kimley-horn.com 1100 Town and Country Road, Suite 700 Orange CA 92868 (714) 939-1030
October 31, 2022
Bradley Misner
City of Fullerton
303 West Commonwealth Avenue
Fullerton, CA 92832
Subject: The Pines at Sunrise Village Modified Project – Environmental Consistency Findings Mr. Misner:
On October 27, 2021, the City of Fullerton Planning Commission reviewed and recommended that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve The Pines at Sunrise Village Project. At the December 7, 2021 Fullerton City Council meeting, the City Council requested that the project applicant, Shopoff Realty Investments, consider modifications to the proposed The Pines at Sunrise Village Project.
During the public hearing, the City Council heard comments and concerns from the community related to the loss of the commercial retail center, increased traffic, appropriateness of higher density residential uses, and the provision of public services to serve the Project. The City Council voted to return the project to the Planning Commission to address concerns raised during the public hearing.
The applicant submitted revised plans to the City for the purpose of addressing City Council’s comments on The Pines at Sunrise Village Project and requested the City’s consideration of the revised Project. On April 13, 2022, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the revised project by the City Council.
Subsequent to the April 2022 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant submitted new plans for additional revisions to the Project. This environmental consistency has been prepared to compare the currently modified Project to the original The Pines at Sunrise Village Project evaluated in the Initial Study leading to a Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND).
The IS/MND prepared for The Pines at Sunrise Village Project found that the original Project would not result in significant environmental impacts with the exception of the environmental topics of Geology and Soils, and Hazards and Hazardous Materials. With mitigation, all environmental topics would be less than significant impacts.
At the direction of the City, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley -Horn) has reviewed the currently proposed Project (modified Project) changes to determine whether these revisions would alter the conclusions of the IS/MND. As demonstrated in the attached environmental consistency analysis , the IS/MND adequately addresses the environmental impacts of the Project, as modified. Accordingly, no further CEQA analysis is required because of these proposed changes.
kimley-horn.com 1100 Town and Country Road, Suite 700 Orange CA 92868 (714) 939-1030
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this analysis. Please feel free contact me at (714) 786 -6128 or at [email protected] if you have any questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
By: Dana C. Privitt, AICP
Associate
The Pines at Sunrise Village Modified Project
Consistency Analysis
1 The Pines at Sunrise Village Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Consistency Analysis
The purpose of this memo is to provide the City of Fullerton with additional information to substantiate that the proposed modifications to The Pines at Sunrise Village Project are adequately addressed in the Initial Study leading to a Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), which was prepared and distributed for public review between September 20 and October 11, 2021.
The State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Title 14, California Code of Regulations [CCR] §§15000 et seq.) Sections 15162 and 15164 provide guidelines of when additional environmental review is required. The following discussion lists the appropriate subsections of State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 and provides justification for the City of Fullerton to mak e a determination of the appropriate CEQA document for the proposed Project, based on the environmental analysis provided in the IS/MND and consistency analysis.
Section 15162 ‒ Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
As discussed in the consistency analysis below , no new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects beyond what was evaluated in the IS/MND would occur that would require substantive revisions to the IS/MND. The modified Project would not result in substantially increased impacts above what was evaluated in the IS/MND with regard to land use, den sity and other environmental factors such as air quality, noise, public services, and utilities. (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
As documented herein, there have been no changes in circumstances under which the modified Project is being implemented compared to the IS/MND. The modified Project has the same development footprint boundaries and would develop a mixed -use development with both residential and commercial retail uses. None of the components of the modified Project would result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than previously identified in the IS/MND. (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant environmental effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
The Pines at Sunrise Village Modified Project
Consistency Analysis
2 (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
No new information that was not known at the time the IS/MND was prepared is now available that demonstrates that the modified Project will result in a new or increased significant impact. Based on the analysis prepared for the modified Project, the project-related effects wou ld not be substantially more severe than were disclosed in the IS/MND as a result of the modified Project. The findings of the IS/MND are applicable to the modified Project. Implementation of the modified Project would not substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts. (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
No mitigation measures in the IS/MND were found infeasible. All mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND would also apply to the modified Project.
Additional technical analyses were prepared for the modified Project. Based on the analysis in this document, the modified Project would not result in any new significant environmental effects that are substantially different from those identified in the IS/MND nor would it substantially increase the severity of significant effects previously identified in the IS/MND. None of the conditions listed under subsection (a) would occur that would require preparation of a subsequent EIR. (b) Once a project has been approved, the lead agency’s role in project approval is completed, unless further discretionary approval on that project is required. Information appearing after an approval does not require reopening of that approval. If after the project is approved, any of the conditions described in subsection (a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall only be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project, if any. In this situation no other Responsible Agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted.
None of the conditions listed in subsection (a) would occur as a result of the modified Project. Therefore, no subsequent EIR is required.
Section 15164 ‒ Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration (a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
As described above, none of the conditions described in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
(b) An addendum to an adopted negativ e declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.
The Pines at Sunrise Village Modified Project
Consistency Analysis
3 None of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR would occur as a result of the modified Project. Although updated technical studies have been prepared for the modified Project, the conclusions and findings of the IS/MND are still applicable. Therefore, a consistency analysis to the original IS/MND is the appropriate CEQA document for the modified Project. (c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the EIR or adopted negative declaration.
This consistency analysis will be attached to the IS/MND and maintained in the administrative record files at the City of Fullerton.
(d) The decision-making body shall consider the Addendum with the EIR prior to making a decision on the project.
The City of Fullerton would consider this consistency analysis with the IS/MND prior to making a decision on the modified Project.
(e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s required findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.
This document provides substantial evidence for City of Fullerton records to support that preparation of an Addendum to the Negative Declaration is not required. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent EIR is not required and the appropriate CEQA document for the modified Project is a consistency analysis to supplement t he IS/MND. No additional environmental analysis or review is required for the modified Project. This document will be maintained in the administrative record files at City of Fullerton offices.
Consistency Analysis
The approximate 12.52-acre project site is located at 1144 Rosecrans Avenue, 1715/1723 Euclid Street, and 1701/1751/1801-1900 Euclid Street. The project site is in northwestern part of the City, near the West Coyote Hills area. The site is generally bordered by Rosecrans Avenue on the north, Paseo Dorado on the south, Euclid Street on the east, and Camino Loma and existing multi -family townhomes and a senior housing development on the west. Regional vehicular access to the project site is provided via State Route 91 (SR-91), located approximatel y 2.7 miles to the south. Local access into the project site is provided from two driveways on Rosecrans Avenue and one driveway on Euclid Street.
The IS/MND addressed potential impacts associated with the construction and operation of a 164-unit residential community, comprised of 49 detached single-family residential units and 115 attached multi- family residential townhomes, as well as surface parking and open space amenities.
The applicant, Sh opoff Realty Investments , has requested the City of Fullerton’s consideration of the approval of discretionary actions associated with the modified The Pines at Sunrise Village Project. In summary, the Project has been modified to reduce the total number of dwelling units from 164 to 113; retain the existing 4,000 -square-foot (sf) commercial building (Red Cross building) at 1144 Rosecrans Avenue; and construct four new commercial retail buildings totaling 19,000 sf. The total commercial retail square footage, inclusive of the Red Cross building, would be 23,000 sf.
The Pines at Sunrise Village Modified Project
Consistency Analysis
4 The discretionary actions associated with the modified Project are as follows:
▪ General Plan Revision (LRP-2021-0006) to change the land use from Commercial to Low/Medium Density Residential for Parcels 1 and 2. Parcel 3 , which contains the 4,000-sf Red Cross building, would retain the existing Commercial land use designation. Parcels 4 and 5 would also retain the existing Commercial land use designation.
▪ Zoning Amendment ( LRP-2021-0007) to change the zoning classification from General Commercial to Planned Residential Development – In-fill (PRD-I) for Parcels 1 and 2. Parcels 3, 4, and 5 would retain the existing General Commercial zoning. ▪ Tentative Tract Map (SUB-2021-0002 / TTM No. 19148 ) to create a residential subdivision with five parcels. All detached single-family residential units would be on Parcel 1. All attached multi - family residential townhome units would be on Parcel 2. Parcel 3 would contain the Red Cross building at 1144 Rosecrans and surface lot. Parcel 4 would contain two separate, 4,500 -sf commercial retail buildings and surface lot. Parcel 5 would contain two separate, 5,000 -sf commercial retail buildings and surface lot.
▪ Major Site Plan (ZON-2021-0032) for review of site, architectural, and landscape plans. ▪ Development Agreement (LRP-2021-0008) to establish standards that govern development and provide for certain community benefits.
▪ Adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The modified Project includes the following changes.1
Parcel 1 (6.08-acres)
▪ No change to the number of single-family detached units. Remains at 49 units. ▪ No change to the number of residential garage spaces. Remains at 98 spaces. ▪ No change to the number open Guest Parking. Remains at 49 spaces.
Parcel 2 (3.70-acres)
▪ Revised lot line to reflect the reduction in number of townhome units. Parcel 2 is reduced in size from 6.52 to 3.70 acres.
▪ Removal of 10 townhome buildings, resulting in the reduction of 51 multi-family residential units from 115 to 64 units.
▪ Allowance of Home-Office flex space within 34 multi-family residential units. ▪ Removal of roof-deck configurations.
▪ Changes in parking:
o Residential garage spaces – reduction from 230 to 128 (due to reduction in the number of townhomes).
o Handicap Parking – no change from 4 spaces.
o Open Guest Parking – reduction from 115 to 60 spaces associated with the reduction in the number of townhomes.
1 Note that parcel acreages are based on tentative tract map 19148 which identifies the lot as being 12.52 acres.
The Pines at Sunrise Village Modified Project
Consistency Analysis
5 Parcel 3: New 0.46-acre parcel
▪ Retain and remodel the interior and exterior of the existing 4,000-sf Red Cross building at 1144 Rosecrans Avenue.
▪ New surface parking with 19 spaces (14 standard, 4 for electric vehicles, and 1 Handicap). ▪ Improve existing driveway access to Rosecrans Avenue. ▪ Retain existing General Plan land use designation and zoning classification of General Commercial for Parcel 3.
Parcel 4: New 1.02-acre parcel
▪ Construct two new, 4,500-sf commercial retail buildings. ▪ New surface parking with 52 spaces (44 standard, 6 for electric vehicles, and 2 Handicap). ▪ New driveway on Rosecrans Avenue.
▪ Retain existing General Plan land use designation and zoning classification of General Commercial for Parcel 4.
Parcel 5: New 1.27-acre parcel
▪ Construct two new, 5,000-sf commercial retail buildings. ▪ New surface parking with 58 spaces (47 standard, 9 for electric vehicles, and 2 Handicap). ▪ Retain and improve existing driveway on Rosecrans Avenue. ▪ Retain existing General Plan land use designation and zoning classification of General Commercial for Parcel 5.
Other
▪ Reduction in residential density (dwelling units per acre [du/ac]) from 13.1 du/ac to 8.1 du/ac. ▪ Reduction in number of residential dwelling units from 164 to 113 units (no change to number of single-family units [Parcel 1], decrease in townhome units [Parcel 2]). ▪ Reduction in average daily traffic trips from -2,600 to -2,206 ( -394 trips) when compar ed to existing land uses.
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code [PRC] §§21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations [CCR] §§15000 et seq.), the City of Fullerton is the Lead Agency charged with the responsibility of deciding whether to approve The Pines at Sunrise Village Project. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 discusses recirculation of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to adoption. Specifically, a Lead Agency is required to recirculate a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration when the document must be substantially revised after public notice of its availability has previously been gi ven pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072, but prior its adoptio n. A substantial revision of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration includes new, avoidable significant effects that are identified, and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added to reduce the effect to insignificance, or if the Lead Agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance and new measures or revisions must be required. Recirculation is not required when new project revisions are added in response to written or The Pines at Sunrise Village Modified Project
Consistency Analysis
6 verbal comments on the project’s effects identified in the proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects.
The modified Project revisions would not result in any new project environmental impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as discussed in The Pines at Sunrise Village IS/MND.
This memo finds that the potential environmental impacts of the modified Project with site plan changes under consideration are adequately addressed in the original Initial Study.
The following narrative summarizes the findings of the IS/MND and identifies whether the impacts of the proposed modified Project, with a reduction in total residential dwelling units, retention of the existing 4,000 sf Red Cross building, and addition 19,000 sf of commercial retail uses would result in the same or lesser significance impact described in the IS/MND.
Aesthetics. The IS/MND determined that impacts to aesthetic resources would be less than significant, and no mitigation was required. The Fullerton Plan (General Plan) EIR notes scenic vistas within the City include views of the West and East Coyote Hills from the southern portion of the City. The project site is approximately 0.5 mile south of the West Coyote Hills area . The IS/MND concluded that the proposed Project would not alter existing views of the West and East Coyote Hills from Euclid Street at Rosecrans Avenue. Because the modified Project would result in a reduction in density and number of three-story residential buildings (for townhomes), no increase the height of buildings would occur. The retention and addition of new commercial buildings would be less than the maximum height of the to wnhomes.
Therefore, impacts to scenic vistas would continue to be less than significant. With respect to State scenic highways, there are no eligible or officially designated State scenic highways in the City.
As addressed in the IS/MND, t he originally proposed Project would introduce a mixed-use development that would complement the existing surrounding neighborhoods. The Project would use stucco, brick veneer, metal accents, siding, and several paint schemes with warm earth tones, whites, greens, greys as part of the architectural composition. The range of material choice and colors would match and complement the overall existing surrounding uses and single-family and multi-family residences, creating a cohesive and compatible neighborhood identity. Therefore, the proposed Project would not be out of character with existing development in the project area and surrounding land uses . Light and glare impacts were determined to be less than significant through compliance with the Fullerton Municipal Code (FMC) Section 15.56.110 (General Provisions for Illumination) and the use of non-reflective building materials.
Consistent with the conclusions for the originally proposed Project, the modified Project now under consideration would also have no impact or a less than significant impact without mitigation with respect to the environmental topic of aesthetics. The Project modifications would occur in the northwest portion of the project site near Camino Loma and Rosecrans Avenue. When compared to the originally proposed Project, 10 townhome buildings would not be constructed, resulting in the reduction of 51 multi-family townhomes from 115 to 64 units. Instead, the Red Cross building at 1144 Rosecrans Avenue would be retained and remodeled, and 4 new commercial buildings totaling 19,000 sf on Parcels 3, 4, and 5 would be constructed in place of the townhomes. The retained and proposed commercial buildings would use similar materials and architectural features for cohesive design. The commercial building facades would have a grey paint scheme with beige accents, ne w stucco finishes, concrete blocks, metal trellis, and simulated wood looking tiles. Overall, the proposed exterior architecture style would complement the proposed residential component of the Project. The commercial retail component of the modified Project The Pines at Sunrise Village Modified Project
Consistency Analysis
7 would result in similar less than significant aesthetic impacts when compared to the originally proposed Project.
Like the originally proposed Project, the modified Project would be required to comply with the City’s site plan review process detailed in FMC Section 15.47.060, which includes the review and evaluation of the site plan design to ensure public views and scenic vistas are preserved from unreasonable encroachment.
The modified P roject would still comply with Scenic Corridor Design Guidelines by setting back the residential development from Paseo Dorado and Euclid Street and retaining landscaped slopes along Euclid Street to maintain viewsheds. The modified Project would still comply with FMC Section 15.56.110 (General Provisions for Illumination) for lighting standards and would not use reflective building materials that would result in glare impacts.
The findings of the IS/MND would therefore continue to be applicable to the modified Project. The Project, as modified, would not change the conclusions of the IS/MND.
Agriculture and Forestry Resources. The IS/MND determined that there would be no impacts to agricultural or forestry resources. The project site is in an urbanized environment bordered by existing development. The project site and surrounding properties are not zoned for agriculture and the project site is not under a Williamson Contract. The Project, as modified, would not change the no impact findings in the IS/MND.
Air Quality. The IS/MND concluded that the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to implementation of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The originally proposed Project required a General Plan Revision for all the parcels and, therefore, the proposed site-specific population growth was not included in Southern California Association of Governments ( SCAG) regional forecasts. However, as noted in the IS/MND, the increase in population represents nominal population growth (less than one percent) of the SCAG forecast population for the City of 139,905 persons for 2045. The modified Project would require a General Plan Revision to change the land use designation from Commercial to Low/Medium Density Residential on Parcels 1 and 2 only. Parcels 3, 4, and 5 would retain the existing Commercial land use designation, and therefore are consistent with the SCAG population forecast. The anticipated population growth of 327 persons from the proposed residential land uses on the project site would similarly represent a nominal population growth (less than one percent) of the SCAG forecast population for the City of 139,905 persons by 2045. Neither the original nor the modified Project would induce substantial population growth and as such, would not interfere with air quality attainment because this growth is nominal and would not conflict with the projections used to formulate the AQMP.
The IS/MND concluded that the Project woul d result in less than significant impacts related to a net increase in criteria pollutants . In accordance with the South Coast AQMD Guidelines, the California Emissions Estimator Model ( CalEEMod) was used to m odel construction emissions for reactive organic gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxides (NO x), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Sulfur Oxides (SO X), and Particulate Matter 10 and 2.5 (PM 10, PM2.5). The originally proposed Project’s construction and operational emissions were significantly below South Coast AQMD adopted thresholds. As a part of this review, air quality modeling was prepared for the modified Project due to the changes in the number of residential units and an increase in commercial retail uses compared to the ori ginally proposed Project. The emissions modeling results are presented in Table 1 for the modified Project.
The Pines at Sunrise Village Modified Project
Consistency Analysis
8 Construction
Construction activities associated with the modified Project would generate short -term emissions of criteria air pollutants. Construction -generated emissions are short-term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the South Coast AQMD’s thresholds of significance.
Construction equipment would include excavators, dozers, rollers, rubber -tired loaders, tractors, trenchers, and pavers. Exhaust emission factors for typical diesel-powered heavy equipment are based on CalEEMod program defaults. Variables factored into estimating the total construction emissions include the level of activity, length of construction period, number of pieces and types of equipment in use, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of construction personnel, and the amount of materials to be transported on or off the site.
CalEEMod allows the user to input dust control measures such as watering the construction area to limit fugitive dust. Standard conditions that were input into CalEEMod allow for certain reduction credits (i.e., compliance with South Coast AQMD rules) and result in a decrease of pollutant emissions. Reduction credits are based upon studies developed by the California Air Resources Board ( CARB), South Coast AQMD, and other air quality management districts throughout California, and were programmed within CalEEMod. Table 1: Modified Project Construction Emissions identifies the anticipated daily short-term construction emis sions and assumes reductions from compliance with South Coast AQMD rules and regulations for construction activities (i.e., Rules 402 and 403 regarding dust control, and Rule 1113 pertaining to architectural coatings). Impacts would be less than significant for all criteria pollutants during construction.
Table 1: Modified Project Construction Emissions
Emissions Source
Pollutant (pounds per day) a, b
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Construction: 2022 3.81 43.81 31.00 0.08 9.09 5.28
Construction: 2023 3.44 38.33 29.88 0.08 5.59 2.88
Construction: 2024 19.20 25.31 36.53 0.08 3.40 1.65
South Coast AQMD
Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
South Coast AQMD
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
ROG: reactive organic gases; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SOx: sulfur oxides; PM10: particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter. a. Emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), as recommended by the South Coast AQMD.
Refer to Attachment A.
b. The modeling incorporates reduction/credits for construction emissions based on measures included in CalEEMod and as required by the South Coast AQMD through Rule 403. This includes the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; cover stockpiles with tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Reductions percentages from the South Coast AQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI-A through XI-E) were applied. No mitigation was applied to construction equipment.
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2022.
Operations
Operational emissions from the modified Project would be associated with motor vehicle use, energy, and area sources, such as the use of natural gas -fired appliances, landscape maintenance equipment, and The Pines at Sunrise Village Modified Project
Consistency Analysis
9 architectural coatings. Long -term operational emissions attributable to the modified Project are summarized in Table 2: Modified Project Operational Emissions. Mobile and stationary (area and energy) source operational emissions would result from normal daily activities. Mobile source emissions would be generated by the motor vehicles traveling to and fr om the project site. Area source emissions would be generated due to an increased demand for consumer products, architectural coating, and landscaping.
Energy source emissions would be generated from electricity and natural gas (non -hearth) usage associated with the modified Project. The primary use of electricity and natural gas by the modified Project would be for space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and electronics.
As shown in Table 2, emissions from the modified Project would not exceed South Coast AQMD thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, or PM2.5. Operational emissions would be less than significant.
Table 2: Modified Project Operational Emissions
Emissions Source
Pollutant (pounds per day) a
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area Source 4.32 1.79 10.06 0.01 0.19 0.19
Energy Use 0.07 0.57 0.25 0.00 0.05 0.05
Mobile Source 4.30 4.41 40.45 0.09 10.25 2.77
Total 8.69 6.77 50.76 0.10 10.49 3.01
South Coast AQMD
Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
South Coast AQMD
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
ROG: reactive organic gases; NOX: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SOX: sulfur oxides; PM10: particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter. a. Emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), as recommended by the South Coast AQMD.
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2022.
The originally proposed Project would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hotspot. Localized air quality impacts related to mobile‐source emissions were less than significant.
Localized significance thresholds, which provides methodology for air dispersion modeling to evaluate whether a construction or project operations could cause an exceedance of an ambient air quality standard, were below South Coast AQMD thresholds and considered less than significant. Lastly, toxic air contaminants such as diesel particulate matter were deemed less than significant due to phased project construction schedule, and compliance with existing California regulations (e.g., California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Division 3, Article 1, Chapter 10, §§2485 and 2449), which reduce diesel particulate matter and criteria pollutant emissions from in-use off-road diesel-fueled vehicles.
Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots
Currently, the CO standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams per mile for passenger cars (requirements for certain vehicles are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations have steadily declined. The Air Basin was redesignated as attainment in 2007 and is no longer addressed in the South Coast AQMD’s AQMP. The modified Project would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hotspot. Therefore, CO hotspots are not an environmental impact of concern for the modified Project. Localized air quality impacts related to mobile‐source emissions would therefore be less The Pines at Sunrise Village Modified Project
Consistency Analysis
10 than significant. As a result, no significant impac ts would occur, and no additional mitigation measures are required.
Localized Significance Threshold Analysis
The Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Methodology provides a look -up table for construction and operational emissions based on the emission rate, location, and distance from receptors, and provides a methodology for air dispersion modeling to evaluate whether a construction or operation could cause an exceedance of an ambient air quality standard. The local air quality emissions from construction were analyzed using the South Coast AQMD ’s Mass Rate Localized Significant Threshold Look -Up Tables and the methodology described in Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (South Coast AQMD, revised July 2008) to determine if the daily emissions of CO, NO x, PM 10, and PM 2.5, from the modified Project would result in a significant impact to local air quality. Construction emissions were compared to the South Coast AQMD ’s screening thresholds. The modified Project would be a balanced site , and require approximately 101,600 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 108,900 cy of fill, and 7,300 cy of soil import. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are multi -family residences and a senior housing development approximately 30 feet west of the project site, and the daycare facility at 1901 Euclid Street, approximately 30 feet east of the project site boundary.2 As shown in Table 3: Localized Significance of Construction and Operational Emissions , construction emissions would not exceed South Coast AQMD LSTs. Also, operational emissions would not e xceed LST thresholds. Therefore, the modified Project would not result in significant localized construction or operational emissions.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Construction would result in the generation of diesel particulate matter (diesel PM) emissions from the use of off -road diesel equipment required for grading and excavation, paving, and other construction activities. The amount to which the receptors are exposed (a function of concentration and duration of exposure) is the primary factor u sed to determine health risk (i.e., potential exposure to toxic air contaminant emission levels that exceed applicable standards). Health -related risks associated with diesel-exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long-term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer.
The use of diesel -powered construction equipment would be temporary and episodic. The duration of exposure would be short and exhaust from construction equipment is highly dispersive, and concentrations of diesel PM dissipates rapidly. Current models and methodologies for conducting health risk assessments are associated with longer -term exposure periods of 9, 30, and 70 years, which do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. Construction would involve phased activities in several areas across the site and the modified Project would not require the extensive use of heavy-duty construction equipment or diesel trucks in any one location over the duration of development, which would limit the exposure of any proximate individual sensitive receptor to TACs.
2 A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Application for a daycare facility use at 1901 North Euclid Street was received by the City on August 17, 2021.
The CUP was approved December 2021. The daycare operates as “Givingtree Montessori Preschool”.
The Pines at Sunrise Village Modified Project
Consistency Analysis
11 Table 3: Localized Significance of Construction and Operational Emissions Emission Source
Pollutant (pounds per day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Construction Emissions
Demolition (2022) 25.72 20.59 2.64 1.37
Site Preparation (2022) 33.08 19.70 8.90 5.22
Grading (2022) 38.84 29.04 5.06 2.86
Grading (2023) 34.42 28.05 4.84 2.67
Building Construction (2023) 14.38 16.24 0.70 0.66
Building Construction (2024) 13.44 16.17 0.61 0.58
Paving (2024) 9.52 14.63 0.47 0.43
Architectural Coating (2024) 1.22 1.81 0.06 0.06
Maximum Daily Emissions 38.84 29.04 8.90 5.22
South Coast AQMD Localized Significance Threshold
(Adjusted for 4 acres of disturbance at 30 feet) 195 1,201 13 6 South Coast AQMD Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Operational Emissions
On-Site Emissions (Area and Energy) 2.36 10.31 0.24 0.24 South Coast AQMD Localized Significance Threshold
(Adjusted for 5 acres of disturbance at 30 feet) 219 1,395 4 2 South Coast AQMD Threshold Exceeded with
Mitigation? No No No No
NOX: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SOX: sulfur oxides; PM10: particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: particulate matter
2.5 microns or less in diameter.
Notes: South Coast AQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied. Refer to Attachment A for model data outputs.
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0.
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2022.
Additionally, construction is subject to and would comply with California regulations (e.g., California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Division 3, Article 1, Chapter 10, Sections 2485 and 2449), which reduce diesel PM and criteria pollutant emissions from in-use off-road diesel-fueled vehicles and limit the idling of heavy - duty construction equipment to no more than five minutes. These regulations would further reduce nearby sensitive receptors’ exposure to temporary and variable diesel PM emissions. Given the temporary and intermittent nature of construction activities likely to occur within specific locations in the project site (i.e., construction is not likely to occur in any one location for an extended time), the dose of diesel PM of any one receptor is exposed to would be limited. Therefore, considering the relatively short duration of diesel PM-emitting construction activity at any one location of the plan area and the highly dispersive properties of diesel PM, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial concentrations of construction-related TAC emissions. Impacts would be less than significant.
The originally proposed Project did not identify impacts related to odors. The originally proposed Project was a residential in -fill development, a land use typically not associated with generation of odors . The South Coast AQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (South Coast AQMD, 1993) identifies certain land uses as sources of odors. These land uses include agriculture, wastewater treatment plant, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. As with the modified Project, the mixed-use development does not propose any offensive odor-inducing uses on the site.
The Pines at Sunrise Village Modified Project
Consistency Analysis
12 During construction-related activities, some odors (not substantial pollutant concentrations) that may be detected are those typical of construction vehicles (e.g., diesel exhaust from grading and construction equipment). These odors are a temporary short -term impact that is typical of cons truction projects and would disperse rapidly. The modified Project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the South Coast AQMD as odor sources. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant; no mitigation is required.
Biological Resources. The IS/MND determined that impacts to biological resources would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. The project site is in an urbanized environment bordered by existing development. The site does not provide suitable habitat for special-status plant or wildlife species and no candidate, sensitive, or special -status plant or wildlife species were observed. The project site is not a recognized wildlife corridor and site redevelopment would not impede fish or wildlife movement.
The concrete channel adjacent to Euclid Street does not provide suitable habitat and functions primarily as a drainage channel. Removal of landscaped vegetation (trees and shrubs) on the project site would occur and be subject to Standard Condition (SC) BIO 1, which addresses construction activities during the nesting season. Following compliance with SC BIO -1, potential impacts to nesting migratory birds would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
With respect to the revisions under consideration, the modified Project would still occur within the same development footprint as the origina lly proposed P roject. The proposed revisions which include a reduction in the number of dwelling units, reduction in density, retention of one commercial building, and addition of commercial retail buildings would not result in changes to the impact conclusions of the IS/MND.
Cultural Resources. The IS/MND concluded that the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on cultural resources and no mitigation was required. The existing commercial retail shopping center was built in the 1970s and is not considered a historical resource. A cultural resource record search conducted as a part of the IS/MND did not identify any previously recorded archaeological resources within the project site. Due to the p revious ground disturbance a ssociated with the prior commercial center development, the project site was considered to have low sensitivity for the presence of archaeological deposits. Because of the presence of previously discovered archaeological resources within a one-mile radius of the site, the potential exists for the discovery of unrecorded archaeological resources during ground disturbing activities. The IS/MND noted that the Project would be required to comply with SC CR -1, which details the appropriate steps should archaeolo gical resources be encountered during ground-disturbing activities. No formal cemeteries are on or near the project site. If human remains are found, those remains would require proper treatment in accordance with applicable laws, including State of Califo rnia Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5-7055 and PRC Sections 5097.98 and 5097.99 , as outlined in SC CR-2. No mitigation measures are required.
With respect to the modified Project, development would occur on the same property and within the same development footprinted analyzed in the IS/MND. Project revisions including the reduction of residential townhome units, retention of the 4,000-sf Red Cross building, and proposed 19,000 sf of new commercial retail buildings would resu lt in the same potential impacts as previously identified in the IS/MND. Impacts to cultural resources are not dependent on the type of proposed development. Any ground disturbing activities could impact unknown cultural resources. The modified Project would be subject to SC CR -1 and SC CR-2, which detail the appropriate steps should archaeological resources be encountered during ground-disturbing activities and details procedures set forth in PRC Section 5087.98 The Pines at Sunrise Village Modified Project
Consistency Analysis
13 regarding evaluation by the County Coroner and notification of the State of California Native American Heritage Commission when human remains are discovered, respectively. The conclusions of the IS/MND are applicable to the modified Project.
Energy. The IS /MND concluded that impacts would be less than significant with respect to energy resources. The modified Project would reduce the number of residential units from 164 to 113 units. The 4,000-sf Red Cross building would be retained and remodeled, and an additional 19,000 sf of commercial retail uses are proposed. Like the originally proposed Project, the modified Project’s design and materials would be required to comply with Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City of Fullerton Building and Safety Division would review and verify that the project plans demonstrate compliance with the current version of the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards.
During Project operations, energy consumption would be predominately associated with resident s and occupants of the commercial retail buildings. The modified Project is a mixed-use in-fill development, located near public transportation and within one mile of comm unity goods and services (e.g., schools, churches, pharmacies, grocery stores, hospitals, etc.), all of which would reduce the need to drive long distances. Further, the retention of the existing 4,000 -sf Red Cross building for a commercial retail use and the additional 19,000 sf of proposed commercial retail space would place goods and services proximate to future residences, further reducing vehicles miles traveled. The modified Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.
Like the originally proposed Project, the modified Project would be required to comply with the California Public Utilities Commission’s energy requirements, as well as the most current Title 24 and CAL Green Code standards which would ensure conformance with The Fullerton Plan goals and policies, as well as the State’s goal of promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy. The modified Project would not conflict or obstruct State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
The modified Project would comply with the same existing regulatory framework outlined in the IS/MND.
The Project, as modified, would not change the findings in the IS/MND.
Geology and Soils. The IS/MND concluded that the originally proposed Project would result in less than significant impact s with the incorporation of mitigation measures with respect to earthquake faults, seismic hazards, landslides, loss of topsoil, liquefaction, expansive soils, use of septic tanks (no impact), and paleontological resources. The IS/MND identified SC GEO-1, which required project plans and designs to comply with FMC 14.03 – Building Code, which incorporates the 2019 California Building Standards Code, as well as MM GEO-1 and GEO-2, which require compliance with the Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation (GeoTek, Inc. 2020) recommendations and outlines procedures related to discovery of paleontological resources, respectively. The modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects in the IS/MND. The modified Project would be required to comply with applicable building regulations and standards , as well as previously identified standard conditions and mitigation measures. The modified Project would occur within the same development footprint. The reduction in residential units, retention of existing commercial use, and the addition of new commercial retail space would not require changes to how the project is constructed or operated from a geotechnical standpoint. The proposed revisions would not cause a significant impact.
The Project, as modified, would not change the findings in the IS/MND.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The IS/MND concluded that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would be less than significant. Project GHG emissions were modeled using CalEEMod. Construction activities would The Pines at Sunrise Village Modified Project
Consistency Analysis
14 generate approximately 1,066 metric tons of CO 2e (MTCO2e) during construction (or 35.53 metric tons amortized over 30 years ) and 2,092 MTCO2e/yr during operations, totaling approximately 2,127 MTCO2e/yr, which is below the South Coast AQMD 3,000 MTCO2/year significance threshold. The IS/MND noted that the originally pro posed Project would not interfere with the State’s goals of reducing GHG emissions. The originally proposed Project would comply with all building codes in effect at the time of construction, which include energy conservation measures mandated by Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code – Energy Efficiency Standards. Therefore, the originally proposed Project would have a less than significant impact concerning GHG emissions.
With respect to the modified Project, the proposed changes including a reduction in residential units and increase in commercial retail uses would not change the findings of the IS/MND with res pect to GHG emissions. As shown in Table 4: Modified Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the modified Project would result in approximately 2,014.33 MTCO 2e/yr during construction and operations, which is a slight reduction in GHG emissions compared to the originally proposed Project. The slight reduction in GHG emissions is due to the newer CalEEMod 2020.4.0 version, which has lower emission factor assumptions for mobile trips and energy consumption. The modified Project would be subject to the same regulatory framework and would comply with all building codes in effect at the time of construction, including Title 24 standards. The findings of the IS/MND would therefore be applicable to the modified Project.
Table 4: Modified Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emissions Source CO2e (Metric Tons/Year)
Construction Emissions (2022) 103
Construction Emissions (2023) 660
Construction Emissions (2024) 477
Total Construction Emissions 1,240
Construction Emissions Amortized over 30 Years 41.33
Area Source 27
Energy 297
Mobile 1,577
Waste 28
Water 44
Total 2,014.33
South Coast AQMD Threshold 3,000
Exceeds Threshold? No
Note: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Attachment A for model data outputs.
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2022.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The IS/MND found that impacts would be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation with respect to the potential release of hazardous materials into the environment. No other potentially significant impacts were identified. A prior dry cleaner use in the commercial center had released chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into the subsurface.
Several investigations and regulatory oversight for remediation have occurred. The IS/MND identified MM HAZ-1, which requires the applicant to implement and adopt the Response Plan’s recommendations and measures to address the potential release of hazardous materials into the environment. A passive Vapor Intrusion Monitoring Systems (VIMS) beneath future residential building slabs at and near the location of The Pines at Sunrise Village Modified Project
Consistency Analysis
15 the former dry cleaner where VOCs concentrations in soil vapor are greatest is a part of the Response Plan. It was also noted that some of the existing on-site structures were constructed in the 1970s and may contain lead-based paints and asbestos-containing materials. Implementation of SC HAZ-1 would require a certified environmental professional confirm the presence/absence of asbestos-containing materials or lead-based paints prior to demolition.
With respect to the modified Project, the reduction in residential units and increase in commercial retail uses would not change the findings of the IS/MND with respect to the topic of hazards and hazardous materials. The standard conditions and proposed mitigation measures would still apply to the modified Project. The modified Project would have the same development footprint as the originally proposed Project. The Project, as modified, would not change the findings in the IS/MND.
Hydrology and Water Quality . The Preliminary Drainage Report prepared for the originally proposed Project concluded that development would not significantly alter the existing drainage patterns or significantly change the volume or rate of surface water runoff from the project site . Project implementation would improve runoff by decreasing the amount of impervious surfaces from 80 percent to 66 percent. The Project would implement storm water best management practices (BMPs) and use modular wetland systems to reduce off-site runoff. No mitigation measures were required.
With respect to water quality, the IS/MND determined that the P roject would have no or less than significant impacts associated with surface water runoff and water quality with compliance with applicable local, regional, and State regulatory requirements. The originally proposed P roject would be required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, including the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and implementation of sediment control BMPs to preclude impacts during construction. Compliance with the requirements set forth in the NPDES General Construction Permit and provisions established by the Fullerton Municipal Code would reduce the potential for off-site and downstream water quality impacts associated with the originally proposed Project.
A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) was prepared for the originally proposed Project to comply with the requirements of the County of Orange NPDES Stormwater Program. On -site water quality and storm water drainage would be controlled through the incorporation of infiltration, structural, and non-structural source-control BMPs. Long -term operational impacts associated with water quality standards were determined to be less than significant.
With respect to the modified Project under consideration, the proposed modifications would not change the footprint of the proposed development. An updated preliminary Water Quality Management Plan and preliminary Drainage Report has been prepared for the modified Project, as included as Attachment B.
The modified Project would result in a slight increase in the amount of impervious surfaces compared to the originally proposed Project, from 66 percent to 72 percent.
The slight increase in impervious surfaces is due to the increase in parking areas associated with the proposed commercial retail on Parcels 3, 4, and 5. However, t he modified Project would similarly implement storm water BMPs and use modular wetland systems to reduce off-site runoff. No mitigation measures are required.
Accordingly, no new impacts nor a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact would occur. The findings of the IS/MND would be applicable to the Project, as modified.
The Pines at Sunrise Village Modified Project
Consistency Analysis
16 Land Use. The IS/MND identified no impact related to the physical division of an established community and a less than significant impact related to conflicts with existing land use plans, policies, and regulations.
The modified Project would result in similar impact conclusions. The modified Project is an in-fill mixed- use project and would not physically divide an existing established community. Further, the modified Project is consistent with The Fullerton Plan policies intended to reduce potential environmental effects, as discussed in Table 4.11-1: General Plan Policies Consistency, of the IS/MND.
Under the modified Project, the reduction in residential density and increase in commercial retail uses would not change the conclusions of the IS/MND that the Project would be consistent with applicable goals and policies of The Fullerton Plan. The findings of the IS/MND would therefore be applicable to the modified Project.
Mineral Resources. The IS/MND determined that there would be no impacts to mineral resources. The City does not have any locally important mineral resource recovery sites due to its highly urbanized nature. Neither the originally proposed Project nor t he modified Project would involve any mineral extraction activities. The modified Project would not result in the loss of a known mineral resource or loss of availability of a known mineral resource or locally important mineral resource site. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. The Project, as modified, would not change the findings in the IS/MND.
Noise and Vibration. The IS/MND found that noise impacts would be less than significant impact with respect to substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels, excessive ground borne vibration, or exposure to people residing or working within an airport land use plan to excessive noise.
During different construction phases, the IS/MND identified that exterior noise levels would be between
55.6 dBA and 71.3 dBA, which were below the Federal Transit Agency (FTA) construction noise threshold of 80 dBA Leq. Further, the originally proposed Project is required to comply with FMC Section 15.90 which limits construction activities to certain hours of the day. The originally proposed Project’s mobile source noise level increases were also considered to be less than significant. The originally proposed Project would generate approximately 1,340 daily vehicle trips, which would not result in a perceptible increase in mobile source noise l evels. Vibration related impacts were considered less than significant due to distances between construction equipment and sensitive receptors. The IS/MND found that Project implementation would not result in exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive or high noise impact levels.
Noise and vibration impacts associated with the modified Project would be similar to the originally proposed Project. The modified Project would use similar construction equipment and remain within the same development footprint, therefore resulting in similar construction and vibration noise impacts. The distances to sensitive receptors would be the same as the originally proposed Project. As a result, the noise levels identified in IS/MND Table 4.13-4: Project Construction Noise Levels and the vibration levels in Table 4.13-5: Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment would be applicable to the modified Project. Project implementation would generate increased traffic volumes along nearby roadway segments. In general, a traffic noise increase of less than 3 dBA is barely perceptible to people, while a 5- dBA increase is readily noticeable. Generally, traffic volumes on area roadways would have to approximately double for the resulting traffic noise levels to increase by 3 dBA. 3 According to Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Annual Traffic Volume Maps, Euclid Street experiences 30,000
3 California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, 2013.
The Pines at Sunrise Village Modified Project
Consistency Analysis
17 average daily vehicles while Rosecrans Avenue experiences 17,000 average daily vehicles. The modified Project would generate approximately 1,799 daily vehicle trips, which would not double the existing traffic volumes along Rosecrans Avenue or Euclid Street and would therefore not result in a perceivable noise increase.
In addition, noise generated by vehicles in parking lots (car doors closing, engine ignitions), mechanical equipment, truck deliveries/trash collection activities, and residential noise associated with the modified Project would be similar to existing conditions and the originally proposed Project. The modified Project would comply with the City’s applicable Noise Ordinance standards. The Project, as modified, would not change the findings in the IS/MND.
Population and Housing. The IS/MND identified that the originally proposed Project would not result in substantial unplanned population growth and would not displace people or housing. The originally proposed Project’s forecast population growth of 474 persons would be less than one percent of the City’s overall population of 139,431 persons. Further, the Project is within The Fullerton Plan’s population forecast and therefore is not considered substantial population growth. Additionally, the originally proposed Project would be consistent with SCAG growth projections for the City and would provide 164 dwelling units to the City’s housing inventory.
The modified Project would reduce the number of proposed housing units from 164 to 113 units, a reduction of 51 units. The estimated residential population would decrease from 474 to 327 persons. The modified Project would also maintain and introduce additional commercial retail spaces, which would provide employment opportunities. Based on the size of the commercial uses and location of the project site, tenants would likely be local serving uses (e.g., veterinarian, restaurant, tutoring). Future employees would likely come from the local workforce and would not generate unplanned population growth.
Additionally, the modified Project does not include the extension of roads or other infrastructure to unserved areas, which could induce indirect growth. The modified Project would result in less population growth and would still be consistent with the City’s growth pro jections noted in The Fullerton Plan and SCAG’s regional growth assumptions. Neither development scenario would have an impact to population and housing. The findings of the IS/MND would therefore be applicable to the modified Project.
Public Services . The IS/MND determined that the originally proposed Project would have a less than significant impact to fire and police protection services and facilities, schools, and libraries. The IS/MND determined that the compliance with goals and policies in The Fullerton Plan, and payment of school fees (Senate Bill 50) would preclude any adverse impacts and no mitigation would be required. With respect to the modified Project, the reduction in residential development would have an incremental decrease in demand related to schools and libraries when compared to the originally proposed Project. The proposed 23,000 sf of commercial retail uses would not substantially increase demand for fire or police services, given the project site is currently developed as a commercial retail shopping center, which contributes to the demand for such services. As with the originally proposed Project, no significant impacts would occur.
Therefore, the findings of the IS/MND would be applicable to the modified Project.
Recreation. The IS/MND found that the Project would have a less than significant impact related to accelerated physical deterioration of existing parks and the need to construct or expand existing recreational facilities which would result in an adverse physical effect on the environment. The City has a parkland ratio of 4 acres per 1,000 residents. Assuming the originally proposed Project’s 474 residents are new to the City, the Project would create a demand for approximately 1.89 acres of parkland. The originally proposed Project would be subject to parks fees pursuant to FMC Chapter 21.12 – Fee for Parks The Pines at Sunrise Village Modified Project
Consistency Analysis
18 on Construction of Dwelling Units, prescribed under SC REC -1. In addition to the payment of park fees, the or iginally proposed Project included on -site recreational facilities . These private amenities would provide recreational opportunities to future residents rather than relying solely on the City’s existing public park system. The originally proposed Project would not result in the need for new or expanded public recreational facilities.
As it applies to the modified Project, there would be a reduction of 51 residential units. The PRD-I zoning applicable to Parcel 1 and 2 requires 15 percent of open space base d on net acreage. Therefore, the modified Project would be required to provide a minimum 28,358 sf (approximately 0.65 acre) of open space on Parcel 1, and 15,616 sf (approximately 0.36 acre) of open space on Parcel 2. The modified Project’s open space wou ld be provided through a combination of private open space, common open space and “other” open space, the latter which is landscaped areas for visual relief that are generally not usable and therefore not included to determine compliance with the FMC stand ard. The modified Project’s open space summary is provided in Table 5: Open Space Summary.
Table 5: Open Space Summary
Parcel
Private Open
Space (sf)
Common Open
Space (sf) Total (sf) Other Open Space
Requirement
Met?
1 42,351 11,041 53,392 47,893 sf landscaped slopes
3,070 sf in other open space
53,392 > 28,358
Yes
2 12,034 5,700* 17,734
28,856 sf in other common
landscaped open space
5,444 sf in other open space
17,734 > 15,616
Yes
Total 54,385 16,741 71,126 - -
sf – square feet
*= total square footage of two pocket parks on Lot 2
Source: JZMK Partners, 2022.
The modified Project would exceed open space requirements. It should be noted that the amount of common open space amenities (recreation area, pocket parks) would remain approximately the same , although fewer residential units are associated with the modified Project. The modified Project would retain the recreation area with swimming pool, pool deck with lounge chairs, and fire-pit seating at Lot 1, and two pocket parks at Lot 2 with outdoor d ining table seating, outdoor BBQ counters, bench seating, and turf areas. The findings of the IS/MND would therefore be applicable to the modified Project.
Tribal Cultural Resources . Impacts to Native American tribal cultural resources would be less t han significant. The discovery of Native American tribal cultural resources on the project site were identified in the IS/MND as unlikely, given construction of the shopping center required site disturbance and excavation, and no archaeological resources have been recorded on the project site. If tribal cultural resources are discovered, standard conditions identified in the Cultural Resources section of the IS/MND (SC CR -1 and SC CR -2) would apply. With regards to the modified Project, the development footprint would remain the same. Changes associated with the modified Project would not result in a more significant impact to tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the findings in the IS/MND are applicable to the modified Project.
Transportation. The IS/MND determined that the originally proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on transportation resources. A project -specific transportation impact study and City Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT) worksheet was prepared for the original Project. The originally proposed The Pines at Sunrise Village Modified Project
Consistency Analysis
19 Project was estimated to generate 1,340 average daily trips on a typical weekday, including 92 AM peak hour trips and 116 PM peak hour trips. The analysis concluded that Project implementation would result in a reduction of 2,6004 net average daily trips, including a reduction of 7 AM peak hour trips and 131 PM peak hour trips when compared to the existing retail land use at full occupancy. The originally proposed Project would include public sidewalk improvements to enhance non -vehicular mobility. Further, the proposed Project would not interfere with public transit operations and would place new residents close to public transit opportunities with three bus stops on Euclid Street between Rosecrans Avenue and Paseo Dorado.
With respect to VMT, based on the thresholds of significance set forth by the City, the originally proposed Project’s VMT per Service Population falls below the target VMT per service population of 29.6 percent.
Residential projects located within a low VMT area are presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence. The originally proposed Project would also not increase hazards to the public due to incompatible use through the introduct ion of residential development in a predominately residential area of the City . The proposed Project driveway entrances and interior drive aisles would accommodate standard fire lane turning radiuses and hammerhead turnaround maneuvers. Off-site street improvements prescribed in the Development Agreement would not require the complete closure of any public or private streets or roadways during construction. The originally proposed Project would be subject to SC TRANS -1, which requires that temporary constru ction activities not impede use of the surrounding roadways for emergencies or access for emergency response vehicles. Impacts were deemed less than significant.
With respect to the modified Project, the proposed changes would result in a reduction in net vehicular trips compared to existing conditions. An updated trip generation memo was prepared for the modified Project and is included as Attachment C. The modified Project would generate 1,799 daily trips, including 88 AM peak hour trips and 173 PM peak hour trips, an increase of 459 daily trips compared to the originally proposed Project. However, when comparing the modified Project to the existing conditions, the net trip generation would be -2,206, including a reduction of 19 AM peak hour trips and 84 PM peak hour trips.
With respect to VMT for the modified Project , the modified Project would generate a net reduction in VMT compared to the existing conditions. According to the North Orange County Cities (NOCC) tool, the modified Project would generate 15,967 VMT. Based on the service population of 338, the modified Project would have a VMT per service population of 47.6, or 61.9 percent higher than the General Plan Buildout Target VMT per service population of 29.4. The modified Project’s VMT is provided in Table 6:
Project VMT Generation.
The modified Project would result in a net reduction of 16,932 VMT compared to the existing Sunrise Village Shopping Center VMT of 32,889.5 Based on the NOCC VMT tool, if the total daily VMT is less than 836, then a project screens out regardless of the rate of VMT per service population. Although the modified Project has a VMT per service population of 47.6, a rate greater than the General Plan Buildout VMT per service population; the net daily VMT (-16,932) for the modified Project is negative. Therefore, based on the City’s significance criteria, VMT impacts are considered less than significant. The proposed mixed-use in-fill development is in a predominately residential area of the City. The modified Project net
4 Table 4.17-1 of the Initial Study included a typographical error. The existing shopping center square footage is 108.341 (per thousand square feet), not 122.82. Therefore, the daily trip generation from the existing shopping center is 4,005 trips, not 4,637. Net trip generation would be -2,600 (3,940-1,340). This change does not impact the findings of the IS/MND. 5 Existing Sunrise Village Shopping Center VMT is 32,889. The modified Project VMT is 15,967. After taking credit for existing VMT, the net VMT is -16,932.
The Pines at Sunrise Village Modified Project
Consistency Analysis
20 VMT is less than the existing shopping center both by model computations and by trip comparisons .
Therefore, the modified Project will have no VMT impact.
Table 6: Project VMT Generation
Estimated Daily Trips 2,348
Average Trip Length 6.8
Service Population 338
Project VMT (2,348*6.8) 15,967
VMT/Service Population (15,967/338) 47.6
VMT Credit from existing shopping center 32,889
Net Project VMT -16,932
Target VMT per Service Population Threshold 29.4
Percentage above/below VMT Target (47.6-29.4/29.4) +61.9 Source: City of Fullerton (2022)
The modified Project would also include public sidewalk improvements and would not interfere with public transit operations. The modified Project includes revised internal site circulation, specifically on Parcels 3, 4, and 5 where commercial retail uses are retained and proposed. Inter nal drive aisles would accommodate standard fire lane turning radiuses and hammerhead turnaround maneuvers design for emergency vehicles and fire services. The modified Project driveways and internal circulation improvements would be constructed pursuant to City of Fullerton Fire Department standards.
The modified Project is a mixed-use in-fill development within a portion of the City that is predominantly residential. The modified Project does not include the use of any incompatible vehicles or equipment on the site, such as farm equipment. No change to the impact conclusions related to increase in hazards due to geometric designs or inadequate emergency access would occur under the modified Project. Therefore, the findings of the IS/MND and compliance with SC -TRANS 1 would also be applicable to the modified Project.
Utilities and Service Systems . Impacts associated with the construction or expansion of existing water, wastewater, storm water drainage, electrical power, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities would be less than significant. The IS/MND also determined that impacts would be less than sign ificant with respect to water supply, wastewater treatment capacity, and solid waste generation.
The originally proposed Project would increase water demand by 34.8 acre-feet (AF) per year, which is less than one percent of the City’s overall water demand in 2020. Further, the originally proposed Project’s growth projections fall within the SCAG growth forecasts and are consistent with the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan . No new water facilities would need to be constructed or expanded to serve the Project.
The IS/MND noted that the proposed Project would also increase sewer demand but would not require the construction of sewer infrastructure beyond that identified in the City’s Sewer Master Plan. Further, the applicant would be required pay a fair share contribution to the sewer improvements. Impacts concerning wastewater would be considered less than significant and no mitigation was required.
The originally proposed Project would maintain the existing drainage pattern to the maximum extent feasible. Ultimate site improvements include drainage inlets and on -site private storm drains. Surface The Pines at Sunrise Village Modified Project
Consistency Analysis
21 flows would be directed into an area drain piping system or on-site curb and gutters which would convey flows to five Modular Wetland Systems (MWS) to treat runoff. The Project would treat site runoff in accordance with the Orange County’s Model Water Quality Management Plan (MWQMP) requirements.
Following compliance with the established regulatory framework, the proposed drainage improvements’ environmental effects would be considered less than significant, and no mitigation was identified in the IS/MND.
Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas Company, and local telecommunications companies operate and maintain transmission and distribution infrastructure in th e area, which currently serve the project site. The IS/MND noted that the originally proposed Project would connect to existing electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure, and no off -site improvements were proposed or required.
The originally proposed Project would increase solid waste generation and disposal at local landfills.
However, the IS/MND concluded that the Project’s solid waste generation was nominal compared to the overall capacity at landfills and that impacts were considered less than significant.
With respect to the modified Project under consideration, water demand would increase compared to existing conditions. However, compared to the originally proposed Project, water demand would be less.
Water demand comparisons are shown in Table 7: Water Demand Comparisons . As with the originally proposed Project, no significant impacts would occur. Therefore, the findings of the IS/MND would be applicable to the modified Project.
Table 7: Water Demand Comparisons
Condition
Water Demand
Rate
Modified
Project Data
Average Daily
Water Demand
(ADD)
Maximum
Daily Demand
(MDD)
Peak Hour
Demand (PHD)
Existing 4,000 gallons per
day per acre 12.52 acres 50,080 gpd 100,160 gpd 139.11 gpm Original Project
600 gallons per day
per DU (SFR)
450 gallons per day
per DU (MFR)
49 SF DU
115 MF DU
81,150 gpd 162,300 gpd 225.42 gpm
Modified Project
Retail/Commercial 4,000 gallons per
day per acre 2.75 ac 11,000 gpd 22,000 gpd 30.56 gpm
Single Family (SF) 600 gallons per day
per DU 49 DU 29,400 gpd 58,800 gpd 81.67 gpm
Multi-Family (MF) 450 gallons per day
per DU 64 DU 28,800 gpd 57,600 gpd 80 gpm
Total 69,200 gpd 138,400 gpd 192.2 gpm
Net Change (Modified Project vs. Existing Conditions) +19,120 gpd +38,400 gpd +53.1 gpm Net Change (Modified Project vs. Originally Proposed
Project)
-11,950 gpd -23,900 gpd -33.2 gpm
DU = dwelling unit; gpd = gallons per day; gpm = gallons per minute; ac = acre; SFR = single family residential; MFR = Multi-Family Residential
1. Generation Assumptions are from Woodard & Curran, Inc. (May 2021). The Pines Sewer Capacity Assessment.
2. Maximum Day Demand (MDD) is two times (2x) the ADD and the Peak Hour Demand (PHD) is four times (4x) the ADD.
Source: Kimley-Horn 2022.
The Pines at Sunrise Village Modified Project
Consistency Analysis
22 Similarly, the modified Project’s sewer demand is shown in Table 8: Sewer Demand Comparisons.
Wastewater generation rates were based on an Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) unit flow factor of 75 gallons per capita per day and an assumed average of 2.93 persons per dwelling unit based on the citywide average occupancy rate. Retail/Commercial sewer demand is 2,262 gallons per day per acre. The modified Project would result in a net total ADWF increas e of 17,281 gpd over existing conditions . However, the modified Project’s sewer generation is 4,999 gpd less than the originally proposed Project. As with the originally proposed Project, the modified Project would not require the construction of sewer infrastructure beyond that identified in the City’s Sewer Master Plan. Further, the applicant would be required to pay a fair share contribution to the sewer improvements. Impacts concerning wastewater would
Table 8: Sewer Demand Comparisons
Use Units Unit Flow Factor
Average Dry Weather
Flow (gpd)
Existing Conditions
- 13,8001
Originally Proposed Project
Single-Family Residential 49 DU 220 gpd/DU 10,780
Townhome 115 DU 220 gpd/DU 25,300
Total 36,080
Modified Project
Retail/Commercial 2.75 ac 2,262 gpd/ac 6,221
Single-Family Residential 49 DU 220 gpd/DU 10,780
Townhomes 64 DU 220 gpd/DU 14,080
Total 31,081
Net Change (Modified vs Existing) -4,999
Net Change (Modified vs Original Project) +17,281
1.Generation Assumptions are from Woodard & Curran, Inc. (May 2021). The Pines Sewer Capacity Assessment.
2. As part of the 2009 Master Plan, sewer loads for the existing development on the project site were estimated to be 13,800 gpd based on 2007/2008 water consumption data.
Source: Kimley-Horn 2022.
With regards to storm drainage, the modified Project would maintain existing drainage patterns to the maximum extent possible. Specifically, on -site street slopes w ould convey the flows to five drainage management areas. Surface flows would be directed into an area drain piping system or on-site curb and gutters which would convey flows to five MWS to treat runoff. Each MWS would capture, treat, and convey runoff into a storm drainpipe that discharges into the existing concrete channel along the eastern edge of the site, parallel to Euclid Street. Channel flows outlet into a 72-inch Orange County Flood Control District storm drain located within Euclid Street. Similar to the originally proposed Project, the modified Project would not result in a significant change to the site’s drainage pattern and flows would continue to sheet flow east toward Euclid Street. Peak discharge from the project site, under the modified Project, would increase less than 10 percent. The proposed MWS system would also attenuation flows for treatment and further re duce flows existing the project site. Impacts concerning wastewater would be considered less than significant and no mitigation was required.
The Pines at Sunrise Village Modified Project
Consistency Analysis
23 Similar to the originally proposed Project, the modified Project would increase electric power and natural gas dem and. Following compliance with the established regulatory framework, the proposed utility improvements’ environmental effects associated with the modified Project would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
The modified Project would als o result in similar impacts associated with solid waste generation and compliance with solid waste regulations. There is sufficient land fill capacity at the Olinda Alpha Landfill in Brea. Changes to the project including reduction in residential units and retention and increase in commercial retail uses would result in similar solid waste generation. Further, the modified Project would also be subject to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local statutes and regulations for solid waste, includin g those identified under the most recent CALGreen Code. There is sufficient landfill capacity to serve the modified Project, and the modified Project would not conflict with solid waste reduction goals. Therefore, the findings in the IS/MND are applicable to the modified Project.
Wildfires. The IS/MND concluded that the originally proposed project would have no impact related to adopted emergen cy response plans, exposure of project occupants to pollutant concentrations, installation or maintenance of infrastructure, or exposure to significant risk associated from post -fire instability in a very high fire severity zone. The project site is in a Non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) zone within a local responsibility area. The modified Project is on the same property and would retain a similar development footprint. The findings of the IS/MND would also be applicable to the modified Project.