Anaheim City Council
October 29, 2024

New
Significant
Impact
More Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous
Analysis
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 239 September 2024
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Addendum No. 11 analyzed the OCVIBE’s consistency with the City’s General Plan, Orange County's Congestion Management Plan, and 2020–2045 SCAG RTP/SCS, Connect SoCal, and determined that impacts would be less than significant. The Modified Project’s consistency with the 2024-2050 SCAG RTP/SCS, Connect SoCal 2024, as discussed in Table 28, SCAG’s Connect SoCal 2024 Consistency Analysis.

The Modified Project access and internal circulation network would distribute the site generated traffic to the adjacent streets with the same distribution pattern as previously analyzed in the approved Traffic Study for the approved OCVIBE Project. Automobile delay is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Section 21099(b)(2)). Therefore, the following information is provided for informational purposes only.

As summarized in Table 33, Modified Project Traffic Generation Summary, the Modified Project under Options 1 and 3 would result in a minor, less than 2 percent, increase in daily trips, and Option 2 would result in a decrease in daily trips (Pirzadeh 2024). The nominal increase in daily trips would not change the level of performance (volume to capacity ratio) of the facilities analyzed in the Traffic Study for the approved OCVIBE Project (included in Appendix K to Addendum No. 11). During the AM and PM peak periods, all options would result in a least 5 percent decrease in trip generation with minor variation in directional trips. The directional variations would not change the level of performance (ICU level of service) of the analyzed facilities in the Traffic Study for the approved OCVIBE Project (included in Appendix K to Addendum No. 11). Therefore, the Transportation Memorandum for the Modified Project (included in Appendix H to this Addendum) determined that the Modified Project would not have an adverse impact on the circulation system compared to the approved OCVIBE Project. It should also be noted that FSEIR No. 339 found transportation impact as it relates to automobile delay as significant and unavoidable.

Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 240 September 2024
Table 33. Modified Project Traffic Generation Summary
Land Use (ITE Land Use) Daily
Morning Peak Hour Afternoon Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
OCVIBE Project – Weekend Trip Generation Estimates
Total Non-Event Day Trip
Generation Estimate
39,865 1,593 747 2,340 1,503 1,788 3,291
Modified Project – Weekend Trip Generation Estimates
Modified Project – Option 1
Total Non-Event Day Trip
Generation Estimate 40,508 1,194 928 2,122 1,598 1,441 3,039 Difference 643 -399 181 -218 95 -347 -252
Modified Project – Option 2
Total Non-Event Day Trip
Generation Estimate 39,453 1,115 913 2,028 1,572 1,359 2,931 Difference -412 -478 166 -312 69 -429 -360
Modified Project – Option 3
Total Non-Event Day Trip
Generation Estimate 40,237 1,345 857 2,202 1,558 1,571 3,129 Difference 372 -248 110 -138 55 -217 -162
Source: Pirzadeh & Associates 2024.

Notes: ITE = Institute of Transportation Engineers
The Modified Project’s Project Site is within the boundaries of the approved OCVIBE Project, which is within a TPA. As with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project would provide a highly walkable and bike-friendly environment, encouraging the use of transit and active transportation. As with Addendum No. 11 for the approved OCVIBE Project, Mitigation Measures 9-1 through 9-11 and 9-13 through 9-15 from FSEIR No. 339 would be applicable. The Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in FSEIR No. 339 and its Addenda, including Addendum No. 11. No substantial change from the previous analysis would occur.
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project would increase the total number of dwelling units and reduce office square footages in Arena District Sub-Area D2. The residential buildings would be self-parked, and the total amount of shared parking serving the nonresidential uses would not change.

The City of Anaheim’s TIA Guidelines for CEQA Analysis (June 2020), traffic impact analysis with VMT assessment shall be required for a project that does not satisfy the identified project screening criteria. The City’s guidelines provide three types of project screening to effectively screen project from project-level assessment. A project only needs to fulfill one of the following screening types to qualify for screening:

Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 241 September 2024
• TPA Screening
• Low VMT-generating Area Screening
• Project Type Screening
A TPA is defined as a half-mile area around an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor. The City has an exhibit in its TIA Guidelines Attachment A to help identify if the project is in a TPA. The OCVIBE Project was screened under the TPA screening in Addendum No. 11, and the Modified Project would continue to be screened under the TPA screening type. The Project Site is within the approved OCVIBE Master Site Plan boundaries.

The City’s TIA Guidelines has established the following four project features to further analyze a project’s qualification for screening under the TPA criteria. Specifically, if a project meets one of the following features, then it may not qualify for VMT screening.

1. Has a total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75.

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

3. Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the lead agency, with input from the Metropolitan Planning Organization).

4. Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate‐ or high‐ income residential units.

The Modified Project would not meet any of the above listed features.

1. Exceeds Floor Area Ratio of 0.75: The Modified Project exceeds the 0.75 FAR under all three options, complies, or exceeds established sustainability requirements, and provides more residential units than previously planned in OCVIBE. As shown in Table 34, Modified Project Floor Area Ratio Summary, the Modified Project would have an overall average FAR of 1.30 to 1.37 with all buildings in the Master Site Plan, including residential units in Arena District Subarea D2. Therefore, the Modified Project would exceed the total FAR of 0.75. The Modified Project would not meet this criterion.

Table 34. Modified Project Floor Area Ratio Summary
Development Option
Building GSF
Without Parking Structure Net Land Area Floor Area Ratio Option 1 4,712,581 3,449,482 1.37
Option 2 4,488,581 3,449,482 1.30
Option 3 4,587,181 3,449,482 1.33

2. Less Parking Than Required: The residential uses would provide reduced on-site parking pursuant to AB 2097 that prohibits imposition of minimum parking standards for residential, commercial, or other development projects if the project is located Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 242 September 2024
within one-half mile of a major transit stop. Also, as demonstrated in the Shared Parking Analysis Update prepared for the Modified Project (Appendix K), the proposed shared parking strategy and resulting number of spaces that are planned for the Project Site, while meeting the Modified Project’s demands, would be less than the standard AMC required numbers. The Modified Project would not meet this criterion.

3. Consistent with RTP/SCS: The Modified Project’s consistency with the 2024-2050 SCAG RTP/SCS, Connect SoCal 2024, as discussed in Table 25, SCAG’s Connect SoCal 2024 Consistency Analysis. The Modified Project would not meet this criterion.

4. Affordable Housing: It would provide affordable housing and would not replace any affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate‐ or high‐income residential units. The Modified Project would not meet this criterion.

Therefore, as with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project is within a TPA and meets the related secondary evaluation criteria for projects located within a TPA to be screened for VMT.

No further project VMT review is warranted in accordance with City’s TIA Guidelines for CEQA analysis. The Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in FSEIR No. 339 and its Addenda, including Addendum No. 11. No substantial change from the previous analysis would occur.

Parking
Pursuant to PRC Section 21099, the parking impacts of a mixed-use residential or employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment. The Modified Project alters a portion of the OCVIBE Master Site Plan, yet the OCVIBE Project remains a mixed-use residential, employment, and entertainment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area. Although parking impacts are no longer considered under CEQA, because Addendum No. 11 discussed parking for informational purposes, this Addendum also provides parking information for the same reason.

A Shared Parking Study was prepared and included as Appendix M to Addendum No. 11. The approved OCVIBE Project provided a total of 11,289 parking spaces, including 8,212 shared parking spaces and 3,077 other dedicated parking spaces. The AMC parking standard required 13,509 spaces for commercial and office uses that would share a parking supply, and an additional 3,300 dedicated spaces for residential, hotels, and the institutional space proposed at Lot B. A Shared Parking Analysis Update was prepared for the Modified Project and is included in Appendix K of this Addendum. The Modified Project would provide a range of 12,369 to 12,823 parking spaces, including 8,561 shared parking spaces and 4,114 other dedicated parking spaces. The residential unit parking would range from 3,808 to 4,262 parking spaces depending on the option. AMC parking standards require between 11,364 and 12,278 spaces for commercial, office, and institutional uses that would share a parking supply, and 4,020 to 4,474 dedicated spaces for residential, hotels, and the institutional space proposed at Lot B. Each residential building would provide dedicated Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 243 September 2024
residential parking at an average of 1.566 stalls per unit. The precise code parking requirement will be calculated when the final unit mix is determined. The OCVIBE Project remains a unique development with a diverse combination of land uses that lends itself to an efficient parking arrangement, wherein the parking demands from the individual uses can be met through a shared supply. Furthermore, California Density Bonus Law and AMC 18.52.100 allow parking reduction for residential uses and AB 2097 prohibits imposition of minimum parking standards for “residential, commercial, or other development project if the project is located within one-half mile of public transit.” The Project Site is within 0.5 mile of transit per SCAG’s Priority Growth Areas map and is within the TPA as defined in the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project would not substantially alter the Circulation Plan of the approved OCVIBE Project. The proposed elimination of the previously approved pedestrian bridge from Parking Deck C across South Douglass Road would not substantially increase safety hazards for pedestrians. This pedestrian bridge was originally intended to facilitate grade separated access between the existing ACC and proposed Signature Office Building and office tenant parking in Parking Deck C. However, with the proposed increase in residential units and decrease in office uses in Arena District Sub-Area D2, the need for a grade separated access from tenant parking in Parking Deck C to Arena District Sub-Area D2 is eliminated in Option 2 and reduced in Option 1 and Option 3. Should office uses be constructed on the east side of South Douglass Road with corresponding parking on the west side of South Douglass Road, office tenants in Arena District Sub-Area D would cross South Douglass Road at Stanley Cup Way at grade, unless an additional pedestrian crossing, either at grade or raised, is operationally warranted, subject to review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. Therefore, the Modified Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses.

Furthermore, the Modified Project would not introduce any incompatible uses within the OCVIBE Project Site. The Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in FSEIR No. 339 and its Addenda, including Addendum No. 11. No substantial change from the previous analysis would occur. d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? No Substantial Changes from Previous Analysis. As with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project is required to comply with all applicable fire code and ordinance requirements for emergency access. The Modified Project would be reviewed by the Anaheim Fire & Rescue prior to issuance of building permit to determine the specific fire requirements applicable to the specific development and to ensure compliance with these requirements. This would ensure that new developments would provide adequate emergency access to and from the Project Site. The Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 244 September 2024
identified in FSEIR No. 339 and its Addenda, including Addendum No. 11. No substantial change from the previous analysis would occur.

5.17.3 Applicable Mitigation Measures
The following measures from MMP No. 106C for FSEIR No. 339, as updated by MMP No. 383 for Addendum No. 11, are applicable to the Modified Project.

MM 9-1 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each building with commercial, office, and/or institutional uses, the property owners/developer shall record a covenant on the property requiring that ongoing during project implementation, the property owner/developer shall implement and administer a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for all employees. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office and proof of compliance with this requirement shall be the submittal of a copy of the recorded covenant to the City Traffic Engineer. Objectives of the TDM program shall be:
• Increase ridesharing and use of alternative transportation modes by guests. • Provide a menu of commute alternatives for employees to reduce project generated trips.
• Conduct an annual commuter survey to ascertain trip generation, trip origin, and Average Vehicle Ridership.

MM 9-2 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each building with commercial, office, or institutional uses, the property owner/developer shall provide to the City Traffic Engineer for review and approval a menu of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program strategies and elements for both existing and future employees’ commute options, to include, but not be limited to, the list below. The property owner/developer shall also record a covenant on the property requiring that the approved TDM strategies and elements be implemented ongoing during project operation. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation and proof of compliance with this requirement shall be the submittal of a copy of the recorded covenant to the City Traffic Engineer.
• On‐site services. Provide, as feasible and permitted, on-site services such as food, retail, and other services.
• Ridesharing. Develop a commuter listing of all employee members for the purpose of providing a “matching” of employees with other employees who live in the same geographic areas and who could rideshare.

Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 245 September 2024
• Vanpooling. Develop a commuter listing of all employees for the purpose of matching numbers of employees who live in geographic proximity to one another and could comprise a vanpool or participate in the existing vanpool programs. • Transit Pass. Orange County Transportation Authority and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (including commuter rail) passes be promoted through financial assistance and on‐site sales to encourage employees to use the various transit and bus services from throughout the region. • Shuttle Service. A commuter listing of all employees living in proximity to the project be generated, and a local shuttle program offered to encourage employees to travel to work by means other than the automobile. • Bicycling. A Bicycling Program be developed to offer a bicycling alternative to employees. Secure bicycle racks, lockers, and showers be provided as part of this program, Maps of bicycle routes throughout the area be provided to inform potential bicyclists of these options.
• Guaranteed Ride Home Program. A program to provide employees who rideshare, or use transit or other means of commuting to work, with a prearranged ride home in a taxi, rental car, shuttle, or other vehicle, in the event of emergencies during the work shift.
• Target Reduction of Longest Commute Trip. An incentive program for ridesharing and other alternative transportation modes to put highest priority on reduction of longest employee commute trips.
• Work Shifts. Stagger work shifts.
• Compressed Work Week. Develop a “compressed work week” program, which provides for fewer work days but longer daily shifts as an option for employees. • Telecommuting. Explore the possibility of a “telecommuting” program that would link some employees via electronic means (e.g., computer with modem). • Parking Management. Develop a parking management program that provides incentives to those who rideshare or use transit means other than single‐ occupant auto to travel to work.
• Access. Preferential access to high occupancy vehicles and shuttles may be provided.
• Financial Incentive for Ridesharing and/or Public Transit. Employees offered financial incentives for van pooling or using public transit including commuter rail and/or express bus pools.
• Financial Incentive for Bicycling. Employees offered financial incentives for bicycling to work.

Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 246 September 2024
• Special “Premium” for the Participation and Promotion of Trip Reduction.

Ticket/passes to special events, vacation, etc. be offered to employees who recruit other employees for vanpool, carpool, or other trip reduction programs. • Incentive Programs. Design incentive programs for carpooling and other alternative transportation modes so as to put highest priority on reduction of longest commute trips.

Every property owner and/or lessee shall designate an on‐site contact who will be responsible for coordinating with the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN) and implementing all trip mitigation measures. The on‐site coordinator shall be the one point of contact representing the project with the ATN. The TDM requirements shall be included in the lease or other agreement with all of the project participants.

MM 9-3 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each building with office and/or commercial uses, the property owner/developer shall join and financially participate in a clean fuel shuttle program, if established and, shall participate in the Anaheim Transportation Network/Transportation Management Association in conjunction with the on‐going operation of the project. Proof of compliance with this requirement shall be submitted by the Anaheim Transportation Network to the City Traffic Engineer. The property owner/ developer shall also record a covenant on the property that requires participation in the program ongoing during project operation.

The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation. Proof of compliance with this requirement shall be submitted by the Anaheim Transportation Network to the City Traffic Engineer.

MM 9-4 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for each building, the property owner/developer shall pay the appropriate Traffic Signal Assessment Fees, Traffic Impact and Improvement Fees, and Platinum Triangle Impact Fees to the City of Anaheim in amounts determined by the City Council Resolution in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit with credit given for City‐authorized improvements provided by the property owner/developer; and participate in all applicable reimbursement or benefit districts which have been established.

MM 9-5 Prior to final map recordation or issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall irrevocably offer for dedication (with subordination of easements), including necessary construction easements, the ultimate arterial highway right(s)‐of‐way adjacent to their property as shown in the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan and consistent with the adopted Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan.

Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 247 September 2024
MM 9-6 Prior to approval of a Development Agreement for any project forecast to generate 100 or more peak hour trips, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer utilizing Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model Trip Generation Rates, property owner/developers shall prepare traffic improvement phasing analyses to identify when the improvements identified in the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report, Parson Brinckerhoff, August 2010 (Appendix F of FSEIR No. 339) shall be designed and constructed. The Development Agreement Conditions of Approval shall require the property owner/developer to implement traffic improvements as identified in the project traffic study to maintain satisfactory levels of service as defined by the City’s General Plan, based on thresholds of significance, performance standards and methodologies utilized in FSEIR No. 339, Orange County Congestion Management Program and established in City of Anaheim Traffic Study Guidelines. The improvement phasing analyses will specify the timing, funding, construction and fair share responsibilities for all traffic improvements necessary to maintain satisfactory levels of service within the City of Anaheim and surrounding jurisdictions. The Development Agreement Conditions of Approval shall require the property owner/developer to construct, bond for or enter into a funding agreement for necessary circulation system improvements, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer, unless alternative funding sources have been identified.

MM 9-7 In conjunction with the preparation of any traffic improvement phasing analyses as required in Mitigation Measure 9-6, property owners/developers will analyze to determine when the intersection improvements shall be constructed, subject to the conditions identified in Mitigation Measure 9-6. The improvement phasing analyses will specify the timing, funding, construction and fairshare responsibilities for all traffic improvements necessary to maintain satisfactory levels of service within the City of Anaheim and surrounding jurisdictions. At minimum, fairshare calculations shall include intersection improvements, rightsof-way, and construction costs, unless alternative funding sources have been identified to help pay for the improvement.

The Development Agreement Conditions of Approval shall require the property owner/developer to construct, bond for or enter into a funding agreement for necessary circulation system improvements, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer, unless alternative funding sources have been identified.

MM 9-8 In conjunction with the preparation of any traffic improvement phasing analyses as required in Mitigation Measure 9-6, the following actions shall be taken in cooperation with the City of Orange:

Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 248 September 2024
a) The traffic improvement phasing analysis shall identify any impacts created by the project on facilities within the City of Orange. The fair-share percentage responsibility for mitigating these impacts shall be calculated in this analysis. b) The City of Anaheim shall estimate the cost of the project’s fair-share responsibility in cooperation with the City of Orange.
c) The Proposed Project shall pay the City of Anaheim the fair-share cost prior to issuance of a building permit. The City of Anaheim shall hold the amount received in trust, and then, once a mutually agreed upon joint program is executed by both cities, the City of Anaheim shall allocate the fair-share contribution to traffic mitigation programs that result in improved traffic flow at the impacted locations, via an agreement mutually acceptable to both cities. d) The City shall work with the City of Orange to amend the JCFA to ensure that fair share fees collected to mitigate arterial and intersection impacts in the City of Orange are mitigated to the extent feasible.

MM 9-9 In conjunction with the preparation of any traffic improvement phasing analyses as required in Mitigation Measure 9-6, and assuming that a regional transportation agency has not already programmed and funded the warranted improvements to the impacted freeway mainline or freeway ramp locations, property owners/developers and the City will take the following actions in cooperation with Caltrans:
a) The traffic study will identify the Project’s proportionate impact on the specific freeway mainline and/or freeway ramp locations and the Project’s fair share percentage responsibility for mitigating these impacts based on thresholds of significance, performance standards and methodologies utilized in FSEIR No. 339 and established in the Orange County Congestion Management Program and City of Anaheim Traffic Study Guidelines.
b) The City shall estimate the cost of the project’s fair‐share responsibility in cooperation with Caltrans.

MM 9-10 Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the property owner/developer shall pay the identified fair-share responsibility as determined by the City as set forth in Mitigation Measure 9‐9.

The City shall allocate the property owners/developers fair‐share contribution to traffic mitigation programs that result in improved traffic flow on the impacted mainline and ramp locations, via an agreement mutually acceptable to Caltrans and the City.

Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 249 September 2024
MM 9-11 Prior to final map recordation or issuance of the first building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall irrevocably offer for dedication (with subordination of easements), including necessary construction easements, the ultimate arterial highway right(s)‐of‐way adjacent to their property as shown in the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan and consistent with the adopted Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, regardless of the level of impacts generated by the project.

MM 9-13 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each building with office and/or commercial uses, the property owner/developer shall submit proof to the City Traffic Engineer that the property owner/developer has entered into an agreement with the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN) for the provision of a transit shuttle service between the project, and Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) as well as major activity centers in between. The agreement shall be recorded in the Official Records of the Office of the County Recorder, Orange County, California. The form of the agreement shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation. The agreement shall provide for the following:
a) A shuttle route plan, approved by the Public Works Department and ATN, shall be attached and incorporated into the agreement. The plan shall include co‐ location of stops with Orange County Transportation Authority bus stop locations and other properties in the Platinum Triangle where feasible and determined appropriate by the Public Works Department and ATN. The property owner/developer shall pay all costs associated with the preparation of the shuttle route plan.
b) The property owner/developer shall provide the full cost associated with providing the shuttle, including, but not limited to, purchasing the shuttle vehicle and all costs associated with operating and marketing the shuttle route. c) The agreement shall provide a mechanism for the property owner/developer to request fair share participation from other major activity centers to be served by this shuttle route. The mechanism shall be subject to the approval of the ATN. d) The agreement shall set forth a schedule for commencement of operation of the shuttle service.
e) The agreement shall provide that the property owner/developer's obligations to fund the shuttle service may be cancelled only upon prior written approval from the Public Works Department, once a new transit service has taken its place. f) That to the extent permitted by law the terms of this agreement shall constitute covenants which shall run with the property for the benefit thereof, and the Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 250 September 2024
benefits of this agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties and all successors in interest to the parties hereto.

MM 9-14 In conjunction with the preparation of any traffic improvement phasing analysis as required in Mitigation Measure 9‐6, property owners/developers will analyze to determine when the intersection improvements identified under Impact 5.9‐4 [as identified in FSEIR No. 339] shall be constructed, subject to the conditions identified in Mitigation Measure 9‐6.

MM 9-15 Prior to the approval of a Final Site Plan, the property owner/developer shall meet with the City Traffic Engineer to determine whether a bus stop(s) is required to be placed adjacent to the property. If a bus stop(s) is required, it shall be placed in a location that least impacts traffic flow and may be designed as a bus turnout or a far side bus stop as required by the City Traffic Engineer and per the approval of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA).

Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 251 September 2024

5.18 Tribal Cultural Resources

5.18.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis

5.18.1.1 FSEIR No. 339
FSEIR No. 339 did not analyze impacts related to Tribal Cultural Resources because they were not officially part of the CEQA Guidelines’ Appendix G checklist until October 26, 2016. FSEIR No. 339 was certified on October 26, 2010. Since the preparation of FSEIR No. 339, Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.3.1 was added to CEQA, which requires lead agencies to evaluate a project’s potential to impact “Tribal Cultural Resources.” Public Resources Code, Section 21074 states the “Tribal Cultural Resources” are either of the following:
(1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
(A)Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.
(B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.
(2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1.

In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

The analysis in FSEIR No. 332 and FSEIR No. 339 and Addenda found that implementation of the Platinum Triangle Project would not result in significant impacts to cultural, historic, or archaeological resources, and that development in the Platinum Triangle Project Area would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. In accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 18, the City sought consultation with the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Juaneño Band of Mission Indians – Acjachemen Nation, Gabrielino-Tongva Nation, Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe, and the Gabrielino-Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians on November 19, 2009. No response or request for consultation was received by the City of Anaheim as part of this process.

During preparation of Addendum No. 6 to FSEIR No. 339, which required a General Plan Amendment, additional consultation was required in compliance with SB 18 to ensure that potential impacts to cultural resources were adequately addressed. A letter offering consultation with Native American representatives was sent out by the City as lead agency. The City received a response from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – the Kizh Nation on February 9, 2016.

The Tribe requested that one of its Tribal monitors be on site during all ground-disturbing Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 252 September 2024
activities. The City agreed to include Tribal monitoring as a condition of approval for the projects in Platinum Triangle.

5.18.1.2 Addendum No. 11 to FSEIR No. 339
Addendum No. 11 indicated that according to the Cultural Phase I Assessment for the OCVIBE Project (APRMI 2022), the OCVIBE Project Site and the off-site improvement areas do not contain any historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code, Section 5020.1(k). As part of the Cultural Phase I Assessment for Addendum No. 11, a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and a Native American contacts list for the Project Site was requested from the Native American Heritage Commission on January 8, 2021. The SLF search result was negative. The City also contacted Tribes as required under Senate Bill 18 (Government Code Section 65352.3), and consequently consulted with the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Kizh Nation) in October 2021. The Kizh Nation requested that a Tribal monitor from or approved by Kizh Nation be on-site during all ground-disturbing activities, and the City has agreed to include it as a condition of approval.

Although Tribal Cultural Resources was not a specific CEQA topic at the time of preparation of the City Prior EIRs, the potential for Tribal Cultural Resources was analyzed as part of the analysis of cultural resources in the previous CEQA analysis and impacts were found to be less than significant. However, the City agreed to include Tribal monitor as a condition of approval.

Addendum No. 11 identified applicable existing regulations and include Tribal monitoring as a condition of approval for the OCVIBE Project. Therefore, Addendum No. 11 determined that the OCVIBE Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in FSEIR No. 339. No substantial change from the previous analysis was identified.

Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 253 September 2024

5.18.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
Would the project:

New
Significant
Impact
More Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous
Analysis
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in
Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project Site is within the approved OCVIBE Project Site, therefore, no changes to the determination from Addendum No. 11 would result from the Modified Project implementation. According to the Cultural Phase I Assessment for the OCVIBE Project (APRMI 2022), there are no listed or eligible historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code, Section 5020.1(k) within the OCVIBE Project Site, including Transit District Sub-Area B and Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in FSEIR No. 339 and its Addenda, including Addendum No. 11. No substantial changes from the previous analysis would occur.

Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 254 September 2024
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. PRC Section 21080.3.1(a) requires the lead agency to begin consultation with any California Native American Tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project prior to the release of a “negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report.” An Addendum is not subject to the Tribal consultation requirements under Public Resources Code, Section 21080.3.1.

No Tribal consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 is warranted.

The Project Site is within the approved OCVIBE Project Site, therefore, no changes from the determination from Addendum No. 11 would result from the Modified Project implementation related to Tribal Cultural Resources. However, because the Modified Project would require a General Plan amendment, triggering compliance with requirements of Senate Bill (SB) 18 (Government Code Section 65352.3) to contact, provide notice to, refer plans to, and consult with Tribes prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan, the City, as lead agency, sent consultation notification letter on May 6, 2024, to all tribes on the NAHC contact list for the approved OCVIBE Project in 2021 as part of Addendum No. 11. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3(a)(2), the 90-day consultation request period ended on August 3, 2024. Three tribes, Brandy Salas, Admin Specialist of Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation; Christina Conley, Cultural Resource Administrator Under Tribal Chair, Robert Dorame of the Gabrielino-Tongva Indians of California; and Joyce Stanfield Perry, Cultural Resource Director of Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation, responded within the 90-day period.

The City contacted Ms. Salas, Ms. Conley and Ms. Perry for consultation. The consultation occurred via email and they each requested that a Tribal monitor from or approved by their Tribal monitor be on-site during all ground-disturbing activities. Since multiple tribes have requested monitoring during ground-disturbing activities, it is anticipated that a lead tribal monitor will be identified in coordination with these tribes and will act as the primary point of contact and coordinator for all tribes involved. In cases where disputes arise in selecting the lead tribal monitor, the NAHC will assist in mediating and resolving conflicts between the tribes. Although providing a Tribal monitor is not a mitigation measure required for this Addendum because no significant impacts were identified, as with the approved OCVIBE Project, the City has agreed to include it as a condition of approval. As discussed in Section 5.5.1, Cultural Resources, the OCVIBE Project Site, including the Project Site, does not contain any historical resources that meet the National Register of Historic Places criteria as identified in subsection (c) of PRC Section 5024.1. While there is a potential for discovery of a tribal cultural resource during ground-disturbing activities, the potential for the resource to meet any of the four National Register of Historic Places criteria Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 255 September 2024
and to be listed as an historical resource in the California Register is minimal, and impacts to TCR would be less than significant.

As with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project is required to comply with the existing regulations as identified above. Tribal monitoring was incorporated as a condition of approval for the approved OCVIBE Project, and the Modified Project would continue to provide Tribal monitor during earth-disturbing activities. The Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in FSEIR No. 339 and its Addenda, including Addendum No. 11. No substantial change from the previous analysis would occur.

5.18.3 Applicable Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to Tribal Cultural Resources were required by the previous analysis.

Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 256 September 2024

5.19 Utilities and Service Systems

5.19.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis

5.19.1.1 FSEIR No. 339
FSEIR No. 339 analyzed impacts to utilities and service systems including wastewater treatment, water supply, storm drainage, solid waste, electricity, natural gas, and communications. FSEIR No. 339 concluded that the potential impacts to public utilities and services could be mitigated to a level of insignificance.

Wastewater Treatment and Collection
According to FSEIR No. 339, the Platinum Triangle is served by the City of Anaheim’s local sanitary sewer collection system, which is a tributary to the OCSD, District 2. Wastewater from the City sewer system is conveyed to OCSD’s trunk and interceptor sewers to regional treatment and disposal facilities. The Platinum Triangle is served by the Newhope‐Placentia Trunk (State College Avenue), the Olive Subtrunk, the Orangewood Diversion Sewer, and the Santa Ana River Interceptor line.

It was determined in FSEIR No. 339 that the PT Expansion Project would require sewer improvements to accommodate project buildout. With implementation of these improvements, the sewer system, including sewer treatment, was anticipated to accommodate development within the Platinum Triangle based on future buildout conditions. With implementation of the Mitigation Measures 10-1 through 10-6 in FSEIR No. 339, no significant unavoidable impacts were identified. Further, it was determined that the potential for sewer spills during a ten‐year storm event would be low and would not represent a significant impact. Implementation of the PT Expansion Project did not result in any new significant impacts and no additional mitigation measures were required.

Water Supply and Distribution Systems
According to FSEIR No. 339, the APUD, Water Division, provides water service to the Platinum Triangle. Typically, the City pumps most (over 60 percent) of its drinking water from local groundwater basins and purchases the remainder from the Metropolitan Water District. The Metropolitan Water District contracts for delivery of water from the State Water Project and the Colorado River. A Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared for FSEIR No. 339 in 2009, concluding that buildout of the PT Expansion Project would result in a total water demand of 5,249 acre‐feet per year, an increase of 1,804 acre‐feet per year from the WSA prepared in 2005 for FSEIR No. 332, which was included in the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The 2009 WSA concluded that using 2005 UWMP, there would be surplus water through the 20‐year planning period and there were adequate water supplies to meet the water demand created by the PT Expansion Project. Rule 15‐D of Anaheim’s Water Rules, Rates and Regulations (Plan No. W‐ Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 257 September 2024
2523 and W-2524) specifies the water facility improvements required to accommodate the projected land use water demands within the City, including the Platinum Triangle. FSEIR No. 339 concluded that water facilities improvements under Rule 15‐D of the City’s Water Rules, Rates, and Regulations would ensure that adequate water facilities are provided to serve the Platinum Triangle. According to FSEIR No. 339, compliance with Rule 15‐D, as required by Mitigation Measure 10-10, would ensure that adequate water facilities are provided to serve the PT Expansion Project. The City has updated Rule 15-D to account for the required new water facilities for the PT Expansion Project’s projected demand. Rule 15-D requires Drawing Nos. W2523 and W-2524 for the Platinum Triangle to be revised periodically to reflect adjusted gross floor area, actual cost of facilities in place, and current cost estimates. FSEIR No. 339 required the PT Expansion Project to incorporate Mitigation Measures 10-7 through 10-16 to reduce water demand and provide adequate water distribution system, and impacts related to water supply and distribution system were determined to be less than significant.

Storm Drains
According to FSEIR No. 339, the Master Plan of Storm Drainage for East Garden Grove‐ Wintersburg Channel Tributary Area (prepared in January 2006) identified that the storm drainage system was deficient under the existing conditions in the Platinum Triangle at the time FSEIR No. 339 was prepared. Therefore, Mitigation Measure 10-17 (modified from Mitigation Measure 5.5- 3 from FSEIR No. 332) was incorporated, which required specific projects to be evaluated by the City Engineer to determine if they are located within an area served by deficient drainage facilities as identified in the appropriate drainage study, and if it is determined that projects will increase stormwater flows beyond those programmed in the appropriate master plan drainage study for the area or if the project currently discharges to an existing deficient storm drain system or will create a deficiency in an existing storm drain, then the property owner/developer is required to guarantee mitigation of the impact to adequately serve the area to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney’s Office. Mitigation Measure 10-17 also required the property owner/developer to participate in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program, if adopted for the Project Area, as determined by the City Engineer, which could include fees, credits, reimbursements, construction, or a combination thereof. FSEIR No. 339 concluded that with implementation of Mitigation Measure 10-17, impacts to storm water drainage would be less than significant.

Solid Waste
According to FSEIR No. 339, the Olinda Alpha Landfill is the closest facility to the Platinum Triangle and would be the solid waste facility most often receiving waste from the Platinum Triangle. Implementation of the PTMLUP and PTMU Overlay Zone would increase the service demand for solid waste disposal beyond existing conditions and would provide more solid waste to the Olinda Alpha Landfill. The analysis in FSEIR No. 339 concluded that there would be available landfill capacity in the Orange County landfill system to accommodate the anticipated Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 258 September 2024
solid waste stream generated by implementation of the PTMLUP, including both project‐related solid waste generation and cumulative development solid waste. FSEIR No. 339 found impacts associated with landfill capacity to be less than significant with the incorporation of FSEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 10‐18 through 10‐20.

Mitigation Measure 10-18 required each development project in the Platinum Triangle to submit project plans to the Streets and Sanitation Division of the Public Works Department for review and approval to ensure that the plans comply with AB 939, SB 1383 related to reducing organic waste in landfill, the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989, and the County of Orange and City of Anaheim Integrated Waste Management Plans, as administered by the City of Anaheim.

Mitigation Measure 10-19 required future development projects within the Platinum Triangle to implement recycling and diversion programs and Mitigation Measure 10-20 required the property owner/developer to submit a Demolition and Import/Export Plans, if determined by the City’s Public Works Department, that include identification of off-site locations for material export from the project and options for disposal of excess material. Therefore, FSEIR No. 339 determined that impacts to solid waste would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.

Electricity
According to FSEIR No. 339, the APUD, Electrical Division provides electricity to Anaheim’s citizens and businesses. Implementation of the PTMLUP under the PT Expansion Project, would increase the electrical load on existing facilities. A number of electric utility improvements were identified at the time FSEIR No. 339 was prepared. Those improvements were either in the planning stages or would be required in the future to serve the Platinum Triangle development, including a new electrical substation. This electrical substation is planned to be located in the Platinum Triangle, east of the I-5 Freeway and north of Orangewood Avenue at 1050 East Stanford Court, and is anticipated to be constructed as electrical load is needed to serve future uses. It will have similar electrical facilities as other city substations, including the recently opened substation in The Anaheim Resort. In addition, plans for each project would be required to comply with the State Energy Efficiency Standards (CCR Title 24), as specified in Mitigation Measures 10-21, 10- 22, and 10-24, which set forth standards and requirements for energy efficiency. The APUD determined, assuming all identified improvements are implemented, that project‐related impacts resulting from the implementation of the PTMLUP and PTMU Overlay Zone would be within the expansion capabilities of the existing service and such expansion would not be detrimental to the environment. The necessary improvements were identified in Mitigation Measures 10-23, 10-25, and 10-26. FSEIR No. 339 concluded that impact on electrical service would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.

Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 259 September 2024
Natural Gas
The Southern California Gas Company (SCG) provides natural gas service in the City of Anaheim and has facilities throughout the City, including the Platinum Triangle. FSEIR No. 339 states that the PT Expansion Project would increase the natural gas demand in the Platinum Triangle and would require an additional 1.5 miles of gas transmission pipelines; placement of at least two additional pressure limiting stations; and alteration of at least 3 miles of existing gas mains in the area to increase capacity. With necessary system upgrades and facility improvements, SCG would be able to service the Platinum Triangle with natural gas, which would be provided in accordance with SCG’s policies and extension rules on file with the Public Utilities Commission when the contractual arrangements are made. Although the PT Expansion Project was found to create additional demands on natural gas supplies and distribution infrastructure, the increased demands were within the service capabilities of SCG, provided necessary improvements were made in coordination with SCG as required by Mitigation Measure 10-27. FSEIR No. 339 found that implementation of the PTMLUP would not result in any unavoidable adverse impacts to natural gas service or resources with mitigation.

Communications
AT&T and Time‐Warner provide telephone and cable television service to the Platinum Triangle, respectively. According to FSEIR No. 339, no impacts related to telephone service systems or cable television service were identified through the Initial Study process. Consequently, FSEIR No. 339 did not contain any specific analysis related to telephone service systems or cable television service.

5.19.1.2 Addendum No. 11 to FSEIR No. 339
Water
Addendum No. 11 used the Water Supply Verification technical memorandum prepared by Psomas in 2022 (2022 WSV) to determine that the City of Anaheim has an adequate water supply available to serve the OCVIBE Project and other projected systemwide water demands now and 20 years into the future, satisfying the requirements of California State Senate Bill (SB) 221. A Water Supply Assessment satisfying the requirements of SB 610 was prepared dated September 2009 (2009 WSA) as part of the Certification of FSEIR No. 339 in October 2010. The 2022 WSV estimated water demands for the OCVIBE and compared it to what was included in 2009 WSA for the overall Platinum Triangle. The result of the 2022 WSV is shown in Table 35, Addendum No. 11 Net Water Demand Difference. As shown in Table 35, the OCVIBE Project would result in a net decrease of 203,329 gallons per day (gpd) compared to the 2009 WSA prepared as part of FSEIR No. 339. Therefore, Addendum No. 11 concluded that the OCVIBE Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in FSEIR No. 339.

No substantial change from the previous analysis was identified.

Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 260 September 2024
Table 35. Addendum No. 11 Net Water Demand Difference
Land Use
Project Analyzed
in FSEIR No. 339
Addendum No.
11 Difference from
FSEIR No. 339
Water Demand
Factor
Water Demand
Difference (gpd)
Residential 18,909 DU 18,056 (-853) DU 105 gpd/unit (-89,565) Commercial 4,909,682 SF 6,195,019 SF 1,285,337 SF 95 gpd/ksf 122,107 Office 14,340,522 SF 11,659,338 SF (-2,681,184) SF 60 gpd/ksf (-160,871)) Institutional 1,500,000 SF 250,000 SF (-1,250,000) SF 60 gpd/ksf (-75,000) Net Difference (-203,329)
Source: Psomas 2022a.

Notes: DU = dwelling unit; gpd = gallons per day; ksf = thousand square feet; SF = square feet Wastewater
Addendum No. 11 determined that there is more commercial square footage with implementation of the OCVIBE Project, but all other land use categories are lower in intensity than analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. Therefore, as shown in Table 36, Addendum No. 11 Wastewater Demand Difference, there would be a net decrease of 601,632 GPD in water demand with the Modified Project compared to what was previously analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. Mitigation Measures 10-1 through 10-7 related to sanitary sewers were found to be applicable, and Addendum No. 11 determined that the OCVIBE Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in FSEIR No. 339. No substantial change from the previous analysis was identified.

Table 36. Addendum No. 11 Wastewater Demand Difference
Land Use
Change Resulting from
Addendum No. 11 Compared
to FSEIR No. 339 Wastewater Demand Factor1
Wastewater Demand
Difference (gpd)
Residential (-853) DU 150 gpd/DU (-127,950)
Commercial 1,285,337 SF 182 gpd/ksf 233,931
Office (-2,681,184) SF 180 gpd/ksf (-482,613)
Institutional (-1,250,000) SF 180 gpd/ksf (-225,000)
Net Difference (-601,632)
Source: Psomas 2022b.

Notes: DU = dwelling unit; gpd = gallons per day; ksf = thousand square feet; SF = square feet 1 Wastewater generation factors were obtained from FSEIR No. 339 and Addenda and the SCEA.

Solid Waste
Addendum No. 11 stated that although the OCVIBE Project would increase commercial square footage with the PTMLUP, all other land use categories would be lower in intensity than analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. As a result, there would be a net decrease of 17,653 lbs/day or 8.82 tons/day of solid waste volume with the OCVIBE Project compared to what was previously analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. As with the PT Expansion Project, it was determined that impacts associated with solid waste statutes and regulations would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures 10-18, 10-19, and 10-20 from FSEIR No. 339. Therefore, the Modified Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 261 September 2024
Project would not increase the demand for solid waste from what was considered in FSEIR No. 339 and would not result in substantial changes from the previous analysis.

Natural Gas and Electricity
Addendum No. 11 stated that natural gas and electricity services within the OCVIBE Project Site would be provided in accordance with SoCal Gas and APUD’s policies and provision rules, respectively. Furthermore, the OCVIBE Project would be required to comply with the California Building Energy and Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) and California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) (Title 24, Part 11), Chapter 5, Nonresidential Mandatory Measures, Division 5.3, Water Efficiency and Conservation; Chapter 4, Residential Mandatory Measures, Division 4.3, Water Efficiency and Conservation; and Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (24 CCR Part 6). Therefore, it was determined that the OCVIBE Project would not substantially increase utilities impacts greater than analyzed in FSEIR No. 339.

5.19.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
The analysis in this section is based in part on the following:
• Technical Memorandum, ocV!BE Amendment No. 1 Water Supply Verification, Psomas, April 4, 2024 (Appendix I)
• Technical Memorandum, Sewer Study Update – ocV!BE including Amendment No. 1, Psomas, May 3, 2024 (Appendix J)
Would the project:

New
Significant
Impact
More Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous
Analysis
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas,
or telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 262 September 2024
Would the project:

New
Significant
Impact
More Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous
Analysis
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As shown in Section 5.14, Population and Housing, Table 30, the Modified Project would result in a net decrease in residential population and jobs associated with non-residential development in the Platinum Triangle compared to those analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. As discussed in Sections 5.19.2(b) and 5.19.2(c), the Modified Project would result in less water demand and wastewater generation compared to the analysis in FSEIR No. 339. As with the PT Expansion Project, the Modified Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures 10-1 through 10-15 from FSEIR No. 339 to reduce impacts related to water and sewer infrastructure, and Mitigation Measure

5.5-3 from FSEIR No. 332 related to stormwater drainage infrastructure. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in greater impacts related to water, wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage impacts compared to the PT Expansion Project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339.

As with the PT Expansion Project, natural gas and electricity services on the Project Site would be provided in accordance with SoCal Gas and APUD’s policies and provision rules, respectively; and comply with the California Building Energy and Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) and California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) (Title 24, Part 11), Chapter 5, Nonresidential Mandatory Measures, Division 5.3, Water Efficiency and Conservation; Chapter 4, Residential Mandatory Measures, Division 4.3, Water Efficiency and Conservation; and Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (24 CCR Part 6). Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in FSEIR No. 339 and its Addenda, including Addendum No. 11. No substantial change from the previous analysis would occur. b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 263 September 2024
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The OCVIBE Amendment No. 1 Water Supply Verification technical memorandum (2024 WSV) was prepared by Psomas (2024a Psomas) (Appendix I to this Addendum). The 2024 WSV is based on the Water Supply Assessment prepared in September 2009 to satisfy the requirements of SB 610 for the PT Expansion Project.

The 2024 WSV documented that the City of Anaheim has an adequate water supply available to serve the Modified Project and other projected systemwide water demands now and 20 years into the future, satisfying the requirements of California State Senate Bill (SB) 221.

There are three residential options included in the Modified Project within the boundaries of the Arena District Sub-Area D2. Water demand differences from the three options are shown in Table 37, Modified Project Land Use and Water Demand Differences. As shown in Table 37, the three land use options would result in a net increase of from a low of 25,238 gpd (Option 3) to a high of 42,188 gpd (Option 1). Since the previous 2022 WSV for the approved OCVIBE Project showed a net surplus of 203,329 gpd as shown in Table 37, even the highest increase for the Modified Project still shows a net surplus of at least 161,141 gpd (203,329 gpd minus 42,188 gpd).

Therefore, the conclusions reached in the adopted 2009 WSA remain valid related to the overall demands within the Platinum Triangle, and the Modified Project would not result in greater water demands impacts compared to analysis contained in FSEIR No. 339. FSEIR No. 339 found water supply impacts to be less than significant, and changes from the Modified Project would not exceed the total water demand addressed by FSEIR No. 339. Therefore, no new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in FSEIR No. 339 would occur.

Table 37. Modified Project Land Use and Water Demand Differences Land Use
Change Resulting from
Modified Project Demand Factor Demand Difference (gpd)
Option 1
Residential 750 105 gpd/DU 78,750
Commercial 0 95 gpd/DU
Office (609,375) 60 gpd/DU (36,563)
Net Water Demand Difference 42,188
Option 2
Residential 650 105 gpd/DU 70,875
Commercial 0 95 gpd/DU
Office (709,375) 60 gpd/DU (42,563)
Net Water Demand Difference 28,313
Option 3
Residential 460 105 gpd/DU 48,300
Commercial 0 95 gpd/DU
Office (384,375) 60 gpd/DU (23,063)
Net Water Demand Difference 25,238
Source: Psomas 2024a
Notes: DU = dwelling units; gpd = gallons per day
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 264 September 2024
The 2024 WSV also reviewed the current water supply condition compared to that of the 2009 WSA. The City’s 2020 UWMP sets forth water demand projections including all previously approved projects out to the year 2045. The City’s 2020 UWMP concludes the City has adequate water supply for normal, dry, and multiple dry years over this period. This conclusion is based on the reliability of water supply from the Orange County Basin, imported water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and recycled water. Because the Modified Project is still within the water demand projections evaluated in the 2009 WSA, it would not increase the water demands considered by the 2020 UWMP, and there would be sufficient water supplies to serve the Modified Project during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. The Modified Project would not result in new significant impact or increase the severity of previously identified water demand and supply impacts compared to impacts identified in FSEIR No. 339. No substantial change from the previous analysis would occur, and no major revisions to FSEIR No. 339 are required due to the presence of new significant impacts.
c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No Substantial Changes from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project under Option 1 has the highest residential dwelling unit count, and would generate the highest water demand, thereby also would generate the highest sewage volume. As shown in Table 38, Modified Project Wastewater Demand Difference, the Modified Project under Option 1 would result in an increase of 2,812 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater compared to the approved OCVIBE Project. However, as discussed previously under Section 5.19.1, Addendum No. 11 determined that the approved OCVIBE Project would result in a net decrease of 601,632 gpd compared to what was previously analyzed in FSEIR No. 339.

Therefore, even with an increase of 2,812 gpd, the Modified Project would not result in greater water demands impacts compared to analysis contained in FSEIR No. 339. As shown in Table 38, Options 2 and 3 would result in decreased wastewater demand compared to the Approved OCVIBE Project, resulting in a net decrease of 30,187 gpd and 187 gpd under Options 2 and 3, respectively. The Modified Project would not exceed the wastewater demand addressed in FSEIR No. 339.

Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 265 September 2024
Table 38. Modified Project Wastewater Demand Difference Land Use
Change Resulting from
Addendum No. 11 Compared
to FSEIR No. 13 Wastewater Demand Factor1
Wastewater Demand
Difference (gpd)
Option 1
Residential 750 150 gpd/DU 112,500.00
Commercial 0 182 gpd/ksf 0
Office (-609,375) 180 gpd/ksf (-109,687.50)
Net Difference 2,812.50
Option 2
Residential 650 150 gpd/DU 97,500.00
Commercial 0 182 gpd/ksf 0
Office (-709,375) 180 gpd/ksf (-127,687.50)
Net Difference (30,187.50)
Option 3
Residential 460 150 gpd/DU 69,000.00
Commercial 0 182 gpd/ksf 0
Office (-384,375) 180 gpd/ksf (-69,187.50)
Net Difference (187.50)
1 Wastewater generation factors were obtained from FSEIR No. 339.

Notes: DU = dwelling unit; SF = square feet; gpd = gallons per day; ksf = thousand square feet Furthermore, the Sewer Study Update for the Modified Project (included in Appendix J, Sewer Study Update, to this Addendum) conducted sewer systems modeling using Option 1 for the Arena Sub-Areas D2 as Option 1 would generate the highest wastewater volume (Psomas 2024b). The sewer model output provided recommended sewer system showing pipe reaches, invert elevations, diameters, maximum (peak) flow, maximum velocity, and maximum depth-to-Diameter (d/D) ratios. FSEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measure 10-4 requires the property owner/developer to install the sanitary sewer facilities to prevent sewer spills based on the latest updated sewer study for the Platinum Triangle. Consistent with Mitigation Measure 10-4 and as with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Applicant would be required to design the sewer system to provide adequate sewer capacity based on the model output. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create new impact or increase the severity of previously identified impact in FSEIR No. 339. No substantial change from the previous analysis would occur, and no major revisions to FSEIR No. 339 are required due to the presence of new significant impacts.
d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? No Substantial Changes from Previous Analysis. As shown in Table 39, Modified Project Solid Waste Demand Difference, the Modified Project would result in a net decrease ranging from 44.8 tons/day to 46 tons/day of solid waste volume compared to what was previously analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. Additionally, during construction, the Modified Project would be required to submit project Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 266 September 2024
plans and demolition and import/export plans to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division, for review and approval to ensure that the plans comply with AB 939, SB 1383 requiring organics to be separated from solid waste (trash and recycling) to reducing organic waste in landfill, and the County of Orange and City of Anaheim Integrated Waste Management Plans as administered by the City of Anaheim (Mitigation Measures 10-18 and 10-20 from FSEIR No. 339). Trash and recycling will be separated at the source with separate trash and recycling bins and compactors for storage and pick-up. The Applicant has prepared an amendment to the approved Master Solid Waste Management Plan for the OCVIBE Project to ensure that the Modified Project complies with AB 939 and SB 1383 (Hunsaker & Associates 2024). Impacts associated with solid waste statutes and regulations would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures 10-18, 10-19, and 10-20 from FSEIR No. 339. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in FSEIR No. 339 and its Addenda, including Addendum No. 11. No substantial changes from the previous analysis would occur.

Table 39. Modified Project Solid Waste Demand Difference Land Use
Analyzed in
FSEIR No.
339
Modified
Project
Change
Resulting
from
Modified
Project
Solid Waste
Generation
Factor1 Solid Waste Demand Difference
Residential 18,909 DU 18,476 DU (-433) DU 90
lbs/unit/week
(-38,970) lbs/week or (-5,567) lbs/day
or (-2.78) tons/day
Commercial 4,909,682 SF 6,195,019 SF 1,285,337 0.046
lbs/SF/day 59,126 lbs/day or 29.56 tons/day
Office 14,478,356
SF
7,182,427 SF to
7,407,427 SF
(7,295,929
SF) to
(7,070,929)
1 lb/100
SF/day
(-72,959) lbs/day or (-36.5) tons/day to
(-70,709) lbs/day or (-35.4) tons/day
Institutional 1,500,000 SF 250,000 SF (-1,250,000) 3.12 lbs/100 SF/day (-39,000) lbs/day or (-19.5) tons/day
Net Difference (-91,804) lbs/day or (-46) tons to
(-89,554) lbs/day or (-44.8) tons/day
Notes: DU = dwelling unit; lb = pound; SF = square feet 1 Generation factors are based on the FSEIR No. 339.
e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Substantial Changes from Previous Analysis. As with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project would comply with applicable federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. As required by FSEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 10-18 and 10- 20, during construction, the Modified Project would be required to submit Project plans and Demolition and Import/Export Plans to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division, for review and approval to ensure that the plans comply with AB 939, SB 1383, the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989, and the County of Orange and City of Anaheim Integrated Waste Management Plans as administered by the City of Anaheim. The Project Applicant prepared an Amendment No. 1 Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 267 September 2024
to the OCVIBE Master Solid Waste Management Plan that was approved in June 2022, and as with the approved OCVIBE Project, would be required comply with it.

Impacts associated with solid waste statutes and regulations would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures 10-18 and 10-20 from FSEIR No. 339.

As discussed in Section 5.19.2(d), the Modified Project would result in a net reduction in solid waste, and therefore would not create new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in FSEIR No. 339 and its Addenda, including Addendum No. 11. No substantial change from the previous analysis would occur.

5.19.3 Applicable Mitigation Measures
The following measures from MMP No. 106C for FSEIR No. 339, as updated by MMP No. 383 for Addendum No. 11, are applicable to the Modified Project.

MM 10-1 The City of Anaheim Engineering Division shall review the location of each project to determine if it is located within an area served by deficient sewer facilities, as identified in the latest updated sewer study for the Platinum Triangle.

If the project will increase sewer flows beyond those programmed in the appropriate master plan sewer study for the area or if the project currently discharges to an existing deficient sewer system or will create a deficiency in an existing sewer line, the property owner/developer shall be required to guarantee mitigation of the impact to adequately serve the area to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney’s Office. Prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a grading or building permit for each development project, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall be required to install the sanitary sewer facilities, as required by the City Engineer, to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development based upon the latest updated sewer study for the Platinum Triangle. Additionally, the property owner/developer shall participate in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program, if adopted for the project area, as determined by the City Engineer, which could include fees, credits, reimbursements, construction, or a combination thereof.

MM 10-2 Prior to the approval and ongoing during construction of any street improvement plans within the Platinum Triangle, which encompass area(s) where Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) will be upsizing trunk lines and/or are making other improvements, the City and/or property owner/developer shall coordinate with the OCSD to ensure that all improvements and construction schedules are coordinated.

MM 10-3 Prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a grading or building permit for each development project, whichever occurs first, the property Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 268 September 2024
owner/developer shall contact Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) regarding sewer capacity. Additionally, if requested by the OCSD, the property owner/developer shall place up to three flow monitoring devices for up to a month to verify capacity and ensure consistency with the OCSD’s modeling results.

MM 10-4 Prior to approval of sanitary sewer connections for each development project, the property owner/developer shall be required to install the sanitary sewer facilities, as required by the City Engineer, to prevent the sewer spill for below-grade structures of the proposed development based upon the latest updated sewer study for the Platinum Triangle. Where requested by the City Engineer, sewer improvements shall be constructed with larger than recommended diameter to maintain the surcharge levels within the pipe and the invert elevation of sewer laterals shall be located above the hydraulic grade line elevation of the surcharge levels when they are above the pipe crown.

MM 10-5 Prior to the approval and ongoing during construction of any street improvement plans within the Platinum Triangle, which encompass area(s) where Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) will be upsizing trunk lines and/or are making other improvements, the City and/or property owner shall coordinate with OCSD to ensure that backflow prevention devices are installed by OCSD at the lateral connections to prevent surcharge flow from entering private properties.

MM 10-6 Prior to final design approval, additional analysis shall be performed and provided for each individual project using flow, wet-weather data, and other information specific for that project in order to obtain more accurate results of the surcharge levels for final design.

MM 10-7 Prior to issuance of a building permit, submitted landscape plans shall demonstrate compliance with the City of Anaheim adopted Landscape Water Efficiency Guidelines. This ordinance is in compliance with the State of California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (AB 1881).

Among the measures to be implemented with the project are the following:
• Use of water-conserving landscape plant materials wherever feasible; • Use of vacuums and other equipment to reduce the use of water for wash down of exterior areas;
• Low-flow fittings, fixtures and equipment including low flush toilets and urinals; • Use of self-closing valves for drinking fountains;
• Use of efficient irrigation systems such as drip irrigation and automatic systems which use moisture sensors;
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 269 September 2024
• Infrared sensors on sinks, toilets and urinals;
• Low-flow shower heads in hotels;
• Infrared sensors on drinking fountains;
• Use of irrigation systems primarily at night, when evaporation rates are lowest; • Water-efficient ice machines, dishwashers, clothes washers, and other water using appliances;
• Cooling tower recirculating system;
• Use of low-flow sprinkler heads in irrigation system; • Use of waterway recirculation systems;
• Provide information to the public in conspicuous places regarding water conservation; and
• Use of reclaimed water for irrigation and washdown when it becomes available.

In conjunction with submittal of landscape and building plans, the applicant shall identify which of these measures have been incorporated into the plans.

MM 10-8 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall provide engineering studies, including network analysis, to size the water mains for ultimate development within the project site. This includes detailed water usage analysis and building plans for Public Utilities Water Engineering reviews and approval in determining project water requirements and appropriate water assessment fees.

MM 10-9 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall indicate on plans installation of a separate irrigation meter when the total landscaped area exceeds 2,500 square feet. (City of Anaheim Water Conservation Measures)
MM 10-10 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit or grading permit following certification of SEIR No. 339, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall comply with Rule 15D of the Water Utilities Rates, Rules, and Regulations.

MM 10-11 Ongoing, the City of Anaheim shall continue to collaborate with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, its member agencies, and Orange County Water District to ensure that available water supplies meet anticipated demand. If it is forecast that water demand exceeds available supplies, the City shall trigger application of its Water Conservation Ordinance, Municipal Code Section 10.18, as prescribed, to require mandatory conservation measures as authorized by Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 270 September 2024
Section 10.18.070 through 10.18.090, as appropriate. The project applicant shall be subject to this requirement if enacted by the City.

MM 10-12 Prior to issuance of a building permit, submitted landscape plans for all residential, office and commercial landscaping shall demonstrate the use of drought tolerant plant materials pursuant to the publication entitled “Water Use Efficiency of Landscape Species” by the U.C. Cooperative Extension, August 2000.

MM 10-13 Prior to issuance of a building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall indicate on plans water efficient design features including, but not limited to (as applicable to the type of development at issue) waterless water heaters, waterless urinals, automatic on and off water faucets, and water efficient appliances.

MM 10-14 Prior to issuance of a building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall indicate on plans installation of a separate irrigation lines for recycled water. All irrigation systems shall be designed so that they will function properly with recycled water.

MM 10-15 Prior to approval of a project that exceeds the statutory thresholds set forth in SB 610 and SB 221, the applicant shall demonstrate to the City that adequate water supply exists to serve the Proposed Project. If it cannot be demonstrated that adequate water exists to serve the specific project, the project shall not be approved.

MM 10-16 Drawing Nos. W-2523 and W-2524 of Water Rule 15-D shall be revised periodically to reflect adjusted gross floor area, actual cost of facilities in place, and current cost estimates.

MM 10-17 Prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the City Engineer shall review the location of each project to determine if it is located within an area served by deficient drainage facilities, as identified in the Master Plan of Storm Drainage for East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel Tributary Area. If the project will increase stormwater flows beyond those programmed in the appropriate master plan drainage study for the area or if the project currently discharges to an existing deficient storm drain system or will create a deficiency in an existing storm drain, the property owner/developer shall be required to guarantee mitigation of the impact to adequately serve the area to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney’s Office. The property owner/developer shall be required to install the drainage facilities, as required by the City Engineer to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development based upon the Development Mitigation within Benefit Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 271 September 2024
Zones of the Master Plan of Storm Drainage for East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel Tributary Area, prior to acceptance for maintenance of public improvements by the City or final Building and Zoning inspection for the building/ structure, whichever occurs first. Additionally, the property owner/developer shall participate in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program, if adopted for the Project Area, as determined by the City Engineer, which could include fees, credits, reimbursements, construction, or a combination thereof.

MM 10-18 Prior to the final building and zoning inspections of each development, the property owner/developer shall submit project plans to the Streets and Sanitation Division of the Public Works Department for review and approval to ensure that the plans comply with AB939, SB 1383 related to reducing organic waste in landfill, the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989, and the County of Orange and City of Anaheim Integrated Waste Management Plans as administered by the City of Anaheim. Implementation of said plan shall commence upon occupancy and shall remain in full effect as required by the Street and Sanitation Division and may include, at its discretion, the following plan components:
• Detailing the locations and design of on-site recycling facilities. • Participating in the City of Anaheim’s “Recycle Anaheim” program or other substitute program as may be developed by the City or governing agency. • Facilitating cardboard recycling (especially in retail areas) by providing adequate space and centralized locations for collection and bailing. • Providing trash compactors for nonrecyclable materials whenever feasible to reduce the total volume of solid waste and number of trips required for collection. • Providing on-site recycling receptacles accessible to the public to encourage recycling for all businesses, employees, and patrons where feasible. • Prohibiting curbside pick-up.
• Ensuring hazardous materials disposal complies with federal, state, and city regulations.

MM 10-19 Ongoing during project operations, the following practices shall be implemented, as feasible, by the property owner/developer:
• Usage of recycled paper products for stationery, letterhead, and packaging. • Recovery of materials, such as aluminum and cardboard. • Collection of office paper for recycling.
• Collection of glass, plastics, kitchen grease, laser printer toner cartridges, oil, batteries, and scrap metal for recycling or recovery.

Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 272 September 2024
MM 10-20 Prior to the approval of each grading plan (for import/export plan) and prior to issuance of demolition permits (for demolition plans), the property owner/developer shall submit a Demolition and Import/ Export Plans, if determined to be necessary by the Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering Division and/or Street and Sanitation Division. The plans shall include identification of off-site locations for material export from the project and options for disposal of excess material. These options may include recycling of materials on-site, sale to a broker or contractor, sale to a project in the vicinity or transport to an environmentally cleared landfill, with attempts made to move it within Orange County. The property owner/developer shall offer recyclable building materials, such as asphalt or concrete for sale or removal by private firms or public agencies for use in construction of other projects, if all cannot be reused on the project site.

MM 10-21 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit plans showing that each structure will exceed the State Energy Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6, Article 2, California Code of Regulations) by a minimum of 10 percent and will consult with the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department Business and Community Programs Division.

This consultation shall take place during project design in order to review Title 24 measures that are incorporated into the project design energy efficient practices and allow potential system alternatives such as thermal energy storage air-conditioning, lighting, and building envelope options. Plans submitted for building permits shall show the proposed energy efficiencies and systems alternatives.

MM 10-22 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall indicate on plans energy-saving practices that will be implemented with the project in compliance with Title 24, which may include the following:
• High-efficiency air-conditioning with EMS (computer) control. • Variable Air Volume (VAV) air distribution.
• Outside air (100 percent) economizer cycle.
• Staged compressors or variable speed drives to flow varying thermal loads. • Isolated HVAC zone control by floors/separable activity areas. • Specification of premium-efficiency electric motors (i.e., compressor motors, air-handling units, and fan-coil units).
• Use of occupancy sensors in appropriate spaces.
• Use of light emitting diode (LED) lights.
• Use of EnergyStar ® exit lighting or exit signage.
• Use of LED lights for outdoor lighting and parking lots.

Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 273 September 2024
• Consideration of thermal energy storage air conditioning for spaces or facilities that may require air-conditioning during summer, day-peak periods. • Consideration for participation in Advantage Services Programs such as:
− New construction design review, in which the City cost-shares engineering for up to $15,000 for design of energy efficient buildings and systems. − Green Building Program – Offers accelerated plan approval, financial incentives, waived plan check fees and free technical assistance. • Use of high efficiency toilets (1.28 gallons per flush [gpf] or less). • Use of zero to low water use urinals (0.0 gpf to 0.25 gpf). • Use of weather-based irrigation controllers for outdoor irrigation. • Use of draught-tolerant and native plants in outdoor landscaping.

MM 10-24 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit plans for review and approval which shall ensure that buildings exceed the State Energy Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential buildings (Title 24, Part 6, Article 2, California Administrative Code) by a minimum of 10 percent.

MM 10-26 Prior to issuance of each building permit or grading permit, the property owner/developer shall provide an electrical load analysis to the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department (APUD). The analysis shall include a load schedule and maximum electrical coincident demand. Depending on the property owner/developer’s load analysis, APUD will determine and execute the necessary measures to provide sufficient capacity to the proposed improvements within the Platinum Triangle project area. Electrical service fees and other applicable fees for the electrical substation will be assessed in accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates, Regulations or another financial mechanism approved by the City.

MM 10-27 The City shall coordinate all future street and infrastructure improvements within the Platinum Triangle with other service providers, including Southern California Gas Company and the Orange County Sanitation District so that required infrastructure upgrades maybe constructed concurrently.

Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 274 September 2024

5.20 Wildfire

5.20.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis

5.20.1.1 FSEIR No. 339
Impacts related to wildfire were not analyzed in FSEIR No. 339 because they were not officially part of the CEQA Guidelines’ Appendix G checklist until January 1, 2019. Therefore, the analysis of wildfire impact is new in this Addendum.

However, the Initial Study prepared for the FSEIR No. 339 evaluated impacts related to wildfire and determined that impacts would be less than significant due to the Platinum Triangle’s heavily urbanized context and its great distance from areas classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. FSEIR No. 339 concluded that because the Platinum Triangle area is developed and no undeveloped wildland areas are adjacent to the Platinum Triangle area, the PT Expansion Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss involving wildland fires.

Furthermore, the impairment of emergency response or evacuation plans was addressed in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials analysis in FSEIR No. 332, the findings on which FSEIR No. 339 relies. FSEIR No. 332 found that the City emergency preparedness plan complied with state law and interfaced with other cities and counties within Southern California. FSEIR No. 332 also noted that the City participates in the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS). The Governor’s Office of Emergency Services administers SEMS and coordinates multi-agency responses to disasters. FSEIR No. 332 found that although the Platinum Triangle would intensify land uses and alter the existing circulation patterns within the Platinum Triangle area, new development would be required to accommodate emergency vehicles. Furthermore, implementation of Mitigation Measures

5.4-3 and 5.4-4 from FSEIR No. 332 and incorporated into FSEIR No. 339, would ensure that impacts related to emergency safety are mitigated. Therefore, the PT Expansion Project would not interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans.

FSEIR No. 339 concluded that the Platinum Triangle area is flat does not contain any major slopes on or in the immediate vicinity, therefore, the PT Expansion Project would not increase the runoff volume in the Platinum Triangle. FSEIR No. 339 concluded that no impacts associated with landslides or mudflow would occur.

5.20.1.2 Addendum No. 11 to FSEIR No. 339
Addendum No. 11 indicated that the OCVIBE Project Site is in the City of Anaheim’s Local Responsibility Area and is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL FIRE 2024).

Development of the OCVIBE Project includes on and off-site roadway improvements that would require the temporary or permanent closure of travel lanes in the vicinity of the OCVIBE Project Site; however, not all lanes would be closed at any given time, if all lanes are closed, alternate Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 275 September 2024
routes would be provided. Individual projects as part of the OCVIBE Project would be reviewed and approved by Anaheim Fire & Rescue prior to issuance of building permits to ensure that plans to implement the OCVIBE Project provide sufficient accessibility for emergency vehicles during all phases of construction. The OCVIBE Project involves redevelopment of urban area with 90 percent impervious surfaces without any potential for wildfire. The nearest Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone is over 3 miles to the east of the OCVIBE Project Site. Therefore, impacts associated with emergency response or evacuation plans related to wildfire were determined to be less than significant. Addendum No. 11 incorporated Mitigation Measures 5.4-3 and 5.4-4 from FSEIR No. 332 relating to emergency plans. The OCVIBE Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in FSEIR No. 339. No substantial change from the previous analysis was identified.

5.20.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:

New
Significant
Impact
More Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous
Analysis
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from
a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project Site is within the approved OCVIBE Project and Platinum Triangle boundaries and would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The Project Site is in the City of Anaheim’s Local Responsibility Area and is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL FIRE 2022).

The Project Site is already fully developed with urban uses without any potential for wildfire. As Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 276 September 2024
with the approved OCVIBE Project, development of the Modified Project could include temporary closure of travel lanes in the vicinity of the Project Site; however, not all lanes would be closed at any given time, if all lanes are closed, alternate routes would be provided. The Modified Project would be reviewed and approved by Anaheim Fire & Rescue prior to issuance of building permits to ensure that plans to implement the Modified Project provide sufficient accessibility for emergency vehicles during all phases of construction. Furthermore, the Modified Project is not located within or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. The nearest Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone is over 3 miles east of the Project Site.

Therefore, impacts associated with emergency response or evacuation plans related to wildfire would not be greater than the previous analysis under FSEIR No. 339. As with the approved OCVIBE Project, Mitigation Measures 5.4-3 and 5.4-4 would be applicable to the Modified Project. The Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in FSEIR No. 339 and its Addenda, including Addendum No. 11. No substantial change from the previous analysis would occur. b. Would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project Site is within the approved OCVIBE Project and Platinum Triangle boundaries and there are no significant slopes in and around the Project Site. The Project Site is in the City of Anaheim’s Local Responsibility Area and is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL FIRE 2022, Anaheim 2022). The Modified Project would increase the development intensity of residential uses on the Project Site, while reducing non-residential use development intensity. As with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project would be required to comply with the City’s plans and regulations to avoid or reduce the significant effects of loss, injury, or death involving fire. As such, the Modified Project itself would not exacerbate wildfire risks due to slope, prevailing winds, location, or other factors, and would not be expected to expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. The Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in FSEIR No. 339 and its Addenda, including Addendum No. 11. No substantial change from the previous analysis would occur. c. Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project Site is within the approved OCVIBE Project and Platinum Triangle boundaries, where the adjacent areas are urbanized and there are no wildland areas susceptible to fires. As with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project would require the installation and maintenance of infrastructure, such as roads, power lines, and Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 277 September 2024
other utilities. However, because the Project Site and its vicinity are not within or near a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone or State Responsibility Area, installation and maintenance of infrastructure would not exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. The Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in FSEIR No. 339 and its Addenda, including Addendum No. 11.

No substantial change from the previous analysis would occur. d. Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project Site is within the approved OCVIBE Project and Platinum Triangle boundaries, where the adjacent areas are urbanized and there are no wildland areas susceptible to fires. The approved OCVIBE Project Site, including Transit District Sub-Area B and Arena District Sub-Area D are relatively level with no major hillsides or slopes.

As discussed in Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Modified Site is not susceptible to flooding from downstream flooding or landslides. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Modified Project would expose people or structure to downstream flooding or landslides as a result if runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes due to wildfire. The Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in FSEIR No. 339 and its Addenda, including Addendum No. 11. No substantial change from the previous analysis would occur.

5.20.3 Applicable Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures from the MMP No. 106A for FSEIR No. 332, as updated by MMP No. 383 for Addendum No. 11, are applicable to the Modified Project.

MM 5.4-3: Prior to issuance of the first residential building permit for each final site plan incorporating residential units, the property owner/developer shall send a Notification Letter to businesses in proximity to the project to inform them of the presence of the sensitive use (i.e., residential land uses). The letter shall request that the mixed-use project property owner/residents be notified of any accident at the nearby businesses that may involve the release of hazardous substances. The Good Neighbor Program shall also require that the project property owner/developer prepare a Safety Plan, which shall be implemented and on-going during project operation, that includes staff training, emergency tools, and first aid provisions, supervision of children or other individuals in an emergency situation, and a shelterin-place program for instances when evacuation is not appropriate or practicable.

MM 5.4-4: Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for each final site plan incorporating residential units, the property owner/developer shall prepare and Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 278 September 2024
submit to the Planning Department, Building Division, a Safety Plan, which shall be implemented on-going during project operation that includes staff training, emergency tools, and first aid provisions, supervision of children or other individuals in an emergency situation, and a shelter-in-place program for instances when evacuation is not appropriate or practicable.

Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 279 September 2024

5.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance

5.21.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis FSEIR No. 339 and Addenda, including Addendum No. 11, concluded that the Approved Project would not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or wildlife community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or wildlife or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

FSEIR No. 339 and Addenda, including Addendum No. 11, determined that the Platinum Triangle area, including the OCVIBE Project Site, is developed with urban land uses and is nearly built out, therefore, the Approved Project would not degrade the quality of the environment related to biological resources and impacts related to biological resources were addressed through compliance with existing codes and regulations.

FSEIR No. 339 and Addenda, including Addendum No. 11, determined that the PTMLUP area, including the OCVIBE Project Site, has already been disturbed, so the potential for any subsurface cultural resources is remote. However, to mitigate impacts in the event that such resources are encountered due to the implementation of the Approved Project, FSEIR No. 332 recognized the inclusion of Mitigation Measure 11-1 from FEIR 321.

Impacts related to degradation of the quality of the environment related to biological resources and cultural resources were determined to be less than significant.

FSEIR No. 339 and Addenda, including Addendum No. 11, concluded that the Approved Project would result in cumulatively considerable air quality, GHG emissions, and noise, as detailed below. No other cumulatively considerable impacts were identified in other resource topics.

Although FSEIR No. 339 found transportation and traffic impacts to be significant and unavoidable for the PT Expansion Project, automobile delay is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Section 21099(b)(2)); therefore, transportation was not identified as a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact for Addendum No. 11:

Air Quality: FSEIR No. 339 and Addenda, including Addendum No. 11, found that construction of cumulative projects would temporarily degrade regional and local air quality. Due to the magnitude of construction projected with build out of the Platinum Triangle, including the OCVIBE Project, construction emissions were projected to exceed the SCAQMD’s regional emission thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the ozone and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) non-attainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin. Multiple projects within the Platinum Triangle could be constructed at the same time or in proximity to each other. Consequently, construction emissions Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 280 September 2024
could significantly contribute to localized concentrations of air pollutants at sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of construction activities. FSEIR No. 339 and Addenda, including Addendum No. 11, found construction air quality impacts to be significant and unavoidable even with incorporation of Mitigation Measures 2-1 through 2-4 from FSEIR No. 339.

Additionally, operational air pollutant emissions estimate from the build out of the Platinum Triangle including the OCVIBE Project, would exceed SCAQMD’s air quality significance thresholds for CO, NOX, VOCs, PM10, and PM2.5. FSEIR No. 339 and Addenda, including Addendum No. 11, concluded that even with implementation of Mitigation Measures 2-1 through 2-6 from FSEIR No. 339, the Approved Project would significantly contribute to cumulative air quality impacts within the South Coast Air Basin and cumulative air quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

GHG Emissions: Project-related GHG emissions are not confined to a particular air basin but are dispersed worldwide; therefore, GHG emissions impacts are by nature a cumulative impact. FSEIR No. 339 and Addenda, including Addendum No. 11, concluded that the Approved Project would generate substantial GHG emissions and cumulatively contribute to climate change impacts in California to result in a significant and unavoidable GHG impacts even with incorporation of Mitigation Measures 2-3, 10-18, 10-19, and 10-20 (related to solid waste); Mitigation Measures 2- 5, 9-1, 9-2, 9-14, and 9-15 (related to transportation and motor vehicles): Mitigation Measures 2- 6, 10-21, 10-22, and 10-24 (energy efficiency); and 10-7, 10-9, 10-12, 10-13, and 10-14 (water conservation and efficiency) from FSEIR No. 339.

Noise: FSEIR No. 339 and Addenda, including Addendum No. 11, found cumulative construction noise and vibration impacts of the Approved Project to be significant and unavoidable because the Approved Project would be constructed in phases and the proposed development phases may overlap with construction of adjacent developments even with incorporation of Mitigation Measures 5-5 and 5-7 through 5-10 from FSEIR No. 339.

FSEIR No. 339 and Addenda, including Addendum No. 11, found that cumulative operational noise impacts from mobile sources of the Approved Project and other cumulative development to be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of Mitigation Measures 5-1 through 5-4 from FSEIR No. 339. The Approved Project and other cumulative development resulted in substantial (3 dBA or more) cumulative noise increases on some roadway segments where the ambient noise environment was above 65 dBA CNEL buildout year 2030 conditions. Thus, individual project-related impacts and cumulative traffic noise increases were identified on local roadways for buildout year conditions.

Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 281 September 2024
FSEIR No. 339 and Addenda, including Addendum No. 11, concluded that the Approved Project would have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly on environmental topics pertaining to air quality, GHG emissions, and noise impacts, which could result in significant and unavoidable impacts as described above. As a result of these findings, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

5.21.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
Does the project:

New
Significant
Impact
More Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous
Analysis
a. Have the potential to substantially degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Note: Authority cited: Public Resources Code, Sections 21083 and 21083.05. Reference: Government Code, Section 65088.4; Public Resources Code, Sections 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21083, 21083.05, 21083.3, 21093, 21094, 21095, and 21151,; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296; Leonoff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th at 1109; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656.

Impact Analysis
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 282 September 2024
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As discussed in Section 5.4, Biological Resources, the Project Site is within the boundaries of the approved OCVIBE Project and the PTMLUP and does not contain suitable natural habitat for candidate, sensitive, or special status species; riparian habitat; wetlands; sensitive natural communities; wildlife corridors; or suitable native wildlife nursery sites. As with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project would require removal of trees, which could provide habitat for nesting migratory birds. Nesting birds are protected under the federal MBTA (USC Title 33, Section 703 et seq.; refer also to the Code of Federal Regulations Title 50, Part 10) and Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code. No changes related to nesting migratory birds would result from the Modified Project implementation. As with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project is required to comply with the existing regulatory requirements pursuant to the provisions of the MBTA, which prohibits disturbing or destroying active nests. With compliance with the MBTA, impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant.

As discussed in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources, the Project Site within the boundaries of the approved OCVIBE Project within the PTMLUP. As discussed in Section 5.5.2(a), there are no historical resources within the OCVIBE Project boundaries, including Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2 and Transit District Sub-Area B. As discussed in Section 5.5.2(b), although the Project Site has already been previously disturbed, the potential for previously unidentified subsurface archaeological resources or human remains during construction remains. In the event an archaeological resource or human remains are discovered, as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would comply with existing regulatory requirements in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Part 15064.5(f), Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 20182, and 14 CCR Part 15064.5(e), PRC Section 5097, and Section 7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code which require construction to halt and compliance with standard procedures for the proper handling of the archaeological resource or human remains.

Additionally, Mitigation Measure 11-1 from FEIR No. 321 has been incorporated, which requires the property owner/developer to retain a certified archaeologist to establish procedures for the proper handling and reporting of an artifact if an artifact is uncovered. With compliance with the existing regulatory requirements and Mitigation Measure 11-1, the Modified Project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment by eliminating important examples of the major periods of California prehistory.

Based on analysis above and the findings and conclusions of the previous CEQA documents, the Modified Project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat or population of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important example of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The Modified Project would not meet any of the criteria identified in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines requiring Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 283 September 2024
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR, an Addendum to FSEIR No. 339 is the appropriate document type for the Modified Project.
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As discussed in Sections 5.1 through 5.20, the Modified Project would not result in substantial project changes by creating new significant impact or increasing in severity of impacts previously disclosed in FSEIR No. 339 and Addendum No.

11. The Modified Project would result in short-term construction impacts, however, construction impacts would not exceed the threshold levels already analyzed in FSEIR No. 339, and the Modified Project would provide more housing and compact development in proximity to a transit center, bike and pedestrian tail, parks, and various entertainment and retail, therefore, consistent with achieving the region’s long-term environmental goals of supporting sustainable development and reducing GHG emissions. The Modified Project would not result in substantial change from the previous analysis prepared for the Approved Project, including achieving short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. c. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As discussed in Section 5.14, the Modified Project would result in a net reduction in the number of residential units and total non-residential development square footages in the PTMLUP compared to the project analyzed by FSEIR No. 339. FSEIR No. 339 found cumulatively considerable impacts related to air quality, GHG emissions, and noise. As discussed in Sections 5.3, 5.8, and 5.13, the Modified Project would not substantially increase the severity of these previously identified significant and unavoidable impacts. Furthermore, as discussed in Sections 5.1 through 5.20, the Modified Project would not result in substantial project changes by creating new significant impact or increasing in severity of impacts previously disclosed in FSEIR No. 339 and Addendum No. 11. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. d. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project increases residential dwelling units within the Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2 but would reduce the total amount of non-residential development within the same area. As analyzed in Sections 5.1 through 5.20, the Modified Project would not result in substantial changes from previous analysis, and would not create new significant impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts from FSEIR No. 339 and Addendum No. 11. with the incorporation of existing regulatory Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 284 September 2024
requirements, project design features, conditions of approval, and mitigation measures for all environmental topics analyzed in Sections 5.1 through 5.20 of this Addendum. However, even after consideration of feasible mitigation, as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality, GHG emissions, and noise and vibration, which could cause a substantial adverse effect on human beings. Although air quality, GHG emissions, and noise and vibration are significant and unavoidable, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in FSEIR No. 339. The Modified Project would not result in substantial change from the previous analysis prepared for the Approved Project. Because the Modified Project would not meet any of the criteria identified in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR, an Addendum to FSEIR No. 339 is the appropriate document type for the Modified Project.

Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 285 September 2024
Section 6 List of Preparers

6.1 Lead Agency
City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, California 92805
Heather Allen, AICP, Deputy Director
Judy Dadant, Senior Planner

6.2 Consultants
Harris & Associates
101 Progress, Suite 250
Irvine, California 92618
William Halligan, Esq., Senior Director/Environmental Counsel Elizabeth Kim, Senior Project Manager
Sharon Toland, Project Manager
Lindsey Messner, Publications Services Manager
Leona Vander Molen, Technical Editor II
Matthew Dornbach, GIS Analyst
PlaceWorks
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, California 92627
Addie Farrell, Principal
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 286 September 2024
This page intentionally left blank.

Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 287 September 2024
Section 7 References
APRMI (ArchaeoPaleo Resource Management, Inc). 2022. Paleontological and Archaeological Phase I Assessment for the ocV!be Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California.

June.

Cadre Environmental. 2022. Biological Resources Technical Report, ocV!BE Mixed-Use Development Project Site, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California. May.

DOC (California Department of Conservation). 2024. California Important Farmland Finder.

Accessed September 2024. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/ CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection) 2024. Fire and Resource Assessment Program, FHSZ Viewer. Accessed September 2024. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.

Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2024. Scenic Highways, California State Scenic Highways, State Scenic Highway Map, California State Scenic Highway System Map. Accessed September 2024. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/ index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa.

CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association). 2009. Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Land Use Projects. July.

CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April.

CARB. 2017. California's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November. Accessed September 2024. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_ plan_2017.pdf.

CARB. 2021. 2020 Mobile Source Strategy. October 28.

CARB. 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. December.

CEC (California Energy Commission). 2022, February. Final 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Accessed September 2024. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/reports/ integrated- energy-policy-report/2021-integrated-energy-policy-report.

City of Anaheim 2004. City of Anaheim General Plan. Accessed September 2024. https://www.anaheim.net/712/General-Plan.

City of Anaheim. 2010. Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR No. 339) for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project. SCH No. 2004121045. October.

City of Anaheim. 2020. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan – Sustainable Electric and Water Initiatives. Anaheim Public Utilities. May.

City of Anaheim. 2022. ocV!be Project, DEV2020-00125, Addendum No. 11 to FSEIR No. 339.

Prepared by PlaceWorks. August.

Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 288 September 2024
City of Anaheim 2024. City of Anaheim Municipal Code. Accessed September 2024. Chapter

18.18, Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/ anaheim/latest/anaheim_ca/0-0-0-51668
County of Orange. 2011. Exhibit 7.II. Model Water Quality Management Plan. May 19. https://ocerws.ocpublicworks.com/sites/ocpwocerws/files/import/data/files/21237.pdf County of Orange. 2013. Exhibit 7.III. Technical Guidance document (TGD) For the Preparation of Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs).

December 20. https://ocerws.ocpublicworks.com/sites/ocpwocerws/files/2021- 01/SantaAnaRegion-TechnicalGuidance-December2013.pdf
FICAN (Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise) 1997. Effects of Aviation Noise on Awakenings from Sleep. (Appendix C of Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise: 1997 Annual Report). June. Accessed September 2024. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/42034/.

Fuscoe Engineering. 2021a. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), ocV!BE, Anaheim, CA. November 2 (revised).

Fuscoe Engineering. 2021b. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report, ocV!BE (Honda Center), City of Anaheim, CA. November.

Fuscoe Engineering. 2024a. OC Vibe Master Site Plan Area ‘H’ (MSPA) Drainage Report. July

2. Fuscoe Engineering. 2024b. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (P-WQMP) – Amendment No. 1, ocV!BE – ACC, City of Anaheim, Orange County, August (date revised).

Harris (Harris & Associates). 2024a. Air Quality Memorandum, Comparison of OCVIBE Master Site Plan Amendment No. 1 to OCVIBE Addendum No. 11 Components – Air Quality Impacts. September 18.

Harris. 2024b. GHG Emissions, Comparison of OCVIBE Master Site Plan Amendment No. 1 to OCVIBE Addendum No. 11 Components – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts.

September 18.

Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc. 2024. OCVIBE Master Solid Waste Management Plan.

Approved June 2022, Amendment No. 1 March 2024.

NMG (NMG Geotechnical, Inc.). 2021. Supplemental Geotechnical Exploration and Planning Study, ocV!be Mixed-Use Community and Live Entertainment Redevelopment Project, Platinum Triangle, City of Anaheim, California. May 24.

NMG. 2023. Geotechnical Planning Study, Arena Corporate Center (ACC), ocV!BE Mixed-Use Community and Live Entertainment Redevelopment Project, Platinum Triangle, City of Anaheim, California. October 17.

NMG. 2024. Response to City of Anaheim Geotechnical Engineering Review Sheet Comments Regarding Geotechnical Planning Study, Arena Corporate Center (ACC), ocV!be MixedUse Community and Live Entertainment Project, City of Anaheim, California. March 29.

Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 289 September 2024
OCWD (Orange County Water District). 2017. Basin 8-1 Alternative. Accessed September 2024. https://www.ocwd.com/wp-content/uploads/basin-8-1-alternative-final-report-1.pdf Pirzadeh (Pirzadeh & Associates, Inc.). 2024. ocV!BE Arena District D Master Site Plan Modification. March 25.

Psomas. 2022a. ocV!BE Water Supply Verification. August 15.

Psomas. 2022b. Sewer Study: ocV!BE Platinum Triangle. May 23.

Psomas. 2024a. ocV!BE Amendment No. 1 Water Supply Verification. April 4.

Psomas. 2024b. Sewer Study Update – ocV!BE including Amendment No. 1. May 3.

SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments). 2024. Connect SoCal 2024 – The 2024– 2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. September 3.

SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc). 1971, October. House Noise – Reduction Measurements for Use in Studies of Aircraft Flyover Noise. AIR 1081.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2023. Emissions Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Last modified September 12. Accessed September 2024. https://www.epa.gov/ system/files/documents/2023-03/ghg_emission_factors_hub.pdf.

This page intentionally left blank.