Addendum
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339
September 2024
Prepared for:
City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, California 92805
Contact: Judy Dadant, Senior Planner
Prepared by:
101 Progress, Suite 250
Irvine, California 92618
Contact: William Halligan, Esq. Senior Director/Environmental Counsel This page intentionally left blank.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 i September 2024
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................vii Section 1 Introduction...........................................................................................................1
1.1 Purpose of an Addendum...............................................................................2
1.1.1 Scope of Analysis Contained in this Addendum..................................3
1.2 Content and Organization of This Addendum.................................................3
1.3 Certified Environmental Documents ...............................................................4
1.3.1 Sportstown Development (1996) – Certified FEIR No. 320 .................4
1.3.2 Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan (1999) – Certified FEIR No. 321........................................................................4
1.3.3 General Plan and Zoning Code Update (2004) – Certified FEIR No. 330...............................................................................................5
1.3.4 Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan............................................5 Section 2 Environmental Setting........................................................................................13
2.1 Project Location ...........................................................................................13
2.1.1 Platinum Triangle..............................................................................13
2.1.2 OCVIBE............................................................................................13
2.1.3 Project Site.......................................................................................14
2.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................15
2.2.1 Existing Land Use.............................................................................15
2.2.2 Surrounding Land Use......................................................................15 Section 3 Project Description.............................................................................................25
3.1 Approved Project..........................................................................................25
3.1.1 Platinum Triangle..............................................................................25
3.1.2 Approved OCVIBE Master Site Plan.................................................26
3.2 Modified Project ...........................................................................................26
3.2.1 General Plan Amendment.................................................................26
3.2.2 Amendments to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan ..........27
3.2.3 Master Site Plan Amendment ...........................................................32
3.3 Proposed Entitlements .................................................................................40
3.4 Project Phasing............................................................................................41 Section 4 Environmental Checklist ....................................................................................71
4.1 Project Information.......................................................................................71
4.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ..................................................73
4.3 Lead Agency Determination .........................................................................74
4.4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ...........................................................75 Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 ii September 2024
Section 5 Environmental Analysis .....................................................................................77
5.1 Aesthetics ....................................................................................................78
5.1.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis ...................78
5.1.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project ...................................80
5.1.3 Applicable Mitigation Measures ........................................................82
5.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .............................................................83
5.2.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis ...................83
5.2.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project ...................................83
5.2.3 Applicable Mitigation Measures ........................................................86
5.3 Air Quality ....................................................................................................87
5.3.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis ...................87
5.3.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project ...................................94
5.3.3 Applicable Mitigation Measures ......................................................104
5.4 Biological Resources..................................................................................110
5.4.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis .................110
5.4.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project .................................111
5.4.3 Applicable Mitigation Measures ......................................................115
5.5 Cultural Resources.....................................................................................116
5.5.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis .................116
5.5.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project .................................117
5.5.3 Applicable Mitigation Measures ......................................................119
5.6 Energy .......................................................................................................120
5.6.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis .................120
5.6.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project .................................123
5.6.3 Applicable Mitigation Measures ......................................................128
5.7 Geology and Soils ......................................................................................133
5.7.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis .................133
5.7.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project .................................136
5.7.3 Applicable Mitigation Measures ......................................................142
5.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.......................................................................145
5.8.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis .................145
5.8.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project .................................149
5.8.3 Applicable Mitigation Measures ......................................................153
5.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................162
5.9.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis .................162
5.9.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project .................................165
5.9.3 Applicable Mitigation Measures ......................................................172 Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 iii September 2024
5.10 Hydrology and Water Quality......................................................................177
5.10.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis .................177
5.10.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project .................................183
5.10.3 Applicable Mitigation Measures ......................................................191
5.11 Land Use and Planning..............................................................................197
5.11.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis .................197
5.11.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project .................................198
5.11.3 Applicable Mitigation Measures ......................................................203
5.12 Mineral Resources .....................................................................................204
5.12.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis .................204
5.12.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project .................................204
5.12.3 Applicable Mitigation Measures ......................................................205
5.13 Noise..........................................................................................................206
5.13.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis .................206
5.13.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project .................................215
5.13.3 Applicable Mitigation Measures ......................................................218
5.14 Population and Housing .............................................................................221
5.14.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis .................221
5.14.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project .................................222
5.14.3 Applicable Mitigation Measures ......................................................224
5.15 Public Services ..........................................................................................225
5.15.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis .................225
5.15.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project .................................228
5.15.3 Applicable Mitigation Measures ......................................................231
5.16 Recreation..................................................................................................233
5.16.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis .................233
5.16.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project .................................234
5.16.3 Applicable Mitigation Measures ......................................................235
5.17 Transportation............................................................................................236
5.17.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis .................236
5.17.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project .................................238
5.17.3 Applicable Mitigation Measures ......................................................244
5.18 Tribal Cultural Resources...........................................................................251
5.18.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis .................251
5.18.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project .................................253
5.18.3 Applicable Mitigation Measures ......................................................255
5.19 Utilities and Service Systems .....................................................................256
5.19.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis .................256
5.19.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project .................................261
5.19.3 Applicable Mitigation Measures ......................................................267 Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 iv September 2024
5.20 Wildfire.......................................................................................................274
5.20.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis .................274
5.20.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project .................................275
5.20.3 Applicable Mitigation Measures ......................................................277
5.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance............................................................279
5.21.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis .................279
5.21.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project .................................281 Section 6 List of Preparers ...............................................................................................285
6.1 Lead Agency ..............................................................................................285
6.2 Consultants................................................................................................285 Section 7 References ........................................................................................................287 Figures
Figure 1. Regional Location ......................................................................................................17 Figure 2. Platinum Triangle Location Map.................................................................................19 Figure 3. Approved OCVIBE Master Site Plan Sub-Areas.........................................................21 Figure 4. Aerial Photograph ......................................................................................................23 Figure 5. Approved OCVIBE Master Site Plan ..........................................................................43 Figure 6. Modified OCVIBE Master Site Plan Sub-Areas ..........................................................45 Figure 7. Modified OCVIBE Master Site Plan (Amendment No. 1) ............................................47 Figure 8. Option 1 – High-Rise Mixed Use ................................................................................49 Figure 9. Option 2 – Residential Podium...................................................................................51 Figure 10. Option 3 – Office Tower ...........................................................................................53 Figure 11a. Approved Parks and Open Space Plan ..................................................................55 Figure 11b. Modified Parks and Open Space Plan....................................................................57 Figure 12a. Approved Pedestrian Circulation ............................................................................59 Figure 12b. Modified Pedestrian Circulation..............................................................................61 Figure 13. Bike and Trail Connections ......................................................................................63 Figure 14. Parking Supply Plan.................................................................................................65 Figure 15. Arena District Sub-Area D Demolition Plan ..............................................................67 Figure 16. Overall Phasing Plan................................................................................................69 Figure 17. Individual Parcel Site Assessment Location Map ...................................................175 Figure 18. Approved Hydrology Map.......................................................................................193 Figure 19. Modified Preliminary Storm Drain Plan...................................................................195 Tables
Table 1. Approved OCVIBE Master Site Plan Acreage .............................................................14 Table 2. PTMU Overlay Zone Development Intensities Under the OCVIBE Project ..................25 Table 3. Development Intensities Previously Analyzed .............................................................26 Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 v September 2024
Table 4. Proposed OCVIBE Master Site Plan Sub-Area Acreage .............................................28 Table 5. Arena District Sub-Area D2 Development Options ......................................................28 Table 6. Platinum Triangle Development Intensities (Approved and Modified) ..........................29 Table 7. Modified Project Options 1, 2, and 3 Development Intensities .....................................30 Table 8. PTMU Overlay Zone Development Intensities Under the Modified Project ..................32 Table 9. Arena District Sub-Area D2 Proposed Density Calculation..........................................38 Table 10. Development Intensities Previously Analyzed and Modified Project ..........................77 Table 11. Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2 Development Intensities (Approved and Modified) ...............................................................................................78 Table 12. PT Expansion Project Daily Construction Emissions (pounds/day)............................88 Table 13. PT Expansion Project Total Daily Operational Emissions (pounds/day) ....................89 Table 14. Addendum No. 11 Construction Emissions (pounds/day)..........................................92 Table 15. Addendum No. 11 Daily Operational Emissions (pounds/day)...................................93 Table 16. Modified Project Option 1 Construction Emissions (pounds/day)...............................97 Table 17. Modified Project Option 2 Construction Emissions (pounds/day)...............................98 Table 18. Modified Project Option 3 Construction Emissions (pounds/day).............................100 Table 19. Modified Phasing Construction Emissions Summary (pounds/day) .........................102 Table 20. Modified Project Daily Operational Emissions (pounds/day)....................................103 Table 21. Addendum No. 11 Project Energy Use....................................................................122 Table 22. Modified Project Construction Fuel Use (gallons) ....................................................125 Table 23. Modified Project Operation Energy Use...................................................................126 Table 24. Modified Project Construction Emissions.................................................................151 Table 25. Modified Project Operation Emissions .....................................................................152 Table 26. Individual Parcel Site Assessment Review Summary ..............................................168 Table 27. Approved OCVIBE Project and Modified Hydrology Comparisons – Sub Watersheds H and I .............................................................................................189 Table 28. SCAG’s Connect SoCal 2024 Consistency Analysis ...............................................200 Table 29. Addendum No. 11 Population, Housing, and Employment Summary for the Platinum Triangle ........................................................................................................222 Table 30. Population, Housing, and Employment Summary for the Platinum Triangle ............223 Table 31. Student Generation Resulting from Implementation of the Modified Project ............230 Table 32. Modified Project Recreation/Leisure Areas..............................................................234 Table 33. Modified Project Traffic Generation Summary .........................................................240 Table 34. Modified Project Floor Area Ratio Summary............................................................241 Table 35. Addendum No. 11 Net Water Demand Difference ...................................................260 Table 36. Addendum No. 11 Wastewater Demand Difference ................................................260 Table 37. Modified Project Land Use and Water Demand Differences ....................................263 Table 38. Modified Project Wastewater Demand Difference....................................................265 Table 39. Modified Project Solid Waste Demand Difference ...................................................266 Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 vi September 2024
Appendices
Appendix A. Air Quality Memo
Appendix B. Energy Memo
Appendix C. Geotechnical Planning Study
Appendix D. GHG Emissions Memo
Appendix E. Drainage Report
Appendix F. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix G. Noise Memo
Appendix H. Transportation Memorandum
Appendix I. Water Supply Verification
Appendix J. Sewer Study Update
Appendix K. Shared Parking Analysis Update
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 vii September 2024
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB Assembly Bill
ACC Arena Corporate Center
ACSD Anaheim City School District
ADT average daily trips
AMC Anaheim Municipal Code
APD Anaheim Police Department
APUD Anaheim Public Utilities Department
ARTIC Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center AST aboveground storage tank
ATN Anaheim Transportation Network
AUHSD Anaheim Union High School District
BMP best management practice
C&D construction and demolition
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CNEL community noise equivalent level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CPTED crime prevention through environmental design
DAMP Drainage Area Management Plan
dB decibel
DSEIR Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
EIR Environmental Impact Report
ESA Environmentally Sensitive Areas
FAR floor area ratio
FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report
FSEIR Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
GHG greenhouse gas
gpd gallons per day
GSF gross square footage
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
HQTA High Quality Transit Area
I- Interstate
Ldn day-night average sound level
Leq equivalent continuous sound level
Lmax maximum sound level
Lmin minimum sound level
LED light emitting diode
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 viii September 2024
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MERV Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value
MMP Mitigation Monitoring Program
mph miles per hour
MSP Master Site Plan
MT metric ton
NOx nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OCSD Orange County Sanitation District
OCWD Orange County Water District
P-WQMP Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
PM10 particulate matter measuring no more than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 fine particulate matter measuring no more than 2.5 microns in diameter PRC Public Resources Code
PTMLUP Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan
ROG reactive organic gas
ROW right-of-way
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCEA Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
SCG Southern California Gas Company
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SOx sulfur oxides
SR- State Route
SWPPP stormwater pollutant prevention plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminant
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TPA Transit Priority Area
UPRR Union Pacific Railroad
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank
UWMP Transportation Demand Management
VAV Variable Air Volume
VdB vibration decibel
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 1 September 2024
Section 1 Introduction
This Addendum to the 2010 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) (No. 339) for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project (PT Expansion Project) has been prepared in accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Sections 15162 and 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines. FSEIR No. 339, and subsequent 11 adopted addenda (the application for Addendum No. 10 was withdrawn), analyzed development of the Platinum Triangle area of the City of Anaheim, pursuant to implementation of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP) and Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone. The term “Approved Project” refers to the PT Expansion Project analyzed by FSEIR No. 339 and subsequent modified projects analyzed by 11 addenda (Addendum No. 10 was withdrawn), including Addendum No. 11 for the OCVIBE Project. At buildout of the Approved Project, the allowed development densities within the PTMLUP and PTMU Overlay Zone are up to 17,840 dwelling units; 6,195,019 square feet of commercial space; 11,659,338 square feet of office space; and 250,000 square feet of institutional space.
Addendum No. 11 to the FSEIR No. 339, adopted in 2022, addressed impacts from the OCVIBE Master Site Plan (MIS2020-00751) and associated actions from development of residential, entertainment, retail and hospitality, office, hotel, institutional, parks and open space, and parking uses on approximately 96.19 gross acres located at the confluence of State Route (SR-) 57 and Santa Ana River, within an expanded PTMU Overlay Zone. The term “OCVIBE Project” refers to the OCVIBE Master Site Plan and associated actions evaluated in Addendum No. 11 to the FSEIR No. 339. The OCVIBE Project was previously known as stylized “ocV!BE” in the previous documents. However, the stylized ocV!BE logo was changed to “OCVIBE” and this changed logo will be used in this Addendum for consistency.
The approved OCVIBE Project consists of 1,500 residential dwelling units, including 195 affordable housing bonus density dwelling units, 1,922,766 square feet of commercial, 961,055 square feet of office, and 250,000 square feet of institutional uses within the revised district boundaries of the Transit and Arena Districts. The OCVIBE Project modified the Platinum Triangle district boundaries of Arena, Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC), and Katella Districts to reduce, convert, and transfer unused development intensities within these districts to result in an overall increase in the maximum amount of residential dwelling units and commercial development but overall reduction in the office and institutional development.
This Addendum No. 13 addresses the environmental impacts of the proposed Amendment No. 1 to the OCVIBE Master Site Plan (MIS2020-00751) (Master Site Plan) to allow for the demolition of the existing Arena Corporate Center (ACC) office buildings, construction of proposed new residential and office development in Arena District Sub-Area D2, elimination of the proposed pedestrian bridge from Parking Deck C across South Douglass Road, the elimination of the Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 2 September 2024
proposed Meadow Amphitheater, and dedication of additional public park space in Transit District Sub-Area B (Modified Project or Amendment No. 1). The proposed Amendment No. 1 would also shift Meadow Park and the bridge over Katella Avenue construction from Phase 2 to Phase 3.
1.1 Purpose of an Addendum
According to PRC Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, when an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines that one or more of the following conditions are met:
1. Substantial project changes are proposed that will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes would occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions to the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified or the negative declaration was adopted shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration.
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified in the previous EIR.
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. d. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.
Preparation of an Addendum to an EIR is appropriate when none of the conditions specified in Section 15162 (above) are present and some minor technical changes to the previously certified FSEIR No. 339 are necessary.
According to PRC Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency or responsible agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if:
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 3 September 2024
1. Any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and
2. Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation.
After careful consideration of the potential environmental impacts of the Modified Project, the City of Anaheim has determined that 1) none of the conditions described in Sections 15162 or 15163 requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplement to an EIR have occurred, and 2) the circumstances described in Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines exist. Therefore, an Addendum to the FSEIR No. 339 has been deemed appropriate.
1.1.1 Scope of Analysis Contained in this Addendum
The discretionary approval subject to CEQA for this Addendum is the modification to the previously approved OCVIBE Project to allow for the Amendment No. 1 to the OCVIBE Project. As the lead agency under CEQA for this action, the City of Anaheim is required to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with these discretionary approvals (refer to Section 3.3, Proposed Entitlements).
The “scope” of the review for Project-related impacts for this Addendum is limited to the changes between the Approved Project, including the OCVIBE Project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339 and Addendum No. 11, and the Modified Project. The previously certified environmental documentation and related approved mitigation for impacts associated with the Approved Project, collectively referred herein as “Previous Analysis” are described in Section 1.3, Certified Environmental Document, and therefore, effectively serve as the “baseline” for the environmental impact analysis.
As required by CEQA, this Addendum also addresses changes in circumstances or new information that would potentially involve new significant environmental impacts.
1.2 Content and Organization of This Addendum
This Addendum utilizes the CEQA checklist pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(d)(3) and Section 15168(c)(4) and the checklist suggested therein, which addresses environmental issues section by section. The completed checklist is included as Section 5, Environmental Analysis.
Each environmental topic has the following subheadings:
• Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified Environmental Documents (including FSEIR No. 339 and its 11 approved Addenda and previous CEQA documentation as applicable; refer to description under Section 1.3, Certified Environmental Documents, of this Addendum)
• Impacts Associated with the Modified Project (including Environmental Checklist) • Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Modified Project Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) No. 383 adopted for the OCVIBE Project with the approval of Addendum No. 11 is applicable to the Modified Project without any changes. MMP No. 383 Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 4 September 2024
includes formerly adopted mitigation measures as part of the previous analysis, specifically from FEIR No. 321, FSEIR No. 330, and FSEIR No. 339. Prior to adoption, mitigation measures in MMP No. 383 were updated, refined, and supplemented to assure mitigation is implemented as intended for the OCVIBE Project. No changes to MMP No. 383 are proposed as part of this Addendum No. 13, and the MMP No. 383 would be reaffirmed upon approval of Addendum No. 13.
1.3 Certified Environmental Documents
Since 1996, the City of Anaheim (City) Council has approved actions and CEQA environmental documents relating to the Platinum Triangle. The OCVIBE Project Site is within the Platinum Triangle boundaries. For the purposes of the environmental analysis in this document, “Previous Analysis” includes all of the CEQA environmental documents described in this section and incorporated by reference.
1.3.1 Sportstown Development (1996) – Certified FEIR No. 320 On May 30, 1996, the Anaheim Planning Commission certified Final EIR (FEIR) No. 320 (State Clearinghouse No. 95041029) and adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 92 and Area Development Plan No. 120 for the portion of the Anaheim Stadium property associated with the Sportstown Development. Area Development Plan No. 120 entitled a total of 119,543 seats for new or renovated stadiums, 750,000 square feet of urban entertainment/retail uses, a 500-room hotel (550,000 square feet), a 150,000-square-foot exhibition center, 250,000 square feet of office development and 15,570 on-site parking spaces. The Grove of Anaheim, the renovated Angel Stadium of Anaheim, and the Stadium Gateway Office Building were developed or renovated under this plan.
1.3.2 Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan (1999) – Certified FEIR No. 321
On March 2, 1999, the Anaheim City Council adopted the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan (MLUP). The boundaries for this MLUP were generally the same as those for the Platinum Triangle, with the exception that this MLUP included 15 acres adjacent to Interstate (I) 5 that are not a part of the current Platinum Triangle boundaries.
As part of the approval process for the Anaheim Stadium Area MLUP, the City Council certified Final EIR (FEIR) No. 321 (State Clearinghouse Number 9611041) and adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106. Development within the Anaheim Stadium Area was implemented through the Sports Entertainment (SE) Overlay Zone. The SE Overlay Zone permitted property owners to continue to operate or expand current uses or develop within the provisions of the existing zoning. The SE Overlay Zone also allowed property owners to develop sports, entertainment, retail, and office uses at increased intensities than previously permitted and provided associated development standards for these uses. Implementation of the SE Overlay Zone Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 5 September 2024
was projected to result in a net loss of 491,303 square feet of industrial space and increases of 1,871,285 square feet of new office space, 452,026 square feet of new retail space, and 991,603 square feet of new hotel space. Projects that were developed under the SE Overlay Zone included the Ayers Hotel, the ACC, and the Westwood School of Technology.
1.3.3 General Plan and Zoning Code Update (2004) – Certified FEIR No. 330 On May 25, 2004, the Anaheim City Council certified Final EIR (FEIR) No. 330 (2004 Certified FEIR) (State Clearinghouse Number 2004121045), and adopted mitigation monitoring programs, including an Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106 for the Platinum Triangle. The City Council also approved a comprehensive citywide General Plan and Zoning Code Update, which included a new vision for the Platinum Triangle. The General Plan Update changed the General Plan designations within the Platinum Triangle from Commercial Recreation and Business Office/Mixed Use/Industrial to Mixed-Use, Office-High, Office-Low, Industrial, Open Space, and Institutional to provide opportunities for existing uses to transition to mixed-use, residential, office, and commercial uses. The General Plan Update also established an overall maximum development intensity for the Platinum Triangle for up to 9,175 dwelling units, 5,000,000 square feet of office space, 2,044,300 square feet of commercial uses, industrial development at a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.50, and institutional development at a maximum FAR of 3.0. In addition, the square footage/seats allocated to the existing Honda Center and all of the development intensity entitled by Area Development Plan No. 120 were incorporated into the Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use land use designation.
The certified FEIR No. 330, which was prepared for the General Plan and Zoning Code Update and associated actions, analyzed the above development intensities on a citywide impact level.
1.3.4 Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan
1.3.4.1 2004 Certified FEIR No. 330
To provide the implementation tools necessary to realize the City’s new vision for the Platinum Triangle, on August 17, 2004, the City Council replaced the Anaheim Stadium Area MLUP with the Platinum Triangle MLUP (PTMLUP), replaced the SE Overlay Zone with the PTMU Overlay Zone, approved the form of the Standardized Platinum Triangle Development Agreement and approved associated zoning reclassifications. Under these updated zoning regulations, property owners desiring to develop under the PTMU Overlay Zone provisions are required to enter into a standardized Development Agreement with the City of Anaheim. Ordinances associated with the PTMU Overlay Zone and the approved zoning reclassifications became effective September 23, 2004. As part of the approval process for these actions, the City Council determined that the previously certified FEIR No. 330 and the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106 for the Platinum Triangle were adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the Proposed Project actions.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 6 September 2024
1.3.4.2 2005 Certified FSEIR No. 332
On October 25, 2005, the Anaheim City Council certified Final Subsequent EIR (FSEIR) No. 332 (2005 Certified FSEIR) (State Clearinghouse Number 2004121045) and adopted an Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle MLUP and associated actions FSEIR No. 332 served as the primary environmental document for subsequent land use actions within the Platinum Triangle, including necessary infrastructure improvements and all local discretionary approvals necessary to implement the Platinum Triangle MLUP, consistent with Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. The General Plan Amendment associated with FSEIR No. 332 increased the allowable development intensity within the Platinum Triangle to 9,500 residential units; 5,000,000 square feet of office uses; and 2,254,400 square feet of commercial uses.
Since certification of FSEIR No. 332, two addendums to the FSEIR have been adopted for the following projects:
• Addendum No. 2. (June 2007): This Addendum involved construction of the Orangewood Condominiums and A-Town Stadium projects on a 15.6-acre site at 2050 South State College Boulevard and 2015–2125 East Orangewood Avenue in the Gateway District of the PTMU. This Addendum modified the FSEIR No. 332 to increase the allowable development intensity in the Gateway District from 2,075 to a total of 2,142, which increased the total number of permitted dwelling units in the Platinum Triangle from 9,500 to 9,567.
• Addendum No. 3. Platinum Tower Project (August 2007): This Addendum involved construction of a 20-story, 600,000 square foot office and commercial building on a
3.83-acre site at 2210–2220 East Orangewood Avenue and 2130 and 2231 Dupont Drive in the Orangewood District of the PTMU. This Addendum modified the FSEIR No. 332 to increase the allowable development intensity by 55,550 square feet of office uses and 10,000 square feet of commercial uses for an overall maximum of 5,055,550 square feet of office uses and 2,264,400 square feet of commercial uses.
1.3.4.3 2007 Certified FEIR No. 2006-00335
On August 21, 2007, the Anaheim City Council certified Final EIR (FEIR) No. 2006-00335 (2007 Certified FEIR) (State Clearinghouse Number 2006111120) and adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 143 in conjunction with the approval of a mixed-use project (Gene Autry Experience) consisting of up to 1,208 dwelling units, 50,000 square feet of commercial uses and 100,000 square feet of office uses on a 17.5 acre site located at the southwest corner of State College Boulevard and Gene Autry Way in the Gene Autry District of the PTMU. This FEIR included an evaluation of an increase of the allowable development intensity by an additional 699 residential units to bring the total allowable development intensity within the Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 7 September 2024
Gene Autry District of The Platinum Triangle to up to 10,266 residential units; 5,055,550 square feet of office uses; and 2,264,400 square feet of commercial uses.
1.3.4.4 The Platinum Triangle Expansion Project FSEIR No. 334 To increase the overall densities within the Platinum Triangle, to accommodate market demands for increased densities, and to further the Project objectives outlined above, in 2007, the City embarked upon a process to adopt a General Plan Amendment; amendments to the PTMLUP, PTMU Overlay Zone, and the Platinum Triangle Standardized Development, and related zoning reclassifications to increase the development intensities within the Platinum Triangle to up to 18,363 residential units, 5,657,847 square feet of commercial uses, 16,819,015 square feet of office uses; and 1.5 million square feet of institutional uses (hereafter, the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project).
As required by law, the City prepared an EIR in connection with the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project. The Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) for the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, known as DSEIR No. 334, was circulated for a 45-day public review period from July 12, 2007, to August 27, 2007. On October 4, 2007, the City released DSEIR No. 334 for an additional 45-day public review. The recirculated DSEIR No. 334 contained minor revisions to the Project Description and additional traffic information based on comments received from the City of Orange and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Other minor revisions to the DSEIR were made based on other comments received on the previously circulated DSEIR No. 334. The Anaheim City Council approved the recirculated FSEIR No. 334 in December 2007 and reapproved FSEIR No. 334 in April 2008.
However, following the approval of FSEIR No. 334, a lawsuit was filed by the Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development and the Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development challenging the adequacy of FSEIR No. 334. In consideration of the City’s exemplary historical record in avoiding CEQA litigation and its commitment to proper environmental review, the City Council repealed the approval of the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project FSEIR No. 334 and various related actions and directed staff to prepare a new subsequent EIR. The City took this direction because the City has rarely been challenged based on alleged non-compliance with CEQA, and because the City desired to assuage any concerns held by the public concerning the adequacy of the previous document.
1.3.4.5 2010 Certified FSEIR No. 339
On October 26, 2010, the Anaheim City Council certified Final Subsequent EIR (FSEIR) No. 339 (State Clearinghouse No. 2004121045) and adopted the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) No. 106C in conjunction with the approval of the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project (PT Expansion Project), which included an expansion of the boundaries of the PTMU Overlay Zone, adoption of amendments to the General Plan, PTMLUP, and PTMU Overlay, zoning reclassifications and approval of the Project Water Supply Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 8 September 2024
Assessment. As a result of the land use approvals by the City, the development intensities of the PTMU Overlay Zone were increased to allow up to 18,909 residential units, 4,909,682 square feet of commercial uses, 14,340,522 square feet of office uses, and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses. In addition to the increase in development intensity, the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project also identified upgrades to existing infrastructure to serve the proposed increased intensity of land uses. The upgrades included roadway improvements, sewer upgrades, two new water wells, a new electrical substation, natural gas infrastructure improvements, and an additional fire station. FSEIR No. 339 tiered off of FSEIR No. 332.
Addenda to FSEIR No. 339
Since certification of FSEIR No. 339, 11 addenda have been adopted for the following projects:
• Addendum No. 1: Katella Avenue/Interstate 5 Undercrossing Improvements Project (April 2012). The Addendum involved widening of Katella Avenue at the undercrossing with the I-5 between Anaheim Way and Manchester Avenue and to create a fourth through lane of traffic in each direction of travel, consistent with the Master Plan of Arterial Highways, the City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element, and the Project as evaluated and approved in FSEIR No. 339. The Project would maintain leftturn pockets at both intersections. The Project Area spans approximately 1,000 feet along Katella Avenue, with an area of disturbance encompassing approximately 1.95 acres.
• Addendum No. 2: Platinum Gateway Project (December 2012). This Addendum involved construction of 399 residential units on a 7.01-acre site in the Gateway District of the PTMU. This Addendum modified the FSEIR No. 339 to include 79 more residential units and eliminate 209,419 square feet of office development and 114,571 square feet of commercial development. The amended PTMLUP would allow for 18,988 dwelling units, 4,795,111 square feet of commercial area, 14,131,103 square feet of office, and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses.
• Addendum No. 3: Platinum Vista Apartments Project (August 2014). This Addendum involved construction of a 389-unit multiple‐family residential apartment project in the Katella District Sub-Area A. The Addendum modified the FSEIR No. 339 to include 39 more dwelling units and eliminate 60,000 square feet of commercial area allocated to Katella District Sub-Area A. The amended PTMLUP would allow for 19,027 dwelling units, 14,131,103 square feet of office uses, 4,735,111 square feet of commercial uses, and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses. • Addendum No. 4: Amended A-Town Metro Project (August 2015). This Addendum involved development of up to 1,746 dwelling units and up to 50,000 square feet of commercial area and two public parks on approximately 43.2 acres in portions of the Katella District Sub-Area B and the Gene Autry District Sub-Area A.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 9 September 2024
• Addendum No. 5: Jefferson Stadium Park Project (June 2016). The Proposed Project would involve construction and operation of a mixed-use community with 1,079 residential apartments, including 12 live/work units; 9,800 square feet of retail space; a 1.11-acre public park; on-site parking, roadways, and pedestrian pathways; and associated on and off-site infrastructure improvements in the Gene Autry District Sub-Area B. • Addendum No. 6: LT Platinum Center (August 2016). This Addendum involved development of 14.8 acres located on the northeast corner of Orangewood Avenue and State College Boulevard, within the Gateway District of the PTMU Overlay Zone. The proposed development would consist of up to 405 residential units, 433,000 gross square feet of commercial uses, a 200-room hotel, and 77,000 gross square feet of office. The Proposed Project includes revising the district boundaries for the Stadium and Gateway Districts to place the Project Site within the Stadium District. In addition, the Proposed Project would reduce, convert, and transfer unused development intensity from the Gateway, Gene Autry, Katella, and Orangewood Districts to the Stadium District resulting in an overall reduction in the maximum amount of residential (-1,679 dwelling units) and office development (-472,000 square feet) permitted within mixed use districts of the PTMU Overlay Zone and an increase in the maximum permitted amount of commercial development (+47,132 square feet). The amended PTMLUP would allow for 17,348 dwelling units, 13,659,103 square feet of office area, 4,782,243 square feet of commercial area, and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional area. • Addendum No. 7: Gene Autry Way and State College Boulevard Improvements Project (March 2017). Widen Gene Autry Way from four lanes to six lanes with medians and storm drain and stormwater improvements; widen the west side of State College Boulevard between Gateway Office and Artisan Court to accommodate a southbound right‐turn lane and a third through‐lane; make improvements to the east side of the intersection of State College Boulevard at Gene Autry Way, which is the west entrance to Angel Stadium of Anaheim; and construct a new intersection on Gene Autry Way at Union Street to provide access to planned development areas. • Addendum No. 8: Orangewood Avenue Improvement Project (State College Boulevard to the Santa Ana River) (March 2018). Widen Orangewood Avenue from State College Boulevard to Dupont Drive and from Dupont Drive to the Santa Ana River, respectively, from four lanes to six lanes with the addition of right‐turn lanes. Provide improvements on State College Boulevard between Orangewood Avenue and Artisan Court. • Addendum No. 9. Orangewood Avenue Improvements from the Santa Ana River to the East of SR-57 (May 2022). Widen Orangewood Avenue from a five‐lane roadway to a six‐lane divided facility to provide expanded bicycle and pedestrian access from the Santa Ana River to just east of SR‐57 at the SR‐57/Orangewood Avenue interchange.
In general, the Project would incorporate an additional westbound through lane through the Project Site boundaries. The Project would also include a pipeline connection in Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 10 September 2024
Orangewood Avenue right‐of‐way, generally beginning at Rampart Street and ending to the east at Eckhoff Street. In addition, the project includes a change to the jurisdictional boundaries between the City of Anaheim and the City of Orange, west of the western levee of the Santa Ana River, north and south of Orangewood Avenue. • Addendum No. 10: 710 East Katella Avenue from Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA). Application was withdrawn December 2021. • Addendum No. 11: OCVIBE Project. This Addendum addresses the environmental impacts of the proposed OCVIBE Project that includes development of residential, entertainment, retail and hospitality, office, hotel, institutional, parks and open space, and parking uses on approximately 96.19 gross acres located at the confluence of SR-57 and Santa Ana River, within an expanded PTMU Overlay Zone. The OCVIBE Project would consist of 1,500 residential dwelling units, including 195 affordable dwelling units 1,922,766 square feet of commercial, 961,055 square feet of office, and 250,000 square feet of institutional uses within the revised district boundaries of the Transit and Arena Districts. The OCVIBE project would modify the existing Platinum Triangle district boundaries of Arena, ARTIC, and Katella Districts and reduce, convert, and transfer unused development intensities within these districts to result in an overall increase in the maximum amount of residential dwelling units and commercial development but overall reduction in the office and institutional development. A MMP No. 383 was adopted for this Addendum.
• Addendum No. 12 (August 2022). The City proposes to construct a two-story, approximately 12,622 square-foot fire station on a 1.5-acre parcel. This Project would expand the Anaheim Fire & Rescue’s emergency response capabilities within the Platinum Triangle Expansion area in alignment with the Anaheim Fire & Rescue Strategic Plan 2015–2020 (Recommendation 7 – Begin the implementation of the capital improvement plan). Proposed ancillary facilities would include utilities, landscaping, lighting, fencing, and access improvements.
All 11 adopted addenda concluded that these projects presented no changes or new information requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines.
1.3.4.6 2012 Honda Center Expansion EIR No. 344
On April 3, 2012, the Anaheim City Council certified Final EIR No. 2011-00344 (FEIR No. 344) (State Clearinghouse No. 2011091007) and adopted MMP No. 303 in conjunction with the Honda Center Enhancement Project and associated actions. The Honda Center is located at 2695 East Katella Avenue, bounded on the north by Stanley Cup Way and the Union Pacific Railroad, to the east by the Santa Ana River, to the south by Katella Avenue and to the west by SR-57. The project included the following: an increase to the number of events held at Honda Center for a total of 222 Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 11 September 2024
annual events to accommodate an additional sports franchise tenant without decreasing the number of events held at the facility; physical improvements to the arena building including interior modifications and an exterior expansion; and, a Reclassification to rezone approximately 22.5 acres of the 42.5-acre Honda Center site from the T (PTMU) (Transition – Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use Overlay) Zone to the PR (PTMU) Zone (Public Recreational – Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use Overlay) Zone to provide a consistent zoning designation for the entire site.
1.3.4.7 2010 Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) EIR No. 343
On September 28, 2010, the Anaheim City Council certified the ARTIC Final EIR No. 2010-00343 (FEIR No. 343) (State Clearinghouse No. 2009071071) and adopted an MMP in support of the ARTIC project. The ARTIC project involved relocation of the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak passenger rail station on the approximately 19-acre site 0.25 miles east along the Orange County Transportation Authority railroad right-of-way in the Platinum Triangle and included, among other improvements, the development of an intermodal terminal, a public plaza and drop-off area, tracks, passenger rail boarding platforms, improvements to South Douglass Road, and surface parking.
Since certification of FEIR No. 343, two addenda have been adopted for the following projects:
• Addendum No. 1: ARTIC Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05492 (May 2012). This Addendum evaluated refinements to the project description identified in EIR No. 343, including a reduction in building square footage at the intermodal terminal building; a change to an above-grade bus transit facility; the addition of a pedestrian concourse; removal of the Metrolink/Amtrak concourse tunnel; addition of a baggage tunnel; changes to the platform width and length; reduced width of the Douglass Road Bridge; and, modifications to South Douglass Road and Katella Avenue. As part of the refined project, this Addendum also evaluated a sponsorship signage program that could include up to 13 pylon signs approximately 85-feet high by 20-feet wide with up to 760 feet of advertising space per sign.
• Addendum No. 2: ARTIC Special Sign District (February 2015). This Addendum evaluated the establishment of the ARTIC Special Sign District and the ARTIC Coordinated Sign Program and associated actions including amendments to the Anaheim Municipal Code. The ARTIC Special Sign District and ARTIC Coordinated Sign Program project included adding a new Section 4.04.400 (ARTIC Special Sign District) to Chapter 4.04 (Outdoor Advertising Signs and Structures – General) of Title 4 (Business Regulations) and amending Section 18.14.130 (Signs) of Chapter 18.14 (Public and Special-Purpose Zones) of Title 18 (Zoning Code) of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to sign provisions for transit facilities. The Sign District and Sign Program included previously approved signs (two 35-foot-high monument signs with static displays for advertisement of on-site activities and tenants; building identity signs; bus Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 12 September 2024
shelter signs and signs on the rail platforms that include off-site advertising; and, other way-finding, directional, and informational signs). It also permitted the two previously approved 35-foot-high monument signs to have three digital displays for on- and off-site advertising and activities and tenants and clarified that outdoor signage is permitted in conjunction with events at ARTIC (such as open-air festivals and special events).
The two adopted addenda concluded that these projects presented no changes or new information requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to Sections 15162 or 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines.
1.3.4.8 2017 Mitigated Negative Declaration – Trumark Homes Project On February 7, 2017, the City Council approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration (2017 MND) and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 339 in conjunction with adoption of amendments to the General Plan and the PTMLUP and other project actions to permit 153 single-family, attached condominium units. The 2017 MND addressed modifications to the PTMLUP intensity including the increase of 153 residential dwelling units and the decrease of 168,870 square feet of office uses. The amended PTMLUP allows for 17,501 dwelling units, 13,490,233 square feet of office area, 4,782,243 square feet of commercial area, and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional area.
1.3.4.9 2020 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment for the Stadium District Sub-Area A Project
Pursuant to the PRC Section 21155.2(b) and Infill Project Checklist PRC 21094.5 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.3, on September 29 and October 6, 2020, the City Council approved certain actions pertaining to the Stadium District Sub-Area A Project. This included adoption of a resolution approving and adopting an SCEA for the Stadium District Sub-Area A Project, prepared based on a CEQA Guidelines, Appendix N: Infill Environmental Checklist Form, which evaluated the environmental impacts of the Stadium District Sub-Area A Project and identified necessary mitigation pursuant to the requirements of the CEQA. The project evaluated in the SCEA analyzed the development of a mixed-use community consisting of up to 5,175 residential dwelling units, approximately 1,750,000 square feet of commercial uses (assuming 1,110,000 square feet of retail and 943 hotel rooms), and approximately 2,700,000 square feet of office uses. The City Council also adopted an Updated and Modified MMP No. 106D applicable to projects in Stadium District Sub-Area A.
On May 24, 2022, the Anaheim City Council voted against selling the 150-acre Angel Stadium site to SRB Management Company, however, the development intensities approved for Stadium District Sub-Area A, and analyzed in the SCEA, remain in effect.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 13 September 2024
Section 2 Environmental Setting
2.1 Project Location
2.1.1 Platinum Triangle
The Platinum Triangle consists of approximately 820 acres at the confluence of Interstate 5 (I-5) and SR-57 in the south-central portion of the City of Anaheim (City), in Orange County, California. Figure 1, Regional Location, and Figure 2, Platinum Triangle Location Map, show the Platinum Triangle location in a regional and a local context. The existing Platinum Triangle’s boundaries are the Southern Pacific Railroad and Cerritos Avenue to the north, the Santa Ana River to the east, the City’s boundary with the City of Orange to the south, and I‐5 to the west.
The Platinum Triangle Overlay Zone consists of nine districts: Arena, ARTIC, Katella, Stadium, Gateway, Gene Autry, Orangewood, Lewis, and Office Districts.
Regional access to the Platinum Triangle is provided by I-5, SR-57, Katella Avenue, Orangewood Avenue, and State College Boulevard. Additional access is provided by the ARTIC station.
2.1.2 OCVIBE
The OCVIBE Master Site Plan comprises approximately 92.08 net acres, and is generally bounded by SR-57 to the west, the Santa Ana River to the east, the confluence of the SR-57 and Santa Ana River to the south, with the Southern California Edison easement area forming the northern boundary, Phoenix Club Drive south of Ball Road, Cerritos Avenue between Sunkist Street and South Douglass Road, Katella Avenue east of SR-57 to the Santa Ana River, and South Douglass Road north and south of Katella Avenue (includes the following addresses:
Honda Center (2695 East Katella Avenue), ARTIC (2626 East Katella Avenue), and the ACC (1400–1600 South Douglass Road)) (refer to Figure 3, Approved OCVIBE Master Site Plan SubAreas). As shown in Table 1, Approved OCVIBE Master Site Plan Acreage, the OCVIBE Master Site Plan totals 92.08 gross acres.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 14 September 2024
Table 1. Approved OCVIBE Master Site Plan Acreage
OCVIBE Master Site Plan Net Acreage
Sub-Area Sub-Area Acreage Private Street Acreage
Transit Sub-Area A 11.72 0
Transit Sub-Area B 4.88 0
Transit Sub-Area C 1.97 0
Transit District Subtotal 18.57 N/A
Arena Sub-Area A 10.3 0
Arena Sub-Area 16.15 1.05
Arena Sub-Area C 16.93 1.19
Arena Sub-Area D1 11.6 0
Arena Sub-Area D2 18.53 4.57
Arena District Subtotal 73.51 6.81
OCVIBE Master Site Plan1 92.08 N/A
ARTIC to Transit District Name Change Only
APN Owner Acreage
386-521-08 Orange County Transportation
Authority 0.02
386-521-14 Orange County Transportation
Authority 0.02
386-521-16 Orange County Transportation
Authority 0.06
386-521-20 Orange County Transportation
Authority 0.01
232-072-07 Orange County Transportation
Authority 2.37
District Name Change Only Acreage 2.48
OCVIBE Master Site Plan1 92.08 acres
Addendum No. 11 Project Site Net Acreage 94.56 acres
Note:
1 OCVIBE Master Site Plan Acreage of 92.08 acres includes 6.81 private street acreage but excludes public streets.
2.1.3 Project Site
The Project Site associated with Amendment No. 1 is limited to Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2 for development of additional residential dwelling units and Transit District Sub-Area B for the changes in the Meadow Park and the Porch (refer to Figure 3).
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 15 September 2024
2.2 Environmental Setting
2.2.1 Existing Land Use
Existing uses on the Project Site include the ACC office buildings and surface parking lots for the Honda Center in Arena District Sub-Area D and ARTIC and associated surface parking lots and JT Schmid’s restaurant and retail center in Transit District Sub-Area B (refer to Figure 4, Aerial Photograph).
2.2.1.1 Existing General Plan and Zoning Designation
The existing General Plan land use designation for the Project Site is Mixed Use Urban Core, which allows for a mix of office, commercial, institutional, and residential uses.
The PTMLUP establishes development intensities permitted by the General Plan for properties in the Platinum Triangle. These intensities are implemented through the use of Mixed-Use and Office Districts in the PTMU Overlay Zone. The Project Site boundaries are limited to Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2 and Transit District Sub-Area B. The base zoning for Arena District SubAreas D1 and D2 is PR (Public Recreation) with PTMU Overlay. the base zoning for Transit District Sub-Area B is SP (Semi-Public) with PTMU Overlay.
2.2.2 Surrounding Land Use
The Project Site, Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2 and Transit District Sub-Area B are surrounded by planned uses in other sub-areas of the OCVIBE Master Site Plan (Master Site Plan or MSP). Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2 are bordered by railroad track to the north, Stanley Cup Way (under construction) to the south, South Douglass Road to the west, and western riverbank of Santa Ana River to the east. Future River Road would border Arena District SubAreas D1 and D2 to the east. Beyond railroad tracks to the north is part of Arena District Sub-Area A and is planned for surface parking spaces. Beyond Stanley Cup Way to the south (under construction) is in Arena District Sub-Area C and includes existing Honda Center, planned Parking Deck D, and planned retail uses. Beyond South Douglass Road to the west is planned Parking Deck C (under construction) in Arena District Sub-Area B. The uses beyond Santa Ana River to the east are in the City of Orange and consist of industrial, open space, and urban mixed uses, and planned OC River Walk project.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 16 September 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
Date: 7/31/2024 - Last saved by: Matthew.Dornbach - Path: C:\GIS\Projects\City of Anaheim\OCVIBE\Map Docs\OCVIBE\OCVIBE.aprx Dana
Point
San Juan
Capistrano
Laguna
Beach
Laguna
Hills Coto De
Caza
Newport
Beach Mission
Viejo
Trabuco
Highlands
Costa
Mesa
Irvine
Huntington
Beach
Tustin
Seal
Beach
Garden
Grove
Orange
Anaheim
Placentia Yorba Linda
Fullerton
Corona
March
Woodcrest AFB
Norco
Riverside
Rubidoux
Wildomar
Lake
Elsinore
Carson
Long
Beach
Cerritos
Gardena Bellflower Compton
Downey
Diamond
Bar
Industry
Walnut
Alhambra Covina
Pomona
Claremont
Glendora
Irwindale
Burbank Monrovia
Altadena
Pasadena
Glendale
Acton
Chino
Hills
Chino
Loma
Linda
Ontario Bloomington Colton
Upland Fontana Rialto
Crestline
Hesperia
Victorville
Cypress
nglewood
Whittier
Commerce
Montebello
Rosemead
Arcadia
Los Angeles County
Orange County
San Bernardino County
Los Angeles County
Riverside County
Orange County
Orange County
San Diego
County
P a c i f i c O c e a n
£¤101
£¤395
ÄÆ1
ÄÆ18
ÄÆ57
ÄÆ47
ÄÆ39
ÄÆ91
259 ÄÆ
ÄÆ60
ÄÆ2
ÄÆ57
ÄÆ73
ÄÆ91
ÄÆ22
103 ÄÆ
ÄÆ39
ÄÆ55
ÄÆ91
159 ÄÆ
241 ÄÆ
142 ÄÆ
206 ÄÆ
173 ÄÆ
134 ÄÆ
ÄÆ1
133 ÄÆ
ÄÆ71
ÄÆ60
ÄÆ72
ÄÆ90
ÄÆ83
ÄÆ14 ÄÆ18
ÄÆ19
ÄÆ66
ÄÆ74
ÄÆ60
138 ÄÆ
ÄÆ2
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
§¨¦710
§¨¦10
§¨¦215
§¨¦710
§¨¦605
§¨¦605
§¨¦210
§¨¦15
§¨¦105
§¨¦405
§¨¦210
§¨¦10
§¨¦5
§¨¦15
Addendum No. 13 to SEIR No. 339 (Amendment No. 1 to OCVIBE Project) Project Site
!(^
Regional Location
Source: ESRI 2020.
±
0 5 10
Miles
Figure 1
Population Centers
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 18 September 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
PROJECT SITE
ARTIC
Source: City of Anaheim 2022.
Path C:\GIS\Projects\City of Anaheim\OCVIBE\Map Docs
Miles
0 0.5
1 Figure 2
Platinum Triangle Location Map
Addendum No. 13 to SEIR No. 339 (Amendment No. 1 to OCVIBE Project) N
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 20 September 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
ocV!BE Entitlements | Aug 2022 | 27 PTMLUP MIS2020-00751 APPLICANT Anaheim Real Estate Partners, LLC
2101 East Coast Highway, Suite 230, Corona del Mar, CA 92625 CONTACT Brian Myers, [email protected], 415-593-8200 PROJECT ADDRESS 2695 E Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 A2.02
0 300 600'
1" = 300' at 11" x 17" (1”= 150’ at 22”x 34”)
N
APPROVED MASTER SITE PLAN SUB-AREAS
MSP G1.00 Use this updated table for Project Summary Info and comment 1567 on A1.04 ocV!BE Master Site Plan Net Acreage
Sub-Area Sub-Area Acreage Private Street Acreage
Transit Sub-Area A 11.72 0
Transit Sub-Area B 4.88 0
Transit Sub-Area C 1.97 0
Transit District 18.57 N/A
Arena Sub-Area A 10.3 0
Arena Sub-Area B 16.15 1.05
Arena Sub-Area C 16.93 1.19
Arena Sub-Area D1 11.6 0
Arena Sub-Area D2 18.53 4.57
Arena District 73.51 6.81
ocV!BE Master Site
Plan Net Acreage1 92.08 N/A
ARTIC to Transit District Name Change Only
APN Owner Acreage
386-521-08 Orange County Transportation
Authority 0.02
386-521-14 Orange County Transportation
Authority 0.02
386-521-16 Orange County Transportation
Authority 0.06
386-521-20 Orange County Transportation
Authority 0.01
232-072-07 Orange County Transportation
Authority 2.37
District Name Change Only Acreage 2.48
ocV!BE Master Site Plan Net Acreage 92.08
Project Site Net Acreage 94.56
1 ocV!BE Master Site Plan Net Acreage plus 6.81
Private Street Acreage equals 98.89 acres
1 ocV!BE Master Site Plan Net Acreage plus 6.81 Private Street Acreage equals 98.89 acres MSP G1.00 Use this updated table for Project Summary Info and comment 1567 on A1.04 ocV!BE Master Site Plan Net Acreage
Sub-Area Sub-Area Acreage Private Street Acreage
Transit Sub-Area A 11.72 0
Transit Sub-Area B 4.88 0
Transit Sub-Area C 1.97 0
Transit District 18.57 N/A
Arena Sub-Area A 10.3 0
Arena Sub-Area B 16.15 1.05
Arena Sub-Area C 16.93 1.19
Arena Sub-Area D1 11.6 0
Arena Sub-Area D2 18.53 4.57
Arena District 73.51 6.81
ocV!BE Master Site
Plan Net Acreage1 92.08 N/A
ARTIC to Transit District Name Change Only
APN Owner Acreage
386-521-08 Orange County Transportation
Authority 0.02
386-521-14 Orange County Transportation
Authority 0.02
386-521-16 Orange County Transportation
Authority 0.06
386-521-20 Orange County Transportation
Authority 0.01
232-072-07 Orange County Transportation
Authority 2.37
District Name Change Only Acreage 2.48
ocV!BE Master Site Plan Net Acreage 92.08
Project Site Net Acreage 94.56
1 ocV!BE Master Site Plan Net Acreage plus 6.81
Private Street Acreage equals 98.89 acres
1 ocV!BE Master Site Plan Net Acreage plus 6.81 Private Street Acreage equals 98.89 acres Figure 2
Source: City of Anaheim 2022.
Path C:\GIS\Projects\City of Anaheim\OCVIBE\Map Docs
Feet
0 300 600 Figure 3
Approved OCVIBE Master Site Plan Sub-Areas
Addendum No. 13 to SEIR No. 339 (Amendment No. 1 to OCVIBE Project) N
Project Site
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 22 September 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
JT Schmidt
ARCTIC
Angel Stadium
of Anaheim
Ayers Hotel
(N.A.P)
Honda Center
Arena
Corporate
Westwood Center
College
Railroad
Track
Phoenix Club
Church of
Southland
Southern
California
Edison Easement
Santa Ana River
Metrolink
OMEGA AVE
WINSTON RD
RILES CIR
POPLAR ST
BARKLEY AVE
CHANTILLY ST
SINCLAIR ST
HILDA ST CLIFPARK WAY
STRUCK AVE
ALMONT AVE
ELM ST
PAGE CT
TRENTON AVE
ÄÆ57
DOUGLASS RD
TAFT AVE
ORANGEWOOD AVE
ECKHOFF ST
HOWELL AVE
COLLINS AVE MAIN ST SUNKIST ST
GROVE AVE
CERRITOS AVE
BALL RD
KATELLA AVE
Anaheim
Orange
Transit
District
Sub-Area B
Arena District
Sub-Areas D1 & D2
Date: 9/17/2024 - Last saved by: Matthew.Dornbach - Path: J:\Projects\City of Anaheim\OCVIBE\Map Docs\OCVIBE\OCVIBE.aprx Source: Maxar Imagery 2022.
±
0 500 1,000
Feet Aerial Photograph
Source: Maxar Imagery 2022.
Addendum No. 13 to SEIR No. 339 (Amendment No. 1 to OCVIBE Project) Figure 4
OCVIBE Project Boundary
Project Site
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 24 September 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 25 September 2024
Section 3 Project Description
3.1 Approved Project
As stated in Section 1, the term “Approved Project” refers to the PT Expansion Project analyzed by FSEIR No. 339 and subsequent modified projects analyzed by 11 addenda (Addendum No. 10 was withdrawn), including Addendum No. 11 for the OCVIBE Project. When referring to the project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339, the term “PT Expansion Project” is used, and when referring to the project analyzed in Addendum No. 11, the term “OCVIBE Project” is used.
3.1.1 Platinum Triangle
The Approved Project is the development capacity currently permitted by the PTMLUP, which includes development capacity approved by OCVIBE Master Site Plan (OCVIBE Project) analyzed in Amendment No. 11. At buildout of the OCVIBE Project, the allowed development density within the Platinum Triangle are 17,840 dwelling units and approximately 6.2 million square feet of commercial space, 11.7 million square feet of office space, and 250,000 square feet of institutional space. The OCVIBE Project’s development intensities are summarized in Table 2, PTMU Overlay Zone Development Intensities Under the OCVIBE Project.
Table 2. PTMU Overlay Zone Development Intensities Under the OCVIBE Project District Acres
Residential
Units Office (SF)
Commercial
(SF)
Institutional
(SF)
Arena 86 1,284 961,055 1,504,898 0
Transit 21 0 0 417,878 250,000
Gateway 30 1,425 562,250 64,000 0
Gene Autry 43 2,261 219,200 132,900 0
Katella 127 5,025 1,874,442 530,043 0
Lewis 8 153 0 0 0
Orangewood 35 1,771 1,002,855 130,000 0
Stadium 173 5,921 3,172,000 3,415,300 0
Subtotal Total Mixed Use 523 17,840 7,791,802 6,195,019 250,000 Office 93 0 3,867,536 0 0
Total 616 17,840 11,659,338 6,195,019 250,000
Notes: SF = square feet
While the currently permitted development intensities within each of the Platinum Triangle districts are summarized in Table 2, Table 3, Development Intensities Previously Analyzed, shows the cumulative development density previously analyzed in FSEIR No. 339 for the PT Expansion Project and the OCVIBE Project analyzed in Addendum No. 11.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 26 September 2024
Table 3. Development Intensities Previously Analyzed
Land Use PT Expansion Project OCVIBE Project1 Difference (+)/(-) Mixed Use Urban Core
Residential 18,909 DU 17,840 DU (-1,069) DU
Commercial 4,909,682 SF 6,195,019 SF 1,285,337 SF
Office 14,478,356 SF 11,659,338 SF (-2,070,364) SF
Institutional 1,500,000 SF 250,000 SF (-1,250,000) SF
Non-Residential Subtotal 20,888,038 SF 18,104,357 SF (-2,783,681) SF Notes: DU = dwelling units; SF = square feet
1 Refer to Table 2, PTMU Overlay Zone Development Intensities Under the OCVIBE Project.
3.1.2 Approved OCVIBE Master Site Plan
The City of Anaheim previously approved permits associated with the implementation of the OCVIBE Master Site Plan (MIS2020-00751) and a name change from ARTIC to Transit District.
The OCVIBE Project also included off-site improvements involving ramp and street widening, restriping, and traffic signal modifications. The Master Site Plan, District name change from ARTIC to Transit District, and off-site improvements collectively comprise the OCVIBE Project.
Figure 3 illustrates the approved OCVIBE Master Site Plan Sub-Areas.
The OCVIBE Project as evaluated in Addendum No. 11 included residential, entertainment, retail and hospitality, office, hotel, institutional, parks and open space, and parking uses in the Transit District and the Arena District as shown on Figure 5, Approved OCVIBE Master Site Plan. Concurrent with the OCVIBE Master Site Plan, five Final Site Plans involving the development of the uses identified as 1A (Parking Deck D), 2B through 2G, 2G-1 and 2G-5 (i.e., Parking Decks B and C, Market Hall/Creative Office, restaurant row, concert hall, Urban Park, Paseo, Honda Center west), 2M (Employee Surface Parking Lot), and 2N (Security Hub) in Arena District were also approved.
3.2 Modified Project
Anaheim Real Estate Partners, LLC (AREP) (Applicant), is proposing to implement Amendment No. 1 to the previously approved OCVIBE mixed-use project (DEV2020-00125) in the Platinum Triangle to demolish the ACC office buildings and construct up to 750 additional residential units, including affordable units, with a density bonus and up to 325,000 square feet of office space; remove the previously approved pedestrian bridge from Parking Deck C across South Douglass Road; remove the approved Meadow Amphitheater; and dedicate additional public park space (Modified or Amendment No. 1). The request includes the following land use entitlements.
3.2.1 General Plan Amendment
The General Plan allows for Mixed-Use Urban Core and Open Space land use designations within the Master Site Plan. The Mixed-Use designation permits an integrated mix of uses, including Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 27 September 2024
residential, commercial, services, hotel, and professional office spaces, all within a high-quality, pedestrian-friendly environment. The Open Space designation includes approximately four acres within Meadow Park, with final boundaries subject to City approval. The General Plan amendment associated with Amendment No. 1 would change the allowed development intensities in Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2. The maximum allowable residential units would have a base density of 1,920 dwelling units, with a range of 1,960 to 2,250 dwelling units proposed pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law. The maximum allowable office square footage would be 325,000 square feet. The permitted residential density in the Mixed-Use Urban Core would be updated to 18,476 dwelling units from 17,840 dwelling units, and office space would be updated to 7,182,427 to 7,407,427 square feet from 7,791,802 square feet.
The Modified Project would amend the Land Use and Green Elements to amend Tables LU-2 through LU-6 to reflect the proposed changes in the Land Use Element; Table G-1, Park Deficiency Area, to reflect the expansion of Meadow Park in the Green Element; and Table 9, Priority Ranking of the Proposed Network – Tier 2 (on Page 93 of the Bicycle Master Plan), to remove South Douglass Road and correct an oversight from the original approval in the Bicycle Master Plan.
3.2.2 Amendments to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan The PTMLUP establishes development intensities permitted by the General Plan for properties located within the Platinum Triangle, which are implemented with Mixed-Use Districts in the PTMU Overlay Zone. The Project Site is located within the PTMU Overlay Zone. The existing Sub-Areas D1 and D2 boundaries would be amended, changing the allowable development intensities of residential and office land uses. Figure 6, Modified OCVIBE Master Site Plan SubAreas, shows the proposed changes to the Master Site Plan in Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2 and the Transit District Sub-Area B.
The PTMLUP amendments also include updating the OCVIBE Sign and Identity Program.
3.2.2.1 PTMU District Designations
As shown in Table 4, Proposed OCVIBE Master Site Plan Sub-Area Acreage, Arena District SubArea D1 would change from 11.6 acres to 5.04 acres, and Sub-Area D2 would change from 18.53 acres to 24.86 acres. This also reflects slight change from the combined total of 30.13 acres for Arena Sub-Area D1 and D2 as shown in Table 1 due to a 0.23-acre shift to Arena District SubArea A with the precise alignment of River Road during final engineering phase. The Modified Project would not change the overall boundaries of Arena District or Transit District.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 28 September 2024
Table 4. Proposed OCVIBE Master Site Plan Sub-Area Acreage Sub-Area Sub-Area Acreage Private Street Acreage
Approved Proposed Approved Proposed
Transit Sub-Area A 11.72 11.72 0 0
Transit Sub-Area B 4.88 4.88 0 0
Transit Sub-Area C 1.97 1.97 0 0
Transit District Subtotal 18.57 18.57 N/A N/A
Arena Sub-Area A1 10.3 10.53 0 0
Arena Sub-Area B 16.15 16.15 1.05 1.05
Arena Sub-Area C 16.93 16.93 1.19 1.19
Arena Sub-Area D11 11.6 5.04 0 0.31
Arena Sub-Area D21 18.53 24.86 4.57 5.69
Arena District Subtotal 73.51 73.51 6.81 8.24
OCVIBE Master Site Plan Net Acreage 92.08 92.08 N/A N/A Notes:
1 Approved OCVIBE Master Site Plan Acreage for Arena Sub-Area D1 and D2 combined was 30.13 acres. Combined acreage for the Proposed OCVIBE Master Site Plan Arena Sub-Areas D1 and D2 would be 29.9 acres due to a 0.23-acre shift to Arena SubArea A with the precise alignment of River Road during Phase I Final Engineering. Arena Sub-Area A acreage would increase to
10.53 acres to account for this shift.
3.2.2.2 Platinum Triangle Development Intensities
Amendment No. 1 includes changes to the approved development intensities that allow for a base density of 1,920 dwelling units for residential development and a range of options for office development in the Arena District Sub-Area D2. Figure 7, Modified OCVIBE Master Site Plan (Amendment No. 1), illustrates changes from the approved OCVIBE Project. Each of the three options are summarized in Table 5, Arena District Sub-Area D2 Development Options and shown in Figures 8 through 10, Option 1 – High-Rise Mixed Use, Option 2 – Residential Podium, and Option 3 – Office Tower, respectively. In all options, the Meadow Amphitheater in Transit District Sub-Area B would be replaced with an expansion of Meadow Park.
Table 5. Arena District Sub-Area D2 Development Options Option Dwelling Units1 Office Square Footage Retail Square Footage 1 – High-Rise Mixed-Use 2,250 DU2 100,000 15,000
2 – Residential Podium 2,175 DU3 0 15,000
3 – Office Tower 1,960 DU4 325,000 15,000
Notes:
1 The proposed dwelling units reflect the base density of 100 DU/acre on 19.20-acres of Area District Sub-Area D2 that would be identified for residential uses. The Applicant proposes to provide a minimum of 5 percent of the number of base units to be affordable to very low-income households (96 DU), authorizing the Applicant to increase the Project density by a maximum of 20 percent (384 bonus DU or 2,304 total DU). With the density bonus, the Applicant is proposing a range of 1,960 DU to 2,250 DU, within the allowable density pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law. 2 Option 1 would include up to 750 additional dwelling units and reduce office square footage by 609,375 square feet. 3 Option 2 would include up to 675 additional dwelling units and reduce office square footage by 709,375 square feet. 4 Option 3 would include up to 460 additional dwelling units and reduce office square footage by 384,375 square feet.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 29 September 2024
Table 6, Platinum Triangle Development Intensities (Approved and Proposed), summarizes the proposed changes to the development intensities of the Platinum Triangle.
Table 6. Platinum Triangle Development Intensities (Approved and Modified) General Plan Land Use
Designation Approved PTMLUP Totals Net Change Resulting from Modified Project (+)/(-) New PTMLUP Total w/
Modified Project
Mixed-Use Urban Core
Residential 17,840 DU1 636 DU 18,476 DU2
Commercial 6,195,019 SF 0 6,195,019 SF
Office 7,791,802 SF (384,375 SF to
609,375 SF)
7,182,427 SF to 7,407,427
SF
Institutional 250,000 SF 0 250,000 SF
Office-High and Office-Low 3,867,536 SF 0 3,867,536 SF
Notes: DU = dwelling units; PTMLUP = Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan; SF = square feet 1 FSEIR No. 339 analyzed up to 18,909 DU in the Platinum Triangle 2 The 18,476 dwelling unit development intensity (inclusive of 1,920 DU in the Arena District) reflects the base density of 100 DU/acre on 19.20-acres of Area District Sub-Area D2 that would be identified for residential uses. The Applicant proposes to provide a minimum of 5 percent of the number of base units to be affordable to very low-income households (96 DU), authorizing the Applicant to increase the Project density by a maximum of 20 percent (384 bonus DU or 2,304 total DU). With the density bonus, the Applicant is proposing a range of 1,960 Du to 2,250 DU, within the allowable density pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law.
Table 7, Modified Project Options 1, 2, and 3 Development Intensities, shows the approved development intensities within OCVIBE Project boundaries and three development options for Arena District Sub-Area D2. No changes to development intensities in Transit District and other sub-areas of Arena District are proposed. The Modified Project would allow for 1,920 dwelling units as a base for residential development and a range of options for office development. As shown, the total dwelling units under the Modified Project would range from 1,960 to 2,250, total office square feet would range from 0 to 325,000 square feet, and retail square footage under all three options would be the same 15,000 square feet.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 30 September 2024
Table 7. Modified Project Options 1, 2, and 3 Development Intensities General
Plan Land
Use
OCVIBE
Total
Transit
District
Sub-Areas
A, B, & C
Arena District
Arena
District
Sub-Area A Total 1 Sub-Area B Sub-Area C
Sub-Area
D1 & D2
Mixed-Use Urban Core
Approved Project
Residential2 1,284 DU 0 0 0 0 1,284 DU 1,284 DU
Commercial 1,922,776
SF 417,878 SF3 0 221,413 SF 1,268,485 SF5
15,000 SF 1,504,898
SF
Office 961,055 SF 0 0 167,490 SF 84,190 SF 709,3756 SF 961,055 SF Institutional 250,000 SF 250,000 SF4 0 0 0 0 0
Modified Project
Option 1 – High-Rise Mixed-Use Development Intensities
Residential 1,920 DU7 0 0 0 0 1,920 DU 1,920 DU
Commercial 1,922,776
SF
417,878
SF3,8
0 221,413 SF9
1,268,485
SF5
15,000 SF 1,504,898
SF
Office 351,680 SF 0 0 167,490 SF10 84,190 SF 100,000 SF 351,680 Institutional 250,000 250,000 SF4 0 0 0 0 0
Option 2 – Residential Podium Development Intensities
Residential 1,920 DU7 0 0 0 0 1,920 DU 1,920 DU
Commercial 1,922,776
SF
417,878
SF3,8
0 221,413 SF9
1,268,485
SF5
15,000 SF 1,504,898
SF
Office 251,680 SF 0 0 167,490 SF10 84,190 SF 0 251,680 SF Institutional 250,000 SF 250,000 SF4 0 0 0 0 0
Option 3 – Office Tower Development Intensities
Residential 1,920 DU7 0 0 0 0 1,920 DU 1,920 DU
Commercial 1,922,776
SF
417,878
SF3,8
0 221,413 SF9
1,268,485
SF5
15,000 SF 1,504,898
SF
Office 576,680 SF 0 0 167,490 SF10 84,190 SF 325,000 SF 576,680 SF Institutional 250,000 SF 250,000 SF4 0 0 0 0 0
Notes: DU = dwelling units; SF = square feet
1 Arena Sub-Area A includes surface parking lots only.
2 The 1,284 dwelling unit development intensity in the Arena District reflects the base density of 100 DU/acre on 12.84-acres of Arena District Sub-Area D2 that is identified for residential uses. Five percent of the number of base units would be affordable to very low-income households, authorizing the Applicant to increase the Project density by a maximum of 20 percent. With the density bonus, the approved Residential Development Intensity is 1,500 DUs, including 195 affordable units. 3 Transit District Sub-Area A includes approximately 12,075 SF of permitted commercial uses per CUP2010-05492 (11,869 SF constructed per building permits) in the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) with the balance of 12,925 SF reserved for potential future commercial uses in ARTIC, not a part of the OCVIBE Master Site Plan. 4 Transit District Sub-Area A includes an estimated 80,000 SF for ARTIC, including approximately 68,000 SF permitted Institutional uses per CUP2010-05492 (56,011 SF per building permit), with the balance of 12,000 SF reserved for potential future Institutional uses at ARTIC, not a part of the OCVIBE Master Site Plan. 5 Includes 650,000 SF for the existing Honda Center.
6 Arena District Sub-Area D1 includes 383,250 SF for the existing Arena Corporate Center. 7 The 18,476 dwelling unit development intensity (inclusive of 1,920 DU in the Arena District) reflects the base density of 100 DU/acre on 19.20-acres of Area District Sub-Area D2 that would be identified for residential uses. Five percent of the number of Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 31 September 2024
base units would be affordable to very low-income households, authorizing the Applicant to increase the Project density by a maximum of 20 percent. With the density bonus, the approved Residential Development Intensity is 2,250 DUs. 8 Transit District Sub-Area B – Commercial Development Intensity would be adjusted to 0 SF with the elimination of Meadow Amphitheater proposed in MSP Addendum No. 1.
9 Commercial Development Intensity was adjusted to 211,021 SF with the approval of FSP2020-00005 Substantial Conformance No. 1.
10 Office Development Intensity was adjusted to 166,016 SF with the approval of FSP2020-00005 Substantial Conformance No. 1.
Residential District Description
Buildings 1–5 are proposed to be in a podium configuration with 7-stories above grade and 1 basement level garage. The units would include studio, one-, and two-bedroom residences.
Common resident amenity spaces would be integrated with landscaped courtyards, pool areas, and urban streetscapes. The Modified Project has been designed as a cohesive neighborhood to complement the other uses in OCVIBE. Buildings 2, 3, 4, and 5 are oriented around the proposed Neighborhood Park with ground level activation.
The Modified Project would provide a range of residential dwelling units and office space to allow flexibility between the uses as the OCVIBE Project reaches buildout. The proposed adjustments to Phases 2 – 4 of the approved OCVIBE Project, as shown in Section 3.4, Project Phasing, would be consistent across all three proposed residential buildout options. The optionality between the mix of residential and office uses is introduced in Phase 5 with the construction of Building 5 and/or Building 6.
Office Uses: As shown on Figure 8 and Figure 10, office uses would be in Building 6 as either a mixed used configuration of 100,000 square feet of office uses and 290 dwelling units, or as a dedicated office use of approximately 325,000 square feet. In either case, the building height would be approximately 240 feet, and the building footprint would be similar. Parking for the office uses would be provided in Parking Deck C under both options. Office tenants would cross South Douglass Road at grade at Stanley Cup Way in the pedestrian scramble.
Residential Uses: As shown on Figure 9, if mid-rise residential units are developed rather than a high-rise building, the footprint of Buildings 5 and 6 would be combined into one podium construction residential building with 575 dwelling units. In this option, there would be no highrise/office use in Arena District Sub-Area D2.
3.2.2.3 Mixed Use District Overview
The Modified Project would be updated as shown in Table 8, PTMU Overlay Zone Development Intensities Under the Modified Project, to adjust maximum development.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 32 September 2024
Table 8. PTMU Overlay Zone Development Intensities Under the Modified Project District Acres Residential Units Office (SF) Commercial (SF) Institutional (SF) Arena 86 1,284
1,920
961,055
351,680 to
576,680
1,504,898 0
Transit 21 0 0 417,878 250,000
Gateway 30 1,425 562,250 64,000 0
Gene Autry 43 2,261 219,200 132,900 0
Katella 127 5,025 1,874,442 530,043 0
Lewis 8 153 0 0 0
Orangewood 35 1,771 1,002,855 130,000 0
Stadium 173 5,921 3,172,000 3,415,300 0
Subtotal Total
Mixed Use 523 17,840
18,476
7,791,802
7,182,427 to
7,407,427
6,195,019 250,000
Office 93 0 3,867,536 0 0
Total 616 17,840
11,659,338
11,049,963 to
11,274,963
6,195,019 250,000
Notes: SF = square feet
The amended texts are shown in strikeout text for deletions and bold text for additions.
3.2.3 Master Site Plan Amendment
The approved Master Site Plan (MIS 2020-00751) comprises approximately 92.08 net acres located in the Platinum Triangle. Amendment No. 1 would involve the demolition of the existing ACC, construction of proposed new residential and office development in Arena District Sub-Area D, elimination of the proposed pedestrian bridge from Parking Deck C across South Douglass Road, the elimination of the proposed Meadow Amphitheater, and dedication of additional public park space in Transit District Sub-Area B.
3.2.3.1 Amended Master Site Plan Program
The Master Site Plan Amendment No. 1, inclusive of Substantial Conformance approvals for FSP2020-00005, FSP2020-00006, and FSP2020-00007, includes modifications to the gross square footages (GSF) and residential dwelling units in the Transit and Arena Districts. The amended program summary of the OCVIBE Project is shown below in strikeout text for deletions and bold text for additions.
Mixed-Use Urban Core Commercial
• Entertainment – 872,110 GSF 835,610 GSF (32,749 Seats) (26,749 Seats) − Entertainment GSF – 230,909 185,610 GSF (14,413 8,413 Seats) ▪ Meadow Amphitheater – 36,500 GSF (6,000 Seats)
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 33 September 2024
▪ Concert Hall – 91,476 GSF (5,613 Seats)
▪ Concert Hall Back of House – 8,799 GSF
▪ North Plaza – 43,400 GSF (1,200 Seats)
▪ Honda Center West – 725 GSF
▪ Bowling Club – 50,009 GSF (1,600 Seats)
− Existing Honda Center – 650,000 GSF (18,336 Seats)
• Retail and Hospitality – 283,793 GSF 254,710 GSF
− Retail – 80,847 GSF
▪ Market Hall/Urban Park – 1,625 GSF
▪ North Plaza – 30,165 GSF
▪ Honda Center West – 3,310 GSF
▪ Entertainment F&B – 5,100 GSF
▪ Residential Retail – 15,000 GSF
▪ Paseo Outdoor Retail – 700 GSF
▪ ARTIC Commercial – 25,000 GSF
− Hospitality – Restaurants and Outdoor Dining – 202,293 173,863 GSF ▪ Meadow Hotel – 5,000 GSF
▪ Market Hall/Restaurant Row/Urban Park – 70,950 GSF
▪ Market Hall Back of House – 18,400 GSF
▪ Unoccupied Outdoor – 5,582 GSF
▪ Arena Hotel – 5,270 GSF
▪ North Plaza – 23,705 GSF
▪ Honda Center West – 10,930 GSF
▪ Entertainment F&B – 4,230 GSF
▪ South Plaza – 8,530 GSF
▪ The Gardens – 10,635 GSF
▪ Outdoor Dining – 35,000 34,613 GSF
• Hotels – 650,000 GSF (550 Rooms and Private Open Space and Outdoor Amenities) − Arena Hotel – 354,500 GSF (320 rooms)
− Meadow Hotel – 295,500 GSF (230 rooms)
Mixed-Use Urban Core Office
• Office – 948,250 238,875 – 563,875 GSF
− Creative Office – 141,800 GSF
− Security Hub – 12,885 GSF
− Studios/Garage Band – 7,500 GSF
− South Plaza Creative Office – 76,690 GSF
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 34 September 2024
− Signature Office Building – 326,125 GSF Mixed-Use Office 0 GSF to 325,000 GSF
− Arena Corporate Center Existing Office to Remain – 383,250 GSF Mixed-Use Urban Core Institutional
• Institutional Uses – 250,000 GSF
− Existing ARTIC to remain – 80,000 GSF
− Institutional Office – 170,000 GSF
Mixed-Use Urban Core Residential
• Residential – 1,500 1,920 to 2,250 Dwelling Units (DU)/2.17 up to 2.79 million GSF − Proposed DUs
▪ 1,284 1,920 DUs allowed by permitted density
▪ 257 384 DUs allowed by density bonus with 216 up to 340 DUs requested
• Affordable Housing – 195 DU up to 340 DU
− Moderate income (65 DU up to 120 DU on-site)
− Low-income (65 DU up to 120 DU at an off-site location) − Very low-income (65 DU up to 100 DU at an off-site location) Other Uses
• Parks and Open Space
− Publicly Accessible Open Space – 712,677 708,504 GSF
▪ The Porch + Steps – 40,947 22,060 GSF
▪ Meadow Park – 176,228 189,090 GSF
▪ Urban Park – 53,916 GSF
▪ Paseo – 88,024 GSF
▪ Security Hub – 5,400 GSF
▪ North Plaza Arts Alley – 9,481 GSF
▪ North Plaza Backyard – 25,600 GSF
▪ South Plaza – 49,767 GSF
▪ South Plaza Gardens – 11,350 GSF
▪ South Plaza Porch – 15,417 GSF
▪ The Gardens Outdoor Space and Pavilions – 32,402 GSF
▪ Wellness Neighborhood Park – 204,145 205,997 GSF
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 35 September 2024
− Residential Recreation-Leisure Amenities – 316,035 up to 450,000 GSF ▪ Private Recreation-Leisure – 16,825 up to 56,450 GSF
▪ Common Recreation-Leisure – 299,210 up to 394,000 GSF • Parking – 11,289 12,823 Stalls, Including 8,212 8,561 Shared Parking Stalls − Parking Structures (7,099 7,696 Stalls)
− Parking Deck A – 452,612 GSF (1,371 Stalls)
− Parking Deck B – 1,126,979 1,118,569 GSF (2,970 2,968 Stalls) − Parking Deck C – 574,573 574,277 GSF (1,568 1,566 Stalls) − Parking Deck D – 467,052 713,254 GSF (1,190 1,791 Stalls) • Surface Parking (1,355 1,107 Stalls)
− Employee Surface Parking Lots (1,113 865 Stalls)
− Lot B (221 Stalls)
− Security Hub (3 Stalls)
− Wellness Neighborhood Park (18 Stalls)
• Hotels (496 Stalls)
− Meadow Hotel – 77,475 GSF (208 Stalls)
− Arena Hotel – 107,679 GSF (288 Stalls)
• Residential (2,339 up to 3,524 Stalls)
Infrastructure Improvements
• Circulation – Vehicular
− Widening of Katella Avenue
− River Road – Proposed primary arterial to connect Katella Avenue with Ball Road to the north
− Private Road network
▪ Stanley Cup Way
▪ South Douglass Road (Stanley Cup Way to Cerritos Avenue) ▪ Cerritos Avenue
• Circulation – Pedestrian Access
− Pedestrian-only Paseo – South Douglass Road vacation between Katella Avenue and Stanley Cup Way
− Sidewalks throughout Project Area
− Elevated Pedestrian Bridges including: signature bridge across Katella Avenue; and connecting Parking Deck A with ARTIC across South Douglass Road south of Katella. and connecting Parking Deck C with Wellness Park across Douglass Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 36 September 2024
Road north of Stanley Cup Way (this segment of Douglass Road is a private street with a public access easement).
Parks and Open Space Plan
The approved Parks and Open Space Plan would be modified. The approved and modified parks and open space plans are shown on Figure 11a, Approved Parks and Open Space Plan, and Figure 11b, Modified Parks and Open Space Plan. The Modified Project would replace the proposed Wellness Park (204,145 GSF) with the new Neighborhood Park (205,997 GSF) in Arena District Sub-Area D1, and remove the proposed Meadow Amphitheater (36,500 GSF, 6000 seats) and dedicate additional public park space in Transit District Sub-Area B. In addition to the Neighborhood Park (205, 997 GSF), the Modified Project would provide additional residential unsecured common recreation-leisure area in Arena District Sub-Area D2: 90,090 GSF (2.06 acres) under Option 1, 74,813 GSF under Option 2, and 70,868 GSF under Option 3.
The Meadow Park area would increase from 176,228 GSF to 189,090 GSF, and The Porch and steps area would be reduced from 40,947 GSF to 22,060 GSF, providing a total of 4.85 acres (211,150 square feet) of public park area in Transit District Sub-Area B.
Pedestrian Circulation
The Modified Project would update pedestrian access within the OCVIBE Project to: 1) provide internal circulation within Meadow Park that integrates with the proposed OC Riverwalk project initiated by the City of Anaheim; 2) eliminate the previously approved elevated pedestrian bridge from Parking Deck C across South Douglass Road; and 3) provide internal circulation within the Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2 that integrates the pedestrian network on the approved public and private streets and maximizes residential connectivity to the Neighborhood Park.
Figures 12a and 12b, Approved Pedestrian Circulation and Modified Pedestrian Circulation, respectively, show approved and modified pedestrian access within the OCVIBE Project. Figure 13, Bike and Trail Connections, illustrates the proposed bike and trail connections to the proposed and existing bike facilities.
The approved elevated pedestrian bridge from Parking Deck C across South Douglass Road was originally intended to facilitate grade separated access between the existing ACC buildings to remain and proposed Signature Office Building and office tenant parking in Parking Deck C.
However, this elevated pedestrian bridge is no longer necessary as the ACC office buildings would be demolished under the Modified Project and office uses would be reduced. 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.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 37 September 2024
Vehicular Circulation
The proposed amendments to the vehicular circulation plan associated with Amendment No. 1 are reflected in the OCVIBE Amendment No. 1 exhibits C3.01.A1 through C3.12.A1 – Circulation Plan and Sections. Amendment No. 1 would involve additional details related to the private streets within Arena District Sub-Area D that serve the Neighborhood District.
Rideshare Program
The Rideshare Program would be revised to reflect the elimination of the proposed rideshare access at Wellness Park and replaced with rideshare access at the end of the cul-de-sac on Private Drive A. This would provide a designated pick-up and drop-off location for residents and visitors to the residential community and the Neighborhood Park. A mobility hub with waiting areas, bikeshare, and other mobility features would be provided as an amenity in Building 5 in Area District Sub-Area D2.
Vehicular Parking
Consistent with the approved Development Agreement 2020-00004 (DAG2020-00004), Section
7.3.1, the owner will prepare an updated Parking Supply and Demand Study (Parking Study) and Construction Access Plan with the submittal of the first Final Site Plan for Phase 2 (Residential Buildings 1 and 2) and each subsequent phase. Figure 14, Parking Supply Plan, illustrates parking shows shared parking and dedicated parking areas within the OCVIBE boundaries and proposed anticipated parking supply under Option 1.
Office: The approved Shared Use Parking Study analyzed 565,000 square feet of new office space in addition to the existing 383,250 square feet office space in ACC. The Modified Project would demolish the existing 383,250 square feet office space in ACC and replace it with a maximum of 325,000 square feet office space in Option 3. The Modified Project would result in an overall reduction in existing and proposed office uses, therefore the approved Shared Use Parking Study demonstrates that there is sufficient parking to accommodate the proposed office uses resulting from the Modified Project.
Residential: Consistent with the approved OCVIBE Project, each residential building would provide dedicated residential parking at an average of 1.566 stalls per unit. The precise code parking requirement would be calculated when the final unit mix is determined.
The approved parking reduction for residential parking resulted from the application of California Density Bonus Law and AMC 18.52.100. MSP Addendum No. 1 also involves the application of California Density Bonus Law. In addition, Assembly Bill 2097 (AB2097) 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 Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG’s) Priority Growth Areas map and is within the Transit Priority Area as defined in the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 38 September 2024
OCVIBE Coordinated Sign Program
The Modified Project would update the approved OCVIBE Coordinated Sign Program that was approved by Minor Conditional Use Permit. The approved OCVIBE Coordinated Sign Program covers on-site advertising, building identification, and wayfinding signage within the OCVIBE Project Site.
Infrastructure Improvements
The Modified Project includes updates to the approved infrastructure improvement plans associated with sanitary sewer, domestic water, stormwater, and water quality.
Demolition Plan
Development of the Modified Project would require the demolition of the ACC buildings, flatwork, parking, streets, and softscape in Arena District Sub-areas D1 and D2 as shown on Figure 15, Arena District Sub-Area D Demolition Plan. Demolition to occur in Transit District Sub-Area B was already assumed under the Approved Project.
Residential Density
The approved OCVIBE Project allows for 1,284 dwelling units, which reflects the base density of 100 dwelling units/acre on 12.84-acres of Arena District Sub-Area D2 and density bonus of up to 216 dwelling units, including 195 affordable units, for a total of 1,500 dwelling units.
The Modified Project would allow for a base density of 1,920 dwelling units, which reflects the base density of 100 dwelling units/acre on 19.20-acres of Arena District Sub-Area D2. The proposed affordable housing would allow for a 20 percent density bonus of 384 dwelling units, which would allow for up to a total of 2,304 dwelling units. Table 9, Arena District Sub-Area D2 Proposed Density Calculation, shows the proposed density calculations for the Modified Project.
Table 9. Arena District Sub-Area D2 Proposed Density Calculation Arena District Sub-Area D2
Sub-Area Land Area 24.9 Acres
Sub-Area Private Street Area 5.7 Acres
Residential Lot Area (Acres) 19.2 Acres
Base Density (Residential Acreage X 100 DU/AC) 1,920 DU Proposed Very Low-Income Units (1,920 DU x 5.2%) 100 DU 20% Density Bonus (1,920 DU X 20%) 384 DU
Total Allowable Units (1,920 DU + 384 DU) 2,304 DU
Option 1 Proposed Units 2,250 DU = 118 DU/Acre
Option 2 Proposed Units 2,175 DU = 114 DU/Acre
Option 3 Proposed Units 1,960 DU = 102 DU/Acre
Note: DU = dwelling units
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 39 September 2024
The proposed increase of 636 dwelling units from the base of 1,284 dwelling units in the Approved Project to 1,920 dwelling units in the Proposed Project, for a total of 18,476 dwelling units, is consistent with FSEIR No. 339, which analyzed up to 18,909 dwelling units in the Platinum Triangle.
Affordable Housing
Under the approved Development Agreement 2020-00004 (DAG2020-00004), the Applicant is required to provide 195 affordable on-site units, but 225 affordable units are required if an off-site alternative requires legislative amendments.
The Modified Project proposes up to 300 affordable housing units on-site or 340 under an off-site option.
The Modified Project is proposing to adhere to the provision of 5 percent very low and 10 percent lower income units to qualify for the State Density Bonus Law under each of the three residential options, resulting in a 20 percent density bonus (Government Code, Section 65915(f)(1), (2)). A 20 percent bonus or 384 dwelling units, allows for up to 2,304 dwelling units. Therefore, each of the three options fall below this maximum of 2,304 dwelling units: 2,250 dwelling units (Option 1), 2,175 dwelling units (Option 2), or 1,960 dwelling units (Option 3).
In addition to the density bonus, the Applicant is requesting a waiver to increase the Maximum Site Coverage from 75 percent to up to 80 percent for Option 2 and 77 percent for Options 1 and
3. Compliance with the site coverage standard would physically preclude the ability to construct the Proposed Project at the eligible density. (Government Code, Section 65915(e)).
Conditional Use Permit
Allowable Uses: The Applicant requests an amendment to the approved Conditional Use Permit to allow for banquet uses in the Arena and Transit Districts.
Minor Conditional Use Permit
Murals and Public Art: The Modified Project would involve updates to the OCVIBE Murals Location and Schedule that was approved by Minor Conditional Use Permit as part of MIS2020-00751.
OCVIBE Coordinated Sign Program: The Modified Project would involve updates to the OCVIBE Coordinated Sign Program that was approved by Minor Conditional Use Permit as part of MIS2020-00751.
Residential Lot Plan
The Modified Project includes processing of a Tentative Tract Map with the first Final Site Plan of the residential development in Phase 2, which would reorganize Lots 10, 11, 13, and 14 on Final Map No. 19153.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 40 September 2024
3.3 Proposed Entitlements
Addendum No. 13 to the previously-certified Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339 (FSEIR No. 339) and its Addenda, including Addendum No. 11 and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 383 (MMP No. 383); Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106C (MMP No. 106C); and other previously approved environmental documents for development in the Platinum Triangle area: The OCVIBE Project is located within the PTMLUP and Mixed-Use Overlay Zone. The Project Site is in the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone. In 2010, the City of Anaheim prepared FSEIR No. 339 to serve as the environmental documentation for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project.
Pursuant to Section 21166 of PRC and Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, this Addendum No. 13 would serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for the Amendment No. 1 to the OCVIBE Project. Other relevant environmental documents, as summarized in Section 1.3, Certified Environmental Documents, including the ARTIC EIR/EIS and Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR, are incorporated by reference.
General Plan Amendment: Amend the General Plan Land Use and Green Elements to modify the total amount of development permitted in the Platinum Triangle to increase the amount of residential development to 18,476 dwelling units, decrease the amount of office development to a range of 7,182,427 SF to 7,407,427 SF; increase the size of the Public Park (Meadow Park) from 4 acres to 4.85 acres; update the Bicycle Master Plan to reflect bicycle facility changes associated with the previously approved removal and addition of streets; and, revise maps, figures, text, and tables throughout the General Plan to conform to the proposed changes.
Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan Amendment: Amend the PTMLUP to modify the permitted amount of development within the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone to up to 18,476 residential dwelling units, decrease the amount of office development to a range of 7,182,427 SF to 7,407,427 SF; modify appendices for the OCVIBE Sign and Identity Program and PTMU Overlay Zone District Sub-Area Development Intensities; and, revise figures, text, and tables throughout the PTMLUP to conform to the proposed changes.
Municipal Code Amendment: Amend Chapter 18.20 (Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone) and Chapter 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations) to amend definitions, development intensities, development standards, and procedures to regulate development within the PTMU Overlay Zone, including within the Arena and Transit Districts.
Development Agreement: Amend Development Agreement No. DAG2020-00004 between the City of Anaheim and Anaheim Real Estate Partners, LLC, including an amendment to Master Site Plan (MIS2020-00751) to amend the boundaries of Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2; amend the development intensities associated with residential and office development within Sub-Areas D1 and D2; provide a process for the potential removal of the previously approved pedestrian bridge from Parking Deck C across South Douglass Road; remove the previously approved Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 41 September 2024
Meadow Amphitheater; dedicate additional park space in Transit District Sub-Area B; modify the request for Density Bonus and Development Incentives pursuant to Chapter 18.52 (Housing Incentives) of the Anaheim Municipal Code; increase the number of allowed residential units and the number of required affordable units; increase the off-site park contribution fee; and modify terms related to CFD 08-01, including annexing two parcels into CFD 08-01, providing partial funds for the new fire station and the proposed River Road.
Conditional Use Permit Amendment: Amend the previously-approved Conditional Use Permit (DEV2020-00125) to add a banquet facility to the list of conditionally permitted uses within the OCVIBE Project, which currently allows Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing, Alcoholic Beverage Sales – Off-Sale and On-Sale, Bars and Nightclubs, Entertainment Venues, Farmer’s Market, Recreation Commercial-Outdoor and -Indoor, Retail Sales-Outdoor, Murals, and Wine Bar.
Minor Conditional Use Permit: Modify the Coordinated Sign Program and Mural Plan previously approved under the minor conditional use permit.
Deviation from Engineering Standard Details: Allow one deviation to Engineering Standard Details:
• Standard Detail 473: Allow for a vehicular driveway to access the loading dock for the proposed high-rise building in Options 1 and 3 on South Douglass Road, to be located
85.6 feet north of Stanley Cup Way, when a minimum of 110 feet would be required.
3.4 Project Phasing
The approved OCVIBE Project involved five phases of construction over 10 years between the fourth quarter of 2022 and the fourth quarter of 2032. The Modified Project would make changes to Phases 2 through 5 associated with residential buildings in Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2 and the Meadow Park and Amphitheater in Transit District Sub-Area B (refer to Figure 16, Overall Phasing Plan). The total 10-year construction duration would remain unchanged. • Phase 2
− Approved Project: Construction of Meadow Park (Transit District Sub-Area B), the pedestrian bridge over Katella Avenue, South Douglass Road modifications, signal and pedestrian-crossing modifications to the South Douglass/Katella intersection, South Plaza, Arena Hotel and the Gardens, Residential Buildings 1 and 2 totaling 538 dwelling units (Arena District SubArea D2), and the employee parking lot in Arena District Sub-Area A east of River Road.
− Modified Project: Phase 2 would be revised to include demolition of ACC buildings and additional 12 units in Residential Buildings 1 and 2 totaling 550 dwelling units in the amended Arena District Sub-Area D2 under all three residential options.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 42 September 2024
• Phase 3
− Approved Project: Construction of Residential Buildings 3, 4, and 5 (Arena District Sub-Area D2) totaling 612 dwelling units, and the Signature Office Building (Arena District Sub-Area D1).
− Modified Project: Phase 3 would be revised to include construction of Residential Building 3 totaling 505 dwelling units in the amended Arena District Sub-Area D2 under all three residential options. The Signature Office Building in Arena District Sub-Area D1 would not be constructed. • Phase 4
− Approved Project: Construction of the North Plaza and Residential Building 6 (Arena District Sub-Area D2), Wellness Park (Arena District Sub-Area D1), the Meadow Hotel, Meadow Amphitheater (Transit District Sub-Area B), and Parking Deck A.
− Modified Project: Phase 4 would be revised to include construction of Residential Building 5 (360 dwelling units under Options 1 and 3, and 575 dwelling units under Option 2) in Arena District Sub-Area D2 and Neighborhood Park (former Wellness Park) in Arena District Sub-Area D1. The Meadow Amphitheater in Transit District Sub-Area B would not be constructed.
• Phase 5/5A
− Approved Project: Construction of the last phase of Institutional Office uses south of ARTIC.
− Modified Project: Phase 5/5A would be revised to add construction of Residential Buildings 4 and 6 totaling 290 dwelling units and 100,000 square feet of office under Option 1, 545 dwelling units under Option 2, and 545 dwelling units and 325,000 square feet of office use under Option 3 in the amended Arena District Sub-Area D2.
0 300 600'
1" = 300' at 11" x 17" (1”= 150’ at 22”x 34”)
N * HATCHED COLORS REPRESENT
PROGRAM ELEMENTS BELOW
ENTERTAINMENT
PROGRAM LEGEND
OFFICE
RETAIL
APARTMENTS
HOTEL
RESTAURANT
PARKING
SERVICE (BOH, MEP)
ocV!BE Entitlements | Aug 2022 | 38 PTMLUP MIS2020-00751 APPLICANT Anaheim Real Estate Partners, LLC
2101 East Coast Highway, Suite 230, Corona del Mar, CA 92625 CONTACT Brian Myers, [email protected], 415-593-8200 PROJECT ADDRESS 2695 E Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 A4.01
MASTER SITE PLAN - USE EXHIBIT
N.A.P.
Source: City of Anaheim 2022.
Path C:\GIS\Projects\City of Anaheim\OCVIBE\Map Docs
Feet
0 300 600 Figure 5
Approved OCVIBE Master Site Plan
Addendum No. 13 to SEIR No. 339 (Amendment No. 1 to OCVIBE Project) N
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 44 September 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
ARENA DISTRICT
Sub-Area D1
5.04 AC
0.36 AC
0.40 AC
2.00 AC
7.77 AC
DISTRICT NAME
CHANGE ONLY
PRIVATE DRIVE ‘C’
TRANSIT DISTRICT
Sub-Area B
4.88 AC
TRANSIT
DISTRICT
TRANSIT DISTRICT
Sub-Area A
11.72 AC Total
(5.88 AC)
(2.60) AC
(3.24) AC KATELLA DISTRICT
Sub-Area D
N.A.P.
ARENA DISTRICT
Sub-Area B
16.15 AC
ARENA DISTRICT
Sub-Area C
16.93 AC
TRANSIT DISTRICT
N.A.P.
ARENA DISTRICT
N.A.P.
ARENA DISTRICT
Sub-Area A
10.53 AC Total
SANTA ANA RIVER
Sub-Area C
1.97 AC
Note:
Building Footprint for Buildings 5 and 6 are the same between Options 1 and 3 for Sub-Area D2. Building Footprint for Option 2 would combine Buildings 5 and 6 (refer to Sheets A14.01.A1, A14.02.A1 and A14.03.A1 for more details)
ARENA DISTRICT
Sub-Area D2
24.86 AC
Sub-Area Sub-Area Acreage Private Street Acreage
Transit Sub-Area A 11.72 0.00
Transit Sub-Area B 4.88 0.00
Transit Sub-Area C 1.97 0.00
Transit District 18.57 N/A
Arena Sub-Area A1 10.53 0.00
Arena Sub-Area B 16.15 1.05
Arena Sub-Area C 16.93 1.19
Arena Sub-Area D11 5.04 0.31
Arena Sub-Area D21 24.86 5.69
Arena District 73.51 8.24
ocV!BE Master Site
Plan Acreage 92.08 N/A
92.08 1
Approved ocV!BE Master Site Plan Acreage for Arena Sub-Area D1 and D2 combined was 30.13 acres. Combined acreage for the Proposed OCVIBE Master Site Plan Arena Sub-Area D1 and D2 would be 29.9 acres due to a 0.23-acre shift to Arena Sub-Area A with the precise alignment of River Road during Phase I Final Engineering. Arena Sub-Area A acreage would increase to 10.53 acres to account for this shift.
ocV!BE Master Site Plan Acreage
ocV!BE Master Site Plan Acreage
OCVIBE Entitlements | June 2024
PTMLUP MIS2020-00751 Amendment No. 1
APPLICANT Anaheim Real Eastate Partners, LLC
2101 East Coast Highway, Suite 230, Corona del Mar, CA 95625 CONTACT Brian Myers, [email protected], 415-593-8200 PROJECT ADDRESS 2695 E Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806
PROPOSED OCVIBE MASTER SITE PLAN DISTRICT SUB-AREAS
A2.02.A1
Source: Anaheim Real Estate Partners, LLC 2024.
Path C:\GIS\Projects\City of Anaheim\OCVIBE\Map Docs
Feet
0 300 600 Figure 6
Modified OCVIBE Master Site Plan Sub-Areas
Addendum No. 13 to SEIR No. 339 (Amendment No. 1 to OCVIBE Project) N
Project Site
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 46 September 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
3M-1
3L
* Note:
Residential Liner Retail (4B) occurs in Building 3 (10,000 sf) and Building 6 (5,000 sf) in Option 1, Buildings 3 (10,000 sf) and Building 5 (5,000 sf) in Option 2, and Building 3 (15,000 sf) in Option 3.
*
Note:
Building Footprint for Buildings 5 and 6 are the
same between Options 1 and 3 for Sub-Area D2.
Building Footprint for Option 2 would combine
Buildings 5 and 6 (refer to Sheets A14.01.A1,
A14.02.A1 and A14.03.A1 for more details)
4A
4H
4G
4F
4C
4D
4E
2L
4B
5C
5D
2L
4B
2G
3N
3M
3O
2G-1
2G-5
3M-1
3A
3C
3Q
2A
5A
5E
3K
2F
2N
2B
2E
2D
2C
3I-1
3E
3H
3I
3L
3J
1A
3C
PARKING DECK D THE GARDENS· OUTDOOR SPACE & PAVILION
PARKING DECK A NORTH PLAZA - RETAIL
PARKING DECK 8 & C NORTH PLAZA - BACKYARD
MARKET HALL/ CREATIVE OFFICE NORTH PLAZA • ARTS ALLEY
RESTAURANT ROW NORTH PLAZA WEST/ ALLEY RETAIL SOUTH
CONCERT HALL/ ARTIST AREA NORTH PLAZA WEST/ ALLEY RETAIL NORTH
URBAN PARK & TERRAIN MEADOW HOTEL
PASEO MIXED USE OFFICE (6)
HONDA CENTER WEST· HONDA WEST FACE RESIDENTIAL LINER RETAIL - RESIDENTIAL HONDA CENTER WEST - RESTAURANT 1 RESIDENTIAL (1)
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK RESIDENTIAL (2)
EMPLOYEE SURFACE PARKING LOT RESIDENTIAL (3)
SECURITY HUB RESIDENTIAL (4)
HONDA CENTER RESIDENTIAL (5)
THE PORCH & STEPS MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL (6)
MEADOW PARK
ENTERTAINMENT/ F&B / OFFICE
SOUTH PLAZA EMPLOYEE SURFACE PARKING LOT
ARENA HOTEL ARTIC • EXISTING USE
SOUTH PLAZA· RESTAURANTS ARTIC PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
THE GARDENS - RESTAURANT SPACE KATELLA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE LEGEND
LOT B • EXISTING SURFACE PARKING LOT/
PROPOSED INSTITUTIONAL OFFICE
1A
2A
2B
2C
2D
2E
2F
2G
1A
3D-5
2L
2M
2N
3A
3C
3D
3E
3H
3I
3D-1
3K
3L
3M
3M-1
3N
3O
3Q
4A
4B
4C
4D
4E
4F
4G
4H
5B
5C
5D
5E
5A
31-1
3J
OCVIBE Entitlements | June 2024
PTMLUP MIS2020-00751 Amendment No. 1
APPLICANT Anaheim Real Eastate Partners, LLC
2101 East Coast Highway, Suite 230, Corona del Mar, CA 95625 CONTACT Brian Myers, [email protected], 415-593-8200 PROJECT ADDRESS 2695 E Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806
AREA OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
MASTER SITE PLAN - USE EXHIBIT
A4.01.A1
Source: Anaheim Real Estate Partners, LLC 2024.
Path C:\GIS\Projects\City of Anaheim\OCVIBE\Map Docs
Feet
0 300 600 Figure 7
Modified OCVIBE Master Site Plan (Amendment No. 1)
Addendum No. 13 to SEIR No. 339 (Amendment No. 1 to OCVIBE Project) N
Transit District
Sub-Area B
Transit District
Sub-Area D
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 48 September 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
Source: Anaheim Real Estate Partners, LLC 2024.
Path C:\GIS\Projects\City of Anaheim\OCVIBE\Map Docs
Feet
0 200 400 Figure 8
Option 1 – High- Rise Mixed Use
Addendum No. 13 to SEIR No. 339 (Amendment No. 1 to OCVIBE Project) N
SHEET TITLE
NOTES
1. NOTES
2. NOTES
OCVIBE Entitlements | AUGUST 2024
PTMLUP MIS2020-00751 Amendment No. 1
DESIGN
CONSULTANT
LOGO
DESIGN
CONSULTANT
LOGO
APPLICANT Anaheim Real Eastate Partners, LLC
2101 East Coast Highway, Suite 230, Corona del Mar, CA 95625 CONTACT Brian Myers, [email protected], 415-593-8200 PROJECT ADDRESS 2695 E Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 X1.0
NO
(DE
A14.0
SI T E SU M M A RY
RES. TOTAL: 2,250 DU +/-
OFFICE TOTAL: 100,000 SF
RETAIL TOTAL: 15,000 SF
BUILDING 1: 190 DU
BUILDING 2: 360 DU
BUILDING 3: 505 DU
TOTAL: 1,055 DU +/-
BUILDING 4: 545 DU
BUILDING 5: 360 DU
BUILDING 6: 290 DU
TOTAL: 1,195 DU +/-
COMPARISON TO ENTITLEMENTS
NEW RESIDENTIAL: +750 DU
REDUCED OFFICE: - 609,375 SF
O P T I O N 1
HIGH-RISE MIXED-USE/OFFICE
1 2
3 4
5 6
P R I V A T E D R I V E D
P R I V A T E D R I V E A P R I V A T E D R I V E A
P R I V A T E D R I V E B P R I V A T E D R I V E B
S D O U G L A S S R O A D
C E R R I T O S A V E
S T A N L E Y C U P W A Y
Building GSF DU Retail GSF R I V E R R O A D
Private Rec/
Leisure
(Balconies/
Patios)
Residential
Secured
Common Rec/
Leisure
Residential
Unsecured
Common Rec/
Leisure
Parking GSF Parking Spaces Building
Coverage Area
1 233,100 sf 190 du 0 sf 7,337 sf 35,723 sf 11,052 sf 128,300 sf 298 sp 65,296 sf 2 416,000 sf 360 du 0 sf 8,895 sf 43,592 sf 13,418 sf 243,000 sf 564 sp 107,935 sf 3 603,700 sf 505 du 10,000 sf 15,770 sf 60,563 sf 0 sf 340,900 sf 791 sp 149,568 sf 4 666,100 sf 545 du 0 sf 9.,036 sf 70,599 sf 32,465 sf 367,900 sf 853 sp 167,335 sf 5 422,900 sf 360 du 0sf 12,598 sf 57,019 sf 13,933 sf 243,000 sf 564 sp 106,405 sf 6 450,400 sf 290 du 5,000 sf 2,800 sf 35,978 sf 19,222 sf 195,800 sf 454 sp 43,563 sf TOTAL 2,792,200 sf 2,250 du 15,000 sf 56,436 sf 303,474 sf 90,090 sf 1,518,900 sf 3,524 sp 640,102 sf RESIDENTIAL - PROGRAM OPTION 1
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 50 September 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
Source: Anaheim Real Estate Partners, LLC 2024.
Path C:\GIS\Projects\City of Anaheim\OCVIBE\Map Docs
Feet
0 200 400 Figure 9
Option 2 – Residential Podium
Addendum No. 13 to SEIR No. 339 (Amendment No. 1 to OCVIBE Project) N
SHEET TITLE
NOTES
1. NOTES
2. NOTES
OCVIBE Entitlements | AUGUST 2024
PTMLUP MIS2020-00751 Amendment No. 1
DESIGN
CONSULTANT
LOGO
DESIGN
CONSULTANT
LOGO
APPLICANT Anaheim Real Eastate Partners, LLC
2101 East Coast Highway, Suite 230, Corona del Mar, CA 95625 CONTACT Brian Myers, [email protected], 415-593-8200 PROJECT ADDRESS 2695 E Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 X1.0
N
(D
A14.0
SI T E SU M M A RY
COMPARISON TO ENTITLEMENTS
NEW RESIDENTIAL: +675 DU
REDUCED OFFICE: - 709,375 SF
RES. TOTAL: 2,175 DU +/-
OFFICE TOTAL: 0 SF
RETAIL TOTAL: 15,000 SF
BUILDING 1: 190 DU
BUILDING 2: 360 DU
BUILDING 3: 505 DU
TOTAL: 1,055 DU +/-
BUILDING 4: 545 DU
BUILDING 5: 575 DU
TOTAL: 1,120 DU +/-
OPTION 2
TYPE III PODIUM
1 2
3 4
5 P R I V A T E D R I V E D
P R I V A T E D R I V E A P R I V A T E D R I V E A
P R I V A T E D R I V E B
S D O U G L A S S R O A D
C E R R I T O S A V E
S T A N L E Y C U P W A Y
R I V E R R O A D Building GSF DU Retail GSF
Private Rec/
Leisure
(Balconies/
Patios)
Residential
Secured
Common Rec/
Leisure
Residential
Unsecured
Common Rec/
Leisure
Parking GSF Parking Spaces Building
Coverage Area
1 233,100 sf 190 du 0 sf 7,337 sf 35,723 sf 11,052 sf 128,300 sf 298 sp 65,296 sf 2 416,000 sf 360 du 0 sf 8,895 sf 43,592 sf 13,418 sf 243,000 sf 564 sp 107,935 sf 3 603,700 sf 505 du 10,000 sf 15,770 sf 60,563 sf 0 sf 340,900 sf 791 sp 149,568 sf 4 666,100 sf 545 du 0 sf 9.,036 sf 70,599 sf 32,465 sf 367,900 sf 853sp 167,335 sf 5 649,300 sf 575 du 5,000 sf 38,500 sf 70,172 sf 17,878 sf 388,200 sf 901 sp 179,135 sf TOTAL: 2,568,200 2,175 du 15,000 sf 79,538 sf 280,649 sf 74,813 sf 1,468,300 sf 3,407 sp 669,269 sf RESIDENTIAL - PROGRAM OPTION 2
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 52 September 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
Source: Anaheim Real Estate Partners, LLC 2024.
Path C:\GIS\Projects\City of Anaheim\OCVIBE\Map Docs
Feet
0 200 400 Figure 10
Option 3 - Office Tower
Addendum No. 13 to SEIR No. 339 (Amendment No. 1 to OCVIBE Project) N
SHEET TITLE
NOTES
1. NOTES
2. NOTES
OCVIBE Entitlements | AUGUST 2024
PTMLUP MIS2020-00751 Amendment No. 1
DESIGN
CONSULTANT
LOGO
DESIGN
CONSULTANT
LOGO
APPLICANT Anaheim Real Eastate Partners, LLC
2101 East Coast Highway, Suite 230, Corona del Mar, CA 95625 CONTACT Brian Myers, [email protected], 415-593-8200 PROJECT ADDRESS 2695 E Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 X1.0
NO
(D
A14.0
SI T E SU M M A RY
COMPARISON TO ENTITLEMENTS
NEW RESIDENTIAL: +460 DU
REDUCED OFFICE: - 384,375 SF
RES. TOTAL: 1,960 DU +/-
OFFICE TOTAL: 325,000 SF
RETAIL TOTAL: 15,000 SF
BUILDING 1: 190 DU
BUILDING 2: 360 DU
BUILDING 3: 505 DU
TOTAL: 1,055 DU +/-
BUILDING 4: 545 DU
BUILDING 5: 360 DU
TOTAL: 905 DU +/-
BUILDING 6:
OFFICE: 325,000 SF
OPTION 3
OFFICE TOWER
1 2
3 4
5 OFFICE P R I V A T E D R I V E D
P R I V A T E D R I V E A P R I V A T E D R I V E A
P R I V A T E D R I V E B
S D O U G L A S S R O A D
C E R R I T O S A V E
S T A N L E Y C U P W A Y
Building GSF DU Retail GSF R I V E R R O A D Private Rec/ Leisure
(Balconies/
Patios)
Residential
Secured
Common Rec/
Leisure
Residential
Unsecured
Common Rec/
Leisure
Parking GSF Parking Spaces Building
Coverage Area
1 233,100 sf 190 du 0 sf 7,337 sf 35,723 sf 11,052 sf 128,300 sf 298 sp 65,296 sf 2 416,000 sf 360 du 0 sf 8,895 sf 43,592 sf 13,418 sf 243,000 sf 564 sp 107,935 sf 3 603,700 sf 505 du 15,000 sf 15,770 sf 60,563 sf 0 sf 340,900 sf 791 sp 149,568 sf 4 666,100 sf 545 du 0 sf 9.,036 sf 70,599 sf 32,465 sf 367,900 sf 853 sp 167,335 sf 5 422,900 sf 360 du 0sf 12,598 sf 57,019 sf 13,933 sf 243,000 sf 564 sp 106,405 sf 6 325,000 sf 0 du 0 sf 0 sf 0 sf 0 sf 0 sf 0 sp 44,149 sf TOTAL 2,666,800 sf 1,960 du 15,000 sf 53,636 sf 267,496 sf 70,868 sf 1,323,100 sf 3,070 sp 640,688 sf RESIDENTIAL - PROGRAM OPTION 3
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 54 September 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
ocV!BE Entitlements | Aug 2022 | 96 PTMLUP MIS2020-00751 APPLICANT Anaheim Real Estate Partners, LLC
2101 East Coast Highway, Suite 230, Corona del Mar, CA 92625 CONTACT Brian Myers, [email protected], 415-593-8200 PROJECT ADDRESS 2695 E Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 L1.01
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN
3.26 ACRES
4.08 ACRES
1.1 ACRES
0.3 ACRES
0.7 ACRES
0.6 ACRES
0.2 ACRES
Publicly Accessible Open Space
SF 712,677
ACRES 16.4
Residential Unsecured Common Rec-Leisure
SF 142,957
ACRES 3.3
DOUGLASS ROAD
SANTA ANA RIVER
PRIVATE
DRIVE ‘A’
ALLEY
4.9 ACRES
0.28 ACRES
0 .21 ACRES
0.40 ACRES 1.01 ACRES
0.67 ACRES 0 .21 ACRES
0 .24 ACRES
0.14 ACRES
0 .26 ACRES
0.4 ACRES
0.5 ACRES
THE PORCH
PED
BRIDGE
LOT B
EMPLOYEE
SURFACE
PARKING
KATELLA AVE.
DOUGLASS ROAD
RIVER ROAD
ENTERTAINMENT /
F&B / OFFICE
NORTH PLAZA
WEST
ARENA
HOTEL
MEADOW
HOTEL
PARKING
DECK B
PARKING
DECK C
PARKING
DECK D
SIGNATURE
OFFICE
BUILDING
ACC 1400
RESIDENTIAL
(6)
ACC 1500
MARKET HALL
/ CREATIVE
OFFICE CONCERT
HALL
ACC 1600
PARKING
DECK A
RIVER ROAD
57 FREEWAY
ARTIC
SOUTH
PLAZA
HONDA
CENTER
NORTH
PLAZA
THE
GARDENS
PRIVATE DRIVE ‘A’
URBAN PARK
STANLEY CUP WAY
NORTH
CERRITOS AVE
PLAZA EAST
WELLNESS
PARK
MEADOW
PARK
SECURITY
HUB
RESTAURANT
ROW
HONDA
CENTER
WEST
RESIDENTIAL
(1)
RESIDENTIAL
(2)
RESIDENTIAL
(3)
RESIDENTIAL
(4)
RESIDENTIAL
(5)
PRIVATE DRIVE ‘B’
PASEO
AMPHI.
EMPLOYEE
SURFACE
PARKING LOT
Figure 18
Source: City of Anaheim 2022.
Path C:\GIS\Projects\City of Anaheim\OCVIBE\Map Docs
Feet
0 300 600 Figure 11a
Approved Parks and Open Space Plan
Addendum No. 13 to SEIR No. 339 (Amendment No. 1 to OCVIBE Project) N
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 56 September 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
OCV!BE Entitlements | March 2024
PTMLUP MIS2020-00751 Amendment No. 1
APPLICANT Anaheim Real Eastate Partners, LLC
2101 East Coast Highway, Suite 230, Corona del Mar, CA 95625 CONTACT Brian Myers, [email protected], 415-593-8200 PROJECT ADDRESS 2695 E Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 X1.01.A1 N 0 150 300 600’
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN
L1.01.A1
Publicly Accessible Open Space
SF 503,626
ACRES 11.56
Residential Unsecured Common
Rec-Leisure (Option 1)
SF 90,090
ACRES 2.06
Public Park Dedication
SF 211,150
ACRES 4.85
KATELLA AVE.
DOUGLASS ROAD
DOUGLASS ROAD
RIVER ROAD
SANTA ANA RIVER
THE PORCH
RIVER ROAD
57 FREEWAY
SOUTH
PLAZA NORTH
PLAZA
THE
GARDENS
ALLEY
URBAN PARK
STANLEY CUP WAY
CERRITOS AVE
MEADOW
PARK
PASEO
EMPLOYEE SURFACE
PARKING
ENTERTAINMENT �
F&B � OFFICE
NORTH
PLAZA WEST
PARKING
DECK B
PARKING
DECK D
MARKET HALL �
CREATIVE OFFICE
CONCERT
HALL
ARTIC
HONDA
CENTER
NORTH
PLAZA EAST
RESTAURANT ROW
HONDA
CENTER
WEST
PED BRIDGE
EMPLOYEE
SURFACE
PARKING LOT
KATELLA AVE.
RIVER ROAD
STANLEY CUP WAY
PRIVATE DRIVE A
PRIVATE DRIVE B
PRIVATE DRIVE D
RESIDENTIAL
�6�
RESIDENTIAL
�1�
RESIDENTIAL
�2� RESIDENTIAL
�3�
RESIDENTIAL
�4�
RESIDENTIAL
�5�
ARENA
HOTEL
MEADOW
HOTEL
PARKING
DECK C
PARKING DECK
A
SECURITY HUB
NEIGHBORHOOD
PARK
AT
NEIGHBORHOOD
PARK
���� ACRES ������� SQ.FT
���� ACRES ������� SQ.FT
��� ACRES ������ SQ.FT
��� ACRES
��� ACRES ������ SQ.FT
��� ACRES ������ SQ.FT
����� SQ.FT
����� SQ.FT
������ SQ.FT
������ SQ.FT ����� SQ.FT
����� SQ.FT
�LEVEL ��
������ SQ.FT
��� ACRES ���� SQ.FT
����
ACRES
� ��� ACRES �� ���� SQ.FT
� �� ACRES �� ���� SQ.FT � ��
�� ���� SQ.FT
ACRES ������ SQ.FT
��� ACRES
���� ACRES
���� ACRES
� ��� ACRES �� ���� SQ.FT
� ���
ACRES
� ���
ACRES
� ���
ACRES
������� SQ.FT
� �� ACRES
Figure 8
Source: Anaheim Real Estate Partners, LLC 2024.
Path C:\GIS\Projects\City of Anaheim\OCVIBE\Map Docs
Feet
0 300 600 Figure 11b
Modified Parks and Open Space Plan
Addendum No. 13 to SEIR No. 339 (Amendment No. 1 to OCVIBE Project) N
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 58 September 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
ocV!BE Entitlements | Aug 2022 | 43 PTMLUP MIS2020-00751 APPLICANT Anaheim Real Estate Partners, LLC
2101 East Coast Highway, Suite 230, Corona del Mar, CA 92625 CONTACT Brian Myers, [email protected], 415-593-8200 PROJECT ADDRESS 2695 E Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806
DOUGLASS ROAD (PRIVATE)
A6.02
PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION
RAIL
EXISTING PED CROSSINGS TO REMAIN
PLANNED PED CROSSINGS
SIDEWALKS
SIDEWALKS (PRIVATE W/ PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT)
PEDESTRIAN ONLY WALK
SIDEWALK (PRIVATE W/ PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT)
ELEVATED PEDESTRIAN WALK / BRIDGE
EVA ACCESS AND/OR LOADING DOCK EXIT ROUTE
EXISTING SANTA ANA RIVER TRAIL CLASS I BIKE PATH
KEY
DOUGLASS ROAD (PUBLIC)
57 FREEWAY
CERRITOS AVENUE (PRIVATE)
KATELLA AVE (PUBLIC)
RIVER ROAD (PUBLIC)
HONDA
CENTER
STANLEY CUP WAY (PRIVATE)
Source: City of Anaheim 2022.
Path C:\GIS\Projects\City of Anaheim\OCVIBE\Map Docs
Feet
0 300 600 Figure 12a
Approved Pedestrian Circulation
Addendum No. 13 to SEIR No. 339 (Amendment No. 1 to OCVIBE Project) N
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 60 September 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
OCVIBE Entitlements | SEPTEMBER 2024
PTMLUP MIS2020-00751 Amendment No. 1
APPLICANT
CONTACT
PROJECT ADDRESS
Anaheim Real Eastate Partners, LLC
2101 East Coast Highway, Suite 230, Corona del Mar, CA 95625 Brian Myers, [email protected], 415-593-8200 2695 E Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806
PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION
A6.02.A1
SIDEWALK
SIDEWALK (PRIVATE W/ PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT)
PEDESTRIAN ONLY WALK
PRIVATE W/ PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT
57 FREEWAY
DOUGLASS ROAD (PUBLIC)
DOUGLASS ROAD (PRIVATE)
CERRITOS AVENUE (PRIVATE)
KATELLA AVE (PUBLIC)
PRIVATE DRIVE B
PRIVATE DRIVE C
PRIVATE DRIVE A
RIVER ROAD (PUBLIC)
STANLEY CUP WAY (PRIVATE)
RAIL
EXISTING PED CROSSING TO REMAIN
PLANNED PED CROSSING W/ STRIPING
PLANNED PED CROSSING (SIDEWALK / DRIVEWAY)
ELEVATED PEDESTRIAN WALK / BRIDGE
KEY
HONDA
CENTER
Pedestrian access to Parking Deck C
will be provided on the northwest
corner of Stanley Cup Way and
Douglass Road. Stairway access to
street level will be limited to pedestrian
egress and fire access.
Pedestrian Crossing and Rapid Rectangular
Flashing Beacon (RRFB) or similar to be
installed prior to occupancy of the first
phase of residential units.
Source: Anaheim Real Estate Partners, LLC 2024.
Path C:\GIS\Projects\City of Anaheim\OCVIBE\Map Docs
Feet
0 300 600 Figure 12b
Modified Pedestrian Circulation
Addendum No. 13 to SEIR No. 339 (Amendment No. 1 to OCVIBE Project) N
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 62 September 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
OCVIBE Entitlements | JUNE 2024
PTMLUP MIS2020-00751 Amendment No. 1
APPLICANT Anaheim Real Eastate Partners, LLC
2101 East Coast Highway, Suite 230, Corona del Mar, CA 95625 CONTACT Brian Myers, [email protected], 415-593-8200 PROJECT ADDRESS 2695 E Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806
BIKE AND TRAIL CONNECTIONS
A6.03.A1
to Anaheim Coves Trail
RAIL
EXISTING PED CROSSING TO REMAIN
CLASS I: SANTA ANA RIVER TRAIL (SART)
CLASS III BIKE ROUTE
BIKE PARKING FACILITY (EXISTING TO REMAIN)
CLASS I: SANTA ANA RIVER TRAIL
CLASS I: SANTA ANA RIVER TRAIL
HONDA
CENTER
HONDA
CENTER WEST
RESTAURANT
MARKET ROW
HALL
EXISTING
15’ EASEMENT
TO REMAIN
PED CROSSING W/ STRIPING
PED CROSSING (SIDEWALK/DRIVEWAY)
SHARED PATH
CLASS III BIKE ROUTE
EXISTING TO REMAIN PLANNED (OCV!BE MSP)
CLASS IV CYCLE TRACK
CONNECTION FROM EXISTING SART TO ARTIC/MEADOW PARK
BIKE PARKING FACILITY (LONG TERM)
BIKE PARKING FACILITY (SHORT TERM)
PROPOSED (BICYCLE MASTER PLAN)
CLASS I BIKE PATH
CLASS II BIKE LANE
NOTE: BIKE PARKING FACILITIES ARE SITED FOR PHASE 1 ONLY.
REMAINING LOCATIONS TO BE SITED AS FINAL SITE PLANS ARE SUBMITTED FOR FUTURE PHASES.
57 FREEWAY
DOUGLASS ROAD (PUBLIC)
DOUGLASS ROAD (PRIVATE)
KATELLA AVE (PUBLIC)
RIVER ROAD (PUBLIC)
STANLEY CUP WAY (PRIVATE)
CERRITOS AVENUE (PRIVATE)
PRIVATE DRIVE B
PRIVATE DRIVE C
PRIVATE DRIVE A
Source: Anaheim Real Estate Partners, LLC 2024.
Path C:\GIS\Projects\City of Anaheim\OCVIBE\Map Docs
Feet
0 700 1400 Figure 13
Bike and Trail Connections
Addendum No. 13 to SEIR No. 339 (Amendment No. 1 to OCVIBE Project) N
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 64 September 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
PRIVATE DRIVE ‘C’
RAILROAD
Mixed-Use
Office/
Residential
(6)
Residential
(5)
Residential
(4)
Residential
(3)
Residential
(2)
Residential
(1)
Parking
Deck B
Parking
Deck A
Meadow
Hotel
Arena
Hotel
Parking
Deck D
Honda Center
Parking
Lot B - Existing Deck C
Surface
Parking Lot
Employee Surface
Parking Lot
Employee Surface
Parking Lot
Security Hub
Note:
Building Footprint for Buildings 5 and 6 are the
same between Options 1 and 3 for Sub-Area D2.
Building Footprint for Option 2 would combine
Buildings 5 and 6 (refer to Sheets A14.01.A1,
A14.02.A1 and A14.03.A1 for more details)
OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3
298 298 298
564 564 564
791 791 791
853 853 853
564 901 564
454 00
4,262 4,145 3,808
12,823 12,706 12,369
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] The Anaheim Municipal Code requires 1.25 spaces per studio unit, 2.0 spaces per 1-bedroom unit, 2.25 spaces per 2-bedroom unit, and 3.0 spaces per 3- bedroom unit. Based on the estimated makeup of the range of residential units, 1,960 to 2,250 units, proposed for the Project, there would be an average parking requirement of 1.566 spaces per unit. The precise Code parking requirement would be calculated when the final unit mix is determined.
Parking Supply
221
208
288
RESIDENTIAL
Proposed per FSP2020-00007 Substantial Conformance No. 1 and BLD2022- 06054
175
690
8,561
18 3
Stalls
1,371
2,968
1,566
1,791
Residential (5)
Residential (6)
Dedicated Parking Subtotal
Total
Employee Surface Parking Lot
Employee Surface Parking Lot [5]
Shared Parking Subtotal
Neighborhood Park
Security Hub
Lot B - Existing Surface Parking Lot
Meadow Hotel
Per BLD2022-03978
Per BLD2022-03974
DAG2020-00004 Section 7.3 requires a minimum of 701 parking spaces, inclusive of the existing spaces in Lot B (“Minimum Transit District Parking”), as potentially modified by a future Parking Utilization Study (Section 7.3.2). The Parking Utilization Study will address the number of parking stalls required in Parking Deck A, which would be no less than the 480 minimum transit customer parking stalls required.
Estimated per the forthcoming request for FSP2020-00008 Substantial Conformance No. 1 to reduce the number of parking stalls in the Employee Surface Parking Lot (Easement).
Arena Hotel
Residential (1) [6]
Residential (2)
Residential (3)
Residential (4)
Location
Parking Deck A - Shared Parking [4]
Parking Deck B - Shared Parking [3]
Parking Deck C - Shared Parking [2]
Parking Deck D - Shared Parking [1] OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3 298 298 298
564 564 564
791 791 791
853 853 853
564 901 564
454 0 0
4,262 4,145 3,808
12,823 12,706 12,369
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] The Anaheim Municipal Code requires 1.25 spaces per studio unit, 2.0 spaces per 1-bedroom unit, 2.25 spaces per 2-bedroom unit, and 3.0 spaces per 3- bedroom unit. Based on the estimated makeup of the range of residential units, 1,960 to 2,250 units, proposed for the Project, there would be an average parking requirement of 1.566 spaces per unit. The precise Code parking requirement would be calculated when the final unit mix is determined.
Parking Supply
221
208
288
RESIDENTIAL
Proposed per FSP2020-00007 Substantial Conformance No. 1 and BLD2022- 06054
175
690
8,561
18 3
Stalls
1,371
2,968
1,566
1,791
Residential (5)
Residential (6)
Dedicated Parking Subtotal
Total
Employee Surface Parking Lot
Employee Surface Parking Lot [5]
Shared Parking Subtotal
Neighborhood Park
Security Hub
Lot B - Existing Surface Parking Lot
Meadow Hotel
Per BLD2022-03978
Per BLD2022-03974
DAG2020-00004 Section 7.3 requires a minimum of 701 parking spaces, inclusive of the existing spaces in Lot B (“Minimum Transit District Parking”), as potentially modified by a future Parking Utilization Study (Section 7.3.2). The Parking Utilization Study will address the number of parking stalls required in Parking Deck A, which would be no less than the 480 minimum transit customer parking stalls required.
Estimated per the forthcoming request for FSP2020-00008 Substantial Conformance No. 1 to reduce the number of parking stalls in the Employee Surface Parking Lot (Easement).
Arena Hotel
Residential (1) [6]
Residential (2)
Residential (3)
Residential (4)
Location
Parking Deck A - Shared Parking [4]
Parking Deck B - Shared Parking [3]
Parking Deck C - Shared Parking [2]
Parking Deck D - Shared Parking [1]
OCVIBE Entitlements | June 2024
PTMLUP MIS2020-00751 Amendment No. 1
APPLICANT Anaheim Real Eastate Partners, LLC
2101 East Coast Highway, Suite 230, Corona del Mar, CA 95625 CONTACT Brian Myers, [email protected], 415-593-8200 PROJECT ADDRESS 2695 E Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 Shared Parking
Dedicated Parking
PARKING SUPPLY
A6.04.A1
Source: Anaheim Real Estate Partners, LLC 2024.
Path C:\GIS\Projects\City of Anaheim\OCVIBE\Map Docs
Feet
0 600 1200 Figure 14
Parking Supply Plan
Addendum No. 13 to SEIR No. 339 (Amendment No. 1 to OCVIBE Project) N
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 66 September 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
CERRITOS AVENUE (PRIVATE)
STANLEY CUP WAY
(PRIVATE)
DOUGLASS ROAD (PRIVATE)
RIVER ROAD (PUBLIC)
R
FULL C I RCLE T HI NKIN G
FUSCOE E NGINEERI NG
OCV!BE Entitlements | June 2024
PTMLUP MIS2020-00751 Amendment No. 1
DEMOLITION EXHIBIT
C10.02.A1
LEGEND
STAGE 1 DEMO (PHASE 2) STAGE 2 DEMO
(PHASE 4 &5A)
STAGE 3 DEMO
(PHASE 5) TOTAL
BUILDING/STRUCTURE 71,675 S.F. 65,062 S.F. 65,894 S.F. 202,631 S.F.
FLATWORK 30,731 S.F. 42,432 S.F. 31,621 S.F. 104,784 S.F.
PARKING 410,418 S.F. 121,744 S.F. 73,065 S.F. 605,227 S.F.
STREET 0 S.F. 1,570 S.F. 8,789 S.F. 10,359 S.F.
SOFTSCAPE/OTHER 17,528 S.F. 22,956 S.F. 12,889 S.F. 53,373 S.F.
TOTAL 530,352 S.F. 253,764 S.F. 192,258 S.F.
TOTAL DISTURBANCE AREA 22.7 A.C.
Source: Anaheim Real Estate Partners, LLC 2024.
Path C:\GIS\Projects\City of Anaheim\OCVIBE\Map Docs
Feet
0 80 160 Figure 15
Arena District Sub-Area D Demolition Plan
Addendum No. 13 to SEIR No. 339 (Amendment No. 1 to OCVIBE Project) N
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 68 September 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
IRR MAIN
IRR MAIN
IRR MAIN
IRR MAIN
EX. ARTIC
N.A.P.
EX. AYRES HOTEL
PRIVATE DRIVE 'C' IRR MAIN
IRR MAIN
IRR MAIN
IRR MAIN
CERRITOS AVENUE (PRIVATE)
RAILROAD
STANLEY CUP WAY (PRIVATE)
SANTA ANA RIVER
SANTA ANA RIVER
57 FREEWAY
DOUGLASS ROAD (PUBLIC)
LOT B
DOUGLASS ROAD (PRIVATE)
RIVER ROAD (PUBLIC)
BALL ROAD
APPROX. LOCATION
OF PHASE 2 PARK
IRR MAIN
IRR MAIN
IRR MAIN
IRR MAIN
LEGEND
OVERALL PHASING EXHIBIT
FULL C IRCLE T HI NKIN G
E NGINEERI NG
R C9.01.A1 FUSCOE
OCV!BE Entitlements | September 2024
PTMLUP MIS2020-00751 Amendment No. 1 Source: Anaheim Real Estate Partners, LLC 2024.
Path C:\GIS\Projects\City of Anaheim\OCVIBE\Map Docs
Feet
0 200 400 Figure 16
Overall Phasing Plan
Addendum No. 13 to SEIR No. 339 (Amendment No. 1 to OCVIBE Project) N
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 70 September 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 71 September 2024
Section 4 Environmental Checklist
4.1 Project Information
1. Project title: Addendum No. 13 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project FSEIR No. 339
(OCVIBE Master Site Plan Amendment No. 1
Project).
2. Lead agency name and address: City of Anaheim
Planning and Building Department
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, California 92805
3. Contact person name, address, and
phone number:
Judy Dadant, Senior Planner
Planning and Building Department,
Planning Services
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, California 92805
(714) 765-4945/[email protected]
4. Project location: The Project Site associated with Amendment No. 1 is limited to Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and
D2 for development of additional residential
dwelling units and Transit District Sub-Area B
for the changes in the Meadow Park and the
Porch.
5 Project sponsor’s name and address: Anaheim Real Estate Partners, LLC 2101 East Coast Highway, Suite 230
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
6. General plan designation: MU UC (Mixed Use Urban Core)
7. Zoning: The Project Site is zoned O-L (Low Intensity Office) and SP (Semi-Public) with Platinum
Triangle Mixed Use Overlay.
8. Description of project: Refer to Section 3, Project Description, of this Addendum.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Refer to Section 3 of this Addendum.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 72 September 2024
10. Other public agencies whose
approval is required:
• Regional Water Quality Control Board
(Santa Ana Region). Issue a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Permit to allow for the
implementation of the Project.
• South Coast Air Quality Management
District. Issue necessary air quality
permits to implement the project.
• Orange County Sanitation District
(OCSD). Approve necessary sewer
upgrades to OCSD facilities.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 73 September 2024
4.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
☐ Air Quality
☐ Biological Resources ☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy
☐ Geology and Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
☐ Hazards and
Hazardous Materials
☐ Hydrology and
Water Quality
☐ Land Use and Planning ☐ Mineral Resources
☐ Noise ☐ Population and
Housing
☐ Public Services
☐ Recreation ☐ Transportation ☐ Tribal Cultural
Resources
☐ Utilities and
Service Systems
☐ Wildfire ☐ Mandatory Findings
of Significance
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 74 September 2024
4.3 Lead Agency Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
☐
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent (state), including implementation of the mitigation measures identified herein. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
☒
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Name, Title, City of Anaheim
September 19, 2024
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 75 September 2024
4.4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
The City prepared the Modified Project’s Environmental Checklist per CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(d)(3) and Section 15168(c)(4). The CEQA Guidelines include a suggested checklist to indicate if the conditions set forth in its Section 15162, which would require a subsequent or supplemental EIR, are met, and if there would be new significant impacts resulting from the Project not examined in the FSEIR No. 339. The checklist is found in Section 5 of this Addendum, along with an explanation and discussion of each significance determination made in the checklist. The following terminology is used to describe the potential level of significance of impacts:
• New Significant Impact. This response indicates when the Modified Project has changed to such an extent that major revisions of the FSEIR No. 339 are required due to the presence of new significant environmental effects.
• More Severe Impacts. This response indicates when the circumstances under which the Modified Project is undertaken have changed to such an extent that major revisions of the FSEIR No. 339 are required because the severity of previously identified significant effects would substantially increase.
• New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact. This response indicates when new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the FSEIR No. 339 was certified indicates that there are new mitigation measures or alternatives available to substantially reduce significant environmental impacts of the Modified Project. • No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The response indicates that the Modified Project would not create a new impact or substantially increase the severity of the previously identified environmental impact disclosed in the FSEIR No. 339.
The Environmental Checklist and accompanying explanation of checklist responses provide the information and analysis necessary to assess relative environmental impacts of the Modified Project in the context of environmental impacts addressed in the FSEIR No. 339. Since certification of FSEIR No. 11, 11 addenda have been approved, including Addendum No. 11 for the OCVIBE Project. The Modified Project amends the approved OCVIBE Project analyzed in Addendum No. 11; therefore, the checklist responses use both FSEIR No. 339 and Addendum No. 11 as appropriate to analyze potential impacts from the Modified Project. In doing so, the City will determine the extent of additional environmental review, if any, for the Modified Project.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 76 September 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 77 September 2024
Section 5 Environmental Analysis
This section provides evidence to substantiate the conclusions in the Environmental Checklist. The section will briefly summarize the conclusions of FSEIR No. 339 and Addendum No. 11 and then discuss if the Modified Project is consistent with the findings in FSEIR No. 339. Since certification of FSEIR No. 339, 11 addenda have been approved, including Addendum No. 11 for the OCVIBE Project. Addendum No. 11 found that the OCVIBE Project is consistent with the findings in FSEIR No. 339. Analyses in this section compare the Modified Project to the conclusions of the FSEIR No. 339 and/or Addendum No. 11 as appropriate to determine consistency with the findings in FSEIR No. 339.
The referenced mitigation measures are from MMP No. 383, adopted for the OCVIBE Project with the approval of Addendum No. 11. MMP No. 383 includes formerly adopted mitigation measures as part of the previous analysis, which are adopted mitigation measures from FEIR No. 321, FSEIR No. 332, and FSEIR No. 339. Prior to adoption, mitigation measures in MMP No. 383 were updated, refined, and supplemented to ensure mitigation is implemented as intended for the OCVIBE Project. No changes to MMP No. 383 are proposed as part of this Addendum No. 13, and MMP No. 383 would be reaffirmed upon approval of Addendum No. 13.
The proposed development intensities from the PT Expansion Project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339, OCVIBE Project Analyzed in Addendum No. 11, and the Modified Project are summarized in Table 10, Development Intensities Previously Analyzed and Modified Project, and Table 11, Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2 Development Intensities (Approved and Modified).
Table 10. Development Intensities Previously Analyzed and Modified Project Land Use
PT Expansion Project
in FSEIR No. 339
OCVIBE Project in
Addendum No. 11 Modified Project
Change from
Addendum No. 11
Residential 18,909 DU 17,840 DU 18,476 DU1 636 DU
Commercial 4,909,682 SF 6,195,019 SF 6,195,019 SF 0
Office 14,478,356 SF 11,659,338 SF 11,049,963 SF to
11,274,963 SF
(384,375 SF to
609,375 SF)
Institutional 1,500,000 SF 250,000 SF 250,000 SF 0
Non-Residential
Subtotal 20,888,038 SF 18,104,357 SF 17,494,982 SF to 17,719,982 SF (384,375 SF to
609,375 SF)
Notes: DU = dwelling units; PTMLUP = Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan; SF = square feet 1 The 18,476 dwelling unit development intensity (inclusive of 1,920 DU in the Arena District) reflects the base density of 100 DU/acre on 19.20 acres of Area District Sub-Area D2 that would be identified for residential uses. The Applicant proposes to provide a minimum of 5 percent of the number of base units to be affordable to very low-income households (96 DU), authorizing the Applicant to increase the Project density by a maximum of 20 percent (384 bonus DU, or 2,304 total DU). With the density bonus, the Applicant is proposing a range of 1,960 DU to 2,250 DU, within the allowable density pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 78 September 2024
Table 11. Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2 Development Intensities (Approved and Modified) General Plan Land
Use Designation
OCVIBE Project in
Addendum No. 11
Modified Project Change from
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Addendum No. 11
Residential 1,284 DU 1,920 DU 1,920 DU 1,920 DU 636 DU
Commercial 15,000 SF 15,000 SF 15,000 SF 15,000 SF 0 SF Office 709,375 SF 100,000 SF 0 325,000 SF (384,375 SF to 609,375 SF)
Institutional 0 0 0 0 0
5.1 Aesthetics
5.1.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis
5.1.1.1 FSEIR No. 339
Scenic Vistas and Resources
The Initial Study for FSEIR No. 339 determined that the Platinum Triangle does not contain any natural or undisturbed areas that provide unique vistas or scenic resources that are officially recognized by a local, state, or federal agency. The nearest state-designated scenic highway—SR91 between SR-55 and Weir Canyon—is not visible from the Platinum Triangle. The Initial Study therefore concluded that impacts to scenic vistas and scenic resources would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures were necessary. Because these impacts were considered less than significant, they were not further analyzed in FSEIR No. 339.
Visual Character and Quality
FSEIR No. 339 evaluated potential impacts of the development of additional 8,643 dwelling units, up to 6,007,166 square feet of additional office area, up to 2,645,282 square feet of additional commercial area, and up to 1,500,000 square feet of institutional area in the PTMU Overlay Zone Mixed Use District, and up to 3,277,806 square feet of additional office space in the new PTMU Overlay Zone Office District and identified that various urban design attributes incorporated into adopted development standards would ensure that individual projects are architecturally consistent.
Shade and Shadows
FSEIR No. 339 also discussed impacts of the PT Expansion Project related to shade and shadows, including shade and shadows potentially generated by the medium- to high-rise structures allowed in the Platinum Triangle. Buildout of the Project Area would involve the development of a range of urban building types, including buildings with heights of 100 feet or higher. The increased allowable density and height of the PT Expansion Project would result in increased shadow lengths and widths compared to existing conditions.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 79 September 2024
FSEIR No. 339 acknowledged that adopted development standards with respect to breaks and modulation in roof lines and building setbacks would reduce shade and shadow impacts but noted that the extent and duration of shadows cast by buildings developed in the Platinum Triangle would depend on the actual design, bulk, height, and location of structures in relation to open space and pedestrian areas. It therefore concluded that evaluation of actual shade and shadow impacts at the program level would be speculative and. included Mitigation Measure 1-1 to provide a mechanism to review at the project level. Consistency with the measure would ensure that future development projects adjacent to residential, recreational, and pedestrian areas would be required to demonstrate that they would not interfere with those uses’ exposure to natural sunlight. Projects would be required to be designed to allow direct sunlight for at least 50 percent of the sun-sensitive areas for at least 50 percent of duration for the season. FSEIR No. 339 determined that, upon implementation of Mitigation Measure 1-1, shade and shadow impacts of the PT Expansion Project would be less than significant.
Light and Glare
The Initial Study for FSEIR No. 339 explained that buildout of the PT Expansion Project would introduce numerous new sources of nighttime illumination related to buildings, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, park facilities, and roadways. However, the Initial Study concluded that compliance with provisions of the PTMLUP would ensure that potential adverse impacts related to light and glare would be minimized. Furthermore, it concluded that the PT Expansion Project would not generate new significant impacts beyond those evaluated in prior CEQA documentation.
Light and glare impacts were determined to be less than significant, and this topic was not further analyzed in FSEIR No. 339.
5.1.1.2 Addendum No. 11 to FSEIR No. 339
Scenic Vistas and Resources
Addendum No. 11 determined that the OCVIBE Project Site does not contain any natural or undisturbed scenic areas that provide unique vistas that are officially recognized by a local, state, or federal agency, and would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or scenic resources.
Visual Character and Quality
Addendum No. 11 determined that the OCVIBE Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase severity of impacts compared to FSEIR No. 339 because 1) the total number of units and the overall non-residential building area would decrease within the overall PTMLUP boundaries with implementation of the OCVIBE Project; and 2) the OCVIBE Project is in a High Quality Transit Area defined by the 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), where aesthetic impacts are not considered significant impacts on the environment pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC).
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 80 September 2024
Light and Glare
Addendum No. 11 evaluated potential light and glare impacts from the OCVIBE Project, which included various types of outdoor advertising, including three spectacular digital signs each with 2,000 square feet of sign surface area and one digital advertising wall sign with 4,000 square feet, to be placed on the west elevations of Parking Deck A and Deck B and C, visible from the SR-57 freeway; 300 square feet kiosk digital signs at 10 locations and five digital advertising signs of varying sizes. A light analysis was performed as part of the Addendum No. 11 for the four digital signs visible from SR-57 freeway. It was determined that spill light from these large digital billboard signs would not exceed 0.1 fc beyond SR-57 freeway and would have negligible impact terms of spill light impact. Glare impacts were also determined to be less than significant.
5.1.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
Except as provided in Public Resources Code
Section 21099, would the project:
New
Significant
Impact
More Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous
Analysis
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views
of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized
area, would the project conflict with applicable
zoning and other regulations governing scenic
quality?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Substantial Changes from Previous Analysis. FSEIR No. 339 and Addendum No. 11 determined that the PTMLUP boundaries and the OCVIBE Project Site do not contain any natural or undisturbed areas that provide unique vistas or scenic resources that are officially recognized by a local, state, or federal agency. The Modified Project would occur within the existing boundaries of the OCVIBE Project Site and the PTMLUP, and the Project Site is not part of the City’s Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone or adjacent to the City's scenic expressway (Anaheim 2004, Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 81 September 2024
2024, Caltrans 2024). The Project Site does not contain any natural or undisturbed scenic areas that provide unique vistas that are officially recognized by a local, state, or federal agency, therefore, the Modified Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. 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 substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Substantial Changes from Previous Analysis. FSEIR No. 339 and Addendum No. 11 determined that no officially recognized local, state, or federal-level scenic resources exist within the PTMLUP boundaries and the OCVIBE Project Site. The Modified Project would occur within the existing OCVIBE Project Site and the PTMLUP boundaries. Therefore, as with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. 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, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? No Substantial Changes from Previous Analysis. The project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339 includes development of up to 18,909 dwelling units, 4,909,682 square feet of commercial, 14,340,522 square feet of office, and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses, for a combined total of 20,750,204 square feet of non-residential building area in the Platinum Triangle (refer to Table 3). Development within the Platinum Triangle is subject to various design attributes incorporated into adopted development standards that would ensure that individual projects are architecturally consistent. The Modified Project includes development of a maximum of 18,476 dwelling units, with a range of density bonus pursuant to the State Density Bons Law, 6,195,019 square feet of commercial, 11,049,963 to 11,274,963 square feet of office, and 250,000 square feet of institutional uses, for a combined total of 17,494,982 to 17,719,982 square feet of non-residential building area. The Modified Project would be subject to adopted development standards, including building mass, height, and location. Therefore, the proposed total number of units and the overall non-residential building area would still be within the numbers analyzed under the PT Expansion Project and governed by urban design standards, and no new significant visual impacts are anticipated.
As with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project includes development of residential units in the Transit Priority Area (TPA), which is an area within 0.5 mile of an existing or planned major transit stop. The Project Site is within the High Quality Transit Area (HQTA) as defined by Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 82 September 2024
the 2024–2050 RTP/SCS. Therefore, as with the approved OCVIBE Project, PRC Section 21099(d) would be applicable, and aesthetics impacts of the Modified Project would not be considered significant. 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 create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
No Substantial Changes from Previous Analysis. As identified in FSEIR No. 339 and Addendum No. 11, the Platinum Triangle is envisioned as a regional activity center with entertainment, retail, highdensity housing, and office uses that require a certain level of after-hour nighttime lighting. It assumed nighttime illumination of buildings, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, park facilities, and roadways and use of lights to highlight building design features, emphasize prominent entrances and plazas, and create a feeling of security. The Modified Project would not result in land use changes to the OCVIBE Project sub-districts that provide entertainment, retail, hotels, and various urban parks and plazasthat require a certain level of nighttime lighting. The proposed changes in the Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2 and Transit District Sub-Area B would not require substantial changes to the nighttime illumination for operation in the area. The proposed amendment to the CUP would continue to authorize indoor uses. Although the Modified Project includes modifications to the OCVIBE Coordinated Sign Program, it would not change the approved locations, sizes, and types of the outdoor digital and spectacular signs. Changes to the Mural Location Map, including murals in the Arena District Sub-Area D2, would not create new nighttime lighting or glare impact in the area. 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.
5.1.3 Applicable Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to aesthetics from the previous analysis are applicable to the Modified Project.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 83 September 2024
5.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
5.2.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis
5.2.1.1 FSEIR No. 339
Agricultural Resources
The Initial Study for FSEIR No. 339 identified that there were no areas designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance in the Platinum Triangle or in the surrounding vicinity. FSEIR No. 339 found no impact on agricultural resources by the PT Expansion Project.
Forestry Resources
At the time of the release of the Notice of Preparation for FSEIR No. 339 on December 11, 2008, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines did not include significance thresholds addressing potential impacts to forestry resources. Therefore, forestry resources were not evaluated in FSEIR No. 339.
However, there are no such resources in the Platinum Triangle, which consists of urbanized land uses and highly disturbed vacant parcels.
5.2.1.2 Addendum No. 11 to FSEIR No. 339
The Addendum No. 11 to FSEIR No. 339 determined that the OCVIBE Project Site is fully developed with buildings and paved surfaces, and implementation of the OCVIBE Project would not result in new impacts associated with agricultural and forestry resources.
5.2.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In
determining whether impacts to forest resources,
including timberland, are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to information
compiled by the California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection regarding the state’s
inventory of forest land, including the Forest and
Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment project; and forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in Forest
Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources
Board. Would the project:
New
Significant
Impact
More Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous
Analysis
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 84 September 2024
In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In
determining whether impacts to forest resources,
including timberland, are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to information
compiled by the California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection regarding the state’s
inventory of forest land, including the Forest and
Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment project; and forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in Forest
Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources
Board. Would the project:
New
Significant
Impact
More Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous
Analysis
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources
Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use
or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Substantial Changes from Previous Analysis. The Project Site is fully developed with buildings, surface parking, hardscape, and landscaping associated with existing land uses. The Project Site does not contain farmland or other agricultural uses (DOC 2024). As with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project would not convert important farmland to nonagricultural use, and no significant impact would occur. The Modified Project would not result in new impacts associated with agricultural land 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.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 85 September 2024
b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Substantial Changes from Previous Analysis. The Project Site is fully developed with buildings, surface parking, hardscape, and landscaping associated with existing land uses. The Project Site is zoned SP (Semi-Public)/PTMU and O-L (Low Intensity Office)/PTMU Overlay Zone. As with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project would not conflict with any agricultural use or Williamson Act contract. 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 conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
No Substantial Changes from Previous Analysis. The Project Site is fully developed with buildings, surface parking, hardscape, and landscaping associated with existing land uses. The Project Site is zoned SP (Semi-Public)/PTMU and O-L (Low Intensity Office)/PTMU Overlay Zone. As with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project would not result in new impacts associated with forest land or timberland 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 the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Substantial Changes from Previous Analysis. The Project Site is fully developed with buildings, surface parking, hardscape, and landscaping associated with existing land uses. The Project Site does not contain any forest land. As with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project would not result in the loss of forest to non-forest use. The Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts related to forest land compared to impacts identified in FSEIR No. 339 and its Addenda, including Addendum No. 11. No substantial change from the previous analysis would occur.
e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Substantial Changes from Previous Analysis. As stated above, the Project Site does not contain any agricultural land or forest land. As with the approved OCVIBE Project, implementation of the Modified Project would not involve changes in the existing environment related to agricultural use or forest land use. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts related to farmland or forest land Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 86 September 2024
compared to impacts identified in FSEIR No. 339 and its Addenda, including Addendum No.
11. No substantial change from the previous analysis would occur.
5.2.3 Applicable Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to agricultural and forestry resources were required by the previous analysis.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 87 September 2024
5.3 Air Quality
5.3.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis
5.3.1.1 FSEIR No. 339
Consistency with Air Quality Plan
The applicable Air Quality Plan for the PT Expansion Project consistency in FSEIR No. 339 was the 2007 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The regional emissions inventory for the South Coast Air Basin is compiled by the SCAQMD and SCAG. Regional population, housing, and employment projections developed by SCAG are based on the land use designations of a city’s General Plan and form, in part, the foundation for the emissions inventory of the AQMP. These demographic trends are incorporated into the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) compiled by SCAG to determine priority transportation projects and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the SCAG region.
The PT Expansion Project was determined to result in an overall increase in both trips and VMT in the Platinum Triangle because the Project would substantially increase the density of development in the Platinum Triangle. However, the PT Expansion Project would result in a net benefit to the SCAG region because it would provide new compact mixed-use development that would decrease average trip length because employment, services, and housing would be in proximity to each other, as well as to existing development, thus reducing the need to develop in outlying areas that would result in longer trips and an increase in emissions. SCAG’s Compass Blueprint identified portions of the Platinum Triangle as opportunity areas to reduce regional VMT. The PT Expansion Project was consistent with the SCAG goal to target growth where projects, plans, and policies consistent with the Compass Blueprint principles would best serve the mobility, livability, prosperity, and sustainability goals of the Growth Vision. As such, the PT Expansion Project was determined to be consistent with SCAG’s strategies to reduce VMT in the SCAG region, and in turn, the proposed development would be consistent with the AQMP.
Construction Air Quality
Construction activities required for the PT Expansion Project would produce combustion emissions from various sources, such as on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles, vehicles hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Grading activities produce fugitive dust emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) from soil-disturbing activities. Exhaust emissions from construction activities on site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. As such, construction activities associated with the PT Expansion Project would temporarily increase localized PM10, PM2.5, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), and CO concentrations within the Project vicinity and regional emissions within the South Coast Air Basin. Construction emissions were estimated using the Urban Emissions (URBEMIS) Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 88 September 2024
2007 computer model to provide an order of magnitude estimate of emissions from the development of individual components of the PTMLUP, assuming development occurring on 25 percent of the PTMLUP at any one time. Therefore, the model assumed overlapping construction activities (e.g., grading, building, paving). Modeled air pollutant emissions for the various project construction phases calculated for the PT Expansion Project compared to the SCAQMD regional thresholds for construction are shown in Table 12, PT Expansion Project Daily Construction Emissions (pounds/day). As shown in this table, emissions generated by construction activities would exceed the threshold values established by the SCAQMD for VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Modeled emissions for the PT Expansion Project would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold for SOx.
Therefore, FSEIR No. 339 determined that significant air quality impacts from construction-related emissions would occur as a result of the PT Expansion Project. Mitigation Measures 2-1 through 2- 4 from FSEIR No. 339 were identified to reduce construction emissions; however, this impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable for VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions due to the magnitude of anticipated construction.
Table 12. PT Expansion Project Daily Construction Emissions (pounds/day) Source VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Demolition 6 47 27 0 2 2
Grading1 11 96 49 0 134 31
Trenching 4 35 18 0 2 2
Paving 3 20 12 0 2 2
Architectural Coatings 77 <1 2 0 <1 <1
Building 120 750 2,624 4 50 36
Maximum Daily 222 948 2,732 4 190 72
SCAQMD Construction
Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Source: City of Anaheim 2010.
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; NOX = nitrogen oxides; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; SOX = sulfur oxides; VOC = volatile organic compound
1 PM10 and PM2.5 generated by fugitive dust assumes a maximum daily disturbance of 41 acres and implementation of SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust control, which includes the following dust control measures during ground-disturbing activities: replacing ground cover in disturbed areas quickly, watering exposed surfaces at least two times daily, implementing equipment loading/unloading procedures to reduce fugitive dust, managing haul road dust by watering two times daily, and reducing speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour (mph).
Operational Impact
FSEIR No. 339 estimated emissions from buildout of the entire PTMLUP using the URBEMIS2007 computer model. Modeling results for the entire Platinum Triangle are shown in Table 13, PT Expansion Project Total Daily Operational Emissions (pounds/day).
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 89 September 2024
Table 13. PT Expansion Project Total Daily Operational Emissions (pounds/day) Source VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Stationary Sources 1,155 443 252 0.67 9 9
Mobile Sources 2,628 1,358 11,518 43 353 350
Total 3,783 1,801 11,770 44 362 359
SCAQMD Construction
Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Source: City of Anaheim 2010.
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; NOX = nitrogen oxides; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; SOX = sulfur oxides; VOC = volatile organic compound.
The PT Expansion Project would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for CO, NOx, VOC, PM10, and PM2.5. Mobile sources (i.e., vehicles traveling to and from the Project Site) would be the primary source of project-related long-term air pollutant emissions. Emissions of VOC, PM10, PM2.5, and NOx that exceed the SCAQMD emission thresholds would contribute to the ozone non-attainment designation. Emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 that exceed the SCAQMD emission thresholds would contribute to the particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) non-attainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin. Mitigation Measures 2-5 and 2-6 were identified to reduce operational impacts.
However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable for the PT Expansion Project due to the magnitude of new air pollutant emissions sources that could result with buildout of the PT Expansion Project.
Pollutant Concentrations
Impacts related to exposure of new sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations were evaluated based on the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, which addresses the siting of sensitive land uses within the vicinity of sources that generate toxic air contaminants (TACs) including freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome-plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline-dispensing facilities (CARB 2005). This methodology was consistent with California Association of Air Pollution Control Officers (CAPCOA) Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Land Use Projects (2009).
The following screening distances were determined to be relevant to the Platinum Triangle: avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day; avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center; avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome plater; avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail yard; avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry-cleaning operation or 500 feet for facilities with two or more machines; and avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 90 September 2024
feet of a large gas station (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater) or 50 feet for typical gas-dispensing facilities (CAPCOA 2009).
Under the PT Expansion Project, residential uses and associated private recreational areas would fall within the CARB-recommended 500-foot buffer distance to I-5 and SR-57. Proposed parks in the Platinum Triangle would not be within the 500-foot buffer distance of the freeway. In addition, future residents and recreational uses may be within the recommended buffer distance of existing distribution centers, chrome platers, dry cleaners, gas stations, or other facilities that may be currently operating in the Platinum Triangle and emit TACs. Therefore, placement of sensitive uses (residential and recreational) within the CARB-recommended screening distances for existing sources of TACs was determined to be a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures 2-7, 2-8, and 2-9 were identified for this impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 2-7 and 2-8 would reduce impacts to new residential areas to a less than significant level; however, impacts to outdoor areas would remain significant and unavoidable with implementation of Mitigation Measure 2-9.
Odors
SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, regulates the generation of offensive odors. Construction of the PT Expansion Project would involve the operation of heavy equipment and haul trucks, resulting in exhaust emissions and attendant nuisance odors. However, odors would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the equipment itself. By the time odors generated by diesel exhaust reach sensitive residential receptors, they would be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern.
Additionally, some odor would be produced from the application of asphalt, paint, and coatings.
Potential brief exposure of the public to these common odors would be of short duration and was determined to be a less than significant impact. Additionally, operational impacts of the proposed uses were determined to be less than significant because proposed office, commercial, hotel, and residential land uses typically do not generate substantial odors.
The existing industrial uses in the Platinum Triangle were identified as a potential odor source to development under the PT Expansion Project. However, at buildout, residential areas would be buffered by office uses from industrial areas that have the potential to generate odors. Therefore, at buildout, residential land uses would not be exposed to objectionable odors. However, during the conversion of the Platinum Triangle, residential land uses may be temporarily located adjacent to existing industrial businesses that generate odors. Therefore, impacts were determined to be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure 2-10 was identified for this impact, which was determined to be less than significant with mitigation.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 91 September 2024
5.3.1.2 Addendum No. 11 to FSEIR No. 339
Consistency with Air Quality Plan
In Addendum No. 11, the plans applicable to the OCVIBE Project were the SCAQMD 2016 AQMP, Draft 2022 AQMP, and SCAG Connect SoCal 2020–2045 RTP/SCS adopted in 2020 (SCAG 2020). SCAQMD AQMP consistency is based on regional growth projections, and SCAG RTP/SCS consistency is focused on targeting growth in opportunity areas to reduce VMT in the region. The OCVIBE Project Site is within 0.5 mile of the ARTIC and is a TPA. The OCVIBE Project was determined to be consistent with the AQMP emissions projections based on the growth assumptions for the overall PTMLUP. The OCVIBE Project was determined to be consistent with the Connect SoCal 2020–2045 RTP/SCS vision to concentrate growth in TPAs. Addendum No. 11 determined this impact to be less than significant.
Construction Air Quality
Construction activities under the OCVIBE Project would produce combustion emissions from various sources, such as on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles, vehicles hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Grading activities produce fugitive dust emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) from soil-disturbing activities. Exhaust emissions from construction activities on the OCVIBE Project Site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. Construction emissions for the OCVIBE Project were modeled individually for each of the five proposed phases using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0. Modeled air pollutant emissions and comparison to the SCAQMD regional thresholds is provided in Table 14, Addendum No. 11 Construction Emissions (pounds/day). As shown in this table, emissions generated by construction activities were calculated to exceed the threshold values established by the SCAQMD for nitrogen oxides (NOx) during Phases 1 through 4 of construction and exceed the threshold for VOC in Phase 5. However, construction emissions under Addendum No. 11 would not exceed those under the FSEIR No. 339.
Therefore, Addendum No. 11 determined that implementation of the OCVIBE Project would not result in a new or additional impact that was not adequately addressed in FSEIR No. 339. FSEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 2-1 through 2-4 were determined to be required for Addendum No.
11. Additionally, as with the FSEIR No. 339, Addendum No. 11 required the OCVIBE Project to comply with SCAQMD rules related to fugitive dust control. Addendum No. 11 determined that this impact would continue to be significant and unavoidable after mitigation.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 92 September 2024
Table 14. Addendum No. 11 Construction Emissions (pounds/day) Source VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Phase 1
Demolition 4 50 28 <1 12 3
Site Preparation 3 28 19 <1 10 6
Rough Grading1 5 73 39 <1 12 4
Fine Grading 3 35 29 <1 4 3
Trenching 1 7 7 <1 <1 <1
Paving 1 9 15 <1 <1 <1
Architectural Coatings 10 1 2 <1 <1 <1
Building Construction 6 1 35 <1 21 6
Maximum Daily 33 204 174 <1 59 22
SCAQMD Construction Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No Yes No No No No
Phase 2
Demolition 2 41 27 <1 4 2
Rough Grading1 3 58 38 <1 8 4
Site Preparation 3 27 19 <1 10 6
Paving 1 9 15 <1 <1 <1
Architectural Coatings 14 1 2 <1 <1 <1
Building Construction 4 26 50 <1 15 4
Maximum Daily 27 162 151 <1 37 16
SCAQMD Construction Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No Yes No No No No
Phase 3
Demolition 2 37 26 <1 11 3
Rough Grading1 3 53 36 <1 8 4
Paving 1 9 15 <1 <1 <1
Architectural Coatings 12 1 2 <1 <1 <1
Building Construction 3 20 37 <1 11 3
Maximum Daily 21 120 116 <1 30 10
SCAQMD Construction Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No Yes No No No No
Phase 4
Demolition 2 27 23 <1 5 1
Site Preparation 2 25 18 <1 9 5
Rough Grading1 3 53 37 <1 8 4
Paving 1 7 16 <1 <1 <1
Architectural Coatings 15 1 2 <1 <1 <1
Building Construction 2 18 32 <1 9 2
Maximum Daily 25 131 128 <1 31 12
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 93 September 2024
Table 14. Addendum No. 11 Construction Emissions (pounds/day) Source VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
SCAQMD Construction Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No Yes No No No No
Phase 5
Site Preparation 2 14 16 <1 10 5
Paving 1 6 13 <1 <1 <1
Architectural Coatings 78 1 2 <1 <1 <1
Building Construction 1 9 17 <1 1 <1
Maximum Daily 82 30 48 <1 11 5
SCAQMD Construction Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? Yes No No No No No
FSEIR No. 339 Maximum Daily
Emissions 222 948 2,732 4 190 72
Source: City of Anaheim 2022.
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; NOX = nitrogen oxides; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; SOX = sulfur oxides; VOC = volatile organic compound
1 PM10 and PM2.5 generated by fugitive dust assumes implementation of SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust control, which includes the following dust control measures during ground-disturbing activities: replacing ground cover in disturbed areas quickly, watering exposed surfaces at least two time daily, implementing equipment loading/unloading procedures to reduce fugitive dust, managing haul road dust by watering two times daily, and reducing speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph.
Operational Impact
Addendum No. 11 emissions were modeled using CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0 and compared to operational emissions from FSEIR No. 339. Modeling result for the OCVIBE Project are shown in Table 15, Addendum No. 11 Daily Operational Emissions (pounds/day).
Table 15. Addendum No. 11 Daily Operational Emissions (pounds/day) Source VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Area 87 1 125 <1 1 1
Energy 3 25 20 <1 2 2
Mobile 92 84 827 2 204 55
Addendum No. 11 Total 182 110 972 2 207 58
FSEIR No. 339 Project Total 261 165 1,612 4 392 108
SCAQMD Construction Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Source: City of Anaheim 2022.
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; NOX = nitrogen oxides; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; SOX = sulfur oxides; VOC = volatile organic compound
Addendum No. 11 determined that the OCVIBE Project would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for CO, NOx, VOC, PM10, and PM2.5 during operation. Operational emissions would be reduced under Addendum No. 11 compared to the FSEIR No. 339 primarily due to a projected decrease in Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 94 September 2024
vehicle trips. FSEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 2-5 and 2-6 were determined to be required for the OCVIBE Project, and this impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Pollutant Concentrations
The OCVIBE Project would develop new residences that would have the potential to be within California Air Resources Board (CARB)-recommended screening distances for toxic air contaminant sources. The proposed residential uses and associated private recreational areas in Arena District Sub-Area D2 would be within 500 feet of SR-57. None of the roadways surrounding the OCVIBE Project Site are projected to exceed 100,000 vehicles per day. The proposed residences would not be within 1,000 feet of a chrome plater, 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail yard, 500 feet of existing dry-cleaning facilities, or 300 feet of a large gas station.
However, industrial uses of concern may be accommodated within these screening distances.
Therefore, Addendum No. 11 determined that a potentially significant impact would occur related to new residences and private recreational areas within the screening distances for freeways and industrial uses. Mitigation Measures 2-7 through 2-9 from FSEIR No. 339 were identified for Addendum No. 11. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 2-7 and 2-8 would reduce impacts to new residential areas to a less than significant level; however, impacts to outdoor areas would remain significant and unavoidable with implementation of Mitigation Measure 2-9.
Odors
SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, regulates the generation of offensive odors. The type of facilities that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatments plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), coffee roasters, dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. The OCVIBE Project would include operation of retail (including restaurants and coffee shops), but those uses would not fall within the types of uses that are associated with foul odors that constitute a public nuisance. The OCVIBE Project would locate new residences within 1,000 feet of existing industrial facilities.
Therefore, new residences may be exposed to odors from industrial operations, and this impact would be potentially significant. Addendum No. 11 determined that Mitigation Measure 2-10 from FSEIR No. 339 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
5.3.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
The analysis in this section is based in part on the following:
• Air Quality Memorandum, Comparison of OCVIBE Master Site Plan Amendment No. 1 to OCVIBE Addendum No. 11 Components – Air Quality Impacts Harris & Associates, September 18, 2024 (Appendix A)
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 95 September 2024
Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality
management district or air pollution control district
may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
New
Significant
Impact
More Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous
Analysis
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region
is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project would result in an increase in total residential units, but a decrease in office space compared to the approved OCVIBE Project within Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2. The proposed changes would result in a minor increase in average daily vehicle trips under Option 1 and Option 3 compared to Addendum No.
11. Option 1 would generate approximately 643 additional average daily trips, and Option 3 would generate approximately 372 additional average daily trips. Option 2 would result in a net decrease of 412 average daily trips compared to Addendum No. 11 (Pirzadeh 2024). As described below under Section 5.3.2(b), Modified Project emissions would not exceed the estimated emissions for FSEIR No. 339, consistent with Addendum No. 11, with the exception of a nominal increase in operational VOC emissions. Therefore, growth under the Modified Project would generally be within the AQMP emissions projections based on growth assumptions. Additionally, the Modified Project would not result in any changes to the approved OCVIBE Project transit-supporting features, including compact infill development in a TPA, and bicycle and pedestrian connections to ARTIC from throughout the OCVIBE Project Site. 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.
Therefore, consistent with the approved OCVIBE Project as analyzed in Addendum No. 11, the Modified Project would be consistent with applicable Air Quality Plans, and this impact would be less than significant. Changes would not be substantial, and the Modified Project would not result in Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 96 September 2024
new significant impact or increase the severity of impacts identified FSEIR No. 339 and Addenda, including Addendum No. 11. 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. b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard)?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis.
Construction
The types of construction activities required for the Modified Project would be similar to those anticipated for the OCVIBE Project in Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2 in Addendum No. 11, including demolition, site preparation and grading, building construction, and paving. However, total construction effort would be increased. That is, additional workdays and vehicle trips would be required as a result of additional demolition and earthwork required to remove the existing ACC office structures and additional building construction required for the new Buildings 4, 5, and 6.
Construction would also be similar in the Meadow Park and Porch in Transit District Sub-Area B.
Construction effort would potentially be reduced in this area as passive parkland would be developed on the area previously proposed for an amphitheater.
Revised construction emissions were calculated for Phases 2, 4, and 5 of construction using CalEEMod, Version 2022.1.1.22 for all three Options. The Modified Project would not result in changes to Phase 1 construction. Therefore, this section addresses construction emissions under Addendum No. 11 compared to the Modified Project for Phases 2 through 5. The Modified Project under all three Options would result in a reduced construction effort during Phase 3 due to a decrease in residential units proposed to be constructed in this phase as part of Building 3.
Addendum No. 11 included development of 612 dwelling units in Phase 3, which would be reduced to 505 units under the Modified Project. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in increased emissions in Phase 3 compared to those identified in Addendum No. 11, and this phase is not modeled.
Modeling for Phases 2, 4, and 5 assumes that the remaining development and construction effort outside Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2 would be the same as anticipated in Addendum No. 11, and adjustments are made only for the additional construction effort required for the Modified Project. No changes related to the pedestrian bridge for Parking Deck C were modeled, as the bridge construction would represent the conservative analysis condition. Buildings 1 and 2 would be constructed during Phase 2 of the Project. All three existing ACC office building structures are proposed to be demolished during this phase (approximately 383,250 square feet). However, the building pads in the Building 5 and Building 6 footprint would not be demolished until Phases 5.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 97 September 2024
It is anticipated that the demolition of the existing ACC office buildings and the grading for the new residential buildings would result in additional soil export of 151,383 cubic yards, which is assumed to occur over three development phases (Phases 2, 4, and 5). The revised modeling reflects the updated construction phasing data. Additional workdays are assumed for demolition, grading, and building construction phases. Additionally, Phase 2 total material export has been revised to account for an adjustment to grading operations along River Road between Stanely Cup Way and Cerritos Avenue. Addendum No. 11 anticipated deep over excavation of this roadway.
However, after further geotechnical evaluation, it was determined that less over excavation in the roadway is required, resulting in a decrease in material export of 75,000 cubic yards. Detailed construction assumptions are provided in Appendix A, Air Quality Memo, to this Addendum.
Modeling assumes SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust control but does not include implementation of Addendum No. 11 mitigation measures. Construction emissions for Option 1 are provided in Table 16, Modified Project Option 1 Construction Emissions (pounds/day); emissions for Option 2 are provided in Table 17, Modified Project Option 2 Construction Emissions (pounds/day); and emissions for Option 3 are provided in Table 18, Modified Project Option 3 Construction Emissions (pounds/day).
Table 16. Modified Project Option 1 Construction Emissions (pounds/day) Source VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Phase 2
Demolition 1 29 15 <1 26 5
Rough Grading1 3 34 32 <1 7 3
Site Preparation 3 28 29 <1 9 5
Paving 1 6 11 <1 <1 <1
Architectural Coatings 14 1 1 0 <1 <1
Building Construction 4 20 60 <1 14 4
Modified Project Maximum Daily
Total 26 118 148 <1 56 17
Addendum No. 11 Maximum Daily
Total 27 162 151 <1 37 16
SCAQMD Construction Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No Yes No No No No
FSEIR No. 339 Maximum Daily
Emissions 222 948 2,732 4 190 72
Phase 4
Demolition 2 28 23 <1 10 2
Site Preparation 3 26 29 <1 9 5
Rough Grading1 3 51 40 <1 12 5
Paving 1 6 10 <1 <1 <1
Architectural Coatings 15 1 1 <1 <1 <1
Building Construction 2 13 32 <1 7 2
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 98 September 2024
Table 16. Modified Project Option 1 Construction Emissions (pounds/day) Source VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Modified Project Maximum Daily
Total 26 125 135 <1 39 14
Addendum No. 11 Maximum Daily
Total 25 131 128 <1 31 12
SCAQMD Construction Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No Yes No No No No
FSEIR No. 339 Maximum Daily
Emissions 222 948 2,732 4 190 72
Phase 5
Demolition 2 23 21 <1 5 2
Site Preparation 3 26 29 <1 9 5
Grading 2 20 21 <1 5 2
Paving 1 6 11 <1 <1 <1
Architectural Coatings 10 1 4 0 1 <1
Building Construction 2 11 27 <1 5 1
Modified Project Maximum Daily
Total 20 89 113 <1 25 11
Addendum No. 11 Maximum Daily
Total 82 30 48 <1 11 5
SCAQMD Construction Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
FSEIR No. 339 Maximum Daily
Emissions 222 948 2,732 4 190 72
Source: Attachment 1 to Appendix A, Air Quality Memo.
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; NOX = nitrogen oxides; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; SOX = sulfur oxides; VOC = volatile organic compound
1 PM10 and PM2.5 generated by fugitive dust assumes implementation of SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust control, which includes the following dust control measures during ground-disturbing activities: replacing ground cover in disturbed areas quickly, watering exposed surfaces at least two times daily, implementing equipment loading/unloading procedures to reduce fugitive dust, managing haul road dust by watering two times daily, and reducing speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour.
Table 17. Modified Project Option 2 Construction Emissions (pounds/day) Source VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Phase 2
Demolition 1 29 15 <1 26 5
Rough Grading1 3 34 32 <1 7 3
Site Preparation 3 28 29 <1 9 5
Paving 1 6 11 <1 <1 <1
Architectural Coatings 14 1 9 0 <1 <1
Building Construction 4 20 60 <1 14 4
Modified Project Maximum Daily
Total 26 118 148 <1 56 17
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 99 September 2024
Table 17. Modified Project Option 2 Construction Emissions (pounds/day) Source VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Addendum No. 11 Maximum Daily
Total 27 162 151 <1 37 16
SCAQMD Construction Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No Yes No No No No
FSEIR No. 339 Maximum Daily
Emissions 222 948 2,732 4 190 72
Phase 4
Demolition 2 28 23 <1 10 2
Site Preparation 3 26 29 <1 9 5
Rough Grading1 3 51 40 <1 12 5
Paving 1 6 10 <1 <1 <1
Architectural Coatings 18 1 1 0 <1 <1
Building Construction 3 14 38 <1 10 3
Modified Project Maximum Daily
Total 30 126 141 <1 42 15
Addendum No. 11 Maximum Daily
Total 25 131 128 <1 31 12
SCAQMD Construction Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No Yes No No No No
FSEIR No. 339 Maximum Daily
Emissions 222 948 2,732 4 190 72
Phase 5
Demolition 2 23 21 <1 5 2
Site Preparation 3 26 29 <1 9 5
Grading 2 20 21 <1 5 2
Paving 1 6 11 <1 <1 <1
Architectural Coatings 10 1 1 0 <1 <1
Building Construction 2 12 34 <1 7 2
Modified Project Maximum Daily
Total 20 88 117 <1 27 11
Addendum No. 11 Maximum Daily
Total 82 30 48 <1 11 5
SCAQMD Construction Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
FSEIR No. 339 Maximum Daily
Emissions 222 948 2,732 4 190 72
Source: Attachment 1 to Appendix A, Air Quality Memo.
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; NOX = nitrogen oxides; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; SOX = sulfur oxides; VOC = volatile organic compound
1 PM10 and PM2.5 generated by fugitive dust assumes implementation of SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust control, which includes the following dust control measures during ground-disturbing activities: replacing ground cover in disturbed areas quickly, watering exposed surfaces at least two times daily, implementing equipment loading/unloading procedures to reduce Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 100 September 2024
fugitive dust, managing haul road dust by watering two times daily, and reducing speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour.
Table 18. Modified Project Option 3 Construction Emissions (pounds/day) Source VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Phase 2
Demolition 1 29 15 <1 26 5
Rough Grading1 3 34 32 <1 7 3
Site Preparation 3 28 29 <1 9 5
Paving 1 6 11 <1 <1 <1
Architectural Coatings 14 1 1 0 <1 <1
Building Construction 4 20 60 <1 14 4
Modified Project Maximum Daily
Total 26 118 148 <1 56 17
Addendum No. 11 Maximum Daily
Total 27 162 151 <1 37 16
SCAQMD Construction Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No Yes No No No No
FSEIR No. 339 Maximum Daily
Emissions 222 948 2,732 4 190 72
Phase 4
Demolition 2 28 23 <1 10 2
Site Preparation 3 26 29 <1 9 5
Rough Grading1 3 51 40 <1 12 5
Paving 1 6 10 <1 <1 <1
Architectural Coatings 15 1 1 <1 <1 <1
Building Construction 2 13 32 <1 7 2
Modified Project Maximum Daily
Total 26 125 135 <1 39 14
Addendum No. 11 Maximum Daily
Total 25 131 128 <1 31 12
SCAQMD Construction Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No Yes No No No No
FSEIR No. 339 Maximum Daily
Emissions 222 948 2,732 4 190 72
Phase 5
Demolition 2 23 21 <1 5 2
Site Preparation 3 26 29 <1 9 5
Grading 2 20 21 <1 5 2
Paving 1 6 11 <1 <1 <1
Architectural Coatings 18 1 1 0 <1 <1
Building Construction 3 14 39 <1 9 2
Modified Project Maximum Daily
Total 29 90 122 <1 29 12
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 101 September 2024
Table 18. Modified Project Option 3 Construction Emissions (pounds/day) Source VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Addendum No. 11 Maximum Daily
Total 82 30 48 <1 11 5
SCAQMD Construction Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
FSEIR No. 339 Maximum Daily
Emissions 222 948 2,732 4 190 72
Source: Attachment 1 to Appendix A, Air Quality Memo.
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; NOX = nitrogen oxides; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; SOX = sulfur oxides; VOC = volatile organic compound
1 PM10 and PM2.5 generated by fugitive dust assumes implementation of SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust control, which includes the following dust control measures during ground-disturbing activities: replacing ground cover in disturbed areas quickly, watering exposed surfaces at least two times daily, implementing equipment loading/unloading procedures to reduce fugitive dust, managing haul road dust by watering two times daily, and reducing speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour.
As shown in Tables 16 through 18, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions would be increased under the Modified Project in Phase 2 under all three options. As shown in Tables 14 through 16, all three options would result in increased VOC, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions compared to Addendum No. 11 during Phase 4. Finally, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions would be higher than Addendum No. 11 under all three options in Phase 5 due to the additional demolition and earthwork required in this phase. However, as shown in Tables 18 and 19, in all instances, maximum daily emissions would still be less than analyzed in FSEIR No. 339, and FSEIR No. 339 found these impacts to be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, emissions from the Modified Project would not result in new exceedance of any SCAQMD threshold compared to FSEIR No. 339. This increased impact would not create new significant impacts or increase the severity of previously identified impacts in FSEIR No. 339.
The Modified Project may shift the construction of Meadow Park and the pedestrian bridge over Katella Avenue from Phase 2 to Phase 3, potentially increasing maximum daily emissions in Phase
3. Phase 3 emissions were not modeled for the Modified Project. However, if the maximum Phase 2 emissions modeled for the Modified Project (refer to Tables 16 through 18) were added to the maximum Phase 3 emissions modeled for the approved OCVIBE Project in Addendum No. 11 (refer to Table 14), the combined emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for VOC, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5. This comparison is summarized in Table 19, Modified Phasing Construction Emissions Summary. Although the previously identified NOx impact would still exceed the SCAQMD threshold, it would not exceed the maximum daily emissions identified under FSEIR No. 339. Therefore, the shift in construction timing for Meadow Park and the Katella Avenue bridge from Phase 2 to Phase 3 would not create any new significant impact not already addressed in FSEIR No. 339. Furthermore, this comparison is overly conservative because the Phase 2 emissions include commercial, office, residential, and parking developments, which require more intense construction than Meadow Park, a passive park. The actual construction Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 102 September 2024
emissions with the addition of Meadow Park and the bridge in Phase 3 would be less than assumed for this analysis. 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.
Table 19. Modified Phasing Construction Emissions Summary (pounds/day) Source VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Modified Project Phase 2 (Options 1, 2, and 3)
Modified Project Maximum Daily Total 26 118 148 <1 56 17 Addendum No. 11 Phase 3
Addendum No. 11 Maximum Daily Total 21 120 116 <1 30 10 Combined Phase 2/Phase 3 47 238 264 1 86 27
SCAQMD Construction Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No Yes No No No No
FSEIR No. 339 Maximum Daily
Emissions 222 948 2,732 4 190 72
The Modified Project would result in increased daily construction emissions impacts compared to Addendum No. 11; however, the increase would not exceed daily emissions identified in FSEIR No. 339. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact that was not previously analyzed or increase the severity of previously identified impacts in FSEIR No. 339.
No major revisions to FSEIR No. 339 are required. FSEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 2-1 through 2-4 would continue to be required for the Modified Project.
Operation
OCVIBE Project buildout emissions with Modified Project implementation were modeled using CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.22 and compared to operational emissions from Addendum No. 11.
Modeling results for the Modified Project are shown in Table 20, Modified Project Daily Operational Emissions (pounds/day). Detailed modeling input is provided in Attachment 1 to Appendix A, Air Quality Memo. As shown in Table 20, emissions for all pollutants are increased compared to Addendum No. 11. This increase is conservative because operational emissions in Addendum No. 11 did not account for the existing ACC office operations. Therefore, the Modified Project’s net increase would be reduced compared to Table 20. Additionally, buildout emissions would continue to be below the projected emissions analyzed in FSEIR No. 339, except for a nominal increase in VOC emissions under Option 1 (i.e., VOC emission of 261 pounds per day under FSEIR No. 339 vs. 263 pounds per day under the Modified Project). As shown in Table 20, exceedances of the SCAQMD thresholds for CO, NOX, VOC, PM10, and PM2.5 were previously identified in FSEIR No. 339 and Addendum No. 11, and operational emission impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, although the Modified Project would result in increased daily operational emissions impacts compared to Addendum No. 11, no new Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 103 September 2024
significant and unavoidable impacts would occur. FSEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 2-5 and 2-6 would continue to be required for the Modified Project.
Table 20. Modified Project Daily Operational Emissions (pounds/day) Development Option VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Option 1 263 116 1,477 3 299 79
Option 2 256 114 1,449 3 294 77
Option 3 261 115 1,450 3 292 77
Addendum No. 11 Total 182 110 972 2 207 58
FSEIR No. 339 Total 261 165 1,612 4 392 108
SCAQMD Construction Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Source: Attachment 1 to Appendix A, Air Quality Memo.
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; NOX = nitrogen oxides; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; FSEIR = Subsequent Environmental Impact Report; SOX = sulfur oxides; VOC = volatile organic compound Conclusion
Construction and operation impacts would be similar to Addendum No. 11 under the Modified Project. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in a new or more severe significant impact that was not adequately addressed in FSEIR No. 339 and Addendum No. 11. FSEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 2-1 through 2-6 would still be required for the Modified Project. Additionally, construction would be required to comply with SCAQMD rules related to fugitive dust control.
Consistent with the approved OCVIBE Project, criteria air pollutant emissions (NOx during construction; VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 during operation) would continue to be significant and unavoidable during construction and operation following mitigation. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impact or increase the severity of impacts identified 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 expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As identified for Addendum No. 11, residential uses and associated private recreational areas developed under the Modified Project in Arena District Sub-Area D2 would be within 500 feet of SR-57, and within screening distances of future allowable industrial uses. The Modified Project would not result in the generation of TACs or exposure to any TAC not previously identified in Addendum No. 11. As with Addendum No. 11, Mitigation Measures 2-7 through 2-9 from FSEIR No. 339 would continue to be required for the Modified Project. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impact or increase the severity of impacts identified FSEIR No. 339 and Addenda, including Addendum No.
11. No substantial change from the previous analysis would occur.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 104 September 2024
d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project does not result in any changes to the types of development proposed within the OCVIBE Project Site, and as such, the Modified Project does not propose any land uses that would be a source of substantial odors.
The Modified Project would result in additional residential development in Arena District SubArea D2. As identified for this area in Addendum No. 11, the Modified Project would result in development of residences within 1,000 feet existing industrial facilities. Mitigation Measure 2-10 from FSEIR No. 339 would continue to be required for the Modified Project. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impact or increase the severity of impacts identified FSEIR No. 339 and Addenda, including Addendum No. 11. No substantial change from the previous analysis would occur.
5.3.3 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 2-1 Ongoing during grading and construction, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to reduce construction-related emissions; however, the resultant value is expected to remain significant.
a. The contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations to reduce operational emissions.
b. The contractor shall use Tier 3 or higher, as identified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, off-road construction equipment with higher air pollutant emissions standards for equipment greater than 50 horsepower, based on manufacturer’s availability.
c. The contractor shall utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or cleanfuel generators rather than temporary diesel-power generators, where feasible.
MM 2-2 Ongoing during grading and construction, the property owner/developer shall implement the following measures in addition to the existing requirements for fugitive dust control under South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 to further reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. To assure compliance, the City shall verify compliance that these measures have been implemented during normal construction site inspections. The measures to be implemented are listed below:
a. During all grading activities, the property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall re-establish ground cover on the construction site through Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 105 September 2024
seeding and watering as quickly as possible to achieve a minimum control efficiency for PM10 of 5 percent.
b. During all grading activities, the property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall apply chemical soil stabilizers to on-site haul roads to achieve a control efficiency for PM10 of 85 percent compared to travel on unpaved, untreated roads.
c. The property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time. d. The property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall schedule activities to minimize the amount of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods.
e. During all construction activities, the property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall sweep streets with Rule 1186–compliant PM10–efficient vacuum units on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling.
f. During active demolition and debris removal and grading, the property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall suspend demolition and grading operations when speeds exceed 25 miles per hour to achieve an emissions control efficiency for PM10 under worst-case wind conditions of 98 percent. g. During all construction activities, the property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall maintain a minimum 12-inch freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials and tarp materials with a fabric cover or other suitable means to achieve a control efficiency for PM10 of 91 percent. h. During all construction activities, the property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall water exposed ground surfaces and disturbed areas a minimum of every three hours on the construction site to achieve an emissions reduction control efficiency for PM10 of 61 percent.
i. During active demolition and debris removal, the property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall apply water to disturbed soils at the end of each day to achieve an emission control efficiency for PM10 of 10 percent. j. During scraper unloading and loading, the property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall ensure that actively disturbed areas maintain a minimum soil moisture content of 12 percent by use of a moveable sprinkler system or water truck to achieve a control efficiency for PM10 of 69 percent. k. During all construction activities, the property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall limit on-site vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to no more than 15 miles per hour to achieve a control efficiency for PM10 of 57 percent.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 106 September 2024
MM 2-3 Prior to 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 Demolition and Import/Export Plans detailing construction and demolition (C&D) recycling and waste reduction measures to be implemented to recover C&D materials. These plans shall include identification of off-site locations for materials export from the project and options for disposal of excess material. These options may include recycling of materials on-site or to an adjacent site, sale to a soil broker or contractor, sale to a project in the vicinity or transport to an environmentally cleared landfill, with attempts made to move it within Orange County. The property owner/developer shall offer recyclable building materials, such as asphalt or concrete for sale or removal by private firms or public agencies for use in construction of other projects if not all can be reused at the project site.
MM 2-4 Prior to issuance approval of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit evidence that high-solids or water-based low emissions paints and coatings are utilized in the design and construction of buildings, in compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s regulations. This information shall be denoted on the project plans and specifications. Additionally, the property owner/developer’s shall specify the use of high-volume/low-pressure spray equipment or hand application. Air-atomized spray techniques shall not be permitted. Plans shall also show that property owner/developers shall construct/build with materials that do not require painting, or use pre-painted construction materials, to the extent feasible.
MM 2-5 In accordance with the timing required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager, but no later than prior to the first final Building and Zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall implement the following measures to reduce long-term operational CO, NOX, ROG, and PM10 emissions:
• Traffic lane improvements and signalization as outlined in the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan Draft Traffic Study Report by Parsons Brinkerhoff, August 2009, and Master Plan of Arterial Highways shall be implemented as required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager. • The property owner/contractor shall place bus benches and/or shelters as required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager at locations along any site frontage routes as needed.
MM 2-6 Prior to approval of building permits, the property owner/architect shall submit energy calculations used to demonstrate compliance with the performance approach to the California Energy Efficiency Standards to the Building Department that Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 107 September 2024
shows each new structure exceeds the applicable Building and Energy Efficiency Standards by a minimum of 10 percent at the time of the building permit. Prior to issuance of a building permit, plans shall show the following:
a. Energy-efficient roofing systems, such as vegetated or “cool” roofs, that reduce roof temperatures significantly during the summer and therefore reduce the energy requirement for air conditioning. Examples of energy efficient building materials and suppliers can be found at http://eetd.lbl.gov/CoolRoofs or similar websites. b. Cool pavement materials such as lighter-colored pavement materials, porous materials, or permeable or porous pavement, for all roadways and walkways not within the public right-of-way, to minimize the absorption of solar heat and subsequent transfer of heat to its surrounding environment. Examples of cool pavement materials are available at http://www.epa.gov/heatisld/ images/extra/level3_pavingproducts.html or similar websites. c. Energy saving devices that achieve the existing 2008 Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards, such as use of energy efficient appliances (e.g., EnergyStar® appliances) and use of sunlight-filtering window coatings or double-paned windows.
d. Electrical vehicle charging stations for all commercial structures encompassing over 50,000 square feet.
e. Shady trees strategically located within close proximity to the building structure to reduce heat load and resulting energy usage at residential, commercial, and office buildings.
MM 2-7 Applicants for new residential developments in the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan within 500 feet of Interstate 5 (I-5) or State Route 57 (SR-57) shall be required to install high efficiency Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) filters of MERV 14 or better in the intake of residential ventilation systems.
Installation of MERV 14 filters shall be shown on plans submitted for building permits. MERV 14 filters have a Particle Size Efficiency rating of 90 percent for particulates 1.0 micron to 3.0 microns in size and a Particle Size Efficiency rating of 75 to 85 percent for particles 0.3 to 1.0 micron in size. A MERV 14 filter creates more resistance to airflow because the filter media becomes denser as efficiency increases. Heating, air conditioning, and ventilation systems shall be installed with a fan unit designed to force air through the MERV 14 filter.
To ensure long-term maintenance and replacement of the MERV 14 filters in the individual units, the following shall occur:
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 108 September 2024
a. Developer, sale, and/or rental representative shall provide notification to all affected tenants/residents of the potential health risk from I-5/SR-57 for all affected units.
b. For rental units within 500 feet of the I-5/SR-57, the owner/property manager shall maintain and replace MERV 14 filters in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. The property owner shall inform renters of increased risk of exposure to diesel particulates from I-5 or SR-57 when windows are open.
c. For residential owned units within 500 feet of I-5/SR-57, the homeowner’s association (HOA) shall incorporate requirements for long-term maintenance in the Covenant, Conditions, and Restrictions and inform homeowners of their responsibility to maintain the MERV 14 filter in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. The HOA shall inform homeowners of increased risk of exposure to diesel particulates from I-5/SR-57 when windows are open.
MM 2-8 Based on the recommended buffer distances of the California Air Resources Board, applicants for new developments in the Platinum Triangle shall place residential structures and active outdoor recreational areas outside of the recommended buffer distances to the following stationary air pollutant sources:
• 1,000 feet from the truck bays with an existing distribution center that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units, or where transport refrigeration unit operations exceed 300 hours per week.
• 1,000 feet from an existing chrome plating facility.
• 300 feet from a dry-cleaning facility using perchloroethylene using one machine and 500 feet from dry-cleaning facility using perchloroethylene using two machines.
• 50 feet from gas pumps within a gas-dispensing facility and 300 feet from gas pumps within a gasoline-dispensing facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater.
MM 2-9 All outdoor active-use public recreational areas associated with development projects shall be located more than 500 feet from the nearest lane of traffic on Interstate 5 and State Route 57.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 109 September 2024
MM 2-10 For projects located within 1,000 feet of an industrial facility that emits substantial odors, which includes but is not limited to
• wastewater treatment plants
• composting, greenwaste, or recycling facilities
• fiberglass manufacturing facilities
• painting/coating operations
• coffee roasters
• food processing facilities
Project Applicant shall submit an odor assessment to the Planning Director prior to approval of any future discretionary action that verifies that the South Coast Air Quality Management District has not received three or more verified odor complaints. If the Odor Assessment identifies that the facility has received three such complaints, the applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that Best Available Control Technologies for Toxics (T-BACTs) are capable of reducing potential odors to an acceptable level, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to, scrubbers at the industrial facility, or installation of Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) filters rated at 14 or better at all residential units.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 110 September 2024
5.4 Biological Resources
5.4.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis
5.4.1.1 FSEIR No. 339
Sensitive Species and Habitats
The Initial Study for FSEIR No. 339 discussed the lack of natural resources in the Platinum Triangle. It stated that the PTMLUP area is developed with urban land uses and is nearly built out; therefore, the PT Expansion Project would not result in any impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species; riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities; protected wetlands; or wildlife migration corridors and nursery sites. No impact was identified in FSEIR No. 339.
Local Regulations
The Initial Study for FSEIR No. 339 determined that the Platinum Triangle is not subject to a tree preservation ordinance or other local regulations protecting biological resources. It concluded that the PT Expansion Project would have no impact relating to any such local regulations.
Adopted Conservation Plans
The Initial Study for FSEIR No. 339 indicated that the Platinum Triangle is not in the plan area of a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other adopted local, regional, or state Habitat Conservation Plan. The FSEIR No. 339 found that the PT Expansion Project would have no impact on adopted conservation plans.
5.4.1.2 Addendum No. 11 to FSEIR No. 339
Sensitive Species and Habitats
A reconnaissance survey of the OCVIBE Project Site was conducted as part of Addendum No. 11 and determined that the OCVIBE Project Site is fully developed with buildings and paved surfaces with landscaping. Therefore, consistent with the initial analysis conducted in FSEIR No. 339, the OCVIBE Project Site does not contain any special status plant or wildlife species; does not contain any riparian or other sensitive natural communities; and does not contain any federally protected wetlands.
Migratory Wildlife Corridors
The Addendum No. 11 determined that the required compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and applicable California Fish and Game Code would reduce potential impacts to migratory nesting birds, and the OCVIBE Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase severity of impacts identified in the FSEIR No. 339 related to wildlife corridors.
Implementation of the OCVIBE Project would not have an adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any plant or wildlife species identified as a candidate, sensitive, Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 111 September 2024
or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Local Regulations and Conservation Plans
The Addendum No. 11 determined that OCVIBE Project Site is not within in an area subject to any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and not part of the Orange County Central and Coastal Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan area.
5.4.2 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. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 112 September 2024
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Substantial Changes from Previous Analysis. According to the Biological Resources Technical Report prepared for the Addendum No. 11 to FSEIR No. 339, the OCVIBE Project Site, which includes the Project Site, is characterized as developed, disturbed areas, with ornamental landscaping including mature trees, shrubs, and turf (Cadre Environmental 2022). Since the preparation of the Biological Resources Technical Report, construction for the OCVIBE Project has been underway surrounding the Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2. The development west of South Douglass Road has been demolished and graded, the driveway and parking area south of the ACC buildings have also been demolished and graded, and the above-grade structures of the former equestrian facility north of Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), within the SCE easement, have been demolished. No changes to the Project Site have taken place. The Project Site is fully developed with buildings, surface parking, hardscape, and landscaping associated with existing land uses. The Modified Project would take place within the existing OCVIBE Project Site, which is within the PTMLUP boundaries. Therefore, consistent with the initial analysis conducted in FSEIR No. 339, the Modified Project would not have an adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any plant or wildlife species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. As with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project would not have a substantial adverse impact on any special status species through habitat modifications. The Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in the FSEIR No. 339 and its Addenda, including Addendum No. 11. No substantial change from the previous analysis would occur. b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? No Substantial Changes from Previous Analysis. The Project Site is within the existing OCVIBE Project Site, which is within the PTMLUP boundaries. The Project Site is fully developed with buildings, surface parking, hardscape, and landscaping associated with existing land uses. The Project Site is characterized as developed/disturbed habitat by the Biological Resources Technical Report prepared for the OCVIBE Project (Cadre Environmental 2022). Since the preparation of the Biological Resources Technical Report, construction for the OCVIBE Project has been underway surrounding the Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2. The development west of South Douglass Road has been demolished and graded, the driveway and parking area south of the ACC buildings have also been demolished and graded, and the above-grade structures of the former equestrian facility north of UPRR, within the SCE easement, have been demolished. No changes to the Project Site have taken place. Therefore, as with the approved OCVIBE Project within the PTMLUP boundaries, the Modified Project would not have a substantial adverse impact on any Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 113 September 2024
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans. 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 have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Substantial Changes from Previous Analysis. The Project Site is within the existing OCVIBE Project Site, which is within the PTMLUP boundaries. The Project Site is fully developed with buildings, surface parking, hardscape, and landscaping associated with existing land uses. The Project Site is characterized as developed/disturbed habitat by the Biological Technical Report (Cadre Environmental 2022). Since the preparation of the Biological Resources Technical Report, construction for the OCVIBE Project has been underway surrounding the Arena District SubAreas D1 and D2. The development west of South Douglass Road has been demolished and graded, the driveway and parking area south of the ACC buildings have also been demolished and graded, and the above-grade structures of the former equestrian facility north of UPRR, within the SCE easement, have been demolished. No changes to the Project Site have taken place. Therefore, as with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project would not have any impact on wetlands. 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 interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No Substantial Changes from Previous Analysis. The Project Site is within the existing OCVIIBE Project Site, which is within the PTMLUP boundaries. The Project Site is fully developed with buildings, surface parking, hardscape, and landscaping associated with existing land uses. The Project Site is characterized as developed/disturbed habitat by the Biological Resources Technical Report (Cadre Environmental 2022). Since the preparation of the Biological Resources Technical Report, construction for the OCVIBE Project has been underway surrounding the Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2. The development west of South Douglass Road has been demolished and graded, the driveway and parking area south of the ACC buildings have also been demolished and graded, and the above-grade structures of the former equestrian facility north of UPRR, within the SCE easement, have been demolished. No changes to the Project Site have taken place.
As with the approved OCVIBE Project, construction activities on the Project Site would require demolition of existing structures and existing landscaping, including trees, which could provide a habitat for nesting migratory birds and impact active bird nests if demolition and vegetation and Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 114 September 2024
trees are removed during the nesting season. Nesting birds are protected under the federal MBTA (United States Code [USC] Title 33, Section 703 et seq.; refer to also Code of Federal Regulations Title 50, Part 10) and Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code. The Modified Project is subject to the provisions of the MBTA, which prohibits disturbing or destroying active nests.
MBTA governs the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests (USC, Title 16, Sections 703 through 712) and prohibits the take, possession, import, export, transport, sale, purchase, barter, or offering of these activities, except under a valid permit or as permitted in the implementing regulations. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administers permits to take migratory birds in accordance with the MBTA.
Regulatory requirements for potential direct/indirect impacts to nesting common and sensitive bird and raptor species will require compliance with the MBTA. Construction outside the nesting season (between September 1st and January 31st) does not require pre-removal nesting bird surveys. If construction occurs between February 1 and August 31, a qualified biologist must conduct a nesting bird survey(s) by no more than fourteen (14) days prior to initiation of grading to document the presence or absence of nesting birds within or directly adjacent to the Project Site and the off-site improvement areas as required by the California Fish and Game Code. The Modified Project is required to comply with the existing regulations and would not interfere with the wildlife movement or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Additionally, as a condition of approval, prior to the issuance of a demolition or grading permit or commencement of construction, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer, will be required to verify the following:
• All project grading and construction plans include specific documentation regarding the requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 USC, Section 703– 712) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife Game Code 3503. To be in compliance with applicable nesting bird protections, if construction activities occur during the nesting bird season (February through August) prior to the commencement of tree removal, the site shall be surveyed for active nests by a qualified biologist. The purpose of the nesting bird survey is to ensure compliance with applicable aspects of the MBTA, that pre-construction surveys have been completed and the results reviewed by staff, and that the appropriate buffers (if needed) are established in the field with visible fencing.
Should nesting birds be found, an exclusionary buffer shall be established by the qualified biologist, based on consideration of the bird species, the stage of nesting, and the nature of the adjacent construction activity. This buffer shall be clearly marked in the field with visible fencing by construction personnel under the guidance of the qualified biologist, and construction or clearing shall not be conducted within this zone until the qualified biologist determines that the young have fledged, or the nest is no longer active. The Modified Project would not result in new significant Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 115 September 2024
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. e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Substantial Changes from Previous Analysis. The Project Site is within the existing OCVIIBE Project Site, which is within the PTMLUP boundaries. The Project Site is fully developed with buildings, surface parking, hardscape, and landscaping associated with existing land uses. As with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project is required to comply with the City’s street tree ordinance (AMC Chapter 13.12) to maintain, plant, remove, prune, or otherwise alter street trees in the City’s rights-of-way. 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. f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Substantial Changes from Previous Analysis. The Project Site is fully developed with buildings, surface parking, hardscape, and landscaping associated with existing land uses. The Project Site is within the existing OCVIIBE Project Site, which is within the PTMLUP boundaries. Since the preparation of the Biological Resources Technical Report, construction for the OCVIBE Project has been underway surrounding the Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2. The development west of South Douglass Road has been demolished and graded, the driveway and parking area south of the ACC buildings have also been demolished and graded, and the above-grade structures of the former equestrian facility north of UPRR, within the SCE easement, have been demolished. No changes to the Project Site have taken place. FSEIR No. 339 determined that the PTMLUP area is not part of the Orange County Central and Coastal Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan area. 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.
5.4.3 Applicable Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to biological resources were required by the previous analysis.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 116 September 2024
5.5 Cultural Resources
5.5.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis
5.5.1.1 FSEIR No. 339
The Initial Study for FSEIR No. 339, referencing the analysis in FSEIR No. 332, concluded that the PT Expansion Project would have no impact on cultural resources because the adopted PTMLUP area does not contain any historical resources as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.
It also stated that the Platinum Triangle is not in the Anaheim Colony Historic District, as per the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, and none of the structures in the Platinum Triangle are identified on the Qualified Historic Structures list of the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan. Also, it stated that there are no known prehistoric/historic archaeological sites in the PTMLUP area, and the area 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 Platinum Triangle, FSEIR No. 332 recognized the inclusion of mitigation measures in from FEIR No. 321.
5.5.1.2 Addendum No. 11 to FSEIR No. 339
Historical Resources Impact
ArchaeoPaleo Resource Management Inc. (APRMI) prepared the Paleontological and Archaeological Phase I Assessment (Cultural Phase I Assessment) for the OCVIBE Project by conducting cultural records searches, literature reviews, and pedestrian field survey of the OCVIBE Project Site and the off-site improvement areas in 2021 (APRMI 2022). The cultural records search found no previously recorded historic aged sites or isolates within the OCVIBE Project Site or within a quarter-mile radius of the OCVIBE Project Site or the off-site improvement areas. The Cultural Phase I Assessment found that there are no historic building or structures within the OCVIBE Project Site and the off-site improvement areas since most buildings are considered less than 50 years old. Therefore, Addendum No. 11 determined that implementation of 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 would occur.
Archaeological Resources Impact
The Cultural Phase I Assessment did not identify any archaeological resource on the Project Site and the off-site improvement areas. The nearest prehistoric isolate was identified at the intersection of Ball Road and Phoenix Club Drive within the western levee of the Ball Road Flood Basin in 2004, approximately 0.35 miles north of the OCVIBE Project Site. The OCVIBE Project Site and its off-site improvement areas are situated on sediments belonging to the floodplains of the Santa Ana River, which could have attracted prehistoric humans and prehistoric Native Americans.
Therefore, although the OCVIBE Project Site has been heavily disturbed with urban uses, Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 117 September 2024
construction could disturb alluvial sediments from the floodplains of the Santa Ana River, and the potential for prehistoric archaeological resources exists. Therefore, Addendum No. 11 identified Mitigation Measure 11-1 from FEIR No. 321, as identified in FSEIR No. 332, as applicable mitigation measure to reduce impacts related to potential archaeological resources to a less than significant level. No substantial change from the previous analysis was identified.
Human Remains Impact
Addendum No. 11 stated that the OCVIBE Project would require demolition, ground clearing, grading, and other construction. However, as stated in FSEIR No. 339, the OCVIBE Project would be required to comply with California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98, which mandate the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. Therefore, Addendum No. 11 found that the OCVIBE Project is required to comply with the existing regulations and 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 would occur.
5.5.2 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 historical resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project would affect Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2 and Transit District Sub-Area B of the OCVIBE Project. Therefore, no new areas of impact would result from the Modified Project implementation. As stated in FSEIR No. 339 and Addendum No. 11, no historical resources were identified within the PTMLUP area or the OCVIBE Project Site (APRMI 2022). The ACC buildings were constructed in 2002 and are not historic. Therefore, consistent with FSEIR No. 339 and Addendum No. 11, implementation of the Modified Project would not result in adverse impacts to historical resources, and the Modified Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 118 September 2024
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 cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project would affect Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2 and Transit District Sub-Area B of the OCVIBE Project. Therefore, no new areas of impact would result from the Modified Project implementation. As stated in FSEIR No. 339 and Addendum No. 11, no archaeological resources were identified within the PTMLUP boundaries and OCVIBE Project Site. Although the Project Site has been heavily disturbed with urban uses, in the event that the Modified Project would disturb alluvial sediments from the floodplains of the Santa Ana River, the potential for prehistoric archaeological resources exists. Therefore, as with Addendum No. 11, implementation of Mitigation Measure 11-1 from FEIR No. 321 would reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources to a less than significant level. 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 disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project would affect Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2 and Transit District Sub-Area B of the OCVIBE Project. Therefore, no new areas of impact would result from the Modified Project implementation. The Modified Project would require demolition, ground clearing, grading, and other construction. However, these activities are similar types of construction activities assumed by FSEIR No. 339 for the development of PTMLUP and Addendum No. 11 for the OCVIBE Project. California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98, mandate the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. Specifically, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that disturbance of the site shall halt until the coroner has conducted an investigation and made recommendations concerning the remains’ treatment and disposition to the person responsible for the excavation or to his or her authorized representative in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to their authority and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, they shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. As with Addendum No. 11, the Modified Project is required to comply with the existing regulations pertaining to treatment of human remains, and the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 119 September 2024
identified in FSEIR No. 339 and its Addenda, including Addendum No. 11. No substantial change from the previous analysis would occur.
5.5.3 Applicable Mitigation Measures
The following measure from MMP No. 106 for FEIR No. 321, as updated by MMP No. 383 for Addendum No. 11, is applicable to the Modified Project.
MM 11-1 Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the property owner/developer shall submit a letter to the City of Anaheim Planning Division, identifying the certified archaeologist that has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented:
a. The archaeologist must be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of artifacts if potentially significant artifacts are uncovered. If artifacts are uncovered and determined to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner/developer for exploration and/or salvage. b. Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution. c. Any archaeological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified archaeologist. If any artifacts are discovered during grading operations when the archaeological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area. d. A final report detailing the finding and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted to the City Engineer. Upon completion of the grading, the archaeologist shall notify the City to when the final report will be submitted.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 120 September 2024
5.6 Energy
5.6.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis
5.6.1.1 FSEIR No. 339
Impacts related to energy were not analyzed specifically in FSEIR No. 339 because they were not officially part of the CEQA Guidelines’ Appendix G checklist until January 1, 2019. Although there is no specific chapter addressing Energy in FSEIR No. 339, the Public Utility Analysis (Impacts 5.10- 5 (Electricity) and 5.10-6 (Natural Gas) ins FSEIR No. 339) analyzed potential electricity and natural gas demands resulting from development of the PT Expansion Project and adopted feasible mitigation measures (refer to Mitigation Measures 2-1, 2-6, 10-21 through 10-24) to reduce wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during Project construction and operation. In addition, FSEIR No. 339 identified mitigation measures to reduce vehicle trips which would reduce fuel consumption from transportation (e.g., Mitigation Measures 9-1 and 9-2). Relevant discussion of the PT Expansion Project’s use of energy was also included in Section 5.11, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Chapter 9, Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Modified Project.
An evaluation of the PT Expansion Project’s energy use was included in the project’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory. Annual electricity demand was estimated to be 664,643,166 kilowatt-hours for buildout of the Platinum Triangle under the PT Expansion Project. Additionally, a VMT of 3,135,398 and associated fuel consumption was estimated for buildout. The PT Expansion Project would be required to comply with applicable state and local energy efficiency requirements, such as the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, and was anticipated to reduce regional VMT through implementation of new mixed-use development and the ARTIC.
FSEIR No. 339 Chapter 9 determined that implementation of the PT Expansion Project would result in a permanent additional commitment to the use of nonrenewable or slowly renewable energy resources, although the PT Expansion Project’s increased development density would result in less commitment compared to a similar amount of development on a different site.
The PT Expansion Project was evaluated for consistency with the 2008 SCAG RTP and Compass Blueprint, which were the applicable regional plans related to fuel use. The PT Expansion Project was determined to be consistent with the SCAG goal to target growth where projects, plans, and policies consistent with the Compass Blueprint principles would best serve the mobility, livability, prosperity, and sustainability goals of the RTP vision.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 121 September 2024
5.6.1.2 Addendum No. 11 to FSEIR No. 339
Wasteful and Inefficient Consumption of Energy
Construction
Energy required during construction includes energy used for the transportation of building materials, manufacturing of building materials, and the actual construction of buildings and infrastructure. Petroleum fuels (e.g., diesel and gasoline) would be the primary sources of energy for these activities. Construction trucks and haul trucks would be anticipated to use diesel fuel, whereas construction workers traveling to and from the OCVIBE Project Site would be anticipated to use gasoline-powered vehicles. The OCVIBE Project’s construction fuel consumption was calculated to be approximately 969,134 gallons of gasoline and approximately 1,414,691 gallons of diesel fuel during construction, or approximately 96,913 gallons of gasoline fuel and approximately 141,470 gallons of diesel per year. Construction of the OCVIBE Project was determined to have a negligible effect on local and regional energy supplies.
Furthermore, construction activities associated with the OCVIBE Project are not anticipated to result in an inefficient use of energy, as gasoline and diesel fuel would be supplied by construction contractors who would comply with FSEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measure 2-1, which requires the reduction of idling time, use of Tier 3 equipment and the maintenance of all construction equipment to conserve the use of their supplies to minimize costs on the OCVIBE Project. With implementation of FSEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measure 2-1 and existing regulations, construction activities would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources and construction energy usage would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Operation
During OCVIBE Project operation, energy use would be associated with building heating and cooling, use of consumer products, lighting, and vehicular traffic. Table 21, Addendum No. 11 Project Energy Use, shows modeled electricity, natural gas, and VMT for the OCVIBE Project.
Table 21 includes natural gas and electricity consumption from the hotels and sit-down restaurants, lighting and elevators associated with parking structures and lot. Operation of the OCVIBE Project was determined to result in negligible increase in the annual energy consumption in Orange County. Additionally, FSEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 2-6, 9-1, 9-2, and 10-21 through 10- 24 were identified for Addendum No. 11 to ensure that the demand for natural gas and electricity energy resources is reduced below a level of significance.
In addition to increasing the demand for electricity and natural gas, implementation of the OCVIBE Project would result in energy usage associated with gasoline to fuel project‐related trips (i.e., the use of motor vehicles). However, the OCVIBE Project’s increased development density would result in less commitment than a similar amount of development on a different site because the OCVIBE Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 122 September 2024
Project included compact development in proximity to transit. Additionally, the OCVIBE Project would comply with all applicable state energy efficiency regulations, including the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Therefore, the OCVIBE Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption. Impacts would be less than significant.
Table 21. Addendum No. 11 Project Energy Use
Energy Resource OCVIBE Project
Electricity (million kilowatt-hours/year) 53.3
Natural Gas (million kilo-British thermal unit /year) 95.2 Annual VMT 96,222,218
Source: City of Anaheim 2022
Notes: VMT = vehicle miles traveled
Consistency with Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency Plans The energy plans determined to be applicable to Addendum No. 11 are the California Energy Commission (CEC) plan adopted as required by Senate Bill (SB) 1389, the 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report (CEC 2022), and the Anaheim Public Utilities Integrated Resource Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GHG Plan).
The 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report provides the results of the CEC’s assessments of a variety of energy issues facing California. The 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report covers a broad range of topics, integrated resource planning, distributed energy resources, transportation electrification, solutions to increase resiliency in the electricity sector, energy efficiency, transportation electrification, barriers faced by disadvantaged communities, demand response, transmission and landscape-scale planning, the California Energy Demand Preliminary Forecast, the preliminary transportation energy demand forecast, renewable gas, updates on Southern California electricity reliability, natural gas outlook, and climate adaptation and resiliency. The OCVIBE Project is a mixed-use project that would improve the job-housing balance in the Platinum Triangle, and the OCVIBE Project Site is located in a TPA and would implement urban design that reduces VMT and accommodates pedestrian and bicycle access. As described above under Section 5.6.2(a), construction of the OCVIBE Project would have a negligible effect on local and regional energy supplies. Furthermore, all equipment would be required to meet state standards for fuel efficiency including CARB’s Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets and would meet Tier 3 emissions standards, as required by FSEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measure 2-1. It is also anticipated that fuel for construction of the OCVIBE Project would be supplied by construction contractors who would conserve the use of their supplies to minimize their construction costs, and energy usage on the OCVIBE Project Site during construction would be temporary in nature.
Regarding operation and the CEC plan, development within the Platinum Triangle area must submit plans showing how it will comply with the State Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CCR Title Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 123 September 2024
24, Part 6, Article 2) and must consult with the Anaheim Public Utilities Department (APUD) Business and Community Program Division to review Title 24 measures prior to each final Building and Zoning inspection to ensure that the Project design includes sufficient energy and water efficiency and sustainability practices. The OCVIBE Project is anticipated to install solar panels and exceed the most recent Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards by at least 10 percent. Energy usage associated with operation of the OCVIBE Project would be minimal (less than 0.1 percent of the County’s total demand) in comparison to the State’s available energy sources. Further, the OCVIBE Project is mixed use and located on an infill that includes ARTIC within its project boundaries. The OCVIBE Project provides ample outdoor recreation and park spaces, and walking and bike path that connects to the existing bike paths, providing access to alternate modes of transportation that would reduce energy consumption associated with vehicle use.
The Anaheim Public Utilities Integrated Resource Plan and GHG Plan outline how APUD will transition to clean renewable energy sources while meeting project energy demand. The plans do not establish project-specific requirements but are based on planned growth projections and assume increased energy efficiency and installation of solar panels consistent with state and local requirements and programs. The strategies identified to work toward the City’s goal are primarily measures for the City to implement and are related to water conservation, water quality, energy efficiency, renewable energy, and electric transportation and utility fleet vehicles. The OCVIBE Project is required to comply with the latest CALGreen Code standard building measures, AMC, applicable Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 20 CCR) and Title 24 standards regarding energy conservation and green building standards. As described above, the OCVIBE Project has the potential to reduce automobile trips compared to an isolated development and would promote initiatives to reduce vehicle trips and VMT and would increase the use of alternate means of transportation, which would reduce energy consumption associated with vehicle use. In addition, the OCVIBE Project would be required to comply with existing regulations and standard conditions that would reduce energy consumption. Construction and operation of the OCIVBE Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Addendum No. 11 determined that with implementation of FSEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 2-6, 9-1, 9-2, and 10-21 through 10-24, this impact would be less than significant.
5.6.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
The analysis in this section is based in part on the following:
• Energy Memorandum, Comparison of OCVIBE Master Site Plan Amendment No. 1 to OCVIBE Addendum No. 11 Components – Energy Impacts, Harris & Associates, September 18, 2024 (Appendix B)
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 124 September 2024
Would the project:
New
Significant
Impact
More Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous
Analysis
a. Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis.
Construction
The types of construction activities required for the Modified Project would be similar to those anticipated for the approved OCVIBE Project, including demolition, site preparation and grading, building construction, and paving. However, total construction effort in Arena District Sub-Area D2 would be increased. That is, additional work days and vehicle trips would be required as a result of additional demolition and earthwork required to remove the existing ACC office structures and additional building construction required for the new Buildings 4, 5, and 6.
Construction would also be similar in the Meadow Park and Porch in Transit District Sub-Area B.
Construction effort would potentially be reduced in this area as passive parkland would be developed on the area previously proposed for an amphitheater.
Revised energy use estimates are calculated for Phases 2, 4, and 5 of construction based on the CalEEMod annual carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions output prepared for the Modified Project air quality and GHG emissions analyses and the kilograms per carbon dioxide (kg/CO2) conversion factors from USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) (2023) for diesel fuel and motor gasoline. The Modified Project does not include any changes to Phase 1, and the Modified Project under all three options would result in a reduced construction effort during Phase 3 due to a decrease in residential units proposed to be constructed in this phase as part of Building 3. Addendum No. 11 included development of 612 dwelling units in Phase 3, which would be reduced to 505 units under the Modified Project. Therefore, Phase 1 and Phase 3 energy use calculated in Addendum No. 11 (a total of 785,602 gallons of diesel and 519,238 gallons of gasoline for both phases) is added to Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 125 September 2024
Phases 2, 4, and 5 emissions modeled for the Modified Project to calculate total and average annual fuel use from OCVIBE MSP construction, including Amendment No. 1.
Table 22, Modified Project Construction of Fuel Use (gallons), provides estimated fuel consumption for each Modified Project option compared to Addendum No. 11. As shown in Table 22, total diesel and gasoline fuel consumption would increase under the Modified Project as a result of additional demolition and earthwork. However, annual diesel use would be decreased compared to Addendum No. 11 for all options, and annual average gasoline use would be decreased under Option 1. Average annual gasoline use under Option 2 and Option 3 would increase slightly by 2.6 percent under Option 2 and by 1.4 percent under Option 3. However, the increased gasoline use would still represent a less than 0.01 percent increase in the annual gasoline fuel usage in Orange County compared to fuel use estimates for 2024 from EMFAC Version 1.0.2 (135,727,659 gallon of diesel and 1,171,336,304 gallons of gasoline). Addendum No. 11 also identified an increase in gasoline use of 0.01 percent in Orange County, and this increase level was determined to be less than significant. Therefore, the increase resulting from the Modified Project would be similar to the approved OCVIBE Project, and impacts would be less than significant.
Gasoline fuel impact was not identified as a significant impact for the approved OCVIBE Project, and the Modified Project would not create new significant impacts that was not previously identified or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts.
Construction of the Modified Project would have a negligible effect on local and regional energy supplies. Construction practices under the Modified Project would be the same as the approved OCVIBE Project, and as such, the Modified Project is not anticipated to result in an inefficient use of energy, as gasoline and diesel fuel would be supplied by construction contractors who would comply with FSEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measure 2-1. The Modified Project would have a negligible effect on local and regional energy supplies, the increase would not require major revisions to FSEIR No. 339. The Modified Project would not create new significant environmental effects or increase the severity of previously identified significant effects 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.
Table 22. Modified Project Construction Fuel Use (gallons) Development Option
Total Diesel Use
(gallons)
Average Annual
Diesel Use (gallons)
Total Gasoline Use
(gallons)
Average Annual
Gasoline Use
(gallons)
Option 1 1,617,744 134,812 1,110,489 92,541
Option 2 1,637,544 136,462 1,193,632 99,469
Option 3 1,654,992 137,916 1,179,281 98,273
Addendum No. 11 1,414,691 141,470 969,134 96,913
Source: Appendix B, Energy Memo.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 126 September 2024
Operation
Modified Project operation is based on electricity, natural gas, and VMT calculated for the Modified Project in CalEEMod for the project air quality and GHG analyses (Harris 2024a, 2024b). Energy use is calculated for buildout of the entire OCVIBE Project with implementation of the Modified Project. Average daily traffic was provided by Pirzadeh & Associates, Inc. (Pirzadeh 2024). The Modified Project VMT assumes a net decrease in VMT from demolition of the ACC office buildings. Table 23, Modified Project Operation Energy Use, shows modeled electricity, natural gas, and VMT for the Modified Project compared to the approved OCVIBE Project. Similar to the Addendum No. 11, the Modified Project fuel use estimate is conservative because the CalEEMod default trip lengths are assumed, and modeling does not account for the Modified Project’s proximity to transit. Additionally, annual VMT is anticipated to be reduced compared to the calculated VMT in Table 20 because the amphitheater in Meadow Park included as part of the approved OCVIBE Project has been removed under the Modified Project, thereby reducing event trips to the area.
Table 23. Modified Project Operation Energy Use
Development Option
Total Electricity (million
kilowatt-hours/year)
Natural Gas (million kiloBritish thermal unit/year) Annual VMT1 Option 1 45.9 86.4 113,636,888
Option 2 43.8 83.0 109,217,727
Option 3 48.8 88.9 108,728,669
Addendum No. 11 53.3 95.2 96,222,218
Source: Appendix B, Energy Memo.
Notes: VMT = vehicle miles traveled
1 Assumes a net decrease of 9,776,069 VMT for each option from demolition of the existing ACC office building based on average annual VMT of 25,508 miles per year per 1,000 square feet based on CalEEMod calculations for the Modified Project options.
As shown in Table 23, the Modified Project electricity and natural gas use is calculated to be reduced compared to the approved OCVIBE Project. The reduction in estimated energy use is primarily due to use of an updated version of CalEEMod. CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0, which was the most recent version at the time of Addendum No. 11 modeling, estimated building energy use based on the application of the 2005, 2008, 2013, 2016, and 2019 Title 24 standards. The updated Version 2022.1.1.22 used for Modified Project modeling assumes 2019 standards. For example, the annual energy use estimate for a mid-rise apartment in Arean District Sub-Area D2 was 3,834 kilowatt-hours of electricity use per dwelling unit and 11,150 kilo-British thermal units natural gas use per dwelling unit in CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0. In Version 2022.1.1.22, the rates are 3,666 kilowatt-hours per dwelling unit and 11,107 kilo-British thermal units per dwelling unit.
Therefore, the Modified Project would result in decreased electricity and natural gas use compared to Addendum No. 11.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 127 September 2024
The Modified Project would result in an increase in energy usage associated with gasoline to fuel project‐related trips (i.e., the use of motor vehicles). However, similar to the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project’s increased development density would result in less commitment than a similar amount of development on a different site because OCVIBE Project includes compact development within proximity to transit. The Modified Project would increase housing availability in a TPA, consistent with state and SCAG’s goals to reduce VMT. Additionally, FSEIR No. 339 identified a VMT of 3,135,398 and associated fuel consumption at buildout of the PT Expansion Project. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts related to energy usage associated with gasoline to fuel project‐ related trips (i.e., the use of motor vehicles).
Consistent with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption. FSEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 2-6, 9-1, 9- 2, and 10-21 through 10-24 would continue to be required to ensure that the demand for natural gas and electricity energy resources is reduced below a level of significance. The Modified Project would not result in new significant impact or increase the severity of impacts identified 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. b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Energy consumption during construction would be similar to the approved OCVIBE Project under the Modified Project. Energy required during construction includes energy used for the transportation of building materials, manufacturing of building materials, and the actual construction of buildings and infrastructure. Petroleum fuels (e.g., diesel and gasoline) would be the primary sources of energy for these activities.
Following construction, electricity and natural gas use are estimated to be reduced compared to the approved OCVIBE Project. The Modified Project would potentially result in an increase in VMT because of additional development in Area District Sub-Area D2 (refer to Table 23).
Increased VMT is generally associated with increased gasoline use to fuel project-related trips.
However, the Modified Project would not result in any changes to the VMT-reducing features or solar capabilities of the approved OCVIBE Project. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 5.6.2(a), the Modified Project’s increased development density would result in less commitment than a similar amount of development on a different site because the OCVIBE Project includes compact development near transit. The Modified Project would continue to be required to comply with all applicable regulations related to energy consumption and implement all applicable mitigation measures. Therefore, the increase in VMT would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency to result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts identified in Addendum No. 11. FSEIR No. 339 Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 128 September 2024
Mitigation Measures 2-1, 2-6, 9-1, 9-2, and 10-21 would continue to be required and would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The Modified Project would not result in new significant impact or increase the severity of impacts identified FSEIR No. 339 and Addenda, including Addendum No. 11. 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.
5.6.3 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 2-1 Ongoing during grading and construction, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to reduce construction-related emissions; however, the resultant value is expected to remain significant.
a. The contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations to reduce operational emissions.
b. The contractor shall use Tier 3 or higher, as identified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, off-road construction equipment with higher air pollutant emissions standards for equipment greater than 50 horsepower, based on manufacturer’s availability.
c. The contractor shall utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or cleanfuel generators rather than temporary diesel-power generators, where feasible.
MM 2-6 Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner/architect shall submit energy calculations used to demonstrate compliance with the performance approach to the California Energy Efficiency Standards to the Building Division that shows each new structure exceeds the applicable Building and Energy Efficiency Standards by a minimum of 10 percent at the time of the building permit. Prior to issuance of a building permit, plans shall show the following:
a. Energy-efficient roofing systems, such as vegetated or “cool” roofs, that reduce roof temperatures significantly during the summer and; therefore, reduce the energy requirement for air conditioning. Examples of energy efficient building materials and suppliers can be found at the following website:
http://eetd.lbl.gov/CoolRoofs/ or other similar websites. b. Cool pavement materials such as lighter-colored pavement materials, porous materials, or permeable or porous pavement, for all roadways and walkways not within the public right-of-way, to minimize the absorption of solar heat and subsequent transfer of heat to its surrounding environment. Examples of cool Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 129 September 2024
pavement materials are available at: http://www.epa.gov/heatisld/images/ extra/level3_pavingproducts.html or other similar websites. c. Energy saving devices that achieve the currently adopted Building and Energy Efficiency Standards, such as use of energy efficient appliances (e.g., EnergyStar® appliances) and use of sunlight-filtering window coatings or double-paned windows.
d. Electrical vehicle charging stations for all commercial structures encompassing over 50,000 square-feet.
e. Shady trees strategically located within close proximity to the building structure to reduce heat load and resulting energy usage at residential, commercial, and office buildings.
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.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 130 September 2024
• 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. • 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. (Currently, federal law provides tax‐free status for up to $65 per month per employee contributions to employees who vanpool or use public transit including commuter rail and/or Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 131 September 2024
express bus pools.) 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.
• 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 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.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 132 September 2024
• Use of light emitting diode (LED) lights compact fluorescent lamps. • Use of cold cathode fluorescent lamps.
• Use of EnergyStar ® exit lighting or exit signage.
• Use of T-8 lamps and electronic ballasts where applications of standard fluorescent fixtures are identified.
• Use of lighting power controllers in association with metal-halide or highpressure sodium (high intensity discharge) lamps LED lights for outdoor lighting and parking lots.
• 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 drought-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.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 133 September 2024
5.7 Geology and Soils
5.7.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis
5.7.1.1 FSEIR No. 339
The Initial Study for FSEIR No. 339, referencing the analysis in FSEIR No. 332, determined that impacts of the PT Expansion Project related to geography and soils would be no impact or less than significant, as summarized in this section acknowledging that FSEIR No. 332 adequately addressed issues related to seismic safety and compliance with required Codes and Mitigation Measures 5.3-1 through 5.3-6 of MMP. No. 106A or equivalent measures would ensure that impacts are reduced to a less than significant level.
Fault Rupture
Because there are no known earthquake faults in the Platinum Triangle, as delineated on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, impacts related to fault rupture were identified as no impact.
Seismic Ground Shaking and Ground Failure
FSEIR No. 339 stated that the Platinum Triangle may be exposed to impacts from earthquakes, including strong seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, lateral spreading, subsidence, and collapse.
The Platinum Triangle is not in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, but it is in California Building Code (CBC) Seismic Zone 4, which is potentially subject to the highest accelerations— i.e., changes in speed or velocity due to seismic shaking—and has the greatest frequency of large earthquakes. Therefore, it was determined that existing and future structures within the Platinum Triangle would be subjected to potential seismic-related hazards. The active and potentially active faults most capable of generating strong ground motion within the Platinum Triangle included the Newport-Inglewood, Whittier, and Elsinore faults. Other faults that may be capable of generating strong ground motion in the area included faults offshore (i.e., Palos Verdes Fault Zone) and local faults (i.e., Norwalk Fault Zone). The FSEIR No. 339 found that portions of the Platinum Triangle—primarily those between SR-57 and the Santa Ana River—have the potential to experience liquefaction. However, FSEIR No. 332 determined that compliance with the Anaheim General Plan, existing codes and regulations, and adopted mitigation measures would ensure that potential impacts related to seismic activity would be less than significant.
Soil Erosion
FSEIR No. 332 found that there are no potential landslide hazards in the Platinum Triangle due to the area’s generally flat terrain. Although the FSEIR found that some areas of the Platinum Triangle could be susceptible to liquefaction or minor soil erosion, these risks would be minimized by compliance with existing regulations and adopted mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 134 September 2024
5.3-1 through 5.3-4 and Mitigation Measure 5.3-6). More detailed, site-specific geotechnical studies would be required by the California Seismic Hazard Mapping Act and the City’s building codes as part of individual development entitlements so that structures are designed to withstand the potential impacts that could be caused by liquefaction, subsidence, and collapse. FSEIR No. 332 found that design and construction conducted in conformance with the AMC, the Uniform Building Code, and the recommendations in site-specific geotechnical studies would reduce any potential impacts related to liquefaction, lateral spreading, subsidence, and collapse to less than significant. Additionally, the Hydrology and Water Quality section of FSEIR No. 339 included Mitigation Measure 3‐2, incorporated from FSEIR No. 332, to reduce impacts related to soil erosion. Mitigation Measure 3‐2 requires that prior to the initiation of grading activities for projects greater than one acre, an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) be prepared and approved.
Unstable and Expansive Soils
FSEIR No. 332 found that the expansion potential for soils in the Platinum Triangle is low, and that compliance with existing regulations and adopted mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures
5.3‐1 through 5.3‐6 from FSEIR No. 332) would reduce impacts related to unstable and expansive soils to a less than significant level.
Septic Tanks
Because implementation of the PT Expansion Project would not involve the installation or use of septic tanks or other wastewater disposal systems, the Initial Studies for FSEIR No. 332 and FSEIR No. 339 both concluded that impacts related to the adequacy of soils for supporting such systems were no impact.
Paleontological Resources
FSEIR No. 339 analyzed environmental topic related to unique paleontological resource or geologic feature under Cultural Resources. This environmental topic was moved to the geology and soils impact category as part of the 2019 CEQA Guidelines Update. FSEIR No. 339 relied on the analysis and conclusions in FSEIR No. 332 for impacts related to paleontological resources. Based on the analysis in FSEIR No. 332, the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation for FSEIR No. 339 concluded that the Platinum Triangle area has already been disturbed and the potential for any subsurface paleontological resources is remote. However, to mitigate impacts in the event that such resources are encountered due to the implementation of the PT Expansion Project, FSEIR No. 332 recognized the inclusion of mitigation measures in MMP No. 106 adopted for FEIR No. 321.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 135 September 2024
5.7.1.2 Addendum No. 11 to FSEIR No. 339
Fault Rupture
Addendum No. 11 determined that as analyzed in FSEIR No. 339, there are no known faults that traverse the OCVIBE Project Site, and fault rupture is not expected to impact the OCVIBE Project.
No changes from the previous analysis were identified.
Seismic Ground Shaking and Ground Failure
Addendum No. 11 determined that as analyzed in FSEIR No. 339, the OCVIBE Project Site are within a seismically active region, and implementation of OCVIBE Project would be subject to potential seismic-related hazards, including seismic ground shaking and ground failure due to liquefaction. However, as with FSEIR No. 339, the OCVIBE Project would be required to comply with the applicable CBC, AMC, and Mitigation Measures 5.3-1 through 5.3-6 from FSEIR No. 332; and compliance with these measures would ensure that potential impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. No changes from the previous analysis were identified.
Landslide
As with FSEIR No. 339, Addendum No. 11 determined that the OCVIBE Project Site is situated in an area with no major hillside or slopes and is not within a potential earthquake-induced landslide zone. No changes from the previous analysis were identified.
Soil Erosion
Addendum No. 11 stated that as in FSEIR No. 339, implementation of the OCVIBE Project could result in soil erosion. However, as in FSEIR No. 339, the OCVIBE Project would be subject to local and state codes and requirements for erosion control and grading, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and implementation of a SWPPP during construction to control erosion. In addition, Mitigation Measure 3-2 from FSEIR No. 339 would require that prior to the initiation of grading activities, an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, a SWPPP, and a WQMP be prepared and approved pursuant to NPDES permit requirements.
Therefore, Addendum No. 11 determined that implementation of the OCVIBE Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts compared to FSEIR No. 339.
Unstable and Expansive Soils
A geotechnical evaluation was prepared for the OCVIBE Project as part of Addendum No. 11, which determined that implementation of the OCVIBE Project could result in impacts from unstable soils, including lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. However, as analyzed in FSEIR No. 339, Addendum No. 11 determined that all earthwork, including excavation, grading, and foundation design and implementation, would be conducted in compliance with the existing CBC and Title 17 of the AMC, and the plans would be reviewed and Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 136 September 2024
approved by the City’s Planning Department, Building Division. In addition, the OCVIBE Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures 5.3-1 through 5.3-4 from FSEIR No. 339.
Therefore, impacts from OCVIBE Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts from FSEIR No. 339.
Septic Tanks
Addendum No. 11 determined that as with FSEIR No. 339, the OCVIBE Project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No changes from the previous analysis were identified.
Paleontological Resources
Addendum No. 11 stated that based on the Cultural Phase I Assessment prepared for the OCVIBE Project, there are no known paleontological resources identified within the immediate areas of the OCVIBE Project boundaries (APRMI 2022). However, paleontological resources have been discovered in the Holocene to late Pleistocene alluvial-fan deposits and the deeper underlying San Pedro Formation. Therefore, there is potential to uncover unknown paleontological resources at the time of OCVIBE Project development within these sediments. This potential is greater if excavation exceeds these alluvial deposits and extends into older deposits from the Temblor, Vaqueros, and San Pedro Formations. However, Addendum No. 11 determined that with implementation of Mitigation Measure 11-1 from FSEIR No. 322, impacts from paleontological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level, and 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 would occur.
5.7.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
The analysis in this section is based in part on the following:
• Geotechnical Planning Study, Arena Corporate Center (ACC), ocV!BE Mixed-Use Community and Live Entertainment Redevelopment Project, Platinum Triangle, City of Anaheim, California. NMG. October 17, 2023 (Appendix C) Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 137 September 2024
Would the project:
New
Significant
Impact
More Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous
Analysis
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iv. Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a result
of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 138 September 2024
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As analyzed in FSEIR No. 339, the PTMU Overlay Zone is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. There are no known faults that traverse the OCVIBE Project Site. The Modified Project would not change the boundaries of the OCVIBE Project Site, therefore, is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. As analyzed in FSEIR No. 339, fault rupture is not expected to impact the 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.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As analyzed in FSEIR No. 339, the PTMU Overlay Zone, including Project Site, is in a seismically active region, and development on the Project Site would be subject to potential seismic-related hazards. A geotechnical evaluation was prepared for the approved OCVIBE Project to evaluate the geotechnical site conditions in light of the proposed grading and development and to provide preliminary remedial grading and foundation design recommendations (NMG 2021). It was determined that the planned development pursuant to the OCVIBE Master Site Plan is feasible throughout the OCVIBE Project Site from a geotechnical standpoint provided that it is designed, graded, and constructed in accordance with the preliminary geotechnical recommendations. As analyzed in FSEIR No. 339, the Modified Project would be required to comply with the applicable geotechnical recommendations and applicable CBC, AMC, and Mitigation Measures 5.3-1 through 5.3-6 from FSEIR No. 332. Compliance with these measures would ensure that potential impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. 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. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Addendum No. 11 indicated that the OCVIBE Project Site is within a potential liquefaction zone by the Seismic Hazards Map, as analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. The Modified Project is required to comply with the recommendations of the geotechnical evaluations prepared for the approved OCVIBE Project to ensure that impacts from liquefaction are reduced to a less than significant level. A geotechnical planning study was prepared for development within the Arena District Sub-Area D2 (Appendix C, Geotechnical Planning Study, to this Addendum). Arena District Sub-Area D2 is mapped as potentially liquefiable, and the liquefiable layers generally range from 0.5 to approximately 5 feet and locally up to 15 feet thick (NMG 2023, 2024). As with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measures 5.3-1 through 5.3-4 and 5.3-6 of FSEIR No. 332, which would ensure that buildings and structures on the Project Site are designed and constructed to minimize risks related to ground failure, including liquefaction. The Modified Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 139 September 2024
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.
iv. Landslides?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project Site within the approved OCVIBE Project Site and is not in a potential earthquake-induced landslide zone. The Project Site and the surrounding area do not contain any significant slopes. FSEIR No. 339 did not identify any landslide impact on or near the Project Site. The Modified Project would not change the conditions analyzed by FSEIR No. 339 and its Addenda, including Addendum No. 11. The Modified 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 would occur. b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project Site is within the approved OCVIBE Project Site, which is within the PTMLUP boundaries. Addendum No. 11 states that the majority of the OCVIBE Project Site consists of Metz Sandy Loam. The Metz soils are loamy, very fine sand stratified with silty sand, and are considered highly erodible. The geotechnical planning study prepared for the Modified Project (included as Appendix C to this Addendum) indicates that the near surface soils over the majority of the Project Site is comprised of Metz Sandy Loan and Riverwash deposits. These soils consist of loamy, very fine sand stratified with silty sand.
Therefore, as with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project would be subject to local and state codes and requirements for erosion control and grading, and would be required to incorporate Mitigation Measure 3-2 from FSEIR No. 339. Mitigation Measure 3-2 requires compliance with the NPDES permit. The as part of NPDES permit requirements, a SWPPP would be prepared, which describes the structural and nonstructural best management practices (BMPs) that will be implemented during construction (short-term) on the Project Site. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in greater soil erosion impact compared to the approved OCVIBE 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. c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. According to the geotechnical planning study prepared for the Modified Project (included as Appendix C to this Addendum the Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2 are underlain by artificial fill overlying deep alluvium deposits. Alluvium (Qal) was found in all borings conducted for the supplemental geotechnical evaluation and the Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 140 September 2024
alluvial layers are continuous over hundreds of feet, but locally discontinuous. Artificial Fills were found within the existing surface parking lot for the ACC area, and a thick layer of artificial fill is anticipated to be present beneath the asphalt surface.
Landslide: The Project Site is not in a potential earthquake-induced landslide zone, and the Modified Project would not result in greater on- or off-site landslide impacts than previously analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. No mitigation measures were identified in the FSEIR No. 339.
Lateral Spreading: The geotechnical planning study prepared for the Modified Project (included as Appendix C to this Addendum) indicated that lateral spreading potential for the proposed development is considered very low, because the potentially liquefiable layers are relatively deep and below the adjacent free face of the Santa Ana River (NMG 2023). As with the approved OCVIBE Project, all soil work would be required to adhere to the recommended design-level geotechnical evaluations through implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.3-2 through 5.3-4 from FSEIR No. 332 to reduce any impacts from unstable geologic units to a less than significant level.
Subsidence: The geotechnical planning study prepared for the Modified Project (included as Appendix C to this Addendum) indicated that subsidence potential would be minimal because the alluvium is anticipated to shrink on the order of 8 percent and the undocumented fills are anticipated to shrink on the order of 2 to 3 percent. As with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project would be required to further evaluate loss from demolition and shrinkage through implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.3-2 through 5.3-4 from FSEIR No. 332 to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Liquefaction: Refer to Section 5.7(a)(iii).
Collapse: Collapsible soils are unsaturated soils that can rapidly settle or collapse when wetted or loaded. The geotechnical planning study indicates that the liquefiable layers in the alluvium, when subjected to the high ground accelerations of a large earthquake event near the site, would be subject to settlement (included as Appendix C to this Addendum). There is also potential for local surface disruption and loss of bearing strength in the area adjacent to the Santa Ana River, and especially in the areas of planned structures with subterranean portions, since the potentially liquefiable layers are thicker relative to the non-liquefiable fill materials within the building sites.
Therefore, as with the approved OCVIBE Project, all work would be required to adhere to the recommended design-level geotechnical evaluations through implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.3-2 through 5.3-4 from FSEIR No. 332 to reduce impacts from unstable geologic units to a less than significant level.
Conclusion
As analyzed in FSEIR No. 339 and Addendum No. 11, implementation of Mitigation Measures
5.3-1 through 5.3-4 from FSEIR No. 332 would ensure that impacts from unstable soils, including Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 141 September 2024
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse, are reduced to a less than significant level.
All earthwork, including excavation, grading, and foundation design and implementation, would be conducted in compliance with the existing CBC and Title 17 of the AMC, and the plans would be reviewed and approved by the City’s Planning Department, Building Division. 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 be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The geotechnical planning study prepared for the Modified Project found the expansion potential of on-site soils to generally range from “very low” to “low” (included as Appendix C to this Addendum). However, it recommended that additional laboratory testing should be performed following completion of grading operations around the building to determine the expansion potential of the near-surface soils. The recommended measures from the site-specific geotechnical study, as required by Mitigation Measure 5.3-1 of FSEIR No. 332, would reduce potential impacts form expansive soils to a less than significant level. Furthermore, all earthwork, including excavation, grading, and foundation design and implementation would be conducted in compliance with the existing CBC and Title 17 of the AMC, and the plans would be reviewed and approved by the City’s Planning Department, Building Division. 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. e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As with the PT Expansion Project and OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project would not involve the construction or use of septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal system. 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. f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As analyzed in Addendum No. 11, there is potential to uncover unknown paleontological resources at the time of OCVIBE Project development within Holocene to late Pleistocene alluvial-fan deposits and the deeper underlying San Pedro Formation. sediments. This potential is greater if excavation exceeds these alluvial Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 142 September 2024
deposits and extends into older deposits from the Temblor, Vaqueros, and San Pedro Formations.
The Project Site is within the boundaries of the OCVIBE Project Site, therefore, the potential for discovery of a unique paleontological resources exists. However, as with the OCVIBE Project, implementation of Mitigation Measure 11-2 from FSEIR No. 321 would ensure that impacts from paleontological resources are reduced to a less than significant level. 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.
5.7.3 Applicable Mitigation Measures
5.7.3.1 Mitigation Measures from FEIR Nos. 321 and 330
The following measure from MMP No. 106 for FEIR No. 321, as updated by MMP No. 383 for Addendum No. 11, are applicable to the Modified Project.
MM 11-2 Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the property owner/developer shall submit a letter to the City of Anaheim Planning Division, identifying the certified paleontologist that has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented:
• The paleontologist must be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures to temporarily halt or redirect work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of fossils if potentially significant paleontological observer shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner/developer for exploration and/or salvage.
• Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution. • Any paleontological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified paleontologist. If any fossils are discovered during grading operations when the paleontological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area. • A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted. Upon the completion of the grading, the paleontologist shall notify the city as to when the final report will be submitted.
5.7.3.2 Mitigation Measures from FSEIR No. 332
MMP No. 106A for FSEIR No. 332 included the following Mitigation Measures to reduce potential geology and soils impacts. The following measures from MMP No. 106A, as updated by MMP No. 383 for Addendum No. 11, are applicable to the Modified Project.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 143 September 2024
MM 5.3-1 Prior to approval of a grading plan, if within a Seismic Hazard Zone, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Public Works Department a site specific report in compliance with DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. The report shall be prepared by an engineering geologist and geotechnical engineer. All grading shall be in conformance with Title 17 of the City of Anaheim Municipal Code.
MM 5.3-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Planning Department, Building Division, for review and approval, detailed foundation design information for the proposed buildings, prepared by a civil engineer, based on recommendations of a geotechnical engineer.
MM 5.3-3 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Planning Department, Building Division, a report prepared by a geotechnical engineer for review and approval which shall investigate the subject foundation excavations.
MM 5.3-4 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Planning Department, Building Division, plans showing that the proposed structure(s) has been analyzed for earthquake loading and designed according to the most recent seismic standards in the Uniform Building Code adopted by the City of Anaheim.
MM 5.3-5 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection, for any proposed hotel uses, including condominium hotels, the property owner/developer shall submit an earthquake emergency response plan to the Planning Department, Building Division, for review and approval. The plan shall require posted notices in all hotel rooms and earthquake safety procedures and incorporate on-going earthquake training for hotel staff.
MM 5.3-6 On-going during grading operations, the property owner/developer shall implement standard practices relating to grading from City Ordinance (Title 17) and policies to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Field Engineering Division.
5.7.3.3 Mitigation Measures from FSEIR No. 339
The following measures from MMP No. 106C for EIR No. 339, as updated by MMP No. 383 for Addendum No. 11, are applicable to the Modified Project.
MM 3-2 Prior to the initiation of grading activities, for projects greater than one acre, coverage for the project must be obtained by electronically submitting permit registration documents to the State or obtaining coverage via current general construction permit prescribed method by the property owner/developer pursuant Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 144 September 2024
to State and Federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. As part of the NOI, a Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared. The property owner/developer shall also prepare and submit to the Development Services Division of the Public Works Department, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) in accordance with the City’s municipal NPDES requirements and Chapter 7 of the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan. The WQMP must be approved prior to issuance of grading permit. The SWPPP will describe the structural and nonstructural BMPs that will be implemented during construction (short-term) within the Project Area and the WQMP describes BMPs for as well as BMPs for long-term operation of the Project Area that address potential impacts to surface waters.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 145 September 2024
5.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
5.8.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis
5.8.1.1 FSEIR No. 339
In accordance with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory and 2009 revisions to the CEQA Guidelines, FSEIR No. 339 evaluated the PT Expansion Project’s specific contribution to the cumulative impact of global climate change. Annual GHG emissions from project-related mobile and stationary sources and project-related indirect emissions from purchased energy and water were calculated for construction and operation of the PT Expansion Project and evaluated for the potential to interfere with the State of California’s ability to achieve GHG reduction goals and strategies identified in Assembly Bill (AB) 32 through a consistency analysis with CARB’s 2008 Scoping Plan. The PT Expansion Project’s GHG emissions and CARB 2008 Scoping Plan consistency are summarized separately below.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Implementation of the PT Expansion Project would contribute to global climate change through direct GHG emissions from on-site area sources, off-site energy production required for on-site activities and water use, and vehicle trips generated by the PT Expansion Project. Project-related GHG emissions from operational activities were calculated using the URBEMIS 2007 and EMFAC 2007 computer models, energy usage factors and emissions rates from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and GHG emissions rates from waste disposal from the USEPA.
Annual GHG emissions for the entire Platinum Triangle were calculated to be 1,007,613 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e) per year. In general, project-related transportation sector emissions represent the largest proportion of emissions associated with the PT Expansion Project. The annual GHG emissions included annual average construction emission of 48,394 MT CO2e. Because GHG emissions associated with the PT Expansion Project would be substantially greater that those calculated for the previously adopted land use plan for the area, PT Expansion Project GHG emissions were determined to be significant. Mitigation Measures 2-3, 10-18 through 10-20 pertaining to solid waste, Mitigation Measures 2-5, 9-1, 9-2, 9-14, through 9-16 pertaining to transportation, Mitigation Measures 2-6, 10-21, 10-22, and 10-24 pertaining to energy efficiency, Mitigation Measures 10-7, 10-9, 10-12 through 10-14 pertaining to water conservation and efficiency were identified in Section 5.11, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of FSEIR No. 339 to reduce GHG emissions associated with the PT Expansion Project. However, because implementation of the PT Expansion Project would generate a substantial increase in GHG emissions compared to previously adopted land use plan, GHG emissions generated by the PT Expansion Project were determined to be significant and unavoidable.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 146 September 2024
California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan Consistency At the time of FSEIR No. 339 preparation, CARB’s 2008 Scoping Plan was the applicable plan for evaluating the PT Expansion Project’s consistency with statewide emissions reduction goals, specifically AB 32. In accordance with AB 32, CARB developed the 2008 Scoping Plan to outline the state’s strategy to achieve 1990-level emissions by year 2020. To estimate the reductions necessary, CARB projected statewide year 2020 business-as-usual (BAU) GHG emissions (i.e., GHG emissions in the absence of statewide emissions reduction measures). CARB identified that the state as a whole would be required to reduce GHG emissions by 30 percent from year 2020 BAU. Therefore, the 2008 Scoping Plan defined the future baseline emissions scenario to mean in the absence of the statewide emissions reduction strategy. To determine if the PT Expansion Project’s GHG emissions are consistent with the overall goal of AB 32, the PT Expansion Project’s BAU emissions were compared to a reduced GHG emissions scenario that included implementation of the state requirements identified as 2008 Scoping Plan GHG emissions reduction measures. These measures included the following:
• Green Building: The new 2008 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards are 15 percent more energy efficient than the 2005 standards.
• Renewable Energy Portfolio: Requiring that California use renewable energy to represent 33 percent of California’s energy portfolio.
• Per-Capita Water Reduction: Reducing per-capita water use by approximately 20 percent. • Low Carbon Fuel Standard: The Low Carbon Fuel Standard requires the carbon content of fuels sold in California to be reduced by 10 percent by year 2020. • Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards: Adoption of higher fuel efficiency standards (Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards) that require the average fleet fuel economy of cars to be 43 miles per gallon by year 2020, estimated to result in an increase in fuel efficiency of
42.8 percent from the current 23 miles per gallon average fleet economy in California.
Implementation of these measures was estimated to reduce PT Expansion Project emissions to 654,375 MT CO2e, a reduction of 35 percent compared to PT Expansion Project BAU emissions.
Therefore, it was determined that the PT Expansion Project would be consistent with CARB’s 2008 Scoping Plan goal to reduce statewide GHG emissions by 30 percent from BAU by year 2020.
Additionally, CARB’s 2008 Scoping Plan included Measure T-3, which encompassed the requirements of Senate Bill 375. Senate Bill 375 enhanced existing processes by which governments coordinate with the regional planning agencies to demonstrate GHG emissions reductions through integrated development patterns, improved transportation planning, and other transportation measures and policies. The PT Expansion Project would mix high- and mediumdensity housing units with office, retail, and entertainment uses within the vicinity of major transportation corridors, including SR-22, Interstate 5, and SR-57, and therefore, would be consistent with the intent of similar regional planning efforts focused on efficient land uses that Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 147 September 2024
strive to integrate jobs centers and housing opportunities specifically to reduce VMT and, therefore, GHG emissions.
At the time of FSEIR No. 339 preparation, the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) element of the SCAG RTP had not been adopted. At that time, the only regional growth document that has been incorporated into a regional growth policy was SCAG’s Compass Blueprint, which was a plan to reduce regional VMT per household. The PT Expansion Project included land use features designed to reduce regional VMT, specifically the mixed uses and transit center proposed for the ARTIC District. Development of the ARTIC project and ARTIC District was determined to facilitate the use of transit by residents in the Platinum Triangle and the surrounding region and, therefore, would improve mobility in the Southern California region and could reduce transportation-derived CO2 emissions in the air basin.
Therefore, the PT Expansion Project was determined to achieve GHG reductions consistent with the 30 percent GHG reduction goal of AB 32 as described in the statewide GHG emissions reduction strategy outlined in CARB’s 2008 Scoping Plan. Impacts related to Scoping Plan consistency were determined to be less than significant.
5.8.1.2 Addendum No. 11 to FSEIR No. 339
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Addendum No. 11 stated that the OCVIBE Project would contribute to global climate change through direct GHG emissions from on-site area sources, off-site energy production required for on-site activities and water use, and vehicle trips. Construction and operational emissions for the OCVIBE Project were modeled using CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0. Average annual construction emissions were calculated to be 2,295 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e), and total operational emissions, including annual construction, were calculated to be 83,423 MT CO2e.
Emissions were below the 157,288 MT CO2e annual emissions estimated for the PTMLUP area development in FSEIR No. 339 without the OCVIBE Project. However, because Addendum No. 11 would increase emissions compared to existing conditions, this impact was determined to be significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 2-3; 10-18 through 10-20 pertaining to solid waste; 2-5, 9-1, 9-2, and 9-14 through 9-16 pertaining to transportation; 2-6, 10-21, 10-22, and 10- 24 pertaining to energy efficiency; and 10-7, 10-9, and 10-12 through 10-14 pertaining to water conservation and efficiency were identified for Addendum No. 11 from FSEIR No. 339 to reduce GHG emissions impacts. However, Addendum No. 11 determined that GHG emissions impacts would continue to be significant and unavoidable.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 148 September 2024
Consistency with Applicable Plans
California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan Consistency At the time of Addendum No. 11 preparation, CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan was the applicable plan for evaluating the OCVIBE Project’s consistency with statewide emissions reduction goals, specifically Assembly Bill (AB) 32. CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan outlined the path to achieve the Executive Order B-30-15 target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (CARB 2017). The 2017 Scoping Plan did not include recommendations for individual projects. The main strategies for achieving the Executive Order B-30-15 target were building energy efficiency, renewable energy sources and fuels, zero or near-zero emissions vehicles, walkable and bikeable communities served by transit, cleaner freight and goods movement, and reduction of emissions from dairies, landfills, and refrigerants. The OCVIBE Project would be consistent with all applicable state regulations, including the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Increases in renewable energy portfolio requirements and vehicle emissions standards would reduce project emissions compared to modeled emissions. Additionally, for example, CARB’s Draft 2020 Mobile Source Strategy estimates that implementation of Executive Order N-79-20 to limit passenger vehicle sales to zero emissions vehicles by 2035 could achieve a statewide fleet of 85 percent plug-in hybrid electric or zero net energy light-duty vehicles by 2045 (CARB 2021). Additionally, the OCVIBE Project would be consistent with CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan vision of compact communities accessible to pedestrians and cyclists and served by transit. The OCVIBE Project would not conflict with the 2017 Scoping Plan.
Connect SoCal 2020–2045 RTP/SCS
The OCVIBE Project Site includes the ARTIC and is a TPA in the RTP/SCS. The OCVIBE Project would be consistent with the Connect SoCal 2020–2045 RTP/SCS vision to concentrate growth within TPAs and would result in reduced vehicle trips and VMT compared to FSEIR No. 339 (SCAG 2020). RTP/SCS goals also include maximizing safety, mobility, and accessibility in the region; protecting the environment by encouraging active transportation; encouraging energy efficiency; and encouraging land use patterns that facilitate transit and active transportation. The OCVIBE Project would provide improvements for bicycle, pedestrian, and transit connections and would increase pedestrian/traffic safety within proximity to the ARTIC. The OCVIBE Project would provide a mixed-use project in a TPA, locating residences and visitors near retail amenities and an employment center, which maximizes mobility and accessibility for people and goods, and would maximize the productivity of the region’s transportation system. The proximity to ARTIC and provision of interconnected bike paths and pedestrian walkways would be consistent with the goal of reducing GHG emissions and improving air quality through active transportation network. As described previously, the OCVIBE Project would be designed for energy efficiency. Therefore, the OCVIBE Project was determined to be consistent with the Connect SoCal 2020–2045 RTP/SCS.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 149 September 2024
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
The City’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan identifies goals for 2030 and 2045 consistent with state policies that envision statewide carbon-free energy use (City of Anaheim 2020). The strategies identified to work toward the City’s goal are primarily measures for the City to implement and are related to the City’s renewable energy portfolio, water conservation, energy efficiency, shade trees, energy efficiency street lighting, new solar panel installations, increase in electric vehicle use and charging stations, and electric transportation and utility fleet vehicles.
However, the OCVIBE Project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, as well as the AMC and the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. These standards include requirements for energy efficiency, water conservation, and electric vehicle infrastructure. Additionally, the Project would include solar panel installation and new trees. Therefore, Addendum No. 11 determined that the OCVIBE Project would be consistent with the City’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan.
5.8.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
The analysis in this section is based in part on the following:
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions Memorandum, Comparison of OCVIBE Master Site Plan Amendment No. 1 to OCVIBE Addendum No. 11 Components – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts, Harris & Associates, September 18, 2024 (Appendix D) Would the project:
New
Significant
Impact
More Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous
Analysis
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Construction and operational GHG emissions from each of the three options of the Modified Project were calculated using CalEEMod, Version 2022.1.1.22. The types of construction activities required for the Modified Project would be similar to those anticipated for the approved OCVIBE Project in Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2, Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 150 September 2024
including demolition, site preparation and grading, building construction, and paving. However, total construction effort would be increased. That is, additional workdays and vehicle trips would be required as a result of additional demolition and earthwork required to remove the existing ACC office structures and additional building construction required for the new Buildings 4, 5, and 6.
Construction would also be similar in the Meadow Park and Porch in Transit District Sub-Area B.
Construction effort would potentially be reduced in this area as passive parkland would be developed on the area previously proposed for an amphitheater.
Revised construction GHG emissions were calculated for Phases 2, 4, and 5. The Modified Project does not include any changes to Phase 1, and the Modified Project under all three options would result in a reduced construction effort during Phase 3 due to a decrease in residential units proposed to be constructed in this phase as part of Building 3. Addendum No. 11 included development of 612 dwelling units in Phase 3, which would be reduced to 505 units under the Modified Project.
Therefore, Phase 1 and Phase 3 GHG emissions calculated for the OCVIBE Project in Addendum No. 11 (a total of 12,578 MT CO2e for both phases) are added to Phases 2, 4, and 5 emissions modeled for the Modified Project to calculate total and average annual GHG emissions from OCVIBE Project construction.
Modeling for Phases 2 through 5 assumes that the remaining development and construction effort outside Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2 would be the same as anticipated in Addendum No. 11, with adjustments made only for the additional construction effort required for the additional residential development under Options 1 through 3. No changes related to the pedestrian bridge for Parking Deck C were modeled, as the bridge construction would represent the conservative analysis condition. Buildings 1 and 2 would be constructed during Phase 2 of the Modified Project.
All three existing ACC office buildings are assumed to be demolished during Phase 2 (approximately 383,250 square feet), as it would result in the most environmental impacts and represent the most conservative condition for the analysis. However, the building pads in Building 5 and Building 6 footprint would not be demolished until Phases 5. It is anticipated the demolition of the existing ACC office buildings and the grading for the new residential buildings would result in additional soil export of 151,383 cubic yards, which is assumed to occur over three development phases (Phases 2, 4, and 5). Revised modeling reflects the updated construction phasing data.
Additional workdays are assumed for demolition, grading, and building construction phases.
Additionally, Phase 2 total material export has been revised to account for an adjustment to grading operations along River Road between Stanely Cup Way and Cerritos Avenue. Addendum No. 11 anticipated deep over excavation of the roadway. However, after further geotechnical evaluation, it was determined that less over excavation in the roadway is required, resulting in a decrease in material export of 75,000 cubic yards. Detailed construction assumptions are provided in Attachment 1 to Appendix D, GHG Emissions Memo.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 151 September 2024
Total and average annual construction emissions for each option is provided in Table 24, Modified Project Construction Emissions. A 10-year construction period was assumed for the OCVIBE Project in Addendum No. 11. A 10-year construction period is assumed to calculate average annual GHG emissions for the Modified Project. As shown in Table 24, the average annual construction GHG emissions from the Modified Project would exceed emissions from Addendum No. 11 but would not exceed emissions from FSEIR No. 339.
Table 24. Modified Project Construction Emissions
Development Option Total Construction Emissions (MT CO2e) Average Annual Emissions (MT CO2e) Option 1 26,268 2,627
Option 2 27,200 2,720
Option 3 27,252 2,725
Addendum No. 11 N/A 2,295
FSEIR No. 339 N/A 48,394
Source: Refer to Attachment 1 in Appendix D, GHG Emissions Memo.
Notes: MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, N/A = Not Applicable Operational impacts for the Modified Project assume buildout of the entire OCVIBE Project with Modified Project implementation. Average daily traffic with Modified Project implementation was provided for each option by Pirzadeh & Associates, Inc. (Pirzadeh 2024). Consistent with the approved OCVIBE Project, CalEEMod default assumptions are used to estimate emissions from solid waste generation and utility use, and it is assumed that residences would not include hearths.
Modeling results for the Modified Project are shown in Table 25, Modified Project Operation Emissions. Detailed modeling input is provided in Appendix D, GHG Emissions Memo, to this Addendum. As shown in Table 25, emissions for all options would decrease compared to Addendum No. 11. The reduction in emissions compared to Addendum No. 11 is primarily due to decreased emissions from energy use. The Modified Project is modeled using an updated version of CalEEMod, which incorporated updated, reduced GHG emissions intensity factors for Anaheim Public Utilities. The CO2 intensity factor was 1,543 pounds per megawatt hour in CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0, which was the most recent version at the time of Addendum No. 11 modeling.
The updated Version 2022.1.1.22 used for Modified Project modeling incorporates an updated intensity factor of 311 pounds per megawatt hour.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 152 September 2024
Table 25. Modified Project Operation Emissions
Development Option
Total Operational
Emissions
(MT CO2e)
Average Annual
Construction
Emissions
(MT CO2e)
Total Emissions
(MT CO2e)
Option 1 54,189 2,627 56,816
Option 2 52,175 2,720 54,895
Option 3 53,213 2,725 55,938
Addendum No. 11 81,128 2,295 83,423
Net Change from Addendum No. 11 – Option 1 (26,939) 332 (26,607) Net Change from Addendum No. 11 – Option 2 (28,953) 425 (28,528) Net Change from Addendum No. 11 – Option 3 (27,915) 430 (27,485) FSEIR No. 339 108,894 48,394 157,288
Source: Refer to Attachment 1 in Appendix D, GHG Emissions Memo.
Notes: MT CO2e = Metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent
As shown in Table 25, total GHG emissions for the Modified Project would be reduced compared to Addendum No. 11. However, as with the PT Expansion Project and the OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project would still result in a net increase compared to existing conditions and would result in the same significant and unavoidable impact as FSEIR No. 339 and Addendum No. 11.
FSEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 2-1, 2-6, 9-1, 9-2, and 10-21 would continue to be required to reduce GHG emissions impacts to extent feasible. The Modified Project would not result in new significant impact or increase the severity of impacts identified FSEIR No. 339 and Addenda, including Addendum No. 11. No substantial change from the previous analysis would occur. b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Since the preparation of Addendum No. 11, CARB adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan that replaces the 2017 Scoping Plan and addresses a path to achieving carbon neutrality no later than 2045 in accordance with AB 1279 (CARB 2022). The 2022 Scoping Plan addresses a more stringent goal of achieving carbon neutrality compared to the 2017 Scoping Plan. However, as discussed above in Section 5.8.2(a), the Modified Project would result in reduced total GHG emissions compared to those calculated for the approved OCVIBE Project in Addendum No. 11 (refer to Table 25). The Modified Project does not include any components that would change the approved OCVIBE Project’s consistency with 2022 Scoping Plan goals because it includes the same land use types in the same general location. The 2022 Scoping Plan continues the 2017 Scoping Plan focus on reducing VMT. The Modified Project would not result in any changes to the proposed vehicle miles traveled-reducing features of the approved OCVIBE Project. The 2022 Scoping Plan also focuses on building decarbonization. The Modified Project would continue to be required to comply with all applicable energy efficiency regulations.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 153 September 2024
Similarly, the Modified Project would continue to be consistent with the RTP/SCS because the Modified Project would not result in any change to the general land use types or locations within a TPA as proposed in the approved OCVIBE Project. SCAG approved the 2024-2050 RTP/SCS, Connect SoCal 2024, in April 2024. Connect SoCal 2024 outlines a vision for a more resilient and equitable future, with investment, policies and strategies for achieving the region’s shared goals through 2050. The Plan elements that are necessary to bring this vision to fruition are organized within the pillars of Mobility, Communities, Environment and Economy. Refer to Table 28 in Section 5.11, Land Use and Planning, for the Modified Project’s consistency with these elements.
The Modified Project would increase proposed residential intensity in Arena District Sub-Areas D2, which is an infill site within proximity to a transit center, which is consistent with 2024-2050 RTP/SCS, Connect SoCal 2024, and 2022 Scoping Plan residential land use goals. The southern portion of Arena District Sub-Area D2 is within the SCAG’s 2045 TPAs (SCAG 2024). The Modified Project would continue to be consistent with the City’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan because, consistent with the approved OCVIBE Project, it would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, as well as the AMC and the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, as applicable. Therefore, the Modified Project would not conflict with or obstruct any applicable plan related to GHG emissions. The Modified Project would not result in new significant impact or increase the severity of impacts identified FSEIR No. 339 and Addenda, including Addendum No. 11. No substantial change from the previous analysis would occur.
5.8.3 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.
Solid Waste Measures
MM 2-3 Prior to 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 Demolition and Import/Export Plans detailing construction and demolition (C&D) recycling and waste reduction measures to be implemented to recover C&D materials. These plans shall include identification of off-site locations for materials export from the project and options for disposal of excess material. These options may include recycling of materials on-site or to an adjacent site, sale to a soil broker or contractor, sale to a project in the vicinity or transport to an environmentally cleared landfill, with attempts made to move it within Orange County. The property owner/developer shall offer recyclable building materials, such as asphalt or concrete for sale or removal by private firms Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 154 September 2024
or public agencies for use in construction of other projects if not all can be reused at the project site.
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 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. 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.
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 Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 155 September 2024
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.
Transportation and Motor Vehicle Measures
MM 2-5 In accordance with the timing required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager, but no later than prior to the first final Building and Zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall implement the following measures to reduce long-term operational CO [carbon monoxide], NOx [oxides of nitrogen], ROG [reactive organic gas], and PM10 [particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter] emissions:
• Traffic lane improvements and signalization as outlined in the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan Draft Traffic Study Report by Parsons Brinckerhoff, August 2010, and Master Plan of Arterial Highways shall be implemented as required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager. • The property owner/contractor shall place bus benches and/or shelters as required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager at locations along any site frontage routes as needed.
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 projectgenerated 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 Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 156 September 2024
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. • 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. Southern California Rapid Transit District and Orange County Transportation Authority (including commute 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.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 157 September 2024
• 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 singleoccupant 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.
• 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 9-13 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, Transit Planning Division 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 Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 158 September 2024
Triangle where feasible and determined appropriate by the Public Works Transit Planning Division 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, Transit Planning Division's 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 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 analyses 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 with said analysis prepared to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer.
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).
Energy Efficiency
MM 2-6 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the property owner/architect shall submit energy calculations used to demonstrate compliance with the performance approach to the California Energy Efficiency Standards to the Building Department that Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 159 September 2024
shows each new structure exceeds the applicable Building and Energy Efficiency Standards by a minimum of 10 percent. Plans shall show the following:
a. Energy-efficient roofing systems, such as vegetated or “cool” roofs, that reduce roof temperatures significantly during the summer and therefore reduce the energy requirement for air conditioning. Examples of energy efficient building materials and suppliers can be found at http://eetd.lbl.gov/ CoolRoofs or similar websites.
b. Cool pavement materials such as lighter-colored pavement materials, porous materials, or permeable or porous pavement, for all roadways and walkways not within the public right-of-way, to minimize the absorption of solar heat and subsequent transfer of heat to its surrounding environment. Examples of cool pavement materials are available at http://www.epa.gov/heatisld/ images/extra/level3_pavingproducts.html or similar websites. c. Energy saving devices that achieve the existing 2008 Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards, such as use of energy efficient appliances (e.g., EnergyStar® appliances) and use of sunlight-filtering window coatings or double-paned windows.
d. Electrical vehicle charging stations for all commercial structures encompassing over 50,000 square feet.
e. Shady trees strategically located within close proximity to the building structure to reduce heat load and resulting energy usage at residential, commercial, and office buildings.
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.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 160 September 2024
• 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, airhandling units, and fan-coil units).
• Use of occupancy sensors in appropriate spaces.
• Use of light emitting diode (LED) lights
• Use of Energy Star exit lighting or exit signage.
• Use of LED lights for outdoor lighting and parking lots. • 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 drought-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.
Water Conservation and Efficiency
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;
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 161 September 2024
• Use of efficient irrigation systems such as drip irrigation and automatic systems which use moisture sensors;
• 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 10-9 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 10-12 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 facets, 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.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 162 September 2024
5.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
5.9.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis
5.9.1.1 FSEIR No. 339
Transport, Use, and Disposal of Hazardous Materials
The Initial Study for FSEIR No. 339, which relied on the analysis and conclusions in FSEIR No. 332, disclosed that various hazardous materials are currently used and stored by businesses within the Platinum Triangle. These include cleaning chemicals, fuels, other hydrocarbon products, and solvents used during operation of existing facilities and for maintenance purposes. The PT Expansion Project allows continued operation of these businesses and designates the northern periphery of the Platinum Triangle for industrial land uses, which may handle hazardous materials.
However, businesses are required to obtain permits and maintain records regarding the storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. FSEIR No. 339 therefore determined that impacts related to such materials resulting from project implementation would be less than significant, consistent with FSEIR No. 332.
Government Code Section 65962.5 Sites
Database records searches were conducted as part of FEIR No. 321 and FSEIR No. 332 to identify properties that could potentially pose a variety of environmental hazards within the boundaries and immediately adjacent to the Platinum Triangle. Action status on many of the identified properties were “closed” and required no further remediation, and some were undergoing environmental remediation. However, these impacts are site specific, and implementation of Mitigation Measures
5.4-1 through 5.4-7 of MMP No. 106A, prepared for FSEIR No. 332, were identified to ensure that identified hazardous waste and hazardous material is handled and disposed of in the manner specified by the California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and according to the requirements of the California Administrative Code, Title 30, Chapter 22. These mitigation measures also required that a Phase I Site Assessment be prepared and that the site receive a no-further-action status by an applicable oversight agency. Therefore, FSEIR No. 332 determined that impacts from historical and ongoing industrial activities in proximity to future residential uses would be less significant with development of the Platinum Triangle. The Initial Study for FSEIR No. 339 determined that the above conclusions were valid, the PT Expansion Project does not involve actions that impact that finding, and existing federal and state regulations that govern hazardous material and waste management helped to minimize the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, no further analysis was warranted in FSEIR No. 339.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 163 September 2024
Hazardous Materials Near Schools
The Initial Study for FSEIR No. 339, which relied on the analysis and conclusions in FSEIR No. 332 for impacts related to emissions or handling of hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of a school, disclosed that three public school facilities were located within a quarter mile of the PTMLUP. However, it also stated that the use and handling of hazardous materials and substances within the Platinum Triangle would comply with applicable state and federal rules and regulations.
The Initial Study determined no additional analysis related to hazardous materials and schools was necessary. FSEIR No. 332 had determined the impact less than significant.
Aircraft Hazards
FSEIR No. 332 disclosed that there were two heliports within the Platinum Triangle (at Angel Stadium and the North Net Fire Training Center) and one nearby (at UC Irvine Medical Center in the City of Orange). However, FSEIR No. 332 determined that compliance with Airport Environs Land Use Plan guidelines would lessen potential impacts related to aircraft crash hazards to less than significant level. These guidelines contain noise contours, restrictions for types of construction and building heights in navigable air space, and requirements impacting the establishment or construction of sensitive uses within proximity to airports and heliports. The Initial Study for FSEIR No. 339 determined that these conclusions remained valid, and no additional analysis was necessary.
Because the Platinum Triangle does not contain any private airstrips and is not within the plan area of an adopted airport land use plan, impacts related to hazards generated by airstrips and airports were considered less than significant in both FSEIR No. 332 and FSEIR No. 339.
Consistency with Adopted Emergency Plans
FSEIR No. 332 found that, although the PT Expansion Project would intensify land uses and alter existing circulation patterns in the Platinum Triangle, implementation of the PTMLUP would not interfere with the City of Anaheim’s emergency preparedness plans because new developments would be required to accommodate emergency vehicles. Impacts related to interference with adopted emergency plans or emergency evacuation plans were considered less than significant.
This conclusion was reaffirmed in the Transportation and Traffic section of FSEIR No. 339, which determined that the PT Expansion Project would not result in inadequate emergency access.
Wildland
Initial Study and Notice of Preparation for FSEIR No. 339 concluded, based on the analysis and conclusion in FSEIR No. 332, that the Platinum Triangle contains no undeveloped wildland areas within its boundaries or in adjacent areas. The PT Expansion Project would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 164 September 2024
5.9.1.2 Addendum No. 11 to FSEIR No. 339
Transport, Use, and Disposal of Hazardous Materials
As with the PT Expansion Project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339, the OCVIBE Project construction would require use of hazardous materials, including fuels, greases and other lubricants, and coatings such as paint. The handling, use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials by the construction phase of the OCVIBE Project would comply with existing regulations of several agencies—the USEPA, Orange County Environmental Health Division, California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and U.S. Department of Transportation. The OCVIBE Project is not anticipated to be associated with major hazardous materials and would not create unusually high quantities of hazardous waste. Furthermore, Mitigation Measures 5.4-1 and 5.4-2 from FSEIR No. 332 require proper handling and disposal of hazardous materials in accordance with applicable state regulations during construction and operation. Hazards associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would not represent new impacts compared to impacts identified in FSEIR No. 339.
Hazardous Materials Near Schools
Addendum No. 11 stated that the OCVIBE Project Site is not within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school and would not result in greater construction or operational emissions compared to the analysis contained in No. 339. 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.
Government Code Section 65962.5 Sites
Addendum No. 11 identified two properties within the boundaries of OCVIBE Project that are included in the list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. However, the sites were included based on historical uses and no current hazardous conditions were identified that could result in hazardous materials impacts. Therefore, Addendum No. 11 determined that implementation of the OCVIBE Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, and no substantial changes to the conclusion of the previous analysis would occur.
Furthermore, Mitigation Measures 5.4-1 through 5.4-7 from FSEIR No. 332 were identified as applicable mitigation to reduce impacts. 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.
Aircraft Hazards
The OCVIBE Project Site is not located within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport and is not located within the plan area of an adopted airport land use plan. The nearest airport is Fullerton Municipal Airport, approximately 6 miles north of the OCVIBE Project Site. The Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 165 September 2024
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 would occur.
Consistency with Adopted Emergency Plans
Addendum No. 11 stated that the OCVIBE Project has the potential to affect emergency response by increasing congestion on the nearby roadway network during construction and operation.
However, compliance with the existing City Building Code and Anaheim Fire and Rescue standards and regulations, incorporation of Mitigation Measure 5.4-4 from FSEIR No. 339 that requires the developer to prepare and submit a safety plan for residential development would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, Addendum No. 11 found that the OCVIBE Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in FSEIR No. 339.
Wildlands
Addendum No. 11 found that consistent with FSEIR No. 339 analysis, the OCVIBE Project boundaries are not within or adjacent to any wildfire a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The OCVIBE Project would not expose people or structure to wildland fires. No substantial change from the previous analysis was identified.
5.9.2 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. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 166 September 2024
Would the project:
New
Significant
Impact
More Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous
Analysis
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the project area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project Site is within the OCVIBE Project Site and would not include new uses that were not previously analyzed in Addendum No. 11. The Modified Project would increase the number of residential units and decrease office uses compared to the development intensities analyzed by Addendum No. 11. As with the approved OCVIBE Project, project construction would require use of hazardous materials, including fuels, greases and other lubricants, and coatings such as paint. The handling, use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials by the construction phase of the Modified Project would comply with existing regulations of several agencies—the USEPA, Orange County Environmental Health Division, California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, US Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and US Department of Transportation.
As with the approved OCVIBE Project, project-related construction activities would not involve a significant amount of hazardous materials, and their use would be temporary. Furthermore, under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing a safe and healthful workplace. Pursuant to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Part 1910.1200, the Project Applicant would ensure training for project construction workers on the proper use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials. This standard states that “[e]mployers shall provide employees with effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment[.] Information and training may be designed to cover categories of hazards (e.g., flammability, carcinogenicity) or specific chemicals.” All on-site activities during construction and operation would be required to adhere to federal, state, and local regulations for the management and disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, the Project Applicant would Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 167 September 2024
properly manage the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction of the Modified Project, and impacts would not be greater than previously analyzed.
The increased residential units and decreased office uses are not anticipated to be associated with major hazardous materials and would not create unusually high quantities of hazardous waste compared to the approved OCVIBE Project. Furthermore, Mitigation Measures 5.4-1 and 5.4-2 from FSEIR No. 332 require proper handling and disposal of hazardous materials in accordance with applicable state regulations during construction and operation. Hazards associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would not represent new impacts compared to impacts identified in FSEIR No. 339. 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 create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project Site is within the approved OCVIBE Project Site and does not involve any properties or new uses that could result in the release of hazardous materials that were not analyzed by Addendum No. 11. Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2 are identified as Parcels 1, 9, and 10, and Transit District Sub-Area B is identified as Parcel 4 in Addendum No. 11 as shown on Figure 17, Individual Parcel Site Assessment Location Map.
Table 26, Individual Parcel Site Assessment Review Summary, describes the potential environmental concerns related to current and past uses of the Project Site as analyzed in Addendum No. 11. As demonstrated in Table 26, the Project Site does not contain hazardous materials that require remediation that could result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accidental conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment during construction of the Modified Project.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 168 September 2024
Table 26. Individual Parcel Site Assessment Review Summary Current Use History
Known or
Suspected
Environment
al Concerns
Recomme
ndations
for Further
Actions
Parcel 1 – Arena Corporate Center (ACC)
The ACC is an office building development
on 12.55 acres. Improvements include three
two-story office buildings constructed in
2002–2003 with extensive asphalt-paved
parking lots and associated landscaping.
There are no dry cleaners, doctors, dentists
or other tenants who would use significant
quantities of hazardous materials, and only
janitorial supplies and routine cleaning and
maintenance materials were noted on the
site. There are two aboveground diesel
storage tanks (ASTs) used to fuel
emergency generators in use for two
tenants, with no spills or stains evident
around them.
There are two inground grease interceptors
for food establishments, although only one
was used. Mechanical systems are on the
roofs, with no concerns noted, and elevator
equipment rooms were noted to be clean
and free of spills or stains. No USTs, 55-
gallon drums, clarifiers, significant quantities
of hazardous materials, unusual spills or
stains, or other significant issues of
environmental concern were noted on the
property.
Prior to development of ACC, the property
was in use as a mobile home park known as
Orang Tree Park from the early 1970s until
1997–1998. Prior to that, it was covered with
citrus trees, as was nearly all of the
surrounding vicinity. The mobile home park
included a residence on the west side that
had been present since 1959. Interviews
conducted during a prior Phase I ESA in
1997 indicated two small gasoline tanks of
280 and 650 gallons in size, one of which
was underground, had possibly been located
somewhere on the property from 1974 to
1985. The interview with the former property
owner indicated no contamination was
evident when they were removed and moved
to another site for continuing use. Neither the
1997 Phase I ESA nor a subsequent Phase I
ESA prepared in 2010 identified Recognized
Environmental Conditions or recommended
further actions for the property.
No significant
concerns
identified onsite or off-site.
None
Parcels 7, 9, and 11 Honda Center Parking Lots
Parcels 7 and 9 comprise a total of 7.3
acres, and Parcel 11 comprises 7.2 acres.
The north side of Parcel 9 is an entry/exit
point for Honda Center from South Douglass
Road. The south side of Parcel 9 includes a
small parking area adjacent to the building,
but also provides access down under the
Honda Center via a concrete-paved
driveway. The lower west portion of this
includes the winding driveway as well as a
cooling tower array, an emergency power
generator within a small building (its
associated diesel UST is located adjacent to
the south curb in the asphalt entry driveway
above the generator), an array of Bloom
Energy “boxes” (solid oxide fuel cells) for
additional power supply, and associated
utilities. The Honda Center is responsible for
all of the mechanical systems and their use
and maintenance.
Prior to development as parking lots by the
mid-1990s, Parcel 9 had been improved with
a building and grounds for The Phoenix Club
from approximately 1966 and 1990, and
Parcel 7 had several buildings developed on
the property during 1966–1990. Records
suggested several commercial businesses
were present with addresses along South
Douglass Road and East Katella Avenue.
Records also indicated a 500- and a 550-
gallon waste oil USTs as well as a 1,000-
gallon gasoline UST. No records were
located confirming their removal or exact
locations, but all of the former buildings were
removed in the early 1990s, and the entire
area was graded for development of the
Honda Center and its parking lots. The site is
not identified as a known or suspected
source of contamination from UST leaks or
spills.
No significant
concerns
identified onsite or off-site.
None
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 169 September 2024
Table 26. Individual Parcel Site Assessment Review Summary Current Use History
Known or
Suspected
Environment
al Concerns
Recomme
ndations
for Further
Actions
Parcel 7 is an asphalt-paved parking lot and
includes a large sign for the Honda Center.
Parcel 11 is an asphalt-paved parking lot and
includes a large sign for freeway exposure in
its northwest corner. Other than small oil
stains typical of parking lots, no unusual
spills or stains or significant issues of
environmental concern were noted.
Parcel 11 on the west side of South
Douglass Road had been developed as a
waste transfer station from approximately
1966 to 1990. It was operated originally by
the county and accepted and transferred
non-hazardous wastes and municipal refuse.
It is not identified as a known source of
contamination. Prior to these historical
developments, all 3 of these parcels had
been under agricultural use with citrus trees,
although the eastern edges of Parcels 7 and
9 were originally part of the west bank of the
Santa Ana River, and some sand mining
operation appeared to occur on the east side
of Parcel 7.
Parcels 8 and 10 – Honda Center Parking Lots 2 and 4
Parcels 8 and 10 are asphalt-paved parking
lot areas to the east and northeast of Honda
Center. The east and northeast perimeter
areas of Parcel 10 are being used as storage
location for items in occasional use at Honda
Center or in the various parking lots. Other
than small oil stains typical of parking lots, no
unusual spills or stains or significant issues
of environmental concern were noted.
These two parcels were developed as
parking lots beginning in the late 1980s and
had previously been unused natural land that
was part of the west side of the Santa Ana
River. The river was free flowing prior to the
1940s and was initially controlled in this area
with side embankments for Parcel 10 at that
time was along its west edge. A more
restrictive and narrow embankment was then
created along its current east edge in the
1970s. There had been evidence of sand
and aggregate mining along the west edge of
the river south of Parcel 8 in the past.
No significant
concerns
identified onsite or off-site.
None
Parcel 4 – ARTIC Lot A
Parcel 4 is developed with two associated
commercial buildings occupied by JT
Schmid’s Restaurant and Brewery at 2610
East Katella Avenue and 714 Tickets at 2620
East Katella Avenue. The restaurant was
developed in 1997–1998. The restaurant
includes an outside patio bar area on the
west side and a detached small storage
building at the south tip of the triangularshaped property. The remainder of Parcel 4 is an asphalt-paved parking lot in use as the
north and primary parking lot for ARTIC. The
parking lot includes small areas of
landscaping and access gates. Other than
minor vehicle stains in the parking lot, there
are no hazardous materials, USTs, unusual
spills or stains, or other significant issues of
Parcel 4 was originally within the western
bank of the Santa Ana River until it was
channelized and controlled in the 1940s.
Parcel 4 remained undeveloped as a flat
vacant parcel until the mid-1970s. A small
structure was constructed on its southeast
corner and the electrical supply business
building was constructed on the northwest
corner in 1976. The southern portion of
Parcel 4 became a part of its adjacent
property on the south and extending down to
the railroad tracks, which is now the ARTIC
facility.
A small office building was developed at the
southwest side of the current JT.Schmid’s
property in 1973 and was redeveloped into
the current storage room for JT Schmid’s. No
environmental concerns were noted for the
None. Former
concerns
investigated
and resolved.
No other offsite sources
of known
contamination
are of
concern.
None
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 170 September 2024
Table 26. Individual Parcel Site Assessment Review Summary Current Use History
Known or
Suspected
Environment
al Concerns
Recomme
ndations
for Further
Actions
environmental concern associated with the
use of Parcel 4.
commercial buildings (2610 and 2620 East
Katella Avenue) or the storage room.
An office building occupied by an Agricultural
Commissioner’s office and a County
Transportation and Maintenance Yard
(Maintenance Yard) were developed in the
remainder of the larger property in the early
1970s. The Maintenance Yard was
redeveloped as the ARTIC facility. The
existing ARTIC facility would not be
redeveloped as part of the OCVIBE Project.
Several areas of environmental concerns
were identified, and appropriate subsurface
investigations and remedial actions were
performed beginning in 1989 and ending in
2009. The subsurface investigations
determined that ARTIC property, including
southeast side of Parcel 4, does not contain
detectable concentrations of hazardous
materials and case closure status was issued
by appropriate oversight agencies.
Source: Centec 2020.
Notes: ACC = Arena Corporate Center: AST = aboveground diesel storage tanks; ARTIC = Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center; ESA = environmentally sensitive areas; UST = underground storage tank As with the approved OCVIBE Project, lubricants, paints and solvents, and cement products containing strong basic or acidic chemicals, construction-related hazardous materials and petroleum products (e.g., diesel fuel), would be used during construction; these materials are commonly used at construction sites, and the construction activities would be required to comply with applicable federal and state regulations for proper handling and storage of hazardous materials. Additionally, Mitigation Measures 5.4-1, 5.4-6, and 5.4-7 from FSEIR No. 332 requires the proper handling and disposal of hazardous materials during construction to reduce the risk of upset or accident of hazardous materials. As with the approved OCVIBE Project, impacts related to the upset or accident of hazardous materials during operation would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation.
The Modified Project would result in minimal changes during operation because additional residential units and reduced office square footages would not result in substantial changes to the type and volume of hazardous materials used during maintenance. Addendum No. 11 incorporated FSEIR No. 332 Mitigation Measures 5.4-3 through 5.4-5 related to residential development, and these measures would continue to be applicable to the Modified Project.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 171 September 2024
The Modified Project may include the use and disposal of typical cleaning products along with the limited use of pesticides and herbicides for landscape maintenance. The Modified Project involves residential and open space uses and would not be associated with major hazardous materials and would not create unusually high quantities of hazardous waste. Any small amount of on-site hazardous materials will be used, maintained, and stored in compliance with applicable federal and state regulations for proper handling and storage of hazardous materials to prevent foreseeable upset, accident, or release of hazardous materials. Additionally, Mitigation Measure 5.4-2 from FSEIR No. 332 requires the proper handling and disposal of hazardous materials during operation to reduce the risk of upset or accident of hazardous materials. Impacts related to the upset or accident of hazardous materials during operation would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation. 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 emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. There are no existing or proposed schools within a quarter mile of the Project Site. The closest school is approximately 0.7 miles north of the 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 be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project would occur within the OCVIBE Project Site. Addendum No. 11 did not identify the Project Site as being on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. 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.
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project would occur within the OCVIBE Project Site. As with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Project Site is not located within two miles of an airport land use plan. The nearest airport is Fullerton Municipal Airport, approximately 6 miles to the northwest of the Project Site. The Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts or Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 172 September 2024
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. f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project would occur within the OCVIBE Project Site. As with the approved OCVIBE Project, all construction activities would be performed according to the City’s Building Code and Anaheim Fire and Rescue’s standards and regulations, and provide the necessary on- and off-site access and circulation for emergency vehicles and services during the construction and operation phases. The Modified Project is required to go through the City’s development review and permitting process and incorporate all applicable design and safety standards and regulations in the CBC and the AMC to ensure that project development does not interfere with the provision of local emergency services (provision of adequate access roads to accommodate emergency response vehicles, adequate numbers/locations of fire hydrants, etc.). Mitigation Measure 5.4-4 also requires the developer to prepare and submit a safety plan for residential development, which will be implemented during project operation that includes staff training, emergency tools, first aid provisions, and supervision of children or other individuals in an emergency situation when evacuation is not appropriate or practicable. 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. g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project would occur within the OCVIBE Project Site. The OCVIBE Master Site Plan area is heavily urbanized and is not adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. 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.
5.9.3 Applicable Mitigation Measures
The following measures from MMP No. 106A for FSEIR No. 332, as updated by MMP No. 383 for Addendum No. 11, are applicable to the Modified Project.
MM 5.4-1 On-going during demolition and construction, in the event that hazardous waste is discovered during site preparation or construction, the property owner/developer shall ensure that the identified hazardous waste and/or hazardous material is handled and disposed of in the manner specified by the State of California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and according to the requirements of the California Administrative Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 173 September 2024
Code, Title 30, Chapter 22. In addition, the property owner/developer shall report the finding of hazardous waste to the Orange County Health Care Agency and Anaheim Fire & Rescue.
MM 5.4-2 On-going during project operation, the applicant shall handle and dispose of all hazardous materials and wastes during the operation and maintenance of facilities in accordance with the State codes identified in Mitigation Measure No. 5.4-1 and under Anaheim Fire & Rescue supervision.
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 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, first aid provisions, and supervision of children or other individuals in an emergency situation when evacuation is not appropriate or practicable.
MM 5.4-5 Prior to final Building and Zoning inspections, for any residential project within 1,000 feet of a use that has the potential to release substantial amounts of airborne hazardous materials, the project property owner/developer shall submit a shelter in-place program to the Planning Department, Building Division, review and approval. The shelter-in-place program shall require the property owner/developer to purchase a subscription to a service that provides “automated emergency notification” to individual residents (subject to meeting minimum standards set by the City) of the project. The shelter-in-place program shall include the following:
• The property owner/developer shall be required to purchase a minimum 10-year subscription to such a service that would include periodic testing (at least annually). • The CC&Rs for each individual project shall require that each property owner and/or project Homeowners Association (HOA):
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 174 September 2024
• Maintain a subscription following expiration of the initial purchased subscription. • Maintain, in a timely manner, the database of resident phone numbers in conjunction with the service.
• Provide appropriate agencies (police, fire, other emergency response as identified by the City) with information on how to activate the notification via the service provider.
• The CC&Rs for each individual project shall require that each resident provide the property owner/HOA with a current phone number for the residence and/or individual residents. This would include timely notification following the sale of a unit and would require notification if the unit were rented or leased or subject to any other change in occupancy.
MM 5.4-6 Prior to issuance of grading permits for each development project, a Phase I Site Assessment shall be prepared by the property owner/developer and submitted to the City of Anaheim Public Works Department, Development Services Division, for review and approval. If actual or potential impacts are identified by the Phase I, a Phase II ESA will be completed for the site by the owner/developer and the results will be submitted to the Planning Department. During the Phase II ESA, samples from potential areas of concern will be collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to confirm the nature and extent of potential impacts. If hazardous materials are identified during the site assessments, the property owner/developer shall notify the finding to the Anaheim Fire Department and the appropriate response/remedial measures will be implemented in accordance with the directives of the OCHCA and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), as appropriate. If soil is encountered during site development that is suspected of being impacted by hazardous materials, work will be halted and site conditions will be evaluated by a qualified environmental professional. The results of the evaluation will be submitted to OCHCA and/or RWQCB, and the appropriate response/remedial measures will be implemented, as directed by OCHCA, RWQCB, or other applicable oversight agency, until all specified requirements of the oversight agencies are satisfied and a no-further-action status is attained.
MM 5.4-7 Prior to issuance of a grading permit or a demolition permit for any building, an asbestos survey shall be conducted and submitted to the Planning Department, Building Division, by the property owner/developer. If the materials are found to contain asbestos fibers, demolition shall be conducted in accordance with the remediation and mitigation procedures detailed in Remediation Procedures Report, and in accordance with Federal, State and local law. Buildings constructed prior to 1973 shall be screened for lead-based paint prior to demolition. If leadbased paint is identified, it shall be mitigated in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Remediation Procedures Report.
JT Schmidt
ARCTIC
Angel Stadium
of Anaheim
Ayers Hotel
(N.A.P)
Honda Center
Arena
Corpoate
Westwood Center
College
Railroad
Track
Phoenix Club
Church of
Southland
Southern
California
Edison Easement
Santa Ana River
Metrolink
1 11
4 2
6 5
3 7
8 9
10 OMEGA AVE
WINSTON RD
RILES CIR
POPLAR ST
BARKLEY AVE
PRIMROSE DR
HILDA ST
SEQUOIA AVE
SINCLAIR ST
CLIFPARK WAY
STRUCK AVE
ALMONT AVE
ELM ST
PAGE CT
TRENTON AVE
ÄÆ57
DOUGLASS RD
TAFT AVE
ECKHOFF ST
WALNUT AVE
ORANGEWOOD AVE
HOWELL AVE
COLLINS AVE MAIN ST
SUNKIST ST
GROVE AVE
CERRITOS AVE
BALL RD
KATELLA AVE
Anaheim
Orange
Date: 8/12/2024 - Last saved by: Matthew.Dornbach - Path: C:\GIS\Projects\City of Anaheim\OCVIBE\Map Docs\OCVIBE\OCVIBE.aprx ±
0 500 1,000
Feet Individual Parcel Site Assessment Location Map
Source: Maxar Imagery 2022; Anaheim Real Estate Partners, LLC 2024.
Addendum No. 13 to SEIR No. 339 (Amendment No. 1 to OCVIBE Project) Figure 17
Parcels
Vicinity
1 - Arena Corporate Center
2 - Douglas Commercial Center
3 - Platt College
4 - ARTIC Lot A
5 - ARTIC Lot B
6 - ARTIC Lot C
Honda Center
7 - Main Lot 1
8 - Main Lot 2
9 - Main Lot 3
10 - Main Lot 4
11 - Main Lot 5
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 176 September 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 177 September 2024
5.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
5.10.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis
5.10.1.1 FSEIR No. 339
Water Quality
FSEIR No. 339 incorporated the water quality analysis and conclusions included in FSEIR No. 332 for the Platinum Triangle. Pollutant concentrations for the buildout condition were anticipated to decrease both with and without BMPs as a result of changes in land use, which in general would result in a reduction in light industrial/commercial and a greater amount of mixed uses, including residential development. The PT Expansion Project would comply with current water quality regulations, including the City’s Grading Ordinance, the Construction General Permit, the County of Orange (County) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit, the City of Anaheim’s Local Implementation Plan, and the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), and Mitigation Measure 5.5-2 identified in FSEIR No. 332 (Mitigation Measure 3-2 in FSEIR No. 339), requires the preparation and approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, a SWPPP for projects greater than one acre, and a WQMP, to reduce anticipated pollutant concentrations to a less than significant level. The SWPPP and WQMP would require implementation of construction and operational BMPs, respectively.
Drainage
According to FSEIR No. 339, the portion of the Platinum Triangle east of State College Boulevard is in the Santa Ana River Watershed, and the portion of the Platinum Triangle west of State College Boulevard is in the Westminster Watershed. In the pre-project condition, runoff from the graded pad areas is contained within each pad and allowed to infiltrate into underlying soils. Runoff from the paved street areas is allowed to flow northerly to Katella Avenue and southerly to Gene Autry Way. Runoff from both Katella Avenue and Gene Autry Way is conveyed westerly to Lewis Street storm drain system (County Facility No. C05P21) and conveyed approximately one mile south to the East Garden Grove‐Wintersburg Channel (County Facility No. C05) and Haster Basin (County Facility No. C05B02). Downstream receiving waters include Bolsa Chica Wetlands, Huntington Harbor, and Anaheim Bay. The Platinum Triangle does not receive off‐site run‐on from adjacent properties. Additionally, the Platinum Triangle is in the Orange County Groundwater Basin.
FSEIR No. 339 also incorporated the drainage analysis and conclusions included in FSEIR No. 332, finding the conclusion of FSEIR No. 332 remaining valid in that the PT Expansion Project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage system or provide additional sources of pollutant runoff with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.5-3 as amended and included as Mitigation Measure 10- 17 in FSEIR No. 339. Impacts from the PT Expansion Project were therefore less than significant.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 178 September 2024
Groundwater
FSEIR No. 339 found that the increased development intensities within the Platinum Triangle area would result in additional demands on groundwater supplies. To meet projected water demand, FSEIR No. 339 indicated that the City would drill a new well at a location to be determined and increase the production rate. FSEIR No. 339 concluded that construction of an additional groundwater well in Anaheim would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies due to the location of the new water well in relation to the Orange County Water District Groundwater Basin.
FSEIR No. 339 concluded that impacts related to groundwater supplies would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval.
Erosion or Siltation
The PT Expansion Project would comply with current water quality regulations, including the City’s Grading Ordinance, the Construction General Permit, the County MS4 Permit, the City’s Local Implementation Plan, the Orange County DAMP, and adopted Mitigation Measure 3-2 (incorporated into FSEIR No. 339 from Mitigation Measure 5.5-2 of FSEIR No. 332), which requires the preparation and approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, a SWPPP for projects greater than one acre, and a WQMP. The SWPPP and WQMP would require implementation of construction and operational BMPs, respectively, to reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation to occur. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3-2, impacts would be less than significant.
Flooding from Surface Runoff
FSEIR No. 339 relied on the analysis and conclusions in FSEIR No. 332 for impacts related to flooding, and no further review was performed. The Initial Study and Notice of Preparation for FSEIR No. 339 indicated that the PT Expansion Project involves redevelopment of existing land uses, therefore, would not substantially increase the amount of impervious surface area. It stated that runoff rates are expected to remain approximately the same as under existing conditions. The City of Anaheim Public Works Department and the Orange County Flood Control District would review the design of the drainage system, and design requirements of these two agencies would ensure that runoff is properly conveyed and discharged as appropriate. Therefore, while there would be changes to the existing drainage system, the new improvements would not substantially alter the course of a stream or river. As such, the FSEIR No. 339 determined that impacts are considered less than significant.
Polluted Runoff
The Initial Study and Notice of Preparation for FSEIR No. 339 indicated that although runoff may contain an increased amount of urban pollutants during construction activities, compliance with the established regulations (e.g., the local grading ordinance, the Construction General Permit, and Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 179 September 2024
the County MS4 Permit) would ensure that implementation of PTMLUP would not contribute additional sources of polluted runoff to the storm drain system. Compliance with the Construction General Permit was specified in Mitigation Measure 3-2 (incorporated into FSEIR No. 339 from Mitigation Measure 5.5-2 of FSEIR No. 332) to reduce impacts. The PT Expansion Project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of pollutant runoff.
Therefore, impacts were concluded to be less than significant.
Flooding Hazards
Tsunami and Seiche
Because the Platinum Triangle is approximately 10 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean, features flat topography, and does not contain water bodies that could produce a seiche during a seismic event, impacts associated with the PT Expansion Project related to tsunamis, mudflows, and seiche were considered no impact in the Initial Study for FSEIR No. 339.
Flood Zone
FSEIR No. 339 relied on the analysis and conclusions in FSEIR No. 332 for impacts related to flood flows, and no further review was performed. FSEIR No. 339 identified that the Platinum Triangle is in a Federal Emergency Management Agency flood insurance study area within Zones A99 (a Special Flood Hazard Area) and Zone X. The majority of the PTMLUP area is located in Zone X which lies in a 100-Year to 500-Year Flood Zone with flooding below one foot. However, Mitigation Measure 3-1 (incorporated into FSEIR No. 339 from Mitigation Measure 5.5-1 of FSEIR No. 332) would ensure that potential flooding impacts are less than significant.
5.10.1.2 Addendum No. 11 to FSEIR No. 339
Surface and Groundwater Water Quality
Addendum No. 11 stated that the OCVIBE Project would develop a mix of office, retail, food service, hotel, residential, and entertainment buildings, along with associated parking structures, surface parking, various public parks and urban plazas, landscaping, walkways, and roadways; and the anticipated pollutants of concern for the OCVIBE Project would be typical of urban development that include suspended solids/sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, pathogens (bacteria/virus), pesticides, oil and grease, toxic organic compounds, trash, and debris. A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (P-WQMP) was prepared for the OCVIBE Project (Fuscoe Engineering 2021a), which found that there are no Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) or Areas of Special Biological Significance within the OCVIBE Project Site or within the vicinity; and that low impact development (LID) BMPs are required in addition to site design measures and source controls to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges for the OCVIBE Project, including Hydrologic Source Controls, Infiltration BMPs, Biotreatment BMPs, Treatment Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 180 September 2024
Control BMPs, Nonstructural source control BMPs, and structural source control BMPs.
Addendum No. 11 stated that these various types of BMPs would be implemented to capture and treat stormwater runoff to reduce pollutants of concern before conveying the stormwater to the City’s drainage system to reduce surface and groundwater quality impacts from the OCVIBE Project. Additionally, Addendum No. 11 incorporated Mitigation Measure 3-2 from FSEIR No. 339 to ensure that the OCVIBE Project would not violate any water quality standards or water discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.
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.
Groundwater
Addendum No. 11 stated that the OCVIBE Project Site is already developed and does not represent a substantial groundwater recharging area. The OCVIBE Project would increase the pervious area of the OCVIBE Project Site from 9.2 acres to 17.9 acres and implement LID BMPs that would retain runoff on-site and replenish groundwater where feasible. Additionally, the City’s main source of water supply is from the Orange County Groundwater Basin, and the City has historically relied on approximately 70 percent groundwater and 30 percent imported water from Metropolitan to supply water, and the Water Supply Verification Report prepared for the OCVIBE Project substantiated that the OCVIBE Project would result in a net decrease in water demand compared to the PT Expansion Project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339 (Psomas 2022a). Therefore, Addendum No. 11 determined that the OCVIBE Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. No substantial change from the previous analysis was identified.
Soil Erosion
Addendum No. 11 stated that the OCVIBE Project would decrease the impervious surfaces within the OCVIBE Project boundaries from 90 percent to 81 percent, while largely maintaining the existing drainage patterns. Although erosion or siltation during construction could occur due to exposed soil during construction, the required compliance with existing water quality regulations, including the City’s Grading Ordinance, the Construction General Permit, the County MS4 Permit, the City’s Local Implementation Plan, the Orange County DAMP, and adopted Mitigation Measure 3-2, which require that a SWPPP and WQMP would be implemented to reduce potential erosion and siltation impacts. Additionally, a P-WQMP was prepared for the OCVIBE Project to comply with the requirements of the NPDES Stormwater Program during long-term operation.
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. 339 181 September 2024
Drainage
Addendum No. 11 stated that the OCVIBE Project would decrease the total impervious surface area from 82.5 acres (90 percent) to 73.8 acres (81 percent), therefore, would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff to result in on- or off-site flooding. According to the Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report (Fuscoe 2021b) prepared for the OCVIBE Project, when comparing existing condition discharge results versus proposed condition discharge results for the nine subwatersheds and three frequencies (100-year, 25-year, and 10-year events), some subwatersheds saw increase in discharge and some saw decrease in discharge. When evaluating the nine subwatersheds holistically, there is a slight decrease in total proposed condition discharge for each of the three storm frequencies. Furthermore, as with the FSEIR No. 339, implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.5-3 from FSEIR No. 332 would ensure that adequately sized drainage facilities are installed. Therefore, the Modified Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site. 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.
Flooding Hazards
Tsunami and Seiche
Addendum No. 11 determined that the OCVIBE Project Site is approximately 10 miles inland of the Pacific Ocean, and is not in a special flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone. 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.
Flood Zone
Addendum No. 11 determined that the OCVIBE Project Site is within the Zone X by the Federal Emergency Management Agency flood insurance rate map (FIRM) Nos. 06059C0142J, 06059C0161J, 06059C0134J, and 06059C0153J. Additionally, the OCVIBE Project would not create additional impervious surfaces to impede or redirect flood flows. 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.
Consistency with Water Quality Control or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan
The OCVIBE Project Site is in the Santa Ana River Watershed and is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) (1995; updated June 2019) is the applicable water quality plan Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 182 September 2024
for the OCVIBE Project Site, which designates beneficial uses for all surface and groundwater within its jurisdiction and establishes the water quality objectives and standards necessary to protect those beneficial uses. The OCVIBE Project would comply with the applicable NPDES permits and implement construction and operational BMPs as required by Mitigation Measure 3‐ 2 from FSEIR No. 339 (consistent with Mitigation Measure 5.5-2 from FSEIR No. 332).
Implementation of construction and operational BMPs would reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff so that the OCVIBE Project does not degrade water quality, cause the receiving waters to exceed the water quality objectives, or impair the beneficial use of receiving waters. As such, Addendum No. 11 determined that the OCVIBE Project would not result in water quality impacts that would conflict with the Basin Plan.
The OCVIBE Project Site is within the Coastal Plain of the Orange County Groundwater Basin managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD). California Department of Water Resources designated the Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin (Basin 8-1) as a medium-priority basin, primarily due to heavy reliance on the basin’s groundwater as a source of water supply. The applicable groundwater sustainability plan for the Coastal Plain is the Basin 8-1 Alternative – OCWD Management Area (OCWD 2017). The Basin 8-1 Alternative – OCWD Management Area demonstrates that the groundwater basin has been sustainably managed over the last 10 years and will continue to be the basin with local and imported water. The OCVIBE Project would result in a net decrease in impervious surface areas and would comply with existing regulations to ensure groundwater quality during construction and operation. OCWD manages the groundwater basin to ensure sufficient water supplies are available so that groundwater overdraft does not occur.
Additionally, as substantiated by the Water Supply Verification Report included as Appendix N to Addendum No. 11, the OCVIBE Project would result in a net reduction in water demand compared to the project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. Therefore, the OCVIBE Project would not decrease groundwater supplies or conflict or obstruct implementation of a groundwater management plan.
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. 339 183 September 2024
5.10.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
The analysis in this section is based in part on the following:
• OC Vibe Master Site Plan Area ‘H’ (MSPA) Drainage Report, Fuscoe Engineering, Inc., July 2, 2024 (Appendix E)
• Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (P-WQMP) – Amendment No. 1, ocV!BE – ACC, City of Anaheim, Orange County, Fuscoe Engineering, Inc., April 2024 (date prepared), August 2024 (date revised) (Appendix F) Would the project:
New
Significant
Impact
More Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous
Analysis
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or groundwater quality?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or offsite?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 184 September 2024
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project would result in additional residential dwelling units and a reduction in office uses in the Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2. Although the duration of construction and areas of soil disturbance would increase in these sub-areas, the general construction types and methods would remain similar to those used in the approved OCVIBE Project. The area of ground disturbance and the scale of construction for the elimination of the amphitheater in the Transit Area Sub-Area B are anticipated to be less extensive than the approved OCVIBE Project. As with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 3-2 from FSEIR No. 339 and comply with the requirements of the NPDES permit, Orange County MS4 Permit, the City of Anaheim’s Local Implementation Plan, and the Orange County DAMP to reduce potential water quality impacts to a less than significant level. During construction, a NPDES permit from the State Water Resources Control Board is required, including submittal of a notice of intent and preparation of a SWPPP.
The SWPPP includes BMPs to reduce water quality impacts, including various measures to control on-site erosion; reduce sediment flows into stormwater; control wind erosion; reduce tracking of soil and debris into adjacent roadways and off-site areas; and manage wastes, materials, wastewater, liquids, hazardous materials, stockpiles, equipment, and other site conditions to prevent pollutants from entering the storm drain system. Inspections, reporting, and stormwater sampling and analysis are also required to ensure that visible and nonvisible pollutants are not discharged off-site.
As evaluated in Addendum No. 11, the Modified Project would develop a mix of residential, office, and retail, use, along with associated parking public park spaces, landscaping, walkways, and roadways. The anticipated pollutants of concern for the Project Site would be typical of urban development that include suspended solids/sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, pathogens (bacteria/virus), pesticides, oil and grease, toxic organic compounds, trash, and debris.
A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (P-WQMP) Amendment No. 1 was prepared for the Modified Project and was approved by the City’s Public Works Department on August 28, 2024.
The approved P-WQMP is included in Appendix F, Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, of this Addendum. The P-WQMP Amendment No. 1 covered part of Phase 2 of the overall OCVIBE Project, which encompassed the Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2, where the existing ACC office buildings and surrounding parking lots would be replaced with six residential buildings and surrounding green spaces, including a park at the center of the Project Site. The Project Site is within the boundaries of the approved OCVIBE Project Site, and as stated in Addendum No. 11, there are no ESA or Areas of Special Biological Significance on the Project Site. The P-WQMP indicates that low impact development (LID) BMPs are required in addition to site design measures and source controls to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges. LID BMPs are engineered facilities that are designed to retain or biotreat runoff on the project site. The LID BMPs included for the Modified Project include are Infiltration BMPs, Biotreatment BMPs, Treatment Control BMPs, Nonstructural source control BMPs, and structural source control BMPs as described below.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 185 September 2024
Infiltration BMPs. Infiltration BMPs are LID BMPs that capture, store and infiltrate storm water runoff. These BMPs are engineered to store a specified volume of water and have no design surface discharge (underdrain or outlet structure) until this volume is exceeded. The Modified Project would include two infiltration galleries to treat portions of this project area. For the Drainage Management Area ACC1, three diversion structures (north, south, and west, adjacent to the cartridge media filters) would route low flows to the BMP, while high flows would bypass the system. For the Drainage Management Area ACC2, one diversion structure would route low flows to the BMP, while high flows would bypass the system. The proposed drainage management areas for Arena District SubAreas D1 and D2 are shown on ACC Prelim WQMP Exhibit as part of P-WQMP included as Appendix F to this Addendum. In accordance with the County of Orange Model WQMP (County of Orange 2011) and Technical Guidance Document (County of Orange 2013), the infiltration BMPs would be sized to treat 80 precent capture efficiency of the Design Capture Storm (85th percentile, 24-hour). As condition of approval, additional infiltration testing would be required for the underground infiltration galleries to support the final design.
Biotreatment BMPs. Biotreatment BMPs are a broad class of LID BMPs that reduce storm water volume to the maximum extent practicable, treat storm water using a suite of treatment mechanisms characteristic of biologically active systems, and discharge water to the downstream storm drain system or directly to receiving waters.
The Modified Project would include seven Modular Wetland System units. In accordance with the Model WQMP and TGD, the bioretention/biotreatment BMPs would be sized to treat runoff from the Design Capture Storm (85th percentile, 24-hour). Inflow pipe elevation would be elevated to allow for accumulation of sediment in the pretreatment chamber to prevent blockage at inflow point(s).
Treatment Control BMPs. Treatment control BMPs can only be considered if the project conformance analysis indicates that it is not feasible to retain the full design capture volume with LID BMPs.
Per the City of Anaheim BMP Design Guidelines, pre-treatment is not required for roof, sidewalk, or landscape area runoff with non-erodible conditions. As such, pretreatment will be sized for the street portion only. Landscape pre-treatment would be used to the maximum extent practicable and would be further refined and defined with the project final site plan and construction documents. If landscape areas cannot be used as pretreatment, other pretreatment measures would be incorporated in compliance with the City of Anaheim BMP Design Guidelines for pretreatment implementation hierarchy. Additionally, if other treatment options are proposed in lieu of landscaped areas, with the intent of only providing pretreatment for the street, the Modified Project would bypass areas that do not require pretreatment so that there is no co-mingling of runoff. Appendix A of P-WQMP (included as Appendix F to this Addendum) provides calculations for Cartridge Media Filters for the instance Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 186 September 2024
that utilizing landscape is infeasible. discharge to waters of the US. Sizing of treatment control BMP(s) would be based on the unmet volume after claiming applicable water quality credits.
Nonstructural Source Control BMPs. The following nonstructural source control BMPs would be implemented for the Modified Project.
• ID# N1 – Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants • ID# N2 – Activity Restrictions
• ID# N3 – Common Area Landscape Management
• ID# N11 – Common Area Litter Control
• ID# N12 – Employee Training
• ID# N14 – Common Area Catch Basin Inspection
• ID# N15 – Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots Structural Source Control BMPs. The following nonstructural source control BMPs would be implemented for the Modified Project.
• ID# S1/SD-13 – Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage • ID# S4/SD-12 – Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control
Compliance with the LID BMPs performance criteria of retaining storm water runoff up to 80 percent average annual capture efficiency, and if it is not feasible to meet LID performance criteria, then treatment control BMPs as stated above would ensure that runoff from the Project Site do not result in water quality impacts to receiving waters.
Pursuant to the geotechnical planning study for the Modified Project (refer to Appendix C), groundwater was encountered between 26.6 and 38 feet below ground surface in some of the borings conducted closest to the Santa Ana River. Groundwater levels close to the river fluctuate depending on the presence or absence of water impounded in the riverbed. As described above, the Modified Project would include two infiltration galleries to treat portions of Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2. Infiltration galleries would retain runoff on site and replenish groundwater.
Infiltration testing was conducted to ensure feasibility and is included as part of Appendix F to the P-WQMP (Appendix F to this Addendum). Additional infiltration testing would be required as part of condition of approval to support the final design.
These various types of BMPs would be implemented to capture and treat stormwater runoff to reduce pollutants of concern before conveying the stormwater to the City’s drainage system. As with the approved OCVIBE Project, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3-2 from FSEIR No. 339, the Modified Project would not violate any water quality standards or water discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. The Modified Project would not result Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 187 September 2024
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 substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project Site is fully developed with buildings, surface parking, hardscape, and landscaping associated with existing land uses, therefore, does not represent a substantial groundwater recharging area. Under the approved OCVIBE Project, pervious areas within OCVIBE Project boundaries would increase from 9.2 acres to 17.9 acres, from 10 percent to 19 percent. Development of increased residential units and reduction in office uses would not substantially change the overall imperviousness within the OCVIBE Project boundaries to adversely impact groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.
The City’s main source of water supply is from the Orange County Groundwater Basin, and the City has historically relied on approximately 70 percent groundwater and 30 percent imported water from Metropolitan to supply water. As discussed in Section 5.19.2(b), the Modified Project would result in a net decrease in water demand compared to the PT Expansion Project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. Furthermore, the additional groundwater well discussed in FSEIR No. 339 has been constructed and is in operation. The Well No. 45 (reference W-2524) was constructed off Howell Avenue and Katella Avenue and currently provides groundwater for the City. Therefore, no additional demand to deplete groundwater conditions is anticipated. 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 substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project Site is fully developed with buildings, surface parking, hardscape, and landscaping associated with existing land uses, therefore, does not represent a substantial groundwater recharging area. Under the approved OCVIBE Project, pervious areas within OCVIBE Project boundaries would increase from 9.2 acres to 17.9 acres, from 10 percent to 19 percent. Development of increased residential units and reduction in office uses would not substantially change the overall imperviousness within the OCVIBE Project Site and would not substantially change the approved drainage patterns. Although erosion or siltation during construction could occur due to exposed soil, as with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project would be required to comply with current water quality regulations, including Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 188 September 2024
the City’s Grading Ordinance, the Construction General Permit, the County MS4 Permit, the City’s Local Implementation Plan, the Orange County DAMP, and adopted Mitigation Measure 3-2, which require that a SWPPP and WQMP be prepared and implemented for the Modified Project.
The SWPPP includes BMPs to reduce water quality impacts, including various measures to control on-site erosion; reduce sediment flows into stormwater; control wind erosion; reduce tracking of soil and debris into adjacent roadways and off-site areas; and manage wastes, materials, wastewater, liquids, hazardous materials, stockpiles, equipment, and other site conditions to prevent pollutants from entering the storm drain system. Inspections, reporting, and stormwater sampling and analysis are also required to ensure that visible and nonvisible pollutants are not discharged off-site. Implementation of the provisions of the NPDES permit and compliance with City grading requirements would minimize construction impacts through the implementation of BMPs that reduce construction-related pollutants.
A P-WQMP has been prepared to comply with the requirements of the NPDES Stormwater Program during long-term operation of the Modified Project (refer to Appendix F). The Modified Project would implement operational BMPs as provided in the P-WQMP to ensure that a substantial erosion or siltation impact do not occur on the Project Site. As with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project would comply with the existing regulatory requirements and Mitigation Measure 3-2 to reduce potential erosion or siltation impacts to a less than significant level. 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.
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project Site is fully developed with buildings, surface parking, hardscape, and landscaping associated with existing land uses, therefore, does not represent a substantial groundwater recharging area. Under the approved OCVIBE Project, pervious areas within OCVIBE Project Site would increase from 9.2 acres to 17.9 acres, from 10 percent to 19 percent. Development of increased residential units and reduction in office uses would not substantially change the overall imperviousness within the OCVIBE Project Site and would not substantially change the approved drainage patterns. The approved OCVIBE Project’s Preliminary Hydrology Report (OTH2021-01368) encompassed the entire OCVIBE Project and created nine drainage boundaries which outfall to nine existing outfall facilities (Drainages B through J). The hydrologic evaluation performed for the existing facilities found that implementation of the OCVIBE Project would result in less than significant impacts to existing facilities. Subsequent to the Preliminary Hydrology Report, additional hydrology reports associated with Phase 1 area (Drainages F through I) of the OCVIBE Project to support final design and permitting of drainage construction documents.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 189 September 2024
A Drainage Report has been prepared for Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2 associated with the ACC area (Appendix E, Drainage Report, to this Addendum), which would change the approved hydrology and storm drain design for sub watersheds H and I. Figure 18, Approved Hydrology Map, illustrates the approved sub watershed for the ACC area. Hydrology and storm drain design of adjacent sub watersheds B through G and J would not be impacted by the Modified Project.
Changes to Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2 would alter hydrologic parameters (imperviousness, time of concentrations, routing patterns) and storm drain layout/profiling. Figure 19, Modified Preliminary Storm Drain Plan, illustrates the proposed private and public storm drains, catch basins, underground infiltration gallery, bioretention BMPs, and the area of recompaction where infiltration is not feasible.
As shown in Table 27, Approved OCVIBE Project and Modified Hydrology Comparisons – Sub Watersheds H and I, the changes in Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2 would increase the 25- year and 100-year flow rates by approximately 15 percent in the sub watershed H, and decrease 25-year and 100-year flow rates by 2.9 percent and 3.5 percent, respectively, in the sub watershed I compared to the approved OCVIBE Project. The Drainage Report, which determined that the changes from the Modified Project are acceptable and there are no concerns, was approved by the City’s Public Works Department.
Table 27. Approved OCVIBE Project and Modified Hydrology Comparisons – Sub Watersheds H and I
OCVIBE Project Modified Project Delta
25-year 100-year 25-year 100-year 25-year 100-year
Sub-Area H
Area (acres) 33.4 33.4 33.9 33.9 +0.5 (1.5%) +0.5 (1.5%) Tc (min) 11.78 11.59 12.47 12.07 +0.69 (5.5%) +0.48 (4.0%) Q (cfs) 76.26 98.99 90.01 116.53 +13.75 (15.3%) +17.54 (15%) Sub-Area I
Area (acres) 5.7 5.7 5.0 5.0 -0.7 (-12.3%) -0.7 (-12.3%) Tc (min) 6.65 6.64 6.7 6.7 0.05 (+0.7%) 0.6 (+1.9%)
Q (cfs) 16.32 21.12 15.85 20.38 -0.47 (-2.9%) -0.74 (-3.5%) Source: Fuscoe Engineering 2024.
Notes: cfs = cubic feet per second; min = minute; Q = peak discharge; Tc = time of concentration Therefore, the Modified Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-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.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 190 September 2024
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As discussed in Section 5.10.2(c)(ii), Impacts Associated with the Modified Project, the Modified Project would be adequately served by the existing and planned stormwater drainage system. And as discussed in Section 5.10.2(a) and (c), the Modified Project would incorporate appropriate BMPs during construction and operation to reduce impacts to water quality. Therefore, after compliance with the existing regulatory requirements and implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.3-3 from FSEIR No. 332 and 3-2 FSEIR No. 339, the Modified Project would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or generate additional sources of polluted runoff. 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.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project Site is within the approved OCVIBE Project Site. As discussed in Addendum No. 11, the Project Site is not in a Special Flood Hazard Area (FIRM Nos. 06059C0134J, and 06059C0153J) and the Modified Project would not create additional impervious surfaces to impede or redirect flood flows. 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, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project Site is within the approved OCVIBE Project Site. As discussed in Addendum No. 11, the Modified Project would not be subject to special flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche hazards, risk releasing of pollutants due to project inundation. 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. e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As discussed in Section 5.10.2(a), various structural and nonstructural BMPs would be implemented to ensure that the Modified Project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface- or groundwater quality, or conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 191 September 2024
Implementation of construction and operational BMPs would reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff so that the proposed development would not degrade water quality. The Modified Project would not degrade receiving waters to exceed the water quality objectives or impair the beneficial use of receiving waters. Therefore, as with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project would not result in water quality impacts that would conflict with the RWQCB’s Water Quality Control Plan (the Basin Plan). Furthermore, as substantiated by the Water Supply Verification (Appendix I, Water Supply Verification, to this Addendum), the Modified Project would result in a net reduction in water demand compared to the project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339.
Although the Modified Project would increase overall water demand compared to the approved OCVIBE Project, the water demand would still be less than the PT Expansion Project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339, therefore, would not increase demand for groundwater supplies from that considered in FSEIR No. 339. Based on the foregoing, the Modified Project would not decrease groundwater supplies or conflict or obstruct implementation of a groundwater management plan. 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.
5.10.3 Applicable Mitigation Measures
The following measures from MMP No. 106C, as updated by MMP No. 383 for Addendum No. 11, are applicable to the Modified Project.
MM 3-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the property owner/developer shall submit plans documenting that the design of all aboveground structures (with the exception of parking structures) shall be at least three feet higher that the 100-year flood zone, where applicable, unless otherwise required by the City of Anaheim Engineering Services Division. All structures below this level shall be floodproofed to prevent damage to property or harm to people.
MM 3-2 Prior to the initiation of grading activities, for projects greater than one acre, coverage for the project must be obtained by electronically submitting permit registration documents to the State or obtaining coverage via current general construction permit prescribed method by the property owner/developer pursuant to State and Federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. As part of the NOI, a Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared. The property owner/developer shall also prepare and submit to the Development Services Division of the Public Works Department, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) in accordance with the City’s municipal NPDES requirements and Chapter 7 of the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan. The WQMP must be approved prior to issuance of grading permit. The SWPPP will describe the structural and nonstructural BMPs Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 192 September 2024
that will be implemented during construction (short-term) within the Project Area and the WQMP describes BMPs for long-term operation of the Project Area that address potential impacts to surface waters.
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 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.
IRR MAIN
IRR MAIN
IRR MAIN
IRR MAIN IRR MAIN
IRR MAIN
IRR MAIN
IRR MAIN IRR MAIN IRR MAIN IRR MAIN IRR MAIN
LOT 5
BLDG 5
FF=169.00
BASEMENT=157.00
LOT 1
BLDG 1
FF=170.00
BASEMENT=158.00
LOT 4
BLDG 4
FF=173.00
BASEMENT=161.00
LOT 2
BLDG 2
FF=174.50
BASEMENT=162.50
LOT 3
BLDG 3
FF=178.00
BASEMENT=166.00
LOT F
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
(PRIVATE)
LOT G
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
(PRIVATE)
LOT 6
BLDG 6
FF=169.00
BASEMENT=157.00
LOT B
LOT A
LOT C
CERRITOS AVENUE (PRIVATE)
DOUGLASS ROAD (PRIVATE)
RIVER ROAD (PUBLIC)
SANTA ANA RIVER
R
FULL CI RCLE T HINKING
FUSCOE E NGINEERI NG
OCV!BE Entitlements | June 2024
PTMLUP MIS2020-00751 Amendment No. 1
PRELIMINARY STORM DRAIN PLAN
Source: Fuscoe Engineering 2024.
Path C:\GIS\Projects\City of Anaheim\OCVIBE\Map Docs
Feet
0 100 200 Figure 18
Approved Hydrology Map
Addendum No. 13 to SEIR No. 339 (Amendment No. 1 to OCVIBE Project) N
LOT 5
BLDG 5
FF=169.00
BASEMENT=157.00
LOT 1
BLDG 1
FF=170.00
BASEMENT=158.00
LOT 4
BLDG 4
FF=173.00
BASEMENT=161.00
LOT 2
BLDG 2
FF=174.50
BASEMENT=162.50
LOT 3
BLDG 3
FF=178.00
BASEMENT=166.00
LOT F
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
(PRIVATE)
LOT G
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
(PRIVATE)
LOT B
LOT A
CERRITOS AVENUE (PRIVATE)
RIVER ROAD (PUBLIC)
SANTA ANA RIVER
R
FULL CI RCLE T HINKING
FUSCOE E NGINEERI NG
e 2024
endment No. 1
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 194 September 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
IRR MAIN
IRR MAIN
IRR MAIN
IRR MAIN IRR MAIN
IRR MAIN
IRR MAIN
IRR MAIN IRR MAIN IRR MAIN IRR MAIN IRR MAIN
LOT 5
BLDG 5
FF=169.00
BASEMENT=157.00
LOT 1
BLDG 1
FF=170.00
BASEMENT=158.00
LOT 4
BLDG 4
FF=173.00
BASEMENT=161.00
LOT 2
BLDG 2
FF=174.50
BASEMENT=162.50
LOT 3
BLDG 3
FF=178.00
BASEMENT=166.00
LOT F
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
(PRIVATE)
LOT G
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
(PRIVATE)
LOT 6
BLDG 6
FF=169.00
BASEMENT=157.00
LOT B
LOT A
LOT C
CERRITOS AVENUE (PRIVATE)
DOUGLASS ROAD (PRIVATE)
RIVER ROAD (PUBLIC)
SANTA ANA RIVER
R
FULL CI RCLE T HINKING
FUSCOE E NGINEERI NG
OCV!BE Entitlements | June 2024
PTMLUP MIS2020-00751 Amendment No. 1
PRELIMINARY STORM DRAIN PLAN
Source: Fuscoe Engineering 2024.
Path C:\GIS\Projects\City of Anaheim\OCVIBE\Map Docs
Feet
0 100 200 Figure 19
Modified Preliminary Storm Drain Plan
Addendum No. 13 to SEIR No. 339 (Amendment No. 1 to OCVIBE Project) N
LOT 5
BLDG 5
FF=169.00
BASEMENT=157.00
LOT 1
BLDG 1
FF=170.00
BASEMENT=158.00
LOT 4
BLDG 4
FF=173.00
BASEMENT=161.00
LOT 2
BLDG 2
FF=174.50
BASEMENT=162.50
LOT 3
BLDG 3
FF=178.00
BASEMENT=166.00
LOT F
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
(PRIVATE)
LOT G
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
(PRIVATE)
LOT B
LOT A
CERRITOS AVENUE (PRIVATE)
RIVER ROAD (PUBLIC)
SANTA ANA RIVER
R
FULL CI RCLE T HINKING
FUSCOE E NGINEERI NG
e 2024
endment No. 1
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 196 September 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 197 September 2024
5.11 Land Use and Planning
5.11.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis
5.11.1.1 FSEIR No. 339
Division of an Established Community
The Initial Study for FSEIR No. 332 found that, because the PTMLUP would create its “own unique community with a dynamic mix of industrial, office, retail, and upscale, high-density urban housing” and because it would provide new pedestrian connectivity in the area, it would not divide an existing community. Therefore, impacts were considered no impact and not evaluated further in FSEIR No. 332.
The PT Expansion Project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339 increased allowed development intensities in the Platinum Triangle and expanded the PTMU Overlay Zone but did not involve any physical division of an established community. For this reason, the Initial Study for FSEIR No. 339 found that implementation of the PT Expansion Project would not result in any new impacts related to this issue. The issue was not analyzed further in FSEIR No. 339.
Consistency with Applicable Land Use Plans, Policies, and Regulations The FSEIR No. 339 provided a detailed evaluation of the PT Expansion Project’s consistency with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations. These included policies in the Anaheim General Plan, provisions of the adopted PTMLUP, the area’s existing zoning designations, the SCAG’s Compass Blueprint growth vision principles, and SCAG’s RTP/SCS. FSEIR No. 339 determined that, although the PT Expansion Project required amendments to these documents, it was generally consistent with their provisions.
One exception to the PT Expansion Project’s consistency with applicable land use plans was its inconsistency with the City of Anaheim General Plan’s Public Services and Facilities Element Goal
8.1, which advocates for coordination between the City and private utility providers. High-rise residential towers proposed as part of the A-Town Metro project—allowed under the PT Expansion Project and north of Southern California Gas Company’s existing microwave tower—would potentially interfere with the tower’s telecommunications function. FSEIR No. 339 concluded interference with the operation of SoCal Gas microwave tower to be significant and unavoidable.
Consistency with Applicable Conservation Plans
Because the Platinum Triangle is not within the plan area of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or natural community conservation plan, FSEIR No. 339 also determined that the PT Expansion Project would have no impact on such plans.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 198 September 2024
5.11.1.2 Addendum No. 11 to FSEIR No. 339
Division of an Established Community
Addendum No. 11 stated that the OCVIBE Project expanded the existing PTMLUP boundaries to include three additional parcels in the Southern California Edison easement totaling 7.93 acres north of the railroad tracks that would be used for employee parking. No development intensities were assigned to the employee parking (Arena District Sub-Area A), and it was determined that it would expand the unique community of the PTMLUP. 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.
Consistency with Applicable Land Use Plans, Policies, and Regulations Addendum No. 11 determined that the OCVIBE Project would not conflict with the City’s General Plan because it would not change the overall intent of the Platinum Triangle, and the overall land use intensities within the OCVIBE Project Site would not be greater than those analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. Addendum No. 11 also provided consistency analysis for each of the goals in the 2020– 2045 RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal), demonstrating that the OCVIBE Project would not result in substantial changes from the approved PTMLUP to result in greater impacts than already analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. 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.
5.11.2 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. Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project physically divide an established community? No Substantial Changes from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project would affect Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2 and Transit District Sub-Area B of the OCVIBE Master Site Plan. These areas are already within the OCVIBE Master Site Plan boundaries and the PTMLUP boundaries. The proposed demolition of ACC buildings and development of residential and office land uses are Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 199 September 2024
consistent with the existing PTMU Overlay Zone. Therefore, the Modified Project would not physically divide an established community, and 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 cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
No Substantial Changes from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project includes amendments to the City’s General Plan, PTMLUP, OCVIBE Master Site Plan, and Municipal Code, and except as requested under the Modified Project, development within the OCVIBE would be required to adhere to these existing plans. As discussed throughout the Addendum, the changes would not cause significant environmental impacts compared to the approved OCVIBE Project analyzed in Addendum No. 11. The Modified Project would not change the overall intent of the Platinum Triangle, as the proposed changes would increase high-density urban housing within the OCVIBE boundaries, concentrating growth within TPA, and maintain the overall mixed-use development character of the Platinum Triangle. The Modified Project would transfer office use development intensities within the existing Arena District to accommodate the proposed residential dwelling units. The total residential and non-residential land use intensities within the Platinum Triangle would not be greater than those analyzed in FSEIR No. 339, as discussed throughout this Addendum. Therefore, the Modified Project would not cause a significant environmental impact that were not analyzed in FSEIR No. 339.
SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the 2024–2050 RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal 2024) in April 2024. Connect SoCal 2024 is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. As described in Table 28, SCAG’s Connect SoCal 2024 Consistency Analysis, the Modified Project would not result in substantial changes from the approved OCVIBE Project to result in greater impacts than already analyzed in FSEIR No. 339 and its Addenda, including Addendum No. 11. No substantial change from the previous analysis would occur.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 200 September 2024
Table 28. SCAG’s Connect SoCal 2024 Consistency Analysis Goals Consistency Analysis
Mobility: Build and maintain an integrated multimodal transportation network Support investments that are wellmaintained and operated, coordinated, resilient and result in
improved safety, improved air
quality and minimized greenhouse
gas emissions.
Consistent: The Modified Project would not result in substantial changes to the approved roadway, bikeways, and pedestrian improvements that connect to the existing roadway and bikeways in Anaheim. 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.
The Modified Project would place more housing products compared to the approved OCVIBE Project in TPA and HQTA defined by the 2024-2050 RTP/SCS and proximity to various commercial/retail, office, and entertainment uses so that VMT can be minimized. Therefore, as with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project would provide mixed-use development that are well-maintained and operated, coordinated, resilient, and result in improved safety, air quality, and minimize GHG emissions.
Ensure that reliable, accessible,
affordable and appealing travel
options are readily available, while
striving to enhance equity in the
offerings in high-need communities.
Consistent: The Modified Project would result in minor land use changes within the approved OCVIBE Project by providing additional housing in Arena District Sub-Area D2 and eliminating an outdoor amphitheater in Transit District Sub-Area B, which is in TPA and HQTA. The Modified Project would continue to provide the Rideshare Program and A mobility hub with waiting areas, bikeshare, and other mobility features would be provided as an amenity in Building 5 in Area District Sub-Area D2.
Furthermore, the Modified Project would not result in substantial changes to the approved roadway, bikeways, and pedestrian improvements that connect to the existing roadway and bikeways in Anaheim. 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. As with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project would continue to provide reliable, accessible, affordable, and appealing travel options.
Support planning for people of all
ages, abilities and backgrounds.
Consistent: The Modified Project would result in minor land use changes within the approved OCVIBE Project by providing additional housing in Arena District Sub-Area D2 and eliminating an outdoor amphitheater in Transit District Sub-Area B. The Modified Project would continue to provide the Rideshare Program and a designated pick-up and drop-off location for residents and visitors to the residential community and the Neighborhood Park. A mobility hub with waiting areas, bikeshare, and other mobility features would be provided as an amenity in Building 5 in Area District SubArea D2. Therefore, the Modified Project would continue to support planning for people of all ages, abilities, and backgrounds.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 201 September 2024
Table 28. SCAG’s Connect SoCal 2024 Consistency Analysis Goals Consistency Analysis
Communities: Develop, connect and sustain livable and thriving communities Create human-centered
communities in urban, suburban
and rural settings to increase
mobility options and reduce travel
distances
Consistent: As described above under the Mobility consistency analysis, the Modified Project would result in minor land use changes within the approved OCVIBE Project by providing additional housing in Arena District Sub-Area D2 and eliminating an outdoor amphitheater in Transit District Sub-Area B, which is in TPA and HQTA. Increase number of housing units in proximity to various commercial/retail, office, entertainment, and open space uses would minimize VMT. Additionally, the Modified Project would provide the Rideshare Program and a designated pick-up and drop-off location for residents and visitors to the residential community and the Neighborhood Park. A mobility hub with waiting areas, bikeshare, and other mobility features would also be provided as an amenity in Building 5 in Area District Sub-Area D2. Therefore, the Modified Project is consistent with the goal of creating human-centered communities in urban settings to increase mobility options and reduce travel distances.
Produce and preserve diverse
housing types in an effort to
improve affordability, accessibility
and opportunities for all households
Consistent: The Modified Project includes development of additional dwelling units in the TPA, which is an area within 0.5 mile of an existing or planned major transit stop.
The Project Site is also within a HQTA defined by the 2024–2050 RTP/SCS. The Modified Project would provide additional 460 units to 750 units within the Arena District Sub-Area D2, totaling a range of 1,960 dwelling units to 2,250 dwelling units.
The Modified Project would also include affordable units with the option to develop them on site or on a nearby off-site location in accordance with the terms of the amended DAG2020-00004. Development of additional housing within OCVIBE Project Site and offsite location would support the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation goals. Therefore, as with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project would be consistent with this goal of producing and preserving housing types in an effort to improve affordability, accessibility and opportunities for all households.
Environment: Create a healthy region for the people of today and tomorrow Develop communities that are
resilient and can mitigate, adapt to
and respond to chronic and acute
stresses and disruptions, such as
climate change
Consistent: FSEIR No. 339 determined that the PT Expansion Project would result in significant and unavoidable short-term and long-term air quality impacts even with incorporation of mitigation measures. FSEIR No. 339 also found GHG emissions impact to be significant and unavoidable. However, as with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project would be consistent with the Connect SoCal 2024–2050 RTP/SCS vision to concentrate growth within TPA and would result in reduced vehicle trips and VMT compared to the PT Expansion Project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. The Modified Project would provide needed housing development in a jobs-rich city and would help fulfill the City’s RHNA allocation within a TPA. Therefore, although the Modified Project would not reduce the significant and unavoidable GHG emissions and air quality impacts identified in FSEIR No. 339 to less than significant, the proximity to ARTIC, provision of Ridesharing Program and mobility hub, and provision of interconnected bike paths and pedestrian walkways would be consistent with the goal of reducing GHG emissions and improve air quality through active transportation network. Therefore, the Modified Project is consistent with developing a community that is resilient and can mitigate, adapt to, and respond to climate change.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 202 September 2024
Table 28. SCAG’s Connect SoCal 2024 Consistency Analysis Goals Consistency Analysis
Integrate the region’s development
pattern and transportation network
to improve air quality, reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and
enable more sustainable use of
energy and water.
Consistent: The Modified Project would place more housing products compared to the approved OCVIBE Project in TPA and HQTA defined by the 2024-2050 RTP/SCS and proximity to various commercial/retail, office, and entertainment uses so that VMT can be minimized. Furthermore, as discussed in the Addendum Section 5.14, Population and Housing, the Modified Project would improve the jobs and housing ratio in the Platinum Triangle from 2.00 under the approved OCVIBE Project condition to a range of 1.85 to 1.96 with the Modified Project condition under different development Options.
Recommended jobs-housing ratio by SCAG is between 1.3 and 1.7, and the City of Anaheim needs more housing development to meet the City’s RHNA allocation for 2021–2029 of 17,453 units. Development of additional 460 units to 750 units would contribute to improving the job-housing balance in the City. Therefore, the Modified Project would have a beneficial impact on the City’s jobs/housing ratio and minimize VMT to reduce GHG emissions impact. As discussed in Section 5.8.2, the Modified Project would result in a decreased average annual GHG emissions compared to the approved OCVIBE Project. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 5.6.2, the Modified Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources nor conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency with implementation of FSEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 2-6, 9-1, 9-2, and 10-21 through 10-24. As discussed in Section 5.19.2, the Modified Project would also result in less water impacts compared to the project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339 and comply with 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; and Chapter 4, Residential Mandatory Measures, Division 4.3, Water Efficiency and Conservation and incorporate FSEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 10-9 through 13, which would ensure sustainable use of water within the Project Site.
Therefore, the Modified Project would utilize the existing transportation network to improve air quality, reduce GHG emissions, and enable more sustainable use of energy and water, and would not conflict with this goal to create new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in FSEIR No. 339.
Conserve the region’s resources Consistent: As discussed throughout this Addendum, the Modified Project would not result in new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts to any of the environmental topic areas compared to the PT Expansion Project as analyzed in FSEIR No. 339 and the approved OCVIBE Project analyzed in Addendum No. 11. Therefore, the Modified Project would not conflict with this goal of conserving the region’s resources compared to the PT Expansion Project and the approved OCVIBE Project.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 203 September 2024
Table 28. SCAG’s Connect SoCal 2024 Consistency Analysis Goals Consistency Analysis
Economy: Support a sustainable, efficient and productive regional economic environment that provides opportunities for all people in the region
Improve access to jobs and
educational resources
Consistent: The Project Site is in the Priority Development Areas (PDAs) mapped by the Connect SoCal 2024. PDAs in Connect SoCal 2024 include Neighborhood Mobility Areas (NMAs), Transit Priority Areas (TPAs), Livable Corridors, and Spheres of Influence (SOIs) (in unincorporated areas only). Majority of OCVIBE Project Site is within TPAs, including the Transit District Sub-Area B and a portion of Arena District Sub-Area D2. TPAs are areas within 0.5 mile of existing or planned major transit stops in the region. Arena District Sub-Area D2 is in the Livable Corridors. Livable Corridors are areas where local jurisdictions can plan and zone for increased density along key corridors, where network is developed utilizing past plans like HQTAs. The HQTAs is within 0.5 mile of a well-serviced transit stop or a transit corridor with 15-minute or less service frequency during peak commute hours pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21064.3. Addendum No. 11 indicated that the OCVIBE Project Site is in the TPA because ARTIC is within the boundaries of the OCVIBE Project and the majority of the OCVIBE Project Site is within the TPA. The Modified Project would not change the location of the residential development within the OCVIBE Project boundaries, which is within Arena District Sub-Area D2. The Modified Project’s increased development density within Arena District Sub-Area D2 would result in more compact development within proximity to transit, thereby improving access to jobs and educational resources for more people compared to the approved OCVIBE Project.
Advance a resilient and efficient
goods movement system that
supports the economic vitality of the
region, attainment of clean air and
quality of life for our communities.
Not Applicable: The Modified Project would not change the overall backbone movement system of the approved OCVIBE Project. The Modified Project would modify roadway improvements within the Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2 to accommodate additional residential development and remove the proposed pedestrian bridge from Parking Deck C across South Douglass Road. 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. Therefore, the Modified Project would not impact the resilient and efficient goods movement system that supports the economic vitality of the region, attainment of clean air and quality of life for communities in the region.
Source: SCAG 2024.
Notes: ARTIC = Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center; GHG = greenhouse gas; HQTA = High Quality Transit Area; RHNA = Regional Housing Needs Assessment; RTP/SCS = Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy; TPA = Transit Priority Area; VMT = vehicle miles traveled
5.11.3 Applicable Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to land use and planning were required by the previous analysis.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 204 September 2024
5.12 Mineral Resources
5.12.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis
5.12.1.1 FSEIR No. 339
The Initial Study for FSEIR No. 339 reaffirmed conclusions found in previous CEQA documentation for the Platinum Triangle: it determined that the Platinum Triangle area did not contain any known mineral resources and that it was not identified on Figure G-3, Mineral Resource Map, of the General Plan as a regionally significant aggregate resource area. Based on this information, the Initial Study determined that the PT Expansion Project would not result in a loss of availability of known locally or regionally important mineral resources. Impacts to mineral resources were determined to be no impact, and the topic was not discussed further in FSEIR No. 339.
5.12.1.2 Addendum No. 11 to FSEIR No. 339
Addendum No. 11 stated that there are no known mineral resources and no known locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site within the OCVIBE Project Site. 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.
5.12.2 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. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Substantial Changes from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project would affect Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2 and Transit District Sub-Area B of the OCVIBE Project. These areas are already within the OCVIBE MSP boundaries and the PTMLUP boundaries. FSEIR No. 339 and Addendum No. 11 determined that no significant impacts would occur within the boundaries of Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 205 September 2024
PTMLUP related to known mineral resources. Therefore, consistent with the previous 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.
b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Substantial Changes from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project would affect Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2 and Transit District Sub-Area B of the OCVIBE Project. These areas are already within the OCVIBE Project Site and the PTMLUP boundaries. FSEIR No. 339 and Addendum No. 11 determined that no significant impacts would occur within the boundaries of PTMLUP related to the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site.
Therefore, consistent with the previous 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.
5.12.3 Applicable Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to mineral resources were required by the previous analysis.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 206 September 2024
5.13 Noise
5.13.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis
5.13.1.1 FSEIR No. 339
Implementation of the PT Expansion Project was determined to generate noise primarily associated with vehicular trips. Traffic noise modeling was based on average daily traffic volumes on roadway segments for PT Expansion Project buildout year conditions. Based on the local noise criteria as established in the City of Anaheim General Plan and Municipal Code, FSEIR No. 339 used a significance threshold of a 5 dBA increase in an ambient noise environment of less than 65 dBA CNEL or 3 dBA noise increase in an ambient noise environment of 65 dBA CNEL or more and identified significant noise increases along area roadway segments.
Mitigation Measure 5-1 was identified to reduce impacts related to permanent increases in traffic noise levels to the extent feasible. However, it was determined that some areas may experience noise levels in exceedance of the City’s Noise Ordinance prior to implementation of roadway improvements and associated noise attenuation. Consequently, ambient traffic noise impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable.
Stationary Source Noise
FSEIR No. 339 evaluated the potential for the PT Expansion Project to result in new stationary noise impacts from heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, on-site recreation, and truck deliveries and idling, as summarized below.
Heating, Ventilation, and Air Condition Systems
Noise generated by the residential, commercial, retail, and office land uses under the PT Expansion Project would result in typical noise associated with operation of HVAC systems. HVAC units for new residential, commercial, retail, and office uses are required to be constructed to comply with the AMC, Section 6.70, so that noise levels are not intrusive to noise-sensitive uses. It states that no one can create sounds that radiate from a property for extended periods and exceed 60 decibels at any point on the property line. As a result, noise impacts from these sources associated with the PT Expansion Project were determined to be less than significant.
On-Site Recreation
New recreational uses under the PT Expansion Project would generally consist of passive recreational amenities such as open lawns, piazzas, barbeque areas, and children’s play areas.
Noise generated at the proposed pocket parks would be primarily from voices. Noise levels from 10 people shouting at a given recreational facility were estimated to be 65 dBA Leq at 100 feet.
Because all roadways modeled in the Platinum Triangle were calculated to generate substantially greater noise levels and use of the recreational areas is typically restricted to daytime hours, noise Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 207 September 2024
generated by on-site recreational facilities were determined not to generate substantial levels of stationary source noise at existing noise-sensitive receptors. As a result, noise impacts from these sources associated with the PT Expansion Project were determined to be less than significant.
Truck Deliveries and Idling
Commercial land use designations in the Platinum Triangle were anticipated to involve retail truck deliveries. Noise from truck loading/unloading activities would be primarily from the backup warning bells and truck engine noise when backing up to the truck bays of the retail building.
Stationary equipment would be required to adhere to the City of Anaheim Noise Ordinance. A non-moving truck, such as an idling vehicle, is considered to be a stationary source of noise generation. Under the City’s Municipal Code, Section 18.20.160, commercial uses within the PTMU Overlay Zone are required to be designed and operated, and hours of operation limited, so that neighboring residents are not exposed to offensive noise, especially from traffic, trash collection, routine deliveries, or late-night activity. In addition, continual loading or unloading of heavy trucks at commercial sites within the PTMU Overlay Zone is prohibited between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Furthermore, all commercial trucks are prohibited from idling longer than 5 minutes under CARB’s In-Use Idling Airborne Toxics Control Measure Rule 2485.
Therefore, noise impacts from truck deliveries and idling associated with the PT Expansion Project were determined to result in a less than significant impact to noise-sensitive uses.
Impacts to Residential Uses
FSEIR No. 339 determined that existing stationary and mobile sources would result in potentially significant impacts to noise-sensitive residential units proposed in the Platinum Triangle.
Specifically, major area roadways, industrial operations within 158 feet, at-grade railroad crossings within 951 feet, other railroad operations within 765 feet, and public transit operations at the ARTIC within 350 feet of sensitive uses would have the potential to generate noise levels that exceed 65 dBA CNEL, the maximum of the Normally Acceptable CNEL range for multi-family residential land uses as identified in the General Plan. Additionally, single-noise events, such as train horns and stadium/event noise have the potential to exceed the Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise Sound Exposure Level (SEL) of 81 dBA SEL, identified in FSEIR No. 339 as a standard for Supplemental Noise Criteria relevant to single-noise events. Recognizing also that the Platinum Triangle is an existing highly urbanized area, subject to a myriad of noise sources including Angel Stadium of Anaheim, Honda Center, The Grove of Anaheim, the Metrolink/Amtrak, light industrial land uses, distribution facilitates, hotels, offices, restaurants, and supporting retail, in addition to new residential communities impacts to noise-sensitive residential units from mobile and stationary sources were determined to be significant and unavoidable.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 208 September 2024
Transportation Source Noise
FSEIR No. 339 found that noise from roadways within the Platinum Triangle can exceed 65 dBA CNEL, resulting in noise levels that exceed the City’s conditionally acceptable noise compatibility criterion for noise-sensitive residential uses. Noise from SR-57, I-5, and the Orange County Line also contributes to the exterior noise environment. FSEIR No. 339 concluded that any siting of sensitive land uses within the vicinity of major arterials and freeways represents a potentially significant impact and would require a separate noise study to determine compatibility with the exterior noise environment. This impact was found to be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of Mitigation Measures 5-1 through 5-4.
Adjacent Industrial Source Noise
FSEIR No. 339 found that residences within the Platinum Triangle could be exposed to stationary source noise from activities conducted at the adjacent industrial areas. Noise from industrial uses could occur during the nighttime hours when residences are most sensitive to extraneous noise sources. FSEIR No. 339 determined that the PT Expansion Project would increase residential density within the City that may be developed in proximity or adjacent to industrial or entertainment uses, and this impact to be significant and unavoidable.
Railroad Noise
FSEIR No. 339 stated that placement of project-related noise-sensitive receptors in the vicinity of Orange County Line or major rail transportation centers such as ARTIC, could expose noisesensitive receptors to substantial levels of noise from train activities. FSEIR No. 339 analyzed railroad noise impact by modeling railroad noise levels on the Orange County Line, which predicted that the 65 dBA Ldn noise contour would fall at a distance of approximately 951 feet from the centerline of the tracks when the horn is sounded, which is a quarter mile from the grade crossing. When there are no at-grade railroad crossings the 65 Ldn noise contour would be 765 feet from the centerline of the railroad tracks. Actual distances to these contours could be shorter where topography or structures block the line of sight to the rails. FSEIR No. 339 concluded that residential developments within 65 dBA Ldn noise contour with outdoor noise-sensitive areas (e.g., ground floor patios and recreation areas) would exceed the City’s normally acceptable noise compatibility criterion, and significant railroad noise impact would occur. Mitigation Measures 5- 2 and 5-4 were incorporated to reduce potential impacts but impacts were found to remain significant and unavoidable.
Stadium/Event Noise
FSEIR No. 339 found placement of noise-sensitive land uses within the vicinity of Angel Stadium of Anaheim would expose residents to temporary increases in ambient noise environment during a stadium event. During a game day, cheering, PA systems, and fireworks (when the Angels have a home run) would be audible at residential areas surrounding the stadium. These events typically Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 209 September 2024
occur in the evening hours and could last past 10:00 p.m., which is considered the noise-sensitive portion of the night, resulting in nighttime awakenings for future residents. FSEIR No. 339 stated that typical noise levels within the stadium during a sporting event, a source of single-event noise, range from 94 dBA to 114 dBA for spectators within the stadium, while fireworks shows are 150 dBA as measured at a distance of 10 feet. FSEIR No. 339 used the Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise report related to the proportions of people awakened by noise events at different SEL as a significance threshold for the single-event noise (FICAN 1997). As some populations are more sensitive to noise events, the threshold for awakening typically used for airport analysis assumes a significant impact if 10 percent of the population is awakened by a loud event. Based on the Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise study, the interior noise level at which 10 percent of a population would be awakened is 81 dBA SEL or greater. For interior noise levels to exceed 81 dBA SEL, the exterior noise level would have to exceed 105 dBA SEL (based on standard construction). Therefore, development of sensitive land uses within the vicinity of the stadium would expose sensitive receptors to interior noise levels of 81 dBA SEL, Therefore, a potentially significant impact was identified for the future development of residences in the Project Area. Mitigation Measures 5-2, 5-3, and 5-4 from FSEIR No. 339 were identified to reduce impacts. However, because exterior noise environments would potentially still exceed the goals for noise compatibility established by the City and require project-specific evaluation of individual project compatibility, and this impact remained significant and unavoidable.
Ambient Interior Noise Impact
Interior noise impacts were considered significant if the PT Expansion Project would place sensitive receptors in a noise environment that exceeds the land use noise compatibility criteria or interior ambient noise standards of the CBC of 45 dBA CNEL. Noise-sensitive portions of the Project Site for the purposes of the interior analysis included the interior of hotel, office and medical buildings, and residential units. Commercial, retail, and other ancillary uses were not considered noise-sensitive uses for ambient interior noise levels.
FSEIR No. 339 determined that building facades that are exposed to noise levels that exceed 69 dBA would require architectural improvements beyond standard building materials which can provide a 24 dBA sound attenuation (SAE 1971) to achieve the required 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level limits. Developments adjacent to the major arterials, freeways, railroads, and industrial land uses would have the potential to be exposed to noise in excess of 69 dBA CNEL. Therefore, siting of sensitive land uses within the vicinity of major arterials, freeways, railroads, or industrial uses that would result in building facades being exposed to noise levels that exceed 69 dBA would represent a potentially significant interior noise impact. Mitigation Measures 5-2, 5-3, and 5-4 were identified to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 210 September 2024
Airport Noise
The Initial Study/Notice of Preparation prepared for FSEIR No. 339 stated that the PTMLUP area is not within an airport land use plan, therefore, future residents and people working in the Project Area would not be exposed to excessive noise levels from these types of operations. FSEIR No. 339 determined no impact related to airport noise.
Heliport Noise
The Initial Study/Notice of Preparation prepared for FSEIR No. 339 stated that there are two heliports in the vicinity of PTMLUP, the North Net Training Facility and UC Irvine Medical Center., and that the Anaheim Police Department also uses the parking lot at the Angel Stadium of Anaheim for helicopter training exercises. No private airstrips were identified within the City.
The Initial Study/Notice of Preparation concluded that while the Proposed Project would place more people to the heliport noise, the noise would not increase as a result of the Project. The FSEIR No. 339 determined that the conclusion of FSEIR No. 332 remains valid, and impacts would be less than significant.
Vibration Impact
Groundborne vibration would be generated by the PT Expansion Project during construction activities, primarily during the demolition, grading, and foundation phases. Vibration impacts related to annoyance and structural damage were evaluated.
Vibration Annoyance
Vibration is typically not perceptible in outdoor environments but sensed at nearby structures when objects within the structure generate noise from the vibration, such as rattling windows or picture frames. Construction of individual land uses over the entire Platinum Triangle was anticipated to occur over a period of approximately 20 years, with overlap in construction of individual development projects. Levels of vibration produced by construction equipment were evaluated against the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) significance threshold for vibration annoyance of 78 vibration decibels (VdB) for barely perceptible levels of vibration during the daytime.
Vibration would primarily occur during grading and foundation phases of construction.
Construction activities would be restricted to daytime hours when people are the least sensitive to noise intrusions. While the majority of heavy construction equipment would not be in operation exactly at the property line, residences within and surrounding the construction area would be exposed to construction-related vibration during development. Because heavy construction equipment has the potential to generate levels of vibration in excess of 78 VdB, it was determined that PT Expansion Project construction would cause potentially significant annoyance at vibrationsensitive residences.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 211 September 2024
Mitigation Measure 5-5 was identified to reduce vibration impacts related to project construction.
However, because Mitigation Measure 5-5 would reduce vibration impacts from pile driving but would not eliminate vibration generated by heavy construction equipment operating within proximity to residences, vibration annoyance was determined to be significant and unavoidable.
Vibration-Induced Structural Damage
In addition to vibration-induced annoyance, PT Expansion Project-related construction vibration was evaluated for its potential to cause structural damage in comparison to the FTA’s structural damage criteria of 0.2 inch per second, which is the threshold at which there is a risk of architectural damage to normal houses with plastered walls and ceilings. Only construction equipment generating extremely high levels of vibration, such as pile drivers within 12 feet of existing buildings, has the potential for vibration-induced structural damage. The PT Expansion Project determined that construction of buildings taller than 12 stories may require use of an impact pile driver, which would potentially generate substantial levels of vibration that could result in structural damage. Construction activities related to buildout of the PT Expansion Project were determined to result in potentially significant vibration levels exceeding the FTA’s criteria for vibration-induced structural damage at nearby residences.
Mitigation Measure 5-5 was identified to reduce vibration impacts related to project construction and requires the construction contractor to evaluate the feasibility of using auger cast piles or a similar system to drill holes to construct cast-in-place piles for a pile-supported transfer slab foundation system to reduce noise from impact pile drivers. However, as stated under Vibration Annoyance subheading, Mitigation Measure 5-5 would reduce vibration impacts, but not to a less than significant level. Therefore, this impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable.
Vibration from Transportation Activities
Implementation of the PT Expansion Project could potentially expose people to the impacts of groundborne vibration or noise levels from transportation and industrial activities. It was determined that no significant impacts related to on-road mobile-source vibration impacts were anticipated to occur because no vibration-sensitive structures would be sited within approximately 15 feet (5 meters) from the centerline of the nearest lane of I-5 or SR-57. However, new vibrationsensitive land uses, specifically residential land uses, would potentially be exposed to groundborne vibration from train operations along the Orange County Line if they would be within 200 feet of the railroad line. Mitigation Measure 5-6 was identified to reduce train vibration exposure. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts from the Orange County Line was determined to be less than significant.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 212 September 2024
Construction Noise
Short-term noise impacts are impacts associated with site preparation, grading, and building construction of the proposed land uses. Construction of individual land uses under the PT Expansion Project were anticipated to occur over a period of approximately 20 years in the 820- acre area. Two types of short-term noise impacts were identified during construction: (1) incremental increase in noise levels along local access roads and (2) noise generated at the job site during demolition, site preparation, grading, and physical construction.
Regarding an incremental increase in noise levels along local roads, impacts related to the transport of workers and equipment to the construction site were determined to be less than significant because typical construction traffic is small in relation to the total daily traffic volumes on surrounding roadway segments. Additionally, the truck trips would be spread throughout the workday and would primarily occur during nonpeak traffic periods. Haul operations could generate a high number of daily truck trips that would occur throughout the entire workday. However, a doubling of traffic volumes is necessary to increase noise by 3 dB or more. Similar to material delivery trucks, the number of soil haul trips would be small relative to the total daily traffic volumes on the surrounding roadways. Mitigation Measure 5-10 from FSEIR No. 339, also restricts material delivery, soil haul trucks, and equipment servicing to the hours set forth in the AMC, Section 6.70. Haul trucks would not cause a substantial increase in the ambient noise levels along the roadways. Therefore, soil haul operations were determined to not result in potential significant noise impacts along the designated haul routes.
The other type of short-term noise impact evaluated in FSEIR No. 339 was related to construction equipment use during demolition, site preparation, grading, and physical construction. Construction of individual developments associated with buildout of the PT Expansion Project were anticipated to temporarily increase the ambient noise environment from 77 to 89 dBA Leq at 50 feet from construction activity based on the reference noise levels and previous construction analysis. Pile driving was anticipated for taller building, which can generate extremely high levels of noise.
According to AMC Section 6.70, construction activities are restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays, and nighttime noise exposure would not occur. However, based on the 89 dBA Leq value and assuming that construction would occur for 8 hours per day, construction impacts would result in temporary exceedances of the ambient noise compatibility standard of 65 dBA CNEL up to 446 feet from the construction site, and impacts were determined to be significant. Mitigation Measures 5-7, 5-8, 5-9, and 5-10 were identified to reduce construction noise exposure to the extent feasible. Construction noise impacts would be temporary because they would only occur when construction activities are occurring and would cease by evening. However, due to the proximity of occupied units in the Platinum Triangle to construction activities and the potential overlap in the construction schedule from individual development projects constructed in the Platinum Triangle, therefore, this impact was determined to remain significant and unavoidable.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 213 September 2024
5.13.1.2 Addendum No. 11 to FSEIR No. 339
Increase in Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient Traffic Noise
Addendum No. 11 determined that the OCVIBE Project would not result in a discernable increase in noise levels compared to the FSEIR No. 339 on any roadway segment. However, impacts identified in FSEIR No. 339 would continue to occur, and Mitigation Measure 5-1, which requires a qualified acoustical engineer to design project acoustical features that will limit traffic noise at noise-sensitive uses to levels that are below the City’s noise ordinance, would still be required. As with FSEIR No. 339, Addendum No. 11 concluded that this impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Stationary Source Noise
HVAC units for the OCVIBE Project would be required to be constructed to meet the AMC Section 6.70, which restricts noise levels to 60 dBA Leq, so that noise levels are not intrusive to noise-sensitive uses. Noise levels from increased activity in the OCVIBE Project’s open spaces would not generate substantial noise levels, particularly in comparison to existing ambient traffic noise levels. Noise levels from truck unloading and loading activities at commercial and hotel uses would be minimal due to shielding from the interior of the building after the truck is docked, and AMC and PTMU Overlay Zone requirements for operation considerations to limit nuisance noise.
As a result, noise impacts from these sources were determined to be less than significant.
Impacts to Noise-Sensitive Uses and Ambient Interior Noise Addendum No. 11 determined impacts to new and existing residences and hotels from roadway noise, ARTIC operations, Angel Stadium, and the proposed outdoor amphitheater to be potentially significant. FSEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 5-2 and 5-3 were incorporated and were expanded to include hotel rooms. Impacts to existing receptors from vehicle noise would be significant and unavoidable. The OCVIBE Project would not expose existing or new sensitive receptors to significant industrial or railroad noise; however, new offices would have the potential to be exposed to incompatible noise levels from railroad operation. FSEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measure 5-4 related to railroad noise was included in Addendum No. 11.
Construction Noise
The OCVIBE Project would require construction activities including demolition, grading, building constructions, and finishing and landscaping. Typical construction equipment would be required.
Typical worker and equipment transport trips were anticipated and determined to result in a relatively small increase in vehicle trips during construction. A maximum of 121 trucks trips per day was anticipated during any phase of construction, which was determined to not result in a significant increase in noise levels on any area roadway. However, operation of construction Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 214 September 2024
equipment was determined to have the potential to result in temporary exceedances of the ambient noise compatibility standard of 65 dBA CNEL up to 446 feet from the construction site. FSEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 5-7, 5-8, 5-9, and 5-10 would be required for the OCVIBE Project to reduce impacts to the extent feasible. If pile driving would be required during construction, implementation of Mitigation Measure 5-5 would also be required. However, due to the proximity of existing residences to off-site construction, this impact was determined to be potentially significant and unavoidable.
Groundborne Vibration
Construction of the OCVIBE Project was estimated to occur throughout the OCVIBE Project Site for five phases over approximately 10 years. Construction activities would include demolition, grading, building construction, and finishing and landscaping. Typical construction equipment would be used, and no pile driving would be required for construction. The construction equipment required for OCVIBE Project construction that could generate the highest vibration levels was determined to be a vibratory roller. Vibratory rollers generate typical vibration levels of 94 VdB, or 0.210 inch per second at 25 feet. Equipment would have the potential to exceed the vibration annoyance threshold of 78 VdB up to 85 VdB from construction, and the vibration damage threshold of 0.210 inch per second up to 26 feet from construction. The existing entertainment, retail, and office uses on the OCVIBE Project Site to remain after construction are not vibration sensitive. No existing off-site residences are within 85 feet of the OCVIBE Project Site; therefore, on-site construction was determined to not result in vibration that would result in a significant annoyance or potentially cause building damage. However, groundborne vibration from the offsite improvement to widen the SR-57 southbound off-ramp at Ball Road could result in significant annoyance to existing residences on South Hilda Street. This temporary impact was determined to be potentially significant and unavoidable. If pile driving would ultimately be required, pile driving during construction would be subject to FSEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measure 5-5.
The OCVIBE Project did not include any new vibration-sensitive uses within 200 feet of the Orange County Line, which was the screening distance for vibration impacts from railroad operations. Land uses within 200 feet of the railroad line would include the existing ARTIC and new parking, which are not vibration sensitive. However, new residential uses in Arena District Sub-Area D2 would be located approximately 65 feet and would have the potential to be exposed to significant vibration from the BNSF Railway/UPRR. FSEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measure 5-6, as modified, would be required for the OCVIBE Project. Addendum No. 11 found this impact to be less than significant and would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in FSEIR No. 339.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 215 September 2024
Airport Noise
The OCVIBE Project Site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest airport is Fullerton Municipal Airport, approximately 6 miles north of the OCVIBE Project Site. Addendum No. 11 found this impact to be less than significant.
5.13.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
The analysis in this section is based in part on the following:
• Noise Memorandum, Comparison of OCVIBE Master Site Plan Amendment No. 1 to OCVIBE Addendum No. 11 Components – Noise Impacts, Harris & Associates, September 18, 2024 (Appendix G)
Would the project result in:
New
Significant
Impact
More Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous
Analysis
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, exposure of
people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The below analysis is based on the Noise Memorandum prepared for the Modified Project included in Appendix G, Noise Memo, to this Addendum.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 216 September 2024
Ambient Traffic Noise
The Modified Project would accommodate additional residential development and reduced office development compared to Addendum No. 11. The Traffic Memo for the Modified Project, included as Appendix H, Transportation Memorandum, to this Addendum determined that Option 1 and Option 3 would result in a minor (less than 2 percent) increase in average daily trips (ADT) compared to the approved OCVIBE Project (Pirzadeh 2024). Option 1 would generate approximately 643 additional ADT, and Option 3 would generate approximately 372 additional ADT. The new trips would be spread out across study area segments due to the multiple proposed driveways that would serve the proposed residential buildings, as well as the office and retail uses.
Study area segment volumes would range from 15,600 ADT to 67,000 ADT with the approved OCVIBE Project implementation. A doubling of traffic volume is typically required to result in a noticeable (3 dBA) increase in traffic noise. As such, the minimal increase in traffic volume from implementation of Option 1 or Option 3 under the Modified Project would not result in an additional noise impact compared to Addendum No. 11. Option 2 would result in a net decrease of 412 ADT compared to the approved OCVIBE Project (Pirzadeh 2024). As such, Option 2 would result in the same or slightly reduced traffic noise impacts compared to Addendum No. 11.
Elimination of the previously approved pedestrian bridge would not result in any change to vehicle trips the site. Elimination of the previously approved outdoor amphitheater may result in a slight reduction in ADT due to reduced event attendance. Overall development density within the overall OCVIBE Project Site would be similar to Addendum No. 11, and the significant and unavoidable impact related to vehicle noise would continue to occur. Mitigation Measure 5-1 would continue to be required. 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.
Stationary Source Noise
The Modified Project would include residences, office, retail, and public open space uses that are consistent with the land use types evaluated in Addendum No. 11. The Modified Project would not include any new noise sources that were not addressed in the Addendum No. 11. New HVAC systems would continue to be required to be constructed to meet AMC Section 6.70 that restrict nose levels to 60 dBA Leq so that noise levels are not intrusive to noise-sensitive uses. Noise from parking areas would continue to consist of intermittent nuisance noise, such as from car alarms, and would be similar to existing noise from office parking. Increased activity compared to existing conditions from use of open spaces in the new Meadow Park and Neighborhood Park would be consistent with that anticipated in Addendum No. 11 and would not generate substantial noise levels, particularly compared to existing ambient traffic noise levels. This impact would continue to be less than significant. The Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts or Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 217 September 2024
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.
Impacts to Noise-Sensitive Uses and Ambient Interior Noise The Modified Project would result in the development of additional sensitive residential receptors in Arena District Sub-Area D2. Similar to the conclusions of Addendum No. 11, new residences could be exposed to significant noise from roadway noise, ARTIC operations, and Angels Stadium. Mitigation Measures 5-2 through 5-4 were identified for Addendum No. 11 and would continue to be required for the Modified Project. The significant impact would be reduced compared to Addendum No. 11 because impacts related to operation of the outdoor amphitheater in Meadow Park would be eliminated. However, impacts to existing receptors from remaining sources, particularly vehicle noise, would continue to be significant and unavoidable. 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.
Construction Noise
Construction of the Modified Project would require a similar daily construction effort compared to Addendum No. 11. Additional demolition and earthwork would be required, which would result in additional total haul trips and workdays in Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2. However, similar construction equipment would be used, and construction hauling is not anticipated to exceed the maximum of 121 truck trips per day anticipated under Addendum No. 11. As such, daily construction effort on the site would be similar to that anticipated in Addendum No. 11.
Construction of all Modified Project components would generally be within the construction area assumed under the approved OCVIBE Project with the exception of footprints for the ACC demolition area surrounded by the approved OCVIBE Project construction area. All construction would occur within the existing OCVIBE Project Site and would not be located any closer to existing sensitive receptors compared to the Addendum No. 11 analysis. As such, impacts would be the same as addressed in Addendum No. 11. Mitigation Measures 5-1 through 5-5 and 5-7 through 5-10 would continue to be required, and this impact would continue to be potentially significant and unavoidable as analyzed by FSEIR No. 339. 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 result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project would not include any new sources of vibration that were not addressed in Addendum No. 11 and would not include construction Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 218 September 2024
in any new areas that would be closer to vibration-sensitive receptors compared to Addendum No.
11. As described for construction noise in Section 5.13.2(a), construction would occur in the same general location and would require similar construction practices. As such, impacts would be the same as those addressed in Addendum No. 11. Mitigation Measures 5-5 and 5-6 from FSEIR No. 339 would continue to be required for the approved OCVIBE Project implementation but would not apply to the Modified Project unless pile driving is ultimately required. Additional residential dwelling units would be developed in Arena District Sub-Area D2, portions of which would be located within the 65 feet screening distance for exposure to significant vibration from the BNSF Railway/UPRR, consistent with the findings of Addendum No. 11 for this area. However, impacts would be limited to the northern boundary of the OCVIBE Project Site, and this screening distance would encompass minimal additional residences. Additional residences within the Project Site would not be considered increased project impact, as it would be a project’s effect on itself, not impact of the project on the environment. Mitigation Measure 5-6 would continue to be required for the approved OCVIBE 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. c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project is within the OCVIBE Project Site and proposes similar land uses. The Modified Project would not result in any new exposure to aircraft noise. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in any new or increased aircraft-related impacts compared to FSEIR No. 339 and its Addenda, including Addendum No.
11. No substantial change from the previous analysis would occur.
5.13.3 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 5-1 Prior to approval of street improvement plans for any project-related roadway widening, the City shall retain a qualified acoustic engineer to design project acoustical features that will limit traffic noise at noise sensitive uses to levels that are below the City’s noise ordinance. These treatments shall be noted on the street improvement plans to the satisfaction of the Planning Department and may include, but are not limited to, the replacement of windows and doors at existing residences with acoustically rated windows and doors.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 219 September 2024
MM 5-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project property owner/developers shall submit a final acoustical report prepared to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. The report shall show that the development will be sound-attenuated against present and projected noise levels, including roadway, aircraft, helicopter, stationary sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, stadium, amphitheater, etc.), and railroad, to meet City interior standards as follows:
a. The report shall demonstrate that the proposed residential, hotel room, and office design will result in compliance with the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise levels, as required by the California Building Code and California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24 and 25 of the California Code of Regulations). b. The report shall demonstrate that the Proposed Project residential and hotel room design shall minimize nighttime awakening from single-event noise including stadium, amphitheater, and train horns such that interior single-event noise levels are below 81 dBA Lmax [maximum sound level]. c. The property owner/developer shall submit the noise mitigation report to the Planning Director for review and approval. Upon approval by the City, the project acoustical design features shall be incorporated into construction of the Proposed Project.
MM 5-3 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall submit evidence to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that occupancy disclosure notices regarding the potential for exterior noise levels to be elevated during an outdoor event will be provided to all future tenants in the Stadium and Arena Districts.
MM 5-4 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall submit evidence to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that occupancy disclosure notices regarding potential for exterior noise levels to be elevated during freight pass-by and sounding of train horns will be provided to all future tenants facing an at-grade crossing of the Orange County Line and/or Union Pacific Railroad.
MM 5-5 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, to reduce noise and vibration impacts from the impact pile driver, the construction contractor shall evaluate the feasibility of using auger cast piles or a similar system to drill holes to construct cast-in-place piles for a pile-supported transfer slab foundation system. This alternative construction method would reduce the duration necessary for use of the impact pile driver and/or eliminate the need to use pile drivers altogether. Proof of compliance with this measure shall be submitted to the Planning Department in the form of a letter from the construction contractor.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 220 September 2024
MM 5-6 Prior to approval of any Final Site Plan, if new vibration-sensitive land uses (residences) are located in close proximity (within 110 feet) to the Orange County Line and/or Union Pacific Railroad, the project applicant shall retain an acoustical engineer to conduct an acoustic analysis that includes a vibration analysis for potential impacts from vibration generated by operation of the rail line. If perceptible levels of vibration are detected, the acoustic analysis shall recommend site design features, such as setbacks and trenches, and/or required building improvements, such as harder building materials (e.g., steel framing vs. wood framing), to eliminate the potential for train operations to result in perceptible levels of vibration that cause human annoyance to future project residents. The site design features shall be identified on the Final Site Plan to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
MM 5-7 Ongoing during grading, demolition, and construction, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to limit construction-related noise:
• Noise generated by construction shall be limited by the property owner/developer to 60 dBA along the property boundaries, before 7:00 AM and after 7:00 PM, as governed by Chapter 6.7, Sound Pressure Levels, of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
• Limit the hours of operation of equipment that produces noise levels noticeably above general construction noise levels to the hours of 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM. • All internal combustion engines on all of the construction equipment shall be properly outfitted with well-maintained muffler systems.
MM 5-8 Ongoing during construction activities, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring project contractors to properly maintain and tune all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions.
MM 5-9 Ongoing during construction activities, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring project contractors to locate all stationary noise sources (e.g., generators, compressors, staging areas) as far from occupied noise-sensitive receptors as is feasible.
MM 5-10 Ongoing during construction activities, material delivery, soil haul trucks, and equipment servicing shall also be restricted to the hours set forth in the City of Anaheim Municipal Code, Section 6.70.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 221 September 2024
5.14 Population and Housing
5.14.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis
5.14.1.1 FSEIR No. 339
FSEIR No. 339 determined that implementation of the PTMLUP would directly induce population growth through allowing additional residential development and indirectly induce population growth by allowing additional non-residential development in the Platinum Triangle. FSEIR No. 339 analyzed buildout of the Platinum Triangle with 18,909 dwelling units, 14,340,522 square feet of office, 4,909,682 square feet of commercial, and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses, which would have a jobs/housing ratio of 2.19. The projected population and employees analyzed in FSEIR No. 339 were 28,364 residents and 41,500 employees. FSEIR No. 339 concluded that buildout of the Platinum Triangle would result in a jobs/housing ratio that was significantly more balanced compared to the existing conditions in the area. Providing a more balanced, mixed‐use community within the Platinum Triangle would promote alternative transportation choices and was anticipated to reduce per-capita VMT.
FSEIR No. 339 determine that the PTMLUP Project would result in direct and indirect growth in the area and, at buildout, contribute to a higher jobs/housing ratio for the City. Although a balanced jobs/housing growth is encouraged, SCAG also encourages job growth to be concentrated near transit services and transit nodes, and near existing freeways to facilitate existing and new residents’ use of transit to get to their places of employment. The Platinum Triangle, due to its unique location with two freeways and ARTIC in proximity, lends itself as an ideal candidate for a high employment center. Although buildout of the PTMLUP Project would increase the jobs/housing ratio numerically, it would be consistent with many of SCAG’s growth management policies intended to better coordinate infrastructure development with projected population, housing, and employment growth. FSEIR No. 339 concluded that buildout of the Platinum Triangle would result in a jobs/housing ratio that remains significantly more balanced compared to the existing conditions in the area. Impacts were identified as less than significant.
5.14.1.2 Addendum No. 11 to FSEIR No. 339
As shown in Table 29, Addendum No. 11 Population, Housing, and Employment Summary for the Platinum Triangle, FSEIR No. 339 previously analyzed environmental impacts from 18,909 dwelling units totaling 28,364 residents and 41,500 employees from 20.8 million square feet of non-residential uses. Addendum No. 11 determined that the OCVIBE Project would result in 18,056 dwelling units totaling 27,084 residents and 36,209 employees from 18.1 million square feet of non-residential uses, not exceeding the analysis from FSEIR No. 339. Therefore, Addendum No. 11 determined that the OCVIBE Project would not induce more direct population growth beyond what was already anticipated for the Platinum Triangle area. Addendum No. 11 also found that the OCVIBE Project would improve the jobs/housing ratio from 2.19 under FSEIR Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 222 September 2024
No. 339 to 2.00, assuming that a 1.5 jobs/housing ratio is a balanced ratio. Therefore, the OCVIBE Project would not induce more direct or indirect population growth beyond what was already anticipated for the Platinum Triangle. Addendum No. 11 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 29. Addendum No. 11 Population, Housing, and Employment Summary for the Platinum Triangle
Land Use
Project Analyzed in FSEIR
No. 339 OCVIBE Project1
Change from FSEIR No. 339
to Modified Project
Residential Units
18,909 DU 18,056 DU (-853)
28,364 population 27,084 population (-1,280) population Total Nonresidential
20,750,204 SF 18,104,357 SF (-2,645,847) SF
41,500 employees 36,209 employees (-5,291) employees
Jobs/Housing
Ratio 2.19 2.00 (-0.19)
Note: DU = dwelling unit; SF = square feet
Population is based on 1.5 people per unit, and employment is based on an employment generation factor of 500 square feet per employee.
1 Note that the permitted number of units per the Modified Project is 17,840 dwelling units. However, because OCVIBE proposes 1,500 dwelling units per the density bonus, a total of 18,056 dwelling units are analyzed for the population and housing impact.
5.14.2 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. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Substantial Changes from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project would increase the permitted residential dwelling units in the Arena District Sub-Area D2 by 750 units, 675 units, or 460 units under Options 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The approved OCVIBE Project currently allows 1,284 units plus 216 units from affordable housing density bonus in Arena District Sub-Area D2.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 223 September 2024
As shown in Table 30, Population, Housing, and Employment Summary for the Platinum Triangle, the Modified Project would increase the total number of residential dwelling units in the PTMLUP from allowed 17,840 dwelling units to 18,590, 18,515, or 18,300 dwelling units under Options 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Consequently, the total residents anticipated in the PTMLUP would increase from 27,084 residents to 27,885 residents, 27,773 residents, or 27,450 residents under Options 1, 2, and 3, respectively. However, as shown in Table 30, FSEIR No. 339 analyzed population impacts from 18,909 dwelling units and 28,364 residents. Therefore, even with the increased number residential units in Arena District Sub-Area D2, the Modified Project would not exceed the number of residential units and population analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. Population impacts from the PT Expansion Project has already been addressed, and the Modified Project would not result additional population impacts than already addressed by FSEIR No. 339.
Table 30. Population, Housing, and Employment Summary for the Platinum Triangle Land Use
Project
Analyzed
in FSEIR
No. 339
Project
Analyzed
in
Addendu
m No. 11
Modified Project2
Change from FSEIR No. 339 to
Modified Project
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Residentia
l Units
18,909 DU 17,840 DU1 18,590 18,515 18,300 (319) (394) (609) 28,364
population
27,084
population 27,885 27,773 27,450 (479) (592) (914)
Total Nonresidential
20,750,204
SF
18,104,357
SF
17,269,98
2 SF
17,169,98
2 SF
17,494,98
2 SF
(3,480,222
)
(3,580,222
)
(3,255,222
)
41,500
employees
36,209
employees
34,540 34,340 34,990 (6,960) (7,160) (6,510)
Jobs/Hou
sing
Ratio
2.19 2.00 1.86 1.85 1.92 N/A N/A N/A
Note: DU = dwelling unit; SF = square feet
Population is based on 1.5 persons per unit, and employment is based on an employment generation factor of 500 square feet per employee.
1 Note that the permitted number of units per the approved OCVIBE Project is 17,840 dwelling units. However, the approved OCVIBE Project included 1,500 dwelling units per the density bonus, and Addendum No. 11 analyzed a total of 18,056 dwelling units for the population and housing impact.
2 Total dwelling units under Options 1 through 3 are inclusive of the base density of 100 dwelling units per acre on 19.20 acres of Arena District Sub-Area D2 totaling 1,920 dwelling units. 5 percent of number of base units would be affordable to Very LowIncome households, authorizing the Applicant to increase the Project density by a maximum of 20 percent. With the Density Bonus, the proposed number of dwelling units under Options 1, 2, and 3 are 2,250, 2,175, and 1,960 dwelling units, respectively.
The increase in residential dwelling units would be offset by a reduction in office square footage in Arena District Sub-Area D2. With the Modified Project implementation, the approved OCVIBE Project’s 18,104,357 square feet of non-residential uses would decrease to 17,269,982 square feet, 17,169,982 square feet, and 17,494,982 square feet under Options 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
Furthermore, as shown in Table 30, FSEIR No. 339 analyzed a total of 20,750 square feet of nonresidential uses. Therefore, the Modified Project would result in total non-residential use reduction ranging from approximately 3.2 million to 3.6 million square feet. Consequently, the total number Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 224 September 2024
of employees analyzed within the PTMLUP would also decrease by 6,960, 7,160, and 6,510 employees compared to the 41,500 employees in FSEIR No. 339.
The Modified Project would result in more balanced jobs/housing ratio—from 2.00 under the PT Expansion Project and 2.19 as analyzed in FSEIR No. 339 to 1.86, 1.85, and 1.92 under Options 1, 2, and 3, respectively. A balanced job-housing ratio was assumed a ratio of 1.5 by the FSEIR No. 339.
In summary, the overall development intensities proposed under all three options by the Modified Project would not exceed the development intensities analyzed and certified by FSEIR No. 339.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the City, either directly or indirectly. The Modified 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 would occur, and no major revisions to FSEIR No. 339 are required due to the presence of new significant impacts.
b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Substantial Changes from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project would result in demolition of the existing ACC office buildings and would not displace any housing units. the Modified Project involves development of additional 460 to 750 dwelling units, and construction of replacement housing elsewhere would not be required. 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.
5.14.3 Applicable Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to population and housing were required by the previous analysis.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 225 September 2024
5.15 Public Services
5.15.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis
5.15.1.1 FSEIR No. 339
Fire Protection Services
FSEIR No. 339 determined that the additional development capacity, population, and density from the PT Expansion Project would require additional fire facilities, delay the Anaheim Fire & Rescue’s response times for first engine response, and increase demand for other operational sections. Therefore, FSEIR No. 339 contemplated the future construction of three fire stations: the first station (Battalion Headquarters Station) on Santa Cruz Street north of Orangewood Avenue, the second station in the north-central area of the Platinum Triangle, and a third station in an undetermined location. However, FSEIR No. 339 did not specify where or when these additional fire stations would be provided as they would be dependent on the overall amount and timing of growth in the Platinum Triangle. FSEIR No. 339 concluded that increases in property tax revenues generated by buildout of the PT Expansion Project would be used to cover additional Anaheim Fire & Rescue’s staffing needs. Furthermore, the Public Safety Impact Fee would be collected at the time of issuance of building permits for projects in the Platinum Triangle, providing funds for the construction of new fire facilities. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 7-1 (regarding installation of fire sprinklers) and Mitigation Measure 7-2 (related to the Public Safety Impact Fee), the FSEIR No. 339 determined that impacts related to fire protection and emergency response services would be less than significant.
Police Services
FSEIR No. 339 disclosed that the additional development and population generated by buildout of the PT Expansion Project would require an increase in police facilities and staffing at the Anaheim Police Department (APD). FSEIR No. 339 stated that buildout of the Platinum Triangle was projected to require approximately 108.5 additional officers, 56.7 additional full-time and 25.9 additional part-time civilian support personnel, 43,189 additional square feet of office space, 48 additional vehicles, and $554,218 additional funds for assigned equipment. However, FSEIR No. 339 found that implementation of the Public Safety Impact Fee would generate the finances required to provide facilities and equipment needed to support police services in the Platinum Triangle. Furthermore, the FSEIR concluded that the overall increase in property tax revenues generated by growth in the Platinum Triangle would be expected to fully cover additional staffing needs. In addition, according to FSEIR No. 339, development within the Platinum Triangle would apply the principles of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) as described in Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Guidelines, prepared by APD. CPTED guidelines include topics such as security measures, addressing, signage, doors, windows, rooftops and openings, lighting, landscaping, line of sight/natural surveillance, stairways/elevators, parking Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 226 September 2024
lot/structures, fencing/barriers, and access control. APD would evaluate a project based on CPTED concepts to help reduce criminal opportunity. Implementation of CPTED concepts were found in FSEIR No. 339 to relieve some of the police protection needs for the PT Expansion Project. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 7-3 through 7-7, impacts of the PT Expansion Project on police services were determined to be less than significant. These measures included requirements for safety-oriented project design features (Mitigation Measures 7-3 through 7-5), payment of funds to reimburse APD for traffic control activities (when necessary) (Mitigation Measure 7-6), and payment of the Public Safety Impact Fee (Mitigation Measure 7-8).
School Services
FSEIR No. 339 concluded that residential development within the Platinum Triangle would generate approximately 4,018 additional elementary and middle students in the Anaheim City School District (ACSD) and approximately 1,549 additional high school students in Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD) compared to the project analyzed in FSEIR No. 332. When combined with the 6,610 students generated by buildout of land uses under that previously approved project, this represents 12,177 total students generated by land uses in the Platinum Triangle. However, FSEIR No. 339 noted that this is a high estimate when considering the types of high-density urban housing that would be constructed under the PT Expansion Project. FSEIR No. 339 found that developer payment of school impacts fees levied by ACSD and AUHSD in Mitigation Measure 7-9 would reduce potential school-related impacts to a less than significant level.
Parks
FSEIR No. 339 studied impacts to parks and recreational facilities in Section 5.8, Recreation.
FSEIR No. 339 determined that the increase in residential development associated with the PT Expansion Project would increase demand for parks and other recreational facilities. However, as discussed in Section 5.16.1, Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis of this Addendum, with compliance with this regulation and incorporation of FSEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 8-1 through 8-3, which would require the acquisition and construction of park areas in adequate amounts to offset demand from the development, FSEIR No. 339 determined the impacts to be less than significant.
Library and Daycare Services
FSEIR No. 339 determined that buildout of the Platinum Triangle would increase the service needs of local libraries. However, it concluded that payment of developer fees established by the Anaheim City Council would adequately fund any additional library materials and facilities required to serve the area. Payment of such fees was required by Mitigation Measure 7-10. The FSEIR No. 339 also determined that the PT Expansion Project would increase the service needs for local daycare facilities. However, it concluded that provision of daycare facilities in the PTMU Overlay Zone is not required of the PTMLUP, and that zoning in the overlay zone Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 227 September 2024
would permit development of daycare centers as necessary. No significant adverse impacts related to daycare facilities were identified.
5.15.1.2 Addendum No. 11 to FSEIR No. 339
Fire Protection
Addendum No. 11 stated that although the OCVIBE Project would result in population growth through the development of 1,500 dwelling units and indirectly through the creation of employment associated with non-residential development, the anticipated growth is less than development intensities previously analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. Therefore, the increase in fire protection demands from the OCVIBE Project would not be greater than what was analyzed by FSEIR No. 339. As with FSEIR No. 339, Addendum No. 11 also found Mitigation Measures 7-1 and 7-2 from FSEIR No. 339 to be applicable. Addendum No. 11 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.
Police Protection
Addendum No. 11 stated that although the OCVIBE Project would result in population growth through the development of 1,500 dwelling units and indirectly through the creation of employment associated with non-residential development, the anticipated growth is less than development intensities previously analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. Therefore, the increase in police protection demands from the OCVIBE Project would not be greater than what was analyzed by FSEIR No. 339. As with FSEIR No. 339, Addendum No. 11 also found FSEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 7-3 through 7-4 to be applicable. Addendum No. 11 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.
Schools
Addendum No. 11 found that the OCVIBE Project would generate new students in the ACSD and AUHSD. However, the OCVIBE Project would result in 853 fewer dwelling units than analyzed in FSEIR No. 339, and there would be fewer students and less impacts to school services. The total non-residential development densities were also reduced. Therefore, Addendum No. 11 determined that the OCVIBE Project would not increase the severity of previously identified school services impact in FSEIR No. 339. As with FSEIR No. 339, Addendum No. 11 found FSEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measure 7-9 to be applicable. Addendum No. 11 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.
Parks
Refer to Section 5.16.1.2.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 228 September 2024
Library and Daycare Services
Addendum No. 11 indicated that although the OCVIBE Project would generate demands for library services in the area, because the population induced by the OCVIBE Project is fewer than what was previously analyzed in FSEIR No. 339, demands for library services would be less than the previous analysis. The OCVIBE Project would also provide daycare facilities for affordable housing in Arena Sub-Area District D2. As with FSEIR No. 339, Addendum No. 11 also found FSEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measure 7-10 to be applicable to the OCVIBE Project. Addendum No. 11 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.
5.15.2 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. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services:
Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Schools? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Parks? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As discussed in Section 5.14.2(a), Population and Housing, the Modified Project would directly induce population growth through the development of additional 460 to 750 dwelling units but would reduce total number of employees associated Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 229 September 2024
with non-residential development. As shown in Table 27, the anticipated population growth by the Modified Project is less than the development intensities previously analyzed in FSEIR No. 339.
The Modified Project would not exceed the fire service demands anticipated by FSEIR No. 339.
Therefore, the increase in fire protection demands from the Modified Project would not be greater than what was analyzed by FSEIR No. 339.
Furthermore, as with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measures 7-1 and 7-2 from FSEIR No. 339, which require all buildings to have fire sprinklers in accordance with the AMC and the Applicant would be required to pay applicable Public Safety Impact Fee to fund Anaheim Fire & Rescue’s fire facilities and equipment.
The City is served by 11 fire stations covering a geographical area of approximately 50 square miles and 347,000 residents. An addition of up to 750 dwelling units and 1,125 residents from the Modified Project would not create a significant demand for fire protection services that would require the construction of new fire facilities within the City. The Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in FSEIR No. 339, and no major revisions to FSEIR No. 339 are required due to the presence of new significant impacts.
Police protection?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project would generate police protection services demands from the increased residential dwelling units. However, as discussed in Section
5.14.2(a), the anticipated population growth by the Modified Project is less than the development intensities previously analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. The Modified Project would not exceed the police protection demands anticipated by FSEIR No. 339. Therefore, the increase in police protection demands from the Modified Project would not be greater than what was analyzed by FSEIR No. 339.
As with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measures 7-3 through 7-7 from FSEIR No. 339, which would ensure that impacts to police protection services would be less than significant. The mitigation measures would require the Modified Project to apply the principles of CPTED in its site design and the Final Site Plans to be reviewed and approved by APD (Mitigation Measure 7-3), and APD to review and approve security measures and access control for the proposed parking structures (Mitigation Measures 7- 4 and 7-5). Additionally, Mitigation Measure 7-7 from FSEIR No. 339 would require the Project Applicant to pay a Public Safety Impact Fee, which would assist with the generation of funds for police facilities and equipment needed to serve the Project Site. The increase in property taxes collected from the new development would also assist with providing the police services. The City has two police stations that are open, the Main Station at 425 South Harbor Boulevard and the West Station at 320 South Beach Boulevard. The East Station at 8201 East Santa Ana Canyon Road is currently closed. The addition of up to 750 dwelling units and 1,125 residents from the Modified Project would not create a significant demand for police services that would require the construction of new police facilities within the City. The Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in FSEIR No. 339. No substantial Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 230 September 2024
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.
Schools?
No Substantial Changes from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project would generate new students in the ACSD and AUHSD as shown in Table 31, Student Generation Resulting from Implementation of the Modified Project. However, as discussed in Section 5.14.2(a), the Modified Project would result in 319 to 609 fewer dwelling units than analyzed in FSEIR No. 339, and there would be fewer students and less impacts to school services. The total non-residential development densities would also be reduced. The proposed changes related to park and open space in Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2 and Transit District Sub-Area would have no impact on school services. The Modified Project would result in fewer students than what was previously identified by FSEIR No. 339. Therefore, the Modified Project would not increase the severity of previously identified school services impact and would not result in substantial changes from the previous analysis. Furthermore, as with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Applicant is required to pay school impact fees levied by ACSD and AUHSD pursuant to Senate Bill 50, which is the state law that allows local jurisdictions to establish school impact fees to fund local school services, and is considered a full and complete mitigation for school services impact. Although this is an existing regulatory requirement, consistent with FSEIR No. 339, the payment of school impact fees as required by Mitigation Measure 7-9 from FSEIR No. 339 would be applicable to the Modified Project. The addition of up to 750 dwelling units would not create a significant demand for the construction of a new school within ACSD or AUHSD boundaries. The Modified 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 would occur, and no major revisions to FSEIR No. 339 are required due to the presence of new significant impacts.
Table 31. Student Generation Resulting from Implementation of the Modified Project Project Analyzed in
FSEIR No. 339
Modified
Project School Type
Student Generation
Rate1
Fewer Students Compared to
the Project Analyzed in
FSEIR No. 339
18,909 DU 18,590 DU
Elementary 0.3609 (-116)
Middle 0.1040 (-34)
High 0.1790 (-58)
18,909 DU 18,515 DU
Elementary 0.3609 (-143)
Middle 0.1040 (-41)
High 0.1790 (-71)
18,909 DU 18,300 DU
Elementary 0.3609 (-220)
Middle 0.1040 (-64)
High 0.1790 (-110)
Note:
1 The student generation rates are from FSEIR No. 339.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 231 September 2024
Parks?
No Substantial Changes from Previous Analysis. Discussion. Refer to Section 5.16, Recreation, of this Addendum.
Other public facilities?
No Substantial Changes from Previous Analysis. As with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project would generate demands for library services in the area. However, because the population induced by the Modified Project is fewer than what was previously analyzed in FSEIR No. 339, demands for library services are expected to be less than the previous analysis. As with the OCVIBE Project, Mitigation Measure 7-10 from FSEIR No. 339, which requires the Applicant to pay the applicable library facilities fees, will be applicable to the Modified Project. These funds would pay for additional library materials and services needed to serve the Platinum Triangle. The City is served by three public libraries, and the addition of up to 750 dwelling units and 1,125 residents from the Modified Project would not require the construction of a new library within the City. 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.
5.15.3 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 7-1 Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, plans shall indicate that all buildings shall have fire sprinklers in accordance with the Anaheim Municipal Code. Said sprinklers shall be installed by the property owner/developer prior to each final Building and Zoning inspection.
MM 7-2 Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the property owner/developer shall pay the Public Safety Impact Fee, as amended from time to time, for fire facilities and equipment impact fees identified in Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 17.36.
MM 7-3 Prior to the approval of a Final Site Plan, the property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Anaheim Police Department for review and approval for the purpose of incorporating safety measures in the project design including the concept of crime prevention through environmental design (i.e., building design, circulation, site planning and lighting of parking structure and parking areas). Rooftop addresses shall be provided for all parking structures (for the police helicopter). Minimum size for numbers shall be four feet in height and two feet in width. The lines for the numbers shall be six inches thick and spaced 12 to 18 inches apart. All numbers Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 232 September 2024
shall have a contrasting color to the parking structure and shall face the street to which the structure is addressed.
MM 7-4 Prior to the issuance of each Building Permit for a parking structure, the property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Anaheim Police Department for review and approval indicating the provision of closed circuit monitoring and recording or other substitute security measures as may be approved by the Anaheim Police Department. Said measures shall be implemented prior to final Building and Zoning inspections.
MM 7-5 Prior to the approval of a Final Site Plan, the property owner/developer shall submit design plans that shall include parking lots and parking structures with controlled access points to limit ingress and egress if determined to be necessary by the Anaheim Police Department, and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Anaheim Police Department.
MM 7-6 Ongoing during project operation, if the Anaheim Police Department of Anaheim Traffic Management Center (TMC) personnel are required to provide temporary traffic control services, the property owner/developer shall reimburse the City, on a fairshare basis, if applicable, for reasonable costs associated with such services.
MM 7-7 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall pay the Public Safety Impact Fee, as amended from time to time, for police facilities and equipment impact fees identified in Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 17.36.
MM 7-9 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall pay the school impact fees as adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Anaheim Union High School District and Anaheim City School District in compliance with Senate Bill 50 (Government Code [GC] Section 65995 [b][3] as amended).
MM 7-10 Prior to approval of each residential building permit within the Platinum Triangle, the Applicant/developer shall pay the library facilities fee established by the updated library facilities fee program applicable to the residential projects within the Platinum Triangle.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 233 September 2024
5.16 Recreation
5.16.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis
5.16.1.1 FSEIR No. 339
FSEIR No. 339 determined that additional residents associated with buildout of the Platinum Triangle would increase local demand for parks and other recreational amenities. Based on the City’s goal of providing 2 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents, development of the PT Expansion Project would require approximately 57.1 acres of parkland, a potentially significant impact due to the existing lack of parks in the City. The substantial increase in residents was anticipated to exacerbate existing overuse of parks in the City. However, FSEIR No. 339 concluded that compliance with Section 18.20.110.010 of the AMC, which establishes requirements for recreational space within the PTMU Overlay Zone, would ensure that recreational space would increase proportionally to population growth in the Platinum Triangle. The Municipal Code requires the dedication of property to the City for park and recreation facilities, development and maintenance of pocket parks by the developer or homeowners’ associations, and the payment of enhanced park in-lieu fees. Section 18.20.110.010 requires, among other things, that parcels 8.0 acres or larger with residential development totaling more than 325 units provide and construct an on-site public park, at a minimum size of 44 square feet per residential dwelling unit. This requirement is in addition to the payment of park-in-lieu fees; however, the value of the parkland dedication is credited against overall park-in-lieu fees paid for projects in Platinum Triangle. The credit is to be given for parkland dedication only. No credit is given for improvements to the park or for recreational-leisure areas. Therefore, FSEIR No. 339 concluded that compliance with these requirements and Mitigation Measures 8-1 through 8-3 would reduce impacts to recreation facilities to a less than significant level.
5.16.1.2 Addendum No. 11 to FSEIR No. 339
Addendum No. 11 indicated that the OCVIBE Project would comply with the AMC Sections
18.20.110.010 and 18.20.110.020 and provide approximately 16.4 acres of publicly accessible parks and open space, and approximately 3.3 acres of unsecured common recreation and leisure space. The OCVIBE Project would also incorporate Mitigation Measures 8-1 through 8-3 from FSEIR No. 339 to ensure that it would not result in substantial physical deterioration or accelerated deterioration of other existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. 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. 339 234 September 2024
5.16.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
New
Significant
Impact
More Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous
Analysis
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. AMC Section 18.20.110.010 requires parcels larger than 8 acres with more than 325 residential units to provide an on-site public park at a minimum size of 44 square feet per unit. This would require a minimum of 2.27 acres of public park under Option 1 with 2,250 dwelling units, where the most residential dwelling units are proposed among three residential options. The Modified Project would provide 4.85 acres of dedicated public park in Transit District and 11.56 acres of publicly accessible open space in Arena District, including but not limited to a 4.7-acre Neighborhood Park within the Arena District Sub-Area D1. Therefore, as with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project would comply with the AMC Section
18.20.110.010. AMC Section 18.20.110.020 requires 200 square feet of recreational-leisure area for each dwelling unit that may be provided by private areas, common areas, or a combination of both.
As shown in Table 32, Modified Project Recreation/Leisure Area, The Modified Project under all three options would comply with the required recreation-leisure areas.
Table 32. Modified Project Recreation/Leisure Areas
Land Use Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Private Rec/Leisure (Balconies/Patios) 56,436 SF 79,538 SF 53,636 SF Residential Secured Common Rec/Leisure 303,474 SF 280,649 SF 267,496 SF Residential Unsecured Common Rec/Leisure 90,090 SF 74,813 SF 70,868 SF Total1 450,000 SF 435,000 SF 392,000 SF
Required per AMC Section 18.20.110.0201 450,000 SF 435,000 SF 392,000 SF Notes: AMC = Anaheim Municipal Code; SF = square feet
1 Option 1: 2,250 SF x 200 SF= 450,000 SF; Option 2: 2,175 SF x 200 SF = 435,000 SF; Option 3: 1,960 SF x 200 = 392,000 SF.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 235 September 2024
Additionally, as with the approved OCVIBE Project, the Modified Project would incorporate Mitigation Measures 8-1 through 8-3, which requires the City to continue to work with the Project Applicant to seek property acquisition opportunities for parkland and alternative means of providing recreational amenities and to foster partnerships with other public and private entities to provide various types of recreational opportunities. Therefore, the Modified Project would provide adequate public and private park space within the OCVIBE Project Site, and the new residential uses would not result in substantial physical deterioration of the existing neighborhood and regional parks. 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. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project includes various recreation facilities that could result in light and glare, noise, and transportation impacts to surrounding communities. However, these recreational facilities are integral part of the mixed-use development of the Modified Project, and their associated physical impacts are analyzed in Sections 5.1, Aesthetics; 5.13, Noise; and 5.17, Transportation, of this Addendum. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 5.16.2(a), Impacts Associated with the Modified Project, the Modified Project would provide recreational facilities that exceed the requirements of the AMC, and would not require additional off-site construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on 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.
5.16.3 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 8-1 Ongoing during project implementation, the City shall continue to seek property acquisition opportunities for parkland in and adjacent to the project area.
MM 8-2 Ongoing during project implementation, the City shall continue to work with developers to seek alternative means of providing recreational amenities.
MM 8-3 Ongoing during project implementation, the City shall continue fostering partnerships with other public entities and private organizations to seek alternative means of providing various types of recreational opportunities.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 236 September 2024
5.17 Transportation
5.17.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous Analysis
5.17.1.1 FSEIR No. 339
The FSEIR No. 339 concluded that traffic impacts associated with buildout of the PT Expansion Project would result in significant level of service impacts to area intersections, roadway segments, and freeway ramps. FSEIR No. 339 stated that the PT Expansion Project had the potential to conflict with an applicable Congestion Management Program, including the City of Anaheim General Plan level of service policies for designated roadways or highways, as well as intersections under California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) jurisdiction, City of Orange jurisdiction, and those monitored in the Congestion Management Program. The analysis identified improvements to deficient roadway intersections and segments but not all improvements were determined to be feasible. Therefore, traffic congestion impacts were identified as significant and unavoidable, and the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this impact.
FSEIR No. 339 concluded that development of the PT Expansion Project would not result in a significant impact to alternative transportation modes (including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities) and would integrate design standards for bus stops, pedestrian walkways, and the bicycle system to promote alternative forms of transportation. Development of the PT Expansion Project did not inhibit buildout of the Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan.
FSEIR No. 339 concluded that buildout of the PTMLUP would not create sharp curves, dangerous intersections, or any other hazardous design features. Development of the PT Expansion Project would intensify the land uses in the Project Area but did not substantially alter the backbone circulation system and arterial connections. FSEIR No. 339 stated that increased right-turn and left-turn volumes at certain intersections were projected, which could result in excessive queue lengths at turning lanes. Therefore, FSEIR No. 339 identified additional turning lane improvements to improve capacity to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Emergency Access
FSEIR No. 339 stated that vehicle access within the Platinum Triangle would be designed and improved in accordance with City requirements to reduce any emergency access impacts.
Development projects would be reviewed and approved by Anaheim Fire & Rescue prior to issuance of building permits to ensure that applicants provide sufficient accessibility for emergency vehicles during all phases of construction. FSEIR No. 339 concluded impacts associated with emergency access to be less than significant with implementation of existing regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval.
Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 237 September 2024
5.17.1.2 Addendum No. 11 to FSEIR No. 339
Plan Consistency
Addendum No. 11 determined that implementation of OCVIBE Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities as it would implement the required Mitigation Measures 9-1 through 9-11 and 9-13 through 9-15 from FSEIR No. 339 and provide the necessary roadway improvements consistent with the City’s Circulation Element. Addendum No. 11 stated that the OCVIBE Project would be consistent with the 2020–2045 SCAG RTP/SCS, Connect SoCal, because although the OCVIBE Project included amendments to the General Plan and zoning code, the proposed densities and associated trips would still be less than the project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. Furthermore, consistency with applicable Connect SoCal goals were provided in Table
5.11-1, SCAG’s Connect SoCal Consistency Analysis, of Addendum No. 11. The OCVIBE Project would provide a highly walkable and bike-friendly environment, encouraging the use of transit and active transportation, and meet the goals of the Connect SoCal or other programs or plans supporting VMT and reducing GHG emissions.
VMT Screening
Addendum No. 11 determined that the OCVIBE Project Site is in a TPA as shown in Attachment A to the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines, therefore, would meet the Type 1 VMT screening criteria. Addendum No. 11 also indicated that the OCVIBE Project do not meet the following four criteria established by TIA Guidelines. 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 – The OCVIBE Project would have an overall average FAR of 1.18 with all buildings in the Master Site Plan, including residential units in Arena District Sub-Area D2. Without the residential units in Arena District Sub-Area D2, an overall FAR average would be 0.91. With or without the residential units, the average FAR would not be less than 0.75. The OCVIBE Project would not meet this criterion.
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) – The OCVIBE Project would provide a total parking supply of 11,289 stalls, and the parking requirement is 13,509 stalls for commercial and office uses that would share a parking supply and additional 3,300 parking spaces for uses that would have dedicated parking supplies, including residential and hotel uses and the institutional space. The OCVIBE Project would not meet this criterion.
3. Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the lead agency, with input from the Metropolitan Planning Organization) – As discussed Addendum No. 13 to FSEIR No. 339 238 September 2024
under Section 5.17.2(a), the OCVIBE Project would be consistent with the SCAG’s Connect SoCal. The OCVIBE Project would not meet this criterion.
4. Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate‐ or high‐income residential units – The OCVIBE Project would provide affordable housing and would not replace any affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate‐ or high‐ income residential units. The OCVIBE Project would not meet this criterion.
Therefore, Addendum No. 11 determined that the OCVIBE Project would be screened out for VMT, and no further analysis was warranted.
Emergency Access
Addendum No. 11 concluded that the OCVIBE Project would comply with all applicable fire code and ordinance requirements for emergency access. The Anaheim Fire & Rescue would be required to review and approve the plans prior to issuance of building permit to determine the specific fire requirements applicable to the specific development have been implemented and to ensure compliance with these requirements. The Addendum also stated that the OCVIBE Project would decrease overall ADT by approximately 23,000 trips compared to the project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339, therefore, it was determined that the OCVIBE Project would not result in result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in FSEIR No. 339.
5.17.2 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
The analysis in this section is based in part on the following:
• OCVIBE Master Site Plan Amendment No. 1 – Traffic and Circulation Analysis, Pirzadeh & Associates, Inc., June 20, 2024 (Appendix H) • Shared Parking Analysis Update – Market Hall Banquet Facility, Pirzadeh & Associates, Inc., June 17, 2024 (Appendix K)
Would the project: