for a project when either the AM or PM peak hour trip generation is expected meet or exceed 100 net new trips assigned to a State highway facility ( fa cility) operating at any LOS, generate between 50 and 99 net new trips on a facility operating at LOS C or LOS D, or up to 49 net new trips on a facility operating at LOS E or LOS F.
4.11 – TRANSPORTATION
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.11-2
Transportation System in the C ity
Vehicle Miles Traveled and Traffic Analysis Zone
CEQA Section 15064.3(a), Purpose, established VMT as the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts.
The subdivision (a) defines vehicle miles traveled as “the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project.” The term “automobile” refers to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks. For land use projects and plans, such as the Project, based on the predominant use, the following VMT efficiency metrics and method of estimation can be used:
▪ Total VMT per Service Population: The total VMT to and from all zones in the geographic area are divided by the total service population to get the efficiency metric of VMT per service population. The total service population is the sum of the number residents and the number of employees. ▪ Home-based VMT per capita: All home-based auto vehicle trips are traced back to the residence of the trip- maker (non-home-based trips are excluded) and then divided by the population within the geographic area to get the efficiency metric of home-based VMT per capita (or per resident). ▪ Home-based Work VMT per employee: All auto vehicle trips between home and work are counted, and then divided by the number of employees within the geographic area to get the efficiency metric of home-based work VMT per employee.
The traffic analysis zones (TAZ) is the spatial unit (or geographical area) within which travel behavior and traffic generation are estimated in a travel demand model. The City of Fullerton uses the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM). Figure 4.11-1 depicts the TAZs from the OCTAM for the City that have been used in the VMT analysis of the Project as discussed under 4.11.3 Methodology.
Roadway System
The City of Fullerton circulation system consists of a network of local streets providing access to the arterial highway system, which in turn provides access to the regional freeway system. This network serves two distinct and equally important functions: it provides access to adjacent land uses, and it facilitates the movement of persons and goods to and from, within and through the City. To define the intended uses of roadways, the City uses a functional classification system. The system provides a logical framework for the design and operation of the roadway system.
Some major thoroughfares in the City of Fullerton are also part of the Orange County.
The functional roadway classifications and descriptions are provided in Table 4.11-1.
Table 4.11-1. Functional Roadway Classifications
Classification Description
Major Arterial Major Arterials are designed to be six-lane divided facilities within 100 feet of right-of- way. Typical daily traffic volumes accommodated by a Major Arterial would be 30,000 to 49,000 vehicles per day. Major Arterials carry both local and non-local commuter traffic.
The Major Arterial cross-section is designed to accommodate automobiles, goods movement (trucks), transit vehicles (buses), bicycles, and pedestrians.
Prime Arterial Prime Arterials are designed to be four-lane divided facilities within 80 to 84 feet of right-of-way. Typical daily traffic volumes accommodated by a Primary Arterial would be 20,000 to 33,000 vehicles per day. The Primary Arterial has a function similar to the Major Arterial. The difference between the two designations is capacity.
4.11 – TRANSPORTATION
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.11-3
Table 4.11-1. Functional Roadway Classifications
Classification Description
Secondary Arterial
Highway
Secondary Arterials are designed to be four-lane undivided facilities within 80 to 84 feet right-of-way. A Secondary Arterial typically accommodates 16,000 to 22,000 vehicles per day. The Secondary Arterial is designed to carry traffic between local streets and the arterial roadway network. Some Secondary Arterials may serve as through routes, but most provide direct access to local land uses. Secondary arterial can safely accommodate buses, bicycles and pedestrians, but are primarily designed for automobile traffic.
Local Collector
Street
Local Collector Streets are designed to be two-lane undivided facilities within 60 to 84 feet of right-of-way. A Local Collector Street typically accommodates 10,000 vehicles per day. Local Collector Streets are intended to provide direct access to individual properties, and to collect and route local traffic to the arterial system, within limited non- local through traffic.
Residential Street Most residential streets are not included in the basic circulation network contained in the Circulation Element, yet they constitute a large portion of the developed roads in Fullerton. The purpose of residential streets is to access private residential property and provide circulation throughout a neighborhood. The rights-of-way of a residential street is generally between 50 to 60 feet, with sidewalks and curbs. Residential streets under private ownership may differ from normal design standards of the City.
Source: City of Fullerton General Plan Update, Existing and Build-out Conditions Report, September 2011 The City is served by Interstate (I) 5, State Route (SR) 9 0, SR 91, and SR 57. Major Arterials in the City include Bastanchury Road, Brea Boulevard, Chapman Avenue, Euclid Street, Harbor Boulevard, Orangethorpe Avenue, State College Boulevard, and Yorba Linda Boulevard. Primary Arterial Highways include Brookhurst Street, Chapman Avenue, Commonwealth Avenue, Gilbert Street, Harbo r Boulevard, Lemon Street, Magnolia Avenue, Nutwood Avenue, Raymond Avenue, Rosecrans Avenue, and Valencia Drive. Secondary Arterial Highways include Acacia Avenue, Associated Road, Dale Street, Highland Avenue, Parks Road, Pioneer Avenue, and Placentia Avenue.
Figure 4.11-2 City of Fullerton Roadway Classifications illustrates the roadway network in the city.
Public Transportation Services
The Fullerton Transportation Center (FTC) is a hub for all modes of public transportation, located at the southeast edge of the downtown area. Commuter rail service (Metrolink) is provided on a daily basis through the FTC between downtown Los Angeles Union Station to the north, and Riverside and San Diego to the east and south. Public bus transit services are provided within the City of Fullerton by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). Bus routes link various destinations within the City and throughout the County, including Cal State Fullerton, Fullerton College, the Anaheim Transportation Center, Angel Stadium and Disneyland. The FTC also provides access to private taxi services and secure bicycle storage.
OCTA operates several local fixed routes, community routes BRAVO routes, in and through the City of Fullerton.
OCTA Local Routes
▪ Route 25 provides service between the cities of Fullerton and Huntington Beach, and operates daily.
Service is provided on weekdays from 4:09 a.m. to 10:27 p.m. with 50-minute headways, and on weekends and holidays from 5:54 a.m. to 10:27 p.m. with 60-minute headways.
4.11 – TRANSPORTATION
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.11-4
▪ Route 26 provides service between the cities of Fullerton and Yorba Linda, and operates daily. Service is provided on weekdays from 5:15 a.m. to 1 1:06 p.m. with 30-minute headways, and on weekends and holidays from 5:10 a.m. to 10:10 p.m. with 60-minute headways. ▪ Route 30 provides service between the cities of Cerritos and Anaheim with stops in Fullerton, such as at the Park-and-Ride. The route operates daily, with service provided on weekdays from 5:30 a.m. to 10:10 p.m. with 45-minute headways, and on weekends from 6:20 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. with 60-minute headways. ▪ Route 33 provides service between the cities of Fullerton and Huntington Beach, primarily via Magnolia Street. The route operates daily, with service provided on weekdays from 4:56 a.m. 9:37 p.m. with 40-minute headways, and on weekends from 7:20 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. with 70-minute headways. ▪ Route 35 provides service between Fullerton and Costa Mesa, primarily via Brookhurst Street. The route operates daily, with service provided on weekdays from 4:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. with 40-minute headways, on Saturdays from 4:45 a.m. to 8:40 p.m. with 60 -minute headways, and on Sundays and Holidays from 5:37 a.m. to 8:11 p.m. with 50-minute headways.
▪ Route 37 provides service between the cities of Fullerton and Fountain Valley, primarily via Euclid Street. The route operates daily, with service provided on weekdays from 4:25 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. with 60-minute headways and 11:45 a.m. to 10:45 p.m. with 30 -minute headways, on Saturdays from 5:10 a.m. to 9:40 p.m. with 45-minute headways, and on Sundays and holidays from 7:00 a.m. to 8:45 p.m. with 45-minute headways. ▪ Route 43 provides service between the cities of Fullerton and Costa Mesa, primarily via Harbor Boulevard. The route operates daily, with service provided on weekdays from 4:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. with 20-minute headways and 8:30 p.m. to 1:45 a.m. with 60 -minute headways, and on weekends and holidays from 4:30 a.m. to 9:40 p.m. with 15-to-20-minute headways and from 9:40 p.m. to 1:45 a.m. with 60-minute headways. ▪ Route 47 provides service between the cities of Fullerton and Costa Mesa, primarily via Harbor Boulevard.
The route operates daily, with service provided on weekdays from 4:10 a.m. to 7:45 p.m. with 20 -minute headways and 7:45 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. with 30 -minute headways, and on weekends and holidays from 5:05 a.m. to 10:55 p.m. with 30-minute headways.
▪ Route 53 provides service between the cities of Anaheim and Irvine, primarily via Main Street. The route operates daily, with service provided on weekdays from 4:10 a.m. to 12:30 a.m. with 30-minute headways, and on weekends and holidays from 5:35 a.m. to 12:30 a.m. with 60-minute headways. ▪ Route 57 provides service between the cities of Brea and Newport Beach, primarily via State College Boulevard and Bristol Street. The route operates daily, with service provided on weekdays from 4:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. with 30-minute headways and 9:30 p.m. to 1:45 a.m. with 60-minute headways, on Saturdays from 4:00 a.m. to 9:40 a.m. with 15 -minute headways, 9:40 a.m. to 6:55 p.m. with 40 -minute headways and 6:55 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. with 30 -minute headways, and on Sundays and holidays from 4:00 a.m. to 2:14 a.m. with 30-minute headways.
OCTA Community Routes
▪ Route 123 provides service between the cities of Anaheim and Huntington Beach with stops in Fullerton such as at the Fullerton Transportation Center. The route operates only on weekdays, with service provided from 4:40 a.m. to 10:12 p.m. with 60-minute headways.
▪ Route 143 provides service between the cities of La Habra and Brea with stops in Fullerton such as at the Fullerton Transportation Center. The route operates daily, with service provided on weekdays from 4:49 a.m. to 11:12 p.m. with 50-minute headways, on Saturdays from 6:11 a.m. to 8:14 p.m. with 60 -minute headways, and on Sundays and holidays from 7:19 a.m. to 7:03 p.m. with 60-minute headways.
4.11 – TRANSPORTATION
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.11-5
OCTA BRAVO Routes
▪ Route 529 provides service between the cities of Fullerton and Huntington Beach, primarily along Beach Boulevard. The route operates only on weekdays, with service provided from 6:10 a.m. to 7:59 p.m. with 30-minute headways.
▪ Route 543 provides service between the cities of Fullerton and Santa Ana, primarily along Harbor Boulevard. The route operates only on weekdays, with service provided from 5:12 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. with 30-minute headway.
MetroLink
▪ Orange County Line provides daily service between the City of Oceanside and Downtown Los Angeles. The route operates on weekdays with eight trains in the mornings from 4:00 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. with approximately 30 -minute headways, and two trains in the evenings at 3:29 p.m. and 5:17 p.m. On weekends, the route operates four trains at 8:30 a.m., 11:30 a.m., 1:30 p.m., and 5:30 p.m. ▪ 91/Perris Valley Line provides daily service between the City of Perris and Downtown Los Angeles. The route operates on weekdays with four trains in the mornings from 4:30 a.m. to 6:30 a.m. with approximately 30- minute headways, and one train in the evenings at 2:56 p.m. On weekends, the route operates two trains at 7:10 a.m. and 8:10 a.m.
Amtrak Pacific Surfliner provides service between the cities of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, and San Diego with multiple stops in Southern California along the way. The route operates ten trains daily as well as multiple thruway bus and connecting services.
Figure 4.11-3 illustrates Orange County Transit System which shows the bus routes that provide service to the City of Fullerton and location of each of these routes.
Active Transportation
The City is well -connected within the Southern California region and aims to continue to promote mobility connections within the city and to the region at large. The City’s pedestrian network generally includes sidewalks, shared use paths, and trails. To enhance walkability in the communities, the General Plan aims to promote complete streets and improve upon the multi-modal network. Per the City’s Bicycle Master Plan included in the City’s General Plan, (City of Fullerton 2012), bicycle facilities in the City are classified as follows:
Class I – Bicycle Path: Bike paths, also called shared -use paths or multi -use paths, are paved right -of-way for exclusive use by bicyclists, pedestrians, and other non -motorized modes of travel. They are physically separated from vehicular traffic and can be constructed in roadwa y right-of-way or exclusive right -of-way. Most of the City’s bicycle paths are located along the creek and river channels, within college campuses, between parks, and along abandoned railroad right of ways.
Class II – Bicycle Lane: Bike lanes are defined by pavement striping and signage used to allocate a portion of a roadway for exclusive bicycle travel. Bike lanes are one -way facilities on either side of a roadway. Bike lanes are located adjacent to a curb where no on -street parking exists. Where on -street parking is present, bike lanes are striped to the left side of the parking lane.
4.11 – TRANSPORTATION
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.11-6
Class III – Bicycle Route: Bike routes provide shared use with motor vehicle traffic within the same travel lane.
Designated by signs, bike routes provide continuity to other bike facilities or designate preferred routes through corridors with high demand.
Figure 4.11-4 illustrates the existing and proposed bike facilities in the City.
4.11.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
Federal
There are no federal policies or regulations applicable to land use and planning with respect to the proposed Project.
State
Senate Bill 743
On September 27, 2013, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 743, which became effective on January 1, 2014. The purpose of SB 743 is to streamline review under the CEQA process for several categories of development projects including the development of infill projects in transit priority areas and to balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. SB 743 adds Chapt er 2.7: Modernization of Transportation Analysis for Transit Oriented Infill Projects to the CEQA Statute (Public Resources Code Section 21099). Section 21099(d)(1) provides that aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed -use residential, or employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment. In addition, SB 743 mandates that alternative metric(s) for determining impacts relative to transportation shall be developed to replace the use of level of service (LOS) in CEQA documents.
In the past, environmental review of transportation impacts focused on the delay that vehicles experience at intersections and on roadway segments, which is often measured using LOS. Mitigation for impacts on vehicular delay often involves increasing capac ity such as widening a roadway or the size of an intersection, which in turn induces more vehicular travel and greater pollutant emissions. Additionally, improvements to increase vehicular capacity can often discourage alternative modes of transportation s uch as biking, walking, and transit. SB 743 directed the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop an alternative metric(s) for analyzing transportation impacts in CEQA documents. The alternative shall promote the state’s goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and traffic-related air pollution by promoting the development of multimodal transportation system and providing clean, efficient access to destinations. Under SB 743, it was anticipated that the focus of transportation analysis will shift from vehicle delay (and LOS) to VMT within transit-priority areas (i.e., areas well served by transit).
Pursuant to SB 743, OPR released the draft revised CEQA Guidelines in November 2017, recommending the use of VMT for analyzing transportation impacts. Additionally, OPR released updates to the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018), to provide guidance on VMT analysis. In this Technical Advisory, OPR provides its recommendations to assist lead agencies in screening out projects from VMT analysis and selecting a significance threshold that may be appropriate for their particular jurisdictions. While OPR’s Technical Advisory is not binding on public agencies, CEQA allows lead agencies to “consider thresholds of significance ... recommended by other public agencies, provided the decision to adopt those thresholds is supported by substantial evidence” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7[c]).
4.11 – TRANSPORTATION
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.11-7
In December 2018, the CEQA Guidelines were updated to add Section 15064.3, Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts, that describes specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts using VMT methodology. This new methodology was required to be used for projects starting on July 1, 2020.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) is divided into four subdivisions as follows:
(1) Land Use Projects. Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop2 or a stop along an existing high -quality transit corridor 3 should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact. (2) Transportation Projects. Transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of tr ansportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional transportation plan EIR, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152.
(3) Qualitative Analysis. If existing models or methods are not available to estimate the vehicle miles traveled for the particular project being considered, a lead agency may analyze the project’s vehicle miles traveled qualitatively. Such a qualitative analysis would evaluate fa ctors such as the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, etc. For many projects, a qualitative analysis of construction traffic may be appropriate.
(4) Methodology. A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use mod els to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revisions to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project.
The CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)1 applies to the Project. The City has adopted screening criteria and impact criteria meant to serve as guidance for projects to determine whether a Transportation Impact Analysis should be performed, and whether a project generates a significant transportation impact. Therefore, the C ity’s adopted Transportation Assessment Policies and Procedures (TAPP) (June 16, 2020) have been used in this section to determine Program’s VMT impact.
Sustainable Communities Strategies: Senate Bill 375
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (Sustainable Communities Act, SB 375, Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008) supports the state’s climate action goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through coordinated transportation and land use planning with the goal of more sustainable communities. Under the Sustainable Communities Act, the California Air Resources Board sets regional targets for greenhouse gas
2 OPR’s Technical Advisory 2018: Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.3 (“‘Major transit stop’ means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bu s routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.”) 3 OPR’s Technical Advisory 2018: Pub. Resources Code, § 21155 (“For purposes of this section, a high -quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.”)
4.11 – TRANSPORTATION
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.11-8
emissions reductions from passenger vehicle use. In 2010, the California Air Resources Board established these targets for 2020 and 2035 for each region covered by one of the state’s Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO).
The California Air Resources Board will periodically review and update the targets, as needed.
Each of California’s MPOs must prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as an integral part of its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The SCS contains land use, housing, and transportation strategies that, if implemented, would allow the region to meet its greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. Once adopted by the MPO, the RTP/SCS guides the transportation policies and investments for the region. California Air Resources Board must review the adopted SCS to confirm and accept the MPO’s determination that the SCS, if implemented, would meet the regional greenhouse gas targets. If the combination of measures in the SCS would not meet the regional targets, the MPO must prepare a separate alternative planning strategy to meet the targets. The alternative planning strategy is not a part of the RTP.
The Sustainable Communities Act also establishes incentives to encourage local governments and developers to implement the SCS or the alternative planning strategy. Developers can get relief from certain CEQA requirements if their new residential and mixed-use projects are consistent with a region’s SCS (or alternative planning strategy) that meets the targets (see Cal. Public Resources Code Sections 21155, 21155.1, 21155.2, 21159.28.).
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
The California 2010 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation in October 2009, is a multi -year, statewide, intermodal program of transportation projects that is consistent with the statewide tran sportation plan and planning processes, metropolitan plans, and CFR Title 23.
The STIP is prepared by the Caltrans in cooperation with the Metropolitan Planning Organizations and the regional transportation planning agencies. The STIP contains all capital and noncapital transportation projects or identified phases of transportation projects for funding under the Federal Transit Act and CFR Title 23, including federally funded projects.
Caltrans
As the owner and operator of the State Highway System, the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) implements established state planning priorities in all functional plans, programs, and activities. Caltrans has the responsibility to coordinate and consult with local jurisdictions when proposed local land use planning and development may impact state highway facilities. Pursuant to Section 21092.4 of the Public Resources Code (PRC), for projects of statewide, regional, or area -wide significance, the lead agency shall consult with transportation planning agencies and public agencies that have transportation facilities which could be affected by the project.
Caltrans Draft Transportation Impact Study Guide (TISG) and Safety Review (February 2020) replaced the Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (Caltrans 2002). Per the 2020 TISG, Caltrans’ primary review focus is VMT, replacing LOS as the metric used in CEQA transportation analyses (Caltrans 2020). Caltrans recommends use of OPR’s recommended thresholds and guidance on methods of VMT assessment found in OPR’s Technical Advisory (OPR 2018) for land use projects. In addition to VMT, the 2020 TISG states that it may request a targeted operational and safety analysis to address a specific geometric or operational issue related to the State Highway System and connections with the State Highway System.
4.11 – TRANSPORTATION
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.11-9
Regional
Southern California Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) develops the RTP, which presents the transportation vision for Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Imperial, Riverside, and Ventura Counties. SB 375 was enacted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light trucks through integrated transportation, land use, housing and environmental planning. Under the law, SCAG is tasked with developing a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), an element of the RTP that provides a plan for meeting emissions reduction targets set forth by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The SCS outlines the plan for integrating the transportation network and related strategies with an overall land use pattern that responds to projected growth, housing nee ds, changing demographics, and transportation demands. The SCS focuses the majority of new housing and job growth in high- quality transit areas and other opportunity areas in existing main streets, downtowns, and commercial corridors, resulting in an improved jobs-housing balance and more opportunity for transit-oriented development. This overall land use development pattern supports and complements the proposed transportation network that emphasizes system preservation, active transportation, and transportation demand management measures.
The 2020–2045 RTP/SCS also known as Connect SoCal Plan is a long -range visioning plan that builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategies established over several planning cycles to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable g rowth pattern. It charts a path toward a more mobile, sustainable, and prosperous region by making connections between transportation networks, between planning strategies and between the people whose collaboration can improve the quality of life for Southern Californians (SCAG 2020). The SCAG Regional Council adopted the Connect SoCal (2020-2045 RTP/SCS) on September 3, 2020.
Connect SoCal’s “Core Vision” centers on maintaining and better managing the transportation network for moving people and goods, while expanding mobility choices by locating housing, jobs, and transit closer together and increasing investment in transit and complete streets. The Connect SoCal’s “Core Vision” centers on maintaining and better managing the transportation network for moving people and goods, while expanding mobility choices by locating housing, jobs, and transit closer together and increasing investment in transit and complete streets.
The RTP/SCS is updated every four years and SCAG’s Regional Council will consider the proposed final Connect SoCal 2024 for adoption during an April 4, 2024, meeting. The vision and goals for Connect SoCal 2024 are rooted in the direction set forth by Conn ect SoCal 2020. The proposed final Connect SoCal 2024 outlines a vision for a more resilient and equitable future, with policies and strategies for achieving the region’s shared goals through 2050. Goals and subgoals for year 2050 pertain to building and m aintaining an integrated multimodal transportation network; developing, connecting, and sustaining livable and thriving communities; creating a healthy region for the people today and tomorrow; and supporting a sustainable, efficient, and productive regional economic environment that provides opportunities for all people. The Mobility Policies and Strategies in Connect SoCal 2024 include System Preservation and Resilience, Complete Streets, Transit and Multimodal Integration, Transportation Systems Management, and Transportation Demand Management.
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)
The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) is the county transportation planning commission, responsible for funding and implementing transit and capital projects for a balanced and sustainable transportation system (OCTA 2024) . The OCTA is responsible for projects, programs and services that includes bus and rail transit, rideshare, environmental programs, active transportation and express lanes and freeways. This achieved by
4.11 – TRANSPORTATION
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.11-10
administering a variety of Measure M4 funding programs. On September 25, 2017, the Board of Directors approved externally rebranding M2 as OC Go to promote OCTA’s Measure M awareness. The 2019 Orange County Congestion Management Program was adopted by OCTA in November 2019. The goals of Orange County's CMP are to support regional mobility objectives by reducing traffic congestion, to provide a mechanism for coordinating land use and development decisions that support the regional economy, and to support gas tax funding eligib ility. The City of Fullerton is required to show continued compliance with the CMP in order to obtain Measure M2 funds. As previously discussed, under SB 743, automobile delay, as measured by LOS and other similar metrics, no longer constitutes a significant environmental effect under CEQA. However, a jurisdiction may still adopt LOS as a performance standard for analyzing traffic conditions and maintaining throughput on its highway system.
Local
The Fullerton Plan – Mobility Element
The City’s General Plan (or The Fullerton Plan), adopted in May 2012, provides goals and policies to achieve the vision for the City. Chapter 4 of The Fullerton Plan is the Mobility Element, the purpose of which is to further the attainment of a balanced, multi -modal transportation network that minimizes environmental and neighborhood impacts (Fullerton, 2012). The Mobility Element seeks to link Fullerton’s system of roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, bus and rail transit systems, and airport—all of which collectively provide for the movement of person. The primary goal for Mobility Element states:
Goal 5. A balance system prompting transportation alternatives that enable mobility and an enhanced quality of life.
The Mobility Element includes several policies for the circulation syste m at region/subregion level, city level, neighborhood/district level and project level.
The Fullerton Plan – Bicycle Element
Chapter 5 of The Fullerton Plan is the Bicycle Element The purpose of the Bicycle Element is to provide Fullerton with a plan, as well as goals, policies, and actions, designed to meet the needs of commuter and recreational bicyclists of all abilities and provide safe connectivity to and between activity cente rs such as schools, transportation centers, open space/parks, residential neighborhoods and commercial areas within the City, and with adjoining jurisdictions – consistent with the Fullerton Vision and the community’s values (Fullerton, 2012). The Bicycle Element seeks to broaden transportation choices for residents, employees and visitors in Fullerton. The primary goal for Bicycle Element states:
4 In 1990, Orange County voters approved Measure M, a 20 -year program for transportation improvements funded by a half -cent sales tax. Measure M allocates all sales tax revenues to specific Orange County transportation improvement projects in three major areas: freeways, streets and roads, and transit. Renewed Measure M (or Measure M2) was passed by the voters of Orange County in 2006 and extended the half-cent sales tax from 2011 to 2041 to fund specific transportation projects and programs in the County. The goal of M2 is to relieve congestion, improve street conditions, synchronize signals, expand Metrolink, reduce costs for seniors and persons with disabilities, and reduce transportation related air and water pollution. Revenue generated by Measure M2 is returned to local jurisdictions for use on local and regional transportation improvement and maintenance projects.
Significant progress continues with projects completing construction, projects in and advancing towards construction, as well as regular funding allocations to local jurisdictions through local programs.
4.11 – TRANSPORTATION
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.11-11
Goal 6. A bicycle friendly city where bicycling is a safe and convenient alternative to motorized transportation and a recreational opportunity for people of all ages and abilities.
The Bicycle Element includes several policies for the bicycle network at region/subregion level, city level, neighborhood/district level and project level.
4.11.3 Methodology
VMT Analysis
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, the Program is one policy action to help facilitate housing production in order to meet the City’s RHNA goals. The Program would create an overlay zone that allows a property owner to develop multi-family housing on a parcel with a non -residential underlying zoning classification in exchange for providing a specified percentage of deed-restricted affordable housing units. The Program would not directly result in the construction of the total buildout potential. Rather, the Program would facilitate the construction of housing units with the adoption of this overlay zone. Implementation of the Program could theoretically result in a buildout potential of 35,611 units. Therefore, the Program does not include or propose any site-specific development that could directly result in construction or operational impacts to the environment. Therefore, this PEIR does not assess the site-specific construction and operation details of each future development. Rather, it assesses the potential VMT impacts associated with changes to existing land uses and the associated overall effects of buildout of the Program, where reasonably foreseeable physical changes to the environment could occur.
A project’s VMT analysis follows the process of first using screening criteria, identifying an efficiency metric, identifying the significance threshold and, lastly, determining requirements for modeling and assessment. Per the City’s Transportation Guidelines requirements for VMT analysis for land use plans projects, the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model5 (OCTAM) Version 5.0 with socio-economic data (SED) and efficiency metric of VMT per service population was used. The OCTAM model runs on the TransCAD software platform and is based on a four-step model structure, which includes trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice, and trip assignment. The model is made up of TAZs (see Figure 4.11-1 for OCTAM TAZs) that include the SED (e.g., population, employment, households, workers, and school enrollment ) and transportation system network . The SED assumptions and changes for the Program using the OCTAM are described below and provided in Appendix E.
The base and horizon year transportation system network was taken from the OCTAM model years, and no modifications were made. Most TAZs in the project area are within the city boundary. Since this is a planning level analysis, the additive method for project SED was used for the VMT analysis. Under this method, project SED was added to the existing (or future) SED of the TAZs (also referred as the parent zone) to evaluate with project VMT. ▪ Population Assumptions. Based on data collected for the 2021 HEU, the City’s average household size is estimated at 2.91 persons per household (City of Fullerton 2021). An average household size of 2.91 persons per household was used to estimate the population for the proposed Program. Based on the project
5 OCTAM is a travel demand model developed and maintained by OCTA, designed to provide a greater level of detail and sensitivity in Orange County compared to the regional model developed by the Southern California Association of Governments ( SCAG) and the statewide model developed by Caltrans. It is provided to jurisdictions and traffic consultants under a modeling user agreement. Following review by Fehr & Peers of the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, State of California, Governors Office of Planning and Research, December 2018 as well as CEQA Guidelines, case law, and other relevant national guidance of model applications and forecasting, Fehr & Peers recommends that OCTAM be considered the best available model currently available to Orange County cities for SB 743 implementation.
4.11 – TRANSPORTATION
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.11-12
description and density, an average household size of 2.91 persons per household was applied to estimate the population in the TAZs of the proposed Program.
▪ Household Income Assumptions. Income characteristics were based on the incomes for the parent zone. ▪ Employment Assumptions. Employee forecasts and densities were evaluated based on the changes proposed in the P rogram and based on the current employment density of the parent zone. The change based on the model densities were used to present a conservative analysis. Removal of employment (due to removal of non -residential uses) under the future condition resulted in a decrease in the number of employees6 for the proposed Program.
The VMT analysis below summarizes the average VMT per Service Population values utilizing OCTAM for the City of Fullerton and the Program. The Program development totals were converted into (SED) and input into OCTAM for each TAZ . The Program’s TAZ analysis is based on the combination of the TAZs that include the 759 parcels, and the Service Population in the calculation includes the population and employees. The current OCTAM’s base year is 2016 and horizon year is 2045. The analysis for the Program was conducted for those years to correspond to model and City’s General Plan Buildout horizon year. The daily total VMT per service population has been compared to the City’s General Plan Buildout average total daily VMT per service population to estimate the Program’s potential VMT impacts under baseline and cumulative conditions. ▪ Project Generated VMT: The City has selected the Origin/ Destination7 VMT methodology to provide a more complete capture of all travel (car and truck trips) within the study area, including trips that may begin or end outside of the study area. VMT per service population is utilized to normalize VMT into a standard unit for comparison purposes while accounting for the population and/or employ ment in a given area. To determine whether or not there is a potentially significant impact, the analysis shall compare the project - generated VMT to the VMT that is forecast to be generated from approved general plan growth and other transportation network modifications (general plan buildout VMT). ▪ Project Effect on VMT: The City has selected the Boundary Method8 VMT to capture all trips, including those trips that do not begin or end in the City ( i.e. cut -through traffic) and/or displaced traffic, on the City's roadway network. VMT per service population is utilized to normalize VMT into a standard unit for comparison purposes while accounting for the population and/or employment in a given area. To determine whether or not there is a significant impact, the City ’s TAPP compares the citywide VMT with and without
6 As currently proposed, only HIOZ parcels along arterial streets will be required to provide commercial space in mixed -use HIOZ projects. This does not preclude other HIOZ parcels from similarly providing commercial space in addition to residential if t hey wished to do so. This means that any HIOZ parcel would be capable of developing commercial in addition to residential as part of HIOZ program. In the most conservative scenario, all future HIOZ projects across all HIOZ parcels provide some commercial use in addition to residential. Referencing Table B-9 in the City’s Housing Element which studied the 5 most recently completed mixed- use projects in the city, it demonstrates that an average of 12% of ground floor site area is dedicated to commercial uses in a mixed-use project in the city of Fullerton. Therefore, applying this 12% across all 759 HIOZ parcels, approximately 3.1 millio n square feet of commercial uses could be developed in the HIOZ program. Using the ratio of 623 square feet per employee for retail employees in the Orange County area from Table 6B provided in the SCAG Employment Density Report (2001), this would result i n 4,979 employees. However, due to removal of existing non -residential uses, a reduction of 11,139 employees was conservatively estimated (or a reduction of 6,160 employees). Based on the validated model, the employee reduction was estimated at approximately 6,071 employees. The lower reduction was used in the analysis to present a conservative evaluation. 7 Origin Destination Method: The OD methodology is utilized to estimate project-generated VMT. The OD methodology for calculating VMT sums all weekday VMT generated by trips with at least one trip end in the study area (i.e., City boundary or Project boundary) and tracks those trips to their estimated origins/destinations. Origins are all vehicle trips that start in a specific traffic analysis zone (TAZ) and destinations are all trips that end in a specific TAZ. This methodology includes both passenger car and truck trips. 8 Boundary Method: The boundary method is utilized to measure the project’s effect on VMT. The boundary method is the sum of all weekday VMT on a roadway network within a designated boundary. Boundary method VMT estimates VMT by multiplying the number of trips on each roadwa y segment by the length of that segment. This approach includes all trips, including those trips that do not begin or end in the designated boundary. This is the only VMT method that captures the effect of cut -through and/or displaced traffic.
4.11 – TRANSPORTATION
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.11-13
the project. The City has chosen citywide VMT as the basis for this threshold because of its comprehensive geography and appropriateness for a City-wide analysis.
As explained above, the project generated VMT (estimated using Origin-Destination methodology) is a measure of how far an average person would travel and it includes distance traveled within and outside the City. For a plan level analysis, this is calculated by dividing the change in total VMT for TAZs within the City (regardless of where the travel occurs, for example, this would include VMT incurred in other cities and/or counties) by the net change in Service Population.
As explained above, the project effect on VMT (estimated using boundary methodology) is a measure of how VMT within the City changes due to change in land uses and/or circulation pattern. This is calculated by dividing the roadway VMT within the City (includes VMT for cut-through traffic, for example, vehicles driving through the City of Fullerton without a trip end in the City) by the Service Population of the City.
Therefore, project-generated VMT and project effect on VMT describe entirely different scenarios and their numeric values cannot be compared to draw any conclusion . Project-generated VMT is summarized in Table 4.11 -2 and Project-effect on VMT is summarized in Table 4.11-3. As explained below, because the Program is a long-range land use project, the Program’s VMT impact was determined based on project effect on VMT and project generated VMT estimate is included in this section for informational purposes only.
VMT Impact Threshold for Land Use Project
A land use project would result in a potentially significant project -generated VMT impact if either of the following conditions are satisfied:
The project -generated average total daily VMT per service population in the baseline year exceeds the City of Fullerton General Plan Buildout average total daily VMT per service population calculated with Origin/ Destination VMT; or
The project -generated average total daily VMT per service population in the horizon year exceeds the City of Fullerton General Plan Buildout average total daily VMT per service population calculated with Origin/ Destination VMT.
Additionally, the land use project's effect on VMT would be considered potentially significant for purposes of determining a cumulative impact if either of the following conditions are satisfied:
The addition of the project in the baseline year causes an increase in the citywide average total daily VMT per service population calculated with Boundary Method VMT; or The addition of the project in the horizon year causes an increase in the citywide average total daily VMT per service population calculated with Boundary Method VMT.
The City’s guidelines also specify that for a long -range planning land use project such as a general plan, only the cumulative impact analysis of the project's effect on VMT is required. Because the Program is a long-range land use project, the Program’s VMT impact was determined based on project effect on VMT as shown in Section 4.11.5.
Threshold TRA-2. The Project generated VMT estimate is included in this section for informational purposes only.
4.11 – TRANSPORTATION
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.11-14
Project -Generated VMT :
The modeling outputs of VMT analysis and results are included in Appendix E. The results of the VMT analysis using the OCTAM model for the Program under baseline and cumulative conditions are provided in Table 4.11-2. ▪ Baseline Project-Generated VMT – Based on the Origin -Destination (OD) VMT methodology, as shown in Table 4.11-2, the Program’s average baseline Project generated VMT per Service Population is 17.0. ▪ Cumulative Project-Generated VMT – Per the City’s TAPP, based on the OD methodology, as shown in Table
4.11-2, the Program’s average cumulative Project-generated VMT per Service Population is 15.0.
Table 4.11-2. Project Generated VMT – Baseline and Cumulative Conditions Criteria
Baseline Project
Generated VMT
Cumulative Project
Generated VMT
Total Origin-Destination VMT 1,662,320 1,466,209
Population 103,630 103,630
Employment (6,071) (6,071)
Service Population (Population plus Employment) 97,559 97,559 Origin Destination VMT/Service Population 17.0 15.0
Source: OCTAM Travel Demand Forecast Model, Translutions Inc.; Appendix E.
4.11.4 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the Program’s impacts to transportation are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to transportation would occur if the Program would:
1. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
2. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
3. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
4. Result in inadequate emergency access.
Based on the results of the Initial Study (Appendix A), the Program would result in less than significant impacts related to substantially increasing hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use and inadequate emergency access. As such, the following thresholds are evaluated within this section for the Program:
TRA-1. Would the Program conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? TRA-2. Would the Program conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
4.11 – TRANSPORTATION
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.11-15
Impact Criteria
The City’s impact criteria that were used to determine significance of impact are described below. In summary:
▪ Regarding the potential to conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities., the applicable programs, plans, ordinance, and policies were analyzed for their applicability to the Project under Threshold 4.17-1. ▪ Regarding the potential to conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b), per the City’s TAPP, a project has a potentially significant VMT impact if it meets one or more of the criteria as described under methodology when comparing the Project’s effect on VMT to the City’s General Plan Buildout average total daily VMT per service population VMT.
4.11.5 Impacts Analysis
TRA-1. Would the Program conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? The proposed Program would facilitate housing production in order to meet the City’s RHNA goals. As explained in Section 4.11.3, t he Program would create an overlay zone that allows a property owner to develop multi-family housing on a parcel with a non-residential underlying zoning classification and would not directly result in the construction of the total buildout potential. Rather, the Program would facilitate the construction of housing units with the adoption of this overlay zone. However, implementation of the Program could theoretically result in a buildout potential of 35,611 units . The construction of those units would occur over a period of time and would be spread out in the City. Based on the location and size of the project, there would be a potential for temporary effects to the existing circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. For any construction in the public right -of-way, the City would require a traffic control plan be implemented to ensure acces s for all road users, at all times .
Operation of these future projects could result in changes to the existing traffic levels due to the introduction of residential and mixed-use land uses. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a), a project’s effect on automobile delay is not considered a significant environmental effect . Therefore, no discussion or analysis of level of service or delay is provided in this document.
Given the well-developed transportation system, a number of parcels in the Program are served by existing transit, bike and pedestrian facilities in the City. Transit services in the City are provided by Metrolink and OCTA. As described in Section 4.11.1, several OCTA bus routes provide transit services within the City. The Metrolink rail lines that service the City include the Orange County line and 91/Perris Valley line. The Fullerton Metrolink station is located at 120 East Santa Fe Avenue, southeast of Commonwealth Avenue and Harbor Boulevard intersection and has a park and ride lot and several bus routes connecting to the station site. There are several existing and proposed bike facilities along Bastanchurry Road, Valencia Drive, Yorba Linda Road, Nutwood Avenue, Wilshire Avenue, Commonweath Avenue , Orangethorpe Avenue , Wilshire Avenue, Rolling Hills Drive, and Rosecrans Avenue . The City’s bikeway plan would ensure construction of the proposed network and completion of the gaps and missing bike facilities throughout the City. It should be noted that a detailed inventory or assessment of the existing mobility conditions in the City is not within the scope of analysis of the Program. However, t he Program would not conflict with or impede implementation of policies, plans, ordinances, and programs addressing the circulation system,
4.11 – TRANSPORTATION
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.11-16
including transit, roadways, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian paths . The future projects would be required to comply with applicable General Plan Program EIR mitigation measures, which would be implemented as a Condition of Approval (COA). Refer to COA-TR 1 in Section 4.11.6.
The Program’s consistency with the Connect SoCal (the SCAG RTP/SCS), and City’s General Plan Mobility Element are discussed in detail in Section 4.5 Land use and Planning. As shown therein, the Program is consistent with Connect SoCal. Therefore, the proposed Program would result in a less -than-significant impact related to conflicts with the adopted General Plan addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
TRA-2. Would the Program conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) focuses on the metric of VMT adopted pursuant to SB 743 for determining the significance of transportation impacts. As discussed above in Section 4.11.2, Relevant Plans, Policies and Ordinances, pursuant to SB 743, the focus of transportation analys es changed from vehicle delay to VMT. The City has adopted its own VMT analysis guidelines and thresholds (TAPP, City of Fullerton 2020) . For the purposes of this PEIR, the recommended VMT analysis methodology and thresholds identified within the City’s TAPP have been used. The VMT Modeling Assumptions and Outputs memorandum prepared by Translutions is included in Appendix E.
Per the City’s TAPP, for a long- range planning land use project such as a general plan, only the cumulative impact analysis of the project's effect on VMT is required. Because the Program would have at least a nine year (2021-2029) or more timeline and proposes a zoning overlay for several hundred parcels in the City for the implementation of City’s Housing Element , the significance of VMT impact has been determined using project-effect on VMT.
Project Effect on VMT
As mentioned above, the metric used for the Program’s VMT analysis is VMT per Service Population. Service population is the sum total of population and employment. The base year 2016 and horizon or cumulative year 2045 model runs were conducted with and without the Program, by adjusting the model’s land use (i.e., SED) inputs.
▪ Baseline Project’s Effect on VMT – Based on the Boundary VMT methodology, as shown in Table
4.11-3, the Plus Project Baseline boundary citywide VMT per Service Population is 8.6 which is below the no Project Baseline boundary citywide VMT per Service Population of 11.1. ▪ Cumulative Project’s Effect on VMT –As shown as shown in Table 4.11 -3, the Plus Project Cumulative boundary citywide VMT per Service Population is 8.5 which is below the no Project Cumulative boundary citywide VMT per Service Population of 10.7.
Table 4.11-3. Project Effect on VMT – Baseline and Cumulative Conditions Criteria
Baseline Project
Effect on VMT
Cumulative Project
Effect on VMT
No Project boundary City-wide VMT 2,490,121 2,819,474
No Project City-wide Service Population (SP) 224,514 263,924 No Project boundary City-wide VMT/SP (Threshold) 11.1 10.7
4.11 – TRANSPORTATION
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.11-17
Table 4.11-3. Project Effect on VMT – Baseline and Cumulative Conditions Criteria
Baseline Project
Effect on VMT
Cumulative Project
Effect on VMT
With Project boundary City-wide VMT 2,761,767 3,065,365 With Project City-wide Service Population 322,073 361,483 With Project Boundary VMT/Service Population 8.6 8.5
Project Boundary VMT/SP compared to Threshold Below Below Potentially Significant Impact No No
Source: OCTAM Travel Demand Forecast Model, Translutions Inc.; Appendix E.
Impact Determination
As shown in Table 4.11 -3, the proposed Program’s effect on VM T would result in a less than significant impact because the citywide VMT per Service Population under with Project conditions is lower than the citywide VMT per Service Population under no Project conditions , under baseline and cumulative conditions. Consistent with the City ’s TAPP and based on the VMT methodology, criteria, thresholds and results, the proposed Program would not have a significant VMT impact under baseline or cumulative conditions. Therefore, the proposed Program would not conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) related to the VMT threshold. Impacts would be less than significant.
4.11.6 Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval
No mitigation measures are required for transportation. However, the following mitigation measure from the City’s General Plan Program EIR will be implemented as a standard Condition of Approval (COA) for the proposed Program.
COA-TR-1 Prior to approval of any General Plan Amendment and/or Zone Change associated with the focused planning efforts for The Fullerton Plan Focus Areas, the City and/or project proponent shall prepare a detailed multi-modal analysis in order to determine specific impacts associated with the proposed General Plan Amendment and/or Zone Change, and where applicable, identify mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant levels based on City adopted multi-modal thresholds. The multi-modal analysis shall specify the timing, funding, construction, and fair share responsibilities for all traffic improvements necessary to maintain satisfactory levels of service within the City of Fullerton and surrounding jurisdictions, in accordance with the s ignificant impact criteria established by the jurisdiction that controls the affected area.
4.11.7 Significance Conclusion
The Program would result in a less than significant impact. No mitigation measures are required.
4.11.8 Cumulative Effects
All development facilitated by implementation of the Program and elsewhere in the City, because of other cumulative projects, would be required to comply with all applicable local provisions related to the circulation system including preparation of a detailed multi-modal analysis per COA-TR-1. Therefore, the Program would result
4.11 – TRANSPORTATION
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.11-18
in a less-than-significant impact related to conflicts with the adopted plans and policies addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities under cumulative conditions.
As shown in Section 4.11.5 and Table 4.11-3, the VMT analysis of the Program under cumulative conditions for the year 2045 was conducted using the OCTAM. Based on the analysis of the project-effect on VMT under cumulative conditions, the proposed Program would have a less than significant cumulative VMT impact.
4.11.9 References Cited
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2002. Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies.
December 2002. https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/guide_preparation_traffic_impact_studies_caltrans.pdf.
Caltrans. 2020. Transportation Impact Study Guide. Vehicles Miles Traveled-Focused Draft. May 2020.
City of Fullerton. 2012. The Fullerton Plan. May 1, 2012.
City of Fullerton. 2020. Transportation Assessment Policies and Procedures. Adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2020-49. June 2020.
City of Fullerton. 2021. The Fullerton Plan (General Plan). Appendix H: 2021-2029 Housing Element. Draft.
November 2021. Accessed October 2023. https://gis.cityoffullerton.com/HousingElement/ Draft_2021-2029_Housing_Element.pdf.
OCTA (Orange County Transportation Commission) 2024. https://www.octa.net/about/about-octa/overview/.
OPR (Office of Planning and Research). 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.
Accessed October 2023. http://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf.
SCAG. 2020. The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments (Connect SoCal). https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/ file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176.
0 (752
/,1.
0(752/,1.
0(752/,1.
0(7
2 5$1*
()5:
<65
+2
9 2
5$1*
()5:
<65
+2
9 6$17$$1$)5:< ,
+
,
+29
6%($&+%/9'
526(&5$16$9 1$&$&,$$9
%/9'
2 5$1
5,9(56,'( )5:<
1(8&/,'67
1*
,/%(5767
5,9(56,'()5:<65
,03(5,$/+:<
5,9(56,'()5:<65
+29
5,9(56,'()5:<65
1+$5%2
5%/9'
2 5$1*
()5:
<65
+2
9 5,9(56,'()5:<65
+29
(%$67$1&+85
<5'
13/$&(17,$$9
%5($%/9'
:%$67$1&+85<5'
2 5$1*
()5:
<65
(25
/$0%(575'
5,9(56,'()5:<65
0$/9(51$9
(%$67$1&+85<5'
3,21((5$9
$57(6,$$9
(%,5&+67
5,9(56,'()5:<65
:&52:7+(5$9
1(8&/,'67
$662
&,$7('5'
/$0%(575'
52//,1*+,//6'5
6%($&+%/9'
:&20021:($/7+$9
)5:
<65
(/$63$/0$6'5
&20021:($/7+$9
3$5.65'
$/+:<
(9$/(1&,$'5
(25$1*(7+253($9
'2527+</1
/$.(9,(:
'5
5,9(56,'()5:<65
$57(6,$$9
%5($%/9'
$/
(%,5
(&+
((/067
1*,/%(5767
:5201(<$'5
0(752/,1.
//(*(%/9'
1%5$')2
5'$9
(/$0%(575'/$0%(575'
6,'$+2
67
(,03(5,$/+:<
25$1*(7+523($9
((/067
6+$5%2
5%/9'
(%,5&+67
13/$&(17,$$9
60
(/52
6(67
:9$//(<9,(:'5
%5($%/9'
(0,5$/20$
:/$0%(575'
(/$3$
(/$0%(575'
(%$67$1
1$662&,$7('5'
63$/0
67
(,03(5
(/$0
1+$5%25%/9'
6$662&,$7('5'
0$/9(51$9
52//,1*+,//6'5
1'$/(
:0$',621$9
6%52
2 .+85675'
+$5%2
5%/9'
1+$5%2
5%/9'
(8&/,'67
:,03(5,$/+:<
0 $*
12 /,$$9
:,03(5,$/+:<
1(8&/,'67
%$64
8($9
(,03(5,$/+:<
1/(0
2 167
(&20021:($/7+$9
6+,*+/$1'$9
6,'$+2
67
6%($&+%/9'
:&+$30$1$9
3$5.65'
(&+$30$1$9
:%$67$1&+85<5'
1*
,/%(5767
(25$1*(7+253($9
/$0%(575'
(&20021:($/7+$9
10
$*
12 /
167$7(&2
//(*
(%/9'
63$/067
*
,/%(5767
1%5($%/9'
1*
,/%(5767
:&20021:($/7+$9
(*2/'(
15$<0
2 1'$9
(&20021:($/7+$9
138(17(67
5,&+0
$1$9
9(51$9
1*
,/%(5767
0$/9(51$9
:&+$30$1$9
'2527+</1
:+,7$.(567
526(&5$16$9
1%(55
(&+$30$1$9
187:22'$9
%(55<67
:9$/(1&,$'5
1($676
6$&$&,$$9
(%$67$1&+85<5'
(&+$30$1$9
&$67/(:22''5
:9$/(1&,$'5
6%5($%/9'
%/9'
6(8&/,'67
15$<0
2 1'$9
18767
1$&$&,$
/$0%(575'
567 :9$/(1&,$'59$/(1&,$'5
1%$64
8($9
(,03(5,$/+:<
25$1*(7+253($9
15,&+0
$1$9
1%/8(*
80 67
1(8&/,
(/$0%(575'
1%5$')2
5'$9
(%$67$
1&+85
<5'
6%5($%/9'
(&5$16$9 :%$67$1&+85<5'
/(02167
1+$5%2
5 '$/(67
6+$5%25%/9'
63$/
9$/(1&,$'5
1%52
2 .+
1%(5.(/(<$9
187:22'$9
5%/9'
2 5$1*
()5:
<65
(0$',621$9
<35(6667
638(17(67
63/$&(17,$$9
1*
,/%(5767
(,03(5,$/+:<
$&+%/9'
13/$&(17,$$9
1+,*
+/$1'$9
6,'$+2
67
1(8&/,'67
1/(0
2 167
2&7$07$=V7$=VZLWKPRGLILFDWLRQVIRU)XOOHUWRQ+( /HJHQG
0LOHV
&LW\7$=VZLWK6('PRGLILFDWLRQV
&LW\7$=VZLWKRXW6('PRGLILFDWLRQV
7$=V
Path: Z:\Projects\j1288501\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Transportation FIGURE 4.11-1
OCTAM TAZ in Project Area
Fullerton Housing Incentive Overlay Zone PEIR
4.11 – TRANSPORTATION
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.11-20
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Exhibit 6: Roadway Classi/f_ications
!"^$
!"^$ A»
?l
Amendments pursuant to General Plan Revision adopted July 12, 2011 by Resolution 2011-31 incorporated by reference.
CITY OF
BREA
Commonwealth AveCommonwealth Ave
Pioneer Ave
Chapman Ave
Berkeley Ave
Chapman Ave
Nutwood Ave
Dorothy Ln
Bastanchury Rd
Rolling Hills Dr Rolling Hills Dr
Yorba Linda Blvd
Brea Blvd
Bastanchury RdValencia Mesa Dr
Rosecrans Ave
Malvern Ave
Valencia Dr
Valencia Dr
Orangethorpe Ave
Magnolia Ave
Gilbert St
Euclid St Euclid St
Euclid St
Harbor Blvd
Harbor Blvd
State College BlvdState College Blvd
Placentia Ave
Placentia Ave
Harbor Blvd
Lemon StLemon St
Raymond Ave Raymond Ave
Acacia Ave
Brookhurst Rd
Gilbert St
Parks Rd
CITY OF
PLACENTIA
CITY OF
BUENA PARK
CITY OF
LA MIRADA
CITY OF
LA HABRA
CITY OF ANAHEIM
Imperial Hwy
Imperial Hwy
Beach Blvd
Highland Ave
Basque Ave
Dale Ave
Sunny Ridge Dr
Castlewood Dr
Palm St
Laguna Rd
Richman Ave
Valley View Dr
Sunnycrest Dr
Basque Ave
Skyline Dr
Melody LnFullerton Creek Dr
Associated Rd
Bradford AveMadison Ave
Major Arterial Highway
Primary Arterial Highway
Secondary Arterial Highway
Local Collector Street
Legend
Roadway Classifications
City of Fullerton General Plan
Exhibit 6
Map not to a scale
´
Note: Street outside of the City limits are
provided for reference only per the Orange
County Master Plan of Arterial Highways.
Amendments pursuant to General Plan Revision adopted July 12, 2011 by Resolution 2011-31 incorporated by reference. 147Tables and Exhibits
The Fullerton
Built Environment
City of Fullerton Roadway Classification
Fullerton Housing Incentive Overlay Zone PEIR
FIGURE 4.11-2
Path: Z:\Projects\j1288501\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Transportation
4.11 – TRANSPORTATION
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.11-22
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
System Map
KNOTT
GOLDENWESTGOLDENWEST
CHAPMAN
MALVERN
BOLSA CHICABOLSA CHICA
GRAHAM
PCH
PACIFIC COAST HWY
PCH
PCH
PCH
PCH
STANDARD
PASEO DE VALENCIA
DEL OBISPO
CABOT
OSO
RANCHO VIEJO
CAMINOCAPISTRANO
BROADWAY
LAGUNA CANYON
EL TORO
EL TORO
ALICIA
NIGUEL
ALICIA
LOS ALISOS
ALICIA
JERONIMO
LA PAZ
ALTON
BAKE
ALTON
BARRANCA
CROWN VALLEY
MARGUERITE
MARGUERITE
PORTOLA
MUIRLANDSROCKFIELD
LAKE FOREST
SANTA MARGARITA
JUNIPERO SERRA
PORTOLA
IRVINE
IRVINEBRYANWALNUT
JEFFREY
JEFFREY
SAND CANYON
MICHELSON
CAMPUS
UNIVERSITY
EAST BLUFF
TALBERT
SLATER
GOTHARD
MACARTHUR
MACARTHUR
MACARTHUR
JAMBOREE
SUNFLOWER
ADAMS
WARNER WARNER
NEWPORT
REDHILL
REDHILL
BALBOA
EDINGER
IRVINE CENTER DRIVE
EDINGER
GOLDEN LANTERN
MCFADDEN
NEWPORT
WESTMINSTER
7TH
TUSTIN
TUSTIN
ROSE
LAKEVIEW
IMPERIAL
BIRCH
BREA
KRAEMER
GLASSELL
GRAND
BARRANCA
CAMPUS
VON KARMAN
JAMBOREE
STATE COLLEGE STATE COLLEGE
KRAEMER
BRISTOL BRISTOL
BRISTOLUNIVERSITY
GARDEN GROVE
LA VETA
FOOTHILL
HEWES
CHAPMAN
WALNUT
MEATS
WANDA
VALLEY VIEW
SANTIAGO
CANYON
MAIN
CULVER
HARVARD
FLOWER
KATELLAKATELLA
LAMPSON
FAIR
BAKER
FAIRVIEW
FAIRVIEW
ANAHEIM
WILSON
ORANGE
PLACENTIA
BALL BALL
TAFT
HARBOR
19TH
SEAL BEACH
LOS ALAMITOS NORWALK
STUDEBAKER
LINCOLNLINCOLN
LINCOLN
LA PALMA
LA PALMA
EUCLID EUCLIDEUCLID
EUCLID
BROOKHURST
BROOKHURST
MAGNOLIA
MAGNOLIAMAGNOLIA
HAMILTON
ORANGETHORPE
GRIDLEY
ORANGETHORPE
MIRALOMA
BEACH
BEACH
WHITTIER
LA HABRA
BEACH
1ST
MAIN
COMMONWEALTH
ARTESIA
YORBA LINDA
LEMON
FRONTERA
LOS MARES
SUPERIOR
WEIR CANYON
TUSTIN RANCH
PCH
STANDARD
EDINGER
MCFADDEN
BOLSA 1ST
17TH
NEWPORT
CENTER
CHAPMAN
MAIN
KATELLA
MAINMAIN
FAIRVIEW HASTER
LEMON
ANAHEIM
WILSON
HARBOR HARBOR
HARBOR
LA PALMA
LA PALMA
EUCLID
MAGNOLIA
ORANGETHORPE
BEACH
BEACH
LA HABRA
BREA
YORBA LINDA
PLACENTIA
FULLERTON
BUENA
PARK
LA PALMA
CYPRESS
LOS ALAMITOS
WESTMINSTER
SANTA ANA
FOUNTAIN
VALLEY
HUNTINGTON
BEACH
COSTA
MESA
NEWPORT
BEACH
STANTON
GARDEN
GROVE
SEAL
BEACH
ANAHEIM HILLS
ANAHEIM
ORANGE
NORTH
TUSTIN
TUSTIN
IRVINE
LAKE
FOREST
MISSION
VIEJO
RANCHO
SANTA
MARGARITA
LAGUNA
WOODS
LAGUNA
HILLS
LAGUNA
NIGUEL
DANA
POINT
SAN CLEMENTE
SAN JUAN
CAPISTRANO
LAGUNA
BEACH
ALISO
VIEJO
VILLA
PARK
FULLERTON
TRANSPORTATION
CENTER
FULLERTON
PARK-AND-RIDE
NEWPORT
TRANSPORTATION
CENTER
LAGUNA HILLS
TRANSPORTATION
CENTER
LAGUNA BEACH
BUS STATION
GOLDENWEST
TRANSPORTATION
CENTER
BUENA PARK
STATION
FULLERTON STATION
ANAHEIM CANYON
STATION
ARTIC STATION
ORANGE
STATION
SANTA ANA STATION
IRVINE
STATION
MISSION VIEJO
LAGUNA NIGUEL
STATION
SAN JUAN
CAPISTRANO
STATION
SAN CLEMENTE
STATION
TUSTIN
STATION
55 55
55 5 5
55 76
70 70
66 60
57 57
56 54
5453
53 47
47 5747
47 47
543
543
38 37
37 37
29 29
25 25
25 25
453
862
472
472
473
480
480
473472
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
55 55
55 55
55 91
91 91
91 91
91 89
89 89
87 87
87 87
86 86
86 86
86 86
86 85
85 85
82 82
79 79
79 79
79 79
76 72
72 72
71 71
71 167
143 143
143
129
129
129
167
167
178
178
178
178
178
167
167
177
177
177
150
150
71 71
71 71
71 70
70 70
90 90
90 66
83 83
83 83
83 66
6464
60 60
60 60
59 59
59 59
59 57
57 57
57 57
56 56
6 5
56 54
53 3 55
3 55
53 53
50 50
54 50
50 50
50 47
47 47
1 47
46 46
46 43
43 43
43 543
529
529
529
560
42 42
42 4242A
123
123
123
123
123
42 3838
38 37
37 35
35 35
35 33
33 33
30 30
30 30
29 29
29 29
26 26
26 26
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 405
405
405
22 22
73 73
133
133
22 55
55 55
919191
91 57
57 57
241
241
241
241
261
OCbus.com
Rail Stations
OC Bus Transit Centers
Effective February 11, 2024
OC Flex Zone
Unlimited rides only $5 a day!
Serving parts of Aliso Viejo/
Laguna Niguel/Mission Viejo.
North
100
1 400
500
Local Routes (1-99)
800 City Shuttle
Community Routes (100-199)
Metrolink Stationlink Routes
(400-499)
Weekday Rush Hour Only
Bravo Limited Stop Service
(500-599)
Map not to scale
21 MILES
Orange County Transit System Map
Fullerton Housing Incentive Overlay Zone PEIR
Path:Z:\Projects\j1288501\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Transportation FIGURE 4.11-3
4.11 – TRANSPORTATION
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.11-24
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Tables and Exhibits
The Fullerton
Built Environment
CITY OF
BREA
Commonwealth Ave
Wilshire Ave
Commonwealth Ave
Pioneer Ave
Chapman Ave
Union Pacific Right-of-Way
Valley View Dr
Berkeley Ave
Chapman Ave
Nutwood Ave
Victoria Dr
Riverside Dr
Dorothy Ln
Bastanchury Rd
Rolling Hills DrRolling Hills Dr
Yorba Linda Blvd
Madison
Ave
Brea Blvd
Hermosa Dr
Bastanchury RdValencia Mesa Dr
Artesia Ave
Rosecrans Ave
Malvern Ave
Hughes Dr Warburton WyBenchley St
Castlewood Dr
Valencia Dr
Valencia Dr
Southgate Ave
Roberta Ave Baker Ave
Hill Ave
Orangethorpe Ave Orangethorpe Ave
Olive Ave
Magnolia Ave
Gilbert St
Basque Ave
Richman Ave Richman Ave
Highland Ave
Euclid St
Euclid St
Lakeview Dr
Laguna Rd
Woods Ave
Puente St
Harbor Blvd
Harbor Blvd
Sunnycrest Dr
State College BlvdState College Blvd
Placentia Ave
Placentia Ave
Harbor Blvd
Associated Rd
Pomona Ave
Lemon St
Longview Dr
Lemon St
Raymond Ave
State Hwy 57
Acacia Ave
Brookhurst Rd
Gilbert St
Sunny Ridge Dr
Parks Rd
CITY OF
PLACENTIA
CITY OF
BUENA PARK
CITY OF
LA MIRADA
CITY OF
LA HABRA
CITY OF ANAHEIM 0.5 1
Miles
Existing Bikeways Network
City of Fullerton Bicycle Master Plan
Exhibit 3.1
Legend
Existing Class I Bike Path
Existing Class II Bike Lane
Existing Class III Bike Route
Existing Multi-purpose Path
CSUF Routes
0 0.25
Legend
Map not to a scale
´
Exhibit 11: Existing Bikeways
Existing and Proposed Bikeway Facilities
Fullerton Housing Incentive Overlay Zone PEIR
Path: Z:\Projects\j1288501\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Transportation FIGURE 4.11-4
4.11 – TRANSPORTATION
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.11-26
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4.12 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.12-1
4.12 Tribal Cultural Resources
This section describes the existing tribal cultural resources (TCR s) conditions of the Planning Area and vicinity, identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, and identifies mitigation measures related to implementation of the proposed Program.
4.12.1 Existing Conditions
The Program is proposed within the City of Fullerton (City), a city located in north Orange County, California, as shown in Figure 3-1, Regional Location. The proposed Program would apply to select parcels across the City. Given the Citywide nature of the Program, the location of identified parcels is collectively defined as the “Planning Area” as shown in Figure 3-2, Fullerton HIOZ Map. The Planning Area is comprised of 759 parcels across the City totaling 593 acres. The City is characterized as a predomin antly suburban residential community with the most prevalent housing type being single-family detached homes (City of Fullerton 2021). Under existing conditions, the Planning Area contains a variety of commercial (i.e., retail stores, restaurants, shopping centers, etc.), industrial (i.e., warehouse, industrial parks, auto repair, etc.), and office land uses as well as vacant land (e.g., parking lots).
Ethnographic Setting
The Planning Area falls within the ethnographic boundary of the Gabrielino. Based on evidence presented through past archaeological investigations, the Gabrielino appear to have arrived in the Los Angeles Basin around 500 B.C. Surrounding native groups included the Chumash and Tataviam to the northwest, the Serrano and Cahuilla to the northeast, and the Juaneño and Luiseño to the southeast.
The names by which Native Americans identified themselves have, for the most part, been lost and replaced by those derived by the Spanish people administering the local Missions. These names were not necessarily representative of a specific ethnic or triba l group, and traditional tribal names are unknown in the post -Contact period. The name “Gabrielino” was first established by the Spanish from the San Gabriel Mission and included people from the established Gabrielino area as well as other social groups (B ean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1925). Many modern Native Americans commonly referred to as Gabrielino identify themselves as descendants of the indigenous people living across the plains of the Los Angeles Basin and refer to themselves as the Tongva (King 1994). This term is used here in reference to the pre-Contact inhabitants of the Los Angeles Basin and their descendants.
The Tongva established large, permanent villages along rivers and streams, and lived in sheltered areas along the coast. Tongva lands included the greater Los Angeles Basin and three Channel Islands, San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Catalina and stretched from the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains to the Pacific Ocean. Tribal population has been estimated to be at least 5,000 (Bean and Smith 1978), but recent ethnohistoric work suggests a much larger population , approaching 10,000 (O’Neil 2002). Archaeological sites composed of villages with various sized structures have been identified through the Los Angeles Basin . Within the permanent village sites, the Tongva constructed large, circular, domed houses made of willow poles thatched with tule, each of which could hold upwards of 50 people (Bean and Smith 1978). Other structures constructed throughout the villages probably served as sweathouses, menstrual huts, ceremonial enclosures, and communal granaries. Cleared fields for races and games, such as lacrosse and pole throwing, were created adjacent to Tongva villages (McCawley 1996).
The largest, and best documented, ethnographic Tongva village in the vicinity was that of Yanga (also known as Yaangna, Janga, and Yabit), which was in the vicinity of the downtown Los Angeles (McCawley 1996:56 -57; NEA
4.12 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.12-2
and King 2004). This village was reportedly first encountered by the Portola expedition in 1769. In 1771, Mission San Gabriel was established. Yanga provided a large number of the recruitments to this mission; however, following the founding of the Pueblo of Los Angeles in 1781, opportunities for local paid work became increasingly common, which had the result of reducing the number of Native American neophytes from the immediately surrounding area (NEA and King 2004). Mission records indicate that 179 Gabr ieleno inhabitants of Yanga were recruited to San Gabriel Mission (King 2000:65; NEA and King 2004: 104). Based on this information, Yanga may have been the most populated village in the Western Gabrieleno territory. Second in size, and less thoroughly doc umented, the village of Cahuenga was located slightly closer, just north of the Cahuenga Pass Father Juan Crespi passed through the area near this village on August 2-3, 1769. The pertinent sections from his translated diary are provided here:
Sage for refreshment is very plentiful at all three rivers and very good here at the Porciúncula [the Los Angeles River]. At once on our reaching here, eight heathens came over from a good sized village encamped at this pleasing spot among some trees. They came bringing two or three large bowls or baskets half-full of very good sage with other sorts of grass seeds that they consume; all brought their bows and arrows but with the strings removed from the bows. In his hands the chief bore strings of shell bea ds of the sort that they use, and on reaching the camp they threw the handfuls of these beads at each of us. Some of the heathens came up smoking on pipes made of baked clay, and they blew three mouthfuls of smoke into the air toward each one of us. The Captain and myself gave them tobacco, and he gave them our own kind of beads, and accepted the sage from them and gave us a share of it for refreshment; and very delicious sage it is for that purpose.
We set out at a half past six in the morning from this pleasing, lush river and valley of Our Lady of Angeles of La Porciúncula. We crossed the river here where it is carrying a good deal of water almost at ground level, and on crossing it, came into a gre at vineyard of grapevines and countless rose bushes having a great many open blossoms, all of it very dark friable soil. Keeping upon a westerly course over very grass-grown, entirely level soils with grand grasses, on going about half a league we came upon the village belonging to this place, where they came out to meet and see us, and men, women, and children in good numbers, on approaching they commenced howling at us though they had been wolves, just as before back at the spot called San Francisco Solan o. We greeted them and they wished to give us seeds. As we had nothing at hand to carry them in, we refused [Brown 2002:339-341, 343].
The environment surrounding the Tongva included mountains, foothills, valleys, deserts, riparian, estuarine, and open and rocky coastal eco-niches. Like most native Californians, acorns (the processing of which was established by the early Intermediate Period) were the staple food source. Acorns were supplemented by the roots, leaves, seeds, and fruits of a wide variety of flora (e.g., islay, cactus, yucca, sages, and agave). Fresh water and saltwater fish, shellfish, birds, reptiles, and insects, as well as large and small mammals, were also consumed (Bean and Smith 1978:546; Kroeber 1925; McCawley 1996).
Tools and implements used by the Tongva to gather and collect food resources included the bow and arrow, traps, nets, blinds, throwing sticks and slings, spears, harpoons, and hooks. Trade between the mainland and the Channel Islands Groups was conducted using plank canoes as well as tule balsa canoes. These canoes were also used for general fishing and travel (McCawley 1996).
4.12 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.12-3
The collected food resources were processed food with hammerstones and anvils, mortars and pestles, manos and metates, strainers, leaching baskets and bowls, knives, bone saws, and wooden drying racks. Catalina Island steatite was used to make ollas and cooking vessels (Blackburn 1963; Kroeber 1925; McCawley 1996).
The Chinigchinich cult, centered on the last of a series of heroic mythological figures, was the basis of religious life at the time of Spanish contact. The Chinigchinich cult not only provided laws and institutions, but it also taught people how to dance, which was the primary religious act for this society. The Chinigchinich religion seems to have been relatively new when the Spanish arrived. It was spreading south into the Southern Takic groups even as Christian missions were being built. This cult may be the result of a mixture of native and Christian belief systems and practices (McCawley 1996).
Inhumation of deceased Tongva was the more common method of burial on the Channel Islands while neighboring mainland coast people performed cremation (Harrington 1942; McCawley 1996). Cremation ashes have been found buried within stone bowls and in shell dishes (Ashby and Winterbourne 1966), as well as scattered among broken ground stone implements (Cleland et al. 2007). Supporting this finding in the archaeological record, ethnographic descriptions have provided an elaborate mourning ceremony. Offerings varied with the sex and status of the deceased (Johnston 1962; McCawley 1996; Reid 1926). At the behest of the Spanish missionaries, cremation essentially ceased during the post-Contact period (McCawley 1996).
4.12.2 Background Research
California Historical Research Information System Records Search A California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) records search for the Planning Area was completed on November 7, 2023, at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC). The records search included a review of all recorded cultural resources and previous studies within the Planning Area’s records search area. The SCCIC records indicate that 41 previous cultural resources studies have been conducted within or immediately adjacent to the Planning Area between 1990 and 2012 (Appendix F-4 [Confidential]). Table 4.12-1, below, provides a complete list of all 41 previous cultural resources studies within or immediately adjacent to the Planning Area.
Table 4.12-1. Previous Cultural Resource Studies Within or Immediately Adjacent to the Planning Area
Report
Number Year Title Author
OR-00474 1977 Description and Evaluation of the Cultural Resources Within Brea, Carbon Canyon, Fullerton and San Antonio
Reservoirs, Santa Ana River Basin, Orange, Los Angeles, and San Bernadino Counties
Martz, Patricia
OR-00554 1977 Cultural Resource Survey for 13.7 Acres in the City of Placentia
Cottrell, Marie G.
OR-00985 1989 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the 375 Acre East Coyote Hills Unocal Project, Fullerton, California
Brown, Joan C.
OR-01114 1991 An Archaeological Assessment for the Florence Crittenton Services of Orange County Fullerton, California
Cameron, Constance
OR-01523 1996 Report of Archaeological Survey for L.A. Cellular Site #69.1, 34200 N. Harbor Boulevard, La Habra, Orange
County
Demcak, Carol R.
4.12 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.12-4
Table 4.12-1. Previous Cultural Resource Studies Within or Immediately Adjacent to the Planning Area
Report
Number Year Title Author
OR-01556 1997 Cultural Resources Assessment of the Hughes Fullerton Site, City of Fullerton, Orange County, California
Allen, Kathleen C.
OR-01596 1974 Preliminary Report of the Potential Impact on Archaeological Resources of the Proposed Gas
Transmission Pipeline From Los Angeles Harbor to Yorba
Linda - Southern California Gas Co.: Environmental
Analysis
Clewlow, William C. Jr.
OR-01773 1998 Cultural Resources Survey Report for a Pacific Bell Mobile Services Telecommunications Facility: Cm 081-02,
Fullerton, Orange County, California
Mason, Roger D.
OR-02122 1980 An Archaeological Survey of the Gilbert Street Alignment, City of Fullerton, County of Orange, California
Jertberg, Patricia R.
OR-02221 2000 Cultural Resource Assessment for At&t Fixed Wireless Services Facility Number Oc_042_a, County of Orange,
California
Duke, Curt
OR-02256 1999 Cultural Resources Assessments for Orange County Sanitation Districts
Demcak, Carol R.
OR-02280 2000 Cultural Resource Assessment for At&t Fixed Wireless Services Facility Number Oc_420_a, County of Orange, Ca Duke, Curt
OR-02281 2000 Cultural Resource Assessment for At&t Fixed Wireless Services Facility Number Oc_741_a, County of Orange,
California
Duke, Curt
OR-02359 2001 Cultural Resource Assessment Cingular Wireless Facility No. Sm-056-02, Orange County, California
Duke, Curt
OR-02458 2002 Cultural Resource Assessment At&t Wireless Services Facility No. 13072a Orange County, California
Duke, Curt
OR-02563 2002 Archaeological Assessment for Orangethorpe Avenue Reconstruction Project From Courtney Avenue to
Eadington Avenue (#4400), City of Fullerton, California Demcak, Carol R.
OR-02564 2002 Report of Archaeological Assessment for Paseo Park, City of Fullerton, California
Demcak, Carol R.
OR-02740 2002 Archaeological Assessment for Orangethorpe Avenue Reconstruction Project From Euclid Street to Woods
Avenue (#4446), City of Fullerton, California
Demcak, Carol R.
OR-02748 2001 Cultural Resource Assessment Cingular Wireless Facility No. Sm 019-03 Orange County, California
Duke, Curt
OR-02762 2002 Archaeological Assessment for Orangethorpe Avenue Reconstruction Project (#4435), City of Fullerton,
California
Demcak, Carol R.
OR-02768 2002 Archaeological Survey and Record Search for Ospc-0038, La/fullerton, Fullerton, Orange County (800-42)
Holson, John
OR-02832 2003 Records Search for Crosswalk Lighting Project, Raymond Ave. at Wilshire Ave., City of Fullerton
Allen, Kathleen C.
OR-02837 2003 Roadway Reconstruction Including Removal and Replacement of Failed Pavement in the City of Fullerton Demcak, Carol R.
4.12 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.12-5
Table 4.12-1. Previous Cultural Resource Studies Within or Immediately Adjacent to the Planning Area
Report
Number Year Title Author
OR-02838 2003 Roadway Reconstruction Including Removal and Replacement of Failed Pavement in the City of Fullerton Demcak, Carol R.
OR-03034 2004 Cultural Resource Assessment for At&t Wireless Facility 950-013-039c 3070 Lakeview Drive City of Fullerton
Orange County, California
Kyle, Carolyn E.
OR-03039 2005 Cultural Resources Records Search Results and Site Visit for T-Mobile Candidate LA02865c (Stater Bros. Center)
1000 East Bastanchury Road, Fullerton, Orange County,
California
Bonner, Wayne H.
OR-03048 2004 Report of Archaeological Assessment for Laguna Elementary School "Suggested Routes to School
Improvement Project", City of Fullerton, California
Demcak, Carol R.
OR-03214 2005 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for Cingular Wireless Candidate Lsanca3039e (Mr.
Waterbed), 3121 Yorba Linda Boulevard, Fullerton,
Orange County, California
Bonner, Wayne H.
OR-03298 2003 (see LA7871) Historical Resource Evaluation Report Third Main Track and Grade Seperation Project Hobart (mp
148.9) to Basta (mp 163.3), Bnsf/metrolink East-west
Main Line Railroad Track, Vernon to Fullerton, Los Angeles and Orange Counties, California
Tang, Bai "Tom" and
Teresa Woodard
OR-03383 2007 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for Royal Street Communications, LLC Candidate La0876b
(All Purpose Storage), 811 Williamson Avenue, Fullerton, Orange County, California
Bonner, Wayne H. and
Bonner, Diane F.
OR-03509 2003 Cultural Resources Survey, Fullerton College, North Orange County Community College District
Secord, Paul R.
OR-03517 2008 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile Candidate LA33407A (OEM Press Systems),
331 South Highland Avenue, Fullerton, Orange County,
California
Bonner, Wayne H. and
Kathleen A. Crawford
OR-03822 2006 Historic Property Survey Report and Archaeological Survey Report for the State Route 57 Northbound Widening
Project 0.3 km (02 mi) South of Orangethorpe Avenue to
0.2 km (0.1 mi) North of Lambert Road in the Cities of
Placentia, Fullerton, and Brea, Orange County, CA.
Harper, Caprice
OR-04011 2009 Cultural Resource Assessment, Verizon Wireless Services Bastanchury Facility, City of Fullerton, Orange County, California
Fulton, Phil and Terri
Fulton
OR-04051 2009 Cultural Resource Assessment - Verizon Wireless Services Brookdale Facility, City of Fullerton, Orange County,
California
Fulton, Phil
OR-04104 2002 Historic Resource Inventory for the City of Placentia:
Update 2002
Antram, Marie, Orr,
Shannon, Vasquez,
Liliana, L. de Graf, and
Jertberg, Pat
4.12 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.12-6
Table 4.12-1. Previous Cultural Resource Studies Within or Immediately Adjacent to the Planning Area
Report
Number Year Title Author
OR-04145 2011 A Cultural Resources Investigation for the College Town @ Cal State Fullerton Specific Plan Project Area in the City of Fullerton, Orange County, California
McKenna, Jeanette A.
OR-04147 2011 LA3039 - Mr. Waterbed, 3121 Yorba Linda Boulevard, Fullerton, CA 92831
Wlodarski, Robert J.
OR-04209 2011 Results of a Phase I Archaeological Study for Proposed AT&T Wireless Telecommunications Site LA03115 (Jaken)
located at 2356 East Walnut Avenue, Fullerton, CA 92831 Wlodarski, Robert J.
OR-04227 2012 Addendum Report" A Cultural Resources Investigation for the College Town @ Cal State Fullerton Specific Plan
Project Area in the City of Fullerton, Orange County,
California
McKenna, Jeanette
OR-04342 1990 Test Phase of a Portion of the East Coyote Hills Unocal Project, Fullerton, California
Brown, Joan C.
Source: Appendix F-4 (Confidential)
Previously Recorded Cultural Resources
The records search results indicate that five cultural resources intersect the Planning Area (Table 4.12-2) and eight cultural resources are located immediately adjacent to the Planning Area. Out of the five cultural resources that intersect the Planning Area, four are historic era built environment resources, and one is a multicomponent resource consisting of a p rehistoric flake and core, a historic refuse pit , and railroad ties identified during monitoring (Appendix F-4 [Confidential]) .
Table 4.12-2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Intersecting the Planning Area Primary
Number Trinomial
Resource Type
and Age Description
Year
Recorded
NRHP/CRHR
Status
P-30-
001724
CA-ORA-
001724/H
Archaeological
Site:
Multicomponent
Prehistoric flake, core. Historic
refuse pit, railroad tries found
during monitoring.
2013 Not evaluated
P-30-
157281
N/A Built
Environment:
Historic
Commercial/industrial
building: Sanitary Laundry
1979 Not evaluated
P-30-
157282
N/A Built
Environment:
Historic
Commercial property: 229 W
Santa Fe
1979 Not evaluated
P-30-
177118
N/A Built
Environment:
Historic
Commercial property: LDS
Student Center
2011 Not eligible
P-30-
177119
N/A Built
Environment:
Historic
Commercial property:
Commercial Shopping Center
2011 Not eligible
Source: Appendix F-4 (Confidential)
Notes: NRHP = National Register of Historic Places; CRHR = California Register of Historical Resources.
4.12 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.12-7
Historic Aerial Review
In addition to the SCCIC records search, an online review of historic aerial photographs of the Planning Area and general vicinity were reviewed to determine the possible development and land use history of the Planning Area.
There were 27 historic aerial photographs of the Planning Area available from 1930 to 2020 (UCSB 2023; NETR 2023). The earliest aerial photograph of Fullerton is dated to 1930. At the time the aerial photograph was taken, developed areas were concentrated north of Orangethorpe Avenue, west of Acacia Avenue, and east of Euclid Street. The remaining areas consist primarily of agricultural fields. By the early 1950s, Fullerton has expanded to the east to Gilbert Street. By the early 1960s, the Riverside Freeway is present, Fullerton has expanded, is largely developed, and appears as it does currently.
Historic topographic (topo) maps of the Planning Area were also reviewed, the earliest of which is from 1896.
Fullerton is present on the topo maps as early as 1896 , however, most roads are concentrated in the current Downtown Fullerton area. Brea Creek which currently intersects Fullerton, is depicted approximately 200 feet north of Fullerton. The Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad is present, and there is a waterway running through Brea Canyon to the north. On the 1935 topo map, Fullerton has expanded but largely remains north of Orangethorpe Avenue, east of Euclid Street, and west of Raymond Avenue. By the mid -1960s, the Riverside Freeway is present, Fullerton has expanded and is mostly developed (Appendix F-4 [Confidential]).
Native American Coordination
Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File
A search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Land Files (SLF) was requested on November 16, 2023, and results were received on December 11, 2023. Although the search was positive, it is important to note that the results of the SLF provided by the NAHC relate to the general area around the Planning Area and doesn’t does not affirm that any resources in the SLF are in the Planning Area itself (Appendix F-1).
The NAHC identified sixteen Native American individuals who would potentially have specific knowledge as to whether or not Native American cultural resources are identified within or near th e Planning Area. Note: Sacred Land Files maintained by the NAHC represent a curation of “ancient places of special religious or social significance to Native Americans and known ancient graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private and public lands in California” (NAHC 2023) provided by Tribal entities and Native American representatives. For various reasons, Tribal entities and Native American representatives do no not always report sacred lands or TCRs to the NAHC; as such, the NAHC’s SLF is not necessarily a comprehensive list of known TCRs and searches of the SLF must be considered in concert with other research and not used as a sole source of information regarding the presence of TCRs.
Assembly Bill 52
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 defines TCRs as those archaeological sites identified by tribal individuals that are eligible for or listed in the California Register of Historical Resources , or resources that are accompanied by substantial evidence such that the lead agency designates a resource as a TCR. As such, it is appropriate to review identification of prehistoric archaeological resources that have the potential to be identified by co nsulting tribes as a TCR, by referring to records searches and cultural resources inventories.
A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCR is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment (PRC Section 21084.2). Under AB 52, a TCR must have tangible,
4.12 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.12-8
geographically defined properties that can be impacted by project implementation. The Program is subject to compliance with AB 52.
The City sent notification of the Program to all California Native American tribal representatives that have requested project notifications from the City pursuant to AB 52 and that are on file with the NAHC as being traditionally or culturally affiliated with the geographic area on August 31, 2023, and again on April 19, 2024. These notification letters included a Planning Area map and description inquiring if the tribe would like to consult to discuss the Program and the potential to impact any TCRs. AB 52 allows tribes 30 days after receiving notification to request consultation. If a response is not received within the allotted 30 days, it is assumed that consultation is declined.
To date, one response has been received from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, requesting AB 52 consultation with the City. Table 4.12-3 summarizes the results of the AB 52 process for the Program.
Table 4.12-3. Tribal Outreach Results for AB 52-Listed Contacts Native American
Tribal
Representatives
Method and Date
of Initial
Notification
Response to City
Notification Letters Notes
Andrew Salas,
Chairman
Gabrieleno Band of
Mission Indians – Kizh
Nation
August 31, 2023 –
Email
August 31, 2023
Response received
and consultation was
requested.
An additional response was received
on February 13, 2024, asked about
potential ground disturbance impacts.
City sent an additional letter via
certified mail on April 19, 2024. A
response was received on April 19,
2024, and consultation requested for
all future projects within the HIOZ
Planning Area.
City made phone call and voicemail on
April 22, 2024, and phone call and
voicemail on May 3, 2024. No
response.
Joyce Stanfield Perry,
Tribal Manager
Juaneño Band of
Mission Indians –
Acjachemen Nation
August 31, 2023 –
Email
N/A City sent an additional letter via
certified mail on April 19, 2024, and
requested a response by May 3, 2024.
City made phone call and voicemail on
April 22, 2024, and phone call and
voicemail on May 3, 2024. No
response.
Joseph Ontiveros,
Cultural Resources
Director
Soboba Band of
Luiseño Indians
August 31, 2023 –
Email
N/A City sent an additional letter via
certified mail on April 19, 2024, and
requested a response by May 3, 2024.
City made phone call and voicemail on
April 22, 2024, and phone call and
voicemail on May 3, 2024. No
response.
4.12 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.12-9
Table 4.12-3. Tribal Outreach Results for AB 52-Listed Contacts Native American
Tribal
Representatives
Method and Date
of Initial
Notification
Response to City
Notification Letters Notes
San Dunlap, Cultural
Resources Director
Gabrieliño – Tongva
Tribe
August 31, 2023 –
Email
N/A City sent an additional letter via
certified mail on April 19, 2024, and
requested a response by May 3, 2024.
City made phone call and voicemail on
April 22, 2024, and phone call and
voicemail on May 3, 2024. No
response.
Source: Appendix F-2.
Notes: AB = Assembly Bill; City = City of Arcadia.
Senate Bill 18
According to S enate Bill (SB) 18, the City has a responsibility to initiate consultation with tribes/groups listed on the California NAHC’s official SB 18 contact list for amendment of a General Plan. SB 18 requires the City to send a letter to each contact on the NAHC’s SB 18 list, e xtending an invitation for consultation. Tribes will have 90 days from receipt of the letter to request consultation. The City must also send a notice to all contacts 45 days prior to adopting the amended General Plan, as well as a third notice 10 days pri or to any public hearing regarding the General Plan amendment.
The City sent notification of the Program to all California Native American tribal representatives that have requested notifications pursuant to SB 18 and that are on file with the NAHC as being traditionally or culturally affiliated with the geographic area. Table 4.12-4 summarizes the results of the SB 18 process.
Table 4.12-4. Tribal Outreach Results for SB 18-Listed Contacts Native American
Tribal
Representatives
Method and Date
of Notification
Response to City
Notification Letters Consultation Date and Results
Andrew Salas,
Chairman
Gabrieleno Band of
Mission Indians – Kizh
Nation
August 31, 2023 –
Email
April 19, 2024
Consultation
requested for all
future projects within
the HIOZ Planning
Area.
City sent an additional letter via
certified mail on April 19, 2024, and
requested a response by May 3, 2024.
City made phone call and voicemail on
April 22, 2024, and phone call and
voicemail on May 3, 2024.
Joyce Stanfield Perry,
Tribal Manager
Juaneño Band of
Mission Indians –
Acjachemen Nation
August 31, 2023 –
Email
N/A City sent an additional letter via
certified mail on April 19, 2024, and
requested a response by May 3, 2024.
City made phone call and voicemail on
April 22, 2024, and phone call and
voicemail on May 3, 2024.
No response.
4.12 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.12-10
Table 4.12-4. Tribal Outreach Results for SB 18-Listed Contacts Native American
Tribal
Representatives
Method and Date
of Notification
Response to City
Notification Letters Consultation Date and Results
Joseph Ontiveros,
Cultural Resources
Director
Soboba Band of
Luiseño Indians
August 31, 2023 –
Email
N/A City sent an additional letter via
certified mail on April 19, 2024, and
requested a response by May 3, 2024.
City made phone call and voicemail on
April 22, 2024, and phone call and
voicemail on May 3, 2024.
No response.
San Dunlap, Cultural
Resources Director
Gabrieliño – Tongva
Tribe
August 31, 2023 –
Email
N/A City sent an additional letter via
certified mail on April 19, 2024, and
requested a response by May 3, 2024.
City made phone call and voicemail on
April 22, 2024, and phone call and
voicemail on May 3, 2024.
No response.
Robert Dorame,
Chairperson
Gabrieleno Tongva
Indians of California
Tribal Council
May 14, 2024 –
Email
N/A No response at the time of circulating
this Draft PEIR.
Sandonne Goad,
Chairperson
Gabrieleno/Tongva
Nation
May 14, 2024 –
Email
N/A No response at the time of circulating
this Draft PEIR.
Anthony Morales,
Chairperson
Gabrieleno/Tongva
San Gabriel Band of
Mission Indians
May 14, 2024 –
Email
N/A No response at the time of circulating
this Draft PEIR.
Alexis Wallick,
Assistant Tribal
Historic Preservation
Officer
Pala Band of Mission
Indians
May 14, 2024 –
Email
N/A No response at the time of circulating
this Draft PEIR.
Lovina Redner, Tribal
Chair
Santa Rosa Band of
Cahuilla Indians
May 14, 2024 –
Email
N/A No response at the time of circulating
this Draft PEIR.
Source: Appendix F-3.
Notes: SB = Senate Bill; City = City of Fullerton.
4.12 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.12-11
4.12.3 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
State
California Register of Historical Resources
In California, the term “historical resource” includes:
any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, milita ry, or cultural annals of California. (California PRC Section 5020.1[j])
In 1992, the California legislature established the CRHR “to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (PRC Section 5024.1[a]). The criteria for listing resources on the CRHR were expressly developed to be in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing in the NRHP, enumerated below. According to PRC Section 5024.1(c)(1–4), a resource is considered historically significant if it (i) retains “substantial integrity,” and (ii) meets at least one of the following criteria:
Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
To understand the historic importance of a resource, sufficient time must have passed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource. A resource less than 50 years old may be considered for listing in the CRHR i f it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance (14 CCR 4852[d][2]).
The CRHR protects cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and historic resources. The criteria for the CRHR are nearly identical to those for the NRHP, and properties listed or formally designated as eligible for listing in the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR, as are the state landmarks and points of interest. The CRHR also includes properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys.
California Environmental Quality Act
The following CEQA statutes (PRC Section 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) are of relevance to the analysis of archaeological, historic, and TCRs:
▪ PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines “unique archaeological resource.” ▪ PRC Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) defines “historical resources.” In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b) defines the phrase “substantial adverse change in the significance of
4.12 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.12-12
an historical resource;” it also defines the circumstances when a project would materially impair the significance of a historical resource.
▪ PRC Section 21074(a) defines “tribal cultural resources.” ▪ PRC Section 5097.98 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) set forth standards and steps to be employed following the accidental discovery of human remains in any location other than a dedicated ceremony. ▪ PRC Sections 21083.2(b) and 21083.2(c) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 provide information regarding the mitigation framework for archaeological and historic resources, including examples of preservation-in-place mitigation measures. Preservation in pl ace is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to significant archaeological sites because it maintains the relationship between artifacts and the archaeological context and may help avoid conflict with religious or cultural values of groups associated with the archaeological site(s).
More specifically, under CEQA, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it may cause “a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” (PRC Section 21084.1; 14 CCR 15064.5[b]).
A “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” reflecting a significant effect under CEQA means “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significa nce of an historical resource would be materially impaired” (14 CCR 15064.5[b][1]; PRC Section 5020.1[q]). In turn, the significance of a historical resource is materially impaired when a project does any of the following (14 CCR 15064.5[b][2]):
Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register; or
Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.
Pursuant to these sections, the CEQA inquiry begins with evaluating whether a project site contains any “historical resources,” and then evaluates whether that project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource such that the resource’s historical significance would be materially impaired.
If it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state.
To the extent that they cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC Sections 21083.2[a]–[c]).
Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria (PRC Section 21083.2[g]):
Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.
4.12 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.12-13
California State Assembly Bill 52
AB 52 of 2014 amended PRC Section 5097.94 and added PRC Sections 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2, and 21084.3. AB 52 established that TCRs must be considered under CEQA and provided for additional Native American consultation requirements for the lead agency. Section 21074 describes a TCR as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object that is considered of cultural value to a California Native American tribe and that is either:
▪ On or determined to be eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources or a local historic register; 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 Section 5024.1.
AB 52 formalizes the lead agency–tribal consultation process, requiring the lead agency to initiate consultation with California Native American groups that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with a project site, including tribes that may not be federally recognized. Lead agencies are required to begin consultation prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report.
Section 1 (a)(9) of AB 52 establishes that “a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource has a significant effect on the environment.” Effects on TCRs should be considered under CEQA. Section 6 of AB 52 adds Section 21080.3.2 to the PRC, which states that parties may propose mitigation measures “capable of avoiding or substantially lessening potential significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource or alternatives that would avoid significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource.” Further, if a California Native American tribe requests consultation regarding project alternatives, mitigation measures, or significant effects to TCRs, the consultation shall include those topics (PRC Section 21080.3.2[a]). The environmental document and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (where applicable) shall include any mitigation measures that are adopted (PRC Section 21082.3[a]).
Senate Bill 18
The Local and Tribal Intergovernmental Consultation process, commonly known as SB 18, was signed into law September of 2004 and took effect March 1, 2005. SB 18 refers to PRC Section 5097.9 and 5097.995, which defines cultural places as:
▪ Native American sanctified cemetery place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine (PRC Section 5097.9).
▪ Native American historic, cultural, or sacred site that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources pursuant to Section 5024.1, including any historic or prehistoric ruins, any burial ground, any archaeological or historic site (PRC Section 5097.993).
SB 18 established responsibilities for local governments to contact, provide notice to, refer plans to, and consult with California Native American tribes that have been identified by the NAHC and if that tribe requests consultation after local government outreach as stipulated in Government Code Section 65352.3. The purpose of this consultation process is to protect the identity of the cultural place and to develop appropriate and dignified treatment of the cultural place in any subsequent project. The consultation is required whenever a general plan, specific plan, or open space designation is proposed for adoption or to be amended. Once local governments have sent notification, tribes are responsible for requesting consultation. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3(a)(2), each tribe has 90 days from the date on which they receive notification to respond and request consultation.
4.12 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.12-14
In addition to the requirements stipulated previously, SB 18 amended Government Code Section 65560 to “allow the protection of cultural places in open space element of the general plan” and amended Civil Code Section 815.3 to add “California Native American tribes to the list of entities that can acquire and hold conservation easements for the purpose of protecting their cultural places.”
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 assigns special importance to human remains and specifies procedures to be used when Native American remains are discovered. As described below, these procedures are detailed in California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
California law protects Native American burials, skeletal remains, and associated grave goods, regardless of their antiquity, and provides for the sensitive treatment and disposition of those remains. Health and Safety Code section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered in any place other than a dedicated cemetery, no further disturbance or excavation of the site or nearby area reasonably suspected to contain human remains shall occur until the County coroner has examined the remains (Californ ia Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5[b]). If the coroner determines or has reason to believe the remains are those of a Native American, the coroner must contact the NAHC within 24 hours (California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5[c]). In accorda nce with California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(a), the NAHC will notify the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner, the MLD may inspect the site of discovery. Within 48 hours of being granted access to the site, the M LD may recommend means of treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and associated grave goods.
Local
Fullerton Municipal Code
Fullerton Municipal Code (FMC) Chapter 15.48 (Fullerton Landmarks, Landmark Districts, Residential Preservation Zones, and Significant Properties) established a Fullerton Register of Landmarks and Landmark Districts as well as procedures for landmark designation. Criteria for designation are:
Character, interest or value as part of the heritage of the city.
Location as a site of a historic event.
Identification with a person or persons or groups who significantly contributed to the culture and development of the city.
Exemplification of a particular architectural style or way of life important to the city.
Exemplification of the best remaining architectural types in an area.
Identification as the work of a person or persons whose work has influenced the heritage of the city, the state of California or the United States.
Embodiment of elements of outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship.
Relationship to other landmarks, where the preservation of one has a bearing on the preservation of another.
A unique location or singular physical characteristic representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood.
Integrity as a natural environment that strongly contributes to the well being of the people of the city.
4.12 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.12-15
FMC Section 15.48.070 establishes procedures for review of proposals for a designated Historical Landmark or property within a designated Landmark District. In accordance with Section 15.48.070, proposed development, including rehabilitation of existing structures would be reviewed for compliance with established design criteria and standards that serve to conserve, maintain, and protect the special characteristics of the particular Historical Landmark or Landmark District, and therefore prevent those alterations that would detrimentally compromise the historic or aesthetic integrity of said property or its relationship to its natural setting.
The City of Fullerton also maintains a list of Significant Properties, which are defined as “an individual building, structure or feature considered as a historical or cultural resource in the city and which is eligible for ‘Historical Landmark’ designation.” In accordance with Section 15.48.070, a proposal to demolish or relocate a designated Significant Property is subject to the approval of the Landmarks Commission. Further, a proposal to alter, add, reconstruct, rehabilitate, or restore a designated Significant Property would be subject to a review by the Director of Development Services. Routine maintenance of existing improvements and minor alterations or additions that are out of public view (e.g., the re -roofing of a structure, the replacement of dam aged or deteriorated exterior architectural features; the construction of an accessory structure at the rear of the property) may be approved by the Director without further review.
4.12.4 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to tribal cultural resources are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. 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:
1. 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.
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 Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 ? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Based on the results of the Initial Study (Appendix A), the following thresholds are evaluated within this section for the Program:
TCR-1. Would the Program 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)? TCR -2. Would the Program 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
4.12 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.12-16
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 s Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
4.12.5 Impacts Analysis
TCR-1. Would the Program 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)? TCR -2. Would the Program 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, 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 Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? The proposed Fullerton Housing Incentive Overlay Zone (HIOZ) Program is intended to guide regional-level growth and development within the City. No direct development is proposed, and the Pro gram would not directly destroy or adversely change the significance of a tribal cultural resource. However, implementation of the HIOZ Program would result in changes to land use designations, which would facilitate additional future development. Some of the future projects that would be facilitated by the Program would involve the earthwork to demolish, renovate, and construct on properties within the Program’s Planning Area. Such activities could require grading and/or construction in native soils, such as earthwork for ground preparation, construction of foundations and driveways an d installation trenching for utilities and landscaping. It is not expected that all of these activities would occur in engineered fill and/or previously disturbed soils, and this analysis anticipates that native/undisturbed soils would be impacted by futur e development activities. Therefore, there is a potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of both known and unknown tribal cultural resources that are either listed or eligible for listing in the California Register, or listed in a local register of historical resources, or are determined by City, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be a significant tribal cultural resource.
In accordance with AB 52 and SB 18 requirements, the City sent the Program notification letters via email and via USPS Certified Mail to the California Native American Tribes, formally inviting Tribes to consult with the City on the proposed Program. The City received a response from one California Native American Tribe, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation , via email on August 31, 2023, requesting consultation to discuss the Program. The Kizh Nation responded again on February 13, 2024, asking about potential ground disturbance impacts, and responded again on April 19, 2024, stating that the Kizh Nation is in agreement with the Housing Element (which considers the proposed HIOZ Program) . No other Tribes responded to the City’s notification letters.
4.12 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.12-17
As described in Section 4.12.2, Background Research, archival research revealed five previously recorded cultural resources intersecting the Planning Area, all of these previously recorded resources are either not eligible or are not evaluated. Therefore, future development projects that involve ground -disturbing activities have a potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of unknown TCRs and therefore result in potentially significant impacts.
MM-TCR-1 would require the C ity to obtain an appropriate records search and comply with all applicable requirements of AB 52 during subsequent project-level environmental review. Pursuant to AB 52, the City must provide formal notification of applicable future development projects to designated contacts of each traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribe that has requested notice. Additionally, the C ity must begin the consultation process within 30 days after receiving a tribe’s request for consultation. If a future project’s impacts to TCRs are determined to be potentially significant, the City would require the project to incorporate appropriate measures to avoid or minimize impacts to TCRs. Appropriate measures would be determined in consultation with the California Native American Tribe and consistent with COA-CR-1 through COA-CR-4 described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Program EIR. Measures within these COAs include the creation of a Phase I Cultural Resources Study, tribal monitoring, and/or protocols for archaeological/tribal cultural resources discoveries. In addition, COA-CR-3 would require all ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of the find to cease if any cultural resources, including TCRs, are encountered during construction. The evaluation and treatment of the discovered resources must be completed according to the protocol outlined in COA-CR-2. COA-CR-4 outlines procedures, in compliance with the California Public Resources Code and Health and Safety Code, for future development projects in the event that human remains are found. Furthermore, all applicable requirements set forth in MM-TCR-1 and the COAs must also be performed in coordination and consultation with the local Native American Tribes. The C ity would consider tribal preferences when deciding on the disposition of Native American TCRs, which may include curation at an accredited or nonaccredited repository; onsite or offsite reburial; and/or donation to a local tribe or public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, or local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.
While background research, pedestrian surveys, TCR assessments, evaluations, and avoidance are common mitigation measures for impacts to known TCRs, these measures do not assure that all impacts would be mitigated to a level of less than significant for th ose tribal cultural resources not yet identified.
Future non-discretionary projects that would be implemented under the HIOZ Program would be subject to the federal, state and local regulations mentioned above; however, these non-discretionary projects would not necessarily be subject to CEQA review, additional environmental assessments, or mitigation measures.
As such, even with implementation of existing regulations and MM-TCR-1, impacts to tribal cultural resources could still occur. As such, potential impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
4.12.6 Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure will be implemented for the proposed Program.
MM-TCR-1 Tribal Cultural Resources. During subsequent project-level environmental review, the City shall obtain a State of California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Land Files Search, as appropriate, and comply with all applicable requirements of AB 52. Pursuant to AB 52, the City shall provide formal notification of the project to designated contact of each traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American Tribe that has requested notice. The City shall
4.12 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.12-18
begin the consultation process within 30 days after receiving a Tribe’s request for consultation.
The City shall consider all relevant information available for the property to identify potential tribal cultural resources in the project area, evaluate the project’s potential impacts to tribal cultural resources, and mitigate those potential impacts.
If project impacts to tribal cultural resources are determined to be potentially significant, the City shall require the project to incorporate appropriate measures to avoid or minimize impacts to tribal cultural resources, including but not limited to, th e measures recommended in Public Resources Code Section 21084.3, tribal monitoring, or other alternative measures identified in consultation with the California Native American Tribe.
If any cultural resources ( archaeological, historical, paleontological ) are identified in the preparation of a Phase I Cultural Resources Study (see COA-CR-1) or are inadvertently unearthed during excavation and grading activities (see COA-CR-3), the City shall consult and coordinate with a Native American Tribal monitor who is traditionally or culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the development project that will help analyze the Native American artifacts for identification and to evaluate and mitigate impacts in accordance with the requirements set forth in COA-CR-1 through COA-CR-4.
4.12.7 Significance Conclusion
Threshold TCR-1 and TCR-2. With implementation of existing regulations and MM-TCR-1, the Project would not 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. Program impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation.
4.12.8 Cumulative Effects
Where a lead agency concludes that the cumulative effects of a project, taken together with the impacts of other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects are significant, the lead agency then must determine whether the proj ect’s incremental contribution to such significant cumulative impact is “cumulatively considerable” (and thus significant in and of itself). The cumulative study area used to assess potential cumulative tribal cultural resources impacts includes the entire City of Fullerton and considers the future buildout of applicable local and regional plans.
Threshold TCR-1 and TCR-2. The development of cumulative projects has the potential to cumulatively affect known and unknown tribal cultural resources. Development of related projects can affect tribal cultural resources if such projects adversely alter or destroy tribal cultural resources, such as tribal cultural resources that could contribute to understanding of an overall tribal cultural landscape. Over time, population growth and its accompanying development throughout the City has resulted in the dest ruction of tribal cultural resources during the early settlement days of the region and continuing to this day. Because all tribal cultural resources are unique and nonrenewable members of finite classes of resources that represent time periods, cultural l andscapes, projects that destroy or alter certain tribal cultural resources have the potential to limit or eliminate an opportunity for a comprehensive understanding of the time periods and cultural landscapes a tribal cultural resource belongs and could result in a cumulatively significant effect on tribal cultural resources. Therefore, implementation of potential
4.12 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.12-19
projects under the HIOZ Program could result in a cumulatively significant effect on tribal cultural resources. Even with existing state, and local regulations in place designed to protect tribal cultural resources, individual tribal cultural resources wou ld still have the potential to be impacted or degraded from destruction, relocation, or alteration as a result of new private or public development or redevelopment allowable under cumulative projects.
Therefore, impacts to tribal cultural resources as a result of Program implementation, in combination with other development that would occur in the region, would have the potential to result in a significant cumulative impact to tribal cultural resources . Even with implementation of MM-TCR-1, impacts to tribal cultural resources could still occur, and the Program’s incremental contribution would be cumulatively considerable.
4.12.9 References Cited
Ashby, G. E., and J. W. Winterbourne. 1966. A Study of Primitive Man in Orange County and Some of its Coastal Areas. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 2(1):3-52.
Bean, Lowell J., and Charles R. Smith. 1978. Gabrielino. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 538–549.
Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Blackburn, Thomas. 1963. Ethnohistoric Descriptions of Gabrielino Material Culture. Annual Report, Archaeological Survey. University of California, Los Angeles.
City of Fullerton. 2021. The Fullerton Plan (General Plan). Appendix H: 2021-2029 Housing Element. Draft.
November 2021. Accessed October 2023. https://gis.cityoffullerton.com/HousingElement/ Draft_2021-2029_Housing_Element.pdf.
Cleland, James H., Andrew L. York, and Lorraine M. Willey. 2007. Piecing Together the Prehistory of Landing Hill:
A Place Remembered. EDAW Cultural Publications No. 3. EDAW, Inc., San Diego.
Harrington, John P. 1942. Culture Element Distributions: XIX, Central California Coast. Anthropological Records 7:1. University of California Press: Berkeley.
Johnston, Bernice E. 1962. California’s Gabrielino Indians. Frederick Webb Hodge Anniversary Publication Fund 8, Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.
King, Chester D. 1994. Native American Placenames in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, Agoura Hills. Topanga Anthropological Consultants, California.
King, C.D. 2000. Native American Indian Cultural Sites in the Santa Monica Mountains, Report prepared for the Santa Monica Mountains and Seashore Foundation (Cooperative Agreement No. 8540-94-003), National Park Service West Region, Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. Topanga Anthropological Consultants, Topanga, California.
Kroeber, Alfred J. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Dover Publications, Inc., New York.
4.12 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.12-20
McCawley, W. 1996. The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum Press, Banning California and Ballena Press, Novato, California.
NAHC. 2023. Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Search Results for the 12885 Fullerton HIOZ Project, Orange County, CA.
Northwest Economic Associates (NEA) and C. King. 2004. Ethnographic Overview of the Angeles National Forest:
Tataviam and San Gabriel Mountain Serrano Ethnohistory. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture NETR (National Environmental Title Research LLC). 2023. Address search for: Fullerton, CA. Accessed November 30, 2023. http://www.historicaerials.com/.
O’Neil, Stephen. 2002. The Acjachemen in the Franciscan Mission System: Demographic Collapse and Social Change. Masters thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton.
Reid, Hugo. 1926. The Indians of Los Angeles County. Privately printed, Los Angeles.
UCSB (University of California, Santa Barbra). 2023. Historic Aerial Photographs of Fullerton, CA dating from 1930. Map & Imagery Laboratory (MIL) UCSB Library, Electronic Resource, Accessed November 30, 2023. http://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder.
4.13 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.13-1
4.13 Utilities and Service Systems
This section describes the existing utilities conditions of the Program Area and vicinity, identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, and identifies mitigation measures related to implementation of the proposed Program.
4.13.1 Existing Conditions
Regional Utilities and Service Systems
The following is a summary of the regional utilities and service systems setting common to the Program Area.
Water Supply
Water supply in the Program Area is supplied by the City’s water utility that meets all of its demands with a combination of imported water and local groundwater (City of Fullerton 2021). The City works together with two primary agencies, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California ( MWD) and Orange County Water District (OCWD). The sources of imported water supplies include water from the Colorado River and the State Water Project (SWP) provided by MWD. The City’s main source of water supply is groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Imported water makes up the rest of the City’s water supply portfolio. In fiscal year 2019 -2020, the City relied on 79% groundwater and 21% imported water (City of Fullerton 2021).
The City’s water service area covers 22.3 square miles, in north Orange County bounded to the north by the Cities of La Habra and Brea, Placentia to the east, Buena Park to the west, and Anaheim to the south. The City’s Water Utility operates 15 reservoirs with a capacity of 67.5 million gallons (MG), 12 booster pumping stations, 8 active groundwater wells and manages about 424-mile water mains system with approximately 31,936 service connections (City of Fullerton 2021).
Water use within the City’s service area has been trending downward in the past decade with an annual average of 26,098 acre-feet (AF) for potable use (City of Fullerton 2021) . In fiscal year 2019-20, the City’s water use was 23,799 AF of potable water (groundwater and imported). There is currently no recycled water use within the City’s service area. In fiscal year 2019-20, the City’s water use profile was comprised of 63.2% residential use, 26.6% commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII), 4.8% landscape/irrigation, with non -revenue water and other uses comprising about 5.4% (City of Fullerton 2021) . While the City is almost completely built -out; the population is projected to increase at a rate of 1.4% per year with minimum land use increase (City of Fullerton 2021) . Water demand is likely to increase 7.8% over the next 5 years. In the longer term, water demand is projected to increase
8.5% from 2025 through 2045. The projected potable water use for 2045 is 27,850 AF.
Stormwater Service
Drainage facilities in the Program Area are primarily provided and maintained by the City’s Public Works Department and then several of the drains and drainage channels in the City are maintained by Orange County’s Public Works Department.
Wastewater Collection and Treatment
Wastewater from within the Program Area is collected by the City’s wastewater collection system which is sent to the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). OCSD’s service area encompasses approximately 479 square miles and its system includes approximately 580 miles of sewer lines. Ultimately, the wastewater is treated at OCSD treatment plants
4.13 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.13-2
located in Fountain Valley (Plant No. 1) and Huntington Beach (Plant No. 2). Plant No. 1 has a total rated primary capacity of 108 million gallons per day (mgd) and a secondary treatment capacity of 80 mgd. OCSD operates under a 5-year National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) ocean discharge permit issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. On a daily basis, OCSD treats approximately 180 million gallons of wastewater at the two aforementioned treatment plants.
Solid Waste
The City contracts with Republic Services to provide the collection of solid waste for residents and businesses in the Program Area. The Olinda Alpha Landfill in Brea and the Prima Deshecha Landfill in San Juan Capistrano offer commercial and public disposal of solid waste, while the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill in Irvine is for commercial disposal only (County of Orange 2023). The Olinda Alpha Landfill has a remaining capacity of 17,500,000 cubic yards with an estimated date of reaching that capacity by December 31, 2036 (CalRecycle 2023a). The permitted daily throughput for the landfill is 5,000 tons per day. The Prima Deshecha Landfill has a remaining capacity of 134,300,000 cubic yards with an estimated date of reaching that capacity by December 31, 2102 (CalRecycle 2023b). As one of the largest landfills in the state, the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill has a remaining capacity of 205,000,000 cubic yards with an estimated date of reaching that capacity by December 31, 2053 (CalRecycle 2023c).
Electrical Service
Electricity in the Program Area is provided by Southern California Edison (SCE), a private franchise utility company and subsidiary of Sempra Energy. All standards, development requirements, and improvement strategies are set directly by SCE, with oversight by the CPUC. Electricity is transmitted by a network of aboveground and underground power lines to supply sufficient power to all locations, including streetlights and traffic signals.
Natural Gas
Natural gas currently serving the Program Area is provided by SoCalGas, which owns and operates two natural gas storage fields in southern California. These storage fields help meet peak seasonal demand and allow southern California customers to secure natural gas supplies more efficiently. SoCalGas also owns and operates four underground storage facilities located around Southern California. In addition, SoCalGas owns and operates all transmission mains, distribution pipelines, and service laterals in the Planning Area.
Telecommunication Service
Telecommunication facilities are installed in the Program Area by a variety of private utility companies, including AT&T, Cox, Crown Castle, MCI Verizon and Frontier.
4.13.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
Federal
Safe Drinking Water Act
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the Safe Drinking Water Act, which is the primary federal law that regulates the quality of drinking water and establishes standards to protect public health
4.13 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.13-3
and safety. The Department of Health Services (DHS) implements the requirements of the Act and oversees public water system quality statewide. DHS establishes legal drinking water standards for contaminates that could threaten public health.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Section 268, Subpart D), contains regulations for municipal solid waste landfills and requires states to implement their own permitting programs that include federal landfill criteria. The federal regulations address the location, operation, design, and closure of landfills, as well as groundwater monitoring requirements.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Program The NPDES permit program was established as part of the Clean Water Act to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the United States. A discharge from any point source is unlawful unless the discharge is in compliance with an NPDE S permit. Federal NPDES permit regulations have been established for broad categories of discharges, including point-source municipal waste discharges and nonpoint-source stormwater runoff. NPDES permits generally identify effluent and receiving water limi ts on allowable concentrations and/or mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge; prohibitions on discharges not specifically allowed under the permit; and provisions that describe required actions by the discharger, including industrial pretreatment, pollution prevention, self-monitoring, and other activities.
State
Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act
In California, the State Water Resources Control Board and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) are responsible for implementing the Clean Water Act and the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act). The Porter -Cologne Act authorizes the State Water Resources Control Board to implement programs to control polluted discharges into state waters. In compliance with the Porter -Cologne Act, the nine RWQCBs establish the wastewater concentration limits of a number of specific hazardous substances in treated wastewater discharge.
California Urban Water Management Planning Act of 1983
The California Urban Water Management Planning Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 797, Water Code Division 6, Part 2.6, Section 10610-10656) requires that every urban water supplier that annually serves 3,000 or more customers, or provides more than 3,000 acre -feet (AF) of water, must prepare and adopt an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). UWMPs provide a description and evaluation of water supplies, reclamation programs, and conservation activities. Based on land use plans provided by local governments, population projections or other inputs, the UWMP calculates the projected water demand for the district and compares this demand against current and anticipated water supplies. These UWMPs, which must be updated every five years, are provided to local governments to help inform decisions on development proposals. UWMPs serve as building blocks for Integrated Regional Water Management Plans, which define a clear vision and strategy for the sustainable management of water resources within a specific region delineated by one or more watersheds.
4.13 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.13-4
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
On September 16, 2014, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a three -bill legislative package —AB 1739 (Dickinson), SB 1168 (Pavley), and SB 1319 (Pavley) —collectively known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). SGMA requires governments and water agencies of high- and medium-priority basins to halt overdraft and bring groundwater basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge. Under SGMA, these basins should reach sustainability within 20 years of implementing their sustainability plans. Fo r critically over - drafted basins, sustainability should be achieved by 2040. For the remaining high - and medium-priority basins, 2042 is the deadline. Through SGMA, the California Department of Water Resources provides ongoing support to local agencies through guidance, financial assistance, and technical assistance. SGMA empowers local agencies to form Groundwater Sustainability Agencies to manage basins sustainably, and requires those Groundwater Sustainability Agencies to adopt Groundwater Sustainability Plans for crucial groundwater basins in California.
Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
The Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 23, Division 2, Chapter
2.7, Section 490) adopts water efficiency standards for new and retrofitted landscapes and encourages the use of more efficient irrigation sys tems, graywater usage, and on -site storm water capture, and limits the portion of landscapes that can be covered in turf. Encourages local agencies to designate the necessary authority that implements and enforces the provisions of the ordinance or its local landscape ordinance.
California Water Resources Control Board Low Impact Development Policy The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted the Low Impact Development (LID) Policy which, at its core, promotes the idea of “sustainability” as a key parameter to be prioritized during the design and planning process for future development. Th e SWRCB has directed its staff to consider sustainability in all future policies, guidelines, and regulatory actions. LID is a proven approach to manage stormwater. The RWQCBs are advancing LID in California in various ways, including provisions for LID requirements in renewed Phase I municipal stormwater NPDES permits.
Executive Order B -40-17
On April 7, 2017, the Governor issued Executive Order B -40-17, which lifted the January 17, 2014 drought emergency except in the counties of Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and Tuolumne, where emergency drinking water projects continue to address diminished groundw ater supplies, and retains prohibitions on wasteful practices. Executive Order B-40-17 builds on actions taken in Executive Order B -37-16—which remains in effect —to continue making water conservation a way of life in California. Under this executive order, permanent restrictions shall prohibit wasteful practices such as hosing off sidewalks, driveways, and other hardscapes; washing automobiles with hoses not equipped with a shut -off nozzle; using non-recirculated water in a fountain or other decorative wate r feature; watering lawns in a manner that causes runoff or within 48 hours after measurable precipitation; and irrigating ornamental turf on public street medians. The Department of Water Resources will continue to work with the California Water Board to develop standards that urban water suppliers will use to set new urban water use efficiency targets, as directed by Executive Order B -37-16. The Water Board will also adopt urban water use efficiency standards that include indoor use, outdoor use, and leak s, as well as performance measurements for commercial, industrial, and institutional water use. The order also rescinds two emergency proclamations from January and April 2014 and four drought-related executive orders issued in 2014 and 2015.
4.13 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.13-5
Sanitary Sewer General Waste Discharge Requirements
On May 2, 2006, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted a General Waste Discharge Requirement (Order No. 2006-0003) for all publicly owned sanitary sewer collection systems in California with more than 1 mile of sewer pipe. The order provides a consistent statewide approach to reducing sanitary sewer overflows by requiring public sewer system operators to take all feasible steps to control the volume of waste discharged into the system in order to prevent sanitary sewer waste from entering the storm sewer system, and to develop a Sewer System Management Plan. The General Waste Discharge Requirements also requires that storm sewer overflows be reported to the State Water Resources Control Board using an online reporting system.
California Green Building Standards Code
Effective January 1, 2023, Section 5.408 of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11 of California Code of Regulations Title 24) requires that at least 65% of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reus e, or that the conditions of a local construction and demolition waste management ordinance are met, whichever is more stringent.
California Public Utilities Commission
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) General Order 112E, which is based upon the Federal Department of Transportation Guidelines contained in Part 192 of the Federal Code of Regulations, specifies a variety of design, construction, inspection, and notification requirements. The CPUC conducts annual audits of pipeline operations to ensure compliance with these safety standards. In addition, the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) has a safety program which has reduced the risk of gas distribution fires by improving welds on the larger diameter (24- to 30-inch) pipelines and by replacing old distribution pipes with flexible plastic pipes. According to SoCalGas staff, high-pressure gas mains are common in developed areas throughout the country, and SoCalGas lines are inspected regularly and must comply with CPUC mandated safety requirements.
Assembly Bill 1890 (1996)
The CPUC regulates investor -owned electric power and natural gas utility companies in the State of California.
Assembly Bill 1890, enacted in 1996, deregulated the power generation industry, allowing customers to purchase electricity on the open market. Un der deregulation, the production and distribution of power that was under the control of investor-owned utilities (e.g., Southern California Edison) was decoupled. All new construction in the State of California is subject to the energy conservation standards set forth in Title 24, Part 6, Article 2 of the California Administrative Code. These are prescriptive standards that establish maximum energy consumption levels for the heating and cooling of new buildings. The utilization of alternative energy applic ations in development projects (including the Project), while encouraged, is not required as a development condition. Such applications may include installation of photovoltaic solar panels, active solar water heating systems, or integrated pool deck water heating systems, all of which serve to displace consumption of conventional energy sources (i.e., electricity and natural gas). Incentives, primarily in the form of state and federal tax credits, as well as reduced energy bills, provide a favorable basis.
4.13 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.13-6
California Energy Commission
The California Energy Commission (CEC) was created as the state’s principal energy planning organization in 1974, in order to meet the energy challenges facing the state in response to the 1973 oil embargo. The CEC is charged with six basic responsibilities when designing state energy policy:
▪ Forecasting statewide electricity needs;
▪ Licensing power plants to meet those needs;
▪ Promoting energy conservation and efficiency measures; ▪ Developing renewable energy resources and alternative energy technologies; ▪ Promoting research, development, and demonstration; and ▪ Planning for and directing state response to energy emergencies.
California Integrated Waste Management Act and Solid Waste Diversion Mandates The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (Assembly Bill [AB] 939) was enacted to reduce, recycle, and reuse solid waste generated in the state to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, the act required city and county jurisdictions to ide ntify an implementation schedule to divert 50% of the total waste stream from landfill disposal by the year 2000. The act also required each city and county to promote source reduction, recycling, and safe disposal or transformation. AB 939 further required each city to conduct a Solid Waste Generation Study and to prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element to describe how it would reach the goals. The Source Reduction and Recycling Element contains programs and policies for fulfillment of the goals o f the act, including the above-noted diversion goals, and must be updated annually to account for changing market and infrastructure conditions. As projects and programs are implemented, the characteristic of the waste stream, the capacities of the current solid waste disposal facilities, and the operational status of those facilities are upgraded, as appropriate.
California cities and counties are required to submit annual reports to the CalRecycle (formerly the County Integrated Waste Management Board) to provide an update on their progress toward the AB 939 goals.
AB 939, as amended, requires that the 50% solid waste diversion goal continue be achieved by jurisdictions annually.
Subsequent legislation establishing solid waste diversion mandates applicable to the Project is discussed below. ▪ Mandatory Commercial Recycling (AB 341): Under commercial recycling law (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011), AB) 341 directed the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to develop and adopt regulations for mandatory commercial recycling. CalRecycle initiated formal rulemaking with a 45-day comment period beginning October 28, 2011. The final regulation was approved by the Office of Administrative Law on May 7, 2012. AB 341 declared a policy goal of the state that no less than 75% of solid waste generated be source redu ced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020. The 75% diversion rate applies to all businesses that generate four cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week or any multifamily unit dwelling that consists of five or more dwelling units. Other ap plicable diversion mandates include the following:
▪ Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling (AB 1826): AB 1826 (2014) requires certain businesses to set up recycling services for recyclables and organic waste. The laws also require the County to implement a commercial solid waste recycling program and an organic waste recycling program that is designed specifically to divert commercial solid waste and organic waste generated by businesses. Failure to comply may subject the city or county to fines of up to $10,000 per day.
4.13 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.13-7
▪ Short-Lived Climate Pollutants: Organic Waste Methane Emissions Reductions (SB 1383): SB 1383 (2016) requires the County to provide and enforce mandatory organic waste recycling services to all waste generators, including residents, businesses, and County facilities. Failure to comply will subject Los Angeles County to fines up to $10,000 per day.
California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act
The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991 (AB 2176) was enacted to assist local jurisdictions with accomplishing the goals of AB 939. In accordance with AB 2176, any application submitted for a building permit must include adequate, accessible areas for the collection and loading of recyclable materials. Furthermore, the areas to be used must be demonstrated as adequate in capacity, number, and distribution to serve the proposed program. Moreover, the collection areas are to be situated as close as possible to existing exterior refuse collection areas.
Public Resources Code Sections 41813 and 41850(a)
CalRecycle has statutory requirements under Public Resources Code Sections 41813 and 41850(a) to enforce the provisions of AB 939 if a local jurisdiction fails to submit an adequate element or plan or if a local jurisdiction fails to implement its Source Reduction and Recycling Element or Household Hazardous Waste Element. Administrative civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day may be imposed on local jurisdictions until the element or plan is submitted to CalRecycle and is deemed adequate or until the element or plan is implemented.
Local
City of Fullerton Municipal Code
Fullerton Municipal Code (FMC) includes regulations for water, water supply conservation, sewer connections, and collection of solid waste. Chapter 12.04 provides the water regulations for the City and includes groundwater well requirements, use of fire hy drants, bypass connections, shut -off valves. Chapter 12.06 (Water Supply Shortage Conservation Plan) provides procedures, rules, and regulations for mandatory water conservation to minimize the effect of a water supply shortage emergency on the City’s water customers. Section 12.06.060 (Prohibitions against waste) identifies prohibited uses of water waste and permanent water conservation requirements . Section
12.06.070 (Levels of declared Water Supply Shortage) allows the City to mandate or impose reductions in the use of water consistent with the City’s Water Supply Conservation Plan (Chapter 12.060).
FMC Chapter 15.50 (Landscaping and Irrigation Requirements) establishes standards for the provision of landscaping within the City of Fullerton while promoting conservation and the efficient use of water, prevention of erosion, protection from fire, and restoration of natural systems. Landscape Documentation Packages are required to contain water efficient landscape calculations for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
FMC Chapter 12.08 (Sewer Connections) identifies regulations for sewer system connections, improvements, and maintenance. Any person wishing to construct or reconstruct a lateral sewer service or to make connection to the public sewer system shall obtain a public works permit, conform to construction standards as set forth in Title Subdivisions, of the FMC, and obtain approval by the City Engineer. All new connections shall be tested for infiltration per the standards set forth in the latest edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Contracts (Green Book). Additionally, the City imposes a sewer maintenance fee on all improved properties to connect to the City’s sewer system.
4.13 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.13-8
Title 5, Health and Sanitation of the FMC includes a chapter for the collection of solid waste, Chapter 5.14. This chapter covers mandatory requirements to subscribe to collection service, container specifications, use of containers for solid waste generated during construction and demolition, and removal of unauthorized containers.
FMC Chapter 16.05, Section 16.05.060 (Underground utilities and service lines), requires all new or proposed electrical, telephone, community antenna television and similar wires, cables, service and appurtenances which provide direct service to the property being subdivided, divided or developed, be installed underground, and all existing facilities providing direct service to the building, structure, or development being added to or rebuilt be undergrounded.
City of Fullerton General Plan
The current City of Fullerton General Plan includes Master Element D: The Fullerton Natural Environment to address topics related to maintaining the Fullerton community’s quality of life. The following goals and policies pertain to utilities and service systems:
Goal 19. An adequate, safe, and reliable water supply.
Policy P19.2. Conservation Efforts. Support regional and subregional efforts to promote water efficiency and conservation.
Policy P19.5.1. Water-saving Infrastructure. Support projects, programs, policies, and regulations that will lead to the capture, storage, and re -use of rainwater in the city so as to reduce Fullerton's dependence on external sources of water.
Policy P19.7 . Sustainable Water Practices in New Development. Support projects, programs, policies and regulations to encourage water efficient practices in site and building design for private and public projects.
Goal 20. A healthy watershed and clean urban runoff
Policy P20.6. Construction Impacts. Support projects, programs, policies and regulations to reduce impacts to watersheds and urban runoff caused by private and public construction projects.
Policy P20.7 . Development Impacts . Support projects, programs, policies and regulations to reduce impacts to watersheds and urban runoff caused by the design or operation of a site or use.
Policy P20.7.1 . Incorporate Natural Water Systems in Design Standards . Support projects, programs, policies and regulations that encourage the preservation of natural creeks and waterways into new projects and developments in Fullerton.
Goal 23. Safe and efficient management of waste.
Policy P23.3 . Waste Reduction and Diversion Support projects, programs, policies and regulations to promote practices to reduce the amount of waste disposed in landfills.
4.13 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.13-9
4.13.3 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to utilities and service systems are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to utilities and service systems would occur if the project would:
1. 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.
2. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Based on the results of the Initial Study (Appendix A), the Program would result in less than significant impacts related to compliance with federal, state, and local management and reduction statues and regulations related to solid waste. As such, the following thresholds are evaluated within this section for the Program:
UTL-1. Would the Program r equire 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? UTL-2. Would the Program have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Program and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? UTL-3. Would the Program result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the Program that it has adequate capacity to serve the Program’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
UTL-4. Would the Program 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?
4.13.4 Impacts Analysis
UTL-1. Would the Program 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? Water Supply Infrastructure
Water would be supplied by the City’s water utility that includes over 420 miles of transmission and distribution mains, 15 reservoirs, 12 booster pumping stations, and 8 active wells (City of Fullerton 2021).
4.13 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.13-10
For receiving imported water from MWD, the City has six imported water connections to MWD and six emergency interconnections.
The City’s 10 wells (including two inactive wells) are located in the southern sector of the City. Five of these active wells pump into a forebay before pumping the water into the distribution system (City of Fullerton 2012). manages about 424-mile water mains system with approximately 31,936 service connections (City of Fullerton 2021) Water pumped from these wells has been naturally filtered as it passes through underlying aquifers of sand, gravel, and soil. This well water delivered into the City's water system requires only disinfectant treatment.
The City invests in its infrastructure through its five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP ) that uses various funding sources to acquire, repair, or replace the major assets needed to deliver its services to the City's residents and businesses including water infrastructure.
Development associated with the Program would occur as a result of the rezoning of parcels to help facilitate housing production and would largely be completed on parcels with existing development that includes water service connections. The Program does n ot include any specific development and future development may receive separate environmental review, however, as determined through modeling conducted for the analysis in Section 4.2 Air Quality, the net water demands associated with the Program would be reduced from existing conditions , making the likelihood of requiring new or expanded water service infrastructure unlikely. As such, the potential impacts would be les than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Wastewater Treatment
The wastewater flow from the Planning Area would be conveyed to OCSD’s treatment plants, located in Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach. OC SD operates under a 5 -year NPDES ocean discharge permit issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. On a daily basis, OC SD treats approximately 210 million gallons of wastewater at the two aforementioned treatment plants. Treated water is either treated for recycled use or discharged into the Pacific Ocean. In January 2023, the most recent expansion of the Groundwater Replenishment System increased production capacity from 100 up to 130 million gallons of water a day, which is used to increase water supplies through infiltration via recharge basins.
The proposed Program would allow for the rezoning of existing parcels to help facilitate housing production in order to meet the City’s RHNA goals. While the Program does not include any specific developments on the identified 759 parcels, future redevelopment projects could result in increased wastewater flows requiring treatment. Condition of Approval COA-WW2 requires that any project applicant demonstrate that OCSD has sufficient treatment plant capacity to accommodate the project (see below). As such, considering the relatively recent expansion of the OCSD system and COA-WW2, there would be an assurance of ample capacity to treat any additional flows of wastewater associated with the proposed Program, and no new wastewater treatment facilities would be required. Impacts associated with wastewater treatment would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
COA-WW-1 Prior to issuance of a building permit for any future development project, the Project Applicant shall prepare an engineering study to support the adequacy of the sewer systems and submit the engineering study to the City of Fullerton for
4.13 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.13-11
review and approval. Any improvements recommended in the engineering study shall be installed prior to the certificate of occupancy for the development project.
For any sewer projects/studies that have the potential to impact adjacent jurisdictions’ sewer systems, the developer shall submit said studies to the applicable jurisdiction for review and approval.
COA-WW-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit for any future development project, the Project Applicant shall provide evidence that the OCSD has sufficient transmission and treatment plant capacity to accept sewage flows from buildings for which building permits are being requested.
Stormwater Drainage Facilities
While no specific development is included as part of the proposed Program , the rezoning would allow for redevelopment of any number of the 759 identified parcels which would likely alter drainage patterns and could require new storm drainage facilities, connections, and potential resizing of city drainage lines.
Any drainage improvements would be designed and constructed consistent with drainage control requirements, which include low -impact development features to infiltrate runoff on site to the extent feasible. In addition, Condition of Approval COA-HYD-3 (below) would require adherence to City of Fullerton Public Works to ensure that impacts are reduced . Therefore, the potential impact related to the new construction of drainage facilities is less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
COA-HYD-3 Prior to site plan approval, the project owner/developer(s) shall be required to coordinate with the City of Fullerton Engineering Department to determine requirements necessary to mitigate impacts to drainage improvements in order to accommodate storage volumes and flood protection for existing and future runoff.
Proposed projects shall implement mitigation measures, if required, to the satisfaction of the City of Fullerton Public Works Director. For any new storm drainage projects/studies that have the potential to impact adjacent jurisdictions’ storm drainage systems, the developer shall submit said studies to the applicable jurisdiction for review and approval.
Electric Power, Natural Gas, and Telecommunication Facilities The Planning Area is within the service areas of SCE for electric and SoCalGas for natural gas with various providers of telecommunications including AT&T, Cox, Verizon, T -Mobile, Comcast, and others. Any extensions of existing infrastructure onto any of the Program parcels would likely be obtained from existing lines and connections within the area. Electrical service would be provided by existing SCE electrical transmission lines located throughout the City and coordinated through the City’s building perm it processes. Similarly, natural gas and telecommunication services would also tie into existing infrastructure consistent with City requirements. Construction activities associated with electrical, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities would be addressed throughout this environmental impact report as part of the Program and would not result in any additional impacts . As a result of complying with current regulations, impacts associated with electrical, natural gas, and telecommunication infrastructure would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4.13 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.13-12
UTL-2. Would the Program have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Program and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Water supply for the proposed Program would be provided by the City, which meets all of its demands with a combination of imported water and local groundwater (City of Fullerton 2021). The primary source of water supply is groundwater ( 79% for 2019 –2020) and supplemented with imported water from the Colorado River and State Water Project . The 2020 UWMP reports that water demands in the city are projected to increase by 7.8% from 2020 to 2005 and 8.5% from 2025 through 2045, even though water use within the City’s service area has been trending downward in the past decade with an annual average of 26,098 AF for potable use (City of Fullerton 2021). The City depends on a combination of imported and local supplies to meet its water demands and has taken numerous steps to ensure it has adequate supplies. For example, t he City has a purchase agreement with MET that allows the City to purchase significantly more imported water, should the need arise. Even the Met’s 2020 UWMP concludes that they can meet full -service demands of their member agencies through 2045 during normal years, single -dry years, and multiple -dry years. Consequently, the City is projected to meet full -service demands through 2045 for all scenarios, due to diversified supply and conservation measures (City of Fullerton 2021). Also, if necessary, the City can implement its Water Shortage Contingency Plan as described in the 2020 UWMP.
The projections of water supplies and demands in the UWMP are based in part on growth projections that are consistent with the City’s General Plan. Therefore, based on the total projected water supplies available to the City over the 30-year projection, there would be sufficient water supplies during normal, single -dry, and multiple-dry year (5 -year drought) periods. The assessment made in the 2020 UWMP includes the projected growth for the region and as a result would include the demands of the proposed pr oject, in addition to existing and other planned future uses. The 2020 UWMP also incorporates water conservation measures and water demand management measures that remain part of long-term water supply planning and strategy. However, as noted above, according to modeling that was conducted as part of Section 4.2 Air Quality, the water demands are projected to be less than they are under existing conditions, and as a result, the potential impacts of the proposed Program related to sufficient availability of water supplies would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
UTL-3. Would the Program result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the Program that it has adequate capacity to serve the Program’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Wastewater from the Planning Area is treated by OC San, which operates both the Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach wastewater treatment plants. Reclamation Plant No. 1 (Fountain Valley) and Treatment Plant No. 2 (Huntington Beach) treat an average of approximately 180 million gallons pe r day (mgd) of wastewater (120 mgd from Plant No. 1 and 60 mgd from Plant No. 2) from residential, commercial, and industrial sources. The treated wastewater is either sent to OCWD for recycling or released out the end of a 5-mile-long ocean outfall pipeline into the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Huntington Beach. Combined, the two treatment plants have a primary treatment capacity of 376 mgd and a secondary treatment capacity of 332 mgd (OC San 2023). As discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality, project operational emissions were derived in part on projected water demand and wastewater generation. Based on these data, the projected wastewater demand for the Program would be reduced from existing conditions . As such, the wastewater treatment plant has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project in addition to existing commitments. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4.13 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.13-13
UTL-4. Would the Program 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? Although, there are no specific development plans associated with the Program, the rezoning could result in demolition of existing structures that would generate common construction waste materials (e.g., concrete rubble, asphalt rubble, wood, drywall) causing an increased demand for solid waste collection and disposal capacity. It is unknown how much waste would be generated and over what time frame, however, some of this waste would be recycled in accordance with regulatory requirements. CALGreen requires all newly constructed buildings and demolitions to develop a Construction Waste Management Plan and divert a minimum of 65% non -hazardous construction debris. SB 1374 and the California Code of Regulations Title 24 require developers to help divert waste from landfills and comply with statewide mandates.
Construction and demolition materials include, but are not limited to, asphalt, concrete, brick, dirt, rock, lumber, cardboard, metals, and any vegetative or other land clearing/landscaping materials.
The Olinda Alpha Landfill, the nearest landfill to the Planning Area , has a remaining capacity of 17,500,000 cubic yards while the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill has a remaining capacity of 205,000,000 cubic yards and the Prima Deschecha Landfill 134,300,000 cubic yards of capacity. Therefore, even without any recycling of construction materials, the proposed project would contribute a relatively small percentage of the remaining capacity of these three available facilities. As a result, with compliance with CA LGreen standards and City requirements, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Operations
Solid waste associated with the construction associated with the proposed zone changes would likely include typical residential waste streams including paper, cardboard, food, bio/hazardous wastes, and green waste. Estimated solid waste generations for the proposed project were based on solid waste generation rates provided by results of the modeling done for calculation of air emissions as described in Section 4.2 Air Quality. The generation rates were estimated to bed notably reduced compared to existing conditions (from 7,637 tons per year to 5,267 tons per year).
As stated above, the remaining capacity at the Olinda Alpha Landfill is 17,500,000 cubic yards with an estimated date of reaching that capacity by December 31, 2036 (CalRecycle 2023a). The permitted daily throughput for the landfill is 5,000 tons per day. The Prima Deshecha Landfill has a remaining capacity of 134,300,000 cubic yards with an estimated date of reaching that capacity by December 31, 2102 (CalRecycle 2023b). As one of the largest landfills in the state, the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill has a remaining capacity of 205,000,000 cubic yards with an estimated date of reaching that capacity by December 31, 2053 (CalRecycle 2023c). Therefore, on an annual basis, the proposed project would not contribute to encroaching on the remaining capacity; and with several different landfill options, the proposed Program would not exceed the capacities currently available.
In addition, all non -hazardous solid waste generated from development associated with the proposed Program (e.g., plastic and glass bottles and jars, paper, newspaper, metal containers, cardboard) would be recycled per local and state regulations previously mentioned, with a goal of 75%, in compliance with the Integrated Waste Management Act. Remaining non-hazardous solid waste would be disposed of at one of the nearby landfills (hazardous waste is managed and disposed of in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and is discussed in greater detail in Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this environmental impact report). As such, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4.13 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.13-14
4.13.5 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures required.
4.13.6 Significance Conclusion
Impacts associated with the proposed Program would be less than significant with no mitigation required.
4.13.7 Cumulative Effects
The geographic extent for the analysis of cumulative impacts associated with utilities and service systems consists of the City because local jurisdictions or districts provide utilities and plan based on their service areas and existing commitments. Cumul ative projects would each incrementally result in temporary construction and long-term operational increases in demand for public utilities. However, cumulative projects would also be required to adhere to local municipal code requirements, other applicabl e utility provider requirements, and their own CEQA review. As discussed above for the proposed project, with implementation of regulatory requirements and utility agency requirements, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, telecommunications facilities, or expansion of existing facilities. Similar to the project, all required infrastructure of cum ulative projects would be completed concurrently with project development and would be subject to review and approval by applicable agencies which requires adherence to specific code requirements and utility provider requirements that are specific to each individual project. As a result, the construction of new utilities tends not to be cumulatively considerable because of the individual review of the projects and the differing timetables of construction.
Because of the cumulative nature of potable water impacts, the proposed Program’s potential increase in demand on potable water, even if individually minor, could be cumulatively considerable, particularly in the context of climate change, existing drought conditions, and the trend toward increased reliance on local supplies. Although water demand could increase with development associated with the proposed Program, water supplies are available to provide a reliable local water source to the City during normal, dry, and multiple-dry years even considering projected growth out to 2045. All cumulative projects would be subject to applicable water conservation measures and the any applicable water shortage contingency planning efforts that may be in place. In addition, adequate wastewater treatment capacity would be available to projected growth in the City. Based on current capacities and treatment flows, OC San has approximately 40% remaining capacity to serve cumulative development. Lastly, solid w aste generated under the project would not exceed state or local standards, or capacity of local infrastructure.
Cumulative projects would be required to perform similar analyses of potential utilities demands, in accordance with CEQA and development review, to ensure projects would have sufficient utilities. Therefore, cumulative impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant.
4.13.8 References Cited
CalRecycle. 2023a. “SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details, Olinda Alpha Landfill (30-AB-0035).” Accessed December 20, 2023. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/ 2757?siteID=2093.
4.13 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.13-15
CalRecycle. 2023b. “SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details, Prima Deshecha Landfill (30-AB-0019).” Accessed December 20, 2023. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/ 2750?siteID=2085.
CalRecycle. 2023c. “SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details, Frank R. Bowerman Landfill (30-AB-0360).” Accessed December 20, 2023. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/ 2767?siteID=2103.
City of Fullerton. 2012. General Plan EIR, May 2012, available at https://www.cityoffullerton.com/home/ showpublisheddocument/3724/637470828645230000.
City of Fullerton. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2021.
County of Orange. 2023. Frank R. Bowerman Landfill, Waste Disposal at the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill.
Accessed December 20, 2023. https://oclandfills.com/landfills/frank-r-bowerman-landfill.
OC San (Orange County Sanitation District). 2023. Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the year ended June 30, 2023. October 26, 2023.
4.13 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 4.13-16
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
12885
5.0-1
5.0 Other CEQA Considerations
This Chapter of the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the Fullerton Housing Incentive Overlay Zone (HIOZ) Program (Program) has been prepared for the City of Fullerton (City) and in furtherance of the content requirements set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15126.2. As such, this Chapter discusses:
▪ Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts (Section 5.1) ▪ Significant and Irreversible Environmental Effects (Section 5.2) ▪ Growth Inducement (Section 5.3)
▪ Potential Secondary Effects of Mitigation Measures (Section 5.4) ▪ Effects Found Not to Be Significant (Section 5.5)
5.1 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that a PEIR describe any significant impacts which cannot be avoided. Specifically, Section 15126.2(c) states:
Describe any significant impacts, including those which can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of insignificance. Where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing an alternative design, their implications, and the reasons why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding their effect, should be described.
Implementation of the mitigation measures from the City of Fullerton’s (City) General Plan PEIR identified in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this Draft PEIR would reduce the environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Fullerton HIOZ Program. These mitigation measures are included under the proposed Program as standard conditions of approval (COAs) from the City’s General Plan PEIR . Mitigation set forth in this Draft PEIR would apply to those discretionary projects that would be develo ped under the HIOZ Program. Future non-discretionary projects that would be implemented under the HIOZ Program would be subject to the federal, state, and local regulations; however, these non -discretionary projects would not necessarily be subject to CEQA review, additional environmental assessments, or mitigation measures. As such, even with implementation of existing regulations, applicable HIOZ goals and policies, and mitigation measures included under the Program as COAs, not all development projects would be subject to these requirements and potential impacts for some topics would be significant and unavoidable.
The environmental impacts that would result from anticipated future development under the Program would be significant and unavoidable for the topics of Air Quality and Population and Housing. The specific significant and unavoidable impacts are detailed below.
▪ Air Quality: Under Threshold 4.1(a), even with implementation of mitigation measures MM-AQ-1, MM-AQ-2, and MM-AQ-3, the Program could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Under Threshold 4.1(b), even with implementation of MM-AQ-1 and MM-AQ-2, the Program could 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
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR
MAY 2024
5.0 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
12885
5.0-2
quality standard), and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Under Threshold 4. 1(c), even with implementation of MM-AQ-1 and MM -AQ-2, the Program could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. ▪ Population and Housing: Under Threshold 4.9(a), the Program’s potential impacts related to substantial unplanned population growth would be significant and unavoidable , and cumulatively considerable. No feasible mitigation measures pertaining to the impacts associated with substantial unplanned population growth are available to mitigate impacts of the Fullerton HIOZ Program.
5.2 Significant and Irreversible Environmental Effects
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the Program. Specifically, Section 15126.2(d) states:
Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of res ources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.
Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if any of the following would occur:
▪ Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely; ▪ The primary and secondary impacts of the project would generally commit future generations of people to similar uses;
▪ Irreversible damage from environmental accidents associated with the project; ▪ The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project results in wasteful use of energy).
Determining whether the Program could result in significant and irreversible effects requires a determination of whether key resources would be degraded or destroyed in such a way that there would be little possibility of restoring them.
5.2.1 Large Commitment of Non-Renewable Resources
Resources that would be consumed because of residential or commercial development indirectly facilitated as a result of the Fullerton HIOZ Program implementation include water, electricity, natural gas, and fossil fuels; however, the amount and rate of consumption of these resources would not result in significant environmental impacts related to the unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of resources (see Section 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems, of this Draft PEIR). As concluded in Section 4.4, Hydrology and Water Quality, water use during Program construction would be limited to minor amounts of water required for various uses, such as concrete mixing and dust suppression. Water use would be minor to negligible when compared to the operational demands of the Program, as well as the operational demands of the surrounding land uses. With regard to building materials, the Program would be constructed with durable materials with a significant lifespan, such as cast in place concrete and precast
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR
MAY 2024
5.0 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
12885
5.0-3
concrete, which would improve building longevity. As such, even though construction would result in the commitment of building materials, the materials are not expected to require replacement during the Program’s estimated operational lifespan. Furthermore, per California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) 65% of all demolition and construction materials must be recycled. This regulation would ensure that portions of the existing materials on site are reused. In the event that the Program were to be demolished at a future time, this regulation would ensure that a majority of the materials are recycled. In addition, construction activities related to the reasonably expected development would result in the irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable energy resources, primarily in the form of fossil fuels (including fuel oil), natural gas, and gasoline for automobile and construction equipment. However, use of such resources would not be unusual as compared to other construction projects and would not substantially affect the availability of such resources.
With respect to operational activities, compliance with applicable building codes would ensure that natural resources are conserved or recycled to the maximum extent feasible. It is also likely that in response to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction plans (including the C ity’s Climate Action Plan, the 2020 -2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, and the California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan) new technologies or systems will emerge, or will become more cost-effective or user-friendly, that will further reduce the reliance of facilitated HIOZ development upon nonrenewable natural resources (refer to Section 4.2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, for further discussion of applicable plans and specific GHG reduction mandates). However, even with implementation of conservation measures, consumption of natural resources would generally increase with implementation of the HIOZ due to population and activity increases. Although the Program would see an increase in petroleum use during construction and operation, vehicles would use less petroleum due to advances in fuel economy and potential reduction in VMT over time.
In addition to the above considerations, State and local laws and regulations would further reduce the Program’s use of nonrenewable resources over time. Specifically, electricity consumed at the Program site would be increasingly sourced from renewable energy, pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 100. SB 100, which passed in 2018, states that 44% of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year must be secured from qualifying renewable energy sources by December 31, 2024, 52% by December 31, 2027, and 60% by December 31, 2030.
SB 100 also sets forth a state policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero -carbon resources supply 100% of the retail sales of electricity to California and requires that achieving 100% zero -carbon electricity does not increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or is not fulfilled through resource shuffling. As such, the Program’s consumption of nonrenewable energy is anticipated to significantly decrease over time, as SB 100 is implemented statewide and overall nonrenewable energy consumption decreases.
Similarly, the vehicles that would travel to and from the Program would be subject to increasingly stringent emissions standards over time, which would reduce the amount of fossil fuel consumed per vehicle. Furthermore, the City, County, and State have policies in place to support decreased use of personal vehicles. As such policies are carried out, the number of vehicles traveling to and from the site may decrease over time.
In summary, implementation of the Program would involve irreversible environmental changes to existing natural resources, such as the commitment of energy and water resources as a result of the operation and maintenance of future development. However, the implementation of the Fullerton HIOZ Program would not involve wasteful or unjustifiable use of energy or other resources, and energy conservation efforts would occur with new construction.
New development indirectly facilitated as a result of HIOZ implementation would be constructed and operated in accordance with specifications contained in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and local green building requirements. Therefore, the use of energy related to the Program would occur in an efficient manner.
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR
MAY 2024
5.0 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
12885
5.0-4
5.2.2 Commitment of Non-Renewable Resources
The Program is intended to guide regional level growth and development within the City of Fullerton, specifically, within the Fullerton HIOZ Planning Area. While no direct development is proposed as part of the Program, the implementation of HIOZ Program land use changes, programs, and policies would accommodate future development (and redevelopment of previously developed areas). The Program would implement a target rezoning program to accommodate the development of 3 5,611 additional dwelling units, which are required to meet the City’s 6th Cycle RHNA allocation. Candidate parcels identified for rezoning were selected using the following criteria:
parcels that are likely to be redeveloped given their current underutilization (economic vitality); areas within California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)/Housing and Community Development (HCD) Opportunity Areas, areas outside of local hazard zones; and parcels with local access to community amenities.
As the Program would rezone and redesignate existing residential, industrial, and office land uses as well as vacant land (e.g. parking lots) to accommodate potential development of additional residential or mixed-use uses within zones generally already zoned for these uses, the Program would not appreciably change the uses of the site such that would commit future generations. For example, the target rezoning program would accommodate additional dwelling units in areas that already contain residential uses. Furthermore, because the Program would be implemented in areas that are developed and urbanized p ortion, it would not commit future generations to new urban land uses. The development or redevelopment of underutilized parcels would result in changes to the current land uses in a manner that is consistent with the City’s General Plan goals and policies (see Section 4.5, Land Use and Planning, of this Draft PEIR) and with the C ity’s CAP (see Section 4. 2, Greenhouse Gas Emission s). Such development is commonplace and encouraged in areas near urban centers and transit nodes and would not result in primary and secondary impacts that would generally commit future generations of people to similar uses.
5.2.3 Irreversible Damage from Environmental Actions
The land uses that would be developed under the Program include new/expanded residences through the implementation of the Housing Element Update and new commercial uses within corner lots in existing residentially zoned parcels. As discussed in Section 4. 3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, short -term construction activities associated with implementation of these land uses would temporarily increase the regional transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and petroleum products commonly use d in construction (e.g. diesel fuel, paints, lubricants, solvents, and cement products containing strong basic or acidic chemicals). Demolition and construction activities associated with future development facilitated by the Program could result in the disturbance of hazardous materials. Numerous federal, State, and local regulations exist that require strict adherence to specific guidelines regarding the use, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials. Regulations that would be required of those transporting, using or disposing of hazardous materials include the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which provides the ‘cradle to grave’ regulation of hazardous wastes; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, which regulates closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites; the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, which governs hazardous materials transportation on U.S. roadways; International Fire Code, which creates procedures and mechanisms to ensure the safe ha ndling and storage of hazardous materials; California Code of Regulations Title 22, which regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste; and California Code of Regulations Title 27, which regulates the treatment, storage and disposal of solid wastes. For development within the State of California, Government Code Section 65850.2 requires that no final certificate of occupancy or its substantial equivalent be issued unless there is verification that the owner or authorized agent has met, or is meeting, the applicable requirements of the Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, Article 2, Sections 25500 through 25520.
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR
MAY 2024
5.0 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
12885
5.0-5
Businesses are required to strictly adhere to the federal, state, and local rules and regulations regarding the transport, use and disposal of hazardous materials, which would minimize the risk of potential damage from environmental accidents.
Long-term operations of these land uses would be generally associated with sustained, expanded use of household and commercial materials (e.g., paints, solvents, cleaning supplies, refrigerants, landscaping products, and petroleum products). Hazardous mate rials in various forms can cause death, serious injury, long -lasting health effects, and damage to buildings, homes, and other property. Varying quantities of hazardous materials are manufactured, used, or stored at facilities in the Program Area, from manufacturing facilities to local dry-cleaning establishments or gardening supply stores. Hazardous materials come in the form of explosives, corrosives, flammable and combustible substances, poisons, and radioactive materials.
Prior to the issuance of a demolition or building permit, all project applicants must obtain the proper clearance through the Fullerton Department of Public Works, Division of Building and Facilities, which is responsible for the review of permit applications and determination of compliance with all applicable regulations and the Building Code.
Hazardous material assessment of asbestos and lead-based paint and, if necessary, abatement is required under local regulations, specifically OSHA, Cal/OSHA, Califor nia Department of Public Health, and SCAQMD Rule 1403.
Certain universal wastes (batteries, lamps and light ballasts, and mercury-containing equipment) are required to be managed and disposed of under California Code of Regulations Title 22, Section 66273. 33 and Title 40 CFR.
Hazardous wastes in major appliances, including PCBs, refrigerants, oils, and circuit boards, must be removed before major appliances are recycled or disposed of in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 25212. Lastly, PCBs in building materials are regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Adherence to these rules prior to and during demolition of existing buildings and structures would ensure proper handling and disposal of hazardous building materials and a ppliances. Adherence to the C ity’s permitting process and compliance with applicable laws related to asbestos-containing materials, lead-based paint, and/or PCBs rules prior to and during demolition of existing buildings and structures would limit public exposure to hazardous materials and would ensure that no significant hazards due to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials or waste into the environment would occur.
However, unknown contamination may be present within soils and/or groundwater beneath currently developed properties. Given the age of some developed properties within the Program area, information about the details of historic property uses, potential leaks from historic underground storage tanks, soil contamination from spills or leaking pipelines, improper disposal of hazardous materials, and/or accidental spills, may not be able to be known for certain. The potential to encounter unknown soil contamination from petroleum hydrocarbons (e.g. oil and gas), agricultural chemicals (e.g. pesticides, herbicides, insecticides), solvents, heavy metals (e.g. lead, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, mercury) and/or soil vapor from volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or othe r unknown contaminants, could pose a hazard to construction workers or other nearby sensitive uses if construction activities were to expose contaminated conditions. Because the implementation of the HIOZ Program would almost exclusively result in redevelopment of existing previously developed properties, including properties that contain industrial land uses, the potential for encountering unknown soil contamination and/or soil vapor conditions during construction activities may occur and could result in s ignificant hazards to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset conditions involving the release of hazardous materials or waste into the environment through future site development under the HIOZ Program. Therefore, site investigations to identify potential areas of contamination are critical to ensuring that the City’s permitting process is effective in avoiding hazards associated with upset or accident conditions. In order to reduce potential hazards associated with construction activities on properties with known or unknown contamination, COA-HAZ-1, Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), is required.
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR
MAY 2024
5.0 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
12885
5.0-6
COA-HAZ-1 requires that the City consider all potential impacts related to hazardous conditions at a future project site and if necessary, require preparation of a Phase I ESA and potentially additional site investigations to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of a permit. Any required site investigations and remediation shall be conducted to the satisfaction of the overseeing environmental agency(ies) in compliance with all applicable state and local regulations. Pr ior to the issuance o f a grading or building permit, the Applicant shall provide the C ity Department of Public Works, Building and Facilities with written documentation from the overseeing environmental agency that states the proposed site development is safe.
While investigations into potential contamination and subsequent site remediation are common requirements for infill development and redevelopment of industrial properties, these measures do not ensure that all impacts from future projects would be mitigated to a level of less than significant. Future non -discretionary projects that would be implemented under the HIOZ Program would be subject to the federal, state and local regulations mentioned above; however, these non -discretionary projects would not nec essarily be subject to CEQA review, additional environmental assessments, or mitigation measures. As such, even with implementation of existing regulations, applicable HIOZ goals and policies, and COA-HAZ-1, potential impacts related to the creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment due to hazards associated with contaminated sites would be significant and unavoidable because it is not possible to ensure the successful avoidance of all hazards associated with upset or accidental conditions where new development may occur.
5.2.4 Consumption of Resources Justified
While the Program would increase resource consumption during construction and operation, the Program would also result in benefits related to long -term resource consumption in the region. According to the 2020 –2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, Orange County will continue to experience growth in population, jobs, and housing. The Fullerton HIOZ Program aims to build off the character and existing assets of the City by identifying opportunities for equitable and sustainable investment while addressing issues and concerns voiced by community members. The Program would implement zoning recommendations from the recently approved Housing Element Update and would consider equity to set forth land uses and policies that address topics such as: the need for affordable housing; strategies to reduce vehicle miles travele d and improve air quality; economic development, mitigation of industrial-related environmental hazards; preservation of culturally significant landmarks and community practices, and strategies to facilitate and support community -serving green spaces in urban areas. The Program would facilitate the development of future housing to be in closer proximity to existing jobs, thereby facilitating a more balanced jobs-housing profile. The Program would help accommodate growth within existing developed areas, as opposed to accommodating growth through development in previously undeveloped areas. The latter development pattern generally results in permanent loss of naturalized lands and open space, as well as increased fossil fuel consumption attributable to longer commuting distances and lack of transit options.
While the Program would result in some irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable resources, it would also help accommodate growth in a manner that would reduce irreversible environmental changes in the region. For these reasons, the irretrievable commitment of resources attributable to the Program would not be significant.
5.3 Growth Inducement
CEQA requires a discussion of ways in which the Program could be growth inducing. The CEQA Guidelines identify a project as growth inducing if it fosters economic or population growth or results in the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment (14 CCR 151 26.2(e)). New employees from commercial or industrial development and new population from residential development represent direct forms of
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR
MAY 2024
5.0 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
12885
5.0-7
growth. These direct forms of growth have a secondary effect of expanding the size of local markets and inducing additional economic activity in the area. A project could indirectly induce growth by reducing or removing barriers to growth or by creating a condition that attracts additional population or new economic activity. However, a project’s potential to induce growth does not automatically result in growth. Growth can only happen through capital investment in new economic opportunities by the private or public sectors.
Direct growth-inducing impacts are commonly associated with the extension of new public services, utilities, and roads into areas that have previously been undeveloped. The extension of such infrastructure into a non -serviced area can represent the elimination of a growth-limiting factor, thereby inducing growth. Increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities and ultimately resulting in an increase in the pace of development or the density of the existing surrounding development. Indirect growth inducing impacts include an increased demand for housing, commodities, and services that new development causes or attracts by increasing the population or job growth in an area.
As discussed in Section 4. 8, Population and Housing, the purpose of the Program is to guide rezoning and redevelopment in the HIOZ Planning Area — specifically, regarding residential growth. The Program is anticipated to indirectly induce growth through the removal of obstacle to additional growth and development, such as allowing increased density to occur in residential areas. However, the Program does not propose any specific infrastructure improvements that would result in growth. The Program does not approve the construction of specific development projects and would largely accommodate growth based on market conditions. However, it would allow increased development intensity and/or a more inclusive mix of land uses compared to existing conditions. Ther efore, the Program removes regulatory obstacles to growth and is considered to be growth-inducing.
The Program would increase the number of dwelling units that could occur under buildout conditions and accommodate a greater population than was envisioned for the General Plan. Th is population growth could potentially lead to employees moving into the Program area to be proximate to their jobs, therefore increasing the population. Therefore, the Fullerton HIOZ Program would have indirect growth -inducing effects, as analyzed throughout this Draft PEIR.
As discussed in Section 4. 9, Public Services, as the Program area continues to develop, it would require further commitment of public services that could include fire protection, law enforcement, public schools, public recreation, and other services as appropriate. Future development in the Program area would require an increased commitment to public services that would be considered a long -term commitment in order to maintain a desired level of service. This is considered a growth-inducing impact.
As the population grows and occupies new dwelling units, these residents would seek shopping, entertainment, employment, home improvement, vehicle maintenance, and other economic opportunities in the surrounding area.
This would facilitate the purchase of economic goods and services and could, therefore, encourage the creation of new businesses and/or the expansion of existing businesses. This is considered a growth-inducing impact.
However, approval of the Program would not set a precedent that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment. Cities and counties in California periodically update their general plans pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65300 et seq. As discussed in Chapter 3, Program Description, the Program is intended to guide City growth and development within the HIOZ Planning Area. The Program would consolidate regulations that currently exist across multi ple plans to simplify and streamline land use and zoning regulations. While no direct development is proposed as part of the Program, the implementation
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR
MAY 2024
5.0 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
12885
5.0-8
of HIOZ land use changes, programs, and policies would accommodate future development (and redevelopment of previously developed areas).
Pressures to develop in the surrounding cities may derive from regional economic conditions and market demands for housing that may be directly or indirectly influenced by the Program. Although the Program does not include approval of physical development, it creates additional development capacity in the Program area compared to existing conditions. Much of this development capacity is either available under existing conditions or is limited to targeted areas. Furthermore, development projects would be induced more by market demands than by new development capacity created by land use changes included in the rezoning program. However, because approval of the Program would ultimately result in subsequent projects that would have their own environmental impacts— including potentially significant impacts—the Program is a growth-inducing action.
5.4 Potential Secondary Effects of Mitigation Measures
Section 15126.4(a)(1)(D) of the CEQA Guidelines states that “if a mitigation measure would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the effects of the mitigation measure shall be discussed but, in less detail, than the significant effects of the project as proposed.” With regard to this section of the CEQA Guidelines, the potential impacts that could result with the implementation of each mitigation measure proposed for the Program was reviewed. The following provides a discussion of the potential secondary impacts that could occur as a result of the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, listed by environmental issue area.
5.4.1 Air Quality
COA-AQ-1 requires that prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Community Development Director shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or other dust prevention measures. COA-AQ-1 includes measures to mandate watering of active portions of the construction site twice a day, apply non -toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas, stop excavation and grading when wind gusts exce ed 25 miles per hour (MPH), limit on -site vehicle speed to 15 MPH, on -site roads be paved as soon as possible and watered twice daily, in addition to numerous other measures and COA-AQ-3 requires measures to be implemented to reduce VOC emissions resulting from application of architectural coatings. COA-AQ-3 includes measures to require contactors to use high-pressure- low-volume (HPLV) paint applicators, use required coatings and solvents with a VOC content lower than required under Rule 1113, build with materials that do not require painting, and to use pre-painted construction materials.
COA-AQ-9 requires that developments within the City include measures to require all residential and commercial structures to incorporate high efficiency/low polluting heating, air conditioning, appliances, and water heaters. COA- AQ-14 mandates that new sensitive land uses shall not be located closer than 1,000 feet from any existing or proposed distribution center/warehouse facility which generates a minimum of 100 truck trips per day, or 40 truck trips with transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or TRU operations exceeding 300 hours per week . COA-AQ- 14 states that if new sensitive land uses cannot meet this setback, they shall be designed and conditioned to include mechanical ventilation systems with fresh air filtration. These mitigation measures require use of cleaner equipment or dust suppression measures that would not result in physical changes in the environment that could result in significant secondary impacts. Implementation of these measures would have beneficial impacts on reducing air quality impacts and would not result in adverse secondary impacts.
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR
MAY 2024
5.0 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
12885
5.0-9
5.4.2 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
COA-HAZ-1 requires that prior to issuance of a Grading Permit for properties considered by the City to involve the potential for site contamination, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shall be prepared in accordance with ASTM Standards and Standards and Practices for AAI, in order to investigate the potential existence of site contamination. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shall identify Specific Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), which may require remedial activities prior to constr uction. This measure would not result in environmental impacts or in physical changes in the environment because it would require identification of hazards and addressing any recognized environmental conditions in accordance with all applicable agency requirements and oversight. Additional investigations or restrictions to site development may be required to ensure the site is appropriate for redevelopment. As such, implementation of this mitigation measure would not result in adverse long-term secondary impacts.
COA-HAZ-2 mandates that prior to potential remedial excavation and grading activities, impacted areas shall be cleared of all maintenance equipment and materials, construction materials, miscellaneous stockpiled debris, above ground storage tanks, surface trash, piping, excess vegetation and other deleterio us materials. These materials shall be removed off-site and properly disposed of at an approved disposal facility. This measure would not result in environmental impacts or in physical changes in the envi ronment because it would require identification of hazards and addressing any recognized environmental conditions in accordance with all applicable agency requirements and oversight. As such, implementation of this mitigation measure would not result in adverse long-term secondary impacts.
COA-HAZ-4 requires that a reas of exposed soils within Caltrans right -of-way that would be disturbed during excavation/grading activities shall be sampled and tested for lead prior to ground disturbance activities on a project- by-project basis, so that any special handling, treatment, or disposal provisions associated with aerially deposited lead may be included in construction documents (if aerially deposited lead is present). This measure would not result in environmental impacts or in physical changes in the environment because it would require identification of hazards and addressing any recognized environmental conditions in accordance with all applicable agency requirements and oversight. As such, implementation of this mitigation measure would not result in adverse long- term secondary impacts.
COA-HAZ-5 includes the requirement that prior to construction, future developers shall prepare a Traffic Control Plan for implementation during the construction phase, as deemed necessary by the City Traffic Engineer, and includes provisions that: at least one unobstructed lane shall be maintained in both directions on surrounding roadways, the developer shall provide a temporary traffic signal or other appropriate traffic control to allow travel in both directions, and the developer shall provide appropriate signage indicating detours/alternative routes if construction activities require the complete closure of a roadway segment. This measure would not result in environmental impacts or in physical changes in the environment because it would require identification of hazards and addressing any recognized environmental conditions in accordance with all applicable agency requirements and oversight. As such, implementation of this mitigation measure would not result in adverse long-term secondary impacts.
COA-HAZ-6 mandates that the City Community Development Department shall consult with the Fullerton Police Department to disclose temporary closures and alternative travel routes, in order to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles when construction of future projects would result in temporary lane or roadway closures. This measure would not result in environmental impacts or in physical changes in the environment because it would require identification of hazards and addressing any recognized environm ental conditions in accordance with all
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR
MAY 2024
5.0 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
12885
5.0-10
applicable agency requirements and oversight. As such, implementation of this mitigation measure would not result in adverse long-term secondary impacts.
5.4.3 Hydrology and Water Quality
COA-HYD-1 requires that prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permit, and as part of the future development’s compliance with the NPDES requirements, a Notice of Intent shall be prepared and submitted to the Santa Ana RWQCB providing notification and intent to comply with t he State of California General Construction Permit.
Additionally, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Engineering for water quality construction activities on -site and a ll recommendations in the Plan shall be implemented during area preparation, grading, and construction. This measure would not result in environmental impacts or in physical changes in the environment because it would require protection of water quality and resources and would address any recognized environmental conditions in accordance with all applicable agency requirements and oversight. As such, implementation of this mitigation measure would not result in adverse long- term secondary impacts.
COA-HYD-2 includes the requirement that prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, future development projects shall prepare, to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering, a Water Quality Management Plan or Stormwater Mitigation Plan, which includes Best Management Practices (BMPs), in accordance with the Orange County DAMP.
All recommendations in the Plan shall be implemented during post construction/operation phase . This measure would not result in environmental impacts or in physical changes in the e nvironment because it would require protection of water quality and resources and would address any recognized environmental conditions in accordance with all applicable agency requirements and oversight. As such, implementation of this mitigation measure would not result in adverse long-term secondary impacts.
COA-HYD-3 requires that prior to site plan approval, the project owner/developer(s) shall be required to coordinate with the City of Fullerton Engineering Department to determine requirements necessary to mitigate impacts to drainage improvements in order to accommodate storage volumes and flood protection for existing and future runoff. Proposed projects shall implement mitigation measures, if required, to the satisfaction of the City of Fullerton Public Works Director. For any new storm drainage projects/studies that have the potential to impact adjacent jurisdictions’ storm drainage systems, the developer shall submit said studies to the applicable jurisdiction for review and approval. This measure would not result in environmental impacts or in physical changes in the environment because it would require protection of water quality and resources and would address any recognized environmental conditions in accordance with all applicable agency requirements and oversight. As such, implementation of this mitigation measure would not result in adverse long-term secondary impacts.
5.4.4 Noise
COA-N-1 would help limit construction noise at surrounding sensitive receptors through the implementation of construction best management practices (BMPs). This measure would not result in environmental impacts or in physical changes in the environment. As such, implementation of this mitigation measure would not result in adverse long-term secondary impacts. Similarly, COA-N-2 would help reduce construction noise and vibration by requiring heavily loaded trucks to be routed away from residential streets to the extent feasible. COA-N-3 would ensure that construction staging areas and the operation of earth-moving equipment would be located as far away from vibration- and noise-sensitive sites as possible. COA-N-4 lists specific mitigation measures that future developments under the Program would be required to implement to reduce the potential for human annoyance and architectural/structural
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR
MAY 2024
5.0 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
12885
5.0-11
damage resulting from elevated ground borne noise and vibration levels. COA-N-5 would require residential projects located within the 65 dB CNEL noise contour for the Fullerton Municipal Airport to be subject to review by the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission and shall be required to ensure interior noise levels from aircraft operations are at or below 45 dB CNEL. COA-N-6 mandates that mechanical equipment from future developments be placed as far as practical from sensitive receptors. These requirements to reduce potential impacts related to the noise during construction or operation and are short-term in nature. The equipment required for these mitigation measures, such as noise barriers and distancing construction equipment from sensitive receptors, would not result in environmental impacts or in physical changes in the environment and measures could require use of alternative equipment or engine covers/shrouds that would avoid significant noise impacts. As such, implementation of these mitigation measures would not result in adverse long-term secondary impacts.
5.4.5 Utilities and Service Systems
COA-WW-1 would require that prior to issuance of a building permit for any future development project, the Project Applicant shall prepare an engineering study to support the adequacy of the sewer systems and submit the engineering study to the City of Fullerton for review and approva l. COA-WW-2 would require that prior to issuance of a building permit for any future development project, the Project Applicant shall provide evidence that the OCSD has sufficient transmission and treatment plant capacity to accept sewage flows from buildings for which building permits are being requested. These measures would not result in environmental impacts or in physical changes in the environment because it would require identification of specific impacts and addressing them in accordance with all applicable agency requirements and oversight. As such, implementation of these mitigation measures would not result in adverse long-term secondary impacts.
5.5 Effects Found Not to Be Significant
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15128 requires that a PEIR contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the Draft PEIR. Based on the analysis contained in the Draft PEIR and as listed in Table ES-1 in the Executive Summary of this Draft PEIR, the following environmental effects were found to be less than significant: Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry, Biological R esources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Energy, and Wildfire.
5.5.1 Aesthetics
The City is located within an urbanized portion of north Orange County that is 90% built-out (City of Fullerton 2012a).
The northern portion of the City provides long range views and broad vistas from the rolling hills and the southern portion of the City is relatively flat with existing buildings and adjacent roadways as the dominant visual elements (City of Fullerton 2012a) . The Program would facilitate future development of housing throughout the City which would primarily consist of infill and redevelopment. East and West Coyote Hills are scenic resources within the City, both of which are viewable from the southern portion of the City (City of Fullerton 2012a) . However, parcels identified on the southern portion of the City would likely have their views obscured by existing conditions due to topography, intervening development, and landscaping. As such, long-range views of East and West Coyote Hills would be not readily available from these public vantage points. Additionally, future development associated with the proposed Program would be required to be consistent with established regulations, guidelines, and development review processes set forth in the City’s Municipal Code and General Plan. These regulations and
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR
MAY 2024
5.0 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
12885
5.0-12
guidelines would reduce conflicts between future development and visual resources through an individualized assessment during the plan check and permitting process. As such, similar to the General Plan, the proposed Program would not directly result in sub stantial adverse effects on the City’s scenic vistas. Less than significant impacts would occur.
A significant impact would occur in the event future development associated with the proposed Program would substantially damage scenic resources to State Route (SR) 91, located relatively between the SR-55 interchange and Imperial Highway approximately 3.4 miles southeast of the nearest HIOZ -identified parcel (Caltrans 2023).
Given the distance, the overall Planning Area is not within the viewshed of this scenic highway. As such, future development associated with the proposed Program would not substantial ly damage scenic resources within the viewshed of SR-91. No impact would occur.
Overall, the construction of new residential land uses would change the current character of the City. However, consistent with the compatible development intensities identified in the General Plan’s Focus Areas, the proposed Program would introduce a maximum density of 60 du/ac . Implementation of future development within the Planning Area would be required to comply with either the regulations governing the underlying zoning designation or the Program’s development standards in the event residential or mixed-use developments are proposed. As such, the proposed Program would not conflict with applicable regulations related to scenic quality.
The City has designated scenic corridors, as shown in Exhibit 5.3-1 of the General Plan PEIR, as well as rural streets, shown in Exhibit 5.3-2, within the City with the intent to be designed and improved in ways to preserve their aesthetic value (City of Fullerton 2012b) . Various HIOZ parcels are within the vicinity of, or abut, the right -of-way of locally designated scenic corridors, such as Bastanchury Road, State College Boulevard, Harbor Boulevard, Brea Boulevard, Euclid Street, and Rosecrans Avenue. Ho wever, the proposed Program would not result in future development along designated rural streets.
Additionally, the State CEQA Guidelines have been revised to focus on objective methods for determining potential impacts. For example, under this threshold of significance, the State CEQA Guidelines did not differ in determining impacts in nonurbanized ar eas and urbanized areas. As such, the General Plan PEIR determined impacts would occur with the implementation of the City’s Focus Areas in the short -term through the construction of future development. Therefore, General Plan PEIR mitigation measures were incorporated as standard COAs to reduce potentially significant impacts to visual character and quality. COA-AES-1 relates to construction equipment staging and screening. COA-AES-2 relates to construction vehicles visual quality. COA-AES-3 regulates construction worker parking. Although, impacts of the Program are anticipated to be less than significant without mitigation, these COAs will be carried forward in order to be consistent with the findings of the General Plan PEIR.
Given the above discussion, implementation of the proposed Program would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Less than significant impacts would occur.
5.5.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
None of the Fullerton HIOZ Program’s parcels are located on designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown in the City’s General Plan (City of Fullerton 2012a). In addition, the Williamson Act Contract Land Map identifies no areas under an existing Williamson Act contract in the Planning Area (California Department of Conservation 2023). No forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production areas are located within or adjacent to the Planning Area, as the area is ur banized and developed with commercial and
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR
MAY 2024
5.0 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
12885
5.0-13
residential uses. As such, no farmland or forest land would be converted or otherwise affected by the Program.
Therefore, impacts associated with agriculture and forestry resources would not occur.
5.5.3 Air Quality (Odors)
The occurrence and severity of potential odor impacts depends on numerous factors. The nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the sensitivity of receiving location each contribute to the intensity of the impact. During construction of future development projects associated with the Program’s implementation, exhaust from equipment may produce discernible odors typical of most construction sites.
However, such odors would disperse rapidly from the sites of future d evelopment projects and would generally occur at magnitudes that would not affect substantial numbers of people. Operation of future development projects would not entail any potentially odor -causing land uses identified by SCAQMD. Furthermore, during constructi on and operation of the future development projects associated with the proposed Program, future applicants, construction contractors, and project operators would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rules 401, 402, and 403. For informational purposes, mitigation measures were incorporated to reduce potentially significant impacts to air quality. General Plan PEIR COA-AQ-1 is included in this Initial Study as a condition of approval for consistency purposes and to ensure compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 prior to the issuance of a grading permit in order to reduce potential adverse impacts related to fugitive dust. Due to the nature of future construction and operation of potential residential and/or mixed -use land uses, and upon compliance with applicable SCAQMD rules, future development projects associated with the proposed Program would not result in other emissions such as those leading to odors. Impacts would be less than significant.
5.5.4 Biological Resources
Future development projects within the Planning A rea would occur primarily through redevelopment of existing development sites or infill development and it is not anticipated that implementation of the proposed Program would result in significant impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species and their habitats. The Planning Area does not include parcels within the West Coyote Hills Focus Area, which has been identified as an area where special status wildlife and plant species and their habitats are known to occur or include parcels within the Coyote Hills East Habitat Conservation Plan (City of Fullerton 2012a). The implementation of future development projects would also be required to comply with applicable General Plan PEIR mitigation measure COA-BIO-1 which would require a Biological Resource Assessment for development projects within or adjacent to an environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Impacts would be less than significant.
Future development projects would be located in areas that are primarily developed and do not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. Thus, it is not anticipated that implementation of the proposed Program would result in significant impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. However, some parcels within the Planning Area are located within the vicinity of mapped riparian habitats (USFWS 2023). In the event future development projects associated with the proposed Program are adjacent to existing rivers, streams, or channels, such projects would be required to comply with applicable General Plan PEIR mitigation measures, including COA-BIO-1. Compliance with COA-BIO-1 would not result in 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Impacts would be less than significant.
Given the above information, it is not anticipated that implementation of the proposed Program would result in significant impacts to wetlands. However, some parcels within the Planning Area are located within the vicinity of
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR
MAY 2024
5.0 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
12885
5.0-14
mapped riparian habitats (USFWS 2023). HIOZ projects that may be adjacent to wetlands would be required to comply with COA-BIO-1 and would not in a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands through removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Impacts would be less than significant.
Implementation of the HIOZ Program is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to any wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites. Due to the presence of trees and vegetation on parcels across the Planning Area, there is the potential for adverse effects on ornamental non -native trees and shrubs that provide nesting habitat for common birds and raptors protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 USC 703–712) and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. Vegetation removal, other construction activities, and the resulting elevated noise levels associated with future development projects could disturb, harm, or kill, individual protected birds or raptors that are nesting on or within the vicinity of the subject parcels. Thus, there is potential for future construction activities to negatively affect breeding or reproduction of bird and/or raptor species. Compliance with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code would reduce this impact. Once future development projects have been constructed, construction-related disturbances would no longer occur. Implementation of the proposed Program would include compliance with the City’s open space and landscaping requirements (i.e., planting of trees), which would occur throughout the Planning Area. As such, the Planning Area would continue to provide potential nesting sites in an urban environment, consistent with existing conditions. Therefore, long-term impacts to nesting and migratory birds would not be significant. Impacts would be less than significant.
The City has policies and regulations in place to protect biological resources, including certain trees. Specifically, these policies and regulations are included in the City’s General Plan PEIR and Community Forestry Ordinance.
Implementation of the proposed Program is not anticipated to conflict with the Community Forest Ordinance given that future development and/or redevelopment activities would be required to be reviewed for consistency with the Municipal Code, including the Community Forestry Ordinance. As such, the proposed Program would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Impacts would be less than significant.
The HIOZ Planning Area is within the boundaries of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) (CDFW 2019). However, the OCTA NCCP/HCP only applies to freeway improvement projects and, thus, would not apply to future development projects associated with the HIOZ Program (OCTA 2014). Additionally, the Coyote Hills East HCP is established within the OCTA NCCP/HCP. However, future development projects associated with the HIOZ program would not be within the Coyote Hills East HCP. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Program would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan; natural community conservation plan; or other approved local, regional, or state habitat plan. No impact would occur as a result of the HIOZ Program.
5.5.5 Cultural Resources
Although the HIOZ Program screened out and removed parcels from consideration that were identified on the City’s local register of historical resources, potentially significant effects to historic-age structures and historical resources could occur as a result of the Program. However, implementation of future development projects would be required to comply with General Plan PEIR mitigation measures MM-CR-1 and MM-CR-3 which are included as COAs. COA- CR-1 would require a Phase I Cultural Resources Study for future developme nt sites located on properties considered by the City to be sensitive for cultural resources while COA-CR-3 would halt construction activities within 100 feet in the event that cultural resources are inadvertently unearthed during excavation and grading activities and a qualified professional would evaluate the significance of the finding and appropriate course of action. These
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR
MAY 2024
5.0 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
12885
5.0-15
mitigation measures would reduce impacts associated with a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource to a less than significant level.
Implementation of the proposed Program would result in future development projects across the Planning Area, which could include ground -disturbing activities. However, future development projects would be required to implement General Plan PEIR mitigation measures COA-CR-1 through COA-CR-3. COA-CR-2 outlines procedures in the event that monitoring during construction by a professional archaeologist and/or paleontologist is needed for the subject development project. Through implementation of these measures, the HIOZ Program would reduce impacts associated with a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource to a less than significant level.
The Planning Area does not include parcels identified as a formal cemetery. While it is unlikely that previously undiscovered human remains exist in the vicinity of or within the Planning Area, there is some chance that human remains could be located within the parcels identified for future development and disturbed by construction activities. Although, impacts of the proposed Program are anticipated to be less than significant without mitigation, MM-CR-4 from the General Plan PEIR is incorporated into the HIOZ program as a condition of approval. COA-CR-4 outlines procedures, in compliance with the California Public Resources Code and Health and Safety Code , for future development projects in the event that human remains are found. Therefore, potential impacts related to the disturbance of any human remains would be less than significant.
5.5.6 Energy
Energy use from construction of future residential development would primarily occur in association with fuel use by vehicles and other equipment to conduct construction activities. Electricity demand would vary throughout the construction period. Electricity use associated with construction activities would be limited and minimal and would not require additional capacity. As such, the electricity used for any future construction would be temporary and minimal. Natural gas is not anticipated to be used during construction. Any minor amounts of natural gas that may be consumed during construction of future development projects would be temporary and negligible and would not have an adverse effect. Heavy-duty equipment, vendor trucks, and haul trucks associated with construction of future development projects would rely on diesel fuel . Construction workers would travel to and from each of the parcels within the Planning Area throughout the duration of construction which is estimated to occur intermittently over the planning horizon of 2029. Future development projects would be subject t o the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) In -Use Off -Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation s which serve to reduce emissions. Overall, implementation of the Program would not be unusual as compared to overall local and regional demand for energy resources and would not involve characteristics that require equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or state. Additionally, any future development facilitated by the Program would be required to adhere to all federal, state, and local requirements for energy efficiency. As such, the Program would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of building energy. Construction impacts would be less than significant.
Operation of future development projects would require electricity for multiple purposes. However, energy demand could reduce due to energy-saving regulations and code requirements that are currently unknown for the buildout year of 2029. Therefore, electricity used would likely be lower with incorporations of applicable standards. Operation would also require natural gas for various purposes and would increase natural gas demand. However, any future development under the Program would be subject to statewide mandatory energy requirements as outlined in Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations . Thus, the natural gas consumption related to development
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR
MAY 2024
5.0 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
12885
5.0-16
facilitated by the Program would not be considered inefficient or wasteful. During operation, fuel consumption would occur for various purposes, including for residents and guests traveling to and from residences, and would overall increase fuel demand. Future development would annually increase annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and would result in an estimated increase in annual fuel demand of petroleum per year. Implementation of the Program would not inherently result in excessive or wasteful vehicle trips, VMT, or associated excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption. Future enhanced fuel economies pursuant to federal and state regulatory actions would likely decrease future gas fuel demand per VMT. Additionally, the general location of the parcels within the Planning Area proximate to regional and local roadway systems tends to reduce VMT within the region. Therefore, transportation energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary . Impacts would be less than significant.
There are a variety of State and local plans and policies in place that promote use of renewable energy and energy efficiency. Part 6 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and all applicable rules and regulations would reduce energy demand and increase energy efficiency related to future residential development facilitated under the proposed Program. Additionally, various existing local plans would reduce energy use including SCAG’s 2020– 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy and CARB’s Scoping Plan. Approval of the Program itself, as a zoning action, would not change these regulations and would not provide any goals, policies, or programs that would conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
Implementation of the Program is required to be consistent with existing regulations and, therefore, is not anticipated to conflict with renewable energy or energy efficiency plans. Impacts would be less than significant.
5.5.7 Geology and Soils
Future siting of buildings would have to comply with the Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, which is intended to prevent construction of buildings for human occupancy on top of traces of active faults. As such, future development projects would be required to go through the City’s plan check and permitting process to ensure compliance with state and local building code requirements. Compliance with requirements of building code for structural safety during seismic event would reduce fault hazards to less than significant.
The Norwalk Fault and the Puente Hills Fault traverse Fullerton while the Whittier-Elsinore Fault and the Newport- Inglewood Fault are located within miles of the City (City of Fullerton 2012a). A number of faults in the region are considered active features capable of generating future earthquakes that could result in moderate to strong ground shaking. According to the General Plan PEIR, the National Seismic Zones Map has designated the City within Zone 4, which has the highest earthquake danger of the four national seismic zones. As such, existing local regulations require stronger construction standard s for buildings located within the City’s Municipal Code. Chapter 14.03 ensures future development projects would comply with building code provisions that regulate design, engineering, and construction standards, consistent with the California Building Code. Section 16.05.065 of the Municipal Code requires the property owner/developer to prepare a site -specific final geotechnical investigation prepared by a qualified licensed soils/engineering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer (geotechnical consultant ). The consultant shall determine if additional subsurface geotechnical field work, laboratory testing, and/or geotechnical analysis is necessary to provide site -specific geotechnical design recommendations that ensure compliance with the Municipal Code and the most recently adopted California Building Code in effect at the time of building permit issuance. These site-specific recommendations would be incorporated into the project site preparation and building design specifications of the future development projects. Therefore, future developments would be required to go through the City’s building plan check review to ensure compliance with state and local building code requirements.
The building plan check review would calculate the seismic design paramete rs to reduce hazards to people and
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR
MAY 2024
5.0 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
12885
5.0-17
structures arising from ground shaking. As a result, future development projects implemented under the Program would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking. Impacts would be less than significant.
Liquefaction susceptibility is considered high throughout the City, including the Planning Area, and especially within the southwestern portions (City of Fullerton 2012a). Structures built on deposits of alluvium, clays, silts, and poorly constructed manmade fills would most likely experience damage due to seismically -induced settlement and differential compaction. Therefore, project implementation could result in significant impacts regarding the exposure of people and structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic-related ground failure.
Municipal Code Section 16.05.065 would require a site -specific geotechnical investigation conducted by a geotechnical consultant. As a result, site-specific recommendations would be incorporated into future project site preparation and building design specifications. Therefore, with review under the City’s building plan check process, impacts would be less than significant.
The landslide potential in the City is considered to be low due to the flat topography in most areas. There is the potential for landslides in the steeper portions of the East and West Coyote Hills area due to the sloping topography (City of Fullerton 2012a). One of the criteria under the parcel screening process is the parcel’s location outside of a local hazard zone. As such, Program -identified parcels are not located within an earthquake -induced landslide area. Moreover, future development projects implemented under the Program would be required to comply with the City’s plan check and permitting process, including compliance with applicable building code provisions governing structural design, engineering, safety, and integrity. Therefore, with review under the City’s building plan check process, impacts would be less than significant.
Implementation of the proposed Program would result in future development projects on parcels with various existing conditions, including vacant land, previously disturbed land, and land with existing development. Buildout of the proposed Program would substantially increase the amount of impervious surface within the Planning Area.
However, existing regulations would ensure the implementation of future development projects would comply with water quality standards and requirements. As such, future development projects under the Program would minimize short- and long-term erosion. Therefore, with review under the City’s building plan check process, impacts would be less than significant.
The landslide potential in the City is considered to be low due to the flat topography in most areas of the City. Given the high susceptibility of liquefaction throughout the City and especially within the southwestern portions, the potential for lateral spreading is also considered high, according to the General Plan PEIR. Although not considered a major problem, areas containing zones subject to subsidence resulting from consolidations include the central and northern portions of Fullerton. Other parts of the City may experience minor subsidence from a major earthquake (City of Fullerton 2012a). Municipal Code Section 16.05.065 would require a site-specific geotechnical investigation conducted by a geotechnical consultant. As a result, site-specific recommendations would be incorporated into future project site preparation and building design specifications. Therefore, with review under the City’s building plan check process, impacts would be less than significant.
Implementation of the proposed Program would be required to comply with California Building Code requirements related to hazards involving potentially expansive soils. Numerous controls would be imposed on future development projects through the City’s per mitting process to lessen impacts associated with expansive soils.
Potential impacts associated with expansive soils would be sufficiently mitigated for structures designed and constructed in conformance with the City’s Municipal Code and industry -accepted engineering standards,
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR
MAY 2024
5.0 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
12885
5.0-18
including Section 16.05.065. Therefore, with review under the City’s building plan check process, impacts would be less than significant.
The parcels within the Planning Area are served by the existing municipal sewer system. The City has established utility services, and no septic systems would be proposed or required to serve future development projects under the proposed Program. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Paleontological Resources
The proposed Program includes various mitigation measures from the City’s General Plan PEIR regarding cultural resources, including paleontological resources. COA-CR-1 would require a Phase I Cultural Resources Study for future development sites located on properties considered to be sensitive for cultural resources by the City. COA- CR-2 outlines procedures in the event that monitoring during construction by a professional archaeologist and/or paleontologist is needed for the subject development project. COA-CR-3 would be required in the event that cultural resources (i.e., historical) are inadvertently unearthed during excavation and grading activities.
Paleontological sites are those that show evidence of pre -human activity and are often simply small outcroppings visible on the surface or sites encountered during grading . These sites are important mostly because they may contain fossils. The City of Fullerton is known to be underlain by Pleistocene shallow marine, lagoonal, floodplain, and terrace deposits, approximately 1.8 million to 40,000 years old. These stratigraphic units, in ascending order are the San Pedro Formation, the Coyote Hills Formation, the La Habra Formation, and old alluvium. The San Pedro Formation is known to have abundant marine invertebrate and both marine and terrestrial vertebrate materials and fossil mollusks were recorded in earlier studies in the Coyote Hills East area. The Coyote Hills Formation and Coyote Creek have produced extensive collections of numerous fossil vertebrates (City of Fullerton 2012b).
The La Habra Formation has also produced vertebrate fossils in the City. Over 32 species of land animals have been recovered, including extinct birds. Portions of the Formation are mapped as older alluvium which is expected to contain additional fossils. The San Pedro and La Habra Formations are considered to have a high sensitivity for paleontological resources. The West Coyote Hills has an unknown potential for the discovery of fossils, however, because of the environment in which the formation accumulate d, it is likely that fossils may be encountered. As such, the discovery of additional paleontological resources within the City is possible (City of Fullerton 2012b) .
However, future development projects under the proposed Program would be required to go through the City’s plan check and permitting process to ensure compliance with state and local building code requirements, including the City Municipal Code’s stronger construction standards. The Program would also be required to comply with applicable General Plan PEIR mitigation measures COA-CR-1 through COA-CR-3 that would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources. These measures are included in the Program as conditions of approval and are described above. With implementation of COA-CR-1 through COA-CR-3, all earth-disturbing activities within a 100-foot radius of the area of discovery would cease and a qualified professional would evaluate the significance of the finding and appropriate course of action. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
5.5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Hazardous Substances, Emergency Plans, Wildland Fires)
The land uses that would be developed under the proposed Program include new residential uses , which would require the temporary and limited use of hazardous materials during construction and operation of future development projects. Implementation of the proposed Program would not involve the direct impacts related to the
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR
MAY 2024
5.0 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
12885
5.0-19
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; however, the Program would facilitate the construction of future development projects which would have the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment with the temporary transport, storage, and use of commonly used hazardous substances which are anticipated to be required for future projects. All hazardous materials must be used and stored in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and handled in compliance with fe deral, local, and state requirements . These future projects would introduce new residential uses onto parcels with non -residential underlying zoning designations.
Implementation would involve future demolition and earthwork activities on identified parcels and construction activities would i nvolve the transport of commonly used hazardous substances from construction sites to be disposed of at contracted solid waste disposal providers in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations, including the California Health and Safety Code, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), and local fire code requirements. Such requirements include the transport of hazardous waste materials is further governed by Health and Safety Code Section 25163, which requires transporters of hazardous waste to hold a valid registration issued by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) while transporting hazardous waste, and California Code of Regulations Title 22, Chapter 13, which requires haulers to have an identification number and a registration certificate from DTSC; obtain a Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest signed by the generator and transporter prior to accepting hazardous wastes; and delivery of hazardous waste to authorized facilities only. The proposed Program would not result in new or different methods for future construction activities that are not already allowed within the Planning Area or otherwise result in changes to existing requirements for the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Consequently, the future use of construction -related hazardous materials would not pose a significant risk to the public or environment through the temporary routine and limited use or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, construction impacts would be less than significant.
During operations, it is not anticipated that these future projects would create a significant hazard beyond what is typical of a residential land use such as paints or cleaning supplies. Future residential land uses would continue to use typical household and commercially available hazardous materials, and there would be no new uses that are not already allowed within the residential zones in the Planning Area. Similar to construction-related activities, operation of future projects would be subject to reg ulations mentioned above that govern the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Moreover, prior to the issuance of a demolition or building permit at the City, all project applicants must obtain the proper clearance of compliance with applicable regulations through the City’s plan check and permitting process. Although applicable buil ding code requirements would be implemented to reduce any potentially significant impacts to the transport of hazardous materials to a less than significant level, General Plan PEIR mitigation measures MM-HAZ-2 and MM-HAZ-4 are included as COAs to ensure consistency with the General Plan. Both COA -HAZ-2 and COA -HAZ-4 outline procedures prior to potential remedial excavation and grading activities. As such, future development projects are not anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, and impacts would be less than significant.
Implementation of the proposed Program would facilitate the future development of projects throughout the Planning Area, and it is possible that construction activities associated with future projects may result in the presence of construction equipment and materials adjacent to roadways that could temporarily impede emergency access to and within the Planning Area. However, future development would need to comply with all applicable building code requirements in the California Building Code, Fire Code, and the City’s Municipal Code related to access and design requirements to allow for emergency services to access all structures. As such, individual projects would be reviewed during the City’s plan check and permitting process. Although applicable building code requirements would be implemented to reduce any potentially significant impacts to emergency access to a less
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR
MAY 2024
5.0 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
12885
5.0-20
than significant level, General Plan PEIR mitigation measures MM-HAZ-5 and MM-HAZ-6 are included as COAs to ensure consistency with the General Plan. COA-HAZ-5 would require the preparation of a Traffic Control Plan during construction, as applicable, and COA-HAZ-6 would ensure that consultation between City departments is disclosed in the event that temporary closures or alternative travel routes are required for implementation of future development projects. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Fire hazards at the urban -wildlands interface is a potential problem that threatens life and property. The City’s General Plan PEIR identified areas where fire hazard severity is considered Very High and High, including portions of the HIOZ Planning Area. As a result of Program implementation, future development projects could have the potential to expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. However, the City’s Municipal Code includes existing regulatory requirements for property within fire hazard severity zones. Chapter 13.19, Fire Prevention Standards, of the Municipal Code would ensure coordination and compliance with the City’s Fire Department Fire Prevention Standard on Fuel Modification Plans and Maintenance, as well as standards within the Fire Prevention Standard on Brush Clearance . All future development would be required to comply with these provisions through the plan check and permitting process.
Compliance with the specified fire prevention standards would provide the necessary limitations to reduce the exposure of people or structures to risk involving wildland fires to less than significant.
5.5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality (Water Quality Standards) Buildout of the proposed Program would substantially increase the amount of impervious surface within the Planning Area which could result in increased runoff that could violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or substantially degrade surface water or groundwater quality. However, existing regulations would ensure the implementation of future development projects would comply with water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, including regulations under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to control direct stormwater discharges . The Planning Area is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) which issues permits to the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and incorporated cities of Orange County. As such, implementation of future development projects under the proposed Program with potential site disturbances of more than one acre would be subject to the NPDES Construction General Permit requirements (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ).
Construction activities associated with the future development projects have the potential to impact water quality through soil erosion and increasing the amount of silt and debris carried in runoff. Additionally, the use of construction materials such as fuels, solvents, and paints may present a risk to surface water quality. To minimize these potential impacts, future development projects would be required to comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit and prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollutio n Prevention Plans (SWPPP). For future development sites disturbing less than one acre of ground surface during construction would be required to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs), in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code.
During operations, future development projects under the Program would be required to adhere to applicable regulations governing water quality. The Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) provides guidance for the Orange County NPDES Stormwater Program that is implemented within each permittee’s jurisdiction. The Local Implementation Plan (LIP) describes how the DAMP is being implemented by individual permittees under the NPDES Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. These regulations address stormwater quality issues specific to the local watershed or region and requires permittees to develop and implement a stormwater management program designed to prevent pollutants from entering receiving waters. The City is responsible for
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR
MAY 2024
5.0 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
12885
5.0-21
controlling or limiting urban pollutants generated by construction and post -construction activities from reaching their MS4s, and future development projects under the proposed Program are subject to the requirements of the north Orange County MS4 permit.
Although the above requirements would be implemented to reduce any potentially significant impacts to water quality degradation to a less than significant level, General Plan PEIR mitigation measures MM-HYD-1, MM-HYD-2, and MM-HYD-3 are included as COAs to ensure consistency with the General Plan PEIR. COA-HYD-1 and COA-HYD- 2 would require project applicants to prepare and implement the SWPPP that includes BMPs to control erosion and prevent any discharge of sediments from any HIOZ project site to reduce water quality impacts, as well as ensure coordination with the City’s Engineering Department to determine requirements necessary to mitigate impacts to drainage. COA -HYD-3 would require the project owner/developer(s) to coordinate with the City of Fullerton Engineering Department to determine requirements necessary to mitigate impacts to drainage improvements in order to accommodate storage volumes and flood protection for existing and future runoff. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
5.5.10 Land Use and Planning (Divide an Established Community) The parcels within the Planning Area are bound by existing, major roadways or within the vicinity of existing roadways. The proposed Program’s parcels were identified based on a methodology with four specific criteria: 1) economic viability; 2) location within opportunity areas; 3) location outside of local hazard zones; and 4) adjacent to local amenities. Implementation of the proposed Program would result in future redevelopment of these parcels and would not result in a physical division within an establ ished community. Furthermore, the Program does not include features such as a new highway, new aboveground infrastructure, or an easement through an established neighborhood that may result in physical divisions within a community. Impacts would be less than significant.
5.5.11 Noise (Within 2 Miles of a Private Airstrip or Airport) Several identified parcels within the proposed Program are within the vicinity of a public airport, the Fullerton Municipal Airport, located in the southwestern corner of the City. The Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is an advisory body that ensure airport land use compatibility and reviews local agency land use actions and airport plans. As described in the General Plan PEIR, noise exposure contours around airports are determined from the number and type of aircraft using the airport, the magnitude and duration of each fly over, flight paths, and the time of day when flights occur (City of Fullerton 2012b) . The Airport Noise Standards contained in Title 4 of the California Administrative Code specify that airports shall not permit noise exposures of 65 decibels (dB) Community Noise Equivalent Level ( CNEL) or greater to extend into residential or school areas. The State Aeronautics Act specifies 65 dB CNEL as the criterion which airports must meet to protect existing residential communities f rom unacceptable exterior exposures to aircraft noise. The exterior maximum of 65 dB CNEL is given as the level deemed acceptable to a reasonable person residing in urban residential areas where houses are of typical California construction and may have wi ndows partially open. Compliance and/or adherence to the City’s Noise Ordinance would ensure airport-related noise impacts to residential uses within the 65 dB CNEL noise contour would be less than significant.
Although impacts would be less than significant, General Plan PEIR mitigation measure MM -N-5 is included as a COA to ensure consistency with the General Plan PEIR. COA -N-5 would ensure residential projects located within the 65 dB CNEL noise contour would be subject to review by the Orange County ALUC and ensure interior noise levels would be at or below 45 dB CNEL. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR
MAY 2024
5.0 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
12885
5.0-22
5.5.12 Population and Housing (Displacement)
In the event there are existing non-conforming residential uses on parcels within the Planning Area, implementation of the proposed Program would result in potential displacement of existing people or housing. The temporary displacement of some residents due to redevelopment of existing non-conforming residential properties would occur throughout the Planning Area. However, the Program would accommodate development of approximately 35,611 additional dwelling units that are expected to substantially increase the capacity for housing stock in the Planning Area. As such, the Program is not anticipated to permanently displace a substantial number of people and any temporary impacts would be offset by the anticipated increase in housing production. Additionally, as a result of the screening process for parcels selected for the proposed Program , substantial displacement of existing housing and residents would be less likely to occur. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Displacement of housing or people under CEQA is limited to the potential physical adverse changes to the environment. This approach is consistent with Section 15382 of the State CEQA Guidelines, “[a]n economic or social change by itself shall not be consid ered a significant impact on the environment .” As such, this section includes a review of the potential direct physical changes of displacement. An analysis of whether the Fullerton HIOZ Plan would displace population is demonstrated by analyzing potential land use changes proposed.
5.5.13 Recreation (Construction or Expansion of Facilities) Implementation of the proposed Program does not directly propose the construction of new publicly accessible recreational facilities, nor does it include land use changes that would facilitate the future development of parkland.
Impacts would be less than significant.
5.5.14 Transportation (Geometric Design Features, Emergency Access) Implementation of the proposed Program would facilitate the future development of residential uses on existing parcels with non-residential underlying zoning designations. As such, the Program has the potential to introduce new circulation patterns to the Planning Area. However, individual projects facilitated as a result of the Program’s implementation would be subject to the City’s plan check and permitting process. At that time, any specific traffic hazards due to the geometric design around the future project sites would be identified. No g eometric design issues are reasonably foreseeable at the time of drafting this PEIR. However, implementation of the Program would result in infill development and/or redevelopment of parcels within a built out, urban area which would not involve permanent changes to linear infrastructure, including roadways. Individual projects proposed in the Planning Area would be subject to, and designed in accordance with City standards and specifications which address potential design hazards including sight distance, driveway placement and access, and signage and striping. At intersections or roadways where traffic safety issues are identified, the City would work to correct any deficiencies in a timely manner to the degree that is practical and feasible. Additionally, any new transportation facilities, or improvements to roadway facilities associated with individual projects would be constructed based on design standards consistent with the City’s Municipal Code, and best practices consistent with General Plan.
Implementation of the Program would be subject to, and constructed in accordance with, applicable roadway design standards and applicable General Plan goals and policies. Therefore, with compliance with existing regulations, the Program would not substantially in crease hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. Impacts would be less than significant.
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR
MAY 2024
5.0 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
12885
5.0-23
The Program has the potential to introduce new circulation patterns to the Planning Area, however, the Program does not propose any direct development or new roadways, or intersections and it does not include any standards that would result in inadequate emergency access. However, the Program would allow for greater densities than are currently allowed within the Planning Area as proposed in the plan, policies, and zoning standards for the City, and would facilitate temporary construction activities within the Planning Area, which could temporarily result in impacts to the circulation system. Similar to the discussion presented in Section 5.5.8 above, future development would need to comply with all applicable building code requirements in the California Building Code, Fire Code, and the City’s Municipal Code related to access and design requirements to allow for emergency services to access all structures.
As such, individual projects would be reviewed during the City’s plan check and permitting process and, following compliance with applicable regulations, impacts would be less than significant.
Although impacts would be less than significant, General Plan PEIR mitigation measures MM-HAZ-5 and MM-HAZ- 6 are included as COAs to ensure consistency with the General Plan. COA-HAZ-5 would require the preparation of a Traffic Control Plan during construction, as applicable, and COA-HAZ-6 would ensure that consultation between City departments is disclosed in the event that temporary closures or alternative travel routes are required for implementation of future development projects (City of Fullerton 2012b). Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
5.5.15 Utilities and Service Systems (Compliance with Solid Waste Management and Reduction Regulations)
Future development projects associated with the proposed Program would increase demand on existing infrastructure facilities, including solid waste facilities (i.e., landfills). All solid waste-generating activities in the City are subject to the requirements set forth in AB 939, which requires diversion of a minimum of 50 percent of construction and demolition debris. In addition, after 2020, development projects will be required to divert 75 percent of solid waste, pursuant to AB 341. As such, d isposal of waste generated from implementation of the proposed Program would be consistent with all state regulations. Impacts would be less than significant.
5.5.16 Wildfire
According to CalFire, the City is not located within a state responsibility area (CalFire 2023). However, the City’s General Plan PEIR has identified areas where fire hazard severity is considered Very High and High, as shown in Exhibit 5.9-1, Fire Hazard Severity, of the General Plan PEIR (City of Fullerton 2012a). Although parcels within a fire hazard severity zone are not included in the Program, the City’s General Plan PEIR identifies portions of the Planning Area or parcels adjacent to the Planning Area within a fire hazard severity zone. As such, future development would be required to comply with the City’s Fire Prevention Standards (Chapter 13.19 of the Municipal Code), as appropriate, through the plan check and permitting process. It is also possible that construction activities associated with future projects under the Program may result in the presence of construction equipment and materials adjacent to roadways that could temporarily impede emergency access to and within the Planning Area.
However, future development would need to comply with all applicable building code requirements in the California Building Code, Fire Code, and the City’s Municipal Code related to access and design requirements to allow for emergency services to access all structures. Additionally, although impacts are expected to be less than significant, future development projects would implement General Plan PEIR mitigation measures MM -HAZ-5 and MM-HAZ-6 as COAs to be consistent with the General Plan PEIR. COA-HAZ-5 would require the preparation of a Traffic Control Plan during construction, as applicable. COA-HAZ-6 would ensure that consultation between City departments is disclosed in the event that temporary closures or alternative travel routes are required for implementation of future
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR
MAY 2024
5.0 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
12885
5.0-24
development projects (City of Fullerton 2012b) . As such, through compliance with applicable regulations and conditions, impacts to emergency response plan s or emergency evacuation plans would be less than significant , and no mitigation would be required.
As some Program parcels are near wildfire severity zones, there is the potential for future development projects to exacerbate wildfire risks, exposing future occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. The parcels identified are located outside of a local hazard zone based on the screening methodology process for the inclusion of parcels in the proposed Program. Additionally, compliance with the City’s Municipal Code would reduce risk from wildfires and post-fire, rainfall-induced landslides, and debris flows. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
Future development may require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure. In the event infrastructure improvements are required, future development projects located on parcels near a V ery High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) could exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. However, compliance with the City’s Municipal Code for properties within hire hazard severity zones would reduce risk from the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
Due to various Program parcel locations near a VHFHSZ, there is the potential for future development projects to expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire sl ope instability, or drainage changes. However, due to future development projects consisting entirely of infill development and HIOZ parcels being outside of a local hazard zone, compliance with the City’s Municipal Code for properties within hire hazard s everity zones would reduce risk from the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR
MAY 2024
5.0 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
12885
5.0-25
5.6 References
CalFire (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2023. State Responsibility Area, Fire Hazard Severity Zones: Orange County. Accessed December 7, 2023. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/4qvlvwdg/ fhsz_county_sra_11x17_2022_orange_ada.pdf.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2023. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Accessed December 5, 2023. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id= 465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa.
California Department of Conservation. 2023. California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder. Accessed December 6, 2023. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/App/index.html.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2019. California Natural Community Conservation Plans, dated April 2019. Accessed December 6, 2023. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/ Planning/NCCP.
City of Fullerton. 2012a. The Fullerton Plan (Current Version). Accessed December 5, 2023. https://www.cityoffullerton.com/government/departments/community-and-economic-development/ planning-zoning/general-plan/the-fullerton-plan-current-version.
City of Fullerton. 2012b. The Fullerton Plan Final Program EIR. Accessed December 7, 2023. https://www.cityoffullerton.com/home/showpublisheddocument/3696/637470826641900000.
OCTA (Orange County Transportation Authority). 2014. OCTA M2 National Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan. Public Draft. Accessed December 6, 2023. https://www.octa.net/pdf/ OCTA_NCCP_HCP_Plan.pdf.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023. National Wetlands Inventory. Surface Waters and Wetlands. Accessed December 6, 2023. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html.
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR
MAY 2024
5.0 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
12885
5.0-26
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR
MAY 2024
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 6.0-1
6.0 Alternatives
This chapter describes and evaluates alternatives to the Fullerton Housing Incentive Overlay Zone Program (Program). This chapter implements the requirements set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15000 et seq.), and identifies the Environmentally Superior Project Alternative, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2).
6.1 Introduction
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that environmental impact reports (EIRs) “describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[ a]). As required by CEQA, this chapter of the Draft PEIR evaluates alternatives to the Project and compares the potential impacts of each alternative with the Project’s potential impacts.
Pursuant to Section 15126.6(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, project alternatives should be selected based primarily on the ability of the alternatives to avoid or substantially lessen any significant impacts of the Project, “even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.” Additionally, this Draft Program EIR (PEIR) need not consider every conceivable alternative to the proposed Program (project), but rather the range of alternatives shoul d be governed by a “rule of reason,” such that only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice are analyzed (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f]).
In selecting project alternatives for analysis, the potential alternatives should be feasible. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1) states:
“Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional bound aries…, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site…” CEQA Guidelines require the analysis of a “No Project” Alternative and an evaluation of alternative location(s) for the project, if feasible. Of the alternatives analyzed in an EIR, an environmentally superior alternative is to be designated. If the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alterna tive, then the EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[e](2).
6.2 Project Objectives
CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b) requires an EIR to include a statement of objectives sought by a project, including the underlying purpose of the project. As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft PEIR, the City does not contain sufficient sites with appropriate zoning to accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation , according to the City’s Housing Element Update. As such, the City identified the proposed Program as a policy action to help facilitate housing production in order to meet the City’s RHNA goals. The Program would create an overlay zone that allows a property owner to develop multi -family housing on a parcel with a non -residential underlying zoning classification in exchange for providing a specified percentage of deed -restricted affordable housing units.
6.0 – ALTERNATIVES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 6.0-2
The following Project Objectives have been established to assist the City in developing a reasonable range of alternatives to be evaluated in this Draft PEIR.
Incorporate land use and zoning changes to increase residential capacity within the City to meet Regional Housing Needs Allocation goals, including affordable housing.
Provide for a diversity of neighborhoods, residential densities, and housing types within opportunity areas and near local amenities to meet the needs of the community.
Identify sites that are most likely to be redeveloped given their current underutilization of land.
Discourage development within known local hazard zones.
Promote positive economic, educational, and health outcomes for current and future residents of Fullerton by including areas identified within the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee / Housing and Community Development Opportunity Areas.
6.3 Summary of Environmental Impacts
As presented in this Draft PEIR, the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts after implementation of all mitigation measures. Table 6-1 summarizes the Program’s environmental impacts as identified in throughout this Draft PEIR.
Table 6-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts
Environmental Topic Threshold Mitigation Measures Significance Determination Air Quality AQ-1 MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-3 Significant and Unavoidable AQ-2 MM-AQ-1 and MM-AQ-2 Significant and Unavoidable
AQ-3 MM-AQ-1 and MM-AQ-2 Significant and Unavoidable
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
GHG-1 N/A Less Than Significant
GHG-2 N/A Less Than Significant
Hazards and
Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1 COA-HAZ-1 through COA-HAZ-
4; MM-HAZ-1 through MM-
HAZ-5
Less Than Significant With
Mitigation
HAZ-2 COA-HAZ-1 and COA-HAZ-2;
MM-HAZ-3 through MM-HAZ-5
Less Than Significant With
Mitigation
HAZ-3 COA-HAZ-1; MM-HAZ-3 and
MM-HAZ-4
Less Than Significant With
Mitigation
HAZ-4 N/A Less Than Significant
Hydrology and Water
Quality
HYD-1 N/A Less Than Significant
HYD-2 COA-HYD-1 through
COA-HYD-3
Less Than Significant
HYD-3 N/A Less Than Significant
HYD-4 N/A Less Than Significant
Land Use and
Planning
LU-1 N/A Less Than Significant
LU-2 MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-3;
MM-HAZ-1 through MM-HAZ-5
Less Than Significant With
Mitigation
Mineral Resources MIN-1 N/A Less Than Significant
MIN-2 N/A Less Than Significant
6.0 – ALTERNATIVES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 6.0-3
Table 6-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts
Environmental Topic Threshold Mitigation Measures Significance Determination Noise NOI-1 COA-N-1, COA-N-2, COA-N-5,
and COA-N-6
Less Than Significant
NOI-2 COA-N-3 and COA-N-4 Less Than Significant
Population and
Housing
POP-1 No Feasible Mitigation Significant and Unavoidable Public Services PUB-1 (Fire) N/A Less Than Significant PUB-1 (Police) N/A Less Than Significant
PUB-1 (Schools) COA-PUB-1 Less Than Significant
PUB-1 (Parks) N/A Less Than Significant
PUB-1 (Libraries) N/A Less Than Significant
Recreation REC-1 N/A Less Than Significant
Transportation TRA-1 COA-TR-1 Less Than Significant
TRA-2 N/A Less Than Significant
Tribal Cultural
Resources
TCR-1 MM-TCR-1 Significant and Unavoidable
TCR-2 MM-TCR-1 Significant and Unavoidable
Utilities and Service
Systems UTL-1 COA-WW-1, COA-WW-2, and
COA-HYD-3
Less Than Significant
UTL-2 N/A Less Than Significant
UTL-3 N/A Less Than Significant
UTL-4 N/A Less Than Significant
Notes: All “Significant and Unavoidable” impact determinations would also cumulatively considerable, while all “No Impact” or “Less Than Significant” impact determinations would not be cumulatively considerable, unless otherwise noted.
Consistent with CEQA, the analysis presented in this chapter considers a reasonable range of alternatives to the Program and evaluates their comparative environmental impacts. The selection of alternatives and their discussion must “foster informed decision making and public participation” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[a]). Therefore, this chapter identifies potential alternatives to the Program and evaluates them, as required by CEQA.
The inclusion of an alternative in an EIR does not constitute definitive evidence that the alternative is in fact “feasible.” The final decision regarding the feasibility of alternatives lies with the decision maker(s) for a given project, who must make th e necessary findings addressing the potential feasibility of an alternative, including whether it meets most of the basic project objectives (provided in Section 6.2, Project Objectives) or reduces the severity of significant environmental effects pursuant to CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Section 21081; see also CEQA Guidelines Section 15091).
6.4 Alternatives Considered but Rejected
As set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c), an EIR should identify any alternatives that were considered for analysis but rejected as infeasible and briefly explain the reasons for rejection. According to the CEQA Guidelines, among the factors that may be used to eliminate an alternative from detailed consideration are the alternative’s failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, the alternative’s infeasibility, or the alternative’s inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. The following discussion presents information on alternatives to the
6.0 – ALTERNATIVES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 6.0-4
Program that were considered but rejected. These alternatives are not discussed in further detail and have been eliminated from further consideration.
6.4.1 Alternative Sites
This Draft PEIR analyzes the environmental impacts of the implementation of the proposed Program, which is an identified strategy within the City’s Housing Element Update . As discussed above, the Program would create an overlay zone that allows a property owner to develop multi -family housing on a parcel with a non -residential underlying zoning classification in exchange for providing a specified percentage of deed -restricted affordable housing units.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(f)(2), the City attempted to identify feasible alternative locations within the city that could be available for the implementation of the proposed Program. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(f)(2)(A), the key question and first step in analysis of alternate site locations are whether any of the significant effects of the Program would be avoided or substantially lessened by moving the Program to another location. As detailed in Table 6 -1, the Program would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to Air Quality and Population and Housing. The City considered alternative sites to be included and replaced from the proposed Planning Area. However, alternative sites would not reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in this PEIR. For example, as detailed in Section 4.1, Air Quality, construction emissions were estimated through a conservative methodology of potential construction activity as a result of the Program, which assumes that 20 percent of the Planning Area would be developed within one year. Alternative sites would not result in a reduction in impacts. Similarly, impacts related to unplanned population growth would not be reduced with alternative sites.
Moreover, some sites identified for the Program were previously identified by the Housing Element’s adequate sites analysis. As the City is required to implement the Housing Element pursuant to state law, including the adequate sites program , consideration of alternative locations for the implementation of the Program is not feasible.
Therefore, alternate locations capable of accommodating the Program are considered infeasible and not carried forward in this analysis.
6.5 Alternatives Under Consideration
This section discusses the alternatives to the Program, including the No Project Alternative, under consideration.
The No Project Alternative, which is a required element of an EIR pursuant to Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, examines the environmental effects that would occur if the Program were not to proceed. The other alternatives are discussed as part of the “reasonable range of alternatives” selected by the lead agency.
Under the proposed Program analyzed in this Draft PEIR, a maximum density of 60 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) across the Planning Area was assessed to determine the maximum potential environmental effects of the proposed Program. In addition, the Program assumes all future development projects would include on-site commercial uses with a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.12. As a result, the Program would have a maximum growth potential of 35,611 units and 4,979 employees (or a net reduction of 6,160 employees).
6.0 – ALTERNATIVES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 6.0-5
The following alternatives are addressed in this section, followed by a more detailed discussion of each:
▪ Alternative 1 – No Project/Buildout According to Adopted Plans : Under Alternative 1, development of the Program would not occur as detailed in Chapter 3 of this EIR. As specified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A), when a project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan or policy or an ongoing operation, the no project alternative will be the continuation of the plan, policy, or operation into the future. Therefore, the no project alternative, as required by the CEQA Guidelines, w ould analyze the effects of development consistent with implementation of the General Plan and existing land use/zoning.
Given this, Alternative 1 would continue the planned development potential for the Planning Area under the General Plan and existing zoning designations.
▪ Alternative 2 – Reduced Sites Alternative: Under Alternative 2, the Reduced Sites Alternative, select sites would be removed from consideration within the Planning Area. These sites would be removed because of their potential to remain as viable commercial developments. As such, Alternative 2 would be comprised of a Planning Area with 751 parcels, totaling 537 acres. The reduced sites would result in a buildout potential of 32,234 housing units and 2,808,180 square feet of commercial uses within future development projects. Therefore, under this alternative, 96,711 residents and 4,508 employees are anticipated at buildout of the future development projects.
▪ Alternative 3 – Reduced Density Alternative: Under Alternative 3, Reduced Density Alternative, the maximum density for buildout is assumed to be 45 du/ac across the Planning Area. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in a total development potential of 26,709 units. Implementation of Alternative 3 w ould include the same commercial development potential with a 0.12 FAR. As such, under this alternative, a total of 3,102,449 square feet of commercial uses, and 4,979 employees (or a net reduction of 6,160 employees) are anticipated at buildout of future development projects.
6.5.1 Alternative 1 – No Project / Buildout According to Adopted Plans Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate the specific alternative of “no project” along with its impact. As stated in this section of the CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving a project with the impacts of not approving a project. As specified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A), when a project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan or policy or an ongoing operation, the no project alternative will be the continuation of the plan, policy, or operation into the future. Therefore, the no project alternative, as required by the CEQA Guidelines, would analyze the effects of development consistent with implementation of the General Plan and existing land use/zoning.
Under Alternative A, the Planning Area would continue to develop in accordance with the City’s General Plan existing land use designations and zoning, as well as in accordance with General Plan Amendments that have occurred since the adoption of the General Plan. Table 6-2, Alternative 1 Buildout Projections, details the General Plan’s buildout projections for the City in 2030 compared against the existing conditions in 2023. As shown in Table 6-2, Alternative 1 is projected to result in 22,430 additional dwelling units, 5,510 additional persons, and 16,083 additional jobs by the 2030 buildout year.
6.0 – ALTERNATIVES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 6.0-6
Table 6-2. Alternative 1 Buildout Projections
Category Existing Conditions (2023) Buildout (2030) Alternative 1 Growth Housing (DU) 142,873 165,303 +22,430
Population 50,620 56,130 +5,510
Employment 67,800 83,883 +16,083
Source: See Table 3-6 and Tables 4.8-3 through 4.8-6 of this Draft PEIR.
Note: DU = dwelling unit.
As shown in Table 6-3, Alternative 1 Compared with Program Growth, below, Alternative 1 would facilitate 13,181 fewer dwelling units, 98, 119 fewer persons, and 22,243 additional jobs than under the proposed Program. The increase in jobs under Alternative 1 is due to the elimination of proposed land use changes to facilitate residential development on non-residential land.
Table 6-3. Alternative 1 Compared with Program Growth
Category
Program -Related Growth
(2029 – 2023)
Alternative 1 Growth
(2030 – 2023)
Difference between
Alternative 1 Growth and
Program Growth
Housing (DU) +35,611 +22,430 (13,181)
Population +103,629 +5,510 (98,119)
Net Employment (6,160) +16,083 +22,243
Sources: Tables 4.8-9 and 4.8-10; Appendix B
Note: DU = dwelling unit. (Number) = Negative number
6.5.1.1 Environmental Analysis
Air Quality
As discussed in Section 4. 1, Air Quality, for the purposes of estimating emissions as a result of the proposed Program, construction is assumed to have a duration of 5 years, reaching completion in December 20 29. While construction specifics for buildout of the Program are not known, the analysis is based on the first full year of construction (2024), which is the estimated to be the worst-case construction year (see Section 4.1 of this Draft PEIR for more details). As a result, construction of future development projects could potentially exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) mass daily construction thresholds for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10), and fine particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). In addition, the operation of any future development projects, as allowed by the Program, could exceed the SCAQMD mass daily operational thresholds for VOC, NO x, CO, PM 10, and PM 2.5. All future projects would be required to adhere to all existing regulations to protect air quality . Nonetheless, implementation of the proposed Program would result significant and unavoidable and cumulatively considerable impacts even with the incorporation of mitigation measure (MM) MM-AQ-1, MM-AQ-2, and MM-AQ-3 related to the implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Moreover, even with the proposed Program’s goals and policies are consistent with and support the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) goals and policies, it is anticipated that Program implementation could potentially exceed the growth forecasts and change the underlying land use assumptions utilized in the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Under Alternative 1, the continuation of the City’s General Plan and other approved planning documents would occur. Growth forecasts were analyzed in the General Plan EIR, in which mitigation was incorporated (included as COA-AQ-1, COA-
6.0 – ALTERNATIVES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 6.0-7
AQ-3, COA-AQ-6, COA-AQ-9, and COA -AQ-14). Given that the 2022 AQMP considered the land use patterns and growth projections under the City’s General Plan, the potential impacts under Alternative 1 would be less than the proposed Program.
Similar to the discussion above, even with implementation of MM-AQ-1 and MM-AQ-2, the Program would 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 (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). Program-related impacts would be significant and unavoidable and cumulatively considerable. However, under Alternative 1, the growth projections would be less than the proposed Program.
Regarding air quality-related health impacts, implementation of the Program would result in a regional decrease in vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Accordingly, it is not anticipated that the Program would result in a new congested intersection or substantially exacerbate conditions at congested intersections, nor it is anticipated that the Program would increase volume at any given intersection to more than 100,000 vehicles per day.
Therefore, a CO hotspot is not anticipated to occur based on potential future residential development facilitated by the Program. Impacts associated with CO hotspots would be less than significant. Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in less development potential than those anticipated under the proposed Program, resulting in less pollutants associated with construction activity. As such, under Alternative 1, impacts to air quality would be less than the proposed Program.
The Program could result in toxic air contaminant (TAC) exposure to existing or future sensitive land uses during construction. However, the level of potential emissions in relation to the location of sensitive receptors cannot be estimated with a level of accuracy. As such, the potential health risk of exposing sensitive receptors to construction- generated TAC emissions, primarily diesel particulate matter (DPM), would be potentially significant. Even with implementation of MM-AQ-1 and MM-AQ-2, the Program could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations because the mitigation does not ensure that all impacts from future development projects would be reduced to a level of less than significant . As such, i mpacts as a result of the Program would be significant and unavoidable and cumulatively considerable. Under Alternative 1, less development potential than those anticipated under the proposed Program, resulting in less pollutants associated with construction activity. As such, under Alternative 1, impacts to air quality would be less than the proposed Program.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As described in Section 4.2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions , of the Draft PEIR, the Program would result in less than significant impacts. Implementation of the proposed Program would comply with the applicable GHG reduction strategies outlined in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (also known as Connect SoCal 2020) impacts related to consistency with an applicable GHG reduction plan would be less than significant. Similar to the proposed Program, Alternative 1 would generate GHG emissions with the buildout of future development. However, future development associated with Alternative 1 would result in the generation of less GHG emissions than the proposed Program due to reduced development/redevelopment. Therefore, impacts related to the generation of GHGs under this alternative would be less than the proposed Program.
Additionally, the proposed Program would be consistent with all applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions, and impacts would be less than significant. Under Alternative 1, no change to existing regulations would occur under the implementation of the City’s General Plan and other approved planning documents. Thus, impacts associated with Alternative 1 related to consistency with the adopted plans would be similar to the proposed Program.
6.0 – ALTERNATIVES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 6.0-8
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As described in Section 4.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, potentially significant impacts would occur relative to the creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions. However, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, impacts would be reduced to a less- than-significant level. The proposed Program would facilitate future development of residential uses on existing non-residential land uses. Given that Alternative 1 would continue the implementation of the General Plan and other approved planning documents, the existing land use designation and zoning for parcels within the Planning Area would not facilitate future development of residential on land designated for commercial or industrial uses, for example. In the event a significant hazard to the public or the environment were to occur, compliance with federal, state, and local rules and regulations and existing General Plan EIR mitigation measures (including COA- HAZ-1 through COA-HAZ-4) would reduce impacts to be less than significant. As such, the implementation of the General Plan under Alternative 1 would not create significant hazardous conditions for development/ redevelopment of parcels. Moreover, the scope of development potential under this alternative would be less than the proposed Program. Therefore, under Alternative 1, impacts would be less than the proposed Program.
Hydrology and Water Quality
As described in Section 4.4, Hydrology and Water Quality, Program-related impacts are less than significant with no mitigation required. Similar to the proposed Program, implementation of Alternative 1 would adhere to existing regulations governing hydrology and water quality, as well as utilize existing General Plan mitigation measures (including COA-HYD-1 through COA-HYD-3) to reduce impacts to a less -than-significant level. Under Alternative 1, buildout of the existing land use designations and zoning fo r the Planning Area would continue as planned.
According to the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), water demands for the City are projected to be met in normal, single dry year, and multiple dry year scenarios out to 2045. Moreover, planning documents such as the UWMP are based on the local agency’s growth projections and land use designations of the General Plan.
Overall, the scope of development potential under this alternative would be less than the proposed Program.
Therefore, under Alternative 1, impacts would be less than the proposed Program.
Land Use and Planning
As described in Section 4.5, Land Use and Planning, of this Draft PEIR, incorporation of the mitigation measures MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-3 and MM -HAZ-1 through MM-HAZ-5 outlined throughout this Draft PEIR would ensure consistency between the proposed Program and any applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations that have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect to the maximum extent feasible.
Alternative 1 would implement the existing General Plan land use designat ions and zoning for the Planning Area parcels. Redevelopment/development of parcels as planned would not result in a conflict with existing land use plans. However, without the implementation of the Housing Element rezoning, this alternative would not achieve regional housing goals outlined in the City’s latest Housing Element Update for the 6 th Cycle. Therefore, impacts under Alternative 1 would be greater than the Program.
Mineral Resources
As described in Section 4.6, Mineral Resources, the proposed Program would have no impact to mineral resources.
Similar to the Program, this alternative would facilitate the future development of parcels within the Planning Area.
According to the California Geological Survey, the Planning Area contains land designated as Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ ) MRZ -1 and MRZ-3 which are areas with no significant mineral deposits and areas where the
6.0 – ALTERNATIVES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 6.0-9
significance of mineral resources present cannot be determined, respectively. Under Alternative 1, potential future development would occur in accordance with the General Plan and existing zoning. Adherence to regulations governing mineral resource extraction activities in the Planning Area would occur with development/redevelopment of parcels. As such, impacts under this alternative would be less than significant. Given this, impacts under Alternative 1 would be similar to the proposed Program.
Noise
As described in Section 4.7, Noise, of the Draft PEIR, the Program would have less-than-significant impacts related to construction noise and operational noise, including off-site traffic noise. Moreover, the Program would result in a less-than-significant impact related to the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise during construction and operation of future development projects under the proposed Program. Under Alternative 1, potential future development would occur in accordance with the General Plan and existing zoning. Adherence to regulations governing noise in the Planning Area would occur with development/redevelopment of parcels.
Overall, the scope of development potential under this alternative would be less than the proposed Program.
Therefore, under Alternative 1, impacts would be less than the proposed Program.
Population and Housing
As discussed in Section 4.8, Population and Housing, impacts related to substantial unplanned population growth would be significant and unavoidable. Unplanned growth is growth that is not anticipated under local or regional planning documents, such as Connect SoCal or the City’s General Plan. Implications of this unplanned growth affect other local and regional plans that rely on SCAG and City projections, such as the region’s AQMP and the City’s UWMP. Under Alternative 1, growth projections would be based on the existing land use designations and zoning for the Planning Area. As such, no change in growth projections used for other local and regional plans would occur.
Given this, implementation of this alternative would eliminate the significant and unavoidable effects related to unplanned population growth. Furthermore, the scope of development potential under this alternative would be less than the proposed Program. Therefore, under Alternative 1, impacts would be less than the proposed Program.
Public Services
As described in Section 4.9, Public Services, less than significant impacts related to public services, including fire protection services, police protection services, schools, parks, and other public facilities . Implementation of the proposed Program would facilitate future development, which would ultimately increase demand on public services as a result of associated population growth. Overall, the scope of development potential under Alternative 1 would be less than the proposed Program. Future development projects under this alternative would be required to comply with applicable General Plan mitigation measures and existing regulations (including payment of fees) would reduce impacts to less than significant. Therefore, under Alternative 1, impacts would be less than the proposed Program.
Recreation
As discussed in Section 4.10, Recreation, i mpacts associated with the proposed Program would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Future occupants of these development projects would be anticipated to use existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities within the City. In addition, housing growth within typically leads to an increase in demand for in parks and recreational facilities. As such, Program implementation would increase the demand for recreational facilities. future development projects implemented under this alternative would be required to pay development impact fees as required under the City’s
6.0 – ALTERNATIVES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 6.0-10
Municipal Code. Compliance with local regulations would result in less than significant impacts. Moreover, under Alternative 1, the scope of development potential would be less than the proposed Program. Therefore, under Alternative 1, impacts would be less than the proposed Program.
Transportation
As discussed in Section 4.11, Transportation, the Program would result in less-than-significant impacts related to a conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system. Similarly, Alternative 1 would facilitate future development in accordance with the General Plan land use designation and existing zoning. As such, this alternative would not result in an inconsistency with the City’s General Plan Mobility Element or SCAG’s RTP/SCS.
Impacts under Alternative 1 would be similar to the proposed Program.
Regarding VMT, the Program’s effect on VMT would result in a less than significant impact because the citywide VMT per Service Population under with Project conditions is lower than the citywide VMT per Service Population under no Project conditions, under baseline and cumulative conditions. However, under Alternative 1, fewer housing units would be developed, whereas the Program would facilitate increased housing density closer to jobs. As such, this alternative would not be as effective at reducing VMT per service population. Therefore, given the reduced density of the buildout potential when compared to the Program, impacts related to VMT under Alternative 1 would be greater than the Program.
Tribal Cultural Resources
As detailed in Section 4.12, Tribal Cultural Resources, potential impacts to tribal cultural resources were found to be significant and unavoidable even with the incorporation of MM-TCR-1. Under the Program, the anticipated future development and redevelopment activity would likely result in an increase in potential ground-disturbing activities in the Planning Area (e.g., site preparation, grading, trenching for utilities). Ground-disturbing activities associated with the buildout would still occur under the Alternative 1 and could still result in significant impacts to tribal cultural resources. Additionally, this alternative would utilize MM-TCR-1 to reduce potential impacts. However, overall, the buildout potential under Alternative 1 would be less than the proposed Program. Therefore, under Alternative 1, impacts would be less than the proposed Program.
Utilities and Service Systems
As detailed in Section 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems, i mpacts related to utilities, water supply, wastewater, and solid waste would be less than significant. Implementation of the proposed Program would facilitate future development projects which would comply with existing regulations governing utilities as well as incorporate COA - WW-1, COA-WW-2, and COA-HYD-3. Under Alternative 1, impacts would be similar; however, the buildout potential under this alternative would be less than the proposed Program. Therefore, under Alternative 1, impacts would be less than the proposed Program.
6.5.1.2 Project Objectives
Under Alternative 1, development of the Program would not occur. Instead, this alternative would continue the planned growth as shown in the City’s General Plan and existing zoning. As shown in Table 6-4, Alternative 1 does not meet any of the Project Objectives.
6.0 – ALTERNATIVES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 6.0-11
Table 6-4. Summary of Alternative 1 Success at Meeting Objectives Project Objective Does Alternative 1 Meet Objective?
Incorporate land use and zoning changes to
increase residential capacity within the City to meet
Regional Housing Needs Allocation goals, including
affordable housing.
No. Under Alternative 1, no land use or zoning changes
would occur. Instead, the parcels within the Planning Area would remain under the existing General Plan land use
designation and zoning at the issuance of the NOP. As
such, Alternative 1 would not assist the City’s RHNA goals of 13,209 units.
Provide for a diversity of neighborhoods, residential
densities, and housing types within opportunity
areas and near local amenities to meet the needs
of the community.
No. Alternative 1 would not diversify neighborhoods with new residential densities and housing types as no land
use or zoning changes would occur within the Planning
area.
Identify sites that are most likely to be redeveloped
given their current underutilization of land.
No. Under Alternative 1, sites within the General Plan
Focus Areas would remain. However, further land use
changes would be required to facilitate the redevelopment of underutilized land within the Planning Area.
Discourage development within known local hazard
zones.
Yes. Under Alternative 1, the City’s General Plan and
Municipal Code include goals, policies, and regulations designed to discourage development within local hazard
zones as well as reduce potential impacts.
Promote positive economic, educational, and
health outcomes for current and future residents of
Fullerton by including areas identified within the
California Tax Credit Allocation Committee /
Housing and Community Development Opportunity
Areas.
No. Under Alternative 1, no land use or zoning changes
would occur. Instead, the parcels within the Planning Area would remain under the existing General Plan land use
designation and zoning at the issuance of the NOP. As
such, no change would occur.
6.5.2 Alternative 2 – Reduced Sites Alternative
Under Alternative 2, the Reduced Sites Alternative, eight (8) sites would be removed from consideration within the Planning Area. These sites would be removed because of their potential to remain as viable commercial developments within the City . As such, Alternative 2 would be implemented on a Planning Area of 751 parcels, totaling approximately 537 acres. Table 6 -5 provides a summary of the parcels proposed for removal under Alternative 2. For more details, see Appendix G, Alternatives, of this Draft PEIR.
Table 6-5. Alternative 2 Removed Parcels
Parcels
(APN)
Parcel Size
in Acres (AC)
Existing Zoning and General
Plan Designation s
Estimated Building
Square Footage (SF)
Existing
Land Use
339-191-01 8.84 G-C (General Commercial);
Commercial
107,761 Commercial
339-191-02 7.30 G-C (General Commercial);
Commercial
62,096 Commercial
339-191-03 0.51 G-C (General Commercial);
Commercial
1,688 Commercial
285-281-05 0.75 G-C (General Commercial);
Commercial
9,155 Commercial
6.0 – ALTERNATIVES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 6.0-12
Table 6-5. Alternative 2 Removed Parcels
Parcels
(APN)
Parcel Size
in Acres (AC)
Existing Zoning and General
Plan Designation s
Estimated Building
Square Footage (SF)
Existing
Land Use
285-281-06 6.76 G-C (General Commercial);
Commercial
82,485 Commercial
071-323-38 0.51 G-C (General Commercial);
Commercial
8,230 Commercial
071-323-40 1.11 G-C (General Commercial);
Commercial
12,357 Industrial
338-071-22 30.5 M-P Manufacturing Park
(200,000 SF min. lot size);
Industrial
372,235 Commercial
Total 56.28 — 656,007 —
Source: Appendix G
Note: Estimates rounded to the nearest whole number.
Similar to the proposed Program, under this alternative, a maximum density of 60 du/ac across the Planning Area would be assumed for all parcels. In addition, Alternative 2 assumes all future development projects would include on-site commercial uses with a FAR of 0.12, similar to the proposed Program. As shown in Table 6-6, Alternative 2 would have a maximum growth potential of 32,234 housing units and 2,808,180 square feet of commercial uses on site (Appendix G). Furthermore, this alternative would result in 96,711 residents1 and 4,508 employees (or a net reduction of 5,577 employees).
Table 6-6. Alternative 2 Growth Compared to Program
Land Use
Type
Number
of
Parcels a
Total
Existing
Square Feet
(SF) a
Generation
Factors
(SF/Employee)
Employees
Generated
Housing
Generated
Population
Generated
Alternative 2 Existing Land Uses
Commercial
Uses
479
(removed
7 parcels)
3,994,059
(subtracted
643,650
square feet)
Other Retail/
Services
(623
SF/Employee)
6,411 — —
Industrial
Uses
98 (removed
1 parcel)
2,106,209
(subtracted
12,357
square feet)
Light
Manufacturing
(576
SF/Employee)
3,657 — —
Office Uses 2 5,471 Low-Rise Office
(324
SF/Employee)
17 — —
Vacant Land 51 0 — — — —
1 Based on data collected for the 2021 HEU, the City’s average household size is estimated at 2.91 persons per household (see Section 4.8, Population and Housing, of this Draft PEIR). As such, 32,234 housing units at 2.91 persons per household = 96,710.94 (or 96,711 rounded to the nearest whole number).
6.0 – ALTERNATIVES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 6.0-13
Table 6-6. Alternative 2 Growth Compared to Program
Land Use
Type
Number
of
Parcels a
Total
Existing
Square Feet
(SF) a
Generation
Factors
(SF/Employee)
Employees
Generated
Housing
Generated
Population
Generated
Non-
Conforming
Residential
Uses
121 176,441 — — — —
Total 751 6,938,186 — 10,085 — —
Alternative 2 Proposed Land Uses (New)
Residential 751 — — — 32,234 96,711
Commercial 751 2,808,180 Other Retail/
Services
(623
SF/Employee)
4,508 — —
Comparison of Alternative 2 and the Program
Total Proposed Housing Growth under Alternative 2 32,234 Total Proposed Housing Growth under the Program 35,611 (a difference of 3,377) Total Proposed Population Growth under Alternative 2 96,711 Total Proposed Population Growth under the Program 103,628 (a difference of 6,917) Total Proposed Employment Growth under Alternative 2 4,508 Total Proposed Employment Growth under the Program 4,979 (a difference of 471) Net Total Employment under Alternative 2 (5,577)
Net Total Employment under the Program (6,160) (a difference of 583) Sources:
a Appendix G
Note: (Number) = Negative number. The “total” estimates for the Planning area are roughly equivalent to the sum of each zoning designation; however, the estimates may not sum precisely due to rounding. Generation factors are consistent with Section 4.8, Population and Housing, of this Draft PEIR.
6.5.2.1 Environmental Analysis
Air Quality
As discussed in Section 4.1, Air Quality, construction and operation of future development projects implemented under the proposed Program could potentially exceed the SCAQMD mass daily thresholds. All future projects would be required to adhere to all existing regulations to protect air quality. Nonetheless, implementation of the proposed Program would result significant and unavoidable and cumulatively considerable impacts even with the incorporation of MM-AQ-1, MM-AQ-2, and MM-AQ-3. Moreover, even with the proposed Program’s goals and policies are consistent with and support the SCAG RTP/SCS goals and policies, it is anticipated that Program implementation could potentially exceed the growth forecasts and change the underlying land use assumptions utilized in the 2022 AQMP. Under Alternative 2, growth projections would be reduced slightly given the reduction in parcels within the Planning Area when compared to the proposed Program. Given the slight reduction of 8 parcels, construction and
6.0 – ALTERNATIVES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 6.0-14
operational impacts would be similar to the proposed Program . Moreover, Alternative 2 would utilize the same mitigation measures and comply with the same regulations as the proposed Program. Therefore, impacts would be similar to, and slightly reduced from the proposed Program.
Regarding air quality-related health impacts, implementation the Program would result in a regional decrease in vehicle trips and VMT. Therefore, a CO hotspot is not anticipated to occur based on potential future residential development facilitated by the Program, and impacts would be less than significant. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in slightly less development potential than those anticipated under the proposed Program, resulting in slightly less pollutants associated with construction activity. Given this, under Alternative 2, impacts to air quality would be similar to, and slightly reduced from the proposed Program.
The Program could result in TAC exposure to existing or future sensitive land uses during construction. However, the level of potential emissions in relation to the location of sensitive receptors cannot be estimated with a level of accuracy. As such, the potential health risk of exposing sensitive receptors to construction -generated TAC emissions, primarily DPM, would be potentially significant. Even with implementation of MM -AQ-1 and MM -AQ-2, the Program could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations because the mitigation does not ensure that all impacts from future development projects would be reduced to a level of less than significant.
As such, impacts under the Program would be significant and unavoidable. Under Alternative 2, slightly less development potential is anticipated when compared to those anticipated under the proposed Program, resulting in slightly less pollutants associated with construction activity would occur. As such, under Alternative 2, impacts to air quality would be similar to, and slightly reduced from the proposed Program.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As described in Section 4.2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft PEIR, the Program would result in less than significant impacts. Implementation of the proposed Program would comply with the applicable GHG reduction strategies outlined in the Connect SoCal 2020 and impacts related to consistency with an applicable GHG reduction plan would be less than significant. Similar to the proposed Program, Alternative 2 would generate GHG emissions with the buildout of future development. Although, future development associated with Alternative 2 would result in the generation of slightly less GHG emissions than the proposed Program due to the removal of select sites within the Planning Area, impacts related to the generation of GHGs under this alternative would be similar to, and slightly reduced from the proposed Program.
Additionally, similar to the proposed Program, Alternative 2 would be consistent with all applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions. As such, impacts would be less than significant.
Thus, Alternative 2 would be similar to, and slightly reduced from the proposed Program.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As described in Section 4.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, potentially significant impacts would occur relative to the creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions. However, with the incorporation of MM-HAZ-1 through MM-HAZ-5, impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Similar to the proposed Program, Alternative 2 would facilitate future development of residential uses on existing non -residential land uses. In the event a significant hazard to the public or the environment were to occur, compliance with federal, state, and local rules and regulations, existing General Plan EIR mitigation measures (including COA -HAZ-1 through COA -HAZ-4), and incorporation of MM-HAZ-1 through MM-HAZ-5 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Although, the scope of development potential
6.0 – ALTERNATIVES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 6.0-15
under this alternative would be slightly less than the proposed Program, impacts would be similar to, and slightly reduced from the proposed Program.
Hydrology and Water Quality
As described in Section 4.4, Hydrology and Water Quality, Program-related impacts are less than significant with no mitigation required. Similar to the proposed Program, implementation of Alternative 2 would adhere to existing regulations governing hydrology and water quality, as well as utilize existing General Plan mitigation measures (including COA-HYD-1 through COA-HYD-3) to reduce impacts to a less -than-significant level. Under Alternative 2, buildout of the Planning Area would occur at the same scale as the proposed Program with the exception of 8 parcels. According to the City’s 2020 UWMP, water demands for the City are projected to be met in normal, single dry year, and multiple dry year scenarios out to 2045. Given that the scope of development potential under this alternative would be slightly less than the proposed Program, impacts, under Alternative 2, would be similar to, and slightly reduced from the proposed Program.
Land Use and Planning
As described in Section 4.5, Land Use and Planning, of this Draft PEIR, incorporation of the mitigation measures MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-3 and MM -HAZ-1 through MM-HAZ-5 outlined throughout this Draft PEIR would ensure consistency between the proposed Program and any applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations that have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts related to land use and planning even with a reduced parcel list when compared to the proposed Program.
Nevertheless, implementation of the Housing Element rezoning would still occur under Alternative 2. Therefore, impacts under Alternative 2 would be similar to, and slightly reduced from the Program.
Mineral Resources
As described in Section 4.6, Mineral Resources, the proposed Program would have no impact to mineral resources.
Similar to the Program, Alternative 2 would facilitate the future development of parcels within the Planning Area with the exception of 8 parcels when compared to the Program. According to the California Geological Survey, the Planning Area contains land designated as MRZ-1 and MRZ-3 which are areas with no significant mineral deposits and areas where the significance of mineral resources present cannot be determined, respectively. Under Alternative 2, potential future development would occur across the Planning Area, similar to the Program.
Adherence to regulations governing mineral resource extraction activities in the Planning Area would occur with development/redevelopment of parcels. As such, impa cts under this alternative would be less than significant.
Given this, impacts under Alternative 2 would be similar to, and slightly reduced from the proposed Program.
Noise
As described in Section 4.7, Noise, of the Draft PEIR, the Program would have less-than-significant impacts related to construction noise and operational noise, including off-site traffic noise. Moreover, the Program would result in a less-than-significant impact related to the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise during construction and operation of future development projects under the proposed Program. Under Alternative 2, potential future development would occur at slightly less parcels when compared to the Program. Adherence to regulations governing noise in the Planning Area would occur with development/redevelopment of parcels. Given the slightly reduced scale of the development potential under this alternative, impacts would be similar to, and slightly reduced from the proposed Program.
6.0 – ALTERNATIVES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 6.0-16
Population and Housing
As discussed in Section 4.8, Population and Housing, impacts related to substantial unplanned population growth would be significant and unavoidable. Under Alternative 2, growth projections would be slightly less than the proposed Program given the reduction in 8 parcels within the Planning Area. Given this, impacts, under Alternative 2, would be similar to, and slightly reduced from the proposed Program.
Public Services
As described in Section 4.9, Public Services, less than significant impacts related to public services, including fire protection services, police protection services, schools, parks, and other public facilities. Implementation of the proposed Program would facilitate future development, which would ultimately increase demand on public services as a result of associated population growth. Alternative 2 would result in less slightly less population growth when compared than the proposed Program. Future devel opment projects under this alternative would be required to comply with applicable General Plan mitigation measures (included as COAs for the purposes of this Draft PEIR) and existing regulations (including payment of fees). As such, impacts under this alternative would be less than significant.
Therefore, under Alternative 2, impacts would be similar to, and slightly reduced from the proposed Program.
Recreation
As discussed in Section 4.10, Recreation, impacts associated with the proposed Program would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Future occupants of these development projects are anticipated to use existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities within the City. In addition, housing growth within typically leads to an increase in demand for in parks and recreational facilities. As such, Program implementation would increase the demand for recreational fa cilities. Similarly, future development projects implemented under Alternative 2 would be required to pay development impact fees as required under the City’s Municipal Code. Compliance with local regulations would result in less than significant impacts. Moreover, under Alternative 2, the scope of development potential would be slightly less than the proposed Program. Given this, under Alternative 2, impacts would be similar to, and slightly reduced from the proposed Program.
Transportation
As discussed in Section 4.11, Transportation, the Program would result in less-than-significant impacts related to a conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system. Similarly, Alternative 2 would facilitate future development across the Planning Area. This alternative would not result in an inconsistency with the City’s General Plan Mobility Element or SCAG’s RTP/SCS. Therefore, impacts under Alternative 2 would be similar to, and slightly reduced from the proposed Program.
Regarding VMT, the Program’s effect on VMT would result in a less than significant impact because the citywide VMT per Service Population under with Project conditions is lower than the citywide VMT per Service Population under no Project conditions, under baseline and cumulative conditions. Under Alternative 2, slightly fewer housing units would be developed. This alternative would apply to a reduced Planning Area when compared to the proposed Program. However , overall, Alternative 2 would facilitate increased housing density closer to jobs. Therefore, impacts related to VMT under Alternative 2 would be similar to, and slightly reduced from the Program.
6.0 – ALTERNATIVES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 6.0-17
Tribal Cultural Resources
As detailed in Section 4.12, Tribal Cultural Resources, potential impacts to tribal cultural resources were found to be significant and unavoidable even with the incorporation of MM-TCR-1. Under the Program, the anticipated future development and redevelopment activity would likely result in an increase in potential ground-disturbing activities in the Planning Area (e.g., site preparation, grading, trenching for utilities). Ground-disturbing activities associated with the buildout would still occur under the Alternative 2 and could still result in significant impacts to tribal cultural resources. Additionally, this alternative would utilize MM -TCR-1 to reduce potential impacts. Therefore, under Alternative 2, impacts would be similar to, and slightly reduced from the proposed Program.
Utilities and Service Systems
As detailed in Section 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems, impacts related to utilities, water supply, wastewater, and solid waste would be less than significant. Implementation of the proposed Program would facilitate future development projects which would comply with existing regulations governing utilities as well as incorporate COA - WW-1, COA -WW-2, and COA -HYD-3. Under Alternative 2, impacts would be similar even with a slightly reduced buildout potential than the proposed Program. Therefore, under Alt ernative 2, impacts would be similar to, and slightly reduced from the proposed Program.
6.5.2.2 Project Objectives
Under Alternative 2, the Reduced Sites Alternative, select sites would be removed from consideration within the Planning Area. These sites would be removed because of their potential to remain as viable commercial developments. As shown in Table 6-7, Alternative 2 meets each objective.
Table 6-7. Summary of Alternative 2 Success at Meeting Objectives Project Objective Does Alternative 2 Meet Objective?
Incorporate land use and zoning changes to increase
residential capacity within the City to meet Regional
Housing Needs Allocation goals, including affordable
housing.
Yes. Under Alternative 2, land use or zoning changes
would occur similar to the proposed Program. Under
this alternative, fewer parcels are considered for future residential development within the Planning Area.
However, Alternative 2 would result in a maximum
growth potential of 32,234 housing units. As such,
Alternative 2 would assist the City in achieving the
RHNA goals.
Provide for a diversity of neighborhoods, residential
densities, and housing types within opportunity areas
and near local amenities to meet the needs of the
community.
Yes. Alternative 2 would diversify neighborhoods with
new residential densities and housing types within the
Planning area. Although at a reduced scale, this
alternative would result in future residential
development in areas with existing non-residential land uses. As such, Alternative 2 would meet this objective.
Identify sites that are most likely to be redeveloped
given their current underutilization of land.
Yes. Under Alternative 2, sites within the Planning Area have been identified for future development/
redevelopment. This alternative would remove select
sites due to their potential to remain as viable
commercial use within the City. As such, the sites
proposed for removal would not be considered
underutilized. Given this, Alternative 2 would meet this objective.
6.0 – ALTERNATIVES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 6.0-18
Table 6-7. Summary of Alternative 2 Success at Meeting Objectives Project Objective Does Alternative 2 Meet Objective?
Discourage development within known local hazard
zones.
Yes. Similar to the proposed Program, Alternative 2
would facilitate the buildout of future residential
development on parcels selected based on the same
methodology identified in Chapter 3 of this Draft PEIR.
Moreover, future development facilitated under this
alternative would be required to comply with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code goals, policies, and
regulations designed to discourage development
within local hazard zones as well as reduce potential
impacts. Thus, this alternative would meet this
objective.
Promote positive economic, educational, and health
outcomes for current and future residents of Fullerton
by including areas identified within the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee / Housing and
Community Development Opportunity Areas.
Yes. Under Alternative 2, land use or zoning changes
would occur to facilitate future residential development within the Planning Area. In comparison to the
proposed Program, this alternative reduces the
Planning Area by eight parcels, which results in
Alternative 2 achieving this objective to a lesser degree as compared to the proposed Program.
6.5.3 Alternative 3 – Reduced Density Alternative
CEQA requires that EIRs “describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126[a]). As presented in Table 6-1, the Program would result in significant and unavoidable impacts even with implementation of mitigation measures for the following environmental topic areas: Air Quality, Population and Housing, and Tribal Cultural Resources. With the exception of Tribal Cultural Resources, significant unavoidable impacts would occur under the proposed Program due to unplanned population growth within the buildout year of 2029.
As described in Chapter 3 of this Draft PEIR, a maximum density of 60 du/ac was assumed for the purposes of analyzing the Program’s maximum potential environmental effects. This methodology was based on the City’s General Plan buildout scenarios for each land use designations. As detailed in Table 3-3 of this Draft PEIR, the General Plan includes eight different Focus Areas that identify the High Density Residential land use designation as an applicable land use. The General Plan recommends maximum densitie s between 45 to 80 du/ac. Therefore, Alternative 3 considers a reduced maximum density of 45 du/ac , consistent with the General Plan, in order to reduce the environmental impacts associated with population growth and construction activities. As a result, Alternative 3 would have a total development potential of 26,709 units across the Planning Area . Additionally, implementation of Alternative 3 would include the same commercial development potential with a 0.12 FAR. As such, under this alternative, a total of 3,102,449 square feet of commercial uses, and 4,979 employees (or a net reduction of 6,160 employees) are anticipated at buildout of future development projects.
6.0 – ALTERNATIVES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 6.0-19
Table 6-8. Alternative 3 Compared with Program Growth
Category
Program -Related Growth
(60 du/ac)
Alternative 3 Growth
(45 du/ac)
Difference between
Alternative 3 Growth
and Program Growth
Parcels (Acres) 593.52 593.52 —
Housing (DU) 35,611 26,709 (8,902)
Population 103,629 77,723 (25,906)
Net Employment (6,160) (6,160) —
Sources: Tables 4.8-9 and Table 4.8-10; Appendix B
Note: DU = dwelling unit. (Number) = Negative number
As shown above in Table 6-8, Alternative 3 would result in a reduction of 8,902 units, and as a result a reduction of 25,906 residents when compared to the proposed Program.
6.5.3.1 Environmental Analysis
Air Quality
As discussed in Section 4.1, Air Quality, construction and operation of future development projects implemented under the proposed Program could potentially exceed the SCAQMD mass daily thresholds. All future projects would be required to adhere to all existing regulations to protect air quality. Nonetheless, implementation of the proposed Program would result significant and unavoidable and cumulatively considerable impacts even with the incorporation of MM-AQ-1, MM-AQ-2, and MM-AQ-3. Moreover, even with the proposed Program’s goals and policies are consistent with and support the SCAG RTP/SCS goals and policies, it is anticipated that Program implementation could potentially exceed the growth forecasts and change the underlying land use assumptions utilized in the 2022 AQMP. Under Alternative 3, growth projections would be reduced given the reduced density applied across all parcels in the Planning Area . Construction and operational impacts would be similar to the proposed Program .
Moreover, Alternative 3 would utilize the same mitigation measures and comply with the same regulations as the proposed Program; however, given the reduction in housing units under this alternative, impacts would be less than the proposed Program.
Regarding air quality-related health impacts, implementation the Program would result in a regional decrease in vehicle trips and VMT. Therefore, a CO hotspot is not anticipated to occur based on potential future residential development facilitated by the Program, and impacts would be less than significant. Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in less development potential than those anticipated under the proposed Program, resulting in less pollutants associated with construction activity. As such, under Alternative 3, impacts to air quality would be less than the proposed Program.
The Program could result in TAC exposure to existing or future sensitive land uses during construction. However, the level of potential emissions in relation to the location of sensitive receptors cannot be estimated with a level of accuracy. As such, the potential health risk of exposing sensitive receptors to construction -generated TAC emissions, primarily DPM, would be potentially significant. Even with implementation of MM -AQ-1 and MM -AQ-2, the Program could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations because the mitigation does not ensure that all impacts from future development projects would be reduced to a level of less than significant.
As such, impacts under the Program would be significant and unavoidable. Under Alternative 3, less development potential than those anticipated under the proposed Program, resulting in less pollutants associated with
6.0 – ALTERNATIVES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 6.0-20
construction activity would occur . As such, under Alternative 3, impacts to air quality would be less than the proposed Program.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As described in Section 4.2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft PEIR, the Program would result in less than significant impacts. Implementation of the proposed Program would comply with the applicable GHG reduction strategies outlined in the Connect SoCal 2020 and impacts related to consistency with an applicable GHG reduction plan would be less than significant. Similar to the proposed Program, Alternative 3 would generate GHG emissions with the buildout of future development. However, future developme nt associated with Alternative 3 would result in the generation of less GHG emissions than the proposed Program due to reduced density. Therefore, impacts related to the generation of GHGs under this alternative would be less than the proposed Program.
Additionally, similar to the proposed Program, Alternative 3 would be consistent with all applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions. As such, impacts would be less than significant.
Thus, Alternative 3 would be similar to the proposed Program.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As described in Section 4.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, potentially significant impacts would occur relative to the creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions. However, with the incorporation of mitigation measures (MM-HAZ-1 through MM -HAZ-5), impacts would be reduced to a less -than-significant level. Similar to the proposed Program, Alternative 3 would facilitate future development of residential uses on existing non -residential land uses. In the event a significant hazard to the public or the environment were to occur, compliance with federal, state, and local rules and regulations, existing General Plan EIR mitigation measures (including COA -HAZ-1 through COA -HAZ-4), and incorporation of MM-HAZ-1 through MM-HAZ-5 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Overall, the scope of development potential under this alternative would be less than the proposed Program. Therefore, under Alternative 3, impacts would be less than the proposed Program.
Hydrology and Water Quality
As described in Section 4.4, Hydrology and Water Quality, Program-related impacts are less than significant with no mitigation required. Similar to the proposed Program, implementation of Alternative 3 would adhere to existing regulations governing hydrology and water quality, as well as utilize existing General Plan mitigation measures (including COA-HYD-1 through COA-HYD-3) to reduce impacts to a less -than-significant level. Under Alternative 3, buildout of the Planning Area would occur as a reduced density when compared to the proposed Program. According to the City’s 2020 UWMP, water demands for the City are projected to be met in normal, single dry year, and multiple dry year scenarios out to 2045. Given that the scope of development potential under this alternative would be less than the proposed Program impacts, under Alternative 3, would be less than the proposed Program.
Land Use and Planning
As described in Section 4.5, Land Use and Planning, of this Draft PEIR, incorporation of the mitigation measures MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-3 and MM -HAZ-1 through MM-HAZ-5 outlined throughout this Draft PEIR would ensure consistency between the proposed Program and any applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations that have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Alternative 3 would result in similar
6.0 – ALTERNATIVES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 6.0-21
impacts related to land use and planning; however, implementation would occur at a reduced density when compared to the proposed Program. Moreover, implementation of the Housing Element rezoning would still occur under Alternative 3. Therefore, impacts under Alternative 3 would be similar to the Program.
Mineral Resources
As described in Section 4.6, Mineral Resources, the proposed Program would have no impact to mineral resources.
Similar to the Program, Alternative 3 would facilitate the future development of parcels within the Planning Area ; however, at a reduced density . According to the California Geological Survey, the Planning Area contains land designated as MRZ -1 and MRZ -3 which are areas with no significant mineral deposits and areas where the significance of mineral resources present cannot be determined, respectively. Under Alternative 3, potential future development would occur across the Planning Area, similar to the Program . Adherence to regulations governing mineral resource extraction activities in the Planning Area would occur with development/redevelopment of parcels.
As such, impacts under this alternative would be less than significant. Given this, impacts under Alternative 3 would be similar to the proposed Program.
Noise
As described in Section 4.7, Noise, of the Draft PEIR, the Program would have less-than-significant impacts related to construction noise and operational noise, including off-site traffic noise. Moreover, the Program would result in a less-than-significant impact related to the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise during construction and operation of future development projects under the proposed Program. Under Alternative 3, potential future development would occur at a reduced density when compared to the Program . Adherence to regulations governing noise in the Planning Area would occur with development/redevelopment of parcels. Overall, given the reduced scope of the development potential under this alternative , impacts would be less than the proposed Program.
Population and Housing
As discussed in Section 4.8, Population and Housing, impacts related to substantial unplanned population growth would be significant and unavoidable. Under Alternative 3, growth projections would be less than the proposed Program given the reduction in maximum density applied across the Planning Area . Given this, impacts , under Alternative 3, would be less than the proposed Program.
Public Services
As described in Section 4.9, Public Services, less than significant impacts related to public services, including fire protection services, police protection services, schools, parks, and other public facilities. Implementation of the proposed Program would facilitate future development, which would ultimately increase demand on public services as a result of associated population growth. Overall, the scope of development potential under Alternative 3 would be less than the proposed Program. Future development projects under this alternative would be required to comply with applicable General Plan mitigation measures (included as COAs for the purposes of this Draft PEIR) and existing regulations (including payment of fees) . As such, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, under Alternative 3, impacts would be less than the proposed Program.
6.0 – ALTERNATIVES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 6.0-22
Recreation
As discussed in Section 4.10, Recreation, impacts associated with the proposed Program would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Future occupants of these development projects are anticipated to use existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities within the City. In addition, housing growth within typically leads to an increase in demand for in parks and recreational facilities. As such, Program implementation would increase the demand for recreational fa cilities. Similarly, future development projects implemented under Alternative 3 would be required to pay development impact fees as required under the City’s Municipal Code. Compliance with local regulations would result in less than significant impacts. Moreover, under Alternative 3, the scope of development potential would be less than the proposed Program. Therefore, under Alternative 3, impacts would be less than the proposed Program.
Transportation
As discussed in Section 4.11, Transportation, the Program would result in less-than-significant impacts related to a conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system. Similarly, Alternative 3 would facilitate future development across the Planning Area. This alternative would not result in an inconsistency with the City’s General Plan Mobility Element or SCAG’s RTP/SCS. Therefore, impacts under Alternative 3 would be similar to the proposed Program.
Regarding VMT, the Program’s effect on VMT would result in a less than significant impact because the citywide VMT per Service Population under with Project conditions is lower than the citywide VMT per Service Population under no Project conditions, under baseline and cumulative conditions. Under Alternative 3, fewer housing units would be developed. This alternative would apply a reduced density to the same Planning Area as the proposed Program , thereby facilitating increased housing density closer to jobs. As such, this alternative would not be as effective at reducing VMT per service population. However, the reduced density of the buildout potential when compared to the Program would be a difference of over 8,000 units. Therefore, impacts related to VMT under Alternative 3 would be similar to the Program.
Tribal Cultural Resources
As detailed in Section 4.12, Tribal Cultural Resources, potential impacts to tribal cultural resources were found to be significant and unavoidable even with the incorporation of MM-TCR-1. Under the Program, the anticipated future development and redevelopment activity would likely result in an increase in potential ground-disturbing activities in the Planning Area (e.g., site preparation, grading, trenching for utilities). Ground-disturbing activities associated with the buildout would still occur under the Alternative 3 and could still result in significant impacts to tribal cultural resources. Additionally, this alternative would utilize MM -TCR-1 to reduce potential impacts. Therefore, under Alternative 3, impacts would be similar to the proposed Program.
Utilities and Service Systems
As detailed in Section 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems, impacts related to utilities, water supply, wastewater, and solid waste would be less than significant. Implementation of the proposed Program would facilitate future development projects which would comply with existing regulations governing utilities as well as incorporate COA - WW-1, COA-WW-2, and COA-HYD-3. Under Alternative 3, impacts would be similar; however, the buildout potential under this alternative would be less than the proposed Program. Therefore, under Alternative 3, impacts would be less than the proposed Program.
6.0 – ALTERNATIVES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 6.0-23
6.5.3.2 Project Objectives
Alternative 3 would include the same number of parcels within the Planning Area as the proposed Program; however, Alternative 3 would result in a reduction of the total residential development potential as compared to the proposed Program. As shown in Table 6-9, Alternative 3 meets each Project objective.
Table 6-9. Summary of Alternative 3 Success at Meeting Objectives Project Objective Does Alternative 3 Meet Objective?
Incorporate land use and zoning changes to increase
residential capacity within the City to meet Regional
Housing Needs Allocation goals, including affordable
housing.
Yes. Under Alternative 3, land use or zoning changes
would occur similar to the proposed Program. Under
this alternative, the maximum buildout potential would
yield fewer future residential developments within the
Planning Area at a density of 45 du/ac. However,
Alternative 3 would result in a maximum growth
potential of 26,709 housing units. As such, Alternative 3 would assist the City in achieving the RHNA goals.
Provide for a diversity of neighborhoods, residential
densities, and housing types within opportunity areas
and near local amenities to meet the needs of the
community.
Yes. Alternative 3 would diversify neighborhoods with
new residential densities and housing types within the
Planning area. This alternative would not change the
Planning Area as proposed under the Program. As such,
future residential development would occur within
existing non-residential land uses. Given this,
Alternative 3 would meet this objective.
Identify sites that are most likely to be redeveloped
given their current underutilization of land.
Yes. Under Alternative 3, the Planning Area would be
the same as the proposed Program. As a reduced
density alternative, Alternative 3 would result in future development/redevelopment on underutilized parcels.
Therefore, Alternative 3 would meet this objective.
Discourage development within known local hazard
zones.
Yes. Similar to the proposed Program, Alternative 3
would facilitate the buildout of future residential
development on parcels selected based on the same
methodology identified in Chapter 3 of this Draft PEIR.
Moreover, future development facilitated under this
alternative would be required to comply with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code goals, policies, and
regulations designed to discourage development
within local hazard zones as well as reduce potential
impacts. Thus, this alternative would meet this
objective.
Promote positive economic, educational, and health
outcomes for current and future residents of Fullerton
by including areas identified within the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee / Housing and
Community Development Opportunity Areas.
Yes. Under Alternative 2, land use or zoning changes
would occur to facilitate future residential development within the Planning Area. In comparison to the
proposed Program, this alternative reduces the
Planning Area by eight parcels, which results in
Alternative 2 achieving this objective to a lesser degree as compared to the proposed Program.
6.0 – ALTERNATIVES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 6.0-24
6.6 Summary of Alternatives to the Project
To summarize these Project alternatives, as suggested in CEQA Section 15126.6(d), a matrix was prepared to summarize and compare the impacts of each alternative (see Table 6 -10). In addition, Table 6 -11 compares the alternatives in terms of whether they meet the objectives.
Table 6-10. Comparison of Project and Alternatives Impacts Environmental Issue Area Program Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Air Quality SU ▼ = ▼
Greenhouse Gas Emissions LTS ▼ = ▼
Hazards and Hazardous Materials LTSM ▼ = ▼
Hydrology and Water Quality LTS ▼ = ▼
Land Use and Planning LTSM ▲ = =
Mineral Resources LTS = = =
Noise LTS ▼ = ▼
Population and Housing SU ▼ (Eliminate) = ▼
Public Services LTS ▼ = ▼
Recreation LTS ▼ = ▼
Transportation LTS ▲ = =
Tribal Cultural Resources SU ▼ (Eliminate) = =
Utilities and Service Systems LTS ▼ = ▼
Notes: LTS = less than significant impact; LTSM = less than significant impact with mitigation; SU = significant unavoidable impact; Eliminate = Alternative would eliminate a SU impact
= Alternative is likely to result in similar impacts when compared to Project. ▼ Alternative is likely to result in reduced impacts when compared to Project. ▲ Alternative is likely to result in greater impacts when compared to Project.
Table 6-11. Alternatives Comparison for Project Objectives Objective Program Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Incorporate land use and zoning changes to
increase residential capacity within the City to
meet Regional Housing Needs Allocation goals,
including affordable housing.
Meets
Objective
Does Not
Meet
Objective
Reduced
Ability to Meet
Objective
Reduced
Ability to Meet
Objective
Provide for a diversity of neighborhoods,
residential densities, and housing types within
opportunity areas and near local amenities to
meet the needs of the community.
Meets
Objective
Does Not
Meet
Objective
Reduced
Ability to Meet
Objective
Meets
Objective
Identify sites that are most likely to be
redeveloped given their current underutilization
of land.
Meets
Objective
Does Not
Meet
Objective
Meets
Objective
Meets
Objective
Discourage development within known local
hazard zones.
Meets
Objective
Meets
Objective
Meets
Objective
Meets
Objective
6.0 – ALTERNATIVES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 6.0-25
Table 6-11. Alternatives Comparison for Project Objectives Objective Program Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Promote positive economic, educational, and
health outcomes for current and future
residents of Fullerton by including areas
identified within the California Tax Credit
Allocation Committee / Housing and
Community Development Opportunity Areas.
Meets
Objective
Does Not
Meet
Objective
Reduced
Ability to Meet
Objective
Reduced
Ability to Meet
Objective
6.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative
As indicated in Table 6 -10, Alternative 1 would result in the fewest environmental impacts . Moreover, this alternative is the only alternative to eliminate a significant unavoidable impact (under Population and Housing).
Therefore, Alternative 1 would be considered the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), if the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alterative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.
Given the above, Alternative 3, the Reduced Density Alternative, would be the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
Alternative 3 reduces the development potential more than Alternative 2, while also meeting objectives related to the City’s RHNA goals. While Alternative 3 would result in similar impacts as the proposed Program related to Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Transportation, and Tribal Cultural Resources, the scale of the reduction of housing units is greater than that of Alternative 2. Moreover, Alternative 2 would result in similar, although slighted reduced, impacts across all environmental topic areas given the slight reduction of parcels from the proposed Planning Area. Furthermore, Alternative 3 would achieve the objectives more than Alternative 2.
6.0 – ALTERNATIVES
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 6.0-26
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 7.0-1
7.0 List of Preparers
7.1 City of Fullerton
Sunayana Thomas, Community and Economic Development Director Chris Schaefer, AICP, Planning Manager
7.2 Dudek
Nicole Cobleigh, Senior Project Manager
Brandon Whalen-Castellanos, Deputy Project Manager
Gabe Romero, Environmental Analyst
Shane Russett, Air Quality Specialist
Keshia Montifolca, Archaeologist
Jennifer De Alba, Archaeologist
Eric Schniewind, Senior Geologist, Hydrologist, and Hazardous Materials Specialist Audrey Herschberger, PE, Environmental Engineer
Jim Cowan, INCE Bd. Cert., Noise Specialist
Cole Martin, Environmental Acoustician
Sabita Tewani, Transportation Planner
Kathryn Landoe, Technical Editor
Megan Crist, Formatting Specialist
7.0 – LIST OF PREPARERS
FULLERTON HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE DRAFT EIR 12885 MAY 2024 7.0-2
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK