9b. Final EIR 331 — Anaheim City Council, July 23, 2024 (part 4 of 4)

The AFD contracts with the California Department of Forestry (CDF) for fire protection of undeveloped portions of the project site. The AFD will continue to contract with the CDF for fire protection of the proposed open space areas after implementation of the project.

The project site is located in the Hill and Canyon Area of the City that is characterized by dry vegetation, steep slopes and high wind conditions. The project site is within a ery High Fire Hazard Severity one and a Special Protection Area, as identified in the Safety Element of the City of Anaheim General Plan. The ery High Fire Hazard Severity one generally includes ridgeline areas and undeveloped wildland areas located east of SR-55 and south of SR-91.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-2 Public Services and Utilities 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 in the Special Protection Area is estimated to be a moderate probability/high consequence event. To ensure adequate fire protection in times of major fire events, the City participates in the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS), which enhances multi-agency coordination for local and regional emergencies. The Governor s Office of Emergency Services administers the SEMS and coordinates multi-agency responses to disasters.

The City of Anaheim operates 11 fire stations and employs a total of 231 safety, and 54 full-time personnel. The department presently staffs 12 engine companies, ten of which are designated paramedic companies; five truck companies; one contract paramedic company; one hazardousmaterials unit; one technical rescue unit; and two Battalions, housed in Fire Station 6 (Euclid Fire Station) and Station (Riverdale Station). Table 4.12-1 provides a description of the existing facilities that provide fire protection service to the city. Fire Stations , 9, and 10 are located in the Hill and Canyon Area. The City has plans to develop up to three new fire stations in the City, including Fire Station 12 in the Mountain Park project area.

TABLE 4.12-1

FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES
Station Station Location E uipment
Distance to
Project Site
Downtown Station 1 500 E. Broadway Street Paramedic Engine 1, Engine 21 and Truck 1, and Ambulance 1

14. miles
Brookhurst Station 2 2141 W. Crescent Avenue Paramedic Engine 2 and Truck 2 16.3 miles Resort Station 3 1717 S. Clementine Paramedic Engine 3, Truck 3 and Ambulance 3, and Urban Search
and Rescue 3

15.5 miles
West Anaheim Station 4 2736 West Orange Ave. Paramedic Engine 4 and Truck 24 1 . miles raemer Station 5 1154 . raemer Boulevard Paramedic Engine 5 9. miles Euclid Station 6 1330 S. Euclid Avenue Paramedic Engine 6 and Engine 26, Battalion 2, Ambulance 6

16.9 miles
Stadium Station 7 2222 E. Ball Road Paramedic Engine 7 and Ambulance 7

13.1 miles
Riverdale Station 4555 E. Riverdale Battalion 1, Paramedic Engine, Truck and Hazmat

6.9 miles
Anaheim Hills Station 9 6300 E. ohl Ranch Road Paramedic Engine 9 and Ambulance 9

5.5 miles
Weir Canyon Station 10 270 E. Monte ista Paramedic Engine 10 2.6 miles Disney Station 11 Downtown Disney
510 Disneyland Drive
Medic 43 and Medic 44 (two
paramedics on each unit)

15. miles
Source: City of Anaheim General Plan, May 2004.

Response times for the Anaheim Fire Department require first engine response within five minutes to 90 percent of all incidents and eight minutes to the remaining 10 percent of incidents.

The department also requires a 10-minute maximum response time for truck company response to all incidents.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-3 Public Services and Utilities Project Impact Analysis
Thresholds of Significance
The criterion used to determine the significance of impacts on fire services is based on the City s Initial Study and the model Initial Study checklist in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The project would typically result in a significant impact on fire protection services if it would:

1. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection services.

Impact Analysis
On-site Project Impacts
Development of the proposed project would convert currently undeveloped land in a hillside area to primarily residential land uses. As a result, the proposed project would increase the demand for fire protection services provided by the City of Anaheim. As described in Section 3, Project Description, and in the mitigation program provided in this section, the proposed project also includes the development of a fire station within Development Area 6, and implementation of additional fire protection features (fuel modification plan, access design for emergency vehicles, building features, etc.). With the provision of a fire station within the Mountain Park Specific Plan area, service levels provided by the Fire Department to areas within the City would not be reduced, and the response times in the vicinity of the project would be decreased. The fire station site is within the project site and has been included in the environmental impact analysis area for the project (described in Section 3.6) and the potential environmental impacts associated with development of the site have been addressed in the respective sections of this EIR.

The potential for the project to result in wildland fire hazards is addressed in Section 4.10, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. As discussed in that section, with the implementation of the proposed project features for fire protection, the proposed project would not result in a significant wildland fire hazard potential.

Off-site Project Feature Impacts
Proposed off-site improvements are comprised mainly of roadway, drainage and infrastructure improvements and would not create additional demand on fire protection services. These Improvements would likely facilitate better access to the project site. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Caltrans-related Project Feature Impacts
The proposed SR-241/Weir Canyon Road Interchange, Mountain Park Drive bridge overcrossing, SR-91 slope improvements, roadway improvements and slope and drainage facility modifications within Caltrans right-of-way would not increase the fire hazard in the area, would not increase the demand for fire protection services, and would not require the construction of new fire protection facilities. These transportation-related components of the Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-4 Public Services and Utilities project would improve access within the project site and to SR-241, improving the ability of the fire department to meet response time and other performance objectives.

Mitigation Program
Project Design Features (PDFs) 10-1, 10-2 and 10-3 in Section 4.10, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, also address fire protection services.

Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions
SC 12-1 Prior to approval of each tentative tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall demonstrate that the map has been prepared in compliance with applicable provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code and the Mountain Park Specific Plan relevant to fire prevention and suppression, subject to the review and approval of the Fire Department.

4.12.2 POLICE SERVICES
Existing Conditions
The information presented in this section regarding existing police protection services is based on information provided in the City of Anaheim General Plan (May 2004), and correspondence with the City of Anaheim Police Department (Officer W. Alonso, personal communication, April 2004).

The project site is located within the East District service area of the City of Anaheim Police Department. The East Station, or the Randall W. Gaston Police Station, is located 2.6 miles from the project site at 201 East Santa Ana Canyon Road and would provide primary law enforcement services to the project site. In addition, the Main, South and West stations, and police heliport provide staffing and resources to the project site, as needed. These law enforcement services would include patrol, investigations, traffic enforcement, traffic control, vice and narcotics enforcement, airborne patrol, crime suppression, and community policing.

The Anaheim Police Department also provides crime prevention services to areas throughout the City, including coordination of the eighborhood Watch Program. The Police Department participates in a standing mutual aid agreement with all law enforcement agencies in Orange County in the event that assistance is needed.

Emergency calls are prioritized into three categories: Priority 1, 2, and 3 with Priority 1 calls being the most life threatening or time crucial. The Police Department does not have required response times; however, there are existing goals of 6 minutes for a Priority 1, 10 minutes for a Priority 2 call and 30 minutes for a Priority 3 call. The average response time of patrol units to Priority 1 emergency calls throughout the jurisdiction is 6.1 minutes while the response time for non-emergency Priority 2 and Priority 3 calls are an average of .6 minutes and 19.2 minutes, respectively.

The Anaheim Police Department currently employs 375 officers and is approved for 400 officers. The police department was recently authorized to hire 20 more officers (lateral and new hires).

A Police Benefit Area Plan was previously adopted by the City for the East Santa Ana Canyon Area (Resolution 9-234). However, to address current conditions in the City, the Police Department is in the process of preparing a City-wide Police Facilities Capital Improvement Fee, which is intended to be applicable to the Mountain Park Specific Plan project area and would Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-5 Public Services and Utilities replace the need for the payment of fees required by the Police Benefit Area Plan. The City previously planned to construct a new police station in the East Santa Ana Canyon Benefit Area, but has subsequently determined to locate the facility in an existing building.

Project Impact Analysis
Thresholds of Significance
The criterion used to determine the significance of impacts on police services is based on the City s Initial Study and the Initial Study checklist form in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The project would typically result in a significant impact on police protection services if it would:

Impact Analysis
On-site Project Impacts
Under existing conditions, the Mountain Park Specific Plan project site is primarily open space and requires minimal police services. Implementation of the proposed project would involve the development of a maximum of 2,500 residential units, and would increase the City s population by approximately ,250 residents (assuming 3.3 people per dwelling unit). Based on the established service ratio of the City of 1.0 sworn officer per 1,000 residents, the proposed project would generate the need for approximately eight officers. The additional officers and related equipment would be needed to maintain current officer to population ratios and continue to provide a consistent level of service to the project area and remainder of the City (Officer W.

Alonso, personal communication, April 2004). The City of Anaheim Police Department would ultimately determine the timing and number of new officers hired as part of its standard staffing practices. The funding for new officer positions needed to maintain acceptable citywide police protection service levels would come from the City s General Fund Property taxes and other fees assessed on future property owners in the Mountain Park Specific Plan community would contribute to the General Fund revenues. Additionally, the property owner/developer would be required to contribute to the City-wide Police Facilities Capital Improvement Fee Program.

Existing police department facilities/station are sufficient to provide coverage for the project area; therefore the project would not result in the need for a new police facility (Officer W.

Alonso, personal communication, April 2004). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in physical environmental impacts associated with the development of new police department facilities.

Off-site Project Feature Impacts
Proposed off-site improvements are comprised mainly of infrastructure and roadway improvements and would not create additional demand on police protection services.

Therefore, no impact would occur.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-6 Public Services and Utilities Caltrans-related Project Feature Impacts
The proposed SR-241/Weir Canyon Road Interchange, Mountain Park Drive bridge overcrossing, SR-91 slope improvements, roadway improvements and slope and drainage facility modifications within Caltrans right-of-way would not increase the demand for police protection services, and would not require the construction of new police facilities. These transportation-related components of the project would improve access within the project site and to SR-241, improving the ability of the police department to meet response time and other performance objectives.

Mitigation Program
Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions
SC 12-2 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for each building with attached units, or prior to issuance of a building permit for each detached building, the property owner/developer shall pay the Police Facilities Capital Improvement Fee in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit; or, if the fee has not been adopted at the time of issuance of the first building permit, the payment of an amount estimated by the City of Anaheim Police Department to be the approximate fair share attributable to the project for police services.

4.12.3 SCHOOLS
Existing Conditions
The project site is under the jurisdiction of the Orange Unified School District (OUSD), which serves grades kindergarten through 12th grade. The OUSD service area encompasses nearly 10 square miles, bringing in over 30,000 students from the cities of Orange, illa Park, and portions of Santa Ana, Anaheim, and Garden Grove. The District operates 43 schools:
30 elementary schools ( to 6), including one magnet school ( to ); five middle schools (7 to ), including one district operated charter school (7 to ); four high schools (9 to 12); and four special schools. Special programs include a Career Education Center which houses the Regional Occupational Program (ROP), Child Development Center, and Teen Mother Program.

District wide enrollment in the 2002-2003 school year was 31, 23 students with a total capacity of 30,944 seats (David Taussig Associates, 2003). The capacity calculation does not account for the age or condition of the portable classrooms, or whether they are subject to exclusion in the capacity calculation (i.e., leased or old portables).

Although overall OUSD enrollment has increased slightly at a rate of a little over one percent a year over the last five years, it is currently experiencing declining enrollment in the elementary grades. As a result of the decline in enrollment as well as changing attendance boundaries and other policy decisions, the OUSD is able to take five out of seven of its elementary schools off the multi-track year-round schedule, with plans to take the remaining two schools off this schedule by the 2005-2006 school year. Due to the trend of decline in the elementary grades, future middle and high school levels are expected to decline as well.

The closest OUSD school facilities to the project site are: Canyon Rim Elementary, Anaheim Hills Elementary, Running Springs Elementary, El Rancho Middle School (charter school), and Canyon High School. Table 4.12-2 identifies the capacity of these schools in 2000 and the enrollment for the 2003-2004 school year. Although concerns were raised during the public scoping process for this EIR that Running Springs Elementary and El Rancho Middle School are Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-7 Public Services and Utilities operating above capacity, as shown in Table 4.12-2, the schools in proximity to the project site currently have available capacity.

TABLE 4.12-2

ENROLLMENT AND CAPACITY OF SCHOOLS SERVING THE PROJECT
SITE
School Name Capacity 2000a.

Enrollment
2003-2004b.

Anaheim Hills Elementary 500 464
Canyon Rim Elementary 750 703
Running Springs Elementaryc. 912 19
El Rancho Middlec. 1,0 3 1,070
Canyon Highc. 2,052 2,019
a. Capacity using State-loading standards. Classroom Capacity Summary (SB 50).

Orange Unified School District. February 2, 2000.
b. Enrollment. CBEDSs, 2003-2004
c. Orange Unified School District. August 1 , 2004
Regulatory Framework
Senate Bill 50 (SB 50 or “ eroy Greene School Facilities Act”) enacted in 199 represents the most significant school facility finance and developer fee reform legislation for school facilities construction and modernization since the adoption of the 19 6 School Facilities Act. SB 50 provides for three levels of school impact fees. Adjusted bi-annually, evel I fees are now a maximum 2.24 per square foot for residential development and 0.36 per square foot for commercial and industrial development. evel II fees and evel III fees can be imposed by the school districts with enrollment growth due to new development after the preparation of the School Facility eeds Analysis, which will establish the need for and calculate the scale of both evel II and evel III fees. The evel II fee program is based on 50 percent funding from the state and 50 percent funding from the local districts, while limiting the obligation of developers to mitigate the impacts of projects on school facilities. evel III fees cover the full cost of school construction, site acquisition and development related to the project, but are available only when state bond funding for local school construction is exhausted. The payment of school mitigation impact fees authorized by SB 50 is deemed to provide full and complete mitigation of project impacts on school facilities. SB 50 provides that a state or local agency may not deny or refuse to approve the planning, use or development of real property on the basis of a developer s refusal to provide mitigation in amounts in excess of that established by SB 50.

SB 50 authorized statewide bonds in the amount of 9.2 billion, with 2.9 billion for -12 new construction to add capacity to local school districts. In 2002, Assembly Bill 16 modified the School Facility Program and authorized two additional statewide bond measures.

Proposition 47 provided 11.4 billion for -12 approved by the voters in ovember 2002 ( billion for new construction). A second bond measure in the amount of 10 billion for -12 ( 7.7 billion for new construction) was approved by the voters this year (2004).

The OUSD has established a evel II fee of 3. 9 per square foot, which will become a evel III fee of 7.7 should state school construction funding not be available. OUSD has eligibility for state funding and state funding is available for the foreseeable future. Should state funding not be available, OUSD will impose evel III fees, providing 100 percent mitigation of project impacts.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12- Public Services and Utilities Project Impact Analysis
Thresholds of Significance
The criterion used to determine the significance of impacts on school services is based on the City s Initial Study and the model Initial Study checklist form in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The project would typically result in a significant impact on school services if it would:

1. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for school services.

Impact Analysis
On-site Project Impacts
Student Generation
To evaluate school impacts, student generation factors prepared by Davis Demographics Planning (DDP) are applied to the future development. It is currently planned that the Mountain Park project would consist of 1,675 single-family detached units and 25 single-family attached units. The student generation rates are presented in Table 4.12-3.

TABLE 4.12-3
STUDENT YIELD FACTORSa.
- - -12 Total
Single-family Detached 0.325 0.063 0.123 0.512
Single-family Attached 0.153 0.026 0.044 0.223 a. Fall 2002/2003 Projection Report. DDP. March 2003 Using these student yield factors, the construction of 2,500 new units with the proposed project would generate approximately 1,045 additional students at current generation rates, as shown in Table 4.12-4.

TABLE 4.12-4

STUDENTS GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Unit Type Unit Count - - -12
Single-family Detached 1,675 551 107 20
Single-family Attached 25 123 21 35
Total 2 500 4 12 243
Cumulative -12 1 045
The number of additional students would exceed available capacity of area schools. The proposed project would generate a need for a new elementary school. A minimum ten-acre school site will be located within the proposed project site. OUSD representatives have met with the project applicant to discuss school planning and the impacts of the proposed project.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-9 Public Services and Utilities ew capacity would be required to accommodate the middle and high school students generated by the project.

A School Mitigation Agreement that addresses the school facilities required for the proposed project and the financing of these facilities has been completed and was approved by the Orange Unified School District Board of Education on December 16, 2004. The Agreement provides the financing of to 12 facilities through a Community Facilities District. These facilities include a new to 6 school to be built on the 10-acre school site provided in Development Area 3, furniture and equipment, interim facilities, and middle school and high school improvements. The elementary school would be adjacent to a city park, providing joint use opportunities. The Agreement fully mitigates the to 12 school facilities needed to serve the proposed project in the City of Anaheim. This mitigation agreement is included in Appendix .

Without a Mitigation Agreement, the property owner/developer would be subject to payment of school impact fees as provided for by state law at the time of issuance of building permits for the project. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 payment of the developer fees required by State law would provide full and complete mitigation of the Project s impacts on school facilities. Therefore, no impacts to school services would result with implementation of the project and no additional mitigation measures would be required.

School Site
As previously noted, the proposed Specific Plan includes the reservation of a minimum 10-acre school site in Development Area 3. The OUSD would be required to comply with all requirements of the California Department of Education concerning the acquisition and construction of a school at the proposed location. These requirements potentially include, but are not limited to, a Phase I environmental site assessment, a safety risk assessment associated with the Southern Trails (Questar) pipeline, and analysis of hazardous air emissions within proximity of the site.

This EIR evaluates the potential impacts (traffic, air quality, utilities, etc.) associated with the development of a school within the project site. It should be noted that if the OUSD does not purchase the proposed school site, the applicant could request an amendment to the City of Anaheim General Plan to remove the school site designation and develop residential uses. The proposed Mountain Park Specific Plan allows for the transfer of units to Development Area 3 from other Development Areas if the traffic generated by the transferred units does not exceed the amount of traffic that would be generated by a school with 00 students (as assumed in the traffic analysis prepared for the project. However, the total unit count of 2,500 would not be exceeded.

Off-site Project Feature Impacts
Proposed off-site improvements are comprised mainly of infrastructure, drainage, and roadway improvements and would not generate additional students. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-10 Public Services and Utilities Mitigation Program
Project Design Features
PDF 12-1 Prior to the approval of the first tentative tract or parcel map in Development Area 3, the map shall provide for a minimum 10-acre site reserved for the purchase and construction of an elementary school by the Orange Unified School District. The property owner/developer shall provide the Planning Department with adequate proof that, in defining the boundaries of the school site area, the property owner/developer has complied with the provisions of the School Impact Mitigation Agreement (Appendix ) dated December 16, 2004 between Irvine Community Development Company and the Orange Unified School District, or any subsequent agreement entered into between the property owner/developer and the Orange Unified School District.

Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions
SC 12-3 The property owner/developer has entered into a School Impact Mitigation Agreement (Appendix ) with the Orange Unified School District in order to mitigate impacts to the school district associated with the Mountain Park development. This Mitigation Agreement fully mitigates any impacts to the school district in compliance with SB 50. Evidence that this agreement has been executed shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of the first building permit, or fees shall be paid in compliance with SB 50, prior to the issuance of each building permit.

4.12.4 WATER
Information provided in this section is based on the City of Anaheim General Plan (May 2004), the City of Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update FEIR No. 330 (May 2004), the Mountain Park Domestic Water Distribution System Sub-Area Master Plan (RBF Consulting, August 2004) (included in Appendix ), the Final Draft City of Anaheim Water Supply Assessment (Boyle Engineering Corporation, December 2004) (included in Appendix M), and the public facilities component of the proposed Mountain Park Specific Plan. These reports are available for review as outlined in Section 2.5, Review of the Draft EIR.

Existing Conditions
Water Sources
The City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department (APUD) provides water service to most of the City, including the area of the proposed project. Water resources for the City of Anaheim are obtained through the following sources: imported (piped) water from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD), the enain Water Treatment Plant, and Orange County groundwater basin managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD). Current and projected water supplies in the City are summarized in the City s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) that is updated on a five-year cycle.

The OCWD requires any area receiving groundwater supplies to be within its district s boundaries. Further, Rule 15, Section F.1 of the City of Anaheim Water Rates, Rules and Regulations indicates that the City Public Utilities Department will not deliver water to a property within it water service area unless it is also within the OCWD boundaries. The project site is Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-11 Public Services and Utilities currently not within the OCWD boundaries; however, the OCWD may annex the project site as well as other areas into the OCWD.

The Water Supply Assessment prepared by the City of Anaheim for the project is included in Appendix M and provides information regarding the availability and sources of water for the APUD.

Water Distribution Facilities
The City s water distribution system includes approximately 744 miles of water mains, 61,500 active water meters and over 7, 00 fire hydrants. The system facilities also include eight water connections to the MWD, 27 active wells, one 920 million gallon (MG) reservoir of untreated water, one 15 MG per day water treatment plant, 12 reservoirs with a total capacity of over 29 MG for treated water, seven chlorination facilities, and nine booster pump stations.

The City s distribution system is generally divided into two main geographic areas: the flatland and the Hill and Canyon Areas. The project site is within the Hill and Canyon Area, which encompasses approximately 11,000 acres situated generally south and east of the Santa Ana River and SR-55 and is served primarily by imported water purchased from MWD. As noted in FEIR o. 330, the City s distribution system is adequate to meet existing demands.

There are currently no City of Anaheim water distribution or storage facilities within the project site. Robertson s Ready Mix obtains its industrial process water from a well located north of SR-91 in Featherly Regional Park. OCWD provided production information for this well for the calendar years 2001 through 2003. In 2001, this well produced 106 gallon per minute (gpm). In 2002 the production increased to 174 gpm, and was 15 gpm in 2003. At peak performance this well may be able to produce a flow of up to 1,000 gpm for four to five hours, but with a significant draw down in the groundwater table adjacent to the well. It is estimated that with regular maintenance this well could produce 500 to 625 gpm for an -hour window for irrigation purposes.

Existing water distribution facilities in the vicinity of the project site include: a 24-inch water main in Santa Ana Canyon Road (within the City s 750-foot zone transmission system); a 16- inch water main in Oak Canyon Drive (within the City s 900-foot zone transmission system); and a 16-inch water main in Weir Canyon Road/Blue Sky Drive (within the City s 1120-foot zone transmission system).

As part of the annexation process discussed previously, the OCWD will identify necessary water supply facilities to serve the additional areas added to its service area and projected growth in the OCWD service area. The OCWD water supply facilities required by the proposed project have not been determined, and are being addressed in the EIR currently being prepared by the OCWD. The OCWD issued a otice of Preparation ( OP) for a program EIR addressing the “OCWD ong-term Facilities Plan and Annexation Requests by the Irvine Ranch Water District and City of Anaheim” in August 2004. It is anticipated that the draft EIR will be available for public review in the Spring/Summer 2005. Potential supply facilities may include, but are not limited to: groundwater wells, pump stations, Metropolitan Water District connections, enain Water Treatment Plant, and/or any other facility necessary to meet the projected increase in water demands.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-12 Public Services and Utilities Project Impact Analysis
Thresholds of Significance
The criteria used to determine the significance of impacts on water service is based on the City s Initial Study and the model Initial Study checklist form in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The project would typically result in a significant impact on water service if it would:

1. Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project (including large scale developments as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21151.9 and described in Question o. 20 of the Environmental Information Form) from existing entitlements and resources, or if new or expanded entitlements are needed.

2. Require or result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Impact Analysis
Threshold 1: Would the project have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project (including large scale developments as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21151.9 and described in Question No. 20 of the Environmental Information Form) from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
In 2001, Senate Bills (SB) 610 and 221 were enacted to require coordination between land use decisions and information on water supply. SB 610 requires preparation of water supply assessments as part of the environmental documentation for certain projects as defined in Water Code Section 10912 a and SB 221 requires affirmative written verification that sufficient water supply is available for certain residential subdivisions. The proposed project involves a Specific Plan amendment and requires the preparation of a Water Supply Assessment (WSA).

A WSA was prepared for the proposed project and is included in Appendix M to this EIR. Water erifications (W s) will be required prior to approval of individual tentative tract maps.

Following is a discussion of the water demand of the proposed project, and a summary of the results of the WSA prepared for the proposed project.

Based on the City s historical water use factors, the proposed project is anticipated to generate an average day water demand for residential and non-residential uses (school, fire station, and trail staging area) of approximately 1.3 million gallons per day (MGD) and irrigation water demand of 0.54 MGD, with a total demand of 1.92 MGD.

The City of Anaheim s Rule 15C requires terminal storage (emergency supply) in the eastern reaches of the City of Anaheim service area, in addition to basic storage volume. Terminal storage is typically 150 percent of the maximum day demand; however, the terminal storage requirement for the proposed project was reduced to exclude common-area landscaping demands. This exclusion was based on the provision of irrigation systems that would be controlled by automatic programmable irrigation controllers that utilize California Irrigation Management System (CIMIS) Data to adjust water times and durations based on daily evapotranspiration (ET) data. Community wide irrigation control would be provided by a centralized irrigation control system designed to separately valve hydrozones based on plant water requirements, exposure and terrain characteristics. To compensate for the reduction in the size of the terminal storage reservoir, the City would have the capability to turn off irrigation services in the event of an emergency. The terminal storage requirement for the project is approximately 3.9 million gallons.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-13 Public Services and Utilities The City of Anaheim commissioned preparation of a Water Supply Assessment for the proposed project (Boyle Engineering Corporation, 2004) to determine whether or not the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department would have sufficient water to serve the proposed project, including dry hydrologic periods of up to three years for the next 20 years. Water demands under ultimate buildout conditions are considered in the WSA. The WSA concluded that there is sufficient available water supplies for the proposed project for the next 20 years, including during drought conditions.

Threshold 2: Would the project require or result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
On-site Project Impacts
As described in Section 3, Project Description, the proposed water distribution system would include water lines, pump stations and reservoirs designed and constructed as part of the project, specifically to accommodate the water supply for the project. The majority of the distribution facilities would be constructed within the project site; however, connections to offsite water lines would be required (refer to discussion below). The on-site water facilities, including 750-, 900-, and 1320-foot zone reservoirs, would occur within the identified development footprint evaluated throughout this EIR. o additional impacts related to construction and operation of the on-site water distribution system would occur.

As noted previously, the OCWD water supply facilities that may be required to supply groundwater to the project site, should the site be annexed into the OCWD, are being addressed in an EIR currently being prepared by OCWD for the annexation process.

Installation of these water supply facilities is not part of the proposed project and the impacts associated with the facilities are not considered impacts of the project. The impacts of constructing the OCWD water supply facilities will be addressed in the OCWD EIR.

It is unknown whether the existing well currently being used by Robertson s Ready Mix will continue production. However, the proposed project would not affect its continued operation.

Off-site Project Feature Impacts
As described in Section 3.3.4, Off-site Project Features, implementation of the water distribution system for the proposed project would require connections to and extensions of existing water facilities in developed areas adjacent to the project site. Final water system plans would be developed during tentative tract map level approvals and would be reviewed by the Public Utilities Department.

Water facility connections and extensions would occur within existing City-owned and maintained street right-of-way. Construction of these connections would result in short-term, construction-related impacts, which would be considered less than significant. However, traffic management plans would be prepared to minimize potential impacts during construction.

Caltrans-related Project Feature Impacts
In addition to construction of the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road interchange and Mountain Park Drive Bridge overcrossing, proposed project features within Caltrans right-of-way include roadway improvements and modifications to slopes and drainage facilities along SR-241 and SR-91. These activities would not generate a demand for water and would not require the construction of new water facilities. However, there would be “sleeves” within the Mountain Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-14 Public Services and Utilities Park Drive bridge structure to accommodate wet and dry utilities, including a 16-inch water main.

Mitigation Program
Project Design Features
PDF 12-2 The Mountain Park Specific Plan includes a Water System Sub Area Master Plan (SAMP) (refer to Exhibit 3-11). Prior to approval of each tentative tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall submit water improvement plans prepared in conformance with the SAMP to the Public Utilities Department for review and approval. The property owner/developer shall extend and construct the necessary water lines, pump stations, and reservoirs to serve development phases prior to connecting to the City s water system.

PDF 12-3 Irrigation systems within the Mountain Park Specific Plan area shall be controlled by automatic programmable irrigation controllers that utilize California Irrigation Management System (CIMS) Data to adjust water times and durations based on daily evapotranspiration) data. Prior to approval of landscape plans, the property owner/developer shall provide verification in the form of notes on the plans to the Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division, that the irrigation system is in conformance with the system identified in the SAMP. Public Utilities Department shall confirm that it is in conformance with the irrigation system identified in the SAMP. Community wide irrigation control shall be provided by a centralized irrigation control system designed to separately valve hydrozones based on plant water requirements, exposure and terrain characteristics. All systems shall utilize matched precipitation rate nozzles and emitters for precise water application, adjustable low angle nozzles to reduce overspray, check valves to reduce low head drainage, and master valves to minimize water loss in the event of a line break or valve malfunction.

Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions
SC 12-4 In accordance with the requirements of SB 221, prior to approval of tentative tract or parcel maps, the property owner/developer shall request that the Public Utilities Department provide water verification studies confirming that sufficient water supply is available for the proposed uses, in compliance with the approved Water Supply Assessment prepared for the project.

SC 12-5 Prior to final building and zoning inspections, the property owner/developer shall demonstrate to the Public Utilities Department that water consumption reduction measures have been implemented as required by State law in accordance with the Water Utilities Rates, Rules and Regulations. Where appropriate, plans submitted for building permits shall include notes on plans that indicate the measures that will be utilized to reduce water consumption. Such measures where feasible and appropriate shall include, but are not limited to:
a. ow-flush toilets and urinals (Health and Safety Code Section 17921.3); b. Maximum flow rate of all new showerheads, lavatory faucets, and sink faucets (Title 20, California Code of Regulations Section 1604 f ); Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-15 Public Services and Utilities c. Appliances certified by manufacturer to comply with regulations established by applicable efficiency standards (Title 20, California Code of Regulations Section 1606 b );
d. Public lavatories equipped with self-closing faucets that limit the flow of hot water (Government Code Section 7 00);
e. Hot water pipes insulated to reduce water used before hot water reaches equipment or fixtures (Title 24, California Code of Regulations Section 2-5352 i and j );
f. Conservation reminders posted in rooms and restrooms; g. Thermostatically controlled mixing valve for bath/shower; h. Implementation of efficient irrigation systems to minimize runoff and evaporation.

Mitigation Measures
MM 12-1 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner /developer shall pay the Public Utilities Department a proportionate share of a water supply source to meet the projected increases in water demands in accordance with Rule 15.C, Section 3, of the Public Utilities Rates, Rules, and Regulations. Although the Water Supply Assessment (Appendix M of the Draft EIR o. 331) concludes that there is adequate capacity to serve the proposed project, an additional water supply source will ensure that there is no loss of redundancy and/or reliability to the city water supply system.

MM 12-2 Prior to approval of street improvement plans, the property owner/developer shall submit Traffic Management Plans to the City of Anaheim Department of Public Works and orba inda Public Works Department for proposed street improvements within the respective jurisdictions for review and approval. The Traffic Management Plans shall describe traffic control measures that shall be implemented to maintain traffic flow in all directions where utility improvements are being implemented in existing roadways. Said traffic management measures shall be implemented on-going during road construction.

MM 12-3 Prior to approval of the first utility or infrastructure plan serving each development area with impacts to public streets, the property owner/developer shall submit a utility layout and trenching plan to the Department of Public Works for all existing public streets. Trench replacement shall, at a minimum, conform to Public Works Standard Detail o. 132. Joint trenches shall be used whenever practicable. The asphalt pavement restoration widths shall be approved by the Department of Public Works based on anticipated impact of construction and layout of trenches within the public right-of-way.

4.12.5 SANITARY SEWER
The following information is summarized from the City of Anaheim General Plan (May 2004), the City of Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update Final EIR No. 330 (May 2004), and the Mountain Park Project Sewer Study (Fuscoe Engineering Inc., 2005). The sewer study is Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-16 Public Services and Utilities included as Appendix to this EIR and is available for review as outlined in Section 2.5, Review of the Draft EIR.

Existing Conditions
Sanitary sewer wastewater in the City is collected by City collector facilities and conveyed to trunk sewers owned and maintained by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD), which then treats the wastewater at regional facilities. The project site is within the City of Anaheim eastern service area. With the exception of facilities necessary to serve the quarry site, there are no existing sanitary sewer facilities within the project site.

Sanitary sewer lines in Weir Canyon Road and Serrano Avenue that are owned and operated by the City of Anaheim serve residential communities west of the project. These connect to a City owned and operated 15-inch trunk sewer at the intersection of Weir Canyon Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road and flow north in Weir Canyon Road through the SR-91 interchange to the Santa Ana River Interceptor (SARI) sanitary sewer pipeline just south of the Santa Ana River.

There are currently two sewer interceptor lines (both owned and operated by OCSD) located in the vicinity of the project site. The closest is the SARI pipeline located primarily in the Santa Ana River riverbed but also traversing the SA I Ranch commercial complex approximately

1.75 miles northwest of the project. The SARI pipeline is closest to the project (approximately

0.5 mile) as it passes under the Gypsum Canyon Road overcrossing bridge in the riverbed. The other sewer interceptor line is the south SARI pipeline that is approximately 2.5 miles from the project site near the intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Camino Tampico. Both interceptors join several miles further west and flow towards the OCSD Fountain alley Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant.

The Mountain Park Project Sewer Study provides information on ongoing planning efforts related to the SARI line. As stated in the sewer study: “OCSD and the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) have been evaluating ways of mitigating potential threats from earthquakes and increased river flows to the portion of the SARI line located in the Santa Ana Canyon flood plain (Weir Canyon Road east to the Orange County/San Bernardino County line).

In March 2003, OCSD and SAWPA released a report titled ‘Santa Ana River Interceptor Expanded Alternatives Study (Final Draft)’, identifying eight short-listed alternatives including, but not limited to, riverbed grade stabilization partial and total gravity line relocation north and south of the review and replacement with pump station and force main. To date, a preferred alternative selection has not been made by OCSD and SAWPA.” The sewer connection alternative selected for the proposed project will need to take this planning effort into consideration.

In addition to the City of Anaheim local sanitary sewer lines, there are City of orba inda local sanitary sewer lines to the north and northwest of the project site. Residential communities to the north utilize local lines and flow to a 15-inch SARI spur just east of the intersection of a Palma Avenue and ia omas de orba East. Residential communities to the northwest utilize local lines and flow to an 1 -inch SARI spur approximately 0.9 mile west of the intersection of a Palma Avenue and ia omas de orba East. The SA I Ranch commercial complex utilizes local City of orba inda sanitary sewer lines and connects to the SARI pipeline at Weir Canyon Road just north of SR-91. The current sanitary sewer outfall for District 13 is a 45-inch sewer main located within the Santa Ana River Basin.

Sanitary sewer facilities within The Summit of Anaheim Hills community have been sized to accommodate 161,200 gallons per day of sanitary sewer wastewater generated by approved Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-17 Public Services and Utilities Mountain Park Specific Plan uses west of SR-241. The remainder of the sanitary sewer for the currently approved Mountain Park Specific Plan project (approximately 3.7 MGD) was assumed to flow to facilities east of SR-241.

The OCSD s 1999 Strategic Plan assumes sanitary sewer generation from the existing and proposed land uses identified in the general plans of affected cities. Therefore, the OCSD Strategic Plan assumes the development of the land uses in the Mountain Park Specific Plan (SP 90-4) approved in 1991 (allows up to 7,966 residential units). The current City of Anaheim Master Sewer Plan also assumes development of 7,966 residential units on the project site.

The Master Sewer Plan is being updated by the City and will be incorporated into the City General Plan upon its completion. The Master Sewer Plan update will reflect reduced land use densities (7,966 to 2,500 units) consistent with the updated General Plan and the proposed Mountain Park Specific Plan amendment.

Final EIR 302 prepared for SP 90-4 and approved in 1991 evaluated impacts of the proposed development on existing facilities planned to receive the sanitary sewer wastewater, in particular the OCSD SARI pipeline. Potential impacts to the SARI pipeline were determined not to be significant and OCSD found that wastewater collection, treatment and disposal services could be provided. This conclusion was reconfirmed by the OCSD during preparation of its updated Master Plan. During this process, OCSD hydraulically modeled the SARI pipeline in the vicinity of the project site and concluded that there is sufficient capacity in the SARI pipeline to receive project flows.

Project Impact Analysis
Thresholds of Significance
The criteria used to determine the significance of impacts on sanitary sewer wastewater service is based on the City s Initial Study and the model Initial Study checklist in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The project would typically result in a significant impact on sanitary sewer wastewater service if it would:

1. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project s projected demand in addition to the provider s existing commitments.

2. Require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Impact Analysis
Threshold 1: Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Collection of wastewater generated by the proposed project would be the responsibility of the City of Anaheim while OCSD would be responsible for regional conveyance and treatment of the wastewater through the SARI pipeline to the Fountain alley Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. Because both of these agencies are involved in the collection and/or treatment of wastewater, anticipated wastewater flows for the proposed project have been calculated based on each agency s methodology. Table 4.12-5 provides anticipated wastewater 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 generation based on the City of Anaheim s flow generation coefficients and Table 4.12-6 presents anticipated wastewater generation based on OCSD s flow generation coefficients.

As shown in Table 4.12-5 and Table 4.12-6, the proposed project would generate an average daily wastewater flow of approximately 0.99 MGD assuming the City of Anaheim generation factors, and 0.91 MGD assuming the OCSD generation factors. The on-site collection systems would be constructed to accommodate the anticipated sanitary sewer wastewater flow; therefore, both the east and west basin systems would be of appropriate sizing and configuration to accommodate the sanitary sewer flows from the proposed project. Following is a discussion of the capacity of off-site facilities that would be used for distribution of wastewater from the project site.

TABLE 4.12-5

WASTEWATER GENERATION BASED ON CITY OF ANAHEIM FACTORS
Flow Coefficient
Village Land Use Acreage
Dwelling
Units gal/day/unit gal/day/ac.

Average
Daily Flow
gal/day
West Basin
Development Area 7 Res-SF Detached 19. 95 41 a 39,710
Development Area 3 School 10.2 2,715 27,693
Development Area 3 Park 15.0 129 2,064
Development Area 3 Res-SF Detached 9.3 50 41 20,900
West Basin Sub-Total 55.3 145 0 3
East Basin
Res-SF
Detached 5.1 6 3 41 2 5,494
Res-SF Attached 33.7 602 30 b 1 5,416
ower Development
Area 5
Park 2.9 129 374
Res-SF
Detached Upper Development 19.4 7 41 36,2 2
Area 5
Res-SF Attached 7.5 223 30 6 ,6 4
ower Development
Area 4 Res-SF Detached 29.4 301 41 125, 1
Upper Development
Area 4 Res-SF Detached 30.2 119 41 49,742
Development Area 1 Res-SF Detached 76. 210 41 7,7 0
Development Area 2 Res-SF Detached 22 130 41 54,340
Private Recreation
Center
Recreation
Center 2.4 2,262 5,429
Trail Head Staging Area Trail Head
Staging Area 1.2 129 155
Fire Station Fire Station 1.2 2,262 2,714
East Basin Sub-Total 311. 2 355 02 22
a. Flow coefficient for single-family residential uses is based on 3. per capita household/unit and 100 gallons/day/capita. b. Flow coefficient for attached residential uses is based on 2. per capita household/unit and 100 gallons/day/capita Res – Residential
SF – Single Family
Source: Mountain Park Project Sewer Study, prepared by Fuscoe Engineering, March 2005.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-19 Public Services and Utilities As previously identified, the sanitary sewer lines in The Summit of Anaheim Hills have been designed to accommodate 161,200 GPD from the Mountain Park project site. As noted in Table

4.12-5, approximately 90,367 gallons of wastewater per day would be generated by proposed uses west of SR-241 and would need to be accommodated in the existing sanitary sewer lines.

A pipe capacity constraint exists downstream in an existing -inch pipe segment on Running Springs Drive. The capacity constraint in this pipe segment, approximately 200 feet in length, would require upsizing to a 10-inch pipe diameter. All other existing sanitary sewer pipelines in the Summit Community have the available capacity to receive west basin (Development Areas 3 and 7) wastewater flows from the project site.

There are currently no local sewer lines in the vicinity of the project site to serve wastewater flows from the east basin; however, the SARI pipeline is less than 0.5 mile from the project site.

The proposed project would require construction of sewer lines to connect to the SARI line.

There is sufficient capacity in the SARI line to accommodate the wastewater from the proposed project. As previously noted, the OCSD Strategic Plan accommodates the wastewater previously estimated to be generated by the currently approved Mountain Park Specific Plan project (approximately 3.7 MGD). The proposed project would generate less than 1 MGD of wastewater. Therefore, the SARI line would have sufficient capacity to accommodate the wastewater generated by the project, even if it is necessary for all of the wastewater from the proposed project (west and east basins) to be handled by facilities east of SR-241. During preparation of its updated Master Plan, OCSD hydraulically modeled the SARI pipeline in the vicinity of the project site and concluded that there is sufficient capacity in the SARI pipeline to receive project flows. This is substantiated in correspondence between the OCSD and the project engineer included in Appendix .

TABLE 4.12-

WASTEWATER GENERATION BASED ON OCSD FACTORS
Village Land Use Acreage
Dwelling
Units du
Density
du/ac.

Flow
Coefficient
gal/day/ac.

Average Daily
Flow gal/day
West Basin
Development Area 7 Res-SF Detached 19. 95 4. 3,451 6 ,330 Development Area 3 School 10.2 2,262 23,072
Development Area 3 Park 15 129 2,064
Development Area 3 Res-SF Detached 9.3 50 5.3 1,4 13, 3 West Basin Sub-Total 55.3 145 10 304
East Basin
ower Development Res-SF Attached 11 . 1,2 5 11.5 3,451 409,979 Area 5 Park 2.9 129 374
Upper Development
Area 5 Res-SF Attached 26.9 310 11.5 3,451 92, 32
ower Development
Area 4 Res-SF Detached 29.4 301 7.3 3,451 101,459
Upper Development
Area 4 Res-SF Detached 30.2 119 3.9 1,4 44,93
Development Area 1 Res-SF Detached 76. 210 2.7 1,4 114,27 Development Area 2 Res-SF Detached 22 130 5.9 1,4 32,736 Community Center Community
Center 2.4 2,262 5,429
Trail Head Staging
Area
Trail Head
Staging Area 1.2 2,262 2,714
Fire Station Fire Station 1.2 2,262 2,714
East Basin Sub-Total 311. 2 355 0 454
Res – Residential
SF – Single Family
Source: Mountain Park Project Sewer Study, prepared by Fuscoe Engineering, March 2005.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-20 Public Services and Utilities The installation of local sewer lines to deliver wastewater to the SARI line is included as part of the proposed project and these facilities would be sized to accommodate the estimated sanitary sewer flows from the project.

In summary, based on available information regarding the size of existing wastewater facilities that would serve the project, there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the wastewater generated by the proposed project in addition to existing commitments. The wastewater generated by the proposed project would be substantially reduced compared to the previously approved Mountain Park Specific Plan project, which was assumed in the sizing of existing facilities. o significant impacts would occur.

Threshold 2: Would the project require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
On-site Project Impacts
The proposed conceptual wastewater system for the project is described in Section 3, Project Description. Sanitary sewer lines would be installed in the proposed street right-of-ways and the direct impacts associated with installation of these facilities have been addressed for each topical issue in this EIR since the facilities are included within the identified project impact area.

Off-site Project Feature Impacts
As described in Section 3, Project Description, the proposed on-site wastewater facilities would need to connect to off-site facilities to deliver wastewater from the project site to regional treatment systems. The sanitary sewer flow from Development Areas 3 and 7 would be directed to existing facilities in the communities west of the project site until Development Areas east of SR-241 are implemented and flows can be directed to the east. Sanitary sewer flows from proposed project development east of SR-241 would be directed to the SARI line.

Under the proposed off-site sewer connection option for the west basin (Alternative 3 in the Mountain Park Project Sewer Study), flows from the project site would be conveyed in Weir Canyon Road to its intersection with Sunset Crest Street in an -inch gravity main. The gravity main would be constructed using microtunnel construction techniques. Sewage flow would then be conveyed in an -inch gravity main east on Sunset Crest Street to its intersection with Wiley Way and would join existing sanitary sewer facilities at this location. As previously identified, a 200-foot segment of the existing -inch sanitary sewer pipeline in Running Springs Drive would require upsizing to a 10-inch pipe diameter to accommodate wastewater flows from the proposed project. The construction impacts associated with this off-site upgrade would occur within existing public street right-of-way, in already disturbed areas, and would not cause a significant environmental impact. Entrance/receiving pits approximately 20 feet square would be constructed at each end of the microtunneling along Weir Canyon Road to convey construction equipment. The south pit would be on-site within the impact area. The north pit would be at the intersection of Weir Canyon Road and Sunset Crest Street within existing disturbed areas of the roadway. Short-term construction impacts, including traffic disruption along Running Springs Drive, Sunset Crest Street, and Weir Canyon Road would occur.

As described in Section 3.3.4, Off-site Project Features, the City s preferred alternative for the off-site SARI line connection for the east basin (Alternative 2 from the Mountain Park Project Sewer Study) would involve installation of a 15-inch sanitary sewer gravity main from Gypsum Canyon Road westerly along the north edge of Development Area 6 and through the SR-91/SR-241 interchange area entering existing Santa Ana Canyon Road. The gravity main Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-21 Public Services and Utilities would continue west to a vertical low point in Santa Ana Canyon Road. At this location, the gravity main would continue westerly to the intersection of Woodcreek Road using microtunneling (trenchless technology) construction techniques. The sanitary sewer line would extend north and cross SR-91 (using microtunneling), and enter the existing SA I Ranch commercial/retail center in a parking lot area. Utilizing existing trenching techniques the gravity main would continue north through the existing parking lot to SA I Ranch Parkway, would turn northwest and connect to an existing SARI pipeline manhole at the intersection of SA I Ranch Parkway and Old Canal Road. Construction activities would occur on Gypsum Canyon Road, Santa Ana Canyon Road, SA I Ranch Parkway and the SA I Ranch parking lot area. The lateral crossing of SR-91 would be made using microtunnelling construction techniques with no disruption to freeway operations; however, an encroachment permit from Caltrans would be required. As with other utility connections, construction activities within public street right-of-way for the east basin and west basin off-site sanitary sewer line connections could result in traffic disruption, however, impacts would be temporary and would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of a traffic management plan (refer to MM 12-2). The SARI line connection alternative for the east basin involves construction activities within SA I Ranch that would result in a temporary impact to the parking lot area. As discussed in Section 4.1, and Use and Planning, this impact would not be considered significant as access to the commercial establishments would be maintained. The property owner/developer would be required to obtain appropriate permits and authorization from affected property owners, and jurisdictions (City of Anaheim, City of orba inda, Caltrans, and Orange County Sanitation District) prior to initiation of construction activities.

Mitigation Program
Project Design Features
PDF 12-4 The Public Facilities Plan provided in the Mountain Park Specific Plan includes a Project Sewer Study that identifies the sanitary sewer facilities to be constructed with the project. The project sanitary sewer system is shown on Exhibits 3-12.

The property owner/developer shall conduct sewer monitoring at two similar developments within the City to collect 14 days of data during dry weather conditions to verify the sewage generation rates. The property owner/developer shall then prepare a report based on the City approved sewer modeling software to verify that the sewer sizes conform to the those proposed in the project sewer study. Prior to approval of the sewer improvement plans, the property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Department of Public Works, demonstrating that the sanitary sewer system is in conformance with the alternatives described in the Project Sewer Study included in the Mountain Park Specific Plan. The property owner/developer shall extend and construct the necessary facilities, including sanitary sewer lines to serve the project development phases.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-22 Public Services and Utilities Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions
SC 12-6 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall pay fees for sewer service to the City of Anaheim and Orange County Sanitation District.

SC 12-7 Prior to approval of final tract or parcel maps, the property owner/developer shall pay the appropriate sewer connection fee to the City of Anaheim, as established by City Council Resolution.

Mitigation Measures
MM 12-4 Prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map in Development Areas 1, 2, 4 or 5, the property owner/developer shall obtain approvals, permits, and/or easement rights of way from private property owners and affected jurisdictions (City of orba inda, Caltrans, Orange County Sanitation District) for off-site sanitary sewer line connections. Evidence that these approvals and permits have been obtained shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works.

MM 12-5 Prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map in Development Areas 3 and 7, the property owner/developer shall submit sewer improvement plans for the West Basin sewer alignment from the alternatives presented in the Project Sewer Study.

The Department of Public Works shall select the West Basin sewer alignment based upon the ability of the property owner/developer to obtain off-site easements, and any design limitations related to the SR-241 over-crossing and/or other construction related issues.

MM 12-6 Prior to the first final tract or parcel map in Development Areas 1,2,4,5, and 6, the property owner/developer shall submit sewer improvement plans for the East Basin sewer alignment from the alternative presented in the Project Sewer Study. The Department of Public Works shall select the East Basin sewer alignment based upon the status of the Santa Ana River Interceptor (SARI) relocation project.

4.12. ELECTRICITY
The following information is summarized from the City of Anaheim General Plan (May 2004).

Additionally, the following technical reports were prepared for the proposed project and are included in Appendix O of this EIR: the Dry Utility Summary and Peak Load Analysis and Electrical Power System Layout reports prepared by Dahl, Taylor Associates (March 2005), and the Mountain Park Project Projected Peak and Annual Demand Based on Anticipated Project End Uses prepared by Competisys (March 2005). The technical reports in Appendix O are available for review as outlined in Section 2.5, Review of the Draft EIR.

Existing Conditions
Anaheim Public Utilities Department provides electricity to the City of Anaheim, including the project area. The distribution system consists of approximately 1,500 circuit miles of transmission and distribution lines, over 500 miles of which are underground. Ten distribution substations are located throughout the City to ensure the safe and efficient transfer of electricity to users. APUD currently provides its customers more than 577,000 kilowatts (kW) and

2.7 billion kilowatt-hours annually. The majority of the City s electrical supply ( 1 percent) is obtained through resources located in or near Anaheim and the additional 19 percent comes Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-23 Public Services and Utilities from resources throughout the western United States on a power purchase or seasonal exchange basis.

Existing electrical facilities in the vicinity of the Mountain Park site are along Santa Ana Canyon Road, Gypsum Canyon Road, and Weir Canyon Road. These facilities serve existing development in the eastern portion of the City and do not have available capacity to serve the proposed project. The undeveloped area of the project site presently does not have any electrical facilities installed. Robertson s Ready Mix has electricity served by Southern California Edison (SCE) via overhead lines on wooden poles from Santa Ana Canyon Road.

To serve anticipated development in the Hill and Canyon Area, the City of Anaheim plans to construct a 112 M A substation (Park Substation) near the intersection of Festival Drive and Roosevelt Road. This substation is expected to be complete and in operation by late 2005 or early 2006.

Project Impact Analysis
Thresholds of Significance
The criteria used to determine the significance of impacts on public services and utilities 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 typically result in a significant impact on electricity services if it would:

1. Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to electricity.

Impact Analysis
On-site Project Impacts
The analysis of potential project impacts to electric service addresses the following: (1) electric demand for purposes of determining the type and size of required electrical facilities; and (2) the actual electric demand generated by the project. Demand load diversity occurs when the instantaneous electrical load on an electrical system is measured in comparison to the aggregate total of the load connected to the system but not currently in use. The potential electric demand load encompasses all of the electric load that could be in use at any given time.

This demand load is the basis for sizing the electric facility system for the project. The diversity factor or load factor is a representation of the amount of actual electric demand that is currently in use reflected as a percentage of the total potentially available load. Diversity is important for forecasting the electric energy and peak demand impact of the proposed project. The actual energy and demand is approximately 65 percent less than the total aggregate energy and demand connected to the proposed electric system. The electric system needs to be designed and constructed to meet the no load diversity needs, while the forecast of energy and demand takes into consideration the project diversity, which is approximately 35 percent for the proposed project. The 35 percent load factor is consistent with that used by Southern California Edison, and was calculated by sampling a large number of residential customers. This percentage is then applied to the expected electric demand of each dwelling size to determine the peak coincident demand. This peak coincident demand on the electric distribution facilities is different than the total electric load connected to that distribution system.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-24 Public Services and Utilities Electric Facilities
The proposed electric system for the project described in Section 3, Project Description is based on the electric demand assuming no diversity. The annual electrical consumption for the proposed project, excluding institutional uses in Development Area 6 is 21. million kWh, is approximately ,726 kWh per year per residential unit. While sufficient power and distribution capabilities exist to provide the proposed project with electrical service, APU does not currently have any 66k transmission circuits or 12k distribution circuits within the project area.

Therefore, APU has determined that new electrical infrastructure, on- and off-site, is required to accommodate growth in the project area, as described in Section 3, Project Description (Dahl, Taylor Associates, Inc., March 2005).

In addition to the construction of new facilities on-site, the proposed project involves the removal of existing electrical facilities. Subsequent to the closure of Robertson s, SCE would have to remove the on-site overhead power lines serving the quarry site. The impact areas for construction/installation of new facilities and removal of existing facilities are within the project impact area described in Section 3.6 and the potential impacts of these facilities have been addressed throughout this EIR.

Electric Demand
The proposed project would increase the demand for electricity services. The estimated electric demand for the proposed project (assuming a diversity factor as described previously) is identified in Table 4.12-7. Approximately 21.5 million kilowatt hours (kWh) and 7.0 megawatts (mW) of peak demand of electricity are projected to be used annually as part of the proposed project. This represents an average of ,24 kWh per residential unit per year. This is 2 percent higher than the City of Anaheim s average annual residential consumption rate of 5,941 kWh (Competisys, March 2005).

TABLE 4.12-

ESTIMATED ELECTRIC DEMAND
Land Use Units/Area
Electrical
Demand Factor
Annual
million kWh
Residential 2,500 du ,24 kWh/unit/ r 20,619,5 7
Institutional
School 21,99 sf 7 kWh/SF/ r 153,9 5
Parks/Recreation ,146 sf 3 kWh/SF/ r 24,437
Community Center 99,317 sf 3.75 kWh/SF/ r 372,43
Sewer ift Station – – 131,400a.

Water Pump Station – – 157,200
Fire Station 10,019b. 6. kWh/SF/ r 6 ,929
Institutional Total 926,3 9
Total 21,545,976
du – dwelling unit
sf – square feet
a. A sewer lift station is not proposed as part of the project but is included with alternative sewer connection options addressed in Section 5, Alternatives. b. The size of the fire station is estimated for analysis purposes and is anticipated to be smaller.

Source: Competisys, March 2005.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-25 Public Services and Utilities In 2003, California s peak electricity demand was 53 Gigawatts (GW). It is estimated that the State s electric peak demand will increase to approximately 61.4 GW in 2012. The proposed project represents a peak demand of 7,027 kW (0.0070 GW) or an amount approximating one hundredth of one percent compared to the anticipated California peak demand in 2012. There would be sufficient energy available to the State through the typical supply and demand economic model. In addition, the Mountain Park Specific Plan would not materially impact the ability of the City of Anaheim s system to serve the new and existing loads. As noted above, the electric system to be constructed for the project has been sized to accommodate the demands of the project; therefore, there would not be any impacts to electrical services related to demand.

Off-site Project Feature Impacts
Off-site impacts associated with the proposed project would involve relocation (undergrounding) of existing overhead power lines and construction of new electrical facilities. To serve the proposed Development Areas, new 12 k distribution circuits would be required from the Park Substation (to be built by the City in the future) to the project site. This would be accomplished through the provision of new underground circuits or installation of new circuits in existing and new ductbanks in the following roadways: Santa Ana Canyon Road, Weir Canyon Road, Oak Canyon Road and Gypsum Canyon Road, as described in Section 3, Project Description. In addition to the removal of power lines that currently serve the quarry site, overhead power lines within the segment of Santa Ana Canyon Road to be relocated as part of the project would be removed and undergrounded (approximately 1,600 feet).

The installation and/or undergrounding of new electric facilities would require trenching within the roadways and could result in short-term construction-related traffic impacts. As previously discussed, a construction traffic management plan would be implemented to ensure that these impacts would be less than significant.

Caltrans-related Project Feature Impacts
With the exception of roadway lighting, proposed project features within Caltrans right-of-way would not include any uses that would generate a demand for electricity. However, the Mountain Park Drive bridge structure would provide a “sleeve” for electrical facilities. Impacts associated with installation of electrical facilities are included in the impact area for these transportation facilities and no additional impacts would occur.

Mitigation Program
Project Design Features
PDF 12-5 The Public Facilities Plan provided in the Mountain Park Specific Plan identifies the electrical facilities to be constructed with the project. The project electric system is shown on Exhibit 3-13. Prior to approval of permits for improvement plans, the property owner/developer shall submit electric system plans to the Public Utilities Department, Electrical Engineering Division, demonstrating that the electric system is in conformance with the Public Facilities Plan included in the Mountain Park Specific Plan. The property owner/developer shall extend and construct the necessary facilities, including electric lines identified in Exhibit 3-13, to serve development phases.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-26 Public Services and Utilities Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions
SC 12- Prior to approval of final tract or parcel maps, the property owner/developer shall install, bond for, or otherwise secure on-site electrical facilities in accordance with the City of Anaheim Public Utility Electric Rates, Rules and Regulations, and provide written evidence of this fact to the Public Utilities Department.

SC 12-9 The proposed project shall comply with all State Energy Insulation Standards and City of Anaheim codes in effect at the time of application for building permits. (Commonly referred to as Title 24, these standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. Title 24 covers the use of energy efficient building standards, including ventilation, insulation and construction and the use of energy saving appliances, conditioning systems, water heating, and lighting.) Plans submitted for building permits shall include written notes demonstrating compliance with energy standards and shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Utilities Department prior to issuance of building permits.

SC 12-10 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for each tentative tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall pay fees in accordance with Anaheim s Electric Rates, Rules and Regulations for electrical residential and commercial services for specific uses within the development site.

SC 12-11 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall incorporate the following energy saving practices into building plans. The property owner/developer shall implement, to the extent feasible, these energy saving practices, in compliance with Title 10 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, prior to each final building and zoning inspection::
a. Consultation with the Public Utilities Department energy conservation experts for assistance with energy conservation design features. b. Use of electric motors designed to conserve energy.
c. Use of special lighting fixtures such as motion sensing light switch devices and compact fluorescent fixtures in place of incandescent lights. d. Use of T lamps and electronic ballasts. Metal halide or high-pressure sodium for outdoor lighting.

Mitigation Measures
MM 12-7 Prior to approval of street improvement plans, the property owner/developer shall submit Traffic Management Plans to the Department of Public Works describing traffic control measures that shall be implemented to maintain traffic flow in all directions where utility improvements are being implemented in existing roadways.

The Traffic Management Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works, Traffic Engineering Division.

MM 12- Prior to approval of grading plans, final tract or parcel maps, or street improvement plans, whichever occurs first, for Development Areas 3 and 7, the property owner/developer shall submit preliminary electric system plans to the Public Utilities Department for review and approval. The property owner/developer shall Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-27 Public Services and Utilities request that the Public Utilities Department provide engineering standards and plans for the installation of electrical and communication conduit and substructures systems. The property owner/developer shall also submit an electrical and communications conduit phasing plan to the Public Utilities Department to assist in the planning of additional electrical distribution systems from the Park Substation to, and within, Development Areas 3 and 7.

MM 12-9 Prior to approval of grading plans, final tract or parcel maps, or street improvement plans, whichever occurs first, for development areas east of SR-241, the property owner/developer shall submit preliminary electric system plans to the Public Utilities Department for review and approval. The property owner/developer shall request that the Public Utilities Department provide engineering standards and plans for the installation of electrical and communication conduit and substructures systems from the Park Substation to, and within, development areas east of SR-241.

MM 12-10 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for each tentative tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall pay fees and provide the necessary infrastructure for the installation of the on-site and off-site electrical and communication systems to serve said tract, designed and phased to provide electrical service for the development areas within the project site. This shall include line extensions from the Park Substation to the development site. The applicable improvements shall be installed prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for the tract or parcel map.

4.12. NATURAL GAS
Information is this section is based on the Dry Utility Summary report prepared by Dahl, Taylor Associates, Inc. (March 2005), and included in Appendix O.

Existing Conditions
The proposed project site currently has no residential usage of natural gas and there are no gas mains in the study area. However, two existing natural gas interceptors are available in the vicinity of the project site: (1) an -inch pipeline located at the intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Gypsum Road; and (2) a 10-inch pipeline located at the intersection of Oak Canyon Drive and Weir Canyon Road. atural gas would be provided to the project site by Southern California Gas (SCG) from the existing pipeline interceptions.

The availability of natural gas service is based upon conditions of gas supply and regulatory agencies. As a public utility, SCG is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. The ability of SCG to provide service can also be affected by federal regulatory agencies. Should any of the agencies take any action, which would affect gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service would be provided in accordance with the revised conditions (Dahl, Taylor Associates, Inc., March 2005).

Project Impact Analysis
Thresholds of Significance
The criterion used to determine the significance of impacts on public services and utilities are taken from City-approved Thresholds of Significance based on the City s Initial Study and the Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-2 Public Services and Utilities model Initial Study checklist in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The project would typically result in a significant impact on natural gas services if it would:

1. Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to natural gas.

Impact Analysis
On-site Project Impacts
The proposed project involves the development of a maximum of 2,500 residential units, a fire station, public community park, school site, interpretive center/store concession, private recreation center and smaller private parks, and riding and hiking trails. The residential component of the project is estimated to consume 1. 5 to 2.31 million therms annually. It should be noted that this amount does not include the non-residential uses proposed as part of the project as SCG does not compile consumption rates for these types of uses.

As stated above, natural gas for the Mountain Park Study area would be provided via connections to existing off-site pipeline interceptions. A sole gas trench would be constructed and an -inch gas pipeline would be installed within the study area along Gypsum Canyon Road to serve Development Areas 1, 2, 4, and 5. Development Areas 3 and 7 would be served by an -inch natural gas pipeline installed in a sole gas trench extending from Weir Canyon Road.

The pipeline dimension, location on the street, and buried depth will vary from location to location and will be determined by SGC.

Coordination between the property owner/developer and SCG would occur to avoid any notable service disruptions during extension, relocation, and upgrading of services and facilities as well as to comply with California energy conservation requirements specified in California Administrative Code Title 24/25.

Installation of on-site natural gas facilities would occur during project construction and would not result in any environmental impacts beyond those identified for construction of the project as addressed in the respective sections of this EIR. The Mountain Park Specific Plan would not result in a significant impact to natural gas services or facilities (Dahl, Taylor Associates, Inc., March 2005).

Off-site Project Feature Impacts
Proposed off-site improvements are comprised of connections to the existing natural gas interceptors at: (1) the intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Gypsum Road; and (2) the intersection of Oak Canyon Drive and Weir Canyon Road. These construction activities would occur within existing street right-of-way and could result in short-term construction-related impacts. These impacts would not be considered significant.

Caltrans-related Project Feature Impacts
Transportation facilities, roadway improvements, and slope and drainage facility modifications within Caltrans right-of-way would not generate a demand for natural gas and would not require the installation of natural gas facilities. o impact to natural gas services would result from implementation of these transportation facilities.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-29 Public Services and Utilities Mitigation Program
Project Design Features
PDF 12-6 The Public Facilities Plan provided in the Mountain Park Specific Plan identifies the natural gas facilities to be constructed with the project. The project natural gas system is shown on Exhibit 3-13. Prior to approval of grading plans, final tract or parcel maps, or street improvement plans, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Public Utilities Department demonstrating that the natural gas system is in conformance with the Public Facilities Plan included in the Mountain Park Specific Plan. The property owner/developer shall extend and construct the necessary facilities, including natural gas lines to serve development phases.

Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions
SC 12-12 Prior to approval of final tract or parcel maps, the property owner/developer shall install, bond for, or otherwise secure on-site natural gas facilities in coordination with Southern California Gas Company (SCG). Written evidence of this shall be provided to the Public Utilities Department.

4.12. TELEPHONE SERVICE
Information is this section is based on the Dry Utility Summary report prepared by Dahl, Taylor Associates, Inc., (March 2005) included in Appendix O to this EIR.

Existing Conditions
The Mountain Park project site currently has no residential usage of telephone or telecommunication services. Robertson s Ready Mix has commercial usage served by SBC Pacific Bell via overhead lines located at the intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Gypsum Canyon Road. SBC Pacific Bell currently has a remote center at the intersection of Weir Canyon Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road and would be the provider for local telephone service within the study area. For wireless cell phone service, Cingular Wireless, AT T Wireless, Sprint PCS, erizon Wireless, and extel would provide coverage of the project area.

Project Impact Analysis
Thresholds of Significance
The criterion used to determine the significance of impacts on public services and utilities 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 typically result in a significant impact on telephone service if it would:

1. Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to telephone service.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-30 Public Services and Utilities Impact Analysis
On-site Project Impacts
Service to the proposed project can be provided without any adverse impact on SBC s ability to provide telephone service in the area. Prior to construction, existing overhead facilities along Gypsum Canyon Road would need to be temporarily relocated by the project landowner to allow for grading and installation of the new underground system. Subsequent to the closure of Robertson s, the overhead lines would need to be removed and located underground.

To serve the project site, trenches, conduit and substructures would be installed from the entrance of the development to Development Areas 1, 2, 4, and 5. Development Areas 3 and 7 would be served by trenches, conduit and substructures installed along Weir Canyon Road. As discussed previously for other utilities, onsite telephone facilities would be constructed within the impact area analyzed throughout this EIR. o additional impacts beyond those addressed would occur.

Off-site Project Impacts
A 4-foot by 4-inch duct structure with a minimum of two feed cables, a 3600 pair cable and a 1200 pair cable would be required to serve the project site. This would be brought from the SBC service intercept point near Santa Ana Canyon Road and aiser Boulevard to the entrance of the development via a sole telephone trench. From there SBC Pacific Bell would tap both the conduit structure and the feed cables. As with other utilities, installation of telephone facilities would occur within existing street rights-of-way and potential impacts would be less than significant.

Caltrans-related Project Feature Impacts
Transportation facilities, roadway improvements, and slope and drainage facility modifications within Caltrans right-of-way would not require the use or installation of telephone facilities. o impacts related to telephone services would occur with implementation of these transportation facilities.

Mitigation Program
o impacts have been identified, and no mitigation is required; however, MM 12-2 is recommended to reduce potential impacts associated with construction within existing streets.

4.12. CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE/RECEPTION
Information is this section is based on the Dry Utility Summary report prepared by Dahl, Taylor Associates, Inc. (March 2005) and included in Appendix O of this EIR.

Existing Conditions
The project site currently has no residential or commercial usage of cable television service.

Cable television and internet services within the project area are provided by Adelphia Communications Company. There are two existing service pick-up points in the vicinity of the Mountain Park study area. One is located at the corner of Oak Canyon Road and Running Springs Drive; the other is located at the corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Woodcreek Road.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-31 Public Services and Utilities Project Impact Analysis
Thresholds of Significance
The criterion used to determine the significance of impacts on public services and utilities 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 typically result in a significant impact on cable television service/reception if it would:

1. Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to cable television service/reception.

Impact Analysis
On-site Project Impacts
Service to the proposed project can be provided without any adverse impact on Adelphia s ability to provide telecommunication service in the area. Within the project site, cable television conduits would be installed in joint trenches along with the electrical and telephone conduits for distribution to the Development Areas. Joint trench design would be provided by Adelphia Communication once specific development plans become available.

Off-site Project Feature Impacts
Cable television conduits would be installed in sole trenches from existing service pick-up points to the project site entrances. As with other utilities, installation of cable facilities would occur within existing street rights-of-way and potential impacts would be less than significant.

Caltrans-related Project Feature Impacts
Transportation facilities, roadway improvements, and slope and drainage facility modifications within Caltrans right-of-way would not require the use or installation of cable television facilities. o impacts related to cable television services would occur with implementation of these transportation facilities.

Mitigation Program
o impacts have been identified, and no mitigation is required; however, MM 12-2 is recommended to reduce potential impacts associated with construction within existing streets.

4.12.10 SOLID WASTE
The following information is summarized from the City of Anaheim General Plan (May 2004), City of Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code FEIR 330 (May 2004), and coordination with the County of Orange Integrated Waste Management Department.

Existing Conditions
Solid waste collection and disposal is provided for the City of Anaheim, and the project area, through a private contractor, Taormina Industries. After the waste is collected, it is separated into recyclable material, household hazardous waste, and other solid waste at the Taormina Industries Regional Material Resource Recovery Facility. The recyclables are transferred for shipment to both international and domestic markets. Household hazardous waste is disposed Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-32 Public Services and Utilities of at the County of Orange operated orth Orange County Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility in Anaheim. The remaining solid waste is then processed and consolidated for delivery to Southern California landfills.

The proposed project would be served by the Orange County landfill system. The landfill system is operated by the Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department (OCIWMD) and includes three active landfills, four household hazardous waste collection centers (HHWCC), and 12 closed landfills. The three facilities that may serve the proposed project are the Olinda Alpha, Frank R. Bowerman, and the Prima Deshecha Sanitary andfills. otwithstanding, OCIWMD anticipates that the Olinda Alpha andfill located at 1942 orth alencia Avenue in the City of Brea would primarily serve the proposed project. The Olinda Alpha andfill currently receives approximately 6, 00 tons daily and has a maximum capacity of ,000 tons per day. It should be noted that based on an agreement between the City of Brea and the OCIWMD, a maximum of 7,000 tons per day can be accepted at the Olinda Alpha andfill. The Olinda Alpha andfill is anticipated to close in 2013; however, OCIWMD has prepared an EIR to extend the closure of the facility to 2021. In ovember 2004, the Orange County Planning commission recommended that the Board of Supervisors find final Proposed Final EIR 5 adequate. IWMD anticipates submitting the Proposed Final EIR to the Board of Supervisors for approval in Summer 2005 (J. Arnau, personal communication, March 2005).

Several agencies and forms of legislation govern solid waste practices in California. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 19 9 (AB 939) required all counties to prepare a County Integrated Waste Management Plan. The County of Orange adopted its County Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) in 1996. The CIWMP includes source reduction and recycling, a Household Hazardous Waste, a countywide Siting Element identifying 15 years of available disposal capacity, and a statement of significant solid waste disposal problems facing the jurisdiction. AB 939 also included a mandate that all municipalities divert – through source reduction, recycling, and composting – at least 50 percent of its solid waste by the year 2000.

OCIWMD is obligated to obtain permits from several regulatory agencies as a condition of operating the three active landfills in Orange County. These include: a Solid Waste Facilities Permit; Waste Discharge Requirements; a Stormwater Discharge Permit; and permits to construct and operate gas management systems. The main regulatory body for landfills is the CIWMB. The County of Orange Health Care Agency s Environmental Health Division is the local enforcement agency ( EA) for the CIWMB.

In addition to the CIWMB and the EA, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) enforces air quality regulations and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) enforces water quality regulations relative to OCIWMD s landfill operations.

OCIWMD also operates under certain Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with the cities that host a landfill. The individual MOUs are agreements between cities and the County that address local issues such as landfill operating hours, traffic routes, and the maximum amount of trash received daily. In addition to the above-referenced permits, certain projects may fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Additionally, OCIWMD evaluates all landfill projects for compliance with CEQA. This ensures that any project that could have an impact on the environment is fully analyzed, and that any impacts are mitigated to the extent feasible.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-33 Public Services and Utilities Project Impact Analysis
Thresholds of Significance
The criteria used to determine the significance of impacts on solid waste services are based on the City s Initial Study and the model Initial Study checklist form in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The project would typically result in a significant impact on solid waste if it would:

1. Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project s solid waste disposal needs.

2. ot comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Impact Analysis
Threshold 1: Would the project be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? On-site Project Impacts
The estimated solid waste generation from the project is identified in Table 4.12- , based on the solid waste generation factors identified by the California Integrated Waste Management Board.

As shown in Table 4.12- , the proposed project is estimated to generate 4,2 7. tons of solid waste annually. The OCIWMD has indicated that adequate capacity for the proposed project is available within the Orange County landfill system, which includes three active landfills.

Therefore, no significant impacts related to landfill capacity would result from implementation of the proposed project.

TABLE 4.12-

PROJECTED SOLID WASTE GENERATION
Land Use
Solid Waste
Generation
Rate
Dwelling Units/
Students
Annual Solid Waste
Generation tons
Residential
(Single Family)

9.24 lbs/dwelling
units/daya. 2,500 du 4,215. tons/year
School 1 lb/
student/day 00 students 72 tons/year
Total 4 2 . tons/year
a. This generation factor was derived from the California Integrated Waste Management Board generation rate for residential uses (2. lbs per day per capita). b. Assumes a 1 0-day school year.

Source: California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2004.

Off-site Project Feature Impacts
Proposed off-site improvements are comprised mainly of infrastructure, drainage and roadway improvements and would not create additional demand on solid waste services. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-34 Public Services and Utilities Caltrans-related Project Feature Impacts
Transportation facilities, roadway improvements, and slope and drainage facility modifications within Caltrans right-of-way would not create additional demand on solid waste services.

Therefore, no impact would occur.

Threshold 2: Would the project comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
On-site Project Impacts
As described above, solid waste practices in California are governed by multiple federal, state and local agencies, which enforce legislation, and regulations that ensure landfill operations minimize impacts to public health and safety, and the environment. An important part of OCIWMD s mission is to apply sound environmental practices to ensure compliance with these regulations. OCIWMD has adopted its CWIMP requiring countywide facilities to meet the 15-year capacity requirement.

OCIWMD also is obligated to obtain a Solid Waste Facilities Permit, a Stormwater Discharge Permit, and permits to construct and operate gas management systems and meet Waste Discharge Requirements. The EA, SCAQMD and CRWQCB enforce landfill regulations related health, air quality, and water quality, respectively. The proposed project would not inhibit OCIWMD s compliance with the requirements of each of these governing bodies.

It should also be noted that the City of Anaheim complies with all Federal, State and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. AB 939 requires that after 2000, the City of Anaheim divert at least 50 percent of solid waste from landfills through conservation, recycling, and composting. In 2000, the City diverted 50 percent of its solid waste, as required (City of Anaheim, 2004). This is achieved through City participating in over 20 programs such as residential curbside recycling to facilitate the diversion of waste from landfills. As identified in the Green Element of the City s General Plan, the City has also adopted a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) and a Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE) (part of the Orange County Integrated Waste Management Plan) to develop programs to address household hazardous waste State law. The proposed project would be required to comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, and no impacts would result under this threshold of significance.

Therefore, no impact would occur.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-35 Public Services and Utilities Mitigation Program
Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions
SC 12-13 Prior to approval of any site plans, tentative tract or parcel maps, the property owner/developer shall submit a Solid Waste Management Plan with recycling capabilities to the Department of Public Works, Streets and Sanitation Division for review and approval. Refuse collection and disposal for the proposed project shall comply with AB 939, the County of Orange Integrated Waste Management Plan, and the City of Anaheim Integrated Waste Management Plan.

4.12.11 LIBRARY SERVICES
The following information is summarized from the City of Anaheim General Plan (May 2004), City of Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code FEIR 330 (May 2004), and coordination with the City of Anaheim library system.

Existing Conditions
The community of Anaheim is served by the City of Anaheim public library system. The Anaheim library system consists of a central library, four branches, and a Bookmobile.

Currently, the closest library in proximity to the project site is the Canyon Hills ibrary located at 400 Scout Trail Anaheim Hills, near the intersection of ohl Ranch Road and Imperial Highway.

The City of Anaheim ibrary Services Division developed a comprehensive ibrary Facilities Master Plan in 2000. umerous expansion, replacement, refurbishment and new construction projects are planned or underway to increase the capacity of the Anaheim library system.

In 19 9, the City Council of the City of Anaheim adopted Resolution 9R-235, which established The Public ibrary Facilities Plan For the East Santa Ana Canyon Area in order to provide adequate library service to the project area. Subsequently, in 2001, the City Council authorized the construction of an East Hills Branch ibrary on the site of the existing East Anaheim Police Station located west of Weir Canyon Road on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road. The ibrary Division has developed preliminary design and costs for a 10,000 square foot library at this location. The service plan for this facility will focus on youth services, popular materials, and computer resources. The library will be sized to benefit all development in the East Santa Ana Canyon area, which includes the Mountain Park site, and will operate jointly with Community and Police Services currently offered at this location.

1. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for library services.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-36 Public Services and Utilities Impact Analysis
On-site Project Impacts
Implementation of the proposed project and associated increase in population would increase the demand on the City s libraries, with the Canyon Hills ibrary likely to be the most affected due to its proximity in relation to the project site. A future school would also be expected to impact the libraries, since students are regular users of these facilities. The library will be sized to benefit all development in the East Santa Ana Canyon area, which includes the Mountain Park site. The City of Anaheim Public ibrary Services Division has determined the existing Canyon Hills library would be inadequate to serve the approved and proposed development in the Anaheim East Santa Ana Canyon area.

As mentioned previously, the ibrary Services Division has plans to develop a new library west of Weir Canyon Road on the site of the existing East Anaheim Police Station. The area of benefit for the proposed library is the area located south of the SR-91 Freeway and east of Mohler Drive and Canyon Rim Road. This area includes The Highlands at Anaheim Hills, The Summit of Anaheim Hills, and Sycamore Canyon. The proposed project is also included within the area of benefit. All developments within the area of benefit are required to pay fees for the proposed library, in accordance with City Council Resolution 9R-235 (June 13, 19 9) as may hereinafter be amended, which adopted the Public ibrary Facilities Plan for the East Santa Ana Canyon area, and in conjunction with Chapter 17.0 , Section 17.0 .3 5 of Anaheim Municipal Code. The existing communities of The Highlands at Anaheim Hills, The Summit of Anaheim Hills, and Sycamore Canyon have paid the required fees.

Off-site Project Feature Impacts
Proposed off-site improvements are comprised mainly of infrastructure, drainage and roadway improvements and would not create additional demand on library services. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Program
Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions
SC 12-14 Pursuant to Resolution o. 9R-235 adopting the Public ibrary Facilities Plan for the East Santa Ana Canyon area, as may hereinafter be amended, the property owner/developer shall pay required fees for the construction of library facilities in the East Hills Planned Community. Fees shall be paid as a condition of approval of any final tract or parcel map, or prior to issuance of a building permit where no subdivision is involved. The Planning Department, Building Division shall verify payment of fees.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-37 Public Services and Utilities

4.12.12 RELEVANT PLANNING PROGRAMS
Existing Conditions
City of Anaheim General Plan – Public Services and Facilities Element The City of Anaheim General Plan Public Services and Facilities Element identifies a number of goals and policies that are applicable to the proposed project. Table 4.12-9 identifies these goals and policies and provides a project consistency analysis.

SCAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide
In SCAG s comment letter on the OP it identified several policies from the Growth Management Chapter as being relevant to the proposed project regarding public services and utilities. Table 4.12-9 lists these policies and provides a project consistency analysis.

Project Impact Analysis
Thresholds of Significance
The criterion used to determine the significance of impacts is based on the City s Initial Study and the model Initial Study checklist in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The project would typically result in a significant impact if it would:

1. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (Including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Impact Analysis
Table 4.12-9 addresses the consistency of the proposed project with the relevant goals and policies outlined in the City of Anaheim General Plan related to the provision of public services and utilities. As identified through the consistency analysis presented in Table 4.12-9, the proposed project would not conflict with any of the identified goals and/or policies.

TABLE 4.12-

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH GOALS AND

POLICIES RELATED TO PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Goals And Policies Consistency Analysis
City of Anaheim Public Services and Facilities Element
Goal 1.1 Provide sufficient staffing, equipment and
facilities to ensure effective fire protection,
emergency medical and rescue services, permitting
and fire inspection, and hazardous material
response services that keep pace with growth.

Policy 1 Maintain adequate resources to
enable the Fire Department to meet response
time standards, keep pace with growth, and
provide high levels of service.

As noted in Section 4.12.1, Fire Protection Services,
the proposed project would create an increased
demand for fire services. However, the proposed
project is consistent with this goal and related
policies to maintain appropriate fire protection
services. As noted previously, the proposed project
includes the construction of a City of Anaheim fire
station as well as the implementation of various
project design features related to fire protection, as
outlined in the Fire Master Plan included in the
Mountain Park Specific Plan. A fuel modification
plan will be implemented and the project includes the
construction of water reservoirs. These project
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
TABLE 4.12- Continued

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH GOALS AND

POLICIES RELATED TO PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-3 Public Services and Utilities Goals And Policies Consistency Analysis
Policy 3 Maintain and/or upgrade water
facilities to ensure adequate response to fire
hazards.
design features are discussed in Section 4.12.1.

Fire protection features associated with the project
are described in Section 3, Project Description. With
implementation of the fire protection design features
the project would be consistent with the goals and
polices related to fire protection services.

Goal 2.1 Meet the community s needs for public
safety and law enforcement by ensuring adequate
resource for the prevention, detection, and
investigation of crime, and response to call for
service.

Policy 1 Maintain adequate resources to
enable the Police Department to meet response
time standards, keep pace with growth, and
provide high levels of service.

As noted in Section 4.12.2, Police Protection
Services, the proposed project would create an
increased demand for police services; however, the
project would not require the construction of new
police facilities. The proposed project would be
consistent with this goal and related policies to
maintain appropriate police protection services. The
proposed project would generate revenue for the
City s General Fund through property taxes and
other assessed fees, and would therefore contribute
to the funding for new police officers required to
maintain police department service standards.

Additionally, the property owner/developer would be
required to pay fees required by Resolution o. 9-
234 for a police station to serve the East Santa Ana
Canyon area.

Goal 3.1 Generate electricity in a manner that is
reliable, cost-effective, and sustainable.

Policy 2 Ensure that adequate electricity
capacity exists for planned development.

The proposed project is consistent with this goal and
related policies to ensure that adequate electricity
capacity exists. As previously identified, the
purveyor of electricity to the project site is the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department. Section 4.12.6,
Electric Service, provides an analysis of the ability of the electric system to serve the proposed project.

Based on this analysis, it was concluded that with
implementation of the proposed conceptual electric
system for the project there would be adequate
electric capacity to serve the proposed project.

Goal 4.1 Provide a water system that produces
high quality water, sufficient water pressure, and
necessary quantities of water to meet domestic
demands.

Policy 1 Provide for the efficient and economic
distribution of adequate water supply and
pressure to all residential, commercial,
industrial, and public areas served by the Public
Utilities Department.

As noted in Section 4.12.4, Water, a Sub Area
Management Plan was prepared for the proposed
project to identify water supplies, and required water
facilities to accommodate the demand generated by
the project for water service. The proposed
conceptual water system for the project includes the
facilities necessary to meet this goal. Additionally,
based on the Water Supply Assessment prepared
for the proposed project, there is adequate water
supply to serve the proposed project including
residential and non-residential land uses.

Goal 5.1 Provide a safe and effective sewer
system that meets the needs of the City s residents,
businesses and visitors.

Policy 1 Ensure that appropriate sewer system
mitigation measures are identified and
implemented in conjunction with new
development based on the recommendations of
prior sewer studies and/or future sewer studies
that may be required by the City Engineer.

Section 4.12.5, Sanitary Sewer, provides an analysis
of the potential impacts of the project on sanitary
sewer wastewater services. A Conceptual Sewer
Study was prepared for the project which addressed
the capacity of existing utilities, sanitary sewer
wastewater generated by the project, and
alternatives for collecting and distributing wastewater from the site to regional facilities, specifically the
OCSD SARI line. Facilities in the project vicinity
have been sized to accommodate the sanitary sewer
wastewater that could be generated by the currently
approved Mountain Park Specific Plan, which
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
TABLE 4.12- Continued

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH GOALS AND

POLICIES RELATED TO PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-39 Public Services and Utilities Goals And Policies Consistency Analysis
assumes 7,966 residential units. As concluded in
Section 4.12.5, with the construction of sewer lines
from the site to off-site existing facilities, wastewater generated from the project can be accommodated.

Final utility plans will be prepared during the
tentative tract map stage of project development.

Goal .1 Minimize, recycle and dispose of solid
and hazardous waste in an efficient and
environmentally sound manner.

Policy 2 Reduce the volume of material sent to
solid waste sites in accordance with State law by
continuing source reduction and recycling
programs and by ensuring the participation of all
residents and businesses.

The proposed project is consistent with this goal and
related policy to regulate solid waste disposal. As
previously noted, the private collecting company that
currently serves the City of Anaheim would serve the
proposed project. The proposed project would apply
existing City programs to reduce the amount of solid
waste generated, and to reduce the volume of
material sent to the Orange County landfill system.

Goal .1 Coordinate with private utilities to provide
adequate natural gas and communications
infrastructure to existing and new development in a
manner compatible with the surrounding community.

Policy 1 Coordinate with private utilities to
provide Anaheim residents with high-speed,
high-capacity information systems and adequate
natural gas infrastructure.

The proposed project is consistent with this goal to
provide adequate natural gas and communications
infrastructure. The proposed development would be
connected to the existing natural gas and
communications facilities in adjacent developments.

Coordination between applicant, The Gas Company,
and SBC would be conducted during the appropriate
stages of project development.

Goal .1 Provide a dependable fiber optics system
that meets existing and future needs.

Policy 1 Maintain and, when desirable, expand
fiber optics capacity to ensure Anaheim
businesses and educational and governmental
institutions enjoy adequate high-speed
communications access.

The proposed project includes the installation of
telecommunication/fiber optic circuits to serve the
communication needs of the electric, water and
municipal facilities within the development site
necessary for dry utilities. The infrastructure
installed throughout the development areas would
accommodate additional fiber optic systems if the
City decides to implement these in the future.

Goal 11.1 Coordinate with public and private
educational entities to provide a variety of highquality education and training opportunities to meet the needs of a diverse community and economy.

Policy 1 Continue to assist school districts in
their long-range planning for school facilities.

The proposed project includes the reservation of a
minimum 10-acre school site in Development Area 3.

The OUSD has identified a need for a school in this
area of the City. With the provision of a school site,
the proposed project would assist the OUSD in its
long-range planning for school facilities.

Additionally, the OUSD and the property owner
have entered into a School Impact Mitigation
Agreement for the proposed Mountain Park project
that fully mitigates potential impacts of the project.

The agreement was approved by the OUSD in
December 2004.

SCAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide
Policy 3.05 Encourage patterns of urban
development and land use, which reduce costs on
infrastructure construction and make better use of
existing facilities.

Policy 3.0 Support local jurisdiction s efforts to
minimize the cost of infrastructure and public
service delivery, and efforts to seek new sources of
funding for development and the provision of
services.

This section discusses the proposed infrastructure
backbone system (wet and dry utilities) that would be
constructed with the proposed project, and
connections that will be made to existing facilities.

The proposed Development Areas are located in the
northern portion of the project site closest to existing development with existing infrastructure. The
proximity of the proposed uses to existing uses
reduces the cost of infrastructure construction and
efficiently uses existing facilities. Additionally, the property owner/developer would be responsible for
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
TABLE 4.12- Continued

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH GOALS AND

POLICIES RELATED TO PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.12 PSU-032405.DOC 4.12-40 Public Services and Utilities Goals And Policies Consistency Analysis
the installation/construction of the infrastructure
necessary to serve the proposed project.

Policy 3.2 Support local jurisdictions and other
service providers in their efforts to develop
sustainable communities and provide, equally to all
members of society, accessible and effective
services such as: public education, housing, health
care, social services, recreational facilities, law
enforcement, and fire protection.

The proposed project involves the development of
primarily residential uses. The City of Anaheim and
other service providers would supply the necessary
public services to the future residents. Additionally,
the proposed project includes a school site that will
be available for a school to be developed by the
OUSD, a City fire station and various recreational
facilities (public and private). The proposed public
facilities would be available for existing and future
residents in the City of Anaheim and surrounding
areas.

Mitigation Program
o significant impacts have been identified; therefore, no mitigation is required.

4.12.13 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The proposed project as well as cumulative projects would result in an increased demand for public services and utilities. Generally, the various service agencies incorporate growth anticipated in the adopted General Plan into their long-range planning programs. Impacts to public services resulting from cumulative project development would need to be mitigated by the individual projects to ensure that acceptable service levels are maintained. Standard measures such as the payment of fees and incorporation of needed facilities have been, or will be addressed for each project as determined appropriate in individual EIR analysis. If it is determined that additional public service and/or utility facilities are required to accommodate the needs of the City, the individual construction projects would be subject to review under CEQA.

Potential impacts of the facilities would need to be addressed, and mitigation developed, as necessary.

As addressed throughout this section, the proposed project does not require the construction of additional public service or utility facilities beyond those proposed as part of the project and analyzed in this EIR. The project would not have a significant impact related to public services and utilities. The proposed project would not result in a significant cumulative impact to public services or utilities and the project s contribution to cumulative impacts to these services would not be considered significant.

4.12.14 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
o significant public service or utility impacts would result from implementation of the proposed project.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.13 Rec-031405.doc 4.13-1 Recreation

4.13 RECREATION
The information in this section is based on information provided by the following resources: the City of Anaheim General Plan (May, 2004), City of Anaheim General Plan FEIR 330 (May, 2004), County of Orange General Plan Recreation Element (2000), and the Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks website: www.ocparks.com.

4.13.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
On-Site Recreational Uses
There are currently no improved recreational uses located on the project site. There is an existing unimproved trail which traverses the site in a north-south direction and consists of an unimproved dirt road used for previous ranch operations on the site. This trail is currently not accessible to the public and is within dedicated open space areas including the ACE and NCCP/HCP Reserve (discussed in Section 3, Project Description).

Off-Site Recreational Uses
There are over 2,000 acres of recreational uses within the City of Anaheim and surrounding area that would serve future residents of the project site including a State Park, several County regional parks, and local parks. In addition to these park facilities, there are a variety of other public recreational opportunities within the local area, including biking, equestrian uses, hiking, and golfing (public and private courses). Existing and planned recreation facilities are discussed below.

State Parks
State parklands are comprised of areas that have been acquired by the State of California in an effort to preserve biological diversity throughout the state, protect natural and cultural resources, and provide Californians with diverse opportunities for outdoor recreation. While primarily intended to serve Californians, the state parks also serve as a draw for out-of-state tourists.

The project site is bound to the east by the Chino Hills State Park, a premier natural open-space area in the hills of Santa Ana Canyon. Owned and operated by California State Parks, Chino Hills State Park serves as a critical link in the Puente-Chino Hills biological corridor. Its 12,452 acres encompass stands of oaks, sycamores and rolling, grassy hills that stretch nearly 31 miles from the Santa Ana Mountains to the Whittier Hills. Chino Hills is vitally important as a refuge to many species of plants, and as a link between natural areas essential to the survival of many animal species. Park facilities include picnic areas, and opportunities to walk, horseback, or bicycle ride through a largely natural, preserved setting. The majority of the Chino Hills Park is open to public access through an interconnecting trail system; the northernmost portion of the State Park is open to vehicular access.

The State Department of Parks and Recreation adopted the Chino Hills State Park General Plan in February 1999. This General Plan addresses the portion of the State Park north of SR-91.

Within the General Plan are goals and guidelines that focus on facilitating wildlife movement and plant seed dispersal, maintaining buffers between the park and adjacent developments, restoring and protecting native vegetation, and protecting native wildlife and aquatic species.

Other goals and guidelines within the General Plan relate to managing wildfires; protecting paleontological, cultural, historic, and aesthetic resources; as well as operating the State park.

The Department of Parks and Recreation has not adopted a similar plan for the portion of the State Park south of SR-91, adjacent to the proposed project site, but is in the process of Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.13 Rec-031405.doc 4.13-2 Recreation preparing a development management plan for the area (E. Arroyo, personal communication, January 21, 2005).

Coal Canyon Biological Corridor, formerly known as Coal Canyon Ecological Reserve, is part of the Chino Hills State Park and links important wildlife habitat areas and open space north and south of SR-91. The 689-acre Coal Canyon Biological Corridor encompasses Coal Canyon (649 acres) south of SR-91 and Tecate Cypress Ecological Reserve (31 acres) north of SR-91.

This land was purchased in November 2000. The $53.5 million in funding for the purchase of these open space areas came from the following contributors: California Transportation Commission, California Department of State Parks, Wildlife Conservation Board, Pulte Homes Corporation, County of Orange, Wildlands Conservancy, Anonymous Donations, Reserve Legacy Fund, and multiple bonds. The Coal Canyon Biological Corridor is also owned and operated by the California State Parks. The biological corridor is accessible by the public through existing fire trails and the Santa Ana River Trail.

Regional Parks
The County of Orange currently owns and operates 25 regional parks with additional acreage currently proposed for acquisition into the park system. Regional parks are generally 50 or more acres in size, provide a wide range of amenities, and attract people from up to 30 miles away. They offer significant recreational or scenic attractions that are generally not available in local parks. There are a number of regional parks that would serve the project site, including Santiago Oaks, Featherly, and Yorba Regional Park, as well as the proposed Weir Canyon Park. Each is described in further detail below.

Featherly Regional Park
Featherly Regional Park is a 795-acre camping (overnight use) facility located north of the project site and SR-91. The park is owned by the County of Orange and operated by the Harbors Beaches and Parks Department; however the 66-acre Canyon RV Park is managed independently under a concession agreement. The RV Park contains 119 individual sites, an organized group and youth camping area, two ampitheaters, and a visitor center. Public access to the park is limited to the Canyon RV Park grounds and the Santa Ana River Trail, which runs adjacent to the Santa Ana River. The remainder of Featherly Regional Park (729 acres) is maintained in a natural condition as a riparian wilderness area, with the Santa Ana River flowing through the park (K. Terrace, Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks, personal communication, May 20, 2004).

Santiago Oaks Regional Park
The Santiago Oaks Regional Park is an approximately 350-acre regional park located in East Orange, adjacent to Santiago Creek. The park is comprised of two separate parcels, known as the “Blome” and “Rinker” properties, which are separated by a portion of the Santiago Creek.

The County acquired these two parcels in the 1970s and limited public use of the park began in 1977. Park facilities include a park office, Nature Center, picnic areas, nature trail, and a sixacre orange grove. The park also has a series of interconnecting trails suitable for equestrians, hikers and mountain bikes. The park trails provide access to the Anaheim Hills Trail System and offer views of northern Orange County.

Yorba Regional Park
Yorba Regional Park is a 175-acre, linear day use park over one mile long situated adjacent to the Santa Ana River in the mouth of Santa Ana Canyon, in the City of Anaheim. The park has Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.13 Rec-031405.doc 4.13-3 Recreation four lakes with connecting streams and bicycle and equestrian trails which meander through the park and connect to the Santa Ana River trails leading approximately twenty miles to the Pacific Ocean. Additional amenities at the park include barbeques/fire rings, baseball fields, bike rental, a family picnic area, fishing, a fitness/par course, hiking trails, horseshoe pits, interpretive programs, model sail boating, a playground/tot lot, a private party area, restrooms, shelters, tables, volleyball courts, and the allowance of dogs.

Weir Canyon Regional Park (Proposed)
In addition to the existing County parklands, a new 2,100-acre regional park is proposed west of the Mountain Park project site. Currently, the County of Orange maintains ownership of 819 acres, all of which is operated by The Nature Conservancy. Public access to the existing park area is limited to docent led tours of Weir Canyon (Eric Jessen, personal communication, May 20, 2004). The timeframe for future acquisition of the remaining parkland is unknown.

Local Parklands
Several City of Anaheim community and special use parks exist within close proximity of the project site. Community parks range in size from 15 to 50 acres and are intended to serve several neighborhoods within an approximately two-mile radius. Toyon Park is nearest to the Mountain Park project site. Special use parks are generally recreation-related facilities serving a specialized, City-wide need and tend to focus on one particular activity such as a nature center, a natural area, or a tennis or golf complex. The special use parks located nearest to the Mountain Park project site are Deer Canyon Park, Oak Canyon Nature Center, and Walnut Canyon.

Bikeways
There are currently no existing bikeways within the project site; however, the City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element designates several bikeways within the project boundaries. A Class II Bikeway, defined by the General Plan as a striped and signed bikeway within street right-of-way, is planned to run south on Gypsum Canyon Road and then southwest over SR-241, connecting with Weir Canyon Road. The City of Anaheim General Plan designates this bike trail as “top priority” for development.

Trails
As previously noted, there is an existing unimproved road that traverses the site generally in a north-south direction, travels southwest under SR-241 and exits the site. This road is identified as a regional trail on the City of Anaheim General Plan and the County of Orange Master Plan of Regional Riding and Hiking Trails. There is currently no public access to this trail.

Related Planning Programs
The City of Anaheim General Plan
Green Element
This Element serves to protect and enhance the City of Anaheim’s natural and recreational resources by combining the Conservation, Open Space, Parks Recreation and Community Services Elements into a single comprehensive plan. The goals, policies, and objectives of the Green Element that are relevant to the proposed project and analysis of project consistency are provided in Table 4.13-1.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.13 Rec-031405.doc 4.13-4 Recreation Circulation Element
This Element is designed to meet current and future circulation needs of the City of Anaheim.

The goals, policies, and objectives of the Circulation Element that are relevant to the proposed project and analysis of project consistency are provided in Table 4.13-1.

The County of Orange General Plan, Recreation Element
The majority of the southern portion of the project site that would remain open space is within an unincorporated area of the County of Orange within the City of Anaheim’s sphere-of-influence.

The public riding and hiking trail proposed to be implemented as part of the project would also be a County facility. The goals and objectives of the County of Orange Recreation Element that are applicable to the proposed project and analysis of project consistency is provided in Table

4.13-1.

SCAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide
In SCAG’s comment letter on the NOP it identified the ancillary goals from the Outdoor Recreation Component of the Open Space Chapter relevant to the proposed project. The goals and analysis of project consistency is provided in Table 4.13-1.

4.13.2 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Thresholds of Significance
The criteria used to determine the significance of potential impacts related to parks recreation 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 recreation if it would:

1. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.

2. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

3. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks.

4. 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\4.13 Rec-031405.doc 4.13-5 Recreation Impact Analysis
Threshold 1: Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? On-Site Project Impacts
As previously discussed, the project site is located near a variety of existing recreational uses, including parks, trails, and other facilities. The project would generate approximately 8,250 new residents in the City of Anaheim. The City’s General Plan identified park needs and areas within the City with park deficiencies. Current and future parkland needs are based on a ratio of two acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. Assuming 8,250 new residents, the proposed project would generate a need for 16.5 acres of publicly-owned park and recreational areas in the City. The City requires new development to ensure that parkland is provided for the residents generated by individual projects. The dedication may be in the form of direct dedication of improved land, the payment of fees in lieu of dedication, or a combination of both.

Private open space and parks do not count toward meeting park fee credits.

The parkland demand generated by the proposed project would be accommodated through the provision of an improved 15-acre community park, within Development Area 3, west of SR-241.

This park would serve the future project residents as well as those in surrounding communities, including those to the west of the Mountain Park project site that are identified by the City of Anaheim Community Services Department as park-deficient. This would be an active sports park providing facilities for tennis, basketball, softball, soccer, and football. Additionally, the park would be adjacent to the proposed school site allowing for joint-use of these public facilities.

Although they do not count towards meeting the park fee credit, private recreation facilities, including a community recreation center, between Development Areas 4 and 5, one- and threeacre private recreation facilities within Development Areas 4 and 5; and five pocket parks (approximately 0.75 acre each) in Development Area 5 would be provided as part of the project.

Refer to Section 3.0, Project Description, for additional information regarding proposed onsite park facilities.

The project also involves implementation of recreational trails and bikeways that are depicted on Exhibit 3-8, Open Space, Trail and Bikeway Plan in Section 3, Project Description. Specifically, segment of the Gypsum Canyon Creek Trail, a public regional riding and hiking trail along Gypsum Canyon Creek, is proposed to be constructed and would connect to the Featherly Regional Park, Santa Ana River, and the existing unimproved Gypsum Canyon Creek Trails.

This segment would be designed to County of Orange Standards and would serve equestrian uses, mountain bikes, and hiking. The unimproved Gypsum Canyon Creek Trail is also located onsite. As described in Section 3, Project Description, a trail staging area would be located in Development Area 6. Class II on-road bikeways are also proposed as part of the project and would provide a link to off-site bikeways that are either currently existing or are planned for construction in the future. Although the proposed Mountain Park community would be gate guarded for vehicles, public access would be provided by bicycle, riding and hiking facilities.

As previously noted, the project site is adjacent to the Chino Hills State Park. Although the Chino Hills State Park General Plan does not contain specific goals and policies for the portion of the park south of SR-91, the proposed project is consistent with the overall intent of the goals and policies identified for the remainder of the park. The Mountain Park Specific Plan Development Plan has been designed to provide a buffer between Development Areas and the Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.13 Rec-031405.doc 4.13-6 Recreation State Park, including the Coal Canyon wildlife movement corridor (discussed in Section 4.6, Biological Resources). Additionally, the proposed project includes the preservation of 2,163 acres of open space and provides fuel modification between open space and proposed development. The proposed project would not directly impact existing or future uses at the State Park. Section 4.2, Landform and Aesthetics, includes an assessment of potential visual change from the State Park that can be seen from public trails east of the project site.

Development of the Mountain Park Specific Plan project site with residential uses would increase demand on state, regional and local parklands and recreational areas in proximity to the project site; however, this increased demand would be accommodated primarily through provision of the on-site public and private recreation facilities described above. Therefore, any increased demand on off-site park and recreational facilities would be negligible. The proposed project would not cause deterioration of these facilities to occur or be accelerated.

Off-Site Project Impacts
The proposed off-site project features include infrastructure, drainage and roadway improvements. Implementation of these project features would not result in any uses or activities that would create an increased demand for recreational facilities.

Caltrans-related Project Feature Impacts
The SR-241/Weir Canyon Road interchange, Mountain Park Drive bridge overcrossing, proposed roadway iimprovements and slope and drainage facility modifications within Caltrans right-of-way would not generate new population in the City of Anaheim and would not increase the use of existing park and recreation facilities. No impact would occur.

Threshold 2: Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Threshold 3: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks?
On-Site Project Impacts
As discussed above, the proposed project would generate 8,250 people, and would require the construction of new recreational facilities. As described previously, the Mountain Park project proposes development of a 15-acre public community park and associated amenities to fulfill the City’s parkland requirement for the project. The community park is part of the proposed project and the direct and indirect (visual and noise) impacts associated with construction and operation of the park have been addressed in this EIR. The project would not require the expansion of any existing recreational facilities. In addition to the proposed public community park, the project also includes a private recreation center, seven private parks, and five smaller “pocket parks”, riding and hiking trails, and Class II bikeways within the project boundaries.

Impacts associated with development of these recreational uses are also addressed throughout this EIR and no additional impacts associated with development of on-site recreational uses would occur.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.13 Rec-031405.doc 4.13-7 Recreation It should be noted a the portion of the regional trail that follows Gypsum Canyon Creek is within the TNC ACE open space area. Use of this trail would occur in compliance with the requirements established for these open space areas.

Off-Site Project Impacts
Proposed off-site roadway improvements along Gypsum Canyon Road, a portion of the Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road would include implementation of planned bikeways and trails along these roadways. These off-site impact areas have been assumed in the impact analysis provided in this EIR. Additionally, proposed off-site project features would not generate an increased demand for park or recreational facilities.

Caltrans-related Project Feature Impacts
The SR-241/Weir Canyon Road interchange, Mountain Park Drive bridge overcrossing, proposed roadway improvements, and slope and drainage facility modifications within Caltrans right-of-way would not include or require the construction of new park and recreational facilities; therefore, no impact would occur.

Threshold 4: Would the 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?
Table 4.13-1 addresses the consistency of the proposed project with the relevant goals and policies outlined in the City of Anaheim General Plan and SCAG RCPG. As identified in Table 4.13-1, the proposed project would be considered consistent with the relevant goals and policies related to parks and recreation.

TABLE 4.13-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH PAR /RECREATIONRELATED GOALS AND POLICIES Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis
City of Anaheim General Plan
Green Element
Goal .1 Reduce single occupancy vehicle trips.

Policy 4 Encourage bicycle and pedestrian travel by
improving the City’s trail and bikeway master plan and
by providing convenient links between the trail system
and desired destinations.

The Mountain Park Specific Plan project includes provision of both public trails and Class II on-road bikeways that would interconnect with existing off-site trail and bikeway systems.

These facilities would allow bicycle and pedestrian travel throughout the project site and to off-site locations. The project would be consistent with Goal 9.1 and Policy 4.

Goal 1 .1 Provide sufficient indoor and outdoor park,
recreation and community service opportunities for existing and future residents and employees.

Policy 1 Maintain a Citywide standard of at least two
acres of parkland per thousand residents.

Policy 2 Locate neighborhood parks within walking
distance of the surrounding neighborhood.

Policy 3 Locate parks adjacent to schools, where
possible, to facilitate joint-use of publicly owned land and facilities.

Policy 4 Design new facilities to serve as many
compatible, overlapping uses as possible such as
baseball/softball outfields also serving as soccer fields.

A total of 24.75 acres of public and private park facilities would be provided on the project site. The 15-acre public community park, with improvements, would meet the citywide standard of two acres of parkland per thousand residents (representing a requirement for the project to provide 16.5 acres of park land or pay in-lieu fees) and would be available for use by future project residents as well as residents from surrounding areas. Due to their proximity to existing and proposed residential uses, residents would be able to walk to the community park site as well as proposed private recreational facilities within the project site. The project would be consistent with Goal 18.1 and Policies 1 and 2.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
TABLE 4.13-1 Continued

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH PAR /RECREATION-RELATED

GOALS AND POLICIES
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.13 Rec-031405.doc 4.13-8 Recreation Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis
Policy Continue to provide a variety of park types and
facilities, especially dedicated sports fields and practice fields that serve the diverse needs of Anaheim’s
neighborhoods.

As shown on Exhibit 3-4, Development Plan, the proposed community park is adjacent to the proposed school site and would allow for joint-use of these public facilities, consistent with Policy 3. Conceptual site planning for the project site has taken into consideration this joint-use function to ensure that all of the area is used efficiently facilitating joint use. Overlapping uses would also be accommodated, consistent with Policy 4.

Proposed amenities at the community park and private parks within the project site are described in Section 3.0, Project Description, and would support a variety of passive and active recreation needs. As previously noted, the community park would provide facilities for various types of sports, consistent with Policy 6.

Goal 22.1 Complete the Riding and Hiking Trails Master
Plan by closing gaps in the existing network of trails.

Policy 1 Obtain dedication, acquisition and
development of trail rights-of-way to City standards in order to complete the trail network shown on the Green
Plan and Riding and Hiking Trails Master Plan.

Policy 3 Link the trail system, where feasible, with
existing or future parks and other appropriate public
areas.

Policy 4 Link the trail system with Orange and
Riverside Counties’ regional trails and with those in the Cleveland National Forest and Chino Hills State Park.

Policy 5 Expand the trail system by incorporating trails and trail stops within public and quasi-public rights-ofway.

Policy Require homeowners associations to provide
trail maintenance, repairs and insurance, where
appropriate in private developments.

The project includes implementation of a segment of the Gypsum Canyon Creek Regional Riding and Hiking Trails that would link the Featherly Regional Park, Santa Ana River, and Gypsum Canyon trails together. These linkages would provide access to off-site recreational uses such as Featherly Regional Park and Chino Hills State Park. The project would be consistent with Goal

22.1 and Policies 1, 3, and 4.

The proposed trail staging area near the intersection of Gypsum Canyon Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road would provide for additional direct access to the County’s Regional Riding and Hiking Trail system. The project would be consistent with Goal

22.1 and Policy 5.

The proposed project would include private trails interior to the project’s Development Areas. The Homeowner’s Association would maintain these facilities. The project would be consistent with Goal 22.1 and Policy 8.

Circulation Element
Goal .1 Protect and encourage bicycle travel.

Policy 1 Provide safe, direct and continuous bicycle
routes for commuter and recreational cyclists.

Policy Implement a bikeway system with linkages to
routes in neighboring jurisdictions and regional bicycle routes.

The project includes development of several interconnecting Class II bikeways that would also provide linkages to existing and proposed off-site bikeways. Additionally, the location of Class II bikeways within proposed street right-of-ways would serve to provide direct routes for both commuter and recreational cyclists.

The project would be consistent with Goal 7.1, Policies 1 and 6.

County of Orange General Plan Recreation Element
Goal 1 Provide a useful, enjoyable, safe, and efficient public regional riding and hiking trail system to meet the needs and desires of the citizens of the entire County.

Goal 2 Create trail linkages between open space and
recreational facilities, between community, municipal, state, and federal trails systems, and between the trail systems of surrounding counties.

Objective 1 Implement and maintain a public regional
riding and hiking trails system as depicted conceptually on the Trails Map.

Objective 3 Adopt official design standards for
constructing and maintaining regional trails including
signage and staging areas.

The proposed project includes implementation of the portion of the public Gypsum Creek Trail extending south from the Santa Ana River Trail in the City of Yorba Linda, to the TNC ACE boundary within the project site. This trail would provide a link between the proposed trail staging area in Development Area 6 and the open space within the project site. The improved trail segment would connect with the existing unimproved dirt road which extends through the site southwest to a crossing under SR-241 and further to the west.

The public trail would be designed and constructed in compliance with the County’s standards for regional riding and hiking trails and would be implemented by the property owner/developer, in coordination with the County of Orange and City of Anaheim. The trail would be available to the public; however, the unimproved Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
TABLE 4.13-1 Continued

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH PAR /RECREATION-RELATED

GOALS AND POLICIES
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.13 Rec-031405.doc 4.13-9 Recreation Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis
Objective 5 Develop a regional trail system to meet the recreational needs of equestrians, pedestrians (walkers, hikers, and joggers), and mountain bikers (nonmotorized).

Objective Coordinate with other local jurisdictions
and state and federal agencies regarding trails
development and maintenance.
portion of the trail is within the TNC ACE and access would be subject to an approved public access plan.

SCAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide
Open Space Chapter
Goal 9.01: Provide adequate land resources to meet the
outdoor recreation needs of the present and future
residents in the region to promote tourism in the region.

Goal 9.02: Increase the accessibility to open space lands for outdoor recreation.

Goal 9.03: Promote self-sustaining regional recreation
resources and facilities.

Refer to the discussion of above regarding the City of Anaheim Goal 18.1 regarding the provision of on-site recreational uses to meet the outdoor recreation needs of present and future residents. Additionally the proposed project involves the preservation of 2,163 acres of open space. The majority of this open space is part of the TNC ACE and NCCP/HCP, and as
noted above, would be accessible to the public following development and approval of an approved access plan. Open space areas outside of the TNC ACE and NCCP/HCP Reserve would accessible to the public through the use of on-site bikeways and trails.

4.13.3 MITIGATION PROGRAM
Project Design Features
PDF 13-1 The Mountain Park Specific Plan includes the implementation of the public Gypsum Canyon Creek Regional Riding and Hiking Trail (refer to Exhibit 3-8, Open Space, Trail and Bikeway Plan). Prior to approval of each tentative tract or parcel map that the trail is located within, the final alignment and final design for the Gypsum Canyon Creek Regional Riding and Hiking Trail shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Services Department and County of Orange Harbors, Beaches and Parks Department and shown on the tract or parcel map. Dedication of trail easements to the County of Orange shall occur concurrently with recordation of final tract or parcel maps. Trail improvements shall be completed prior to final building and zoning inspections for the first building within said tracts.

PDF 13-2 The Mountain Park Specific Plan includes the implementation of Class II bikeways (on-street, striped) along the following roadways: proposed Mountain Park Drive; extension of Weir Canyon Road within the project site; Gypsum Canyon Road from off-site Featherly Regional Park to on-site Mountain Park Drive; and Santa Ana Canyon Road within the project site (refer to Exhibit 3-8, Open Space, Trail and Bikeway Plan). Prior to approval of each tentative tract or parcel map that includes these bikeways; the property owner/developer shall include provisions for these bikeways on the tract or parcel map. The final alignment and final design of each bikeway shall be shown on the street improvement plans and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.13 Rec-031405.doc 4.13-10 Recreation Existing Standard Conditions and Regulations
SC 13-1 The Mountain Park Specific Plan includes an approximate 15-acre improved park in Development Area 3 (refer to Exhibit 3-4) to fulfill the City’s park dedication requirement. Prior to, or concurrent with, approval of final tract or parcel maps in Development Area 3, the property owner/developer shall demonstrate compliance with this park dedication requirement to the Planning Department.

4.13.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The project would create increased demand for recreational uses due to the increase in population resulting from the project, and would likely result in increase use of local and regional recreation facilities. However, as indicated in the impact analysis portion of this section, the project would also provide on-site recreational uses, thereby reducing the level of use of off-site local and regional recreation facilities. The project’s cumulative contribution to the physical impact on local and regional recreation facilities would not be significant.

4.13.5 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
No significant recreation impacts would result from implementation of the proposed project.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.14 Cultural Resources-032405.doc 4.14-1 Cultural Resources

4.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section summarizes information contained in the following reports which are available for review as outlined in Section 2.5, Review of the Draft EIR: Cultural Resources Survey and Assessment, Mountain Park, Anaheim, Orange County, California prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. (2005) (Appendix P); Historical Resources Compliance Report, Weir Canyon Road/SR 241 Interchange Project, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, California (Appendix Q); and Historical Resources Compliance Report, Mountain Park Overcrossing Project, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, California prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. (2005) (Appendix Q). The Mountain Park Final Environmental Impact Report No. 302 (March 1991) was also used for analysis of paleontological resources. Specific references used for preparation of these reports are cited in the individual reports.

LSA conducted the cultural resources assessment, which consisted of a records/literature search, consultation with Native Americans, a walkover field survey, and additional historical research. The archival review was conducted on November 19, 2002 at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton.

4.14.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Physical Setting
The Cultural Resources Survey and Assessment prepared for the project (LSA 2005) contains a detailed discussion of the environmental and cultural setting of the project site including:
geology and geomorphology; ecology; paleoenvironment; records of the archaeology, ethnography, and history of the site. The project site centers on Gypsum Canyon and several tributary canyons, which occur within the Santa Ana Mountains. This area forms part of the northern end of the Peninsular Range geologic province. Because of the steep topography in this area, some portions of the project site would have been uninhabitable. Coastal sage scrub and lower chaparral habitats predominate in the region. These habitats would have provided many important resources to local prehistoric inhabitants. Thick vegetation occurs in some areas, particularly along north-facing slopes and in narrow canyons. Vegetation is sparser along ridge tops and canyon bottoms, the areas most likely to have been occupied by humans.

These factors were considered in developing the research design and methods for the project.

The project site has been used for cattle ranching, and several aggregate mines, including the Robertson Ready-Mix facility and the Pacific Clay mine, occur on the project site. Following is a summary of the results of the research conducted for the project relative to cultural resources.

Archaeological Resources
The records search conducted for the proposed project indicated that the project site had been surveyed previous to the LSA study (2005). In total, eight different surveys have been conducted on various portions of the study area; however only the study conducted for FEIR No. 302 included the entire project site. None of these surveys identified any cultural or historic resources within the project site or off-site project areas. Within a half-mile radius beyond the study area, however, previous studies have identified 16 archaeological sites consisting of a bird bath, a historic structure, a canal, rockshelter, bedrock milling, and lithic scatters (refer to Tables 2 and 3 in the Cultural Resources Technical Report, provided as Appendix P to this Draft EIR). Several isolated artifacts were also identified outside of the study area but within a onehalf mile radius of it. Consultation of historic maps also identified one building within Gypsum Canyon in 1902 (USGS 1902) and four buildings within Gypsum Canyon in 1950 (USGS 1950).

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.14 Cultural Resources-032405.doc 4.14-2 Cultural Resources Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) files were reviewed, and Native American representatives were contacted as part of the cultural resources assessment1 . Although the
NAHC files did not indicate the presence of any traditional cultural properties within the study area, several Native American contacts described the project area as culturally sensitive. One representative indicated that the region contains a sacred site and the remains of a village where ceremonies took place. Based on files maintained by LSA, it was concluded that the sacred site is either the “solstice cave” that was demolished during construction of SR-241, or the “altar stone” located in Weir Canyon (preserved open space), approximately five miles south and west of the project site.

LSA archaeologists conducted pedestrian surveys, covering the development area, off-site project areas, and areas subject to indirect impacts—specifically, the hiking trail extending to the south of the development area. Dr. Scott Pletka supervised the survey of the development area and areas subject to indirect impacts. These surveys occurred between December 2 and December 4, 2002; between December 9 and December 13, 2002; between December 16 and December 18, 2002; and on January 14, 2003 and were conducted by three archaeologists in addition to Dr. Pletka. A survey of off-site areas was conducted on February 3, 2004 by two archaeologists.

The surveyors walked transects spaced no more than ten meters apart and systematically covered all portions of the development area and off-site areas except for those areas in which the brush was impenetrable or the slope of the ground surface was quite steep. Thus, the survey covered ridge tops and flat canyon bottom areas more thoroughly, although signs of human occupation are not particularly likely to be found on the steep, heavily vegetated areas that were not surveyed. From the records search, LSA archaeologists knew that archaeological sites found within the region typically occurred at the top of ridges or in the canyon bottoms.

Although the survey focused primarily on finding surface artifacts, the archaeologists also looked for other evidence of human activities. Such evidence may, of course, be hidden in densely vegetated areas or covered by alluvium. The archaeologists thus inspected road cuts, stream banks, and rodent holes for evidence of buried cultural deposits that might be otherwise unobservable. They also checked bedrock outcrops, looking for bedrock milling features, and visited all accessible rock shelters.

Pedestrian surveys conducted over the project site and off-site project areas did not reveal any archaeological resources. No trace of the buildings observed on the historic maps could be found. These results are consistent with the results of previous investigations in the region.

The lack of evidence for human occupation may reflect the rough topography of the region and/or the burial of resources by alluvium in the canyon bottoms.

Paleontological Resources
The potential for discovery of fossils is an indication of the likelihood that excavation in a given rock unit identified as fossiliferous (fossil-bearing) could result in exposure of fossil resources.

The potential for the discovery of fossils does not measure the significance of individual fossils present within the study area, because it is impossible to accurately predict what individual fossils may be discovered. The significance of an individual fossil can only be determined after it is discovered and studied by a qualified paleontologist.

1 LSA contacted Cindi Alvitre, Ti’At Society; David Belardes, Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation; Robert F.

Dorame, Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council; Samuel H. Dunlap, Gabrielino/Tongva Tribal Council of the Gabrielino Tongva Nation; Anita Espinoza, Juaneno Band of Mission Indians; Sonia Johnston, Juaneno Band of Mission Indians; Anthony Morales, Gabrielino/Tongva Tribal Council; Damien Shilo, Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation; Craig Torres; John Valenzuela; and Jim Velasques.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.14 Cultural Resources-032405.doc 4.14-3 Cultural Resources One way to assess the impacts that development could potentially have on paleontological resources is to assign a paleontologic potential to the rock unit(s) in question. The paleontolgoical potential of a rock unit is based on the types of resources that have been recovered elsewhere from that rock unit.

The study area is underlain by several fossiliferous geologic formations (rock units). The Holz Shale Member of the Ladd Formation and Schulz Ranch Member of the Williams Formation (both marine in origin) appear to have a low to moderate paleontological sensitivity. The interbedded undifferentiated Vaqueros and Sespe Formations (marine and terrestrial, respectively) have a moderate to high paleontological sensitivity. The Topanga (marine), Sespe (terrestrial), Santiago (marine and terrestrial), and Silverado (terrestrial) Formations have all been demonstrated to have a high paleontological sensitivity.

A records search and literature review conducted for the project site during preparation of Final EIR No. 302 showed that several fossil localities have been recorded in the area. These include occurrences of poorly preserved unidentified bivalve mollusks and trace fossils from several exposures of the lower (marine) member of the Santiago Formation in the southern areas of the project site. A locality just west of the mouth of Gypsum Canyon and atop the bluff along Santa Ana Canyon Road has produced partial to complete shells of marine bivalve mollusks and oysters, as well as a few shark teeth.

Related Planning Programs
City of Anaheim General Plan
The City of Anaheim General Plan does not contain any goals or polices that specifically address archaeological and paleontological resources. The General Plan does contain several policies related to historic preservation; however, these apply only to the historic districts in the City of which none are located in the proposed project area.

SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide
SCAG’s RCPG Growth Management Chapter includes a policy (Policy 3.21) that encourages the implementation of measures aimed at the preservation and protection of recorded and unrecorded cultural resources and archaeological sites.

4.14.2 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Thresholds of Significance
The following criteria are based on the Initial Study checklist form in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Based on these thresholds, the proposed project would result in a significant impact to cultural resources if it would:

1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

2. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

3. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.14 Cultural Resources-032405.doc 4.14-4 Cultural Resources

4. 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 Not to be Significant, during preparation of the Initial Study the City of Anaheim determined that the proposed project would not have a significant impact for the following threshold and no further analysis is presented in this section. x Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and/or identified on the Qualified Historic Structures list of the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan (July 20, 1999).

Impact Analysis
Threshold 1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?
On-site Project Feature Impacts
Although no archaeological sites have been identified within the study area (including the project site and off-site project areas), such resources exist in the immediate vicinity of the study area. Therefore, there is a potential that previous cultural resource surveys did not find all of the archaeological sites that lie within the proposed project impact area. There is a potential for subsurface cultural deposits to be discovered during grading activities, which would be considered a potentially significant impact.

Impact 4.14-1 On-site and off-site grading and excavation activities could impact unknown archaeological resources, which would be considered significant. This impact would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant with implementation of MMs 14-1 and 14-2.

Off-site Project Feature Impacts
The proposed off-site project features occur in areas that have been previously disturbed by development. These project features would not result in potential impacts to cultural resources.

Caltrans-related Project Feature Impacts
Based on the Historical Resources Compliance Report and Archaeological Survey Reports prepared for the Mountain Park Drive Bridge Overcrossing and SR-241/Weir Canyon road interchange projects, and the cultural resources report prepared for the proposed project which addresses the study area for other project features within Caltrans right-of-way, no cultural resources are present within or adjacent to the study areas for Caltrans-related project features.

Similarly, no archaeological resources were identified within or immediately adjacent to these project areas. As discussed previously, it has been determined that known Native American cultural sites are located outside of the development area for the Mountain Park project, and would also be outside of the project area for project features within Caltrans right-of-way.

However, the project would require some grading in previously undisturbed areas; therefore, Impact 4.14-1 would also apply to these project features and would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant with implementation of MMs 14-1 and 14-2.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.14 Cultural Resources-032405.doc 4.14-5 Cultural Resources Threshold 2: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
On-site Project Feature Impacts
Although no paleontological resources were identified within the project site, the project site is known to contain several fossil-bearing geologic formations. The Topanga (marine), Sespe (terrestrial), Santiago (marine and terrestrial), and Silverado (terrestrial) Formations are all assigned high paleontological sensitivity. The interbedded undifferentiated Vaqueros and Sespe Formations (marine and terrestrial, respectively) have a moderate to high paleontological sensitivity, while the Holz Shale Member of the Ladd Formation and Schulz Ranch Member of the Williams Formation (both marine) appear to have a moderate paleontological sensitivity.

Areas within the project site where the densest development will occur are underlain chiefly by the Topanga Formation (western project area) and by the interbedded Vaqueros and Sespe Formations (north-central project area). The north-central area of the project site also contains elements of the Sespe, Santiago, and Topanga Formations. Grading, trenching, and other earth-moving activities, therefore, could impact invertebrate and vertebrate fossilized fauna as well as fossilized flora (e.g., silicified wood), and their potential loss is considered a significant impact.

Impact 4.14-2 On-site and off-site grading and excavation activities could impact unknown paleontological resources, which would be considered significant. This impact would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant with implementation of MM 14-3.

Off-site Project Feature Impacts
The proposed off-site project features occur in areas that have been previously disturbed by development and would not result in potential impacts to paleontological resources.

Caltrans-related Project Feature Impacts
As with the proposed on-site project impacts, earthmoving activities required for the construction of the interchange, bridge overcrossing, and other project features within Caltrans right-of-way could impact previously unknown paleontological resources. Impact 4.14-2 would apply to these project features and impacts would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant with implementation of MM 14-3.

Threshold 3: Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
On-site Project Feature Impacts
As indicated above under the impact analysis for Threshold 1, no significant archaeological resources have been identified within the project site and off-site areas during previous surveys or during the surveys conducted for this project. There are no known formal cemeteries within the project site or off-site areas. However, this does not preclude the possibility that individual burials may be discovered during grading activities.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.14 Cultural Resources-032405.doc 4.14-6 Cultural Resources Impact 4.14-3 On-site and off-site grading and excavation activities could impact previously unidentified human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, which would be considered significant. This impact would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant with implementation of MMs 14-1 and 14-2.

Caltrans-related Project Feature Impacts
As with the proposed on-site project impacts, earthmoving activities required for the construction of the interchange, bridge overcrossing, and other project features within Caltrans right-of-way could impact previously unidentified human remains. Impact 4.14-3 would apply to these project features and would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant with implementation of MM 14-1 and 14-2.

Threshold 4: Would the 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?
There are no plans, policies, or regulations of the City of Anaheim related to the protection of cultural resources on the project site. The project is consistent with SCAG’s Policy 3.21 related to the preservation and protection of recorded and unrecorded cultural resources and archaeological sites. As identified in the analysis above, the proposed project would not significantly impact any recorded resources, and mitigation is recommended to ensure that unknown and previously undocumented cultural and paleontological resources are avoided.

The mitigation identified below is typical for projects that have no physical evidence of cultural or paleontological remains on the surface.

4.14.3 MITIGATION PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
MM 14-1 Prior to the approval of a grading plan or issuance of a building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall retain a County-certified archaeologist (project archaeologist) and submit written confirmation of this to the Department of Public Works. The project archaeologist shall observe grading activities and recover, catalogue, analyze, and report archaeological resources as necessary in the previously undeveloped portions of the development area. The project archaeologist shall be present at the pre-grade conference. The project archaeologist shall submit to the Planning Department, and Department of Public Works, Development Service Division, a written plan with procedures for archaeological resource monitoring. For work within Caltrans right-of-way the plan shall be submitted for review by Caltrans Cultural Resources staff. This plan shall include procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of the resources as appropriate. If the archaeological resources are found to be significant, the project archaeologist shall determine appropriate actions—in cooperation with the City of Anaheim or Caltrans, if within Caltrans right-of-way—for exploration and/or data recovery. The Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.14 Cultural Resources-032405.doc 4.14-7 Cultural Resources project archaeologists shall prepare any excavated material to the point of identification. Following the completion of grading, the archaeologists shall prepare a report detailing the results of the monitoring program to be presented to the City of Anaheim Planning Department. The report shall follow guidelines of the California Office of Historic Preservation (1990). Excavated finds shall be offered for curatorial purposes to a qualified scientific institution.

MM 14-2 If human remains are encountered during the conduct of ground-disturbing activities, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition of the materials pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner would notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC would determine and notify a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The MLD may inspect the site of the discovery with the permission of the property owner/developer or his/her authorized representative. The descendent must complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.

MM 14-3 Prior to issuance of the first grading permit, the property owner/developer shall submit a monitoring plan, prepared by an Orange County certified paleontologist to the Department of Public Works, Development Services Division that ensures that the following actions are implemented:
a. The area west of Gypsum Canyon is comprised almost entirely of the Topanga Formation (high paleontological sensitivity) and contains all of the heretofore recognized surface occurrences of fossils on the project site. The north-central portion of the project site is comprised chiefly of the interbedded undifferentiated Vaqueros and Sespe Formations (moderate to high paleontological sensitivity) and smaller elements of the Sespe, Santiago, and Topanga Formations (all high paleontological sensitivity). Paleontological monitoring in the western and north-central areas of the project site shall be conducted on a full-time basis and shall be identified as such in the monitoring plan. It shall be the responsibility of the project paleontologist to show, to the satisfaction of the City, the recommended limits of full-time monitoring on the tentative tract or parcel map level grading plans, when available. Because of the potential for identifying microfossils or small fragments of macrofossils, periodic screening of sediments from cuts in these formations shall be carried out by the project paleontologist. Such material may be removed in bulk and screened off-site to minimize interference with grading operations.
b. The Holz Shale, Schulz Ranch Member of the Williams Formation, the Silverado Formation, Santiago Formation, and the Sespe Formation, exposed primary east of Gypsum Canyon, shall be monitored as determined necessary by the project paleontologist during grading operations.

Recommended hours for monitoring activities shall be established by the project paleontologist and shall be outlined in the monitoring plan. It shall be the responsibility of the project paleontologist to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City, the appropriate level of monitoring necessary based on the tentative tract or parcel map level grading plans, when available.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\4.14 Cultural Resources-032405.doc 4.14-8 Cultural Resources Because of the potential for identifying microfossils or small fragments of macrofossils, periodic screening of sands from cuts in these units shall be done by the project paleontologist monitor. Such material may be removed in bulk and screened off-site to minimize interference with grading operations. c. Any paleontological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of a County of Orange Certified paleontologist (project paleontologist). d. If a fossil discovery occurs during grading operations when the project paleontologist is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area, and/or Caltrans Cultural Resources staff can inspect the site, if the resources are found within Caltrans right-of-way. e. Any fossils recovered during the development, along with their contextual stratigraphic data, shall be donated to the County of Orange, or other appropriate institution with an educational and research interest in the materials. A final report detailing findings and disposition of specimens shall be prepared by the project paleontologist and submitted to the City of Anaheim Planning Department upon completion of grading.

4.14.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The proposed project would not impact any known cultural or paleontological resources.

Although cumulative development in conjunction with past, present, and probable future projects would result in the disturbance of cultural resource sites throughout the region, the City and County require mitigation of impacts to these resources. This includes the collection and preservation of artifacts, which may contribute to local and regional history and prehistory. As a result, anticipated development of the project would not have a significant cumulative impact on archaeological and paleontological resources or result in a significant cumulative loss of regional history or prehistory.

4.14.5 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Impact 4.14-1 is reduced to a level considered less than significant with implementation of MMs 14-1 and 14-2. Impact 4.14-2 is reduced to a level considered less than significant with implementation of MM 14-3. Impact 4.14-3 is reduced to a level considered less than significant with implementation of MMs 14-1 and 14-2. No significant unavoidable impacts to cultural or paleontological resources would result from project implementation.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-1 Alternatives SECTION 5 ALTERNATIVES

5.1 INTRODUCTION
The state California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §15126.6 addresses the discussion of alternatives in EIRs. Key provisions of the CEQA Guidelines are identified throughout this section to explain the basis for the alternatives evaluation in this EIR. Section 15126.6(a) states:
“An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason."

5.1.1 PROPOSED PROJECT SUMMARY
The Mountain Park Specific Plan project site is approximately 3,001 acres and is proposed to include development areas and preserved open space. The project site acreage does not include the approximate 172-acre SR-241 right-of-way. The proposed project would allow for the development of a maximum of 2,500 residential units in Development Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. In addition to residential uses, the following uses are proposed: a City fire station, trail staging area, interpretive center/potential store concession northwest of the Santa Ana Canyon Road/Gypsum Canyon Road intersection in Development Area 6; a school site and adjacent public community park in Development Area 3; public and private recreation facilities, including trails; and roadways and utilities necessary to serve the proposed development. The proposed project also includes the construction of the Mountain Park Drive bridge structure over SR-241 and construction of the SR-241/Weir Canyon Interchange. The bridge overcrossing would accommodate a roadway extending between Development Areas east and west of SR-241.

Approximately 2,163 acres of the Mountain Park project site would be preserved as open space outside of the Development Areas, including NCCP/HCP Reserve open space areas, open space designated by conservation easements, and other open space. Open space areas would be primarily located in the southern portion of the project site.

5.1.2 PROPOSED PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The proposed project objectives are as follows:

1. Implement the goals and policies of the City of Anaheim General Plan. The objective is to ensure that development of the site is accomplished consistent with applicable goals and objectives of the City of Anaheim as set forth in the City’s recently updated General Plan. General Plan goals and policies relevant to the proposed project are identified for each topical issue addressed in Section 4.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-2 Alternatives

2. Further regional transportation and air quality goals by creating housing near concentrated employment centers and major transportation corridors. The proposed project would provide various housing opportunities and would support commercial and public facilities in proximity to existing employment areas.

3. Provide a broad mix of housing opportunities. The proposed project provides a range of single-family attached and single-family detached residential units on lots ranging from 1,600 to 7,000 square feet.

4. Develop a land use plan that responds to the site characteristics including topography, biological resources, and visually significant ridgelines. The proposed project would utilize canyon bottoms and adjacent areas for development, and would preserve important ridgelines and high canyon walls.

5. Provide regional open space/habitat preservation areas. The proposed project would allow for the preservation of 2,163 acres of contiguous natural open space (72 percent of the project site).

6. Maintain Consistency with the Implementation Agreement for the Central Coastal NCCP/HCP. The NCCP/HCP Reserve is discussed in Section 4.6, Biological Resources. Following approval of the NCCP/HCP, the participating agencies (including the City of Anaheim) and participating landowners (including The Irvine Company), U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and the County of Orange signed an Implementation Agreement (IA). The IA sets forth the implementation requirements for the NCCP/HCP, including requirements related to dedication, creation, and management of the Reserve, interim management of the Reserve, funding for Reserve management, and procedures and minimization measures related to development impacts to, and “take” of Identified Species and modification of habitat in those areas designated for development under the NCCP/HCP.

7. Provide new homes for sale to address Orange County’s housing shortage.

Orange County and Southern California generally, has seen a dramatic increase in the demand for new housing. The proposed project would provide a supply of 2,500 new homes for purchase to assist in alleviating this important public need.

8. Implement components of the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) within and in the vicinity of the project site. The proposed project involves improvements to Weir Canyon Road and an extension of the roadway to its ultimate terminus at SR-241, consistent with the MPAH. The proposed project also involves improvements to Santa Ana Canyon Road consistent with the MPAH. The SR-241/Weir Canyon Road Interchange which is assumed in the MPAH would also be implemented with the proposed project.

5.1.3 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
Potentially significant environmental impacts of the project have been evaluated in Section 4.

With implementation of the respective mitigation programs identified for each topical issue, many of the potentially significant impacts resulting from the project can be reduced to a level considered less than significant. The following impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable after mitigation:

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-3 Alternatives Short-Term Impacts
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.

Impact 4.8-4 Construction of the proposed project would expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations that exceed SCAQMD thresholds.

Long-Term/Operational Impacts
Impact 4.2-1 Development Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 would require alterations to existing scenic resources including landform/topography and rock outcroppings. Impacts to scenic resources within Development Areas 3, 4 and 7 would be visible from SR-91 and SR-241.

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.

The following traffic impacts associated with Weir Canyon Road and La Palma Avenue are also considered significant and unavoidable since the improvements required to mitigate these impacts are dependent on approval and financing from the City of Yorba Linda. Although the project’s impact is mitigated by payment of fair-share costs for improvements by the property owner/developer, the City of Anaheim cannot require another jurisdiction to implement these improvements.

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 .01 which would be a significant impact.

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.

Cumulative Impacts
Impact 4.8-3 The proposed project contributes to a net increase in CO, NOX, PM10, and ROG.

5.1.4 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of alternatives in this section of the EIR focuses on a reasonable range of alternatives. The following alternatives have been considered and eliminated for the reasons identified in Section 5.2, below. x Alternative Site
x Residential Development with Commercial Use to Support the Project Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-4 Alternatives x Proposed Project with Alternative Circulation Concepts - Ungated Community
- Extension of Oak Canyon Drive into the gated Project Site/No Mountain Park Drive
- Extension of Weir Canyon Road East to Development Area 1 Project land use alternatives that are considered in detail in this EIR include:
x No Project/No Action Alternative
x No Project/Development Pursuant to the Current Mountain Park Specific Plan (SP 90-4). x Modified Land Use Plan Alternative
x Reduced Development Area Alternative
x Reduced Development Area/Reduced Density Alternative
x Highly Concentrated Development Alternative
In addition to land use alternatives, the following design alternatives for the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road Interchange and off-site sanitary sewer line connections are addressed. Note that additional sanitary sewer line connections are addressed as part of the proposed project (Alternative E-2, Alternative W-1 and Alternative W-3). x SR-241/Weir Canyon Interchange Half-Diamond Design
x East Basin Off-site Sanitary Sewer Connection Alternatives - Alternative E-1 – Gravity Main to SARI Pipeline via Gypsum Canyon Road - Alternative E-3 – Gravity Main to SAVI Ranch via Santa Ana Canyon Road and River Maintenance Road
- Alternative E-4 – Gravity Main to SARI Pipeline South Relocation - Alternative E-5 – Force Main to SARI Pipeline via Gypsum Canyon Road Bridge x West Basin Off-site Sanitary Sewer Connection Alternatives - Alternative W-2 – Temporary Force Main to The Summit Residential Community via Weir Canyon Road
- Alternative W-4 – Gravity Main to the Summit of Anaheim Hills via Fallbrook Way

5.2 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED CONSIDERATION CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(c) specifies that an EIR should identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were eliminated from detailed consideration because they were determined to be infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-5 Alternatives underlying the lead agency’s determination. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (1) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives; (2) infeasibility; or (3) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.

These factors are discussed below.

5.2.1 ALTERNATIVE SITE
CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f)(2)(a) indicates that in determining the consideration of an alternative location, “The key question and first step in analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR.” CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f)(3) further states that “an EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.” The identification of an off-site alternative is highly contingent upon the availability of a site capable of supporting the project. In order to address an off-site alternative, areas within the City of Anaheim and its Sphere of Influence that could support new development have been identified through the analysis provided in the City's General Plan. The City of Anaheim General Plan identifies potential future development within the City and its Sphere of Influence for development during the time period of General Plan buildout. Independent of the General Plan, vacant land within the City has been reviewed to determine the availability of areas that could support new development .

The City of Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element identifies that the City is extensively developed. The Land Use Element identifies approximately 3,400 acres as agriculture or vacant land. However, most of this acreage is entitled for development. The exceptions are primarily limited to utility easements typically used as trail connections, passive open space, and/or low intensity industrial uses. The largest vacant lands are the proposed Mountain Park Specific Plan site and state-owned Coal Canyon. There is no other undeveloped area in the City that is large enough to accommodate the proposed project that does not already have some entitlement or development plans in process.

It should also be noted that potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed project (as analyzed in Section 4), including impacts related to landform/topography, geology and soils, traffic, noise, air quality (short-term construction-related and long-term operational impacts), biological resources, and cultural resources could also occur at other potential locations, and would not necessarily be avoided or substantially lessened with development at another site.

With the exception of short-term and long-term air quality impacts and alterations to landforms/ topography, the proposed project would mitigate all effects to a less than significant level. An alternative site could potentially reduce or avoid landform/topographical modifications.

However, implementation of the project in an alternative location would have the same operational air quality impacts. Because development of the proposed project at an alternative site would not substantially reduce or avoid impacts associated with the proposed project, would not meet most of the project objectives, and could not feasibly be implemented, further consideration of this alterative is not warranted.

5.2.2 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH COMMERCIAL USE TO SUPPORT THE

PROJECT
Based on input received during the scoping process, an alternative land use plan that includes a commercial use center to serve the proposed Mountain Park residences has been considered.

For purposes of analysis it is assumed that the number of units in Development Area 4 would be Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-6 Alternatives reduced to 270 (compared to 370 with the proposed project) to accommodate an approximately 10-acre commercial use site to serve the proposed project. To facilitate access and maintain residential neighborhood continuity, the approximate 10-acre commercial site would be located in the northern portion of Development Area 4, with access provided directly from Santa Ana Canyon Road (refer to Exhibit 5-1). The analysis assumes approximately 100,000 square feet of commercial uses and associated on-site parking. With the exception of Development Area 4, the remainder of the proposed Mountain Park Specific Plan would remain the same as the proposed project. Table 5-1 provides a statistical summary of land uses under this alternative.

The physical environmental impacts resulting from implementation of this alternative would be similar to the proposed project since the area of impacts would be the same (refer to Exhibit 3-19 in Section 3, Project Description). However, the primary differences between the proposed project and this alternative relative to environmental impacts are the increase in traffic and the amount of grading necessary to lower the pad to accommodate the commercial center for access and visibility from Santa Ana Canyon Road.

TABLE 5-1

COMMERCIAL ALTERNATIVE STATISTICAL LAND USE SUMMARY
Maximum Dwelling Units
Land Use Designation
Development/
Open Space
Areas
Applicable
Zoning
Districts
Gross
Area
(Acres)
Singlefamily
Detached
Singlefamily
Attached
Residential
1 RMP-1,
RMP-2
161 210a. –
2 RMP-2,
RMP-3
87 130 –
3 RMP-3,
RMP-4
90b. 100 –
Low-Medium Hillside
Density/Residential
(0 to 6 du per acre)
7 RMP-3,
RMP-4
38 95 –
Subtotal Subtotal 376 535 –
4 RMP-4,
RMP-5,
RMP-6
Low-Medium Density/Residential 153 270 –
(0 to 16 du per acre)
5 RMP-4,
RMP-5,
RMP-6
291 770 825
Subtotal Subtotal 444 1,040 825
Total Residential 820 1,575 825
Commercial 4A COMM 10 - -
Open Spacec.

NCCP/HCP Reserve 940 –
TNC ACE 913 –
Other Open Space 310 –
Total Open Space
Open
Space/
Recreation 2,163 –
Institutional 6d. Public/
Special
Purpose
8 –
TOTAL 3,001 1,575 825
DU dwelling unit
NCCP/HCP Natural Communities Conservation Program/Habitat Conservation Program TNC ACE The Nature Conservancy Anaheim Conservation Easement a. At least 40 percent of the dwelling units in DA 1 shall be developed in the RMP-1 zone. b. Includes acreage associated with school site and community park. c. The City of Anaheim General Plan Land Use Designation for the area is “Open Space” and includes: NCCP/HCP Reserve, TNC ACE and Other Open Space.
d. Includes fire station, trail staging area, interpretive center, and/or potential store concession.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-7 Alternatives The amount of traffic that would be generated by this alternative is shown in Table 5-2. As shown, there would be 2,505 trips generated during the AM peak hour and 3,042 trips generated during the PM peak hour. For comparison, the proposed project would generate 2,325 trips during the AM peak hour and 2,522 trips during the PM peak hour. The average daily traffic (ADT) volumes would be 30,645 trips under this alternative compared with 25,145 trips with the proposed project. Significant impacts to the Weir Canyon Road/La Palma Avenue and Weir Canyon Road/Santa Ana Canyon Road intersections and Weir Canyon Road (between SR-91 and La Palma Avenue) resulting from the proposed project would also occur with this alternative; however, the traffic impact would be worse due to the increase in trips during the AM and PM peak hours. As with the proposed project, these impacts could be mitigated to a level considered less than significant.

TABLE 5-2

COMMERCIAL ALTERNATIVE TRIP GENERATION
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Category Amount Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total ADT Single Family
Residential
1,575 Dwelling Units 378 882 1,260 1,103 473 1,576 15,750 Condominium (Single
Family Attached)
825 Dwelling Units 107 421 528 462 198 660 6,600
Convenience
Commercial
3 TSF 9 6 15 18 18 36 360
Community Commercial 100 TSF 170 90 260 310 310 620 6,500 Elementary School 800 Students 240 192 432 64 80 144 1,360 Park 15 Acres 5 5 10 3 3 6 75
Total Trip Generation 909 1,596 2,505 1,960 1,082 3,042 30,645 ADT – Average Daily Trips
TSF – Thousand Square Feet
Source: Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., 2005.

In order to construct the commercial center, substantial grading would need to occur to remove a portion of a hillside to allow direct access and visibility into the center from Santa Ana Canyon Road. The additional grading and increase in traffic resulting from this alternative would cause an increase in air emissions and noise impacts. The air quality and noise impacts resulting from the proposed project would also occur with this alternative. As noted above, short-term and long-term unavoidable air quality impacts would result from the project. These impacts would not be avoided or reduced with implementation of this alternative. As with the proposed project, noise impacts could be reduced to a level considered less than significant.

Under this alternative a commercial use center would be provided in Development Area 4 and would be in close proximity to proposed residential uses. There is a potential for land use conflicts between the commercial and residential uses, including aesthetics and noise. These on-site impacts would not occur with the proposed project, which provides only residential uses in Development Area 4. These potential conflicts could be reduced to a level considered less than significant.

The commercial use alternative would not reduce or avoid any of the environmental impacts resulting from the project. In addition to potential environmental impacts, the economic viability of a commercial use alternative has been evaluated (Gregory Stoffel & Associates) and is on file at the City of Anaheim Planning Department. The study concludes that the proposed Mountain Park community creates insufficient demand by itself to support an additional local-serving retail Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-8 Alternatives center and the proposed community is too remote to attract sales from existing residences of Anaheim Hills and Yorba Linda. The study further concludes that existing retail centers in Anaheim Hills that are accessible to future residents of the proposed project are currently underperforming in relation to similar centers located throughout the region, and have sufficient physical and sales capacity to handle increased sales resulting from the proposed project.

In summary, a commercial use alternative would not be environmentally superior to the project, and would not be economically viable. Additionally, a store concession is proposed in Development Area 6 that would service residents of the proposed project as well as other individuals. This alternative would not meet the project objectives to a greater extent than the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative has been eliminated from further consideration.

5.2.3 PROPOSED PROJECT WITH ALTERNATIVE CIRCULATION CONCEPTS During the planning process a number of alternative circulation concepts were considered.

These circulation alternatives are described below with an explanation why they have been eliminated from further consideration.

Ungated Community
The Mountain Park community is proposed to have manned gated entries along Gypsum Canyon Road on the east side of the project, and along Mountain Park Drive on the west side of the project (refer to Exhibit 3-5 in Section 3, Project Description, which shows the location of the entry gates). The non-residential portion of Development Area 3, including the school and park sites, and Development Area 7 would not be gated and public access would be allowed. Only project residents and their guests would have vehicular access to the remaining portions of the project site (the residential portion of Development Area 3 and Development Areas 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 east of SR-241). Public pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian access would be allowed.

Under this alternative scenario, the entire Mountain Park community would not be gated, and unrestricted vehicular access would be allowed with access from Weir Canyon Road to the west and Gypsum Canyon Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road to the north.

The physical environmental impacts resulting from implementation of this alternative would be the same as the proposed project since the area of impacts would be the same. The primary difference between the proposed project and this alternative relative to environmental impacts is the change in traffic patterns that would occur. The amount of traffic generated from the project would remain the same. The assessment of the on-site and internal circulation plan for the project prepared by Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. (included in Appendix G) considered this alternative concept in which Mountain Park Drive would not be gated.

Under this alternative, Mountain Park Drive would serve local project-related traffic but would also provide a connection between Gypsum Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road for traffic passing though the project site (for example, traffic traveling between SR-91 at Gypsum Canyon Road and existing Anaheim Hills residential areas in the Weir Canyon Road/Serrano Avenue area, or traffic traveling between the existing development in the Gypsum Canyon Road/La Palma Avenue area north of SR-91 and SR-241 south of the project site [i.e., via the Weir Canyon Road/SR-241 Interchange]).

Mountain Park Drive is forecast to carry up to 6,000 ADT as a gated private road, which is within the approximately 10,000 ADT capacity that would be provided if that facility were to be constructed as a two-lane collector roadway as proposed. If Mountain Park Drive were to be designed as a non-gated public road, the added through traffic in combination with local project- Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-9 Alternatives related traffic would likely approach or exceed the ADT capacity of a two-lane collector roadway, and it would not be practical to redesign Mountain Park Drive as a higher capacity facility such as a two-lane or four-lane arterial roadway because of the steep grade and sight distance considerations on Mountain Park Drive that were discussed previously in Section 4.7, Traffic and Circulation. The through traffic that would be added at the Gypsum Canyon Road/Mountain Park Drive intersection would also be difficult to manage if that intersection were to be constructed as a roundabout as proposed, and therefore the intersection would likely need to be redesigned if Mountain Park Drive were to be designated as a non-gated public road.

It is not expected that the increased traffic associated with a public road would result in additional significant traffic impacts compared to the proposed project, and the same mitigation improvements required for the project would be required under this scenario. However, with the increase in traffic on Mountain Park Drive and Gypsum Canyon Road under this alternative there would also be an associated increase in traffic on local streets within the study area, including residential streets in surrounding neighborhoods, as motorists attempt to bypass traffic congestion associated with SR-91. The increase in traffic on Mountain Park Drive and Gypsum Canyon Road would also have a related increase in noise levels at existing and future residents.

This alternative would not reduce or eliminate the environmental impacts associated with the project, and has the potential to increase noise impacts. Additionally, this alternative would not be consistent with the City’s General Plan policy to “protect residential neighborhoods from bypass traffic impacts associated with congested conditions on the Riverside (SR-91) Freeway” (Land Use Element, Goal 8.1, Policy 6). Therefore, for these reasons as well as design limitations discussed above, this alternative has been eliminated from further consideration.

Extension of Oak Canyon Drive into the Project Site/No Mountain Park Drive Oak Canyon Drive currently terminates east of Running Springs Drive generally at the western project site boundary. With the previously approved Mountain Park Specific Plan (SP 90-4), Oak Canyon Drive was proposed to bridge SR-241 and enter the project site (refer to Exhibit 5-2 provided later in this section). With the planned downsizing of the Mountain Park project (reduction in residential units from 7,966 to 2,500 and elimination of other uses) and the inclusion of Mountain Park Drive as part of the Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment, the extension of Oak Canyon Drive is no longer needed. The extension was deleted from the City of Anaheim Circulation Plan in May 2004 with approval of the City’s General Plan Update, and was subsequently removed from the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways in May 2004.

Based on input received during the scoping process, this alternative addresses the extension of Oak Canyon Drive into the gated project site and elimination of Mountain Park Drive. While this alternative would potentially reduce the amount of traffic on Weir Canyon Road between Oak Canyon Drive and the proposed project, it would not reduce the amount of traffic generated by the project. Potential noise impacts along Weir Canyon Road would still occur with this alternative and there would be an increase in traffic and traffic-related noise along Oak Canyon Road. Mountain Park Drive would not be implemented and potential indirect noise and aesthetic impacts to existing residences within The Summit of Anaheim Hills along the western boundary of the project site would not occur. However, these project impacts are not considered significant as addressed in Section 4.2, Landform and Aesthetics, and Section 4.9, Noise. It should also be noted that the volume of traffic estimated to access the project site from the west would not warrant two access points for the proposed project. Long-term circulation planning for this area includes the extension of Weir Canyon Road to SR-241 and construction of an interchange at this location. Due to its proximity to the SR-91/SR-241 interchange, an interchange with SR-241 at Oak Canyon Drive would not be feasible.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-10 Alternatives In summary, this circulation design option would not substantially reduce or eliminate potential impacts associated with the proposed project. As with the proposed project there would be an increase in traffic on the residential streets west of the project site since project access would still be provided to western Development Areas from existing streets in this area. Therefore, this alternative has been eliminated from further consideration.

Extension of Weir Canyon Road East to Development Area 1 During the scoping process it was suggested that Weir Canyon Road be extended east of SR-241 to Development Area 1 as assumed in the previously approved Mountain Park Specific Plan (SP 90-4). The feasibility of extending Weir Canyon Road to the east was considered during evaluation of the proposed City of Anaheim amendments to the Orange County MPAH for the eastern portion of the City. These amendments were evaluated during the update of the City of Anaheim General Plan to address the reduction in planned development in the eastern area, including the proposed project (revision to the Mountain Park Specific Plan) and preservation of Coal Canyon as open space. With the reduction in planned development, the extension of Weir Canyon Road is no longer necessary.

It should also be noted that as part of the MPAH amendment process, the feasibility of extending Weir Canyon Road east of SR-241 was also considered. Conceptual grading plans were prepared and identified a number of landslides that would be traversed by this roadway extension. Remedial grading for these landslides would result in a substantial amount of direct impacts, beyond that associated with the proposed project. Landform impacts as well as impacts to natural resources, including biological resources and Gypsum Canyon Creek would occur.

The extension of Weir Canyon Road east of SR-241 has been eliminated from further consideration for the following reasons: the traffic volumes associated with the proposed project do not warrant this roadway extension; other planned development in the eastern portion of the City has been eliminated; and there would be substantial earthwork required to remediate existing landslides resulting in substantial environmental impacts beyond those resulting from the project.

5.3 ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD FOR DETAILED CONSIDERATION The analysis for each of the project alternatives identified below includes the following:
x Description of the alternative.
x Analysis of environmental impacts and comparison to the proposed project. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, if an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed.
x Assessment of the ability of the alternative to meet the project objectives (previously identified in Section 5.1.2).

5.3.1 NO PROJECT/NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e)(2) specifies that the “no project” analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the NOP is published, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current Source: City of Anaheim, 1991
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR No. 331
Specific Plan 90-4 Development Plan Exhibit 5-2
March 11, 2005
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Graphics\Fuscoe\ex5-2_020305.pdf
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-11 Alternatives plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. The CEQA Guidelines also indicate that the discussion of the no project alternative “will usually proceed along one of two lines”: (1) the continuation of the existing plan, policy or operation of the property into the future; and (2) the property would remain in its existing state. This EIR evaluates each of these “no project” scenarios. The No Project/No Action Alternative discussed in this section assumes that the property would remain in its existing state, and the No Project/Development Pursuant to the Current Mountain Park Specific Plan (SP 90-4) Alternative is discussed separately below.

Description of the Alternative
The No Project/No Action Alternative assumes no development on the 3,001-acre project site; the site would remain in its existing condition. Neither the proposed Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment project nor the currently approved Mountain Park Specific Plan would be implemented. Accordingly, the environmental effects from the proposed project would not occur.

Under this alternative, similar to the proposed project, the existing quarry site would be reclaimed. As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, current quarry operations were terminated in December 2004; facilities and the remaining excavated material will be removed by June 2005. The approved Reclamation Plan for the quarry site will be implemented by the current operator and required grading, revegetation, and remediation activities will be completed to the satisfaction of the City of Anaheim. The quarry site would remain in its reclaimed condition under this alternative.

For both this alternative and the proposed project, dedicated open space areas on-site associated with the NCCP/HCP Reserve and TNC ACE would continue to be protected. The remainder of the project site would remain as private open space and access to the site would continue to be restricted.

The proposed project includes improvements to the existing SR-91/Gypsum Canyon Creek box culvert which is not of sufficient size to accommodate stormwater flows during storm events. No improvements to this box culvert would be made as a part of the No Project/No Action Alternative. Therefore, flooding currently experienced would continue.

Under this alternative, construction of the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road Interchange would not be initiated as its construction is contingent on the development. However, this facility is part of the F/ETCA long-range capital improvement program and could ultimately be constructed by the F/ETCA.

Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impacts
Land Use and Planning
Under this alternative, the level of use of the project site would not differ substantially from existing conditions, with the majority of the site remaining in a natural, undeveloped state. The existing on-site quarry remained operational until December 2004. An approved Reclamation Plan is expected to be implemented for the quarry site by April 2005 under the terms of the extraction license agreement with the landowner.

The remainder of the project site would remain in its existing condition, which is generally natural open space with several steep canyons and intervening ridges. Existing on-site Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-12 Alternatives disturbance is limited and is associated with unimproved roads that traverse project site, prior cattle grazing, an abandoned clay mine, and a previous rocket fuel test site.

Because this alternative would not involve any development on the project site, there would be no indirect impacts to surrounding land uses west of the proposed project. It should be noted that these impacts were not considered significant; however, the proposed project would result in visual changes and an increase in noise levels associated with increased traffic.

This alternative would not require a Specific Plan Amendment or a change in the Zoning Code.

Landform and Aesthetics
The existing aesthetic environment would be maintained under this alternative. No alteration to landforms, removal of vegetation, or construction of residential units and associated uses (e.g., school, parks) would occur. The change in visual character from distant and local vantage points associated with the proposed project would not occur.

Because no development would occur under this scenario, no aesthetic changes or significant landform impacts would occur. This alternative would not include modifications to the topography of the site associated with grading and development activities that are considered significant unavoidable impacts of the project. Further, it would not affect viewsheds in the area.

Therefore, impacts associated with the proposed project, including unavoidable and significant landform changes would be avoided.

Geology and Soils
This alternative would not result in any grading or earthmoving activities. Therefore, potential geology and soils impacts identified for the proposed project would not occur under this alternative.

Hydrology
As discussed in Section 4.4, Hydrology, with implementation of the identified project design features, the proposed project would not result in significant hydrology impacts. This alternative would not result in any on-site grading and would not involve the construction of land uses proposed as a part of the project. There would not be an increase in impervious surface or runoff that would occur with implementation of the proposed project. However, this alternative would not include the extension of the Gypsum Canyon Road/SR-91 box culvert inlet structure that would alleviate existing flooding which currently occurs during large storm events.

Water Quality
The proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surface on the site, potentially increasing the amount of pollutants carried by the stormwater runoff. Potential water quality impacts resulting from the project would be less than significant with implementation of the project design features, existing regulations and standard conditions identified in Section 4.5, Water Quality. However, this alternative would not change the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site and would not increase the amount of pollutants in stormwater runoff.

The proposed project would also result in an increase in the potential for soil erosion during grading and construction although project design features incorporated into the project reduce this potential to a level considered less than significant. Since this alternative would not include Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-13 Alternatives any grading and construction, the increase in potential for construction-related soil erosion that would result from the proposed project would not occur.

Biological Resources
Under this alternative there would be no on-site grading or construction, and the project site would remain in its existing, primarily undeveloped nature. Potentially significant impacts (prior to mitigation) resulting from the proposed project including impacts to the southwestern willow flycatcher (due to loss of habitat), many-stemmed dudleya, cottonwood-willow riparian woodland, and to areas under the jurisdiction of the CDFG and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) would not occur under this alternative. There would also be no alterations to existing wildlife movement patterns on the project site.

Traffic and Circulation
This alternative would not involve any construction activities or the construction of any land uses. Therefore, the increase in short-term (construction) and long-term (operational) traffic that would result from the project would not occur with this alternative. The project would have a significant impact at the intersection of Weir Canyon Road and La Palma Avenue in the year 2010 and 2025 under the Committed Circulation System and MPAH Buildout scenarios, and would significantly impact Weir Canyon Road south of the intersection (between SR-91 and La Palma Avenue). The proposed project also results in a significant contribution of future traffic at Weir Canyon Road/Santa Ana Canyon Road where long-range non-committed improvements have been identified in the City of Anaheim General Plan. These impacts would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. Following is a discussion of the circulation system deficiencies that are forecast to occur under this No Project/No Action Alternative.

Under the No Project/No Action Alternative, the intersection of Weir Canyon Road/La Palma Avenue would operate at an unacceptable LOS E during the AM peak hour even with the committed improvements that have been assumed at that location. In the year 2025 with the Committed Circulation System, the Weir Canyon Road/La Palma Avenue intersection is forecast to operate at LOS E during the AM Peak hour, the Weir Canyon Road/Santa Ana Canyon Road intersection is forecast to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. The Cannon Street/Serrano Avenue intersection in the City of Orange is forecast to operate at LOS E in the Year 2010 and in the Year 2025 (Committed Circulation System) during the AM peak hour. The Lakeview/Santa Ana Canyon Road intersection would operate at LOS F in the AM peak your in the Year 2025 (Committed Circulation System), and the Yorba Linda/New River intersection would operate at LOS E in the PM peak hour for each of the three Year 2025 traffic analysis scenarios.

Under this alternative in years 2010 and 2025 (assuming implementation of the committed circulation system), SR-91 is forecast to continue to operate deficiently in the westbound direction during the AM peak hour and in the eastbound direction during the PM peak hour.

Additionally the eastbound off-ramps at Weir Canyon Road and Imperial Highway would continue to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour in the year 2010 and 2025.

As discussed in Section 4.7, Traffic and Circulation, in the year 2025 assuming buildout of planned MPAH improvements, and MPAH improvements with the East Orange General Plan Amendment and MPAH amendments, each of the study area intersections, with the exception of the Yorba Linda/New River intersection discussed above) would operate at LOS D or better.

The SR-91 deficiencies identified previously would still occur. It should be noted that buildout of the MPAH assumes implementation of the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road Interchange.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-14 Alternatives Potentially significant project impacts at study intersection would be mitigated through fair share financial contributions by the property owner/developer. Under this alternative, there would be no funding from the proposed project for these improvements, which are needed to improve existing deficiencies.

Air Quality
This alternative would not involve any grading or construction activities. SCAQMD thresholds for construction-related and long-term operational emissions would not be exceeded.

Therefore, this alternative would eliminate significant, unavoidable impacts that would occur with implementation of the proposed project.

Noise
This alternative would not involve any grading or construction activities on-site or off-site.

Therefore, noise associated with these activities resulting from the project would not occur under this alternative. Additionally, the increase in noise resulting from project-related traffic and on-site operations (water pump station and guard gate) that would impact existing and future residences would not occur under this alternative. It should be noted that all noise impacts associated with the proposed project can be mitigated to a less than significant level.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As with the proposed project, this alternative would not involve the use, transport, disposal, or emission of hazardous materials. As previously noted, the Reclamation Plan for the quarry would be implemented, including the remediation of identified areas of environmental concern (please refer to the description provided in Section 4.10, Hazards and Hazardous Materials).

The only area of environmental concern identified in other areas of the project site was the rocket fuel test site. It should be noted that without development of residential uses, the City of Anaheim could approve site closure with higher concentrations of residual chemicals left in place. With the proposed project which includes residential uses, residual chemicals in the soils and groundwater have to be remediated to health-based risk levels as discussed in Section 4.10, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

The project site is located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and fire emanating from the project site or undeveloped areas could spread to developed areas of the proposed project, threatening the health and safety of residents. This alternative would not introduce any new residents to the project site and therefore, the potential hazard to future residents would not occur. In addition, this alternative would not result in additional fire risks associated with new residents, including engine sparks, cigarettes, and/or arson, that could occur with implementation of the proposed project. Fire-related hazards associated with the proposed project were determined to be less than significant with implementation of the identified mitigation program. It should also be noted that the retention of the area in undisturbed open space would not provide buffering that would be provided to existing residences through the introduction of development between existing residences and undeveloped land.

Population and Housing
The proposed project would generate approximately 8,250 new residents in the City of Anaheim which is not considered a significant impact. In addition, the City of Anaheim General Plan has included development of the project site in its population projections. Under this alternative, there would be no new residential units developed and no new residents generated. Therefore, there would be no residential units developed to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-15 Alternatives Assessment (RHNA) housing allocation set by the State of California Housing and Community Development Department. These residential units would need to be accommodated in other parts of the City to satisfy the housing needs. This would be inconsistent with the City’s current General Plan which assumes development of residential units on the project site.

Public Services and Utilities
This alternative would not result in any increase in demand for public services and utilities.

Additionally, fire protection (fire station), school, sewer and water improvements, and other utility improvements would not be constructed.

Recreation
This alternative would not result in an increased demand for public or private recreational facilities since there would not be increase in population. The public and private recreational facilities proposed as part of the project, including riding and hiking trails, a trail staging area, a 15-acre community park, private parks and a community recreation area would not occur under this alternative. Similarly, the potential environmental impacts resulting from construction of these facilities would not occur.

Cultural Resources
Under this alternative, there would not be any grading activities on the project site. As addressed in Section 4.14 of this EIR, there are no known archaeological resources on the project site. However, there would be a potential for subsurface deposits to be discovered during grading activities. The No Project/No Action Alternative would avoid impacts to known or unknown archaeological resources. This alternative would also avoid impacts to paleontological resources.

Conclusions
The No Project/No Action Alternative would avoid the significant environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. With the exception of short- and longterm air quality and landform/topographical impacts, the proposed project can mitigate all impacts to a level considered less than significant.

The No Project/No Action Alternative would not meet most of the objectives of the project set forth by the City of Anaheim and the applicant with respect to the Mountain Park Specific Plan site. This alternative is not consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan land use designations for the site and would not assist in the City’s ability to meet its housing needs. The No Project/No Action Alternative would not implement the goals and policies of the City of Anaheim General Plan (Objective 1); further regional transportation and air quality goals by providing needed housing near concentrated employment centers in Orange County and major transportation corridors (Objective 2); provide a broad mix of housing opportunities (Objective 3); implement a land use plan that responds to the site characteristics (Objective 4); and provide new homes for sale to address Orange County’s housing shortage (Objective 6).

The No Project/No Action Alternative would allow for the preservation of open space including TNC ACE and NCCP/HCP Reserve areas, and would be consistent with the Implementation Agreement for the Central Coastal NCCP/HCP (Objectives 5 and 6, respectively). Additionally, this alternative would not meet Objective 8 to implement components of the MPAH including improvements to, and an extension of, Weir Canyon Road to SR-241, improvements to Santa Ana Canyon Road, and implementation of the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road interchange and Mountain Park Drive bridge overcrossing.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-16 Alternatives

5.3.2 NO PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO THE CURRENT MOUNTAIN

PARK SPECIFIC PLAN ALTERNATIVE
Description of the Alternative
CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e)(3)(A) states “when the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy, or ongoing operation, the ‘no project’ alternative will be the continuation of the existing plan, policy or operation into the future.” Because the implementation of the proposed project requires a Specific Plan Amendment, the No Project Alternative assumes the development of the project site consistent with the approved Mountain Park Specific Plan (SP 90-4) that was approved by the City of Anaheim in 1991.

Exhibit 5-2 depicts the approved Mountain Park Specific Plan development plan. SP 90-4 has 29 development areas on 1,556 acres and four open space areas on 1,383 acres. SP 90-4 allows for the development of the project site with residential, commercial, educational, park and open space uses, as summarized below. Additionally, SP 90-4 included an approximately five-acre City maintenance yard in Development Area 22. Development Areas 1 through 6 would be constructed with Hillside Low-Medium Density Residential uses at up to six dwelling units per acre (du/ac), and Development Areas 7 through 21 would be constructed with Hillside Medium Density Residential uses at up to 16 du/ac. General Commercial uses would be located within Development Areas 22 through 27. A high school and middle school site would be located in Development Areas 28 and 29, respectively. Elementary school sites would be in Development Areas 4, 19, and 20. Proposed parks and open space within Development Areas 30 through 33 combine for a total of 188 acres of active and passive open space. The entire development area under SP 90-4 is approximately 1,796 acres. x Residential Land Uses–A maximum of 7,966 dwelling units on 1,325 acres, with densities up to a maximum of 16 du/ac. Proposed housing types include single family detached and attached units, and multi-family residential products including townhomes, condominiums, and rental condominiums.
x General Commercial–Includes approximately 179 acres of commercial uses. Five of the six commercial areas would be located within the northern portion of the community, and one commercial area would be located adjacent to SR-241 at Weir Canyon Road and Gypsum Canyon Road.

SP 90-4 includes a north-south road (Gypsum Canyon Road) and two east-west roads (Oak Canyon Drive and Santa Ana Canyon Road) as the major arterials through the area. Weir Canyon Road would be extended to the west to a connection with Gypsum Canyon Road. Oak Canyon Drive would be extended to the west over SR-241 to a connection with a proposed street.

It should be noted that when SP 90-4 was approved, SR-241 had not been approved/ constructed, the NCCP/HCP had not been approved, and TNC ACE had not been dedicated.

Additionally, the City of Anaheim has since updated its General Plan and amended the land use designations for the site.

Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impacts
Land Use and Planning
Under this alternative, the site would be developed pursuant to the currently approved Mountain Park Specific Plan (SP 90-4) which, as described above, allows for development of up to 7,966 Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-17 Alternatives dwelling units on 1,325 acres, ranging in densities up to a maximum of 16 du/ac; and approximately 179 acres of commercial uses. Development of this alternative would result in uses that would be generally compatible with the surrounding land uses which consist of existing residential to the west, SR-91, Featherly Regional Park, the Santa Ana River, and various residential, commercial, and institutional uses to the north, and open space uses to the east and south. A significant impact associated with early termination of the sand and gravel operation was identified in the Mountain Park Final EIR (FEIR) No. 302; however, termination of this operation occurred in December 2004 and would not be a significant impact of this alternative.

The City of Anaheim amended its General Plan in May 2004 and approved new land use designations for the project site, consistent with the proposed Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment project. Development of SP 90-4 would not be consistent with the current General Plan and would require an amendment. SP 90-4 would also involve development in areas now within TNC ACE; the provisions of TNC ACE would preclude development as proposed in SP 90-4. Implementation of land use as identified in SP 90-4 would no longer be feasible.

Indirect impacts to surrounding areas including air quality, noise, traffic, and aesthetics/visual resources are discussed separately below.

Landform and Aesthetics
Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would require grading to create infrastructure, roads, and buildable pads. In general, earth would be cut in mass quantities from some of the interior upper elevation slopes and hills and used to fill interior lower elevation canyon areas, significantly altering the interior landform configuration. Ten landforms were identified within the project site with respect to the grading concept. In summary, approximately 58 percent of the project site would be graded, while substantially retaining unmodified open space in the steep slope areas in the center hill and the on-site open space area along the southern and eastern site perimeter. These significant landform alterations would remain significant with implementation of mitigation measures. Because of the significant quantities of earthwork required, together with modification of several local landforms, the impacts to landform and topography are considered locally significant and would be greater than the proposed project due to the larger area to be graded.

This alternative would transform the undeveloped character in portions of the project site into a developed condition. The regionally significant landforms would be preserved with this alternative. However, the visual impacts associated with the alterations to local landforms are considered locally significant. Conversion of land from undeveloped to developed setting is also considered locally significant. Although this alternative would contribute to regional-scale aesthetic enhancements (e.g., dedication of Weir Canyon Regional Park area, tree replacement program), this alternative with implementation of mitigation measures, would result in a significant local impact on the visual environment. Because of the reduction and siting of development associated with the proposed project, implementation of this No Project Alternative would have greater land use modifications than would be associated with the proposed project.

Geology and Soils
This alternative would require more earthwork than the proposed project. With this alternative, approximately 1,862 acres (or 58 percent of the site contained with the daylight grading line) will be graded, which includes the graded area for SR-241. However, as previously discussed, SR-241 as described in the 1991 EIR has already been constructed. The proposed project would result in development of approximately 27 percent of the site. The remaining land within Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-18 Alternatives the project site would be in open space/parks with both this alternative and the proposed project. As indicated in Section 3.0, the proposed project would result in approximately 25 million cubic yards (cy) of cut and fill and 23 million cy of remedial grading. This alternative would result in 87 million cy of cut and 74.1 million cy of fill, which does not include earthwork for shrinkage, swelling, or remedial grading. Overall, this alternative would balance at approximately 80 million cy. This alternative would result in greater effects to geology and soils, including the need for remedial action of the three landslides complexes, which would be within the limits of grading for this alternative. Similar to the proposed project, cuts greater than 100 feet in depth may also require localized blasting for this alternative.

After implementation of project design features, standard conditions, and mitigation measures, there are no substantial differences in impacts to geology and soils between this alternative and the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would not result in reduced impacts to geology and soils compared to the proposed project.

Hydrology
With this alternative, estimated 100-year peak discharge for the Gypsum Canyon Watershed, Cypress Canyon development, and SR-241 would be 6,800 cfs, compared to 5,500 cfs with the proposed project.

Neither this alternative nor the proposed project would result in an increased potential for flooding impacts on-site from the Santa Ana River, due in part to the flood conveyance improvements made by the ACOE as part of the Santa Ana River Mainstem Project to improve flooding conditions downstream of Prado Dam.

This alternative would not result in reduced impacts to hydrology and erosion impacts compared to the proposed project.

Water Quality
Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would result in surface runoff during construction and after buildout. Surface runoff from a developed condition (with either this alternative or the proposed project) would have a different composition in comparison to the undeveloped existing condition. This runoff is likely to include pollutants commonly found in urban runoff such as suspended solids (sediment), nutrients (phosphates and nitrogen), organic matter (oxygen demand), bacteria, hydrocarbons (oil and grease), trace metals, and toxic chemicals (pesticides). This alternative proposes a greater density of development and, therefore, has a potential for greater increases of surface runoff. There would also be an increase in pollutant loads into water bodies. With implementation the appropriate project design features, water quality impacts from this alternative could be reduced to a level considered less than significant; however, the water quality impacts would be worse compared to the proposed project.

As with the proposed project, there is a potential for construction-related surface erosion with this alternative. However, potential impacts from this alternative would be greater than the proposed project because of the larger area of disturbance. As with the proposed project, with implementation of project design features, existing regulations, standard conditions, and mitigation measures, the potential impacts related to erosion would be reduced to a level considered less than significant.

This alternative would not result in reduced water quality impacts compared to the proposed project.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-19 Alternatives Biological Resources
This alternative would result in the following impacts to sensitive vegetation communities, as shown in Table 5-3.

TABLE 5-3

IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE VEGETATION COMMUNITIES

APPROVED MOUNTAIN PARK
SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 90-4)
Vegetation Community
Impacts with Development
of Approved SP 90-4a. (acres)
Chaparral 534
Coastal Sage Scrub 494
Riparian 17
Woodlandb. 123
Tecate Cypress Forest 27
a. City of Anaheim, Mountain Park Final Environmental Impact Report No. 302 (March 1991).

Note: Includes oak savannah community.

Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would impact chaparral, coastal sage scrub, riparian, and woodland habitats. The amount of habitat impacted would be greater with this alternative compared to the proposed project due to a larger disturbance area. This alternative would impact Tecate Cypress Forest that would be preserved with implementation of the proposed project. As with the proposed project, impacts to vegetation communities could be reduced to a level considered less than significant through implementation of the mitigation program identified, or through coverage under the NCCP/HCP.

Impacts to general wildlife species were determined to be significant with the implementation of this alternative in FEIR No. 302. However, these impacts are considered less than significant with development of the proposed project due to the reduced amount of area potentially impacted, and mitigation of impacts through coverage under the NCCP/HCP.

FEIR No. 302 was prepared for SP 90-4 and identified impacts to the following sensitive species as significant: California gnatcatcher, golden eagle, prairie falcon, and many-stemmed dudleya.

With the exception of impacts to the golden eagle and prairie falcon, FEIR No. 302 identified that these impacts could be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. Potential impacts to the California gnatcatcher from development of the proposed project would be reduced compared to this alternative due to the reduced amount of area potentially impacted.

Additionally, the gnatcatcher is now a “covered” species in the NCCP/HCP and impacts to this species are mitigated through the provisions of the NCCP/HCP. Impacts to the golden eagle and prairie falcon were determined to be significant and unavoidable in FEIR No. 302.

Development of the proposed project would have less than significant impacts on the golden eagle or prairie falcon. The disturbance area with the proposed project is reduced compared to this alternative (SP 90-4), and these species would be covered under the NCCP/HCP because the conceptual impact area is more than 0.5 mile from the nesting location. No mitigation would be required for these species.

Because of the smaller area impacted by development associated with the proposed project when compared to the impact area for this alternative (SP 90-4), potential impacts to the manystemmed dudleya would be reduced. However, the potential impacts for both this alternative and the proposed project would be considered potentially significant. With implementation of Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-20 Alternatives mitigation measures, the impact to the many-stemmed dudleya would be reduced to a level considered less than significant for this alternative and the proposed project.

Both the No Project Alternative and the proposed project would impact habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher resulting in a potentially significant impact to this species. The impacted habitat for this species contains marginal values, and impacts to the southwestern willow flycatcher would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. Both this alternative and the proposed project would also impact cottonwood-willow riparian woodland; impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Both options would also impact wetlands, other waters of the U.S., and CDFG jurisdiction; these impacts would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of mitigation.

FEIR No. 302 did not identify a regional wildlife movement corridor within the Mountain Park study area, although it was identified that Gypsum Canyon was used by large mammals (coyote, bobcat, and mountain lion). Potential impacts from development of the proposed project are less than significant through the provisions of the NCCP/HCP. It should also be noted that the proposed project focuses impacts in the northern, western and central portion of the Mountain Park study area, achieving a distance of more than 0.5 mile from the Coal Canyon wildlife corridor. A prominent ridgeline would also buffer the proposed project study area from Coal Canyon. With this alternative (SP 90-4), development was proposed in proximity to this wildlife corridor. Overall, this alternative would result in development closer to a wildlife corridor than compared to the proposed project. Although neither is considered significant, this alternative would result in a greater potential for impacts compared to the proposed project.

The NCCP/HCP for the Central/Coastal Subregion was not in place when this alternative (SP 90-4) was approved and FEIR No. 302 was certified. However, the NCCP/HCP Reserve was designed to avoid approved development areas. This alternative would be consistent with the provisions of the NCCP/HCP and Implementation Agreement. SP 90-4 includes development in areas that have been dedicated for open space as part of TNC ACE.

Restrictions for development imposed by the NCCP/HCP Reserve and TNC ACE would preclude development in the southern portion of the project site identified in SP 90-4. While an amendment to the NCCP/HCP could be accomplished to allow development in the Reserve, TNC ACE would present a physical barrier between development to the north and development in the Reserve area. As shown on Exhibit 3-8, TNC ACE is generally north of the Reserve area.

In summary, due to the smaller area of impact (approximately 872 acres compared to 2,080 acres), development of the proposed project would have less impacts to biological resources compared to this alternative (development approved under SP 90-4) and analyzed in FEIR No. 302.

Traffic and Circulation
As noted in Section 4.7, Traffic and Circulation, the proposed project, which proposes a maximum of 2,500 units, would not result in any unavoidable traffic impacts. This alternative includes approximately 7,966 dwelling units (an increase of 5,466 units and 196,000 square feet of commercial uses when compared to the proposed project) and, therefore, would have increased traffic and associated circulation impacts compared to the proposed project. The currently proposed project would generate 25,145 ADT compared to 147,681 ADT for this alternative. Although implementation of project design features, standard conditions, and mitigation measures, could reduce potential traffic impacts, this alternative would not result in reduced traffic impacts compared to the proposed project.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-21 Alternatives Air Quality
This alternative would require approximately 87 million cy of cut and 74.1 million cy of fill, which does not include earthwork for shrinkage, swelling, or remedial grading. Overall, this alternative would balance at approximately 80 million cy. Based on the analysis presented in FEIR No. 302, this alternative would result in significant unavoidable short-term construction-related emissions. Compared to the proposed project, this alternative proposes a greater amount of earthwork and would not reduce construction-related air quality impacts compared to the proposed project.

Vehicle trips associated with this alternative compared to the proposed project would be greater and would have a greater potential to result in mobile source emissions. This alternative was projected to result in significant impacts to local air quality due to exceedances of 8-hour carbon monoxide standards. This impact was mitigated to a level considered less than significant. As analyzed in Section 4.8 of this EIR, the proposed project would not result in local air quality impacts. The proposed project would result in significant unavoidable impacts to regional air quality due to an exceedance of SCAQMD’s thresholds for operational emissions of CO, ROG and NOX. This alternative would generate more traffic than the proposed project and would have higher levels of these emissions. The long-term regional air quality emissions from this alternative would also be significant and unavoidable.

Noise
Short-term construction noise impacts resulting from this alternative would be similar to the proposed project; however, they would occur over a longer period of time due to the additional amount of construction. As with the proposed project, construction would be temporary and during construction of the western portion of the site, would affect the residences directly adjacent to the active construction site. There are no sensitive adjacent land uses to the east, north, and south of the project site. Construction activities would be in compliance with the City’s requirements (including hours of construction) and would not create significant effects.

Where existing topography is 100 feet or more above proposed design elevations, blasting or heavy non-production ripping of the bedrock may be necessary. 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. 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 for both this alternative and proposed project. This significant impact can be mitigated to a less than significant level.

As noted in Section 4.9, Noise, the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable traffic-related noise impacts with the generation of 25,145 daily trips from 2,500 dwelling units. This alternative would generate 147,681 daily trips from 7,966 dwelling units and non-residential uses. The noise levels would be higher compared to the proposed project.

Based on the analysis presented in FEIR No. 302, traffic noise from this alternative would not result in significant unavoidable noise impacts on existing or future residential land uses, including residences within the project site.

Future on-site noise levels for this alternative indicate that mitigation would be required, including noise barriers along portions of, or all of, the following roadways: SR-91, SR-241, Weir Canyon Road, and Gypsum Canyon Road. Barriers along collector roadways were also determined to be potentially necessary if traffic volumes would exceed 65 CNEL in outdoor living areas. The noise analysis conducted for the proposed project also indicates that residential uses in Development Areas 3, 4, 5, and 7 along SR-91, SR-241, and Weir Canyon Road would be impacted by traffic noise and would require implementation of sound barriers.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-22 Alternatives With implementation of project design features, existing regulations and standard conditions, and mitigation measures, the short-term and long-term noise impacts associated with this alternative and the proposed project would be reduced to less than significant.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As with the proposed project, this alternative would not result in uses that would involve the use, transport, disposal, or emission of hazardous materials. As described in Section 4.10, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the on-site quarry contains areas of environmental concern; however, this site would be remediated as part of the reclamation of the site, prior to initiation of project construction activities.

This alternative and the proposed project would introduce people and structures to the project site, in proximity to the Southern Trails Pipeline. Although the pipeline is currently not in use, the owner/operator has plans to convert the pipeline to a natural gas facility in the future.

Further analysis on the pipe conversion would be required and would include bringing the pipeline 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.

Residents would not be exposed to a significant hazard due to a foreseeable upset or accident condition.

Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would introduce additional residences to the threat of fire and would require fire protection. Both this alternative and the proposed project would improve emergency access to the project site by providing additional access.

Overall, with implementation of the project design features, standard conditions, and mitigation measures, this alternative and the proposed project would not result in significant impacts associated with hazardous materials. This alternative does not substantially lessen impacts to hazardous materials compared to the proposed project.

Population and Housing
As indicated in Section 4.11, Population and Housing, the proposed project would result in a population increase of approximately 8,250 residents (assuming 3.3 people per dwelling unit).

With this alternative, 7,966 residences are proposed, resulting in a population increase of approximately 20,912 persons (or a difference of 5,466 residences and 12,662 persons when compared to the proposed project). This alternative would result in a reduced jobs/housing ratio, thereby contributing to a beneficial impact on subregional and local/jobs housing balance ratios. In addition, this alternative would provide for potential affordable housing opportunities proximate to major employment centers. This alternative would provide a greater benefit to the jobs/housing ratio than the proposed project. However, neither the proposed project nor this alternative would result in significant impacts to population and housing.

Public Services and Utilities
The development of 7,966 residential units would result in an increased demand for public services and utilities compared to the proposed project. However, with implementation of project design features, standard conditions, and mitigation measures, impacts of this alternative and the proposed project to public services and utilities would be reduced to level considered less than significant. This alternative would not result in reduced impacts to public services and utilities compared to the proposed project.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-23 Alternatives Recreation
This alternative includes four neighborhood parks and one community park, providing for 43 acres of park area. In addition, a regional riding and hiking trail system is designed along the southerly ridgeline of the project area and along the south side of Gypsum Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road, connecting to the proposed regional system in Coal Canyon and the Cleveland National Forest to the east, Weir Canyon to the west, and the portion of the ridgeline access road within the City of Orange Sphere of Influence. It should be noted that trail improvements within TNC ACE and the NCCP/HCP Reserve would be subject to various restrictions and would likely not be accomplished to the same extent as proposed with SP 90-4.

The proposed project includes a 15-acre public community park, a private recreation center, private parks, riding and hiking trails, and several segments of Class II bikeways. As with the proposed project, this alternative would provide an adequate amount of parkland and recreational opportunities to satisfy City of Anaheim requirements and no significant impacts would result.

Cultural Resources
The prior 1991 EIR identified one rockshelter (CA-ORA-303) as being located within the SR-241 alignment area. As previously noted, SR-241 has been constructed and impacts to this resource were mitigated. No other known cultural resources or paleontological resources have been identified for this alternative or the proposed project. However, this does not preclude the possibility that subsurface cultural and paleontological resources may be discovered during grading activities. With implementation of project design features, standard conditions, and mitigation measures, the potential impacts to cultural resources would be reduced to a level considered less than significant.

Conclusions
The No Project/Development Alternative would not reduce any of the significant impacts that would be associated with implementation of the proposed project. Significant and unavoidable short- and long-term air quality impacts and landform/topographical impacts would also occur with this alternative.

This alternative would not meet the established project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project. This alternative would not be consistent with the updated City of Anaheim General Plan that was approved in May 2004 (Objective 1). Specifically, the land use designations and proposed circulation system with the current Mountain Park Specific Plan (SP 90-4) would not be consistent with the updated General Plan. While this alternative does provide open space/habitat preservation areas (consistent with Objective 5), the proposed project provides substantially more open space. Additionally, this alternative would include development in areas that are within TNC ACE. Restrictions placed on development in these areas would make implementation of the land use plan identified in SP 90-4 infeasible.

Proposed land uses would be outside the NCCP/HCP Reserve; therefore, this alternative would be consistent with the Implementation Agreement (Objective 6). Consistent with Objective 4, this alternative would respond to site characteristics (topography, biological resources, and major ridgelines); however, not to the same extent as the proposed project. This alternative has a larger development area and would require a greater area of disturbance. With respect to the proposed development, this alternative would provide a broad mix of housing opportunities and would provide new homes for sale to address the County’s housing shortage, consistent with Objectives 3 and 7). This alternative would further regional transportation and air quality goals by creating housing near concentrated employment centers and major transportation corridors (Objective 2). This alternative would not be consistent with the County of Orange MPAH Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-24 Alternatives (Objective 8) as it includes implementation of roadways that are no longer included on the MPAH. Because this alternative would result in more housing and commercial uses than the proposed project, it would meet this project goal to a greater extent than the proposed project.

5.3.3 MODIFIED LAND USE PLAN ALTERNATIVE
Description of the Alternative
The purpose of assessment of the Modified Land Use Plan Alternative is to respond to concerns of the local community regarding increased vehicular traffic from the Mountain Park Specific Plan project using local roads through existing neighborhoods. This alternative assumes the development of a modified land use plan compared to the proposed project (refer to Exhibit 5-3). Although the proposed Development Areas would generally have the same footprint as the proposed project, and the number of units would be the same, there would be notable differences in the land use plan as described below.

Under this alternative a school site and community park would be provided in Development Area 5, east of SR-241 rather than in Development Area 3 as proposed with the project. Under this alternative there would be no roadways extended between development areas west and east of SR-241 and the community would not be gated. This alternative would have a single access point at Gypsum Canyon Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road. To accommodate emergency egress, the existing unimproved dirt road that extends along Gypsum Canyon Creek would require improvements. Additionally, under this alternative, the extension of Weir Canyon Road and construction of the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road Interchange would not be constructed by the property owner/developer. Even though these transportation improvements are not committed circulation system improvements, they are included in the Orange County MPAH and City of Anaheim General Plan and would still be implemented in the future.

The remaining project features for this alternative (recreational facilities, open space, infrastructure) would be similar to the proposed project.

Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impacts
As noted above, the focus of this alternative is to address traffic circulation issues raised by the community. Because this alternative has generally the same Development Areas as the proposed project, the impacts associated with implementation of this alternative would also be similar for the following topical issues:
x Landform and Aesthetics
x Geology and Soils
x Hydrology
x Water Quality
x Biological Resources
x Air Quality
x Hazards and Hazardous Materials
x Population/Housing
x Recreation
x Cultural Resources
Because the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road Interchange and SR-241 bridge overcrossing would not be constructed, the impacts resulting from these facilities as described in Section 4 for each topical issue would not occur with this alternative. Following is a comparative evaluation of this

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-25 Alternatives alternative to the proposed project for the following issues: land use and planning, transportation/circulation, noise, and public service and utilities.

Land Use and Planning
The physical impacts associated with this alternative would generally be the same as the proposed project with Development Areas east and west of SR-241. However, under this alternative there would not be a bridge over SR-241 connecting development on either side of SR-241. Development Areas 3 and 7 would be segregated from the remaining Development Areas and public facilities to the east, disrupting the community cohesion of the proposed uses.

SR-241 would physically divide the neighborhoods. The proposed residential development in Development Areas 3 and 7 would be contiguous to existing residential development in Anaheim Hills west of the project site potentially creating aesthetic and noise impacts, similar to the proposed project.

Traffic and Circulation
With development of 2,500 units, this alternative would generate the same amount of traffic volume as the proposed project. However, the distribution of traffic would be different since this alternative would not involve construction of the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road Interchange or the Mountain Park Drive bridge overcrossing. Without these facilities, there would not be a direct connection between the eastern and western components of the development and project access would be limited to a single access point to Development Areas east of SR-241 (Gypsum Canyon Road/Santa Ana Canyon Road). As a result, there would be increased traffic on Santa Ana Canyon Road and Gypsum Canyon Road causing increased traffic congestion compared to the proposed project.

This alternative would not avoid or reduce the potentially significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project and, as with the proposed project, these impacts would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. It should be noted that without the SR-241/Weir Canyon Interchange and SR-241 bridge overcrossing it is expected that SR-91 traffic conditions would be worsened compared to the proposed project as the interchange offsets impacts to SR-91 by re-routing local non-project traffic to the Weir Canyon Road extension and SR-241 interchange. These worsened traffic conditions would occur until such time that the interchange is implemented by others.

Without the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road interchange and Mountain Park Drive bridge overcrossing, this alternative would provide only one emergency access point and would require the existing unimproved road through the site be improved for emergency egress (refer to discussion provided below under public services and utilities).

Noise
The short-term construction noise impacts resulting from this alternative would be the same as the proposed project. While the total amount of traffic generated from this alternative would be similar to the proposed project, the distribution of traffic would be altered. The amount of traffic on Weir Canyon Road that passes through existing residential neighborhoods would be reduced. Therefore, the noise levels resulting from the project on this roadway, although they would not be considered significant, would also be reduced.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-26 Alternatives Public Services and Utilities
The potential impacts of this alternative related to public services and utilities would generally be the same as the proposed project, with the exception of emergency access and general public access to the school site and community park. Under the proposed project, access to the school site and community park would be via the Weir Canyon Road extension or Mountain Park Drive allowing greater accessibility to Anaheim Hills residents as well as the residents within the Mountain Park community. Under this alternative, access to the school and community park located on the eastern portion of the development would be via the single access point provided off Santa Ana Canyon Road which would make these facilities less accessible to residents west of the SR-241. Also, due to the single access point, the existing unimproved road that traverses the site would have to be improved for emergency egress.

Improvements to this road would result in additional physical impacts (e.g., impacts to biological resources) that would not result with the proposed project.

Conclusions
Although this alternative would change traffic patterns because of the elimination of the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road Interchange and Mountain Park Drive bridge overcrossing proposed as a part of the project, as with the proposed project, this alternative would have significant but mitigatable traffic impacts. This alternative would not reduce or eliminate significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed project.

Because the proposed type and amount of development proposed under this alternative, as well as the amount of open space to be preserved is generally the same as the proposed project, this alternative would generally meet the project objectives outlined for the project. However, it would not meet Objective 8 to the same extent as the proposed project as transportation facilities identified in the County of Orange MPAH would not be implemented.

5.3.4 REDUCED DEVELOPMENT AREA ALTERNATIVE
Description of the Alternative
The purpose of the Reduced Development Area Alternative is to identify a site development alternative that would reduce the significant and unavoidable landform/topography and air quality impacts associated with the proposed project. Exhibit 5-4 provides the development plan for the Reduced Development Area Alternative and Table 5-4 provides a statistical summary of the proposed uses. This alternative assumes the development of 2,500 residential units in Development Areas east of the SR-241 (Areas 1, 2, 4, and 5). Under this alternative, there would be no development west of SR-241. The proposed school site and community park would be located in Development Area 5. A fire station, trail staging area, and store concession/interpretive center would be provided in Development Area 6. Additionally, this alternative would include trails and public and private recreational facilities. Approximately 2,291 acres of open space would be preserved. The SR-241/Weir Canyon Road Interchange and SR-241 bridge overcrossing would not be constructed and the community would not be gated. As with the Modified Land Use Plan Alternative, this alternative would have a single access point at Gypsum Canyon Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road and to accommodate emergency egress, the existing unimproved dirt road that extends along Gypsum Canyon Creek would require improvements. The dedicated open space areas on-site associated with the NCCP/HCP Reserve and TNC Anaheim Conservation Easement would continue to be protected, as with the proposed project. Additionally, this alternative would include implementation of a regional riding and hiking trail along Gypsum Canyon Creek to the northern boundary of TNC ACE.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-27 Alternatives TABLE 5-4

REDUCED DEVELOPMENT AREA ALTERNATIVE

STATISTICAL LAND USE SUMMARY
Maximum Dwelling Units
Land Use Designation
Development/
Open Space
Areas
Applicable
Zoning
Districts
Gross
Area
(Acres)
Singlefamily
Detached
Singlefamily
Attached
1 RMP-1,
RMP-2
161 210a. Low-Medium Hillside –
Density/Residential
(0 to 6 du per acre) 2 RMP-2,
RMP-3
87 130 –
Subtotal Subtotal 248 340 –
4 RMP-4,
RMP-5,
RMP-6
Low-Medium Density/Residential 163 370 –
(0 to 16 du per acre)
5 RMP-4,
RMP-5,
RMP-6
291b. 965 825
Subtotal Subtotal 454 1,335 825
Total Residential 702 1,675 825
NCCP/HCP Reserve 940 –
TNC ACE 913 –
Other Open Space
Open
Space/
Recreation 438 –
Total Open Space 2,291 –
Institutional 6d. Public/
Special
Purpose
8 –
TOTAL 3,001 1,675 825
DU dwelling unit
NCCP/HCP Natural Communities Conservation Program/Habitat Conservation Program TNC ACE The Nature Conservancy Anaheim Conservation Easement a. At least 40 percent of the dwelling units in DA 1 shall be developed in the RMP-1 zone. b. Includes acreage associated with school and park site. c. The City of Anaheim General Plan Land Use Designation for the area is “Open Space” and includes: NCCP/HCP Reserve, TNC ACE, and Other Open Space.
d. Includes fire station, trail staging area, interpretive center, and/or potential store concession.

Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impacts
Land Use and Planning
With the proposed project, there would be residential development west of SR-241 adjacent to existing residential uses in The Summit of Anaheim Hills. Potential indirect impacts of the proposed project related to noise, air quality, and aesthetics are discussed under these individual topics below.

Under this alternative, there would be no development west of SR-241; the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road Interchange would not be constructed, and access to eastern development areas would not be provided from the west. This alternative would not be consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan which assumes the development of residential uses west of SR-241.

Although residential uses with the proposed project would be compatible with surrounding residential uses, there would be no compatibility issues associated with this alternative as there would be no proposed adjacent development.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-28 Alternatives Landform and Aesthetics
This alternative would result in reduced visual changes compared to the proposed project.

Although aesthetic impacts would not be considered significant, foreground views from existing residences west of the project site would be altered due to adjacent development proposed in Development Areas 3 and 7. Under this alternative, there would be no development west of SR-241 and existing foreground views would not be altered. Development associated with this alternative would be visible in the background views from the west. Views from the north would be similar to those of the proposed project.

This alternative would result in direct impacts to approximately 684 acres compared to 871 acres with the proposed project. In general, earth would be cut in mass quantities from interior upper elevation slopes and hills and used to fill interior lower elevation canyon areas, altering the interior landform configuration of the eastern portion of the project site. Although this alternative would preserve undeveloped areas west of SR-241, it would result in significant unavoidable impacts related to landform alteration due to the extent of grading required for the eastern Development Areas. It should be noted that, as with the proposed project, the primary background ridgelines (e.g., Windy Ridge) that surround the project site would not be impacted by this alternative. Project design features, existing regulations and standard conditions, and mitigation measures identified for the proposed project would be implemented to reduce the effect of landform alteration from this alternative. This alternative would have reduced landform and aesthetic impacts compared to the proposed project; however, as with the proposed project, landform alterations would be considered significant and unavoidable.

Geology and Soils
There are geologic conditions within the project study area which would affect development if appropriate measures and grading techniques are not implemented. Geotechnical constraints include the following: (1) the study area is subject to ground shaking from seismic activity; (2) groundwater may be encountered during alluvial removals in the main canyon areas; (3) adverse geologic conditions could affect the stability of cut slopes; (4) alluvium located beneath fills areas would need to be removed; (5) undocumented fills which currently exist within the study area are not considered suitable for the support of structural improvements and would need to be removed; (6) there are existing landslides within the project site, including the area of the existing sand and gravel operations; (7) there is a potential for liquefaction in areas of the main canyon floor; and (8) there is a potential for soil expansion in some areas.

Due to the smaller area of ground disturbance, this alternative would result in reduced impacts to geology and soils compared to the proposed project. With implementation of standard conditions and grading techniques, potential impacts within the project area associated with identified geotechnical constraints of this alternative and the proposed project can be reduced to levels considered less than significant.

Hydrology
With this alternative, the amount of increased runoff from the project site would be reduced compared to the proposed project due to the reduced amount of impervious surface. The West Drainage Area for Gypsum Canyon would not be altered with this alternative. Impacts to other drainage areas would be the same as the proposed project. As with the proposed project, onsite hydrology impacts would be less than significant with implementation of project design features, existing regulations, and standard conditions.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-29 Alternatives Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would increase discharges and velocities to the lower portion of Gypsum Canyon Creek and the earthen channel in Featherly Regional Park, thereby increasing the potential for scour, erosion, and instability within the streambed. This impact would be less than significant with implementation of project design features that include improvements to the Featherly Regional Park drainage. Development of this alternative would have a less than significant flooding impact within Featherly Park, as the floodplain boundaries under the existing and developed conditions are indistinguishable.

Surface water hydrology and peak runoff quantities for this alternative are consistent with the ultimate development conditions assumed by the ACOE for its Santa Ana River Mainstem Project. The ACOE accounted for 5,800 cfs of discharge from Gypsum Canyon into the Santa Ana River for the design of their flood control improvements and this alternative would have flows below 5,800 cfs. Therefore, flooding impacts to the Santa Ana River as a result of development of this alternative and the proposed project have been accounted for and would have no significant impact.

Water Quality
Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would result in surface runoff during construction and after final buildout. Surface runoff from a developed condition (with either this alternative or the proposed project) would have a different composition in comparison to the undeveloped existing condition. This runoff is likely to include pollutants commonly found in urban runoff such as suspended solids (sediment), nutrients (phosphates and nitrogen), organic matter (oxygen demand), bacteria, hydrocarbons (oil and grease), trace metals, and toxic chemicals (pesticides). This alternative proposes a higher level of development in eastern Development Areas and therefore, has a potential for slightly greater increases of surface runoff and associated pollutants. However, with the incorporation of a 15-acre park site and school grounds, as well as the appropriate project design features, existing regulations and standard conditions, this impact would be less than significant for this alternative and the proposed project.

Biological Resources
As described in Section 4.6, Biological Resources, the project site consists of natural vegetation communities, including: coastal sage scrub, chaparral, grassland, riparian, woodland, tecate cypress forest, and cliff and rock communities. Overall, this alternative would result in reduced impacts to biological resources due to the reduced area of development compared to the proposed project (refer to Table 5-5). The most notable reduction is impacts to chaparral communities.

Sensitive biological resources on-site include sensitive plant species (tecate cypress, many stemmed dudleya, Coulter’s matilija poppy, long-spined spineflower, Plummer’s mariposa lily, foothill mariposa lily, and chaparral nolina). In addition, several sensitive wildlife species were observed within the project study area. The project site is used for local movement by a wide variety of resident wildlife, including reptiles, birds, and medium to large mammals.

With the elimination of the development west of SR-241, this alternative would avoid impacts to approximately 1.8 acres of CDFG jurisdictional areas and 1.7 acres of ACOE jurisdiction.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-30 Alternatives TABLE 5-5

REDUCED DEVELOPMENT AREA ALTERNATIVE

VEGETATION COMMUNITIES IMPACTS
Vegetation Community
Mountain Park
Study Area
(acres)
Proposed Project
Impacts (acres)
Reduced Density
Alternative Impacts
(acres)
Scrub Communities 613.2 213.5 190.3
Chaparral Communities 1,695.1 296.0 155.8
Grassland Communities 161.5 34.8 33.1
Riparian Communities 59.1 9.2 9.0
Woodland Communities 53.8 8.5 7.4
Tecate Cypress Forest 43.0 0.0 0.0
Cliff and Rock Communities 12.3 3.4 3.3
Developed/Disturbeda. 236.0 307.3 268.5
TOTAL 3,001.0 872.7 667.4
a. Developed/disturbed areas primarily include the Robertson’s Ready Mix sand and gravel operation.

Source: PCR Services Corporation, February 2005.

Similar to the proposed project, impacts to identified habitats and species, jurisdictional areas, and wildlife movement associated with this alternative would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant with implementation of the project design features, existing regulations and standard conditions and mitigation measures. Impacts covered by the NCCP/HCP would be the same with this alternative as with the proposed project. Overall this alternative would result in reduced impacts compared to the proposed project.

Traffic and Circulation
As with the proposed project, this alternative would involve the development of 2,500 residential units and the same non-residential uses; however, there would be no construction in Development Areas 3 and 7. Additionally, there would not be a roadway connection from the west allowing access from Weir Canyon Road. The main access into Development Areas 1, 2, 4, and 5 would be from a single access point at Santa Ana Canyon Road/Gypsum Canyon Road. The traffic generated by the 145 units proposed in Development Areas 3 and 7, as well as the school and park with the proposed project would now occur east of SR-241 and would use the Santa Ana Canyon Road/Gypsum Canyon Road access. The intersection and roadway impacts resulting from the proposed project would also occur with this alternative. As with the proposed project, implementation of the mitigation program identified for the proposed project would reduce traffic impacts to a level considered less than significant for this alternative.

Because there would be no access to the site provided from Weir Canyon Road and no development west of SR-241, there would not be a notable increase in the amount of traffic generated on the roadways in the residential areas immediately west of the project site and on Serrano Avenue. The proposed project would not result in significant impacts at study intersections in these areas; however, this alternative would result in reduced impacts compared to the project.

As with the Modified Land Use Plan Alternative discussed above, without the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road Interchange and SR-241 bridge overcrossing, it is expected that SR-91 traffic conditions would be worsened compared to the proposed project as the interchange offsets impacts to SR-91 by re-routing local non-project traffic to the Weir Canyon Road extension and Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-31 Alternatives SR-241 interchange. These worsened traffic conditions would occur until such time that the interchange is implemented by others.

Because a single access point would be provided under this alternative, an emergency access road would be required. An existing unimproved dirt road that extends along Gypsum Canyon Creek would require improvements to provide emergency access. Improving this road would result in additional physical impacts to biological resources compared to the proposed project.

Overall, this alternative would result in worsened traffic conditions compared to the proposed project, including increased traffic on SR-91. This is primarily because the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road Interchange and roadway connection to the east would not occur. As with the proposed project, traffic and circulation impacts to study area intersections under this alternative could be reduced to a level considered less than significant. There is a potential for a significant impact to occur on mainline segments of SR-91 under this alternative that would not occur with the proposed project.

Air Quality
This alternative would require less earthwork compared to the proposed project. Overall, approximately 684 acres would be graded with this alternative compared to 871 acres with the proposed project. Although the emissions from construction of this alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed project, they would still be considered significant and unavoidable.

Although there would not be development west of SR-241, the amount of traffic generated from this alternative would be the same as the proposed project and the significant unavoidable regional air quality impacts from increased traffic would also occur.

Noise
As noted in Section 4.9, Noise, the proposed project would not result in any significant noise impacts with the generation of 25,145 daily trips from 2,500 dwelling units. This alternative would generate the same amount of daily trips; however, there would be no traffic generated from areas west of SR-241.

Due to the reduced amount of grading, short-term construction noise impacts with this alternative would be less than with the proposed project. Temporary construction activities on the west side of SR-241 associated with the proposed project that would affect the residences directly adjacent to the active construction site would be eliminated with this alternative. As with the proposed project, construction activities under this alternative, including off-site construction activities, would occur during the timeframes allowed by the respective Noise Ordinances and short-term noise impacts would be less than significant.

Under this alternative, long-term noise would be reduced for the land uses adjacent to and west of the project site. Development Areas 3 and 7 would not be constructed; therefore, noise associated with additional vehicle trips, including noise along Weir Canyon Road, would be reduced or eliminated in some areas. As with the proposed project, future residences in Development Areas 4 and 5 along SR-241 and SR-91 would be exposed to noise levels that exceed the City of Anaheim Noise Element noise standards. With the implementation of noise barriers (soundwalls and berms) and appropriate structural design, traffic-related noise impacts under this alternative and the proposed project would be reduced to levels considered less than significant. Potential noise impacts from on-site activities associated with this alternative would Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-32 Alternatives be the same as the proposed project with the exception of the guarded gate along Mountain Park Drive which would not be constructed.

With implementation of the mitigation program identified for noise impacts from the proposed project, potential short-term and long-term noise impacts from this alternative would be reduced to less than significant.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Although the amount of grading associated with this alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed project, this alternative would involve the development of the same number of residential units and would allow for the same type of non-residential uses, including a school and community park, fire station, trail staging area, interpretive center/store concession and recreational uses. This alternative would have the same potential impacts related to hazards and hazards materials as the proposed project. These impacts are less than significant with implementation of the mitigation program identified in Section 4.10, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

Population and Housing
As indicated in Section 4.11, Population and Housing, the proposed project would result in a population increase of 8,250 persons. This alternative would include the same number of residential units as the proposed project and would generate the same amount of individuals.

The population and housing issues associated with this alternative would be the same as the proposed project and no significant impacts would result.

Public Services and Utilities
This alternative would generate the same number of residential units and residents as the proposed project; therefore, the demand for public services (fire, police, schools, library, and solid waste) would be the same as the proposed project. Because this alternative does not include development west of SR-241, off-site utility connections to the west of the project site required with the proposed project would not be required; however, the demand for utilities (electricity, natural gas, water, sanitary sewer, cable, and telephone) would be the same. Under this alternative, the proposed water reservoir south of Development Area 7 would not be implemented. This reservoir is proposed to serve not only the proposed Mountain Park community but also to provide water for other development in Anaheim Hills.

The potential impacts associated with off-site utility connections would also not occur under this alternative. As with the proposed project, this alternative includes a school site; however, under this alternative, the school would be provided in Development Area 5.

Recreation
This alternative includes similar recreational amenities as the proposed project, including the provision of an approximate 15-acre public community park, recreational trails and bikeways, a private recreational facility, and smaller parks. As with the proposed project, this alternative would provide an adequate amount of parkland and recreational opportunities to satisfy City of Anaheim requirements. It should be noted that under this alternative, the 15-acre community park would not be as accessible to existing residents in the City of Anaheim since it would not be accessible from Weir Canyon Road as it is with the proposed project.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-33 Alternatives Cultural Resources
As addressed in Section 4.14 of this EIR, the site contains no known significant archaeological or paleontological resources. However, on-site and off-site grading and excavation activities could impact unknown resources which would be considered significant. As with the proposed project, potential impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources under this alternative can be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant.

Conclusions
Implementation of this alternative would result in similar impacts as the proposed project. Shortand long-term air quality impacts and landform/topographical impacts would be reduced under this alternative but would still be, as with the proposed project, significant and unavoidable.

The development of this alternative would not be consistent with the City of Anaheim Land Use Plan that identifies the development of Low-Medium Hillside Residential density west of SR-241; therefore, it would not meet Objective 1 (implement the goals and policies of the City of Anaheim General Plan) to the same extent as the proposed project. This alternative would result in the preservation of more open space compared to the proposed project (2,291 acres compared to 2,163 acres with the proposed project), and would meet Objective 5 related to providing regional open space better than the proposed project. However, this alternative would provide the same amount of area in TNC ACE and NCCP/HCP Reserve as the proposed project. This alternative would not meet Objective 8 because transportation facilities identified in the County of Orange MPAH would not be implemented, including improvements to, and an extension of, Weir Canyon Road, and construction of the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road Interchange.

5.3.5 REDUCED DEVELOPMENT AREA/REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE The purpose of the Reduced Development Area/Reduced Density Alternative is to reduce significant impacts that would occur with the proposed project by reducing the acreage proposed for development, as well as the number of residential units. This alternative assumes the development of 1,146 residential units in Development Areas east of the SR-241 (Areas 1, 2, 4, and 5). Under this alternative, there would be no development west of SR-241 and the density of development in Development Area 5 would be reduced. The SR-241/Weir Canyon Road interchange and Mountain Park Drive bridge overcrossing would not be constructed.

Table 5-6 provides a statistical summary for this alternative and the development plan is presented in Exhibit 5-5. With the exception of the decreased number of residential units, this alternative would have the same proposed uses as the Reduced Development Area Alternative described above.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-34 Alternatives TABLE 5-6

REDUCED DEVELOPMENT AREA/REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE

STATISTICAL LAND USE SUMMARY
Land Use Designation
Development/
Open Space
Areas
Applicable
Zoning
Districts
Gross Area
(Acres)
Maximum Dwelling
Units
Single- family
Detached
1 RMP-1, RMP-2 161 210a.
2 RMP-2, RMP-3 87 130
Low-Medium Hillside
Density/Residential
(0 to 6 du per acre) 5 RMP-4, RMP-5,
RMP-6
291b. 436
Subtotal Subtotal 539 776
Low-Medium Density/Residential
(0 to 16 du per acre)
4 RMP-4, RMP-5,
RMP-6
163 370
Total Residential 702 1,146
Open Spacec.

NCCP/HCP Reserve 940 –
TNC ACE 913 –
Other Open Space
Open Space/
Recreation
438 –
Total Open Space 2,291 –
Institutional 6d. Public/ Special
Purpose
8 –
TOTAL 3,001 1,146
DU dwelling unit
NCCP/HCP Natural Communities Conservation Program/Habitat Conservation Program TNC ACE The Nature Conservancy Anaheim Conservation Easement a. At least 40 percent of the dwelling units in DA 1 shall be developed in the RMP-1 zone. b. Includes acreage associated with school and park site. c. The City of Anaheim General Plan Land Use Designation for the area is “Open Space” and includes: NCCP/HCP Reserve, TNC ACE and Other Open Space.
d. Includes fire station, trail staging area, interpretive center, and/or potential store concession.

The area that would be graded/disturbed under this alternative would be the same as the Reduced Development Area described above; therefore, the physical impacts from this alternative would also be the same for the following topical issues:
x Landform and Aesthetics
x Geology and Soils
x Hydrology
x Water Quality
x Biological Resources
x Hazards and Hazardous Materials
x Recreation
x Cultural Resources
Following is a comparative analysis of this alternative to the proposed project for the remaining topical issues.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-35 Alternatives Land Use and Planning
This alternative would involve the development of 1,354 fewer residential units compared to the proposed project. This alternative would not be consistent with the City of Anaheim Land Use Plan which assumes the development of up to 2,500 residential units within the Mountain Park Specific Plan area, including area west of SR-241. Although residential uses with the proposed project would be compatible with surrounding residential uses, there would be no compatibility issues associated with this alternative as there would be no development proposed adjacent to existing residences.

Traffic and Circulation
The amount of traffic that would be generated by this alternative is shown in Table 5-7. As shown, there would be 1,374 trips generated during the AM peak hour and 1,332 trips generated during the PM peak hour. For comparison, the proposed project would generate 2,325 trips during the AM peak hour and 2,522 trips during the PM peak hour. The average ADT volumes would be 13,255 trips under this alternative compared with 25,145 trips with the proposed project. Significant impacts to the Weir Canyon Road/La Palma Avenue and Weir Canyon Road/Santa Ana Canyon Road intersections and Weir Canyon Road (between SR-91 and La Palma Avenue) resulting from the proposed project would also occur with this alternative; however, the amount of traffic contributed by the project at these intersections would be reduced due to the reduced amount of traffic. As with the proposed project, traffic impacts could be mitigated to a level considered less than significant.

TABLE 5-7

REDUCED DEVELOPMENT AREA/REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE

LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Category Amount Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total ADT Single Family Residential 1,146 Dwelling
Units
275 642 917 802 344 1,146 11,460
Convenience Commercial 3 TSF 9 6 15 18 18 36 360
Elementary School 800 Students 240 192 432 64 80 144 1,360 Park 15 Acres 5 5 10 3 3 6 75
Total Trip Generation 529 845 1,374 887 445 1,332 13,255 ADT – Average Daily Trips
TSF – Thousand Square Feet
Source: Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., 2004.

As with the proposed project, this alternative would not result in significant impacts to regional transportation facilities.

Air Quality
The development area under this alternative would be the same as the Reduced Development Area Alternative described above and less than the proposed project. The discussion of shortterm construction-related impacts for the Reduced Development Area Alternative would also apply to this alternative.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-36 Alternatives Noise
Due to the reduced traffic generated from this alternative, related traffic-generated noise would also be reduced. As with the proposed project, traffic noise from project-related traffic would not be significant. However, residential uses in Development Areas 4 and 5 would be exposed to traffic noise from SR-91 and SR-241 that would exceed noise standards in the City of Anaheim General Plan. With the implementation of noise barriers (soundwalls and berms) and appropriate structural design, traffic-related noise impacts under this alternative and the proposed project would be reduced to levels considered less than significant. Potential noise impacts from on-site activities associated with this alternative would be the same as the proposed project with the exception of the guarded gate along Mountain Park Drive which would not be constructed.

Population and Housing
This alternative proposes 1,146 residential units and would generate 3,782 residents, compared to 2,500 units and 8,250 residents with the proposed project. Under this alternative, the housing and population assumptions for the City of Anaheim assumed in local and regional planning efforts would not be met. Specifically, this alternative would fall below the OCP-2000 housing growth projections for 2025 to a greater extent than the proposed project. The project site is in a jobs-rich area and this alternative would not improve the jobs/housing balance to the same extent as the project, and would not provide as much housing for Anaheim’s work force.

However, similar to the proposed project, this alternative would not result in significant impacts related to population and housing.

Public Services and Utilities
This alternative would generate fewer residential units and residents compared to the proposed project; therefore, the associated demand for public services (fire, police, schools, library, and solid waste) would be reduced. However, impacts from the proposed project would be less than significant; therefore, this alternative does not avoid any significant impacts related to the provision of public services.

Because this alternative does not include development west of SR-241, off-site utility connections to the west of the project site required with the proposed project would not be required and the potential impacts associated with off-site utility connections would not occur.

Additionally, the demand for utilities (electricity, natural gas, water, sanitary sewer, cable and telephone) generated under this alternative would be reduced. As noted above for the Reduced Development Area Alternative, a 1320-zone reservoir would not be provided under this alternative.

As with the proposed project, this alternative includes a school site; however, the school would be provided in Development Area 5. Because the park requirement with fewer residents would be reduced, the community park would be smaller in size compared to the 15-acre park proposed with the project, and it is likely that active sports fields would not be provided. Access to the school and park site for City residents outside of the Mountain Park community would not be convenient as access would be from Santa Ana Canyon Road/Gypsum Canyon Road instead of Weir Canyon Road.

Overall, this alternative would have reduced impacts related to public services and utilities compared to the proposed project due to the reduced amount of residential units and future residents. However, the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable public service or utility impacts.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-37 Alternatives Conclusions
Implementation of this alternative would result in similar impacts as the proposed project. While a smaller area of the site would be disturbed and fewer residences would be constructed, as with the proposed project, this alternative would still result in significant and unavoidable shortand long-term air quality impacts and landform/topographical impacts.

Development of this alternative would meet the project objectives related to the preservation of open space, but would not meet the project objectives related to development of the same number of residential units as the proposed project. This alternative would not be consistent with the City of Anaheim Land Use Plan that identifies the development of Low-Medium Hillside Residential density west of SR-241 and Low-Medium Density in Development Area 5; therefore, it would not meet Objective 1 (implement the goals and policies of the City of Anaheim General Plan) to the same extent as the proposed project. Objective 2 would not be met to the same level as the proposed project since the amount of housing provided would be substantially reduced compared to the proposed project, and that assumed in local and regional projections.

This alternative would not provide a broad mix of housing (Objective 3), and would not provide as many new homes for sale to address the County’s housing shortage (Objective 7) to the same extent as the proposed project. This alternative would not meet Objective 8 because transportation facilities identified in the County of Orange MPAH would not be implemented, including improvements to, and an extension of, Weir Canyon Road, and construction of the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road Interchange.

This alternative would result in the preservation of more open space compared to the proposed project (2,291 acres compared to 2,163 acres with the proposed project), and would meet Objective 5 related to providing regional open space better than the proposed project. This alternative would provide a development plan that responds to site characteristics (Objective 4).

5.3.6 HIGHLY CONCENTRATED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
Description of the Alternative
The purpose of the Highly Concentrated Development Area Alternative is reduce or eliminate unavoidable landform alteration impacts that are associated with implementation of the proposed project and reduce significant air quality impacts resulting from construction.

Table 5-8 provides a statistical summary of the proposed uses. Development would be limited to Development Areas 5 and 6. This alternative assumes the development of 2,500 residential units, school site, and community park on Development Area 5; Development Area 5 is the location of the quarry site (refer to Exhibit 5-6). A fire station, trail staging area, and store concession/interpretive center would be provided in Development Area 6, consistent with the proposed project. Approximately 2,830 acres of open space would be preserved. The SR-241/ Weir Canyon Road Interchange and SR-241 bridge overcrossing would not be constructed and the community would not be gated. As with the Modified Land Use Plan Alternative, this alternative would have a single access point at Gypsum Canyon Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road and to accommodate emergency egress, the existing unimproved dirt road that extends along Gypsum Canyon Creek would require improvements. The dedicated open space areas on-site associated with the NCCP/HCP Reserve and TNC Anaheim Conservation Easement would continue to be protected, as with the proposed project. Additionally, this alternative would include implementation of a regional riding and hiking trail along Gypsum Canyon Creek but only adjacent to Development Area 5.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-38 Alternatives TABLE 5-8

HIGHLY CONCENTRATED DEVELOPMENT AREA ALTERNATIVE

STATISTICAL LAND USE SUMMARY
Land Use Designation
Development/
Open Space
Areas
Applicable
Zoning
Districts
Gross Area
(Acres)
Maximum Dwelling
Units
Single-family
Attached
Residential
Low-Medium Density/Residential
(0 to 16 du per acre) 5 RMP-6 291a. 2,500
Total Residential 291 2,500
Open Spaceb.

NCCP/HCP Reserve 940 –
TNC ACE 913 –
Other Open Space
Open Space/
Recreation
977 –
Total Open Space 2,830 –
Institutional 6c. Public/Special
Purpose 8 –
TOTAL 3,001 2,500
DU dwelling unit
NCCP/HCP Natural Communities Conservation Program/Habitat Conservation Program TNC ACE The Nature Conservancy Anaheim Conservation Easement a. Includes acreage associated with school and park site. b. The City of Anaheim General Plan Land Use Designation for the area is “Open Space” and includes: NCCP/HCP Reserve, TNC ACE, and Other Open Space.
c. Includes fire station, trail staging area, interpretive center, and/or potential store concession.

The City of Anaheim General Plan limits development in The Mountain Park Specific Plan area to a total buildout of 2,500 dwelling units: 485 units of Low-Medium Hillside Density and 2,015 units of Low-Medium Density. Based on the land use designation outlined in the General Plan, approximately 1,200 Low-Medium Density residential units are allowed in Development Area 5. Because the Highly Concentrated Development Alternative assumes 2,500 units as Low-Medium Density, this alternative would not be consistent with the current City General Plan and a General Plan amendment would be required.

Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impacts
Land Use and Planning
Under this alternative, development would be limited to Development Areas 5 and 6; all residential, school, and community park uses would be implemented in Development Area 5.

There would be no development west of SR-241 and the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road interchange would not be constructed. This alternative would not be consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan which assumes the development of residential uses west of SR-241 as well as other portions of the project site east of SR-241. Further, the City of Anaheim General Plan restricts the total number of Low-Medium Density units to 2,015 in the Mountain Park Specific Plan area. This alternative would consolidate all residential uses in Development Area 5 thereby exceeding the total number of Low-Medium Density units by 485 units. An amendment to the City of Anaheim General Plan would be required. This alternative would be considered compatible with surrounding residential uses.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-39 Alternatives Landform and Aesthetics
This alternative would result in reduced visual changes compared to the proposed project.

Although aesthetic impacts would not be considered significant, foreground views from existing residences west of the project site that would be altered due to adjacent development in Development Areas 3 and 7 (assumed as a part of the proposed project) would not be affected.

Under this alternative, all development would be restricted to Development Areas 5 and 6, both located east of SR-241; existing foreground views would not be altered. Development associated with this alternative would be visible in the background views from the west. Views from the north would be less affected when compared to the proposed project because of the reduced development footprint.

This alternative would result in direct impacts to approximately 299 acres compared to 872.7 acres with the proposed project. Development would occur on the already disturbed quarry site (Development Area 5) and disturbed land in Development Area 6. Because of the reduced development area and existing disturbance in this area, significant unavoidable impacts associated with landform alteration resulting from the project would be avoided.

Geology and Soils
As with the proposed project, there are geologic conditions within the project study area which would affect development if appropriate measures and grading techniques are not implemented.

Geotechnical constraints include the following: (1) the study area is subject to ground shaking from seismic activity; (2) groundwater may be encountered during alluvial removals in the main canyon areas; (3) adverse geologic conditions could affect the stability of cut slopes; (4) alluvium located beneath fills areas would need to be removed; (5) undocumented fills which currently exist within the study area are not considered suitable for the support of structural improvements and would need to be removed; (6) there are existing landslides within the project site, including the area of the existing sand and gravel operations; (7) there is a potential for liquefaction in areas of the main canyon floor; and (8) there is a potential for soil expansion in some areas.

Hydrology
With this alternative, the amount of increased runoff from the project site would be reduced compared to the proposed project due to the reduced amount of impervious surface. The West Drainage Area for Gypsum Canyon would not be altered with this alternative. Impacts to other drainage areas would be less when compared to the proposed project because of the restriction of development to Development Areas 5 and 6. As with the proposed project, on-site hydrology impacts would be less than significant with implementation of project design features, existing regulations, and standard conditions.

Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would increase discharges and velocities to the lower portion of Gypsum Canyon Creek and the earthen channel in Featherly Regional Park, thereby increasing the potential for scour, erosion, and instability within the streambed. This impact would be less than significant with implementation of project design features that include improvements to the Featherly Regional Park drainage. Development of this alternative would Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-40 Alternatives have a less than significant flooding impact within Featherly Park, as the floodplain boundaries under the existing and developed conditions are indistinguishable.

Water Quality
Although the Highly Concentrated Development Alternative would have surface runoff during construction and after final buildout, the amount would be reduced when compared to the proposed project because of reduced impervious surfaces. Surface runoff from a developed condition (with either this alternative or the proposed project) would have a different composition in comparison to the undeveloped existing condition. This runoff is likely to include pollutants commonly found in urban runoff such as suspended solids (sediment), nutrients (phosphates and nitrogen), organic matter (oxygen demand), bacteria, hydrocarbons (oil and grease), trace metals, and toxic chemicals (pesticides). This alternative proposes an intensification of development in Development Area 5, but no development on the remainder of the site (with the exception of a fire station on Development Area 6). As with the proposed project, potential water quality impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of appropriate project design features, existing regulations and standard conditions.

The Highly Concentrated Development Alternative would reduce impacts to CDFG and ACOE jurisdictional areas. Similar to the proposed project, impacts to identified habitats and species, jurisdictional areas, and wildlife movement associated with this alternative would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant with implementation of the project design features, existing regulations and standard conditions and mitigation measures. Impacts covered by the NCCP/HCP would be less than with the proposed project. Overall this alternative would result in reduced impacts compared to the proposed project.

The traffic generated by 2,500 units proposed in Development Area 5, as well as the school and park would use the Santa Ana Canyon Road/Gypsum Canyon Road access. The intersection and roadway impacts would be expected be greater than the proposed project because all traffic would be using one point of ingress/egress instead of the Santa Ana Canyon Road/ Gypsum Canyon Road access and the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road Interchange and Mountain Park Drive bridge overcrossing.

As with the Modified Land Use Plan Alternative and the Reduced Development Area Alternative, without the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road Interchange and SR-241 bridge overcrossing, it is expected that SR-91 traffic conditions would be worsened compared to the proposed project as the interchange offsets impacts to SR-91 by re-routing local non-project traffic to the Weir Canyon Road extension and SR-241 interchange. These worsened traffic conditions would occur until such time that the interchange is implemented by others.

Overall, this alternative would result in worsened traffic conditions compared to the proposed project, including increased traffic on SR-91 and the Gypsum Canyon Road interchange. This is primarily because the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road Interchange and roadway connection to the east would not occur. As with the proposed project, traffic and circulation impacts to study area intersections under this alternative could be reduced to a level considered less than significant.

There is a potential for a significant impact to occur on mainline segments of SR-91 under this alternative that would not occur with the proposed project.

Air Quality
This alternative would require less earthwork compared to the proposed project. Overall, approximately 299 acres would be graded with this alternative compared to 872.7 acres with the proposed project. Although the emissions from construction of this alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed project, they would still be considered significant and unavoidable. The amount of traffic generated from this alternative would be the same as the proposed project and the significant unavoidable regional air quality impacts from increased traffic would also occur.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-42 Alternatives Due to the reduced amount of grading, short-term construction noise impacts with this alternative would be less than with the proposed project. Temporary construction activities on the west side of SR-241 associated with the proposed project that would affect the residences directly adjacent to the active construction site would be eliminated with this alternative. As with the proposed project, construction activities under this alternative, including off-site construction activities, would occur during the timeframes allowed by the respective Noise Ordinances and short-term noise impacts would be less than significant.

Under this alternative, long-term noise would be reduced for the land uses adjacent to and west of the project site. Development Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 would not be constructed; therefore, noise associated with additional vehicle trips, including noise along Weir Canyon Road, would be reduced or eliminated in some areas. As with the proposed project, future residences in Development Area 5 along SR-91 would be exposed to noise levels that exceed the City of Anaheim Noise Element noise standards. With the implementation of noise barriers (soundwalls and berms) and appropriate structural design, traffic-related noise impacts under this alternative and the proposed project would be reduced to levels considered less than significant. Potential noise impacts from on-site activities associated with this alternative would be the same as the proposed project with the exception of the guarded gate along Mountain Park Drive which would not be constructed. With implementation of the mitigation program identified for noise impacts from the proposed project, potential short-term and long-term noise impacts from this alternative would be reduced to less than significant.

The population and housing issues associated with this alternative would be the same as the proposed project and no significant impacts would result.

Public Services and Utilities
This alternative would generate the same number of residential units and residents as the proposed project; therefore, the demand for public services (fire, police, schools, library, and solid waste) would be the same as the proposed project. Because this alternative does not include development west of SR-241, off-site utility connections to the west of the project site required with the proposed project would not be required; the demand for utilities (electricity, natural gas, water, sanitary sewer, cable and telephone) would be the same. Under this alternative, the proposed water reservoir south of Development Area 7 would not be implemented. This reservoir is proposed to serve not only the proposed Mountain Park community but also to provide water for other development in Anaheim Hills.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-43 Alternatives The potential impacts associated with off-site utility connections would also not occur under this alternative. As with the proposed project, this alternative includes a school site; however, under this alternative, the school would be provided in Development Area 5.

Cultural Resources
The site contains no known significant archaeological or paleontological resources (see Section 4.14 of this EIR). However, on-site and off-site grading and excavation activities could impact unknown resources which would be considered significant. As with the proposed project, potential impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources under this alternative can be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant.

Conclusions
Implementation of this alternative would reduce impacts when compared to the proposed project. Although short- and long-term air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, unavoidable landform/topographical impacts would not occur. The development of this alternative would not be consistent with the City of Anaheim Land Use Plan that identifies the development of Low-Medium Hillside Residential density west of SR-241 and limits LowMedium Density units to 2,015 units (approximately 1,200 units within Development Area 5); therefore, it would not meet Objective 1 (implement the goals and policies of the City of Anaheim General Plan) to the same extent as the proposed project. Additionally, this alternative, which would be limited to single-family attached residences, would not meet the objective to provide a broad mix of housing opportunities (Objective 3). This alternative would result in the preservation of more open space compared to the proposed project (2,830 acres compared to 2,163 acres with the proposed project), and would meet Objective 5 related to providing regional open space better than the proposed project. However, this alternative would provide the same amount of area in TNC ACE and NCCP/HCP Reserve as the proposed project. This alternative would not meet Objective 8 because transportation facilities identified in the County of Orange MPAH would not be implemented, including improvements to, and an extension of, Weir Canyon Road, and construction of the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road Interchange. There is a potential for a significant impact to occur on mainline segments of SR-91 under this alternative that would not occur with the proposed project.

5.3.7 SR-241/WEIR CANYON ROAD HALF-DIAMOND INTERCHANGE
Description of the Alternative
The purpose of this alternative is to provide an alternative tollroad interchange configuration to that proposed as a part of the proposed project. As an alternative to the modified Type L-11 trumpet interchange configuration proposed as part of the project (described in Section 3.3.5), this alternative would involve the construction of a half-diamond interchange (Type L-1) at Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-44 Alternatives SR-241/Weir Canyon Road with a two-lane overcrossing. A southbound on-ramp and northbound off-ramp would be constructed south of the overcrossing (refer to Exhibit 5-7).

Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impacts
The Type L-11 trumpet configuration interchange addressed for the proposed project would have a disturbance area of approximately 8.75 acres while this alternative would disturb approximately.80 acres. The impact conclusions for the proposed project and the half-diamond interchange would be applicable to this alternative. This alternative would accommodate the same traffic function as the modified trumpet interchange, and would not need to be modified if a full interchange with ramps to and from the north was determined to be necessary in the future. However, this is not the preferred interchange configuration from a Caltrans traffic operations position. It should be noted that current traffic projections do not indicate a need for a full interchange at this location.

Conclusions
The proposed land use plan under this alternative would be the same as the proposed project.

This alternative addresses an alternative design for the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road Interchange.

This alternative would meet the project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project.

5.3.8 EAST BASIN OFF-SITE SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION ALTERNATIVES The purpose of the following assessment is to provide alternative off-site sanitary sewer connection options that could be implemented for the East Basin Development Areas to connect to the SARI line. Information in this section is based on the Mountain Park Project Sewer Study (Fuscoe Engineering, 2005), and technical reports prepared for specific topical issues.

It should be noted that with the exception of the installation of these off-site sanitary sewer lines, the proposed project would be the same as described in Section 3 and addressed in Section 4 of this EIR. The following analysis focuses on impacts that would result from construction of offsite sewer connection alternatives.

Alternative E-1 – Gravity Main to SARI Pipeline via Gypsum Canyon Road Description
This alternative can occur if the County of Orange and ACOE elect to protect the existing SARI pipeline in place as part of their SARI Protection/Relocation Project. If the SARI pipeline is protected in place, grade stabilizers including one just downstream of the Gypsum Canyon Road over-crossing structure, would be constructed in the Santa Ana River to stabilize the channel invert between Weir Canyon Road and the Orange County/Riverside County line.

Under this East Basin sewer connection alternative, a 15-inch sewer gravity main would be constructed north in Gypsum Canyon Road through the SR-91 interchange to the over-crossing bridge at the Santa Ana River. The sanitary sewer main would be angled northeast out of the street right-of-way and into Featherly Park, and would then extend north to the south bank of the Santa Ana River. At this location, the sanitary sewer main would be extended north under the river bed (using microtunnelling construction) to an existing SARI pipeline manhole just upstream of the Gypsum Canyon Road over-crossing structure. The pipeline would connect to the existing SARI pipeline at this location. As discussed in Section 4.12.5, Sanitary Sewer, the OCSD has confirmed that there is sufficient capacity in the SARI line to accommodate flows from the proposed project.

SR-241/Weir Canyon Road Half-Diamond Interchange Alternative Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR No. 331Source:RBF Consulting, May 2004 Exhibit 5-
7 March 11, 2005

05.pdf 10 _02 7 R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Graphics\Fuscoe\ex5- Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-45 Alternatives The total length of microtunnel pipe construction would be 980 feet and would require construction of entrance/receiving pits at each end to convey the microtunnelling construction equipment. The river crossing location would be immediately upstream of a planned grade stabilizer location to prevent scour potential over the line. This sanitary sewer connection alternative is shown on Exhibit 5-8.

Impact Analysis
Construction of the gravity main pipe in Gypsum Canyon Road right-of-way would be accomplished by traditional trenching methods. As with the proposed project, temporary disruption to traffic would occur during the construction period; however, this would not be considered a significant impact. Implementation of a traffic management plan during construction would be required.

Construction of the gravity main pipe in Featherly Park would also be accomplished by traditional trenching methods. Temporary disruption to park operations would occur during the construction period. It should be noted that the impact area where the pipeline construction crosses the drainage within Featherly Park would be the same as the impact area associated with drainage improvements described in Section 3.3.4, Off-site Project Features.

Construction of the gravity main pipe across the river floodway would be accomplished by microtunnelling (trenchless technology) construction techniques. Entrance/receiving pits approximately 20 feet square would be constructed at each end to convey the microtunnelling construction equipment. The south pit location would be in Featherly Park and cause temporary disruption to park operations during the construction period. The north pit location would be near the SARI pipeline connection manhole located on an existing access road within the Santa Ana River floodplain.

This sewer connection alternative would impact 0.004 acre of ACOE jurisdictional area and

0.044 acre of CDFG jurisdictional area. Impacts to jurisdictional areas would be considered potentially significant and would be mitigated with the mitigation program identified for the proposed project for these resources.

Heavy equipment used for the trenching under Gypsum Canyon Road and between Gypsum Canyon Road and the south pit location and excavation of the south pit could generate noise levels as high as 95 dBA in the camping areas of Featherly Regional Park adjacent to the activities. 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 this sewer connection alternative would not result in a significant short-term noise impact.

Alternative E-3 – Gravity Main to SAVI Ranch via Santa Ana Canyon Road and River Maintenance Road
Description
As with East Basin sewer connection Alternative E-2 addressed as part of the proposed project (refer to description provided in Section 3, Project Description), this alternative can only occur if the County of Orange and ACOE, as part of their SARI Protection/Relocation Project select an Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-46 Alternatives option that leaves the existing SARI pipeline in place downstream of the existing control gate structure in SAVI Ranch.

Under this alternative, a 15-inch sewer gravity main would be constructed from Gypsum Canyon Road westerly along the north edge of the proposed fire station site and through the SR-91/ SR-241 interchange area entering existing Santa Ana Canyon Road 1,000-feet west of Gypsum Canyon Road. The gravity main would continue approximately 0.75 mile westerly to a vertical low point in Santa Ana Canyon Road. The gravity main would then angle north and cross SR-91 Riverside Freeway to a maintenance road paralleling the freeway northerly right-of-way adjacent to the Santa Ana River. The freeway crossing would be made using microtunnelling (trenchless technology) construction techniques. The maintenance road has recently been constructed by the ACOE and the County of Orange as part of the Santa Ana River Mainstem Reach 9 Bank Protection Project. Upon crossing the freeway, the gravity main would continue westerly in the maintenance road approximately 0.5 mile and would enter an existing private parking lot in the SAVI Ranch commercial/retail center just south of the existing Chick’s Sporting Goods store. The gravity main would then continue north through the existing parking lot to SAVI Ranch Parkway, turning northwest and connecting to an existing SARI pipeline manhole at the intersection of SAVI Ranch Parkway and Old Canal Road. This sewer connection alternative is shown on Exhibit 5-9.

Impact Analysis
This alternative would require the construction of a 15-inch sewer gravity main pipe within Gypsum Canyon Road, Santa Ana Canyon Road, and SAVI Ranch Parkway public right-of-way, across the SR-91 public right-of-way, in a maintenance road within the SR-91 public right-ofway, and through SAVI Ranch commercial/retail center private property, connecting to an existing SARI pipeline manhole in SAVI Ranch. Construction of the gravity main pipe in Gypsum Canyon Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road right-of-way would be accomplished by traditional trenching methods. As with other sewer connection alternatives, temporary disruption to traffic would occur during the construction period and would require implementation of a traffic management plan.

Construction of the gravity main pipe across SR-91 would be accomplished by microtunnelling (trenchless technology) construction techniques and would not disrupt freeway operations.

Entrance/receiving pits approximately 20 feet square would be constructed at each end to convey the microtunnelling construction equipment. The south pit would be on Santa Ana Canyon Road and cause temporary disruption to traffic during the construction period. The north pit would be on the existing maintenance road adjacent to the Santa Ana River.

Construction of the gravity main on the existing maintenance road would be accomplished by traditional trenching methods. Availability of the maintenance road would be temporarily disrupted during the construction period.

Construction of the gravity main pipe in the private parking lot areas of the SAVI Ranch commercial/retail center would be accomplished by traditional trenching methods. Temporary disruption to some parking stalls and drive aisle usage would occur during the construction period. As with the proposed project, this impact would not be considered significant, as the commercial uses would remain in operation during the short-term construction activities.

Although construction activities for this alternative would occur within existing disturbed areas and there would be no physical impacts to sensitive environmental resources (e.g., cultural, biological), approvals from Caltrans (lateral crossing of SR-91), the City of Yorba Linda (for construction activities within the City), private property owners within SAVI Ranch, and the

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-47 Alternatives County of Orange and ACOE (construction within the Santa Ana River maintenance road) would be required.

Alternative E-4 – Gravity Main to SARI Pipeline South Relocation Description
This alternative can only occur if the County of Orange and the ACOE elect to relocate the existing SARI pipeline between the control gate structure east of the SAVI Ranch commercial/ retail center and the Riverside County Line to the south side of the Santa Ana River as part of their SARI Protection/Relocation Project. The final position of the relocated pipeline has not been precisely established but is described as running adjacent to the SR-91 northerly right-ofway in this area. This position would allow for the connection of project sewage flows at the intersection of Gypsum Canyon Road and the SR-91 westbound exit ramp. From the intersection of Gypsum Canyon Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road, a 15-inch sewer gravity main would be constructed north in Gypsum Canyon Road. There would be a connection to the relocated SARI pipeline at this location (refer to Exhibit 5-10).

Impact Analysis
To ensure available capacity in the relocated SARI pipeline, the City of Anaheim has requested the ACOE to consider the general impacts and interests of the proposed Mountain Park project in any SARI pipeline relocation alternative under consideration in the SARI Protection/ Relocation Project. This consideration along with previous project entitlements obtained in the 1991 Mountain Park Specific Plan (SP 90-4) project EIR will allow for conveyance of Mountain Park project sewage flows to OCSD facilities.

Construction activities to build the sewer gravity main could create traffic disruption on Gypsum Canyon Road. These disruptions would be temporary during the construction period and would not be considered significant. Construction areas for this alternative would occur within existing disturbed street right-of-way and would not impact sensitive environmental resources.

Alternative E-5 – Force Main to SARI Pipeline via Gypsum Canyon Road Bridge Description
This alternative can only occur if the County of Orange and ACOE elect to protect the existing SARI pipeline in place as part of their SARI Protection/Relocation Project. If this option is selected by the County of Orange/ACOE, grade stabilizers would be constructed in the Santa Ana River to stabilize the channel invert between Weir Canyon Road and the Orange/Riverside County line.

This alternative would require a sewer lift station at the intersection of Gypsum Canyon Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road. The lift station and associated equipment would be enclosed in an approximately 20-square-foot structure and would be partially below ground. Additionally, landscaping would be provided around the structure to obstruct views from existing and future residents. Acoustic louvers would be provided to reduce the operations noise to acceptable noise levels.

From the lift station, a 10-inch sewer force main would be constructed north in Gypsum Canyon Road through the SR-91 interchange to the over-crossing bridge at the Santa Ana River. The force main would continue north to the end of the bridge structure at La Palma Avenue. Force main construction on the bridge would be accomplished by external structural attachment on the Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-48 Alternatives soffit of the structure. The force main would exit the bridge structure and continue to a new manhole on the existing bike path just east of the bridge structure and south of La Palma Avenue. It would then transition to 15-inch gravity main at the bike trail manhole location and continue a short distance due south to a manhole location just off of the bike path. At this location, the gravity main would be constructed due south under the river bed to an existing SARI pipeline manhole just upstream of the Gypsum Canyon Road over-crossing structure using microtunnelling construction techniques. The gravity main would connect to the existing SARI pipeline at this location (refer to Exhibit 5-11).

The total length of microtunnel pipe construction would be 400 feet and would require construction of entrance/receiving pits at each end to convey the microtunnelling trenching equipment. The microtunnelling river crossing location would be immediately upstream of a planned grade stabilizer location which would prevent scour potential over the line.

Impact Analysis
This alternative would have impacts related to the following issues as described below: shortterm traffic disruption; temporary Featherly Park campsite closure; impacts to cotton-willow riparian woodland that may support the least Bell’s vireo; and noise impacts associated with the sanitary sewer lift station and sanitary sewer line connections.

Construction of this sewer connection alternative could create traffic disruption on Gypsum Canyon Road and the existing bike path south of La Palma Avenue. Construction activities could also create temporary campsite closures in Featherly Park. These disruptions would be temporary during the construction period and would not be considered significant.

Construction activities within the Santa Ana River south of La Palma Avenue would temporarily impact approximately 0.2 acre of cottonwood-willow riparian woodland that may support the least Bell’s vireo. This area is outside of the NCCP/HCP coverage area. The loss of this sensitive habitat would be considered a significant impact and would be reduced to a level considered less than significant with implementation of the mitigation program identified for the project, specifically, Mitigation Measure (MM) 6-2.

Least Bell’s vireo is known to occur in this area of Santa Ana River. Surveys conducted by PCR in 2003 for the County of Orange’s Arundo removal program did not observe least Bell’s vireo within the sewer alignment study area; however, this species was observed within adjacent stands of cottonwood-willow riparian woodland to the east. Habitat within the sewer alignment is considered suitable for least Bell’s vireo; therefore, temporary impacts to least Bell’s vireo could occur and would be considered a potentially significant impact that would not occur with the proposed project’s East Basin sewer connection alternative (Alternative 2 – Gravity Main to SARI Pipeline in SAVI Ranch via Santa Ana Canyon Road).

This impact could be mitigated to a level considered less than significant with implementation of the following mitigation measure.

Alt MM-1 Prior to approval of sewer improvement plans, the property owner/developer shall submit copies of contractor specifications to the County of Orange and City of Anaheim Public Works Department that include the following requirements to protect nesting birds: Construction activities shall be conducted outside of the least Bell’s vireo breeding season. The breeding season occurs from April 10 through July 31. Due to the migratory nature of the species, impacts outside of the breeding season will avoid direct and indirect impacts to the least Bell’s vireo. If impacts must occur during the breeding season, a qualified biologist shall conduct

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-49 Alternatives a pre-construction survey to determine the presence and location of the least Bell’s vireo in the vicinity of the proposed impacts. If observed within 500 feet of the proposed impact area, the USFWS and CDFG shall be consulted to ensure the protection of the least Bell’s vireo.

In addition, pursuant to MM 6-2 for the proposed project, all cottonwood-willow riparian habitat temporarily impacted for the placement of the sewer line will be restored.

This sewer connection alternative would impact 0.045-acre of ACOE jurisdictional area and

0.341 acre of CDFG jurisdictional area. Impacts to jurisdictional areas would be considered potentially significant and would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant with implementation of the mitigation program identified for the proposed project for these resources.

Heavy equipment used for the trenching under Gypsum Canyon Road to the bridge abutment could generate noise levels as high as 90 dBA in the camping areas of Featherly Regional Park adjacent to the construction activities. Additionally, the heavy equipment used to construct the external structural attachment to the soffit of the bridge overcrossing could generate noise levels as high as 75 dBA in the camping areas. Construction of the portion of the sanitary sewer line near the intersection of Gypsum Canyon Road and La Palma Avenue would occur approximately 80 feet from the residences located north of La Palma Avenue. Noise levels from heavy equipment used for the trenching and pit excavation could reach as high as 90 dBA at the homes. Average noise level would not be expected to exceed 75 dBA. These short-term construction-related noise levels would exceed the noise limits specified in the City of Yorba Linda Noise Ordinance. However, the City of Yorba Linda Noise Ordinance exempts 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 this sanitary sewer line connection alternative would not result in a significant short-term noise impact.

As described above and shown in Exhibit 5-11, a sanitary sewer lift station would need to be constructed under this sanitary sewer connection alternative generally at the intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Road/Gypsum Canyon Road. A sanitary sewer lift station is essentially a pump powered by an electric motor. The sewer lift station pumps wastewater from lower elevations to higher elevations where it flows through the rest of the sewage system by gravity.

The equipment for the lift stations would be contained inside structures, either in above ground buildings or underground vaults. The lift station pumps operate as needed. Wastewater at the bottom of the lift station collects up to a specified level. The pump then turns on and operates for up to a few hours until the sewage level at the bottom of the station reaches a specified level. The pump then turns off until the next time the wastewater reaches the higher level.

The sanitary sewer lift station in Development Area 5 would be located more than 3,000 feet from any existing residences and approximately 450 feet from the nearest residence proposed by the project. Noise measurements were performed at an existing sewer lift station located in the Summit Community west of the project at 8795 Foxhollow Drive. This lift station is located in the middle of a residential neighborhood with residences directly on either side of the facility.

Noise measurements were made from 6:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m., a period when the station would be expected to be running. No sound was audible from the station during this period. During the noise measurements, a resident living next to the lift station indicated that the only audible noise from the lift station was an exhaust fan that operated during warm afternoons.

Measurements were then made in the afternoon when the exhaust fan was operating. These measurements showed that the exhaust fan, the only discernable noise source of the sewer lift Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-50 Alternatives station, generated a noise level of approximately 59 dBA at a distance of 10 feet from the exhaust fan.

A sewer lift station with the same exhaust fan would only need to be designed so that the exhaust fan was at least 10 feet away from any residential property line to meet the City’s Noise Ordinance. The exhaust fan used at the station where the measurements were made was an all-in-one unit mounted on the side of the building. There are many options that could provide the required ventilation and generate even lower noise levels. For example, a fan could be housed inside the building with duct silencers between the fan and the outside exhaust.

The required lift station under this alternative would be required to meet the City of Anaheim Noise Ordinance at all of the residences in the immediate vicinity. Because the lift station is located closer to proposed residences, it is more likely to impact the proposed residences than existing residences. Detailed design information for the sewer lift station such as the specific motor, pump and housing is required to estimate noise levels from the stations. At this time this level of detail has not been developed for the sewer lift station. It has been Mestre Greve Associates’ experience that sewer lift stations, enclosed in a building or vault, that use electric motors do not typically generate substantial noise levels outside of the enclosure. To ensure that the City’s Noise Ordinance is complied with, a detailed noise assessment would be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant prior to the issuance of building permits for the sewer lift station. With implementation of Alt MM-2 below, the sewer lift station would not generate noise levels in excess of the City’s Noise Ordinance and not result in a significant noise impact.

Alt MM-2 Prior to the issuance of building permits for the sewer lift 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.

5.3.9 WEST BASIN OFF-SITE SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION ALTERNATIVES The purpose of the following analysis is to address alternative off-site west basin sanitary sewer line connection options and evaluation of potential impacts associated with these alternatives. It should be noted that with the exception of the installation of these off-site sanitary sewer lines, the proposed project would be the same as described in Section 3 and addressed in Section 4 of this EIR. The following analysis focuses on impacts that would result from construction of offsite sanitary sewer connection options W-2 and W-4. Connections W-1 and W-3 are described in Section 3, Project Description.

Alternative W-2 – Temporary Force Main to The Summit Residential Community via Weir Canyon Road
Description
As discussed in Section 3, Project Description, sanitary sewer facilities planned for the Development Areas west of SR-241 would ultimately drain to the east in Mountain Park Drive and join sanitary sewer facilities being planned for the east basin communities. Because phasing sequences planned for the project indicate the western Development Areas would be Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-51 Alternatives developed prior to the eastern Development Areas, interim west basin off-site distribution options have been considered. These interim options include routing sewage flow temporarily to the west into existing sewer facilities within The Summit of Anaheim Hills and Sycamore Canyon residential communities. These communities are served through backbone sewer lines in Weir Canyon Road and Serrano Avenue and connect downstream to a 15-inch sewer line that has been extended from the SARI pipeline.

Under this alternative, sewage from Development Area 3 and the park would be collected at the intersection of Weir Canyon Road and Mountain Park Drive. Sewage from Development Area 7 would be pumped to the same intersection by means of a sewer lift station and force main. A gravity main would then be constructed northwest on Weir Canyon Road to the intersection of Weir Canyon Road and Sunset Crest Street. The gravity main would turn east, enter an existing residential community in The Summit of Anaheim Hills and join an existing 8-inch sewer line 75 feet east of the intersection of Weir Canyon Road and Sunset Crest Street. The connection would be made at an existing manhole location. This alternative sewer connection alternative is shown on Exhibit 5-12.

The required lift station under this alternative would be located along Mountain Park Drive near its intersection with the Development Area 3 residential entrance (refer to Exhibit 5-11). A description of the lift station structure is provided above under Alternative 5 for East Basin sewer connection options.

Impact Analysis
It should be noted that if this alternative sewer connection option is constructed as a temporary solution until the east basin sewer infrastructure is completed, then the school facility proposed in Development Area 3 would not be on-line. It is expected that the school facility would be constructed after the east basin homes are constructed and occupied. The estimated 90,367 gallons per day of sewage generated by proposed west basin Development Areas would be reduced by 27,693 gallons per day (average flow generation by the school facility) resulting in a maximum average daily flow generation by the west basin Development Areas of 62,674 gallons per day. This amount of flow generation is well under the 161,200 gallons per day allowed for in the original sewer infrastructure planning done for The Summit of Anaheim Hills and Sycamore Canyon communities.

As described in Section 4.12.5, Sanitary Sewer, for the proposed project, a pipe capacity constraint exists downstream in an existing 8-inch pipe segment on Running Springs Drive. As with the proposed project, a 200-foot segment of this sanitary sewer pipeline would need to be upsized to a 10-inch pipe diameter with this alternative. This construction would occur within existing street right-of-way that is already disturbed. The potential impacts associated with this off-site improvement would be the same as the proposed project, and would be limited to temporary disruption to traffic during the construction period. In addition to traffic disruption on Running Springs Drive, there is also a potential for traffic disruption on Weir Canyon Road during installation of a new gravity sanitary sewer main. As with the proposed project, implementation of a traffic management plan during construction would be required.

The lift station adjacent to Development Area 3 would be approximately 150-feet from existing residences west of the project site, and it would be located adjacent to the nearest residence proposed by the project. As noted previously for Alternative 5 under the East Basin sewer connection options, noise measurements were performed at an existing sewer lift station located in The Summit Community east of the project at 8795 Foxhollow Drive to assess the potential impacts of the sewer lift stations required with force main sewer connection alternatives. The noise impact analysis and Alt MM-2 presented for the East Basin force main Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-52 Alternatives sewer connection alternative would also apply to this alternative. As noted, a detailed noise assessment would be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant prior to the issuance of building permits for the sewer lift station and compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance would have to be demonstrated and any measures required to meet the Noise Ordinance would be described and incorporated into the plans for the sewer lift stations. With implementation of Alt MM-2, the sewer lift station would not generate noise levels in excess of the City’s Noise Ordinance and would not result in a significant noise impact.

Alternative W-4 – Gravity Main to the Summit of Anaheim Hills via Fallbrook Way Description
This alternative would convey West Basin sewer flow directly off-site to existing sewer facilities in The Summit of Anaheim Hills residential community and would not depend on planned East Basin facilities to be operational. Sewage from Development Area 3 and the park and school would be conveyed in an 8-inch gravity line north on Mountain Park Drive to the intersection of Mountain Park Drive and Development Area 7 where sewage from Development Area 7 would be added. Flow would then be conveyed in an 8-inch gravity line directly northwest through two private lots into Fallbrook Way. The gravity main through the private lots and in Fallbrook Way would be constructed using microtunnelling (trenchless technology) construction techniques.

Entrance/receiving pits for the microtunnelling approximately 20 feet square would be constructed at each end to convey the microtunnelling construction equipment. The east pit would be on-site. The west pit would be at the intersection of Sunset Crest Street and Fallbrook Way. Sewage flow would then be conveyed in an 8-inch gravity main north on Sunset Crest Street to its intersection with Wiley Way and join existing sewage facilities at this location.

Construction of the 8-inch gravity main in Sunset Crest Street would be accomplished by traditional trenching methods. This sewer connection alternative is shown on Exhibit 5-13.

Impact Analysis
As with Alternative W-2 and the proposed project, implementation of this alternative would require upsizing a 200-foot segment of pipeline in Running Springs Drive to a 10-inch diameter line. Construction would occur within the existing street right-of-way and impacts would be limited to temporary traffic disruption during construction. Temporary traffic disruption would also occur on Fallbrook Way, and Sunset Crest Street. As with the proposed project, implementation of a traffic management plan during construction would be required.

The gravity main through the private lots and in Fallbrook Way would be constructed using microtunnelling (trenchless technology) construction techniques. While no physical impacts would occur on private property, approval from the affected homeowners would be required, including easement rights over each private lot.

5.4 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA requires the identification of an environmentally superior alternative. Section 15126.6(e)(2) states that if the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Table 5-9 provides, in summary format, a comparison of the level of impacts for each alternative to the proposed project.

Based on the alternatives evaluated in this section, the No Project/No Action Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative. When considering the other alternatives evaluated, the Highly Concentrated Development Alternative would be considered

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-53 Alternatives environmentally superior. This alternative proposes the development of 2,500 single-family residential units within Development Area 5 and a fire station, store concession, and trail staging area in Development Areas. This alternative eliminates Development Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 and would avoid the significant unavoidable impact of the project related to landform and aesthetics. Due to the reduced development area it would also have less construction-related air quality emissions. This alternative would result in the same or similar impacts as the proposed project for hazardous materials; population and housing; and recreation. Traffic impacts for this alternative would be greater than the proposed project due to the provision of only one access point. Although most impacts associated with this alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed project, this alternative would have significant unavoidable impacts related to short-term, long-term and cumulative air quality impacts.

The Highly Concentrated Development Alternative would not meet all of the project objectives and would not be consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan (refer to the Conclusions discussion provided in Section 5.3.6).

With respect to infrastructure design alternatives, the environmental impacts of the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road Interchange alternative are similar to the proposed project and neither option would be notably environmentally superior.

For the off-site west basin sanitary sewer line connection options, the connection proposed with the proposed project (Alternative W-3–Gravity Main to the Summit of Anaheim Hills via Weir Canyon Road) would be environmentally superior to the other alternatives considered because it would not require an easement from a private landowner as is required with Alternative W-4, and would not require a sewer lift station that has the potential for indirect impacts (Alternative W-2). For the off-site east basin sanitary sewer line connection options, Alternative E-1–Gravity Main to SARI Pipeline via Gypsum Canyon Road would be environmentally superior to the other options, including Alternative E-2–Gravity Main to SARI Pipeline in SAVI Ranch via Santa Ana Canyon Road which is included as part of the proposed project. Alternative E-1 is environmentally superior because it allows for a direct connection to the SARI line and would not cause the traffic disruption and potential land use impacts that would be associated with alternatives that extend down Santa Canyon Road. Additionally, this alternative has less impact to ACOE and CDFG jurisdictional areas compared to other alternatives that connect to the SARI line.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\5 Alternatives-032405.doc 5-54 Alternatives TABLE 5-9

COMPARISON OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED PROJECT Impact Area Proposed Project No Project/No Action
No Project/
Existing Specific Plan Modified Land Use Plan
Reduced Development
Area
Reduced Development
Area and Reduced
Density
Highly Concentrated
Development Interchange East Basin Sanitary Sewer
West Basin Sanitary
Sewer
Alt. E-1 Alt. E-3 Alt. E-4 Alt. E-5 Alt. W-2 Alt. W-4
Land Use Less than Significant Inconsistent with General Plan
Inconsistent with General
Plan
Similar Inconsistent with
General Plan
Inconsistent with General
Plan
Inconsistent with
General Plan
Same Less Same Less Less Same Greater
Landform
Significant and
Unavoidable
Landform
No Impact
Landform
Greater
Landform
Similar
Landform
Less
Landform
Less
Landform
Less a.

Landform and Aesthetics
Aesthetics
Mitigated to Less than
Significant
Aesthetics
No Impact
Aesthetics
Greater
Aesthetics
Similar
Aesthetics
Less
Aesthetics
Less
Aesthetics
Less
Landform/
Aesthetics
Same
Same Same Same Same Same Same
Geology and Soils Mitigated to Less than
Significant
No Impact Greater Similar Less Less Less Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Hydrology Mitigated to Less than
Significant
No Mitigation of Existing
Drainage Issues
Greater Similar Less Less Less Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Water Quality Mitigated to Less than
Significant
No Impact Greater Similar Less Less Less Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Biological Resources Mitigated to Less than
Significant
No Impact Greater Similar Less Less Less Same Greater Same Same Greater Same Same Traffic and Circulation Mitigated to Less than
Significant
No Impact Greater Greaterb. Greater b. Less Greater b. Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Air Quality Significant and
Unavoidable
No Impact Greater Similar Similar Similar Less Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Noise Mitigated to Less than
Significant
No Impact Similar Less Less Similar Less Same Same Same Same Greater Greater Same Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Less than Significant No Impact Similar Similar Same Similar Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Population and Housing
Less than Significant Hinders City in meeting
housing needs
Similar Similar Similar Deters City in meeting
housing needs
Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same
Public Services and Utilities
Less than Significant No Impact Similar Greater Similar Less Similar Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Recreation Less than Significant No Impact Similar Similar Similar Similar Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Cultural Resources Mitigated to Less than Significant
No Impact Similar Similar Similar Similar Less Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Relationship to Project Objectives
Meets Project Objectives Fails to meet all Fails to meet some Fails to meet some Fails to meet some Fails to meet some Fails to meet some Same Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets a. This alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable landform/topography impact resulting from the project. b. There is a potential for a significant impact to the SR-91 mainline facilities. East Basin Off-Site Sanitary Sewer Connection Alternatives Alternative E-1: Gravity Main to SARI Pipeline via Gypsum Canyon Road Alternative E-3: Gravity Main to SAVI Ranch via Santa Ana Canyon Road and River Maintenance Road Alternative E-4: Gravity Main to SARI Pipeline South Relocation Alternative E-5: Force Main to SARI Pipeline via Gypsum Canyon Road Bridge West Basin Off-Site Sanitary Sewer Connection Alternatives Alternative W-2: Temporary Force Main to the Summit Residential Community via Weir Canyon Road Alternative W-4: Force Main to the Summit of Anaheim Hills via Fallbrook Way Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\6 Long Term-032405.doc 6-1 Long-term Implications of the Proposed Project SECTION 6

LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

6.1 ANY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF

THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED
The environmental impacts of the proposed Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment project are discussed in Sections 4.1 through 4.14 of this EIR. The proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts under the following topical issues: landform changes, geology and soils, biological resources, traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, and cultural resources.

As currently proposed, the project would result in the following significant impacts after implementation of the mitigation program and would require adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations:

Impact 4.2-1 The proposed project would comply with Standard Condition 2-1; however, Development Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 would require alterations to existing scenic resources including landform/topography and rock outcroppings. Impacts to scenic resources within Development Areas 3, 4 and 7 would be visible from SR-91 and SR-241 and would be considered a significant and unavoidable impact.

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.

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.

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.

Impact 4.8-4 Construction of the proposed project would expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentration that exceed SCAQMD thresholds.

0.01, which would be a significant impact.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\6 Long Term-032405.doc 6-2 Long-term Implications of the Proposed Project 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.

6.2 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH WOULD BE

CAUSED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED The environmental effects related to the implementation of the proposed project are discussed in Sections 4.1 through 4.14 of this EIR. Implementation of the Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment project would require the long-term commitment of natural resources and land.

Implementation of the project would result in the commitment of land resources for residential and open space uses. Based on the type of development proposed and the financial and material investments which would be required, it is likely that the same or similar uses would continue in the future.

Environmental changes associated with the proposed developments would result in alterations to the physical environment. In order to develop the proposed project, approximately 26 million cubic yards of cut and fill and an additional 20 million cubic yards of remedial grading would be would be required. Approximately 72 percent of the project site (2,163 acres) would be retained as open space and the remaining 28 percent of the site would be disturbed as a result of the proposed development. New structures and streets would be built, and additional utilities to serve the structures would be constructed.

Implementation of the project would require the commitment and reduction of other nonrenewable and slowly renewable resources. These resources include, but are not limited to, petrochemical construction material; lumber; sand and gravel; asphalt; steel; copper; lead; and other metals, etc.

Approval and implementation of the proposed project would also result in the loss of other resources. These resources would be for the construction, heating, and cooling of proposed uses; potable and non-potable water for food preparation, drinking, irrigation, etc.; transportation of people and goods to and from the site; as well as lighting and other associated energy needs.

6.3 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
This section of the EIR discusses the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional developments in the surrounding environment, either directly or indirectly (CEQA Guidelines, 15126.2[d]). To assess the potential for growth-inducing impacts, the project characteristics that may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively must be evaluated.

Growth-inducing impacts can occur when the development of a project directly or indirectly induces economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing in the surrounding area. Direct growth-inducing impacts occur when a project might impose new burdens on a community or might induce new development in an area, triggering related growth-associated impacts. This includes projects that would remove physical obstacles to population growth (such as a new road into an undeveloped area or expansion of a water waste treatment plant which might allow for more construction in service areas). Construction of these types of infrastructure improvements cannot be considered in isolation from the development they trigger.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\6 Long Term-032405.doc 6-3 Long-term Implications of the Proposed Project The development of the Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment project would not impose significant new burdens on adjacent land uses or induce substantial new unforeseeable development in the area. As identified in Section 4.11, Population and Housing, the project would not increase the number of dwelling units on the project site beyond that assumed under existing land use designations. Therefore, the project would not directly induce or cause unexpected growth in the area. The proposed project was included in the housing projections in the City of Anaheim General Plan Update (2004) and included within the projected infrastructure planning documents for the City. Although the project proposes to construct new infrastructure facilities, these facilities would be site specific and would not induce additional growth in the area not already included in the City's projections. In addition, the southern, northwest and northeast portions of the project site are dedicated to open space though the NCCP/HCP Reserve Area and the Anaheim Conservation Easement. These habitat preservation areas are dedicated to open space and limit the development potential of the areas within and surrounding the project site. These two actions are further described in Section 3, Project Description. The remaining land that surrounds the project site is already developed so additional growth resulting from the proposed project is limited.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\7 Preparers-031605.doc 7-1 List of EIR Preparers and Contributors SECTION 7

LIST OF EIR PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS

7.1 CITY OF ANAHEIM

PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Linda Johnson Principal Planner
Ted White Associate Planner

PUBLIC WORKS
Natalie Meeks Development Services Manager/Civil Engineer John Lower Traffic and Transportation Manager
Melanie Adams Associate Engineer

UTILITIES
David Allen Civil Engineer - Water
Michael LeBlanc Senior Power Systems Planning Engineer

COMMUNITY SERVICES
Richard Mayer Park Planner

FIRE DEPARTMENT
Scott Berg Fire Division Chief
Bob Logue Fire Division Chief
Jeff Lutz Fire Marshall

CONSULTANT TO THE CITY
William Halligan, Esq. Director of Environmental Services JoAnn Hadfield Associate Director of Environmental Services

7.2 BONTERRA CONSULTING (EIR PREPARATION)
Christina Andersen Associate Principal/Project Manager
Julie Cho Environmental Analysis
Jennifer Gomez Graphics
Heidi Hollstein Word Processor
Brett Jaffe Environmental Analysis
Kristin Keeling Environmental Analysis
Cindy Krebs Environmental Analysis
Kathy Linklater Word Processor
Greg Marks Graphics
Jennifer Marks Environmental Analysis
Chris Starbird Graphics
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\7 Preparers-031605.doc 7-2 List of EIR Preparers and Contributors

7.3 CONTRIBUTORS
Advanced Environmental Concepts Hazardous Materials
Jon Buck
Austin-Foust Associates Traffic/Circulation
Kendall Elmer
Carla Walecka Planning Population/Employment/Housing
Carla Walecka
Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. Engineering, Surface Hydrology, Wet Utilities Pat Fuscoe
Ian Adam
Jeff Davis
Christina Turney
Raymond Tohihiro
GEOSCIENCES Groundwater Hydrology
Tom Harder
Maria Brum
GeoSyntec Consultants Water Quality, Hazardous Materials (Quarry) Karen Arteaga
Lisa Austin
Peter Mangarella
Jones and Stokes ACOE and CDFG Jurisdictional Areas
Mark McLoughlin
Leighton and Associates Geology/Soils
Ed Burrows
Woody Pollard
Mestre-Greve Air Quality and Noise Analysis
Matt Jones
PCR Services Corporation Biological Resources
Steve Nelson
Kristin Szabo
Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\8 References-032305.doc 8-1 References SECTION 8

REFERENCES
Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc. 2005 (February). Environmental Site Assessment for Proposed Mountain Park Development.
_______. 2005 (March). Environmental Site Assessment for Proposed SR-241/Weir Canyon Interchange and Mountain Park Road Bridge Overcrossing.

Alonso, Officer Wayne. 2004 (April 27 and May 20). Personal Communication. Written correspondence from W. Alonso (City of Anaheim Police Department) to J. Marks, BonTerra Consulting and a telephone conversation with B. Jaffe, BonTerra Consulting.

Arnau, John. 2005 (March). Personal Communication. Telephone conversation between J. Arnau (Orange County Integrated Waste Management District) and B. Jaffee, BonTerra Consulting.

Arroyo, Enrique. 2005 (January 21). Personal Communication. Telephone conversation between E. Arroyo (California State Parks, Chino Hills State Park) and C. Krebs, BonTerra Consulting.

Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 2005 (February). Final Mountain Park Specific Plan Traffic Analysis.

Boyle Engineering Corporation. 2004 (December). City of Anaheim Water Supply Assessment.

California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS), 2003-2004.

California Integrated Waste Management Board. Accessed on November 19, 2004. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov.

California State Parks. 1999 (February). Chino Hills State Park General Plan.

Center for Demographic Research, California State University, Fullerton. (2004) Orange County Progress Report 2004, Volume 35.
_______. 2000 (June). Orange County Projections 2000.
_______. 2004 (March). Orange County Projections 2004.

City of Anaheim. 2004 (May). City of Anaheim General Plan. _______. 2004 (May). City of Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update FEIR No. 330. _______. 2004 (May). City of Anaheim Zoning Code.
_______. 1991 (March). Mountain Park Final Environmental Impact Report No. 302, SCH No. 89010196.
_______. 1991 (August). Mountain Park Specific Plan (SP 90-4).

Competisys. 2005 (March). Mountain Park Project Projected Peak and Annual Demand Based on Anticipated Project End Uses.

County of Orange. 2000. County of Orange General Plan.

County of Orange, Harbors, Beaches and Parks. Accessed on May 19 and 20, 2004. http://www.ocparks.com.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\8 References-032305.doc 8-2 References Dahl, Taylor & Associates, Inc. 2005 (March). Dry Utility Summary. _______. 2005 (March). Peak Load Analysis and Electric Power System Layout.

Data Quick Information Services. 2004 (February). 2003 Home Sales.

David Taussig & Associates. 2003 (December). Orange Unified School District School Facilities Needs Analysis.

Davis Demographics and Planning. 2003 (March). Fall 2002/2003 Projection Report.

Dunn and Bradstreet. 2004. Robertson’s Ready Mix Company Look-Up Report.

Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. 2005 (February). Mountain Park, Anaheim, California, Runoff Management Plan.
_______. 2005 (March). Mountain Park Project Sewer Study. _______. 2005 (February). SR-241/Weir Canyon Road Interchange and Mountain Park Drive Overcrossing.

Geoscience Support Services, Inc. 2005 (March). Report on Ground Water-Related Issues for the Proposed Mountain Park Development.

GeoSyntec Consultants. 2004 (July). Environmental Site Assessment and Remediation Work Plan, Gypsum Canyon Quarry.
_______. 2005 (January). Environmental Site Characterization Report. _______. 2005 (February). Mountain Park Development Project Water Quality Technical Report. _______. 2004 (July). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Quarry, Proposed Mountain Park Development.
_______. 2005 (February). SR-241/Weir Canyon Interchange Water Quality Assessment. _______. 2005 (January). Weir Canyon Road/SR-241 Interchange Water Quality Impact Assessment.

Gregory Stoffel & Associates. 2004 (December). Mountain Park Planned Community Capturable Retail Sales Potential, City of Anaheim.

Jessen, Eric. 2004 (May). Personal Communication. Telephone conversation between E. Jessen (OC Harbors, Beaches and Parks) and J. Marks, BonTerra Consulting.

Jones and Stokes. 2005 (February). Delineation of Wetlands, Other Waters of the United States, and California Department of Fish and Game Jurisdiction, Mountain Park Study Area, Orange County, California.
_______. 2005 (February). Riparian Habitat Condition Assessment, Mountain Park Study Area, Orange County, California.

Leighton and Associates, Inc. 2004 (October). Revised Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation for the Proposed State Route 241 Mountain Park Overcrossing, City of Anaheim, California.

Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment
Draft EIR No. 331
R:\Projects\TIC\J020\Draft EIR\8 References-032305.doc 8-3 References _______. 2005 (March). Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Mountain Park Project, Gypsum Canyon, Orange County, California.
_______. 2005 (January). Updated Revised Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation for the Proposed State Route 241/Weir Canyon Road Overcrossing, City of Anaheim, California.

LSA Associates. 2005 (March). Cultural Resources Survey and Assessment, Mountain Park, Anaheim, Orange County, California.
_______. 2005 (March). Historical Resources Compliance Report, Mountain Park Overcrossing Project, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, California. _______. 2005 (March). Historical Resources Compliance Report, Weir Canyon Road/SR-241 Interchange Project, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, California.

Mestre Greve Associates. 2004 (February). Air Quality Assessment for: Mountain Park, City of Anaheim.
_______. 2005 (February). Noise Assessment for: Mountain Park, City of Anaheim.

Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors, 91 Cal. App. 4th 342, 2001.

Orange Unified School District. 2000 (February). Classroom Capacity Summary (SB 50).

Orange Unified School District and Irvine Community Development Company LLC. 2004 (December). School Impact Mitigation Agreement, East Orange Project, Santiago Hills II Project, Mountain Park Project.

PCR Services Corporation. 2005 (February). Biological Resources Assessment, Mountain Park, Orange County, California.
_______. 2005 (February). Results of an Impact Analysis to Biological Resources from the SR-241/Weir Canyon Road Interchange and Mountain Park Drive Bridge Overcrossing, Orange County, California.

RBF Consulting. 2004 (August). Mountain Park Domestic Water Distribution System Sub Area Master Plan.

Roberts, Fred M. 2001 (November). Telephone conversation with Kristin Szabo, PCR Services Corporation.

Southern California Association of Governments. 1995. Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide.

Terrace, Kathy. 2004 (May). Personal Communication. Telephone conversation between K.

Terrace (OC Harbors, Beaches and Parks) and B. Jaffe, BonTerra Consulting.

United States Bureau of the Census. 2000 (April). U.S. Decennial Census.

Warren, Tamara. 2005 (January). Personal Communication. Telephone conversation between T. Warren (Orange County Transportation Authority) and C. Krebs, BonTerra Consulting.

Anaheim City CouncilJuly 23, 2024

Anaheim City Council
July 23, 2024