Project construction is anticipated to require approximately 24 to 36 months. Based on the 24- month construction schedule assumed for the air quality analysis, project construction is calculated to result in total emissions of 3,862 MTCO2e. The 24-month construction schedule is conservative for the air quality analysis because the applicable thresholds are concerned with maximum daily emissions. The reduced construction schedule assumes more intense daily construction activity to complete the same total construction effort in less time. However, for GHG emissions, the longer three-year construction schedule is more conservative because it assumes an additional year of equipment operation and worker vehicle trips. To estimate GHG emissions for a 36-month schedule, the worst-case GHG emissions in a single year modeled for the air quality analysis (2,380 MTCO2e) are added to the total emissions for the 24-month construction schedule (3,862 MTCO2e). Total construction emissions from project construction over 36 months would be approximately 6,242 MTCO2e. Therefore, amortized construction emissions would be 208 MTCO2e over a 30-year period. As stated in Section 4.9, Transportation, during operation, the project would provide new active transportation facilities (new pedestrian/bicycle bridges and trails) and would not lead to a substantial or measurable increase in vehicle travel. As such, amortized construction emissions represent the project’s ongoing GHG emissions for comparison to the SCAQMD screening threshold. The project would result in amortized construction emissions of 208 MTCO2e and would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for non-industrial uses. The project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
4.5.5 Cumulative Impacts
This section addresses various potential cumulative impacts relating to GHG emissions that could result from implementation of the project.
4.5.5.1 Cumulative Threshold GHG-1: Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Construction)
The geographic scope of consideration for GHG emissions is on a global scale as such emissions contribute, on a cumulative basis, to global climate change. Given the nature of environmental consequences from GHG emissions, CEQA requires that lead agencies evaluate the cumulative impacts of GHGs, even relatively small additions, on a global basis. By nature, GHG evaluations are Section 4.5: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final EIR No. 357 4.5-11 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
a cumulative study, and a significant cumulative impact exists. As described in Section 4.5.4.1, Threshold GHG-1: Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Construction), implementation of the project would not result in short-term GHG emissions above the applicable SCAQMD screening threshold individually, as such, implementation of the project would not be cumulatively considerable.
4.5.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Upon implementation of the plans, programs, and policies, the following threshold would be less than significant:
• Threshold GHG-1: Implementation of the project would not generate GHG emissions during construction, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
4.5.7 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
4.5.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Not applicable.
Section 4.5: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final EIR No. 357 4.5-12 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
This page intentionally left blank.
Section 4.6: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Final EIR No. 357 4.6-1 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
This section evaluates the potential for impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials resulting from implementation of the OC River Walk Project (project).
4.6.1 Environmental Setting
4.6.1.1 Regulatory Framework
This section describes the federal, state, and local regulatory framework adopted to address hazards and hazardous materials.
Federal
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (U.S. Code, Title 42, Section 9601 et seq.)
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 is a law developed to protect the water, air, and soil resources from the risks created by past chemical disposal practices. This law is also referred to as the “Superfund Act” and regulates sites on the National Priority List, which are called “Superfund sites.” Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (U.S. Code, Title 42, Chapter 116) In 1986, Congress passed the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. Title III of this regulation may be cited as the “Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986” (EPCRA). The act requires the establishment of state commissions, planning districts, and local committees to facilitate the preparation and implementation of an Emergency Plan. Under these requirements, local emergency planning committees are responsible for developing a plan that includes the following to prepare for and respond to a chemical emergency:
• An identification of local facilities and transportation routes where hazardous materials are present.
• The procedures for immediate response in case of an accident (this must include a community-wide evacuation plan).
• A plan for notifying the community that an incident has occurred. • The names of response coordinators at local facilities. • A plan for conducting drills to test the plan. The Emergency Plan is reviewed by the State Emergency Response Commission and publicized throughout the community.
The local emergency planning committee is required to review, test, and update the plan each year.
Another purpose of the EPCRA is to inform communities and residents of chemical hazards in their areas. Sections 311 and 312 require businesses to report to state and local agencies the Section 4.6: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Final EIR No. 357 4.6-2 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
location and quantities of chemicals stored on site. Under Section 313, manufacturers are required to report chemical releases for more than 600 designated chemicals. In addition to chemical releases, regulated facilities are also required to report off-site transfers of waste for treatment or disposal at separate facilities, pollution prevention measures, and chemical recycling activities.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maintains the Toxic Release Inventory database that documents the information that regulated facilities are required to report annually.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (U.S. Code, Title 42, Section 6901 et seq.) The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act is the principal federal law that regulates generation, management, and transportation of hazardous waste. Hazardous waste management includes the treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste.
State
California Accidental Release Prevention Program
The California Accidental Release Prevention Program became effective on January 1, 1997, in response to Senate Bill 1889. The program aims to be proactive by requiring businesses to prepare Risk Management Plans, which are detailed engineering analyses of the potential accident factors present at a business and include mitigation measures that can be implemented to reduce this accident potential. This requirement is coupled with the requirements for preparation of Hazardous Materials Business Plans under the Unified Program, implemented by the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA).
California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5
Title 22, Division 4.5, of the California Code of Regulations sets forth the requirements for hazardous waste generators, transporters, and owners or operators of treatment, storage, or disposal facilities. These regulations include the requirements for packaging, storage, labeling, reporting, and general management of hazardous waste before shipment. In addition, the regulations identify standards applicable to transporters of hazardous waste. These regulations specify the requirements for transporting shipments of hazardous waste, including manifesting, vehicle registration, and emergency accidental discharges during transportation.
California Fire Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 9) The California Fire Code sets forth requirements for building materials and methods pertaining to fire safety and life safety, fire protection systems in buildings, emergency access to buildings, and handling and storage of hazardous materials. The City adopts the update to the California Fire Code every 3 years.
Government Code, Section 65302, requires the Safety Element of a General Plan to address evacuation routes. The CAL FIRE Safety Element checklist also requires cities to address Section 4.6: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Final EIR No. 357 4.6-3 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
evacuation routes. In addition, Senate Bill 99 (2018) requires a Safety Element upon the next revision of the housing element on or after January 1, 2020, to include information identifying residential developments in hazard areas that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes.
Hazardous Materials Business Plans
Both the federal government (Code of Federal Regulations) and the State of California (California Health and Safety Code) require businesses that handle more than a specified amount, or “reporting quantity,” of hazardous or extremely hazardous materials to submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan to responsible local governments. According to City guidelines, the preparation, submittal, and implementation of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan is required by any business that handles a hazardous material or a mixture containing a hazardous material in specified quantities.
Hazardous Materials Business Plans must include an inventory of the hazardous materials at the facility. Businesses must update their plan and the chemical portion annually. In addition, Hazardous Materials Business Plan must include Emergency Response Plans and procedures to be used in the event of a significant or threatened significant release of a hazardous material. These plans need to identify the procedures for immediate notification of the appropriate agencies and personnel, identification of local emergency medical assistance appropriate for potential accident scenarios, contact information for the company emergency coordinators, a listing and location of emergency equipment at the business, an evacuation plan, and a training program for business personnel.
Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan
Assembly Bill 2286 (AB 2286) requires all CUPAs, participating agencies, and regulated businesses in the State of California to submit forms electronically. Through the California Environmental Reporting System, businesses have direct access to their Business Emergency Plans and Chemical Inventories. It allows local fire agencies to have immediate access to chemical inventories in the region in case of a spill, fire or other incident. These locally implemented programs also satisfy federal community right-to-know laws.
The Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan program requires businesses that handle hazardous materials (including hazardous waste) or extremely hazardous substances at reportable quantities to submit a Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan in the California Environmental Reporting System. The reportable quantities equal to or greater than:
• 55 gallons of a liquid;
• 500 pounds of a solid;
• 200 cubic feet of compressed gas; or
• Extremely hazardous substances above the threshold planning quantity.
The Orange County CUPA verifies information disclosed by businesses and provides it to agencies that are responsible for the protection of public health and safety and the environment, such as fire Section 4.6: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Final EIR No. 357 4.6-4 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
departments, hazardous materials response teams and other local environmental regulatory groups.
The public also has a right to review this information, with the exception of documents containing trade secrets or other confidential information.
Hazardous Materials Disclosure Programs
The Unified Program administered by the State of California consolidates, coordinates, and makes consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities for environmental and emergency management programs, which include Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventories (Hazardous Materials Business Plans), the California Accidental Release Prevention Program, and the Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program. The Unified Program is implemented at the local government level by CUPAs.
The CUPA for the Cities of Anaheim and Orange is the County Health Care Agency Environmental Health Division, which is responsible for regulating hazardous waste and tiered permitting, underground storage tanks, aboveground storage tanks, and Risk Management Plans.
The Anaheim Fire & Rescue and the City of Orange Fire Department are both participating agency under the County’s Unified Program and administers the Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Program and permits for handling underground storage and storage of hazardous materials pursuant to the Cities’ Fire Codes.
Hazardous Materials Release Notification
The following state statutes require emergency notification of a hazardous chemical release:
• California Health and Safety Code, Sections 25270.8 and 25507 • California Vehicle Code, Section 23112.5
• California Public Utilities Code, Section 7673 (California Public Utilities Commission General Orders No. 22-B and 161)
• California Government Code, Sections 51018 and 8670.25.5(a) • California Water Code, Sections 13271 and 13272
• California Labor Code, Section 6409.1(b)10
Requirements for immediate notification of significant spills or threatened releases cover owners, operators, people in charge, and employers. Notification is required regarding significant releases from facilities, vehicles, vessels, pipelines, and railroads. In addition, releases that result in injuries or harmful exposure to workers must be immediately reported to the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) pursuant to the California Labor Code, Section 6409.1(b).
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Leaking USTs have been recognized since the early 1980s as the primary cause of groundwater contamination from gasoline compounds and solvents. In California, regulations aimed at Section 4.6: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Final EIR No. 357 4.6-5 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
protecting against UST leaks have been in place since 1983 (California Health and Safety Code).
This occurred 1 year before the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act was amended to add Subtitle I, requiring UST systems to be installed in accordance with standards that address the prevention of future leaks. The State Water Resources Control Board was designated as the lead California regulatory agency in the development of UST regulations and policy. Older tanks are typically single-walled, steel tanks. Many of these have leaked as a result of corrosion, punctures, and detached fittings. As a result, the State of California required the replacement of older tanks with new, double-walled, fiberglass tanks with flexible connections and monitoring systems. UST owners were given 10 years to comply with the new requirements—the deadline was December 22, 1998. However, many UST owners did not act by the deadline; therefore, the state granted an extension for their replacement, ending January 1, 2002. The Regional Water Quality Control Boards, in cooperation with the Anaheim Fire & Rescue and the Orange City Fire Department, maintain an inventory of leaking USTs in a statewide database.
Local
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
All cities and counties in California must prepare a General Plan, including a Safety Element that addresses various hazard conditions and other public safety issues. A community may decide to make the Safety Element a stand-alone chapter or incorporate it into another section of the General Plan. California Government Code, Section 65302.6, indicates that a community may adopt a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) into its Safety Element if the LHMP meets applicable state requirements. This adoption allows communities to use the LHMP to satisfy state requirements for safety elements. As the General Plan is an overarching long-term plan for community growth and development, incorporating the LHMP creates a stronger mechanism for implementing the LHMP.
A city’s LHMP and future updates are to be integrated into the city's General Plan Safety Element.
City of Anaheim
The City of Anaheim’s LHMP was adopted on May 19, 2022, and is both a reference document and an action plan. It serves three primary purposes: (1) it provides a comprehensive analysis of the natural and human-caused hazards that threaten the City, with a focus on mitigation; (2) it keeps the City of Anaheim eligible to receive additional federal and state funding to assist with emergency response and recovery, as permitted by the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and California Government Code, Sections 8685.9 and 65302.6; and (3) it complements the efforts undertaken by the Safety Element (City of Anaheim 2022). The LHMP complies with all requirements set forth under the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and received approval from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 2018. Sections of the Safety Element are supplemented by the LHMP, incorporated by reference in this element, as allowed by California Government Code, Section 65302(g).
Section 4.6: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Final EIR No. 357 4.6-6 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
It has information and resources to educate readers and decision-makers about hazard events and related issues and a comprehensive strategy that the City and community members can follow to improve resilience in the City. It is divided into six chapters (Introduction, Community Profile, Hazard Assessment, Vulnerability Assessment, Mitigation Strategy, and Plan Maintenance).
City of Orange
The City of Orange’s LHMP is dated October 2016, and the City of Orange is currently in the process of updating the LHMP. The request for proposal for the City of Orange LHMP Update was released in October 2024 and closed in November 2024.
The 2016 LHMP includes contents such as Community Profile, Hazards Assessment, Mitigation Actions, and Plan Maintenance to identify effective ways to reduce vulnerability to disasters by identifying critical facilities, capabilities, resources, information, and strategies for risk reduction, while helping to guide and coordinate mitigation actions. It provides a set of strategies intended to reduce risk from natural hazards through education and outreach programs; foster the development of partnerships; and implement risk reduction activities. The main purposes are to 1) establish a basis for coordination and collaboration among participating agencies and public entities; 2) identify and prioritize future mitigation projects; and 3) assist in meeting the requirements of federal assistance programs. The City of Orange LHMP works in conjunction with other plans, including the City’s General Plan and Emergency Operations Plan.
City of Anaheim General Plan – Safety Element
The City of Anaheim General Plan Safety Element includes the following goals and policies with regard to hazards and hazardous materials (City of Anaheim 2023):
• Goal 4.1: A community better protected from the release and exposure to hazard materials and wastes.
Policies
− Follow Anaheim Hazardous Materials Area Plan procedures in the event of a hazardous materials emergency.
− Promote the proper handling, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous waste.
− Encourage businesses to utilize practices and technologies that will reduce the generation of hazardous wastes at the source.
− Implement Federal, State, and local regulations for the disposal, handling, and storage of hazardous materials.
− Promote the recovery and recycling of hazardous materials.
Section 4.6: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Final EIR No. 357 4.6-7 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
− Employ effective emergency preparedness and emergency response strategies to minimize impacts from hazardous materials exposures and releases. − Partner with Orange County to provide needed hazardous waste programs to provide disposal of household hazardous waste at no cost to residents and participating agencies.
City of Orange General Plan – Safety Element
The City of Orange follows the County’s Hazardous Materials Inspection and Enforcement Plan.
To prevent accidents, and ensure proper handling, routine inspections are conducted at businesses within the City that store, use, or handle hazardous materials.
The City of Orange General Plan includes the following goals and policies with regard to hazards and hazardous materials (City of Orange 2010):
• GOAL 4.0: Minimize risks to life, property, and the environment associated with producing, using, storing, or transporting hazardous materials. − Policy 4.1: Assess potential risks of disposing, transporting, manufacturing and storing existing hazardous materials, and develop appropriate mitigation measures in case of accidents.
− Policy 4.2: Prohibit new disposal, transport, manufacture, and storage of hazardous materials within the City without a mitigation plan in case of accidents. Hospitals meeting current state and federal standards are exempt. − Policy 4.3: Identify hazardous materials dumpsites, and ensure that the sites are cleaned in conformance with applicable federal and state laws prior to the establishment of new uses.
− Policy 4.4: Ensure that the public is protected from fires, noxious fumes, and other hazards within the City’s industrial area.
4.6.1.2 Existing Conditions
The project site is located along the Santa Ana River corridor between Orangewood Avenue and extends approximately 1.7 miles north of Ball Road to the existing Anaheim Coves at Burris Basin in an urbanized area of the cities of Anaheim and Orange. The Santa Ana River within the project site boundaries is composed of a rock-lined embankment and soil-bottomed trapezoidal-shaped channel that functions primarily as a flood protection structure, providing stormwater conveyance and water resource management and protecting the adjacent lands from flooding in large storm events. The river also includes two reinforced concrete drop structures stretching across the bottom of the riverbed. The existing Santa Ana River Trail runs along the east bank on top of the existing river embankment north of Katella Avenue and along the west bank on top of the existing river embankment south of Katella Avenue. As such, the project site does not contain any uses that use, handle, or dispose of hazardous materials.
Section 4.6: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Final EIR No. 357 4.6-8 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
According to the EDR records search results for projects within the Platinum Triangle, which borders the project site and covers the project site, there is a plugged gas/oil well (ID# CAOG13000006267) in the Santa Ana River between Ball Road and the Union Pacific Railroad.
There are also a cluster of groundwater wells (i.e., CADWR8000005676, 5036, USGS40000138399, CADWR8000005685) in the Santa Ana River near Ball Road (Centec Engineering 2020; Northgate 2020).
4.6.2 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the project would have a significant impact on hazards and hazardous materials if it would:
• Threshold HAZ-1: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. • Threshold HAZ-2: 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.
• Threshold HAZ-3: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. • Threshold HAZ-4: 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. • Threshold HAZ-5: 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. • Threshold HAZ-6: Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
• Threshold HAZ-7: Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
The Initial Study, found in Appendix A to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), determined that the following thresholds would have less than significant or no impact, and these environmental topics will not be addressed further in this section of the Draft EIR:
• Threshold HAZ-1
• Threshold HAZ-3
• Threshold HAZ-5
• Threshold HAZ-6
• Threshold HAZ-7
Section 4.6: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Final EIR No. 357 4.6-9 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
4.6.3 Plans, Programs, and Policies
This section addresses plans, programs, and policies relevant to the project.
PPP HAZ-1 Any project-related hazardous materials and hazardous wastes will be transported to or from the project site in compliance with applicable state and federal requirements, including the U.S. Department of Transportation regulations listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 49, Hazardous Materials Transportation Act); California Department of Transportation standards; and the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards.
PPP HAZ-2 Any project-related hazardous waste generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal will be conducted in compliance with the Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 263), which establishes the responsibilities of generators and transporters of hazardous waste in the handling, transportation, and management of that waste.
PPP HAZ-3 Project construction will occur in accordance with the regulations of the Orange County Health Care Agency, Environmental Health Department (OCHCA-EHD), which serves as the designated Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The project will be designed and constructed in accordance with the regulations of the OCHCA-EHD, which, as the designated CUPA, implements state and federal regulations for the following programs: (1) Hazardous Waste Generator Program, (2) Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Program, (3) California Accidental Release Prevention, (4) Aboveground Storage Tank Program, and (5) Underground Storage Tank Program.
4.6.4 Environmental Impacts
The following sections address various potential impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials that could result from implementation of the project.
4.6.4.1 Threshold HAZ-2: Accidental Releases
Impact Analysis
Construction
Construction of the project would temporarily increase the transport, use, and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials that can come in the forms of gases, vapors, fumes, dusts, and mists, including but not limited to diesel fuel, lubricants, paints and solvents, silica dust from concrete, block, and mortar, and cleaning fluids. These materials are commonly used at construction sites, and construction activities would be required to comply with applicable state and federal regulations for proper transport, use, storage, and disposal of excess hazardous Section 4.6: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Final EIR No. 357 4.6-10 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
materials and hazardous construction waste. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to 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.
Furthermore, in the event that hazardous waste is discovered during construction phase, the project is required to comply with the California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5 to properly identify, handle, and dispose hazardous waste or hazardous materials so that any accidental releases of hazardous materials into the environment is minimized. Therefore, implementation of the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, and impacts would be less than significant.
Operation
The project includes development of various improvements that will work to re-establish and activate the existing river corridor and transform and improve the river and riverbed’s groundwater recharge potential in multiple phases over approximately 10 years. Considering the type of uses proposed for the OC River Walk project, which includes various components related to impoundments for additional groundwater recharge, pedestrian/bike bridges, new trails and existing trail improvements, and enhanced recreational, environmental, and educational amenities, none of the proposed improvements involve the use of hazardous materials. While some use of pesticides and herbicides for landscaping maintenance and cleaning products could occur, these uses are not anticipated to be associated with major hazardous materials and would not create unusually high quantities of hazardous waste that could potentially result in foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
Furthermore, any uses of hazardous materials during operation of the project would be required to comply with existing regulations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
4.6.4.2 Threshold HAZ-4: Hazardous Materials Sites
Impact Analysis
California Government Code, Section 65962.5, requires the compiling of lists of the following types of hazardous materials sites: hazardous waste facilities; hazardous waste discharges for which the State Water Quality Control Board has issued certain types of orders; public drinking water wells containing detectable levels of organic contaminants; underground storage tanks with reported unauthorized releases; and solid waste disposal facilities from which hazardous waste has migrated. Five environmental lists were searched for hazardous materials sites on the project site and within a 500-foot radius as below and the project site is not listed as hazardous materials sites:
Section 4.6: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Final EIR No. 357 4.6-11 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
• GeoTracker: State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB 2024) • EnviroStor: Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC 2024) • EJScreen: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA 2024a) • EnviroMapper: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA 2024b) • Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): California Department of Resources Recovery and Recycling (CalRecycle 2024)
The plugged oil/gas well and a cluster of groundwater wells in Santa Ana River as described in Section
4.7.1.2, Existing Conditions, are not hazardous materials sites per California Government Code, Section 65962.5, and would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
Furthermore, although some of the properties immediately adjacent to the project site were included on a list of hazardous materials sites, they obtained “closed” status that require no further remediation or were undergoing remediation pursuant to 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. Therefore, the project would not be located on a hazardous materials site and would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
4.6.5 Cumulative Impacts
4.6.5.1 Cumulative Threshold HAZ-2: Accidental Releases The project, when combined with other cumulative projects, could potentially increase accidental release of hazardous materials during construction, if hazardous materials are discovered and if construction duration overlaps with other development projects in the area. However, as with the proposed project, other cumulative projects are also required to comply with the California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5 to properly identify, handle, and dispose hazardous waste or hazardous materials so that any accidental releases of hazardous materials into the environment is minimized. Therefore, impacts from accidental release of hazardous materials would be less than significant individually and cumulatively.
The project does not involve any hazardous materials other than typical herbicides for landscaping and cleaning products for future regular maintenance of various improvements. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to contribute to accidental release of hazardous materials individually or cumulatively during operation.
Section 4.6: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Final EIR No. 357 4.6-12 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
4.6.5.2 Cumulative Threshold HAZ 4: Hazardous Materials Sites The project site is not included in the hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to California Government Code, Section 65962.5. Therefore, when combined with other cumulative projects, the proposed project would not contribute to creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
4.6.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Upon implementation of the plans, programs, and policies, the following threshold would be less than significant:
• Threshold HAZ-2: Implementation of the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the release of hazardous materials into the environment. • Threshold HAZ-4: The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites, and as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
4.6.7 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
4.6.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Not applicable.
Section 4.7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Final EIR No. 357 4.7-1 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
This section evaluates the potential for impacts relating to hydrology and water quality resulting from implementation of the OC River Walk Project (project).
The analysis in this section is based on the OC River Walk Hydrology and Hydraulics prepared by PACE (2025). A complete copy of the report is included in Appendix G, Hydrology Report.
4.7.1 Environmental Setting
4.7.1.1 Regulatory Setting
This section describes the federal, state, and local regulatory framework adopted to address hydrology and water quality.
Federal
The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters. The basis of the CWA was enacted in 1948 and was called the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, but the Act was substantially reorganized and expanded in 1972. “Clean Water Act” became the Act's common name with amendments in 1972. Under the CWA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has implemented pollution control programs such as setting wastewater standards for industry and set water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters. The CWA made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls discharges. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or human-made ditches.
The CWA provides guidance for restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. Section 401 requires project proponents to obtain state certification when seeking a federal license or permit for activities that result in a discharge to waters of the United States, ensuring compliance with CWA provisions. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers this certification program.
Section 402 establishes a permitting system for discharging pollutants (excluding dredged or fill material) into waters of the United States. The SWRCB also administers this program in California.
Section 404, administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), regulates permits for discharging dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands.
Section 4.7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Final EIR No. 357 4.7-2 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
State
The Porter-Cologne Act is the principal law governing water quality regulation in California. It establishes a comprehensive program to protect water quality and the beneficial uses of water. The Porter-Cologne Act applies to surface waters, wetlands, and groundwater and to both point and nonpoint sources of pollution. Pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Act (California Water Code, Section 13000 et seq.), the policy of the state is as follows: (SWRCB 2014) • That the quality of all the waters of the State shall be protected; • That all activities and factors affecting the quality of water shall be regulated to attain the highest water quality within reason; and
• That the State must be prepared to exercise its full power and jurisdiction to protect the quality of water in the State from degradation.
The Porter-Cologne Act established nine Regional Water Boards (based on hydrogeologic barriers) and the State Water Board, which are charged with implementing its provisions and which have primary responsibility for protecting water quality in California. The State Water Board provides program guidance and oversight, allocates funds, and reviews Regional Water Boards decisions. In addition, the State Water Board allocates rights to the use of surface water. The Regional Water Boards have primary responsibility for individual permitting, inspection, and enforcement actions within each of nine hydrologic regions. The State Water Board and Regional Water Boards have numerous nonpoint source-related responsibilities, including monitoring and assessment, planning, financial assistance, and management. (SWRCB 2014) The Regional Water Boards regulate discharges under the Porter-Cologne Act primarily through issuance of NPDES permits for point source discharges and waste discharge requirements for numerous nonpoint source discharges. Anyone discharging or proposing to discharge materials that could affect water quality (other than to a community sanitary sewer system regulated by an NPDES permit) must file a report of waste discharge. The SWRCB and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) can make their own investigations or may require dischargers to carry out water quality investigations and report on water quality issues. The Porter-Cologne Act provides several options for enforcing waste discharge requirements and other orders, including cease and desist orders, cleanup and abatement orders, administrative civil liability orders, civil court actions, and criminal prosecutions. (SWRCB 2014)
The Porter-Cologne Act also implements many provisions of the CWA, such as the NPDES permitting program. The Porter-Cologne Act also requires adoption of water quality control plans that contain the guiding policies of water pollution management in California. In addition, regional water quality control plans (basin plans) have been adopted by each of the Regional Water Boards and get updated as necessary and practical. These plans identify the existing and potential beneficial uses of waters of the state and establish water quality objectives to protect these uses.
Section 4.7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Final EIR No. 357 4.7-3 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
The basin plans also contain implementation, surveillance, and monitoring plans. (SWRCB 2014) The Project site is in the Santa Ana River Watershed which is within the purview of Santa Ana RWQCB. The Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan is the governing water quality plan for the region.
Regional
Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan
The “Basin Plan” establishes water quality standards for the ground and surface waters of the region and includes an implementation plan describing the actions by the RWQCB and others that are necessary to achieve and maintain the water quality standards. The RWQCB regulates waste discharges to minimize and control their effects on the quality of the region’s ground and surface water. Permits are issued under various programs and authorities. The terms and conditions of these discharge permits are enforced through a variety of technical, administrative, and legal means. Water quality problems in the region are listed in the Basin Plan, along with the causes of those problems, if known. For water bodies with quality below the levels necessary to allow for all the beneficial uses of the water, plans for improving water quality are included. The latest update for the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin was issued in June 2019.
The Santa Ana RWQCB has issued three Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) permits to the three counties—Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino—and all the incorporated cities within the jurisdiction of this RWQCB. In March 2024, the Santa Ana RWQCB has released a draft Santa Ana Regional I MS4 Permit for public review and comment. The draft Santa Ana Regional MS4 Permit is the first of its kind in the Santa Ana region, where each county previously maintained individual, county-wide permits. The permit combines three existing Phase I MS4 permits for north Orange, western Riverside, and western San Bernardino counties into a single regional permit encompassing the Santa Ana River Watershed area. The three existing MS4 permits were last renewed and adopted between 2009 and 2012. With the transition to a unified Santa Ana Regional MS4 Permit, it is likely that a new, consolidated Model Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and Technical Guidance Document (TGD) will be introduced to standardize stormwater management practices across the entire region. Santa Ana RWQCB is currently reviewing the comments received during the public review period of the draft Santa Ana Regional MS4 Permit, and the final adoption date has not been announced.
Orange County Regional Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) Permit The Santa Ana RWQCB MS4 Storm Water Permit, Order No. R8-2009-0030, NPDES Permit No.
CAS618030 (MS4 Permit), as amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062, is currently in effect, and specifies waste discharge requirements for the County of Orange, the incorporated cities of Orange County, and the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) within the Santa Ana region.
Pursuant to this “Fourth-Term” MS4 Permit, the co-permittees were required to update and implement Section 4.7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Final EIR No. 357 4.7-4 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
a drainage area management plan for their jurisdictions as well as local implementation plans that describe the co-permittees’ urban runoff management programs for their local jurisdictions.
The Orange County Stormwater Program’s Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) is Orange County’s principal policy and program guidance document for stormwater management and includes a 2017 Technical Guidance Document to be followed in preparing the project’s WQMP.
The Model WQMP and North Orange County TGD were developed by the Permittees according to section XII.C. of the current Order. These documents govern the development and implementation of post-construction pollution controls for certain new development and significant redevelopment as defined in the Order. The Order, Model WQMP, and TGD emphasize the use of controls that support low impact development (LID). Both documents are subject to periodic updates and amendments, subject to the approval of the Executive Officer and after public review.
The use of LID best management practices (BMPs) in project planning and design is to preserve a site’s predevelopment hydrology by minimizing the loss of natural hydrologic processes such as infiltration, evapotranspiration, and runoff detention. LID BMPs try to offset these losses by introducing structural and nonstructural design components that restore this water quality functions into the project’s land plan. These land development requirements are detailed in the Model WQMP and TGD, approved in May 2011, which cities have incorporated into their discretionary approval processes for new development and redevelopment projects. New developments and redevelopments must implement BMPs under the LID hierarchy, as described in the TGD. The LID hierarchy encourages, where feasible, new projects to first infiltrate, then harvest and reuse, then biofilter stormwater runoff, depending on site constraints.
Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Orange County Water District (OCWD) adopted its first Groundwater Management Plan in 1989.
The latest update was completed in 2015. This plan sets forth basin management goals and objectives and describes how the basin is managed. This includes description of basin hydrogeology, water supply monitoring programs, management and operation of recharge facilities, water quality protection and management, and natural resource and collaborative watershed programs. Basin management goals are (1) to protect and enhance groundwater quality, (2) to protect and increase the sustainable yield of the basin in a cost-effective manner, and (3) to increase the efficiency of OCWD operations.
OCWD also requires an NPDES permit from the Santa Ana RWQCB to allow discharge of groundwater replenishment system GWRS water into the Santa Ana River (SAR). In addition to this, OCWD’s existing Title 22 Reuse permit from the State Water Board, Division of Drinking Water would be amended to allow impoundment and groundwater recharge of GWRS water within the SAR.
Section 4.7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Final EIR No. 357 4.7-5 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Alternative Plan In 2014, the California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act was passed. The law provides authority for agencies to develop and implement groundwater sustainability plans or alternative plans that demonstrate the basin is being managed sustainably. On January 1, 2017, the OCWD, City of La Habra, and Irvine Ranch Water District submitted the Basin 8-1 Alternative to the California Department of Water Resources. Elements to be included in groundwater sustainability plans as described in the California Water Code (Sections10727.2, 10727.4, and 10727.6) have been incorporated into the Basin 8-1 Alternative.
Local
City of Anaheim General Plan
The City of Anaheim General Plan includes the following goals and policies pertaining to hydrology and water quality.
Public Services and Facilities Element
• Goal 6.1: Maintain a storm drain system that will adequately protect and enhance the health, safety and general welfare of residents, visitors, employees, and their property. − Policy 6.1-1. Improve the City’s storm drain system to address current deficiencies as well as long-term needs associated with future development to minimize flood damage and adequately convey rainfall and subsequent runoff from a 25-year frequency storm.
− Policy 6.1-2. Develop Anaheim’s flood control system for multi-purpose uses whenever practical and financially feasible (i.e., recreational, water quality/treatment, infiltration, etc.).
− Policy 6.1-3. Minimize the amount of impervious surfaces in conjunction with new development.
− Policy 6.1-4. Minimize the disturbance of natural water bodies and natural drainage systems, where feasible, resulting from development including roads, highways, and bridges.
Green Element
• Goal 6.1: Develop a Groundwater Protection Management Program to ensure the quality of groundwater drinking supplies.
− Policy 6.1-1. Develop and disseminate educational materials that describe the importance of protecting groundwater and management techniques for the proper storage and disposal of materials and waste.
− Policy 6.1-2. Include groundwater protection educational outreach efforts with Anaheim Fire Department hazardous materials and waste inspections.
Section 4.7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Final EIR No. 357 4.7-6 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
− Policy 6.1-3. Continue to coordinate groundwater protection efforts with the Orange County Water District, neighboring cities and other relevant agencies. • Goal 7.1: Reduce urban run-off from new and existing development. − Policy 7.1-1. Ensure compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act requirements for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, including developing and requiring the development of Water Quality Management Plans for all new development and significant redevelopment in the City. − Policy 7.1-2. Continue to implement an urban runoff reduction program consistent with regional and federal requirements, which includes requiring and encouraging the following:
o Increase permeable areas and install filtration controls (including grass lined swales and gravel beds) and divert flow to these permeable areas to allow more percolation of runoff into the ground;
o Use natural drainage, detention ponds or infiltration pits to collect runoff; and,
o Prevent rainfall from entering material and waste storage areas and pollution-laden surfaces.
− Policy 7.1-3. Cooperate with surrounding jurisdictions and the County of Orange to provide adequate storm drainage facilities.
− Policy 7.1-4. Require new development and significant redevelopment to utilize site preparation, grading and best management practices that provide erosion and sediment control to prevent construction-related contaminants from leaving the site and polluting waterways.
− Policy 7.1-5. Coordinate with appropriate Federal, State, and local resource agencies on development projects and construction activities affecting waterways and drainages.
− Policy 7.1-6. Provide public education information and outreach materials regarding proper materials handling practices to assist residents and businesses in complying with surface water quality regulations and to increase awareness of potential impacts to the environment resulting from improper containment or disposal practices.
Safety Element
• Goal 3.1: A community resilient to the effects of flooding and dam inundation hazards. − Policy 3.1-1. Evaluate all development proposals located in areas that are subject to flooding to minimize the exposure of life and property to potential flood risks. − Policy 3.1-2. Continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. (Revised Policy)
Section 4.7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Final EIR No. 357 4.7-7 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
− Policy 3.1-3. Continue compliance with the Cobey-Alquist Floodplain Management Act requirements and State of California Model Ordinance. − Policy 3.1-4. Encourage properties prone to flooding or creating new flooding conditions to incorporate flood safe design elements and appropriate setbacks to reduce flood damage potential.
− Policy 3.1-5. Encourage new development to maintain and enhance existing natural streams, as feasible.
− Policy 3.1-6. Support policies and programs to promote water conservation measures, low-impact development, and green infrastructure that can help convey stormwater and reduce impacts from both drought and flooding. − Policy 3.1-7. Coordinate with local, state, and federal agencies on flood control and stormwater management improvements in and around the city. − Policy 3.1-8. Coordinate with OC Flood Control and US Army Corps of Engineers on operations, maintenance, and improvements to Prado Dam and the Santa Ana River.
− Policy 3.1-9. Utilize flood control methods that are consistent with Regional Water Quality Control Board Policies and Best Management Practices.
City of Anaheim Municipal Code
Chapter 10.09, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). This chapter states that new development and significant redevelopment within the City of Anaheim may have to comply with a WQMP as determined by the Director. If such a determination is made, the applicant must comply with the State General Permit, State Project Specific Permit, or Local Discharge Permit and undertake inspections to determine compliance with the permit.
Chapter 10.14, Storm Drain Impact and Improvement Fee. This chapter enforces a storm drain impact fee to finance storm drain improvements and to pay for new developments and expansions and additions to existing developments. The City Council has found the fee to be consistent with its General Plan, and pursuant to Government Code 65913.2, has considered the effects of the fee with respect to the City of Anaheim’s storm drain needs in the South Central City Area as established in the Master Plan of Drainage for the South Central City Area and within "The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2.”
Chapter 17.04, Grading, Excavations, Fills, Watercourses. The purpose of this chapter is to require that excavations and fills which may affect drainage and watercourses be performed in accordance with good engineering practice. The regulations and standards established in this chapter are the minimum regulations necessary for the protection of public and private and property and that, where circumstances warrant, the City Engineer shall recommend to the City Council such additional standards, procedures and other regulations as may improve the quality of such protection.
Section 4.7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Final EIR No. 357 4.7-8 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Chapter 17.28, Flood Hazard Reduction. This chapter provides methods for reducing flood losses through restricting or prohibiting uses that could endanger the health, safety, and property in the City of Anaheim; requires that uses vulnerable to flooding be protected against flood damage; provides for the control of the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers; provides for flood control infrastructure and prevent grading or dredging that may increase flood damage; and regulates the construction of flood barriers that divert floodwaters or increase flood hazards.
Storm Drainage Master Plans
The City of Anaheim Department of Public Works has an ongoing storm drainage master planning program for eight primary storm drainage tributary areas in the City of Anaheim. These tributary areas flow storm water into the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel, Anaheim-Barber City Channel, Stanton Channel, Carbon Creek Channels, Moody Channel, Fullerton Channel, North and West Santa Ana River and South and East Santa Ana River.
In 1973, a Master Plan of Drainage was developed for the entire City of Anaheim. In this Master Plan, the City of Anaheim was divided into 44 distinct watershed areas, designated as Districts.
Storm drain deficiencies and the needed drainage facilities were also identified. The Master Plan of Drainage have since been updated. The City’s Department of Public Works oversees a storm drainage master planning program for eight primary storm drainage tributary areas in the City of Anaheim. Each storm drainage master plan identifies existing deficient drainage areas for the corresponding tributary area, recommends drainage improvements to reduce or eliminate deficiencies, and presents the probable cost for construction of such improvements. All master plans are based on the criteria outlined in the City’s 2005 Drainage Manual for Public and Private Drainage Facilities. The City of Anaheim has eight storm drainage master plans and the project site in the Anaheim Master Plan of Drainages North and West Santa Ana Tributaries (adopted July 2014).
City of Anaheim Best Management Design Guidelines
The City of Anaheim has established best management guidelines to be used by applicants during the BMP design process for all proposed projects within the City. All standards in the guidelines were developed to improve BMP functionality, stormwater treatment, and lifespan for all new projects within the City (City of Anaheim 2024). Compliance with the standards should be reflected within the grading plans and WQMP submitted to the City through design narrative and construction details.
County of Orange/Orange County Flood Control District BMP Design Manual The County of Orange/OCFCD (County/OCFCD) is subject to two MS4 permits issued by the Santa Ana and San Diego RWQCBs. Both permits require the County/OCFCD to implement land development programs to ensure new development and significant redevelopment projects comply Section 4.7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Final EIR No. 357 4.7-9 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
with post-construction BMP regulations. The County/OCFCD BMP Design Manual was created to fulfill these requirements and provide guidance to developers on drafting WQMPs.
City of Orange General Plan
The City of Orange General Plan includes the following goals and policies pertaining to hydrology and water quality in the Natural Resources Element.
• Goal 2.0: Protect air, water, and energy resources from pollution and overuse. − Policy 2.3: Reduce the amount of water used for landscaping through the use of native and drought-tolerant plants, proper soil preparation, and efficient irrigation systems as parks and other City facilities are built or renovated. − Policy 2.4: Encourage the production, distribution, and use of recycled and reclaimed water for landscaping projects, while maintaining urban runoff water quality objectives.
− Policy 2.11: Protect the ecological integrity and overall health of Orange’s watersheds.
− Policy 2.12: Cooperate with water supply agencies to protect the quantity and quality of local groundwater supplies.
− Policy 2.13: Control surface runoff water discharges into the stormwater conveyance system to comply with the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Permit and other regional permits issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. − Policy 2.14: Reduce pollutant runoff from new development by requiring the use of low impact development practices and the most effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) currently available.
− Policy 2.15: Minimize the amount of impervious surfaces and associated urban runoff pollutants in new development and significant redevelopment throughout the community.
− Policy 2.16: Protect in-stream habitat and natural stream and channel features. − Policy 2.17: Educate City residents and businesses on the effects of urban runoff, and water and energy conservation strategies.
City of Orange Municipal Code
Chapter 7.01 (Water Quality and Stormwater Discharges) of the City of Orange Municipal Code requires the City to participate as a "Copermittee" under the NPDES permit program to accomplish the requirements of the CWA. Pursuant to this chapter, the City of Orange has established uniform standards for the improvement of water quality, to comply with the federal requirements for the control of urban pollutants to stormwater runoff and to regulate discharges of stormwater to the storm drain system in the City of Orange.
Section 4.7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Final EIR No. 357 4.7-10 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
4.7.1.2 Existing Conditions
Regional Setting
The project site is in the lower Santa Ana River watershed that runs from Prado Dam to the Pacific Ocean, running about 31 miles through the cities of Yorba Linda, Anaheim, Orange, Santa Ana, Fountain Valley, Costa Mesa, and Huntington Beach before emptying into the Pacific Ocean.
The Santa Ana River Mainstem project was originally proposed by the USACE and authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to increase the flood stage capacity of Prado Dam and improve downstream channel conveyance and capacity after a series of floods caused catastrophic damage to the increasingly urbanized areas downstream of Pardo in the early 1980s.
The project included channelization of the Santa Ana River from Weir Canyon Road to the Pacific Ocean, which involved constructing a levee embankment for flood protection.
The project site is in the USACE lower Santa Ana River Reaches 5 and 6. Reach 5 spans from the Riverview Golf Course to the Orange Freeway (SR 57) and Reach 6 spans from the Orange Freeway to Glassell Street. Cross sections of the channel are typically trapezoidal with a softbottom and stone revetted side slopes between 1(vertical [V]) to 1.5 (horizontal [H]) to 1(V) to 3(H). A series of reinforced concrete drop structures ranging in height from 4.5 to 9.7 feet and buried riprap stabilizer structures are constructed at approximately 2,000 ft intervals. These act to maintain a stable grade and control channel scour within the lower Santa Ana River channel reach.
Construction of the Santa Ana River levee system was completed in September 1995, and the operation and maintenance of the levee was passed to the OCFCD which is administered by Orange County Public Works. The primary purpose of the levee is for flood control, as it protects over 1 million people. However, the OCWD also uses the soft-bottom channel of the Santa Ana River to recharge the groundwater basin by impounding water in a series of sand levees (“T and L” levees) that slow water within the Santa Ana River for infiltration and groundwater recharge.
Hydrology – Santa Ana River Flowrates
Design flowrates in the lower Santa Ana River watershed were established as part of the USACE design plan described in the General Design Memorandum Phase II General Design Memorandum (GDM) on the Santa Ana River Mainstem, Volume 7. The lower Santa Ana River reach was designed for flowrates equated to a 190-year storm event. In the vicinity of the project site, the 190-year design discharge is 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) with an increase to 41,000 cfs downstream of Collins Channel.
Section 4.7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Final EIR No. 357 4.7-11 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Project Site
OC River Walk consists of an approximately 90-acre area that covers both banks of the Santa Ana River. The project site is bound between Orangewood Avenue and Ball Road within the City of Orange and City of Anaheim.
Existing Major Elements
The project site encompasses areas containing six bridges over the Santa Ana River, two drop structures, the Collins Channel tributary, and the levee embankment.
Levee Embankment. The levee embankment on the project site consists of riprap lined riverbank.
The Santa Ana River trail runs along the top of the bank between Orangewood Avenue and Katella Avenue on the west bank and between Katella Avenue and Ball Road on the east bank. According to the USACE as-built records, the riverbank protection is comprised of loose and grouted riprap at a 2(H):1(V) slope. The river channel has a base width ranging from 300–320 feet and depths ranging from 12 to 18.5 feet. The top of bank freeboard provided is a minimum of 2.5 feet (USACOE GDM 1988). Loose riprap along the embankments would have d501 values ranging from 15 inches to 33 inches, with thicknesses of 24 inches to 48 inches, respectively. Embankment areas around the drop structures have grouted riprap with a d50 of 10 inches and a thickness of 15 inches.
Drop Structures. Two reinforced-concrete drop structures are located on the project site. The downstream structure is located approximately 350 feet downstream of the Metrolink/Los AngelesSan Diego-San Luis Obispo Rail (LOSSAN) Corridor railroad bridge with a drop height of approximately 7 feet. The upstream structure is located approximately 400 feet downstream of the Ball Road bridge with a drop height of approximately 9 feet. The drop structures provide energy dissipation and minimize riverbed and bank scour. Each structure uses a parabolic curved chute downstream of the crest, two rows of baffle blocks, and a sloping end sill (USACOE GDM 1988).
Bridges. There are six existing bridges that span over the Santa Ana River on the project site.
Orangewood Avenue, SR-57 Freeway, Metrolink/LOSSAN Corridor railroad, Katella Avenue, Union Pacific Railroad, and Ball Road bridges. The relevant hydraulic parameters for each bridge are summarized in Table 4.7-1, Existing Bridge Description. 1 The D50 of a riprap rock gradation refers to the median diameter (D) of the rocks used in rock riprap. It represents the size at which half of the rocks weigh more and half weigh less.
Section 4.7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Final EIR No. 357 4.7-12 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Table 4.7-1. Existing Bridge Description
Name Bridge Deck Data Bridge
Pier Data Bridge Undercrossing Notes
Orangewood Avenue Bridge Width = 72 ft 6 Piers SART undercrossing on west bank 57 Freeway Bridge Width = 344 ft 6 Piers SART undercrossing on west bank and maintenance road undercrossing on the East bank
Metrolink/LOSSAN Corridor
Railroad Bridge Width = 48 ft 3 Piers SART undercrossing on west bank and maintenance road undercrossing on the East bank Katella Avenue Bridge Width = 130 ft 3 Piers SART undercrossing on west bank and maintenance road undercrossing on the East bank
Union Pacific Railroad Bridge Width = 18 ft 5 Piers SART undercrossing on East bank Ball Road Bridge Width = 80 ft 5 Piers Maintenance road undercrossing on the West bank and SART undercrossing on East Bank
SRT = Santa Ana River Trail
4.7.2 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the project would have a significant impact on hydrology and water quality if it would:
• Threshold HYD-1: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. • Threshold HYD-2: Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
• Threshold HYD-3: 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:
a. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. b. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite.
c. 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.
d. Impede or redirect flood flows.
• Threshold HYD-4: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.
• Threshold HYD-5: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
Section 4.7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Final EIR No. 357 4.7-13 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
The Initial Study (Appendix A to the Draft Environmental Impact Report [EIR]) determined that the following thresholds would have a less than significant, and this environmental topic will not be addressed further in this section of the Draft EIR.
• Threshold HYD-2
• Threshold HYD-4 (tsunami impact only)
4.7.3 Plans, Programs, and Policies
This section addresses plans, programs, and policies relevant to the project.
PPP HYD-1 The project is required to be developed in compliance with the following state, regional, and local regulations concerning grading, stormwater, and water quality control, as determined by the applicable approval authority:
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Construction Permit: Notice of Intent and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Requirements
State Water Resources Control Board General Industrial Activities Storm Water Permit
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Waste Discharge Permits and Water Quality Certifications
Orange County Grading Manual
Orange County Grading and Excavation Code
Orange County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems Permit Orange County Model Water Quality Management Plan and Technical Guidance Document
Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan: New
Development/Significant Redevelopment Program
Orange County Hydrology Manual and 1996 Addendum
Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment Program Orange County Flood Control District Local Implementation Plan 2019 City of Anaheim and City of Orange Municipal Codes
City of Anaheim Grading Design Manual
Anaheim Master Plan of Drainages North and West Santa Ana Tributaries American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Load and Resistance Factor Design Bridge Design Specifications with California Amendments
California Department of Transportation Standard Plans California Department of Transportation Seismic Desing Criteria California Department of Transportation Geotechnical Manual Section 4.7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Final EIR No. 357 4.7-14 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
PPP HYD-2 The City of Anaheim is required to obtain a Section 401 Permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
PPP HYD-3 The City of Anaheim is required to obtain Section 404 and 408 Permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
4.7.4 Environmental Impacts
The following sections address various potential impacts relating to hydrology and water quality that could result from implementation of the project.
4.7.4.1 Thresholds HYD-1 and HYD-3c (Polluted Runoff): Water Quality Standards and Polluted Runoff
Impact Analysis
Under Section 402 of the CWA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulates stormwater discharges through the NPDES program. In California, the SWRCB administers the program, developing permit requirements in coordination with the RWQCB. The project site falls within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB.
Construction Impacts
Project construction activities, including excavation, vegetation removal, grading, bridge and retaining wall construction, trenching, drainage improvements, paving, revegetation, and installation of fencing and trail amenities, would disturb more than one acre of land. Therefore, the project will comply with the state construction storm water general permit and will provide a Notice of Intent and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Project disturbance of one or more acres are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity, Order 2009-0009-DWQ (and subsequent Order 2022-0057-DWQ) and implement a SWPPP and monitoring program consistent with permit requirements. The SWPPP would incorporate BMPs to minimize water quality impacts, such as erosion and sediment control measures, wind erosion prevention, prevention of soil and debris tracking onto adjacent properties, waste and hazardous material management, and equipment and material storage in designated staging areas. Regular inspections, reporting, and stormwater sampling would ensure compliance with permit requirements. The project would also be required to coordinate with OCWD to minimize river percolating impacts during construction. Percolation in close proximity to the embankments and structures within the Santa Ana River could prolong construction timeframe due to potential dewatering requirements. With these mandatory BMPs, construction-related stormwater impacts would be less than significant.
Furthermore, the project involves impoundments, storm drain diversions, and embankment modifications to the Santa Ana River, requiring Sections 401 and 404 permits from the RWQCB Section 4.7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Final EIR No. 357 4.7-15 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
and USACE, respectively, pursuant to the regulatory requirements of the CWA. Compliance with these existing regulatory requirements would ensure that construction impacts to the waters of the United States are less than significant.
Implementation of NPDES permit provisions and compliance with the grading requirements of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange would minimize construction impacts through BMPs that reduce construction-related pollutants. The project would also comply with local and regional requirements to avoid adverse impacts on existing drainage facilities. Therefore, constructionrelated impacts on downstream waters would be less than significant.
Operational Impacts
The existing condition of the project site primarily only allowed for access through the Santa Ana River trail bike path. This unsupervised travel path allowed for nuisance use of the dirt areas adjacent to the river, promoting poor trash management and allowing for the potential of bacterial and biological pollution (PACE 2024). In addition, there had been no trash receptacles or public restrooms in the vicinity of the river. The project would result in increased paved surfaces due to new trails and trail improvements. The project would also increase users and visitors to the new trail, trail improvements, and the Santa Ana River. However, the increased impervious surfaces and users would not create additional sources of polluted runoff because the project includes the construction of public sanitary facilities and trash receptacles to minimize pollutants from entering the Santa Ana River preliminarily. The presence of these facilities will divert trash and other pollutants away from the Santa Ana River and into proper disposal pathways using source control (PACE 2024).
During operation of the proposed impoundments, there are opportunities to divert trash from the Santa Ana River. During dry weather operation, trash from the storm drain diversions will be captured and no longer enter the Santa Ana River. In the event of large storms, the Santa Ana River will operate as it currently does, any trash and debris within the river will continue downstream.
Flows from unexpected events, such as emergency responses during a fire, would be managed in the same fashion as tributary dry weather or large event flows. The operational mechanism of the project elements is designed to maintain regional and local drainage capacities. It would be possible to provide controls to local officials that enable operational decisions on an event basis, such as draining and impoundment that receives large volume of contaminated emergency response runoff, to avoid infiltration of pollutants.
The proposed impoundments would be supplied by treated water from the OCWD’s GWRS that would discharge into the SAR. The project would be subjected to the NPDES permitting from the Santa Ana RWQCB such as through an individual NPDES permit or other de minimis discharge permit. The discharge operations for the project and associated NPDES permit would be Section 4.7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Final EIR No. 357 4.7-16 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
coordinated with OCFCD through the encroachment permit, in addition to other impacted regulatory agencies.
Additionally, a WQMP would be developed to address the required water quality components of the project elements. The project would be designed to comply with the North Orange County TGD and Model WQMP to achieve MS4 permit compliance.
The semi-permanent water bodies created by the proposed impoundments are for groundwater recharge, and the recharge water would be of sufficiently high quality that it satisfies the water quality objectives in the Basin Plan for the Orange County Management Zone and the surface water bodies. The project also includes a series of storm drain diversion pipe to sewer operated by the City of Anaheim and the City of Orange, depending on jurisdiction, further reducing pollutant entry into the river during dry-weather, contributing to improved water quality. For further discussion of impoundment operational conditions during dry weather, low river flow, and high river flow, see Section 4.7.4.2, Threshold HYD-3a: Site Drainage and Hydrology (Erosion and Siltation).
The project is required to comply with the requirements of the County of Orange, OCFCD local implementation plan, the OC Drainage Area Management Plan, and the MS4 permit to prevent long-term impacts of the project and, when feasible, incorporate LID/site design and source control BMPs to address post-construction stormwater runoff management. Additionally, the Santa Ana RWQCB does not list any impaired water bodies within the project reach. RWQCB Reach 2, of the Santa Ana River, which extends from Prado Dam to 17th Street in Santa Ana. However, the project would require long-term maintenance agreements with the City of Orange, County of Orange, and OCWD to identify the responsible parties and the specific tasks required for the proper maintenance and operation of the proposed water, trail, and recreational improvements, as intended and described herein, without adversely impacting water quality or creating polluted runoff.
Therefore, to ensure that the project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality, maintenance and operations agreements with multiple parties would be required as mitigation to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure HYD-1 is required.
4.7.4.2 Threshold HYD-3a: Site Drainage and Hydrology (Erosion and Siltation) Impact Analysis
Construction
Construction of the project could result in soil erosion due to earthmoving activities such as excavation, grading, soil compaction and moving, soil stockpiling, and slope modification. The Section 4.7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Final EIR No. 357 4.7-17 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Construction General Permit, as discussed in Section 4.7.4.1, Thresholds HYD-1 and HYD-3c (polluted runoff): Water Quality Standards and Polluted Runoff, requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for projects that involves construction or demolition activity, including but not limited to, clearing, grading, grubbing, or excavation, or any other activity that results in a land disturbance of equal to or greater than one acre. The project involves more than one acre of ground disturbance for the trail improvements and additional riverbed and embankment areas. The project SWPPP will provide construction BMPs to reduce erosion, siltation, and other runoff-related impacts resulting from construction. Additionally, the project would comply with the City of Anaheim General Plan Green Element Policies 7.1-1 and 7.1-2, and the City of Orange Natural Resources Element Policies 2.13 through 2.15 to reduce erosion, siltation, and other runoff impacts. With these mandatory BMPs, construction-related stormwater impacts would be less than significant.
Operation
Operational procedures of the impoundments are built on extensive analysis of the Santa Ana River hydrology and Prado Dam release procedures. The goals are effective utilization of groundwater replenishment system (GWRS) supply through increased groundwater recharge, channel flood conveyance capacity, and water quality of the impoundments. Three operational conditions are defined: dry weather operation, low river flow operation, and high river flow operation.
During dry weather operation, the impoundment water levels would be maintained using GWRS water supplied by OCWD. To address impoundment water quality concerns, dry weather nuisance flows in all adjacent tributary storm drain lines would be captured/diverted by gravity. These nuisance flows would be pumped to Orange County Sanitation District sewer lines and treatment facilities, with a few storm drain lines on the east side of the project discharged to the river channel downstream of the lower impoundment. This would minimize the possibility of any dry weather flows reaching the impoundments and mixing with GWRS water. In this operational condition, the impoundments would be filled to within 6 to 12 inches of the impoundment overflow elevation and maintained, with the ability to bypass a portion of the water through a bypass structure containing a modulating weir so water levels and discharge flow can be controlled.
A low flow event is defined as a precipitation event that produces expected flow volumes at the project site of less than 200 acre-feet (the volume of water retained by the two impoundments).
Forecast monitoring of rainfall is already utilized for the operation of the Imperial and Five Coves rubber dams, as well as releases from Prado Dam, which constitute the majority of the flow in the Lower Santa Ana River Watershed. During a rain event, the dry weather nuisance diversion systems are turned off, allowing flow from the tributaries to enter the river. Flows to the project site would consist of a combination of flows from the surrounding tributaries and from Prado Dam releases. Generally, in low flow conditions the GWRS water supply to the impoundments would be halted, and the GWRS water would be allowed to infiltrate or may be pumped to Burris Basin, Section 4.7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Final EIR No. 357 4.7-18 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
an off-river basin operated by OCWD. Santa Ana River flows, either tributary or from Prado Dam, would fill the impoundments up to the 200-acre-foot capacity. In any event where flows over the rubber dam reach a 6-inch nappe (approximately 320 cfs), the inflatable dams would be deflated.
It is anticipated that clogging materials from the river impoundments would be scoured during a high-flow storm event when the dams are deflated, or would be removed manually using bulldozers after the wet season, so that GWRS water can be placed into the impoundments after the captured stormwater has percolated or passed through.
High flow events are defined as events where the flows reaching the project site, which include tributary runoff and flows from Prado Dam, are 200 acre-feet or greater. In these conditions, both impoundments would be evacuated, and the rubber dams would be deflated to allow complete storm conveyance in the Santa Ana River channel. For this operation, GWRS inflows to the impoundments would be halted and allowed to fully infiltrate, which takes approximately 10 days, or the GWRS water would be drained and pumped to Burris Basin, which is anticipated to take approximately 3 days. The impoundments would then be fully deflated to maintain peak flood capacity of the Santa Ana River channel. In the later parts of the storm, the rubber dams would be reinflated with the intent of capturing the full operation volume, or 200 acre-feet, in both impoundments. During any event, regardless of expected volume, when the flow exceeds 320 cfs (6-inch nappe) over the dams, they would automatically deflate as a safety mechanism to prevent damage. There would be no changes to other segments of the Santa Ana River. Therefore, the impoundments would not result in additional erosion or siltation impact compared to the existing conditions.
There is an inflatable dam located in Collins Channel where it meets the SAR. This inflatable dam prevents GWRS water from backing up into Collins Channel and prevents dry weather runoff from Collins Channel from entering the impoundments. The crest of the Collins Channel inflatable dam will be at the same elevation as the north SAR dam.
The Collins Channel dam would be operated in conjunction with the proposed impoundments and would be raised and lowered to facilitate various operating conditions. During dry weather, with the Collins Channel dam inflated, a pump station would pump flow in Collins Channel to the SAR downstream of the proposed impoundments. During storm events, the Collins Channel dam would be lowered in conjunction with the proposed rubber dams. The operation of the Collins Channel dam would maintain the flow pattern of the Collins Channel, and would not impact existing Collins Channel drainage capacity.
The existing levee embankment within the project site consists of riprap-lined riverbank. The riverbank protection is comprised of loose and grouted riprap at a 2(H):1(V) slope. The project would modify the existing riprap with soil cement bank protection, reinforced concrete terraces and steps and new riprap, therefore, no erosion and siltation would occur during operation. Also, once constructed, surface drainage in the project site would primarily remain the same, with the river trails Section 4.7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Final EIR No. 357 4.7-19 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
and surrounding areas draining to the Santa Ana River. The trail and trail improvement design would include various impervious surface materials and landscaping, and there would be no exposed soils with risk of substantial soil erosion or siltation. Impacts would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
4.7.4.3 Thresholds HYD-3b and 3d: Site Drainage and Hydrology (Flooding and Flood Flows)
There are four main improvements related to the project that are within or would interact with the Santa Ana River hydraulics, including:
• Two river impoundments in the Santa Ana River for increased groundwater recharge capabilities and recreational use
• Two non-motorized (pedestrian and bicycle) bridges across the Santa Ana River − Approximately 400 feet upstream of Orangewood Avenue
− Approximately 800 feet upstream of Katella Avenue
• Riverbank modifications replacing existing riprap with soil cement bank protection, reinforced concrete terraces and steps and new riprap
• Two new Santa Ana River Trail bike undercrossings
− At the west bank at the ARTIC station, under the Metrolink/LOSSAN Corridor railroad bridge
− At the Union Pacific railroad bridge
River Impoundments: The water impoundment within the Santa Ana River would be similar to OCWD’s existing rubber dam impoundments currently in place for river flow diversion to groundwater recharge. However, instead of being used to divert water to offline basins, the OC River Walk impoundment structures would be installed to create semi-permanent water bodies in the Santa Ana River for groundwater recharge. Identical to the existing OCWD structures, the impoundment structures will lower automatically during large storm events or to drain impounded water when otherwise desired to ensure the flood capacity of the Santa Ana River is maintained.
For further discussion of impoundment operational conditions during dry weather, low river flow, and high river flow, see Section 4.7.4.2.
The first impoundment would be located upstream of the ARTIC railroad bridge crossing and create about 23 acres of water surface, with a depth up to 8 feet at the location of the impoundment structure.
The second impoundment location would be upstream of the Orangewood Avenue bridge crossing and create about 14.4 acres of water surface, with an impoundment depth up to 10 feet at the location of the dam structure. Inflatable rubber dams have been selected to create the impoundments because they can be deflated during major river flow storm events to maintain full flood flow capacity in the Section 4.7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Final EIR No. 357 4.7-20 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Santa Ana River channel. The design and operation would be similar to the inflatable dams OCWD has operated for 30 years, upstream of the project site in the Santa Ana River at the Imperial and Five Coves diversion locations. Each dam would be equipped with an automated inflation and deflation system, including an inlet/outlet compressed air piping system, compressor, pressure relief valve, and a control and monitoring system that would be housed within a sound attenuating enclosure (precast vault or aboveground building as the preferred option).
Pedestrian Bridges: Two new pedestrian bridges are proposed over the Santa Ana River to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access and to connect the west and east paths of the SART. The first bridge crossing would be located near the Honda Center, approximately 800 feet upstream of Katella Avenue. The bridge is proposed to have three piers and a width of 35 feet. The second bridge would be approximately 400 feet upstream of Orangewood Avenue, near Angel Stadium.
The second pedestrian bridge is proposed to have one pier and a width of 16 feet.
River Embankment Modifications: The embankments on both sides of the Santa Ana River would be transformed by removing the existing riprap and adding reinforced concrete stepped terraces and new soil cement banks. The proposed improvements include changing the existing riprap bank slope of 2(H):1(V) to a soil cement slope of 1.5(H):1(V). The proposed riverbank modifications would maintain river flood control hydraulic capacity and bank stability.
Hydraulic Impacts
A detailed hydraulic model of the project site and its vicinity reach using HEC-RAS version 6.4.1.
Steady and unsteady state models were created to simulate various flows within the river channel.
Hydraulic models were used to evaluate changes in water surface elevations and velocity, freeboard within the river, sediment transport potential, potential bridge scour, and an impoundment deflation scenario to evaluate hydrology with implementation of the project.
The USACE Santa Ana River model was obtained and used as the baseline for the existing condition model. The existing and proposed condition models were compared to quantify any changes to hydraulics as a result of the proposed improvements. The purpose of the existing condition model is to serve as a baseline that represents the as-is, as-built condition of the Santa Ana River. The proposed condition model includes all channel improvements and modifications.
Depth and Velocity
The project is designed using the USACE 190-year event flowrate, 40,000 cfs to 41,000 cfs. Under the existing condition HEC-RAS model, flow depths for the design discharge (Q190 = 40,000 to 41,000 cfs) ranged from 11.2 to 17.6 feet, and channel velocity ranged from 7.6 to 11.5 feet per second. Under the proposed condition HEC-RAS model, flow depths for the design discharge ranged from 11.2 to 17.7 feet, and channel velocity for the design event ranged from 7.6 to 11.7 feet per second. The change in depth as a result of the project shows a maximum increase of 0.5 Section 4.7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Final EIR No. 357 4.7-21 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
ft, and in some areas a decrease in depth up to 0.2 ft. The changes to depth are generally upstream of the two proposed pedestrian bridges. The changes to velocity as a result of the proposed project include increases up to 0.6 feet per second (fps) and decreases up to 0.9 fps. The decreases are generally located around the proposed pedestrian bridges, where the addition of piers within the main channel slow down the flow, decreasing velocity. The maximum increase in velocity is localized to the proposed Meadow Park, which includes a small change in the bank alignment that slightly decreases flow area, therefore increasing velocity. As such, only negligible increases in channel depth and velocity would occur with implementation of the project, and impacts would be less than significant. The Hydrology Study included as Appendix G to the Draft EIR compares the flow depth and velocities from the two conditions.
Freeboard
The Santa Ana River is designated as a levee which has minimum freeboard requirements.
Freeboard is the vertical distance between the design water level and the top of bank. The USACE GDM Volume 3 specifies the minimum freeboard in the project reach as 2.5 feet. Freeboard was determined for the existing and proposed condition HEC-RAS models by subtracting the design water surface elevation from the top of bank. A comparison of the freeboard provided in the existing and proposed conditions is detailed in Appendix E of the Hydrology Report included as Appendix G to the Draft EIR.
The freeboard analysis shows there is generally sufficient freeboard (a minimum of 2.5 feet) in the existing condition, with some deficiencies located just upstream of the SR-57 Freeway bridge, Metrolink/LOSSAN Corridor Bridge, and Katella Avenue Bridge, and around the crest of the downstream drop structure. In the proposed condition, the amount of freeboard gained or lost is directly related to the change in water surface elevation. The project is intended to fix any deficiencies in freeboard in the existing condition by raising the top of bank to meet the freeboard requirement specified in the USACE GDM. The project design would be reviewed and permitted by USACE and the OCFCD through the 408 permitting process. Freeboard would improve as a result of the project and impacts would be less than significant.
Scour
As discussed in the above depth and velocity discussion, changes in velocity are minimal, which mean changes in scour depth are also minimal. There are no anticipated changes to channel scour depth as a result of the proposed embankment improvements. Therefore, hydraulic impacts pertaining to scouring would be less than significant.
Hydrologic Impacts
Hydrologic changes are related to the ground cover on the project site. The project would change 26,400 linear feet of grouted/un-grouted riprap to soil cement and riprap. This may result in a small increase to Section 4.7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Final EIR No. 357 4.7-22 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
impervious area on the project site. However, in the perspective of the lower Santa Ana River watershed, this is a negligible increase. The lower Santa Ana River watershed covers an approximately 200 square mile area, while the change in pervious area is less than 0.01 square mile. There would be no significant impacts to the Santa Ana River hydrology as a result of the proposed bank modifications.
Dam Deflation
The inflatable dams would be managed to accommodate projected storm events that would cause large flows through the project site. Any necessary evacuation of the impoundments is expected to occur through infiltration within 10 days, however, the hydraulics of a sudden deflation and resultant release of impounded water were investigated. Approximately 9,500 feet downstream of the south impoundment is the Riverview Golf Course. This 18-hole golf course is located within the Santa Ana River floodplain, with the Santa Ana River running directly through the fairway. Potential impacts to the Riverview Golf Course and downstream areas were analyzed considering an emergency deflation of the dams holding full impoundment volumes. Three deflation scenarios were modeled using a HEC-RAS model:
• North Impoundment deflation: Scenario where only the filled north impoundment is deflated.
• South Impoundment deflation: Scenario where only the filled south impoundment is deflated.
• Simultaneous North and South Impoundment Deflation: Scenario where both the north and south impoundments are deflated concurrently.
The HEC-RAS modeling determined that the Riverview Golf Course would not be negatively impacted by dam deflation from the project implementation. The north impoundment deflation would result in a peak discharge of 2,833 cfs, the south impoundment deflation would result in a peak discharge of 2,071 cfs, and the combined north/south simultaneous deflation scenario would result in a peak discharge of 4,850 cfs. The maximum profile from the simultaneous discharge was compared to a steady-state 2-year storm event. The modeling results indicated that the maximum profile for all three deflation scenarios have lower water surface elevations than the 2-year steady state event. This indicates that the dam deflation scenario has smaller impacts than a 2-year storm event. Therefore, the worst-case dam deflation scenario associated with the proposed impoundments would not result in adverse flooding impacts to the downstream Riverview Golf Course.
The project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site, or impede or redirect flood flows to result in adverse hydrology or hydraulics impacts. Impacts would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Section 4.7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Final EIR No. 357 4.7-23 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
4.7.4.4 Threshold HYD-3c: Site Drainage and Hydrology (Drainage Capacity) According to the Hydrology and Hydraulics prepared by PACE (PACE 2025), surface drainage on the project site would primarily remain the same, with the river trails and surrounding areas draining to the Santa Ana River. Therefore, new impoundments would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage system.
As required by MS4, a WQMP will be developed to address the required water quality components of the project elements. It is anticipated that BMPs will be implemented as required following the Orange County Model WQMP and TGD, as appropriate. The stormwater runoff would be required to be managed following the LID BMPs contained in the WQMP to ensure that post-development runoff volume, time of concentration, and velocity do not adversely impact existing drainage facilities and downstream water bodies. Impacts would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
4.7.4.5 Threshold HYD-4: Flood Hazard or Seiche
Impact Analysis
Flood Hazard
The project site includes the Santa Ana River corridor and lies within the Santa Ana River floodplain. The project would create water impoundment structures that would create semipermanent water bodies in the Santa Ana River for groundwater recharge. However, these structures would be lowered automatically during large storm events or to drain impounded water when otherwise desired. Although the project site is within a floodplain, because the impoundments are for groundwater recharge, the released water to downstream during storm events would not be at risk of pollutants release during inundation.
Impacts would be less than significant.
Seiches
A seiche is a surface wave created when an inland water body is shaken, usually by an earthquake or due to a change in atmospheric pressure. Inland water bodies such as the Santa Ana River, including two water impoundments to be created by the project, and the Burris Basin could generate seiches. However, as discussed above under Section 4.7.4.3 Threshold HYD-3b and HYD-3d: Site Drainage and Hydrology (Flooding and Flood Flows), the impoundment structures would be lowered automatically during large storm events or other desired events, and flooding impact is not anticipated during the worst impoundment deflation scenario. Furthermore, a WQMP will be developed to address the required water quality components of the project elements and implementation of appropriate LID BMPs would ensure that the project would not result in Section 4.7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Final EIR No. 357 4.7-24 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
substantial risk related to the release of pollutants due to inundation from a seiche. Impacts would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
4.7.4.6 Threshold HYD-5: Water Quality Control Plan
Impact Analysis
The project would create semi-permanent water bodies in the Santa Ana River for groundwater recharge through installation of three inflatable rubber dams creating two water impoundments. The recharge water would be of sufficient high quality that it satisfies the water quality objectives in the RWQCB’s Water Quality Control Plan for the Orange County Management Zone and the surface water bodies. GWRS water from OCWD would be dechlorinated prior to being discharged into the Santa Ana River. Further chemical addition prior to discharge is anticipated for concrete corrosion control (e.g. calcium chloride addition) and algae control (e.g. alum addition). It is assumed that the water quality of Collins Channel would be on par with other dry-weather flows, and percolation from Collins Channel was not taken into account due to its narrow width. The construction of the project would be conducted in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations that relate to water quality, ensuring that construction impacts to water quality and the Groundwater Management Plan would be less than significant. As discussed under Section 4.7.4.1, construction activities impacting jurisdictional waters or wetlands are subject to a permit Sections 401 and 404 of the CWA. Adherence to these regulatory requirements would ensure that surface and groundwater quality are not adversely impacted during construction and operation of development pursuant to the project. Other project components such as pump station, pedestrian and bike bridges, trails and trail improvements, and enhanced community amenities would be required to implement the requirements of the Construction General Plan, the Orange County MS4 Permit, and compliance with Section 10.09 of the City of Anaheim Municipal Code and Chapter 7.01 (Water Quality and Stormwater Discharges) of the City of Orange Municipal Code during construction to ensure that they do not conflict with a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
After project completion, these uses would not involve activities that would adversely impact water quality. The Santa Ana RWQCB also does not list any impaired water bodies within the Reach 2 of the Santa Ana River. Therefore, the project would not obstruct or conflict with the implementation of the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan, the Groundwater Management Plan, nor the Basin 8-1 Alternative Plan. Impacts would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Section 4.7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Final EIR No. 357 4.7-25 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
4.7.5 Cumulative Impacts
This section addresses various potential cumulative impacts relating to hydrology and water quality that could result from implementation of the project and other development projects in the Santa Ana River Watershed.
4.7.5.1 Cumulative Thresholds HYD-1 and HYD-3c (Polluted Runoff): Water Quality Standards and Polluted Runoff
Cumulative impacts on water quality from multiple projects within the region are primarily influenced by construction-related activities, increased impervious surfaces, and changes in stormwater management. Other regional development projects involving excavation, grading, vegetation removal, and infrastructure improvements contribute to potential cumulative stormwater pollution.
Construction activities from cumulative projects would be required to comply with Section 402 of the CWA through the NPDES permitting program. Each project would need to implement BMPs through SWPPPs to mitigate construction-related stormwater impacts. As a result, while multiple projects may generate temporary increases in sediment, pollutants, and runoff, adherence to NPDES regulations and BMP implementation would reduce cumulative construction-related water quality impacts to less than significant.
Operationally, cumulative projects could increase impervious surfaces, leading to higher stormwater runoff volumes. However, compliance with WQMPs and incorporation of LID BMPs across projects would ensure that runoff quality is maintained, preventing significant cumulative degradation of surface and groundwater quality. The project, in conjunction with others, would not violate water quality standards or substantially contribute to polluted runoff.
4.7.5.2 Cumulative Threshold HYD-3a: Site Drainage and Hydrology (Erosion and Siltation)
The combined effects of multiple projects involving grading, soil disturbance, and drainage modifications can contribute to increased erosion and siltation within the watershed. However, all projects exceeding one acre of ground disturbance must comply with the Construction General Permit, requiring SWPPP implementation. BMPs such as sediment barriers, erosion control blankets, and vegetation stabilization would minimize erosion and siltation impacts.
During operation, projects within the watershed may alter drainage patterns, potentially increasing erosion and siltation risks. However, as discussed in Section 4.7.4.2, Threshold HYD-3a: Site Drainage and Hydrology (Erosion and Siltation), the project would not individually cause operational erosion or siltation impacts. Other cumulative projects in the watershed would be required to minimize long-term operational impacts by implementing erosion control and hydrology management measures in compliance with MS4 permit requirements and projectspecific WQMPs. Post-development, cumulative projects are not expected to leave exposed soils Section 4.7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Final EIR No. 357 4.7-26 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
susceptible to erosion or siltation. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to erosion and siltation would be less than significant.
4.7.5.3 Cumulative Thresholds HYD-3b and HYD-3d: Site Drainage and Hydrology (Flooding and Flood Flows)
The project, along with other developments in the watershed, could incrementally affect surface runoff, potentially resulting in on- or off-site flooding. However, as discussed in Section 4.7.4.3, the project would not individually cause a substantial increase in runoff rate or volume that would result in adverse flooding impacts. Other cumulative projects in the watershed must comply with applicable floodplain and flood control ordinances and stormwater management programs to minimize impacts. As each development must adhere to hydraulic modeling and floodplain management requirements, no significant cumulative increase in flood risk is anticipated.
Therefore, cumulative impacts related to flooding and flood flows would be less than significant.
4.7.5.4 Cumulative Threshold HYD-3c: Site Drainage and Hydrology (Drainage Capacity)
Cumulatively, regional development could lead to increased stormwater runoff, which may impact the capacity of existing drainage infrastructure. However, as with the project, other cumulative projects are also required to develop and implement WQMPs and LID strategies to ensure that stormwater discharges do not exceed drainage system capacities.
The project's incorporation of drainage improvements, stormwater management facilities, and compliance with MS4 permit requirements would minimize significant cumulative drainage capacity issues. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to site drainage and hydrology would be less than significant.
4.7.5.5 Cumulative Threshold HYD-4: Flood Hazard or Seiche The project’s location within a floodplain. However, the proposed improvements in the Santa Ana River channel would provide increased flood protection as the project includes raising the top of bank in sections of the OC River Walk Project to provide additional freeboard during a storm event. In addition, the proposed project does not alter the flood conveyance capacity of the Santa Ana River, as the rubber dams deflate when necessary and do not create a restriction to flow capacity. The Santa Ana River flood conveyance would improve or remain the same. Therefore, while there could be other cumulative development in flood-prone areas, the project would not contribute to increased flood risks. Furthermore, cumulative projects are required to be developed in compliance with floodplain development requirements and stormwater control measures to minimize cumulative flood risks and release of pollutants. Therefore, development of the project, combined with cumulative projects, would not result in cumulative impacts related flood hazard and risk of pollutant release.
Section 4.7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Final EIR No. 357 4.7-27 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Regarding seiche hazards, while additional water bodies introduced by multiple projects could theoretically increase seiche potential, structural design measures and emergency response protocols ensure that the risk remains minimal. The project's ability to automatically lower impoundment structures during storm events further reduces potential cumulative hazards.
4.7.5.6 Cumulative Threshold HYD-5: Water Quality Control Plan As with the project, cumulative projects within the watershed must comply with the water quality standards established by the Basin Plan, which sets water quality objectives for participating jurisdictions, including Anaheim and Orange. The Basin Plan’s thresholds are designed to reduce pollutant discharge and ensure water bodies remain suitable for their designated beneficial uses.
As discussed in Section 4.7.4.6, Threshold HYD-5: Water Quality Control Plan, the project would not conflict with the Basin Plan, and other cumulative projects must adhere to all applicable regulatory requirements, such as the NPDES permitting mandates, to prevent significant pollutant discharges into downstream water bodies. Furthermore, the project would individually result in beneficial impact through the GWRS, and other cumulative projects would be required to adhere to the management goals of the Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update and the Basin 8-1 Alternative, by adhering to all applicable regulatory requirements (e.g., the CGP, the Orange County MS4 Permit, and compliance with Section 10.09 of the City of Anaheim Municipal Code and Chapter 7.01, Water Quality and Stormwater Discharges, of the City of Orange Municipal Code) to protect groundwater and surface water resources. Therefore, cumulative adverse impacts to implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan are not anticipated.
4.7.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Without mitigation, the following thresholds would be potentially significant:
• Thresholds HYD-1 and HYD-3c (partially): Implementation of the project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality; or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
Upon implementation of the plans, programs, and policies, the following threshold would be less than significant:
• Thresholds HYD-1 and HYD-3c (partially): Implementation of the project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality; or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
• Threshold HYD-3a: Implementation of the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the Section 4.7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Final EIR No. 357 4.7-28 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. • Thresholds HYD-3b and HYD-3d: Implementation of the project would not 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 substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; or impede or redirect flood flows. • Threshold HYD-3c: Implementation of the project would not 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 create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems.
• Threshold HYD-4: Implementation of the project would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation from being in flood hazard or seiche zones. • Threshold HYD-5: Implementation of the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
4.7.7 Mitigation Measures
4.7.7.1 Thresholds HYD-1 and HYD-3c
HYD-1 Prior to the issuance of a discretionary and/or regulatory permit by the City of Orange, County of Orange, or Orange County Water District (“Participating Stakeholders”), the City of Anaheim shall enter into a Maintenance and Operations Agreement (MOA) with the Participating Stakeholder issuing said permit, as applicable. The MOA shall specify roles, responsibilities, performance standards, and communication protocols for the ongoing maintenance and operation of the project elements.
The MOA shall include, at a minimum, the following responsibilities and tasks, or similar, as appropriate for each agreement with the applicable agency:
• Maintenance responsibilities related to trails, river impoundments and water features, and stormwater and sewer facilities;
• Operations responsibilities related to access control, hours of operation, public use rules (including, but not limited to, posting signage for hours, allowed uses, and prohibited activities), security and public safety (including, but not limited to, law enforcement coordination, patrolling duties, transient management, and emergency response protocols), debris removal, preparation and implementation of a flood contingency plan, and post storm event procedures;
• Inspection, monitoring, and reporting responsibilities, including the frequency of routine inspections and water quality monitoring as required by applicable Section 4.7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Final EIR No. 357 4.7-29 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
regulatory permits and to address any public health concerns regarding recreational use of the water in the Santa Ana River channel; and
• Communication and notification protocols, including construction timing and phasing information for each project element.
The MOA shall include provisions granting the County of Orange (OC) agencies— including, but not limited to, OC Public Works, OC Parks, and OC Sheriff’s Department—vehicular access for monitoring river flows, ensuring public safety, and performing other OC maintenance and operational activities currently conducted by OC agencies, including review and approval of trail improvements and access design. The MOA shall also address any other items deemed necessary by the Participating Stakeholders to ensure the proper long-term maintenance and operation of the project.
4.7.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
4.7.8.1 Thresholds HYD-1 and HYD-3c
Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would reduce potential water quality and polluted runoff impacts from the project to a less-than-significant level by ensuring that the trail, impoundments, and other water features are properly maintained and operated by the participating stakeholders. Therefore, no significant and unavoidable impacts would remain.
Section 4.7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Final EIR No. 357 4.7-30 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
This page intentionally left blank.
Section 4.8: Noise
Final EIR No. 357 4.8-1 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
4.8 Noise
This section evaluates the potential for impacts relating to noise resulting from implementation of The OC River Walk Project (project).
4.8.1 Environmental Setting
4.8.1.1 Regulatory Setting
This section describes the federal, state, and local regulatory framework adopted to address noise.
Federal
Federal Transit Administration Standards
Although the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)standards are intended for federally funded mass transit projects, the impact assessment procedures and criteria included in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018) are routinely used for projects proposed by local jurisdictions, including the City of Anaheim and City of Orange. The manual includes criteria for assessing the impacts of groundborne vibration, presented in Table 4.8-1, Federal Transit Administration Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria. These annoyance criteria are given in vibration decibels (VdB), which provides vibration velocity level on a decibel scale. For building damage, 100 VdB is identified as the threshold of risk for cosmetic damage to fragile buildings.
The FTA also provides criteria for evaluating construction noise impacts. A daytime 8-hour equivalent energy level (Leq) of 80 dBA is the criteria for residential land uses, and 85 dBA Leq (8-hour) is identified for commercial land uses.
Table 4.8-1. Federal Transit Administration Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria Land Use Category
Impact Levels (VdB)
Frequent Events1 Occasional Events2 Infrequent Events3
Category 1: Buildings where vibration would interfere
with interior operations 65 65 65
Category 2: Residences and buildings where people
normally sleep 72 75 80
Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily
daytime uses 75 78 83
Source: FTA 2018.
Notes: VdB = vibration decibel
Vibration levels are measured in or near the vibration-sensitive use. 1 “Frequent Events” are defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. 2 “Occasional Events” are defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. 3 “Infrequent Events” are defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same source per day.
Section 4.8: Noise
Final EIR No. 357 4.8-2 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
State
California Noise Control Act (California Health and Safety Code, Sections 46000–46080) California Health and Safety Code, Sections 46000–46080, known as the California Noise Control Act of 1973, find that excessive noise is a serious hazard to the public health and welfare and that exposure to certain levels of noise can result in physiological, psychological, and economic damage. The act declares that the State of California has a responsibility to protect the health and welfare of its citizens through the control, prevention, and abatement of noise. It is the policy of the state to provide an environment for all Californians free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare. Section 46050.1 mandates development guidelines for the preparation and content of General Plan Noise Elements.
Local
Anaheim Municipal Code
Chapter 6.70 of the Anaheim Municipal Code establishes noise standards regarding maximum noise level limits (City of Anaheim 2024). Chapter 6.70 of the Municipal Code states that no person shall create any sound radiated for extended periods from any premises which produces a sound pressure level at any point on the property line in excess of 60 dBA. This section exempts construction noise from this standard so long as the construction occurs during specified hours (i.e., 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., unless otherwise extended by City). Additionally, the code establishes the following limitations on amplified noise:
• In all residential zones and within two hundred feet of any boundary thereof, no soundamplifying equipment shall be operated or used for noncommercial purposes between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. of the following day. • In all non-residential zones, except such portions thereof as may be included within two hundred feet of the boundary of any residential zone, the operation or use of soundamplifying equipment for commercial purposes is prohibited between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. of the following day.
• In all non-residential zones, except such portions thereof as may be included within two hundred feet of the boundary of any residential zone, the operation or use of soundamplifying equipment for noncommercial purposes is prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of the following day.
• Sound emanating from sound-amplifying equipment shall not be audible to a person of normal hearing acuity within an enclosed building (other than a building within which the sound emanate) at a distance in excess of two hundred feet from the soundamplifying equipment.
Section 4.8: Noise
Final EIR No. 357 4.8-3 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
• In no event shall the sound-amplifying equipment be unreasonably loud, raucous, jarring or disturbing to a person of normal sensitiveness within the area of audibility, or disturb the peace or quiet of any neighborhood.
• It shall be unlawful for any person to operate or use any sound-amplifying equipment within, upon or adjacent to the premises of any hospital, school, or publicly owned or operated arena, stadium, convention center or auditorium, while in use, in a manner which disturbs, disrupts or interferes with the conduct of any event, business or activity of any nature then occurring within such building or premises.
City of Anaheim Noise Element
In the Noise Element of the City of Anaheim’s General Plan, the City adopted land use-noise compatibility standards, which are shown in Table 4.8-2, Anaheim Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure (Exterior) (Figure N-2 of the Anaheim General Plan) (City of Anaheim 2004). The land use compatibility standards are used to identify “normally acceptable,” “conditionally acceptable,” “normally unacceptable,” and “clearly unacceptable” noise levels for the placement of varying land uses. Additionally, the Noise Element includes the following goal and policies that include best management practices for construction activities:
• Goal 3.1: Protect residents from the effects of “spill over” or nuisance noise emanating from the City’s activity centers.
− Policy 3. Enforce standards to regulate noise from construction activities.
Particular emphasis shall be placed on the restriction of the hours in which work other than emergency work may occur. Discourage construction on weekends or holidays except in the case of construction proximate to schools where these operations could disturb the classroom environment.
− Policy 4. Require that construction equipment operate with mufflers and intake silencers no less effective than originally equipped.
− Policy 5. Encourage the use of portable noise barriers for heavy equipment operations performed within 100 feet of existing residences or make applicant provide evidence as to why the use of such barriers is infeasible.
Section 4.8: Noise
Final EIR No. 357 4.8-4 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Table 4.8-2. Anaheim Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure (Exterior) (Figure N-2 of the Anaheim General Plan)
Land Use Category
Exterior Noise Exposure (dBA CNEL)
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
Residential – Low Density Single Family, Duplex,
Mobile Homes
<60 55–70 70–75 >75
Residential – Multiple Family <65 60–70 70–75 >75
Transient Lodging-Motels, Hotels <65 60–70 70–80 >80
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes <70 60–70 70–80 >80 Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters -- <70 >65 -- Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports -- <75 >70 --
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks <70 -- 67.5–75 >72.5
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation,
Cemeteries
<75 -- 70–80 >80
Office Buildings, Businesses, Commercial, and
Professional
<70 67.5–77.5 -- >75
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture <75 70–80 -- >75 Source: City of Anaheim 2004.
Notes: CNEL = community noise equivalent level; dBA = A-weighted decibel Compatibility Key:
• Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. • Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Outdoor environment will seem noisy.
• Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made with needed noise insulation features included in the design. Outdoor areas must be shielded. • Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Construction costs to make the indoor environment acceptable would be prohibitive and the outdoor environment would be usable.
City of Orange Municipal Code
Section 8.24.040 of the City of Orange’s Municipal Code contains the City of Orange’s Noise Ordinance. The Noise Ordinance includes noise levels limits of an hourly average of 55 dBA during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.), or 50 dBA during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). The maximum noise level shall not exceed 70 dBA during the day or 65 dBA during nighttime. These noise standards apply specifically to noise exposure at residential property lines, and activities conducted on public parks, public playgrounds, and public or private school grounds are exempt from these limits, provided that park use is consistent with the expected use, rules, regulations and permit provisions of the location. Outdoor gatherings, public dances, shows, sporting and entertainment events or other public or private events are exempt provided such events are conducted pursuant to any permit or license requirements established by the City.
Additionally, construction activities are exempt provided said activities take place between the Section 4.8: Noise
Final EIR No. 357 4.8-5 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on any day except for Sunday or a federal holiday, or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Sunday or a federal holiday.
City of Orange Noise Element
The City of Orange Noise Element establishes the maximum allowable noise exposure guideline of 65 A-weighted decibel (dBA) community noise equivalent level (CNEL) for transportation noise. That is, areas with ambient exterior noise levels from transportation noise up to 65 dBA CNEL are considered compatible with sensitive receptors. The Noise Element also defines what is considered a significant increase in ambient noise level under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Where the existing ambient noise level is less than 65 dBA, a project related permanent increase in ambient noise levels of 5 dBA CNEL or greater would be significant. Where the existing ambient noise level is greater than 65 dBA, a project related permanent increase in ambient noise levels of 3 dBA CNEL or greater would be significant. Additionally, the City of Orange Noise Element outlines policies related to noise exposure from construction activities:
• Goal 7.0: Minimize construction, maintenance vehicle, and nuisance noise in residential areas and near noise-sensitive land uses.
− Policy 7.1. Schedule City maintenance and construction projects so that they generate noise during less sensitive hours.
− Policy 7.2. Require developers and contractors to employ noise minimizing techniques during construction and maintenance operations. − Policy 7.3. Limit the hours of construction and maintenance operations located adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses.
− Policy 7.4. Encourage limitations on the hours of operations and deliveries for commercial, mixed-use, and industrial uses abutting residential zones.
4.8.1.2 Existing Conditions
Fundamentals of Environmental Noise
Quantification of Noise
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) defines noise as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired. Further, for the purposes of noise analysis, noise only exists if a source, path, and receiver are present. Sound pressure waves must be produced by a source and transmitted through a medium, such as air. The sound must be perceived by, registered by, or affect a receptor, such as an ear or noise monitoring device (Caltrans 2013).
Sound pressure levels are quantified using a logarithmic ratio of actual sound pressures to a reference pressure squared, called bels. A bel is typically divided into tenths, or decibels (dB).
Sound pressure alone is not a reliable indicator of loudness because frequency (or pitch) also affects how receptors respond to the sound. To account for the pitch of sounds and the Section 4.8: Noise
Final EIR No. 357 4.8-6 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
corresponding sensitivity of human hearing to them, the raw sound pressure level is adjusted with a frequency-dependent A-weighting scale that is stated in units of decibels (dBA) (Caltrans 2013).
Typical A-weighted noise levels are listed in Table 4.8-3, Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels.
Table 4.8-3. Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels
Common Outdoor Activities
Noise Level
(dBA) Common Indoor Activities
— 110 — Rock band
Jet flyover at 1,000 feet
— 100 —
Gas lawn mower at 3 feet
— 90 —
Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 miles per hour Food blender at 3 feet — 80 — Garbage disposal at 3 feet
Noisy urban area, daytime
Gas lawn mower, 100 feet — 70 — Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet Commercial area Normal speech at 3 feet
Heavy traffic at 300 feet — 60 —
Large business office
Quiet urban daytime — 50 — Dishwasher next room
Quiet urban nighttime — 40 — Theater, large conference room (background) Quiet suburban nighttime
— 30 — Library
Quiet rural nighttime Bedroom at night
— 20 —
Broadcast/recording studio
— 10 —
Lowest threshold of human hearing — 0 — Lowest threshold of human hearing Source: Caltrans 2013.
Note: dBA = A-weighted decibel
A receptor’s response to a given noise may vary depending on the sound level, duration of exposure, character of the noise sources, the time of day during which the noise is experienced, and the activity affected by the noise. Activities most affected by noise include rest, relaxation, recreation, study, and communications, such as quiet conversation or telephone calls. In consideration of these factors, different measures of noise exposure have been developed to quantify the extent of the effects from a variety of noise levels. For example, some measures consider the 24-hour noise environment of a location by using a weighted average that penalizes noise levels during normal relaxation and sleep hours. Other measures consider an average noise Section 4.8: Noise
Final EIR No. 357 4.8-7 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
level over a period of time that includes ambient noise and a steady-state noise source for a given period of time within the averaging period (Caltrans 2013). The indices for measuring community noise levels that are used in this report are defined below:
Leq, the equivalent energy level, provides an average acoustic or sound energy content of noise, measured during a prescribed period, such as 1 minute, 15 minutes, 1 hour, or 8 hours. The sound level may not be constant over the measured time period, but the average decibel sound level, given as dBA Leq, contains an equal amount of energy as the fluctuating sound level.
CNEL, the community noise equivalent level, is the average equivalent A-weighted sound level over a 24-hour period. This measurement applies weights to noise levels during evening and nighttime hours to compensate for the increased disturbance response of people at those times. CNEL is the equivalent sound level for a 24-hour period with a +5 dBA weighting applied to all sound occurring between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. and a +10 dBA weighting applied to all sound occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
Ldn, the day-night noise level, is a 24-hour Leq, except that the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) are assessed a 10 dBA penalty. This penalty attempts to account for the fact that nighttime noise levels are potentially more disturbing than equal daytime noise levels.
The decibel level of a sound decreases (or attenuates) as the distance from the source of that sound increases. For a single point source, such as a piece of mechanical equipment, the sound level normally decreases by approximately 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the source. Sound that originates from a linear (or “line”) source, such as vehicular traffic, attenuates by approximately 3 dBA per doubling of distance. Other contributing factors that affect sound reception include ground absorption, topography that provides a natural barrier, meteorological conditions, or the presence of human-made obstacles, such as buildings and sound barriers (Caltrans 2013).
Noise Effects
Reaction to a given sound varies depending on acoustic characteristics of the source and the environment of the receptor. The A-scale deemphasizes low-frequency sounds because humans are more sensitive to high-frequency sounds that are more likely to cause hearing damage. People tend to compare an intruding noise to existing background noise levels. If a new noise is considerably louder or noticeable above existing levels, it is generally considered objectionable.
The activity that the receptor is engaged in also affects response. For example, the same noise source, such as constant freeway traffic, may be more objectionable to people sleeping than to workers in a factory. A 3 dBA change is the smallest increment that is perceptible by most receivers, and a 5 dBA change in community noise level is clearly noticeable. Generally, 1 to 2 Section 4.8: Noise
Final EIR No. 357 4.8-8 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
dBA changes are not detectable, except under controlled laboratory conditions. A sound that is 10 dBA greater than the reference sound is typically perceived as twice as loud (Caltrans 2013).
Fundamentals of Environmental Vibration
Vibration is defined as dynamic excitation of an elastic system, such as the ground or a structure, which results in oscillatory movement of the system (Caltrans 2020). Typical human-made causes of earthborne vibration include trains and construction activities such as blasting, pile driving, and operation of heavy earthmoving equipment. The resulting waves transmitted through solid material are referred to as structureborne or groundborne vibration. Vibration energy spreads out as it travels through the ground, causing the vibration amplitude to decrease with distance away from the source.
The vibration levels inside a building depend on the vibration energy that reaches the foundation and the characteristics of the structure that affect propagation of the vibration through it. A heavier building will typically experience lower vibration levels. The most common impact associated with vibration is annoyance resulting from the effects of vibration, such as building movement, rattling of windows, shaking of items on shelves or walls, and rumbling sounds. In more extreme cases, building damage may occur. Because the effects of vibration elicit a greater response than the vibration itself, vibration is typically only perceptible to people inside buildings (FTA 2018).
Vibration levels are typically expressed in terms of the peak particle velocity (PPV) and root mean square (RMS) amplitude, both in inches per second (in/sec). PPV is most appropriate for evaluating building damage potential. Caltrans estimates that continuous vibration levels of less than 0.08 PPV and single-event vibration levels of less than 0.12 PPV do not result in damage to even the most fragile historical buildings (Caltrans 2020). The FTA has identified a maximum PPV of 0.2 in/sec for fragile buildings and 0.12 in/sec for extremely fragile historical buildings (FTA 2018).
PPV does not account for human response to vibration. The RMS amplitude is used to represent average vibration amplitude, which accounts for the time it takes for the human body to respond to vibration signals. The RMS amplitude is also given in decibel notation, referenced as VdB, which serves to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration relative to human response.
The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called groundborne noise. Like airborne noise, groundborne noise is measured in dBA. The sound level accompanying vibration is generally 25 to 40 dBA lower than the vibration velocity level in VdB. Due to its low-frequency components, groundborne noise sounds louder than broadband noise with the same noise level.
Typical vibration levels from various sources are shown in Table 4.8-4, Typical Levels of Groundborne Vibration. As shown in this table, the background vibration velocity level in residential areas is usually around 50 VdB, which is below the 65 VdB threshold of human perception (FTA 2018). The same human reaction corresponds to a given vibration velocity level and its resulting noise level; therefore, for simplicity, this analysis refers only to a source’s VdB to describe potential human response to groundborne vibration and noise.
Section 4.8: Noise
Final EIR No. 357 4.8-9 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Table 4.8-4. Typical Levels of Groundborne Vibration
Vibration Level
VdB in/sec RMS Typical Sources (50 feet from source) Human/Structural Response 1 100 0.01 Blasting from construction projects Threshold, minor cosmetic damage to fragile buildings
90–100 0.003–0.01 Bulldozers and other heavy tracked
construction equipment
Difficulty with tasks such as reading
80–90 0.001–0.003 Commuter rail and rapid transit, upper range
Residential annoyance, infrequent events
(e.g., commuter rail)
70–80 0.0003–
0.001
Typical commuter rail, bus or truck over
bump, typical rapid transit
Residential annoyance, frequent events
(e.g., rapid transit)
60–70 0.0001–
0.0003
Bus or truck, typical Limit for vibration-sensitive equipment, approximate threshold for human
perception
50 0.00003 Typical background vibration Not detectable
Source: FTA 2018.
Notes: in/sec = inches per second; RMS = root mean square; VdB = vibration decibel 1 RMS vibration velocity level in VdB relative to 10-6 in/sec.
The general human response to different groundborne vibration velocity levels is described in Table 4.8-5, Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration.
Table 4.8-5. Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration Vibration Velocity
Level
Noise Level
Human Reaction
Low
Frequency
Mid
Frequency
65 VdB 25 dBA 40 dBA Approximate threshold of perception for many people. Mid-frequency sound may disturb sleep.
75 VdB 35 dBA 50 dBA Approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible. Many people find that transportation-related vibration at this level is annoying. Mid-frequency noise disturbs sleep and is considered annoying in more quiet areas.
85 VdB 45 dBA 60 dBA Vibration acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of events per day. Low-frequency noise disturbs sleep and mid-frequency noise can be annoying to daytime NSLUs, such as schools.
Source: FTA 2018.
Note: dBA = A-weighted decibel; NSLU = noise-sensitive land use; VdB = vibration decibel Existing Noise Environment
The noise environment on the project site is characterized by transportation noise sources, including railroad and roadway noise. Other existing noise sources include people using the Santa Ana River Trail for active and passive recreation. Recreational noise sources include children at play, people conversing, and people walking/jogging or biking. The nearest sensitive receptors are the Extended Saty America – Orange County hotel, located approximately 60 feet from the project site; Garrison Apartments, approximately 500 feet east of the project site; Ayres Hotel Anaheim, approximately 550 feet west of the project site; and Orangeland RV Park, located approximately Section 4.8: Noise
Final EIR No. 357 4.8-10 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
860 feet east of the project site. Several office buildings are located on either side of the project site, such as the Arena Corporate Center, ranging from approximately 50 feet to 420 feet from the nearest project site boundary.
There are two existing railroad lines in the project vicinity. The existing Union Pacific Railroad freight line is located north of Katella Avenue and crosses the project site near the Arena Corporate Center. Additionally, the Metrolink/Los Angeles – San Diego – San Luis Obispo Rail (LOSSAN) Corridor passenger service is located south of Katella Avenue. Railroad noise contours for the passenger service line (Figure N-4 in the City of Anaheim’s Noise Element) show the 60 CNEL contour line extends approximately 520 feet from the centerline of the Metrolink/LOSSAN Corridor tracks. The City’s Noise Element does note, however, that this distance may be extended at grade crossings where a warning horn is sounded (City of Anaheim 2004).
State Route 57 (SR-57) and Katella Avenue are major sources of roadway noise on the project site.
The SR-57 extends over the southern area of the project site, and Katella Avenue over the site near the Honda center. Both roadways generate noise levels above 70 dBA CNEL adjacent to the roadways rights-of-way.
4.8.2 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the project would have a significant impact on noise if it would:
• Threshold NOI-1: 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. • Threshold NOI-2: Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
• Threshold NOI-3: 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, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
The Initial Study (Appendix A to this Environmental Impact Report [EIR]) determined that the following threshold would have less than significant or no impact, and this environmental topic will not be addressed further in this section of the Draft EIR:
• Threshold N-3
Section 4.8: Noise
Final EIR No. 357 4.8-11 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
4.8.3 Plans, Programs, and Policies
This section addresses plans, programs, and policies relevant to the project.
PPP NOI-1 The project is required to comply with goals and policies related to noise as outlined in the City of Anaheim Noise Element and City of Orange Noise Element.
PPP NOI-2 The project is required to comply with the noise standards and policies listed in City of Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 6.70 and City of Orange Municipal Code Section 8.24.040.
4.8.4 Environmental Impacts
The following sections address various potential impacts relating to noise that could result from implementation of the project.
4.8.4.1 Threshold NOI-1: Exceedance of Noise Standards
Impact Analysis
The potential for the project to generate noise during construction and operation is addressed below.
Construction
The operation of heavy equipment during project construction would result in temporary increases in noise in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Construction of the project would continue for approximately 24 to 36 months. Construction activities would include excavation of material sources; clearing and grubbing; grading; retaining wall and bridge construction; drainage improvements; paving; and installation of fencing, signs, and other safety-related features. Construction equipment and vehicles could include backhoes; loaders; tractors; excavators; cranes; graders; scrapers; lifts; concrete trucks and pump; paving machines; compactors/rollers; air compressors; generators; and trucks for demolition, grading, and materials delivery. Drilling and pile driving may be required for bridge installation. Table 4.8-6, Typical Construction Noise Levels, provides average noise levels associated with equipment that may be required for project construction.
Section 4.8: Noise
Final EIR No. 357 4.8-12 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Table 4.8-6. Typical Construction Noise Levels
Equipment
Typical Noise
Level (dBA)
50 Feet from
Source
Typical Noise
Level (dBA)
60 Feet from
Source
Typical Noise
Level (dBA)
500 Feet from
Source
Typical Noise
Level (dBA)
550 Feet from
Source
Typical Noise
Level (dBA)
860 Feet from
Source
Backhoe 77.6 76.0 57.6 56.8 52.9
Loader 80 78.4 60.0 59.2 55.3
Tractor 84 82.4 64.0 63.2 59.3
Crane 80.6 79.0 60.6 59.8 55.9
Excavator 80.7 79.1 60.7 59.9 56.0
Grader 85 83.4 65.0 64.2 60.3
Scraper 83.6 82.0 63.6 62.8 58.9
Lift 74.7 73.1 54.7 53.9 50.0
Dump Truck 76.5 74.9 56.5 55.7 51.8
Concrete Pump Truck 81.4 79.8 61.4 60.6 56.7
Paver 77.2 75.6 57.2 56.4 52.5
Compactor/Roller 83.2 81.6 63.2 62.4 58.5
Air Compressor 77.7 76.1 57.7 56.9 53.0
Generator 80.6 79.0 60.6 59.8 55.9
Rock Drill 81 79.4 61.0 60.2 56.3
Drill Rig 84.4 82.8 64.4 63.6 59.7
Impact Pile Driver 101.3 99.7 81.3 80.5 76.6
Source: FHWA 2006 for noise levels at 50 feet. Noise levels at other distances assume attenuation rate of 6 dBA for every doubling of distance.
Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibel
Noise levels from construction were evaluated based on typical equipment noise levels determined by the Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). The RCNM model uses typical noise level specifications and usage assumptions to calculate average noise level exposure from multiple pieces of construction equipment over a workday. Based on the default equipment fleet assumed for the project in air quality modeling (refer to Appendix C, Air Quality/GHG Data, to the Draft EIR), the largest construction fleet would be required during the excavation and grading phase of construction. The project is linear in nature and limited in width, which would limit the number of equipment that could operate simultaneously in the same location. The five noisiest pieces of construction equipment required for the excavation and grading phase were assumed to operate in the same location on a given day (excavator, tractor, grader, compacter/roller, scraper).
Using the RCNM, they have the potential to generate an average noise level up to 86.1 dBA over an 8-hour workday at 50 feet from active construction. Modeling data is included in Appendix H, Noise Section 4.8: Noise
Final EIR No. 357 4.8-13 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Data, of the Draft EIR. Similar equipment would be required throughout the construction duration, and this average noise level is assumed to be representative of typical construction activities. However, noise levels would be higher on days when impact pile driving would be required for bridge construction. Assuming the five noisiest pieces of equipment required for bridge construction (impact pile driver, crane, tractors, and loaders), an average 8-hour noise level of approximately 94.7 dBA at 50 feet would occur. Noise levels from point sources, such as construction sites, typically attenuate at a rate of about 6 dBA per doubling of distance (Caltrans 2013a).
Construction would take place during daytime hours and therefore would be consistent with the applicable portions of the City of Anaheim and City of Orange Noise Ordinances (refer to Section
4.8.1, Environmental Setting). Construction activities are exempt for noise levels limits established in the noise ordinances, and neither ordinance establishes a noise level standard for construction.
Therefore, the FTA recommended screening levels of 80 dBA for residential uses and 85 dBA for commercial uses are used to determine if construction noise would result in temporary nuisance impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Typical construction noise levels would have the potential to exceed the FTA standard of 80 dBA up to approximately 100 feet from the construction area, and exceed 85 dBA up to 60 feet from the construction area. Noise exposure from typical construction is conservatively measured from the limits of the project disturbance area. Days when pile driving would be required would have the potential to exceed the FTA standard of 80 dBA up to approximately 275 feet from the bridge construction area, and exceed 85 dBA up to 160 feet from the construction area. Noise exposure from pile driving activities is measured from the edge of the riverbed where bridge construction would occur.
As previously stated, the nearest sensitive receptors are the Extended Saty America – Orange County, located approximately 60 feet from the project site; Garrison Apartments, approximately 500 feet east of the project site; Ayres Hotel Anaheim, approximately 550 feet west of the project site; and Orangeland RV Park, located approximately 860 feet east of the project site. Several offices are located east of the project site ranging from approximately 50 feet to 420 feet from the nearest project site boundary. As such, most receptors are located outside the potential impact area for construction noise during typical construction and pile driving. However, the Extended Stay America – Orange County hotel may be exposed to construction noise levels above 80 dBA from typical construction. The hotel building would be located approximately 300 feet from the nearest bridge construction area and would not be within the screening distance for significant noise from pile driving activity. Office buildings adjacent to the project site south of the Extended Stay America – Orange County hotel, south of Ball Road, and south of Katella Avenue may be exposed to noise levels in excess of 85 dBA during typical construction activities. The office buildings located closest to any bridge construction would be the office building located directly south of the Extended Stay America – Orange County hotel. The office building would be located approximately 450 feet from the bridge construction area; therefore, it would not be located within the 160 feet screening distance for impact from pile driving. Impacts would be temporary and Section 4.8: Noise
Final EIR No. 357 4.8-14 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
would only occur during construction activities adjacent to these receptors. Due to the linear nature of the project, construction would only occur in these areas for short periods throughout the duration of project construction.
However, because construction noise would have the potential to exceed the screening levels established by the FTA during typical construction activities, a potentially significant impact would occur.
Operation
Operation of the project would not generate a net increase in vehicle trips on the project site (refer to Section 4.9, Transportation). Maintenance of the project would be incorporated into existing underlying jurisdiction maintenance schedules for existing facilities, and vehicle trips would be minimal and intermittent. Therefore, operation of the project would not result in a permanent increase in ambient vehicle noise levels.
Additionally, operational noise levels along the project alignment would be influenced by the sound of trail users talking, occasional animal sounds (e.g., dogs on leash), occasional facility maintenance, and small gatherings in new facilities. Noise levels would be similar to existing use of the Santa Ana River Trail, although additional users are anticipated. However, the new noise sources from additional users would be intermittent and typically limited to normal conversation. Normal conversation typically results in a noise level of 65 dBA Leq at 3 feet (Caltrans 2013) and attenuates to below 50 dBA Leq at 15 feet. The Enhanced Recreational Facilities (refer to Figure 2-8c, Proposed Improvements – Group C, for locations) would accommodate small gatherings in terraced seating, nature play areas, parklets, and plazas, or water access and kayak launching, etc. It is anticipated that the trail and the park would generally operate between 5:30 am and 10:30 pm, which aligns with the City of Anaheim’s standard operating schedule. The City of Orange’s standard park operating hours are from 5 am to 11 pm. Noise from small gatherings would also typically consist of conversational noise, with intermittent nuisance noise from yelling or music. Large-scale events, such as festivals and other activities would require Special Event permitting from the City of Anaheim or City of Orange, as applicable, that would include conditions to limit excessive noise. Gatherings on the west side of the project, where all but one Enhanced Recreational Facility would be located, would be required to comply with amplified noise regulations adopted by the City of Anaheim (refer to Section
4.8.1.1, Regulatory Setting). As previously described, the project site is currently exposed to ambient noise levels from freeway, high traffic roadway, and rail noise. As such, an incremental increase in intermittent noise at conversational levels and from small gatherings generated within the project corridor would not be noticeable compared to existing ambient noise levels from transportation noise sources. Additionally, there are no existing residential properties located adjacent to the project corridor. The closest existing residences are the Garrison Apartments, located approximately 500 feet from the project site and 800 feet from the nearest Enhanced Recreational Facility.
Section 4.8: Noise
Final EIR No. 357 4.8-15 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Regular maintenance activities could include but not be limited to occasional repairs and litter removal that would potentially involve the use of power equipment. However, maintenance would be occasional, limited in duration, and similar to existing noise levels generated by maintenance and landscape equipment used to maintain existing land use development, and roadway and rail corridors. Thus, maintenance of the project would not be expected to generate a noticeable increase in ambient noise levels compared to those under existing conditions.
Operational impacts of the project would be less than significant because the project would not generate noise levels that would be substantially different from those under existing conditions.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure NOI-1 is required.
4.8.4.2 Threshold NOI-2: Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Noise Impact Analysis
Groundborne vibration and noise would be limited to the project construction phase. The project does not include any components that would generate vibration after construction. Building damage and annoyance to receptors are the main concerns related to construction vibration.
Manufacturing and other industrial uses may involve the use of equipment that is sensitive to vibration. Therefore, surrounding industrial and light industrial land uses are considered vibrationsensitive for this analysis. Potentially vibration-sensitive industrial uses are located adjacent to the proposed alignment on the east side of the project site. For example, the Kinder Morgan Orange Terminal gas facility is located adjacent to the project site near the freight railroad crossing. Land uses on the east side of the project site north and south of the Orange County Transportation Authority rail line include a coating and sandblasting service and an automation company that includes on-site machine manufacturing, both approximately 300 feet from the project site. The nearest land uses to bridge construction areas that would potentially include vibration-sensitive equipment are the Kinder Morgan Orange Terminal, located approximately 375 feet east of the northern proposed pedestrian/bicycle bridge, and the light industrial business park located approximately 550 feet east of the southern proposed pedestrian/bicycle bridge.
Typical vibration levels for available construction equipment required for the project are provided in Table 4.8-7, Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment. The FTA estimates that vibration levels less than 100 VdB do not result in building damage (FTA 2018). As shown in Table 4.8-7, all equipment would be below 100 VdB within 35 feet of equipment operation and project construction would not result in building damage at surrounding buildings.
As shown in Table 4.8-7, vibration levels would naturally reduce to below 75 VdB more than 110 feet from typical construction areas, and 235 feet from pile driving, which is the level that may be Section 4.8: Noise
Final EIR No. 357 4.8-16 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
annoying to daytime noise-sensitive land uses (refer to Table 4.8-1). A roller would be required for construction throughout the project alignment. It is conservatively assumed for this analysis that a vibratory roller would be used. The Extended Stay America – Orange County hotel, approximately 60 feet from the project site, is the only noise-sensitive receptor that would be within the 110 feet screening distance for typical construction. The hotel would be located approximately 300 feet from the nearest bridge construction area and would not be within the screening distance for significant vibration from pile driving activity. Due to the linear nature of the project, construction activities would only be within 110 feet of the hotel for a short time. Additionally, construction would occur during the day and would not disturb sleep. However, vibration could be a temporary annoyance to hotel guests and staff, and exceed the significance threshold impact criteria as outlined in Table 4.8-1. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant.
Furthermore, as shown in Table 4.8-7, vibration levels would reduce to below 65 VdB more than 235 feet from typical construction areas, and 500 feet from pile driving areas, which is the level that may interfere with vibration-sensitive uses (refer to Table 4.8-1). As previously described, industrial land uses are conservatively considered vibration-sensitive for this analysis. Most potentially vibration-sensitive industrial areas are located outside the screening distances for potential vibration impacts. However, the Kinder Morgan Orange Terminal is located within the screening distance for impacts from typical construction activity. Therefore, construction of the project would result in potentially significant exposure to groundborne vibration during construction.
Table 4.8-7. Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Construction
Equipment
Approximate VdB
at 25 Feeta
Approximate VdB
at 35 Feeta
Approximate VdB
at 110 Feeta
Approximate VdB
at 235 Feeta
Approximate VdB
at 500 Feeta
Large Bulldozer 87 83 68 58 48
Loaded Truck 86 82 67 57 47
Small Bulldozer 58 54 38 29 19
Caisson Drilling 87 83 68 58 48
Vibratory Roller 94 90 75 65 55
Pile Driving 104 100 85 75 65
Source: FTA 2018.
Notes:
a Based on the formula VdB = VdB (25 feet) – 30log(d/25) provided by the FHWA (2006).
PPV = peak particle velocity; VdB = vibration decibel
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure NOI-2 is required.
Section 4.8: Noise
Final EIR No. 357 4.8-17 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
4.8.5 Cumulative Impacts
This section addresses various potential cumulative impacts relating to noise that could result from implementation of the project and reasonably foreseeable nearby future development.
4.8.5.1 Cumulative Threshold NOI-1: Exceedance of Noise Standards Construction noise impacts are localized in nature because they are limited to the construction site where construction equipment is operating. Construction of cumulative projects would occur in the vicinity of the project, specifically the OCVIBE Master Site Plan Project (OCVIBE Project), a planned mixed-use development west of the project site. However, the cumulative projects and the proposed project would be subject to the Cities’ Municipal Codes that limit noise to less sensitive daytime hours. Additionally, construction would be spread out throughout the project alignment and the OCVIBE Project area such that construction noise would be less likely to combine to affect the same receptors at the same time. However, cumulative projects include new residential uses adjacent to the Project site that would potentially be occupied prior to the completion of project construction.
The OCVIBE Project includes new residential units north of the Honda Center, approximately 90 feet west of the project site. Construction of the OCVIBE Project residential units is anticipated to start in 2027 and may be completed prior to the end of project construction. Additionally, there’s also a planned mixed-use development with residential units on the former Ball Road Basin adjacent to the project site. Although construction of these residential units is not anticipated to be complete before the end of project construction, it is conservatively assumed cumulative analysis that project construction could overlap with occupancy of these residential units. If residential units are occupied prior to project completion, sensitive receptors from both cumulative projects could be located within the 100-foot screening distance of typical project construction activities. Both projects would be outside of the 275-foot screening distance for pile driving at the nearest proposed pedestrian/bike bridge. The nearest proposed pedestrian/bike bridge is located approximately 275 feet southeast of the proposed OCVIBE Project residential buildings. As such, a cumulatively considerable impact to sensitive receptors developed under cumulative projects would occur as result of typical project construction activities.
Once constructed, the proposed project would not result in a noticeable increase in ambient noise levels. A cumulatively considerable impact would not occur during operation.
4.8.5.2 Cumulative Threshold NOI-2: Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Noise Similar to noise effects, vibration is a localized phenomenon and is progressively reduced as the distance from the source increases. Therefore, cumulative projects that would be considered for the vibration cumulative analysis would be projects close to the project site, such as the OCVIBE Project. The OCVIBE Project would require similar construction equipment as the project, such as grading paving equipment, although the size of the construction fleet is anticipated to be larger for the OCVIBE Project due to its size. Construction from the OCVIBE Project, combined with the Section 4.8: Noise
Final EIR No. 357 4.8-18 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
proposed project, would not be expected to generate vibration levels that could exceed standards for building damage beyond active construction areas. Impacts related to annoyance or equipment interference would be site-specific and limited to times where construction would occur adjacent to noise or vibration-sensitive uses. Due to the limited potential impact area for active construction, cumulative construction would not be expected to occur simultaneously within the screening distances for vibration impacts from typical construction or pile driving (refer to Table 4.8-7).
Therefore, vibration generated by construction on the project site and other sites would not combine to generate cumulative vibration impacts. However, similar to cumulative construction noise, the adjacent OCVIBE Project and the former Ball Road Basin project include new residential units that may be occupied prior to the end of project construction. As shown in Table 4.8-7, vibration levels would naturally reduce to below 75 VdB more than 110 feet from typical construction areas, and 235 feet from pile driving. Future occupied residential units could be located within the 110- foot screening distance for typical project construction activities, but both projects would be outside of the 235-foot screening distance for pile driving at the nearest proposed pedestrian/bike bridge. As such, a cumulatively considerable impact to sensitive receptors could occur under cumulatively as result of typical project construction.
Once constructed, the proposed land use would not generate a significant source of vibration during normal operation. Therefore, a significant cumulative vibration impact would not occur during operation.
4.8.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Without mitigation, the following thresholds would be potentially significant:
• Threshold NOI-1: Implementation of the project could generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
• Threshold NOI-2: Implementation of the project could generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels during construction.
4.8.7 Mitigation Measures
4.8.7.1 Threshold NOI-1: Exceedance of Noise Standards
NOI-1: The City of Anaheim shall include the following construction specifications on all project construction plans for sites located within 100 feet of sensitive receptors (i.e., Extended Stay America – Orange County hotel building and occupied residential buildings) or 60 feet of occupied office buildings.
During construction, the construction contractor shall employ the following noisereducing measures where use of construction equipment occurs within 100 feet of sensitive receptors or 60 feet of occupied office buildings:
Section 4.8: Noise
Final EIR No. 357 4.8-19 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
• Use acoustical shelters around any air compressors, generators, and any other stationary construction equipment not fitted with baffled enclosures • Use baffling around stationary construction equipment to reduce noise and vibration levels
• Properly muffle and maintain all construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines
• Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines • Whenever feasible, use electrical power to run air compressors and similar power tools
4.8.7.2 Threshold NOI-2: Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Noise NOI-2: The City of Anaheim shall ensure that all project construction specifications include the following noticing requirement. The construction contractor shall provide written notification at least 1 week prior to the start of any construction activities within 110 feet of sensitive receptors (i.e., Extended Stay America – Orange County hotel and occupied residential buildings) or 235 feet of the Kinder Morgan Orange Terminal. The notice shall inform hotel, occupied residential buildings, and industrial operators of the estimated start date and duration of daytime vibration-generating construction activities and provide a point of contact for vibration exposure complaints.
4.8.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
4.8.8.1 Threshold NOI-1: Exceedance of Noise Standards
Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would muffle construction equipment to minimize levels at nearby sensitive receptors. This impact would be reduced to a less than significant levels and no significant and unavoidable impacts would remain.
4.8.8.2 Threshold NOI-2: Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Noise Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would reduce impacts by minimizing the potential nuisance of vibration by allowing surrounding uses time to prepare for a potential nuisance. This impact would be reduced to a less than significant levels and no significant and unavoidable impacts would remain.
Section 4.8: Noise
Final EIR No. 357 4.8-20 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
This page intentionally left blank.
Section 4.9: Transportation Transportation
Final EIR No. 357 4.9-1 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
4.9 Transportation
This section evaluates the potential for impacts relating to transportation resulting from implementation of OC River Walk Project (project).
The analysis in this section is based in part on the Trip Generation Analysis for OC River Walk Project, Orange County, California prepared by LSA included in Appendix I, VMT Screening Memo, of this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
4.9.1 Environmental Setting
4.9.1.1 Regulatory Setting
This section describes the federal, state, and local regulatory framework adopted to address transportation.
Federal
Federal Transportation Improvement Program
The Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) is a federally mandated 4-year program of all surface transportation projects that will receive federal funding or are subject to a federally required action. The FTIP is a comprehensive listing of such transportation projects proposed over a six-year period. As the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the region, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is responsible for developing the FTIP for submittal to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the federal funding agencies.
The FTIP identifies specific funding sources and fund amounts for each project. It is prioritized to implement the region’s overall strategy for providing mobility and improving the efficiency and safety of the transportation system, while supporting efforts to attain federal and state air quality standards for the region by reducing transportation related air pollution. Projects in the FTIP include highway improvements, transit, rail and bus facilities, high occupancy vehicle lanes, high occupancy toll lanes, signal synchronization, intersection improvements, freeway ramps, and nonmotorized projects—bicycle and pedestrian.
The FTIP must include all federally funded transportation projects in the region, as well as all regionally significant transportation projects for which approval from federal funding agencies is required, regardless of funding source. Projects in the FTIP are consistent with SCAG’s approved Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).
State
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
Caltrans oversees the state’s highway system. Caltrans is the public agency responsible for designing, building, operating, and maintaining the state’s highway system, which consists of Section 4.9: Transportation Transportation
Final EIR No. 357 4.9-2 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
freeways, highways, expressways, toll roads, and state Right-of-Way (the area between the roadways and property lines). Caltrans is also responsible for permitting and regulating the use of state roadways. Caltrans’ construction practices require temporary traffic control planning during activities that interfere with the normal function of a roadway.
The California 2022 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), adopted by the California Transportation Commission on March 16, 2022, is a multi-year, statewide, intermodal program of transportation projects that is consistent with the statewide transportation plan and planning processes, metropolitan plans, and Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 23. The STIP is prepared by Caltrans in cooperation with the MPOs and the regional transportation planning agencies. The STIP contains all capital and non-capital transportation projects or identified phases of transportation projects for funding under the Federal Transit Act and CFR Title 23, including federally funded projects. The STIP is the biennial five-year plan.
Congestion Management Program
State Proposition 111, passed by voters in 1990, established a requirement that urbanized areas prepare and regularly update a Congestion Management Program (CMP). The purpose of a CMP is to monitor the performance of the region’s transportation system, develop programs to address near-term and long-term congestion, and better integrate transportation and land use planning. A CMP has been prepared for Orange County.
Senate Bill 375: Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act Senate Bill (SB) 375 (2008) is intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles through an integrated approach to regional transportation and land use planning. There is a strong link between land use, housing location decisions, and strategies to reduce emissions from the transportation sector. Within urbanized areas, residential development accounts for the largest share of land area, constituting a major influence on regional development footprints and travel patterns.
As such, integrating transportation and residential land use is one of the most impactful strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as well as other forms of air pollution, for the transportation system. Governmental actions supporting the location, variety, and availability of housing are critical to implementing greenhouse gas emissions reduction policies. This can support the integration of transportation and housing development, offering more varied and efficient consumer choices. Infill development patterns that emphasize proximity and connectivity to public transit, walkable areas, employment and service centers and amenities can increase the effectiveness of these relationships.
Senate Bill 743
Senate Bill (SB) 743, signed by Governor Jerry Brown on September 27, 2013, created a process to change the way transportation impacts are analyzed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). SB 743 required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) (renamed Section 4.9: Transportation Transportation
Final EIR No. 357 4.9-3 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
to the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation [LIC] as of July 1, 2024) to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to level of service for evaluating transportation impacts. Aside from changes to transportation analyses, SB 743 also includes several important changes to CEQA that apply to transit-oriented developments, including aesthetics and parking.
On December 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted the update to the CEQA Guidelines, implementing SB 743 (Section 15064.3). Under the OPR’s revisions to the CEQA Guidelines, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant transportation impact. Under the VMT standard, projects within 0.25 mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should generally be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact.
Furthermore, under the CEQA Guidelines revisions, for projects other than roadway capacity projects, automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, should not be considered a significant effect on the environment.
The revisions to the CEQA Guidelines allow a lead agency to elect to evaluate transportation impacts under the revised CEQA Guidelines at any time and made the revised CEQA Guidelines applicable statewide beginning July 1, 2020.
California Department of Transportation Standards
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is responsible for planning, designing, building, operating, and maintaining California’s transportation system. Caltrans sets standards, policies, and Strategic Plans that aim to (1) provide the safest transportation system for users and workers, (2) maximize transportation system performance and accessibility, (3) efficiently deliver quality transportation projects and services, (4) preserve and enhance California’s resources and assets, and (5) promote quality service. Caltrans has the discretionary authority to issue special permits for the use of state highways for other than normal transportation purposes. Caltrans also reviews all requests from utility companies, developers, volunteers, nonprofit organizations, and others desiring to conduct various activities within the state highway right-of-way. The Caltrans Highway Design Manual, prepared by the Office of Geometric Design Standards (7th edition, updated 2020), establishes uniform policies and procedures to carry out the highway design functions of Caltrans. Caltrans also prepared the Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Traffic Impact Study Guide (Caltrans 2020), which replaced the Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies intended for use by the Caltrans Local Development-Intergovernmental Review program, lead agencies, tribal governments, developers, and consultants when reviewing or analyzing land use projects or plans that may impact or affect the State Highway System.
Section 4.9: Transportation Transportation
Final EIR No. 357 4.9-4 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Regional
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategies SCAG is responsible for most regional planning in Southern California. SCAG represents a sixcounty region that includes Orange, Imperial, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties and 189 cities. Cities of Anaheim and Orange are part of the Orange County Council of Governments, which is a sub-region of the SCAG planning area. On April 4, 2024, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted 2024–2050 RTP/SCS or Connect SoCal Plan. On May 10, 2024, the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration approved Connect SoCal 2024; however, as of February 2025, CARB’s approval is still pending before it is fully certified. The 2024–2050 RTP/SCS, or Connect SoCal Plan, is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The 2024–2050 RTP/SCS includes a strong commitment to reduce emissions from transportation sources to comply with SB 375, improve public health, and meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This long-range plan, required by the State of California and the federal government, is updated by SCAG every 4 years as demographic, economic, and policy circumstances change. The RTP/SCS is a living, evolving blueprint for the region’s future.
Of the goals presented in Connect SoCal 2024, the following goals related to transportation are applicable to the project:
• Goal 2: Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability, and travel safety for people and goods.
• Goal 3: Enhance the preservation, security, and resilience of the regional transportation system.
• Goal 4: Increase person and goods movement and travel choices within the transportation system.
• Goal 7: Adapt to a changing climate and support an integrated regional development pattern and transportation network.
• Goal 9: Encourage development of diverse housing types in areas that are supported by multiple transportation options.
Local
City of Anaheim General Plan
The current City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element was adopted May 2004 and provides the description of the City’s transportation system. Its main purpose is to design and improve a circulation system to meet the current and future needs of Anaheim residents, businesses, and visitors. The following 2004 General Plan Circulation Element goals and policies are applicable to the project.
Section 4.9: Transportation Transportation
Final EIR No. 357 4.9-5 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Circulation Element
• Goal 1.1: Provide a comprehensive multimodal transportation system that facilitates current and long-term circulation of people and goods in and through the City. − Policy 1.1-2. Provide enhanced access to destinations through the use of Intelligent Transportation Systems and by enabling modal choices. − Policy 1.1-6. Ensure the provision of needed transportation improvements through the site plan and environmental review process. − Policy 1.1-7. Enable modal choice to improve mobility as an alternative to roadway expansions or additions.
• Goal 2.3: Improve regional access for City residents and workers. − Policy 2.3-4. Participate in cooperative planning processes to promote effective regional transportation and sustainable development and ensure that citizens of Southern California can access jobs, housing and tourism destinations in Anaheim. − Policy 2.3-5. Coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions and regional, State, and Federal agencies to implement Smartstreets, Intelligent Transportation Systems, High Speed Rail, Bus Rapid Transit and ARTIC.
• Goal 3.1: Provide a well-maintained street system.
− Policy 3.1-2. Maintain and rehabilitate all components of the circulation system, including roadways, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities, Intelligent Transportation systems and traffic signals. − Policy 3.1-5. Implement bicycle routes, priority signaling and bicycle amenities whenever roadways are improved.
− Policy 3.1-6. Give additional maintenance priority to streets with bike lanes or bike routes.
• Goal 7.1: Protect and encourage bicycle travel.
− Policy 7.1-1. Provide safe, direct, and continuous bicycle routes for commuter and recreational cyclists.
− Policy 7.1-2. Incorporate bicycle planning into the traditional transportation and roadway maintenance planning process.
− Policy 7.1-3. Support and implement bicycle routes that minimize cyclist/motorist conflicts.
− Policy 7.1-4. Support roadway design policies that promote attractive circulation corridors and safe and pleasant traveling experiences for bicyclists. − Policy 7.1-6. Implement a bikeway system with linkages to routes in neighboring jurisdictions and regional bicycle routes.
Section 4.9: Transportation Transportation
Final EIR No. 357 4.9-6 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
− Policy 7.1-7. Maximize the use of easements and public rights-of-way along flood channels, utility corridors, rail lines and streets for bicycle and pedestrian paths. − Policy 7.1-11. Work with the Caltrans to provide appropriate accommodation for bicyclists and pedestrians along Caltrans facilities, as well as applying for funding for state, local and regional non-motorized modal projects. • Goal 8.1: Protect and encourage pedestrian travel.
− Policy 8.1-1. Encourage and improve pedestrian facilities that link development to the circulation network and that serve as a transition between other modes of travel. − Policy 8.1-2. Improve pedestrian and bicycle connections from residential neighborhoods to retail activity centers, employment centers, schools, parks, open space areas and community centers.
− Policy 8.1-6. When appropriate, walkways should include pedestrian amenities such as shade trees and/or plantings, trash bins, benches, shelters, and directional kiosks.
− Policy 8.1-7. Ensure that streets and intersections are designed to provide visibility and safety for pedestrians.
− Policy 8.1-8. Improve pedestrian amenities adjacent to Metrolink and Amtrak stations.
− Policy 8.1-9. Enhance and encourage pedestrian amenities and recreation, retail and employment opportunities in mixed-use areas to enhance non-motorized transportation.
− Policy 8.1-11. Coordinate with appropriate agencies to ensure that transit stops are accessible to pedestrians.
Bicycle Master Plan
The City’s Bicycle Master Plan was adopted by the City in 2017 and amended in 2020, and is a policy document that guides the City in its implementation of citywide bicycle facilities. It is intended to improve bicycling safety, comfort, and accessibility and it identifies a network of existing and proposed bicycle facilities focusing on connecting existing routes, linking to parks, employment centers, and transportation hubs without reducing vehicle lanes. (Anaheim 2020). The Bicycle Master Plan is currently being updated as part of the City’s General Plan Focused Update.
City of Orange
The City of Orange General Plan Circulation & Mobility Element was adopted in March 2010 and was last amended in 2015. The following General Plan Circulation & Mobility Element goals and policies are applicable to the project.
Section 4.9: Transportation Transportation
Final EIR No. 357 4.9-7 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
• Goal 1.0: Provide a safe, efficient, and comprehensive circulation system that serves local needs, meets forecasted demands, and sustains quality of life in neighborhoods. − Policy 1.1: Plan, build, and maintain an integrated, hierarchical, and multimodal system of roadways, pedestrian walkways, and bicycle paths throughout the City.
− Policy 1.3: Consider various methods to increase safety on City arterials and neighborhood streets, including landscaping, provision of bike/transit lanes, and consideration of traffic calming on neighborhood streets in accordance with the City’s Neighborhood Residential Traffic Management Program. − Policy 1.4: Prohibit on-street parking where possible to reduce bicycle/automobile conflicts in appropriate target areas as recommended by the Bikeways Master Plan.
• Goal 2.0: Provide an effective regional transportation network. − Policy 2.1: Ensure consistency with the County MPAH in order to qualify for funding programs.
− Policy 2.6: Encourage the use of regional rail, transit, bicycling, carpools, and vanpools for work trips to relieve traffic congestion.
• Goal 4.0: Provide efficient and accessible modes of pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian transportation and improved facilities and amenities.
− Policy 4.1: Create a comprehensive bicycle network that is integrated with other transportation systems by establishing complementary on-street and offstreet facilities as identified in the City of Orange Bikeways Master Plan and OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan, including Santiago Creek, the Santa Ana River, and the Tustin Branch Trail.
4.9.1.2 Existing Conditions
Roadway System
Regional access to the project site is provided by State Route 57, which crosses the Santa Ana River. The project site includes the existing State Route 57 underpass. There is no direct vehicular access to the project site other than the existing access for maintenance vehicles.
The future River Road, part of the approved OCVIBE project (by others), is planned along the west side of the Santa Ana River, extending from Katella Avenue to the future Cerritos Avenue (a private road) adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad. According to the City of Anaheim Circulation Element, River Road is designated as a Primary Arterial between Katella Avenue and Ball Road, including Phoenix Club Drive south of Ball Road, which will be renamed River Road as part of the OCVIBE project implementation.
Section 4.9: Transportation Transportation
Final EIR No. 357 4.9-8 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Bike and Pedestrian Roadway System
City of Anaheim
The City of Anaheim’s active transportation facilities include bikeways that are generally categorized into four types, as described below.
Class I Bikeway (Bike Path). Also known as a shared path or multi-use path, a bike path is a paved rightof-way for bicycle travel that is separate from any street or highway (e.g., along a creek or channel).
Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane). A striped and stenciled lane for one-way bicycle travel on a street or highway. This facility could include a buffered space between the bike lane and vehicle lane (referred to as a buffered bike lane) and the bike lane could be adjacent to on-street parking.
Class III Bikeway (Bike Route). A signed route along a street where the bicyclist shares the rightof-way with motor vehicles. This facility can also be augmented using shared-lane markings (also known as sharrows). An enhanced bike route, known as a bicycle boulevard, can include traffic calming treatments to slow down vehicles.
Class IV Bikeway (Separated Bike Lane). Also known as a cycle track or a protected bike lane, this is a bikeway for the exclusive use of bicycles including a separation between the bikeway and the through vehicular traffic. The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking. A cycle track can be one-way or two-way.
City of Orange
The Orange Bikeway Master Plan has established three classes of bicycle routes that adhere to California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) standards:
• Class I Off-road bike paths are located on vacated rail lines, water corridors, or areas otherwise separated from streets.
• Class II On-road bike lanes are located along arterial roadways that are delineated by painted stripes and other features.
• Class III On-road bike routes share use with motor vehicle traffic. They provide a route that is signed but not striped.
Project Site
The project site includes the existing Santa Ana River Trail (SART), as shown on Figure 2-5, Existing Condition – Surface. SART is a Class I Bikeway (Bike Path) and a regional bike path that extends across Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties along the Santa Ana River. The City of Anaheim’s Circulation Element and the City of Orange Circulation and Mobility Element identify the SART as a Class I Bikeway.
Section 4.9: Transportation Transportation
Final EIR No. 357 4.9-9 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
On the western side, SART can be accessed from Katella Avenue, Orangewood Avenue, the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) near the southern border, and the north parking lot. On the eastern side, SART is accessed from Katella Avenue. A Class IV Bikeway (separated bike lane) is proposed along River Road (future), which would run along the Santa Ana River between Katella Avenue and the Union Pacific Railroad as part of the OCVIBE Project, connecting to the existing Anaheim Coves Trail. The Anaheim Coves Trail is a Class I Path that generally extends from Ball Road to La Palma Avenue.
Bridges
There are six existing bridges that span over the Santa Ana River on the project site. Orangewood Avenue, SR-57 Freeway, Metrolink/LOSSAN Corridor railroad, Katella Avenue, Union Pacific Railroad, and Ball Road bridges.
Transit Facilities
The project site is near a network of bus and rail transit services. The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) provides regular bus service along Katella Avenue and Ball Road. The ARTIC, located adjacent to the project site within the OCVIBE boundaries, provides access to existing bus, Amtrak, and Metrolink services, as well as a link to the proposed California High-Speed Rail system.
Vehicle Level of Service Guidelines.
Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies states that a traffic impact analysis would be needed for a project that would generate 100 or more AM or PM peak-hour trips, would contribute 51 or more peak-hour trips to any CMP monitored intersection, would generate 1,600 daily trips if located on the CMP highway system, or would generate 2,400 daily trips if adjacent to the CMP highway system. The Orange County CMP highway system includes Katella Avenue and the Katella Avenue interchanges with State Route 57 in the vicinity of the project.
The City of Orange Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment also suggests that level of service analysis would be required if a project generates more than 100 AM or PM peak-hour trips or adds 51 or more trips during the AM or PM peak hours to any single intersection.
The County of Orange Transportation Implementation Manual states that open space, passive park, and park buildings are deemed to have significant public benefit and exempt from preparing level of service analysis.
Section 4.9: Transportation Transportation
Final EIR No. 357 4.9-10 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Trip Generation
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, provides data on the trip generation characteristics of different types of land uses. The project has the potential to generate recreation trips similar to other public parks. While only a small portion of the study area is outside the riverbed, Table 4.9-1, Trip Generation, calculates project trips based on the entire 90-acre study area. As shown in Table 4.9-1, the project is anticipated to generate 70 daily trips on a typical day of which 2 trips would occur in the AM peak hour and 10 trips would occur in the PM peak hour. This is below the cities of Anaheim and Orange’s established threshold of 100 peak-hour trips (51 peak-hour trips at a CMP intersection) that would require preparation of a detailed traffic analysis.
Table 4.9-1. Trip Generation
Land Use Unit ADT In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Rates
Public Park Acre 0.78 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.066 0.05 0.11
Trips
OC River Walk 90 acres 70 1 1 2 5 5 10
4.9.2 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the project would have a significant impact on transportation if it would:
• Threshold T-1: Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. • Threshold T-2: Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
• Threshold T-3: Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). • Threshold T-4: Result in inadequate emergency access.
The Initial Study, found in Appendix A to the Draft EIR, determined that the following thresholds would have less than significant or no impact, and these environmental topics will not be addressed further in this section of the Draft EIR:
• Threshold T-1
• Threshold T-3
• Threshold T-4
Section 4.9: Transportation Transportation
Final EIR No. 357 4.9-11 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
4.9.3 Plans, Programs, and Policies
This section addresses plans, programs, and policies relevant to the project.
PPP T-1 The Santa Ana River Trail will be constructed in compliance with the State Coastal Conservancy's Santa Ana River Parkway & Open Space Plan dated March 14, 2018, or any updates thereof, including trail design principles and guidelines, the California Transportation Department Highway Design Manual's Bikeway Design Criteria, and the design standards of the City of Anaheim, the City of Orange, or other appropriate design standards as required by the applicable approval authority.
PPP GEO-3 All bridges shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Load and Resistance Factor Design Bridge Design Specifications with California Amendments, the latest versions of the California Department of Transportation Standard Plans, Seismic Desing Criteria, and Geotechnical Manual, as required for various elements of the project, as determined by the applicable approval authority.
4.9.4 Environmental Impacts
The following sections address various potential impacts relating to transportation that could result from implementation of the project.
4.9.4.1 Threshold T-2: Induction of Substantial Vehicle Miles Traveled Impact Analysis
On June 23, 2020, the City of Anaheim adopted the City of Anaheim Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for CEQA Analysis (City of Anaheim 2020). These adopted guidelines include screening criteria for various project types that can be screened from project‐level assessment as they are presumed to have a less than significant impact. The examples of projects that could be screened include “pocket, neighborhood and community parks” (Type 3 project screening). Projects generating less than 110 daily trips are also presumed to have a less than significant impact.
The City of Orange Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment also identifies local parks and projects generating fewer than 110 daily vehicle trips as having a presumption of a less than significant impact.
The County of Orange Transportation Implementation Manual states that public facilities that support community health, safety, or welfare are screened from subsequent analysis of VMT.
Small projects generating fewer than 500 daily vehicle trips are presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT.
Section 4.9: Transportation Transportation
Final EIR No. 357 4.9-12 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Simultaneous with clearance of the revised CEQA Guidelines, the OPR released the Technical Advisory for Evaluating Transportation Impacts under CEQA (OPR 2018). Although this document does not carry the weight of law, it does provide clarification of CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.3, and guidance that could be adopted by jurisdictions. The Technical Advisory for Evaluating Transportation Impacts under CEQA states that the addition of Class I bike paths, trails, multi-use paths, or other off-road facilities that serve non-motorized travel would not likely lead to a substantial or measurable increase in vehicle travel.
The project elements accessible to the public would be pedestrian/bike bridges, trails, parks, and various recreational amenities serving visitors and the local population. The project would construct new Class I bike path connections bridging the Santa Ana River. Other project elements support community health and safety through water quality improvements.
As shown in Table 4.9-1, the project meets the descriptions provided in the City of Anaheim Guidelines, the City of Orange guidelines, and the County of Orange guidelines for project types presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact under CEQA. Additionally, the project includes Class I bike path improvements and multi-use paths that serve non-motorized travel, not leading to a substantial or measurable increase in vehicle travel. Therefore, no additional VMT analysis is necessary, and the project VMT impacts are presumed to have a less than significant impact.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.
Mitigation Measure: No mitigation measures are required.
4.9.5 Cumulative Impacts
4.9.5.1 Cumulative Threshold T-2: Induction of Substantial Vehicle Miles Traveled For cumulative conditions, if a project is consistent with the regional RTP/SCS, its cumulative impacts are considered less than significant, subject to other substantial evidence.
As discussed in Threshold T-2, the project would have a less than significant individual VMT impact.
Other development projects in Anaheim and Orange that do not meet their respective screening criteria must be analyzed for VMT impacts and mitigated to the extent feasible. Additionally, development in these cities is expected to align with long-term VMT reduction goals outlined in their General Plans and the regional RTP/SCS. Although development of cumulative projects based on the full buildout under the General Plans would likely result in significant VMT impacts.
Therefore, the project would have a less than significant individual VMT impact. The project would have a beneficial impact on VMT, and would not result in a significant cumulative VMT impact.
Section 4.9: Transportation Transportation
Final EIR No. 357 4.9-13 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
4.9.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
The following thresholds would be less than significant:
• Threshold T-2: Implementation of the project would not Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
4.9.7 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
4.9.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Not applicable.
Section 4.9: Transportation Transportation
Final EIR No. 357 4.9-14 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
This page intentionally left blank.
Section 4.10: Tribal Cultural Resources
Final EIR No. 357 4.10-1 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
4.10 Tribal Cultural Resources
This section evaluates the potential for impacts relating to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) resulting from implementation of the OC River Walk project (project).
4.10.1 Environmental Setting
4.10.1.1 Regulatory Setting
This section describes the federal, state, and local regulatory framework adopted to address TCRs.
Federal
National Historic Preservation Act (U.S. Code, Title 54, Section 300101 et seq.) The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 established the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as the official federal list of cultural resources that have been nominated by state offices for their historical significance at the local, state, or national level. Listing in the NRHP provides recognition that a property is significant to the nation, the state, or the community and assumes that federal agencies consider historical value in the planning for federal and federally assisted projects.
Properties listed in the NRHP or determined eligible for listing must meet certain criteria for historical significance and possess integrity of form, location, and setting. Structures and features must usually be at least 50 years old to be considered for listing in the NRHP, barring exceptional circumstances. Criteria for listing in the NRHP, which are set forth in Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part 60.4, are the quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and that:
A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
B. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; represent the work of a master; possess high artistic values; represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Eligible properties must meet at least one of the criteria and exhibit integrity, which is measured by the degree to which the resource retains its historic properties and conveys its historic character, the degree to which the original fabric has been retained, and the reversibility of changes to the property. The fourth criterion is typically reserved for archaeological and paleontological resources. These criteria have largely been incorporated into the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
Section 4.10: Tribal Cultural Resources
Final EIR No. 357 4.10-2 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (U.S. Code, Title 25, Section 3001 et seq.)
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) is a federal law passed in 1990. NAGPRA provides a process for museums and federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items—human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony—to lineal descendants and culturally affiliated Native American Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations. NAGPRA includes provisions for unclaimed and culturally unidentifiable Native American cultural items, intentional and inadvertent discovery of Native American cultural items on federal and Tribal lands, and penalties for noncompliance and illegal trafficking.
Implementation of the project would be conducted in compliance with NAGPRA.
Federal curation regulations are also provided in Title 36, Part 79, of the Code of Federal Regulations and apply to collections that are excavated or removed under the authority of the Antiquities Act (16 USC 431–433), the Reservoir Salvage Act (16 USC 469–469c), Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470h-2), or the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 USC 470aa–mm). Such collections generally include those that are the result of a prehistoric or historical resources survey, excavation, or other study conducted in connection with a federal action, assistance, license, or permit.
State
Assembly Bill 52: Native Americans: California Environmental Quality Act Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) establishes a formal consultation process for California Native American Tribes as part of CEQA and equates significant impacts on TCRs with significant environmental impacts (California Public Resources Code, Section 21084.2).
California Public Resources Code, Section 21074, defines TCRs as follows:
1. Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
a. Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.
b. Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.
2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1.
Sacred places can include Native American sanctified cemeteries, places of worship, religious or ceremonial sites, and sacred shrines. In addition, both unique and non-unique archaeological resources, as defined in California Public Resources Code, Section 21083.2, can be TCRs if they meet the criteria detailed above. The lead agency relies on substantial evidence to make the Section 4.10: Tribal Cultural Resources
Final EIR No. 357 4.10-3 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
determination that a resource qualifies as a TCR when it is not already listed in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or a local register.
AB 52 defines a “California Native American Tribe” as a Native American Tribe in California that is on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) (California Public Resources Code, Section 21073). Under AB 52, formal consultation with Tribes is required before determining the level of environmental document if a Tribe has requested to be informed by the lead agency of proposed projects and if the Tribe, upon receiving notice of the project, accepts the opportunity to consult within 30 days of receipt of the notice. AB 52 also requires that consultation, if initiated, address project alternatives and mitigation measures for significant effects if specifically requested by the Tribe. AB 52 states that consultation is considered concluded when the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect on TCRs or when either the Tribe or the lead agency concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached after making a reasonable, good-faith effort. Under AB 52, any mitigation measures recommended by the lead agency or agreed on with the Tribe may be included in the final environmental document and in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program if the mitigation measures were determined to avoid or lessen a significant impact on a TCR.
If the recommended measures are not included in the final environmental document, then the lead agency must consider the four mitigation methods described in California Public Resources Code, Section 21084.3(e). Any information submitted by a Tribe during the consultation process is considered confidential and is not subject to public review or disclosure. It will be published in a confidential appendix to the environmental document unless the Tribe consents to disclosure of all or some of the information to the public.
California Government Code, Sections 6254(r) and 6254.10 Sections 6254(r) and 6254.10 of the California Government Code were enacted to protect archaeological sites from unauthorized excavation, looting, or vandalism. Section 6254(r) explicitly authorizes public agencies to withhold information from the public relating to “Native American graves, cemeteries, and sacred places maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission.” Section 6254.10 specifically exempts from disclosure requests for “records that relate to archaeological site information and reports, maintained by, or in the possession of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Historical Resources Commission, the State Lands Commission, the Native American Heritage Commission, another state agency, or a local agency, including the records that the agency obtains through a consultation process between a Native American tribe and a state or local agency.”
California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, and California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.9
California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, addresses the protection of human remains discovered in any location other than a dedicated cemetery and makes it a misdemeanor for any Section 4.10: Tribal Cultural Resources
Final EIR No. 357 4.10-4 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
person who knowingly mutilates or disinters, wantonly disturbs, or willfully removes any human remains in or from any location other than a dedicated cemetery without authority of law, except as provided in California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.99. It further states that, in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains will occur until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined that the remains are not subject to the provisions concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death and that the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to their authorized representative, in the manner provided in California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98. If the county coroner determines that the remains are not subject to their authority and if the county coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, they shall contact, by telephone and within 24 hours, the NAHC. Whenever the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from the county coroner, the agency shall immediately notify the most likely decadents if it believes them to be the most likely descendants of the deceased Native American. The most likely descendants may inspect the site of the discovery and make recommendations on the removal or reburial of the remains.
California Register of Historical Resources
The CRHR is a state government program for use by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify, evaluate, register, and protect California’s historical resources. The CRHR is the authoritative guide to the state’s significant historical and archaeological resources and encourages public recognition and protection of resources of architectural, historical, archaeological, and cultural significance; identifies historical resources for state and local planning purposes; determines eligibility for state historic preservation grant funding; and affords certain protections under CEQA.
The term “historical resource” includes but is not limited to any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that is historically or archaeologically significant or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California (California Public Resources Code, Section 5020.1[j]).
Historical resources may be designated as such through three different processes:
• Official designation or recognition by a local government pursuant to local ordinance or resolution (California Public Resources Code, Section 5020.1[k]) • A local survey conducted pursuant to California Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1(g) • Listing in or eligibility for listing in the NRHP (California Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1[d][1])
Section 4.10: Tribal Cultural Resources
Final EIR No. 357 4.10-5 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
To be eligible for listing in the CRHR, a building must satisfy at least one of the following four criteria:
• Criterion 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.
• Criterion 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history.
• Criterion 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values. • Criterion 4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
Native American Historic Cultural Sites (California Public Resources Code, Section 5097 et. seq.)
State law addresses the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction; establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project; and establishes the NAHC to resolve disputes regarding the disposition of such remains. In addition, the Native American Historic Resource Protection Act makes it a misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in jail to deface or destroy a Native American historical or cultural site that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the CRHR.
4.10.1.2 Existing Conditions
Historical Resources
A records search conducted as part of the OC River Walk Project Cultural Resources Survey Letter Report – Negative Findings (Harris 2024) found no resources meeting the CRHR or NRHP criteria within the project site boundaries. The previously recorded cultural resources on site and within a
0.5-mile buffer of the project site are described in Section 4.3, Cultural Resources.
Tribal Cultural Resources
The NAHC was contacted for a Sacred Lands File Check to determine if sacred lands are present on site. The response from the NAHC was negative, and outreach to the list of Tribes provided has been conducted to the following Tribes by Harris & Associates’ senior archaeologist (refer to Appendix E, Cultural Memo, of the Draft Environmental Impact Report [EIR]). However, no responses were received for the preparation of the Cultural Survey Letter Report. • Cahuilla Band of Indians
• Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
• Gabrieleño/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians • Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council Section 4.10: Tribal Cultural Resources
Final EIR No. 357 4.10-6 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
• Gabrielino/Tongva Nation
• Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
• Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation – Belardes • Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation 84A • Pala Band of Mission Indians
• Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians
The government-to-government consultation notification per AB 52 was sent out in December 2024 by the City to the following Tribes and two Tribes responded to the notification letter: the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, on January 31, 2025, and the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation - Belardes, on February 20, 2025.
4.10.2 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the project would have a significant impact on TCRs if it would:
• Threshold TCR-1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
− Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
− A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
4.10.3 Plans, Programs, and Policies
This section addresses plans, programs, and policies relevant to the project.
PPP CUL-1 The project shall comply with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in the project site. This provision states that no further disturbance would occur until the County Coroner makes a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98.
Section 4.10: Tribal Cultural Resources
Final EIR No. 357 4.10-7 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
4.10.4 Environmental Impacts
The following sections address various potential impacts relating to TCRs that could result from implementation of the project.
4.10.4.1 Threshold TCR-1: Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact Analysis
Historic Tribal Cultural Resources
As discussed in Section 4.10.1.2, Existing Conditions, no historical resources under the NRHP and CRHR criteria have been recorded on the project site. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse impact to TCRs as defined in the California Public Resources Code (PRC), Section 5020.1(k). Additionally, the NAHC’s Sacred Lands File records search received a negative result (refer to Appendix E of the Draft EIR). No known historic TCRs exist on or near the project; therefore, impacts to historic TCRs would be less than significant.
Prehistoric/Archaeological Tribal Cultural Resources
AB 52 requires meaningful consultation between lead agencies and California Native American Tribes on potential impacts to TCRs, as defined in PRC Section 21074. A TCR is a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe that is either on or eligible for inclusion in the California Historic Register, or is a resource that the lead agency, at its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, determines should be treated as a TCR (PRC Section 21074[a][1–2]).
In accordance with AB 52, the City notified the Tribes on the City’s Tribal Consultation list about the project in December 2024, for the government-to-government consultation to determine the potential for TCRs on site and to inquire if local knowledge of TCR is available about the project site. The following Tribes responded and requested consultation pursuant to AB 52:
• Andrew Salas from Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation • Joyce Stanfield Perry from Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation The City of Anaheim contacted and consulted with Mr. Salas and Ms. Perry. The consultation occurred via email, and both requested that a Tribal monitor from their respective Tribe. As discussed in Section 4.3, no historical resources meeting the NRHP criteria, as identified in subsection (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, were identified on the project site. Additionally, the project site has been previously disturbed by the construction of the Santa Ana River channel, the Santa Ana River Trail, a maintenance road, and other surrounding development. The riverbed is also regularly disturbed.
The archaeological field survey conducted as part of the Cultural Resources Survey Report (Appendix E of the Draft EIR) determined that the potential for archaeological resources is low.
Additionally, implementation of PPP CUL-1, which requires compliance with Section 7050.5 of the Section 4.10: Tribal Cultural Resources
Final EIR No. 357 4.10-8 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
California Health and Safety Code in the event of the discovery or recognition of any human remains on the project site, would reduce potential impacts to human remains.
However, because construction-related ground-disturbing activities could extend into previously undisturbed native soils, grading at depths exceeding 5 feet could potentially uncover TCRs.
Therefore, impacts to subsurface TCRs could occur during grading and would be potentially significant without mitigation.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure TCR-1 is required.
4.10.5 Cumulative Impacts
4.10.5.1 Cumulative Threshold TCR-1: Tribal Cultural Resources Cumulative impacts on TCRs would occur if the project, in combination with other developments in the Cities of Anaheim and Orange, resulted in multiple or cumulative impacts on TCRs in the area. The Sacred Lands File review did not identify any recorded TCRs on or near the project site.
Similar to this project, each related cumulative project would be required to comply with AB 52 and PRC Section 21083.2(i), which address accidental discoveries of archaeological sites and resources, including TCRs. As with the project, other various projects in the Cities of Anaheim and Orange are required to comply with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code (PPP RC-1). As a result, any TCR discoveries associated with the project or related projects would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be considerable.
4.10.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Without mitigation, the following thresholds would be potentially significant:
• Threshold TCR-1: Implementation of the project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource.
4.10.7 Mitigation Measures
TCR-1: Prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities in any area where soil disturbance is greater than the depth of current foundations present on a project site, or in areas where the disturbance activities extend into native soils exceeding a depth of 5 feet, and/or where there is documented resource presence, the City of Anaheim (lead agency) shall retain a single Native American Monitor at a time to monitor grading activities as described below. If multiple Tribes have requested monitoring, a lead Native American Monitor shall be designated to serve as the primary monitor. Only one monitor Section 4.10: Tribal Cultural Resources
Final EIR No. 357 4.10-9 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
shall be present on-site at any given time during grading activities, unless otherwise agreed upon by the lead agency and the designated lead Native American Monitor.
A. The Native American Monitor shall be from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Kizh) or Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation – Belardes (Acjachemen). The lead Native American Monitor shall serve as the point of contact and coordinator for the project during monitoring activities.
B. For the purposes of this requirement, “ground-disturbing activity” includes project locations inside the project boundary, excluding off-site work within existing public right-of-way. “Ground-disturbing activity” includes, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching resulting in soil disturbance exceeding a depth of current foundations present on a project site, or in areas where the disturbance activities extend into native soils exceeding a depth of 5 feet.
C. The City of Anaheim shall execute a monitoring agreement with the lead Native American Monitor Tribe prior to the earlier of the commencement of any grounddisturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a grounddisturbing activity.
D. The Native American Monitor shall complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe and the lead agency. Monitor logs shall identify and describe any discovered Tribal Cultural Resources, including but not limited to Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the City and the Kizh and Acjachemen Tribes. Any other federally or state-recognized tribes requesting copies of the monitoring logs shall be provided with the logs by the City of Anaheim.
E. On-site Native American Monitor shall conclude upon the former of the following:
1) Written confirmation from a designated point of contact for the lead agency to the lead Native American Monitor that all ground-disturbing activities resulting in soil disturbance exceeding a depth of current foundations present on a project site, or in areas where the disturbance activities extend into native soils exceeding a depth of 5 feet on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or
Section 4.10: Tribal Cultural Resources
Final EIR No. 357 4.10-10 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
2) A determination and written notification from the lead Native American Monitor to the lead agency stating that no future planned construction or development activity at the project site has the potential to impact Kizh and Acjachemen Tribal Cultural Resources.
F. Upon discovery of any Tribal Cultural Resources, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered Tribal Cultural Resource has been fully assessed by Kizh and Acjachemen monitors and an archaeologist retained by the lead agency. The Kizh or Acjachemen Tribe shall recover and retain all discovered Tribal Cultural Resources in the form and manner the affected Tribe deems appropriate, in the affected Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the affected Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and historical purposes.
4.10.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
4.10.8.1 Threshold TCR-1: Tribal Cultural Resources
Implementation of PPP CUL-1 and Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would mitigate potential impacts associated with TCRs to a level that is less than significant. Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would require a Tribal monitor to be present if ground disturbance associated with the project exceeds 5 feet in depth. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to TCRs would remain.
Chapter 5: Alternatives
Final EIR No. 357 5-1 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Chapter 5 Alternatives
Section 15126.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describes a reasonable range of alternatives to a proposed project that could feasibly attain most of the project objectives while avoiding or considerably reducing any of the significant impacts of the proposed project. In addition, a “No Project” Alternative must be analyzed in the document. CEQA also requires that an environmentally superior alternative be identified from among the alternatives. The environmentally superior alternative is the alternative with the fewest or least severe adverse environmental impacts. When the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[e][2]).
The CEQA Guidelines emphasize a commonsense approach. The alternatives shall be reasonable, “foster informed decision making and public participation,” and focus on alternatives that avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[a]). CEQA does not require that an EIR present the alternatives analysis in the same level of detail as the assessment of the proposed project, and does not require that every conceivable alternative to a project be considered.
To develop a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, the City of Anaheim considered:
• Project objectives
• Significant impacts of the proposed project
• Alternatives suggested during the scoping process
• Other alternatives considered
Through this process, the City of Anaheim identified four possible alternatives. Of these, two were dismissed from further consideration because they did not meet most project objectives or were not considered even potentially feasible, and two were identified as project alternatives to be evaluated, in addition to the No Project Alternative required by CEQA.
This chapter includes a description of how the project alternatives were developed, an evaluation of the alternatives in comparison to the proposed project, and identification of the environmentally superior alternative.
5.1 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(b), alternatives to the project include those that avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives or would be more costly. Based on the analysis contained in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, the project would not result in any significant and unavoidable adverse impacts.
Chapter 5: Alternatives
Final EIR No. 357 5-2 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
5.2 Project Objectives
The process of identifying potential alternatives involves consideration of the objectives for the project, which are described in Section 2.2, Project Objectives, in Chapter 2, Project Description, and restated below:
1. Adopt the OC River Walk Conceptual Master Plan to further enahce and accentuate existing recreational areas, facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access, and promote the use of the river corridor open space area for the community benefit.
2. Implement projects identified in the OC River Walk Conceptual Master Plan that will create visually appealing outdoor public amenities that will benefit and promote environmental and community health, recreation, safety, entertainment, wayfinding, art, education, cultural awareness, beauty, connectivity, water supply, economic, and natural resource needs.
3. Provide seamless and cohesive improvements across jurisdictions on the project site to benefit the public and the area’s aesthetics.
4. Implement projects to transform and improve the river and riverbed’s groundwater recharge potential and improve the river corridor’s ecology (flora and fauna).
5. Maintain and enhance flood protection capacity and resiliency.
6. Enhance connectivity and community access by leveraging the project site's location near ARTIC, major entertainment venues, and adjacent mixed-use developments.
5.3 Alternatives Considered But Rejected
CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project. The two alternatives listed below were considered but rejected during the scoping/planning process based on one or more of the listed criteria: i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, ii) infeasibility, or iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[c]).
The following section describes alternatives or alternative concepts that were given consideration by the lead agency but rejected from further analysis in the EIR.
5.3.1 Alternative Sites
The project site was selected due to its location adjacent to the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC), a local and regional transportation hub providing rail, bus, taxi, and other services for daily commuters and visitors, and two major sports and entertainment venues, Honda Center and Angel Stadium of Anaheim. The project site is also located adjacent to and integrated with the existing City of Orange Stadium Promenade and the OCVIBE Entertainment District, which is currently being developed adjacent to the Honda Center. OCVIBE is a 100-acre Chapter 5: Alternatives
Final EIR No. 357 5-3 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
master planned campus currently under development around the Honda Center with shopping, dining, sports, entertainment, open space, apartments, offices, and parking. By locating the OC River Walk project in this highly visited area near high quality transit, the trail and bridge improvements have the greatest potential to promote alternative modes and transportation and reduce regional vehicle miles travelled (VMT). Locating the project in another location would reduce the VMT benefits and increase regional air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
Therefore, an Alternative Site would not reduce environmental impacts.
Another key factor in selection of the project site is the location of the Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Turnout Structure near the northwest corner of the project site, which will be the source of water for groundwater recharge in the Santa Ana River. Moving the project to another location would not have a source of GWRS water and would not allow for groundwater replenishment, which is a major objective of the project. For these reasons, Alternative Sites have been rejected from further consideration.
5.3.2 No Impoundment Alternative
This Alternative would not include the proposed impoundment structures which are part of the Group A improvements (refer to Chapter 2 for descriptions of the project elements included in each group). All other components of the project would remain the same. Without the impoundments, this Alternative would not allow for groundwater replenishment using GWRS water, which is a major objective of the project. For these reasons, the No Impoundment Alternative has been rejected from further consideration.
5.4 Analysis of Project Alternatives Selected for Evaluation The following alternatives are analyzed in this chapter:
• Alternative 1: No Project/No Improvements Alternative • Alternative 2: Group A and C Impoundments and Trails Alternative These alternatives were determined to adequately represent the range of feasible alternatives required under CEQA for the project. The No Project/No Improvements Alternative is included, as required by CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e), even though it would not meet the basic project objectives. Alternative 2 is a reduced scope option that could potentially meet some of the lead agency’s objectives.
Detailed descriptions of the alternatives are presented below, along with an evaluation of their environmental impacts.
Chapter 5: Alternatives
Final EIR No. 357 5-4 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
5.4.1 Alternative 1: No Project/No Improvements Alternative The discussion of the No Project Alternative must examine the existing conditions and reasonably foreseeable future conditions that would exist if the project were not approved (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[e]). The No Project/No Improvements Alternative is defined as a continuation of existing conditions and conditions that are reasonably expected to occur in the event that the project is not implemented. Under the No Project/No Improvements Alternative, none of the Group A, B, C, or D improvements would occur. Although this Alternative would avoid potential shortterm, construction-related impacts, none of the long-term benefits of the project (e.g., trail improvements, groundwater recharge, open space restoration, enhanced community access, recreational opportunities, infrastructure improvements, etc.) would be realized. As a result, under this Alternative none of the Conceptual Master Plan Elements, as illustrated on Figures 2-8a through 2-8d, would occur, including Group A – Impoundments, Storm Drain Diversions, and Embankments; Group B – New Pedestrian/Bike Bridges; Group C – New Trails and Trail Improvements; and Group D – Enhanced Community Amenities.
Impact Analysis
5.4.1.1 Air Quality
Without the project, construction-related emissions, including dust, vehicle exhaust, and equipment emissions, would not occur. However, existing conditions would remain unchanged, meaning there would be no improvements to air quality through potential project-related emission reduction strategies such as increased vegetation or decreased reliance on motorized transport. Therefore, it is expected that temporary construction air quality impacts would be reduced compared to the project, and long-term operational air quality impacts would increase compared to the project.
5.4.1.2 Biological Resources
The no-project scenario would avoid potential temporary disturbances to local habitats caused by construction. However, without the project habitat restoration or enhancement efforts that could improve conditions for local species would also not occur. Sensitive species and wetlands within the project area would remain as they currently are, without additional beneficial improvements on biological resources. Therefore, it is expected that temporary construction biological resources impacts would be reduced compared to the project, and long-term operational benefits to biological resources would not occur.
5.4.1.3 Cultural Resources
By not proceeding with development, there would be no risk of disturbing potential archaeological or historic resources. Therefore, it is estimated that the No Project/No Improvement Alternative would have decreased impacts related to cultural resources compared to the project.
Chapter 5: Alternatives
Final EIR No. 357 5-5 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
5.4.1.4 Geology and Soils
No grading, excavation, or land modification would take place, eliminating risks associated with soil erosion and stability issues from construction.
5.4.1.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Without the project, construction-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including equipment emissions, would not occur. However, existing conditions would remain unchanged, meaning there would be no improvements to GHG emissions through potential project-related emission reduction strategies such as increased vegetation or decreased reliance on motorized transport. Therefore, it is expected that temporary construction air quality impacts would be reduced compared to the project, and long-term operational GHG impacts would increase compared to the project.
5.4.1.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Because no changes would occur under the No Project/No Improvement Alternative, no new hazards would be introduced to the project site. Project impacts were determined to be less than significant related to hazards and hazardous materials, including those associated with the routine transportation, storage, and use of common household chemicals during the operation of the project. However, this alternative would reduce the project’s less than significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials because no soils would be disturbed.
5.4.1.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Under the No Project/No Improvement Alternative, existing hydrology patterns and characteristics of the project site and water quality conditions would remain unchanged. The project would result in minor increases in impervious surfaces, which would increase the amount of storm water runoff from the project site. These impacts— which would be less than significant for the project through compliance with existing regulatory requirements—would be avoided under the No Project/No Improvement Alternative. Water quality impacts, including erosion and sedimentation, would be greater under this alternative because the project site would not receive the benefits from the stormwater drainage and water quality filtration features that would be constructed as part of the project. Accordingly, this alternative would result in greater impacts associated with hydrology and water quality when compared to the project.
5.4.1.8 Noise
The No Project/No Improvement Alternative would not involve any grading or construction activities. Therefore, noise and vibration effects associated with these construction activities would not occur under this alternative. However, the construction-related noise impacts from the project would be less than significant. The increase in long-term, traffic-related, and operational noise Chapter 5: Alternatives
Final EIR No. 357 5-6 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
levels associated with the project are minimal and no significant noise impacts would occur.
Therefore, this alternative would result in no impact related to noise.
5.4.1.9 Transportation
The No Project/No Improvement Alternative would not change the existing circulation conditions because no new activities would occur at the project site. No long-term (operational) vehicular trips would be generated under the No Project/No Development Alternative. However, under this alternative, the trail and bridge improvements, and associated VMT reductions would not occur. Therefore, long-term VMT impacts would be greater under the No Project/No Improvement Alternative.
5.4.1.10 Tribal Cultural Resources
By not proceeding with development, there would be no risk of disturbing potential tribal cultural resources. Therefore, it is expected that the No Project/No Improvement Alternative would have reduced impacts related to tribal cultural resources compared to the project.
5.4.1.11 Avoid or Substantially Lessen the Significant Impacts of the Project The No Project/No Improvement Alternative would avoid some of the short-term construction related impacts. Because no changes would occur under the No Project/No Improvement Alternative, less than significant impacts potentially resulting from the project for the following environmental topics would be avoided: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources.
However, as discussed above, the long-term VMT, air quality, and GHG impacts would be greater under the No Project/No Improvement Alternative. Additionally, this alternative would not attain any of the Project Objectives established for the project.
5.4.1.12 Ability to Meet Project Objectives
The No Project/No Improvement Alternative would not involve any changes within the project site. This alternative would not attain any of the Project Objectives identified above in Section
5.2, Project Objectives, including environmental benefits related to trail improvements, groundwater recharge, and open space restoration. Additional benefits of the project, such as enhanced community access, recreational opportunities, wildlife and habitat benefits, and infrastructure improvements, would not occur.
5.4.2 Alternative 2: Group A and C Impoundments and Trails Alternative Under the Group A and C Impoundments and Trails Alternative, none of the Group B or D improvements would occur. As a result, the Group B – New Pedestrian/Bike Bridges and Group D – Enhanced Community Amenities would not occur. Group B includes two new pedestrian/bike bridges, and Group D includes park and open space along the east bank and in Lot B on the west Chapter 5: Alternatives
Final EIR No. 357 5-7 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
side. Although this Alternative would reduce some potential short-term, construction-related impacts, some of the long-term benefits of the project would not be realized. Specifically, the elimination of new pedestrian and bike bridges would reduce some of the VMT, air quality, and GHG benefits associated with the project. This alternative would eliminate park and open space with the potential for habitat restoration or enhancement efforts; therefore, it would reduce some of the biological resource benefits that could have been achieved through project implementation.
Impact Analysis
5.4.2.1 Air Quality
Under Alternative 2, construction-related emissions, including dust, vehicle exhaust, and equipment emissions, would be reduced. However, the elimination of new pedestrian and bike bridges would reduce some of the air quality benefits associated with the project. Therefore, it is expected that temporary construction air quality impacts would be reduced compared to the project, and long-term operational air quality impacts would increase compared to the project.
5.4.2.2 Biological Resources
Under Alternative 2, potential temporary disturbances to local habitats caused by construction would still occur but to a lesser extent because the east bank area would not be disturbed. With implementation of the impoundments, potential habitat restoration or enhancement efforts that could improve conditions for local species could occur similar to the project. But this alternative would also eliminate some park and open space areas within the project site with the potential for habitat restoration and enhancement; therefore, it would reduce some of the biological resource benefits that could have been achieved through project implementation. Therefore, it is expected that impacts to biological resources would be similar under this alternative.
5.4.2.3 Cultural Resources
Under this alternative, the primary project components would still be implemented. Therefore, it is estimated that Alternative 2 would have similar impacts related to cultural resources compared to the project.
5.4.2.4 Geology and Soils
Alternative 2 would involve a similar construction impact area as the project. Therefore, this alternative would result in similar potential impacts related to geology and soils and seismic hazards as the project. With adherence to applicable building codes and incorporation of the recommendations from the site-specific geotechnical studies, the project would not expose people or structures to substantial safety risks associated with geologic hazards. Therefore, with incorporation of mitigation measures, and adherence to applicable regulations, geology and soils impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Alternative 2 and the project.
Chapter 5: Alternatives
Final EIR No. 357 5-8 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
5.4.2.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under Alternative 2, construction-related emissions related to the bridges, including dust, vehicle exhaust, and equipment emissions, would be avoided. However, the elimination of new pedestrian and bike bridges would reduce some of the VMT and GHG benefits associated with the project.
Therefore, it is expected that temporary construction GHG impacts would be reduced compared to the project, and long-term operational air quality impacts would increase compared to the project.
5.4.2.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Neither implementation of Alternative 2 nor the project would result in a significant impact related to hazards or hazardous materials. Alternative 2 would involve a similar construction impact area as the project. Therefore, this alternative would result in similar potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials as the project.
5.4.2.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Alternative 2 would involve development of the same area that would occur with implementation of the project. Therefore, this alternative would result in similar impacts related to hydrology and water quality as the project. Similar to the project, development under this alternative would slightly increase the amount of storm water runoff due to the increase in the amount of impervious surfaces. As with the project, application of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other regulatory requirements would ensure that impacts to hydrology and storm drain infrastructure are less than significant. An on-site storm drain system would be constructed to detain flows such that they are released from the site at near pre-development levels and would not result in impacts to storm drain facilities or flooding. As with the project, with the incorporation of applicable regulatory requirements, Alternative 2 would have similar, less than significant impacts as the project related to hydrology and flooding.
5.4.2.8 Noise
Under this alternative, the primary project components would still be implemented. Therefore, it is expected that Alternative 2 would have similar impacts related to noise compared to the project.
However, elimination of the bridges would slightly reduce potential construction noise.
5.4.2.9 Transportation
The elimination of new pedestrian and bike bridges would reduce some of the VMT, air quality, and GHG benefits associated with the project. Therefore, it is estimated that long-term operational VMT impacts would slightly increase compared to the project.
Chapter 5: Alternatives
Final EIR No. 357 5-9 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
5.4.2.10 Tribal Cultural Resources
Under this alternative, the primary project components would still be implemented. Therefore, it is expected that Alternative 2 would have similar impacts related to tribal cultural resources compared to the project.
5.4.2.11 Avoid or Substantially Lessen the Significant Impacts of the Project The Group A and C Impoundments and Trails Alternative would reduce some of the short-term construction-related impacts. Because no bridges would occur under Alternative 2, less than significant impacts resulting from the project for construction noise would be reduced. Although the area of disturbance would decrease under this alternative, some of park and open space improvements with potential habitat restoration would not occur, which would have a beneficial impact on the biological resources after construction. This alternative is considered to have similar impacts related to biological resources. As discussed above, the long-term VMT, air quality, and GHG impacts would be slightly greater under Alternative 2.
5.4.2.12 Ability to Meet Project Objectives
The Group A and C Impoundments and Trails Alternative achieves most of the Project Objectives identified above in Section 5.2, including environmental benefits related to trail improvements in groundwater recharge. However, without the bridges, some of the VMT reduction benefits would not occur to the same extent as the full project. This alternative would only partially meet the project objectives and only partially achieve the associated benefits.
5.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative
An EIR is required to identify the environmentally superior alternative, the alternative having the potential for the fewest environmental impacts, from among the range of reasonable alternatives that are evaluated. Of the alternatives analyzed, the environmentally superior alternative is Alternative 2: Group A and C Impoundments and Trails Alternative. As suggested in the CEQA Guidelines, Section 25126.6(d), a matrix summarizing and comparing the impacts of the project alternatives with those of the project is in Table 5-1, Comparison of Potentially Significant Impacts for Alternatives to the Project.
Chapter 5: Alternatives
Final EIR No. 357 5-10 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Table 5-1. Comparison of Potentially Significant Impacts for Alternatives to the Project Issue Area Project
Alternatives
Alternative 1: No Project
Alternative 2: Group A and
C Impoundments and
Trails Alternative
Section 4.1, Air Quality LTS < <
Section 4.2, Biological Resources LTSM < =
Section 4.3, Cultural Resources LTS < =
Section 4.4, Geology and Soils LTS < <
Section 4.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions LTS > >
Section 4.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials LTS < =
Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality LTS > =
Section 4.8, Noise LTSM < <
Section 4.9, Transportation LTS > >
Section 4.10, Tribal Cultural Resources LTSM < =
Notes: LTS = Less than significant; LTSM = Less than significant with mitigation; “<” = less than the project; “>” = greater than the project; “=” = similar to the project
Chapter 6: Other CEQA Considerations
Final EIR No. 357 6-1 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Chapter 6 Other CEQA Considerations
Section 15126 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires all phases of a project to be considered when evaluating its impact on the environment: planning, acquisition, development, and operation. Additionally, Section 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines requires a brief statement disclosing the reasons why various possible significant effects of a project were found not to be significant and, therefore, would not be discussed in detail in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This chapter includes the following other considerations that are pursuant to Sections 15126.2(b), 15126(c), 15126(d), and 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines:
• Significant and unavoidable environmental impacts (refer to Section 6.1, Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts)
• Significant irreversible changes due to the proposed project (refer to Section 6.2, Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project) • Growth-inducing impacts of the Proposed Project (refer to Section 6.3, GrowthInducing Impacts) • Effects not found to be significant (refer to Section 6.4, Effects Found Not to Be Significant)
6.1 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts that could not be avoided, even with the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. The environmental effects of the project on various aspects of the environment are discussed in detail in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this Draft EIR.
This EIR did not determine any significant and unavoidable environmental impact that would result from development of the project.
6.2 Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of any significant, irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the project. Generally, a project would result in significant, irreversible environmental impacts if the following would occur:
• The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources. • The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses (e.g., a highway improvement that provides access to a previously inaccessible area).
• The project would involve uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project. • The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involves wasteful use of energy).
Chapter 6: Other CEQA Considerations
Final EIR No. 357 6-2 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
The project would result in following minor irreversible environmental changes:
• Development of the project would include two water impoundments for groundwater recharge and recreation by installing inflatable three rubber dams (impoundments), modifying the riverbanks, constructing two pedestrian/bike bridges, providing new trails, improving existing trails, creating new and protection of existing access ramps, constructing two new undercrossings on the west bank at the Union Pacific Railroad and the Metrolink railroad, providing enhanced community recreation amenities, and other improvements. The project would require the irreversible consumption of energy and natural resources. Electricity would be consumed for power tools, electric equipment, and lighting. Nonrenewable and limited resources required for the project could include oil, natural gas, gasoline, lumber, sand and gravel, asphalt, aggregate, water, steel, and similar materials. Additionally, nonrenewable fuels would be used by construction equipment, haul trucks, and worker vehicles. This commitment of natural resources and energy would be irreversible, and would limit the availability of such resources for other uses. However, given the size and nature of the project, the commitment of nonrenewable resources, while irretrievable, would not be of significant commitment. Post-construction, the project would have positive impacts on nonrenewable resources by providing active transportation facilities (trails and pedestrian/bike bridges), which would help reduce vehicle miles traveled, thereby lessen consumption of fossil fuels and electricity consumption for transportation.
Additionally, the groundwater recharge area would support groundwater replenishment. Therefore, the project would result in minor irreversible environmental changes in this regard.
• The project would result in primary and secondary impact that would generally commit future generations to similar uses by providing new pedestrian/bike bridges, trail improvements, groundwater recharge, and recreation amenities. However, these uses would benefit future generations and would not be considered adverse environmental impacts of the project. Therefore, the project would not result in significant and irreversible environmental changes in this regard.
• The project would not involve uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project. As discussed in Sections
4.1 through 4.10, the project would not result in potentially significant impact during and after construction. However, those impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels with mitigation measures, therefore, no significant and unavoidable impact would remain. The project would not result in significant and irreversible environmental changes in this regard.
• The project construction would not involve the wasteful use of energy, and consumption of resources is justified as the project would have beneficial impacts to the community’s Chapter 6: Other CEQA Considerations
Final EIR No. 357 6-3 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
health and natural resource needs, while complementing existing facilities, therefore, meet the project objectives listed in Section 2.2, Project Objectives. The project would not result in significant and irreversible environmental changes in this regard.
As discussed above, the project would generally result in irreversible changes that would benefit the environment and future generation with minor adverse impacts during construction.
6.3 Growth-Inducing Impacts
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.2(e), requires that an EIR discuss the potential growth-inducing impacts of a proposed project. More specifically, CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.2(e), requires that an EIR:
Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a waste water treatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas). Increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Also discuss the characteristics of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.
The project includes various groundwater recharge, trails, pedestrian/bike bridges, and enhanced community recreational amenities along the Santa Ana River corridor to benefit and promote environmental and community health, recreation, safety, entertainment, wayfinding, beauty, connectivity, water supply, economic, and natural resource needs. Most components of the project would operate passively and would not involve any growth inducing uses that would foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. The surrounding environment is already developed or is planned to be developed with mixed uses. Although the project would create groundwater recharging areas by installing two river impoundments, such project component is not intended to remove obstacles to population growth. The project also does not involve any changes to land use policies that provide economic stimulus such as industrial or commercial uses that may induce growth in the area. The project would improve the already existing Santa Ana River Trail to better serve the residents and visitors of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange. Furthermore, it is anticipated that the project can be serviced by the existing labor force within the County of Orange or surrounding communities during construction, and no relocation of construction workers to the Cities of Anaheim or Orange would be necessary. The project does not propose new infrastructure Chapter 6: Other CEQA Considerations
Final EIR No. 357 6-4 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
that would induce substantial growth within the vicinity or in the project Site that was not previously considered for development. Growth-inducing impacts would be less than significant.
6.4 Effects Found Not to Be Significant
Section 15128 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that an EIR contain a brief statement disclosing the reasons why various possible significant effects of a project were found not to be significant and, therefore, would not be discussed in detail in the EIR.
The City of Anaheim reviewed the project against the environmental issue areas in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. All environmental issue areas, including those found to have potentially significant impacts, are addressed in Chapter 4 of this Draft EIR except the following: Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire.
The Notice of Preparation and corresponding Initial Study (Appendix A of this Draft EIR) prepared for the project in March 2023 determined that impacts listed in Table 6-1, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, would be less than significant or no impact. Consequently, they have not been further analyzed in this Draft EIR. Impact categories and questions below are summarized directly from the CEQA Environmental Checklist.
Table 6-1. Effects Found Not to Be Significant
Threshold Impact Analysis
Aesthetics. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project has a significant impact on aesthetics if it meets any of the following thresholds:
a) Has a substantial adverse effect on
a scenic vista.
No Impact. One of the four main goals of the project is to implement improvements to the Santa Ana River corridor that enhance the aesthetic and ecology of the river and surrounding region. Each of the proposed various improvements have been rated, 1-5, on their ability to achieve that goal in the feasibility study for the project, and all of the various proposed improvements would have a positive impact on the aesthetics of the area. There are no scenic highways near the project area therefore the project would not adversely impact a scenic vista. No impacts would occur. b) Substantially damages scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic
highway.
No Impact. The closest California State Scenic Highway to the project area is the portion of the State Route (SR) 91, between SR-55 and Weir Canyon Road, approximately 3.5 miles northeast of the project area. The Proposed Project would not damage any scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway. No impacts would occur.
Chapter 6: Other CEQA Considerations
Final EIR No. 357 6-5 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Table 6-1. Effects Found Not to Be Significant
Threshold Impact Analysis
c) In non-urbanized areas,
substantially degrades 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, conflicts with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality.
No Impact. The project proposes to improve the existing visual character and public access to view the Santa Ana River corridor via improved bike and pedestrian trails, walkways and bridges, habitat restoration, riverbank erosion control and landscape enhancements, and the construction of cantilever viewing decks and public art installations. The project area is designated as Open Space and zoned as Recreation Open Space, Transition, Public Recreational and would not conflict with any applicable regulations concerning scenic quality. The visual character of the area would not be degraded by the project and would instead be improved. No impacts would occur.
d) Creates a new source of
substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area.
Less Than Significant Impact. There would be an introduction of minimal lighting to support the proposed bikeway and pedestrian trails; however, any lighting included in the Proposed Project would comply with all local municipal and state codes and regulations. Therefore, the project would not create a new substantial source of light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Less than significant impacts would occur.
Agriculture and Forestry Resources. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project has a significant impact on agriculture and forestry resources if it meets any of the following thresholds:
a) Converts 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 Impact. The project is all within Urban and Built-Up Land according to the California Important Farmland Finder, and therefore would not have any impact on important or unique farmland.
b) Conflicts with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract.
No Impact. There are no Williamson Act contracts located on or adjacent to the project area. The project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No impacts would occur.
c) Conflicts with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in California Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by California
Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
California Government Code section
51104(g)).
No Impact. The project site is not located on forest land, timberland or any land zoned as timberland. No impacts would occur.
d) Results in the loss of forest land
or conversion of forest land to nonforest use.
No Impact. The project site does not contain any forest land, and therefore will not result in the conversion of forest land to another use. No impacts would occur. e) Involves other changes in the
existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
No Impact. The project site does not contain any important farmland or agricultural land, and therefore could not result in the conversion of farmland or agricultural land to another land use. Furthermore, the project would enhance and improve the current land designation of Open Space through landscape enhancements and habitat restoration. No impacts would occur.
Chapter 6: Other CEQA Considerations
Final EIR No. 357 6-6 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Table 6-1. Effects Found Not to Be Significant
Threshold Impact Analysis
Air Quality. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project has a significant impact on air quality if it meets any of the following thresholds:
a) Conflicts with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan.
No Impact. The types of improvements associated with the project are consistent with SCAQMD’s Air Quality Management Plan as it includes various multi-purpose improvements. These improvements would promote alternative modes of transportation.
b) Results 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).
Less Than Significant. Operation Impact - Operation of the project is not expected to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant as the project includes various multi-purpose improvements to the existing trail network that would ultimately promote alternative modes of transportation, enhance the landscape, and provide habitat restorations.
c) Exposes sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations.
Less Than Significant. Operation Impact – Operation of the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutants concentrations. The project includes various multi-purpose improvements to the existing trail network that would ultimately promote alternative modes of transportation, enhance the landscape, and provide habitat restorations; therefore, the nature of the project does not include uses that would result in substantial pollutant concentrations. d) Results in other emissions (such
as those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people.
Less Than Significant. Operation Impact– Land uses and industrial operations associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food-processing plants, chemical plants, composting operations, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding facilities. Operation of the project would not result in other emissions that would adversely affect a substantial number of people.
The project includes various multi-purpose improvements to the existing trail network that would ultimately promote alternative modes of transportation, enhance the landscape, and provide habitat restorations; therefore, the nature of the project does not include uses that would result in emissions (such as those leading to odors) that would adversely affect a substantial number of people.
Biological Resources. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project has a significant impact on biological resources if it meets any of the following thresholds:
e) Conflicts with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance.
No Impact. Implementation of the project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. While the City of Anaheim has a Street Tree Replacement Ordinance under City Code, Section 13.12.060, and the City of Orange has a Street Tree and Tree Preservation Ordinance under City Code, Sections 12.28 and 12.32, no City trees would be removed as part of the project. The City of Anaheim Municipal Code 18.18.040 has a Tree Preservation Ordinance for Scenic Corridors (SC), the project would also not conflict with this as it is outside of a scenic corridor. No impact would occur. f) Conflicts with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation
plan.
No Impact. An Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) identifies and provides for the regional protection of plants, animals, and their habitats, while allowing compatible and appropriate economic activity. The purpose of the NCCP is to offset project‐related impacts on threatened and endangered species and their habitat in a manner that protects and enhances ecological diversity and function in Orange County and enhances the integrity and connectivity of the existing protected lands in Orange County. As required by the NCCPA, the Plan will protect native biological diversity, habitat for native species, natural communities, and local ecosystems. This broad scope will conserve a wide range of natural resources, including native species that are common or rare.
Chapter 6: Other CEQA Considerations
Final EIR No. 357 6-7 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Table 6-1. Effects Found Not to Be Significant
Threshold Impact Analysis
The County of Orange (Central/Coastal) NCCP/Habitat Conservation Plan’s (HCP) main goal is to protect and manage habitat supporting a broad range of plants and animals found in the central and coastal subregion. The plan also has a focus on protecting the coastal sage scrub mosaic habitat through the creation of a Reserve System, protecting the federally listed California gnatcatcher, the coastal cactus wren and the orange-throated whiptail lizard, while also allowing social and economic uses within the subregion that are compatible with protecting identified species, thus providing long-term protection for a broad range of species and avoiding land use conflicts.
Implementation of the project does not have the potential to conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP or NCCP. The project includes habitat restoration, riverbank erosion control and landscape enhancements. This would be aligned with the primary goals and purposes of the applicable NCCP/HCP for the project area.
The project area lies within the Orange County Transportation Authority NCCP/HCP and the Orange County NCCP/HCP; however, the proposed improvements do not conflict with the provisions of either NCCP/HCP.
Cultural Resources. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project has a significant impact on cultural resources if it meets any of the following thresholds:
c) Disturbs any human remains,
including those interred dedicated
cemeteries.
No Impact. California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, requires that in the event that human remains are discovered on the project site, disturbance of the site shall halt and remain halted until the County Coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation or to their authorized representative. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to their authority and if the County Coroner has reason to believe the human remains are those of a Native American, they shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission by telephone within 24 hours. The project would comply with existing law, and the potential impact to human remains will be less than significant Additionally, the river bottom of the Santa Ana River (SAR) has been subject to historical river flows and is subject to continual grading as part of maintenance activities. No human remains have ever been discovered within the project site.
Energy. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project has a significant impact on energy if it meets any of the following thresholds:
a) Results in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or
operation.
Less Than Significant. The project would be responsible for an incremental increase in the consumption of energy resources during construction due to on-site use of construction equipment and vehicle and truck trips. Construction activities that include the use of natural gas, petroleum, or electricity would be temporary and negligible and would not have an adverse effect. Construction equipment would be required to comply with California Air Resources Board emissions requirements for construction equipment, which include measures to reduce fuel consumption, such as imposing limits on idling and requiring older engines and equipment to be retired, replaced, or repowered. Additionally, implementation of the project involves recreational improvements that would promote alternative modes of transportation, potentially reducing future energy use. Therefore, the project does not have the potential to significantly impact the environment due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.
Chapter 6: Other CEQA Considerations
Final EIR No. 357 6-8 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Table 6-1. Effects Found Not to Be Significant
Threshold Impact Analysis
b) Conflicts with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency.
No Impact. Though the project would introduce lighting as a part of the pedestrian and bicycle trails, energy use for these would be nominal and would not encourage the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of utilities. Implementation of the project involves recreational improvements that would promote alternative modes of transportation, potentially reducing future energy use. Therefore, the project is consistent with state or local plans energy efficiency.
Geology and Soils. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project has a significant impact on geology and soils if it meets any of the following thresholds:
e) Has soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of
wastewater.
Less Than Significant. The project would be responsible for an incremental increase in the consumption of energy resources during construction due to on-site use of construction equipment and vehicle and truck trips. Construction activities that include the use of natural gas, petroleum, or electricity would be temporary and negligible and would not have an adverse effect. Construction equipment would be required to comply with California Air Resources Board emissions requirements for construction equipment, which include measures to reduce fuel consumption, such as imposing limits on idling and requiring older engines and equipment to be retired, replaced, or repowered. Additionally, implementation of the project involves recreational improvements that would promote alternative modes of transportation, potentially reducing future energy use. Therefore, the project does not have the potential to significantly impact the environment due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.
f) Directly or indirectly destroys a
unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature.
Less Than Significant. Implementation of the project is unlikely directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or a unique geologic feature. No grading to an increased depth extending beyond riverwash, channel deposits, and alluvium soils that have been regularly disturbed for maintenance purposes is proposed in the riverbed. Grading may affect the riverbanks but these already consist of manufactured slopes and the likelihood of paleontological resources is low.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project has a significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions if it meets any of the following thresholds:
a) Generates greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on
the environment.
Less Than Significant. Operation Impact - Operation of the project is not expected to generate significant greenhouse gas emissions, and will likely reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as the project includes various multi-purpose improvements to the existing trail network that would ultimately promote alternative modes of transportation, enhance the landscape, and provide habitat restorations. The project does not include uses that would result in increased traffic or greenhouse gas emissions. b) Conflicts with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases.
No Impact. Implementation of the project involves recreational improvements that would promote alternative modes of transportation, potentially reducing future greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the project is consistent with applicable plans, policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (such as Assembly Bill 32).
Chapter 6: Other CEQA Considerations
Final EIR No. 357 6-9 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Table 6-1. Effects Found Not to Be Significant
Threshold Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project has a significant impact on hazards and hazardous materials if it meets any of the following thresholds:
a) Creates a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials.
Less Than Significant. The project includes the construction of various multi-purpose improvements along the SAR corridor, including bikeway and pedestrian walkway improvements, river impoundments, habitat restoration, landscaping, urban stormwater treatment, river recreation amenities, public art installation and the construction of cantilever decks over the river basin. The project would not use a substantial amount of hazardous materials during construction. Hazardous materials that would be used during construction (e.g., petroleum-based products, paints, solvents, sealers) would be transported, used, stored, and disposed of according to City, County, state, and federal regulations. As indicated above, primary operation of the project would result in the use of the bikeway and pedestrian trail and associated improvements, and therefore, the project would not involve routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
Therefore, hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. c) Emits hazardous emissions or
handles hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school.
No Impact. There are no elementary schools located within one-quarter mile of the project area. The closest school is Sycamore Elementary School located at 340 N Main Street, which is approximately 1.8 miles from the project site. Therefore, no impacts associated with the handling or emission of hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school 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, results in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area.
No Impact. The project area is not located within 2 miles of a public airport or in the vicinity of a public airport or public use airport. The closest airport to the project area is the Fullerton Municipal Airport which is approximately 10.5 miles to the northwest.
Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in public safety impacts associated with airports.
f) Impairs implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
Less Than Significant. Traffic flow could be temporarily disrupted during construction of the project in the area. However, construction of the project would not obstruct emergency operations, or hinder emergency responder access in the project vicinity. The project area is adjacent to the SAR and set back from traffic flow and emergency routes. Additionally, all construction equipment would be staged on or directly adjacent to the project site. Upon completion of construction activities, operation of the project would not obstruct traffic flow or emergency operations as the project includes improvements to an existing trail that is currently being serviced by fire trucks, police units, and ambulance/paramedic vehicles.
The project would comply with applicable City regulations, such as the requirement to comply with the City’s fire code to provide adequate emergency access as required by the Orange County Fire Department, as well as the California Building Standards Code. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City of Anaheim would review project site plans, including location of all buildings, fences, access driveways and other features that may affect emergency access. Compliance with existing requirements would ensure that impacts related to emergency response or evacuation would be less than significant.
Chapter 6: Other CEQA Considerations
Final EIR No. 357 6-10 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Table 6-1. Effects Found Not to Be Significant
Threshold Impact Analysis
g) Exposes people or structures,
either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires.
Less Than Significant. The project area is situated along the SAR corridor. Neither the City of Anaheim General Plan or the City of Orange General Plan designates this area as a high fire hazard severity zone. The project area is approximately 5 miles due west from the closest very high fire hazard severity zone in the Irvine Regional Park located in the City of Orange The project area is not in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones.
Therefore, wildland fire-related impacts would be less than significant.
Hydrology and Water quality. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project has a significant impact on hydrology and water quality if it meets any of the following thresholds:
b) Substantially decreases
groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may
impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin.
Less Than Significant. The project site is generally located between Orangewood Avenue and Ball Road and provides a unique opportunity to create additional Orange County Water District (OCWD) groundwater replenishment system location by impounding water in the SAR, utilizing a much larger footprint for infiltration along the riverbed. This additional impoundment area not only provides recharge volume on site, but also serves as a safety net. If any stormwater does not infiltrate by the time it reaches Ball Road, it would be captured for infiltration by the river impoundment opportunity. An impoundment of water in the SAR south of Ball Road could be seen as an additional recharge facility proportional to many of the other OCWD facilities.
Current operations of the OCWD include the annual construction of what are referred to as “T” and “L” levees in the river bottom. These levees are built to force the shallow water to flow back and forth between the banks of the river, thereby maximizing its percolating surface. Although the river is wet half of the year in this lower reach, it is the OCWD’s goal to capture and recharge every gallon it can. The proposed river impoundments would increase infiltration of water in the SAR below Ball Road and would eliminate the need for OCWD grading "T" and "L" soil levees within the impoundment areas. Therefore, impacts to groundwater supplies would be improved with the project.
e) Conflicts with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan.
Less Than Significant. Operation Impact – The project includes river impoundments that would positively impact the local groundwater basin. The impoundment structures would be installed to create semi-permanent water bodies in the SAR for groundwater recharge and community benefit, and infiltrate through the soft bottom riverbed. The project would otherwise include improvements to an existing bicycle and pedestrian trail system through landscaping improvements, habitat restoration, and construction of cantilever viewing decks and public art installations. and therefore, operation would not significantly impact a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
Land Use and Planning. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project has a significant impact on land use and planning if it meets any of the following thresholds:
a) Physically divides an established
community.
No Impact. The project involves the implementation of Active Transportation Improvements, including the extension of the Santa Ana River Trail (SART) along the west bank, addition of the SART along the east bank, and the construction of a new pedestrian and bicycle bridge as well as the expansion of existing active transportation bridges. The project has no potential to divide an established community, rather the proposed improvements would further connect the existing community and improve access to community amenities. Therefore, no impacts related to physically dividing an established community would occur.
Chapter 6: Other CEQA Considerations
Final EIR No. 357 6-11 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Table 6-1. Effects Found Not to Be Significant
Threshold Impact Analysis
b) Causes 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 Impact. The project site is located within the SAR corridor generally between the Ball Road and Orangewood Avenue bridge crossings, The project is primarily located within the City of Orange, and partially located within the City of Anaheim.
The City of Orange zoning designation along the eastern bank of the SAR is Recreation Open Space, and the General Plan Land Use designation is Open Space. On the western side of the SAR, the project area is zoned by the City of Anaheim as Transition from Ball Road south to the train tracks, and then Public Recreational from the train tracks south to East Katella Avenue.
The project involves the implementation of multi-purpose recreational improvements.
No changes to the existing City of Orange zoning and land use designations would occur. The project would be consistent with the existing zoning and land use designations. Therefore, the project would not conflict any applicable City of Orange land use plan, policy, or regulation. No impact would occur.
Mineral Resources. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project has a significant impact on mineral resources if it meets any of the following thresholds:
a) Results in the loss of availability of
a known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state.
No Impact. There are no current mining activities within the project area. Both the City of Orange and County of Orange General Plans identify the SAR as a mineral resource zone. According to the General Plans, construction aggregate is found in the natural sand and gravel deposits of the SAR. Furthermore, the project area has been classified as Sand and Gravel Resource Areas and Cement Concrete Aggregate by the California Department of Conservation SMARA study areas. However, the project would not preclude the availability of mineral resources in the future. b) Results in the loss of availability of
a locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other
land use plan.
No Impact. The Project Site is not a locally important mineral resource recovery site according to maps obtained through the California Department of Conservation and California Geological Survey. As stated above, the project would not preclude the availability of mineral resources in the future. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource. No impact will occur.
Noise. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project has a significant impact on noise if it meets any of the following thresholds:
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, exposes people residing or
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels.
No Impact. The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The closest public use airport to the project is Fullerton Municipal Airport located approximately 6.8 miles northwest of the project site. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in the exposure of people to excessive noise generated by a private airstrip. No impact would occur.
Population and Housing. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project has a significant impact on population and housing if it meets any of the following thresholds:
a) Induces 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 Impact. The project involves the implementation of various multi-purpose improvements that have been identified to transform the SAR. There is no proposed residential or commercial/business component that could result in substantial population growth in the area. Therefore, implementation of the project would not induce growth, either directly or indirectly.
Chapter 6: Other CEQA Considerations
Final EIR No. 357 6-12 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Table 6-1. Effects Found Not to Be Significant
Threshold Impact Analysis
b) Displaces substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere.
No Impact. The project involves the implementation of various multi-purpose improvements that have been identified to transform the SAR corridor. The project area does not contain residential structures. Therefore, implementation of the project would not displace any existing housing, nor would the project necessitate the construction of replacement housing. No impact would occur.
Public Services. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project has a significant impact on public services if it meets any of the following thresholds:
a) Results 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.
Less Than Significant Impact. The Orange City Fire Department provides fire protection services within the City of Orange. City of Orange Fire Department is located at 1910 N Shaffer St, Orange, CA 92865, adjacent to the project area on the eastern bank of the SAR. Anaheim Fire Department Station #7 is located at 2222 East Ball Road, Anaheim, California 92806, adjacent to the project area on the western bank of the SAR. The project does not involve development of new residential or non-residential structures that would contribute to a permanent increase in population to the area. The Proposed Project involves the implementation of various improvements that have been identified to transform the SAR corridor. These improvements are being implemented in the existing trail system that is already being serviced by fire protection services. As the project represents improvement to, and enhancement of, existing recreational facilities, and would not induce substantial population growth, it is not anticipated that the project would result in a substantial increase in the need for fire protection services. Impacts to fire protection services would be less than significant.
Police protection. Less Than Significant Impact. The Orange Police Department provides law enforcement and crime prevention services to the City of Orange. The project does not involve development of new residential or non-residential structures that would contribute to a permanent increase in population to the area. As stated previously, the project involves the implementation of various multi-purpose improvements that have been identified to transform the SAR corridor. These improvements are being implemented in the existing trail system that is already being serviced by police protection services. As the project represents improvement to, and enhancement of, existing recreational facilities, and would not induce substantial population growth, it is not anticipated that the project would result in a substantial increase in the need for police protection services. Although the project would increase accessibility to the public on the channel, additional people and activities would also increase natural public surveillance, and river activation would likely reduce overnight encampments.
Although the project could slightly increase the need for and frequency of patrol, it would not require new or expanded police facilities to create adverse environmental impacts. Impacts to police protection services would be less than significant.
Schools. Less Than Significant Impact. The project does not include new residential development and would not result in an increased demand for school services. As such, the project would not result in the need to alter existing schools or construct new schools, the construction of which could result in significant impacts on the physical environment. Therefore, no impacts related to schools would occur.
Chapter 6: Other CEQA Considerations
Final EIR No. 357 6-13 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Table 6-1. Effects Found Not to Be Significant
Threshold Impact Analysis
Parks. Less Than Significant Impact. The project is a recreation-related project involving the implementation of various multi-purpose improvements. The project does not, however, include any residential structures that would involve a permanent increase in population to the area. As such, the project would not result in an increased demand for additional park facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios. Therefore, no impacts related to the need for new or physically altered parks would occur.
Other public facilities. Less Than Significant Impact. No other public services would be impacted by the project. The project is not expected to adversely affect any other governmental services in the area. Therefore, no impacts related to other public facilities would occur.
Recreation. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project has a significant impact on recreational facilities if it meets any of the following thresholds:
Increases the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be
accelerated.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not induce substantial population growth in the City. As such, the project would not increase the use of existing parks and recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of recreational facilities would occur or be accelerated. The project would implement various multipurpose improvements. These improvements would be beneficial in adding to and expanding upon existing recreational facilities along the SAR corridor. Therefore, the project would add recreational resources within the project area and reduce demand on existing recreational facilities. A less than significant impact will occur.
Includes recreational facilities or
requires the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities
that might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would increase the amount of recreational facilities within the project area. The project includes various multipurpose improvements. However, the additional facilities would not have an adverse impact of the physical environment. A less than significant impact will occur.
Transportation. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project has a significant impact on transportation if it meets any of the following thresholds:
a) Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project includes various multi-purpose improvements. These improvements would promote alternative modes of transportation. Additionally, existing parking can be accessed off of Katella Avenue, Douglas Road, and adjacent to the Proposed River Road. A proposed connection is also considered between the River Walk trail and the entrance to the Anaheim Coves parking area off of Phoenix Club Drive. Therefore, implementation of the project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Substantially increase hazards due
to a geometric design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment).
Less Than Significant Impact. All transportation improvements would be designed in accordance with adopted street and trail improvement standards. Therefore, implementation of the project does not have the potential to substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access.
No Impact. Implementation of the project would not affect existing emergency access. During construction, surrounding roadways would continue to provide emergency access to the project site and surrounding properties. The project would comply with applicable City regulations, such as the requirement to comply with the City’s fire code to provide adequate emergency access as required by the Orange County Fire Department, as well as the California Building Standards Code. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City of Anaheim would review project site plans, including location of all buildings, fences, access driveways and other features that may affect emergency access. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Chapter 6: Other CEQA Considerations
Final EIR No. 357 6-14 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Table 6-1. Effects Found Not to Be Significant
Threshold Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project has a significant impact on utilities and service systems if it meets any of the following thresholds:
a) Requires or results in the
relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater
treatment or stormwater drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental
effects.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project consists of various multi-purpose improvements along the SAR basin including active transportation improvements, river impoundments and community amenities. These recreational improvements would not require the construction of expansion of existing utilities and service systems. The project includes landscape enhancement, upland habitat restoration, river impoundment, riverbank modifications, and urban storm water treatment plans would relieve existing pressure on wastewater treatment services and improve efficiency for the City. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur. b) Has sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and
multiple dry years.
Less Than Significant Impact. The landscape programming for the project would entail minimal maintenance and limited irrigation requirements, instead depending on vegetation to establish and thrive as historically native vegetation that is tolerant of the semi-arid conditions of this region. The project would include public amenities such as drinking fountains. The proposed amenities would require a nominal amount of water to serve the project. Additionally, as stated, the project involves the implementation of various multi-purpose improvements along the SAR basin including active transportation improvements, river impoundments and community amenities. The proposed river impoundments would provide groundwater recharge for the County, and also help facilitate groundwater replenishment. The proposed impoundments are inflatable, and during times of heavy rainfall or storms would be deflated to allow for the natural discharge of the SAR. Impacts would be less than significant.
c) Results in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider that
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments.
Less Than Significant Impact. As stated above, the project would improve the existing wastewater treatment system via expansion of urban stormwater treatment, riparian landscaping, and habitat restoration. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Generates solid waste in excess of
state or local standards, or in excess
of the capacity of local infrastructure,
or otherwise impairs the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure.
Impacts would be less than significant.
e) Complies with federal, state, and
local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would comply with all federal state and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Impacts would be less than significant.
Chapter 6: Other CEQA Considerations
Final EIR No. 357 6-15 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Table 6-1. Effects Found Not to Be Significant
Threshold Impact Analysis
Wildfire. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project has a significant impact regarding wildfire if it meets any of the following thresholds:
a) Substantially impairs an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbates wildfire
risks, and thereby exposes project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire.
c) Requires the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines, or other utilities) that
may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment.
d) Exposes people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope
or downstream flooding or landslides,
as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes.
No Impact. The project area is approximately 5 miles due west from the closest very high fire hazard severity zone in the Irvine Regional Park located in the City of Orange. According to CAL FIRE’s California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps the project area is not in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, therefore impacts to a-d in wildfire would be less than significant.
Chapter 6: Other CEQA Considerations
Final EIR No. 357 6-16 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 7: Individuals and Agencies Consulted
Final EIR No. 357 7-1 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Chapter 7 Individuals and Agencies Consulted
7.1 Lead Agency
City of Anaheim
Community Services Department
JJ Jimenez, Parks Manager, Parks Division
Ana Straabe, Principal Project Planner, Parks Division
7.2 Consultants
Harris & Associates
William Halligan, Esq., Senior Director/Senior Environmental Counsel Elizabeth Kim, Senior Project Manager
Sharon Toland, Project Manager, Senior Air Quality and Noise Specialist Emily Mastrelli, Director, Natural Resources
Katie Deodat, Senior Aquatic Biologist and Permitting Specialist Donna Beddow, Senior Archaeologist
Lindsey Messner, Publications Services Manager
Leona Vander Molen, Technical Editor
Randy Deodat, GISP, GIS Specialist
Matthew Dornbach, GIS Analyst
Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc. (PACE)
Mark Krebs, PE, President
Jacob Peterson, PE, Vice President
Andrew Ronnau, PhD, PE
Emily Randig, MS, EIT
Ashley Harness, MOS, Proposal Manager/Technical Editor
Chapter 7: Individuals and Agencies Consulted
Final EIR No. 357 7-2 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Nynyo & Moore
Spencer Marcinek, PE, GE, Senior Engineer
LSA
Arthur Black, Principal Transportation Planner
Chapter 8: References
Final EIR No. 357 8-1 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Chapter 8 References
Executive Summary
None.
Chapter 1: Introduction
City of Anaheim. 2004a. Anaheim General Plan. Accessed November 2025. https://anaheim.net/712/General-Plan.
City of Anaheim. 2004b. General Plan and Zoning Code Update EIR No. 330. Accessed November 2025. http://www.anaheim.net/712/General-Plan.
City of Anaheim. 2022. Addendum No. 11 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339. August.
City of Anaheim. 2024. Addendum No. 13 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339. September.
City of Orange. 2010a. Orange General Plan. March. Accessed November 2025. https://www.cityoforange.org/our-city/departments/community-development/general-plan.
City of Orange. 2010b. Program Environmental Impact Report, Orange General Plan. March Accessed November 2025. https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/ 240/637698173340500000.
County of Orange. 2012. County of Orange General Plan.
OCWD (Orange County Water District). 2022. Recycled Water Conveyance Improvement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. January.
PACE (Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering). 2021. OC River Walk Engineering Feasibility Study. November. Accessed November 2025. https://ocriverwalk.com/wpcontent/uploads/2022/11/WEB_single-2021-11-12_OC-River-Walk-EngineeringFeasibility-Study-Report_lowres.pdf.
PACE. 2025. OC River Walk Conceptual Master Plan. May.
Chapter 2: Project Description
PACE (Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering). 2025. OC River Walk Conceptual Master Plan. May.
PACE. 2024. OC River Walk Vision Plan.
Chapter 3: Environmental Setting
None.
Chapter 4: Environmental Analysis
None.
Chapter 8: References
Final EIR No. 357 8-2 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
Section 4.1: Air Quality
CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Officers Association). 2022. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Version 2022.1.1.22. Accessed November 2025. https://www.caleemod.com/.
CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April.
CARB. 2024a. Table of Ambient Air Quality Standards. July 16.
CARB. 2024b. “Inhalable Particulate Matter and Health (PM2.5 and PM10).” Accessed November 2025. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/inhalable-particulate-matter-andhealth.
CARB 2024c. “Top 4 Summary.” iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics. Accessed November 2025. https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php.
City of Anaheim. 2004. General Plan Green Element. May. Accessed November 2025. https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/9521/F-Green-Element?bidId=.
City of Orange. 2010. General Plan Natural Resources Element. Accessed November 2025. https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/212/637698172563500000.
SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 2008. “Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology” Revised July. Accessed November 2025. http://www.aqmd.gov/
docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lstmethodology-document.pdf.
SCAQMD. 2009. Appendix C - Mass Rate LST Look-up Tables. October 21. Accessed November 2025. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localizedsignificance-thresholds/appendix-c-mass-rate-lst-look-up-tables.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
SCAQMD. 2016. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin. February.
Accessed November 2025. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-airplans/air-quality-management-plans/naaqs-caaqs-feb2016.pdf.
SCAQMD. 2017. Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1 and 212. August 8.
SCAQMD. 2022. “2022 Air Quality Management Plan.” Adopted December 2. Accessed November 2025. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-qualitymanagement-plans/2022-air-quality-management-plan/final-2022-aqmp/final-2022- aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=16.
SCAQMD. 2023. South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. March.
SCAQMD. 2025. Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds.
Accessed November 2025. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/ localized-significance-thresholds/caleemod-guidance.pdf.
Chapter 8: References
Final EIR No. 357 8-3 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2024a. “Basic Information about Carbon Monoxide (CO) Outdoor Pollution”. Last Updated June 21. Accessed November 2025. https://www.epa.gov/co-pollution/basic-information-about-carbon-monoxide-co-outdoorair-pollution#Effects.
USEPA. 2024b. “Basic Information about NO2”. Last Updated July 25. Accessed November 2025. https://www.epa.gov/no2-pollution/basic-information-about-no2#Effects.
USEPA. 2024c. “Ground-level Ozone Basics.” Last updated May 14. Accessed November 2025. https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/ground-level-ozone-basics#formation.
USEPA. 2024d. Particulate Matter (PM) Basics. Last updated June 20. Accessed November 2025. https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics#effects.
USEPA. 2024e. “Sulfur Dioxide Basics.” Last Updated January 31. Accessed November 2025. https://www.epa.gov/so2-pollution/sulfur-dioxide-basics#what%20is%20so2.
WRCC (Western Regional Climate Center). 2025. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary – Anaheim, California. Accessed November 2025. https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgibin/cliMAIN.pl?ca0192.
Section 4.2: Biological Resources
American Ornithological Society. 2019. Sixtieth Supplement to the American Ornithological Society’s Check-List of North American Birds. The Auk 136 (3):1–23. July 1. Accessed November 2025. https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/ukz042.
Baldwin, B.G, D.H. Goldman, D.J Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, California. January.
Calflora. 2023. Calflora Database. Accessed November 2025. https://www.calflora.org/entry/wgh.html.
Cal-IPC (California Invasive Plant Council). 2023. Invasive Plant Inventory. Accessed November 2025. https://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/inventory/.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2023a. Biogeographic Information and Observation System Database. Accessed November 2025.
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS.
CDFW. 2023b. California Natural Diversity Database. State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. Accessed November 2025. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109390&inline.
CDFW. 2023c. California Natural Community List. Updated June 1, 2023. Accessed November 2025. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153398&inline.
CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2023. Rare Plant Inventory. A Science-Driven Approach (online edition, v9.5). Accessed November 2025. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/.
Chapter 8: References
Final EIR No. 357 8-4 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
City of Anaheim. 2004. City of Anaheim General Plan. May 2004. Accessed November 2025. https://www.anaheim.net/712/General-Plan.
County of Orange. 1996. County of Orange Central and Coastal Subregion Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan. Approved July 1996. Accessed November 2025. https://planningandsustainability.uci.edu/community/pdf/nccp-ia-srchbl.pdf.
Crother, B.I. 2012. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in our Understanding, edited by J.J. Moriarty. 7th ed. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (SSAR); Herpetological Circular no. 39. August 2012. Accessed November 2025. http://home.gwu.edu/~rpyron/publications/Crother_et_al_2012.pdf.
Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. State of California, the Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Heritage Division. October.
Jepson Online. 2023. “The Jepson Herbarium.” Accessed November 2025. https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/.
Moyle, Peter M. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. Accessed November 2025. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/
water_issues/programs/tmdl/records/state_board/1998/ref2608.pdf.
NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2023. National Water and Climate Center: WETS Table. Accessed November 2025.
https://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/climate/navigate_wets.html.
Shuford W.D. and T. Gardali, editors. 2008. Species Accounts: American White Pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos). Excerpt from California Bird Species of Special Concern:
A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Accessed November 2025.
https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/
View/34166/Shuford-Gardali-2008-California-Bird-Species-of-Special-Concern-PDF.
SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2023. California Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List and 305(b) Report). Accessed November 2025. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_quality_assessment/2018_ integrated_report.html.
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Final report. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y 87 1 (online edition). Prepared by Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station. Wetlands Research Program. January 1987. Accessed November 2025. https://www.lrh.usace.army.mil/Portals/38/docs/USACE%2087%20Wetland%20Delineat ion%20Manual.pdf.
USACE. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual:
Arid West Region.
Chapter 8: References
Final EIR No. 357 8-5 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
USACE. 2015. Santa Ana River 1 Levee System. August 2015. Accessed November 2025. https://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Portals/17/docs/LeveeSafetyProgram/San_Ana_River_1 _Levee_System_PI_Report_No-01_ES_M_20151023.pdf.
USACE. 2023. “TNWs & Navigable Waters in Los Angeles District.” Accessed November 2025. https://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/JurisdictionalDetermination/Navigable-Waterways/.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2019. Web Soil Survey. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Staff. Last modified July 31. Accessed November 2025. http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm.
USDA. 2023. Web Soil Survey of Orange County Area, California. Accessed November 2025. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2021. National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper.
Last updated November 30. Accessed November 2025. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ Data/Mapper.html.
USFWS. 2023a. National Wetlands Inventory Wetland Mapper. Accessed November 2025. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html.
USFWS. 2023b. Information for Planning and Consultation. Accessed November 2025. https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/index.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2023. National Hydrologic Dataset. Accessed November 2025. https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?url=https://hydro.nationalmap.gov/a rcgis/rest/services/nhd/MapServer&source=sd.
Wilson, Don E., and DeeAnn M. Reeder, eds. 2005. Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. 3rd Edition. Accessed November 2025. http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/biology/resources/msw3/.
Section 4.3: Cultural Resources
City of Anaheim. 1999. Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan. Accessed November 2025. https://calbungalow.com/anaheim_colony/AnaheimHistoricPres.pdf.
Harris (Harris & Associates). 2024. OC River Walk Project Cultural Resources Survey Letter Report – Negative Findings.
PACE (Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc.). 2025. OC River Walk Hydrology and Hydraulics. February.
Section 4.4: Geology and Soils
City of Anaheim. 2022. 2022 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Accessed November 2025. https://anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/43389/Draft-hazard-mitigation-plan-03312022.
City of Orange. 2010. Orange General Plan. March. Accessed November 2025. https://www.cityoforange.org/our-city/departments/community-development/general-plan.
Chapter 8: References
Final EIR No. 357 8-6 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Maps, Orange County, California, Map Numbers 06059C0142J, 06059C0153J, and 06059C0161J, December 3.
Ninyo & Moore. 2024. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, OC River Walk, Anaheim and Orange, California. October 11.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2024. “Areas of Land Subsidence in California.” Accessed November 2025. https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/californiasubsidenceareas.html.
Section 4.5: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association). 2022. “Appendix G: Default Data Tables.” In California Emissions Estimator Model Users Guide. Version 2022.1.
April. Accessed November 2025. https://www.caleemod.com/documents/userguide/01_User%20Guide.pdf.
CAPCOA. 2022. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Version 2022.1. Accessed November 2025. https://www.caleemod.com/.
CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan). Accessed November 2025. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ourwork/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents.
CARB. 2024. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions from 2000 to 2022: Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. September 20. Accessed November 2025. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-09/nc-2000_2022_ghg_inventory_trends.pdf.
City of Anaheim. 2004. General Plan Green Element. May. Accessed November 2025. https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/9521/F-Green-Element?bidId=.
City of Anaheim. 2024. City Of Anaheim General Plan Focused Update Draft PEIR. SCH # 2022020363. December.
City of Orange. 2010a. General Plan Natural Resources Element. Accessed November 2025. https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/212/637698172563500000.
City of Orange. 2010b. Orange General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report. SCH # 2006031117. March.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2023. “Basics of the Carbon Cycle and the Greenhouse Effect.” Earth System Research Laboratories, Global Monitoring Laboratory. Accessed November 2025. https://gml.noaa.gov/outreach/carbon_toolkit/.
SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments). 2024. Connect SoCal: The Southern California Association of Governments’ 2024–2050 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy Program Environmental Impact Report. SCH #2022100337. April 4.
SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 2008. Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans. December 5.
Chapter 8: References
Final EIR No. 357 8-7 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2024. “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2022.” EPA 430-D-24-001. Updated May 3. Accessed November 2025. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gasemissions-and-sinks-1990-2022.
USEPA. 2025. “Overview of Greenhouse Gases.” Updated January 17. Accessed November 2025. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases.
Section 4.6: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery). 2024. SWIS Facility/Site Search. Accessed November 2025. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/.
Centec Engineering. 2020. Environment Review ocV!BE Project for Properties Surrounding The Honda Center and Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC), Anaheim, California 92806. November 5.
City of Anaheim. 2022. 2022 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. May 22. Accessed November 2025. https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/48820/Anaheim-LHMP-Plan-2022.
City of Anaheim. 2023. City of Anaheim General Plan Safety Element. January 10 (Adopted).
City of Orange. 2010. Orange General Plan. Accessed November 2025. https://www.cityoforange.org/our-city/departments/community-development/general-plan.
DTSC (Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2024. EnviroStor. Accessed November 2025. www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov.
Northgate (Northgate Environmental Management, Inc.) 2020. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Angel Stadium of Anaheim, 2000 East Gene Autry Way and 2200 East Katella Avenue, Los Angeles, California. April 23.
SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2024. GeoTracker. Accessed November 2025. http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.
USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2024a. EJSCREEN. Accessed November 2025. https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/.
USEPA. 2024b. EnviroMapper for EnviroFacts. Accessed November 2025. https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/em4ef.home.
Section 4.7: Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Anaheim. 2024. City of Anaheim Best Management Practices Design Guidelines.
Accessed November 2025.
https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/28937/BMP-Design-Guidelines?bidId=.
PACE (Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc.). 2025. OC River Walk Hydrology and Hydraulics. February.
SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2014. State Water Resources Control Board Resolution 2014-0067. Accessed November 2025. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_ decisions/adopted_orders/resolutions/2014/rs2014_0067.pdf.
Chapter 8: References
Final EIR No. 357 8-8 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
USACOE GDM (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers General Design Memorandum). 1988. Santa Ana River Design Memorandum No. 1, Phase II GDM on the Santa Ana River Mainstem including Santiago Creek. Volume 3, Lower Santa Ana River. August.
Section 4.8: Noise
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. September. 2–56.
Caltrans. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. April.
City of Anaheim. 2004. General Plan Noise Element. May. Accessed November 2025. https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/2037/J-Noise-Element-?bidId=.
City of Anaheim. 2024. Anaheim Municipal Code, as amended. Accessed November 2025. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/anaheim/latest/anaheim_ca/0-0-0-51668.
City of Orange. 2010. General Plan Noise Element. Accessed November 2025. https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/212/637698172563500000.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2006. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. January.
FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September.
Section 4.9: Transportation
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2020. Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Traffic Impact Study Guide. May 20. Accessed November 2025. https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/sb-743/2020-05-20- approved-vmt-focused-tisg-a11y.pdf.
City of Anaheim. 2020. City of Anaheim Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act. June. Accessed November 2025. https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/32774/City-of-Anaheim-TIAGuidelines-for-CEQA-Analysis-62020.
City of Orange. 2015. Orange General Plan, Circulation & Mobility Element. December 8, 2015 (revised). Accessed November 2025. https://www.cityoforange.org/home/ showpublisheddocument/192/637698172525970000.
Coastal Conservancy. 2018. Santa Ana River Parkway & Open Space Plan. Accessed November 2025. https://scc.ca.gov/files/2018/06/SARPOSP_Plan_FINAL.pdf. March 14.
ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers). 2021. Trip Generation Manual. 11th edition.
Washington, DC.
LSA (LSA Associates). 2025. Trip Generation Analysis for OC River Walk Project, Orange County, California. January 31.
Chapter 8: References
Final EIR No. 357 8-9 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
OPR (Office of Planning and Research). 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. April. Accessed November 2025. https://lci.ca.gov/docs/20180416- 743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf.
Section 4.10: Tribal Cultural Resources
Harris (Harris & Associates). 2024. OC River Walk Project Cultural Resources Survey Letter Report – Negative Findings.
Chapter 5: Alternatives
None.
Chapter 6: Other CEQA Considerations
None.
Chapter 8: References
Final EIR No. 357 8-10 November 2025
OC River Walk Project
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix A. Notice of Preparation/Initial Study
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Anaheim
Community Services Department
Notice of Preparation
DATE: March 23, 2023
TO: Responsible Agencies and Interested Parties
FROM: City of Anaheim
SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report and Scoping Meeting for the OC River Walk Project The City of Anaheim is the Lead Agency responsible for preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) to analyze the impacts of the OC River Walk Project (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project consists of various multipurpose improvement opportunities that are identified in an effort to transform the Santa Ana River corridor and portions of the existing Santa Ana River Trail (SART) into an iconic location and experience. The Proposed Project is further described, along with the probable environmental effects, in the enclosed Initial Study. Please refer to the following website for additional information, https://ocriverwalk.com.
The purpose of this notice is to request input from your agency regarding the scope and content of the environmental information that your agency would like to see included in the upcoming DEIR. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, please send your response at the earliest possible date but not later than Monday, April 24, 2023 at 5:00 p.m. Please send your response to the City of Anaheim at the address shown below. We will need the name for a contact person in your agency. If you have any questions, please contact Ana Straabe, Principal Project Planner, at (714) 765-4463.
Scoping Meeting: The City of Anaheim will hold a scoping meeting at 6:30 P.M. on Wednesday, March 29, 2023, at the Honda Center, Brewery X Room, 2695 E Katella Ave, Anaheim, CA 92806. Or you may attend virtually at http://us06web.zoom.us/j/83226775435.
Project Title: OC River Walk Project
Project Applicant: City of Anaheim
Send Responses to: Ana Straabe, Principal Project Planner City of Anaheim
Community Services Department, Parks Division
200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 433
Anaheim, CA 92805
Telephone: (714) 765-4463
Email: [email protected]
Initial Study
OC River Walk
Prepared for:
City of Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, California 92805
Contact: Ana Straabe, Principal Project Planner
Prepared by:
22 Executive Park, Suite 200
Irvine, California 92614
(949) 655-3900
Contact: William Halligan, Esq., Senior Director/Sr. Environmental Counsel March 2023
I
■■ ■■ H • &A • t arr1s ssoc1a es
This page intentionally left blank.
Initial Study i March 2023
OC River Walk
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................iii Section 1 Project Description...............................................................................................1
1.1 Project Overview............................................................................................1
1.2 Project Location .............................................................................................1
1.3 Project Objectives ..........................................................................................1
1.4 Project Description.........................................................................................7
1.4.1 Description of the Project...........................................................................7
1.5 Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Approvals ......................................12 Section 2 Initial Study Checklist.........................................................................................17
2.1 Project Information.......................................................................................17
2.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ..................................................19
2.3 Determination...............................................................................................20
2.4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ...........................................................21
2.4.1 Aesthetics.................................................................................................25
2.4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ........................................................27
2.4.3 Air Quality.................................................................................................29
2.4.4 Biological Resources ...............................................................................31
2.4.5 Cultural Resources...................................................................................34
2.4.6 Energy ......................................................................................................35
2.4.7 Geology and Soils....................................................................................36
2.4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions....................................................................39
2.4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..........................................................40
2.4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality...................................................................43
2.4.11 Land Use and Planning............................................................................46
2.4.12 Mineral Resources ...................................................................................47
2.4.13 Noise ........................................................................................................48
2.4.14 Population and Housing...........................................................................49
2.4.15 Public Services.........................................................................................50
2.4.16 Recreation................................................................................................52
2.4.17 Transportation..........................................................................................53
2.4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................55
2.4.19 Utilities and Service Systems...................................................................57
2.4.20 Wildfire......................................................................................................59
2.4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance.........................................................60 Initial Study ii March 2023
OC River Walk
Section 3 List of Preparers .................................................................................................63
3.1 Lead Agency ................................................................................................63
3.2 Consultants..................................................................................................63 Section 4 References ..........................................................................................................65 Figures
Figure 1. Regional Location ........................................................................................................3 Figure 2. Local Vicinity................................................................................................................5 Figure 3. Proposed Multi-Purpose Improvements .....................................................................15 Figure 4. General Plan Land Use..............................................................................................23 Tables
Table 1. Discretionary Actions, Permits, and Approvals ............................................................12 Initial Study iii March 2023
OC River Walk
Acronyms and Abbreviations
°F degrees Fahrenheit
µg/kg micrograms per kilogram
µg/L micrograms per liter
AB Assembly Bill
ADT average daily traffic
Alquist-Priolo Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act AMSL above mean sea level
AST aboveground storage tank
bgs below ground surface
BMP best management practice
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP climate action plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFC chlorofluorocarbon
CFG Code California Fish and Game Code
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 methane
CNDDB California Rare Plant Rank
CNEL community noise equivalent level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
cy cubic yard
dB decibel
dB(A) A-weighted decibel
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR environmental impact report
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA federal Endangered Species Act
Initial Study iv March 2023
OC River Walk
GHG greenhouse gas
GIS geographic information system
gpm gallons per minute
GPS Global Positioning System
GSF gross square feet
GWP global warming potential
HFC hydrofluorocarbon
HRA health risk assessment
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
I- Interstate
IS initial study
Ldn day-night average sound level
Leq equivalent continuous sound level
Lmax maximum sound level
Lmin minimum sound level
LOS level of service
LUST leaking underground storage tank
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
mg/L milligrams per liter
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MMT millions of metric tons
MND mitigated negative declaration
mpg miles per gallon
mph miles per hour
MSCP Multiple Species Conservation Program
MT metric ton
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP natural community conservation plan
ND negative declaration
NO nitric oxide
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOx nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
O&M operations and maintenance
O3 ozone
OEHHA California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PFC perfluorocarbon
PM particulate matter
Initial Study v March 2023
OC River Walk
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 Porter-Cologne Act Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
PPV peak particle velocity
PRC California Public Resources Code
Proposed Project OC River Walk
RAQS Regional Air Quality Strategy
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
ROG reactive organic gas
ROW right-of-way
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SAA streambed alteration agreement
SAR Santa Ana River
SB Senate Bill
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SIP State Implementation Plan
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SOx sulfur oxides
SR- State Route
SVOC semivolatile organic compound
SWPPP stormwater pollutant prevention plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminant
TCR tribal cultural resource
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank
v/c volume to capacity
VdB vibration decibel
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
Initial Study vi March 2023
OC River Walk
This page intentionally left blank.
Initial Study 1 March 2023
OC River Walk
Section 1 Project Description
1.1 Project Overview
The OC River Walk project (Proposed Project) consists of various multi-purpose improvements that have been identified to transform the Santa Ana River (SAR) corridor through various multi-purpose improvement opportunities. The Proposed Project would take place within and adjacent to the SAR.
California State Coastal Conservancy Grant funding has been provided to the City of Anaheim to prepare the OC River Walk initial phase design, permitting, and associated environmental impact report (EIR) to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
1.2 Project Location
The Proposed Project is located within the SAR corridor between the Orangewood Avenue and Ball Road bridge crossings, a 450-foot wide by 9,000-foot long area (approx. 90 acres and 1.7 miles) and extends to the existing Anaheim Coves. It is adjacent to Angel Stadium, ARTIC, and the Honda Center. The Proposed Project regional location is shown on Figure 1, Regional Location, while a closer view of the site and the surrounding local vicinity is shown on Figure 2, Local Vicinity. The Proposed Project is primarily located within the City of Orange, and partially located within the City of Anaheim, with many different landowners and jurisdictional bodies.
1.3 Project Objectives
The following objectives have been established for the Proposed Project and will aid decision makers in their review of the project and associated environmental impacts:
1. Adopt a Master Plan for the OC River Walk project which identifies various improvements to further activate and accentuate the existing recreational areas, pedestrian foot traffic, and bikeways in the project vicinity.
2. Implement sustainable projects that will benefit and promote the community’s health, recreation, safety, entertainment, water supply, economic, and natural resource needs.
3. Ensure future uses are integrated to ensure that the project(s) connect and complement existing or planned recreational, entertainment, and transportation facilities.
4. Implement identified project elements to transform the river to create a visually appealing asset and provide outdoor venues for public recreation and entertainment while improving the ecology of the river corridor.
Initial Study 2 March 2023
OC River Walk
This page intentionally left blank.
Date: 1/25/2023 - Last saved by: Randy.Deodat - Path: C:\GIS\Projects\City of Anaheim\OC River Walk\Map Docs\Initial Study\Figure1_Regional.mxd 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
ÄÆ57
ÄÆ91
103 ÄÆ
ÄÆ39
ÄÆ55
ÄÆ91
ÄÆ60
ÄÆ73
159 ÄÆ
ÄÆ39
241 ÄÆ
ÄÆ18
142 ÄÆ
206 ÄÆ
173 ÄÆ
134 ÄÆ
ÄÆ1
133 ÄÆ
ÄÆ2
ÄÆ71
ÄÆ60
ÄÆ22
ÄÆ72
ÄÆ90
ÄÆ83
ÄÆ14 ÄÆ18
ÄÆ19
ÄÆ66
ÄÆ74
ÄÆ60
138 ÄÆ
ÄÆ2
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
§¨¦710
§¨¦10
§¨¦ §¨¦605
710
§¨¦605
§¨¦210
§¨¦15
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦105
§¨¦405
§¨¦210
§¨¦10
§¨¦15
OC River Walk
Incorporated Areas
Project Site
!(^
Regional Location
Source: ESRI 2020.
Figure 1 ± 0 5 10 =
Miles
Harris & Associates
Initial Study 4 March 2023
OC River Walk
This page intentionally left blank.
ÄÆ57
ÄÆ57
§¨¦5
HILDA ST
WINSTON RD
TURIN AVE
POPLAR ST
CASE ST
PALMYRA AVE
ECKHOFF ST
ANITA DR
CULLY DR
PACIFIC ST
SOUTH ST
SINCLAIR ST
ALMOND AVE
MAPLE AVE
NYON AVE
CLIFPARK WAY
FELDNER RD
CULVER AVE
CHANTILLY ST
CITRUS ST
VERMONT AVE
JEWELL PL
PALM AVE
ORANGE ST
GRAND ST
SYCAMORE AVE
STRUCK AVE
LEMON ST
OLIVE ST
PIXLEY ST
CYPRESS ST
PARKER ST
MARJAN ST
GROVE AVE
VERNON ST
SUNKIST ST
DOUGLASS RD
ECKHOFF ST
ANAHEIM WAY
LEWIS ST
MANCHESTER AVE
FLETCHER AVE
ORANGEWOOD AVE
BATAVIA ST
HOWELL AVE
THE CITY DR
STATE COLLEGE BLVD
TAFT AVE
RAMPART ST
GLASSELL ST
FLOWER ST
LA VETA AVE
RIO VISTA ST
COLLINS AVE
CHAPMAN AVE
WALNUT AVE
EAST ST
MAIN ST
CERRITOS AVE
GROVE AVE
WAGNER AVE
BALL RD
GENE AUTRY WAY
KATELLA AVE
Project Site
Date: 2/21/2023 - Last saved by: Randy.Deodat - Path: C:\GIS\Projects\City of Anaheim\OC River Walk\Map Docs\Initial Study\Figure2_ProjectSite.mxd Local Vicinity
Source: Eagle Imagery 2017.
± 0 1,000 2,000 Figure 2
Feet
=
OC River Walk
Harris & Associates
Initial Study 6 March 2023
OC River Walk
This page intentionally left blank.
Initial Study 7 March 2023
OC River Walk
1.4 Project Description
“Project,” as defined by the CEQA Guidelines, means:
... the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and that is any of the following: (1)…enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof pursuant to Government Code Sections 65100–65700. (14 Cal. Code of Reg. § 15378[a]).
1.4.1 Description of the Project
The Proposed Project consists of various multi-purpose improvement opportunities that are identified in an effort to transform the SAR corridor and portions of the existing Santa Ana River Trail (SART) (see Figure 3, Proposed Multi-Purpose Improvements). The OC River Walk Engineering Feasibility Study first identified these various improvement opportunities, which are described below and are organized into three (3) categories representative of the main goals of the OC River Walk experience: 1) Active Transportation (AT); 2) River Activation (RA); and 3) Community Amenities (CA).
1.4.1.1 Active (AT) Transportation Improvements
1. Bikeway/Pedestrian Trail Extension: Katella to Anaheim Coves – The Santa Ana River Trail (SART) currently exists on the east bank of the river north of the Katella Avenue bridge. The SART crosses to the west bank of the river south of the Katella Avenue bridge. Where it deadends at the west bank, an existing maintenance road provides an opportunity to develop a ¾- mile long multi-use trail extension that connects the SART to the popular Anaheim Coves trail (AT #1). This trail extension would allow for a direct connection from Anaheim Coves to ARTIC, the approved ocV!BE development, and Angel Stadium via the SART. The Right of Way (ROW) along the existing maintenance road north of Katella Avenue on the west bank varies between 12’ and 32’ wide and is interrupted by railroad tracks approximately 0.45-miles to the north. Developing a trail extension on the west bank would require crossing these railroad tracks. As it migrates north, the trail extension could connect to Anaheim Coves at the existing Ball Road bridge undercrossing and extend west at the Burris Basin.
2. Trail Culvert Undercrossing at Ball Road – As mentioned above, the OC River Walk trail extension (AT #1) along the west bank of the river between Katella Avenue and Ball Road would need to cross Ball Road to connect with the existing Anaheim Coves trailhead. AT #1 includes a connection through an existing paved undercrossing at Ball Road bridge, but a potential connection at a second point utilizing an existing box culvert under Ball Road would create a grade-separated trail opportunity which could also be used to split bike and pedestrian traffic (AT #2). The existing 14' x 14' box culvert is no longer needed by Orange County Water Initial Study 8 March 2023
OC River Walk
District (OCWD) to transfer water to the former Ball Road Basin south of Ball Road.
Therefore, the culvert can be repurposed as a grade-separated trail crossing under Ball Road.
3. SART East Bank Addition – The SART is heavily used by pedestrians, recreational cyclists, commuter cyclists, and fitness cyclists; all of whom share the trail as they travel at different speeds. As future development occurs along the west bank of the river at ocV!BE, it is anticipated that the SART may become congested, leading to more conflicts between faster travelling trail users and those traveling at slower speeds. New connections from Angel Stadium, Honda Center, ARTIC, and the future River Park and Meadow Park to the river could result in a greater number of pedestrians and slower traveling cyclists. As previously mentioned, the SART is located along the west bank of the river just south of Katella Avenue, and along the east bank of the river just north of Katella Avenue. However, along the east bank just south of Katella Avenue, a paved maintenance road exists. In order to provide a safe route for cyclists preferring to travel at higher speeds, the SART could potentially continue along the east side of the river along the maintenance road, south of Katella Avenue and connect to Orangewood Avenue (AT #3). The existing SART path on the west bank of the river between Katella Avenue and Orangewood Avenue could be dedicated to slower traffic uses.
4. New Bike/Pedestrian Bridge Across the Santa Ana River – The Proposed Project creates an opportunity to improve non-motorized connections on both sides of the SAR through an additional east-west access bridge dedicated to pedestrians and bicyclists. This multi-modal bridge is proposed between Katella Avenue and Ball Road, adjacent to the Honda Center arena (AT #4). It would replace the existing designated SART river crossing on the Katella Avenue vehicular bridge. Two options are feasible for the new bike/pedestrian bridge:
Option A is a bridge with an extended length across the proposed River Road to land within the future ocV!BE development. Option B is a shorter length bridge, connecting at the top of the east/west river banks. Both options would improve connections between communities and provide for safer travel.
5. River Walk Width Expansion – Available right-of-way (ROW) along the existing top of embankment along the west bank of the SART varies between 12’ and 32’ wide from Orangewood Avenue to Ball Road. Ideally, a minimum of 25’ in ROW width should be available to allow for dedicated bikeways and separated pedestrian paths along the proposed OC River Walk while conforming to trail guidelines of the Santa Ana River Parkway and Open Space Plan. A number of solutions are proposed to mitigate these right-of-way challenges to allow for a positive biking and walking experience along the OC River Walk including a grade separated pedestrian trail and bike path (AT #5).
6. Widen Existing Bridges for Bikes/Pedestrians – While both Orangewood Avenue and Katella Avenue crossings provide east-west access over the SAR, non-motorized access is limited to a sidewalk on the north side of Orangewood Avenue, a sidewalk on the south side of Katella and a protected bike lane on the north side of Katella Avenue. However, there are opportunities to provide dedicated and separated infrastructure for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Initial Study 9 March 2023
OC River Walk
Expanding the existing bridge crossings by 20 feet on either side would allow for the addition of striped bicycle lanes with safety buffers adjacent westbound and eastbound vehicle traffic (AT#6).
7. SART Pinch-Point Relief – The available ROW width for the proposed OC River Walk trail varies (AT #5), with two noticeable physical pinch-points. The first (7A) pinch-point is located on the west bank of the SAR under the 57 freeway. Here, a sloped earthen bank under the freeway reduces the width available for the existing trail. The second pinch-point (7B), located where the ARTIC railroad tracks cross the trail, is constrained by the width of the existing concrete box used to create the rail undercrossing. The existing SART at this location does not meet ADA standards, as the depth creates steep slopes on both sides of the undercrossing. Both pinch-points could be relieved through careful modification of the existing constraints or an eastern realignment of the trail under the existing railroad, which would allow for better separation of bicycle and pedestrian uses (AT #7). Adding a second, pedestrian-only undercrossing directly adjacent to the existing undercrossing would provide an ADA compliant route that safely separates fast and slow modes of travel.
1.4.1.2 River Activation (RA) Improvements
8. River Impoundments – OC River Walk provides a unique opportunity to create an additional OCWD groundwater recharge location by impounding water in the SAR, utilizing a much larger footprint for infiltration along the riverbed. This additional impoundment area not only could provide additional groundwater recharge infrastructure for OCWD, but also can serve as a safety net that allows operational flexibility/resiliency for the existing upstream recharge systems. The proposed river impoundments (RA #8) would increase infiltration of stormwater in the SAR below Ball Road and would reduce the future need for OCWD grading "T" and "L" soil levees in the riverbed. The river impoundments would be designed to be filled with and infiltrate water from the adjacent GWRS pipeline (from the proposed Burris basin turnout structure). The GWRS is California’s largest water purification system for indirect potable reuse. The process produces high quality water that meets or exceeds all state and federal drinking water standards. This allows the river impoundment to also function as a recreational water feature for safe public engagement and interaction with the river. The impoundments would be designed similar to existing OCWD rubber dams upstream on the SAR so as to not reduce the river's hydraulic capacity for flood conveyance.
9. River Bank Modifications – There are approximately 3.5 miles of riprap-lined riverbank along the western and eastern sides of the SAR between Ball Road and Orangewood Avenue.
While riprap is a functional bank protection method, modifications to the existing riverbank (RA #9) can be made to maximize the river corridor’s versatility and usability, by providing safe public access and engagement with the SAR while maintaining stormwater flood protection. Riverbank modifications can incorporate features such as cantilevered decks, ramps, stepped embankments to provide seating, terracing, landscape planters, and other Initial Study 10 March 2023
OC River Walk
recreational uses. Preliminary hydraulic analysis (or river bank modifications and proposed pedestrian bridge and railroad bridge under crossings) resulted in negligible impacts to the 100-year storm flood conveyance capacity. The existing riverbanks are lined with grouted rock (riprap) which is a cost effective and functional river bank stabilization/erosion protection method. However, the grouted riprap is not functional for community access and engagement at the river. Therefore, for OC River Walk would propose alternative riverbank stabilization methods that would provide equivalent or greater level of flood/erosion protection and community access and recreational benefits. Potential bank protection solutions include soil cement, conventional reinforced concrete and other suitable hydraulic control methods. Soil cement is highly suitable construction method utilizing native soil material with added cement, water and compacted effort to create a hardened man-made sandstone type material to be placed on the riverbanks below the bed of the river to provide scour protection up the bank slope to the proposed water level of the impoundments.
Conventional reinforced concrete or other erosion resistant material would be used from the impoundment water surface to the top of the riverbank to provide flood protection and safe access for community engagement and recreation. The transformation of the OC River Walk Corridor would bring an influx of local residents, tourists, and sports fans. Riverbank modifications would support this future demand for additional public amenities along the SAR.
10. Urban Stormwater Treatment – In conjunction with the other proposed OC River Walk opportunities, there is incentive for water quality treatment (RA #10) for the local urban stormwater runoff discharging into the project area. With the proposed planning and design of riverbank modifications and river impoundments, all existing storm drains and channels that enter the SAR within the project area would undergo alterations to prevent any negative impacts to nearby proposed improvements. Thus, there is a mutual benefit opportunity to include urban stormwater treatment as part of the alterations to these existing facilities in coordination with existing water quality/watershed master plans which may identify local potential BMP treatment.
11. River Recreation/Programming – The transformation of the OC River Walk Corridor would bring an influx of local community and tourists, creating an incentive for recreational water activities in and around the SAR. OCWD's GWRS local operations present a unique opportunity to develop a mutually beneficial system that would enhance groundwater recharge programs, while providing a pristine water supply source for the Proposed Project’s river water recreational features. A new pipeline turnout is being proposed for the GWRS program and could also serve as the water source for river recreation and programming (RA #11). Potential future recreational activities range from passive (non-contact) to active programmed recreation. This programming might include kayaking, urban beaches, playful water jets along the embankment, or floating recreational features. In conjunction with RA #8 (River Impoundments), on-going programmed recreational activities can be offered, as Initial Study 11 March 2023
OC River Walk
well as larger water programming events, with specialized water management systems that ensure no adverse environmental impacts. When water is not in the river, there is potential for other types of programming and community events.
1.4.1.3 Community Amenities (CA) Improvements
12. Cantilever Decks – With the intent to maximize the river identity and create memorable destinations, the Proposed Project would create opportunities to extend public access out and over the SAR via a cantilever deck(s) (CA #12).
13. Engagement with Adjacent Spaces – The opportunity to engage with adjacent spaces (CA #13) would be accommodated through proposed improvements. Engagement with the river includes improved access, circulation, and enhanced property frontage offering both permanent and temporary programming and engagement elements. The spaces between OC River Walk and adjacent parcels vary in condition, ownership, and size along the length of the Proposed Project. These spaces subsequently have varying potential for accessibility and programming. Priority opportunities include the frontage of Angel Stadium and the future ocV!BE development. Through conversion of surface parking and transformation of other underutilized conditions, the river’s edge can become spaces for parks, plazas, terraces, and other means to accentuate the relationship to the river.
14. Stepped River Embankment – In conjunction with embankment modifications (RA #8), stairstepping and terracing the grades of the riverbank (CA #14) unlock multiple benefits to the river that include enhanced hydraulics, additional capacity for public circulation, augmented space for programs, and improved ecological function. Alteration of the riverbank would be designed to always meet or exceed the capacity of the river channel to avoid any impacts to hydraulic function or potential flood impacts.
15. Integrated Public Education/Art – The Proposed Project would include the integration of art and public educational features (CA #15) along the OC River Walk. Art opportunities would strive to provide a deeper meaning and connection to and with the SAR and support educational programming about the significance and history of the river. Efforts would be made to highlight emerging artistic talent from local schools and colleges, particularly from disadvantaged communities.
16. Upland Habitat Restoration – The City and its partners have worked hard to restore habitat through successful projects like Anaheim Coves. However, the restored natural beauty at the Coves is still strikingly absent along the banks of the SAR and the riverbed itself. A lack of trees or other vegetation means minimal avian habitat compared to more natural sections of the river that welcome great blue herons, great egrets, American white pelicans, gnatcatchers, American avocets, and more. The upland areas of OC River Walk offer an opportunity for habitat restoration and/or enhancement (CA #16).
17. Landscape Enhancement – OC River Walk has the potential to generate more robust landscape adjacent to the river (CA #17). Landscape enhancement would occur throughout Initial Study 12 March 2023
OC River Walk
the extent of the River Walk. The planting of trees, in particular, have significant benefits that include increased shade, evapotranspiration, and greater environmental conditions that can translate to improved air quality, reduced stormwater runoff, and more comfortable conditions for passive and active recreation. Through the integration of native species and removal of invasive species, the river can begin to ecologically restore itself and host a more intact habitat for migratory birds and water-based species as part of a broader riparian system.
The top of river embankment provides ample space for creating a softer edge and habitat to complement the River Walk and associated spaces. Easements of both sides of the river become great opportunities for more intensive tree planting—or “filter forests”—which help improve air quality, sequester carbon, and mitigate the heat island effect.
1.5 Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Approvals
As the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has the primary responsibility to approve and carry out the Proposed Project and to ensure that CEQA regulations and other required applicable regulations are met. The Proposed Project would require approval of several discretionary actions by the City of Anaheim and other responsible agencies, which are listed in Table 1, Discretionary Actions, Permits, and Approvals.
Table 1. Discretionary Actions, Permits, and Approvals
Approving Agency Discretionary Action(s)/Permit Approvals Lead Agency
City of Anaheim Approval of the OC River Walk Master Plan Certification of EIR
Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Approval of Street Improvement Plans
Issuance of Grading Permits
Responsible Agencies
City of Orange Approval of Street Improvement Plans
Issuance of Grading Permits
Encroachment Permits
Orange County Water District Encroachment Permits
Grading Permits
Orange County Flood Control District/OC Public Works Issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
Encroachment Permits
OC Parks Approval of Santa Ana River Trail Improvements Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Section 404 Permits
Section 408 Permits
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Issuance of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Permit (SWPPP) Issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
Caltrans Encroachment Permits
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Encroachment Permits Initial Study 13 March 2023
OC River Walk
Table 1. Discretionary Actions, Permits, and Approvals
Approving Agency Discretionary Action(s)/Permit Approvals California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement, if necessary South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Issue necessary air quality permits to implement the Proposed Project
Notes: City = City of Anaheim; EIR = Environmental Impact Report; RWQCB = Regional Water Quality Control Board; USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Initial Study 14 March 2023
OC River Walk
This page intentionally left blank.
Source: Pace Studio-MLA 2023.
Path C:\GIS\Projects\City of Anaheim\OC River Walk\Map Docs\Initial Study Feet
0 400 800 Figure 3
Proposed Multi-Purpose Improvements
OC River Walk
N
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION RIVER ACTIVATION COMMUNITY AMENITIES .It. Bikeway
/Pedestrian Trail Extension 0 River Impoundments ID Cantilever Decks • • •, OC River Walk Pedestrian / A Trail Culvert Und
ercrossing at Ball Rd. 0 Riverbank Modifications* m Engagement with Adjacent Spaces Bike Opportunities A SART
East Bank Addition • Urban StormwaterTreatment m Stepped River Embankment --·-· Proposed Class IV A Bike
/Pedestrian Bridge • River Recreation/Programming m Integrated Public Education/Art Bikeway (ocV!BE) A River Walk Width
Expansion• Ill Upland Habitat Restoration
A Widen Existing Bridges for Bike/Ped. m Landscape Enhancement* A
--
Harris & Associates
Initial Study 16 March 2023
OC River Walk
This page intentionally left blank.
Initial Study 17 March 2023
OC River Walk
Section 2 Initial Study Checklist
The following discussion of potential environmental effects was completed in accordance with Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines to determine if the Proposed Project may have a significant effect on the environment.
2.1 Project Information
1. Project title: OC River Walk
2. Lead agency name and address: City of Anaheim
Community Services Department
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 433
Anaheim, California 92805
3. Contact person name, address, and
phone number:
Ana Straabe, Principal Project Planner
(714) 765-4463
Address above.
4. Project location: The Proposed Project is located within the Santa Ana River corridor between the Ball Road and
Orangewood Avenue bridge crossings, a 450-foot
wide by 9,000-foot-long area adjacent to Angel
Stadium, ARTIC, and the Honda Center. This
includes a new trail extension and connection
from Katella Boulevard to Anaheim Coves.
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 375-361-23, 375-
301-01, 375-311-13, 253-473-01, 253-631-32,
253-631-39
5 Project sponsor’s name and address: City of Anaheim
Community Services Department
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 433
Anaheim, California 92805
6. General plan designation: Open Space (OS) (City of Orange), Open Space (City of Anaheim); see Figure 4, General Plan
Land Use
Initial Study 18 March 2023
OC River Walk
7. Zoning: Recreation Open Space (City of Orange),
Transition, Public Recreational (City of
Anaheim)
8. Description of project: Refer to Section 1, Project Description, of this Initial Study.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Refer to Section 1 of this Initial Study.
10. Other public agencies whose
approval is required:
Refer to Section 1.5, Regulatory Requirements,
Permits, and Approvals, of this Initial Study.
11. Have California Native American
tribes traditionally and culturally
affiliated with the project area
requested consultation pursuant to
Public Resources Code section
21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for
consultation that includes, for
example, the determination of
significance of impacts to tribal
cultural resources, procedures
regarding confidentiality, etc.?
Tribal consultation will be completed in
accordance with AB 52.
Initial Study 19 March 2023
OC River Walk
2.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture/
Forestry Resources
☒ Air Quality
☒ Biological Resources ☒ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy
☒ Geology/Soils ☒ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
☒ Hazards &
Hazardous Materials
☒ Hydrology/
Water Quality
☐ Land Use/Planning ☐ Mineral Resources
☒ Noise ☐ Population/Housing ☐ Public Services
☐ Recreation ☒ Transportation ☒ Tribal Cultural
Resources
☐ Utilities/
Service Systems
☐ Wildfire ☒ Mandatory Findings
of Significance
2.3 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. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will 6e prepared.
IZI I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
□ I fo1d that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (I) 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 (I) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) 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.
Signifure of City of Anaheim Representative Date
1\--ntA Wtutbe I fr-in t:;r'pal f lanntY
Printed Name, Title Phone Number
Initial Study 20 March 2023
OC River Walk
Initial Study 21 March 2023
OC River Walk
2.4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
2. A list of “Supporting Information Sources” must be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the Narrative Summary for each section.
3. Response column heading definitions:
a. Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. b. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The mitigation measures must be described, along with a brief explanation of how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
c. Less Than Significant Impact applies where the project creates no significant impacts, only “Less Than Significant Impacts.”
d. No Impact applies where a project does not create an impact in that category. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one proposed (e.g., the project falls outside of a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
4. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to a tiering, program EIR, Master EIR, or other California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15062[c][3][D]). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address sitespecific conditions for the project.
Initial Study 22 March 2023
OC River Walk
5. Incorporate into the checklist any references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., the General Plan, zoning ordinance). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
6. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
WINSTON RD
RILES CIR
POPLAR ST
HILDA ST
BARKLEY AVE
PRIMROSE DR
DOUGLASS RD
CHANTILLY ST
SEQUOIA AVE
PHOENIX CLUB DR
SINCLAIR ST
OMEGA AVE
CLIFPARK WAY
CARL ST
ELM ST
YALE AVE
STRUCK AVE
TRENTON AVE
COLLINS AVE
DOUGLASS RD
ORANGEWOOD AVE
ECKHOFF ST
TAFT AVE
HOWELL AVE
MAIN ST
SUNKIST ST
CERRITOS AVE
GROVE AVE
BALL RD
BATAVIA ST
KATELLA AVE
City Boundary
Project Site
Orange General Plan Land Use
Industrial Max
Light Industrial Max
Neighborhood Office Professional
Max
Open Space
Public Facilities Max
Urban Mixed Use
Anaheim General Plan Land Use
Low Density
General Commercial
Office-Low
Mixed-Use Urban Core
Railroad
Open Space
Parks
Water Uses
Date: 2/21/2023 - Last saved by: Randy.Deodat - Path: C:\GIS\Projects\City of Anaheim\OC River Walk\Map Docs\Initial Study\Figure4_GeneralPlanLandUse.mxd General Plan Land Use
Source: Eagle Imagery 2017.
± 0 500 1,000 Figure 4
Feet
OC River Walk
City of Anaheim City of Orange
= Harris & Associates
Initial Study 24 March 2023
OC River Walk
This page intentionally left blank.
Initial Study 25 March 2023
OC River Walk
2.4.1 Aesthetics
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Narrative Summary/No New Impacts
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. One of the four main goals of the Proposed Project is to implement improvements to the SAR corridor that enhance the aesthetic and ecology of the river and surrounding region. Each of the proposed 17 improvements have been rated, 1-5, on their ability to achieve that goal in the feasibility study for the Proposed Project, and all of the 17 proposed improvements would have a positive impact on the aesthetics of the area. There are no scenic highways near the project area the Proposed Project would not adversely impact a scenic vista. No impacts would occur, and therefore this issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR. 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 Impact. The closest California State Scenic Highway to the project area is the portion of the Riverside Freeway (SR-91), between SR-55 and Weir Canyon Road, approximately 3.5 miles northeast of the project area. The Proposed Project would not damage any scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway. No impacts would occur, and therefore this issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR.
Initial Study 26 March 2023
OC River Walk
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 Impact. The Proposed Project proposes to improve the existing visual character and public access to view the SAR corridor via improved bike and pedestrian trails, walkways and bridges, habitat restoration, riverbank erosion control and landscape enhancements, and the construction of cantilever viewing decks and public art installations. The project area is designated as Open Space and zoned as Recreation Open Space, Transition, Public Recreational and would not conflict with any applicable regulations concerning scenic quality. The visual character of the area would not be degraded by the Proposed Project and would instead be improved. No impacts would occur, and therefore this issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR. d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. There would be an introduction of minimal lighting to support the proposed bikeway and pedestrian trails; however, any lighting included in the Proposed Project would comply with all local municipal and state codes and regulations. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not create a new substantial source of light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Less than significant impacts would occur, and therefore this issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR.
Initial Study 27 March 2023
OC River Walk
2.4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. In determining
whether impacts to forest resources, including
timberland, are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to information
compiled by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the
state’s inventory of forest land, including the
Forest and Range Assessment Project and the
Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest
carbon measurement methodology provided in
Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air
Resources Board. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
FarmlandMapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Initial Study 28 March 2023
OC River Walk
Narrative Summary
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 Impact. The Proposed Project is all within Urban and Built-Up Land according to the California Important Farmland Finder, and therefore will not have any impact on important or unique farmland. This issue will not be further analyzed in the EIR. b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact. There are no Williamson Act contracts located on or adjacent to the project area. The Proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No impacts would occur. This issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR. 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 Impact. The project area is not located on forest land, timberland or any land zoned as timberland.
No impacts would occur, and therefore this issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR. d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The project area does not contain any forest land, and therefore will not result in the conversion of forest land to another use. No impacts would occur, and therefore this issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR.
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 Impact. The project area does not contain any important farmland or agricultural land, and therefore could not result in the conversion of farmland or agricultural land to another land use.
Furthermore, the Proposed Project would enhance and improve the current land designation of Open Space through landscape enhancements and habitat restoration. No impacts would occur, and therefore this issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR.
Initial Study 29 March 2023
OC River Walk
2.4.3 Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district
may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
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?
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
Narrative Summary
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The types of improvements associated with the Proposed Project are consistent with SCAQMD’s Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) as it includes various multi-purpose improvements, in the following categories: Active Transportation (AT), River Activation (RA), and Community Amenities (CA). These improvements would promote alternative modes of transportation. Therefore, this issue will not be analyzed in the EIR. 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)?
Potentially Significant Impact. Operation of the Proposed Project is not expected to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant as the Proposed Project includes various multi-purpose improvements to the existing trail network that would ultimately promote alternative modes of transportation, enhance the landscape, and provide habitat restorations.
Therefore, this issue will not be analyzed in the EIR.
Construction of the Proposed Project has the potential to result in cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
Therefore, this issue will be analyzed in the EIR.
Initial Study 30 March 2023
OC River Walk
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Potentially Significant Impact. Operation of the Proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutants concentrations. The Proposed Project includes various multipurpose improvements to the existing trail network that would ultimately promote alternative modes of transportation, enhance the landscape, and provide habitat restorations; therefore, the nature of the Proposed Project does not include uses that would result in substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, this issue will not be analyzed in the EIR.
Construction of the Proposed Project has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, this issue will be analyzed in the EIR. d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Potentially Significant Impact. Land uses and industrial operations associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food-processing plants, chemical plants, composting operations, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding facilities (SCAQMD 1993). Operation of the Proposed Project would not result in other emissions that would adversely affect a substantial number of people. The Proposed Project includes various multi-purpose improvements to the existing trail network that would ultimately promote alternative modes of transportation, enhance the landscape, and provide habitat restorations; therefore, the nature of the Proposed Project does not include uses that would result in emissions (such as those leading to odors) that would adversely affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, this issue will not be analyzed in the EIR.
Construction of the Proposed Project has the potential to result in other emissions that would adversely affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, this issue will be analyzed in the EIR.
Initial Study 31 March 2023
OC River Walk
2.4.4 Biological Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife
Service?
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by §
404 of the Clean Water Act (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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Narrative Summary
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 local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the Proposed Project has the potential to have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as Initial Study 32 March 2023
OC River Walk
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Therefore, this issue will be analyzed in the EIR. 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? Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the Proposed Project has the potential to have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS. Therefore, this issue will be analyzed in the EIR.
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?
Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the Proposed Project has the potential to have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Therefore, this issue will be analyzed in the EIR. 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?
Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the Proposed Project has the potential to interfere substantially with the movement of a native resident or migratory wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. Therefore, this issue will be analyzed in the EIR. e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. While the City of Anaheim has a Street Tree Replacement Ordinance under City Code Section 13.12.060 and the City of Orange has a Street Tree and Tree Preservation Ordinance under City Code Sections 12.28 and 12.32, no City trees would be removed as part of the Proposed Project. The City of Anaheim Municipal Code 18.18.040 has a Tree Preservation Ordinance for Scenic Corridors (SC), the Proposed Project would also not conflict with this as it is outside of a scenic corridor. No impact would occur. This issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR. 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 Impact. An NCCP identifies and provides for the regional protection of plants, animals, and their habitats, while allowing compatible and appropriate economic activity. The purpose of the Initial Study 33 March 2023
OC River Walk
NCCP is to offset project‐related impacts on threatened and endangered species and their habitat in a manner that protects and enhances ecological diversity and function in Orange County and enhances the integrity and connectivity of the existing protected lands in Orange County. As required by the NCCPA, the Plan will protect native biological diversity, habitat for native species, natural communities, and local ecosystems. This broad scope will conserve a wide range of natural resources, including native species that are common or rare.
The County of Orange (Central/Coastal) NCCP/HCP’s main goal is to protect and manage habitat supporting a broad range of plants and animals found in the central and coastal subregion. The plan also has a focus on protecting the coastal sage scrub mosaic habitat through the creation of a Reserve System, protecting the federally listed California gnatcatcher, the coastal cactus wren and the orange-throated whiptail lizard, while also allowing social and economic uses within the subregion that are compatible with protecting identified species, thus providing long-term protection for a broad range of species and avoiding land use conflicts.
Implementation of the Proposed Project does not have the potential to conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) or Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP). The Proposed Project includes habitat restoration, riverbank erosion control and landscape enhancements. This would be aligned with the primary goals and purposes of the applicable NCCP/HCP for the project area. The project area lies within the Orange County Transportation Authority NCCP/HCP and the Orange County NCCP/HCP; however, the proposed improvements do not conflict with the provisions of either NCCP/HCP. Therefore, this issue will not be analyzed in the EIR.
Initial Study 34 March 2023
OC River Walk
2.4.5 Cultural Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
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 dedicated cemeteries?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Narrative Summary
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the Proposed Project has the potential to cause a substantial change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of CEQA. Therefore, this issue will be analyzed in the EIR. b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the Proposed Project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of CEQA. Therefore, this issue will be analyzed in the EIR. c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
No Impact. California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, requires that in the event that human remains are discovered on the project site, disturbance of the site shall halt and remain halted until the County Coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation or to their authorized representative. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to their authority and if the County Coroner has reason to believe the human remains are those of a Native American, they shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission by telephone within 24 hours. The Proposed Project would comply with existing law, and the potential impact to human remains will be less than significant Additionally, the river bottom of the SAR has been subject to historical river flows and is subject to continual grading as part of maintenance activities. No human remains have ever been discovered within the project site. Therefore, this issue will not be analyzed in the EIR.
Initial Study 35 March 2023
OC River Walk
2.4.6 Energy
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Narrative Summary
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would be responsible for an incremental increase in the consumption of energy resources during construction due to on-site use of construction equipment and vehicle and truck trips. Construction activities that include the use of natural gas, petroleum, or electricity would be temporary and negligible and would not have an adverse effect. Construction equipment would be required to comply with California Air Resources Board emissions requirements for construction equipment, which include measures to reduce fuel consumption, such as imposing limits on idling and requiring older engines and equipment to be retired, replaced, or repowered (CARB 2023). Additionally, implementation of the Proposed Project involves recreational improvements that would promote alternative modes of transportation, potentially reducing future energy use. Therefore, the Proposed Project does not have the potential to significantly impact the environment due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. This issue will not be analyzed in the EIR. b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
No Impact. Though the Proposed Project would introduce lighting as a part of the pedestrian and bicycle trails, energy use for these would be nominal and would not encourage the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of utilities. Implementation of the Proposed Project involves recreational improvements that would promote alternative modes of transportation, potentially reducing future energy use. Therefore, the Proposed Project is consistent with state or local plans energy efficiency. Therefore, this issue will not be analyzed in the EIR.
Initial Study 36 March 2023
OC River Walk
2.4.7 Geology and Soils
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
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 AlquistPriolo 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 risks to life or
property?
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Narrative Summary
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.
Initial Study 37 March 2023
OC River Walk
Potentially Significant Impact. The Earthquake Fault Zones map for City of Anaheim shows that the project area is in a CGS Liquefication Zone. As such, implementation of the Proposed Project could expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. Therefore, this issue will be analyzed in the EIR. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the Proposed Project could expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking.
Therefore, this issue will be analyzed in the EIR.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the Proposed Project could expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Therefore, this issue will be analyzed in the EIR. iv. Landslides?
Potentially Significant Impact. The Proposed Project could involve steeper slopes within the River bank. Slopes as steep as 1.5:1 may be proposed. However, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with applicable grading codes. However, this issue will be analyzed in the EIR. b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Potentially Significant Impact. Grading and excavation during construction would expose soils to potential erosion and could result in the loss of topsoil. Therefore, this issue will be analyzed in the EIR.
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?
Potentially Significant Impact. As noted above, slopes as steep as 1.5:1 may be proposed within the existing riverbank. Implementation of the Proposed Project could locate project elements on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or could become unstable as a result of the Proposed Project, and potentially result in impacts associated with on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Therefore, this issue will be analyzed in the EIR. 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? Potentially Significant Impact. According to the County of Orange General Plan, much of Orange County is covered by expansive soils. As such, implementation of the Proposed Project could Initial Study 38 March 2023
OC River Walk
potentially expose people to risks related to expansive soils. Therefore, this issue will be analyzed in the EIR.
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 Impact. Development of the Proposed Project would not require the installation of a septic tank or alternative wastewater disposal system. The Proposed Project would use the existing local sewer system. Therefore, no impact would result from septic tanks or other on-site wastewater disposal systems. No impact will occur, and this impact will not be further analyzed in the EIR. f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the Proposed Project is unlikely directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or a unique geologic feature. No grading to an increased depth is proposed in the river bed. Grading may affect the river banks but these already consist of manufactured slopes and the likelihood of paleontological resources is low. Therefore, this issue will not be analyzed in the EIR.
Initial Study 39 March 2023
OC River Walk
2.4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Narrative Summary
a. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Potentially Significant Impact. Operation of the Proposed Project is not expected to generate significant greenhouse gas emissions, and will likely reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as the Proposed Project includes various multi-purpose improvements to the existing trail network that would ultimately promote alternative modes of transportation, enhance the landscape, and provide habitat restorations. The Proposed Project does not include uses that would result in increased traffic or greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, this issue will not be analyzed in the EIR.
The Proposed Project has the potential to generate greenhouse gas emissions during construction that may have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, this issue will be analyzed in the EIR.
b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No Impact. Implementation of the Proposed Project involves recreational improvements that would promote alternative modes of transportation, potentially reducing future greenhouse gas emissions.
Therefore, the Proposed Project is consistent with applicable plans, policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (such as Assembly Bill 32) Therefore, this issue will not be analyzed in the EIR.
Initial Study 40 March 2023
OC River Walk
2.4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
e. For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Narrative Summary
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project includes the construction of various multipurpose improvements along the SAR corridor, including bikeway and pedestrian walkway improvements, river impoundments, habitat restoration, landscaping, urban stormwater treatment, river recreation amenities, public art installation and the construction of cantilever decks over the river basin. The Proposed Project would not use a substantial amount of hazardous materials during construction. Hazardous materials that would be used during construction (e.g., petroleum-based Initial Study 41 March 2023
OC River Walk
products, paints, solvents, sealers) would be transported, used, stored, and disposed of according to City, County, state, and federal regulations. As indicated above, primary operation of the Proposed Project would result in the use of the bikeway and pedestrian trail and associated improvements, and therefore, the Proposed Project would not involve routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. This issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR.
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?
Potentially Significant Impact. It is not known if any of the soils within the project site contain hazardous materials. A Phase 1 Site Assessment is being prepared to identify any potential hazards.
Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project may have the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment during construction. Therefore, this issue will be analyzed in the EIR.
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 Impact. There are no elementary schools located within one-quarter mile of the project area.
The closest school is Sycamore Elementary School located at 340 N Main Street, which is approximately 1.8 miles from the project site. Therefore, no impacts associated with the handling or emission of hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school would occur. This issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR. 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?
Potentially Significant Impact. The Proposed Project could be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result could create a significant hazard to the public of environment. A hazardous materials site record search will be performed as part of the EIR to determine the proximity and status of any hazardous materials sites relative to the project area. Therefore, this issue will be analyzed in the EIR.
Initial Study 42 March 2023
OC River Walk
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The project area is not located within 2 miles of a public airport or in the vicinity of a public airport or public use airport. The closest airport to the project area is the Fullerton Municipal Airport which is approximately 10.5 miles to the northwest. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in public safety impacts associated with airports. This issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR.
f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. Traffic flow could be temporarily disrupted during construction of the Proposed Project in the area. However, construction of the Proposed Project would not obstruct emergency operations, or hinder emergency responder access in the project vicinity. The project area is adjacent to the SAR and set back from traffic flow and emergency routes. Additionally, all construction equipment would be staged on or directly adjacent to the project site. Upon completion of construction activities, operation of the Proposed Project would not obstruct traffic flow or emergency operations as the Proposed Project includes improvements to an existing trail that is currently being serviced by fire trucks, police units, and ambulance/paramedic vehicles.
The Proposed Project would comply with applicable City regulations, such as the requirement to comply with the City’s fire code to provide adequate emergency access as required by the Orange County Fire Department, as well as the California Building Standards Code. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City of Anaheim would review project site plans, including location of all buildings, fences, access driveways and other features that may affect emergency access.
Compliance with existing requirements would ensure that impacts related to emergency response or evacuation would be less than significant. This issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR. g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project area is situated along the SAR corridor. Neither the City of Anaheim General Plan or the City of Orange General Plan designates this area as a high fire hazard severity zone. The project area is approximately 5 miles due west from the closest very high fire hazard severity zone in the Irvine Regional Park located in the City of Orange The project area is not in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. Therefore, wildland fire-related impacts would be less than significant. This issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR.
Initial Study 43 March 2023
OC River Walk
2.4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground
water 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?
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
Narrative Summary
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the Proposed Project has the potential to result in a violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Therefore, this issue will be analyzed in the EIR.
Initial Study 44 March 2023
OC River Walk
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The OC River Walk is located between Orangewood Avenue and Ball Road and provides a unique opportunity to create additional OCWD groundwater recharge location by impounding water in the SAR, utilizing a much larger footprint for infiltration along the riverbed. This additional impoundment area not only provides recharge volume on site, but also serves as a safety net. If any stormwater does not infiltrate by the time it reaches Ball Road, it would be captured for infiltration by the river impoundment opportunity. An impoundment of water in the SAR south of Ball Road could be seen as an additional recharge facility proportional to many of the other OCWD facilities. Current operations of the OCWD include the annual construction of what are referred to as “T” and “L” levees in the river bottom. These levees are built to force the shallow water to flow back and forth between the banks of the river, thereby maximizing its percolating surface. Although the river is usually dry in this lower reach, it is the OCWD’s goal to capture and recharge every gallon it can. The proposed river impoundments would increase infiltration of stormwater in the SAR below Ball Road and would eliminate the need for OCWD grading "T" and "L" soil levees in the riverbed. Therefore, impacts to groundwater supplies would be improved with the Proposed Project. This issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR.
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? Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the Proposed Project has the potential to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that could result in substantial erosion on- or offsite. Therefore, this issue will be analyzed in the EIR. ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
Potentially Significant Impact. The Proposed Project resides in a 100-year flood zone for FEMA and is in a Special Flood Hazard Area. Implementation of the Proposed Project does has the potential to substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff, in a manner that could result in substantial flooding on- or off-site. Therefore, this issue will be analyzed in the EIR.
Initial Study 45 March 2023
OC River Walk
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? Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the Proposed Project does not have the potential to substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. The proposed improvements would not significantly increase the amount of impervious surfaces within the project area. Therefore, this issue will not be analyzed in the EIR.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the Proposed Project would impede existing SAR flows. However, the impoundments would not reduce the river’s hydraulic capacity for flood conveyance as the impoundment structures would be designed similar to existing OCWD rubber dams upstream on the SAR, which are deflated during a storm event. The Proposed Project does reside in a 100-year flood zone as well as a Special Flood Hazard Area; therefore, this issue will be analyzed in the EIR.
d. Would the project, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Potentially Significant Impact. The Proposed Project, consisting of the SAR, lies within a 100-year flood plain. The City is inland and not at risk of tsunami. The SAR corridor and the project area is within a liquefication hazard zone and could be at risk of a seiche wave due to an earthquake due to the proposed impoundment of water. Therefore, this issue will be analyzed in the EIR. e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Potentially Significant Impact. The Proposed Project includes river impoundments that would positively impact the local groundwater basin. The impoundment structures would be installed to create semi-permanent water bodies in the SAR for groundwater recharge and community benefit, and infiltrate through the soft bottom riverbed. The Proposed Project would otherwise include improvements to an existing bicycle and pedestrian trail system through landscaping improvements, habitat restoration, and construction of cantilever viewing decks and public art installations. and therefore, operation would not significantly impact a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
However, construction of the Proposed Project has the potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan during construction. Therefore, this issue will be analyzed in the EIR.
Initial Study 46 March 2023
OC River Walk
2.4.11 Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Narrative Summary
a. Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. The Proposed Project involves the implementation of Active Transportation Improvements, including the extension of the Santa Ana River Trail (SART) along the west bank, addition of the SART along the east bank, and the construction of a new pedestrian and bicycle bridge as well as the expansion of existing active transportation bridges. The Proposed Project has no potential to divide an established community, rather the proposed improvements would further connect the existing community and improve access to community amenities. Therefore, no impacts related to physically dividing an established community would occur. This issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR.
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 Impact. The project area is located within the SARcorridor between the Ball Road and Orangewood Avenue bridge crossings, a 450-foot wide by 9,000-foot long area (approx. 90 acres and 1.2 miles) adjacent to Angel Stadium, ARTIC, and the Honda Center. The Proposed Project is primarily located within the City of Orange, and partially located within the City of Anaheim.
The City of Orange zoning designation along the eastern bank of the SAR is Recreation Open Space, and the General Plan Land Use designation is Open Space. On the western side of the SAR, the project area is zoned by the City of Anaheim as Transition from Ball Road south to the train tracks, and then Public Recreational from the train tracks south to East Katella Avenue.
The Proposed Project involves the implementation of multi-purpose recreational improvements.
No changes to the existing City of Orange zoning and land use designations would occur. The Proposed Project would be consistent with the existing zoning and land use designations.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict any applicable City of Orange land use plan, policy, or regulation. No impact would occur. This issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR.
I I
Initial Study 47 March 2023
OC River Walk
2.4.12 Mineral Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Narrative Summary
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 Impact. There are no current mining activities within the project area. Both the City of Orange and County of Orange General Plans identify the SAR as a mineral resource zone. According to the General Plans, construction aggregate is found in the natural sand and gravel deposits of the SAR. Furthermore, the project area has been classified as Sand and Gravel Resource Areas and Cement Concrete Aggregate by the California Department of Conservation SMARA study areas.
However, the Proposed Project would not preclude the availability of mineral resources in the future. Therefore, this issue will not be analyzed in the EIR. 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 Impact. The project site is not a locally important mineral resource recovery site according to maps obtained through the California Department of Conservation and California Geological Survey. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource. No impact will occur.
I I
Initial Study 48 March 2023
OC River Walk
2.4.13 Noise
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
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, expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Narrative Summary
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? Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the Proposed Project has the potential to result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies during construction. Therefore, this issue will be analyzed in the EIR. b. Would the project result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Potentially Significant Impact. Construction of the Proposed Project has the potential to result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels during construction. Therefore, this issue will be analyzed in the EIR. c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The Proposed Project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The closest public use airport to the Proposed Project is Fullerton Municipal Airport located approximately
6.8 miles northwest of the project site. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in the exposure of people to excessive noise generated by a private airstrip. No impact would occur. This issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR.
Initial Study 49 March 2023
OC River Walk
2.4.14 Population and Housing
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Induce substantial 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Narrative Summary
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 Impact. The Proposed Project involves the implementation of 17 multi-purpose improvements that have been identified to transform the SAR. These improvements are organized into three distinct categories representative of the main goals of the OC River Walk experience: including Active Transportation (AT), River Activation (RA), and Community Amenities (CA). There is no proposed residential or commercial/business component that could result in substantial population growth in the area. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not induce growth, either directly or indirectly. This issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR. b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The Proposed Project involves the implementation of 17 multi-purpose improvements that have been identified to transform the SAR corridor. The project area does not contain residential structures. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not displace any existing housing, nor would the Proposed Project necessitate the construction of replacement housing. No impact would occur. This issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR.
Initial Study 50 March 2023
OC River Walk
2.4.15 Public Services
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Narrative Summary
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Orange City Fire Department provides fire protection services within the City of Orange. City of Orange Fire Department is located at 1910 N Shaffer St, Orange, CA 92865, adjacent to the project area on the eastern bank of the SAR. Anaheim Fire Department Station #7 is located at 2222 E Ball Rd, Anaheim, CA 92806, adjacent to the project area on the western bank of the SAR. As discussed in Section 2.4.14, Population and Housing, the Proposed Project does not involve development of new residential or non-residential structures that would contribute to a permanent increase in population to the area. The Proposed Project involves the implementation of 17 multi-purpose improvements that have been identified to transform the SAR corridor. These improvements are organized into three distinct categories representative of the main goals of the OC River Walk experience: including Active Transportation (AT), River Activation (RA), and Community Amenities (CA). These improvements are being implemented in the existing trail system that is already being serviced by fire protection services. As the Proposed Project represents improvement to, and enhancement of, existing recreational facilities, and would not induce substantial population growth, it is not anticipated that the Proposed Project would result in a substantial increase in the need for fire protection services. Impacts to fire Initial Study 51 March 2023
OC River Walk
protection services would be less than significant. This issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR.
Police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Orange Police Department provides law enforcement and crime prevention services to the City of Orange. As discussed in Section 2.4.14, Population and Housing, the Proposed Project does not involve development of new residential or non-residential structures that would contribute to a permanent increase in population to the area. As stated previously, the Proposed Project involves the implementation of various multi-purpose improvements that have been identified to transform the SAR corridor. These improvements are being implemented in the existing trail system that is already being serviced by police protection services. As the Proposed Project represents improvement to, and enhancement of, existing recreational facilities, and would not induce substantial population growth, it is not anticipated that the Proposed Project would result in a substantial increase in the need for police protection services. Impacts to police protection services would be less than significant. This issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR.
Schools?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project does not include new residential development and would not result in an increased demand for school services. As such, the Proposed Project would not result in the need to alter existing schools or construct new schools, the construction of which could result in significant impacts on the physical environment. Therefore, no impacts related to schools would occur. This issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR.
Parks?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project is a recreation-related project involving the implementation of various multi-purpose improvements. The Proposed Project does not, however, include any residential structures that would involve a permanent increase in population to the area.
As such, the Proposed Project would not result in an increased demand for additional park facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios. Therefore, no impacts related to the need for new or physically altered parks would occur. This issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR. It should be noted that impacts associated with construction and expansion of recreational facilities, which may have an adverse physical effect on the environment, will be analyzed in the EIR.
Other public facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. No other public services would be impacted by the Proposed Project.
The Proposed Project is not expected to adversely affect any other governmental services in the area. Therefore, no impacts related to other public facilities would occur. This issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR.
Initial Study 52 March 2023
OC River Walk
2.4.16 Recreation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Narrative Summary
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 2.4.14, Population and Housing, the Proposed Project would not induce substantial population growth in the City. As such, the Proposed Project would not increase the use of existing parks and recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of recreational facilities would occur or be accelerated. The Proposed Project would implement various multi-purpose improvements, including: Active Transportation (AT), River Activation (RA), and Community Amenities (CA). These improvements would be beneficial in adding to and expanding upon existing recreational facilities along the SAR corridor. Therefore, the Proposed Project would add recreational resources within the project area and reduce demand on existing recreational facilities. A less than significant impact will occur; therefore, this issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR. 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? Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would increase the amount of recreational facilities within the project area. The Proposed Project includes various multi-purpose improvements, in the following categories: Active Transportation (AT), River Activation (RA), and Community Amenities (CA). However, the additional facilities would not have an adverse impact of the physical environment. A less than significant impact will occur; therefore, this issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR.
Initial Study 53 March 2023
OC River Walk
2.4.17 Transportation
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Narrative Summary
a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? No Impact. The Proposed Project includes various multi-purpose improvements, in the following categories: Active Transportation (AT), River Activation (RA), and Community Amenities (CA).
These improvements would promote alternative modes of transportation. Additionally, existing parking can be accessed off of Katella Avenue, South Douglas Road, and adjacent to the Proposed River Front Road. A proposed connection is also considered between the River Walk trail and the entrance to the Anaheim Coves parking area off of South Phoenix Drive. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Therefore, this issue will not be analyzed in the EIR. b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Potentially Significant Impact. Although unlikely, implementation of the Proposed Project has the potential to conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). A VMT study will be prepared as part of the EIR. Therefore, this issue will be analyzed in the EIR. c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. All transportation improvements would be designed in accordance with adopted street and trail improvement standards. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project does not have the potential to substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses.
Initial Study 54 March 2023
OC River Walk
d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not affect existing emergency access.
During construction, surrounding roadways would continue to provide emergency access to the project site and surrounding properties. The Proposed Project would comply with applicable City regulations, such as the requirement to comply with the City’s fire code to provide adequate emergency access as required by the Orange County Fire Department, as well as the California Building Standards Code. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City of Anaheim would review project site plans, including location of all buildings, fences, access driveways and other features that may affect emergency access. Therefore, this issue will not be analyzed in the EIR.
Initial Study 55 March 2023
OC River Walk
2.4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code Section
21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in
terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to
a California Native American tribe, and that
is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
ii. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1? In applying the
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resource Code Section 5024.1,
the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
Narrative Summary
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or Potentially Significant Impact. Tribal consultation pursuant to AB 52 will be completed prior to release of the Draft EIR. The Proposed Project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing, and will therefore be further analyzed in the EIR.
Initial Study 56 March 2023
OC River Walk
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Potentially Significant Impact. Tribal consultation pursuant to AB 52 will be completed prior to release of the Draft EIR. The Proposed Project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency to be significant.
Therefore, this issue will be further analyzed in the EIR.
Initial Study 57 March 2023
OC River Walk
2.4.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Result in a determination by the waste
water treatment provider, which serves or
may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Narrative Summary
a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project consists of 17 multi-purpose improvements along the SAR basin including active transportation improvements, river impoundments and community amenities. These recreational improvements would not require the construction of expansion of existing utilities and service systems. The Proposed Project includes landscape enhancement, upland habitat restoration, river impoundment, riverbank modifications, and urban storm water treatment plans would relieve existing pressure on wastewater treatment services and improve efficiency for the City. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur, and this issue will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Initial Study 58 March 2023
OC River Walk
b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less Than Significant Impact. The landscape programming for the Proposed Project would entail minimal maintenance and limited irrigation requirements, instead depending on vegetation to establish and thrive as historically native vegetation that is tolerant of the semi-arid conditions of this region. The Proposed Project would include public amenities such as drinking fountains, and restrooms. The proposed amenities would require a nominal amount of water to serve the Proposed Project. Additionally, as stated, the Proposed Project involves the implementation of 17 multipurpose improvements along the SAR basin including active transportation improvements, river impoundments and community amenities. The proposed river impoundments would provide groundwater recharge for the County, and also help facilitate groundwater replenishment. The proposed impoundments are inflatable, and during times of heavy rainfall or storms would be deflated to allow for the natural discharge of the SAR. Impacts would be less than significant. This issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR.
c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less Than Significant Impact. As stated above, the Proposed Project would improve the existing wastewater treatment system via expansion of urban stormwater treatment, riparian landscaping, and habitat restoration. Impacts would be less than significant; therefore, the issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR.
d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure. Impacts would be less than significant; therefore, the issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR. e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would comply with all federal state and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Impacts would be less than significant; therefore, the issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR.
Initial Study 59 March 2023
OC River Walk
2.4.20 Wildfire
If located in or near state responsibility areas
or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines
or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or
that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Narrative Summary
a.–d.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project area is approximately 5 miles due west from the closest very high fire hazard severity zone in the Irvine Regional Park located in the City of Orange.
According to CAL FIRE’s California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps the project area is not in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, therefore impacts to a-d in wildfire would be less than significant and would not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Initial Study 60 March 2023
OC River Walk
2.4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Does the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
b. Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)?
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
c. Have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 65088.4, Gov. Code; Sections 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21083, 21083.05, 21083.3, 21093, 21094, 21095, and 21151, Public Resources Code; Sundstrom v.
County of Mendocino,(1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296; Leonoff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th at 1109; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656.
Narrative Summary
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?? Potentially Significant Impact. The Proposed Project consists of various multi-purpose improvements along the SAR basin including active transportation improvements, river impoundments and community amenities. These improvements have the potential to result in impacts to biological and cultural resources. Therefore, these impacts will be further analyzed in the EIR.
Initial Study 61 March 2023
OC River Walk
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Potentially Significant Impact. As stated, the Proposed Project involves the implementation of 17 multi-purpose improvements along the SAR basin including active transportation improvements, river impoundments and community amenities. These improvements could have cumulatively considerable impacts. Potential cumulative impacts will be analyzed further in the EIR. c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly??
Potentially Significant Impact. As stated, the Proposed Project involves the implementation of 17 multi-purpose improvements along the SAR basin including active transportation improvements, river impoundments and community amenities. These improvements could result in environmental effects on human beings. Potential impacts will be analyzed further in the EIR.
Initial Study 62 March 2023
OC River Walk
This page intentionally left blank.
Initial Study 63 March 2023
OC River Walk
Section 3 List of Preparers
3.1 Lead Agency
City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, suite 433
Anaheim, California 92805
Jose Jimenez, Parks Manager
Ana Straabe, Principal Project Planner
3.2 Consultants
Harris & Associates
22 Executive Park, Suite 200
Irvine, California 92614
William Halligan, Esq., Senior Director/Senior Environmental Counsel Yliana Ortega, Assistant Project Manager
Nora Ives, Environmental Analyst
Lindsey Messner, Technical Editor
Randy Deodat, GIS Analyst
Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc. (PACE)
17520 Newhope Street, Suite 200
Fountain Valley, California 92708
Mark E. Krebs, PE, Senior Project Manager/President
Jacob Peterson, PE, Project Manager
Jackie Phuekhunthod, MS, EIT, Project Engineer
Ron Rovansek, PhD, PE, LEED AP, Senior Consulting Engineer/Stormwater Quality Andrew Ronnau, PhD, PE, Senior Consulting Engineer/River Analysis Tony Howze, Senior GIS Analyst
Bill Hunt, PG, CHg, OCWD/OCFCD Liaison
Zirang Song, MS, PE, Senior Consulting Engineer/QA/QC/Constructability CAB Engineers, Inc.
17520 Newhope Street, Suite
Fountain Valley, California 92708
Cory Bersch, PE, Permit Specialist Engineer
Initial Study 64 March 2023
OC River Walk
Huitt-Zollars
2603 Main Street, Suite 400
Irvine, California 92614-4250
Victor Illig, PE, Civil Design Manager
Craig Johnson, PE, LEED AP BD+C, Civil Design Manager
Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical
475 Goddard, Suite 200
Irvine, California 92618
Michael Putt, PG, CEG, Principal Geologist
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. – Community Outreach
6519 Bisby Lake Avenue #19985
San Diego, California 92159
Kristen Haukom, MPH, Community Outreach Manager
Studio MLA
251 South Mission Road
Los Angeles, California 90033-3235
Jan Dyer, PLA, Principal
Matt Romero, ASLA, Project Manager
Parsons Structural
525 B Street #1600
San Diego, California 92101
Craig Shannon, PE, Principal Project Manager
Kevin Michalski, PE, Structural Design
AE Mosaics
166 Vía Lampara
Rancho Santa Margarita, California 92688
Amanda Siebel, Lead Artist
Initial Study 65 March 2023
OC River Walk
Section 4 References
CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2011. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA as Recommended by CAL FIRE. October. Accessed March 2023. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5880/c30_anaheim_vhfhsz.pdf.
CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2023. “The Road to Zero Emissions. Accessed March 2023. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2019. CNDDB QuickView Tool. California Natural Diversity Database. Accessed March 2023. https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/?tool= cnddbQuick.
CDFW. 2020. NCCP Plan Summary: County of Orange (Central/Coastal) NCCP/HCP. Conservation:
Planning. Accessed March 2023. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP/Plans /Orange-Coastal.
City of Anaheim. 2004a. Anaheim General Plan. Accessed March 2023. https://anaheim.net/712/General-Plan.
City of Anaheim. 2004b. General Plan and Zoning Code Update EIR No. 330. Accessed March 2023. http://www.anaheim.net/712/General-Plan.
City of Anaheim. 2019. Zoning Map. Accessed March 2023. https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/1871/Zoning-Map?bidId=.
City of Anaheim. 2021. Orangewood Avenue Bridge Widening Project CEQA. Orangewood Avenue Improvements.
City of Orange. 2010. Orange General Plan. March. Accessed March 2023. https://www.cityoforange.org/our-city/departments/community-development/generalplan#:~:text=The%20City%20of%20Orange%202010,our%20citizen's%20quality%20of%2 0life.
City of Orange. 2023. Municipal Code. Accessed March 2023. https://library.qcode.us/lib/orange_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_12-chapter_12_32.
Coastal Conservancy. 2018. Santa Ana River Trail & Parkway – Parkway & Open Space Plan.
DOC (California Department of Conservation). 1998. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Anaheim Quadrangle. Accessed March 2023. https://gmw.conservation.ca.gov/SHP/EZRIM/ Maps/ANAHEIM_EZRIM.pdf.
MIG. 2013. Anaheim Outdoors Connectivity Plan “It’s Your Backyard.” OCWD (Orange County Water District). 2019. Burris Basin GWRS TurnOut Project.
OEHHA (California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2023. CalEnviroScreen 4.0.
OPR (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research). 2008. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through CEQA Review. Technical Advisory. June. Accessed March 2023. http://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/pdfs/june08-ceqa.pdf.
OPR. 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. December. Accessed March 2023. http://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf.
Initial Study 66 March 2023
OC River Walk
PACE (Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc.). 2021. OC Riverwalk Feasibility Study.
SCAQMD. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Accessed March 2023. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rulescompliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/ceqa-airquality-handbook-(1993).
State of California, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code 21000- 21189.
State of California, CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387.
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Engineer’s Circular 1165-2-220 – 408 Permit Document.
Accessed March 2023. www.spl.usace.army.mil/Missions/Dection-408-Permits/.
Appendix B. NOP Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
From: Ana Straabe
To: William Halligan
Cc: Jacob Peterson
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Initial Study OC Riverwalk
Date: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 6:49:56 AM
FYI
Ana Straabe
Principal Project Planner
Community Services Department │ Parks Division
200 South Anaheim Boulevard │ Suite 433
Anaheim, CA 92805
Office (714) 765-4463
PARKS DIVISION MISSION STATEMENT: To enrich the quality of life of individuals, families, and the community by providing excellent parks, trails, and recreational facilities through outstanding customer service, sustainable environmental practices, and strong employee development and commitment.
From: Friedman, Matthew L@DOT <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2023 4:33 PM
To: Ana Straabe <[email protected]>
Cc: Martinez, Tiffany@DOT <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Initial Study OC Riverwalk
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Dear Principal Project Planner Straabe,
The Office of Aviation Planning in the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics has reviewed the Initial Study for the OC Riverwalk Project.
The Division notes and commends the inclusion of referring to airport land use plans including documents related to Fullerton Airport and determining the project distance of 10.5 miles from Fullerton Airport [laces it outside the airport influence area. The consideration of project impacts on airports or the presence of impacts of airports on proposed projects is an important element of evaluation.
The Division wishes the City of Anaheim success in completion of the OC Riverwalk project.
Matt Friedman, MRP, MAHL, DDiv (Hon)
Chief, Office of Aviation Planning
Division of Aeronautics
Caltrans
1120 N St.
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916)521-4743
CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
California Department of Transportation
DISTRICT 12
1750 East 4th Street, Suite 100 I SANTA ANA, CA 92705
(657) 328-6000 I FAX (657) 328-6522 TTY 711
https: //dot.ca.gov/ caltrans-near-me / district-12
April 20, 2023
Ana Straabe
City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92805
Dear Ms. Straabe
GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
• •
lb/trans·
File: IGR/CEQA
SCH# 2023030639
LDR LOG #2023-02250
SR-57
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the review of the Notice of Preparation for a Draft EIR for the OC River Walk Project. The OC River Walk project consists of various multi-purpose improvements that have been identified to transform the Santa Ana River (SAR) corridor through various multi-purpose improvement opportunities. The OC River Walk project site is located within the SAR between the Ball Road and Orangewood Avenue bridge crossings, a 450-foot wide by 9,000-foot-long area (approx. 90 acres and 2 miles) adjacent to Angel Stadium, ARTIC, and the Honda Center. The Honda Center has been selected as the 2028 Summer Olympics indoor volleyball venue, providing an incentive to improve infrastructure and accommodations for the surrounding area to facilitate tourist recreational activities.
Additionally, the proposed development around the Honda Center (ocV!BE) and Angel Stadium (The Big A: 2050) will introduce additional residents and attract more local visitors and tourists. These ongoing development activities will further activate the existing recreational areas, pedestrian foot traffic, and bikeways in the vicinity. The nearest state facility to the project site is State Route 57 (SR-57).
The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment. Caltrans is a responsible agency on this project and has the following comments:
System Planning
l . Consider incorporating bicycle parking if there are opportunities to do so.
Caltrans supports the inclusion of bicycle storage facilities pursuant to CALGreen code. Caltrans also recommends following bicycle parking best practices described in the "Essentials of Bike Parking" guide created by the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (link to online PDF:
https://www.apbp.org/Publications). Bike parking should be installed a minimum of 24" away from walls and other objects (e.g., trash cans, plants, etc.). With the growing popularity of electric bikes and cargo/utility bikes (which tend to be "Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment" Ms. Ana Straabe
April 20, 2023