occurring within the Project Site (listed in Table 4.6-10)
x Not Expected to Occur
As identified in Table 4.6-7, there are 11 wildlife species that were observed on the project site and are Covered under the NCCP/HCP: coast horned lizard, orange-throated whiptail, coastal whiptail, northern red-diamond rattlesnake, sharp-shinned hawk, red-shouldered hawk, cactus wren, coastal California gnatcatcher, Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, coyote, and gray fox. The following three Conditionally Covered wildlife species were also observed on the project site: golden eagle, prairie falcon, and southwestern willow flycatcher.
As identified in Table 4.6-8, nine sensitive wildlife species Covered by the NCCP/HCP were not observed on-site, but have the potential to occur: arboreal salamander, black-bellied slender salamander, Coronado skink, coastal rosy boa, ring-necked snake, Northern harrier, roughlegged hawk, American peregrine falcon, and San Diego desert woodrat.
There are six sensitive wildlife species Not Covered by the NCCP/HCP that were observed on the project site (refer to Table 4.6-9): Cooper’s hawk, willow flycatcher, black-chinned sparrow, Bell’s sage sparrow, tri-colored blackbird, and western mastiff bat. Eighteen additional sensitive wildlife species Not Covered under the NCCP/HCP were not observed during surveys but have the potential to occur on-site (refer to Table 4.6-10): coast range newt, silvery legless lizard, San Diego mountain kingsnake, coast patch-nosed snake, white tailed kite, ferruginous hawk, merlin, long-eared owl, olive-sided flycatcher, loggerhead shrike, pallid bat, Townsend’s western big-eared bat, spotted bat, pocketed free-tailed bat, big free-tailed bat, San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, and southern grasshopper mouse.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-22 Biological Resources TABLE 4.6-7
SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES COVERED OR CONDITIONALLY COVERED BY THE NCCP/HCP
AND OBSERVED WITHIN THE MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT SITE
VERTEBRATES
Scientific Name Common Name FederalA StateB NCCPC Preferred Habitat Distribution Occurrence
On-site*
REPTILES Phryonosomatidae Iguanid LizardsPhrynosoma coronatum coast horned lizard None CSC IN Valley-foothill hardwood, conifer, and riparian habitats, pine-cypress, juniper and annual grassland habitats below 6,000 ft., open country, especially sandy areas, washes, flood plains, and windblown deposits.
Coastal ranges and foothills of Sierra Nevada from San Francisco Bay Area and northern Central Valley south to San Diego and Baja CA.
OB; OS, DA
Comments: The coast horned lizard was observed on-site within coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and within Gypsum Canyon Wash.Teiidae Whiptails and RelativesCnemidophorus hyperythrus orange-throated whiptail None CSC TN Gently sloping hillsides, ridges, and valleys supporting open coastal sage scrub, open chaparral, or sparse grasslands.
Extreme south Los Angeles Co., southwest San Bernardino Co., Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Cos. west of the crest of the peninsular Ranges, and Baja CA.
OB; OS, DA
Cnemidophorus tigris stejnegeri
coastal whiptail None None IN Valley-foothill hardwood
forests, valley-foothill/ hardwood conifer, mixed conifer, and desert scrub habitats.
Southern CA coastal ranges to lowlands along coast and Baja CA.
OB; OS, DA
Comments: Coastal whiptail was observed on-site within a variety of habitat types.Viperidae VipersCrotalus ruber ruber northern red-diamond rattlesnake
None CSC IN Chaparral, woodland, and arid
desert habitats in rocky areas with dense vegetation.
San Bernardino Co. to tip of Baja CA.
OB; OS, DA
A, B and C (see footnotes at end of table) *OB = observed; P = Species has the potential to occur on-site; NE = species not expected to occur on-site; f = for raptor species: if present, would utilize the site for foraging; b = for raptor species: if present, would utilize the site for breeding. OS = species occurs or has the potential to occur within open space areas of the project site; DA = species occurs or has the potential to occur within the proposed development area.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
TABLE 4.6-7 (Continued)
SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES COVERED OR CONDITIONALLY COVERED BY THE NCCP/HCP
AND OBSERVED WITHIN THE MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT SITE
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-23 Biological Resources
VERTEBRATES
Scientific Name Common Name FederalA StateB NCCPC Preferred Habitat Distribution Occurrence
On-site*
BIRDS Accipitridae Hawks, Kites, Harriers, and EaglesAccipiter striatus sharp-shinned hawk None CSC IN Woodlands; forages over chaparral and other scrublands; prefers riparian habitats and north-facing slopes, with plucking perch sites.
Entire State, although only winters in most of southern CA.
OB, b, f; OS,
DA
Buteo lineatus red-shouldered hawk None None IN Low elevation riparian woodlands up to 5000 feet, especially interspersed with swamps and emergent woodlands.
Length of CA along the coast and in the central valley.
OB, b, f; OS,
DA
Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle None CSC,
SFP
IN/CC Mountains, deserts, and open
country; prefer to forage over grasslands, deserts, savannahs and early successional stages of forest and shrub habitats. Nesting sites are usually located in secluded cliffs with overhanging ledges or in large trees.
Throughout CA with the exception of the center of the central valley.
OB;
b-OS
f-OS, DA
Comments: One pair of golden eagles was observed flying over the higher elevations of the eastern portion of the site. This species likely utilizes the site for foraging and secluded cliffs in the higher elevations may provide nesting areas. No active nests were observed; however, golden eagles are known to actively nest in the uppermost reaches of Gypsum Canyon (Pete Bloom personal communication October 24, 2001).
Falconidae FalconsFalco mexicanus prairie falcon BCC CSC IN/CC Grasslands, savannahs, rangeland, agricultural fields, and desert scrub; often uses sheltered cliff ledges for cover.
Southeast deserts northwest along the inner Coast Ranges and Sierra Nevada.
OB;
b-OS
f-OS, DA
Comments: Directed surveys for prairie falcon in 2001 did not detect the presence of this species on-site; however, one individual was observed during focused surveys for least Bell’s vireo in 2004. Several individuals are known to visit Southern California each fall and winter and speculative data supports the hypothesis that one pair may breed near the top of Gypsum Canyon (Harmsworth 1999). No documented breeding activity has been recorded; however, suggestive breeding behavior has been observed and this species probably occasionally nests in the upper reaches of Gypsum Canyon (Pete Bloom personal communication October 24, 2001).
A, B and C (see footnotes at end of table) *OB = observed; P = Species has the potential to occur on-site; NE = species not expected to occur on-site; f = for raptor species: if present, would utilize the site for foraging; b = for raptor species: if present, would utilize the site for breeding. OS = species occurs or has the potential to occur within open space areas of the project site; DA = species occurs or has the potential to occur within the proposed development area.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
TABLE 4.6-7 (Continued)
SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES COVERED OR CONDITIONALLY COVERED BY THE NCCP/HCP
AND OBSERVED WITHIN THE MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT SITE
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-24 Biological Resources
VERTEBRATES
Scientific Name Common Name FederalA StateB NCCPC Preferred Habitat Distribution Occurrence
On-site*
TYRANNIDAE Tyrant flycatchersEmpidonax traillii extimus southwestern willow flycatcher
FE SE IN/CC Wet meadows, riparian
woodlands that contain water and low growing willow thickets.
Southern CA, from the Santa Ynez River south.
OB, f; OS,
DA
Comments: A habitat evaluation conducted by Harmsworth Associates in 1998 did not determine the presence of suitable southwestern willow flycatcher habitat within Gypsum Canyon. However, their survey area did include a portion of Weir Canyon west of the project site. Surveys within Weir Canyon did not detect the presence of southwestern willow flycatcher (Harmsworth 1999). Nonetheless, willow flycatcher vocalizations were heard on one occasion in 2001 and focused surveys were conducted in 2002 and 2003. Four southwestern willow flycatchers were observed during 2002 surveys within cottonwood willow riparian woodland in the northern portion of the site (refer to Exhibit 4.6-6, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher). Because the birds observed appeared to be paired and responded to taped courting vocalizations (i.e., tapes of interaction calls), they were assumed to be breeding pairs. However, the birds were observed on the first two surveys but were not detected during any of the last three surveys. Because the southwestern willow flycatchers were not observed during the third survey period (June 22 – July 17) it is assumed that they were not breeding on-site. As stated previously, surveys conducted in 2003 determined the presence of two willow flycatchers as migrants only. Surveys conducted in 2004 did not detect the presence of this subspecies within the project site.Troglodytidae WrensCampylorhynchus brunneicapillus cactus wren (coastal populations only)
BCC CSC TN Coastal sage scrub,
vegetation with thickets of prickly pear or cholla cactus.
Ventura Co. south to San Diego Co.
OB;
b-OS, DA
f-OS, DA
Comments: At least 12 pairs of cactus wrens were observed throughout the site within the southern cactus scrub habitat.Sylviidae GnatcatchersPolioptila californica californica coastal California gnatcatcher
FT CSC TN Coastal sage scrub vegetation
below 2,500 feet elevation in Riverside County and generally below 1,000 feet elevation along the coastal slope; generally avoids steep slopes and dense vegetation for nesting.
Southern Ventura Co., southward through Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino Cos., and south through the coastal foothills of San Diego Co.
OB;
b-OS, DA
f-OS, DA
Comments: Surveys in 2001 within the proposed development envelope determined the presence of at least 14 pairs of coastal California gnatcatchers within several varieties of coastal sage scrub and chaparral. Two banded individuals were observed on separate occasions and were found to have traveled more than 10 miles through the Santa Ana Mountains from Siphon Reservoir (Richard Erickson, LSA Associates personal communication, August 27 and October 9, 2001). A, B and C (see footnotes at end of table) *OB = observed; P = Species has the potential to occur on-site; NE = species not expected to occur on-site; f = for raptor species: if present, would utilize the site for foraging; b = for raptor species: if present, would utilize the site for breeding. OS = species occurs or has the potential to occur within open space areas of the project site; DA = species occurs or has the potential to occur within the proposed development area.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
TABLE 4.6-7 (Continued)
SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES COVERED OR CONDITIONALLY COVERED BY THE NCCP/HCP
AND OBSERVED WITHIN THE MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT SITE
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-25 Biological Resources
VERTEBRATES
Scientific Name Common Name FederalA StateB NCCPC Preferred Habitat Distribution Occurrence
On-site*
Embirizidae Sparrows, Buntings, Warblers, and RelativesAimophila ruficeps canescens Southern California rufouscrowned sparrow None CSC IN Generally, steep, rocky areas within coastal sage scrub and chaparral, often with scattered bunches of grass; prefers relatively recently burned areas.
Cismontane s CA. OB;
b-OS, DA
f-OS, DA
Canidae Foxes, wolves, and coyotesCanis latrans Coyote None None IN Almost all habitats and successional stages.
CA. OB; OS, DA
Urocyon cinereoargenteus gray fox None None IN Shrublands, valley-foothill riparian, montane riparian, and brush stages of coniferous forests and woodland habitats.
Permanent resident of low to middle elevations throughout CA.
OB; OS, DA
Key to Species Listing status Codes A B FE Federally Listed as Endangered SE State Listed as Endangered CSC1 California Special Concern Species FT Federally Listed as Threatened ST State Listed as Threatened FPE Federally Proposed as Endangered SCE State Candidate for Endangered FPT Federally Proposed as Threatened SCT State Candidate for Threatened FPD Federally Proposed for Delisting SP State Protected FC Federal Candidate Species SFP State Fully Protected FSC Federal Special Concern Species SR State Rare C Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) IN Identified NCCP Species – Covered Species IN/CC Identified NCCP Species – Conditionally Covered Species TN Target NCCP Species – Covered Species *OB = observed; P = Species has the potential to occur on-site; NE = species not expected to occur on-site; f = for raptor species: if present, would utilize the site for foraging; b = for raptor species: if present, would utilize the site for breeding. OS = species occurs or has the potential to occur within open space areas of the project site; DA = species occurs or has the potential to occur within the proposed development area. 1 State of California. The Resources Agency. Department of Fish and Game. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. California Natural Diversity Database. August 2004. Special Animals List. Sacramento. 48pp.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-26 Biological Resources TABLE 4.6-8
SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES COVERED BY THE NCCP/HCP
WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR WITHIN THE MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT SITE
VERTEBRATES
Scientific Name Common Name FederalA StateB NCCPC Preferred Habitat Distribution Occurrence
On-site*
AMPHIBIANSPlethodontidae Lungless Salamanders Aneides lugubris arboreal salamander None None IN Moist areas of valley-foothill hardwood, valley-foothill hardwood conifer and mixed conifer habitats, chaparral in Southern California.
Coast ranges from sea level to 5,000 ft. from Humboldt Co. to the Mexican border.
P; OS, DA
Batrachoseps nigriventris black-bellied slender
salamander
None None IN Moist areas within drainages
with open oak, mixed conifer, and mixed chaparral.
South coast and transverse ranges and the w slopes of the Sierra Nevada.
P; OS, DA
Scincidae SkinksEumeces skiltonainus interparietalis
Coronado skink None CSC IN Grassland, woodland, and
forest habitats with rocky patches near streams, also common on dry slopes.
Southern Orange, San Diego Cos., northern Baja CA.
P; OS, DA
REPTILESBoidae BoasCharina trivirgata roseofusca
coastal rosy boa None None IN Desert and rocky areas in chaparral covered hillsides and canyons.
Throughout southern CA, south of Los Angeles Co. in coastal ranges to northern Baja CA.
P; OS, DA
Colubridae Colubrid SnakesDiadophis punctatus ring-necked snake None None IN Open, relatively rocky areas within valley-foothill, mixed chaparral, and annual grass habitats.
San Bernardino, Riverside and Orange Cos.
P; OS, DA
BIRDSAccipitridae Hawks, Kites, Harriers, and EaglesCircus cyaneus Northern harrier None CSC IN Coastal salt marshes, freshwater marshes, grasslands, and agricultural fields; occasionally forages over open desert and brushlands.
Alaska, Canada, South U.S. P, f;
OS, DA
A, B, C – see footnotes at end of Table 4.6-7. *OB = observed; P = Species has the potential to occur on-site; NE = species not expected to occur on-site; f = for raptor species: if present, would utilize the site for foraging; b = for raptor species: if present, would utilize the site for breeding. OS = species occurs or has the potential to occur within open space areas of the project site; DA = species occurs or has the potential to occur within the proposed development area.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
TABLE 4.6-8 (Continued)
SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES COVERED BY THE NCCP/HCP
WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR WITHIN THE MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT SITE R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-27 Biological Resources
VERTEBRATES
Scientific Name Common Name FederalA StateB NCCPC Preferred Habitat Distribution Occurrence
On-site*
Buteo lagopus rough-legged hawk None None IN Upland agricultural fields and grasslands.
Winters in much of CA. P, f;
OS, DA
Falconidae FalconsFalco peregrinus anatum American peregrine falcon Delisted, BCC
SE, SFP IN Open country, cliffs
(mountains to coasts).
Occurs uncommonly throughout CA with the exception of the southeast deserts.
P, f;
OS, DA
MAMMALSCricetidae Mice, rats, and volesNeotoma lepida intermedia San Diego desert woodrat None CSC IN Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and pinyon – juniper woodland.
Southern CA. P; OS, DA
A, B, C – see footnotes at end of Table 4.6-7. *OB = observed; P = Species has the potential to occur on-site; NE = species not expected to occur on-site; f = for raptor species: if present, would utilize the site for foraging; b = for raptor species: if present, would utilize the site for breeding. OS = species occurs or has the potential to occur within open space areas of the project site; DA = species occurs or has the potential to occur within the proposed development area.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-28 Biological Resources TABLE 4.6-9
SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES NOT COVERED BY THE NCCP/HCP
BUT OBSERVED WITHIN THE MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT SITE
VERTEBRATES
Scientific Name Common Name FederalA StateB NCCPC Preferred Habitat Distribution Occurrence
On-site*
BIRDS Accipitridae Hawks, Kites, Harriers, and EaglesAccipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk None CSC None Open woodlands especially riparian woodland.
Entire State OB;
b-OS, DA
f-OS, DA
Tyrannidae Tyrant flycatchersEmpidonax traillii willow flycatcher None SE None Willows, alders, brushy swamps, swales.
Breed in North America but winter in Mexico, Central America, and northern South America.
OB, f-OS;
P, f-DA
Comments: One willow flycatcher was incidentally heard vocalizing on one occasion, June 5, 2001, within an area containing scattered sycamore trees and chamise chaparral habitat. Although focused protocol surveys were not being conducted at the time, vocalizations were heard within the second protocol survey period (June 1-21). Subsequent visits to detect this individual proved unsuccessful. Based on willow flycatcher migration patterns and periods, the flycatcher heard cannot be confidently identified to subspecies because all subspecies of northbound migrant willow flycatchers may potentially move through the survey area within the second survey protocol window (Sogge et al., 1997). Focused surveys for the willow flycatcher conducted in 2002 determined the presence of southwestern willow flycatcher (as discussed below). Surveys conducted in 2003 observed two willow flycatchers on May 19, 2003 (during the first survey period) as shown in Figure 26 of Appendix E Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Location, on page 108. Subsequent surveys in 2003 did not detect this species within the project site; therefore, it has been determined that this species is utilizing the project site during migration only. Surveys conducted in 2004 did not detect this species within the Project Site.
Embirizidae Sparrows, Buntings, Warblers, and RelativesSpizella atrogularis black-chinned sparrow BCC None None Chaparral A summer resident. Breeds locally and uncommonly in foothills bordering Central Valley, and commonly on arid mountain slopes of southern. CA.
OB;
b-OS, DA
f-OS, DA
Amphispiza belli belli Bell’s sage sparrow BCC CSC None Chamise chaparral and coastal sage scrub.
Trinity Co. south to Baja CA, west of the deserts
OB;
b-OS, DA
f-OS, DA
A, B, C – see footnotes at end of Table 4.6-7. *OB = observed; P = Species has the potential to occur on-site; NE = species not expected to occur on-site; f = for raptor species: if present, would utilize the site for foraging; b = for raptor species: if present, would utilize the site for breeding. OS = species occurs or has the potential to occur within open space areas of the project site; DA = species occurs or has the potential to occur within the proposed development area.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
TABLE 4.6-9 (Continued)
SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES NOT COVERED BY THE NCCP/HCP
BUT OBSERVED WITHIN THE MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT SITE
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-29 Biological Resources
VERTEBRATES
Scientific Name Common Name FederalA StateB NCCPC Preferred Habitat Distribution Occurrence
On-site*
Icteridae BlackbirdsAgelaius tricolor tri-colored blackbird BCC CSC None Freshwater marshes and riparian scrub.
Central Valley and in coastal areas from Sonoma Co. south.
OB, f; OS,
DA
Comments: Approximately 10 tri-colored blackbirds were observed on-site on one occasion. These individuals were observed displaying aerial foraging behavior over the northeastern corner of the project site adjacent to the 91 Freeway and Santa Ana River. A nesting colony is not expected to occur on-site due to the lack of suitable habitat.
MAMMALSMolossidae Free-tailed bats Eumops perotis californicus western mastiff bat None CSC None Primarily arid lowlands, especially deserts. Open, semiarid to arid habitats including conifer and deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, annual and perennial grasslands, palm oases, chaparral, desert scrub, and urban.
Uncommon resident of lower elevations in southeast San Joaquin Valley and Coastal Ranges from Monterey Co. southward through southern CA from the coast eastward to the Colorado desert.
OB; OS, DA
A, B, C – see footnotes at end of Table 4.6-7. *OB = observed; P = Species has the potential to occur on-site; NE = species not expected to occur on-site; f = for raptor species: if present, would utilize the site for foraging; b = for raptor species: if present, would utilize the site for breeding. OS = species occurs or has the potential to occur within open space areas of the project site; DA = species occurs or has the potential to occur within the proposed development area.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-30 Biological Resources TABLE 4.6-10
SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES NOT COVERED BY THE NCCP/HCP
WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR WITHIN THE MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT SITE
VERTEBRATES
Scientific Name Common Name FederalA StateB NCCPC Preferred Habitat Distribution Occurrence
On-site*
AMPHIBIANS Salamandridae Newts Taricha torosa torosa coast range newt None CSC None Lives in terrestrial habitats and migrates to breed in ponds, reservoirs, and slowmoving streams.
Mendocino Co. to San Diego Co.
P; OS, DA
Comments: This species is reported in the CNDDB from the Black Star Canyon Quadrangle. REPTILES Anniellidae Legless LizardsAnniella pulchra pulchra silvery legless lizard None CSC None Several habitats but especially in coastal dune, valley-foothill, chaparral, and coastal scrub habitats.
Coastal ranges from San Francisco Bay into Baja CA.
P; OS, DA
Colubridae Colubrid SnakesLampropeltis zonata pulchra
San Diego mountain kingsnake
None CSC None Moist woods, coniferous
forests, woodland and chaparral.
Peninsular Ranges of southern CA.
P; OS, DA
Comments: There is one record in the CNDDB that reports an observation of San Diego mountain kingsnake within Cleveland National Forest. Salvadora hexalepis virgultea coast patch-nosed snake None CSC None Coastal chaparral, desert scrub, washes, sandy flats, and rocky areas.
Point Conception south through Baja CA.
P; OS, DA
BIRDSAccipitridae Hawks, Kites, Harriers, and EaglesElanus leucurus white-tailed kite None SFP None Grasslands with scattered trees, near marshes, along highways.
Length of State; breeding in lowlands from Sacramento to San Diego Cos.
P;
b-OS, DA
f-OS, DA
Buteo regalis ferruginous hawk None CSC None Rivers, lakes, and coasts; grasslands and agricultural areas during winter.
Winters throughout most of CA.
P, f;
OS, DA
A, B, C – see footnotes at end of Table 4.6-7. *OB = observed; P = Species has the potential to occur on-site; NE = species not expected to occur on-site; f = for raptor species: if present, would utilize the site for foraging; b = for raptor species: if present, would utilize the site for breeding. OS = species occurs or has the potential to occur within open space areas of the project site; DA = species occurs or has the potential to occur within the proposed development area.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
TABLE 4.6-10 (Continued)
SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES NOT COVERED BY THE NCCP/HCP
WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR WITHIN THE MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT SITE R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-31 Biological Resources
VERTEBRATES
Scientific Name Common Name FederalA StateB NCCPC Preferred Habitat Distribution Occurrence
On-site*
Falconidae FalconsFalco columbarius Merlin None CSC None Coastlines, wetlands, woodlands, agricultural fields, and grasslands.
Winter migrant throughout most of the State.
P, f;
OS, DA
Strigidae OwlsAsio otus long-eared owl None CSC None Dense riparian areas, thickets, woodlands, and forest.
Local resident throughout CA. Some seasonal movement away from nesting areas.
P, f; OS, DA
Tyrannidae Tyrant FlycatchersContupus cooperi olive-sided flycatcher BCC None None Wide variety of forest and woodland habitats.
Throughout CA. P;
b-OS, DA
f-OS, DA
Laniidae ShrikesLanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike BCC CSC None Open habitats with scattered shrubs, trees, posts, fences, utility lines, or other perches.
Formerly a common resident throughout most of CA, becoming increasingly scarce in many areas in recent years.
P;
b-OS, DA
f-OS, DA
Fringillidae Finches and Old World SparrowsCarduelis lawrencei Lawrence’s goldfinch BCC None None Desert riparian, palm oasis, pinyon-juniper, and lower montane habitats
Uncommon winter visitor in s. CA lowlands.
P;
f-OS, DA
MAMMALSVespertilionidae Mouse-eared BatsAntrozous pallidus pallid bat None CSC None Nests in dry, rocky habitats/caves, crevices in rocks, arid habitats including deserts, chaparral, and scrublands.
Common in low elevations throughout CA except for the high Sierra Nevada from Shasta to Kern Co. and the northwest corner of the State.
P; OS, DA
Corynorhinus (Plecotus) townsendii townsendii
Townsend’s western bigeared bat None CSC None Found in all but sub-alpine and alpine habitats. Throughout CA. P; OS, DA A, B, C – see footnotes at end of Table 4.6-7. *OB = observed; P = Species has the potential to occur on-site; NE = species not expected to occur on-site; f = for raptor species: if present, would utilize the site for foraging; b = for raptor species: if present, would utilize the site for breeding. OS = species occurs or has the potential to occur within open space areas of the project site; DA = species occurs or has the potential to occur within the proposed development area.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
TABLE 4.6-10 (Continued)
SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES NOT COVERED BY THE NCCP/HCP
WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR WITHIN THE MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT SITE R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-32 Biological Resources
VERTEBRATES
Scientific Name Common Name FederalA StateB NCCPC Preferred Habitat Distribution Occurrence
On-site*
Euderma maculatum spotted bat None CSC None Arid deserts and grasslands through mixed conifer forests.
Foothill, mountain, and desert regions of southern CA.
P; OS, DA
Molossidae Free-tailed bats Nyctinomops fermorosaccus
pocketed free-tailed bat None CSC None Arid lowland areas and desert canyons; mixed conifer forest.
Coastal areas of southern California, primarily San Diego County.
P; OS, DA
Nyctinomops macrotis big free-tailed bat None CSC None Rocky areas; typically low elevation arroyo, scrub, and woodland habitats.
Scattered distribution through California; majority of records are from San Diego County.
P; OS, DA
Leporidae Rabbits and HaresLepus californicus bennettii San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit
None CSC None Open brushlands and scrub
habitats between sea level and 4,000 feet elevation.
Coastal southern CA from Ventura Co. into northern Baja CA.
P; OS, DA
Heteromyidae Kangaroo rats, pocket mice, and kangaroo miceChaetodipus fallax fallax northwestern San Diego pocket mouse
None CSC None Sandy herbaceous areas,
usually in association with rocks or coarse gravel, sagebrush, scrub, annual grassland, chaparral and desert scrubs.
Common resident in southwest CA; arid coastal areas of Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Cos. extending south into Baja CA.
P; OS, DA
Cricetidae Mice, rats, and volesOnychomys torridus ramona southern grasshopper mouse
None CSC None Low arid and semi-scrub
vegetation.
Coastal southern CA. P; OS, DA
A, B, C – see footnotes at end of Table 4.6-7. *OB = observed; P = Species has the potential to occur on-site; NE = species not expected to occur on-site; f = for raptor species: if present, would utilize the site for foraging; b = for raptor species: if present, would utilize the site for breeding. OS = species occurs or has the potential to occur within open space areas of the project site; DA = species occurs or has the potential to occur within the proposed development area.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-33 Biological Resources Based on the results of the literature review, habitat assessments, and focused surveys conducted for the proposed project, the following sensitive wildlife species were not observed and are not expected to occur within the project site: San Diego fairy shrimp, Riverside fairy shrimp, quino checkerspot butterfly, arroyo chub, Santa Ana speckled dace, Santa Ana sucker, western spadefoot, arroyo toad, California red-legged frog, southwestern pond turtle, twostriped garter snake, western yellow-billed cuckoo, burrowing owl, least Bell’s vireo, California horned lark, San Diego cactus wren, yellow-breasted chat, and pacific pocket mouse.
Information regarding these species is provided in Appendix E.
4.6.3.4 Jurisdictional Delineation and Riparian Habitat Condition Assessment Jurisdictional Delineation
A delineation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) jurisdictional “Waters of the U.S.” and the CDFG “Waters of the State” was conducted by Jones & Stokes Associates. This report is provided in Appendix F of this EIR. A total of 28.48 acres of waters of the United States, consisting of 0.28 acre of seasonal wetlands, 0.024 acre of riverine wetlands, and 28.17 acres of other waters of the United States, were mapped within the study area (refer to Exhibit 4.6-3, Impacts to ACOE Jurisdictional Areas). A total of 45.44 acres of riparian and wetland habitats were mapped, all of which are potentially subject to CDFG jurisdiction under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code (refer to Exhibit 4.6-4, Impacts to CDFG Jurisdictional Areas).
It should be noted that the difference in riparian habitat acreage reported in the jurisdictional delineation compared to the biological resources technical report is due to typical differences in mapping methodologies for the respective reports. The mapping for the jurisdictional delineation is conducted at a more detailed level.
Riparian Habitat Condition Assessment
A riparian habitat condition assessment was performed by Jones & Stokes to evaluate the quality of jurisdictional/riparian habitat in the study area. This report is provided in Appendix F of this EIR. This assessment scores each unit of riparian habitat on eight criteria and the resulting score is entered into a riparian habitat assessment model (Stein et al. 2000) to calculate the ecological condition for each assessment unit on a scale of one to ten. Scores for the study area ranged from a minimum of 3.9 to a maximum of 8.1. This assessment determined that the highest quality willow scrub, mixed riparian, and mule fat scrub habitat with high riparian plant cover, high riparian plant diversity and little or no invasive vegetation is located along the mid-and southern reaches of Gypsum Creek and the lower reaches of its major tributaries, constituting the highest quality riparian habitat in the study area. Riparian habitat of moderate quality includes mule fat scrub, and cottonwood willow riparian with moderate to high riparian plant cover, low to moderate riparian plant diversity and little or no invasive vegetation is located at the southern and northern ends of Gypsum Canyon and along entrenched stream channels higher in the watershed and in the Santa Ana River Canyon.
Relatively lower quality riparian habitat includes sycamore and coast live oak riparian with low riparian cover, limited flooding and high invasive vegetation cover. The lowest quality riparian habitat is composed of numerous intermittent and ephemeral stream channels in the study area that support little or no riparian vegetation or highly disturbed mule fat. The location of the riparian habitat discussed above is depicted on Exhibit 4.6-5, Riparian Habitat Condition Assessment.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-34 Biological Resources
4.6.3.5 Regional Connectivity/Wildlife Movement
Overview
Wildlife corridors link together areas of suitable habitat that are otherwise separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. The fragmentation of open space areas by urbanization creates isolated “islands” of wildlife habitat. In the absence of habitat linkages that allow movement to adjoining open space areas, various studies have concluded that some wildlife species, especially the larger and more mobile mammals, will not likely persist over time in fragmented or isolated habitat areas because they prohibit the infusion of new individuals and genetic material.
Corridors mitigate the effects of habitat fragmentation by: (1) allowing animals to move between remaining habitats, which allows depleted populations to be replenished and promotes genetic diversity; (2) providing escape routes from fire, predators, and human disturbances, thus reducing the risk that catastrophic events (such as fires or disease) will result in population or local species extinction; and (3) serving as travel routes for individual animals as they move within their home ranges in search of food, water, mates, and other needs.
Wildlife movement activities usually fall into one of three movement categories: (1) dispersal (e.g., juvenile animals from natal areas, individuals extending range distributions); (2) seasonal migration; and, (3) movements related to home range activities (foraging for food or water, defending territories, searching for mates, breeding areas, or cover). A number of terms have been used in various wildlife movement studies, such as “wildlife corridor,” “travel route,” and “wildlife crossing” to refer to areas in which wildlife move from one area to another. To clarify the meaning of these terms and facilitate the discussion on wildlife movement in this study, these terms are defined as follows:
Travel Route: A landscape feature (such as a ridgeline, drainage, canyon, or riparian strip) within a larger natural habitat area that is used frequently by animals to facilitate movement and provide access to necessary resources (e.g., water, food, cover, den sites). The travel route is generally preferred because it provides the least amount of topographic resistance in moving from one area to another; it contains adequate food, water, and/or cover while moving between habitat areas; and provides a relatively direct link between target habitat areas.
Wildlife Corridor: A piece of habitat, usually linear in nature, that connects two or more habitat patches that would otherwise be fragmented or isolated from one another.
Wildlife corridors are usually bounded by urban land areas or other areas unsuitable for wildlife. The corridor generally contains suitable cover, food, and/or water to support species and facilitate movement while in the corridor. Larger, landscape-level corridors (often referred to as “habitat or landscape linkages”) can provide both transitory and resident habitat for a variety of species.
Wildlife Crossing: A small, narrow area, relatively short in length and generally constricted in nature, that allows wildlife to pass under or through an obstacle or barrier that otherwise hinders or prevents movement. Crossings typically are manmade and include culverts, underpasses, drainage pipes, and tunnels to provide access across or under roads, highways, pipelines, or other physical obstacles.
It is important to note that, within a large open space area in which there are few or no manmade or naturally occurring physical constraints to wildlife movement, wildlife corridors as defined above may not yet exist. Given an open space area that is both large enough to Source:
Jones & Stokes, 2005
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR No. 331
Impacts to ACOE Jurisdictional Areas Exhibit 4.6-3
March 11, 2005
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\fuscoe\ex4.6-3_020305.pdf
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
SW-03
SW-02
SW-05
SW-04
SW-01
County of Orange
City of Anaheim
City o
City
f Yorba Linda
of Anaheim
City of Yorba Linda
City of Anaheim
Intermitent and Ephemeral Stream (0.021 ac.)
Riverine Wetland (0.008 ac.)
Riverine Wetland (0.016 ac.)
00 0.25 .511.5 2
Miles
± Development Area (Secondary)
Open Space Preserve
Offsite Project Features
Development Area (Primary)
Legend
City Limits
Area of On-Going Mining Activity
Mountain Park Study Area Boundary
Intermittent and Ephemeral Streams
Riverine Wetland
SW-01 Seasonal Wetland !(
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2
Miles
00 0.25 .511.52
Miles
Source:
Jones & Stokes, 2005
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR No. 331
Impacts to CDFG Jursidictional Areas Exhibit 4.6-4
March 11, 2005
!(
!( SW-01
SW-05
City of Anaheim
Co
unty of Orange
City of Yorba Linda City of Anaheim
City of Yorba Linda
City of Anaheim
Cottonwood Willow(0.169ac.)
Cottonwood Willow(0.171 ac.)
Cottonwood Willow(0.001 ac.)
Legend
Area ofOn-Going Mining Activity
City Limits
SW-01 Seasonal Wetland
MulefatScrub
WillowScrub
Southern Coastal Live Oak Riparian Forest
Mixed Riparian
Intermittentand Ephemeral Streams
Sycamore Riparian
Cottonwood WillowRiparian
DevelopmentArea (Secondary)
Open SpacePreserve
Offsite ProjectFeatures
DevelopmentArea (Primary)
Mountain Park Study Area Boundary
!(
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\fuscoe\ex4.6-4_020305.pdf
00 0.25 .511.52
Miles
Source: Jones & Stokes, 2005
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR No. 331
Riparian Habitat Condition Assessment Exhibit 4.6-5
February 10, 2005
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\fuscoe\ex4.6-5_020705.pdf
!(
!( SW-01
SW-05
County
City of Anaheim
of Orange
City of Yorba Linda City of Anaheim
City of Yorba Linda
City of Anahe
Ecological Condition Score 7.1 - 8.1 im
Ecological Condition Score 7.1 - 8.1
Ecological Condition Score 7.1 - 8.1
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2
Miles
±
Legend
Development Area (Primary)
Development Area (Secondary)
Offsite Project Features
Open Space Preserve
5.1 - 6.0
3.9 - 5.0
6.1 - 7.0
7.1 - 8.1
Ecological Condition Score
SW-01 Seasonal Wetland !(
Mountain Park Study Area Boundary
Area of Mining Activity
City Limits
Channel Cross Section
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-35 Biological Resources maintain viable populations of species and provide a variety of travel routes (canyons, ridgelines, trails, riverbeds, and others), wildlife will use these “local” routes while searching for food, water, shelter, and mates, and will not need to cross into other large open space areas.
Based on their size, location, vegetative composition, and availability of food, some of these movement areas (e.g., large drainages and canyons) are used for longer lengths of time and serve as source areas for food, water, and cover, particularly for small- and medium-sized mammals. This is especially true if the travel route is within a larger open space area.
However, once open space areas become constrained and/or fragmented as a result of urban development or construction of physical obstacles such as roads and highways, remaining landscape features or travel routes that connect the larger open space areas can “become” corridors as long as they provide adequate space, cover, food, and water, and do not contain obstacles or distractions (man-made noise, lighting) that would generally hinder wildlife movement.
As stated previously, the NCCP/HCP and NCCP Reserve design focused on habitat conservation at an ecosystem level in an effort to promote wildlife diversity and preserve wildlife corridors and established linkages.
One of the Biological Reserve Design Tenets of the NCCP was to link reserve units via wildlife movement corridors with the thought that interconnected blocks of habitat serve conservation purposes more effectively than isolated blocks of habitat. Within the context of the NCCP, wildlife connectivity was ensured using the following concepts. x Linkages allow for genetic exchange, recolonization of habitat following perturbations, and operation of the “rescue effect” for smaller populations. Linkages within subareas are more important in terms of the latter two functions, while linkages between subregions are more important for genetic exchange. A linkage functions if enough animals transit the linkage often enough for these functions to occur; and a linkage does not have to allow completely unimpeded movement of individual organisms to function. The important individuals are those which are actively dispersing, most often juveniles.
x Corridors which are large enough to include habitat sufficient for several home ranges may not require an organism to successfully transit the entire linkage when dispersing, and thus are more likely to allow flow of individuals between populations.
For this reason, they are preferable to smaller corridors. Similarly, they may be somewhat longer than the distance most individual organisms disperse. These habitat linkages, which represent linear patches of native habitat connecting large blocks, may function as both corridor (for larger animals) and habitat (for small, less fragile species).
x Corridors function best when they contain native habitat (e.g., coastal scrub, mule fat riparian) or non-native habitats readily crossed by target species (e.g., annual grassland, ruderal habitats dominated by mustard). Non-habitat linkages function best when the habitat within them resembles the habitat preferred by target species.
Culverts, agricultural fields, golf courses, and other non-native landscape features that lack barriers to dispersal may function as corridors, especially for important nontarget species such as coyote. x Linkages are more likely to function if individual animals can see (or otherwise sense) desirable habitat within or beyond the corridor. Linkages which cross canyons or road cuts (where elevation allows animals to see across) are thus Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-36 Biological Resources preferable to corridors obscured by topography, development, and/or ornamental vegetation.
x Multiple, or redundant corridors are preferable where linkages are longer than normal dispersal distances, include gaps which must be “jumped,” include visual barriers, and/or include significant non-habitat components (e.g., golf course, fuel modification zones).
x A certain degree of separation (but not complete isolation) between reserve units is desirable to minimize potential adverse effects of corridors. It has been argued that corridors provide the most likely avenues for dispersal of disease, parasites, and introduced species.
Using these design concepts when assembling the Reserve, it was determined that the Reserve design incorporated sufficient connectivity for purposes of wildlife movement. Additionally, Coal Canyon, a documented wildlife corridor to the east of Mountain Park, has been preserved within Chino Hills State Park. The study documenting Coal Canyon as one of the most important biological corridors linking the Santa Ana Mountains and the Chino Hills was an important factor in the Reserve design related to connectivity and wildlife movement. In accordance with the NCCP/HCP, impacts to regional movement are covered within approved development areas (the Mountain Park project site is within an approved development area) designated by the NCCP/HCP, and therefore do not require further mitigation.
Wildlife Movement Within the Study Area
As previously described, wildlife movement activities usually fall into one of three movement categories: (1) dispersal (e.g., juvenile animals from natal areas, or individuals extending range distributions); (2) seasonal migration; and (3) movements related to home range activities (foraging for food or water, defending territories, searching for mates, breeding areas, or cover).
Although the nature of each of these types of movement is species specific, large open spaces will generally support a diverse wildlife community representing all types of movement. Each type of movement may also be represented at a variety of scales from immobile plants to many square-mile home ranges of large mammals. The resources available within the Mountain Park project site support all of the types of movement on some scale.
A detailed discussion of local and regional wildlife movement is provided in the Biological Resources Assessment (Appendix E).
Gypsum Canyon is one of the largest tributary canyons to the Santa Ana Canyon. As such, this canyon is likely to have been a major wildlife movement pathway historically, funneling movement in and out of the Santa Ana Canyon and linking the Santa Ana Mountains and the Chino Hills. However, human settlement of the region has significantly modified the landscape of the Santa Ana Canyon. Changes to the Santa Ana Canyon include channelization of the Santa Ana River, construction of SR-91, residential and commercial development, sand and gravel mining operations, and recent construction of SR-241. All of these development features combined have significantly reduced historical north-south wildlife movement along the length of the Santa Ana Canyon. Specific disturbance factors in the area of the confluence of Gypsum Canyon Wash and the Santa Ana River include the SR-91 and Gypsum Canyon Road interchange, Gypsum Canyon Road (including the bridge crossing the Santa Ana River), Santa Ana Canyon Road, Robertson’s Ready Mix sand and gravel surface mine, Featherly Park, the installation of culverts under SR-91 at Gypsum Canyon Wash, and the presence of human Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-37 Biological Resources disturbance/ intrusion within the wash (as evidenced by a rock climbing wall in one of the culverts and vandalized/stolen trail monitoring equipment).
In summary, the Mountain Park project site is utilized extensively for local movement by a wide variety of resident wildlife. In addition, the property is likely utilized for southwest-northeast regional movement due to its contiguity with large open space areas, availability of resources, and proximity to the documented Coal Canyon wildlife crossing. North-south regional movement is restricted for many species due to the disturbance factors surrounding the mouth of Gypsum Canyon. It can be concluded that the Gypsum Canyon underpass and culverts are not likely to be utilized as a “wildlife crossing” by more selective animals such as deer, bobcat, gray fox, or mountain lion. This is substantiated by focused studies of wildlife movement, particularly of mountain lion, and evaluations of alternative crossing points along the Santa Ana Canyon that have concluded that Coal Canyon, and not Gypsum Canyon, is the significant wildlife corridor connecting the Santa Ana Mountains and the Chino Hills.
4.6.3.6 Fire Assessment
General Fire Ecology
Many plant species associated with chaparral and scrub communities exhibit characteristics that constitute adaptations to frequent fires. One of the effects of fire on native habitats is the opportunity for new growth and reproduction. In mature chaparral and scrub communities, vegetative cover is dense enough to cause fires to burn hot and high into the canopy and kill much of the vegetative biomass. These canopy fires facilitate seed establishment by removing shrub cover and eliminating competitors.
Furthermore, many chaparral species rely on the sprouting of seed for reproduction, rather than resprouting from the stem. The Tecate cypress, associated with chaparral communities in Southern California and Baja California, is an obligate seeder that does not resprout from the stump after fire. The Tecate cypress produces a serotinous cone that remains closed until it is opened by the heat of fire. Once a tree reaches reproductive maturity (approximately 30 years), it depends on fire to facilitate seed dispersal. Consequently, natural fires are a normal and necessary part of the life cycle of many CSS and chaparral species.
Although natural fires are essential to the existence of chaparral and scrub communities, both unnatural increases and decreases in fire frequency can have a negative impact. A decrease in fire frequency may hinder reproduction of fire-adapted species. Although fire suppression efforts have not been very successful, they occasionally result in larger and more catastrophic fires. While they are less frequent, unnaturally large fires may burn so hot and intense that even the seeds of fire–adapted plants are destroyed.
Just as a decrease in fire frequency can be detrimental to natural communities, so can an increase in fire frequency. Anthropogenic increases in fire frequency over the last 50 years have been recorded throughout natural communities in Southern California, especially in chaparral and CSS habitats. In general, when an area burns too often for the community to mature, native plants may not be able to maintain dominance. Ruderal species, including annual grasses and invasive forbs, often thrive in post-fire conditions. As a result, fires often promote the spread of non-native species into native habitats, including chaparral and scrub communities.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-38 Biological Resources Historical Analysis
Several maps of historical fires on and near the Mountain Park project site were provided by The Nature Conservancy (TNC). Historical fires within the Mountain Park property and the surrounding area have varied in both extent and frequency. Since 1945, a total of 12 fires have occurred in the vicinity of the project site and the project site experienced two major fires prior to the most recent fire in 2002. A table showing historical fires in the vicinity of the project site is included in the Biological Resources Assessment included in Appendix E.
The Green Fire and its Effects on the Mountain Park Property The Green Fire, named after Green River Road near its origin, burned a total of 2,400 acres within the Santa Ana Mountains from February 9 through February 11, 2002. On the project site, approximately 300 acres were burned within the eastern portion of the property. This area of the Mountain Park property had not burned since the Gypsum Fire in 1982. The fire progressed westward toward SR-241 assisted by Santa Ana winds with gusts of up to 80 mph.
Fallen power lines, possibly caused by the gusts, are believed to have been the source of the fire.
The strong winds may be responsible for patches of unburned habitat within the burned portion of the project site. Several drainages and small canyon areas appear to have been “jumped over” by the flames. Because the fire was not extremely hot and intense, some Tecate and other sensitive plants were not completely destroyed. New growth is evident in areas where the fire burned most of the vegetation. Seeds of various sage and other scrub species have sprouted from the seed bank, while other plants show resprouting from the stem.
Several sensitive plant communities including CSS communities, oak woodland, Tecate cypress forest, needlegrass grassland, and sycamore riparian and mixed riparian were burned by the Green Fire. A total of 46.5 acres of sensitive plant communities were burned on the property.
Chaparral communities were most affected by the Green Fire on-site. A total of 263.0 acres of chaparral communities were burned, with over half of the acreage burned within bigpod chaparral. Tecate cypress forest was the next most affected community on-site, with approximately 22.8 acres of Tecate cypress forest burned. The Mountain Park project site is located within the northernmost known population of Tecate cypress in the range of the species.
Approximately 15.3 acres of scrub communities burned on-site, while riparian communities and grassland communities lost 6.3 and 6.2 acres to the fire, respectively. Finally, 1.4 acres,
1.0 acre, and 0.5 acre were burned within woodland communities, cliff and rock communities, and disturbed communities, respectively. A table showing the specific acreage of each plant community burnt within the project site is included in the Biological Resources Assessment included in Appendix E.
The Green Fire alone had no significant adverse impacts to the Mountain Park property. While the fire burned a large area in the eastern portion of the project site, the scrub and chaparral communities depend on this type of disturbance for renewal. The fire adapted communities throughout the Mountain Park project site will naturally regenerate over time. These natural communities are only threatened when fires burn too often to allow the native dominant plant species to re-grow.
Fire management is of growing concern in developed areas adjacent to wildland areas. The Nature Reserve of Orange County (NROC) Board of Directors has approved short term and tactical fire management plans within the NCCP area and is in the process of approving a longterm fire management plan. These plans are being prepared by the NROC to address the concerns regarding fire management, fire regime, and native habitat preservation with the intent Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-39 Biological Resources that the plan will address and balance changes to fire regime as well as public safety concerns associated with development in NCCP development areas.
4.6.3.7 Related Planning Programs
City of Anaheim General Plan
In addition to the NCCP/HCP previously described in Section 4.6.1, the City of Anaheim General Plan includes goals and policies related to biological resources. Specifically, the Green Element states that the City will continue to support regional planning efforts to conserve biological resources within and adjacent to the City. In addition, it recommends that future development in the easternmost portion of the City be sensitively integrated with the adjoining habitat areas (i.e., NCCP). The following goals are policies related to biological resources are presented in the Green Element of the City’s General Plan:
Goal 14.1 Conserve natural habitat and protect rare, threatened and endangered species.
Policy 1: Support efforts to preserve natural habitat through continued participation in the Natural Communities Conservation Plan.
Goal 14.2 Support educational outreach programs related to habitat resources and conservation efforts.
Policy 1: Encourage and support regional efforts to educate the public about habitat resources and conservation efforts.
Goal 14.3 Ensure that future development near regional open space resources will be sensitively integrated into surrounding sensitive habitat areas.
Policy 1: Require new development to mitigate light and glare impacts on surrounding sensitive habitat and open space areas, where appropriate.
SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide
Based on SCAG’s comment letter on the NOP, the following policies from the Growth Management Chapter of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide are applicable to the proposed project:
Policy 3.20: Support the protection of vital resources such as wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, woodlands, production lands, and land containing unique and endangered plants and animals.
Policy 3.23: Encourage mitigation measures that reduce noise in certain locations, measures aimed at preservation of biological and ecological resources, measures that would reduce exposure to seismic hazards, minimize earthquake damage, and to develop emergency response and recovery plans.
The following ancillary goal from the Open Space Chapter related to resource production is also applicable to the proposed project:
Policy 9.08: Develop well-managed viable ecosystems or known habitats of rare, threatened and endangered species, including wetlands.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-40 Biological Resources
4.6.4 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Approach to the Analysis
The following discussion examines the potential impacts to plant and wildlife resources that may occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project. For the purpose of this assessment project-related impacts take two forms, direct and indirect. Direct impacts are considered to be those that involve the loss, modification or disturbance of natural habitats (i.e., vegetation or plant communities), which in turn, directly affect plant and wildlife species dependent on that habitat. Direct impacts also include the destruction of individual plants or wildlife, which is typically the case in species of low mobility (i.e., plants, amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals). The collective loss of individuals in these manners may also directly affect regional population numbers of a species or result in the physical isolation of populations thereby reducing genetic diversity and, hence, population stability. Direct impacts include areas within the primary and secondary impact areas described in Section 3.6, Description of Project Impact Area.
Indirect impacts are considered to be those that involve the effects of increases in ambient levels of sensory stimuli (e.g., noise, light), unnatural predators (e.g., domestic cats and other non-native animals), and competitors (e.g., exotic plants, non-native animals). Indirect impacts may be associated with the construction and/or eventual habitation/operation of a project; therefore, these impacts may be both short-term and long-term in their duration. These impacts are commonly referred to as “edge effects” and may result in changes in the behavioral patterns of wildlife and reduced wildlife diversity and abundance in habitats adjacent to project sites.
The determination of impacts in this analysis is based on both the features of the proposed project and the biological values of the habitat and/or sensitivity of plant and wildlife species to be affected. Relevant project features (e.g., limits of grading and fuel modification) were supplied by the project engineer. Much of this information was supplied in digital format and impacts were calculated using GIS technology in order to maximize the accuracy of the assessment. Project design features that avoid, preserve, or restore biological resources are taken into consideration and specifically described below prior to the assessment of potential adverse impacts.
The biological values of resources within, adjacent to, and outside the area to be affected by the project were determined by consideration of several factors. These included the overall size of habitats to be affected, the site’s previous land uses and disturbance history, the site’s surrounding environment and regional context, the on-site biological diversity and abundance, the presence of sensitive and special-status plant and wildlife species, the site’s importance to regional populations of these species, and the degree to which on-site habitats are limited or restricted in distribution on a regional basis and, therefore, are considered sensitive in themselves. Whereas this assessment is comprehensive, the focus is on sensitive plant communities/habitats, resources that play an important role in the regional biological systems, and special-status species.
Thresholds of Significance
The environmental impacts relative to biological resources are assessed using impact significance threshold criteria which mirror the policy statement contained in CEQA, Section 21001(c) of the California Public Resources Code. Accordingly, the State Legislature has established it to be the policy of the State to:
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-41 Biological Resources “Prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man’s activities, ensure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities...”
Determining whether a project may have a significant effect, or impact, plays a critical role in the CEQA process. According to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.7, Thresholds of Significance, each public agency is encouraged to develop and adopt (by ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation) thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects. A threshold of significance is an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant. In the development of thresholds of significance for impacts to biological resources CEQA provides guidance primarily in Section 15065, Mandatory Findings of Significance, and the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form. Section 15065(a) states that a project may have a significant effect where:
“The project has 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 wildlife community, reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species,...”
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines is more specific in addressing biological resources and encompasses a broader range of resources to be considered, including: candidate, sensitive, or special status species; riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities; Federally protected wetlands; fish and wildlife movement corridors; local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources; and, adopted HCPs. This is done in the form of a checklist of questions to be answered during the Initial Study leading to the preparation of the appropriate environmental documentation for a project (i.e., Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or EIR).
Because these questions are derived from standards in other laws, regulations, and other commonly used thresholds, it is reasonable to use these standards as a basis for defining significance thresholds in an EIR. Therefore, for the purpose of this analysis, impacts to biological resources are considered potentially significant (before considering offsetting mitigation measures) if one or more of the following conditions would result from implementation of the proposed project.
1. A substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species listed by Federal or State agencies as threatened or endangered.
2. A substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate for listing, sensitive, rare, or otherwise special status plant or animal species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS.
3. A substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS.
4. A substantial adverse effect on State or Federal-protected wetlands as defined by Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code or Section 404 of the Clean Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-42 Biological Resources Water Act (CWA) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
5. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, State, or Federal HCP.
7. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
For the purposes of this impact analysis the following definitions apply:
x “Substantial adverse effect” means loss or harm of a magnitude which, based on current scientific data and knowledge would: (1) substantially reduce population numbers of a listed, candidate, sensitive, rare, or otherwise special status species; (2) substantially reduce the distribution of a sensitive natural community/habitat type; or (3) eliminate or substantially impair the functions and values of a biological resource (e.g., streams, wetlands, or woodlands) in a geographical area defined by interrelated biological components and systems. In the case of this analysis the prescribed geographical area is considered to be the region including the Puente Hills and Chino Hills to the north, the Peralta Hills to the west, the San Joaquin Hills to the south and the extent of the Santa Ana Mountains to the east and south. x “Conflict” means contradiction of a magnitude, which based on foreseeable circumstances would preclude or prevent substantial compliance. x “Rare” means: (1) that the species exists in such small numbers throughout all, or a significant portion of, its range that it may become endangered if its environment worsens; or (2) the species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and may be considered “threatened” as that term is used in the FESA.
Project Impacts
Project impacts have been evaluated with respect to the significance criteria discussed above.
Each threshold of significance is discussed below.
Threshold 1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species listed by Federal or State agencies as threatened or endangered.
The following plant and wildlife species listed by Federal or State agencies as threatened or endangered were observed on-site or have the potential to occur: Santa Monica Mountains dudleya, Braunton’s milk-vetch, coastal California gnatcatcher, American peregrine falcon, and southwestern willow flycatcher. Potential impacts to these species are discussed below.
As noted in Section 4.6.3.3, Sensitive Biological Resources, the following sensitive plant and wildlife species listed by Federal or State agencies as threatened or endangered are not Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-43 Biological Resources expected to occur on-site: Laguna Beach dudleya, Santa Ana River woollystar, thread-leaved brodiaea, Santa Ana sucker, arroyo toad, California red-legged frog, western yellow-billed cuckoo, San Diego fairy shrimp, Riverside fairy shrimp, quino checkerspot butterfly, least Bell’s vireo, and Pacific pocket mouse. Because these species are not expected to occur on-site, no direct impacts to these species would result from implementation of the proposed project.
Although the Santa Ana sucker is not expected to occur on-site, it is known to occur in the Santa Ana River, which receives stormwater runoff from the project site. Potential indirect impacts to this species are discussed below.
It should also be noted that focused surveys for the least Bell’s vireo in 2002, 2003, and 2004 did not detect this species on-site and the Mountain Park project site is not expected to support this species. In addition, the Mountain Park project site does not contain designated critical habitat for this species. The nearest block of designated critical habitat occurs within the Prado basin east of the project site. Therefore, impacts to the least Bell’s vireo are not expected to occur with implementation of the proposed project.
On-site Project Impacts
Plant and Wildlife Species Covered by the NCCP/HCP
Santa Monica Mountains dudleya was not observed during sensitive plant surveys; however, there remains a low potential for this species to occur due to the presence of suitable habitat.
Due to the Federally-threatened status of this species, any potential impacts normally would be considered significant. However, Santa Monica Mountains dudleya is Covered by the NCCP/HCP and any potential impacts have already been mitigated in the NCCP/HCP.
Therefore, due to its Covered status, no substantial adverse effects are expected to occur and no further mitigation would be required because the NCCP/HCP mitigation (i.e., the Reserve) adequately mitigates development impacts.
Focused surveys determined the presence of 14 pairs of coastal California gnatcatchers within the proposed development area as shown in Exhibit 4.6-6, Impacts to the Coastal California Gnatcatcher. PCR surveys concentrated on suitable habitat areas within the development area; however, coastal California gnatcatchers were observed and heard in areas outside of the development area during other surveys. Therefore, it can reasonably be assumed that more than 14 pairs occur within the project site. This species is Federally-listed as threatened and impacts could be considered potentially significant. However, the coastal California gnatcatcher is Covered under the NCCP/HCP which adequately mitigates development impacts. Therefore, no further mitigation is required.
American peregrine falcon was not observed on-site; however, it has the potential to occur.
Due to its coverage under the NCCP/HCP, potential impacts have been mitigated within the NCCP/HCP. Therefore, no further mitigation is required.
Four southwestern willow flycatchers were observed during focused surveys in 2002. All four birds were observed in the northern portion of the property within Gypsum Canyon Wash.
Due to the timing that the birds were observed (within the second survey period) and their response to taped vocalizations of interaction calls, it is assumed that they were breeding southwestern willow flycatchers and not another subspecies. However, because they were not observed during the last three surveys of the third survey period (which would confirm that they are resident and nesting), they are considered to have moved to a more suitable nesting site.
Repeat surveys conducted in 2003 determined the presence of two willow flycatchers during the first survey period only indicating that they were utilizing habitat during migration. Focused Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-44 Biological Resources surveys conducted in 2004 did not detect the presence of any subspecies of willow flycatcher within the project site. Based on the focused surveys, the habitat within the project site appears to support migrating willow flycatchers but does not appear to be suitable for breeding.
As shown in Exhibit 4.6-7, Impacts to Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, the proposed project would impact the cottonwood-willow riparian woodland where the southwestern willow flycatchers were observed in 2002. Due to its listed status, impacts to the southwestern willow flycatcher resulting from habitat impacts would be considered potentially significant, prior to mitigation. The habitat has been determined to have marginal value for the following reasons:
x The habitat is disjunct (fragmented) from the Santa Ana River where known populations of this species breed each year.
x The habitat is somewhat disturbed from the mining operations on both sides of the stream.
x The habitat is adjacent to significant noise levels generated by the mining operations. x During 2002 surveys, the southwestern willow flycatchers were only observed in the habitat for a relatively short period of time (May 29–June 10). x During 2003 surveys, willow flycatchers were only observed on one occasion during the first survey period (May 19).
x During 2004 surveys, no willow flycatchers or southwestern willow flycatchers were detected.
x The southwestern willow flycatcher was not observed breeding within the habitat on-site. x The water supply in the stream is very low and probably insufficient to support breeding birds.
x The habitat patch is relatively small in size compared to adjacent habitat in the Santa Ana River.
x The habitat within Gypsum Canyon Wash was degraded during winter 2002/2003 storm events by the scouring of the dense understory.
The southwestern willow flycatcher is a Conditionally Covered species under the NCCP/HCP.
Only habitat with lesser long-term conservation value is covered. Habitat that supports migrant or nesting birds and has potentially long-term conservation value is not covered. A final determination of the long-term conservation value of the habitat has not yet been made by the USFWS. Therefore, a mitigation plan has been developed to mitigate impacts to the southwestern willow flycatcher to a less than significant level. Regardless of the ultimate determination regarding the long-term value of the habitat, potential impacts to the southwestern willow flycatcher would be mitigated with implementation of the conceptual mitigation plan outlined in Mitigation Measure 6-2 and Mitigation Measure 6-3. This mitigation plan would provide like habitat within the project area and would mitigate project impacts to less than significant.
Source:
PCR Services Corporation, 2005
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR No. 331
Impacts to Coastal California Gnatcatcher Exhibit 4.6-6 March 11, 2005
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\fuscoe\ex4.6-6_020305.pdf
Source:
PCR Services Corporation, 2005
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR No. 331
Impacts to Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Exhibit 4.6-7 March 11, 2005
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\fuscoe\ex4.6-7_020305.pdf
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-45 Biological Resources Impact 4.6-1 The proposed project would impact habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher resulting in a potentially significant impact to this species.
Impacts to the southwestern willow flycatcher would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant with implementation of MM 6-2 and MM 6-3.
Plant and Wildlife Species Not Covered by the NCCP/HCP
Braunton’s milk-vetch is federally-listed as endangered. It is known to occur on the ridge and east-facing slope between Coal and Gypsum Canyons east of and adjacent to the Mountain Park property boundary. Three colonies were observed as recently as March 2002 (CNDDB 2002). This species was not observed on-site during 2001 and 2002 sensitive plant surveys.
Due to the recent Green Fire in February 2002 and the substantial amount of rainfall received during winter/spring 2002/2003, one population of approximately 3,500 individuals was observed within the burned area in the eastern portion of the study area. The proposed development would not directly impact this population. In addition, indirect impacts are not expected to occur. The edge of development is more than 1,150 feet away from the population and there is more than 160 feet in elevation difference from the population and edge of development. The location of the population would not be accessible to the public postconstruction. Therefore, no impacts to this species, either direct or indirect, are expected to occur.
The Santa Ana sucker, a federally threatened species, is not expected to occur within the project site. This species is unevenly distributed within the Santa Ana River from the Rialto Drain (upstream) to the Imperial Highway bridge (downstream). It is known from one very small and unstable population in the Santa Ana River downstream of Prado Dam. According to researchers, it appears that this small population is not a breeding population but one that consists of individuals dispersed downstream from upstream populations and is not a selfsustaining population. Population numbers of Santa Ana sucker have been decreasing downstream of Prado Dam since the mid 1980’s and surveys for the Santa Ana sucker downstream of Prado Dam in recent years have observed very few to no individuals from the area just downstream of Prado Dam to the 17th Avenue bridge crossing of the Santa Ana River.
No suckers were observed from the Orange/Riverside County line downstream to Weir Canyon during 2003 surveys. Factors supporting the poor success of suckers downstream of Prado Dam include abundant exotic predators and/or competitors and increased turbidity, salinity, temperature, river depth, slow flow, silty bottom, and construction impacts. Recently designated critical habitat for the Santa Ana sucker did not include areas downstream of Prado Dam. This reach of the Santa Ana River is considered essential Santa Ana sucker habitat but was excluded from the critical habitat designation pursuant to Section 4(b)(2) of the FESA because the area falls within the Santa Ana Sucker Conservation Program.
The proposed project has been analyzed by Dr. Camm Swift to determine if it has the potential to indirectly affect the Santa Ana sucker downstream of project outflow points. The results of Dr. Swift’s analysis of the proposed project found that impacts are restricted to potential water and/or sediment runoff affecting the Santa Ana River. The average annual storm runoff will increase from 120 to 341 acre ft/year but the impact of the increase on the overall flow of the river is minimal because the project is well upstream of the mouth of Gypsum Canyon and the amount of runoff discharging to the river is low. Because the entire flow from the project site will occur when the river is also peaking in discharge, the small additional flow from Gypsum Canyon should have only a minor effect on the river as a whole. Furthermore, the river flow below Prado Dam is regulated by the ACOE for flood control and to some extent for groundwater recharge related to operations of the Orange County Water District (OCWD). Thus the portion of the river below Prado Dam does not fluctuate as much as the upstream portions Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-46 Biological Resources because the dam dampens such fluctuations. The sucker seems to be adapted to such high peak flows in the wet season and seems to have benefited in the past from the resulting scouring out of finer substrates from the river and reduction of exotic predators. To this extent, increased peak flows in the lower river could benefit the sucker below Prado Dam.
Water quality factors and their specific effects on Santa Ana suckers are poorly understood.
Although the fish currently is surviving in small numbers below Prado Dam, and has done so for some period of time, the Santa Ana River population is doing best farther upstream from about Van Buren Bridge upstream to the Rialto Drain and Rapid Injection and Extraction Plant (RIX), in the vicinity of Riverside. These two plants supply an initial low-flow water source of about 65- 70 cfs which increases downstream to about 100 cfs at the Metropolitan Water District Pipeline Crossing (MWD, just above Van Buren) and up to about 300 cfs at Prado Dam. The RIX-Rialto outflows are treated water, and a wide variety of inputs contribute to the flow, including ground water, wastewater treatment facilities, and at least seven permanently flowing tributaries (Evans Lake Drain, Anza Park Drain, Arroyo Tequesquite, and Sunnyslope, Temescal, Chino and Cucamonga creeks). These tributaries are essentially storm drains more than a kilometer or so above the river. In addition, at River Road in Norco about half the river flow is diverted through settling ponds to remove excess nitrogen before returning to the river just above Prado Dam.
Thus, the runoff from the proposed project will be both a momentary and relatively minor input to this large variety of sources. Most of the impact on water quality is expected from the “first flush” effects and the water quality basins will adequately treat these flows and degrade their constituents with a series of control and treatment basins. Since the retention time of these basins is only a few days, they should not provide aquatic habitat for undesirable exotic species of fishes.
Per the conceptual WQMP, the Total Suspended Solids (TSS) in Gypsum Canyon is predicted to decrease due to the project, producing a desirable effect. The sucker normally lives in clear water, except during winter flows of relatively short duration. One of the undesirable features of the river below Prado Dam is the more or less constant turbidity, apparently due to the sediment load trapped just above the dam. Any decline in this turbidity is beneficial to the sucker, but since the flows from the project are supposed to be brief and occasional in winter only, this reduction will have only a small overall effect on the river. Since the mouth of Gypsum Canyon lies about half way between Prado Dam and Imperial Highway, about half of this lower part of the river would receive this small benefit.
Overall it appears that the proposed project would have little effect on the Santa Ana sucker, particularly when considered within the context of existing impacts on the river both nearby and upstream. The reduction in fine sediment, the possible increase in peak flows, and contribution of sandy substrate to the stream from Gypsum Canyon all could benefit sucker populations downstream of the mouth of Gypsum Canyon.
Off-site Project Feature Impacts
Because no suitable habitat would be impacted, off-site project features would not impact federally- or state-listed plant species.
Caltrans-related Project Feature Impacts
The SR-241/Weir Canyon Road interchange would impact 0.6 acre of chaparral and the remaining area is disturbed from SR-241. Impacts from construction of the bridge overcrossing have largely been assumed in the analysis of project impacts as the grading for the bridge Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-47 Biological Resources occurs within the project impact area. The 0.4-acre area impacted within Caltrans right-of-way on each side of the proposed bridge structure is disturbed from SR-241. The SR-91 slope improvements would impact 3.0 acres of disturbed area and 0.7 acre of chaparral. Other project features in Caltrans right-of-way would impact disturbed areas or negligible amounts of vegetation. Due to the limited amount of area impacted, project features within Caltrans rightof-way would not significantly impact federally- or state-listed plant or wildlife species.
Threshold 2: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate for listing, sensitive, rare, or otherwise special status plant or animal species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS.
On-site Project Impacts
Plants
Potential impacts to sensitive plant species are depicted on Exhibit 4.6-8, Impacts to Sensitive Plant Species.
Sensitive Plant Species Covered by the NCCP/HCP
As previously discussed in Section 4.6.3.3 and outlined in Tables 4.6-3 and 4-6-4, three nonlisted sensitive plant species Covered under the NCCP/HCP were observed on-site and two others have the potential to occur. NCCP/HCP Covered species observed on-site include Tecate cypress, Coulter’s matilija poppy, and Catalina mariposa lily. The foothill mariposa lily, which is Conditionally Covered under the NCCP/HCP, was also observed on-site. NCCP/HCP Covered species not observed, but with the potential to occur within the project site include Nuttall’s scrub oak and heart-leaved pitcher sage. Potential impacts to these species are fully mitigated by compliance with the NCCP/HCP. Therefore, no additional mitigation is required.
Tecate cypress was observed within the Mountain Park project site as both a component species within several scrub and chaparral habitats and as a distinct, monotypic community (mapped as Tecate cypress). Consequently, impacts to Tecate cypress are being addressed as a plant community and as the species itself. Project implementation would not impact Tecate cypress because this plant community and species do not occur within the project impact area.
Coulter’s matilija poppy and Catalina mariposa lily were observed within the Mountain Park project site. Project implementation would result in the direct removal of small numbers of individuals of Coulter’s matilija poppy (less than two percent of the population observed).
Relative to the project impact area, Coulter’s matilija poppy was observed along terrace edges of Gypsum Canyon Wash and the large un-named tributary entering from the east just south of the mine. Approximately 23 percent (approximately 700 individuals) of the population of Catalina mariposa lily observed within the project site would be impacted within the project impact area (22 percent within the primary impact area and one percent within secondary impact area). Impacts to sensitive plants are depicted in Exhibit 4.6-8, Impacts to Sensitive Plant Species. Two additional species, Nuttall’s scrub oak and heart-leaved pitcher sage were not observed but have the potential to occur within the project site. Coulter’s matilija poppy, Nuttall’s scrub oak, heart-leaved pitcher sage, and Catalina mariposa lily are Identified Species within the NCCP/HCP and are considered Covered species. Their loss has been mitigated within the NCCP/HCP. Potential impacts to these species are considered less than significant.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-48 Biological Resources Foothill mariposa lily, a NCCP/HCP Conditionally Covered species, was observed throughout the Mountain Park project site in abundance during 2001 and 2003 field surveys. As a Conditionally Covered species under the NCCP/HCP, no additional mitigation is necessary if fewer than 20 individuals would be impacted by the proposed project. The proposed project would remove approximately 30 percent (25 percent within primary impacts and five percent within secondary impacts) of the population observed within the project site. The loss of approximately 4,800 individuals exceeds the NCCP/HCP threshold of 20 individuals. Under these circumstances, this species would be considered Covered under the NCCP/HCP on the condition that a mitigation plan is prepared in coordination with the USFWS, CDFG, and NCCP Non-profit Corporation, and subsequently approved by the USFWS.
In March 2004, the USFWS and CDFG approved a comprehensive mitigation program for the foothill mariposa lily for Irvine Company projects in the “North Ranch” that contain this species within the development footprint, including the Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment project area. Implementation of the mitigation plan in accordance with the conditions of the NCCP/HCP IA will ensure the project’s consistency with the NCCP/HCP and reduce impacts to the foothill mariposa lily to a less than significant level.
Sensitive Plant Species Not Covered by the NCCP/HCP
Non-listed, sensitive plant species observed on-site or with the potential to occur on-site that are Not Covered by the NCCP/HCP were previously listed in Tables 4.6-5 and 4.6-6. Palmer’s grapplinghook is not located within the proposed development areas and would not be impacted by the project. No mitigation for this species is required.
The following sensitive plant species observed on-site or with the potential to occur are located or could be located within the proposed development area: many-stemmed dudleya, longspined spineflower, chaparral nolina, Robinson’s pepper-grass, and Hall’s monardella. Potential impacts to these species are discussed below.
Many-stemmed dudleya was observed in abundance throughout the project site.
Approximately 20,000 individuals are estimated to occur within the project site (results of 2003 surveys). Historically, many-stemmed dudleya ranged from the Santa Monica Mountains south to Camp Pendleton. Today, one-third of its range has been extirpated and 95 percent of the species is known from only four populations: (1) Gavilan Hills; (2) San Joaquin Hills; (3) Gypsum Canyon and Blind Canyon from SR-91 to Irvine Lake; and (4) Rancho Mission Viejo and Camp Pendleton. The Gypsum Canyon-Blind Canyon population is reported to be the largest and most important for the species (Fred Roberts, Jr., personal communication, November 7, 2001). Recent surveys of the North Ranch Policy Plan Area (NRPPA) and NCCP area found approximately 41 new colonies of many-stemmed dudleya totaling approximately 11,700 individual plants. Based on data collected during focused surveys from 2001 to 2003 within the project site and surveys conducted by Glenn Lukos Associates (GLA) and PCR within the NRPPA, project implementation is estimated to remove approximately 35 percent (approximately 7,000 individuals) of the many-stemmed dudleya observed within the project site which represents approximately 13 percent of the known colonies within the NCCP Central Subregion. This loss would not result in a net reduction in the ability of the subregion to maintain viable population of many-stemmed dudleya. Nevertheless, the loss is considered potentially significant, prior to mitigation, because this species is relatively rare due to its limited distribution and is regionally restricted due to its habitat preference.
As discussed in Section 4.6.5, Mitigation Program, potentially significant impacts to manystemmed dudleya would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of current restoration programs and survey efforts.
Source:
PCR Services Corporation, 2005
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR No. 331
Impacts to Sensitive Plant Species Exhibit 4.6-8
March 11, 2005
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\fuscoe\ex4.6-8_020305.pdf
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-49 Biological Resources Impact 4.6-2 The proposed project would impact approximately 35 percent (approximately 7,000) individuals of many-stemmed dudleya. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. This impact would be reduced to a level considered less than significant with implementation of PDF 6-1 and MM 6-4.
Long-spined spineflower is a CNPS List 1B species. One population of approximately 1,700 individuals was observed within the project site. Approximately 57 percent of this population would be affected by the proposed project (52 percent within primary impacts and five percent within secondary impacts). It should be noted that the approximate location of the observation of this species on Mountain Park is considered the northernmost known location and is the first known record of this species in Orange County. The closest known location of this species is near Lake Mathews. While its presence may be of scientific interest, potential impacts would not threaten regional populations (approximately one-half of the population onsite would be preserved) and are, therefore, considered less than significant.
Chaparral nolina was observed within the Mountain Park study area as both a component species within several scrub and chaparral habitats and as a distinct, monotypic community (mapped as nolina chaparral). Consequently, impacts to chaparral nolina are being addressed as a plant community and as the species itself. When viewed as a monotypic plant community, project implementation would remove 7.8 acres of the 17.8 acres mapped within the study area, preserving 10.0 acres (56 percent).
Because chaparral nolina occurs as a component species within several different plant community types, it is more realistic to view impacts in terms of individuals rather than the monotypic plant community. Focused surveys for chaparral nolina within the Mountain Park study area determined that at least 103,000 individuals occur and when viewed as individuals, project implementation would remove approximately 18,100 individuals (18 percent of the onsite population) preserving 82 percent of the individuals within the study area.
Several considerations contributed to the determination of potential impacts to chaparral nolina.
These considerations include the preservation of genetic variability, the overall distribution of the species, and its sensitivity. Chaparral nolina is not listed as threatened or endangered and it is a CNPS List 1B species. It is known to have a limited distribution and the draft Baseline Conditions Report for the Southern NCCP Subregion states that more than 90 percent of the known distribution of this species is within the Central/Coastal and Southern NCCP Subregions.
Although limited in its distribution, the removal of approximately 18 percent of the population is not expected to threaten the regional population of this species. In addition, the preservation of the remainder of the population within the open space areas of the study area, the NCCP Reserve, and the ACE further ensures the continued existence of this species in the region.
Therefore, impacts to chaparral nolina are considered less than significant.
Robinson’s peppergrass and Hall’s monardella were not observed within the study area during sensitive plant surveys; however, there remains a low likelihood of occurrence as discussed in Table 4.6-6, Sensitive Plant Species Not Covered by the NCCP but with the Potential to Occur within the Mountain Park Project Site. These species are not federally- or state-listed. Furthermore, because these species were not observed during sensitive plant surveys, they most likely occur in very small numbers if they occur within the project site at all.
Therefore, potential impacts are not expected to threaten regional populations of these species.
As a result, impacts are considered less than significant.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-50 Biological Resources Wildlife
Wildlife Species Covered and Conditionally Covered by the NCCP/HCP Several non-listed wildlife species Covered under the NCCP/HCP were observed on-site and several others have the potential to occur, as previously mentioned in Section 4.6.3.3, and listed in Tables 4.6-7 and 4.6-8. NCCP/HCP Covered wildlife species observed on-site include:
coast horned lizard, orange-throated whiptail, coastal whiptail, northern red-diamond rattlesnake, sharp-shinned hawk, red-shouldered hawk, cactus wren, southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, coyote, and gray fox. These species are “Identified Species” within the NCCP/HCP, are considered Covered species, and their loss has been mitigated within the NCCP/HCP. Therefore impacts are considered less than significant.
Several non-listed wildlife species Covered under the NCCP were not observed on-site; however, they have the potential to occur including: arboreal salamander, black-bellied slender salamander, Coronado skink, coastal rosy boa, ring-necked snake, northern harrier, rough-legged hawk, and San Diego desert woodrat. Due to their coverage under the NCCP/HCP, potential impacts have been mitigated within the NCCP/HCP. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.
The golden eagle and prairie falcon are Conditionally Covered species. Both species were observed on the project site. One pair of golden eagles was observed flying over the higher elevations of the eastern portion of the site on July 20, 2001. One pair and one juvenile were observed flying over the southeastern portion of the site on November 6, 2002. One adult and one juvenile were observed soaring over the central portion of the site on March 19, 2003.
Although directed searches for nesting sites did not detect the presence of active nests on the property, golden eagles are known to actively nest in the uppermost reaches of Gypsum Canyon. The observation of a juvenile provides evidence that golden eagles are successfully nesting in the region. Pursuant to NCCP/HCP guidelines, activities that are more than ½ mile from an active or historically active nesting site may proceed without minimization or mitigation requirements. Direct impacts to nesting sites are not expected to occur and the edge of the proposed Mountain Park development area is more than ½ mile from the potential nesting areas. Therefore, the proposed project meets the conditions of and is consistent with the NCCP/HCP. As such, potential impacts to the golden eagle are considered adequately mitigated under the NCCP/HCP and are considered less than significant.
Directed surveys for prairie falcon and their nests did not detect this species on-site; however, previous surveys have detected this species in the upper elevations of Gypsum Canyon. In addition, an individual prairie falcon was observed during focused surveys for least Bell’s vireo in 2004. No documented breeding activity has been recorded; however, suggestive breeding behavior has been observed and this species probably occasionally nests in the upper reaches of Gypsum Canyon. Pursuant to NCCP/HCP guidelines, activities that are more than ½ mile from an active or historically active nesting site may proceed without minimization or mitigation requirements. Direct impacts to nesting sites are not expected to occur and the edge of the proposed development area is more than ½ mile from the potential nesting areas. Therefore, the proposed project meets the conditions of and is consistent with the NCCP/HCP. As such, potential impacts to the prairie falcon are considered adequately mitigated under the NCCP/HCP and are considered less than significant.
Wildlife Species Not Covered by the NCCP/HCP
Cooper’s hawk, willow flycatcher, black-chinned sparrow, Bell’s sage sparrow, tricolored blackbird, and western mastiff bat were all observed within the Mountain Park project site.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-51 Biological Resources With the exception of the willow flycatcher, these species are not federally- or state-listed and considerable habitat for these species is preserved on-site. As noted in Table 4.6-9, willow flycatchers were observed on-site during focused surveys; however, it has been determined that this species is utilizing the project site during migration only. Potential impacts of the project are not expected to threaten regional populations of these species and are thereby considered less than significant. It should also be noted that although no significant impact would result from the project to these species, MM 6-6 protecting nesting birds would further ensure that impacts to birds remain less than significant. Additionally, the preservation of open space on-site provides nesting and foraging habitat that is used by these species. Several additional sensitive wildlife species were not observed on-site but have the potential to occur, including: coast range newt, silvery legless lizard, San Diego mountain kingsnake, coast patch-nosed snake, ferruginous hawk, merlin, white-tailed kite, long-eared owl, olivesided flycatcher, loggerhead shrike, pallid bat, Townsend’s western big-eared bat, spotted bat, pocketed free-tailed bat, big free-tailed bat, San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, and southern grasshopper mouse.
Similar to the discussion in the previous paragraph, these species are not federally- or statelisted and considerable habitat for these species is preserved on-site. In addition, potential impacts are not expected to threaten regional populations of these species and are thereby considered less than significant. Although the impacts are considered to be less than significant, MM 6-6 is recommended to ensure the protection of active nests protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and nests and eggs protected by California Fish and Game Code Section 3503. As stated in MM 6-6, the vegetation removal would occur outside of the nesting season. If vegetation removal activities must occur during the nesting season, provisions will be made to ensure the protection of nesting birds.
Off-site Project Feature Impacts
Implementation of off-site project features would not impact any special status plant or wildlife species.
Caltrans-related Project Feature Impacts
Due to the limited amount of habitat impacted, implementation of project features within Caltrans right-of-way would not significantly impact any special status plant or wildlife species.
Threshold 3: Would the project result in a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS.
On-site Project Impacts
As shown in Table 4.6-11, Project Impacts to Plant Communities; Exhibit 4.6-9, Impacts to Plant Communities; and Table 4.6-12, Mountain Park Impacts to NCCP/HCP Covered Plant Communities, project implementation would remove 221.8 acres of plant communities considered sensitive by the resource agencies (namely CDFG) including 213.5 acres of coastal sage scrub (200.1 acres of primary impacts, 13.4 acres of secondary impacts) and 8.3 acres of coast live oak woodland (7.6 acres of primary impacts and 0.7 acre of secondary impacts).
Tables 4.6-11 and 4.6-12 also identify the amount of these communities preserved on-site. Due to the sensitivity of these communities, their support of several sensitive species, and the fact that impacts to these communities would substantially reduce their regional distribution, impacts in most circumstances would be considered potentially significant. However, as assessed under the NCCP/HCP, impacts to these plant communities will not have a substantial adverse affect on the habitat types or species using them and NCCP/HCP mitigation (i.e., the Reserve) Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-52 Biological Resources assures full mitigation of development impacts. The project would also impact 3.4 acres of cliff and rock communities; however, impacts to these communities are covered and fully mitigated under the NCCP/HCP. Within the NCCP/HCP Reserve there is approximately 18,740 acres of coastal sage scrub, 963 acres of woodlands, and 74 acres of cliff and rock protected. Additional habitat would also be preserved within the Anaheim Conservation Easement (ACE).
The proposed project would not impact any of the 43.0 acres of Tecate Cypress Forest on-site.
The on-site areas with this habitat are within preserved open space.
Project implementation would remove approximately 2.1 acres of needlegrass grassland.
Needlegrass grassland is considered a CNDDB high priority inventory community due to its limited distribution in the region. Impacts to 2.1 acres of needlegrass grassland amounts to approximately 18 percent of the total 11.7 acres mapped within the study area. This loss is not expected to substantially reduce the distribution of this community in the region and considering the preservation of 9.6 acres of needlegrass in open space areas, the impact is considered less than significant. It should also be noted that although it is not a protected species, the NCCP/HCP Reserve protects 5,877 acres of grassland.
A total of 2.1 acres of cottonwood-willow riparian woodland would be impacted by the proposed project on-site. Additionally, 0.2 acre of sycamore riparian woodland would be impacted by off-site project features. These communities are Not Covered under the NCCP/HCP but are considered high priority inventory communities by the CDFG. Due to their sensitivity, limited distribution within the region, and potential to support sensitive species (i.e., migratory willow flycatchers), impacts to these habitats are considered potentially significant, prior to mitigation. It should be noted that the project would not impact willow scrub or mixed riparian habitat.
Impact 4.6-3 The proposed project would impact a total of 2.1 acres of cottonwoodwillow riparian woodland on-site and 0.2 acre of sycamore riparian woodland off-site which would be considered a potentially significant impact. This impact would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of PDF 6-1, SC 6-1, SC 6-2, SC 6-3 and MM 6-2.
Project implementation would also result in the direct removal of 339.4 acres of several nonsensitive plant communities including 296.0 acres of chaparral communities (264.3 acres of primary impacts, 31.7 acres of secondary impacts), 16.5 acres of annual grassland communities (14.5 acres of primary impacts, 2.0 acres of secondary impacts), 2.0 acres of sumac savannah (1.0 acre of primary impacts and 1.0 acre of secondary impacts), 14.2 acres of oak savannah (13.7 acres of primary impacts and 0.5 acre of secondary impacts), 2.7 acres of mule fat scrub2 (2.6 acres of primary impacts, 0.1 acre of secondary impacts), 4.4 acres of mule fat scrub/coast live oak woodland (4.3 acres of primary impacts and 0.1 acre of secondary impacts), 0.2 acre of Mexican elderberry woodland (0.2 acre of primary impacts), and 3.4 acres of cliff and rock communities (3.1 acres of primary impacts and 0.3 acre of secondary impacts). These communities are not considered sensitive by resource agencies and impacts to them would not reduce these communities below self-perpetuating levels throughout the region. In addition, substantial amounts of each community are preserved in open space. Therefore, their removal is considered less than significant. In addition, cliff and rock communities and coast live oak woodland are covered habitats under the NCCP/HCP and mitigation provided in the NCCP/HCP adequately mitigates development impacts.
2 A portion of these impacts are within CDFG jurisdiction.
Source:
PCR Services Corporation, 2005
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR No. 331
Impacts to Plant Communities Exhibit 4.6-9
March 11, 2005
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\fuscoe\ex4.6-9_020305.pdf
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-53 Biological Resources TABLE 4.6-11
PROJECT IMPACTS TO PLANT COMMUNITIES
Vegetation Community
OCHCSa
Code
Existing
(acres)
Primary
Impacts
(acres)
Secondary
Impacts
(acres)
Total Impacts
(acres)
Non-Impact
(acres)
Off-site
Impacts
(acres)
Scrub Communities b, d
Sagebrush/Buckwheat
Scrub 2.3.1 8.3 1.9 0.0 1.9 6.4 0.6
Black Sage Scrub 2.3.4 133.8 10.9 2.0 12.9 120.9 0.0
White Sage Scrub 2.3.5 76.1 16.9 2.8 19.7 56.4 0.0
Sagebrush Scrub 2.3.6 72.7 50.7 2.0 52.7 20.0 0.0
Buckwheat Scrub 2.3.7 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0
Mixed Sage Scrub 2.3.10 80.1 12.1 0.2 12.3 67.8 0.0
Sagebrush-Coyote Brush
Scrub 2.3.12 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0
Southern Cactus Scrub 2.4 146.4 81.9 5.0 86.9 59.5 0.1
Yerba Santa Scrub n/a 5.5 1.4 0.0 1.4 4.1 0.0
Sagebrush Grassland 2.8.1 15.7 10.3 1.3 11.6 4.1 0.0
Buckwheat Grassland 2.8.2 1.3 1.3 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0
Sagebrush-Buckwheat
Grassland n/a 20.4 12.5 0.1 12.6 7.8 0.5
Coastal Goldenbush
Grassland 2.8.3 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0
Mixed Sage Scrub
Grassland 2.8.5 43.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 42.8 0.0
Subtotal – Scrub 613.2 200.1 13.4 213.5 399.7 1.2
Chaparral Communities
Scrub-Chaparral
Ecotone/Sere 3.1 123.0 8.9 7.6 16.5 106.5 0.7
Chamise-Sagebrush 3.1.1 16.4 11.6 0.2 11.8 4.6 0.0
Chamise-Sage Scrub 3.1.2 40.5 9.4 1.3 10.7 29.8 0.0
Mixed Chaparral 3.2 176.9 2.5 3.3 5.8 171.1 0.0
Chamise Chaparral 3.3 175.3 62.6 5.8 68.4 106.9 0.0
Bigpod Chaparral 3.5 938.0 127.0 5.6 132.6 805.4 0.0
Scrub Oak Chaparral 3.7 4.6 4.0 0.1 4.1 0.5 0.0
Nolina Chaparral b 3.11 17.8 7.8 0.0 7.8 10.0 0.0
Toyon-Sumac Chaparral 3.12 202.6 30.5 7.8 38.3 164.3 0.6 Subtotal – Chaparral 1,695.1 264.3 31.7 296.0 1,399.1 1.3 Grassland Communities
Annual Grassland 4.1 88.4 14.5 2.0 16.5 71.9 0.2
Needlegrass Grassland b 4.3 11.7 2.1 0.0 2.1 9.6 0.0
Oak Savannah b, d 4.5 43.4 13.7 0.5 14.2 29.2 0.0
Sumac Savannah 4.8 18.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 16.0 0.0
Subtotal – Grassland 161.5 31.3 3.5 34.8 126.7 0.2
Riparian Communities
Willow Scrub b 7.2 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0
Mule Fat Scrub 7.3 20.8 2.6 0.1 2.7 e 18.1 0.3
Mule Fat Scrub/Coast Live
Oak Woodland 7.3/8.1 6.4 4.3 0.1 4.4 e
2.0 0.0
Sycamore Riparian b 7.4 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.2
Cottonwood-Willow
Riparian b 7.8 2.3 2.0 0.1 2.1 0.2 0.0
Mixed Riparian b n/a 20.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.7 0.0
Subtotal – Riparian 59.1 8.9 0.3 9.2 49.9 0.5
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
TABLE 4.6-11 (Continued)
PROJECT IMPACTS TO PLANT COMMUNITIES
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-54 Biological Resources Vegetation Community
OCHCSa
Code
Existing
(acres)
Primary
Impacts
(acres)
Secondary
Impacts
(acres)
Total Impacts
(acres)
Non-Impact
(acres)
Off-site
Impacts
(acres)
Woodland Communities
Coast Live Oak
Woodland b, d 8.1 52.1 7.6 0.7 8.3 43.8 0.0
Mexican Elderberry
Woodland 8.4 1.7 0.2 0.0 0.2 1.5 0.0
Subtotal – Woodland 53.8 7.8 0.7 8.5 45.3 0.0
Forest Communities
Tecate Cypress Forest b, d 9.5 43.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.0 0.0 Subtotal – Forest 43.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.0 0.0
Cliff and Rock Communities d
Xeric Cliff (Erosional
Features) 10.1 7.2 2.2 0.2 2.4 4.8 0.0
Vascular Plant Xeric Cliff 10.1.1 4.3 0.7 0.1 0.8 3.5 0.0 Rock Outcrops 10.3 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.0
Subtotal – Cliff and Rock 12.3 3.1 0.3 3.4 8.9 0.0
Developed Communities
Transportation c 15.4 83.1 33.8 4.6 38.4 44.7 12.6
Ornamental 15.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0
Subtotal – Developed 83.6 33.8 4.6 38.4 45.2 12.6
Disturbed Communities
Disturbed or Barren 16.1 43.4 32.4 0.5 32.9 10.5 4.3
Mined Areas 16.4 236.0 236.0 0.0 236.0 0.0 2.7
Subtotal – Disturbed 279.4 268.4 0.5 268.9 10.5 7.0
TOTAL 3,001.0 817.7 55.0 872.7 2,128.3 22.8 a Orange County Habitat Classification System. b Sensitive plant community. c Refers to all paved urban roads and cut/fill slopes associated with SR-241. d Covered habitat under the NCCP/HCP. e A portion of this total has been determined to be within CDFG jurisdiction. Impacts to habitat under the jurisdiction of the CDFG are discussed under Threshold 4.
Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2005.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-55 Biological Resources TABLE 4.6-12
MOUNTAIN PARK
IMPACTS TO NCCP COVERED PLANT COMMUNITIES
Habitat Type
Existing
(acres)
Primary
Impacts
(acres)
Secondary
Impacts
(acres)
Total
Impacts
(acres)
Non-Impact
(acres)
Off-site
Impacts
(acres)
Plant Communities “Covered” by the Central/Coastal Subregion NCCP/HCP Coastal Sage Scrub (includes all
coastal sage scrub communities)
613.2 200.1 13.4 213.5 399.7 1.2
Oak Woodlands (includes coast
live oak woodland)
52.1 7.6 0.7 8.3 43.8 0.0
Tecate Cypress Forest (includes
Tecate cypress mapped as a
monotypic community)
43.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.0 0.0
Cliff and Rock (includes all cliff and
rock communities)
12.3 3.1 0.3 3.4 8.9 0.0
Subtotal Covered 720.6 210.8 14.4 225.2 495.4 1.2
Plant Communities “Not Covered” by the Central/Coastal Subregion NCCP/HCP Chaparral (includes all chaparral
communities)
1,695.1 264.3 31.7 296.0 1,399.1 1.3
Disturbed (includes developed and
disturbed)
363.0 302.2 5.1 307.3 55.7 19.6
Grasslands (includes all grassland
communities)
161.5 31.3 3.5 34.8 126.7 0.2
Riparian and Woodland (includes
all riparian and woodland
communities with the exception of
coast live oak woodland)
60.8 9.1 0.3 9.4 51.4 0.5
Subtotal Not Covered 2280.4 606.9 40.6 647.5 1,632.9 21.6 Grand Total 3,001.0 817.7 55.0 872.7 2,128.3 22.8
Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2005.
Fire-dependent Vegetation
The implications of the proposed project on fire frequency are complex, but the potential exists for the project to change the natural fire cycle of the area. Of particular concern is the impact of a change in fire frequency to the Tecate cypress. As mentioned previously, the Tecate cypress is a fire dependent species requiring the heat of a fire to open its cones for seed dispersal.
However, Tecate cypress cone production is low until the trees are about 30 years old; therefore, too frequent of fires may eliminate trees by burning them before they have produced enough cones/seed to successfully reproduce.
The project, including associated firebreaks and fuel modification zones, could reduce fire frequency by minimizing the chance of naturally set fires (i.e., lightning) by eliminating the amount of vegetation available as a source to spark and fuel a wildfire. Based on the historical data reviewed for this assessment, fires that have affected the Tecate cypress stand in Coal and Gypsum Canyons have been occurring at less than 20-year intervals (1948, 1967, 1982, and 2002) and have contributed to the decline of the northernmost population of the species.
The potential for the project to suppress fire frequency would not affect Tecate cypress. In fact, suppressing fire frequency in the area may allow the remaining population of Tecate cypress to mature.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-56 Biological Resources Conversely, the presence of development and urban encroachment may increase the potential for more frequent human-induced fires. As mentioned above, an increase in fire frequency has caused the decline of the Tecate cypress from much of its historic distribution in Coal and Gypsum canyons. Consequently, any unnatural increases in fire frequency in scrub and chaparral habitats could potentially threaten the continued existence of sensitive communities and species. Again, based on the historical data of fires occurring in the area, the proposed project would not increase the fire frequency to a point that it would threaten the Tecate cypress stands more than they already are. It should also be mentioned that a high percentage of unnatural fires in settings similar to Mountain Park are caused by off-road vehicle use by residents. Since such a use of NCCP/HCP and other open space lands around the project would be strictly prohibited, this is not expected to be a factor. Therefore, impacts of the project are considered less than significant.
Off-site Project Feature Impacts
Off-site project features (primarily Gypsum Canyon Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road) would remove 1.2 acres of coastal sage scrub within the NCCP/HCP study area. Coastal sage scrub is considered sensitive by the resource agencies (namely CDFG). As assessed under the NCCP/HCP, impacts to coastal sage scrub would not have a substantial adverse affect on the habitat types or species using them and NCCP/HCP mitigation (i.e., the Reserve) assures full mitigation of development impacts. Additional habitat would also be preserved within the TNC ACE.
Implementation of off-site project features would also result in the direct removal of 0.2 acre of annual grassland and 0.3 acre of mule fat scrub. These communities are not considered sensitive by resource agencies and large amounts are preserved in open space. Project impacts would not reduce these communities below self-perpetuating levels throughout the region. Therefore, their removal is considered less than significant.
Off-site project features would also result in the removal of 0.2 acre of sycamore riparian woodland. This is considered a potentially significant impact that would be mitigated to a less than significant level (refer to Impact 4.6-3 above).
In addition, 13.3 acres of developed or otherwise disturbed areas would be impacted with implementation of off-site project features. Impacts to disturbed and already developed areas are considered less than significant.
Caltrans-related Project Feature Impacts
An additional 1.3 acres of chaparral and 6.3 acres of already disturbed area would be impacted by the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road interchange, Mountain Park Drive bridge overcrossing, SR-91 slope improvements within Caltrans right-of-way (off-site). These habitats are not considered sensitive and impacts to them would be considered less than significant. The remaining grading impacts associated with these facilities have been addressed under the impact analysis for the proposed project as the grading for the bridge occurs within the project impact area. Other roadway and drainage improvements within Caltrans right-of-way would primarily impact disturbed areas along existing roadways and these impacts would be considered less than significant. It should be noted that impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat and sycamore riparian woodland identified above for off-site project feature impacts include areas within Caltrans right-of-way along Gypsum Canyon Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road.
The impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat would be covered by the NCCP/HCP since the project applicant is a participating landowner in this program. Impacts to sycamore riparian habitat would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant (refer to Impact 4.6-3).
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-57 Biological Resources Threshold 4: Would the project result in a substantial adverse effect on State or Federal protected wetlands as defined by Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code or Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? On-site Project Impacts
Approximately 28.48 acres of waters of the U.S., including approximately 0.28 acre of wetlands, were mapped in the study area. The proposed project would impact approximately 6.25 acres of waters of the U.S., including 0.23 acre of wetlands, subject to the jurisdiction of the ACOE.
Of the 6.25 acres of impacts to ACOE jurisdiction, 5.40 acres occur within the primary impact area (which includes 0.23 acre of wetlands) and 0.49 acre of waters of the U.S occurs within the secondary impact area (refer to Exhibit 4.6-3, Impacts to ACOE Jurisdictional Areas).
Approximately 45.44 acres of CDFG jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian habitat were mapped within the study area. The proposed project would impact approximately 10.22 acres of CDFG jurisdiction, 8.27 acres within the primary impact area and 1.1 acres within the secondary impact area (refer to Exhibit 4.6-4, Impacts to CDFG Jurisdictional Areas). Impacts on ACOE and CDFG jurisdictions in most cases would be considered potentially significant.
However, with incorporation of the identified mitigation program, this impact would be reduced to a level considered less than significant.
Off-site Project Feature Impacts
Off-site project features, including the Featherly Park drainage and Gypsum Canyon Road improvements, would impact an additional 0.31 acre of ACOE “waters of the U.S.” and 0.5 acre of CDFG jurisdiction.
Caltrans-related Project Feature Impacts
Construction of the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road interchange would impact approximately
0.002 acre of waters of the U.S. (refer to Exhibit 4.6-3, Impacts to ACOE Jurisdictional Areas).
Additionally, approximately 0.012 acre of CDFG jurisdiction (refer to Exhibit 4.6-4, Impacts to CDFG Jurisdictional Areas) would be impacted. These impacts on ACOE and CDFG jurisdictions would be considered potentially significant, but would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant (refer to SC 6-1, SC 6-2, SC 6-3, and MM 6-2). The impacts to jurisdictional areas identified above under off-site project feature impacts for Gypsum Canyon Road improvements may include areas within Caltrans right-of-way.
The Mountain Park Drive bridge overcrossing, SR-91 slope improvements and other roadway and drainage facility improvements within Caltrans right-of-way would not impact ACOE or CDFG jurisdictional areas.
Impact 4.6-4 The proposed project would impact 6.56 acres of waters of the U.S., including 6.25 acre on-site, 0.31 acre off-site, and 0.002 acre off-site for interchange construction. The proposed project would also impact 10.68 acres of CDFG jurisdiction, 10.73 acres on-site, 0.5 acre off-site, and
0.012 acre off-site for interchange construction. Impacts to ACOE and CDFG jurisdictional areas are considered potentially significant. This impact would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of SC 6-1, SC 6-2, SC 6-3, and MM 6-2.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-58 Biological Resources Threshold 5: Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
On-Site Project Impacts
Wildlife Movement
Data gathered during the literature review and during 2001 and 2002 surveys indicate use of the Mountain Park project site by a variety of wildlife both for local and regional movement. Local movement of resident wildlife within the project site and immediate vicinity would be affected by the development. East-west regional movement is hindered only by SR-241; however, provisions such as fencing and undercrossings have been constructed to facilitate this movement. North-south movement is unimpeded in the southern portion of the site but the point of access to the Chino Hills for larger mammals such as mountain lion is severely hindered at the mouth of Gypsum Canyon due to the significant historical and recent disturbance (i.e., mining operations, Santa Ana Canyon Road, Gypsum Canyon Road, SR-91 Freeway).
Studies of mountain lion movement substantiate that the Gypsum Canyon undercrossing and/or culverts are not utilized by this species and that mountain lion are more likely to utilize Coal Canyon to the east. More ubiquitous species such as coyote, raccoon, opossum, and skunk currently utilize the Gypsum Canyon undercrossing and culverts in spite of the disturbance and development and would be expected to continue their use after project implementation.
In summary, the proposed Mountain Park development may interfere with the local movement of resident wildlife. However, the proposed project provides additional buffer areas in the form of the ACE and other open space beyond the NCCP/HCP Reserve boundary, and avoids the ridge separating Mountain Park from Coal Canyon. In addition, wildlife movement studies conducted in this area have found the Gypsum Canyon underpass unused and inappropriate for use by mountain lion. Furthermore, the NCCP/HCP program places a focus on conservation of habitat on an ecosystem level to promote wildlife diversity. Accordingly, the NCCP/HCP Reserve design established corridors and special linkages to accommodate wildlife movement.
Under the NCCP/HCP, it was determined that the Reserve design incorporated sufficient connectivity for purposes of wildlife movement that impacts of development within development areas designated by the NCCP/HCP do not require further mitigation. Likewise, given the ecosystem-based approach to reserve design, it was determined that the reserve design adequately addressed buffer and edge considerations to fulfill the NCCP/HCP reserve design tenets and accordingly, impacts of development within designated development areas outside the NCCP/HCP Reserve do not require further mitigation. As such, impacts to wildlife movement from the proposed project are less than significant.
Habitat Loss and Fragmentation
The primary impacts of the project on wildlife resources are the removal and disruption of habitat and the loss and displacement of wildlife, resulting in a less diverse and less abundant local faunal population. Adverse impacts to wildlife are generally associated with the degree of habitat loss and fragmentation from the standpoint of physical character, quality, diversity, and abundance of vegetation. Although a few species of wildlife are entirely dependent on a single vegetation community, it is important to recognize that the entire mosaic of vegetation communities within the project site and adjoining areas constitutes a functional ecosystem for wildlife species both within the immediate project site, and as part of the regional ecosystem.
The NCCP/HCP recognized the necessity for conservation at an ecosystem level to promote wildlife diversity and the Reserve design that was established adequately addressed habitat Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-59 Biological Resources linkages, habitat buffers, and edge considerations to fulfill the NCCP/HCP Reserve design tenets and ensure wildlife diversity within the region.
Implementation of the project would result in the loss of relatively large areas of CSS, chaparral, and grassland habitats. The removal of these habitats could cause the direct mortality of numerous common wildlife species. In addition, potential adverse indirect impacts to vegetation and wildlife include: increased vehicular traffic and a corresponding increase in road kill and noise; an increase in human intrusion, including hikers and bicyclists; an increase in predatory and feral pets; an increase in litter, pollutants, dust, oil, and other human debris; and, an increase in nighttime lighting. Common wildlife species using habitats on-site would avoid habitats affected by these “spillover” impacts, thereby decreasing diversity beyond the actual development envelope. These impacts by themselves would not be expected to reduce general wildlife populations below self-sustaining levels within the region; therefore, elimination or disruption of habitat for these species is less than significant. Furthermore, as stated previously, the NCCP Reserve design incorporates several features to ensure habitat connectivity and addresses buffer and edge considerations.
The Yuma myotis summer roost within the SR-91 culverts may be impacted by the proposed project during modification of the culverts. Although the Yuma myotis is not a sensitive species and impacts to this small roosting population would not be considered significant, a mitigation measure has been established to ensure the protection of the colony (MM 6-5).
Off-Site Project Feature Impacts
Off-site project features are primarily within existing disturbed areas and would not result in a loss of habitat or fragmentation and would have no additional impacts beyond those stated above.
Caltrans-Related Project Feature Impacts
The SR-241/Weir Canyon Road interchange and Mountain Park Drive bridge overcrossing were assumed as part of the planning efforts for SR-241 which was designed to accommodate regional wildlife movement.
With respect to other Caltrans-related project improvements, SR-91 slope improvements are proposed south of SR-91 within Development Area 5 (at the quarry site). This is an area that has been subject to mining activities until December 2004 and does not accommodate wildlife movement. As previously noted, the proposed project has been designed to maintain a buffer between proposed development and the existing Coal Canyon Biological Corridor east of the project site. The Coal Canyon wildlife crossing passes through Caltrans right-of-way and would not be impacted by the proposed project. The project would not involve the placement of any fencing in this wildlife movement corridor area. Additionally, as noted above under the on-site project impact analysis, the NCCP/HCP Reserve mitigates impacts to wildlife movement. Other roadway and drainage facility improvements within Caltrans right-of-way are along existing roadways and would not impact wildlife movement.
Threshold 6: Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, State, or Federal HCP?
As discussed throughout the impacts discussion above, the project has been designed to be consistent with the NCCP/HCP. Development has been limited to areas identified in the plan as approved development areas. Additionally, the area that would be impacted by the project is substantially reduced from the approved development area identified in the NCCP/HCP. This is Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-60 Biological Resources demonstrated by comparing the project impact area identified in Exhibit 3-20 to the NonReserve NCCP Development Area in Exhibit 4.6-1. There are no impacts to areas identified in the NCCP/HCP as Reserve areas. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the NCCP/ HCP and the IA and project impacts would not be considered significant.
Threshold 7: Would the project conflict with any approved or adopted local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources?
Consistency with Goals 14.1, 14.2, and 14.3 of the City of Anaheim’s General Plan Green Element is ensured by the fact that the proposed project has been designed to be supportive of and consistent with the NCCP/HCP and associated IA. It would not conflict with any approved or adopted local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
Additionally, the project is consistent with SCAG’s policies outlined in the Growth Management and Open Space Chapters of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. Consistent with Policy 3.20, the project protects the majority of resources onsite through the preservation of approximately 2,163 acres of open space (72 percent). As discussed in Section 4.4, Hydrology, the project would not impact any groundwater recharge areas. Consistent with Policy 3.23, potential impacts to biological resources are mitigated to a level considered less than significant through implementation of project design features, existing regulations and standard conditions and other measures described in Section 4.6.5 below. As noted above, the project is supportive and consistent with the NCCP/HCP and IA, which were developed to address protection and management of coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat and CSS-obligate species, and other covered habitats and species, and mitigate anticipated impacts to those habitats and species, on a programmatic, sub-regional level, rather than on a project-by-project, single species basis. This managed approach to resource protection is consistent with Ancillary Goal 9.08 of the Open Space Chapter. Wetland resources are not protected under the NCCP/HCP; however, as discussed below, a mitigation plan has been developed for wetland resources to reduce impacts to a level considered less than significant. Approval of this mitigation plan by the CDFG and ACOE will be required.
4.6.5 MITIGATION PROGRAM
Project Design Features
PDF 6-1 Prior to approval of tentative tract or parcel maps, the project biologist shall submit written verification in the form of a note on the tentative tract or parcel maps, that the project development boundaries are consistent with the Open Space, Trail and Bikeway Plan identified in Exhibit 3-8. The proposed project includes 2,163 acres of preserved open space: NCCP/HCP Reserve (940 acres), The Nature Conservancy Anaheim Conservation Easement (TNC ACE) (913 acres) and 310 acres of additional open space throughout the project site not related to the NCCP/HCP Reserve or TNC ACE.
Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions
SC 6-1 Prior to approval of mass or rough grading plans impacting jurisdictional areas, the property owner/developer shall provide written evidence to the Department of Public Works of compliance with the provisions of Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. This shall be accomplished by providing a copy of the executed Streambed Alteration Agreement.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-61 Biological Resources SC 6-2 Prior to approval of mass or rough grading plans impacting jurisdictional areas, the property owner/developer shall provide the Department of Public Works with a copy of the executed Section 404 permit obtained from the Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE).
SC 6-3 Prior to approval of mass or rough grading plans, the property owner/developer shall provide the Department of Public Works with a copy of the Section 401 water quality certification obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
SC 6-4 Prior to approval of mass or rough grading plans, the project biologist shall review the following contract specifications to verify that the following measures to minimize impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher and other coastal sage scrub (CSS) species have been included on the specifications. The project biologist shall provide written evidence to the Department of Public Works in the form of a note on the grading plans that this condition has been completed. x To the maximum extent practicable, no grading of coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat that is occupied by nesting gnatcatchers will occur during the breeding season (February 15 through July 15). It is expressly understood that this provision and the remaining provisions of these “construction-related minimization measures” are subject to public health and safety considerations.
These considerations include unexpected slope stabilization, erosion control measures and emergency facility repairs. In the event of such public health and safety circumstances, landowners or public agencies/utilities will provide United State Fish and Wildlife Service/California Department of Fish and Game (USFWS/CDFG) with the maximum practicable notice (or such notice as is specified in the Natural Communities Conservation Program/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) to allow for capture of gnatcatchers, cactus wrens, and any other CSS Identified Species that are not otherwise flushed, and will carry out the following measures only to the extent as practicable in the context of the public health and safety considerations. x Prior to commencement of grading operations or other activities involving significant soil disturbance, all areas of CSS habitat to be avoided under the provisions of the NCCP/HCP, shall be identified with temporary fencing or other markers clearly visible to construction personnel. Additionally, prior to the commencement of grading operations or other activities involving disturbance of CSS, a survey will be conducted to locate gnatcatchers and cactus wrens within 100 feet of the outer extent of projected soil disturbance activities and the locations of any such species shall be clearly marked and identified on the construction/grading plans.
x A monitoring biologist, acceptable to USFWS/CDFG will be on-site during any clearing of CSS. The landowner or relevant public agency/utility will advise USFWS/CDFG at least seven (7) calendar days [and preferably fourteen (14) calendar days] prior to the clearing of any habitat occupied by Identified Species to allow USFWS/CDFG to work with the monitoring biologist in connection with bird flushing/capture activities. The monitoring biologist will flush Identified Species (avian or other mobile Identified Species) from occupied habitat areas immediately prior to brush-clearing and earth-moving activities. If birds cannot be flushed, they will be captured in mist nets, if Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-62 Biological Resources feasible, and relocated to areas of the site to be protected or to the NCCP/HCP Reserve System. It will be the responsibility of the monitoring biologist to assure that Identified bird species will not be directly impacted by brushclearing and earth-moving equipment in a manner that also allows for construction activities on a timely basis.
x Following the completion of initial grading/earth movement activities, all areas of CSS habitat to be avoided by construction equipment and personnel will be marked with temporary fencing and other appropriate markers clearly visible to construction personnel. No construction access, parking, or storage of equipment or materials will be permitted within such marked areas. x In areas bordering the NCCP Reserve System or Special Linkage/Special Management areas containing significant CSS identified in the NCCP/HCP for protection, vehicle transportation routes between cut-and-fill locations will be restricted to a minimum number during construction consistent with project construction requirements. Waste dirt or rubble will not be deposited on adjacent CSS identified in the NCCP/HCP for protection. Pre-construction meetings involving the monitoring biologist, construction supervisors, and equipment operators will be conducted and documented to ensure maximum practicable adherence to these measures.
x CSS identified in the NCCP/HCP for protection and located within the likely dust drift radius of construction areas shall be periodically sprayed with water to reduce accumulated dust on the leaves as recommended by the monitoring biologist.
SC 6-5 Prior to approval of mass or rough grading plans, the property owner/developer shall report the amount of coastal sage scrub that would be impacted by proposed grading activities. The amount of coastal sage scrub impacts shall be noted on plans submitted for grading permits and submitted to the Planning Department and to the Nature Reserve of Orange County (NROC) to ensure that a proper accounting of coastal sage scrub impacts is recorded for purposes of the NCCP/HCP.
SC 6-6 On an annual basis until grading activities are complete, the property owner/developer shall provide the Planning Department and Nature Reserve of Orange County (NROC) with a calculation of the total amount of coastal sage scrub that has been removed during the calendar year.
SC 6-7 Prior to approval of mass or rough grading plans, the project biological monitor shall provide written verification to the Department of Public Works that the appropriate provisions of the comprehensive mitigation program for the foothill mariposa lily approved by the United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) in March 2004 for the Irvine Company’s “North Ranch” projects (including the Mountain Park Specific Plan project) shall be implemented consistent with the approved plan The March 2004 mitigation program is included in Appendix E.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-63 Biological Resources Mitigation Measure
MM 6-1 Prior to initiation of construction activities, the property owner/developer shall retain a project biological monitor approved by both the United States Fish and Wildlife Services and California Department of Fish and Game. The project biological monitor shall ensure that all permit conditions are met, all mitigation measures are properly implemented, and that the project complies with all standard conditions and project design features. The project biological monitor shall also be present during any pre-grade meetings, mass grading operations, and periodically during construction to ensure that sensitive resources designated for preservation are properly protected. Beginning with the initiation of construction or grading activities, the project biological monitor shall submit monthly status reports to the Planning Department to demonstrate compliance with this measure.
MM 6-2 Prior to the approval of mass or rough grading plans impacting jurisdictional areas, the property owner/developer shall provide a wetland mitigation plan approved by the ACOE (for Section 404 areas) and CDFG (for the Section 1602 areas) to the Department of Public Works. A total of 14.1 acres of riparian mitigation are necessary to offset the loss of ACOE and CDFG jurisdictional areas as a result of the proposed project. A Conceptual Wetland and Riparian Habitat Mitigation Plan has been prepared by JSA (February, 2005). The purpose of the mitigation plan is to:
x Create (establish), restore, or enhance wetland/riparian habitats on-site to the maximum extent practicable to minimize the on-site loss of ACOE and CDFG jurisdictional acreage and function, and provide off-site mitigation for the remainder of the impacts;
x To implement, to the extent practicable, off-site mitigation in the Santa Ana River watershed, as close to the study area as possible or otherwise at a key ecological site;
x To return jurisdictional habitats that are temporarily disturbed during construction to pre-construction conditions; and,
x To ensure that adjacent non-jurisdictional habitats are protected.
The preferred on-site mitigation approach shall be approved by the ACOE, CDFG and RWQCB during the permitting process. One possible component of the onsite mitigation, to address the impacts of the box extension on the already disturbed Gypsum Canyon Creek channel, could include a rebuilt creek as a lowflow riparian corridor through the canyon mouth area. Conceptually, the box extension shall act as a high-flow by-pass that efficiently conveys the more intense and destructive flood flows. The riparian corridor shall extend upstream to the road crossing of Gypsum Canyon Creek. The riparian corridor shall consist of a riverine channel flanked by planted embankments. The riverine channel would be soft bottom and the riparian vegetated floor would be nurtured by low and seasonal run-off diverted into it from a channel split from the new box culvert opening. This "splitter" shall consist of a junction opening that becomes a tunnel that would accommodate storm flows as well as wildlife movement under the road crossing to the riparian corridor.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-64 Biological Resources MM 6-3 Prior to approval of mass or rough grading plans, the property owner/developer shall submit copies of contractor specifications to the Department of Public Works that include the following note: “Initial clearing of vegetation that has been identified as being used by the southwestern willow flycatcher shall be conducted outside of the breeding season or with the presence of a biological monitor during the breeding season to ensure that no individuals of this species are directly impacted. The breeding season for the southwestern willow flycatcher is between May 15 and July 31.” Following completion of initial clearing of vegetation, the project biological monitor shall provide written evidence to the Planning Department that this measure has been completed.
MM 6-4 Prior to approval of mass or rough grading plans for Development Areas 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7, the project biological monitor shall provide to the Planning Department a translocation program for the many-stemmed dudleya. The project biological monitor shall provide written notification to the Planning Department when the translocation program has been completed. The Mountain Park many-stemmed dudleya translocation program shall utilize the following techniques:
x Relocation of corms from impact areas to receptor sites. The relocation of topsoil including corms (topsoil relocation method) shall occur in late fall/early winter (November-January). Corm salvage using the “soil sieving method” shall occur when soils are still dry; therefore, as early as possible between October and December. Corms collected using the “soil sieving method” shall be replanted as soon as possible after collection (November-January). x Seed collection from impact areas followed by hand broadcasting at appropriate receptor sites; and seed collection with propagation, nursery rearing, and translocation to appropriate sites. Seed collection would occur in late spring (May-June).
MM 6-5 Prior to approval of street improvement plans for Gypsum Canyon Road, the property owner/developer shall submit copies of contractor specifications to the Department of Public Works that include the following requirements to protect the summer roost of Yuma myotis within the Gypsum Canyon culverts under the 91 Freeway: (1) construction activities to lengthen the culverts shall be scheduled outside of the critical breeding time (May 1 through August 15) to avoid direct impacts; (2) if construction must occur between May 1 and August 15, all construction activities shall occur outside the current culverts and no deeper than 25 feet inside the culverts to avoid a negative effect on the colony, (3) no night work shall occur around the culvert openings and only construction lighting necessary for safety purposes shall be used near the culvert openings. Following completion of construction activities associated with the culverts, the project biological monitor shall provide written notification to the Planning Department that the contractor specifications have been complied with.
MM 6-6 Prior to approval of mass or rough grading plans, the property owner/developer shall submit copies of contractor specifications to the Department of Public Works that include the following requirements to protect nesting birds regulated by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act: “When feasible, vegetation removal activities shall be scheduled between July 16 and February 14 to avoid the nesting season. This would ensure that no active nests would be disturbed and that removal could proceed rapidly. If vegetation removal activities shall occur during the nesting Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-65 Biological Resources season (February 15 to July 15), all suitable habitat shall be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist prior to removal. If any active nests are detected, the area shall be flagged, along with a minimum 50-foot buffer (buffer may range between 50 and 300 feet as determined by the monitoring biologist), and shall be avoided until the nesting cycle is complete or it is determined by the monitoring biologist that the nest has failed.” In addition, a biologist shall be present on the site to monitor the vegetation removal to ensure that nests not detected during the initial survey are not disturbed. The project biological monitor shall provide written notification to the Planning Department that these requirements have been accomplished following completion of grading activities associated with each grading permit.
Fire Hazards
Section 4.10, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, addresses potential fire hazards and project design features to address this issue.
4.6.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative impacts are defined as the direct and indirect effects of a proposed project which, when considered alone, would not be deemed a substantial impact, but when considered in addition to the impacts of related projects in the area, would be considered significant. “Related projects” refers to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects, which would have similar impacts to the proposed project. CEQA deems a cumulative impact analysis to be adequate if a list of “related projects” is included in the EIR or the proposed project is consistent with an adopted general, specific, master, or comparable programmatic plan (Section 15130[b][1][B]). CEQA also states that no further cumulative impact analysis is necessary for impacts of a proposed project consistent with an adopted general, specific, master, or comparable programmatic plan (Section 15130[d]).
In light of these guidelines, the Mountain Park property is within the Central Subregion of the Central/Coastal NCCP/HCP. The NCCP Reserve System design has set aside approximately 37,000 acres for long-term management. By preserving large habitat blocks and maintaining connectivity, the NCCP Reserve System has minimized the cumulative impacts of proposed projects within authorized take lands. In view of the NCCP Reserve System design and monitoring and management guidelines, cumulative impacts to the following biological resources are considered to have been fully mitigated:
x Covered sensitive plant communities (e.g., CSS and coast live oak woodlands); x Wildlife movement;
x Covered sensitive wildlife species (e.g., coastal California gnatcatcher, coastal cactus wren); and,
x Covered sensitive plant species (e.g., foothill mariposa lily and Coulter’s matilija poppy).
Several criteria were used to analyze the cumulative impacts to biological resources not covered under the NCCP/HCP. The study area was established to encompass the open space bounded by the Puente Hills and Chino Hills to the north, the Peralta Hills to the west, the San Joaquin Hills to the south, and the Santa Ana Mountains to the east and south. This area contains a regional complex of relevant habitats, species’ populations, and biological systems.
As a whole, this area provides a meaningful, regional ecological unit upon which to base the Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.6 Bio-032405.doc 4.6-66 Biological Resources cumulative impacts analysis. The cumulative impacts analysis to species Not Covered under the NCCP/HCP considered past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects to the extent that information was available and deemed to be reliable and accurate. Specific and general plans for the County and cities were reviewed, as well as compiled information collected during previous project public review processes. Potentially affected resources were categorized based upon their sensitivity, significance, and role in ecosystem sustainability. Based upon the parameters established, cumulative impacts to biological resources are less than significant.
The project preserves approximately two-thirds of the project site as open space precluding future development within open space areas. This preservation assures that there will be no unanticipated future cumulative impacts that may have occurred otherwise. The Mountain Park project will contribute to the loss of raptor foraging habitat. The cumulative loss of raptor foraging habitat is within “authorized take lands” under the NCCP/HCP. The loss of raptor foraging habitat within the region is not expected to substantially affect raptor species or threaten their survival in the region. In addition, the preservation of 37,000 acres within the NCCP Reserve and the more than 900 acres of open space area within the ACE alleviates these impacts as well as impacts to species Not Covered under the NCCP/HCP. Therefore, this loss is not considered cumulatively significant.
An assessment of the cumulative impacts to many-stemmed dudleya included surveys conducted in May and June of 2004 by PCR and GLA within unsurveyed and undersurveyed areas of the NRPPA and NCCP Reserve. These surveys found approximately 41 new colonies of many-stemmed dudleya totaling approximately 11,700 individual plants. These results found that regional population numbers of many-stemmed dudleya are greater than previously known.
The addition of this new data to the existing LSA NCCP Dudleya Study brings the total known colonies within the NCCP Reserve and TIC conservation areas to 180 colonies within conservation areas. The adjusted total of known many-stemmed dudleya colonies within the entire NCCP Central Subregion (conservation areas and proposed development areas) is 307 colonies. The proposed Mountain Park project inclusive of all known projects will impact approximately 23 percent of the known colonies in the NCCP Central Subregion. Due to the low cumulative percentage of impacts, the implementation of the pilot mitigation program, and the static nature of the impacts (i.e., no additional impacts from unforeseeable TIC projects in the Central Subregion in the future), cumulative impacts are considered less than significant.
Cumulative impacts to ACOE and CDFG jurisdictional areas are less than significant based upon the ability to mitigate most of the impacts on-site and because wetland and riparian functions will be replaced. There would be a no-net-loss of wetland and riparian functions.
4.6.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Impacts 4.6-1 through 4.6-4 would be reduced to levels considered less than significant with implementation of the mitigation program presented in Section 4.6.5.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7-1 Traffic and Circulation
4.7 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Information presented in this section is based on the Mountain Park Specific Plan Traffic Analysis prepared by Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. (February 2005). The traffic analysis is included in its entirety in Appendix G.
For the traffic impact analysis, roadways and intersections within the traffic analysis study area were analyzed for three time frames: existing conditions (2003/2004), year 2010 short-range future conditions, and year 2025 long-range future conditions. For each of the existing and future scenarios, traffic conditions with and without the Mountain Park Specific Plan development have been analyzed, and project mitigation measures are identified to address any adverse traffic impacts attributed to the proposed project. The traffic forecasting methodology used for the project is described in Appendix G.
4.7.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Exhibit 4.7-1 illustrates the location of the Mountain Park Specific Plan project site and the traffic analysis study area for the project. Exhibit 4.7-2 depicts the existing circulation system. As shown, the proposed project site is located near the junction of State Route 91 (SR-91), which is also known as the Riverside Freeway, and State Route 241 (SR-241), which is also known as the Eastern Transportation Corridor toll road. Existing roadways that provide access to the study area include Santa Ana Canyon Road, Weir Canyon Road, and Gypsum Canyon Road.
A description of each of the existing roadways and traffic conditions in the traffic study area is provided below.
Freeways/Tollroads in the Traffic Analysis Study Area
State Route 91
SR-91 is a major east-west transportation route in Southern California that extends from os Angeles County to Riverside County and is used by more than 260,000 motorists and truckers daily. SR-91 is a California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) facility. In the vicinity of the proposed project, SR-91 currently has four general-purpose lanes and two tollroad express lanes in each direction. The tollroad express lanes are managed by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). The segment of SR-91 between SR-55 and the Weir Canyon Road interchange, totaling 4.5 miles and running along the banks of the Santa Ana River, is designated as a State Scenic Highway. East of the Weir Canyon Road interchange, SR-91 is designated as an eligible State Scenic Highway. The significance of the scenic highway designation is further discussed in Section 4.2, andform and Aesthetics.
Because SR-91 provides a critical link between Inland Empire homes and Orange and os Angeles County jobs, it experiences severe traffic congestion during the AM and PM peak hours. To ease the commute, Caltrans, OCTA, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), and the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agencies (F/ETCA) are cooperatively preparing a Riverside County to Orange County Major Investment Study (MIS).
The MIS corridor is bounded by SR-55 on the west, I-15 on the east, SR-91 on the north, and Ortega Highway (SR-74) on the south (T. Warren, pers. comm., January 25, 2005).
In March 2004, a westbound auxiliary lane was added on SR-91 between Coal Canyon/SR-241 and the Orange/Riverside County line. In May 2004, a re-striping project was completed through Corona to extend the westbound auxiliary lane from the Orange/Riverside County line to SR-71.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7-2 Traffic and Circulation Additional improvements to SR-91 are planned for the future. ear-term improvements (in the next five years) would widen SR-91 from SR-241 to SR-71 through the addition of an eastbound auxiliary lane. Mid-term improvements (between 6 and 10 years) would include widening of SR-91 between SR-55 and SR-241 by adding one general-purpose lane and replacing the existing auxiliary lane in each direction. This will provide a two-lane off-ramp at Weir Canyon Road and a two-lane off-ramp to the SR-241 connector. A separate project would widen SR-91 from SR-241 to SR-71 by adding a fifth general purpose lane in each direction. Caltrans recently completed four separate project study reports (PSRs) for these near- and mid-term improvements. In June 2004, OCTA adopted an SR-91 Implementation Plan which commits funding to the near-term improvements. The Mountain Park Specific Plan has been designed to accommodate previously identified freeway improvements in the vicinity of the proposed project. ong-term (over 10 years) traffic solutions for the SR-91 corridor will be identified and prioritized in the Riverside County to Orange County MIS. The MIS, which includes the portion of SR-91 immediately adjacent to project site, will present a long-range, balanced transportation plan that includes highway, mass transit and other options. Along with improvements to SR-91 and SR74, the MIS will examine the potential of building a new corridor between Riverside and Orange Counties, the potential of expanding Metrolink commuter rail and B SF freight traffic, and other rail and bus alternatives. Based on the current schedule, the MIS will be completed in the Spring of 2006 (T. Warren, pers. comm., January 2005).
SR-241
The SR-241 tollroad bisects the western portion of the Mountain Park project site generally in a north-south direction. As currently configured, SR-241 includes four general purpose lanes (two in each direction) and extends 13 miles generally in a southeasterly direction from SR-91 to Oso Parkway in south Orange County. A 15-mile southerly extension of SR-241, from Oso Parkway to I-5 near San Clemente, is currently being studied by the F/ETCA. Construction and operation of SR-241 to its ultimate planned buildout (including the Weir Canyon Road interchange and a bridge overcrossing generally in the vicinity of Oak Canyon Drive) were addressed in the Final EIS/EIR for SR-241 (TCA EIS 2-1). Ultimate buildout is planned to include one additional lane in each direction. The Riverside County to Orange County MIS will study a possible direct connector between SR-241 and SR-91 toll lanes east of SR-241.
California-Nevada Interstate Maglev Project
The California- evada Interstate Maglev Project has proposed a preliminary (seed) alignment to evaluate ridership, potential capital costs, operational scenarios, and fare box revenues. In the Mountain Park Specific Plan project study area, the seed alignment would require 10.5 meters of right-of-way width on the north side of SR-91, in the Santa Ana River and is not within the Mountain Park Specific Plan study area.
Existing Arterial Roadways in the Traffic Analysis Study Area As stated above, access to the project site would be served by three existing roads shown on Exhibit 4.7-2: Santa Ana Canyon Road, Weir Canyon Road, and Gypsum Canyon Road. Their current configurations are described below.
x Santa Ana Canyon Road – Santa Ana Canyon Road is a two-lane undivided roadway that extends from Gypsum Canyon Road to approximately one-half mile east of Weir Canyon Road where it widens to a six-lane (three lanes in each direction) divided roadway extending west of Weir Canyon Road.
Source:
Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., 2005
Project Site and Traffic Analysis Study Area
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR No. 331
Exhibit 4.7-1
March 11, 2005
Not To Scale
05.pdf 3 R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Graphics\Fuscoe\ex4.7-1_020 Existing Circulation System
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR No. 331Source:Austin-Foust Associates, Inc.
Exhibit 4.7-2
March 11, 2005
Not To Scale
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Graphics\Fuscoe\ex4.7-1_020205.pdf Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7-3 Traffic and Circulation x Weir Canyon Road – Weir Canyon Road currently operates as a six-lane (three lanes in each direction) divided roadway from north of SR-91 to south of Oak Canyon Drive where it narrows to a two-lane divided roadway before terminating at Blue Sky Road. x Gypsum Canyon Road – The existing portion of Gypsum Canyon Road is a two-lane undivided roadway from Santa Ana Canyon Road to SR-91, and a four-lane (two lanes in each direction) undivided roadway north of SR-91.
Measuring Transportation System Performance
Transportation System Performance Criteria
The effectiveness of the transportation system in meeting mobility goals is measured by an established set of performance criteria. Traffic level of service ( OS) is a widely-used indicator of system performance. OS values range from “A” to “F”, with OS A representing free flow traffic conditions and OS F representing severe traffic congestion.
As shown in Table 4.7-1, OS values are based on volume/capacity ( /C) and intersection capacity utilization (ICU) ranges. The /C and ICU ranges applied to roadways are designated in the Orange County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) and/or the City of Anaheim, City of Orange and City of orba inda General Plans. OS “D” (ICU not to exceed 0.90) is the traffic performance standard that has been adopted by the cities of Anaheim, Orange and orba inda.
TABLE 4.7-1
VOLUME/CAPACITY RATIO LEVEL OF SERVICE RANGES
V/C and ICU Ratio Ranges
Level of Service (LOS) Arterial Roads Freeway Segments
A 0.00 – 0.60 0.00 – 0.30
B 0.61 – 0.70 0.31 – 0.50
C 0.71 – 0. 0 0.51 – 0.71
D 0. 1 – 0.90 0.72 – 0. 9
E 0.91 – 1.00 0.90 – 1.00
F Above 1.00 Above 1.00
/C: volume/capacity
ICU: intersection capacity utilization
Source: Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., 2005.
The /C ranges listed for freeway/tollroad mainline segments and freeway/tollroad ramps are based on the /C and OS relationships specified in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) for basic freeway sections. OS “E” ( /C not to exceed 1.0) has been established by Caltrans as the operating standard for freeway/tollroad mainline segments and freeway/tollroad ramps. This standard is also consistent with the OS “E” standard specified in the OCTA Orange County CMP for CMP facilities (the freeway/tollroad system in the study area is included in the CMP roadway network).
The performance criteria described above are the basis for determining whether mitigation measures are required to address project impacts at individual locations on the study area circulation system. Consistent with the impact thresholds adopted by the jurisdictions in the study area, for intersections and freeway/tollroad ramps at intersections where the OS “D” performance standard is not maintained, mitigation is required if the ICU or /C project Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7-4 Traffic and Circulation contribution is 0.01 or greater at locations in the cities of Anaheim and orba inda and 0.02 or greater at locations in the City of Orange. Consistent with CMP guidelines, for CMP freeway/ tollroad mainline segments where the CMP OS “E” performance standard is not maintained, mitigation is required if the /C project contribution is greater than 0.03.
Additional information about the overall performance criteria applied in the Mountain Park Specific Plan Traffic Analysis is provided in Appendix G.
Current Transportation System Performance in the Traffic Analysis Study Area Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Exhibit 4.7-3 illustrates current average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on the study area circulation system. Existing ADT volumes for the arterial roads in the study area are based on traffic counts collected in 2004. Existing ADT volumes for SR-91 are from 2002/2003 counts provided by Caltrans and existing ADT volumes for SR-241 are from 2003 traffic count data provided by the F/ETCA.
Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Existing peak hour levels of service at key intersection locations in the traffic analysis study area were determined based on AM and PM peak hour turn movement counts collected in 2004.
Exhibit 4.7-4 identifies the intersection locations analyzed under existing conditions. Table 4.7-2 provides existing AM and PM peak hour ICU values for the intersection locations that were analyzed under existing conditions. Consistent with the policies of the jurisdictions in the study area, OS D (ICU value less than or equal to 0.90) is the performance standard for the intersections in the study area. The existing peak hour ICU results indicate that each of the study area intersections currently operates at OS D or better.
Existing ADT Volumes (000s)
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR No. 331Source:Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., 2005 Exhibit 4.7-3
March 11, 2005
Not To Scale
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\fuscoe\ex4.7-3_020305.pdf
Intersection Location Map
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR No. 331Source:Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., 2005 Exhibit 4.7-4
March 11, 2005
Not To Scale
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\fuscoe\ex4.7-4_020305.pdf
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7-5 Traffic and Circulation TABLE 4.7-2
EXISTING PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LOS SUMMARY
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS
1. Weir Canyon a Palma . 5 D . 3 D
2. Weir Canyon SR-91 WB Ramps .51 A .60 A
3. Weir Canyon SR-91 EB Ramps .60 A .75 C
4. Weir Canyon Santa Ana Canyon .64 B .70 B
5. Weir Canyon Serrano .70 B .43 A
6. Weir Canyon Oak Canyon .17 A .14 A
10. Gypsum Canyon a Palma .53 A .57 A
11. Gypsum Canyon SR-91 WB Ramps .39 A .43 A
12. Gypsum Canyon SR-91 EB Ramps .22 A .32 A
13. Gypsum Canyon Santa Ana Canyon .22 A .62 B
14. Serrano Oak Canyon .30 A .30 A
15. Serrano Canyon Rim .30 A .26 A
16. ohl Ranch Serrano .27 A .22 A
17. Cannon Serrano .77 C .5 A
1 . Imperial SR-91 WB Ramps .63 B .66 B
19. Imperial SR-91 EB Ramps .47 A .5 A
20. akeview SR-91 WB Ramps .71 C .53 A
21. akeview Santa Ana Canyon . 2 D .50 A
22. SR-91 EB Ramp Santa Ana Canyon .70 B .57 A
23. orba inda ew River .66 B . 3 D
24. orba inda Stonehaven .51 A .50 A
25. orba Ranch orba inda .51 A .59 A
26. as Palomas orba inda .46 A .51 A
27. illage Center orba inda . 1 D .74 C
ICU: Intersection Capacity Utilization
OS: evel of Service
Source: Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., 2005.
Peak Hour Freeway/Tollroad Mainline Levels of Service
Table 4.7-3 summarizes existing AM and PM peak hour /C ratios for freeway/tollroad mainline segments in the study area. The OSs in this table were derived from /C ratios together with operating OSs determined from Caltrans field measurements as summarized in the 2003 Orange County CMP. SR-91 currently operates deficiently in the westbound direction in the AM peak hour and the eastbound direction in the PM peak hour. In the AM peak hour, the westbound congestion on SR-91 extends downstream (i.e., westerly) past Gypsum Canyon Road, possibly due to bottleneck congestion that occurs at the approach to the SR-55/SR-91 interchange. The PM eastbound congestion on SR-91 also adversely affects the upstream eastbound segments of SR-91 (i.e., westerly of Gypsum Canyon Road) and northbound segment of SR-241 in the study area, all of which currently operate deficiently.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7-6 Traffic and Circulation TABLE 4.7-3
EXISTING FREEWAY/TOLLROAD MAINLINE PEAK HOUR LOS SUMMARY AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Location Direction Lanes
Peak Hour
Capacity Volume V/C LOSa. Volume V/C LOSa.
Westbound 4 2H 11,200 12,5 0 1.12 F (F3) 7,740 0.69 C (F1 SR-91 w/o ) akeview Eastbound 4 2H 11,200 7,030 0.63 C (F0
) 12,730 1.14 F (F3)
Westbound 4 2H 11,200 11,900 1.06 F (F2) 7,330 0.65 C (F1 SR-91 w/o Imperial ) Hwy Eastbound 4 2H 11,200 6,650 0.59 C (F0
) 12,050 1.0 F (F3)
Westbound 4 2H 11,200 11,230 1.00 E (F0) 6,600 0.59 C (F0 SR-91 w/o Weir ) Canyon Eastbound 4 2H 11,200 6,090 0.54 C (F0
) 11,750 1.05 F (F3)
Westbound 4 2H 11,200 10,3 0 0.93 E (F0) 6,270 0.56 C (F0 SR-91 e/o Weir ) Canyon Eastbound 4 2H 11,200 6,1 0 0.55 C (F0
) 10, 00 0.96 E (F3)
Westbound 4 2H 11,200 12,520 1.12 F (F3) 5,130 0.46 B (F0 SR-91 e/o Gypsum ) Canyon Eastbound 4 2H 11,200 5,210 0.47 B (F0
) 12,310 1.10 F (F3)
orthbound 3 6,000 1,440 0.24 A (B) 3,050 0.51 C (F0 SR-241 s/o SR-91 ) Southbound 4 ,000 3,410 0.43 B (D) 1,450 0.1 A (B)
H: high-occupancy vehicle lane
OS: level of service
/C: volume/capacity ratio
a. Parenthesized OS values are from speed and travel time surveys carried out by Caltrans. The measured speeds in each segment reflect queue build-up from a downstream (i.e., westerly of a westbound segment or easterly of an eastbound segment) deficient segment and/or other prevailing conditions at the time the surveys were conducted.
Source: Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., 2005.
Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Levels of Service
Table 4.7-4 summarizes existing AM and PM peak hour /C ratios for the SR-91 freeway ramps in the study area. The results indicate that two SR-91 ramps, the eastbound off-ramps at Imperial Highway and Weir Canyon Road, currently operate worse than the OS E performance standard (i.e., these ramps currently operate at OS F) in the PM peak hour.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7-7 Traffic and Circulation TABLE 4.7-4
EXISTING FREEWAY RAMP PEAK HOUR LOS SUMMARY
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Interchange Ramp Lanes
Peak Hour
Capacity Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS
WB Direct On 1 1,500 720 0.4 A 1,070 0.71 C
WB oop On 1 1,0 0 310 0.29 A 1 0 0.17 A
EB Direct On 1 1,500 100 0.07 A 70 0.05 A
EB oop On 1 1,0 0 3 0 0.35 A 210 0.19 A
WB Off 1 1,500 540 0.36 A 260 0.17 A
SR-91 at
akeview
EB Off 1 1,500 970 0.65 B 1,030 0.69 B
WB Direct On 1 1,500 510 0.34 A 610 0.41 A
WB oop On 1 1,0 0 620 0.57 A 670 0.62 B
EB Direct On 1 1,500 620 0.41 A 670 0.45 A
EB oop On 1 1,0 0 430 0.40 A 320 0.30 A
WB Off 1 1,500 920 0.61 B 720 0.4 A
SR-91 at
Imperial Hwy
EB Offa. 1 1,500 1,030 0.69 B 1,740 1.16 F
WB Direct On 1 1,500 6 0 0.45 A 740 0.49 A
WB oop On 1 1,500 910 0.61 B 5 0 0.39 A
EB Direct On 1 1,500 730 0.49 A 230 0.15 A
EB oop On 1 1,500 50 0.57 A 2 0 0.19 A
WB Off 1 1,500 910 0.61 B 1,170 0.7 C
SR-91 at
Weir Canyon
EB Offa. 1 1,500 1,350 0.90 D 1,760 1.17 F
WB Direct On 1 1,500 570 0.3 A 150 0.10 A
WB oop On 1 1,500 40 0.03 A 10 0.01 A
EB Direct On 1 1,500 70 0.05 A 20 0.55 A
EB oop On 1 1,500 170 0.11 A 6 0 0.45 A
WB Off 1 1,500 220 0.15 A 200 0.13 A
SR-91 at
Gypsum Canyon
EB Off 1 1,500 160 0.11 A 140 0.09 A
EB: eastbound
OS: level of service
/C: volume/capacity ratio
WB: westbound
a. These ramps operate deficiently in the AM and/or PM peak hour (i.e., worse than the OS E performance standard).
Source: Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., 2005.
Tuesday-Thursday Versus Friday Traffic Volume Levels
The previous information on existing traffic conditions is based on weekday conditions, typically Tuesday through Thursday. A unique characteristic of the SR-91 corridor in the vicinity of the study area is that the level of traffic on Fridays, particularly in the afternoon and evening, is heavier than other days of the week because of “weekend getaway” traffic. Table 4.7-5 summarizes existing Tuesday-Thursday versus Friday arterial roadway ADT volumes along with corresponding AM and PM peak hour volumes taken from the 24-hour ADT counts. As Table
4.7-5 indicates, Friday ADT volumes are on average approximately 14 percent higher than Tuesday-Thursday ADT volumes, which is higher than the percentage increases in traffic volume that occur during the peak hours (compared to Tuesday-Thursday peak hour volumes, Friday peak hour volumes are approximately one percent higher in the AM and six percent Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7- Traffic and Circulation higher in the PM). This is an indication that the higher traffic volumes on Friday afternoons and evenings occur for a duration much longer than the PM peak hour.
TABLE 4.7-5
EXISTING ARTERIAL ROADWAY TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
(TUESDAY-THURSDAY VERSUS FRIDAY COUNTS)
Location
TuesdayThursday Counts Friday
Counts
%
Difference
Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
Weir Canyon Road (north of SR-91 westbound ramps) 53,600 60,100 12.1 Weir Canyon Road (south of SR-91 eastbound ramps) 50,100 5 ,100 16.0 Gypsum Canyon Road (north of SR-91 westbound ramps) 12,500 13,000 4.0 Gypsum Canyon Road (south of SR-91 eastbound ramps) 7,600 ,100 6.6 a Palma Avenue (west of Weir Canyon Road) 14,500 17,400 20.0 a Palma Avenue (east of Weir Canyon Road) 23,000 26,300 14.3 a Palma Avenue (west of Gypsum Canyon Road) 11,700 14,200 21.4 Santa Ana Canyon Road (west of Weir Canyon Road) 27,200 30,200 11.0 Santa Ana Canyon Road (east of Weir Canyon Road) 9,200 10,700 16.3 Santa Ana Canyon Road (west of Gypsum Canyon Road) 4,500 5,900 31.1 Total 213,900 244,000 14.1
AM Peak Hour Traffic (Two-Way)
Weir Canyon Road (north of SR-91 westbound ramps) 3, 60 3,730 -3.4 Weir Canyon Road (south of SR-91 eastbound ramps) 3,720 3, 40 3.2 Gypsum Canyon Road (north of SR-91 westbound ramps) 90 960 7.9 Gypsum Canyon Road (south of SR-91 eastbound ramps) 400 370 -7.5 a Palma Avenue (west of Weir Canyon Road) 1,060 1,0 0 1.9 a Palma Avenue (east of Weir Canyon Road) 1,790 1,770 -1.1 a Palma Avenue (west of Gypsum Canyon Road) 50 0 3.5
Santa Ana Canyon Road (west of Weir Canyon Road) 1,410 1,440 2.1 Santa Ana Canyon Road (east of Weir Canyon Road) 600 670 11.7 Santa Ana Canyon Road (west of Gypsum Canyon Road) 200 210 5.0 Total 14,7 0 14,950 1.2
PM Peak Hour Traffic (Two-Way)
Weir Canyon Road (north of SR-91 westbound ramps) 4,450 4, 70 9.4 Weir Canyon Road (south of SR-91 eastbound ramps) 4,200 4,6 0 11.4 Gypsum Canyon Road (north of SR-91 westbound ramps) 1,120 1,040 -7.1 Gypsum Canyon Road (south of SR-91 eastbound ramps) 920 1,060 15.2 a Palma Avenue (west of Weir Canyon Road) 1,770 1,740 -1.7 a Palma Avenue (east of Weir Canyon Road) 2,530 2,530 0.0 a Palma Avenue (west of Gypsum Canyon Road) 1,330 1,530 15.0 Santa Ana Canyon Road (west of Weir Canyon Road) 2,510 2,670 6.4 Santa Ana Canyon Road (east of Weir Canyon Road) 1,230 1,210 -1.6 Santa Ana Canyon Road (west of Gypsum Canyon Road) 40 50 1.2 Total 20,900 22,1 0 6.1
Source: Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., 2005.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7-9 Traffic and Circulation ote that future traffic volumes presented in this report are produced by a traffic model that forecasts typical weekday conditions such as those described by the existing Tuesday-Thursday traffic counts summarized earlier. A reasonable assumption is that the existing Friday versus Tuesday-Thursday traffic patterns will continue in the future. The population and development growth in Southern California that causes the increase in weekday (Tuesday-Thursday) traffic volumes that will be shown from existing to future conditions is therefore anticipated to cause a similar increase in Friday levels of traffic in the study area.
Table 4.7-6 presents existing Tuesday-Thursday PM peak hour ICU values and Friday PM peak hour ICU values at study intersections. A comparison of these shows that traffic conditions during the Friday PM peak hour are, at most, five percent (.05) worse than Tuesday-Thursday PM peak hour conditions. The one exception is the SR-91 westbound ramp intersection at Weir Canyon Road where the Friday PM peak hour ICU value is eight percent (0.0 ) higher than the Tuesday-Thursday ICU value.
TABLE 4.7-6
EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LOS SUMMARY
(TUESDAY-THURSDAY VERSUS FRIDAY COUNTS)
Tuesday-Thursday
Counts
Friday
Counts
Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS
1. Weir Canyon a Palma 0. 3 D 0. 4 D
2. Weir Canyon SR-91 WB Ramps 0.60 A 0.6 B
3. Weir Canyon SR-91 EB Ramps 0.75 C 0.71 C
4. Weir Canyon Santa Ana Canyon 0.70 B 0.75 C
10. Gypsum Canyon a Palma 0.57 A 0.61 B
11. Gypsum Canyon SR-91 WB Ramps 0.43 A 0.44 A
12. Gypsum Canyon SR-91 EB Ramps 0.32 A 0.30 A
13. Gypsum Canyon Santa Ana Canyon 0.62 B 0.67 B
ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization
OS evel of Service
Source: Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., 2005.
Planned Circulation System
arious committed and non-committed circulation system improvements are planned in the traffic analysis study area. Committed improvements are those that are included in a capital improvement program of a local jurisdiction such as the City of Anaheim or the City of orba inda. Circulation improvements in the study area that are considered to be non-committed include improvements that are planned in the General Plan Circulation Elements of the Cities of Anaheim, Orange and orba inda and/or the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH), but for which funding sources have yet to be identified.
Table 4.7-7 summarizes the committed and non-committed roadway and intersection improvements that are planned in the study area. Exhibits illustrating the buildout circulation system in the study area including the location of planned roadway and intersection improvements are provided in Appendix G. As shown in Table 4.7-7, the only committed improvements in the project study area are the widening of Weir Canyon Road between a Palma Avenue and SR-91 from four lanes to six lanes and associated improvements at the intersection of Weir Canyon Road and a Palma Avenue.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7-10 Traffic and Circulation TABLE 4.7-7
SUMMARY OF COMMITTED AND NON-COMMITTED
CIRCULATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS IN THE STUDY AREA
Location Improvement Source Status
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTSCannon St. (Santiago Canyon Rd. to Serrano Ave.) Improve to six-lane divided roadway. Orange County MPAH and City of Orange General Plan
on-Committed
Cannon St. (Serrano Ave. to ia Escola) Improve to six-lane divided roadway. City of Orange General Plan on-Committed Gypsum Canyon Rd. (SR-91 to Santa Ana Canyon Rd.) Improve from a two-lane undivided roadway to a four-lane divided roadway.
Orange County MPAH and City of Anaheim General Plan
on-Committeda.
Jamboree Rd. (Weir Canyon Rd. to Santiago Canyon Rd.)
Construct as a four-lane divided roadway. Orange County MPAH and City of Anaheim General Plan
on-Committedb.
Santa Ana Canyon Rd. (east of Weir Canyon Rd. to SR-241) Improve from a two-lane undivided roadway to a four-lane undivided roadway.
Orange County MPAH and City of Anaheim General Plan
on-Committed
Santa Ana Canyon Rd. (SR-241 to Gypsum Canyon Rd.)
Improve from a two-lane undivided roadway to a four-lane undivided roadway.
Orange County MPAH and City of Anaheim General Plan
on-Committeda.
SR-241 (SR-91 to SR-261) Add northbound and southbound high-occupancy vehicle (HO ) lanes.
TCA ong-Range Capital Improvement Program
on-Committed
Weir Canyon Rd. ( a Palma Ave. to SR-91) Improve from a four-lane divided roadway to a sixlane divided roadway. Anaheim General Plan and City of orba inda General Plan
Committedc.
Weir Canyon Rd. (Oak Canyon Dr. to Blue Sky Rd.) Improve from a two-lane divided roadway to a fourlane divided roadway. Orange County MPAH and City of Anaheim General Plan
on-Committeda.
Weir Canyon Rd. (Blue Sky Rd. to SR-241) Construct as a four-lane divided roadway (includes elimination of the eastbound left-turn lane at the Weir Canyon Rd./Blue Sky Rd. intersection).
Orange County MPAH and City of Anaheim General Plan
on-Committeda.
Weir Canyon Rd. (at SR-241) Construct interchange with ramps to and from the south on SR-241.
Orange County MPAH and City of Anaheim General Plan
on-Committedd.
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS1. Weir Canyon Rd. and a Palma Ave. Add third northbound through lane and convert southbound right-turn lane to shared third through/ right-turn lane.
City of Anaheim General Plan and City of orba inda General Plan Committedc.
4. Weir Canyon Rd. and Santa Ana Canyon Rd. Convert eastbound third through lane to third leftturn lane. City of Anaheim General Plan on-Committed Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
TABLE 4.7-7 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF COMMITTED AND NON-COMMITTED
CIRCULATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS IN THE STUDY AREA
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7-11 Traffic and Circulation Location Improvement Source Status
11 Gypsum Canyon Rd. and SR-91 WB ramps Add second northbound through lane. Orange County MPAH and City of Anaheim General Plan
on-Committeda.
12. Gypsum Canyon Rd. and SR-91 EB ramps Add second northbound and southbound through lanes.
Orange County MPAH and City of Anaheim General Plan
on-Committeda.
13. Gypsum Canyon Rd. and Santa Ana Canyon Rd. Add second eastbound left-turn lane and a southbound right-turn lane.
Orange County MPAH and City of Anaheim General Plan
on-Committeda.
14. Cannon St. and Serrano Ave. Add third northbound and southbound through lanes.
Orange County MPAH and City of Orange General Plan
on-Committed
Abbreviations: MPAH – Master Plan of Arterial Highway TCA – Transportation Corridor Agencies a. This improvement is proposed to be constructed as part of the Mountain Park Specific Plan project. b. This facility is proposed to be deleted from the Orange County MPAH as part of a potential MPAH amendment package currently being studied by the City of Orange in association with a proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) in the East Orange area. If the MPAH amendment is approved, the project applicant proposes to request an amendment to the City of Anaheim General Plan to delete the facility from the Circulation Element. c. Committed to be implemented by the Cities of Anaheim and orba inda before year 2010 using secured Orange County Measure M funds and matching local funds that have yet to be allocated.
d. This improvement is proposed to be constructed as part of the Mountain Park Specific Plan project. The Weir Canyon Road/SR-241 interchange is anticipated to be funded by the TCA through the use of toll revenues, corridor fees which are required from future development such as the proposed project, and/or reimbursement agreements with the project applicant (The Irvine Company).
Source: Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., 2005.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7-12 Traffic and Circulation Many of the non-committed roadway improvements and associated intersection improvements in the study area are proposed to be constructed as part of the proposed project, including the widening of Gypsum Canyon Road from Santa Ana Canyon Road to SR-91, the widening of Santa Ana Canyon Road from Gypsum Canyon Road to SR-241, and the extension of Weir Canyon Road to SR-241.
It should also be noted that one of the non-committed roadway improvements in the study area, the extension of Jamboree Road south of Weir Canyon Road, is proposed to be deleted from the Orange County MPAH as part of a potential MPAH amendment package currently being studied by the City of Orange in association with a proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) in the East Orange area (the Jamboree Road extension is the only facility in the East Orange MPAH amendment package that is within the Mountain Park Specific Plan study area; all of the remaining facilities in the MPAH amendment package are located south of the study area). If the MPAH amendment is approved, the project applicant proposes to request an amendment to the City of Anaheim General Plan to delete the Jamboree Road extension from the Circulation Element. The Jamboree Road extension is therefore not included in the year 2025 committed circulation system traffic forecasts presented later in this section. This extension is assumed in the ear 2025 (MPAH Buildout) forecasts, but is not assumed in the ear 2025 (MPAH Buildout with East Orange GPA and MPAH Amendment) forecast.
Related Planning Programs
The following plans and programs contain transportation-related policies that apply to the proposed project: the City of Anaheim General Plan and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG s) Transportation Plan, Destinations 2030.
City of Anaheim General Plan
Circulation Element
The goals and policies of the City of Anaheim s Circulation and and Use Elements relevant to the proposed project and an evaluation of the project s consistency with these goals and policies is provided in Table 4.7-13.
SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan
SCAG is the federally-designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) responsible for preparing a comprehensive, multi-modal, long-range transportation plan for the six-county region that includes Orange County. Federal guidelines require all new regionally significant transportation projects to be included in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) before they can receive federal or state funds or approvals. The OCTA submits the program of Orange County projects for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP).
The RTP must be updated and federally approved every three years. Federal approval requires a positive demonstration that the RTP projects will not generate travel emissions that exceed those assumed in the applicable Air Quality Management Plan; this requirement is known as transportation conformity.
SCAG adopted the 2004 RTP in April, 2004. Federal approval was granted in June, 2004, during the preparation of this environmental document. The 2004 RTP contains a plan to provide adequate highway, transit, rail, aviation, and goods movement infrastructure to meet the region s needs in 2030. The 2004 RTP is linked to Orange County and City of Anaheim transportation plans and models in the form of shared growth and travel projections.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7-13 Traffic and Circulation The 2004 RTP includes goals and policies applicable to transportation and, in some cases, land use projects. Goals and policies relevant to the proposed project based on SCAG s comment letter on the OP for the proposed Mountain Park project (refer to Appendix A) are provided in Table 4.7-13 with a project consistency analysis.
SCAG’s Regional Transportation Improvement Program
SCAG is federally authorized to compile the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), the short-term capital improvement program that implements the RTP. The RTIP provides a comprehensive program of project schedules and expenditures for state highways, local highways and transit projects in each county. Regionally significant transportation projects must be included in the RTIP before they can receive federal or state funds or project approvals.
OCTA submits the program of Orange County projects for inclusion in the RTIP.
SCAG updates the RTIP every two years. ike the long-range RTP, federal approval requires a positive transportation conformity determination that the included projects will not exceed emission budgets assumed for transportation projects in the federally approved air quality management plan.
SCAG adopted the 2004 RTIP on September 2, 2004. Federal approval was granted on October 4, 2004.
4.7.2 PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
Thresholds of Significance
The criteria used to determine the significance of potential project-related traffic impacts are based on the City s Initial Study and the Initial Study checklist form in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Based on these thresholds, the project would result in a significant impact related to traffic and circulation if it would:
1. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections).
2. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.
3. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
4. Result in inadequate emergency access.
5. Result in inadequate parking capacity.
6. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks).
7. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7-14 Traffic and Circulation As previously discussed in Section 2.3.2, Effects Found Not to be Significant, during preparation of the Initial Study the City of Anaheim determined that the proposed project would not have significant impacts for the following thresholds and no further analysis is presented in this section.
x Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or change in location that result in substantial safety risks.
Land Use Summary and Project Trip Generation
Trip generation estimates for the Mountain Park Specific Plan traffic analysis are based on the proposed land uses described in Section 3.3, Project Description, and were prepared using the trip generation rates presented in Table 4.7-8.
TABLE 4. -
MOUNTAIN PAR SPECIFIC PLAN TRIP RATE SUMMARY
Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Category Units Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total ADT Source Single Family
Residential
Dwelling
Units 0.24 0.56 0.80 0.70 0.30 1.00 10.00 SANDAG
Condominiums
(Single Family
Attached)
Dwelling
Units 0.13 0.51 0.64 0.56 0.24 0.80 8.00 SANDAG
Convenience
Commercial TSF 2.90 1.90 4.80 6.00 6.00 12.00 120.00 SANDAG Elementary
School Students 0.30 0.24 0.54 0.08 0.10 0.18 1.70 ITE/ SANDAG
Park Acres 0.33 0.33 0.66 0.23 0.23 0.46 5.00 SANDAG
ADT: Average Daily Trips
ITE: Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation, Seventh Edition.
SANDAG: San Diego Traffic Generators, San Diego Association of Governments, April 2002.
TSF: Thousand Square Feet
Source: Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., 2005.
Table 4.7-9 summarizes the estimated AM and PM peak hour and ADT generation for the proposed project. As illustrated in the table, the proposed project is expected to generate 25,145 daily trips (2,325 of which would be generated in the AM peak hour and 2,522 of which would be generated during the PM peak hour). It should be noted that the City fire station in Development Area 6 is not included in the trip rate and trip generation summary tables because the amount of traffic generated by that facility is expected to be negligible.
Project Circulation System
The overall circulation system for the proposed project was previously described in Section 3.3, Project Description, and shown in Exhibit 3-5, Vehicular Circulation Plan and Section Key Map.
Exhibit 4.7-5 depicts the roadway improvements included as part of the project.
Source:
Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., 2005
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR No. 331
Project-Related Roadway Improvements Exhibit 4.7-5
March 11, 2005
Not To Scale
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\fuscoe\ex4.7-5_020305.pdf
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7-15 Traffic and Circulation TABLE 4.7-9
MOUNTAIN PARK SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
SUMMARY
Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Category Amount Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total ADT Single Family
Residential
1,675
Dwelling
Units
402 93 1,340 1,173 503 1,676 16,750
Condominium
(Single Family
Attached)
25 Dwelling
Units
107 421 52 462 19 660 6,600
Convenience
Commercial 3 TSF 9 6 15 1 1 36 360
Elementary
School
00 Students 240 192 432 64 0 144 1,360
Park 15 Acres 5 5 10 3 3 6 75
Total Trip Generation 763 1,562 2,325 1,720 02 2,522 25,145 ADT: Average Daily Trips
TSF: Thousand Square Feet
Source: Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., 2005.
Project Trip Distribution
Exhibit 4.7-6 illustrates the general directional distribution patterns for traffic generated by the proposed project. The distribution patterns of project-generated traffic were determined using the Anaheim citywide traffic model. As Exhibit 4.7-6 indicates, approximately two percent of project traffic is anticipated to remain on-site. The majority (70 percent) of project traffic traveling off-site is expected to use the Gypsum Canyon Road exit; the remaining 2 percent is expected to use the Mountain Park Drive exit.
With respect to further travel, most (51 percent) of the project traffic traveling off-site would travel west and southwest of the site, using westbound SR-91 (42 percent), Santa Ana Canyon Road west of Weir Canyon Road (6 percent), and Serrano Avenue southwest of Canyon Rim Road (3 percent). An additional 32 percent of project traffic would use Weir Canyon Road north of SR-91 (6 percent), Gypsum Canyon Road north of SR-91 (4 percent), eastbound SR-91 east of Gypsum Canyon Road (12 percent), and SR-241 south of the project site (10 percent).
The remaining off-site project traffic (approximately 15 percent) that disperses within the study area is attributed to the interaction between non-residential project land uses such as the school, community park, and convenience commercial development and the existing residential areas that are in close proximity to the project site, and to the interaction between the project s residential development and other existing residential and non-residential development in the study area.
Impact Analysis
This section provides an analysis of future transportation system performance in the Mountain Park traffic analysis study area. For purposes of analysis, existing traffic conditions are compared to conditions in four future year scenarios. To facilitate comparisons among future traffic conditions with and without the proposed project, further distinctions between “no project” Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7-16 Traffic and Circulation and “with project” conditions are provided. The five scenarios included in the traffic analysis are described in detail in Appendix G and include:
x Existing Conditions Plus Project – Includes the existing transportation system. x ear 2010 (Committed Circulation Plus Project) Conditions – Includes the existing transportation system plus improvements that are committed to be in place by 2010. As noted previously, the only committed improvements planned in the study area are the widening of Weir Canyon Road between a Palma Avenue and SR-91 from four lanes to six lanes and associated improvements at the intersection of Weir Canyon Road/ a Palma Avenue (addition of a third northbound through lane and conversion of the southbound right-turn lane to shared third through/right-turn lane). x ear 2025 (Committed Circulation Plus Project) Conditions – Includes the existing transportation system plus improvements that are committed to be in place by 2025.
Similar to the 2010 condition, the only committed improvements planned in the study area are the widening of Weir Canyon Road between a Palma Avenue and SR-91 and associated intersection improvements.
x ear 2025 (MPAH Buildout Plus Project) Conditions – Includes the existing circulation system with buildout of the MPAH, including MPAH amendments in the City of Anaheim that were adopted by the OCTA in May, 2004. Buildout of the MPAH involves various circulation system improvements in the study area. In contrast to the year 2025 project impact analysis presented earlier in this chapter based on the committed circulation system, it is important to recognize that the year 2025 project impact analysis based on buildout of the MPAH circulation system assumes that the MPAH circulation improvements associated with the Mountain Park Specific Plan are in place under conditions both with and without the development of the project land uses. This approach for evaluating the project s impacts on the MPAH buildout circulation system essentially assumes that the MPAH circulation system in the vicinity of the project site would eventually be built out even in the absence of the proposed development project. x ear 2025 (MPAH Buildout with East Orange General Plan Amendment (GPA) and MPAH Amendments Plus Project) Conditions – Includes the existing circulation system, buildout of the MPAH described above, and proposed MPAH amendments that are currently being studied by the City of Orange as part of a proposed GPA in the East Orange area. This scenario includes the deletion of the Jamboree Road extension south of Weir Canyon Road, a facility that is within the Mountain Park Specific Plan traffic analysis study area, as well as a number of other facilities located south of the study area. The growth and development projections assumed for this scenario include the GPA land use plan that is proposed for the East Orange GPA site.
Threshold 1: Would the proposed project cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
As discussed earlier in the transportation system performance criteria, consistent with the impact thresholds adopted by the jurisdictions in the study area, for intersections and freeway/ tollroad ramps at intersections where the OS “D” performance standard is not maintained, mitigation is required if the ICU or /C project contribution is 0.01 or greater at locations in the cities of Anaheim and orba inda and 0.02 or greater at locations in the City of Orange.
Source:
Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., 2005Project Trip Distribution PatternsMountain Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR No. 331 Exhibit 4.7-6
March 11, 2005
Not To Scale
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\fuscoe\ex4.7-6_020305.pdf
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7-17 Traffic and Circulation Consistent with CMP guidelines, for CMP freeway/tollroad mainline segments where the CMP OS “E” performance standard is not maintained, mitigation is required if the /C project contribution is greater than 0.03.
As discussed in Section 4. , Air Quality, construction of the proposed project would result in a short-term construction-related increase in study area traffic. However, consistent with City of Anaheim requirements, the property owner/developer would prepare a circulation plan, including a construction access plan, for each phase of development. Construction traffic would use truck routes as identified in the Anaheim General Plan and would occur during non-peak periods.
Consequently, construction traffic would not result in significant traffic increases and no mitigation is required.
Existing Condition Plus Project Impacts
This section analyzes the impacts of the project on existing traffic conditions. The Anaheim citywide traffic model was used to: (1) distribute the traffic associated with the proposed project onto existing traffic conditions based on the project trip distribution patterns presented previously; and (2) determine the effect of the Weir Canyon Road extension and SR-241 interchange on existing traffic patterns in the area.
The resulting existing-plus-project ADT volumes are illustrated in Exhibit 4.7-7, which also indicates the ADT differences compared to no-project conditions (existing traffic conditions in this case). As shown in Exhibit 4.7-7, while the proposed project results in increased traffic volumes on Gypsum Canyon Road south of SR-91, ADT volumes on Weir Canyon Road south of SR-91 are forecast to remain at no-project (existing) levels because of local non-project traffic that is re-routed to the Weir Canyon Road extension and SR-241 interchange, which are to be constructed as part of the proposed project.
Table 4.7-10 summarizes existing-plus-project AM and PM peak hour ICU values along with existing (no-project) ICUs for comparison. As indicated in Table 4.7-10, each of the study area intersections is forecast to operate at OS D or better under existing-plus-project conditions.
Table 4.7-11 summarizes existing-plus-project AM and PM peak hour /C ratios for freeway/tollroad mainline segments in the study area along with existing (no-project) /C ratios for comparison. As Table 4.7-11 indicates, none of the deficient freeway/tollroad mainline segments under existing-plus-project conditions are significantly impacted by the project based on the peak hour /C impact thresholds previously described.
Peak hour freeway/tollroad mainline traffic volumes were used to evaluate the potential impacts of the project on the SR-91/SR-241 connector ramps under existing conditions. Mainline traffic volumes are provided in Appendix G. The AM and PM peak hour volumes on the SR-241 mainline south of SR-91 in both the northbound and southbound directions are lower under existing-plus-project conditions than under existing (no-project) conditions (most likely due to SR-241 traffic that diverts to the new Weir Canyon Road/SR-241 interchange under with-project conditions), therefore the traffic volumes on each of the four SR-91/SR-241 connectors (eastbound SR-91 to southbound SR-241, westbound SR-91 to southbound SR-241, northbound SR-241 to westbound SR-91, and northbound SR-241 to eastbound SR-91) must also be lower under with-project conditions compared to no-project conditions. Therefore, the SR-91/SR-241 connectors are not considered to be adversely impacted by the proposed project under existing-plus-project conditions.
Table 4.7-12 summarizes existing-plus-project AM and PM peak hour /C ratios for freeway/ tollroad ramps in the study area along with existing (no-project) /C ratios for comparison. As Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7-1 Traffic and Circulation Table 4.7-12 indicates, the two freeway ramps (the eastbound SR-91 off-ramps at Imperial Highway and Weir Canyon Road) that operate deficiently under existing conditions and are forecast to operate deficiently under existing-plus-project conditions are not significantly impacted by the project (the project s /C contribution is less than 0.01). The likely reason that the Weir Canyon Road off-ramp is not impacted by the project is because of the re-routing of local non-project traffic from the Weir Canyon Road/SR-91 interchange area to the Weir Canyon Road extension and SR-241 interchange, which are to be constructed as part of the proposed project.
Year 2010 Project Impacts (Committed Circulation Plus Project) Conditions This section analyzes the impacts of the project on year 2010 traffic conditions. As noted previously, the only committed improvements planned in the study area are located along Weir Canyon Road between a Palma Avenue and SR-91 and at the intersection of Weir Canyon Road and a Palma Avenue. Projected year 2010 with-project ADT volumes are illustrated in Exhibit 4.7- , which also indicates the ADT differences compared to year 2010 no-project conditions. Similar to the findings presented earlier for existing-plus-project conditions, the proposed development plan results in significantly increased traffic volumes on Gypsum Canyon Road south of SR-91; however, with-project ADT volumes on Weir Canyon Road south of SR-91 are forecast to remain at no-project levels because of local non-project traffic that is rerouted to the Weir Canyon Road extension and SR-241 interchange, which are to be constructed as part of the proposed project.
Table 4.7-10 summarizes year 2010 with-project AM and PM peak hour ICU values at study intersection along with year 2010 no-project ICUs for comparison. As indicated in Table 4.7-10, each of the study area intersections is forecast to operate at OS D or better under 2010 withproject conditions with the exception of the Cannon Street/Serrano Avenue intersection in the City of Orange which is forecast to operate at OS E in the AM peak hour with and without the project. The project s contribution to this intersection in the AM peak hour is 0.01 which would not be considered a significant impact based on the City of Orange ICU impact threshold previously described.
Existing-Plus-Project ADT Volumes (000s)
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR No. 331Source:Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., 2005 Exhibit 4.7-7
March 11, 2005
Not To Scale
R:\Project\TIC\J020\fuscoe\ex4.7-7_020305.pdf
Year 2010 With-Project ADT Volumes (000s) - Committed Circulation System Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR No. 331Source:Austin-Foust Asssociates, Inc., 2005 Exhibit 4.7-8
March 11, 2005
Not To Scale
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\fuscoe\ex4.7-8_020305.pdf
TABLE 4. -10
COMPARISON OF INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE UNDER EXISTING CONDITIONS AND FUTURE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SCENARIOS Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOSWeir Canyon & La Palma 0.85 D 0.83 D 0.86 D 0.90 D 0.81 D 0.73 C 0.82 D 0.82 D 0. E 0.82 D 1.00a Ea 0.89 D 0.90 D 0.76 C 0. 1a Ea 0.77 C 0.88 D 0.75 C 0.90 D 0.79 C Weir Canyon & SR-91 WB Ramps 0.51 A 0.60 A 0.56 A 0.59 A 0.55 A 0.64 B 0.60 A 0.62 B 0.65 B 0.71 C 0.67 B 0.70 B 0.62 B 0.69 B 0.65 B 0.73 C 0.57 A 0.65 B 0.59 A 0.68 BWeir Canyon & SR-91 EB Ramps 0.60 A 0.75 C 0.64 B 0.74 C 0.64 B 0.79 C 0.69 B 0.79 C 0.73 C 0.87 D 0.77 C 0.87 D 0.68 B 0.81 D 0.71 C 0.88 D 0.66 B 0.81 C 0.70 B 0.87 DWeir Canyon & Santa Ana Canyon 0.64 B 0.70 B 0.62 B 0.66 B 0.71 C 0.78 C 0.72 C 0.76 C 0.87 D 0. 4 E 0.86 D 0. 1 E 0.73b C 0.81b D 0.75b C 0.84b,c D 0.69b B 0.80b C 0.72b C 0.84b,c D Weir Canyon & Serrano 0.70 B 0.43 A 0.70 B 0.44 A 0.74 C 0.47 A 0.75 C 0.47 A 0.84 D 0.53 A 0.84 D 0.54 A 0.83 D 0.63 B 0.84 D 0.65 B 0.78 C 0.52 A 0.80 C 0.54 AWeir Canyon & Oak Canyon 0.17 A 0.14 A 0.29 A 0.30 A 0.19 A 0.14 A 0.31 A 0.33 A 0.22 A 0.17 A 0.37 A 0.37 A 0.49 A 0.48 A 0.51 A 0.48 A 0.28 A 0.37 A 0.40 A 0.41 AMountain Park & Weir Canyon -- -- -- -- 0.46 A 0.47 A -- -- -- -- 0.46 A 0.48 A -- -- -- -- 0.46 A 0.50 A -- -- -- -- 0.70 B 0.58 A -- -- -- -- 0.45 A 0.43 AJamboree & Weir Canyon -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.38 A 0.45 A 0.49 A 0.56 A -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --SR-241 Ramps & Weir Canyon -- -- -- -- 0.20 A 0.20 A -- -- -- -- 0.21 A 0.21 A -- -- -- -- 0.22 A 0.22 A 0.15 A 0.18 A 0.22 A 0.23 A 0.16 A 0.16 A 0.22 A 0.23 AGypsum Canyon & La Palma 0.53 A 0.57 A 0.53 A 0.68 B 0.56 A 0.58 A 0.55 A 0.68 B 0.61 B 0.59 A 0.62 B 0.70 B 0.58 A 0.53 A 0.58 A 0.57 A 0.59 A 0.51 A 0.60 A 0.57 AGypsum Canyon & SR-91 WB Ramps 0.39 A 0.43 A 0.43 A 0.43 A 0.43 A 0.47 A 0.48 A 0.48 A 0.51 A 0.55 A 0.55 A 0.59 A 0.41 A 0.51 A 0.41 A 0.69 B 0.42 A 0.48 A 0.42 A 0.62 BGypsum Canyon & SR-91 EB Ramps 0.22 A 0.32 A 0.34 A 0.54 A 0.22 A 0.35 A 0.34 A 0.51 A 0.22 A 0.41 A 0.34 A 0.57 A 0.16 A 0.24 A 0.33 A 0.53 A 0.16 A 0.22 A 0.36 A 0.60 AGypsum Canyon & Santa Ana Canyon 0.22 A 0.62 B 0.31 A 0.70 B 0.23 A 0.70 B 0.32 A 0.71 C 0.25 A 0.84 D 0.32 A 0.71 C 0.16 A 0.35 A 0.33 A 0.57 A 0.14 A 0.31 A 0.32 A 0.60 ASerrano & Oak Canyon 0.30 A 0.30 A 0.31 A 0.38 A 0.38 A 0.36 A 0.38 A 0.45 A 0.52 A 0.49 A 0.53 A 0.57 A 0.46 A 0.59 A 0.49 A 0.60 A 0.47 A 0.55 A 0.57 A 0.57 ASerrano & Canyon Rim 0.30 A 0.26 A 0.36 A 0.32 A 0.35 A 0.34 A 0.40 A 0.40 A 0.45 A 0.50 A 0.51 A 0.54 A 0.34 A 0.46 A 0.36 A 0.47 A 0.39 A 0.46 A 0.42 A 0.49 ANohl Ranch & Serrano 0.27 A 0.22 A 0.30 A 0.25 A 0.33 A 0.27 A 0.36 A 0.29 A 0.48 A 0.37 A 0.51 A 0.39 A 0.36 A 0.33 A 0.38 A 0.34 A 0.46 A 0.38 A 0.48 A 0.39 ACannon & Serrano 0.77 C 0.58 A 0.79 C 0.60 A 0. E 0.63 B 0. E 0.68 B 0. 1 E 0.67 B 0. 2 E 0.68 B 0.76b C 0.64b B 0.78b C 0.65b B 0.81b D 0.65b B 0.83b D 0.66b B Imperial & SR-91 WB Ramps 0.63 B 0.66 B 0.63 B 0.65 B 0.66 B 0.71 C 0.66 B 0.70 B 0.70 B 0.80 C 0.70 B 0.79 C 0.69 B 0.83 D 0.70 B 0.84 D 0.69 B 0.85 D 0.70 B 0.85 DImperial & SR-91 EB Ramps 0.47 A 0.58 A 0.49 A 0.59 A 0.49 A 0.64 B 0.50 A 0.64 B 0.57 A 0.76 C 0.57 A 0.75 C 0.58 A 0.74 C 0.57 A 0.75 C 0.57 A 0.75 C 0.57 A 0.75 CLakeview & SR-91 WB Ramps 0.71 C 0.53 A 0.69 B 0.52 A 0.72 C 0.59 A 0.70 B 0.59 A 0.73 C 0.72 C 0.71 C 0.71 C 0.67 B 0.66 B 0.68 B 0.67 B 0.66 B 0.66 B 0.67 B 0.67 BLakeview & Santa Ana Canyon 0.82 D 0.50 A 0.82 D 0.50 A 0.89 D 0.61 B 0.89 D 0.61 B 1.02 F 0.81 D 1.02 F 0.81 D 0.85 D 0.74 C 0.85 D 0.74 C 0.86 D 0.73 C 0.87 D 0.74 CSR-91 EB & Santa Ana Cyn 0.70 B 0.57 A 0.69 B 0.57 A 0.71 C 0.61 B 0.70 B 0.61 B 0.72 C 0.70 B 0.72 C 0.70 B 0.58 A 0.72 C 0.59 A 0.71 C 0.59 A 0.72 C 0.59 A 0.72 CYorba Linda & New River 0.66 B 0.83 D 0.71 C 0.84 D 0.70 B 0.88 D 0.74 C 0.88 D 0.74 C 0. 4 E 0.79 C 0. 4 E 0.73 C 0. 2 E 0.76 C 0. 2 E 0.73 C 0. 1 E 0.74 C 0. 1 E Year 2025 MPAH Buildout with East Orange
GPA MPAH Amendments
No Project With Project No Project With Project
Year 2025 MPAH Buildout
No Project With Project
Year 2025 Committed Circulation System Existing Conditions Year 2010 Committed Circulation System With Project
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak No Project With Project
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak PM Peak
No Project
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\Tables 4.7-031405 4.7-19 Traffic and Circulation TABLE 4. -10
COMPARISON OF INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE UNDER EXISTING CONDITIONS AND FUTURE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SCENARIOS Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS Year 2025 MPAH Buildout with East Orange
GPA MPAH Amendments
No Project With Project No Project With Project
Year 2025 MPAH Buildout
No Project With Project
Year 2025 Committed Circulation System Existing Conditions Year 2010 Committed Circulation System With Project
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak No Project With Project
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak PM Peak
No Project
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Yorba Linda & Stonehaven 0.51 A 0.50 A 0.54 A 0.51 A 0.52 A 0.51 A 0.55 A 0.52 A 0.56 A 0.54 A 0.59 A 0.54 A 0.55 A 0.54 A 0.56 A 0.54 A 0.54 A 0.52 A 0.55 A 0.52 AYorba Ranch & Yorba Linda 0.51 A 0.59 A 0.51 A 0.61 B 0.51 A 0.60 A 0.52 A 0.61 B 0.53 A 0.62 B 0.54 A 0.64 B 0.52 A 0.61 B 0.52 A 0.61 B 0.51 A 0.61 B 0.51 A 0.63 BLas Palomas & Yorba Linda 0.46 A 0.51 A 0.48 A 0.52 A 0.47 A 0.52 A 0.48 A 0.53 A 0.48 A 0.53 A 0.50 A 0.54 A 0.48 A 0.53 A 0.48 A 0.53 A 0.47 A 0.52 A 0.47 A 0.54 AVillage Center & Yorba Linda 0.81 D 0.74 C 0.81 D 0.74 C 0.84 D 0.77 C 0.84 D 0.77 C 0.89 D 0.81 D 0.89 D 0.81 D 0.87 D 0.81 D 0.87 D 0.81 D 0.85 D 0.79 C 0.85 D 0.79 C Note: Bold-face type for ICU/LOS information represents an intersection that is forecast to be deficient in the AM and/or PM peak hour (i.e., worse than LOS D) ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization LOS - Level of Service a. The project's contribution to the ICU value would be a significant impact. b. The ICU values include non-committed intersection improvements identified in the City of Anaheim or City of Orange General Plan c. The project's contribution to the ICU at this location where non-commited long-range improvements are planned is considered significant.
Source: Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., 2005
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\Tables 4.7-031405 4.7-20 Traffic and Circulation TABLE 4. -11
COMPARISON OF FREEWAY/TOLLROAD MAINLINE PERFORMANCE UNDER EXISTING CONDITIONS AND FUTURE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS WB 1.12 F 0.69 C 1.15 F 0.69 C 1.19 F 0.82 D 1.21 F 0.82 D 1.27 F 0.98 E 1.30 F 0.98 E 1.23 F 0.93 E 1.24 F 0.94 E 1.24 F 0.94 E 1.26 F 0.95 EEB 0.63 C 1.14 F 0.64 C 1.17 F 0.74 D 1.21 F 0.75 D 1.24 F 0.88 D 1.31 F 0.89 D 1.34 F 0.83 D 1.26 F 0.83 D 1.28 F 0.85 D 1.29 F 0.85 D 1.31 FWB 1.06 F 0.65 C 1.09 F 0.66 C 1.11 F 0.79 D 1.14 F 0.79 D 1.17 F 0.95 E 1.20 F 0.96 E 1.12 F 0.90 E 1.14 F 0.92 E 1.14 F 0.92 E 1.16 F 0.93 E EB 0.59 C 1.08 F 0.60 C 1.11 F 0.71 C 1.14 F 0.72 D 1.17 F 0.85 D 1.22 F 0.86 D 1.25 F 0.80 D 1.17 F 0.81 D 1.19 F 0.82 D 1.20 F 0.83 D 1.23 F WB 1.00 E 0.59 C 1.03 F 0.59 C 1.05 F 0.71 C 1.08 F 0.72 D 1.10 F 0.86 D 1.13 F 0.87 D 1.05 F 0.81 D 1.07 F 0.82 D 1.07 F 0.82 D 1.09 F 0.84 DEB 0.54 C 1.05 F 0.55 C 1.08 F 0.66 C 1.10 F 0.67 C 1.13 F 0.80 D 1.17 F 0.81 D 1.20 F 0.74 D 1.13 F 0.75 D 1.15 F 0.77 D 1.16 F 0.78 D 1.19 FWB 0.93 E 0.56 C 0.96 E 0.55 C 0.97 E 0.69 C 1.00 E 0.68 C 1.02 F 0.85 D 1.05 F 0.84 D 0.98 E 0.79 D 1.01 F 0.81 D 0.99 E 0.79 D 1.02 F 0.81 DEB 0.55 C 0.96 E 0.54 C 0.98 E 0.68 C 1.03 F 0.67 C 1.05 F 0.83 D 1.11 F 0.82 D 1.12 F 0.78 D 1.08 F 0.80 D 1.11 F 0.79 D 1.08 F 0.79 D 1.11 FWB 1.12 F 0.46 B 1.12 F 0.46 B 1.24 F 0.61 C 1.25 F 0.62 C 1.39 F 0.80 D 1.40 F 0.81 D 1.37 F 0.79 D 1.37 F 0.80 D 1.37 F 0.80 D 1.38 F 0.81 DEB 0.47 B 1.10 F 0.47 B 1.10 F 0.55 C 1.24 F 0.56 C 1.25 F 0.66 C 1.42 F 0.66 C 1.42 F 0.67 C 1.41 F 0.68 C 1.41 F 0.68 C 1.41 F 0.68 C 1.42 FNB 0.24 A 0.51 C 0.21 A 0.46 B 0.38 B 0.77 D 0.35 B 0.72 D 0.55 C 1.10 F 0.52 C 1.04 F 0.47 B 0.83 D 0.46 B 0.83 D 0.46 B 0.84 D 0.46 B 0.83 DSB 0.43 B 0.18 A 0.39 B 0.17 A 0.67 C 0.29 A 0.63 C 0.27 A 0.98 E 0.42 B 0.93 E 0.40 B 0.78 D 0.37 B 0.78 D 0.37 B 0.78 D 0.37 B 0.77 D 0.36 BNB 0.24 A 0.51 C 0.26 A 0.54 C 0.38 B 0.77 D 0.40 B 0.81 D 0.55 C 1.10 F 0.57 C 1.13 F 0.49 B 0.88 D 0.49 B 0.91 E 0.48 B 0.89 D 0.49 B 0.91 ESB 0.43 B 0.18 A 0.45 B 0.19 A 0.67 C 0.29 A 0.70 C 0.29 A 0.98 E 0.42 B 1.00 E 0.42 B 0.82 D 0.39 B 0.84 D 0.39 B 0.82 D 0.38 B 0.83 D 0.38 B Note: The number of lanes, peak hour capacity and volume of each mainline segment is provided in the technical report Appendix G. V/C - Volume/Capacity Ratio LOS - Level of Service WB - westbound EB - eastbound NB - northbound SB - southbound E/O - East of W/O - West of S/O - South of Source: Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., 2005 With Project
AM Peak PM Peak
SR-91 e/o Weir CanyonSR-91 e/o Gypsum CanyonSR-241 s/o SR-91SR-241 s/o Weir Canyon PM Peak
SR-91 w/o LakeviewSR-91 w/o Weir Canyon
Existing Conditions
No Project With Project
Year 2010 Committed Circulation System Year 2025 Committed Circulation System Year 2025 MPAH Buildout Year 2025 MPAH Buildout with East Orange
GPA MPAH Amendments
With Project No Project With Project
AM Peak
No Project No Project With Project No Project
PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak PM Peak
Location
AM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
SR-91 w/o Imperial Hwy
PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak AM Peak R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\Tables 4.7-031405 4.7-21 Traffic and Circulation TABLE 4. -12
COMPARISON OF FREEWAY/TOLLROAD RAMP PERFORMANCE UNDER EXISTING CONDITIONS AND FUTURE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SCENARIOS Interchange Ramp V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS WB Direct On 0.48 A 0.71 C 0.48 A 0.71 C 0.54 A 0.71 C 0.54 A 0.71 C 0.65 B 0.69 B 0.65 B 0.69 B 0.67 B 0.63 B 0.66 B 0.62 B 0.66 B 0.67 B 0.65 B 0.66 BWB Loop On 0.29 A 0.17 A 0.29 A 0.17 A 0.33 A 0.20 A 0.33 A 0.20 A 0.43 A 0.28 A 0.43 A 0.28 A 0.39 A 0.28 A 0.39 A 0.28 A 0.41 A 0.29 A 0.40 A 0.29 AEB Direct On 0.07 A 0.05 A 0.07 A 0.05 A 0.07 A 0.04 A 0.07 A 0.04 A 0.07 A 0.04 A 0.07 A 0.04 A 0.08 A 0.03 A 0.09 A 0.04 A 0.09 A 0.03 A 0.11 A 0.03 AEB Loop On 0.35 A 0.19 A 0.37 A 0.21 A 0.36 A 0.19 A 0.38 A 0.21 A 0.38 A 0.17 A 0.40 A 0.19 A 0.41 A 0.19 A 0.43 A 0.16 A 0.40 A 0.19 A 0.43 A 0.17 AWB Off 0.36 A 0.17 A 0.35 A 0.17 A 0.35 A 0.20 A 0.34 A 0.19 A 0.34 A 0.27 A 0.33 A 0.26 A 0.30 A 0.25 A 0.32 A 0.26 A 0.31 A 0.25 A 0.32 A 0.27 AEB Off 0.65 B 0.69 B 0.65 B 0.68 B 0.65 B 0.77 C 0.65 B 0.76 C 0.64 B 0.92 E 0.64 B 0.91 E 0.68 B 0.84 D 0.69 B 0.85 D 0.69 B 0.79 C 0.69 B 0.80 CWB Direct On 0.34 A 0.41 A 0.34 A 0.39 A 0.35 A 0.40 A 0.35 A 0.39 A 0.37 A 0.38 A 0.37 A 0.37 A 0.37 A 0.43 A 0.37 A 0.43 A 0.35 A 0.39 A 0.35 A 0.39 AWB Loop On 0.57 A 0.62 B 0.57 A 0.62 B 0.61 B 0.61 B 0.61 B 0.61 B 0.68 B 0.60 A 0.68 B 0.60 A 0.58 A 0.62 B 0.58 A 0.62 B 0.61 B 0.61 B 0.59 A 0.61 BEB Direct On 0.41 A 0.45 A 0.43 A 0.45 A 0.41 A 0.37 A 0.43 A 0.37 A 0.39 A 0.22 A 0.41 A 0.22 A 0.39 A 0.12 A 0.39 A 0.12 A 0.45 A 0.19 A 0.46 A 0.21 AEB Loop On 0.40 A 0.30 A 0.41 A 0.31 A 0.51 A 0.28 A 0.52 A 0.29 A 0.71 C 0.24 A 0.72 C 0.25 A 0.61 B 0.27 A 0.63 B 0.28 A 0.61 B 0.26 A 0.64 B 0.27 AWB Off 0.61 B 0.48 A 0.59 A 0.45 A 0.63 B 0.53 A 0.61 B 0.51 A 0.66 B 0.62 B 0.64 B 0.59 A 0.53 A 0.58 A 0.55 A 0.59 A 0.54 A 0.61 B 0.57 A 0.61 BEB Off 0.69 B 1.1 F 0.70 B 1.15 F 0.68 B 1.21 F 0.69 B 1.20 F 0.67 B 1.2 F 0.69 B 1.2 F 0.67 B 1.0 F 0.65 B 1.0 F 0.65 B 1.0 F 0.65 B 1.0 F WB Dir On 0.45 A 0.49 A 0.47 A 0.49 A 0.45 A 0.47 A 0.47 A 0.46 A 0.45 A 0.43 A 0.46 A 0.42 A 0.43 A 0.41 A 0.39 A 0.44 A 0.44 A 0.47 A 0.40 A 0.45 AWB Loop On 0.61 B 0.39 A 0.63 B 0.40 A 0.62 B 0.38 A 0.64 B 0.39 A 0.65 B 0.37 A 0.67 B 0.38 A 0.63 B 0.37 A 0.62 B 0.42 A 0.65 B 0.42 A 0.65 B 0.43 AEB Dir On 0.49 A 0.15 A 0.30 A 0.01 A 0.57 A 0.24 A 0.39 A 0.05 A 0.73 C 0.41 A 0.54 A 0.22 A 0.79 C 0.47 A 0.80 C 0.55 A 0.63 B 0.29 A 0.65 B 0.33 AEB Loop On 0.57 A 0.19 A 0.57 A 0.21 A 0.62 B 0.18 A 0.62 B 0.21 A 0.73 C 0.17 A 0.73 C 0.20 A 0.71 C 0.17 A 0.73 C 0.17 A 0.71 C 0.18 A 0.73 C 0.17 AWB Off 0.61 B 0.78 C 0.61 B 0.69 B 0.63 B 0.81 D 0.63 B 0.71 C 0.68 B 0.86 D 0.69 B 0.77 C 0.58 A 0.83 D 0.63 B 0.91 E 0.55 A 0.83 D 0.59 A 0.85 DEB Off 0.90 D 1.1 F 0.89 D 1.1 F 0.92 E 1.1 F 0.91 E 1.1 F 0.96 E 1.21 F 0.95 E 1.21 F 0.95 E 1.14 F 0.95 E 1.1 F 0.93 E 1.1 F 0.95 E 1.21a Fa WB Dir On 0.38 A 0.10 A 0.40 A 0.10 A 0.41 A 0.09 A 0.43 A 0.09 A 0.44 A 0.08 A 0.46 A 0.08 A 0.44 A 0.07 A 0.41 A 0.09 A 0.47 A 0.07 A 0.46 A 0.09 AWB Loop On 0.03 A 0.01 A 0.38 A 0.14 A 0.03 A 0.01 A 0.38 A 0.14 A 0.03 A 0.01 A 0.38 A 0.14 A 0.03 A 0.01 A 0.28 A 0.13 A 0.03 A 0.01 A 0.36 A 0.15 AEB Dir On 0.05 A 0.55 A 0.11 A 0.67 B 0.05 A 0.55 A 0.11 A 0.67 B 0.07 A 0.57 A 0.13 A 0.69 B 0.05 A 0.38 A 0.17 A 0.48 A 0.05 A 0.37 A 0.17 A 0.49 AEB Loop On 0.11 A 0.45 A 0.11 A 0.49 A 0.11 A 0.47 A 0.11 A 0.51 A 0.10 A 0.51 A 0.10 A 0.55 A 0.13 A 0.42 A 0.14 A 0.42 A 0.12 A 0.41 A 0.12 A 0.43 AWB Off 0.15 A 0.13 A 0.19 A 0.10 A 0.18 A 0.24 A 0.23 A 0.21 A 0.24 A 0.44 A 0.29 A 0.41 A 0.13 A 0.42 A 0.15 A 0.57 A 0.12 A 0.35 A 0.13 A 0.48 AEB Off 0.11 A 0.09 A 0.33 A 0.55 A 0.10 A 0.11 A 0.33 A 0.48 A 0.09 A 0.13 A 0.32 A 0.48 A 0.11 A 0.08 A 0.31 A 0.36 A 0.12 A 0.09 A 0.35 A 0.48 ASB On -- -- -- -- 0.33 A 0.10 A -- -- -- -- 0.36 A 0.11 A -- -- -- -- 0.39 A 0.13 A 0.22 A 0.09 A 0.38 A 0.09 A 0.24 A 0.07 A 0.39 A 0.11 ANB Off -- -- -- -- 0.19 A 0.34 A -- -- -- -- 0.20 A 0.37 A -- -- -- -- 0.21 A 0.39 A 0.12 A 0.29 A 0.15 A 0.41 A 0.10 A 0.25 A 0.15 A 0.41 A Note: The number of lanes, peak hour capacity and volume at ramps is provided in the technical report increased in Appendix G. V/C - Volume/Capacity Ratio LOS - Level of Service WB - westbound EB - eastbound NB - northbound SB - southboundBold-face type for V/C and LOS information represents a ramp that is forcast to operate deficiently in the AM and/or PM peak hour (i.e., worse than the LOS E performance standard) Source: Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., 2005 Year 2025 MPAH Buildout with East Orange
GPA and MPAH Amendments
SR-91 at LakeviewSR-91 at Imperial Highway
PM Peak AM Peak
No-Project
AM Peak
With-Project With-Project No-Project With-Project
PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak SR-91 at Weir CanyonSR-91 at Gypsum CanyonSR-241 at Weir Canyon AM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak No-Project With-Project No-Project
Year 2025 MPAH Buildout
No-Project With-Project
Existing Conditions Year 2010 Committed Circulation System Year 2025 Committed Circulation System R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\Tables 4.7-031405 4.7-22 Traffic and Circulation Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7-23 Traffic and Circulation Table 4.7-11 summarizes year 2010 with-project AM and PM peak hour /C ratios for freeway/ tollroad mainline segments in the study area. As Table 4.7-11 indicates, none of the deficient freeway/tollroad mainline segments under year 2010 with-project conditions are significantly impacted by the project based on the peak hour /C impact thresholds previously described.
The AM and PM peak hour volumes on SR-241 between SR-91 and the proposed Weir Canyon Road/SR-241 interchange in both the northbound and southbound directions are lower under 2010 with-project conditions than under 2010 no-project conditions due to SR-241 traffic that diverts to the new Weir Canyon Road/SR-241 interchange under with-project conditions. The traffic volumes on each of the four SR-91/SR-241 connectors must also be lower under withproject conditions compared to no-project conditions. Therefore, the SR-91/SR-241 connectors are not considered to be adversely impacted by the Mountain Park project under 2010 conditions.
Table 4.7-12 summarizes year 2010 with-project AM and PM peak hour /C ratios for freeway/ tollroad ramps in the study area. Two freeway ramps (the eastbound SR-91 off-ramps at Imperial Highway and Weir Canyon Road) that are forecast to operate deficiently under year 2010 with-project conditions are not significantly impacted by the project (the project s /C contribution is less than 0.01). Similar to the discussion presented earlier for existing-plusproject conditions, the likely reason that the Weir Canyon Road off-ramp is not impacted by the project is because of the re-routing of local non-project traffic from the Weir Canyon Road/SR-91 interchange area to the Weir Canyon Road extension and SR-241 interchange, which are to be constructed as part of the proposed project.
Year 2025 Project Impacts (Committed Circulation Plus Project) Conditions This section analyzes the impacts of the project on year 2025 traffic conditions. ear 2025 (committed circulation) with-project ADT volumes are illustrated in Exhibit 4.7-9, which also indicates the ADT differences compared to year 2025 no-project conditions. Similar to the findings presented earlier for existing-plus-project and year 2010 with-project conditions, the proposed development plan results in significantly increased traffic volumes on Gypsum Canyon Road south of SR-91, however with-project ADT volumes on Weir Canyon Road south of SR-91 are forecast to remain at no-project levels because of local non-project traffic that is re-routed to the Weir Canyon Road extension and SR-241 interchange, which are to be constructed as part of the proposed project.
Table 4.7-10 summarizes year 2025 with-project (committed circulation system) AM and PM peak hour ICU values at study intersections along with year 2025 no-project (committed circulation system) ICUs for comparison. Five intersection locations (Weir Canyon Road/ a Palma Avenue, Weir Canyon Road/Santa Ana Canyon Road and akeview Avenue/Santa Ana Canyon Road intersections in the City of Anaheim, the Cannon Street/Serrano Avenue intersection in the City of Orange, and the orba inda Boulevard/ ew River Road intersection in the City of orba inda) are forecast to operate deficiently with or without the proposed project. Only one of the five intersections (Weir Canyon Road and a Palma Avenue) is significantly impacted by the project; the project s contribution to the ICU value is 0.01 during the deficient AM peak hour. This impact would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant with implementation of intersection improvements identified in MM 7-1. The year 2025 with-project (committed circulation system) AM peak hour ICU value would be reduced to
0.77 (compared to 1.00 without the improvements). Because this intersection is forecast to operate deficiently with and without the proposed project, the property owner/developer would be required to participate in the implementation of the improvements on a fair share basis rather than being solely responsible for their implementation. The project s share of total future traffic growth at this intersection is estimated to be 37 percent. It should also be noted that because Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7-24 Traffic and Circulation this intersection is significantly impacted by the project, it is also assumed that the project would significantly impact Weir Canyon Road south of the intersection (between SR-91 and a Palma Avenue). This portion of the roadway is committed to be improved to a six-lane divided roadway and the property owner/developer would be required to participate in the funding of these improvements on a fair share basis. The project s share of total future traffic growth on this roadway is estimated to be 30 percent.
It should be noted that the likely reason that the intersection of Weir Canyon Road and Santa Ana Canyon is forecast to improve with the project is because of the re-routing of local nonproject traffic from Weir Canyon Road south of SR-91 to the Weir Canyon Road extension and SR-241 interchange, which are to be constructed as part of project development.
Table 4.7-11 summarizes year 2025 with-project (committed circulation system) AM and PM peak hour /C ratios for freeway/tollroad mainline segments in the study area along with year 2025 no-project (committed circulation system) /C ratios for comparison. one of the deficient freeway/tollroad mainline segments under year 2025 with-project (committed circulation system) conditions are significantly impacted by the project based on the peak hour /C impact thresholds described previously.
The AM and PM peak hour volumes on the SR-241 mainline south of SR-91 in both the northbound and southbound directions are lower under 2025 with-project conditions than under 2025 no-project conditions due to SR-241 traffic that diverts to the new Weir Canyon Road/SR-241 interchange under with-project conditions. The traffic volumes on each of the four SR-91/SR-241 connectors must also be lower under with-project conditions compared to noproject conditions. Therefore, the SR-91/SR-241 connectors are not considered to be adversely impacted by the proposed project under 2025 (committed circulation system) conditions.
Table 4.7-12 summarizes year 2025 with-project (committed circulation system) AM and PM peak hour /C ratios for freeway/tollroad ramps in the study area along with year 2025 noproject (committed circulation system) /C ratios for comparison. Two freeway ramps (the eastbound SR-91 off-ramps at Imperial Highway and Weir Canyon Road) are forecast to operate deficiently under year 2025 with-project (committed circulation system) conditions; however, they are not significantly impacted by the project (the project s /C contribution is less than 0.01). Similar to the discussion presented earlier for existing-plus-project and 2010 withproject conditions, the likely reason that the Weir Canyon Road off-ramp is not impacted by the project is because of the re-routing of local non-project traffic from the Weir Canyon Road/SR-91 interchange area to the Weir Canyon Road extension and SR-241 interchange, which are to be constructed as part of project development.
Year 2025 Buildout (MPAH Plus Project) Conditions
Buildout of the MPAH involves various circulation system improvements in the study area, which were described previously. For the analysis of no-project and with-project conditions based on the MPAH buildout circulation system, it is assumed that MPAH circulation improvements associated with the Mountain Park Specific Plan are in place under conditions both with and without development of the project land uses. ear 2025 with-project ADT volumes under this scenario are provided in Exhibit 4.7-10.
Table 4.7-10 summarizes year 2025 with-project (MPAH buildout) AM and PM peak hour ICU values at study intersections along with year 2025 no-project (MPAH buildout) ICUs for comparison. The ICU analysis results indicate that each of the study area intersections is forecast to operate at OS D or better under MPAH buildout conditions with the exception of the Weir Canyon Road/ a Palma Avenue intersection in the City of Anaheim, which is forecast to Year 2025 With-Project ADT Volumes (000s) - Committed Circulation System Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR No. 331Source:Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., 2005 Exhibit 4.7-9
March 11, 2005
Not To Scale
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\fuscoe\ex4.7-9_020305.pdf
Year 2025 With-Project ADT Volumes (000s) - MPAH Buildout Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR No. 331Source:Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., 2005 Exhibit 4.7-10
March 11, 2005
Not To Scale
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\fuscoe\ex4.7-10_020305.pdf
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7-25 Traffic and Circulation operate at OS E during the AM peak hour and the orba inda Boulevard/ ew River Road intersection in the City of orba inda which is forecast to operate at OS E during the PM peak hour and is not significantly impacted by the project. Similar to the year 2025 with committed circulation system scenario, this intersection would be significantly impacted by the project.
Implementation of intersection improvements identified in MM 7-1 would reduce the year 2025 with-project (MPAH buildout circulation system) AM peak hour ICU value to 0.72 (compared to
0.91 without the improvements). It should also be noted that because this intersection is significantly impacted by the project, it is also assumed that the project would impact Weir Canyon Road south of the intersection (between SR-91 and a Palma Avenue). This portion of the roadway is committed to be improved to a six-lane divided roadway. The project s share of future traffic growth at the Weir Canyon Road/ a Palma Avenue intersection is estimated to be 37 percent and the project s share of future traffic growth on Weir Canyon Road between SR-91 and a Palma Avenue is estimated to be 30 percent.
As noted previously in Table 4.7-7, for the intersection of Weir Canyon Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road, a long-range non-committed improvement identified in the City of Anaheim General Plan (convert eastbound third through lane to third left-turn lane) has been assumed in the 2025 no-project and with-project (MPAH buildout circulation system) levels of service at this intersection. During the PM peak hour, the intersection is forecast to operate at OS D and the ICU difference with and without the project is 0.03 which, according to specifications outlined in the traffic impact study guidelines of the City of Anaheim, constitutes a contribution of future traffic for a location such as this where non-committed long-range improvements are planned.
In such cases, the project is required to participate in the implementation of the non-committed planned improvements on a fair share basis. The project s share to total future traffic growth at this intersection is estimated to be 35 percent.
Table 4.7-11 summarizes year 2025 with-project (MPAH buildout) AM and PM peak hour /C ratios for freeway/tollroad mainline segments in the study area along with year 2025 no-project (MPAH buildout) /C ratios for comparison. one of the deficient freeway/tollroad mainline segments under year 2025 with-project (MPAH buildout) conditions are significantly impacted by the project based on the peak hour /C impact thresholds described previously.
The AM and PM peak hour volumes on the SR-241 mainline south of SR-91 in both the northbound and southbound directions are slightly lower under 2025 with-project conditions than under 2025 no-project conditions, therefore the traffic volumes on each of the four SR-91/SR-241 connectors must also be lower under with-project conditions compared to noproject conditions. Therefore, the SR-91/SR-241 connectors are not considered to be adversely impacted by the Mountain Park project under 2025 (MPAH buildout) conditions.
Table 4.7-12 summarizes year 2025 with-project (MPAH buildout) AM and PM peak hour /C ratios for freeway/tollroad ramps in the study area along with year 2025 no-project (MPAH buildout) /C ratios for comparison. The freeway/tollroad ramp /C analysis results indicate that two freeway ramps (the eastbound SR-91 off-ramps at Imperial Highway and Weir Canyon Road) are forecast to operate deficiently under year 2025 with-project (MPAH buildout) conditions and that the Weir Canyon Road off-ramp is potentially impacted by the project.
The potential project impact identified for Weir Canyon Road eastbound SR-91 off-ramp is attributed to the fact that, in the ear 2025 project impact analysis based on buildout of the MPAH, full buildout of the MPAH is assumed under no project conditions as well as with-project conditions. As noted previously, the Weir Canyon Road extension and the Weir Canyon Road/SR-241 interchange, which are to be constructed as part of proposed project, are assumed in both the no-project and with-project MPAH buildout scenarios because they are components of the MPAH. Both of these facilities, however, are non-committed, and without the Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7-26 Traffic and Circulation Mountain Park Specific Plan land uses to assist in the financing of these facilities (for example, through the use of toll revenues, corridor fees and/or reimbursement agreements with the project applicant), it is questionable that they would actually be in place under a no-project scenario. The existing-plus-project, year 2010 with-project and year 2025 with-project (committed circulation system) settings summarized earlier analyzed the impacts of the project against no-project conditions that do not include the Weir Canyon Road extension and the Weir Canyon Road/SR-241 interchange. The results indicate that the peak hour /C ratios at the eastbound SR-91 off-ramp at Weir Canyon Road are the same or better when comparing withproject conditions (i.e., with the project land use development plan in combination with the project s circulation system improvement plan, including the Weir Canyon Road extension and SR-241 interchange) against no-project conditions without the extension and interchange.
Therefore, the eastbound SR-91 off-ramp at Weir Canyon Road is not considered to be significantly impacted by the project.
Year 2025 Project Impacts (MPAH Buildout with East Orange GPA and MPAH Amendments Plus Project)
This sub-section analyzes the impacts of the project on year 2025 MPAH buildout traffic conditions with the potential MPAH amendment package that is currently being studied by the City of Orange as part of a proposed GPA in the East Orange area described previously. ear 2025 with-project ADT volumes under this scenario are illustrated in Exhibit 4.7-11, which also indicates the ADT differences compared to year 2025 no-project conditions.
Table 4.7-10 summarizes year 2025 with-project (MPAH buildout with East Orange GPA and MPAH amendments) AM and PM peak hour ICU values along with year 2025 no-project ICUs for comparison. As with the 2025 MPAH Buildout scenario, during the PM peak hour, the Weir Canyon Road/Santa Ana Canyon Road intersection is forecast to operate at OS D under withproject conditions and the ICU difference with and without the project is 0.04 which, according to specifications outlined in the traffic impact study guidelines of the City of Anaheim, constitutes a significant contribution of future traffic for a location such as this where non-committed long-range improvements are planned. As noted for the 2025 MPAH buildout scenario, the project is required to participate in the implementation of such non-committed planned improvements on a fair share basis (the project s share of future traffic at this intersection is estimated to be 35 percent). As with the 2025 MPAH buildout scenario, the orba inda Boulevard/ ew River Road intersection in the City of orba inda is forecast to operate at OS E during the PM peak hour and is not significantly impacted by the project.
Table 4.7-11 summarizes year 2025 with-project (MPAH buildout with East Orange GPA and MPAH amendments) AM and PM peak hour /C ratios for freeway/tollroad mainline segments in the study area along with year 2025 no-project /C ratios for comparison. one of the deficient freeway/tollroad mainline segments under year 2025 with-project (MPAH buildout with East Orange GPA and MPAH amendments) conditions are significantly impacted by the project based on the peak hour /C impact thresholds described previously.
The AM and PM peak hour volumes on the SR-241 mainline south of SR-91 in both the northbound and southbound directions are slightly lower under 2025 with-project conditions than under 2025 no-project conditions, therefore the traffic volumes on each of the four SR-91/SR-241 connectors are lower under with-project conditions compared to no-project conditions. Therefore, the SR-91/SR-241 connectors are not considered to be adversely impacted by the proposed project under 2025 (MPAH buildout with East Orange GPA and MPAH amendments plus project).
Year 2025 With-Project ADT Volumes (000s) -
MPAH Buildout with East Orange GPA and MPAH Amendments
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR No. 331
Source:Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., 2005
Exhibit 4.7-11
March 11, 2005
Not To Scale
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\fuscoe\ex4.7-11_020305.pdf
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7-27 Traffic and Circulation Table 4.7-12 summarizes year 2025 with-project (MPAH buildout with East Orange GPA and MPAH amendments) AM and PM peak hour /C ratios for freeway/tollroad ramps in the study area along with year 2025 no-project /C ratios for comparison. Two freeway ramps (the eastbound SR-91 off-ramps at Imperial Highway and Weir Canyon Road) are forecast to operate deficiently under year 2025 with-project conditions. Based on the established thresholds it would appear that the Weir Canyon Road off-ramp is potentially impacted by the project. However, this ramp is not considered to be significantly impacted by the project for the same reasons discussed previously for the 2025 MPAH buildout scenario.
Impact 4.7-1 The Weir Canyon Road/La Palma Avenue intersection in the City of Yorba Linda would operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour under the Year 2025 Committed Circulation System “no project” and “with project” scenarios as well as the Year 2025 MPAH Buildout “with project” scenario. The project’s contribution to the ICU value at this intersection under these scenarios is estimated to be 0.01 which would be a significant impact. This impact would be mitigated with implementation of MM 7-1.
Impact 4.7-2 Based on the project’s significant impact at the Weir Canyon Road/La Palma Avenue intersection, the project is also assumed to significantly impact Weir Canyon Road south of the intersection (between SR-91 and La Palma Avenue) within the City of Yorba Linda under the same scenarios. This impact would be mitigated with implementation of MM 7-1.
Impact 4.7-3 The project’s contribution to the Weir Canyon Road/Santa Ana Canyon intersection ICU value would be 0.03 under the 2025 (MPAH buildout) and 0.04 under the 2025 (MPAH buildout with East Orange GPA and MPAH Amendments), which constitutes a significant contribution of future traffic for a location such as this where long-range non-committed improvements have been identified in the City of Anaheim General Plan.
This impact would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant with implementation of MM 7-1.
It should be noted that the mitigation for these impacts is payment of a fair-share cost of improvements by the property owner/developer. Physical improvements required to mitigate impacts associated with Weir Canyon Road and a Palma Avenue (Impacts 4.7-1 and 4.7-2) also require approval and financing from the City of orba inda. Because the City of Anaheim can not require another jurisdiction to implement these improvements, these impacts are considered potentially significant and unavoidable.
Threshold 2: Would the proposed project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
The Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) highway system includes the following roads and highways in the Mountain Park traffic analysis study area:
x SR-91
x SR-241
x Imperial Highway
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7-2 Traffic and Circulation As shown previously in Table 4.7-11, there are freeway/tollroad mainline segments that currently operate at OS F during the AM or PM peak hours, which is below the established level of service standard ( OS E): eastbound SR-91 west of Weir Canyon Road during the PM peak hour; SR-91 east of Gypsum Canyon Road (westbound during the AM peak hour and eastbound during the PM peak hour); SR-91 west of akeview (westbound during the AM peak hour and eastbound during the PM peak hour); and SR-91 west of Imperial Highway (westbound during the AM peak hour and eastbound during the PM peak hour). As evidenced by each of the future “no project” scenarios, future freeway/tollroad mainline performance is forecast to degrade in the project study area. Pursuant to the Orange County CMP, any project that contributes greater than 0.03 to the /C ratio is considered to have a significant impact to the freeway/tollroad system. By this standard, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to any freeway/tollroad mainline segment.
Table 4.7-10 identifies the existing and future performance of the Imperial Highway/SR-91 ramp intersections under each traffic scenario. As shown, this intersection would not operate at an acceptable level of service (worse than OS D) with or without the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to these CMP facilities.
Table 4.7-12 identifies the existing and future performance of the Imperial Highway/SR-91 ramps under each traffic scenario. As shown, the SR-91 eastbound off-ramp at Imperial Highway would operate at an unacceptable OS F in the PM peak hour with and without the proposed project for all traffic scenarios. The /C would either improve or remain the same with the proposed project; therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact to these CMP facilities.
Threshold 3: Would the proposed project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
The traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project (included in Appendix G) includes an evaluation of the design of the internal roadway with respect to potential design hazards.
Mountain Park Drive would be constructed with a fairly steep grade due to the topography of the project site. Without proper design considerations, this roadway could have potential safety hazards related to speed and visibility issues. These safety hazards would be considered potentially significant impacts of the project, and would be mitigated during final design of the circulation system.
With a roadway classification of Modified Hillside Collector, Mountain Park Drive requires a design speed of 35 miles per hour (mph). At this speed, a minimum radius of about 450 to 550 feet is required (depending upon super-elevation rate) along its curvilinear alignment. Based on this, the curves on the geometric plans for Mountain Park Drive, which would be prepared during the tentative tract map process, should exceed about 500 feet in radius.
The critical sight distance consideration along Mountain Park Drive is the visibility of a motorist at a stop-controlled intersection. For safety purposes, a sidestreet motorist should be able to see vehicles approaching on the through street for at least 7.5 seconds in order for that motorist to feel comfortable entering or crossing the conflicting traffic stream. For curvilinear roadways involving both horizontal and vertical curvature such as Mountain Park Drive, the corner sight distance requirement of 400 feet (for a 35 MPH design speed) may require special design treatment at the corners in order to provide the required visibility. Design solutions may include, but not be limited to: striping right-turn entry or bike lanes on Mountain Park Drive in order to allow a vehicle on the sidestreet to extend out beyond the conventional limit line; prohibiting development on a portion of the adjacent corner parcels to enable adequate sight distance to be Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7-29 Traffic and Circulation achieved; or, if a cut slope is involved, additional grading to prevent the slopes themselves from blocking visibility.
Impact 4.7-4 Due to its steep grade, Mountain Park Drive has the potential for increased hazards related to speed and visibility. This potentially significant impact would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant with implementation of MM 7-2.
Threshold 4: Would the proposed project result in inadequate emergency access? As described in Section 3.3, Project Description, access to the proposed project would be provided from Santa Ana Canyon Road and Gypsum Canyon Road to the north, and from a proposed extension of Weir Canyon Road to the west. In addition, the project would provide the following roadway design features to facilitate emergency access/service: a drivable median on Gypsum Canyon Road into Development Areas 1 and 2 and the entrance to Development Area 4; emergency access ways into cul-de-sac areas, where feasible; provisions for emergency access at entry gates; and use of the existing access road in the T C ACE and CCP/HCP Reserve as an emergency egress route. These emergency access features are included in the Fire Master Plan for the Mountain Park Specific Plan which is discussed in Section 4.10, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Fire protection services are also addressed in Section 4.12, Public Services and Utilities. The proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to the provision of emergency access.
Threshold 5: Would the proposed project result in inadequate parking capacity? As described in Section 3.3, Project Description, parking would be provided for residential and non-residential (private community recreation center, fire station, etc.), and would be consistent with the parking requirements outlined in the proposed Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment. These parking requirements are consistent with the City of Anaheim parking requirements outlined in the oning Code. o significant impact related to parking would result from project implementation and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 6: Would the proposed project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
The proposed project includes public and private sidewalks and trails, as well as on-street bikeways to accommodate the recreational and transportation needs of residents. The location of proposed bikeways and trails is provided on Exhibit 3- , Open Space, Trail and Bikeway Plan. Sidewalks are proposed on project streets as reflected in the cross-sections provided on Exhibits 3-6 a through e. These facilities would provide for an alternative mode of transportation for project residents and residents in surrounding existing communities.
The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) provides bus service in the City of Anaheim and surrounding jurisdictions. Based on information presented in the City of Anaheim General Plan regarding OCTA s 10 year transit plan (Figure C-3, Existing and Planned Bus Routes), there are no existing or planned bus routes east of Weir Canyon Road. The project would not interfere with or impact existing bus service or future transit facilities and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 7: Would the proposed project conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7-30 Traffic and Circulation Table 4.7-13 addresses the consistency of the proposed project with the relevant goals and policies outlined in the City of Anaheim General Plan and SCAG s RTP. As identified in Table 4.7-13, the proposed project would be considered consistent with the relevant goals and policies related to traffic and circulation.
In addition to relevant goals and policies, the proposed project s relationship to the City of Anaheim Planned Roadway etwork (Figure C-1 of the Circulation Element), and consistency with the RTP and RTIP need to be addressed. Following is a discussion of these planning programs.
City of Anaheim Circulation Element
The Planned Roadway etwork (Figure C-1) of the City s Circulation Element identifies the future extension of Jamboree Road within the City limits as a “Hillside Secondary Arterial.” As identified in Section 3. , Intended Uses of the EIR, as a subsequent action, the City of Anaheim would consider an amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan to delete the extension of Jamboree Road following completion of the City of Orange MPAH Amendment process and approval by the OCTA to amend the MPAH as discussed earlier.
The traffic analysis provided in this section includes an analysis of traffic conditions with and without the extension of Jamboree between Weir Canyon Road and Santiago Canyon Road. If the OCTA amends the MPAH and the City of Anaheim has amended its Circulation Element to delete this section of Jamboree from the MPAH prior to the approval of the first map for development on the west side of SR-241, no provisions for this extension would be required as a part of the map approval by the City of Anaheim. If the OCTA has not taken action to amend the MPAH to delete this Jamboree segment, then the property owner/developer would be required to address the roadway alignment during the tentative tract or parcel map stage, consistent with the City s Municipal Code. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the current MPAH Amendment process being completed by the City of Orange.
SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plans
The proposed Mountain Park project includes transportation facilities necessary to serve the housing, employment, education, recreation and other land uses included in the project area.
The Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR-241) alignment travels through the project site.
The planned Weir Canyon Road interchange is one part of the regionally significant Eastern Transportation Corridor facility, which will consist of four lanes in each direction at ultimate buildout. The Weir Canyon interchange improvements are included in the Eastern Transportation Corridor project description and budget contained in SCAG s federally approved 2001 and 2004 RTPs, as well as 2001 and 2004 RTIPs. The RTP and RTIP project descriptions include the interchanges, additional lanes, climbing lanes, auxiliary lanes and other improvements required for ultimate build-out of the Eastern Transportation Corridor by 2015.
Build-out of the Eastern Transportation Corridor, including the Weir Canyon interchange, is assumed in the 2004 RTP as a Tier II state highway project, listed in Appendix I, page 116, as project o. ORA050. The project description indicates full completion of the toll road by 2015.
The project was previously assumed in the 2001 RTP as project o. ORA050. The 2001 and 2004 RTIPs also include the near-term portion of the Eastern Transportation Corridor project as state highway project o. ORA050 with a 2015 completion date.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7-31 Traffic and Circulation TABLE 4.7-13
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH TRAFFIC AND
CIRCULATION RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES
GOALS AND POLICIES CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
City of Anaheim General Plan
Circulation Element
GOAL 1.1: Provide a comprehensive
transportation system that facilitates current and
long-term circulation in and through the City.
The proposed project would construct transportation
system improvements on- and off-site to facilitate
traffic circulation. Proposed transportation
improvements included to be constructed as part of the
project are described in Section 3.3, Project
Description. In addition to the provision of new
roadways and improvements to existing roadways, the
project also involves construction of the SR-241/Weir
Canyon Road Interchange and the Mountain Park
Drive bridge over SR-241 connecting Development
Areas east and west of SR-241.
Policy 1: Assign street classifications to
provide an acceptable level of service based
on projected traffic demands, circulation
functions and the area that they are intended
to serve. The system will be coordinated with
the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial
Highways and the circulation plans of
adjacent cities.
The proposed classifications of on-site roadways are
described in Section 3.3, Project Description, and
depicted on Exhibits 3-6 a through e, Proposed
Roadway Cross-Sections. The proposed roadway
system is consistent with the City of Anaheim General
Plan Circulation Element as well as the County of
Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways. It should be
noted that the City s General Plan identifies an
extension of Jamboree Road that may be deleted from
the MPAH with the East Orange project which is
currently being processed through the County of
Orange. This roadway would be deleted from the City
of Anaheim General Plan, after the City of Orange s
MPAH amendment process is completed.
Policy 3: Require that major new
development proposals include traffic impact
analyses that identify measures and financing
to mitigate traffic impacts.
This section of the EIR provides a summary of the
Mountain Park Specific Plan Traffic Analysis prepared
specifically for the proposed project. The traffic
analysis is included in its entirety in Appendix G. The traffic analysis contains specific recommendations for
mitigating the proposed project s impacts on the local
transportation system. The property owner/ developer
would be required to participate in implementation of
committed and non-committed transportation
improvements for the intersections and roadway
significantly impacted by the project. The mitigation
program is provided in Section 4.7-3, and would
reduce project impacts to levels considered less than
significant.
Policy 6: Ensure the provision of needed
transportation improvements through the site
plan and environmental review process.
The proposed project would construct on-site and offsite transportation improvements to maintain acceptable traffic levels of service in the project study area. The roadway improvements are described in
Section 3, and the physical impacts resulting from
construction of roadway improvements are addressed
throughout this EIR for each topical issue.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
TABLE 4.7-13 (Continued)
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH TRANSPORTATION
AND CIRCULATION RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7-32 Traffic and Circulation
GOALS AND POLICIES CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Policy 9: Consider aesthetics, including
the provision of appropriate landscaping, in
the development of arterial highways.
As discussed in Section 3.3.2, Project Description,
andscape and ighting Concepts, a landscape
program has been developed for the Mountain Park
Specific Plan. The Gypsum Canyon Road streetscape
would reinforce the existing sycamore and
sycamore/oak woodland. The Mountain Park Drive
Streetscape would extend and reinforce the adjoining
natural open space by including oak woodland species
to the road s edge at higher elevations and sycamore
and sycamore/oak woodland species at the lower
elevations.
GOAL 1.2: Support improvements to
highways passing near and through the City.
Policy 5: Work with Caltrans in analyzing
the performance of freeway interchanges
located in the City and seek appropriate
improvements.
The proposed project includes the construction of the
SR-241/Weir Canyon Road interchange as well as
improvements at the SR-91/Gypsum Canyon Road
interchange. The traffic analysis presented in this
section addresses potential impacts from the project
on freeway/tollroad mainline segments and
interchanges. In summary, the proposed project would
not have a significant impact on freeway or tollroad
facilities, and no improvements/mitigation is required
beyond that proposed as part of the project.
GOAL 2.1: Maintain efficient traffic
operations on City streets and maintain a peak
hour level of service not worse than D at street
intersections.
Policy 1: Make improvements to streets
and intersections experiencing conditions
worse than the applicable evel of Service
standard by providing appropriate
improvements, including, but not limited to:
andscaped median islands to
restrict left turns, with median
opening spacing occurring a
minimum of 400 feet apart, and
preferably limited to signalized
locations.
Adequate driveway spacing of at
least 230 feet between driveways on
arterial highways.
The proposed project includes construction of
improvements to Gypsum Canyon Road, Santa Ana
Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road (refer to
description provided in Section 3.3, Project
Description). The traffic analysis presented in
Appendix G and summarized in this section addresses
the potential impacts of the proposed project on the
circulation system in the study area. Significant
impacts were identified at the following intersections:
Weir Canyon Road/ a Palma Avenue and Weir
Canyon Road/Santa Ana Canyon Road. Additionally, a
significant impact was identified along Weir Canyon
Road south of a Palma Avenue. The property/owner
developer would be required to pay a proportionate
share for previously identified improvements to the
intersections and roadway improvements, as
discussed in Section 4.7.3, Mitigation Program.
GOAL 2.2: Provide a safe circulation system.
Policy 1: Promote the principle that
streets have multiple uses and users, and
protect the safety of all users.
Policy 2: Discourage high speed, through
traffic on local streets with appropriate traffic
calming measures (e.g., traffic enforcement,
bulb-outs, lane striping, chokers, etc).
The circulation system included as part of the
proposed project is described in Section 3.3, Project
Description and includes sidewalks, crosswalks, and
bike lanes, where appropriate, to protect the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. As noted in the project
description, traffic calming measures have been
included in the roadway design, as appropriate, and
include street chokers and elbows.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
TABLE 4.7-13 (Continued)
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH TRANSPORTATION
AND CIRCULATION RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7-33 Traffic and Circulation
GOALS AND POLICIES CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Policy 3: Design access onto major
arterial streets in an orderly and controlled
manner.
The project s proposed circulation system would
access the following primary arterials: Gypsum
Canyon Road, Weir Canyon Road, and Santa Ana
Canyon Road. Roadway improvements are proposed
as part of the project at each of these roadway
connections to accommodate the increased traffic from
the project, and ensure acceptable traffic conditions.
Policy 6: Implement street design
features such as the use of medians, bus
turnouts and consolidated driveways to
minimize mid-block traffic congestion.
The proposed cross-sections for project roadways are
provided on Exhibits 3-6 a through e. As shown,
medians are planned for the on-site roadways. OCTA
does not provide bus service in the study area;
therefore, provisions for bus turnouts are not currently included. The City of Anaheim will review final street
improvement plans during the tentative map process
and will ensure that appropriate street design features are included.
Policy 7: Implement street design
features that discourage through traffic
intrusion on residential streets.
The Mountain Park Specific Plan includes guard-gated
entries which would eliminate through traffic through
the residential areas.
Policy : Support freeway improvements
that remove through traffic from local streets.
The proposed project includes construction of the
SR-241/Weir Canyon interchange. Implementation of
this interchange would likely reduce the amount of
through traffic on local streets surrounding SR-91.
ocal streets are used to avoid traffic congestion
experienced on SR-91. Additionally, the proposed
project, which is adjacent to SR-91 would not preclude
future improvements planned for this facility which
currently operates at a deficient level of service.
Policy 10: Provide adequate sight
distances for safe vehicular movement on
roadways and at intersections.
As noted under the discussion of Threshold 3 above,
due to its steep grade, Mountain Park Drive has the
potential for increased hazards related to sight
distance. The final street improvement plans for this
roadway will incorporate appropriate design features to eliminate this potential hazard to a level considered
less than significant (refer to Mitigation Measure 7-2).
GOAL 2.3: Improve regional access for City
residents and workers.
Policy 1: Continue to implement the
State-mandated Congestion Management
Program and Orange County s Growth
Management Program.
As previously noted, the proposed project would
construct or contribute to several freeway and roadway
improvements consistent with the Orange County
Congestion and Growth Management Programs.
Additionally, as noted above, the project would not
preclude planned SR-91 improvements.
GOAL 4.1: Preserve and enhance uniquely
scenic or special visual resource areas along
highways and designated State scenic routes
for the enjoyment of all travelers.
Policy 3: andscape arterial highways in
keeping with the intent of the Scenic Corridor
Overlay one and the Santa Ana River
Greenbelt Plan, and maintain the residential
character of the neighborhood by avoiding
interference and intrusion into adjacent
communities.
As described in Section 4.2, andform and Aesthetics,
the project is located within a Scenic Overlay Corridor and SR-91 is designated as an Eligible State Scenic
Highway. The project is, therefore, subject to additional requirements related to preserving scenic resources
and scenic vistas. As described in Section 3.3.2,
Project Development Components, a landscape plan
would be implemented which would emphasize the
natural environment by restoring disturbed riparian
slopes and using a plant palette that will transition from ornamental landscape to the existing functional
landscape. As a requirement of Section 1 .1 .040 of
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
TABLE 4.7-13 (Continued)
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH TRANSPORTATION
AND CIRCULATION RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7-34 Traffic and Circulation
GOALS AND POLICIES CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
the Anaheim Municipal Code, any specimen trees
removed as part of project implementation would be
replaced at a ratio ranging from 2:1 to 4:1 depending
on the size of the tree removed. However, the
proposed project involves tree replacement at a ratio of 20:1, substantially higher than for City requirement.
GOAL 7.1: Protect and encourage bicycle
travel.
Policy 1: Provide safe, direct, and
continuous bicycle routes for commuter and
recreational cyclists.
Policy 2: Incorporate bicycle planning into
the traditional transportation planning process.
Policy 6: Implement a bikeway system
with linkages to routes in neighboring
jurisdictions and regional bicycle routes.
Policy 7: Maximize the use of easements
and public rights-of-way along flood channels,
utility corridors, rail lines and streets for
bicycle and pedestrian paths.
Policy 9: Require that new streets or
developments contain adequate right of way
for bicycle lanes, where appropriate.
The proposed project includes on-street bikeways as
shown on Exhibit 3- , Open Space, Trail and Bikeway
Plan. The right-of-way for bike lanes is also shown on
the roadway cross-sections provided on Exhibits 3-6 a
through e. As shown on Exhibit 3- , the on-street
bikeways would connect to existing trails and bikeways
surrounding the project site. Bikeways would be
provided along public and private streets within the
project site. There are no easements, utility corridors, or rail lines within the project site that could be used for bikeways.
GOAL 8.1: Protect and encourage
pedestrian travel.
Policy 2: Improve pedestrian and bicycle
connections from residential neighborhoods to
retail activity centers, employment centers,
schools, parks, open space areas and
community centers.
Policy 3: Encourage barrier free
accessibility for all handicapped residents,
employees and visitors throughout the City s
circulation system.
Pedestrian sidewalks and trails are included as part of the project. The roadway cross-sections provided in
Exhibits 3-6 a through e identify accommodations for
sidewalks within street rights-of-way. Exhibit 3-
identifies the location of on-site trails and connections to off-site trails systems. Mountain Park Drive and Weir Canyon Road, which provide access to the proposed
school site and community park, include provisions for
sidewalks that will accommodate pedestrian access
from on-site and off-site residential areas to these
public facilities. Final street improvement plans and
tentative tract maps will include design details for
pedestrian facilities to address specific safety issues.
Policy 4: Support the planning of
sidewalks of appropriate width to allow the
provision of buffers to shield non-motorized
traffic from vehicles.
Policy 5: Add raised, landscaped
medians and buildouts, where appropriate, to
reduce exposure to cross traffic at street
crossings.
Policy 6: When feasible, walkways should
include pedestrian amenities such as shade
trees and/or plantings, trash bins, benches,
shelters, and directional kiosks.
Policy 7: Ensure that streets and
intersections are designed to provide visibility
and safety for pedestrians.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
TABLE 4.7-13 (Continued)
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH TRANSPORTATION
AND CIRCULATION RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7-35 Traffic and Circulation
GOALS AND POLICIES CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
and Use Element
The following goal and policy from the and Use
Element is specific to the Hill and Canyon area
Community Policy Area
GOAL 8.1: Preserve natural, scenic, and
recreational resources; continue to ensure
residential neighborhoods are safe, wellmaintained places to live; and continue to provide necessary community services and facilities.
Policy 6: Continue to work with Caltrans
and OCTA to protect residential
neighborhoods from bypass traffic impacts
associated with congested conditions on the
Riverside (SR-91) Freeway.
The proposed project would have manned gates
provided along Mountain Park Drive and Gypsum
Canyon Road (refer to Exhibit 3-5 in Section 3, Project Description). The restricted access prevents nonresidents from traveling through the project site and surrounding neighborhoods to bypass traffic
associated with SR-91.
SCAG Destinations 2030
GOALS:
x Maximize mobility and accessibility for all
people and goods in the Region.
x Ensure travel safety and reliability for all
people and goods in the Region.
x Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional
transportation system.
x Maximize the productivity of our
transportation system.
x Protect the environment, improve air quality
and promote energy efficiency.
x Encourage land-use and growth patterns
that complement our transportation
investments.
The proposed project expands the local circulation
network to serve the proposed residential and nonresidential uses. In doing so, the proposed project is consistent with these goals. The project contributes to land use and growth patterns within the City of
Anaheim and the County of Orange that maximize the
productivity of the existing SR-241, provide housing in proximity to a jobs-rich subregion, and protects the
environment through the preservation of 2,163 acres of
open space.
POLICIES:
Policy 1: Transportation investments shall
be based on SCAG s adopted regional
performance indicators.
Policy 2: Ensuring safety, adequate
maintenance, and efficiency of operations on
the existing multi-modal transportation system
will be RTP priorities and will be balanced
against the need for system expansion
investments.
Policy 3: RTP land use and growth
strategies that differ from currently expected
trends will require a collaborative
implementation program that identifies
required actions and policies by all affected
agencies and sub-regions.
Policies 1, 2 and 3 address transportation investments, operations on multi-modal transportation systems, and
HO lanes and are not applicable to the proposed
Mountain Park Specific Plan. . With respect to Policy 3, the proposed project is consistent with the 2004
General Plan land use assumptions and growth
forecasts submitted by the City of Anaheim as the
basis for the 2004 regional forecast. The project site is slated for residential growth and open space in the
regional forecast. Therefore, the proposed project is
consistent with RTP polices applicable to the proposed
project.
Therefore, the regionally significant transportation improvement (Weir Canyon Road interchange) within the project site to be constructed as part of the proposed project is included in a federally approved RTP and RTIP, which is consistent with SCAG policies and state and federal requirements.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7-36 Traffic and Circulation
4.7.3 MITIGATION PROGRAM
Project Design Features
PDF 7-1 The Mountain Park Specific Plan includes a circulation system consisting of on-site roadways (refer to Exhibit 4.7-5). The tentative tract or parcel maps submitted for review and approval, will incorporate preliminary street design features (i.e., crosssections, alignment and grades) demonstrating consistency with the proposed circulation system. Prior to approval of each tentative tract or parcel map, the subdivision map shall be prepared consistent with the Mountain Park Specific Plan Circulation System Plan (Exhibit 4.7-5) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. All street improvements within the subdivision map shall be completed prior to the final building and zoning inspection for units served by said improvement.
PDF 7-2 The Mountain Park Specific Plan includes a circulation system including the following off-site roadway improvements (refer to Exhibit 4.7-5) identified in the Mountain Park Specific Plan, the City of Anaheim General Plan and Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. The development area plans and tentative tract or parcel maps, submitted for review and approval, shall incorporate preliminary street design features (i.e., cross-sections, alignment and grades) demonstrating that the proposed circulation system is consistent with that defined in the Mountain Park Specific Plan, the City of Anaheim General Plan and the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways.
x Gypsum Canyon Road Improved from a two-lane undivided roadway to a four-lane divided roadway from the SR-91 westbound off-ramp to the proposed Santa Ana Canyon Road realignment. A construction contract for improvements to this portion of Gypsum Canyon Road shall be awarded prior to issuance of the first building permits in development areas east of SR-241.
The improvements shall be substantially completed prior to final building and zoning inspection for the first phase of development for areas east of SR-241. x Santa Ana Canyon Road – Realign and improve from a two-lane undivided roadway to a four-lane divided roadway from SR-241 to Gypsum Canyon Road. A construction contract for improvements to this portion of Santa Ana Canyon Road shall be awarded prior to issuance of the first building permits in development areas east of SR-241. The improvements shall be substantially completed prior to final building and zoning inspection for the first phase of development for areas east of SR-241.
x Weir Canyon Road (Oak Canyon Drive to Blue Sky Way) – Restripe approximately 600-feet to transition from a six-lane roadway at Oak Canyon Drive to a four-lane roadway at Blue Sky Way prior to issuance of building permits for Development Areas 3 and 7.
x Weir Canyon Road (Blue Sky Way to SR-241) Construct as a four-lane divided roadway from Blue Sky Way to SR-241 (includes elimination of the northbound left-turn lane at the Weir Canyon Road/Blue Sky Road intersection). Improvements to this portion of Weir Canyon Road shall be completed prior to final building and zoning inspection for Development Areas 3 and 7.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7-37 Traffic and Circulation x Gypsum Canyon Road and SR-91 Westbound Ramp intersection – Add second northbound through lane. A construction contract for improvements to this portion of intersection shall be awarded prior to issuance of building permits for development areas east of SR-241. The improvements shall be substantially completed prior to final building and zoning inspection for the first phase of development for areas east of SR-241.
x Gypsum Canyon Road and SR-91 Eastbound Ramp intersection – Add second northbound and southbound through lanes. A construction contract for improvements to this portion of intersection shall be awarded prior to issuance of building permits in development areas east of SR-241. The improvements shall be substantially completed prior to final building and zoning inspection for the first phase of development areas for east of SR-241. x Gypsum Canyon Road/Santa Ana Canyon Road intersection – Improve to provide two southbound through lanes and a southbound right-turn lane, two northbound through lanes and a northbound left-turn lane, and two eastbound left-turn lanes and an eastbound right-turn lane. A construction contract for Improvements to this intersection shall be awarded prior to first building permits in development areas east of SR-241. The improvements shall be substantially completed prior to final building and zoning inspection for the first phase of development for areas east of SR-241.
x Oak Canyon Drive, east of Running Springs Road – This portion of Oak Canyon Drive within City right-of-way will be abandoned by the City of Anaheim and improved with a vehicle maintenance road and landscaping (see Exhibit 3- 17). The maintenance road will be gated. Improvements associated with this portion of Oak Canyon Drive within City right-of-way shall be substantially completed prior to issuance of the first building permits in development areas west of SR-241.
PDF 7-3 The proposed project includes the construction of the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road interchange with ramps to and from the south on SR-241 and construction of a bridge over SR-241 for Mountain Park Drive. Prior to completion of the Mountain Park Drive bridge over-crossing, the design for the construction of the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road interchange shall be awarded. Construction of the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road interchange shall be completed prior to issuance of the 421st building permit on the east side of SR-241.
PDF 7-4 The proposed project includes the construction of a bridge over SR-241 for Mountain Park Drive. Prior to opening of models for development areas east of SR-241, the Mountain Park Drive over-crossing construction shall be completed.
Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions
SC 7-1 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fees shall be paid by the property owner/developer to the City of Anaheim. Payment of these fees provides for the project s fair share contribution to the ultimate improvements to SR-241 and SR-261.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7-3 Traffic and Circulation Mitigation Measures
MM 7-1 Prior to issuance of first building permit, the property owner/developer shall make one lump sum payment for the fair share of the cost to the City of Anaheim for implementation of the following roadway and intersection improvements. Evidence of payment shall be provided to the Department of Public Works. x Weir Canyon Road/ a Palma Avenue Intersection – (1) Add a third northbound through lane and convert southbound right-turn lane to shared third through/right-turn lane; and (2) convert the second eastbound through lane to a shared second through/second right-turn lane (this would require eliminating the existing eastbound right-turn green arrow overlap with the northbound leftturn movement). The first improvement is committed to be constructed before the year 2010 by the Cities of Anaheim and orba inda using secured Orange County Measure M funds and matching local funds that have yet to be allocated. The property owner/developer is responsible for paying its fair share of the funds that have yet to be allocated. The second improvement is not funded and the applicant shall be responsible for paying its fair share of the entire cost of the improvement. The project share of future AM and PM peak hour traffic at this intersection under 2025 MPAH build-out conditions with the East Orange GPA and MPAH Amendments is approximately 37 percent. x Weir Canyon Road between a Palma Avenue and SR-91 Improve from a four-lane divided roadway to a six-lane divided roadway. This roadway is committed to be improved by the Cities of Anaheim and orba inda using secured Orange County Measure M funds and matching local funds that have yet to be allocated. The property owner/developer is responsible for paying its fair share of the funds that have yet to be allocated. The project share of future AM and PM peak hour traffic on this roadway under 2025 MPAH build-out conditions with the East Orange GPA and MPAH Amendments is approximately 30 percent.
x Weir Canyon Road/Santa Ana Canyon Road Intersection Convert eastbound third through lane to third left-turn lane. This is a non-committed long-range improvement and the applicant shall be responsible for paying its fair share of the entire cost of the improvement. The project share of future AM and PM peak hour traffic at this intersection under 2025 MPAH build-out conditions with the East Orange GPA and MPAH Amendments is approximately 35 percent.
MM 7-2 Prior to approval of street improvement plans for Mountain Park Drive, the property owner/developer shall provide a final roadway design plan to the Department of Public Works with Mountain Park Drive designed to Modified Hillside Collector standards and with curvilinear alignments that provide adequate sight distance for safety purposes as approved by City Engineer.
MM 7-3 Prior to the approval of each development area plan, the property owner/developer shall submit a traffic phasing plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works, Development Services Division and Traffic Engineering Division, and the Fire Department. The plan shall also be submitted for review and comment by Caltrans if any portion of the plan involves Caltrans facilities. The plan shall include the following items:
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.7 Traffic-032405.doc 4.7-39 Traffic and Circulation
1. Documentation of the number of units and product types of each development area, and resulting evel of Service ( OS) shall be provided for locations listed in PDF 7-2.
2. Phasing of roadway construction, specifying which roads shall be constructed as backbone streets and which roads shall be constructed with tract development.
3. Traffic improvements (including signals, signage and striping) to local streets, arterials and intersections, freeway interchanges and bridge overcrossings.
4. Identification of measures that will be incorporated to minimize the impacts of project construction traffic on Gypsum Canyon Road between the SR-91 westbound off-ramp and Santa Ana Canyon Road; Gypsum Canyon Road/ SR-91 interchange ramps; and Santa Ana Canyon Road between Gypsum Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road prior to completion of the improvements listed in PDF 7-2.
MM 7-4 Prior to approval of a grading plan for each development area, the property owner/developer shall submit a traffic control plan including construction haul routes, duration and location of lane closures, and any pedestrian-related impacts to sidewalks and intersection crossings, for review and approval by the Department of Public Works, Development Services Division and Traffic Engineering Division.
4.7.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The traffic scenarios addressed throughout this section for future years (2010 and 2025) are based on City of Anaheim city-wide traffic model which takes into consideration land use assumptions outlined in the City of Anaheim General Plan as well as the General Plans of surrounding jurisdictions (through use of Orange County Projections 2000). Additionally, because the City of Orange is currently processing a General Plan amendment and an amendment to the MPAH as part of the East Orange project, a year 2025 MPAH Buildout scenario was addressed which included these proposed amendments. As a result, the analysis presented in this section assesses the traffic impacts of cumulative development anticipated.
As shown in the preceding analysis, the significant traffic impacts resulting from implementation of the project would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. The proposed project would not result in significant cumulative traffic impacts.
4.7.5 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Significant project Impacts 4.7-3 and 4.7-4 would be mitigated to levels considered less than significant with implementation of PDFs, SCs and MMs identified above.
Project Impacts 4.7-1 and 4.7-2 would be mitigated by payment of the fair-share cost for identified intersection and roadway improvements associated with Weir Canyon Road and a Palma Avenue. However, the physical improvements required to mitigate these impacts also require approval and financing from the City of orba inda. Because the City of Anaheim can not require another jurisdiction to implement these improvements, these impacts are considered potentially significant and unavoidable.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4. Air Quality-032305.doc 4. -1 Air Quality
4. AIR UALITY
Information presented in this section is based on the Air Quality Assessment for Mountain Park, City of Anaheim, prepared by Mestre Greve Associates (February 2005) which contains an analysis of existing air quality in the vicinity of the Mountain Park project site and analyzes the proposed project s potential air quality impacts. The Air Quality Assessment is included in its entirety in Appendix H, and is available for review as noted in Section 2.5, Review of the Draft EIR.
4. .1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Air uality Management Framework
The proposed project is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) which is within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The SCAQMD adopts and enforces regulations for stationary sources in the basin and, together with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), local governments, and the private sector, develops the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the air basin. CARB establishes legal emission rates for new vehicles to be operated in California and is responsible for the vehicle inspection program. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is also an important agency in the air quality management of the SCAB. The EPA implements the provisions of the Federal Clean Air Act, which establishes national ambient air quality standards. EPA requires air basins to prepare plans for achieving the federal air quality standards and monitors their progress toward that goal.
The AQMP is the most important air quality management document for the SCAB because it provides the blueprint for meeting State and federal ambient air quality standards1 . The 2003
AQMP was adopted locally on August 1, 2003, by the governing board of the SCAQMD. CARB adopted the AQMP as part of the California State Implementation Plan on October 23, 2003.
The 2003 AQMP was adopted by the EPA on April 9, 2004. State law mandates the revision of the AQMP at least every three years, and federal law specifies dates certain for developing attainment plans for criteria pollutants.
Monitored Air Pollutants in the SCAB
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas resulting from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. Over 0 percent of the CO emitted in urban areas is contributed by motor vehicles.
High levels of CO commonly occur near major roadways and freeways. CO interferes with the blood s ability to carry oxygen to the body s tissues and results in numerous adverse health effects. CO is a criteria air pollutant. The federal and State standards for CO are presented in Table 4. -1, Federal and State CO Standards.
itrogen Dioxide
itrogen dioxide ( O2) is a criteria air pollutant and may result in numerous adverse health effects. It absorbs blue light, resulting in a brownish-red cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility.
1 State and federal air quality standards are set forth in the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) and the 1990 amendments to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), respectively.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4. Air Quality-032305.doc 4. -2 Air Quality TABLE 4. -1
FEDERAL AND STATE CO STANDARDS
Averaging Time Standard
Federal 1 hour 35 ppm
hours 9 ppm
State 1 hour 20 ppm
hours 9 ppm
ppm parts per million
itrogen Oxides
itrogen oxides is a general term pertaining to compounds of nitric acid ( O ), nitrogen dioxide (O2), and other oxides of nitrogen. itrogen oxides are typically created during combustion processes and are major contributors to smog formation and acid deposition.
Ozone
Ozone is a strong smelling, pale blue, reactive toxic chemical gas consisting of three oxygen atoms. Ozone is a product of the photochemical process involving the sun s energy. Ozone exists in the upper atmosphere ozone layer as well as at the earth s surface. Ozone at the earth s surface causes numerous adverse health effects and is a criteria air pollutant. It is a major component of smog.
Ozone is a secondary pollutant; it is not directly emitted. Ozone is the result of chemical reactions between other pollutants, most importantly hydrocarbons and O2, which occur only in the presence of bright sunlight. Pollutants emitted from upwind cities react during transport downwind to produce the oxidant concentrations experienced in the area. Many areas of the SCAQMD contribute to the ozone levels experienced at the monitoring stations, with the more significant areas being those directly upwind.
Particulate Matter
Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) is a major air pollutant consisting of tiny solid or liquid particles of soot, dust, smoke, fumes, and aerosols. The size of the particles allows them to easily enter the air sacs in the lungs where they may be deposited, resulting in adverse health effects. Particulate matter also causes visibility reduction. PM2.5 and PM10 are criteria air pollutants.
Particulate levels in the area are generally due to natural sources, grading operations, and motor vehicles. According to the EPA, some people are much more sensitive than others to breathing fine particles (PM10 and PM2.5). People with influenza, chronic respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and the elderly may suffer worsening illness and premature death due to breathing these fine particles. People with bronchitis can expect aggravated symptoms from breathing in fine particles. Children may experience decline in lung function due to breathing in PM10 and PM2.5. Other groups considered sensitive are smokers and people who cannot breathe well through their noses. Exercising athletes are also considered sensitive, because many breathe through their mouths.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4. Air Quality-032305.doc 4. -3 Air Quality Reactive Organic Gas
Reactive organic gas (ROG) is a reactive chemical gas, composed of hydrocarbons that may contribute to the formation of smog. ROG sources include fuel combustion, solvents, petroleum processing and storage, and some pesticides. (Also see OC.) olatile Organic Compounds
olatile organic compounds ( OCs) are hydrocarbon compounds that exist in the ambient air.
OCs contribute to the formation of smog and/or may themselves be toxic. OCs often have an odor. OC sources include fuel combustion, solvents, petroleum processing and storage, and some pesticides. (Also see ROG.)
SCAB Attainment Status
EPA has designated SCAB as extreme non-attainment for 1-hour ozone and serious nonattainment for suspended particulates (PM10) and carbon monoxide (CO). EPA announced air quality designations for the new -hour ozone standard on April 15, 2004.
The SCAB was designated by EPA as severe non-attainment for the new -hour ozone standard. The SCAQMD now has until 2007 to submit a plan showing measures that would reduce ozone levels to below the federal -hour standard by June 15, 2021. As a part of the designation the EPA announced that the 1-hour ozone standard would be revoked in June of 2005. To avoid backsliding from attaining the ozone standards, EPA is requiring that specific control measures for the 1-hour ozone standard remain in the state implementation plan until the area achieves compliance with the -hour ozone standard.
Attainment of federal PM10 health standards is to be achieved by December 31, 2006. EPA is scheduled to promulgate final air quality designations for the new PM2.5 standard by the spring of 2005. After the final designation is made, the SCAQMD will have three years to submit a plan showing measures to meet the federal PM2.5 standard. However, CARB has already adopted an annual average standard for PM2.5
2 and, pursuant to State law3, every air district in
California will be required to adopt and implement PM2.5 control measures by July 31, 2005.
Until such time as the SCAQMD adopts recommended significance thresholds and analysis techniques for PM2.5, PM10 emissions will be used as an indicator of potential PM2.5 impacts in air quality analyses.
The compliance deadline for CO was to be December 31, 2000; however, the basin was granted an extension to December 31, 2006.
Formerly a non-attainment area for nitrogen dioxide ( O2), the SCAB is qualified for redesignation to attainment because it has met federal standards for several years in a row.
Until the SCAB is re-designated, O2 monitoring will continue to be required.
Air Quality Mitigation Approaches in the SCAB
Consistent with its overall goal to meet applicable State and federal requirements and to demonstrate attainment with ambient air quality standards, the 1997 AQMP, as amended in 1999, uses two tiers of emission reduction measures; (1) short- and intermediate-term measures, and (2) long-term measures.
2 Approved by the California Office of Administrative aw in June of 2003. 3 Assembly Bill 656 (Sher), 2003.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4. Air Quality-032305.doc 4. -4 Air Quality Short- and intermediate-term measures propose the application of available technologies and management practices between 1994 and the year 2005. These measures rely on known technologies and proposed actions to be taken by several agencies that currently have statutory authority to implement such measures. Short- and intermediate-term measures in the 1997 AQMP include 35 stationary source, seven on-road, six off-road, one transportation control and indirect source, five advanced transportation technology, and one further study measures. All of these measures are proposed to be implemented between 1995 and 2005. These measures rely on both traditional command and control and alternative approaches for implementation.
To ultimately achieve ambient air quality standards, additional emission reductions will be necessary. ong-term measures rely on the advancement of technologies and control methods that can reasonably be expected to occur between 1997 and 2010. These long-term measures rely on further development and refinement of known low- and zero-emission control technologies for both mobile and stationary sources, along with technological breakthroughs.
Air uality Monitoring Results
Air quality at any site is affected by regional air quality and local pollutant sources. Regional air quality is determined by the release of pollutants throughout the air basin. Estimates for existing emissions in the SCAB are included in the 1997 Air Quality Management Plan, October 1996).
The data indicate that mobile sources (i.e., on-road motor vehicles) are the major contributor to regional emissions, accounting for approximately 51 percent of volatile organic compounds ( OC), 63 percent of nitrogen oxide ( O ) emissions, and approximately 7 percent of carbon monoxide (CO) emissions.
The Mountain Park project site is located near the convergence of three air quality monitoring stations: a Habra, Anaheim, and Mission iejo. Hence, the data collected at these stations is considered representative of the air quality experienced in the vicinity of the project. The air pollutants measured at these stations include ozone, PM10, CO, and O2. Recently monitored air quality data at each of these stations are shown in Tables 4. -2, 4. -3, and 4. -4, Air Quality evels Measured at the a Habra, Anaheim and Mission iejo Monitoring Stations, respectively.
Table 4. -2 presents the federal and State air quality standards as well as the monitored pollutant levels from the a Habra monitoring station which measures ozone, carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide. Table 4. -3 presents the monitored pollutant levels from the Anaheim monitoring station where ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particulates (both PM10 and PM2.5) are measured. Table 4. -4 presents the monitored pollutant levels from the Mission iejo monitoring station which measures ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particulates (both PM10 and PM2.5). The data were obtained from the CARB air quality data website (www.arb.ca.gov/adam/).
The monitoring data presented in Tables 4. -2, 4. -3, and 4. -4 show that ozone and particulate matter (both PM10 and PM2.5) are the air pollutants of primary concern in the Mountain Park project area.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4. Air Quality-032305.doc 4. -5 Air Quality TABLE 4. -2
AIR UALITY LEVELS MEASURED AT THE LA HABRA MONITORING
STATION
Pollutant
California
Standard
National
Standard Year Msrd.1 Max. Level
Days State
Standard.
Exceeded
Days National
Standard.
Exceeded2
Ozone 0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm 2003 99 0.165 7 1
for 1 hr. for 1 hr. 2002 99 0.121 3 0
2001 100 0.114 4 0
2000 100 0.137 1
Ozone o 0.0 ppm 2003 99 0.0 7 n/a 2
Standard for hr. 2002 99 0.079 n/a 0
2001 100 0.0 9 n/a 2
2000 100 0.099 n/a 2
CO 20 ppm 35 ppm 2003 100 .4 0 0
for 1 hour for 1 hour 2002 100 10.2 0 0
2001 100 10.7 0 0
2000 100 13. 0 0
CO 9.0 ppm 9 ppm 2003 9 4.29 0 0
for hour for hour 2002 97 4.49 0 0
2001 99 4.67 0 0
2000 99 6.16 0 0
O2 0.25 PPM one 2003 99 0.15 0 n/a
(1-Hour) for 1 hour 2002 9 0.116 0 n/a
2001 100 0.130 0 n/a
2000 53 0.11 0 n/a
O2 one 0.053 ppm 2003 99 0.02 n/a no
(AAM3) AAM2 2002 9 0.025 n/a no
2001 100 0.027 n/a no
2000 53 – n./a no 1
Percent of year where high pollutant levels were expected and measurements were made. 2 For annual averaging times, a yes or no response is given if the annual average concentration exceeded the applicable standard. 3
Annual Arithmetic Mean
Source: CARB Air Quality Data Statistics web site www.arb.ca.gov/adam/ accessed July 2, 2004.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4. Air Quality-032305.doc 4. -6 Air Quality TABLE 4. -3
AIR UALITY LEVELS MEASURED AT THE ANAHEIM MONITORING
STATION
Pollutant
California
Standard
National
Standard Year Meas.1 Max. Level
Days State
Standard
Exceeded2
Days National
Standard
Exceeded2
Ozone 0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm 2003 99 0.136 11 2
for 1 hr. for 1 hr. 2002 100 0.103 3 0
2001 27 0.107 2 0
2000 100 0.132 9 1
Ozone o 0.0 ppm 2003 97 0.0 7 n/a 1
Standard for hr. 2002 97 0.7 0 n/a 0
2001 27 0.070 n/a 0
2000 100 0.097 n/a 1
CO 20 ppm 35 ppm 2003 100 6.1 0 0
for 1 hour for 1 hour 2002 100 7.4 0 0
2001 100 7.5 0 0
2000 100 7.9 0 0
CO 9.0 ppm 9 ppm 2003 94 3. 9 0 0
for hour for hour 2002 100 5.26 0 0
2001 62 3.76 0 0
2000 99 6.73 0 0
O2 0.25 PPM one 2003 9 0.127 0 n/a
(1-Hour) for 1 hour 2002 100 0.100 0 n/a
2001 60 0.120 0 n/a
2000 100 0.139 0 n/a
O2 one 0.053 ppm 2003 9 0.024 n/a no
(AAM3) AAM3 2002 100 0.024 n/a no
2001 60 – n/a no
2000 100 0.29 n/a no
Particulates 50 ug/m3 150 ug/m3 2003 57 96 2/12 0/0
PM10 for 24 hr. for 24 hr. 2002 99 69 5/30 0/0
(24 Hour) 2001 53 62 3/1 0/0
2000 91 126 /33 0/0
Particulates 20 ug/m3 50 ug/m3 2003 57 34 yes no
PM10 AAM3 AAM3 2002 99 34 yes no
(Annual) 2001 53 – – –
2000 91 29 yes no 1
Percent of year where high pollutant levels were expected that measurements were made. 2 For annual averaging times a yes or no response is given if the annual average concentration exceeded the applicable standard. For the PM10 24 hour standard, daily monitoring is not performed. The first number shown in Days State Standard Exceeded column is the actual number of days measured that State standard was exceeded. The second number shows the number of days the standard would be expected to be exceeded if measurements were taken every day. 3 Annual Arithmetic Mean
– Data not reported
Source: CARB Air Quality Data Statistics web site www.arb.ca.gov/adam/ accessed July 2, 2004.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4. Air Quality-032305.doc 4. -7 Air Quality TABLE 4. -4
AIR UALITY LEVELS MEASURED AT THE MISSION VIEJO MONITORING
STATION
Pollutant
California
Standard
National
Standard Year Meas.1 Max. Level
Days State
Standard
Exceeded2
Days National
Standard
Exceeded2
Ozone 0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm 2003 99 0.153 16 4
for 1 hr. for 1 hr. 2002 100 0.136 9 2
2001 100 0.125 10 1
2000 32 0.119 5 0
Ozone o 0.0 ppm 2003 99 0.105 n/a
Standard for hr. 2002 100 0.093 n/a 1
2001 100 0.097 n/a 2
2000 32 0.0 7 n/a 2
CO 20 ppm 35 ppm 2003 99 2.5 0 0
for 1 hour for 1 hour 2002 100 3.4 0 0
2001 100 3.2 0 0
2000 33 4.3 0 0
CO 9.0 ppm 9 ppm 2003 97 1.6 0 0
for hour for hour 2002 97 1.9 0 0
2001 99 2.4 0 0
2000 59 3.1 0 0
Particulates 50 ug/m3 150 ug/m3 2003 93 64 2/13 0/0
PM10 for 24 hr. for 24 hr. 2002 94 0 5/31 0/0
(24 Hour) 2001 94 60 3/1 0/0
2000 97 9 2/12 0/0
Particulates 20 ug/m3 50 ug/m3 2003 93 27 yes no
PM105 AAM3 AAM3 2002 94 31 yes no
(Annual) 2001 94 26 yes no
2000 97 2 yes no
Particulates o 65 ug/m3 2003 -- 51 n/a 0
PM2.5 Standard for 24 hr. 2002 100 59 n/a 0
(24 Hour) 2001 99 53 n/a 0
2000 100 95 n/a 1
Particulates 12 ug/m3 15 ug/m3 2003 -- -- -- --
PM2.5 AAM3 AAM3 2002 100 16 yes yes
(Annual) 2001 99 16 yes yes
2000 100 15 yes yes 1
Percent of year where high pollutant levels were expected that measurements were made 2 For annual averaging times a yes or no response is given if the annual average concentration exceeded the applicable standard. For the PM10 24 hour standard, daily monitoring is not performed. The first number shown in Days State Standard Exceeded column is the actual number of days measured that State standard was exceeded. The second number shows the number of days the standard would be expected to be exceeded if measurements were taken every day. 3 Annual Arithmetic Mean
Source: CARB Air Quality Data Statistics web site www.arb.ca.gov/adam/ accessed July 2, 2004.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4. Air Quality-032305.doc 4. - Air Quality Ozone
Both the State and the federal 1-hour ozone standards were exceeded a few days during the past four years at each of the monitoring stations4
. ikewise, the federal -hour ozone standard
was exceeded a few days at each monitoring station5
.
Particulate Matter
State PM10 standards were exceeded on numerous occasions6 during the past four years at
both the Anaheim and Mission iejo stations. Federal PM2.5 standards were exceeded a few days7
at the Anaheim station and only once at the Mission iejo station during the past four years. The annual average PM2.5 concentration has exceeded both the State and Federal standards for the past four years at both the Anaheim and Mission iejo stations. There does not appear to be a noticeable trend in either maximum particulate concentrations or days of exceedances in the area.
Carbon Monoxide
Currently, CO levels in the project region are in compliance with the State and federal 1-hour and -hour standards.
Nitrogen Dioxide
O2 levels in the project region are in compliance with State and federal standards.
Local Air uality
Existing Carbon Monoxide Modeling Results
ocal air quality is a major concern along roadways and intersections where carbon monoxide (CO) is a primary pollutant. CO levels adjacent to roadways in the vicinity of the Mountain Park project site were assessed using traffic data prepared for the project (Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., 2004) and the CA I E4 computer model developed by the California Department of Transportation. Composite vehicular emission factors were derived from EMFAC2002 .
CA I E4 modeling was conducted for four intersections in the vicinity of the project:
x Weir Canyon Road at a Palma Avenue
x Weir Canyon Road at Santa Ana Canyon Road
x Weir Canyon Road at Serrano Avenue
x Serrano Avenue and Cannon
4 The State 1-hour ozone standard was exceeded between three and seven days per year at the a Habra Station, between two and 11 days at the Anaheim station, and between five and 16 days at the Mission iejo station. The federal 1-hour ozone standard was exceeded two days in the last four years at a Habra, three days at Anaheim and seven days at Mission iejo.
5 Between zero and two days each of the past four years at a Habra, between zero and one days at Anaheim, and between one and eight days at Mission iejo.
6 The State PM10 standard was exceeded between 30 and 53 days at Anaheim and between 12 and 31 days at Mission iejo.
7 Six days in 2000, one day in 2001, one day in 2002, and three days in 2003. The increase in 2003 is attributable to the widespread brush fires in October of that year.
EMFAC2002 is a computer model published by CARB that calculates vehicular pollutant emission factors.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4. Air Quality-032305.doc 4. -9 Air Quality These intersections are shown in Exhibit 4. -1 and were selected for modeling because they either (1) have the highest current traffic volumes or (2) are projected to have the greatest traffic increase due to the project. For each intersection, four receptors were located at each corner approximately 15 feet from edge of the road. The CO concentrations reported below are the modeled concentration at the receptor with the highest concentration at each intersection.
Existing background CO concentrations were obtained from the SCAQMD website (http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/hdbk.html). As discussed in the monitored air quality section above, the project site is located near the convergence of three areas represented by three different monitoring stations. Background levels representative of the a Habra station were used for this study because they are the highest of the three areas. The modeling results of the existing CO levels are presented in Table 4. -5, Existing CO Concentrations.
TABLE 4. -5
EXISTING CO CONCENTRATIONS PPM
Existing CO Concentration
Intersection 1-hour -hour
Weir Canyon at a Palma 13.2 6.
Weir Canyon at Santa Ana Canyon 12.6 6.5
Weir Canyon at Serrano 11.1 5.6
Serrano at Cannon 11.6 5.9
State Standard 20
o. of Exceedances 0 0
ote: The CO concentrations include the ambient concentrations of 9.5 ppm for 1-hour levels, and 4.6 ppm for -hour levels.
Source: Mestre Greve Associates, February 2005.
As shown in Table 4. -5, the maximum existing CO concentrations in the vicinity of the modeled intersections are estimated to be between 11.1 and 13.2 ppm for the 1-hour averaging time and between 5.6 and 6. ppm for the -hour averaging times. The existing CO concentrations in the vicinity of the modeled intersections currently comply with the 1-hour and -hour State and Federal standards.
Existing Emissions from On-Site Activities
The northeastern-most portion of the project site (south of SR-91 and east of Gypsum Canyon Road) was used for sand and gravel (aggregate) mining, aggregate processing, a concrete batch plant and an asphalt batch plant until December 2004 when the extraction license agreement between the quarry operator (Robertson s Ready Mix) and The Irvine Company (property owner) expired. The entire mine site is approximately 300 acres with recent mining activities on approximately half of this area. The mining and material handling operations result in fugitive dust (PM10) emissions and the equipment used for these processes as well as the asphalt batch plant generated emissions of all five criteria air pollutants. These emissions will be eliminated with closure of the quarry.
SCAQMD requires annual reporting of emissions from some of the sources at the facility.
These reports for 2003 are summarized in Table 4. -6, Annual Reported Air Pollutant Emissions from Quarry Uses, which summarizes annual emissions for the aggregate processing plant (Owl Rock Plant) and the concrete batch plant, both operated by Robertson s Ready Mix, and an asphalt batch plant operated by All American Asphalt. The emissions from each of the individual sources reported in the SCAQMD reports are shown in the table along with the total Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4. Air Quality-032305.doc 4. -10 Air Quality annual emissions. Average daily emissions during plant operation are estimated by dividing this number by 313 (the plant operated six days a week).
TABLE 4. -
ANNUAL REPORTED AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM UARRY USES Annual Emissions lbs/year
Source CO ROG NOX PM10 SOX
Robertson s Ready Mix
Rock Plant
Material Handling 0 0 0 5, 57 0
Diesel Fueling 0 14 0 0 0
Concrete Plant
Material Handling 0 9 0 0 0
Diesel Fueling 0 0 0 3 9 0
All American Asphalt
Dryer 14,316 1,3 2 4,401 0 679
Batch Processing 0 0 0 1,211 0
Degreasing 0 52 0 0 0
Baghouse Emissions 0 0 0 2,797 0
Asphalt Oil Storage 0 126 0 0 0
Open Storage Piles 0 0 0 160 0
Soldering, Metalizing or Welding 0 0 0 7 0
Total 14 31 1 5 3 4 401 10 420
Source: Mestre Greve Associates, February 2005.
The data presented in Table 4. -6 does not include emissions from some sources at the facility because they are not required to be reported to the SCAQMD. These sources are associated with the mining of materials for the rock plant and road dust PM10 emissions from vehicles traveling paved and unpaved roads within the project.
Heavy equipment operated on the site and generates exhaust emissions as well as fugitive dust (PM10 emissions). Robertson s Ready Mix has indicated that two Caterpillar 9 loaders, one Caterpillar D11 dozer, and one water truck operate on site 24 hours a day, six days a week.
Additionally, one grader operates on the site four hours each workday. Emission factors for the equipment were obtained from the URBEMIS2002 model.
Trucks traveling on site to pick up cement, asphalt and other raw materials produced by the operation result in road dust (PM10) being kicked into the air. Based on discussions with Robertson s Ready Mix approximately 66 trucks per day visit the concrete batch plant, 0 trucks per day visit the asphalt plant and 21 trucks per day haul out raw materials. Both the asphalt and concrete trucks travel approximately 1, 00 feet, on paved road, on the project site as they pick up material. Raw material trucks travel approximately 750 feet on paved road and 6,000 feet on unpaved roads on the project site as they pick up materials.
The emissions from sources not reported to SCAQMD are presented in Table 4. -7, Daily Air Pollutant Emissions from Existing Uses ot Reported to SCAQMD. Calculation worksheet showing the data and emission factors used to calculate emissions from these activities are presented in the appendix to the Air Quality Technical Report in Appendix H. ote that Table
4. -7 does not include SO emissions as the heavy construction equipment emission factors from the URBEMIS2002 model do not include SO emissions.
CO Modeling Intersection
Project Site BoundaryFuture Roadway
CO Modeling Intersection LocationsMountain Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR No. 331Source:Mestre Greve Associates, 2005 Exhibit 4.8-1
March 11, 2005
Not To Scale
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\fuscoe\ex4.8-1_020305.pdf
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4. Air Quality-032305.doc 4. -11 Air Quality TABLE 4. -
DAILY AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM EXISTING USES NOT
REPORTED TO SCA MD
Pollutant Emissions lbs/day
Source CO ROG NOX PM10
Equipment Activity 0.0 0.0 0.0 269.9
Equipment Exhaust 117.2 15.3 109.3 5.3
Road Dust 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 .
Total Emissions 11 .2 15.3 10 .3 444.0
Source: Mestre Greve Associates, February 2005.
Table 4. - , Total Daily Air Pollutant Emissions from Existing Uses, combines the data presented in Tables 4. -6 and 4. -7 to present the total daily air pollutant emissions from the existing uses on the project site. These emissions will be eliminated with closure of the quarry and removal of existing facilities.
TABLE 4. -
TOTAL DAILY AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM EXISTING USES
Daily Sand Gravel Plant Emissions lbs/day
Source CO ROG NOX PM10 SOX
Reported Emissions 45. 5.1 14.1 33.3 2.2
Unreported Emissions 117.2 15.3 109.3 444.0 0.0
Total 1 3.0 20.4 123.4 4 .3 2.2
Source: Mestre Greve Associates, February 2005.
Related Planning Programs
City of Anaheim General Plan
Green Element
The City of Anaheim s Green Element contains air quality goal and policies which are applicable to the project. The goals and policies are provided in Table 4. -15 with a project consistency analysis.
SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide
In SCAG s comment letter on the OP (included in Appendix A), it noted core actions from the Air Quality Chapter of the RCPG applicable to the proposed project. These actions are provided in Table 4. -15 with a project consistency analysis.
South Coast Air Quality Management Plan
The SCAQMD s CEQA Handbook states that ew or amended GP Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP.” Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A proposed project should be considered to be consistent with the plan if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency that are provided in Table 4. -15 with a project consistency analysis.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4. Air Quality-032305.doc 4. -12 Air Quality
4. .2 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
The proposed project s air quality impacts are separated into short-term impacts due to construction and long-term permanent impacts from operations. The City of Anaheim, as the lead agency, is responsible for making determinations regarding the existence of significant air quality impacts.
Thresholds of Significance
The criteria used to determine the significance of potential project-related air quality impacts are based on the City s Initial Study and the Initial Study checklist form in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Based on these thresholds, the project would result in a significant impact related to air quality if it would:
1. iolate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation.
2. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under and applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).
The significance thresholds recommended by the SCAQMD in its CEQA Air Quality Handbook are presented in Table 4. -9, SCAQMD Regional Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance. Construction and operational emissions are considered by the SCAQMD to be significant if they exceed these thresholds.
TABLE 4. -
SCA MD REGIONAL POLLUTANT EMISSION THRESHOLDS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Pollutant Emissions lbs/day
CO ROG NOX PM10 SOX
Construction 550 75 100 150 150
Operation 550 55 55 150 150
3. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations.
4. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
5. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
As previously discussed in Section 2.3.2, Effects Found ot to be Significant, during preparation of the Initial Study the City of Anaheim determined that the proposed project would not have significant impacts for the following thresholds and no further analysis is presented in this section.
x Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4. Air Quality-032305.doc 4. -13 Air Quality Impact Analysis
Threshold 1: Would the proposed project violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? The following analysis addresses impacts from on-site project features/development, off-site project features, and project features within Caltrans right-of-way including the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road Interchange and Mountain Park Drive bridge overcrossing. The total impact area for off-site project features (including project features within Caltrans right-of-way) is approximately 22. acres and these areas would not all be under construction at the same time.
The construction emissions from these facilities individually would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance for air quality emission, and if they were all constructed at the same time would not exceed the emissions assumed for a peak construction day, as identified below.
Short-Term Construction-Related Emissions
Temporary air quality impacts would result from project construction activities. Air pollutants would be emitted by construction equipment and construction worker vehicles and fugitive dust would be generated during construction of the existing facilities and grading of the site. The air quality technical report provided in Appendix H provides information on the assumptions and methodology used for assessing construction-related air quality impacts.
Grading is the construction activity that would result in the highest levels of project-related air pollutant emissions. Although the Mountain Park project site is approximately 3,001 acres, much of the project site would remain undisturbed open space. Approximately 72.7 acres of the site would be disturbed during the grading of the project. At this time, specific details regarding the scheduling of grading activities have not been developed. The first area of the project to be developed would be the area west of SR-241. It is possible that grading would begin on the area east of SR-241 prior to the completion of grading for the area west of SR-241.
This would result in grading occurring in two areas of the project at the same time with two separate sets of grading equipment. Each set of grading equipment would move approximately 40,000 cubic yards of material on a peak working day. This would require approximately 45 pieces of equipment and approximately 100 employees for each set. Grading emissions were calculated assuming that approximately half of the total graded area would be actively graded at any one time. Up to 90 pieces of heavy construction equipment could be expected to be operating onsite at any one time and up to 200 employees trips could be expected to travel to and from the site each day during grading.
Table 4. -10, Air Pollutant Emissions During Grading, presents peak air pollutant emissions estimates during grading. These estimates represent the highest potential level of constructionrelated emissions attributable to the proposed project. As shown in Table 4. -10, on a peak construction day, the proposed project would exceed the thresholds of significance for the following air pollutants: CO, ROG, O and PM10. This is considered a significant short-term impact of the proposed project that applies to on-site project features/development, off-site project features, the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road interchange, Mountain Park Drive bridge overcrossing and other project features within Caltrans right-of-way.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4. Air Quality-032305.doc 4. -14 Air Quality TABLE 4. -10
AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS DURING GRADING
Pollutant Emissions lbs/day
CO ROG NOX PM10
Grading Activity 0.0 0.0 0.0 5,755.2
Construction Equipment 1,547.3 199.5 1,43 .1 65.5
Employee Travel 76.5 5.4 9.9 0.5
Total Project Emissions 1 23. 204. 1 44 .0 5 21.2
Existing Emissions 163 20.4 123.4 477.3
Increase in Emissions 1 4 0. 1 4. 1 324. 5 343.
SCQAMD Thresholds 550 75 100 150
ote: Columns may not add due to rounding.
Source: Mestre Greve Associates, February 2005.
Impact 4.8-1 Project-related grading activities would result in a significant short-term construction-related air quality impact for the following air pollutants: CO, ROG, NOX and PM10. Implementation of MM 8-1 and 8-2 would reduce these impacts but not to a level considered less than significant.
In addition to Mitigation Measures -1 and -2, a requirement to pave haul roads at the project was considered to further reduce emissions. However, such a requirement would be extraordinarily expensive and wasteful given that haul roads are temporary facilities. The cost of paving haul roads at the project site is high, estimated at 660,000 per mile. The cost to remove the paved haul road and remove the waste asphalt would be approximately 140,000 per mile, bringing the total cost of paving haul roads at the project site to 00,000 per mile.
The location of haul roads changes daily in large grading operations. A requirement to pave haul roads would result in a continuous paving operation as the locations of haul roads change.
Air emissions would result from the paving of haul roads, and additional emissions would result from the removal of the paving materials. Air emissions would also result from the delivery of paving materials for haul roads to the project site. In addition, waste asphalt materials from paved haul roads would need to be removed from the project site, resulting in higher emissions and the disposal of waste asphalt in significant quantities. As such, the purported environmental benefits associated with dust control from road paving would be offset by the negative environmental and economic impacts paving haul roads. Therefore, this potential mitigation measure for construction is considered infeasible.
Furthermore, a requirement to install diesel particulate filters on construction equipment used at the project was considered to further reduce emissions. However, the availability of construction equipment retrofitted with diesel particulate filters is limited. This is a result of operational problems in diesel engines equipped with these filters. Therefore, this potential mitigation measure for construction is considered infeasible. ong-Term Operations Emissions
Local Air Quality
Because the project would introduce changes in traffic on the roadways serving the project, a detailed analysis of CO concentrations at sensitive areas in the project vicinity was conducted.
Modeling was performed with and without the project for four future scenarios: 2010, 2025 with the Committed Circulation System, 2025 with buildout of the Master Plan of Arterial Highways Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4. Air Quality-032305.doc 4. -15 Air Quality (MPAH), and 2025 with the buildout of the MPAH and the East Orange General Plan with its associated MPAH amendments.
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Modeling Results
CO modeling results for each of the four study intersections: Weir Canyon at a Palma, Weir Canyon at Santa Ana Canyon, Weir Canyon at Serrano, and Serrano at Cannon, are presented in Table 4. -11, Worst Case Projections of CO Concentrations, with pollutant levels expressed in parts per million (ppm). Existing concentrations and existing plus project concentrations are also presented9
. The CO levels reported in Table 4. -11 are composites of the background levels of CO in the area plus those generated by the local roadways as modeled in CA I E4.
TABLE 4. -11
WORST CASE PROJECTIONS OF CO CONCENTRATIONS ppm
2010 2025 CCS 2025 MPAH 2025 MPAH
Intersection Exist
Exist
Proj. No Proj w/ Proj No Proj w/ Proj No Proj w/ Proj No Proj w/ Proj Modeled 1-Hour CO Concentration ppm
1. Weir Canyon at a
Palma 13.2 13.3 10.3 10.4 .9 9.0 . . . .
2. Weir Canyon at
Santa Ana Canyon 12.6 12.6 10.0 10.0 9.0 9.0 .9 .9 .7 .9
3. Weir Canyon at
Serrano 11.1 11.2 9.1 9.2 .5 .5 .6 .6 .4 .4
4. Serrano at Cannon 11.6 11.7 9.9 9.9 .6 .6 .5 .5 .6 .6 State Standard 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
o. of Exceedances 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Modeled -Hour CO Concentration ppm
1. Weir Canyon at a
Palma 6. 6.9 5.3 5.3 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4
2. Weir Canyon at
Santa Ana Canyon 6.5 6.5 5.1 5.1 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.4
3. Weir Canyon at
Serrano 5.6 5.6 4.6 4.6 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.1 4.1
4. Serrano at Cannon 5.9 5.9 5.0 5.0 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.3 State Standard
o. of Exceedances 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ote: The CO concentrations include the ambient concentrations of 9.5 ppm for 1-hour levels, and 4.6 ppm for -hour levels for existing conditions, .0ppm for 1-hour levels, and 3.9 ppm for -hour levels for future (2010 2025 conditions.
2025 CCS: Conditions for year 2025 with Committed Circulation System MPAH: Conditions for year 2025 with Master Plan of Arterial Highways Circulation System MPAH : Conditions for year 2025 with Master Plan of Arterial Highways Circulation System with amendments to circulation system and East Orange land uses proposed by East Orange GPA Source: Mestre Greve Associates, February 2005.
Table 4. -11 shows that CO concentrations would not exceed the State ambient air quality standards at any of the four study intersections under any of the four traffic scenarios. Table
4. -11 also shows that the project has little or no effect on the CO concentrations in the vicinity of the intersections modeled. Because the concentrations are projected to remain below the air quality standards and the project would not substantially increase CO concentrations, the project would not result in a significant long-term local air quality impact.
9 The existing plus project concentrations represent the concentrations that would be experienced if the project were constructed with no other developments or changes to the roadway network in the vicinity of the project.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4. Air Quality-032305.doc 4. -16 Air Quality It should be noted that Table 4. -11 shows that future CO concentration levels would be lower than existing CO levels. This is mainly due to the anticipated decrease in the future emission rates and background concentration levels. In general, the background CO concentration and the vehicular air pollutant emission factors are projected to decrease steadily in the future years due to newer, cleaner, vehicles. While the local traffic volumes are projected to increase in the future, this is more than offset by the decrease of background levels and lower emission factors.
Project Site CO Modeling Results
Because of the project site s proximity to SR-91 and the SR-91/SR-241 interchange, CO modeling was performed for eleven receptors within the project site that represent residences proposed by the project. The location of the receptors is presented in Exhibit 4. -2. The modeling was performed for five future with-project traffic scenarios, Existing Plus Project, 2010 with the Committed Circulation System, 2025 with the Committed Circulation System, 2025 with buildout of the current MPAH, and 2025 with the amended East Orange General Plan and the MPAH amendments proposed by that plan. Table 4. -12 presents the results of the modeling.
Table 4. -12, Modeled CO Concentrations at Receptors on Project Site, shows that CO concentrations are projected to be below the state standards for all five scenarios modeled at each of the receptor locations. The highest concentrations are projected under the Existing plus project scenario. This scenario assumes that the project is constructed with no other changes to the surrounding area. Worst-case concentrations at the residential areas would be expected to be somewhat lower than this on the first day of occupation of the residential areas. While traffic volumes may increase slightly on the roadways in the vicinity of the project between existing and opening day conditions, reductions in vehicle emissions would be expected to offset this increase in traffic. This is demonstrated in the projected 2010 concentrations. The 2010 concentrations are lower than the Existing Plus Project conditions even though background (i.e., non-project) traffic volumes are projected to increase between existing conditions and 2010. Both scenarios include traffic generated by the project. The concentrations with the three 2025 scenarios are projected to be relatively similar among the scenarios and less than the projected concentrations under Existing Plus Project conditions and 2010 conditions. Based on this modeling, the project site is not significantly impacted by local air pollutant sources.
Regional Air Quality
The primary source of regional emissions generated by the proposed project would be from motor vehicles. Other emissions from the project site would be generated from the combustion of natural gas for space heating and the use of consumer products. Emissions would also be generated off-site by the use of natural gas and oil for the generation of electricity consumed by the project.
The total project emissions are presented in Table 4. -13, Total Project Emissions. The existing emissions from the current site activities (quarry operations) are subtracted from the project emissions to compare the increase in emissions due to the project against the SCAQMD significance thresholds. As shown in Table 4. -13, the project-related emissions of CO, ROG and O are projected to be in excess of the SCAQMD thresholds which is considered a significant regional air quality impact.
Source:
Mestre Greve Associates, 2005
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR No. 331
CO Modeling Receptor Locations Exhibit 4.8-2
March 11, 2005
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\fuscoe\ex4.8-2_031605.pdf
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4. Air Quality-032305.doc 4. -17 Air Quality Impact 4.8-2 Project-related regional air emissions would exceed established thresholds for the following air pollutants and is considered a significant regional air quality impact: CO, ROG, and NOX. Implementation of MMs 8-3 and 8-4 would reduce these impacts but not to a level considered less than significant.
Threshold 2: Would the proposed project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under and applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).
TABLE 4. -12
MODELED CO CONCENTRATIONS AT RECEPTORS ON PROJECT SITE
Receptor
Existing
Project 2010
2025
CCS
2025
MPAH
2025
MPAH
Modeled 1-Hour CO Concentration ppm
1 12.0 9. . . .
2 12.3 10.0 .9 . .
3 11.9 9. . .7 .7
4 11.2 9.3 .6 .5 .5
5 12.3 10.0 9.0 .9 .9
6 11.9 9.7 . .7 .7
7 13.0 10.5 9.3 9.2 9.2
11.3 9.2 .6 .5 .5
9 12.0 9. .9 . .
10 11.4 9.3 .6 .6 .6
11 11.0 9.0 .5 .4 .4
State Standard 20 20 20 20 20
o. of Exceedances 0 0 0 0 0
Modeled -Hour CO Concentration ppm
1 6.1 5.0 4.4 4.4 4.4
2 6.3 5.1 4.4 4.4 4.4
3 6.0 5.0 4.4 4.3 4.3
4 5.6 4.7 4.3 4.2 4.2
5 6.3 5.1 4.5 4.4 4.4
6 6.0 4.9 4.4 4.3 4.3
7 6.7 5.4 4.7 4.6 4.6
5.7 4.6 4.3 4.2 4.2
9 6.1 5.0 4.4 4.4 4.4
10 5.7 4.7 4.3 4.3 4.3
11 5.5 4.5 4.2 4.1 4.1
State Standard
o. of Exceedances 0 0 0 0 0
ote: The CO concentrations include the ambient concentrations of 9.5 ppm for 1-hour levels, and
4.6 ppm for -hour levels for existing conditions, .0ppm for 1-hour levels, and 3.9 ppm for - hour levels for future (2010 2025) conditions.
2025 CCS: Conditions for year 2025 with Committed Circulation System MPAH: Conditions for year 2025 with Master Plan of Arterial Highways Circulation System MPAH : Conditions for year 2025 with Master Plan of Arterial Highways Circulation System with amendments to circulation system and East Orange land uses proposed by East Orange GPA
Source: Mestre Greve Associates, February 2005.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4. Air Quality-032305.doc 4. -1 Air Quality TABLE 4. -13
TOTAL PROJECT EMISSIONS
Pollutant Emissions lbs/day
Source CO ROG NOX PM10 SOX
ehicular Trips 2,01 146 232 26 39
atural Gas Consumption 10.9 2.9 43. 0.1 0.0
Consumer Product Usage 0.0 12 .3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Electrical Generation .4 0.4 4 .2 1.7 5.0
Total Project Emissions 2 03 . 2 .2 324.3 2 . 43.
Existing Emissions 163.0 20.4 123.4 477.30 2.2
Increase in Emissions 1 4. 25 . 200. -44 . 1 41.
SCA MD Thresholds 550 55 55 150 150 1
Closure of the quarry in the northeastern-most portion of the project site would result in a significant reduction in PM10 emissions. Therefore, future with-project PM10 emissions would actually be lower than current conditions.
Source: Mestre Greve Associates, February 2005.
A project which contributes to a cumulatively considerable impact and causes a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment is considered to result in a cumulatively significant impact. As previously noted, EPA has designated SCAB as extreme non-attainment for 1-hour ozone and -hour ozone, and serious non-attainment for suspended particulates (PM10) and CO. The SCAG was formerly a non-attainment area for nitrogen dioxide (O2); however it qualifies for re-designation to attainment because it has met federal standards for several years in a row. Until the SCAB is re-designated, O2 monitoring would continue to be required.
As shown in Tables 4. -10 and 4. -13, the proposed project would result in significant shortterm and long-term air quality impacts because emissions of the following pollutants would exceed established thresholds: CO, O , PM10 (short-term only) and ROG. Because the region is in non-attainment for ozone, CO, and O2, and project-related increases of these pollutants are above SCAQMD thresholds, operation of the project would result in a significant cumulative air quality impact for CO, O , and ROG (an ozone precursor). During the construction phase, the project would result in short-term significant impacts for CO, Ox, ROG and PM10.
Impact 4.8-3 The proposed project contributes to a net increase in CO, NOX, PM10 and ROG. Therefore, the proposed project would have a significant cumulative air quality impact. Implementation of the mitigation measures presented in Section 4.8.3 would reduce these impacts but not to a level considered less than significant.
For informational purposes, Table 4. -14 compares the project s emissions to the projected basin wide emissions from the 2003 AQMP. This comparison shows that the project represents a very small fraction of the total regional emissions. For the three pollutants above the thresholds, the project represents, at most, 53 thousandths of one percent of the total regional emissions.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4. Air Quality-032305.doc 4. -19 Air Quality TABLE 4. -14
COMPARISON OF PROJECT EMISSIONS WITH SCAB EMISSIONS
Pollutant Emissions tons/day
CO ROG NOX PM10 SOX
Project Emissions 1.019 0.139 0.162 0.014 0.022
2020 South Coast Air Basin1 2,414 5 4 532 31 76
Project as Percentage of Basin 0.053 0.025 0.032 0.004 0.030 1 2003 AQMP
Source: Mestre Greve Associates, February 2005
Potential Health Issues Associated With Project Air Emissions As shown in Tables 4. -10 and 4. -13, this project would add to levels of CO, O , PM10 (shortterm) and ROG which are already above the levels set by EPA and the State of California to avoid adverse health effects. As a result, the project s added emissions would contribute to the adverse health effects from exposure to ROG, O , PM10, and CO.
ROG and O are generally considered on a regional basis because these two pollutants are converted into ground level ozone in the presence of sunlight. Ozone can limit the ability to take a deep breath, and may cause coughing, throat irritation, and breathing discomfort. Ozone may also lower resistance to respiratory disease (such as pneumonia), damage lung tissue, and aggravate chronic lung disease (such as asthma or bronchitis). Children and those with preexisting lung problems are sensitive to the health effects of ozone. Even healthy adults involved in moderate or strenuous outdoor activities can experience the unhealthy effects of ozone.
Particles in the air such as PM10 and PM2.5 can cause or aggravate health problems and may be linked with heart or lung diseases. The health effects of exposure to PM10 range from minor effects, such as nose and throat irritation, to more serious effects such as aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease. Fine particulate matter may bypass the body s defense mechanisms and become embedded in the deepest recesses of the lung, and can disrupt cellular processes. itrogen Dioxide ( O2) is a portion of O emissions. O2 can irritate the nose throat, and lungs, especially in people with asthma, and lowers resistance to respiratory infection.
CO impacts health by reducing the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood. This occurs because CO binds more readily to hemoglobin than does oxygen. This can result in impacts to the brain, nervous tissues, heart muscle and other specialized tissues that require large amounts of oxygen to function. As a result of oxygen deprivation, these tissues may suffer damage.
Table 4. -14 shows that the project represents a very small percentage of the total criteria pollutant emissions in the South Coast Air Basin. Therefore, the increased risk of adverse health effects from project construction and operations air emissions would also be relatively small.
Threshold 3: Would the proposed project expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations?
Some people are especially sensitive to air pollution emissions and should be given special consideration when evaluating air quality impacts from projects. These people include children, the elderly, persons with preexisting respiratory or cardiovascular illness, and athletes and Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4. Air Quality-032305.doc 4. -20 Air Quality others who engage in frequent exercise. SCAQMD s Air Quality Handbook defines sensitive receptors as structures that house these persons or places where they gather to exercise.
The nearest sensitive receptors to the project are Running Springs Elementary School, located approximately 0.25 mile to the west of the western project boundary, and Bryant Ranch Elementary School located approximately one mile to the north of the northern project boundary. There are also existing residential uses located along the western boundary of the project site. The next nearest residential uses are located to the north of the project on the opposite side of SR-91 and the Santa Ana River. In addition to the adjacent uses, there is a school planned on the project site, as well as the possibility of people with health problems living in proposed residences on the project site.
As shown in Table 4. -10, the project would result in short-term exceedances of SCAQMD thresholds for CO, ROG, O , and PM10 during construction activities. Sensitive receptors, primarily residences adjacent to the western boundary of the project site, would be exposed to these pollutants during construction. Short-term impacts would be reduced by measures discussed in section 4. .3, but not to a level that is considered less than significant, resulting in potentially significant impacts to sensitive receptors.
Table 4. -13 shows that the project would result in long-term exceedances of SCAQMD thresholds for CO, ROG and O . However, the majority of these emissions, those due to vehicles and electrical generation would take place off- site. Emissions from on-site sources, natural gas combustion and consumer product usage would be less than the thresholds except for OC. However, OC is a concern because of its contribution to ozone formation rather than local impacts. There are no ambient air quality standards for OC concentrations. Further, Table 4. -12 shows that the project would not cause or contribute to any ambient air quality violations next to roadways served by the project. However, operation of the project would potentially impact sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project.
Impact 4.8-4 Construction and operation of the proposed project would expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentration that exceed SCAQMD thresholds.
Threshold 4: Would the proposed project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Threshold 5: Would the proposed project conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? An EIR must discuss the consistency between the proposed project and applicable General Plans and regional plans. As discussed above, plans that apply to the proposed project include the City of Anaheim General Plan, SCAG s Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, and the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan.
Table 4. -15, Consistency of the Proposed Project with Air Quality Related Goals and Policies, addresses the consistency of the proposed project with the relevant goals and policies. As identified in Table 4. -15 the proposed project would be considered consistent with the relevant goals and policies related to air quality.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4. Air Quality-032305.doc 4. -21 Air Quality TABLE 4. -15
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH AIR UALITY
RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES
GOALS AND POLICIES CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
City of Anaheim General Plan
Green Element
GOA .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.
The proposed project includes implementation of the
circulation plan shown on Exhibit 3-5 in Section 3,
Project Description, as well as off-site roadway
improvements, construction of the SR-241/Weir Canyon
Road interchange, and Mountain Park Drive bridge
overcrossing. Mitigation measures are also identified in Section 4.7, Traffic and Circulation to reduce potential impacts to a level considered less than significant. The proposed on-site circulation plan and off-site roadway
improvements would improve traffic flow in the vicinity of the project site, consistent with Goal .1, Policy 1.
Mitigation measures for air quality emissions are
outlined in Section 4. .5 below and would reduce air
quality emissions to the extent feasible.
The City of Anaheim General Plan identifies truck
routes within the City with the intention of minimizing impacts from trucks on local roadways (refer to Figure
C-5 of the General Plan, Truck Routes). The nearest
truck routes to the project site are along Weir Canyon
Road and Imperial Highway north of the SR-91. a
Palma Avenue to Weir Canyon Road is also identified
as a truck route. Project construction traffic would follow these routes.
SCAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide
Air Quality Chapter
Core Action 5.07: Determine specific programs and
associated actions needed (e.g., indirect source
rules, enhanced use of telecommunications,
provision of community based shuttle services,
provision of demand management based programs,
or vehicle-miles-traveled/emission fees) so that
options to command and control regulations can be
assessed.
Core Action 5.11: Through the environmental
document review process, ensure that plans at all
levels of government (regional, air basin, county,
subregional and local) consider air quality, land
use, transportation and economic relationships to
ensure consistency and minimize conflicts.
Although SCAG has recommended that the Draft EIR
address this RCPG policy, the policy is mainly
applicable to air quality agencies and local jurisdiction general plans. The proposed project would not impede
air quality command and control regulations or their
alternatives.
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, the Mountain Park
Specific Plan Amendment EIR addresses the proposed
project s potential impacts on air quality, land use, and transportation, as well as consistency of the project with planning programs related to these issues. A fiscal
impact analysis has also been prepared for the project
for consideration by the City of Anaheim.
South Coast Air Quality Management Plan
Criterion 1: Increase in the Frequency or Severity of
iolations
Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in this report, there would be significant short-term
construction and long-term operational impacts due to
the project based on the SCAQMD thresholds of
significance. While emissions would be generated in
excess of SCAQMD s threshold criteria, it is unlikely
that short-term construction activities would increase
the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations due to required compliance with SCAQMD Rules and
Regulations. Similarly, the emissions from the project
are projected to be a fraction of a percentage of the
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
TABLE 4. -15 Continued
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH AIR UALITY
RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4. Air Quality-032305.doc 4. -22 Air Quality
GOALS AND POLICIES CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
basin wide emissions. The analysis for long-term local
air quality impacts showed that local pollutant
concentrations are not projected to exceed any of the
air quality standards.
The proposed project is not projected to contribute to
the exceedance of any air pollutant concentration
standards, thus the project is found to be consistent
with the AQMP for the first criterion.
Criterion 2: Exceed assumptions in the AQMP in
2010 or increments based on the year of project
buildout and phase.
Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined
by comparing the project s population, housing and
employment growth with the growth assumptions in the
AQMP. Thus, the emphasis of this criterion is to insure that the project growth and associated emissions do not exceed those assumed as a basis for the AQMP.
The 1997 AQMP is the applicable federally-approved
air plan for the South Coast Air Basin, which includes
the project area. The 2003 AQMP has been locally
adopted but has not yet been fully federally approved
as a replacement for the 1997 AQMP. Both of these
AQMPs are based on regional growth forecasts
prepared by SCAG. SCAG s 1994 forecast incorporated
into the 1997 AQMP reflected local general plans.
SCAG s 2001 forecast incorporated into the 2003
AQMP also reflected local general plans as included in
Orange County Projections-2000 (OCP-2000).
In 1991, the City of Anaheim approved a Specific Plan
for the Mountain Park project site (SP 90-4); however,
the approved development was never implemented by
the property owner/developer (refer to discussion in
Section 3, Project Description). In May 2004, the City of Anaheim approved a General Plan Update (GPA o.
2004-00419) that decreased the intensity of
development in the Mountain Park Specific Plan area
from 7,966 residential units to 2,500 units and
eliminated proposed commercial and mineral extraction
uses, two school sites and one neighborhood park site.
Thus, both the applicable 1997 AQMP and the 2003
AQMP pending full federal approval assume
development of the larger, previously approved project
in their emissions inventories. The larger project would have produced substantially higher emissions than the
currently proposed project. Since the growth and
projected emissions that would be generated by the
proposed project are less than what is assumed for the
area in the AQMP, the project is consistent with the
AQMP assumptions.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
TABLE 4. -15 Continued
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH AIR UALITY
RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4. Air Quality-032305.doc 4. -23 Air Quality
GOALS AND POLICIES CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
ot only is the proposed project below AQMP growth
assumptions for the project area, but the City of
Anaheim s General Plan and Use Plan, including the
reduced Mountain Park project, was found to be
consistent with the AQMP in the General Plan Final
EIR. The 2004 General Plan Update provided additional
housing in the Platinum Triangle and other parts of the City that exceed the reduction in units in Mountain Park.
These changes in the distribution of jobs, housing and
population resulted in a reduction in average daily
vehicle trips expected to be generated by the year
2025. The General Plan Final EIR concluded that the
land use update “is consistent with the AQMP and other
regional planning strategies to reduce the number of
trips and length of trips in the region, and to improve the balance between jobs and housing at the subregional
level.”
4. .3 MITIGATION PROGRAM
Construction Particulate Emission PM10 Control
MM -1 Prior to approval of the first grading plan, the following requirements shall be incorporated into the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan submitted for review and approval by the Department of Public Works. During construction of the proposed project, the property owner/development and its contractors shall be required to comply with regional rules, which shall assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emissions.
SCAQMD Rule 402 requires that air pollutant emissions not be a nuisance off-site.
SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. Two options are presented in Rule 403: monitoring of particulate concentrations or active control.
Monitoring involves a sampling network around the project with no additional control measures unless specified concentrations are exceeded. The active control option does not require any monitoring, but requires that a list of measures be implemented starting with the first day of construction.
Rule 403 requires that “ o person conducting active operations without utilizing the applicable best available control measures included in Table 1 of this Rule to minimize Fugitive dust emissions from each fugitive dust source type within the active operation.” The measures from Table 1 of Rule 403 are presented in Table 15 in Appendix H. The applicable measures presented in Table 1 are required to be implemented by Rule 403.
Rule 403 requires that “ arge Projects” implement additional measures. A arge Project is defined as “any active operations on property which contains 50 or more acres of disturbed surface area; or any earth-moving operation with a daily earthmoving or throughput volume of 3, 50 cubic meters (5,000 cubic yards) or more three times during the most recent 365 day period. Grading of the project would be Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4. Air Quality-032305.doc 4. -24 Air Quality considered a arge Project under Rule 403. Therefore, the project shall be required to implement the applicable actions specified in Table 2 of the Rule.
Table 2 from Rule 403 is presented in Table 16 of Appendix H. As a arge Operation, the project shall also be required to:
x Submit a fully executed arge Operation otification (SCAQMD Form 403 ) to the SCAQMD Executive Officer within 7 days of qualifying as a large operation; x Include, as part of the notification, the name(s), address(es), and phone number(s) of the person(s) responsible for the submittal, and a description of the operation(s), including a map depicting the location of the site; x Maintain daily records to document the specific dust control actions taken, maintain such records for a period of not less than three years; and make such records available to the Executive Officer upon request. x Install and maintain project signage with project contact signage that meets the minimum standards of the Rule 403 Implementation Handbook, prior to initiating any earthmoving activities.
x Identify a dust control supervisor that is employed by or contracted with the property owner/developer, is on the site or available on-site within 30 minutes during working hours, has the authority to expeditiously employ sufficient dust mitigation measures to ensure compliance with all Rule requirements, and has completed the AQMD Fugitive Dust Control Class and has been issued a valid Certificate of Completion for the class.
x otify the SCAQMD Executive Officer in writing within 30 days after the site no longer qualifies as a large operation.
Rule 403 also requires that the construction activities “shall not cause or allow PM10 levels exceed 50 micrograms per cubic meter when determined by simultaneous sampling, as the difference between upwind and down wind sample.” arge Projects that cannot meet this performance standard are required to implement the applicable actions specified in Table 3 of Rule 403. Table 3 from Rule 403 is presented in Table 17 of Appendix H. Rather than perform monitoring to determine conformance with the performance standard, which will not reduce PM10 emissions, the project shall implement all applicable measures presented in Rule 403 Table 3 regardless of conformance with the Rule 403 performance standard. This potentially results in a higher reduction of particulate emissions than if these measures were implemented only after being determined to be required by monitoring.
Further, Rule 403 requires that that the project shall not “allow track-out to extend 25 feet or more in cumulative length from the point of origin from an active operation.” All track-out from an active operation is required to be removed at the conclusion of each workday or evening shift. Any active operation with a disturbed surface area of five or more acres or with a daily import or export of 100 cubic yards or more of bulk materials must utilize at least one of the measures listed in Table 1 of Appendix H at each vehicle egress from the site to a paved public road.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4. Air Quality-032305.doc 4. -25 Air Quality Construction Construction E uipment Emission Control
MM -2 Prior to approval of grading plans, the property owner/developer shall include the following notes on the contractor specifications submitted for review and approval by the Department of Public Works: “To reduce construction equipment emissions, the following measures shall be implemented when feasible. x Use low emission mobile construction equipment. The property owner/ developer shall comply with CARB requirements for heavy construction equipment.
x Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned. x Use low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment. This is required by SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and 431.2.
x Utilize existing power sources (i.e., power poles) when feasible. This measure would minimize the use of higher polluting gas or diesel generators. x Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. x Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. When feasible, construction should be planned so that lane closures on existing streets are kept to a minimum. x Schedule construction operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. x Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities (the plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service. x Use aqueous diesel fuel where feasible and reasonably commercially available. x Use cooled exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) where feasible and reasonably commercially available.
Several of the mitigation measures listed above are advanced emission control technologies, which are currently not commercially available. For example, aqueous diesel fuel reduces O formation by reducing combustion temperatures, resulting in lower O emissions. According to the SCAQMD, the current availability of this fuel technology is limited, and it may not be available for use for the project. In addition, with EGR diesel engines, a small amount of hot exhaust gas is routed through a cooler and mixed with fresh air entering the engine. The exhaust gas helps reduce the temperature during combustion, which lowers the formation of thermal O . EGR technology is in the development phase, and has not been fully commercialized. To the extent that the advanced emissions control technologies become reasonably commercially available, or are required by the CARB from grading contractors, then such advanced emissions control technologies shall be used.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4. Air Quality-032305.doc 4. -26 Air Quality Regional Operational Impacts
MM -3 The property owner/developer shall reduce operation-related emissions through implementation of practices identified in SCAQMD s CEQA Handbook and the URBEMIS2002 model. SCAQMD s CEQA Handbook includes several measures that can be used to minimize emissions associated with residential projects. In addition, the URBEMIS2002 model identifies several measures, some of which overlap those in the CEQA Handbook. The following measures, based on these sources, shall be implemented by the property owner/developer and contractors, where feasible to reduce criteria pollutant emissions from stationary sources directly related to the project. Said measures shall be included on plans submitted for residential building permits:
x install solar or low-emission water heaters;
x use central water-heating systems;
x use built-in, energy-efficient appliances; and
x ensure that sidewalks and pedestrian paths are installed throughout the project area.
MM -4 All buildings shall comply with Title 24, Part 6. Reducing the need to heat or cool structures by improving thermal integrity will result in a reduced expenditure of energy and a reduction in pollutant emissions. Any necessary written evidence and/or standard details demonstrating compliance with Title 24, Part 6, shall be included on plans submitted for building permits.
4. .4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
As previously discussed, the project site is located within the SCAB, a 6,600-square-mile area comprised of Orange County and the non-desert portions of os Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The SCAB is the study area for cumulative air quality Impacts. The air basin is in federal non-attainment for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), fine particulate matter (PM10), and nitrogen dioxide ( O2). Further, the Costa Mesa monitoring station and Mission iejo station data which are representative of the project site show that violations of thresholds exist for O and PM10. As addressed in this section, the proposed project would have a significant construction-related impact on air quality regarding CO, O , PM10 and ROG.
Additionally, the project would have a significant long-term regional impact on air quality related to CO, O , and ROG. A project which contributes to a cumulatively considerable impact and causes a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment is considered to result in a cumulatively significant impact. Therefore, the proposed project s impacts associated with the exceedance of CO, O , PM10 and ROG thresholds would be considered cumulatively significant (refer to Impact 4. -3). Feasible mitigation measures to reduce the impacts from operations would be implemented for the proposed project; however, even after mitigation, the impacts on operations are significant and unavoidable.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4. Air Quality-032305.doc 4. -27 Air Quality
4. .5 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Short-Term Impacts
The analysis indicates that project emissions from construction activities would exceed the SCAQMD s Thresholds of Significance for CO, ROG, O and PM10 (Impact 4. -1), and would expose sensitive receptors to these pollutants (Impact 4. -4). Mitigation would reduce emissions, but not to a level below the SCAQMD s thresholds. Therefore, construction emissions of CO, ROG, O and PM10 would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds after mitigation, and short-term construction air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Long-Term Impacts
The analysis indicates that operational project emissions would exceed the SCAQMD s Thresholds of Significance for CO, ROG, and O (Impact 4. -2) and would expose sensitive receptors to these pollutants (Impact 4. -4). Mitigation would reduce emissions, but not to a level below the SCAQMD s thresholds. Therefore, project-related operational emissions of CO, ROG, and O would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds after mitigation, and long-term regional air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Cumulative Impact
The proposed project s impacts associated with the exceedance of CO, O , PM10 and ROG thresholds would be considered cumulatively significant (refer to Impact 4. -3). Mitigation would reduce these emissions, but not to a level below the SCAQMD s thresholds. Therefore, cumulative air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.9 Noise-032305.doc 4.9-1 Noise
4. NOISE
This section analyzes potential noise impacts resulting from the proposed project and is based on the Noise Assessment for Mountain Park prepared by Mestre Greve Associates in February 2005 (Appendix I to this EIR). It provides background information on noise and community noise assessment criteria, presents existing noise levels in the project area, and examines noise impacts that could potentially occur during construction and operation of the proposed project.
4. .1 NOISE CHARACTERISTICS
Human Response to Noise
Sound is technically described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) of the sound and frequency (pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale compresses the wide range in sound pressure levels to a more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquakes. In terms of human response to noise, a sound 10 dB higher than another is judged to be twice as loud; a sound 20 dB higher is perceived to be four times as loud; and so forth. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dB (very quiet) to 100 dB (very loud).
Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequencydependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Community noise levels are measured in terms of the "A-weighted decibel," abbreviated dBA. Exhibit 4.9-1 provides examples of various noises and their typical A-weighted noise level.
Sound levels decrease as a function of distance from the source as a result of wave divergence, atmospheric absorption and ground attenuation. As the sound wave form travels away from the source, the sound energy is dispersed over a greater area, thereby dispersing the sound power of the wave. Atmospheric absorption also influences the levels that are received by the observer. The greater the distance sound travels, the greater the influence and the resultant fluctuations. The degree of absorption is a function of the frequency of the sound as well as the humidity and temperature of the air. Turbulence and gradients of wind, temperature and humidity also play a significant role in determining the degree of attenuation. Intervening topography can also have a substantial effect on the effective perceived noise levels.
Noise has been defined as unwanted sound and it is known to have several adverse effects on people. From these known effects of noise, criteria have been established to help protect the public health and safety and prevent disruption of certain human activities. These criteria are based on known impacts of noise on people, such as hearing loss, speech interference, sleep interference, physiological responses and annoyance. Each of these potential noise impacts on people is briefly discussed in the technical report provided in Appendix I.
Noise Assessment Metrics
The description, analysis and reporting of community noise levels around communities is made difficult by the complexity of human response to noise and the myriad of noise metrics that have been developed for describing noise impacts. Each of these metrics attempts to quantify noise levels with respect to community response. Most of the metrics use the A-Weighted noise level Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.9 Noise-032305.doc 4.9-2 Noise to quantify noise impacts on humans. A-Weighting is a frequency weighting that accounts for human sensitivity to different frequencies.
Noise metrics can be divided into two categories: single event and cumulative. Single-event metrics describe the noise levels from an individual event such as an aircraft fly over or perhaps a heavy equipment pass-by. Cumulative metrics average the total noise over a specific time period, which is typically 1 or 24-hours for community noise problems. For this type of analysis, cumulative noise metrics is typically used.
Several rating scales have been developed for measurement of community noise. These account for: (1) the parameters of noise that have been shown to contribute to the effects of noise on man, (2) the variety of noises found in the environment, (3) the variations in noise levels that occur as a person moves through the environment, and (4) the variations associated with the time of day. They are designed to account for the known health effects of noise on people described previously. Based on these effects, the observation has been made that the potential for a noise to impact people is dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise. A number of noise scales have been developed to account for this observation. The two most prominent noise scales are the: Equivalent Noise Level (LEQ) and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). These scales are described in the following paragraphs along with the LDN and L(%) scales that are also used for community noise assessment.
LE is the sound level corresponding to a steady-state sound level containing the same total energy as a time-varying signal over a given sample period. LEQ is the "energy" average noise level during the time period of the sample. LEQ can be measured for any time period, but is typically measured for 1 hour. This 1-hour noise level can also be referred to as the Hourly Noise Level (HNL), which is the energy average of all the events and background noise levels that occur during that time period.
CNEL, Community Noise Equivalent Level, is the predominant rating scale now in use in California for land use compatibility assessment. The CNEL scale represents a time weighted 24-hour average noise level based on the A-weighted decibel. Time weighted refers to the fact that noise, which occurs during certain sensitive time periods, is penalized. The evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) penalizes noises by 5 dBA, while nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) noises are penalized by 10 dBA. These time periods and penalties were selected to reflect people's increased sensitivity to noise during these time periods. A CNEL noise level may be reported as a "CNEL of 60 dBA," "60 dBA CNEL," or simply "60 CNEL." Typical noise levels in terms of the CNEL scale for different types of communities are presented in Exhibit 4.9-2.
Ldn, the day-night scale is similar to the CNEL scale except that evening noises are not penalized. It is a measure of the overall noise experienced during an entire day. The time-weighted refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized. In the Ldn scale, those noise levels that occur during the night (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) are penalized by 10 dB. This penalty was selected to attempt to account for increased human sensitivity to noise during the quieter period of a day, where resting at home and sleep are the most probable activities.
L is a statistical method of describing noise which accounts for variance in noise levels throughout a given measurement period. L(%) is a way of expressing the noise level exceeded for a percentage of time in a given measurement period. For example, since 5 minutes is 25% of 20 minutes, L(25) is the noise level that is equal to or exceeded for five minutes in a twenty-minute measurement period. It is L(%) that is used for many Noise Ordinance standards. For example, most daytime City, State and Source:
Mestre Greve Associates, 2005
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR No. 331
Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels Exhibit 4.9-1
March 11, 2005
Not To Scale
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\fuscoe\ex4.9-1_020305.pdf
Source:
Mestre Greve Associates, 2005
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR No. 331
Typical Outdoor Noise Levels (CNEL Scale) Exhibit 4.9-2 March 11, 2005
Not To Scale
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\fuscoe\ex4.9-2_020305.pdf
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.9 Noise-032305.doc 4.9-3 Noise County Noise Ordinances use an ordinance standard of 55 dBA for 30 minutes per hour or an L(50) level of 55 dBA. In other words the Noise Ordinance states that no noise level should exceed 55 dBA for more that fifty percent of a given period. The L(%) levels are not used for the City of Anaheim Noise Ordinance.
4. .2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Existing Noise Measurements
To determine the existing noise environment in and around the project site, ambient noise measurements were made on Sunday, July 25, 2004 between 10:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. at five locations. The locations of the noise measurement sites are shown in Exhibit 4.9-3. Noise levels were measured for 15 minutes at each location except at Sites 1 and 2 where 20-minute measurements were performed. A supplemental measurement at Site 4 was repeated on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 at 3:30 p.m. The measurement survey utilized Brüel & Kjær 2260 and 2236 automated digital noise data acquisition systems for short-term readings.
The initial noise measurements were made on Sunday to avoid contamination from noise generated by the existing sand and gravel plant operations currently on the project site that will be removed prior to the implementation of the project. While weekend traffic volumes are typically lower than peak hour traffic volumes, noise levels are not extremely sensitive to traffic volume changes. For example a 37 percent reduction in traffic volume only results in a 2 dB change in noise level. Along a freeway subject to congestion, traffic speeds are more critical.
Reducing the average speed from 65 mph to 55 mph during a congested period results in an approximate 2 dB reduction in traffic noise levels.
A second measurement was performed during a weekday afternoon at Site 4 to provide a comparison of weekend and weekday noise levels in the area. Based on this and other daytime visits with the sand and gravel plant operating, the noise generated by the plant is not audible at any of the existing residences in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, cessation of the plant operations will not substantially alter the noise environment at any existing residences.
The measurement results are presented in Table 4.9-1 in terms of the LEQ, maximum noise level, minimum noise level and percentile noise levels (L%) for each measurement period. The L50 percentile level represents the noise level that was exceeded 50 percent of the measurement period and represents the median ambient noise level. The L90 noise levels represent the background noise level, which is exceeded 90 percent of the time.
Measurement Site 1 was located along the northern edge of the project site adjacent to the SR-91 freeway. Noise at this location was dominated by traffic on SR-91. Near the end of the measurement period, a helicopter over flying SR-91 passed by the measurement site. This helicopter likely resulted in the maximum noise level during the period. During the measurement, the traffic on SR-91 was counted. This traffic count data was entered into the highway traffic model described in the next section. The modeled traffic noise level was compared to the measured noise levels. This comparison showed very good agreement between the measured and modeled levels. The measured level was slightly higher than the modeled level because of the helicopter over flight.
Measurement Site 2 was located along SR-241. SR-241 traffic was the primary source of noise at this site with three general aviation aircraft over flights (primarily over SR-91), birds and insects contributing to the noise environment. Traffic on SR-241 was counted during the measurement and the noise from this traffic was modeled using the highway traffic noise model.
The modeled noise level showed excellent agreement with the measured noise level.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.9 Noise-032305.doc 4.9-4 Noise TABLE 4. -1
AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS dBA
Site Start LE Lmax L10 L50 L 0 Lmin
1 1:15 PM 78 81 79 78 77 75
2 11:43 AM 61 74 63 58 56 50
3 10:33 AM 49 59 51 48 47 45
4a 2:05 PM 48 62 51 45 42 40
4ba. 3:30 PM 52 60 55 52 50 48
5 12:31 PM 39 56 40 37 35 34
a. Noise measurement performed on Tuesday September 21, 2004. All other measurements were performed on Sunday July 25, 2004.
Source: Mestre Greve Associates, 2005
Measurement Site 3 was located near the interior of the site. Traffic noise from both SR-91 and SR-241 were audible at the site along with birds and insects as well as three general aviation aircraft over flights (primarily over SR-91). A large fire department helicopter, which flew over SR-91, caused the maximum noise level measured during the period.
Measurement Site 4 was located along the western edge of the project site near the closest existing residential uses to the project site. Traffic on SR-241 was the most prominent source of noise at this site. A particularly loud vehicle on SR-241 likely resulted in the maximum noise level recorded during the period. A few commercial jets over flew the site during the measurements, apparently on arrival to John Wayne Airport. However, the noise generated by the jets was only just audible and lower than the ambient noise level. Birds, insects and wind blowing through trees also contributed to the measured noise level.
Table 4.9-1 indicates that the average (LEQ) noise levels measured at Site 4 during the weekday were 4 dB higher than the Sunday measurements. This difference is likely due to two factors. The first being higher traffic volumes. The time that the weekday measurement was taken was chosen so that it would correspond to the highest traffic volumes on SR-241 and SR-91 without any slowing due to congestion. The second factor is that during the weekday measurements there was a mild Santa Ana wind condition. Winds were blowing with speeds between six and ten miles per hour from the northeast (Caltrans’ Technical Noise Supplement recommends that measurements not be taken when speeds exceed 5 meters/second or 11 mph). The wind increases the noise generated by trees in the vicinity of the sound level meter and results in higher traffic noise levels from upwind sources due to diffraction. In this case, the upwind source is SR-91. There are hills between the measurement site and SR-91.
These hills act as noise barriers reducing the noise from the freeway. When the wind blows from the north or northeast it causes the traffic noise from SR-91 to “bend” over the tops of the hills reducing their effectiveness as noise barriers and increasing noise levels at the site. This effect of the wind diffracting the sound over a noise barrier is typically only substantial over great distances and in quieter areas where noise levels are typically well below standards.
The two measurements taken at Site 4 provide a fair representation of the range of absolute noise levels typically experienced around the measurement site during the daytime. The range of daytime noise levels experienced at Sites 2, 3, and 5 are likely similar. During specific weather conditions the levels could range plus or minus about 4 dB from what was measured.
Noise levels at Site 1 are determined by the traffic volume and speed on SR-91. During the measurement at Site 1 traffic was flowing freely. Typically, along freeways, there is little change in noise levels when traffic is flowing freely except during late night and early morning hours where the traffic volumes decrease substantially. Based on the traffic volumes recorded during Source:
Mestre Greve Associates, 2005
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR No. 331
Noise Measurement Locations Exhibit 4.9-3
March 11, 2005
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\fuscoe\ex4.9-3_031605.pdf
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.9 Noise-032305.doc 4.9-5 Noise the measurement at Site 1 the highest average noise level would be expected to be only 1 dB greater than the measured average level. The highest average noise level along a freeway such as SR-91 occurs when the greatest numbers of vehicles are passing through without slowing due to congestion.
Measurement Site 5 was located near the center of the project site. The primary sources of noise were distant traffic and three general aviation aircraft over flights. Birds, insects and wind blowing through trees also contributed to the measured noise level. The maximum level recorded was due to one of the aircraft.
In summary, noise levels around the project site are highest adjacent to SR-91 and SR-241.
Noise levels are very high along SR-91 and moderately high along SR-241. Towards the interior of the project site, away from roadways, ambient noise levels are relatively low. Areas with ambient noise levels below 40 dBA are generally considered quiet. Noise levels in developed areas, away from a major roadway are typically in the low to mid 50 dB ranges.
Existing Roadway Noise Levels
The highway noise levels projected in this report were computed using the Highway Noise Model published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978). The FHWA Model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the "equivalent noise level." A computer code has been written which computes equivalent noise levels for each of the time periods used in the calculation of CNEL. Weighting these equivalent noise levels and summing them gives the CNEL for the traffic projections used. CNEL contours are found by iterating over many distances until the distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours are found.
The distances to the CNEL contours for the roadways in the vicinity of the project site are given in Table 4.9-2. These represent the distance from the centerline of the roadway to the contour value shown. Note that the values given in Table 4.9-2 do not take into account the effect of any noise barriers or topography that may affect ambient noise levels.
The data in Table 4.9-2 show that noise levels generated along SR-91 and SR-241 are relatively high as would be expected along these highways. Traffic noise levels along La Palma Avenue, Santa Ana Canyon Road, Yorba Linda Boulevard and Weir Canyon Road are substantial. Traffic noise levels along Oak Canyon Road, Serrano Avenue, Canyon Rim Road, Nohl Ranch Road, and Cannon Street are moderate.
Existing Blasting Activities
Blasting is currently used for the existing sand and gravel operations in Development Area 5. In fact these blasting operations have been performed at the existing sand and gravel pit for many years. The City of Anaheim Code Enforcement has stated that there have been no complaints generated by the blasting from existing residents in the area of the project. While only temporary, blasting for the grading of the project would occur closer to existing residences than the current blasting for the sand and gravel operations and potential impacts are analyzed in this section. On-going blasting operations would be eliminated when the existing sand and gravel operations end in December 2004.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.9 Noise-032305.doc 4.9-6 Noise TABLE 4. -2
EXISTING ROADWAY TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Distance ft to CNEL Contoura.
Roadway Segment
CNEL
100 fta
0 CNEL 5 CNEL 0 CNEL
La Palma Avenue
West of Yorba Linda Blvd. 62.5 32 68 147
East of Yorba Linda Blvd. 66.8 62 133 286
West of Gypsum Canyon 64.0 40 86 185
East of Gypsum Canyon 62.8 33 72 155
Santa Ana Canyon Road
West of Weir Canyon Road 66.4 57 123 265
East of Weir Canyon Road 61.6 RW 59 128
West of Gypsum Canyon Road 60.2 RW 48 103
Oak Canyon Road
Serrano to Weir Canyon Road 53.8 RW RW 38
East of Weir Canyon Road 53.8 RW RW 38
Yorba Linda Boulevard
North of La Palma Avenue 66.2 56 120 259
La Palma Avenue to SR-91 68.1 75 161 346
Weir Canyon Road
SR-91 to Santa Ana Canyon Road 67.8 71 153 329
Santa Ana Canyon Road to Serrano Avenue 65.5 50 109 234 Serrano Avenue to Oak Canyon Road 60.3 RW 49 105
Southeast of Oak Canyon Road 53.8 RW RW 38
Serrano Avenue
Weir Canyon Road to Oak Canyon Drive 63.1 34 74 160
Oak Canyon Drive to Canyon Rim Road 60.8 RW 52 112
Canyon Rim Road to Nohl Ranch Road 59.2 RW 41 89
West of Nohl Ranch Road 61.9 RW 62 134
East of Cannon St. 61.9 RW 62 134
Gypsum Canyon Road
La Palma Avenue to SR-91 63.2 35 76 163
SR-91 to Santa Ana Canyon Road 61.1 RW 55 118
Canyon Rim Road
North of Serrano Avenue 57.8 RW 33 71
Nohl Ranch Road
North of Serrano Avenue 57.8 RW 33 71
Cannon Street
North of Serrano Avenue 63.3 36 77 166
South of Serrano Avenue 64.7 45 96 207
SR- 1
West of Lakeview Avenue 81.9 621 1,339 2,884
Lakeview Avenue to Imperial Hwy. 81.7 599 1,290 2,780
Imperial Hwy. to Weir Canyon Road 81.6 596 1,284 2,767
Weir Canyon Road to SR-241 81.4 575 1,238 2,667
East of SR-241 81.4 572 1,232 2,654
SR-241
SR-91 to Weir Canyon Road 73.7 176 380 818
South of Weir Canyon Road 73.7 176 380 818
RW Noise contour falls within roadway right-of-way.
a. From roadway centerline.
Source: Mestre Greve Associates, 2005
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.9 Noise-032305.doc 4.9-7 Noise Related Planning Programs
The cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda and the County of Orange General Plan Noise Ordinances and Noise Elements each contain the policies on noise for their respective jurisdiction. The Noise Ordinance applies to noise on one property impacting a neighboring property. Typically, it sets limits on noise levels that can be experienced at the neighboring property. The Noise Ordinance is part of the Municipal Code and is enforceable throughout the applicable jurisdiction. The Noise Element of the General Plan presents limits on noise levels from transportation noise sources, vehicles on public roadways, railroads and aircraft. These limits are imposed on new developments. The new developments must incorporate the measures to ensure that the limits are not exceeded.
Following is a discussion of the Noise Ordinance and Noise Element policies for the City of Anaheim, noise standards for the City of Yorba Linda and County of Orange, and relevant policies from SCAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide.
City of Anaheim
Noise Ordinance
The Anaheim Noise Ordinance (Section 6.70 of the City’s Municipal Code, Ord. 2526 §1 (part); June 18, 1968; Ord. 3400 §1; February 11, 1975.) establishes noise standards for noise generated on private property affecting a neighbor. The ordinance states: “No person shall, within the City, create any sound, radiated for extended periods from any premises which produces a sound pressure level at any point on the property line in excess of sixty decibels (Re
0.0002 Microbar) read on the A-scale of a sound level meter. Readings shall be taken in accordance with the instrument manufacturer's instructions, using the slowest meter response.
The sound level measuring microphone shall be placed at any point on the property line, but not closer than three feet from any wall and not less than three feet above the ground, where the above listed maximum sound pressure level shall apply. At any point the measured level shall be the average of not less than three readings taken at two-minute intervals. To have valid readings, the levels must be five decibels or more above the levels prevailing at the same point when the source(s) of the alleged objectionable sound are not operating.” The City’s Noise Ordinance specifically excludes several noise sources from the 60 dBA limit. It states: “Traffic sounds, sound created by emergency activities and sound created by governmental units shall be exempt from the applications of this chapter. Sound created by construction or building repair of any premises within the City shall be exempt from the applications of this chapter during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.” City of Anaheim Noise Element
The recently adopted City of Anaheim Noise Element (adopted in May 2004) specifies outdoor and indoor noise limits for various land uses impacted by transportation noise sources. The noise limits specified in the City’s Noise Element are in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Exhibit 4.9-4 presents the interior and exterior noise standards contained in the City of Anaheim Noise Element. It is important to note that the outdoor residential noise standard is only applicable to private yard areas. It is not applicable to front yards. It is also important to note is that City Council Policy 542 (adopted September 30, 1975) requires that the exterior residential standards are applicable at a height of six feet above the ground. Typically a five-foot height is assumed as an average ear height.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.9 Noise-032305.doc 4.9-8 Noise The City of Anaheim’s Noise Element includes goals and policies that are applicable to the proposed project. These goals and policies are provided in Table 4.9-5 with a project consistency analysis.
County of Orange
The County of Orange has the same residential transportation noise criteria as the City of Anaheim: 65 CNEL exterior and 45 CNEL interior. The construction noise exemption for the County, as outlined in its Noise Ordinance is from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Construction on Sundays and federal holidays is not exempt.
City of Yorba Linda
The City of Yorba Linda has the same residential transportation noise criteria as the City of Anaheim: 65 CNEL exterior and 45 CNEL interior. The construction noise exemption for the City of Yorba Linda, as outlined in its Noise Ordinance is from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Construction on Sundays and federal holidays is not exempt.
SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide
The Growth Management Chapter of the RCPG includes Policy 3.23 related to noise. The consistency of the proposed project is addressed in Table 4.9-5.
4. .3 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Potential noise impacts are commonly divided into two groups: temporary and long-term.
Temporary impacts are usually associated with noise generated by construction activities.
Long-term impacts take into consideration the proposed project’s impacts to surrounding as well as on-site land uses.
Residential uses do not generate a considerable amount of noise. Proposed uses that have the potential to generate significant noise levels are the school, community park, entry gates and water pumping stations.
Project-related traffic is the primary focus of noise analyses for residential development projects.
The Noise Assessment for Mountain Park examines long-term traffic noise impacts attributable to the proposed project itself as well as cumulative long-term traffic noise impacts (i.e., noise impacts expected to result from future traffic patterns and volumes).
Thresholds of Significance
The criteria used to determine the significance of potential project-related noise impacts are based on the City’s Initial Study and the Initial Study checklist form in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Based on these thresholds, the project would result in a significant impact related to noise if it would:
1. Result in a temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
2. Expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
Source:
Mestre Greve Associates, 2005
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR No. 331
City of Anaheim Noise Standards Exhibit 4.9-4
March 11, 2005
Not To Scale
R:\Project\TIC\J020\fuscoe\ex4.9-4_020305.pdf
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.9 Noise-032305.doc 4.9-9 Noise
3. Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in City’s general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
4. Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
5. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Note that for Threshold 3, the following criteria outlined in the City of Anaheim Noise Ordinance and Noise Element is applied.
Noise Ordinance
The proposed project would have a significant impact if it would create noise levels in excess of 60 dBA. Traffic sounds, sound created by emergency activities, and sound created by governmental units are exempt from this criteria. Sound created by construction or building repair of any premises within the City is also exempt if these activities occur during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Some off-site project related construction activities would occur in and around Featherly Regional Park and near the intersection of Gypsum Canyon Road and La Palma Avenue.
These activities would occur within the City of Yorba Linda. Featherly Regional Park is owned and operated by the County of Orange. The Noise Ordinance limits in the County of Orange and City of Yorba Linda are specifically applicable to noise impacting nearby residential properties. The camping areas of Featherly Regional Park will be treated as residential properties for the purpose of assessing noise impacts on the park.
Noise Element
As noted previously, the noise criteria outlined in the Noise Elements for the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda and the County of Orange present limits on noise levels from transportation noise sources, vehicles on public roadways, railroads and aircraft. The proposed project would result in significant long-term off-site noise impacts (related to traffic noise) if both of the following criteria were met:
x The proposed project causes a noise level increase of 3 dB or more on a roadway segment adjacent to a sensitive land use.
x The future “with project” noise level exceeds 65 CNEL for residential uses.
Long-term on-site impacts are measured against the City of Anaheim noise standards established in the City’s Noise Element. The proposed project would result in a significant longterm on-site noise impact if it would exceed the City’s 65 CNEL outdoor residential standard, 45 CNEL interior residential standard (applicable to proposed residences and the residential portion of the fire station), or the 55 CNEL interior retail standard (applicable to the store concession and interpretive center planned for Development Area 6).
Long-term cumulative off-site impacts from traffic noise are also measured against two criteria.
Both criteria must be met for a significant impact to be identified. x Future traffic noise levels must increase by 3 dB or more compared to existing conditions on a roadway segment adjacent to a noise sensitive land use.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.9 Noise-032305.doc 4.9-10 Noise x The resulting future with project noise level must exceed the criteria level for the noise sensitive land use. In this case, the criteria level is 65 CNEL for residential land uses.
The project would considerably contribute to this increase if it contributes 1 dB or more to the increase.
As previously discussed in Section 2.2, EIR Focus and Effects Found Not to be Significant, during preparation of the Initial Study, the City of Anaheim determined that the proposed project would not have significant impacts for the following thresholds and no additional analysis of these issues is provided.
x For a project located within an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport), expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
x For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Short-term Construction-Related Impact Analysis
Threshold 1: Would the proposed project result in a temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Threshold 2: Would the proposed project expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Threshold 3: Would the proposed project expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in City’s general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
On-Site Project Feature Impacts
Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators can reach high levels. The greatest construction noise levels are typically generated by heavy grading equipment. Exhibit 4.9-5 depicts typical noise levels generated by construction equipment. Based on noise measurements made by Mestre Greve Associates for other projects, noise levels generated by commonly used grading equipment (i.e., loaders, graders and trucks) generate noise levels that typically do not exceed the middle of the range shown in Exhibit 4.9-5.
Most of the project grading and construction would utilize typical construction equipment with graders, scrapers, tractors, trucks, and loaders generating the greatest noise levels. Pile driving is not expected to be required for the proposed project. However, blasting may be required in some areas. Potential noise levels project construction activities are discussed below.
General Grading
Development Areas 3 and 7 are closest to existing residential units west of the project site and construction activities in these Development Areas would generate the highest noise levels within existing residential areas. Development Area 3, specifically the impact area associated with construction of Mountain Park Drive, directly abuts existing homes to the west. Noise levels of up to 100 dBA could be experienced at the homes as heavy equipment passes Source:
Mestre Greve Associates
2004
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR No. 331
Construction Noise Equipment Levels Exhibit 4.9-5
March 11, 2005
Not To Scale
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\fuscoe\ex4.9-5_020305.pdf
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.9 Noise-032305.doc 4.9-11 Noise adjacent to them. The majority of Development Area 3 is more than 500 feet from existing homes. Therefore, most of the time noise levels from heavy equipment operating in Development Area 3 would not exceed 67 dBA at the existing homes. Average construction noise levels at the nearest homes would be expected to be in the mid 50 dBA range with construction activity in Development Area 3.
The next nearest existing homes to construction activities on the project site are located northwest of Development Area 7, approximately 150 feet from the nearest point of grading for the project. At this distance peak construction noise levels would range between 60 and 85 dBA. The majority of Development Area 7 is more than 500 feet these homes. Therefore, most of the time noise levels from heavy equipment operating in Development Area 7 would not exceed 67 dBA at the existing residences. Average construction noise levels at the nearest homes would be expected to be in the low to mid 50 dBA range with construction activity in Development Area 7.
For all other Development Areas, existing homes are located at least 1,000 feet from the nearest point of construction activity. At this distance, construction noise levels are 26 dB lower than those shown in Exhibit 4.9-5. Peak noise levels from construction activities within Development Areas 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 would not be expected to exceed 70 dBA at existing residences west of the project site, and would typically not exceed 60 dBA. Average noise levels from construction would be expected to be below 50 dBA at existing residences.
Noise levels generated by general grading and construction within 3,000 feet of residences may occasionally exceed the 60 dBA limit in the Anaheim Noise Ordinance at the nearest existing homes. However, as previously noted, the Anaheim Municipal Code exempts construction activities from these noise level limits when construction occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Because construction activities are not proposed outside of these hours, the proposed project would not result in a significant short-term noise impact.
Blasting
Where existing topography is 100 feet or more above proposed design elevations, blasting or heavy non-production ripping of bedrock may be necessary. Each of the Development Areas has regions where proposed cuts exceed 100 feet in depth. Specifically, these regions include:
the northern portion of Development Area 1 adjacent to the large southeast facing cut slope; a small area within the eastern portion of Development Area 2 adjacent to the west facing cut slopes; an area along the proposed Weir Canyon Road adjacent to the large north facing cut slope within Development Area 3; a large area within the northern portion of Development Area 4; and a large area within Development Area 5 adjacent to the large west facing cut slope.
When blasting is necessary, the procedure typically involves multiple days of pre-blast drilling and set up, followed by the “shot” event. Pre-blasting procedures vary depending on the size of the area to be blasted, depth of drilling, type of material, the presence of groundwater, the desired size of the blasted material (size of boulders), and the presence of existing utilities and developments. Typically, no more than one “shot” event is undertaken per day.
The necessity, exact location, frequency, and duration of blasting are determined when grading operations have begun and the geologic condition of the bedrock is exposed. Noise levels generated by blasting activities are greatly affected by the amount and type of charge and the depth of the charge. The noise level generated by the charge varies by approximately 3 dB for each doubling or halving of charge weight. The depth of the charge can vary noise levels by up to 40 dB with deeper charges generating lower noise levels. As discussed above, this information would not be determined until after grading operations have begun. Because of Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.9 Noise-032305.doc 4.9-12 Noise this, no quantitative assessment of the potential noise and vibration impacts from blasting can be performed at this time. Depending on the location, size, and extent of blasting and its proximity to noise and vibration sensitive uses, blasting could result in a significant impact but would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant.
Impact 4.9-1 The proposed project would require blasting during construction. Blasting activities could potentially result in significant noise and vibration impacts.
This impact would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant with implementation of MM 3-3 in Section 4.3, Geology and Soils.
Off-Site Project Feature Impacts
Off-site project features would result in construction-related noise during completion of various infrastructure and roadway improvements (described in Section 3.3.4 of the Project Description). The off-site project features which have the potential to result in noise impacts during construction include: removal of the existing Oak Canyon Road east of Running Springs Drive, improvements to Weir Canyon Road just west of the project boundaries, and improvements to Gypsum Canyon Road and the SR-91 ramps at Gypsum Canyon Road.
Construction noise associated with Oak Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road are described above. SR-91/Gypsum Canyon Road interchange is discussed below under Caltrans-related project features.
Oak Canyon Road Removal
Oak Canyon Road currently terminates east of Running Springs Drive. As a part of the proposed project, the portion of the roadway east of Running Springs Road will be removed.
Existing residences back-up to this portion of Oak Canyon Road. The existing pavement and sidewalk that exist east of Running Springs Road will be removed and replaced with landscaping. This activity would require heavy equipment and jackhammers. There is a block wall between the road and the homes that will reduce noise levels to some extent. As jack hammers or heavy equipment is operated adjacent to homes noise levels could reach as high as 100 dBA for short periods of time. Average noise levels at the homes could be as high as 75 dBA during heavy periods of activity. However, demolition of the road, when the highest noise levels would be generated, would not be expected to take more than a couple of weeks with only a few days of heavy activity.
Noise levels generated by the activities associated with the removal of Oak Canyon Road east of Running Springs Drive will potentially exceed the 60 dBA limit in the Anaheim Noise Ordinance at the nearest existing residences. However, the Anaheim Municipal Code exempts construction and demolition activities from the noise level limits of the Noise Ordinance during the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Activities are not proposed outside of these hours.
Therefore, construction will not result in a significant short-term noise impact.
Weir Canyon Road Improvements
Weir Canyon Road currently ends at Blue Sky Way just west of the project boundary. As a part of the project, Weir Canyon Road approximately 600 feet northwest of the project would be restriped to transition from the existing 6-lane road to the 4-lane configuration that the extension of Weir Canyon through the project would have. In addition, a median would be constructed at the Blue Sky Way intersection to prevent left turns from northbound Blue Sky Way to westbound Weir Canyon Road. This activity would require heavy equipment and jackhammers. Existing residences back up to this portion of Weir Canyon Road. There is a wall between the road and the homes that would reduce noise levels to some extent. As jackhammers or heavy equipment Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.9 Noise-032305.doc 4.9-13 Noise is operated adjacent to homes noise levels could reach as high as 100 dBA for short periods of time. Average noise levels at the homes could be as high as 75 dBA during heavy periods of activity. However, demolition of the area where the median would be constructed, when the highest noise levels would be generated, would not be expected to take more than a couple of days.
Noise levels generated by the activities associated with the construction of the median on Weir Canyon Road just west of the project would potentially exceed the 60 dBA limit in the Anaheim Noise Ordinance at the nearest existing residences. However, the Anaheim Municipal Code exempts construction and demolition activities from the noise level limits of the Noise Ordinance during the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Activities are not proposed outside of these hours.
Therefore, construction would not result in a significant short-term noise impact.
Caltrans-related Project Feature Impacts
SR-241/Weir Canyon Road Interchange and Mountain Park Drive Bridge Overcrossing Pile driving would only be required for the construction of the Weir Canyon/SR-241 interchange bridge and the Mountain Park Drive bridge overcrossing and would have the highest noise level of construction activities associated with these facilities. Pile driving for the Mountain Park Drive bridge overcrossing would likely be completed prior to occupancy of any of the residences proposed by the project. Therefore, pile driving for the bridge overcrossing would likely only potentially impact existing residential uses in the area. However, proposed residences could potentially be impacted by noise from pile driving if the bridge overcrossing is constructed after occupancy. Pile driving for the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road interchange could take place after proposed residences in the vicinity of the interchange are occupied. Therefore, pile driving for the interchange could potentially impact residences proposed by the project as well as existing residences.
Pile driving generates noise levels up to 105 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Typical pile driving noise levels typically do not exceed 100 dBA at 50 feet. This level occurs as the driver impacts the pile once every couple of seconds. Average noise levels during driving operations are approximately 5 dB lower than the peak levels.
The nearest existing residences to the Mountain Park Drive bridge overcrossing are located approximately 750 feet from the overcrossing. At this distance, peak noise levels during pile driving would be approximately 77 dBA and average noise levels, during active pile driving would be approximately 72 dBA.
The nearest proposed residences to the Mountain Park Drive bridge overcrossing are located in Development Area 4, approximately 230 feet from the overcrossing. There is a substantial berm located between these homes and the overcrossing that would reduce noise levels by at least 10 dBA. Peak noise levels at the nearest homes in Development Area 4 during pile driving would be approximately 82 dBA and average noise levels during active pile driving would be approximately 77 dBA.
The nearest residences proposed by the project in Development Area 3 are located approximately 575 feet from the overcrossing. At this distance, peak noise levels during pile driving would be approximately 84 dBA and average noise levels during active pile driving would be approximately 79 dBA.
The nearest existing residences to the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road interchange are located approximately 2,000 feet from the interchange. Further, there is substantial topography Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.9 Noise-032305.doc 4.9-14 Noise between the interchange and these residences that would reduce pile driving noise levels by between 5 and 10 dB. Peak noise levels during pile driving at the nearest existing residences would be approximately 58 to 63 dBA and average noise levels, during active pile driving would be approximately 53 to 58 dBA.
The nearest residences proposed by the project to the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road interchange are located approximately 1,250 feet from the interchange. At this distance, peak noise levels during pile driving would be approximately 72 dBA and average noise levels, during active pile driving would be approximately 67 dBA.
Noise levels generated by pile driving for the bridge overcrossing and SR-241/Weir Canyon Road interchange would exceed the 60 dBA limit in the Anaheim Noise Ordinance at the nearest occupied residences. However, the Anaheim Municipal Code exempts construction and demolition activities from the noise level limits of the Noise Ordinance during the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Pile driving activities are not proposed outside of these hours.
Therefore, pile driving would not result in a significant short-term noise impact.
Gypsum Canyon Road and SR-91 Ramp Improvements
The project would widen Gypsum Canyon Road from two lanes to four lanes from the project boundary north to the Santa Ana River overcrossing. This would require retaining walls in areas along the roadway, minor modifications to the SR-91 ramps and pavement reconfiguration and re-striping of the Featherly Park entrance. This activity may require heavy equipment to be operated on and around Gypsum Canyon Road and the SR-91 ramps in the immediate vicinity of the Featherly Park camping areas. Activities could generate noise levels as high as 90 dBA in the camping areas. This would exceed the noise limits specified in the County of Orange and City of Yorba Linda Noise Ordinances. However, the County of Orange and City of Yorba Linda Noise Ordinances exempt construction and demolition activities from the noise level limits of the Noise Ordinance during the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday not including federal holidays. Activities are not proposed outside of these hours. Therefore, construction associated with the Gypsum Canyon Road and SR-91 Ramp Improvements would not result in a significant short-term noise impact.
It should be noted that other project features in Caltrans right-of-way would not result in noise impacts during construction based on the distance to sensitive receptors.
Long-Term Operation-Related Noise Impact Analysis
Threshold 3 is relevant to short-term construction-related impacts discussed above and longterm operation-related noise impacts addressed below. Note that the following analysis addresses the potential long-term noise impacts resulting from project traffic and on-site stationary sources.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.9 Noise-032305.doc 4.9-15 Noise Threshold 3: Would the proposed project expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in City’s general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Threshold 4: Would the proposed project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
On-site Project Feature Impacts
Noise Impacts to Off-site Uses
Project-related Traffic Noise Impacts
Impacts from noise produced by project-generated traffic are estimated based on the traffic projections presented in the Mountain Park Traffic Study prepared by Austin Foust Associates in 2005. By comparing traffic volumes for different future year traffic scenarios, noise levels along roadways in the vicinity of the project can be estimated. Noise level increases and impacts attributable to development of the proposed project are estimated by comparing the “withproject” traffic volume to the “without-project” traffic volume. Table 4.9-3 illustrates traffic noise changes expected to occur with implementation of the proposed project.
The first column of Table 4.9-3 shows the roadway segments analyzed. The second column “Existing CNEL @ 100 ft,” presents current noise measurements along each roadway segment.
The third column, “Existing Plus Project,” presents how much traffic associated with the project would increase noise levels along each roadway segment if the project were implemented with no other changes in the roadway network or land uses in the vicinity of the project. The fourth column of Table 4.9-3, “2010 w/CCS,” presents how much traffic associated with the project would increase noise levels along each roadway segment in the year 2010 with the development of the Committed Circulation Network. The fifth column, “2025 w/ CCS,” presents how much traffic associated with the project would increase noise levels along each roadway segment in the year 2025 with the development of the Committed Circulation Network. The sixth column, “2025 w/ MPAH,” presents how much traffic associated with the project would increase noise levels along each roadway segment in the year 2025 with the development of the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). The last column, “2025 w/ MPAH+,” presents how much traffic associated with the project would increase noise levels along each roadway segment in the year 2025 with the development of the MPAH including the amendments proposed by the Santiago Hills II/East Orange Communities Plan currently being processed by the City of Orange. Not only does this scenario include the amendments to the MPAH proposed by that project it also includes the lower development intensity, and corresponding trip generation, proposed by that project compared to the currently approved General Plan uses for that project area. The currently adopted General Plan land uses for the Santiago Hills II/East Orange area are assumed in the other traffic runs. Section 4.7, Traffic and Circulation, provides a more detailed description of these scenarios. Traffic noise level increases of 3 dB or more that are attributable to the proposed project are shown in bold-italics.
As illustrated above, the proposed project is projected to increase traffic noise levels by 3 dB or more along three road segments:
x Oak Canyon Road between Serrano Avenue and Weir Canyon Road x Weir Canyon Road southeast of Oak Canyon Road
x Gypsum Canyon Road between SR-91 and Santa Ana Canyon Road Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.9 Noise-032305.doc 4.9-16 Noise TABLE 4. -3
TRAFFIC NOISE CNEL CHANGES DUE TO THE PROJECT DB
Roadway Segment
Existing
CNEL
100 ft1
Existing
Plus
Project
2010
w/ CCS2 2025 w/ CCS2 2025 w/ MPAH3 2025 w/ MPAH 4
La Palma Avenue
West of Yorba Linda Blvd. 62.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5
East of Yorba Linda Blvd. 66.8 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2
West of Gypsum Canyon Road 64.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0
East of Gypsum Canyon Road 62.8 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3
Santa Ana Canyon Road
West of Weir Canyon Road 66.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3
East of Weir Canyon Road 61.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 1.1 0.6
West of Gypsum Canyon Road 60.2 1.5 1.5 1.2 2.0 1.5
Oak Canyon road
Serrano Avenue to Weir Canyon Road 53.8 4.8 5.4 4.3 0.5 1.2 East of Weir Canyon Road 53.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Yorba Linda Boulevard
North of La Palma Avenue 66.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1
La Palma to SR-91 68.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2
Weir Canyon
SR-91 to Santa Ana Canyon Road 67.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 Santa Ana Canyon Road to Serrano
Avenue
65.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2
Serrano Avenue to Oak Canyon Road 60.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.2 1.1 Southeast of Oak Canyon Road 53.8 7.0 7.0 6.0 0.2 2.0
Serrano Avenue
Weir Canyon Road to Oak Canyon
Road
63.1 -0.5 -0.5 -0.4 0.0 0.0
Oak Canyon Road to Canyon Rim Road 60.8 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.2 Canyon Rim Road to Nohl Ranch Road 59.2 1.1 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.3 West of Nohl Ranch Road 61.9 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.2
East of Cannon St. 61.9 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.2
Gypsum Canyon Road
La Palma to SR-91 63.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
SR-91 to Santa Ana Canyon 61.1 4.4 4.4 4.1 4.4 4.6
Canyon Rim Road
North of Serrano Avenue 57.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Nohl Ranch Road
North of Serrano Avenue 57.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cannon Street
North of Serrano Avenue 63.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
South of Serrano Avenue 64.7 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.3
SR- 1
West of Lakeview Ave. 81.9 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2
Lakeview Ave. to Imperial Hwy. 81.7 0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.1 Imperial Hwy. to Weir Cnyn. Rd. 81.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Weir Canyon Road to SR-241 81.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
East of SR-241 81.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
SR-241
SR-91 to Weir Canyon Road 73.7 -0.5 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.0
South of Weir Canyon Road 73.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
1. From roadway centerline.
2. CCS Committed Circulation System
3. MPAH Master Plan of Arterial Highways
4. MPAH+ Master Plan of Arterial Highways as amended by the Santiago Hills II/East Orange Communities Plan Source: Mestre Greve Associates, 2005
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.9 Noise-032305.doc 4.9-17 Noise There are no existing noise sensitive uses along Gypsum Canyon Road between SR-91 and Santa Ana Canyon Road; therefore, the increase in noise along this roadway segment would not result in a significant noise impact to a sensitive receptor. Existing residential uses are located along the segments of Weir Canyon Road and Gypsum Canyon Road identified above.
Future traffic noise levels and potential noise impacts at these residences are discussed below.
Oak Canyon Road between Serrano Avenue and Weir Canyon Road: There are existing residential uses along both sides of Oak Canyon Road between Serrano Avenue and Weir Canyon Road. Near Serrano Avenue, the homes on the north side of the road are depressed 20 to 40 feet below the elevation of Oak Canyon Road. The homes on the south side are elevated 20 to 30 feet above Oak Canyon Road and there is a five to six foot high noise barrier at the edge of the residential property lines. In the middle of the roadway segment and towards Weir Canyon Road, residential pad elevations are generally within 10 feet of the road elevation.
These homes have noise barriers ranging in height from approximately five to six feet. Detailed calculations were performed to predict future worst-case noise levels at the existing residences along Oak Canyon Road between Serrano Avenue and Weir Canyon Road. These calculations included the effects of topography and noise barriers. The calculations show that the worstcase future noise levels at the residential uses along this road segment are projected to remain below 65 CNEL. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant noise impact at these homes.
Weir Canyon Road southeast of Oak Canyon Road: There are existing residential uses along both sides Weir Canyon Road southeast of Oak Canyon Road. Homes to the northeast are generally elevated above Weir Canyon Road with some residences at the same grade as the road. All of the homes on the northeast side of Weir Canyon Road have existing noise barriers ranging in height between six and seven feet. Residences on the southwest side of the road are depressed between 15 and 50 feet below the grade of Weir Canyon Road. Near Oak Canyon Road the elevation difference is approximately 15 feet. There is a six-foot high sound wall at the top of slope along the roadway. When the elevation difference reaches about 20 feet the wall ends. Detailed calculations were performed to predict future worst-case noise levels at the existing residences along Weir Canyon Road southeast of Oak Canyon Road. These calculations included the effects of topography and noise barriers. The calculations show that the worst-case future noise levels at the residential uses along this road segment are projected to remain below 65 CNEL. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant noise impact at these homes.
Development of the proposed project would also introduce a new roadway, Mountain Park Drive, adjacent to and east of existing residences. This occurs along the northwest edge of Development Area 3. The existing homes would be located approximately 100 feet from the centerline of Mountain Park Drive. At this distance the future worst-case traffic noise level from traffic on Mountain Park Drive is projected to be 59.2 CNEL. This is below the 65 CNEL standard and existing homes adjacent to the future Mountain Park Drive would not be significantly impacted by traffic noise from Mountain Park Drive.
Although the proposed project would result in noise level increases of 3 dB or more along the segments of Oak Canyon Road, Weir Canyon Road and Gypsum Canyon Road identified above, it would not result in an exceedance of the City’s 65 CNEL exterior residential noise threshold at any of the existing residences in these areas. Therefore, traffic associated with the proposed project would not result in significant off-site noise impacts.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.9 Noise-032305.doc 4.9-18 Noise Noise impacts to Off-site Uses from On-site Activities
The only uses proposed by the project that would be expected to generate potentially significant noise levels from on-site activities are the school, the community park, the water pump station, the gated entrances, and the fire station, store concession, and trail staging area in Development Area 6. Development Area 6 is located well away from any existing residences and would not result in a significant off-site impact. The other activities are discussed below.
Development Area 3 School and Park
The community park and school site proposed for Development Area 3 are located more than 500 feet from existing residences. The primary sources of noise from these uses are voices, children playing at school and persons using the park. Noise levels generated by voices are quite variable and dependant on the specific people and activity. At a distance of 500 feet, noise levels generated by voices would not be substantial. They may be audible but would not be substantially above ambient levels. Further it should be noted that the City of Anaheim Noise Ordinance specifically exempts sounds created by governmental units; the school and City operated park fall under this exclusion. Noise generated by these uses would not significantly impact any existing residences in the vicinity of the proposed project.
Water Pump Station
The project proposes the installation of a water pump station east of Development Area 5 (refer to Exhibit 3-11 in Section 3, Project Description). The pump station would be located more than one mile from the nearest existing residence. The water pump would utilize an electric motor and both the pump and electric motor would be housed in a building. Because of the substantial distance to the nearest existing residence and intervening topography, the water pump station would not generate noise levels that would approach the City’s Noise Ordinance limit. Therefore, the water pump station would not result in a significant noise impact at the existing residences.
Gated Entrance
The project includes two gated entrances on the roadways entering the gated portion of the project (Mountain Park Drive and Gypsum Canyon Road). The locations of these gates are shown in Exhibit 3-5 in Section 3, Project Description. The gated entrances include a guardhouse in the middle of the road and a four space parking lot to the side. The gate in Development Area 3 on Mountain Park Drive would be located approximately 160 feet from existing residences, the parking area is located approximately 240 feet from the existing residences. The gate on Gypsum Canyon Road is east of SR-241 and would not affect existing residences to the west.
Noise from the gated entrances would be generated by cars and conversations at the gates, and the gates themselves. The City of Anaheim Noise Ordinance specifically exempts traffic sounds. Therefore, the noise generated by cars at the gates is not subject to the Noise Ordinance sound level limit. The impacts of traffic sounds are assessed against the City’s noise standards presented in the Noise Element of the General Plan.
Traffic noise levels at the existing residences along the future Mountain Park Drive would be subject to a traffic noise level of 59.2 CNEL, which is less than the City’s 65 CNEL standard.
Cars stopping and accelerating from the gate would not substantially change the CNEL levels along the roadway near the gate. The other sources of noise from the guard gate discussed below would not increase CNEL level considerably.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.9 Noise-032305.doc 4.9-19 Noise Typical conversation sound levels are in the 60 to 65 dBA range at a distance of three feet. At the nearest residence located approximately 160 feet from the gate house, the sound level from a typical conversation would be in the 25 to 30 dBA range. This is well below the ambient noise level in the area and the City’s Noise Ordinance limit. The gates are located approximately 160 feet from the nearest residence. To generate a noise level of 60 dBA at the nearest residence the gate would have to generate a noise level of almost 95 dBA at a distance of three feet.
Even a faulty gate would not be expected to generate a noise level greater than 80 dBA at three feet. Therefore, it is unlikely that a gate operated with an electric motor would generate a noise level, even for an instant, which would approach this level. Based on measurements performed by Mestre Greve Associates, noise levels generated by activities in parking lots, engine revving, doors slamming and alarms do not generate noise levels that exceed 70 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. At the nearest existing residences, 240 feet from the parking lot, parking lot activity noise levels would not exceed 57 dBA even for an instant. Activities at the gated entrance proposed along Mountain Park Drive would not violate the City of Anaheim Noise Ordinance at the existing residences and therefore, would not result in a significant noise impact.
Noise Impacts to Proposed On-site Uses
Traffic Noise
Future ultimate traffic noise levels impacting the project site are presented below in Table 4.9-4.
This data is also presented graphically in Exhibit 4.9-6, which shows the 60, 65 and 70 CNEL noise contours for the proposed project site. It should be noted that the 65 CNEL noise contour shown in Exhibit 4.9-7 does not include any barriers or topography that may reduce noise levels.
TABLE 4. -4
ULTIMATE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS IMPACTING THE PROJECT SITE Distance ft to CNEL Contoura.
Roadway Segment
CNEL
100 fta.
0 CNEL 5 CNEL 0 CNEL
Santa Ana Canyon
West of Gypsum Canyon 62.3 30 66 141
Weir Canyon
Oak Canyon to Mt. Park 64.4 42 91 196
Mt. Park to Jamboree 64.7 45 96 207
Jamboree to SR-241 59.2 RW 41 89
Gypsum Canyon
SR-91 to Santa Ana Canyon 65.7 51 111 239
Santa Ana Canyon to Mt. Park 64.4 42 91 195
Mt. Park
Weir Canyon to Gypsum Canyon 59.8 RW 45 97
SR- 1
West of Weir Canyon 82.2 649 1,398 3,012
Weir Canyon to SR-241 82.1 643 1,386 2,987
SR-241
SR-91 to Weir Canyon 77.5 314 676 1,457
South of Weir Canyon 77.7 327 706 1,520
RW Noise contour falls within roadway right-of-way.
a. From roadway centerline.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.9 Noise-032305.doc 4.9-20 Noise Exterior Noise Levels
Exhibit 4.9-6 shows that developed areas of the project would experience noise levels as high as 71 CNEL along SR-91 and SR-241. However, the project includes 10 to 40 foot high berms (above pad elevation) along SR-241 in Development Area 4 that would reduce exterior noise levels from traffic on SR-241 to less than 65 CNEL. However, the portion of Development Area 4 along SR-91 would be exposed to noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL. Intermittent berms with heights 10 to 20 feet above pad elevations are also included along SR-91 in Development Area 5. For areas directly behind these berms noise levels are reduced to below 65 CNEL.
However, in areas without berms blocking the line of sight to the freeway noise levels would exceed 65 CNEL. Residential uses in Development Areas 3 and 7 along SR-241 and Weir Canyon Road would be exposed to traffic noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL. This is considered a potentially significant impact and mitigation would be required to reduce traffic noise levels at proposed residences to below 65 CNEL.
Mitigation through the design and construction of noise barriers (walls, berms, or combination wall/berm) is the most efficient method of reducing outdoor noise exposure levels. The effect of a noise barrier is dependent on the geometry between the noise source and the receiver. A noise barrier effect occurs when the barrier breaks the “line of sight” between the source and receiver. The greater the distance the sound must travel around the barrier to reach the receiver, the greater the noise reduction of the barrier.
To be effective, noise barriers must have no openings or cracks. They may be a solid wall, an earthen berm, or a combination of the two. They may be constructed of wood studs with stucco exterior, 1/4-inch plate glass, 5/8-inch Plexiglas, any masonry material, or a combination of these materials. Wood and other materials may be acceptable if properly designed as a noise barrier. For patios and balconies, the barriers must run along the entire edge of the patio or balcony from building face to building face.
Exhibit 4.9-7 shows the maximum heights of the noise barriers required to mitigate the outdoor noise impacts associated with the proposed project. The barrier heights are relative to the highest point between the roadway and the residential use. If for some reason the barrier cannot be located at the highest point, a higher barrier may be required. With the berms and walls shown in Exhibit 4.9-7, traffic noise levels would be reduced below 65 CNEL.
The sound wall shown on Exhibit 4.9-7 for the school/park site at the southeast corner of Weir Canyon and Mountain Park Drive would only be required to protect park picnic areas and school playground areas. At this time the specific location of these areas has not been identified. If these areas are located outside the 65 CNEL contour shown on Exhibit 4.9-6, then no wall would be required.
It should be noted that the height and location of berms depicted on Exhibit 4.9-7 are included in the grading plan for the proposed project, and as such are considered “project design features”.
Final barrier heights necessary to comply with the City’s noise standards would be determined during the tentative tract map process and would be based on the final grading plans. However, based on this noise analysis, the noise standard is achievable with feasible barrier heights.
Impact 4.9-2 Proposed uses within Development Areas 3, 4, 5, and 7 adjacent to SR-241, SR-91, and Weir Canyon Road would be exposed to noise levels in excess of the City of Anaheim Noise Element exterior noise standard of 65 CNEL which would be considered a significant impact. This impact would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant with implementation of PDF 9-1 and MM 9-1.
Source:
Mestre Greve Associates, 2005
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR No. 331
Future Traffic Noise CNEL Contours Exhibit 4.9-6
March 11, 2005
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\fuscoe\ex4.9-6_031605.pdf
Source:
Mestre Greve Associates, 2005
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR No. 331
Preliminary Noise Barrier Exhibit 4.9-7
March 11, 2005
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\fuscoe\ex4.9-7_031605.pdf
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.9 Noise-032305.doc 4.9-21 Noise Interior Noise Levels
Proposed residential uses as well as the residential portion of the proposed fire station would be required to have interior noise levels that do not exceed 45 CNEL. The interpretative center and/or a store concession proposed within Development Area 6 would be required to have an interior noise level of 55 CNEL.
Based on the projected future traffic noise levels (refer to CNEL noise contours presented in Exhibit 4.9-6), proposed uses in Development Areas 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 would experience noise levels as high as 71 CNEL along SR-91, SR-241 and Weir Canyon Road and, without proper mitigation, interior noise levels could exceed the City’s noise standards, resulting in a potentially significant impact.
Standard construction achieves 12 dB of outdoor-to-indoor noise reduction with open windows and at least 20 dB of reduction with windows closed. Therefore, buildings requiring more than 12 dB of noise reduction require adequate ventilation per the Uniform Building Code to allow windows to remain closed. Typically this is provided through mechanical ventilation. Windows do not need to be sealed shut, but closeable at the occupants’ discretion. As shown in Exhibit
4.9-8, proposed residences in Development Areas 3, 4, 5 and 7, and the proposed uses in Development Area 6 (store concession/staging area and fire station residential areas) would require mechanical ventilation.
Residences and uses potentially impacted by future traffic noise levels require 32 dB or less of outdoor-to-indoor noise reduction. With building upgrades, outdoor-to-indoor noise reductions of up to 32 dB can be achieved. Therefore, the proposed residences (including the fire station) would be able to meet the interior noise standard (45 CNEL). Detailed calculations are required to demonstrate a building achieves noise reductions of more than 20 dB. Architectural drawings for the proposed residences are necessary to determine the actual noise reduction achieved by building upgrades; however, this information would not be available until preparation of the tentative tract maps. Exhibit 4.9-9 depicts the areas of the proposed project where residential structures would be required to achieve more than 20 dB of noise reduction to meet the City’s 45 CNEL interior noise standard.
Based on the traffic noise levels projected, with appropriate construction it is feasible to reduce indoor noise levels at future uses to below the City of Anaheim interior noise standards.
Impact 4.9-3 Interior noise levels from traffic at proposed uses within Development Areas 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 would exceed the noise standards outlined in the City of Anaheim Noise Element which would be considered a significant impact. This impact would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant with implementation of PDF 9-1, MM 9-2 and MM 9-3.
Noise Impacts to On-site Uses from On-site Noise Sources The only uses proposed by the project that would be expected to generate potentially significant noise levels from on-site activities are the school, the community park, the water pump station, the gated entrances, and the public facilities proposed for Development Area 6.
Development Area School/Park
The school/park site proposed for Development Area 3 is located approximately 75 feet from the nearest proposed residences. As previously noted, the primary sources of noise from these uses are voices, children playing at school and persons using the park. Noise levels generated Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.9 Noise-032305.doc 4.9-22 Noise by voices are variable and dependant on the specific people and activity. Further, the specific layout of the school/park site in terms of building and playground locations has not been determined. This information is needed to accurately estimate the noise levels at the proposed homes. Most likely, noise generated at the school and park would be occasionally audible at the homes. However, it is unlikely that the uses would generate loud noise levels for continued periods of time at the nearby homes. Additionally, the City of Anaheim Noise Ordinance specifically exempts sounds created by governmental units; the school and City operated park fall under this exclusion. Because of this exemption, noise generated by these uses would not significantly impact any residences proposed by the project.
Water Pump Station
As previously noted, the proposed water pump station is proposed to be located in the eastern portion of Development Area 5 at the water reservoir site, and would be located approximately 200 feet from the nearest residence proposed by the project. Detailed design information for the water pump station such as the specific motor, pump and building is required to estimate noise levels from the station. At this time, this level of detail has not been developed for the water pump stations. It has been Mestre Greve Associates’ experience that water pump stations, enclosed in a building, that use electric motors do not typically generate substantial noise levels outside of the building. There is no reason to believe that a properly designed system cannot meet the City’s Noise Ordinance limits at the nearest residences; however, this cannot be determined until acoustical analysis of the pump station is performed. The potential for the water pump station to exceed the City’s Noise Ordinance standards is considered a potentially significant impact. To ensure that the City’s Noise Ordinance is complied with and the water pump station does not result in a significant noise impact, an acoustical study would be prepared for the water pump station, prior to issuance of building permits, demonstrating compliance with the Noise Ordinance.
Impact 4.9-4 The proposed water pump station within Development Area 5 has the potential to generate noise levels in exceedance of the City’s noise standard which would be considered a significant impact. This impact would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant with implementation of MM 9-4.
Gated Entrance
The gate in Development Area 3 on Mountain Park Drive would be located approximately 240 feet from the nearest residences proposed by the project; the parking lot for the gate would be located approximately 160 feet from the nearest residences proposed by the project. The gate on Gypsum Canyon Road between Development Areas 4 and 5 would be located approximately 340 feet from the nearest residences. As previously noted, the City of Anaheim Noise Ordinance specifically exempts traffic sounds; therefore, the noise generated by cars at the gates is not subject to the Noise Ordinance sound level limit. The analysis of impacts from traffic noise on the uses proposed by the project was previously provided. The other sources of noise from the guard gate discussed below would not increase CNEL level considerably from the levels analyzed.
At the nearest residence located approximately 240 feet from the gate house, the sound level from a typical conversation would be in the 20 to 25 dBA range. This is well below the ambient noise level in the area and the City’s Noise Ordinance limit. The gates are located approximately 240 feet from the nearest residence. To generate a noise level of 60 dBA at the nearest residence the gate would have to generate a noise level of almost 100 dBA at a distance of three feet. The gate on Gypsum Canyon Road is farther from proposed residences Source:
Mestre Greve Associates, 2005
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR No. 331
Mechanical Ventilation Areas Exhibit 4.9-8
March 11, 2005
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\fuscoe\ex4.9-8_031605.pdf
Areas Where Residential
Structures Will Require
Mechanical Ventilation
Source:
Mestre Greve Associates, 2005
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR No. 331
Interior Noise Analysis Areas Exhibit 4.9-9
March 11, 2005
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\fuscoe\ex4.9-9_031605.pdf
Areas Where Structures Will
Require a Detailed Analysis of
Outdoor-to-Indoor Noise Reduction
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.9 Noise-032305.doc 4.9-23 Noise than the gate on Mountain Park Drive. Even a faulty gate would not be expected to generate a noise level greater than 80 dBA at 3 feet. Therefore, it is unlikely that a gate operated with an electric motor would generate a noise level, even for an instant. Based on measurements performed by Mestre Greve Associates, noise levels generated by activities in parking lots, engine revving, doors slamming and alarms do not generate noise levels that exceed 70 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. At the nearest existing residences, 160 feet from the parking lot, parking lot activity noise levels would not exceed 60 dBA even for an instant. Activities at the gated entrances would not violate the City of Anaheim Noise Ordinance at the proposed residences and therefore, would not result in a significant noise impact.
Development Area 6 Uses
The nearest proposed residences to Development Area 6 are located at a distance of approximately 370 feet from and at an elevation 70 feet above Development Area 6. Further, a noise barrier would be required along the edge of the residential area between the residential area and Development Area 6 to mitigate traffic noise from SR-91. This wall would also substantially reduce any noise generated by activities in Development Area 6. There are no sources of noise associated with a store or interpretative center that would be expected to exceed ambient traffic noise levels at the residences. The fire station is a governmental unit and is exempted from the Noise Ordinance. Therefore, the uses proposed for Development Area 6 would not significantly impact any residences proposed by the project.
Off-site Project Features Impacts
The off-site project features do not include uses that would generate traffic. The off-site roadway improvements accommodate project traffic but do not generate additional traffic. The off-site project features do not include the implementation of any stationary sources that would result in long-term noise impacts. No long-term noise impacts would result from implementation of the proposed off-site project features.
Caltrans-related Project Feature Impacts
Project features within Caltrans right-of-way involve construction of a bridge overcrossing, interchange, improvements or modifications to existing drainage facilities, slopes and roadways and do not include uses that would generate traffic, rather they would accommodate project traffic or project construction activities. No long-term noise impacts would result from implementation of these project features.
Threshold 5: Would the proposed project conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? An EIR must discuss consistency between the proposed project and applicable plans and programs. As discussed above, plans that apply to the proposed project include the City of Anaheim General Plan, Noise Element. Table 4.9-5 addresses the consistency of the proposed project with the relevant goals and policies outlined in the City of Anaheim General Plan. As identified, the proposed project would be considered consistent with the relevant goals and policies related to noise.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.9 Noise-032305.doc 4.9-24 Noise TABLE 4. -5
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH NOISE RELATED
GOALS AND POLICIES
GOALS AND POLICIES CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
City of Anaheim General Plan, Noise Element
GOAL 1.1 Protect sensitive land uses from
excessive noise through diligent planning and
regulation.
Policy 3: Consider the compatibility of
proposed land uses with the noise environment
when preparing, revising or reviewing
development proposals.
Policy 4: Require mitigation where sensitive
uses are to be placed along transportation routes
to ensure compliance with State noise standards.
Policy 5: Encourage proper site planning and
architecture to reduce noise impacts.
Policy 6: Discourage the siting of sensitive
uses in areas in excess of 65 dBA CNEL without
appropriate mitigation.
Policy 7: Require that site-specific noise
studies be conducted by a qualified acoustic
consultant utilizing acceptable methodologies
while reviewing the development of sensitive land
uses or development that has the potential to
impact sensitive land uses.
Consistent with Goal 1.1, Policy 7, a detailed noise
analysis has been prepared for the Mountain Park
Specific Plan project and is summarized in this
section. The analysis addresses potential noise
impacts to proposed sensitive uses from traffic
along adjacent roadways and from proposed onsite uses. As required by Policy 3, this analysis also considers the compatibility of proposed uses
with on-site noise generating uses such as gated
entrance facilities, a water pump station,
school/park, etc.
As identified in the analysis provided in this section, there is a potential that proposed uses would be
exposed to noise levels that exceed the standards
outlined in the City of Anaheim General Plan.
Consistent with policies 4, 5 and 6, mitigation is
required in the form of noise barriers, mechanical
ventilation of structures, and building upgrades to
mitigate these impacts to levels considered less
than significant. Following implementation of
mitigation, sensitive uses, including residences, the
store concession/interpretive center, and residential
component of the fire station would not be exposed
to exterior or interior noise levels in exceedance of
the City’s noise standards.
GOAL 2.1 Encourage the reduction of noise
from transportation-related noise sources such as
motor vehicles, aircraft operations, and railroad
movements.
Policy 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.
Policy 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.
As discussed under Thresholds 3 and 4, residential
uses along SR-241, SR-91 and Weir Canyon Road
would be exposed to noise levels in exceedance of
the City’s noise standards. As discussed in Section
4.9.5, Mitigation Program, below, the grading plan
for the proposed project includes berms along
these roadways to reduce noise levels experienced
by future residences. Additionally, the property
owner/developed would be required to provide
noise barriers, mechanical ventilation, and building
upgrades to ensure that interior and exterior noise
levels are acceptable.
SCAG RCPG, Growth Management Chapter
Policy 3.23: Encourage mitigation measures that
reduce noise in certain locations.
Refer to the consistency analysis provided above
regarding the City of Anaheim General Plan Noise
Element goals and policies.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.9 Noise-032305.doc 4.9-25 Noise
4. .4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative traffic noise impacts are estimated based on the traffic projections presented in the Mountain Park Traffic Study prepared by Austin Foust Associates in 2005. Cumulative increases in traffic noise levels along roadways in the vicinity of the project were estimated by comparing different future year traffic scenarios to existing conditions. The results of this analysis are presented below in Table 4.9-6.
TABLE 4. -
CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC NOISE CNEL CHANGES OVER EXISTING
CONDITIONS dB
Roadway Segment
Existing
CNEL
100 ft1
Existing
Plus
Project
2010
w/ CCS2 2025 w/ CCS2 2025 w/ MPAH3 2025 w/ MPAH 4
La Palma
West of Yorba Linda Blvd. 62.5 0.0 0.5 1.2 0.8 1.0
East of Yorba Linda Blvd. 66.8 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.0
West of Gypsum Canyon 64.0 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.0
East of Gypsum Canyon 62.8 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.3
Santa Ana Canyon
West of Weir Canyon 66.4 0.3 1.0 1.9 1.6 1.7
East of Weir Canyon 61.6 0.5 0.9 1.6 0.0 -0.5
West of Gypsum Canyon 60.2 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 1.5
Oak Canyon
Serrano to Weir Canyon 53.8 4.8 5.4 6.0 6.5 6.0
East of Weir Canyon 53.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Yorba Linda Boulevard
North of La Palma 66.2 0.4 0.6 0.9 0.5 0.5
La Palma to SR-91 68.1 0.3 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.8
Weir Canyon
SR-91 to Santa Ana Canyon 67.8 0.0 0.6 1.4 1.8 1.4
Santa Ana Canyon to Serrano 65.5 0.0 0.5 1.2 2.3 1.6
Serrano to Oak Canyon 60.3 1.2 1.2 1.6 4.1 1.6
Southeast of Oak Canyon 53.8 7.0 7.0 7.8 10.6 7.4
Serrano
Weir Canyon to Oak Canyon 63.1 -0.5 0.2 1.3 0.9 1.3
Oak Cnyn Canyon Dr. to Canyon
Rim Rd.
60.8 0.8 1.8 3.0 2.8 3.0
Canyon Rim Rd. to Nohl Ranch
Rd.
59.2 1.1 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.3
West of Nohl Ranch Rd. 61.9 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.2
East of Cannon St. 61.9 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.2
Gypsum Canyon
La Palma to SR-91 63.2 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.3
SR-91 to Santa Ana Canyon 61.1 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.4 4.6
Canyon Rim Road
North of Serrano Avenue 57.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Nohl Ranch Road
North of Serrano Avenue 57.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cannon Street
North of Serrano Avenue 63.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
South of Serrano Avenue 64.7 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.3
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
TABLE 4. - Continued
CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC NOISE CNEL CHANGES OVER EXISTING
CONDITIONS dB
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.9 Noise-032305.doc 4.9-26 Noise Roadway Segment
Existing
CNEL
100 ft1
Existing
Plus
Project
2010
w/ CCS2 2025 w/ CCS2 2025 w/ MPAH3 2025 w/ MPAH 4
SR- 1
West of Lakeview Ave. 81.9 0.1 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.6
Lakeview Ave. to Imperial Hwy. 81.7 0.1 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.7 Imperial Hwy. to Weir Canyon Rd. 81.4 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.3 Weir Canyon to SR-241 81.3 0.1 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.6
East of SR-241 81.4 0.0 0.6 1.3 1.2 1.2
SR-241
SR-91 to Weir Canyon 73.7 -0.5 1.0 3.6 3.8 3.7
South of Weir Canyon 73.7 0.1 1.5 3.9 4.0 4.0
1. From roadway centerline
2. CCS Committed Circulation System
3. MPAH Master Plan of Arterial Highways
4. MPAH+ Master Plan of Arterial Highways as amended by the Santiago Hills II/East Orange Communities Plan Source: Mestre Greve Associates, 2005.
Table 4.9-6 describes how much noise levels are projected to increase over existing conditions with the development of the proposed project and all other traffic growth projected for the area.
Traffic noise level increases of 3 dB or more that are attributable to the proposed project are shown in bold-italics. The proposed project’s contribution to these increases was presented in Table 4.9-3.
Table 4.9-6 shows that traffic noise levels are projected to increase over existing conditions by 3 dB or more along seven roadway segments:
x Oak Canyon Drive between Serrano Avenue and Weir Canyon Road x Weir Canyon Road southeast of Oak Canyon Drive
x Gypsum Canyon Road between SR-91 and Santa Ana Canyon Road x Weir Canyon Road between Serrano Avenue and Oak Canyon Drive x Serrano Avenue south of Oak Canyon Drive
x SR-241 between SR-91 and Weir Canyon Road
x SR-241 south of Weir Canyon Road
Although existing homes along Weir Canyon, Gypsum Canyon, and Serrano would be exposed to higher noise levels from cumulative traffic, the noise analysis performed for the proposed project indicates that future exterior residential noise levels would remain below the City’s 65 CNEL noise standard. Consistent with City of Anaheim noise policies, the proposed project would have a significant cumulative impact if it contributes 1 dB or more to an increase of 3 dB or more on a roadway adjacent to a noise sensitive land use where noise levels are 65 CNEL or greater. Because the City’s 65 CNEL noise standard is not exceeded, there would not be any significant cumulative traffic noise impacts to existing residences, even if the project’s contribution is 1 dB or more.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.9 Noise-032305.doc 4.9-27 Noise
4. .5 MITIGATION PROGRAM
Project Design Features
PDF 9-1 The Mountain Park Specific Plan includes a conceptual grading plan. The conceptual grading plan includes berms in the following locations as shown on Exhibit 4.9-7 that would reduce exterior noise levels in areas behind the berms to less than 65 CNEL. Prior to the approval of grading plans for development areas that require sound attenuation measures, the property owner/developer shall submit grading plans to the Department of Public Works that demonstrate conformance with the conceptual grading plan included in the Specific Plan, including the following:
x Ten to 40 foot high berms (above pad elevation) along SR-241 in Development Area 4.
x Intermittent berms with heights 10 to 20 feet above pad elevations are also included along SR-91 in Development Area 5. Final berm design shall be shown on precise grade permits for specific builder projects.
Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions
SC 9-1 Prior to approval of grading plans and/or prior to issuance of building permits, plans shall include a note indicating that noise-generating project construction activities in the City of Anaheim shall not occur between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. This requirement applies to construction activities within 3,000 feet of residential uses, consistent with the City of Anaheim Noise Ordinance.
SC 9-2 Prior to approval of grading plans and/or prior to issuance of building permits, plans shall include a note indicating that noise-generating project construction activities north of SR-91 in the City of Yorba Linda shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday and at any time on Sunday or federal holidays, consistent with the City of Yorba Linda Noise Ordinance.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3-3 in Section 4.3, Geology and Soils, requires a submittal of a blasting plan that addresses noise and vibration.
MM 9-1 Prior to the approval of grading plans for Development Areas 3, 4, 5, and 7, a detailed acoustical analysis shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant and submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. This acoustical analysis shall describe and quantify the noise sources impacting the area and the measures required to meet the 65 CNEL exterior residential noise standard. The final precise grading plans shall incorporate the noise barriers (wall, berm or combination wall/berm) required by the analysis and the property owner/ developer shall install these barriers. Based on the preliminary analysis, noise barriers of the heights shown in Exhibit 4.9-7 would reduce exterior noise levels at on-site residences to acceptable levels.
MM 9-2 Prior to issuance of building permits for all buildings in the areas indicated in Exhibit 4.9-8, documentation shall be provided to the Planning Department, Building Division showing that the building meets the ventilation standards required by the Anaheim Building Code with windows closed. Alternatively, the property Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.9 Noise-032305.doc 4.9-28 Noise owner/developer shall show that based on the buildings location relative to the roadway it meets the appropriate interior noise standard with open windows.
MM 9-3 Prior to issuance of building permits, a detailed acoustical study using architectural plans shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant and submitted to the Planning Department, Building Division for residential structures (including the residential portion of the fire station) in the areas indicated in Exhibit 4.9-9. This report shall describe and quantify the noise sources impacting the building(s), the amount of outdoor-to-indoor noise reduction provided in the architectural plans, and any upgrades required to meet the City’s interior noise standards (45 CNEL for residences). The measures described in the report shall be incorporated into the architectural plans for the buildings and implemented with building construction.
MM 9-4 Prior to the issuance of building permits for the water pump station, a detailed noise assessment shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant and submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The assessment shall utilize noise data provided by the manufacturer(s) of the equipment utilized at the station or noise measurements from substantially similar facilities to project noise levels at the residences in the vicinity of the water pump station. Compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance shall be demonstrated and any measures required to meet the Noise Ordinance shall be described and incorporated into the plans for the water pump station.
4. . LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Implementation of PDF 9-1, SCs 9-1 and 9-2, and MMs 9-1 through 9-4 presented above would reduce project-related noise impacts to a level considered less than significant.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.10 Haz Mat-032505.DOC 4.10-1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.10 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This section addresses the following issues: potential for known hazardous materials on-site to create a hazard to the public or the environment; potential hazards to the proposed uses, including the elementary school site; and the potential for wildland fire hazards.
Information in this section is based on the Environmental Site Assessment for Proposed Mountain Park Development (Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc., [AEC], February 2005) (the AEC ESA) included in Appendix J; Environmental Site Assessment for Proposed SR-241/Weir Canyon Road Interchange and Mountain Park Drive Bridge Overcrossing (AEC, March 2005) included in Appendix Q; Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Quarry, Proposed Mountain Park Development (GeoSyntec Consultants, July 2004); Environmental Site Assessment and Remediation Work Plan, Gypsum Canyon Quarry (GeoSyntec Consultants, 2004) (collectively, the GeoSyntec ESAs). These reports are also provided in Appendix J. The information in this section is also based on the City of Anaheim General Plan (May 2004) and the City of Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update FEIR No. 330 (May 2004).
The ESAs were conducted to identify recognized environmental conditions located within the project site or adjacent properties that could present material risk of harm to public health or to the environment. Recognized environmental conditions are defined by the American Society for Test and Measurement (ASTM) as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous wastes and/or substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property.
To evaluate the potential presence of recognized environmental conditions, these investigations included the following:
x Contacting appropriate regulatory agencies for hazardous materials information concerning the subject site and surrounding areas located within an approximate onehalf ҏmile radius of the site boundaries. Inquiries were made regarding documentation of:
(a) toxic spills; (b) underground storage tanks; (c) the use, storage, generation, and/or disposal of hazardous materials; (d) the presence of disposal wells and/or leach fields, drain fields, and septic systems; and (e) violations of applicable environmental control standards;
x Conducting interviews and researching historical site usage for information regarding past or present recognized environmental conditions;
x Reviewing selected reports, maps, and aerial photographs for information pertaining to potential sources or visual indications of soil and groundwater contamination; x Conducting an on-site inspection and off-site reconnaissance to identify visible evidence of the generation, use, storage, release, or disposal of hazardous materials; and x Evaluating investigational findings and the preparation of a detailed report inclusive of findings and recommendations.
The current condition of the entire project site related to hazardous materials, including the existing quarry site is addressed in this section; however, it is important to distinguish between the status of the quarry site and the remainder of the project site relative to hazardous materials.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.10 Haz Mat-032505.DOC 4.10-2 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The current master licensee for the sand and gravel extraction and aggregate production is Robertson’s Ready Mix (Robertson’s), which licenses a southern portion of the aggregate mining property to All American Asphalt. The license agreement between Robertson’s and The Irvine Company terminated in December 2004. Robertson’s and All American Asphalt are in the process of curtailing operations in preparation for reclamation of the site pursuant to the State of California’s Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and City of Anaheim code and regulations. The quarry reclamation and remediation will be conducted by Robertson’s under the oversight of the City of Anaheim (underground storage tank removal) and the Orange County Health Care Agency. It is estimated that excavated and stockpiled material will be removed from the site until February/March 2005. It is expected that reclamation and remediation of the site will be accomplished by June 2005, and the site will no longer be occupied by either of these companies. The quarry site is proposed to be developed with residential land uses (Development Area 5).
The reclamation and remediation activities are governed by the terms of Robertson’s SMARA permit and will be completed prior to commencement of the proposed project. The remediation activities are identified and discussed in the GeoSyntec ESAs. The hazardous materials identified within the quarry site are discussed in this section for informational purposes, but are not a part of the proposed Project.
4.10.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Hazardous Materials
Quarry Site
A detailed discussion of the hazardous materials identified within the quarry area is provided in the Phase I ESA prepared by GeoSyntec Consultants (2004). Following is a brief summary of the findings of this report. The findings of this report provided the basis for the Site Assessment and Remediation Report (GeoSyntec Consultants, 2004), which will be implemented by Robertson’s as a component of its reclamation activities.
The Robertson’s lease area encompasses approximately 300 acres in the northeastern portion of the project site. Various licensees have used the site for sand and gravel excavation as well as concrete and asphalt mix production since the mid-1950s. Robertson’s assumed the license agreement in 1995. All American Asphalt, a sub-licensee, operates an asphalt batch plant at the site. Current operations include the aggregate production operations, the concrete batch plant and the asphalt batch plant and ancillary activities. Exhibit 4.10-1 identifies the various operations within the quarry site.
Historical and current uses at the quarry have been the subject of investigation and remediation activities over the years under the oversight of various regulatory agencies. Historical activities may have contributed to environmental impacts, including those associated with underground storage tanks (USTs) at several facilities that have operated at the quarry site (Owl Rock, R.F. White, and Robertson’s). A number of USTs have been removed from the quarry area in preparation for site closure and some remediation of associated impacts has occurred. Some features at the quarry site have not been investigated, but will be assessed as a part of the quarry closure process.
The following features were observed by the site assessors during reconnaissance of the Robertson’s and All American Asphalt facilities and deemed to represent potential environmental conditions:
Areas of Potential Environmental Concern/Hazards
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR No. 331Source:GeoSyntec Consultants,February, 2005 Exhibit 4.10-1
March 11, 2005
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\fuscoe\ex4.10-1_030405.pdf
SR-91
1 4
2 -
R
S
Legend
NOTE:
All extents and locations are approximatefor illustration purposes only.
Former Industrial Asphalt
Former Owl Rock Aggregate Processing Operations
Project Site Boundary
Settling Ponds
Former R.F. White Trucking Company
I
Robertson's Property Boundary
Robertson's Wastewater Recycling Facility
All American Asphalt Batch PlantRobertson's Aggregate Processing PlantRobertson's Aggregate Mining OperationsRobertson's Ready Mix Concrete Batch PlantRobertson's Mining Tailings StockpileRecent Landslide Area Anaheim City LimitsQuestar PipelineFormer McDonnell-Douglas Lease SiteFormer Clay Mine (Approximate Boundary) 2,000 0 2,000 1,000 Feet
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.10 Haz Mat-032505.DOC 4.10-3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials x One 10,000-gallon diesel UST and multiple aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) containing concrete admixtures, hydraulic oils, fly ash, and motor oils at the concrete batch plant;
x A concrete truck washing area, with standing water exhibiting signs of salt staining, at the concrete batch plant;
x Multiple hazardous waste drums without secondary containment at Robertson’s aggregate processing plants;
x Three USTs (recently removed with regulatory closure by the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department pending), seven ASTs (with signs of staining beneath the tanks), and approximately 18 gallon drums stored inside a deteriorating concrete secondary containment at the bulk fuel storage area;
x A catch basin, a clay-lined settling basin, and a clarifier at Robertson’s water recycling facility (potential areas of metals and petroleum hydrocarbon impacts); x Standing water and stained soils throughout the Site that may contain high levels of salts, metals, and hydrocarbons;
x Dark soil, apparently containing a mixture of asphalt and soil, throughout the All American Asphalt plant; and
x A large sump containing unknown liquids with an oily sheen next to the hot oil ASTs at the All American Asphalt plant.
Based on the results of the Phase I ESA for the quarry site, areas identified as requiring further analysis were evaluated in an ESA and Remediation Work Plan (Remediation Plan) prepared by GeoSyntec Consultants (2004). The Remediation Plan provides plans for further assessment and remediation of potential environmental conditions that have resulted from historical operations, which will be implemented by Robertson’s during its reclamation activities.
The primary areas of environmental concern are associated with the USTs and ASTs that are currently operational or were historically operated within the quarry site.
The extraction license agreement for quarry operations terminated on December 31, 2004; however, site conditions will generally not change until closure occurs. Therefore, the Remediation Plan includes soil sampling activities to identify areas of environmental concern and characterize the nature and extent of the impacts from the quarry use. Groundwater sampling will also be conducted to identify any areas of environmental impact to groundwater, provide information on upgradient and downgradient conditions, and characterize the nature and extent of impacts prior to remediation. The Remediation Plan requires health-based cleanup standards consistent with the future residential development of the quarry site.
The City of Anaheim and/or Orange County Health Care Agency, will oversee Robertson’s remediation activities for the quarry site. The City of Anaheim will oversee the removal of underground storage tanks. Upon completion of the remediation activities, a Remediation Report will be prepared. In general, the Remediation Report will summarize the results of sampling and testing, as well as any needed remediation activities, and will discuss the results of confirmation sampling, and request closure from the appropriate regulatory agencies.
Remediation of the quarry site must be completed to the satisfaction of the applicable oversight agency before construction for the proposed project can be initiated.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.10 Haz Mat-032505.DOC 4.10-4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Remainder of Project Site
In February 2004, Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc. (AEC) performed an ESA for the remainder of the project site, not including the quarry site discussed above. The study area for the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road interchange and Mountain Park Drive bridge overcrossing was addressed in Environmental Site Assessment for Proposed SR-241/Weir Canyon Interchange and Mountain Park Drive Overcrossing (AEC, 2005). As described in Section 4.1, Land Use and Planning, with the exception of the quarry site, the project site is predominantly undeveloped. McDonnell-Douglas previously operated a rocket fuel test facility in the central portion of the project site. This facility is discussed in more detail below.
For purposes of this assessment, the project site (not including the quarry site) is referenced as two distinct areas: (1) the former McDonnell-Douglas rocket fuel test site, and (2) open space.
Following is a summary of the environmental conditions of these areas relative to hazardous materials.
Former Rocket Fuel Test Site
The former Douglas Aircraft Company (McDonnell-Douglas Corporation and Astropower) leased an approximate 480-acre area in the central portion of the project site for use as a rocket fuel test research facility commencing on August 1, 1961 (refer to Exhibit 4.10-1). The operational area was located approximately one-mile south of the mouth of Gypsum Canyon and the development spanned the east and west sides of Gypsum Creek. The majority of activity at the McDonnell-Douglas property occurred between 1961 and 1971 and the lease expired on December 31, 1991. McDonnell-Douglas demolished the majority of buildings upon its exit from the site and the few remaining structures were demolished in 2003. The prior structures consisted of office trailers, central maintenance and support buildings, smaller maintenance and support buildings, storage bunkers, test pads, blockhouses, storage magazines, and ballistic test range. Water for the operation was piped in from the mouth of Gypsum Canyon in an aboveground metal delivery pipeline.
The review of Federal, State and local databases did not identify any known recognized environmental conditions within the former rocket fuel test site that have the potential to adversely impact the site.
From 1984 to 1986 fourteen groundwater monitoring wells, numbered GB-1 through GB-14, were installed in the floor of Gypsum Canyon, primarily centered around the McDonnell-Douglas facility. The wells were a part of an investigation to evaluate the suitability of the site for a Class III landfill between Gypsum Canyon and Coal Canyon. The groundwater wells were completed in both the alluvial water-bearing zone and the bedrock water-bearing zone. The Earth Technology Corporation conducted groundwater sampling from these wells during 1985 and 1986 and the sampling identified low concentrations of hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). AEC re-sampled wells GB-5 and GB-6 during March 2003 and the results indicated trace concentrations of gasoline (just below the detection limit of 50 ppb) and trace concentrations of N-Nitroso-dimethyamine (NDMA). On November 13, 2003 AEC sampled groundwater from wells GB-4, GB-8, GB-9, GB-10, and GB-11. The analytical results for these wells were non-detect for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), perchlorate, and VOCs, with the exception of 18 ppb of trichloroethene (TCE) in well GB-8. On December 17, 2003, AEC resampled GB-8 and the results indicated 19 ppb of TCE and non-detectable concentrations of the remaining constituents. On August 2, 2004, AEC sampled groundwater from wells GB-4, GB-8, GB-9, GB-10, and GB-11 for the presence of NDMA. All wells were non-detect except for well GB-9, which exhibited a concentration of 12 ug/L.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.10 Haz Mat-032505.DOC 4.10-5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The highest concentration of NDMA detected, 12 ug/L at well GB-9, exceeds the Department of Health Services guidance for drinking water of 0.02 ug/L. The highest concentration of trichloroethene detected, 19 ug/L at well GB-8 exceeds the state’s Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 5 ug/L. However, these standards apply to drinking water and the groundwater beneath Gypsum Canyon is not currently nor planned to be used or designated for use as a drinking water source. Any potential risk to future site occupants that might exist would have to arise from exposure pathways other than drinking the groundwater. Those potential risks are analyzed in Section 4.10.2.
In addition to groundwater sampling, AEC conducted a soil-gas survey and collected soil samples from geotechnical soil borings drilled in locations associated with the former McDonnell-Douglas facilities. The results of the soil-gas survey indicated no detectable concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons or VOCs between 5 and 7.5-feet bgs with the exception of a trace concentration of freon detected in the former foundation of Maintenance Building 8 (located outside of the planned development footprint). The soil samples collected at approximately 5-feet bgs indicated no detectable concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons, VOCs or perchlorate, confirming the soil-gas results.
Existing Open Space
Aside from the quarry site and former rocket fuel test site, the remaining portion of the subject property has been primarily undeveloped and can be characterized as native chaparral. Access is limited because of the steep terrain, ravines, and lack of adequate access roads. A small area at the head of Gypsum Canyon is a former clay mine that was excavated intermittently since its discovery in 1949 (refer to Exhibit 4.10-1). The location of this former mine is outside the proposed Development Areas. The most recent tenant was Pacific Clay Products, which excavated the soil approximately once a year until the mid-1980s. No buildings were associated with this operation and no hazardous substances were believed to be used in connection with the clay mining activities. The excavated clay was transported off site. The review of federal, state and local databases did not identify any known recognized environmental conditions within the on-site open space areas that have the potential to adversely impact the site.
Southern Trails (Questar) Pipeline
The Southern Trails Pipeline (formerly referred to as the Four Corners Pipeline) owned by the Questar Corporation traverses the northern portion of the site in an east-west direction (refer to Exhibit 4.10-1). The pipeline is an interstate facility that originates in Long Beach and extends to Farmington, New Mexico. The pipeline is a 16-inch steel facility. It is not currently in operation; however, it is maintained by Questar and is filled with nitrogen. Questar has plans to convert the pipeline from oil products transmission to a high-pressure natural gas line.
Conversion of the pipeline is dependent on market conditions, and is not currently scheduled.
Fire Hazards
Fire hazards threaten lives, property, and natural resources, and impact vegetation and wildlife habitats. The project site is primarily undeveloped and is characterized with dry steep slopes covered with combustible vegetation. Summer and autumn seasons render these areas of the site highly susceptible to uncontrollable fire hazards because of reduced soil and vegetation moisture compounded by dry “Santa Ana” winds that can accelerate and intensify wildfires.
Santa Ana winds typically occur during the fire season (typically from June to the first significant rain in November).
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.10 Haz Mat-032505.DOC 4.10-6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The project site is located in the Hill and Canyon Area of the City, and is currently located within a designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and a Special Protection Area. The Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone generally includes ridgelines areas and undeveloped wildland areas located east of SR-55 and south of SR-91. The Special Protection Area provides safeguards to prevent the occurrence of fires and to provide adequate fire protection facilities to control the spread of fire that might be caused by activities conducted in hazardous fire areas.
The Special Protection Area provisions emphasize the prevention and control of urban/wildland interface fires through the enforcement of fire regulations such as the removal of combustible vegetation, establishment of wet zones, and preventive building features. The current vegetation risk within undeveloped portions of the Hill and Canyon Area, including the project site, is estimated to be a moderate probability/high consequence event. Major fires have occurred in the area and will likely continue to occur (City of Anaheim, 2004a). The most recent fire on the project site was the Green Fire in 2002.
Structures in urban interface areas are ignited during vegetation fires, typically by one of three sources of heat: radiant heating (radiates heat waves in a straight line-of-sight manner towards a structure; can be reduced or deflected by barriers), convective heating (heated air currents either uplift burning embers that are in turn moved aloft by winds and are deposited upon a combustible structure or vegetation or preheat combustible materials making them ready to ignite when the fire arrives), or direct flame impingement (the fire advances from burning vegetation directly to a combustible structure). Additional information regarding fire protection services to the project site is provided in Section 4.12, Public Services and Utilities.
Related Planning Programs
City of Anaheim General Plan, Safety Element
The Safety Element of the City of Anaheim General Plan includes goals and policies related to hazards and hazardous materials that are applicable to the proposed project. These goals and policies are provided in Table 4.10-1 with a project consistency analysis.
Section 16.40.030 of the Anaheim Municipal Code discusses removal of a property from a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone: “A property which is designated as being within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone may later be excluded from the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone upon a finding supported by substantial evidence in the record of equivalent or alternative fire protection measures such that the requirements of Section 51182 of the Government Code and other requirements applicable to said zone are not necessary for effective fire protection within the area to be excluded.” As identified in Section 3.8, Intended Uses of the EIR, an amendment to Figure S-5 (Fire Protection Areas) of the City of Anaheim General Plan, Safety Element, is requested as part of the project. Said amendment would serve to exclude the proposed development areas (including the outermost portions of the fuel modification zones and tract boundaries) from the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Consistent with the provisions of Section 16.40.030 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, a preliminary Fire Master Plan describing the fire protection features, including fuel modification, has been prepared as part of this project and is included as Appendix R of this report. Modifications to the preliminary Fire Master Plan may be incorporated prior to approval of the final Fire Master Plan by the City of Anaheim Fire Department.
SGAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide
Based on SCAG’s comment letter on the NOP, the Growth Management and Open Space chapters of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide include goals and policies related to Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.10 Haz Mat-032505.DOC 4.10-7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials hazards and hazardous materials are applicable to the proposed project. These goals and policies are provided in Table 4.10-1 with a project consistency analysis.
4.10.2 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Thresholds of Significance
The criteria used to determine the significance of potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials are based on the City’s Initial Study and the model Initial Study checklist in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The project would result in a significant impact related to hazards or hazardous materials if it would:
1. 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.
2. 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, it would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
3. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands.
4. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
As previously discussed in Section 2.3.2, Effects Found Not to be Significant, during preparation of the Initial Study the City of Anaheim determined that the proposed project would not have significant impacts for the following thresholds and no further analysis is presented in this section.
x Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
x Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter-mile of an existing or proposed school. x For a project located within an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport), result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
x For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport, or helistop, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. x Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.10 Haz Mat-032505.DOC 4.10-8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact Analysis
Threshold 1: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
On-site Project Impacts
The proposed project involves the development of residential units, public facilities (fire station, elementary school site, and trail staging area), recreational uses and infrastructure improvements. As previously noted, the Southern Trails (Questar) Pipeline traverses the project site in an east-west direction (refer to Exhibit 4.10-1), and would be relocated as part of the proposed project. The pipeline would be installed between four and ten feet below ground surface in open space or under proposed private streets; the pipeline would not be located directly beneath any structures. Implementation of the proposed project would introduce people and structures to the project site, in proximity to the pipeline. The pipeline is currently not in use; however, the owner/operator has plans to convert the pipeline to a natural gas facility in the future. This pipeline traverses the City of Anaheim and is currently adjacent to similar uses as those proposed with the project.
There are many reasons why an underground pipeline would fail, including geologic effects (e.g., earthquake, landslide, or settlement); corrosion; or construction defects. The existing pipeline is currently not in use and does not pose a threat to the public or the environment should an upset or accident occur damaging the pipeline. At the time the pipe is converted to natural gas, it would be brought up to current safety standards. The pipeline design would need to comply with current regulations and be reviewed and approved by the California Public Utilities Commission. Because the pipeline relocation would be accomplished in accordance with appropriate design and safety standards, and because the project does not include any uses that would involve the use, transport, disposal or emission of hazardous materials, project residents would not be exposed to a significant hazard due to a foreseeable upset or accident condition.
Off-site Project Feature Impacts
The proposed off-site project features generally include infrastructure and roadway improvements. Implementation of these project features would not result in any uses or activities that would release hazardous materials into the environment. No hazards to the public or the environment due to upset or accident conditions would result.
Caltrans-related Project Feature Impacts
The SR-241/Weir Canyon Road interchange, bridge overcrossing, and other activities in Caltrans right-of-way would not result in any uses or activities that would release hazardous materials into the environment. No hazards to the public or the environment due to upset or accident conditions would result.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.10 Haz Mat-032505.DOC 4.10-9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Threshold 2: Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
On-site Project Impacts
As noted previously, two Phase I ESAs have been prepared for the project site: one addressing the quarry site, and the second addressing the remainder of the project site. As part of these efforts, State of California databases were searched pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 to confirm that the project site is not a hazardous waste facility subject to corrective action, a hazardous waste disposal site or a site designated by the state as a hazardous waste property or border zone property. The databases identified facilities within the quarry area where features such as USTs were located or impacts to soils and/or groundwater had been documented. No locations outside the quarry area were listed on any of the databases searched. As previously noted, the remediation activities for hazardous materials within the quarry area would be completed as a component of the reclamation work, prior to initiation of project development activities on the site. The Remediation Plan incorporates health-based cleanup levels to remediate any hazardous constituents at the quarry site to a level acceptable to protect human health in a residential development setting, and the remediation must be completed to the satisfaction of the City of Anaheim and other regulatory agencies, as applicable, such as the Orange County Health Care Agency, before construction for the proposed project can be initiated. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project on the quarry site would not create a hazard to the public or the environment.
Although there were no listed hazardous materials sites identified for the remainder of the site (former rocket fuel test site and open space), on-site groundwater testing did result in the detection of a trace concentration of trichloroethene (TCE) (in groundwater well GB-8) in Gypsum Canyon near the location of the former rocket fuel test site and trace concentrations of gasoline and NDMA in monitoring wells GB-5, GB-6, and GB-9 in Gypsum Canyon (see AEC ESA, Figure 2, in Appendix J).
In order to evaluate the potential risk to human health during and after construction of the Mountain Park development that may be associated with residual chemicals detected in the soil and groundwater GeoSyntec Consultants, Inc. (GeoSyntec) performed a risk assessment, which is documented in its Environmental Site Characterization Report (included in Appendix J).
The approach used in the risk assessment is consistent with guidelines issued by the California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control (Cal-EPA, DTSC) and United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The risk assessment considered potential exposures to existing residual chemicals at the site during development activities (i.e., grading) as well as during post-development residential use.
The risk assessment found that the maximum concentrations of chemicals detected at the site do not exceed USEPA or Cal-EPA conservative acceptable risk levels for potential exposures during construction or future residential site use. The calculated risks ranged from 4.1 x 10-7 to
1.9 x 10-6, which are below the conservative acceptable risk levels of 1 x 10-6 for residential receptors and 1 x 10-5 for construction workers. The non-cancer hazard results ranged from
0.013 to 0.58, which are well below the conservative acceptable risk level of 1. These risk estimates are in contrast to the background risk of Americans developing cancer. The background risk is one chance in three (0.3 or 3 x 10-1) for every American female, and one chance in two (0.5 or 5 x 10-1) for every American male, of eventually developing cancer (ACS, 2002). Therefore, it is concluded that implementation of the proposed project would not pose a Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.10 Haz Mat-032505.DOC 4.10-10 Hazards and Hazardous Materials threat to human health due to residual hazardous substances associated with historical operations.
Off-site Project Feature Impacts
During preparation of the ESA for the proposed project, State of California databases were searched pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The proposed off-site project features are not located on hazardous waste facility sites subject to corrective action, hazardous waste disposal sites or sites designated by the state as a hazardous waste property or border zone property. Implementation of these project features would not pose a hazard to the public due to the presence of hazardous materials.
Caltrans-related Project Feature Impacts
The SR-241/Weir Canyon Road interchange and Mountain Park Drive bridge overcrossing are associated with the existing SR-241. During preparation of the ESA for these facilities (included in Appendix Q), State of California databases were searched pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. These facilities as well as other project features within Caltrans right-of-way are not located on a site of a hazardous waste facility subject to corrective action, a hazardous waste disposal site or a site designated by the state as a hazardous waste property or border zone property. Implementation of project features within Caltrans right-of-way would not pose a hazard to the public due to the presence of hazardous materials.
Threshold 3: Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
On-site Project Impacts
Potential fire hazards are a concern associated with the vegetation surrounding the proposed Development Areas within the project area. As previously noted, the project site is within a designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and Special Protection Area. The project would involve developing residential structures within and adjacent to high fire hazard areas; fire emanating from the project site or surrounding undeveloped areas could spread to developed areas of the project, threatening the health and safety of residents. This condition would be considered a potentially significant impact without implementation of appropriate fire protection measures.
The proposed project involves the retention of open space that would surround the proposed residential uses. Residents of the proposed project at the margins of natural areas susceptible to fire would be at relatively the same distance from fire danger zones as existing residences in surrounding developments. However, the project would result in additional residences being subject to threat of fire and needing fire protection. Also, the increased population would increase the opportunity for accidental or deliberately set fires, since public access to many natural areas would be increased. Potential fire risks include engine sparks, cigarettes, and/or arson. Fire protection features associated with the project are outlined in the Fire Master Plan discussed in Section 3, Project Description and generally include: construction of a fire station; implementation of a fuel modification plan; structural fire protection design features; water supply for fire protection; and circulation and access considerations for emergency vehicles.
In accordance with the provisions of the 2001 California Fire Code, the fuel modification plan must be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim Fire Department. A preliminary fuel Proposed Revision to Fire Protection Areas
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR No. 331
Exhibit 4.10-2
March 11, 2005
'64$0&
ENGINEERING
Source:
Legend
10 0 10 5
Miles
Special Protection AreaVery High Fire Hazard Severity ZoneRiver/ReservoirCity BoundarySphere-of-InfluenceArea Proposed to be Removed from Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.10 Haz Mat-032505.DOC 4.10-11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials modification plan would be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department prior to approval of tentative tract maps, and a final fuel modification plan must be approved prior to issuance of a grading permit. The intent of the fuel modification plan is to reduce the risk of houses and other combustible structures from being destroyed by vegetation fires. As discussed previously, a preliminary Fire Master Plan including structural and non-structural fire project features and fuel modification, has been prepared for the proposed project and is included in Appendix R to the EIR. The project applicant is requesting that the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone be relocated to the outermost portions of the fuel modification zones and tract boundaries, consistent with the provisions of Section 16.40.030 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (refer to Exhibit 4.10-2).
The proposed project would improve emergency access to the project site. As shown in Exhibit 3-5, Vehicular Circulation Plan and Section Key Map, access to the site would be provided from Gypsum Canyon Road to the north and Weir Canyon Road to the west. There is currently no improved access to the site from the west. Additionally, access routes within the project site are currently limited to unimproved dirt roads. The proposed circulation system would meet the requirements of the City of Anaheim Fire Department.
In summary, project residents and structures would be exposed to potential wildland fires.
However, with the implementation of fire protection features as part of the project, including an extensive fuel modification plan, and development of a fire station, the ability to control wildfires on and offsite would be extended further than currently exists. The risk of loss, injury or death as a result of wildland fires would be less than significant with implementation of the project design features and standard conditions and requirements related to fire protection.
Off-site Project Impacts
The proposed off-site project features which include roadway improvements, drainage improvements, and connections to existing utilities would not expose people or structures to hazards from wildland fires. These off-site improvements may cause temporary impacts to circulation while construction is occurring in the roadways, however, through movements will not be disrupted and emergency vehicles would be accommodated.
Caltrans-related Project Feature Impacts
Project features within Caltrans right-of-way would not expose people or structures to a risk from wildland fires. Conversely, the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road interchange and Mountain Park Drive bridge overcrossing would improve access in the project area in the event of a wildland fire.
Threshold 4: Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Table 4.10-1 addresses the consistency of the proposed project with the relevant goals and policies related to hazards and hazardous materials outlined in the City of Anaheim General Plan. The proposed project would be consistent with the identified goals and policies.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.10 Haz Mat-032505.DOC 4.10-12 Hazards and Hazardous Materials TABLE 4.10-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH GOALS AND
POLICIES RELATED TO HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
GOALS AND POLICIES CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
City of Anaheim General Plan Safety Element
GOAL 2.1: Protect the lives and property of residents,
business owners, and visitors from the hazards of urban and wildland fires.
Policy 1: Minimize the exposure of residents,
business owners, and visitors to the impacts of urban
and wildland fires.
Policy 2: Continue to assess the need for additional
greenbelts, fuel breaks, fuel reduction and buffer
zones around communities to minimize potential
losses.
Policy 3: Maintain a weed abatement program to
ensure clearing of dry brush areas.
Policy 6: Continue to refine procedures and
processes to minimize the risk of fire hazards in the
Special Protection Area including requiring new
development to:
x Utilize fire-resistant building materials;
x Incorporate fire sprinklers as appropriate;
x Incorporate defensible space requirements;
x Comply with Anaheim Fire Department Fuel
Modification Guidelines;
x Provide Fire Protection Plans;
x Implement a Vegetation Management Plan,
which results in proper vegetation modification
on an ongoing basis within the Special
Protection Area.
x Develop fuel modification in naturalized canyons
and hills to protect life and property from wildland
fires, yet leave as much of the surrounding
natural vegetation as appropriate.
x Require development to use plant materials that
are compatible in color and character with
surrounding natural vegetation.
x Provide wet or irrigated zones when required.
x Use selective trimming and obtain permits when
necessary in designated areas to preserve
environmentally sensitive native plants.
Policy 7: Utilize reservoirs, tanks, and wells for
emergency fire suppression water sources.
Policy 8: Ensure that fuel modification and controlled
fire burns are consistent with the Natural Community
Conservation Plan agreement and any adopted
habitat conservation plans.
As discussed under the analysis of Threshold 3 above, with implementation of identified fire protection project design features, including implementation of an extensive fuel modification plan, the proposed project would not result in a significant risk to residents and structures from wildland fires.
Section 3, Project Description, includes a description of the Fire Master Plan included as part of the Mountain Park
Specific Plan. The Fire Master Plan identifies fire protection features included as part of the project. These features are consistent with the City’s policies related to reviewing the areas around communities relative to vegetation,
requirements for new communities, and provision of
adequate water sources. Additionally, the proposed fuel modification plan is consistent with the requirements outlined in the NCCP/HCP.
GOAL 4.1: Decrease the risk of exposure for life,
property and the environment to hazardous materials and hazardous waste.
As discussed in this section, areas of known hazardous
materials contamination occur within the existing quarry site in the northeastern portion of the project site. Prior to initiation of proposed project development activities on the quarry site, it will be remediated during reclamation to a level that would not pose a risk to residential uses.
On-site groundwater testing did result in the detection of trace concentrations of TCE, gasoline and NDMA in Gypsum Canyon. A risk assessment was conducted to address this issue and concluded that the estimated cancer risks and Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
TABLE 4.10-1 (Continued)
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH GOALS AND
POLICIES RELATED TO HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.10 Haz Mat-032505.DOC 4.10-13 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
GOALS AND POLICIES CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
non-cancer hazards to future residents are below the
regulatory threshold. Therefore, implementation of the
proposed project would not pose a threat to human health due to residual hazardous substances associated with
historical operations.
The proposed project also includes the relocation of the Southern Trails (Questar) Pipeline. The pipeline would be designed in accordance with applicable standards to mitigate risk to people or property in the event of a pipeline accident.
Under California law, a safety risk assessment is required prior to state approval of any proposed public school site located within 1500 feet of a pipeline. The California
Department of Education may require the school district to implement mitigation measures to reduce any identified
safety risks to levels below significance. Such measures may include natural gas detection sensors.
SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide
Growth Management Chapter
Policy 3.22: Discourage development, or encourage
use of special design requirements, in areas with
steep slopes, high fire, flood, and seismic hazards.
Flood and seismic hazards are addressed in Section 4.4, Hydrology, and Section 4.3, Geology and Soils, respectively.
As addressed in these sections, the proposed project would not expose existing or proposed structures or people to flooding. Additionally, potential seismic-related hazards would be reduced to levels considered less than significant with application of standard engineering and construction practices. As discussed in this section and described in Section 3, Project Description, the proposed project includes a Fire Master Plan that outlines specific design features to protect proposed uses from fire-related hazards (refer to discussion above under City of Anaheim Goal 2.1).
Open Space Chapter, Public Health and Safety
Goal 9.04: Maintain open space for adequate protection
of lives and properties against natural and man-made
hazards.
As analyzed in this section, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials, including fire-related hazards. There are no areas of environmental concerns that pose a hazard to future residences, and fire protection design features are included as part of the project. Approximately 2,163 acres of the project site are preserved as open space, primarily in the southern portion of the site. A fuel modification program has been developed to protect residences from wildland fires.
The proposed project also includes a request to amend the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan (Figure S-5, Fire Protection Areas) to relocate the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone within the project site to the outermost portion of the fuel modification zones and tract boundaries based on the fire protection features included in the preliminary Fire Master Plan.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
TABLE 4.10-1 (Continued)
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH GOALS AND
POLICIES RELATED TO HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.10 Haz Mat-032505.DOC 4.10-14 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
GOALS AND POLICIES CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Goal 9.05: Minimize potentially hazardous developments
in hillsides, canyons, areas susceptible to flooding,
earthquakes, wildfire and other known hazards, and areas with limited access for emergency equipment.
As shown in Exhibit 3-4, the proposed project involves
development of residences and other uses in the northern portion of the project site, in proximity to existing developed areas. The southern portion of the site would be preserved as open space. The location of proposed uses has been
developed based on site conditions taking into consideration site topography, potential flooding, emergency access, etc.
Refer to the discussion of Policy 3.22 above. Additionally, the project provides access from Weir Canyon Road to the west and Gypsum Canyon Road/Santa Ana Canyon Road to
the north. Emergency access is provided from an existing unimproved road onsite. Consistent with Goal 9.05, the
proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to potential hazards.
4.10.3 MITIGATION PROGRAM
Project Design Features
PDF 10-1 Prior to the approval of the first tentative tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall enter into an agreement (Fire Protection Agreement) with the City of Anaheim. This agreement shall specify the property owner/developer’s pro-rata fair share funding of capital improvements necessary to establish adequate fire protection facilities and equipment to service the proposed development.
The property owner/developer shall be responsible for paying fees or otherwise providing for the design, construction and furnishing of the fire station, including all fire apparatus necessary to fully equip the fire station per the City’s specifications, to adequately serve the project. The property owner/developer shall also be responsible for dedicating a parcel for development of the fire station in the location specified in Exhibit 3-4 (Development Plan).
The fire station facility shall be constructed and operational prior to the issuance of the first building permit for any development area east of the SR-241, or as otherwise required by the Fire Department in the Fire Protection Agreement.
PDF 10-2 Prior to submittal of the first tentative tract or parcel map or approval of the first grading plan, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall submit a final Fire Master Plan (FMP) to the Fire Department for review and approval to ensure that fire protection for each Development Area is in accordance with Fire Department requirements. The final FMP shall be in substantial conformance with the preliminary FMP (Appendix R of the EIR). A copy of the approved Fire Master Plan shall be submitted to the following City Departments: Planning, Police and Public Works.
PDF 10-3 The Mountain Park Specific Plan includes conceptual fuel modification strategies.
Prior to submittal of each tentative tract or parcel map or grading plan, whichever occurs first, fuel modification plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval. The fuel modification plan shall be prepared in accordance Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.10 Haz Mat-032505.DOC 4.10-15 Hazards and Hazardous Materials with the provisions of the California Fire Code in effect at the time of submittal of the tentative tract or parcel map and be based upon the criteria set forth in the City of Anaheim Fire Department Fuel Modification Plan Guidelines. Prior to final Certificate of Occupancy for the first building in each Development Area fuel modification zones shall be installed and inspected in substantial conformance with the approved plans to the satisfaction of the Fire Department.
Mitigation Measures
MM 10-1 Based on the Environmental Site Assessments performed for the project site (included in Appendix J), it is not anticipated that any underground storage tanks, septic systems, leach fields, or significant soil contamination will be encountered during construction. In the event these subsurface features or contaminated soil are encountered during site grading, work shall immediately cease in the area and the property owner/developer shall notify the Fire Department and Public Utilities, Environmental Services Division, and retain a qualified hazardous materials engineer to assess the impacts and prepare a response plan using risk-based cleanup standards applicable to residential land use. Upon approval of the response plan by the Fire Department or other agency, as applicable, the engineer shall obtain any required permits, oversee the removal of such features and/or conduct the response work to the satisfaction of the Fire Department or other agency, as applicable, until closure status is attained.
MM 10-2 Prior to approval of grading plans within an area in which the Southern Trails Pipeline is located or is proposed to be relocated within the grading plan boundaries, the property owner/developer shall obtain the approval of the Questar Pipeline Company. Written evidence of this approval shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works.
MM 10-3 Prior to approval of any grading plans within a development area wherein the Southern Trails Pipeline exists or is proposed to be relocated, the property owner/developer shall submit a safety plan to the Fire Department. If there are any environmental concerns relating to developing adjacent to the pipeline or relocating it identified during subsequent reviews, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for financing/implementing any necessary mitigation measures. The safety plan shall be reviewed by the Questar Pipeline Company and approved by the Fire Department. Relocation of the pipeline shall occur at no cost to the City.
MM 10-4 Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner/developer shall provide written evidence to the Public Utilities Department that the relocated Southern Trails Pipeline has been inspected and approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).
4.10.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Section 4.10.1 contains a discussion of the areas of environmental concern associated with the existing quarry site. Identified hazardous materials contamination will be remediated by Robertson’s, the current quarry operator, prior to development of the proposed project and would not result in cumulative impacts. It should be noted that this remediation is required regardless of implementation of the proposed project.
Development of future projects would cumulatively increase development intensity, population, and traffic in the region, thereby exposing a greater number of people to potential hazards in the Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.10 Haz Mat-032505.DOC 4.10-16 Hazards and Hazardous Materials area (e.g., hazardous materials and/or waste contamination, and fire). The proposed project as well as other potential future projects would be required to comply with applicable local, state, and federal requirements concerning hazardous materials. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to any significant cumulative hazardous materials impacts.
4.10.5 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
No significant hazard or hazardous materials impacts would result from implementation of the proposed project.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.11 Pop Housing-030 05.doc 4.11-1 Population and Housing
4.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
This section was prepared by Carla Walecka Planning. As previously described in Section 3, the proposed project consists of 2,500 residential units and supporting education, safety, open space and recreation uses within the Mountain Park Specific Plan area. All residential units are located within the incorporated portion of the project site within the City of Anaheim, while some of the open space uses are located in Anaheim s sphere-of-influence within unincorporated County of Orange.
4.11.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Local and Regional Population Housing and Employment
The project area s demographics are best examined in the context of existing and projected population for the Orange County region and the City of Anaheim. Information on population, housing and employment for the Project Area is available from several sources:
U S Census ata
The United States Bureau of the Census publishes population, household and employment data gathered through the decennial census. This data provides a record of historic growth rates in Orange County and the City of Anaheim. Table 4.11-1 below presents Orange County s population, housing and employment growth since 19 0. Table 4.11-2 presents Anaheim s population, housing and employment growth since 19 0. Both tables include an estimate of the change in the 2003 population, housing and employment that has occurred since the April 2000 Census.
TABLE 4.11-1
ORANGE COUNTY POPULATION HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT
1 0-2000
1 0 1 0 2000 2003a
Population 1,932,709 2,410,556 2, 46,2 9 2,97 , 16a
Households 721,514 75,072 969,4 4 994,702a
Employment b 47,793 1,301,235 1,514,734 1,560,700
a
State Department of Finance
b
California Employment Development Department
Source: U.S. Decennial Census
Orange County Projections
Orange County jurisdictions and public agencies develop demographic estimates and projections to provide a common foundation for regional and local planning, policymaking, and infrastructure provision. Orange County agencies have executed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG) to contract with the Center for Demographic Research at California State University, Fullerton, to develop and periodically update demographic projections for Orange County.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.11 Pop Housing-030 05.doc 4.11-2 Population and Housing TABLE 4.11-2
CITY OF ANAHEIM POPULATION HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT
1 0-2000
1 0 1 0 2000 2003a
Population 219,494 266,406 32 ,014 337,440a
Households 2,725 93,177 99,719 100,277a
Employment b 136,466 149, 60 176,9 6 172,610 a .State Department of Finance b California Employment Development Department Source: U.S. Decennial Census
Adopted Orange County Projection-2000
The Orange County Projection 2000 (OCP-2000) was adopted by the Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG) in June, 2000. It is used as a reference point for discussing population, housing and employment growth throughout this Draft EIR. OCCOG adopted OCP-2000 at the jurisdiction, regional statistical area, community analysis area, and census tract levels. In addition, a distribution to small geographic areas is available for small scale planning purposes.
OCP-2000 provides the best available estimate of existing demographics and projection of anticipated growth for Orange County. OCP-2000 projects the amount and distribution of population, housing and employment growth based on detailed information about growth trends, development and local land use provided by Orange County jurisdictions and public agencies; infrastructure, utility and service providers; and the private sector. The process for developing the projections is described in “Orange County Projections 2000.” (California State University, Fullerton, Center for Demographic Research, June 2000).
September 2003 Update of OCP-2000 Reflecting City of Anaheim and Use OCP-2000 does not reflect the current land use policies of the City of Anaheim. In September 2003, the City of Anaheim provided information to the Center for Demographic Research to update OCP-2000 demographic projections for the incorporated area for use in the May 2004 General Plan Update and in the next major update of OCP-2000. Concurrently, the City updated its traffic model to incorporate this updated version of OCP-2000 in the General Plan, with assistance from Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). Therefore, to be consistent with the General Plan and its accompanying Final EIR, this impact analysis is based on OCP-2000 with the September 2003 updated projections for the City of Anaheim.
Transition to OCP-2004
In March, 2004, the OCCOG adopted OCP-2004, a major update to and replacement of OCP-2000. Cal State Fullerton s Center for Demographic Research incorporated the latest information on land use and policy changes within each local jurisdiction since OCP-2000 was prepared.
The Center for Demographic Research used the September 2003 update of OCP-2000 to calculate Anaheim s OCP-2004 population, housing and employment projections based on current land use plans and policies, as well as land use adjustments expected in the immediate future. Thus, the updated OCP-2000 for Anaheim referenced in this document is consistent with the recently adopted OCP-2004. In addition to incorporating Anaheim s current land use policies as of September 2003, OCP-2004 is also designed to reflect the latest planning in other parts of Orange County such as the former El Toro Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) site, open Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.11 Pop Housing-030 05.doc 4.11-3 Population and Housing space dedications, and housing development in Rancho Mission iejo. OCP-2004 also reflects Orange County s and the region s economic downturn in the early 2000 s and the resultant loss of jobs, as well as the aging of the population, most notably after 2010.
Despite its adoption by OCCOG in March 2004, OCP-2004 is not yet ready to be used for environmental documentation purposes throughout Orange County. OCP-2004 must still be reflected in the County s traffic model, OCTAM, prepared by the Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA). Incorporation of OCP-2004 into the OCTAM traffic model is necessary before OCP-2004 can be used consistently throughout the environmental review process for population, housing, employment, and traffic analysis purposes. OCTA has recently incorporated OCP-2004 into its OCTAM traffic model; however, OCTA recommends that cities be given up to one year to fully incorporate OCP-2004 and the OCTAM update into their subarea traffic models used in environmental documentation. Therefore, OCP-2004 is not used in this environmental analysis of the Mountain Park project.
Summary of OCP-2000 Growth Projections
The OCP-2000 projections for the County of Orange, and the September 2003 update of OCP-2000 for the City of Anaheim correlate closely with the 2000 U.S. Census results released to date. Orange County s 2000 census population is within 0.26 percent of the September 2003 update of the OCP-2000. The City of Anaheim s OCP-2000 population estimate for 2000 (as updated in September 2003) is 0.64 percent above the census count. ikewise, both Anaheim s and Orange County s census housing counts vary less than one percent from OCP-2000 for the County, and the September 2003 OCP-2000 update for the City of Anaheim. ote that these minor variations are partially explained by the fact that Census figures represent April 1, 2000 conditions, while OCP data represents conditions as of July 1, 2000. Table 4.11-3 presents OCP-2000 projections for Orange County and City of Anaheim updated OCP-2000 projections (as of September 2003) for population, housing and employment for the 2000 through 2025 period.
TABLE 4.11-3
OCP-2000 PROJECTIONS FOR ORANGE COUNTYa
AND OCP-2000
UPDATED WITH GENERAL PLAN LAND USES FOR THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM b
2000-2025
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Total Population
County 2, 53,757 3,031,440 3,16 ,942 3,270,677 3,342, 29 3,416,037 Anaheim 330,103 343,990 365,463 3 0,367 3 ,910 394,311
Total Housing Units
County 97 ,004 1,01 , 73 1,056, 2 1,0 0,430 1,096, 24 1,115, 23 Anaheim 99,736 101,065 104,447 105,596 105,732 105, 57
Total Employment
County 1,502,434 1,667,77 1,796,726 1, 97,350 1,975,074 2,043,665 Anaheim 179,049 1 7, 20 195,445 201,576 206,550 212,4 7 a OCP-2000, adopted by the Orange County Council of Government, June 2000 b OCP-2000, updated by City of Anaheim and Center for Demographic Research, September 2003 ote: Projections are for July, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020, and 2025.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.11 Pop Housing-030 05.doc 4.11-4 Population and Housing Regional Gro th Projections
OCP-2000 projections constitute Orange County s input to regional growth projections prepared for the six-county Southern California region by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). OCP-2000 provided the background for SCAG s adopted 2001 Regional Forecast for Orange County which is consistent with OCP-2000 at the countywide level for 2025.
OCP-2004 comprises the Orange County component of SCAG s 2004 regional growth forecast adopted in April 2004. The September 2003 projections reflecting current city land use policies provided the basis for Anaheim s projections within the regional forecast. The September 2003 housing projections and the 2004 SCAG housing forecast are the same. The September 2003 population projection is 2.9 percent higher than the 2004 SCAG population forecast. The September 2003 city employment projection is 5.9 percent higher than SCAG s. These variations are due to continued refinements pursued by SCAG during the year following preparation of the September 2003 projections.
The 2004 SCAG regional forecast cannot be used consistently throughout an environmental document at this time. While the forecast contains population, housing and employment data for five-year intervals at the County level, this data has not been incorporated into county and city traffic models at this time. As noted above, the SCAG regional forecast is consistent with OCP-2004. The OCTAM traffic model incorporates OCP-2004, and by extension, the regional forecast. However, the City of Anaheim traffic model has not been adjusted to be consistent with the regional forecast, a task that OCTA recommends be completed within 12 months of the OCTAM update. In order to maintain forecast consistency throughout the Draft EIR, OCP-2000, updated in September 2003, was used as the basis for analysis.
Population Historic Trends Existing Population and Current Projections Orange County Population
Population growth in Orange County has maintained a strong but diminishing pace in recent decades. From 19 0 to 1990, population increased 47,7 5 annually, slowing to an average annual increase of 43,573 people during the 1990s. Orange County s population was 2, 46,2 9 as reported by the 2000 Census.
Based on Orange County s historic share of California s and the region s employment growth; migration and immigration trends; fertility rates; and local General Plans and zoning, OCP-2000 projects that this trend would continue at a diminished rate, with the County growing by an average of 22,491 people per year, from 2000 to 2025. Population growth would be fueled in large part by natural increase. Births are expected to account for two-thirds of the County s future population growth.
City of Anaheim Population
The City of Anaheim mirrors the County s growth. During the 19 0s, the City s population increased 21 percent, an annual average increase of 4,691 people. This rate increased in the 1990s, yielding a 23 percent increase (6,161 annual average increase) over the decade. The 2000 Census reported that the City s population was 32 ,014.
OCP-2000 projects how population growth within the County would be distributed over the next 23 years. OCP-2000 projects an annual average City population increase of 2,004 between Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.11 Pop Housing-030 05.doc 4.11-5 Population and Housing 2000 and 2025. In 2000, the City of Anaheim s population represented 11.6 percent of the total County population. In 2025, this proportion is projected to remain stable at 11.5 percent.
Project Site Population
o population is currently situated in the proposed project site.
Housing Historic Trends Existing Housing and Current Projections Orange County Housing
Housing growth in Orange County has not matched the pace set by population growth. From 1990 to 2000, countywide households increased 11 percent at an annual average rate of 9,441 units. In 2000, Orange County had 969,4 4 households, with 2.9 persons per household on average. 61.5 percent of the County s housing stock was single-family units in 2000 (Decennial Census). The Census measured the April 2000 vacancy rate at 3.5 percent. As approved with input from local jurisdictions, OCP-2000 projects that the County s housing stock would increase by 137, 19 units (14.1 percent) by 2025, an average rate of 5,513 dwelling units per year. Thus, the number of persons per household is projected to rise slightly to accommodate a population that is growing faster than the housing stock.
City of Anaheim Housing
During the 1990s, the City of Anaheim s housing increased 7 percent, at an annual average rate of 654 units. Between 2000 and 2025, OCP-2000 as updated for the City projects a 6.1 percent increase of 6,121 units (an average of 245 units per year) – a housing growth rate half that experienced during the 1990s.
The City s housing stock is 51.9 percent single family units, compared with 61.5 percent countywide. Table 4.11-4 below profiles the City s housing stock. The California Department of Finance estimated the January 2001 vacancy rate to be 4.6 percent, which is above the countywide rate of 3.52 percent. The 2000 Census reported 3.3 persons per occupied dwelling unit citywide in Anaheim. Based on the 2000 Census, there is an average of 2. 5 persons per household in the eastern portion of the City where the Mountain Park project site is located.
TABLE 4.11-4
CITY OF ANAHEIM 2000 HOUSING UNITS BY TYPE
Units Percent of Total Units
Single Family/1 Unit, Detached 42, 74 43.1
Single Family/1 Unit, Attached ,912 .9
Multi-Family/ 2-4 Units 10,3 0 10.4
Multi-Family/ 5 or More Units 33,04 33.1
Mobile Homes 4,076 4.1
Other 429 0.4
Total Units 99,719 100.0
Source: U.S. Decennial Census, January 2000
In 2000, Anaheim s dwelling units represented 10.2 percent of the total County housing stock.
In 2025, the City s housing units are projected to drop to 9.5 percent of the County total, reflecting a continued slowdown in housing production rates combined with continued growth in the rest of the County.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.11 Pop Housing-030 05.doc 4.11-6 Population and Housing Housing costs have escalated steeply in recent years in the City of Anaheim. Median single family home sale prices by zip code for 2003 ranged from 320,000 to 530,000. 2003 condominium sale prices by zip code ranged from 240,000 to 310,000. (Data Quick, 2003 Totals)
The City of Anaheim prepared the 2000-2005 Housing Element of its General Plan to provide a long-term blueprint for housing within the context of local and regional trends and housing production goals. The Housing Element addresses new production targets set by California s Department of Housing and Community Development to encourage each jurisdiction in the state to provide its fair share of very low, low and moderate income housing needed during the 2000- 2005 time period. These numerical housing production goals are known as Regional Housing eeds Assessment (RH A) targets. State law requires that the Housing Element of the General Plan identify RH A targets and strive to meet them. To this end, the Housing Element analyzes housing needs within the City s demographic context; and finally, establishes policies and objectives to make progress in meeting its housing needs during the five-year period. The Department of Housing and Community Development certified the City s Housing Element following its adoption in October 2002.
Anaheim s Housing Element contains a package of goals, objectives and policies designed to meet its 2000-2005 RH A targets as well as other special housing needs in the City.
Applicable goals and policies are identified later in this section under Related Planning Programs: State, Regional and ocal Plans and Policies. Table 4.11-5 recaps the City of Anaheim s RH A target.
TABLE 4.11-5
CITY OF ANAHEIM REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT TARGETS 2000-2005
Household Income Category Target
ery ow Incomea, b 2,710 units (24 percent)
ow Incomec 1,639 units (14 percent)
Moderate Incomed 2,625 units (23 percent)
Upper Income 4,534 units (39 percent)
Total 11 50 units 100 percent a 0-50 of Area Median Family Income (MFI) b 51- 0 of MFI c 1-120 of MFI d Greater than 120 of MFI Source: City of Anaheim, 2000-2005 Housing Element
Project Area Housing
Currently, no units exist in the proposed project site.
Employment Historic Trends Existing Employment and Current Projections Orange County Employment
From 1990 to 2000, countywide employment increased 15.1 percent, an average of 19,734 jobs annually. As of 2000, Orange County had 1.5 million jobs. OCP-2000 projects the County would continue to grow by 541,231 jobs, an average of 21,649 jobs per year through 2025. This constitutes a 36 percent increase over the twenty-five year period.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.11 Pop Housing-030 05.doc 4.11-7 Population and Housing City of Anaheim Employment
The City of Anaheim s employment increased 30 percent during the 19 0s and 1990s, with an annual average increase of 2,026 jobs. The City s 2000 employment base was 179,049 jobs.
The City s resident labor force in 2003 was composed of 172,610 workers, with an unemployment rate of 4. percent (California Employment Development Department).
Disneyland Resort, Boeing Co., Alstyle Apparel, DDi Corp. and Disneyland Hotel are the largest employers within the City.
OCP-2000, as updated in September 2003 to reflect current land use, projects a 19 percent employment increase of 33,43 jobs, an annual average increase of 1,33 jobs between 2000 and 2025. In 2000, the City of Anaheim s employment represented 11.9 percent of the total County employment. In 2025, Anaheim is projected to garner 10.4 percent of county employment.
Project Area Employment
At present, jobs related to sand and gravel mining and cement manufacturing are located in the project area. Robertson s Ready Mix employs an estimated 33 workers (Dunn and Bradstreet, 2004). These jobs would be discontinued when the extraction license between The Irvine Company and Robertson s expires in December 2004 and the facilities are removed (expected by June 2005).
Related Planning Programs State, Regional and Local Plans and Policies The proposed project is located partly in the City of Anaheim and partly in the City s sphere-ofinfluence, within the unincorporated portion of the County of Orange. The following adopted projections, plans and policies address the future of this area and provide benchmarks for evaluating the potential population, housing, and employment impacts of the proposed project.
Determination of the proposed project s impacts would be based on a combination of these factors.
OCP-2000 Projections
OCP-2000 growth projections present housing, population and employment projections for Orange County cities and unincorporated areas, for five-year intervals from 2000 through 2025.
Adopted in June, 2000, OPC-2000 is a consensus forecast that incorporates the latest information provided by local jurisdictions and their general plans, public agencies, and service providers. OCP-2000 reflects the City of Anaheim General Plan as of 2000, but does not include general plan amendments approved since June 2000, including those affecting Mountain Park. Therefore, this discussion is based on OCP-2000 as updated in September 2003 to include land use policy changes, including those affecting Mountain Park. These land use policies are consistent with the May 2004 General Plan land use assumptions. These updated figures were prepared by the City of Anaheim in conjunction with the Center for Demographic Research to correct for land use changes since 2000.
OCP-2000, as updated in September 2003, allows the proposed project s potential impact on population, housing and employment to be viewed in a county, subregional, and city context.
This capability is particularly important when examining the project s likely impact on the relationship between jobs and housing.
OCP-2000 was adopted at the County, subregional, city and census tract levels. For planning and modeling purposes, the projections have also been split into geographic units smaller than Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.11 Pop Housing-030 05.doc 4.11- Population and Housing census tracts, called Transportation Analysis ones (TA s), with the assistance of the County and cities. These zones have been aggregated to approximate the proposed project area. This method allows direct comparison of the proposed project with the updated OCP-2000.
While OCP-2000 provides one method of evaluating the proposed project s socio-economic impacts; state, regional and local plans and policies provide guidance that should be considered and balanced with a purely quantitative comparison of the project to adopted OCP projections.
Thus, the proposed project would be evaluated in light of the following key state, regional and local plans, policies, and requirements that address various aspects of future population, housing and employment growth:
State of California Fair Share Housing Requirements
California State housing law calls upon local jurisdictions to shoulder their fair share of very-low, low, and moderate income housing. In implementing this law, California s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) assigns fair share housing targets to each jurisdiction, and requires local General Plan Housing Elements to address how these fair share housing targets can be achieved during the 2000-2005 timeframe given local demographics, land use and zoning. State law requires local jurisdictions to submit Housing Elements for HCD review and approval. ew targets would be set for subsequent five-year increments.
Regional Growth Management Policies
The SCAG is recognized by the state and federal governments as the regional planning agency for the six-county south coast region that includes Orange County. SCAG adopted a package of advisory growth policies in its 1995 Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. The policies aim to better coordinate infrastructure development with projected population, housing and employment growth. In its efforts to develop a regional transportation network that maximizes access and mobility, minimizes congestion and protects the quality of life, SCAG focuses particular attention on the relationship between jobs and housing.
SCAG policies encourage local jurisdictions to balance job and housing opportunities. SCAG policies also encourage job growth to be concentrated near transit services and transit nodes, and near existing freeways and toll roads in order to reduce ehicle Miles Traveled ( MT) and congestion, and the air pollution that accompany them.
RCPG jobs and housing growth policies relevant to the proposed project are identified in Table
4.11-9 with an analysis of the consistency of the proposed project.
The City of Anaheim General Plan
Adopted in May 2004, the City of Anaheim General Plan provides a roadmap for growth and development within the corporate boundaries and sphere-of-influence. While OCP-2000 projects the distribution of population, housing and employment growth between 2000 and 2025, the City s General Plan focuses on the amount of growth at build-out. Three components of the City of Anaheim General Plan are particularly relevant to assessing the potential growth impacts of the proposed project:
- Housing Element This state-certified blueprint for housing growth within the City identifies policies designed to carry out the state, regional and local general plan policies described above in the Environmental Setting. Housing Element policies relevant to the Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.11 Pop Housing-030 05.doc 4.11-9 Population and Housing proposed project address the need for additional housing opportunities to meet continued demand and are identified in Table 4.11-9.
Land Use Element The City s and Use Element presents land use designations for the City.
In addition, the Element contains goals and policies aimed at improving jobs/housing balance within the City. and Use Element Goal 7.1 and supporting policies 1 and 2 speak to jobs/ housing relationships. These policies are identified in Table 4.11-9 with a discussion of the consistency of the proposed project.
Gro th anagement Element The Growth Management Element also contains a goal and policy promoting improved jobs/housing balance within the City (refer to Table 4.11-9).
4.11.2 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
This section addresses the potential impact of the project related to population, employment and housing. As previously discussed in Section 2.3.2, Effects Found ot to be Significant, during preparation of the Initial Study the City of Anaheim determined that the proposed project would not have significant impacts for the following thresholds and no further analysis is presented in this section.
x The project would displace substantial numbers of existing houses necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
x The project would displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Thresholds of Significance
The following criteria are taken from City-approved Thresholds of Significance based on the City of Anaheim s Initial Study and the Initial Study checklist contained in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The proposed project would result in a significant impact related to population and housing if it would:
1. Induce substantial population growth in the area, either directly (for example by proposing new homes and businesses), or indirectly (for example through extension of roads or other infrastructure);
2. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Evaluation of Employment Housing and Population Impacts Table 4.11-6 compares growth due to the proposed project with OCP-2000 projections for the area. To ensure both a regional and local perspective, the most recent adopted OCP-2000 projections for the City, County and Regional Statistical Area (RSA) are included. RSA B-41 figures are an indicator of growth at the subregional level addressed in regional growth policies.
Exhibit 4.11-1 depicts the extent of RSA-B-41.
Employment Gro th Impacts
The proposed project would generate short-term construction jobs during the build-out period, as well as long-term employment. Specific short-term construction employment projections are Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.11 Pop Housing-030 05.doc 4.11-10 Population and Housing not available for the project at this level of detail. Construction jobs would be generated over the life of the project, varying from site to site as the components of the project are implemented.
Although not part of the proposed project, the cessation of Robertson s Ready Mix sand and gravel mining and cement manufacturing operations would result in the removal of 33 existing jobs on the site. Some short-term jobs related to remediation activities may occur on the site but are not quantified in this analysis. Thus, this analysis examines the net new jobs on the project site with the proposed project.
Comparison of the Project to OCP-2000 Employment Projections The proposed project would result in an estimated 74 regular full-time jobs on the project site by 2025; these jobs are associated with a school, a fire station, a 15-acre community park, a trailhead concession/interpretive center, and private recreation facilities within the housing developments. OCP-2000 small area projections prepared by the City of Anaheim to reflect its May 2004 General Plan locate three jobs in the Mountain Park area by 2025.
TABLE 4.11-
PROPOSED PROJECT NET GROWTH COMPARED WITH ORANGE
COUNTY CITY OF ANAHEIM AND RSA B-41
2000 2025
Population
County 2, 53,757 3,416,037
RSA B-41 19 ,069 275,920
Anaheima 330,103 394,311
OCP-2000 Project TA a 516 7,143
Proposed Project 0 ,250
Dwelling Units
County 97 ,004 1,115, 23
RSA B-41 64,9 0 90,233
Anaheima 99,736 105, 57
OCP-2000 Project TA a 221 3,162
Proposed Project 0 2,500
Employment
County 1,502,434 2,043,665
RSA B-41 104,377 136,7 3
Anaheima 179,049 212,4 7
OCP-2000 Project TA a 3 3
Proposed Project 0 74 a. OCP-2000, updated by City of Anaheim and Center for Demographic Research in September 2003 to reflect existing land use policies.
ote: Projections are for July 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020, and 2025.
Source: OCP-2000, adopted by the Orange County Council of Government, June 2000
Thus, the proposed project exceeds OCP-2000 small area projections for Mountain Park analysis zones by 71 jobs, all of them community-serving education, safety and recreation jobs.
The proposed level of job growth would amount to 0.2 percent of the City s OCP-2000 job growth through 2025.
Source:
Center for Demographic Research,
September 2000
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR No. 331
Orange County Regional Statistical Areas Exhibit 4.11-1 March 11, 2005
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\fuscoe\ex4.11-1_020305.pdf
Project Site
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.11 Pop Housing-030 05.doc 4.11-11 Population and Housing The Project Compared with Plans and Policies
The proposed project s employment growth of 74 jobs is far less than the number of jobs generated by 231 acres of job-generating land uses in the existing Mountain Park Specific Plan.
However, Anaheim s 2004 General Plan provides for the land uses that would generate the 74 jobs. The unincorporated portion of Mountain Park is proposed for permanent open space; the County of Orange General Plan designates this land for Agricultural Uses.
Employment growth associated with the Mountain Park project s mix of recreation, open space, public uses, and residential development responds to General Plan policies that encourage improved jobs/housing balance, and location of development near transportation corridors and employment concentrations. The proposed employment growth also addresses regional policies that promote improved regional jobs/housing balance. Additional discussion of the project s consistency with relevant goals and policies is provided under Threshold 2.
Housing Gro th Impacts
The proposed project would result in construction of a total of 2,500 new units by 2025. Of these units, 1,675 would be single family detached, while 25 units would be single family attached. Table 4.11-7 summarizes the proposed project s share of the City and County s total housing stock.
TABLE 4.11-
INCREASE IN HOUSING WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT 2000-2025 City of Anaheima County of Orangeb
Dwelling Units in 2000 99,719 969,4 4
Dwelling Units Added by the Project 2,500 2,500
Project Increase from 2000 2.5 26
OCP-2000 Projection for 2025 105, 57 1,104,542
Project as a Percentage of 2025 Growth 2.4 0.23 a. Based on City of Anaheim and Center for Demographic Research update of OCP-2000 to reflect General Plan land use policies as of September 2003 b Based on OCP-2000, Center for Demographic Research, June 2000 Comparison of the Project to OCP-2000
OCP-2000, as updated in September 2003, projects housing growth of 6,121 units within the City of Anaheim over the next 25 years. The City s update of OCP-2000 allocates 3,162 units to the small zones that make up the project site. Thus, the proposed project falls below OCP-2000 housing projections for the project area by 662 units.
Comparison of the Project to Plans and Policies
The following discussion compares the proposed project to the land use summary contained in the current Mountain Park Specific Plan, as well as the project s consistency with the Housing Element, and Use Element, and state and regional housing plans and policies.
Comparison to Mountain Park Specific Plan
The proposed project s build-out total of 2,500 units fits within the 7,966 housing unit allowance provided in the existing Mountain Park Specific Plan. The proposed project s 2,500 units are consistent with the 2,500 maximum allowable units assumed in the May 2004 General Plan.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.11 Pop Housing-030 05.doc 4.11-12 Population and Housing Government Code Section 65 63 limits the ability of cities to reduce residential densities below the level stated in the state-approved Housing Element unless the City finds that the density reduction is consistent with the General Plan (including the Housing Element) and that the remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are sufficient to accommodate the City s share of regional housing needs. In the event that housing sites identified in the Housing Element are not adequate to accommodate the City s RH A targets, the City may make the housing density reduction if “additional, adequate and available sites” with an equal or greater residential capacity can be developed to insure no net loss of residential unit capacity.
The reduction in units associated with the proposed one Change to reflect the proposed Mountain Park Specific Plan and to be consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan would be more than offset by the increase in housing opportunities added in the May 2004 update of the Anaheim General Plan. The proposed project would result in 5,466 fewer housing units than allowed in the current Specific Plan and referenced in the Housing Element. The May 2004 General Plan update established land uses and zoning for 9,175 residential units in the Platinum Triangle and the Platinum Triangle oning Ordinance (Ordinance o. 5935) went into affect on September 23, 2004. Of these new units, , 95 residential units are in addition to the 2 0 previously reflected in the Housing Element, which more than offsets the reduction of 5,466 housing units in the Mountain Park area. Further, the May 2004 General Plan adds new housing unit capacity to the Downtown area and underutilized commercial corridors in the City (Anaheim General Plan and oning Code Update Final EIR, May 2004).
Comparison to the and Use, Growth Management Elements
The City s and Use Element also addresses the City s current imbalance between job and housing opportunities. Against the backdrop of a jobs-rich County (1. 3 jobs per household in 2025) the General Plan and Use Element anticipates a jobs/housing ratio of 2.06 in 2025. and Use Element Goal 7.1 and Growth Management Element Goal 1.1 and supporting policies address jobs/housing balance and are further discussed under Threshold 2. The proposed project addresses these General Plan goals and policies by providing additional housing units in a jobs-rich area, and by providing housing opportunities for workers in the City.
Comparison to State Fair Share Housing Requirements
The housing units included in the proposed project assist the City of Anaheim in meeting its state-mandated fair share housing production targets. Mountain Park is listed as an opportunity site for a maximum of 7,966 housing units within the City s state-certified Housing Element.
This number would be reduced to 2,500 above-moderate units in the proposed project. The Final EIR for the City s 2004 General Plan notes that “the Housing Element identifies 4,534 above-moderate income housing units in the Mountain Park Specific Plan area.” The Final EIR concludes that “additional units in The Platinum Triangle, when combined with the units remaining in the Mountain Park Specific Plan area, as proposed, would more than satisfy the City s requirement for above-moderate housing units” (Anaheim General Plan and oning Code Update Final EIR, May 2004). More generally, the Final EIR reports that housing opportunities in all income categories would be more than offset by the housing units growth added in the General Plan Update.
The 2,500 units included in the proposed project may not be available within the timeframe of the current state-mandated 199 -2005 RH A targets. However, the RH A targets and Housing Element are scheduled to be updated in 2006, and every five years thereafter. The 2,500 new units included in the proposed project would be available to help satisfy the City s future RH A total construction need goals.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.11 Pop Housing-030 05.doc 4.11-13 Population and Housing Comparison to Regional Housing Plans and Programs
From a regional perspective, Orange County and the City of Anaheim have exhibited similar historic growth trends, with both County and City housing growth lagging population and employment growth. However, OCP-2000 projects that Anaheim would fall below the County s housing and employment growth rate over the next 25 years. Anaheim s housing growth rate is expected to be less than half that of the County as a whole over the next 25 years. ikewise, Anaheim s job growth rate would be half the County s rate of growth.
Within this broad context, the proposed project would provide 2,500 new housing units within one of the region s major industrial/commercial employment concentrations, including the Platinum Triangle, The Anaheim Resort, the Canyon business park and the orth Central Industrial Area. The close proximity between these housing units and employment opportunities responds directly to the Southern California Association of Government s regional jobs/housing balance policies that encourage increased housing production in jobs-rich areas and development along transportation corridors. The proposed project units would amplify the positive effects of General Plan goals and policies to locate additional housing units in the Platinum Triangle and underutilized commercial areas throughout the City of Anaheim.
Population Gro th Impacts
The proposed project s population growth is a direct consequence of its housing component.
Based on the City of Anaheim s average of 3.3 persons per household, 2,500 dwelling units (1,675 single family attached, and 25 single family detached) are expected to generate a resident population of ,250 in the project area by 2010. The following analysis examines the long-term impacts associated with that population in 2025.
Comparison of the Project to OCP-2000
The City s update of OCP-2000 s growth distribution to the zones that comprise the proposed project accounts for 7,143 residents. In comparison, an estimated ,250 residents would occupy the 2,500 dwelling units constructed at the Mountain Park site by 2025. Thus, 6 percent of the population that would occupy the housing units is anticipated in OCP-2000 for this property, with 14 percent exceeding the current projections.
Comparison of the Project to Plans and Policies
The proposed project s population of ,250 is substantially less than that which would have accompanied the maximum 7,966 units allowable within Mountain Park under the City s current Specific Plan. The project population is consistent with the population which would be generated by the 2,500 maximum allowable dwelling units assigned to Mountain Park in the May 2004 General Plan.
The proposed project s population is also a consistent consequence of City and regional goals to provide additional housing opportunities to balance jobs within a major regional employment concentration.
Finally, the proposed project s population is consistent with the population that would result from the State s and City s commitment to provide more dwelling units to meet housing demand and fair share housing targets. These targets strive to make consistent progress in meeting the housing needs of Orange County residents. The proposed project s housing would accommodate 1.5 percent of the County s projected 562,2 0 population increase between 2000 and 2025, two-thirds of which would be due to births within the County.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.11 Pop Housing-030 05.doc 4.11-14 Population and Housing obs/Housing alance Issues
The proposed project would alter the relationship between jobs and housing at the project, city, subregional, and county levels. Jobs/housing balance is one indicator of a project s effect on growth and quality of life in the project area.
SCAG uses the jobs/housing ratio to assess the relationship between housing and employment growth. The jobs/housing ratio is a general measure of the “balance” between the number of jobs and number of housing units within a geographic area, without regard to economic constraints or individual preferences. Jobs/housing goals and ratios are advisory only. o ideal jobs/housing ratio is adopted in state, regional or city policies. However, SCAG refers to communities with more than the regional average of 1.35 jobs per dwelling unit as “jobs-rich.” SCAG applies the jobs/housing ratio at the regional and subregional level as a tool for analyzing the fit between jobs, housing and infrastructure. SCAG s policies further three jobs/housing balance concepts that are discussed below in relation to the proposed project.
Increase the umber of Houses in a Jobs-rich City and Subregion The proposed project would provide 2,500 housing units to balance the continued strong job growth planned for the City. By achieving a very housing-rich 0.03 jobs/housing ratio, the proposed project benefits the overall City and subregional jobs/housing balance.
Table 4.11- compares the jobs/housing ratio for the proposed project with the current and projected jobs/housing ratios for the City, subregion and County. Orange County and the City of Anaheim are jobs-rich. In 2000, Anaheim was home to 1. jobs for every dwelling unit in the City, while the County provided 1.54 jobs per household. Over time, both the County of Orange and the City of Anaheim are expected to become more jobs-rich than today as a result of economic and demographic forces. The proposed project would not change this result, but would lessen the degree to which they are jobs-rich.
TABLE 4.11-
SUMMARY OF REGIONAL AND LOCAL JOBS/HOUSING RATIOS
2000 AND 2025
Proposed Project Citya RSA B-41 Countyb
2000 J/H Ratio 1. 0 1.61 1.54
2025 J/H Ratio .03 2.01 1.52 1. 3 a Based on City of Anaheim the update of city OCP-2000 projections based on General Plan land use, to reflect land use policies as of September 2003. b Based on OCP-2000, Center for Demographic Research, June 2000 The Mountain Park project site is located within Regional Statistical Area B-41. In addition to portions of Anaheim, RSA B-41 also contains Placentia, orba inda, and the eastern portions of Brea and Orange, along with part of the Cleveland ational Forest. The proposed project represents less than one percent of total RSA B-41 job growth projected by OCP-2000 for the 2000-2025 period. The jobs/housing ratio for RSA B-41 is 1.61 in 2000, dropping to 1.52 in 2025.
ocate Jobs and Housing Growth ear Activity Centers and Transportation Corridors The project concentrates employment and housing growth in an area near transportation corridors. The project site is close to commercial and industrial areas in the Canyon and Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.11 Pop Housing-030 05.doc 4.11-15 Population and Housing Downtown areas, as well as job concentrations in Orange and Irvine adjacent to SR-241. The proposed project is served by major freeways, most notably the SR-91 and SR-241 tolled freeflow capacity.
Match Housing to Job Opportunities
The project matches the amount and type of housing with the amount and type of employment available within a jurisdiction. A community with a highly educated technical job base requires a greater proportion of moderate and upper income housing to encourage residents to work locally and reduce their travel and the environmental impacts associated with long commutes.
The proposed project would provide both single-family detached and attached housing opportunities within the Mountain Park site. These housing types are responsive to the types of workers that would be employed in the project area, as well as in retail, office, and industrial businesses throughout Anaheim and the RSA B-41 subregion. This topic is explored in greater detail in the workforce housing discussion which follows below.
Wor force Housing Issues
The employment-generating aspect of the proposed project is reduced from the amount allowed in the current Specific Plan. A total of 231 acres of job-generating commercial and public development would be eliminated from the Mountain Park Specific Plan by the proposed project. A total of 74 net new jobs would occur on the site as a result of the proposed project.
One hundred percent of net new jobs would serve community education, safety and recreation needs.
This analysis uses available data to estimate the number of housing units that could potentially be occupied by workers within the project area in 2025. To this end, the number of workers per housing unit is a useful indicator of how many units would be absorbed by proposed project workers. Using the 2000 countywide average of 1.56 workers per housing unit calculated from 2000 Decennial data, the proposed project s new workers would generate demand for 4 housing units. The proposed project s 2,500 housing units provides a surplus of 2,452 housing units beyond those that would be required if all net new workers within Mountain Park opted to also live within Mountain Park. Using the City of Anaheim s citywide average of
1. workers per housing unit yields an estimated housing demand of 42 housing units. The proposed project s 2,500 housing units provides 2,45 units in excess of this demand.
Even though the proposed project would provide a surplus of housing opportunities available to workers in the project area, current trends indicate that, in the short-term, jobs located in Mountain Park are likely to be filled by workers living throughout Orange County as well as os Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego Counties. The distribution of housing types in these counties provides an indicator of the types of housing that future project area workers would occupy. The 2000 Decennial Census found that the housing stock in these counties was
52.5 percent single family, .2 percent single family attached, 35.3 percent multi-family,
3. percent mobile homes, and 0.2 percent other types of units (boats, recreational vehicles, vans, etc).
The City of Anaheim s recently updated General Plan and Housing Element demonstrate its readiness to provide housing for workers generated by the proposed project. The City of Anaheim uses the adopted regional and Orange County growth projections as a guide for permitting housing growth. As noted above, the OCP-2000 growth forecasts already anticipate and address the housing demand associated with 74 net new jobs in the project area, distributing the housing units to Orange County and neighboring os Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The proposed project s housing demand is negligible when compared Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.11 Pop Housing-030 05.doc 4.11-16 Population and Housing with forecasted 2025 housing in Orange County, and even more negligible in the context of forecasted housing levels in the multi-county commuter shed that surrounds the project.
Impact Analysis
Threshold Would the proposed project induce substantial population gro th in the area, either directly for e ample by proposing ne homes and businesses , or indirectly for e ample through e tension of roads or other infrastructure
Employment Growth
The proposed project would provide 74 jobs, which is 71 jobs greater than OCP-2000 small area estimates prepared by the City of Anaheim. However, these jobs represent less than one percent of future job growth projected for the City of Anaheim, and all jobs address community education, safety, and recreation needs. The proposed project would reduce employment in Mountain Park below levels anticipated in the current Specific Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the employment that would be allowed under the land use designations in the General Plan adopted in May 2004.
By providing a mix of residential uses close to employment concentrations and transportation corridors, the proposed project responds to General Plan Housing, and Use and Growth Management Element policies that seek to balance housing and job opportunities.
In light of these factors, the proposed project results in no significant adverse employment growth impacts under CEQA.
Housing
The proposed project falls below OCP-2000 housing growth projection for 2025 by 662 units.
The proposed project fits within the amount of housing growth approved in the existing Mountain Park Specific Plan. Further, the proposed project is consistent with the land use designations in the May 2004 General Plan and Use Element.
In addition, the proposed project contributes to meeting state-mandated RH A housing production targets beyond 2005. The proposed project would provide above-moderate income units that contribute to citywide housing need targets, and implement City and Regional policies encouraging more housing production in job-rich areas. The proposed project contributes to a more balanced jobs/housing ratio consistent with both regional and City General Plan policies.
In light of these factors, the proposed project results in no substantial adverse impact on housing growth under CEQA.
Population
The proposed project would result in population growth that is a direct consequence of its housing growth. The proposed project s population growth is consistent with total housing units allowable under the General Plan and the existing Mountain Park Specific Plan. The project population would exceed the updated estimates of OCP-2000 for the project area, although the number of housing units they would live in is less than OCP-2000 small area estimates.
Further, the proposed project would locate resident population within an area of abundant job opportunities, thus addressing local and regional policies aimed at matching housing and job Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.11 Pop Housing-030 05.doc 4.11-17 Population and Housing opportunities, and reducing trips and associated emissions. The proposed project s population is also consistent with the City Housing Element s ongoing effort to boost housing production to meet its fair share of regional housing needs, as required by state law.
In light of these factors, the proposed project results in no significant adverse population impact under CEQA.
Threshold Would the project conflict ith applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency ith jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect
Table 4.11-9 provides a summary of the project s consistency with applicable goals and policies from both the City of Anaheim General Plan and SCAG s Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. As demonstrated by Table 4.11-9, the proposed project is consistent with the identified goals and policies.
TABLE 4.11-
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH POPULATION AND
HOUSING-RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES
GOALS AND POLICIES CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
City of Anaheim General Plan
2000-2005 Housing Element
Policy 2b.3 Facilitate, through City regulations,
the construction of family housing.
Policy 2b. Continue to provide a land use
balance which helps to meet Anaheim s
projected housing need.
The proposed project addresses these General Plan
goals and policies by providing additional housing units in a jobs-rich area, and by providing housing opportunities for workers in the City.
Land Use Element
Goal .1 Address the jobs-housing relationship by
developing housing near job centers and
transportation facilities.
Policy 1 Address the jobs-housing balance
through the development of housing in proximity
to local job centers.
Policy 2 Develop housing that addresses the
need of the City s diverse employment base.
The proposed project provides up to 2,500 single-family residential units in an area near transportation corridors (SR-241, SR-261 and SR-91). The project site is also
close to commercial and industrial areas in the Canyon
and Downtown areas, as well as job concentrations in the cities of Orange and Irvine adjacent to SR-241. Refer to the discussion provided under the Evaluation of
Employment, Housing and Population Impacts provided
previously in this section. Also refer to the discussion of SCAG policies provided below.
Growth Management Element
Goal 1.1 Provide a balance of housing options and
job opportunities throughout the City.
Policy 3 Ensure a balance of retail, office,
industrial and residential land uses to enhance
the economic base of the City when considering
land use changes.
SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide
3.01 The population, housing, and job forecasts,
which are adopted by SCAG s Regional Council and that
reflect local plans and policies, shall be used by SCAG in all phases of implementation and review.
SCAG s most current forecasts for Orange County are
contained in the 2004 Regional Transportation Plan.
SCAG s Regional Council adopted this forecast at the
County level in April 2004. SCAG also prepared
unadopted advisory forecasts for each jurisdiction in the region which result in the adopted county and regional
forecasts.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Screencheck Draft EIR
TABLE 4.11- Continued
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH POPULATION AND
HOUSING-RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.11 Pop Housing-030 05.doc 4.11-1 Population and Housing
GOALS AND POLICIES CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Table 4.11-3, presented previously, references the
forecasts used to prepare and analyze the Mountain Park Specific Plan. Since the 2004 SCAG regional forecast
was still in development during the preparation of the
General Plan, the City of Anaheim used locally-adopted
OCP-2000 projections for Orange County and updated
OCP-2000 population, housing and employment data that
reflected current land use policies within the City of
Anaheim s boundaries. The General Plan Update was
adopted by the Anaheim City Council in May 2004. The
City and County forecasts in Table 4.11-3 are the same
as the forecast utilized in the City of Anaheim s General Plan.
SCAG s September 7, 2004, comment letter on the OP
for the Draft EIR requested that the latest SCAG regional forecast be used in the document. The forecast numbers
that SCAG provided for Orange County and the City of
Anaheim are identical to OCP-2004.
The September 2003 projections reflecting current city
land use policies provided the basis for Anaheim s
projections within the regional forecast. The September 2003 housing projections and the 2004 SCAG housing
forecast is the same. The September 2003 population
projection is 2.9 percent higher than the 2004 SCAG
population forecast. The September 2003 city
employment projection is 5.9 percent higher than SCAG s 2004 projections. These variations are due to continued refinements pursued by SCAG during the year following
preparation of the September 2003 projections. This
issue is discussed further under “Regional Growth
Projections, in Section 4.11.1, Existing Conditions.
3.04 Encourage local jurisdictions efforts to achieve
a balance between the types of jobs they seek to attract and housing prices.
The project promotes matching the amount and type of
housing with the amount and type of employment
available within a jurisdiction. A community with a highly educated technical job base requires a greater proportion of moderate and upper income housing to encourage
residents to work locally and reduce their travel and the environmental impacts associated with long commutes.
The proposed project would provide both single-family
detached and attached housing opportunities within the
Mountain Park site. These housing types are responsive
to the types of housing that would be needed by workers who would be employed in the project area, as well as in retail, office, and industrial businesses throughout
Anaheim and the RSA B-41 subregion.
3.11 Support provisions and incentives created by
local jurisdictions to attract housing growth in job rich subregions and job growth in housing rich subregions.
The proposed project would provide 2,500 housing units
to balance the continued strong job growth planned for
the City. By achieving a very housing-rich 0.03 jobs/
housing ratio, the proposed project benefits the overall City and subregional jobs/housing balance.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Screencheck Draft EIR
TABLE 4.11- Continued
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH POPULATION AND
HOUSING-RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.11 Pop Housing-030 05.doc 4.11-19 Population and Housing
GOALS AND POLICIES CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
3.12 Encourage existing or proposed local
jurisdictions programs aimed at designing land uses
which encourage the use of transit and thus reduce the
need for roadway expansion, reduce the number of auto
trips and vehicle miles traveled, and create opportunities for residents to walk and bike.
In accordance with SCAG policies 3.12 and 3.14, the
project concentrates employment and housing growth in
an activity area near transportation corridors. The
proposed project is close to commercial and industrial
areas in the Canyon and Downtown areas, as well as job
concentrations in Orange and Irvine adjacent to SR-241.
3.14 Support local plans to increase density of future
development located at strategic points along the
regional commuter rail, transit systems, and activity
centers.
The proposed project is not in proximity to existing transit facilities; however, it does provide bikeways accessible to the public that connect with existing off-site bike routes and regional riding and hiking trails.
4.11.3 MITIGATION PROGRAM
o significant impacts related to population and housing have been identified and no mitigation is required.
4.11.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The purpose of this section is to evaluate any additional incremental impact that the proposed project is likely to cause over and above the combined impacts of already approved and proposed projects in the City and its sphere-of-influence.
Section 15130 (b) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines provides two sources of information on which cumulative impact analyses may be based:
1) “A list of past, present and probable future projects, producing cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or 2) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or areawide conditions contributing to the environmental impact. “
Grounded in the second source of information, the City of Anaheim s 2004 General Plan Update Final EIR includes a cumulative impact analysis that compares potential impacts to conditions established in the subregion which encompasses all of Orange County.
Consistent with the second CEQA Guidelines option, this analysis of the cumulative population and housing impacts associated with the proposed Mountain Park would assess potential significant cumulative impacts in the context of the September 2003 growth projections for the City of Anaheim incorporated in the adopted General Plan Update and certified Final EIR.
Cumulative Employment Impacts
The Anaheim General Plan Final EIR examined a cumulative impact scenario including employment-generating land uses in Mountain Park in its build-out scenario. The Final EIR, certified in May 2004, identified a potential cumulative employment impact due to the General Plan in its entirety, including Mountain Park. However, this potential cumulative impact was deemed to be “substantial, but not adverse, in light of the project s contribution to improved jobs/housing balance and transportation demand management promoted by SCAG s regional Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Screencheck Draft EIR
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.11 Pop Housing-030 05.doc 4.11-20 Population and Housing policies.” (Anaheim General Plan and oning Cope Update EIR, Chapter 5.12.5, Certified May 2004).
The proposed Mountain Park project remains within the employment-generating land use parameters of the Mountain Park development assumed in the General Plan Final EIR.
Therefore, this proposed project would not cause any significant adverse cumulative employment growth impacts under CEQA beyond those determined to be insignificant in the General Plan Final EIR.
Cumulative Housing Impacts
The Anaheim General Plan Final EIR cumulative impact scenario also assumed a maximum of 2,500 units in Mountain Park. The Final EIR, certified in May 2004, identified a potential “substantial, but not adverse” cumulative housing impact due to the General Plan in its entirety, inclusive of the Mountain Park area. However, this potential cumulative impact was found to be “less than considerable and, therefore, less than cumulatively significant.” (Anaheim General Plan and oning Code Update EIR, page 6-7, Certified May 2004).
The General Plan Final EIR notes that the housing units in Mountain Park represent a reduction from the amount originally planned for the project site. However, the reduction of 5,466 units would be more than offset by units added to the Platinum Triangle area. The General Plan allows 9,175 new residential units of varying densities in the Platinum Triangle, an increase of , 95 units over the amount of housing identified for the Platinum Triangle in the certified Housing Element. Due to its location and physical characteristics, the Platinum Triangle site is better suited to a variety of housing densities, including high density, than the hilly terrain of Mountain Park. Currently, the City of Anaheim is considering a potential increase in the amount of housing allowed in the Platinum Triangle to 9,500 units.
Therefore, the proposed Mountain Park housing component remains within the parameters of allowable development assumed in the General Plan Final EIR. This proposed project would not cause any additional significant adverse cumulative housing growth impacts under CEQA beyond those deemed insignificant in the General Plan Final EIR.
Cumulative Population Impacts
The Anaheim General Plan Final EIR cumulative impact scenario addressed a maximum of 2,500 units in Mountain Park, with an average household occupancy of 3.3 persons per unit.
The Final EIR, certified in May 2004, identified a potential cumulative population impact due to the General Plan in its entirety, not to the Mountain Park area in particular. However, the Final EIR concludes that this potential impact is “substantial but not adverse” and “less than considerable and, therefore, less than cumulatively significant.” The proposed Mountain Park housing component remains within the parameters of the Mountain Park allowable development assumed in the General Plan Final EIR, and is expected to generate the same amount of population assumed in the General Plan analysis. Therefore, this proposed project would not cause a significant adverse cumulative population growth impact under CEQA beyond those cumulative impacts found to be insignificant in the certified General Plan Final EIR.
4.11.5 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
o significant population or housing impacts would result from implementation of the proposed project.
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-1 Public Services and Utilities
4.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Existing condition information presented in this section is based on information provided in the City of Anaheim General Plan (May 2004); City of Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update EIR No. 330 (May 2004), project-specific facilities reports, and coordination with affected public service and utility agencies. Specific references are identified within the subsection for each respective issue. This section addresses the following public services and utilities; the service provider is noted parenthetically:
x Fire Protection Services (City of Anaheim)
x Police Protection Services (City of Anaheim)
x Schools (Orange Unified School District)
x Water (City of Anaheim)
x Sanitary Sewer (City of Anaheim)
x Electricity (City of Anaheim)
x atural Gas (Southern California Gas)
x Solid Waste (Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department) x ibrary (City of Anaheim)
x Telephone (SBC Pacific Bell)
x Cable Television Service/Reception (Adelphia Communications Company) In addition to the public services/utilities addressed above, this Draft EIR also includes analysis of the following: stormdrain facilities (Section 4.4, Hydrology), park and recreation services/facilities (Section 4.13, Recreation); and fire protection relative to wildland fire hazards (Section 4.10, Hazards and Hazardous Materials).
4.12.1 FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES
Existing Conditions
The information presented in this section regarding existing fire protection services is based on information provided in the City of Anaheim General Plan, adopted in May 2004. The City of Anaheim Fire Department (AFD) is responsible for fire prevention, suppression, investigation and other related services in the project area. A private company that coordinates closely with the AFD provides ambulance services. Additionally, the AFD is part of the Metro Cities Fire Authority Communication Center, a regional coordination system with other firefighting agencies that currently serves the cities of Anaheim, Fountain alley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, ewport Beach, and Orange. This communications center, located in the City of Anaheim and commonly referred to as Metro et, dispatches fire and emergency medical services for over 1.2 million citizens and covers 1 square miles within Orange County. The AFD manages the day-to-day operation of Metro et.