Yorba Linda City Council
February 3, 2026

95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 204.15 48.28 144.33 144.38 72.85 170.48 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 8.17 1.93 5.77 5.78 2.91 6.82 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 115.88 26.82 80.18 80.21 40.47 94.71 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 4.64 1.07 3.21 3.21 1.62 3.79 Critical Lane Group Yes No No No No Yes
Lane Group LOS E D A A F A
d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 58.79 45.72 5.95 6.01 81.06 4.45 X, volume / capacity 0.84 0.26 0.41 0.40 0.83 0.61
Lane Group Results
PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 10.24 0.84 0.13 0.24 26.79 0.19 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
d1, Uniform Delay [s] 48.56 44.88 5.82 5.76 54.28 4.27
c, Capacity [veh/h] 179 160 2100 1077 53 3301
s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1434 1280 2867 1470 1434 4102 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.11 0.03 0.30 0.30 0.03 0.49 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.12 0.12 0.73 0.73 0.04 0.80
g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 14 14 83 83 4 91
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 C, Calculated Cycle Length [s] 113 113 113 113 113 113
Lane Group L R C C L C
Lane Group Calculations
25-062 Yorba Linda Housing Elements 10
EPD Solutions Scenario 7: 7 Horizon Year With Project AM Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with

Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 58.79 45.72 5.97 6.01 81.06 81.06 4.45 Movement LOS E D A A F F A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 56.00 5.97 6.08
Approach LOS E A A
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 8.73
Intersection LOS A
Intersection V/C 0.598
Emissions
Vehicle Miles Traveled [mph] 7.07 1.92 40.61 20.31 1.44 65.97 Stops [stops/h] 147.22 34.07 203.74 101.90 51.42 360.96 Fuel consumption [US gal/h] 3.18 0.71 4.51 2.26 1.28 7.74 CO [g/h] 222.49 49.69 315.24 157.96 89.63 541.03
NOx [g/h] 43.29 9.67 61.33 30.73 17.44 105.26
VOC [g/h] 51.56 11.52 73.06 36.61 20.77 125.39
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s] 9.0 0.0 0.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 0.00 0.00 0.00 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s] 48.03 0.00 0.00
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersectio 2.060 0.000 0.000 Crosswalk LOS B F F
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h] 282 335 635 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s] 41.80 39.27 26.39
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.560 2.277 2.688 Bicycle LOS A B B
Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 2 - 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 1 1 2 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sequence
25-062 Yorba Linda Housing Elements 11
EPD Solutions Scenario 7: 7 Horizon Year With Project AM Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with

Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.079
Level Of Service: C
Delay (sec / veh): 21.1
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 7th Edition
Control Type: Two-way stop
Intersection 33: Project Dwy/Yorba Linda Blvd
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes No No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 30.00 40.00 40.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
Turning Movement Left Right Left Thru Thru Right
Lane Configuration
Approach Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Project Driveway Yorba Linda Blvd Yorba Linda Blvd Intersection Setup
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 0 19 0 1173 1778 21
Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 0 5 0 293 445 5
Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.2900 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 0 19 0 1173 1778 6
Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 19 0 12 0 6
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 0 0 0 1161 1778 0
Name Project Driveway Yorba Linda Blvd Yorba Linda Blvd Volumes
25-062 Yorba Linda Housing Elements 12
EPD Solutions Scenario 7: 7 Horizon Year With Project AM Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with

Intersection LOS C
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 0.13
Approach LOS C A A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 21.14 0.00 0.00
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.00 6.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Movement LOS C A A A
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 0.00 21.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Number of Storage Spaces in Median 0 0 0
Two-Stage Gap Acceptance No
Storage Area [veh] 0 0 0
Flared Lane
Priority Scheme Stop Free Free
Intersection Settings
25-062 Yorba Linda Housing Elements 13
EPD Solutions Scenario 7: 7 Horizon Year With Project AM Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with

Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.465
Level Of Service: A
Delay (sec / veh): 3.7
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 7th Edition
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 44: Palm Ave/Yorba Linda Blvd
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk No Yes Yes
Curb Present No No No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 30.00 40.00 40.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 200.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Turning Movement Left Right U-turn Left Thru Thru Right Lane Configuration
Approach Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Yorba Linda Blvd
Intersection Setup
25-062 Yorba Linda Housing Elements 14
EPD Solutions Scenario 7: 7 Horizon Year With Project AM Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with

Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0
v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0
v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi 0 0 0
v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0 0 0
v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m 0 0 0
v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0 0 0
Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 64 39 10 16 1391 1770 38
Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 16 10 2 4 348 442 9
Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 0.8472 0.8472 0.8370 0.8370 0.8370 0.9006 0.9006 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 54 33 8 13 1164 1594 34
Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 3 0 9 3 0
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Proportion of CAVs [%] 0.00
Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 54 33 5 13 1155 1591 34
Name Yorba Linda Blvd
Volumes
25-062 Yorba Linda Housing Elements 15
EPD Solutions Scenario 7: 7 Horizon Year With Project AM Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with

Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0
Pedestrian Walk [s] 0
Pedestrian Signal Group 0
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
Pedestrian Recall No No No
Maximum Recall No No No
Minimum Recall No No No
Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0
Minimum Green [s] 5 0 0 0 10 10 0
Lead / Lag Lead - - - - - -
Split [s] 37 0 0 0 43 43 0
Phasing & Timing: Pattern 1
I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Advanced Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Advanced Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0
Rest In Walk No No No
Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian Clearance [s] 27 0 0 0 10 10 0
Walk [s] 5 0 0 0 5 5 0
All red [s] 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0
Amber [s] 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0
Maximum Green [s] 51 0 0 0 61 61 0
Auxiliary Signal Groups
Signal Group 7 0 0 0 2 6 0
Control Type Permissive Permissive Permissive Permissive Permissive Permissive Permissive Phasing & Timing (Basic)
Lost time [s] 0.00
Permissive Mode SingleBand
Offset Reference Lead Green - Beginning of First Green
Offset [s] 0.0
Actuation Type Semi-actuated
Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated
Active Pattern Pattern 1
Cycle Length [s] 80
Signal Coordination Group -
Located in CBD Yes
Intersection Settings
25-062 Yorba Linda Housing Elements 16
EPD Solutions Scenario 7: 7 Horizon Year With Project AM Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with

95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 21.89 12.80 4.23 1.64 4.02 7.28 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.88 0.51 0.17 0.07 0.16 0.29 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 12.16 7.11 2.35 0.91 2.23 4.04 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.49 0.28 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.16 Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No
Lane Group LOS B B A A A A
d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 17.57 16.19 7.68 2.88 3.45 3.62 X, volume / capacity 0.49 0.34 0.09 0.50 0.62 0.60
Lane Group Results
PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 2.86 1.68 0.12 0.14 0.33 0.58 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
d1, Uniform Delay [s] 14.72 14.50 7.56 2.73 3.12 3.04
c, Capacity [veh/h] 130 116 298 2765 1933 1004
s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1434 1280 234 4102 2867 1489 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.04 0.03 0.11 0.34 0.42 0.40 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.09 0.09 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67
g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 3 3 23 23 23 23
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 C, Calculated Cycle Length [s] 34 34 34 34 34 34
Lane Group L R L C C C
Lane Group Calculations
25-062 Yorba Linda Housing Elements 17
EPD Solutions Scenario 7: 7 Horizon Year With Project AM Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with

Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 17.57 16.19 7.68 7.68 2.88 3.50 3.62 Movement LOS B B A A A A A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 17.05 2.96 3.51
Approach LOS B A A
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 3.69
Intersection LOS A
Intersection V/C 0.465
Emissions
Vehicle Miles Traveled [mph] 1.51 0.92 4.42 236.67 36.29 18.15 Stops [stops/h] 51.39 30.05 9.93 11.55 18.88 17.09
Fuel consumption [US gal/h] 0.58 0.33 0.30 9.41 2.33 1.26 CO [g/h] 40.20 23.23 20.73 657.41 162.98 88.16
NOx [g/h] 7.82 4.52 4.03 127.91 31.71 17.15
VOC [g/h] 9.32 5.38 4.81 152.36 37.77 20.43
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s] 0.0 9.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 0.00 0.00 0.00 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s] 0.00 9.23 9.23
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersectio 0.000 3.176 3.106 Crosswalk LOS F C C
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h] 1937 2289 2289 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s] 0.02 0.36 0.36
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.560 2.330 2.554 Bicycle LOS A B B
Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 2 - 6 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 1 - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sequence
25-062 Yorba Linda Housing Elements 18
EPD Solutions Scenario 7: 7 Horizon Year With Project AM Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with

Turning Movement Volume: Summary
Report File: C:\...\Horizon Year With Project AM.pdf 10/27/2025 Vistro File: C:\...\25-062 10.24.2025 - Queuing Scenario 7 Horizon Year With Project AM Analysis.vistro
25-062 Yorba Linda Housing Elements
2900
Total
Volume
34 Right
1594
Thru
Westbound
1164
Thru
13 Left
8 U-T
Eastbound
33 Right
54 Left
Southbound
44 Palm Ave/Yorba Linda Blvd
ID Intersection Name
2976
Total
Volume
6 Right
1778
Thru
Westbound
1173
Thru
Eastbound
19 Right
Southbound
33 Project Dwy/Yorba Linda Blvd
ID Intersection Name
3123
Total
Volume
1758
Thru
26 Left
12 U-T
Westbound
55 Right
1132
Thru
Eastbound
30 Right
110
Left
Northbound
2 S Ohio St/Yorba Linda Blvd
ID Intersection Name
3117
Total
Volume
27 Right
1837
Thru
Westbound
1150
Thru
16 Left
3 U-T
Eastbound
49 Right
2 Thru
31 Left
0 U-T
Southbound
2 Right
0 Thru
0 Left
Northbound
1 Ohio St/Yorba Linda Blvd
ID Intersection Name
25-062 Yorba Linda Housing Elements 19
EPD Solutions Scenario 7: 7 Horizon Year With Project AM Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with

Intersection Analysis Summary
Report File: C:\...\Horizon Year With Project PM.pdf 10/27/2025 Vistro File: C:\...\25-062 10.24.2025 - Queuing Scenario 8 Horizon Year With Project PM Analysis.vistro
25-062 Yorba Linda Housing Elements
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. For all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.

SB Left 0.507 2.7 A
HCM 7th
Edition 44 Palm Ave/Yorba Linda Blvd Signalized
SB Right 0.042 18.2 C
HCM 7th
Edition 33 Project Dwy/Yorba Linda Blvd Two-way stop
WB Left 0.579 6.5 A
HCM 7th
Edition 2 S Ohio St/Yorba Linda Blvd Signalized
EB Left 0.538 5.0 A
HCM 7th
Edition 1 Ohio St/Yorba Linda Blvd Signalized
ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS 25-062 Yorba Linda Housing Elements 1
EPD Solutions Scenario 8: 8 Horizon Year With Project PM Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with

Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.538
Level Of Service: A
Delay (sec / veh): 5.0
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 7th Edition
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 1: Ohio St/Yorba Linda Blvd
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk No Yes No Yes
Curb Present No No No No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 40.00 40.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.0 100.0 100.0 50.00 200.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Turning Movement Left Thru Right U-tu Left Thru Right U-tu Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Ohio St Ohio St Yorba Linda Blvd Yorba Linda Blvd
Intersection Setup
25-062 Yorba Linda Housing Elements 2
EPD Solutions Scenario 8: 8 Horizon Year With Project PM Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with

Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0
v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi 0 0 0 0
v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0 0 0 0
v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m 0 0 0 0
v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0 0 0 0
Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 8 0 0 0 36 0 43 0 25 2070 0 0 1580 40 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 2 0 0 0 9 0 11 0 6 518 0 0 395 10 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 0.2500 0.2500 0.2500 1.000 0.770 0.770 0.770 0.970 0.970 0.970 1.000 1.0000 0.9200 0.9200 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 2 0 0 0 28 0 33 0 24 2008 0 0 1454 37 Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 6 0 In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Proportion of CAVs [%] 0.00
Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 2 0 0 0 28 0 33 0 24 1998 0 0 1448 37 Name Ohio St Ohio St Yorba Linda Blvd Yorba Linda Blvd
Volumes
25-062 Yorba Linda Housing Elements 3
EPD Solutions Scenario 8: 8 Horizon Year With Project PM Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with

Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0
Pedestrian Walk [s] 0
Pedestrian Signal Group 0
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
Pedestrian Recall No No No No No
Maximum Recall No No No No No
Minimum Recall No No No No No
Vehicle Extension [s] 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Minimum Green [s] 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 5 10 0 0 10 0
Lead / Lag - - - - - - - - Lead - - - - -
Split [s] 0 32 0 0 0 32 0 0 26 63 0 0 37 0
Phasing & Timing: Pattern 1
I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Advanced Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Advanced Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Rest In Walk No No No No
Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 23 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 13 0 Walk [s] 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 0
All red [s] 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Amber [s] 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Maximum Green [s] 0 69 0 0 0 69 0 0 69 163 0 0 90 0
Auxiliary Signal Groups
Signal Group 0 6 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 8 0 0 4 0
Control Type Permiss Permiss Permiss Permi Permi Permi Permi Permi Prote Permi Permi Permiss Permiss Permiss Phasing & Timing (Basic)
Lost time [s] 0.00
Permissive Mode SingleBand
Offset Reference Lead Green - Beginning of First Green
Offset [s] 0.0
Actuation Type Semi-actuated
Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated
Active Pattern Pattern 1
Cycle Length [s] 95
Signal Coordination Group -
Located in CBD Yes
Intersection Settings
25-062 Yorba Linda Housing Elements 4
EPD Solutions Scenario 8: 8 Horizon Year With Project PM Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with

95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 11.79 51.22 64.03 47.55 96.13 135.80 134.96 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.47 2.05 2.56 1.90 3.85 5.43 5.40 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 6.55 28.45 35.57 26.42 53.40 75.44 74.98 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.26 1.14 1.42 1.06 2.14 3.02 3.00 Critical Lane Group No No Yes No Yes No No
Lane Group LOS E E E F A A A
d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 60.26 56.93 60.12 90.13 2.55 3.88 3.93 X, volume / capacity 0.08 0.23 0.46 0.75 0.58 0.47 0.45 Lane Group Results
PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 0.35 0.71 3.40 28.10 0.15 0.15 0.27 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 59.91 56.22 56.72 62.03 2.40 3.73 3.65 c, Capacity [veh/h] 99 160 94 33 3543 2320 1203
s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 578 1401 1280 1434 4102 2867 1486 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.50 0.38 0.36 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.86 0.81 0.81 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 9 9 9 3 110 103 103
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 C, Calculated Cycle Length [s] 128 128 128 128 128 128 128 Lane Group C C R L C C C
Lane Group Calculations
25-062 Yorba Linda Housing Elements 5
EPD Solutions Scenario 8: 8 Horizon Year With Project PM Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with

Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 60.26 60.26 60.26 56.93 56.93 56.93 60.12 90.13 90.13 2.55 0.00 0.00 3.89 3.93 Movement LOS E E E E E E E F F A A A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 60.26 58.67 3.60 3.90
Approach LOS E E A A
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 4.99
Intersection LOS A
Intersection V/C 0.538
Emissions
Vehicle Miles Traveled [mph] 0.18 2.15 2.56 1.83 151.23 42.82 21.41 Stops [stops/h] 7.39 32.09 40.11 29.79 180.68 170.16 84.55 Fuel consumption [US gal/h] 0.15 0.68 0.85 0.82 8.27 4.06 2.03 CO [g/h] 10.22 47.72 59.64 57.07 577.84 283.65 141.83
NOx [g/h] 1.99 9.28 11.60 11.10 112.43 55.19 27.59
VOC [g/h] 2.37 11.06 13.82 13.23 133.92 65.74 32.87
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s] 0.0 9.0 0.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s] 0.00 55.16 0.00 55.16
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersectio 0.000 2.056 0.000 3.329 Crosswalk LOS F B F C
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h] 439 439 924 517 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s] 38.92 38.92 18.48 35.11
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.573 1.631 2.698 2.451 Bicycle LOS A A B B
Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 2 - 6 - 8 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 1 - 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sequence
25-062 Yorba Linda Housing Elements 6
EPD Solutions Scenario 8: 8 Horizon Year With Project PM Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with

Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.579
Level Of Service: A
Delay (sec / veh): 6.5
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 7th Edition
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 2: S Ohio St/Yorba Linda Blvd
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes No No
Curb Present No No No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 35.00 40.00 40.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 90.00 100.00 100.00 205.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Turning Movement Left Right Thru Right U-turn Left Thru Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Eastbound Westbound
Name S Ohio Yorba Linda Blvd Yorba Linda Blvd
Intersection Setup
25-062 Yorba Linda Housing Elements 7
EPD Solutions Scenario 8: 8 Horizon Year With Project PM Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with

Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0
v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0
v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi 0 0 0
v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0 0 0
v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m 0 0 0
v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0 0 0
Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 97 39 2044 76 10 17 1557
Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 24 10 511 19 2 4 389
Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 0.6700 0.6700 0.9600 0.9600 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 65 26 1962 73 9 16 1432
Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 10 0 6 0 6
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Proportion of CAVs [%] 0.00
Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 65 26 1952 73 3 16 1426
Name S Ohio Yorba Linda Blvd Yorba Linda Blvd
Volumes
25-062 Yorba Linda Housing Elements 8
EPD Solutions Scenario 8: 8 Horizon Year With Project PM Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with

Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0
Pedestrian Walk [s] 0
Pedestrian Signal Group 0
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
Pedestrian Recall No No No No
Maximum Recall No No No No
Minimum Recall No No No No
Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0
Minimum Green [s] 5 0 10 0 0 5 10
Lead / Lag Lead - - - - Lead -
Split [s] 17 0 27 0 0 16 43
Phasing & Timing: Pattern 1
I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Advanced Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Advanced Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0
Rest In Walk No No No
Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 0 10 0 0 0 10
Walk [s] 5 0 5 0 0 0 5
All red [s] 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
Amber [s] 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0
Maximum Green [s] 68 0 95 0 0 65 164
Auxiliary Signal Groups
Signal Group 3 0 2 0 0 1 6
Control Type Permissive Permissive Permissive Permissive Permissive Protected Permissive Phasing & Timing (Basic)
Lost time [s] 0.00
Permissive Mode SingleBand
Offset Reference Lead Green - Beginning of First Green
Offset [s] 0.0
Actuation Type Semi-actuated
Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated
Active Pattern Pattern 1
Cycle Length [s] 60
Signal Coordination Group -
Located in CBD Yes
Intersection Settings
25-062 Yorba Linda Housing Elements 9
EPD Solutions Scenario 8: 8 Horizon Year With Project PM Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with

95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 55.36 19.37 119.04 122.26 19.29 9.76 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 2.21 0.77 4.76 4.89 0.77 0.39 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 30.76 10.76 66.13 67.92 10.72 5.42 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 1.23 0.43 2.65 2.72 0.43 0.22 Critical Lane Group Yes No Yes No Yes No
Lane Group LOS C C A A D A
d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 28.42 22.60 7.40 7.73 35.91 2.77 X, volume / capacity 0.71 0.32 0.78 0.76 0.60 0.51
Lane Group Results
PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 6.45 1.47 0.75 1.27 11.95 0.13 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
d1, Uniform Delay [s] 21.98 21.13 6.65 6.46 23.96 2.64
c, Capacity [veh/h] 138 123 1815 936 45 3054
s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1434 1280 2867 1478 1434 4102 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.07 0.03 0.49 0.48 0.02 0.38 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.10 0.10 0.63 0.63 0.03 0.74
g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 5 5 32 32 2 37
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 C, Calculated Cycle Length [s] 50 50 50 50 50 50
Lane Group L R C C L C
Lane Group Calculations
25-062 Yorba Linda Housing Elements 10
EPD Solutions Scenario 8: 8 Horizon Year With Project PM Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with

Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 28.42 22.60 7.50 7.73 35.91 35.91 2.77 Movement LOS C C A A D D A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 26.75 7.51 3.33
Approach LOS C A A
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 6.47
Intersection LOS A
Intersection V/C 0.579
Emissions
Vehicle Miles Traveled [mph] 4.54 1.83 56.03 28.02 1.02 58.73 Stops [stops/h] 88.52 30.97 380.66 195.48 30.84 46.81
Fuel consumption [US gal/h] 1.40 0.48 7.87 4.04 0.54 3.44 CO [g/h] 97.85 33.69 550.46 282.10 37.52 240.53
NOx [g/h] 19.04 6.55 107.10 54.89 7.30 46.80
VOC [g/h] 22.68 7.81 127.57 65.38 8.70 55.74
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s] 9.0 0.0 0.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 0.00 0.00 0.00 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s] 16.83 0.00 0.00
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersectio 1.998 0.000 0.000 Crosswalk LOS A F F
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h] 520 919 1559 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s] 13.71 7.30 1.22
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.560 2.726 2.425 Bicycle LOS A B B
Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 2 - 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 1 1 2 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sequence
25-062 Yorba Linda Housing Elements 11
EPD Solutions Scenario 8: 8 Horizon Year With Project PM Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with

Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.042
Level Of Service: C
Delay (sec / veh): 18.2
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 7th Edition
Control Type: Two-way stop
Intersection 33: Project Dwy/Yorba Linda Blvd
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes No No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 30.00 40.00 40.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
Turning Movement Left Right Left Thru Thru Right
Lane Configuration
Approach Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Project Driveway Yorba Linda Blvd Yorba Linda Blvd Intersection Setup
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 0 12 0 2003 1566 20
Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 0 3 0 501 392 5
Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 0 12 0 2003 1566 20
Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 12 0 16 0 20
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 0 0 0 1987 1566 0
Name Project Driveway Yorba Linda Blvd Yorba Linda Blvd Volumes
25-062 Yorba Linda Housing Elements 12
EPD Solutions Scenario 8: 8 Horizon Year With Project PM Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with

Intersection LOS C
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 0.06
Approach LOS C A A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 18.21 0.00 0.00
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.00 3.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Movement LOS C A A A
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 0.00 18.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Number of Storage Spaces in Median 0 0 0
Two-Stage Gap Acceptance No
Storage Area [veh] 0 0 0
Flared Lane
Priority Scheme Stop Free Free
Intersection Settings
25-062 Yorba Linda Housing Elements 13
EPD Solutions Scenario 8: 8 Horizon Year With Project PM Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with

Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.507
Level Of Service: A
Delay (sec / veh): 2.7
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 7th Edition
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 44: Palm Ave/Yorba Linda Blvd
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk No Yes Yes
Curb Present No No No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 30.00 40.00 40.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 200.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Turning Movement Left Right U-turn Left Thru Thru Right Lane Configuration
Approach Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Yorba Linda Blvd
Intersection Setup
25-062 Yorba Linda Housing Elements 14
EPD Solutions Scenario 8: 8 Horizon Year With Project PM Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with

Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0
v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0
v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi 0 0 0
v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0 0 0
v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m 0 0 0
v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0 0 0
Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 37 31 12 35 1975 1287 40
Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 9 8 3 9 494 322 10
Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 0.7500 0.7500 0.9777 0.9777 0.9777 0.9883 0.9883 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 28 23 12 34 1931 1272 40
Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 10 0 6 10 0
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Proportion of CAVs [%] 0.00
Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 28 23 2 34 1925 1262 40
Name Yorba Linda Blvd
Volumes
25-062 Yorba Linda Housing Elements 15
EPD Solutions Scenario 8: 8 Horizon Year With Project PM Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with

Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0
Pedestrian Walk [s] 0
Pedestrian Signal Group 0
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
Pedestrian Recall No No No
Maximum Recall No No No
Minimum Recall No No No
Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0
Minimum Green [s] 5 0 0 0 10 10 0
Lead / Lag Lead - - - - - -
Split [s] 36 0 0 0 44 44 0
Phasing & Timing: Pattern 1
I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Advanced Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Advanced Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0
Rest In Walk No No No
Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian Clearance [s] 27 0 0 0 10 10 0
Walk [s] 5 0 0 0 5 5 0
All red [s] 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0
Amber [s] 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0
Maximum Green [s] 51 0 0 0 61 61 0
Auxiliary Signal Groups
Signal Group 7 0 0 0 2 6 0
Control Type Permissive Permissive Permissive Permissive Permissive Permissive Permissive Phasing & Timing (Basic)
Lost time [s] 0.00
Permissive Mode SingleBand
Offset Reference Lead Green - Beginning of First Green
Offset [s] 0.0
Actuation Type Semi-actuated
Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated
Active Pattern Pattern 1
Cycle Length [s] 80
Signal Coordination Group -
Located in CBD Yes
Intersection Settings
25-062 Yorba Linda Housing Elements 16
EPD Solutions Scenario 8: 8 Horizon Year With Project PM Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with

95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 24.54 20.76 5.30 2.43 1.52 2.88 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.98 0.83 0.21 0.10 0.06 0.12 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 13.64 11.53 2.95 1.35 0.84 1.60 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.55 0.46 0.12 0.05 0.03 0.06 Critical Lane Group Yes No No Yes No No
Lane Group LOS C C A A A A
d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 29.80 29.77 3.45 2.34 1.73 1.79 X, volume / capacity 0.44 0.41 0.12 0.60 0.38 0.37
Lane Group Results
PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 3.61 3.62 0.15 0.18 0.11 0.19 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
d1, Uniform Delay [s] 26.19 26.15 3.31 2.16 1.62 1.60
c, Capacity [veh/h] 84 75 379 3292 2301 1190
s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1434 1280 372 4102 2867 1482 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.03 0.02 0.13 0.48 0.31 0.30 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.06 0.06 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80
g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 3 3 46 46 46 46
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 C, Calculated Cycle Length [s] 57 57 57 57 57 57
Lane Group L R L C C C
Lane Group Calculations
25-062 Yorba Linda Housing Elements 17
EPD Solutions Scenario 8: 8 Horizon Year With Project PM Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with

Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 29.80 29.77 3.45 3.45 2.34 1.75 1.79 Movement LOS C C A A A A A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 29.79 2.37 1.75
Approach LOS C A A
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 2.67
Intersection LOS A
Intersection V/C 0.507
Emissions
Vehicle Miles Traveled [mph] 0.87 0.73 8.00 336.03 26.64 13.32 Stops [stops/h] 34.17 28.90 7.39 10.14 4.23 4.00
Fuel consumption [US gal/h] 0.45 0.38 0.39 13.08 1.31 0.68 CO [g/h] 31.40 26.39 27.40 914.10 91.35 47.38
NOx [g/h] 6.11 5.14 5.33 177.85 17.77 9.22
VOC [g/h] 7.28 6.12 6.35 211.85 21.17 10.98
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s] 0.0 9.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 0.00 0.00 0.00 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s] 0.00 20.43 20.43
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersectio 0.000 3.259 3.155 Crosswalk LOS F C C
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h] 1114 1392 1392 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s] 5.64 2.65 2.65
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.560 2.652 2.289 Bicycle LOS A B B
Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 2 - 6 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 1 - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sequence
25-062 Yorba Linda Housing Elements 18
EPD Solutions Scenario 8: 8 Horizon Year With Project PM Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with

Turning Movement Volume: Summary
Report File: C:\...\Horizon Year With Project PM.pdf 10/27/2025 Vistro File: C:\...\25-062 10.24.2025 - Queuing Scenario 8 Horizon Year With Project PM Analysis.vistro
25-062 Yorba Linda Housing Elements
3340
Total
Volume
40 Right
1272
Thru
Westbound
1931
Thru
34 Left
12 U-T
Eastbound
23 Right
28 Left
Southbound
44 Palm Ave/Yorba Linda Blvd
ID Intersection Name
3601
Total
Volume
20 Right
1566
Thru
Westbound
2003
Thru
Eastbound
12 Right
Southbound
33 Project Dwy/Yorba Linda Blvd
ID Intersection Name
3583
Total
Volume
1432
Thru
16 Left
9 U-T
Westbound
73 Right
1962
Thru
Eastbound
26 Right
65 Left
Northbound
2 S Ohio St/Yorba Linda Blvd
ID Intersection Name
3586
Total
Volume
37 Right
1454
Thru
Westbound
2008
Thru
24 Left
0 U-T
Eastbound
33 Right
0 Thru
28 Left
0 U-T
Southbound
0 Right
0 Thru
2 Left
Northbound
1 Ohio St/Yorba Linda Blvd
ID Intersection Name
25-062 Yorba Linda Housing Elements 19
EPD Solutions Scenario 8: 8 Horizon Year With Project PM Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with

Memorandum
To: City of Yorba Linda – Community Development Department From: Alex Rounaghi, Yorba Linda 3 INV, LLC
Date: October 17, 2025
Subject: Parking Compliance and Market-Based Justification for Proposed 62-Unit Mixed-Income Community

1. Purpose
Although not required under State law, City Ventures is providing this memorandum to offer transparency and assurance to the City of Yorba Linda and the surrounding community that our proposed project will comfortably meet actual parking demand and avoid any potential overflow onto adjacent streets.

The project’s parking plan exceeds the minimum requirements established by the State Density Bonus Law (Government Code § 65915(p)). In addition, it is informed by City Ventures’ extensive experience delivering for-sale communities throughout Southern California that have demonstrated successful parking performance in comparable conditions.

2. Compliance with State Density Bonus Law
Under Government Code § 65915(p), qualifying density bonus projects are entitled to the below required parking ratios. Our project exceeds these requirements by 15 spaces.

Our proposed 62-unit mixed-income project provides 137 total parking spaces, or 2.21 spaces per unit. This figure exceeds the maximum parking ratios required under State law.

3. Market-Based Justification
City Ventures designs its communities based on real-world buyer demand, not just arbitrary code minimums. As a for-sale builder, we have a direct incentive to ensure that every home provides adequate parking for homeowners and their guests—projects that fall short on parking are more difficult to sell and manage post-occupancy.

To validate our approach, we’ve recent City Ventures projects, all with parking ratios that are comparable to what is proposed in Yorba Linda.

Project City Units Total Parking
Spaces
Ratio
(spaces/unit)
Edgewood
Point
Long Beach 38 86 2.26
Montebello
Collection
South
Montebello 35 79 2.25
Eginhouse Artesia 59 132 2.23
Towns on First Upland 32 64 2
Concord Court Compton 60 135 2.25
Average: 2.19
Proposed Yorba Linda 62 137 2.21
The average ratio of 2.19 spaces per unit shows that this project is comparable to other projects, which should provide comfort that it will align with market parking demand for future homeowners.

These outcomes validate that our proposed parking ratio in Yorba Linda will comfortably accommodate future residents without generating off-site parking demand.

4. Commitment to the City and Community
While the State Density Bonus Law establishes the legal standard for parking, City Ventures recognizes the importance of ensuring that new communities integrate seamlessly into their surroundings. That’s why—even though not required to do so—we have prepared this analysis to provide the City and community with added confidence

that our parking supply will meet demand and prevent any spillover or neighborhood impacts.

We are voluntarily agreeing to a condition of approval that would require the newly formed HOA to perform yearly inspections of the garage units to ensure that they are being used for garage parking and not taking the guest parking spaces.

Our approach strikes a balance between regulatory compliance, market expectations, and the City’s goal of delivering high-quality, livable mixed-income housing.

5. Conclusion
Our proposed parking plan:
• Exceeds the minimum parking ratios required by State law; • Aligns with market-proven demand in comparable for-sale communities; • Voluntarily includes a condition of approval to require HOA inspection of garages to ensure they are used for parking, to minimize any potential impact on guest parking spaces;
• Assures the City and neighbors that parking overflow will not occur; and • Supports Yorba Linda’s efforts to create attainable homeownership opportunities without compromising neighborhood quality of life.

City Ventures appreciates the City’s collaboration and looks forward to continuing to work together to deliver a thoughtfully designed community that enhances both the local housing supply and neighborhood livability.

This technical memorandum provides an analysis of the parking demand for the proposed Project located at 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard in the City of Yorba Linda and includes Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 323-081-35. This parking evaluation was developed to address the City’s comments and determine if the proposed Project provides an adequate on-site parking supply to accommodate peak on-site vehicle parking demands with a reduced parking requirement pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (SDBL).

Project Description
The proposed Project would construct 62 attached, three-story townhome residential units on the 2.6-acre site, resulting in a density of 23 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The residential units include 33 threebedroom units and 29 four-bedroom units, with floor areas ranging from 1,363 to 1,639 net square feet (SF). The Project is eligible for a density bonus under the SDBL because three units, or five percent of the total, would be restricted for very-low income households. Pursuant to SDBL, the Applicant is requesting a parking waiver to reduce parking requirements. The Project site plan is shown below in Figure 1, Project Site Plan.

Circulation and Parking
Access to the Project site would be provided by a 24-foot-wide driveway on Yorba Linda Boulevard. Internal circulation would be served by 24-foot-wide drive aisles that also function as fire access lanes. The Project provides a total of 138 parking spaces, or approximately 2.2 spaces per dwelling unit. Each unit includes a two-car garage, resulting in 124 garage spaces, all pre-wired for electric vehicle (EV) chargers. In addition, 14 guest spaces are proposed, consisting of 10 uncovered head-in spaces (including one ADA-compliant space) and three uncovered parallel spaces located along the main internal drive aisle.

Project Parking Supply and City Code Parking Requirement The proposed Project would include a total of 138 on-site parking spaces. The Project is located in an R-M20 zone. Pursuant to the City of Yorba Linda Code of Ordinances, Title 18 Zoning, Chapter 18.22.303 Parking Space Specifications, residential units with three or more bedrooms would be required to provide one (1) covered and one (1) uncovered parking space per unit, with guest parking required at a rate of 1.5 spaces per unit. Based on the City’s code, the Project would be required to provide a total of 217 parking To: City of Yorba Linda
From: Maryam Javanmardi, Hashem Basrawi, EIT, EPD Solutions, Inc.

Date: 11/20/2025
Subject: Parking Demand Analysis for the 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project EPD Project Number 25-062

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential
2 Parking Demand Analysis
spaces, as summarized in Table 1. Therefore, the proposed parking supply would be 79 spaces fewer than the requirement established by the City’s zoning code.

Table 1: City of Yorba Linda Parking Requirement
Project Parking Supply and SDBL Requirement
The proposed Project provides a total of 138 on-site parking spaces. The parking demand analysis was conducted based on the Project’s unit mix and the reduced parking requirements established under the State Density Bonus Law (DBL; California Government Code Section 65915(p)(1)), which permits adjustments to parking requirements for residential projects receiving a density bonus to support higher-density and affordable housing. The applicable DBL parking ratios of 1.5 spaces per unit for three-bedroom units and

2.5 spaces per unit for four-bedroom units were applied. Based on the unit mix, 33 three-bedroom units require 50 spaces and 29 four-bedroom units require 73 spaces, for a total DBL-calculated requirement of 123 spaces, as summarized in Table 2. Therefore, the proposed supply of 138 on-site parking spaces provides a surplus of 15 spaces relative to the DBL requirement.

Table 2: SDBL Parking Requirement
Project Parking Supply and ITE-Based Parking Demand
The adequacy of the proposed on-site parking supply of 138 spaces for the residential project was evaluated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual, 6th Edition (2023), for Land Use Code 220 (Multifamily Housing – Low Rise). This land use is representative of low-rise multifamily housing developments with two-plus floors (levels) of residential units and two or more bedrooms.

Configurations that fall under this category include walkup apartments or multiplexes, where individual dwelling units are accessed internally through shared entries, stairways, and hallways; mansion apartments, which contain several dwelling units within a structure resembling a single-family home from the exterior; and stacked townhouses that share both floors and walls, with access provided through a central entry and stairway.

Land Use Unit
Spaces
Required
Spaces
Provided
City of Yorba Linda1
Use
Covered Residential Units 1 / 1 unit 62 62
Uncovered Residential Units 1 / 1 unit 62 62
Guest 1.5 / 1 unit 62 93
Total 217 138
1 City of Yorba Linda Code of Ordiances, Title 18 Zoning, Chapter 18.22 Off-Street Parking Parking Ratio
Land Use Unit
Spaces
Required
Spaces
Provided
City of Yorba Linda1
Use
3 Bedroom 1.5 / 1 unit 33 50
4 Bedroom 2.5 / 1 unit 29 73
Total 123 138
Parking Ratio
1 Parking requirements are based on the reduced standards allowed under the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL; California Government Code Section 65915(p)(1)).

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential
3 Parking Demand Analysis
ITE parking demand rates for Land Use Code 220 are derived from 143 surveys conducted at comparable multifamily housing sites across the United States under typical operating conditions, with an average of 154 dwelling units analyzed per survey. The average parking demand rate, including both resident and visitor parking demand, is 1.27 spaces per dwelling unit. Based on this rate, the projected parking requirement for the proposed residential project is 79 spaces, as summarized in Table 3. The proposed on-site supply of 138 spaces exceeds the ITE-based parking demand estimate by 59 spaces, indicating that the planned parking inventory is expected to meet the anticipated demand for a multifamily low-rise residential development of comparable type and scale. The full description of ITE Land Use Code 220 and methodology is provided in Attachment A.

Table 3: ITE Parking Requirement
Parking Management Measures
The following measures would be included in the CC&R’s and implemented by the project’s homeowners association (HOA) to ensure that resident and guest parking is efficiently managed throughout the Project.

These measures establish clear guidelines for the use of garages and guest parking spaces and provide for periodic inspections to maintain compliance with the City’s parking requirements. (a) Resident Parking. Except for purposes of Temporary Parking in areas other than fire lanes (if any), Owners of the Condominiums and their tenants shall park their Authorized Vehicles only in their garages.

Tandem parking in a garage may be required. As noted above, Restricted Vehicles may also be parked in an Owner’s garage, provided that the garage door is kept shut (except when the vehicles are entering or exiting the garage) and the Owner’s garage has sufficient space remaining for the parking of the Owner’s Authorized Vehicles. Otherwise, Restricted Vehicles may not be parked anywhere in the Project. (b) Guest Parking. As required by the City, all guest parking spaces shall be properly marked and identified as "Guest Parking Only." The guest parking spaces in the Project shall be used only by guests of the Project on a first-come, first-served basis in accordance with the Rules and Regulations and shall not be assigned to any residents of the Condominium Units. Owners and other residents of the Condominiums in the Project are required to park in their garages and may not park their vehicles in the guest parking spaces. (c) Garage Inspections. Per the City’s request, the HOA shall conduct annual inspections of all garages to confirm compliance with resident parking requirements.

Parking Demand Analysis Conclusion
The proposed Project includes 138 on-site parking spaces. According to the City of Yorba Linda Code of Ordinances, 217 spaces are required; therefore, the Project provides 79 fewer spaces than the City standard. Parking requirement was also evaluated under the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL; California Government Code Section 65915(p)(1)), which requires 1.5 spaces per three-bedroom unit and 2.5 spaces per four-bedroom unit, resulting in a total requirement of 123 spaces. Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual, the estimated parking demand is 79 spaces, derived from Land Use Unit
Spaces
Required
Spaces
Provided
ITE Rates1
Use
Residential Units 1.27 / 1 unit 62 79 138
1 Parking rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Parking Generation , 6th Edition, 2023 - Land Use Code 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-rise).

Parking Ratio

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential
4 Parking Demand Analysis
surveys of comparable residential developments. The proposed 138-space supply provides a surplus of 15 spaces relative to the SDBL requirement and 59 spaces relative to the ITE-based demand, indicating adequate on-site capacity to meet anticipated parking needs. Parking Management Measures—including assigned resident garage parking, designated guest spaces, and annual HOA garage inspections—will promote efficient use and management of available parking.

If you have any questions about this analysis, please contact us at (949) 794-1180 or [email protected].

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential
Parking Demand Analysis
Figure 1: Project Site Plan

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential
Parking Demand Analysis
Attachment A – ITE Land Use Code 220 Description and Parking Methodology

95 Land Use: 220 Multifamily Housing—
2+ BR (Low-Rise)
Description
Low-rise multifamily housing with two-or-more bedrooms is a residential building with two or three floors (levels) of residence that contain at least one dwelling unit with two or more bedrooms.

Various configurations can fit this description, including the following:
● Walkup apartment or multiplex-access to the individual dwelling units is typically internal to the structure and provided through a shared entry, stairway, and hallway ● Mansion apartment-several dwelling units within what appears from the outside to be a singlefamily dwelling unit ● Stacked townhouse-designed to match the external appearance of a townhouse, but which have dwelling units that share both floors and walls and with access through a central entry and stairway
Land Use Subcategory
Data are separated into two subcategories for this land use: (1) not close to rail transit and (2) close to rail transit. A site is considered close to rail transit if the walking distance between the residential site entrance and the closest rail transit station entrance is mile or less.

96 Parking Generation Manual, 6th Edition
Time-of-Day Distribution for Parking Demand
The following table presents a Time-of-Day distribution of parking demand (1) on a weekday (13 study sites) and a Saturday (eight study sites) in a general urban/suburban setting and (2) on a weekday (three study sites) and a Saturday (three study sites) in a dense multi-use urban setting.

Percent of Peak Parking Demand
Hour Beginning
General Urban/Suburban Dense Multi-Use Urban
Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday
12:00-4:00 a.m. 97 92 89 100
5:00 a.m. 100 100 100 92
6:00 a.m. 96 99 97 92
7:00 a.m. 85 97 84 84
8:00 a.m. 67 92 58 76
9:00 a.m. 54 83 55 81
10:00 a.m. 48 79 47 78
11:00 a.m. 45 71 55 86
12:00 p.m. 45 68 55 81
1:00 p.m. 42 65 55 73
2:00 p.m. 42 62 42 70
3:00 p.m. 47 66 45 49
4:00 p.m. 49 66 47 51
5:00 p.m. 56 67 50 46
6:00 p.m. 64 70 68 43
7:00 p.m. 72 78 58 49
8:00 p.m. 77 77 58 59
9:00 p.m. 85 80 61 62
10:00 p.m. 92 82 74 76
11:00 p.m. 95 88 84 86

97 Additional Data
The average parking supply ratios and average peak parking occupancy for the study sites with parking supply information are shown in the table below.

Setting Proximity to Rail Transit
Parking Supply Per
Dwelling Unit
Average Peak
Parking Occupancy
Dense MultiUse Urban
Within ½ mile of rail transit 1.2 (21 sites) 73%
Not within ½ mile of rail transit 1.3 (18 sites) 70%
General Urban/
Suburban
Within ½ mile of rail transit 1.6 (31 sites) 72%
Not within ½ mile of rail transit 1.7 (114 sites) 72%
The sites were surveyed in the 1990s, the 2000s, the 2010s, and the 2020s in Alberta (CAN), Arizona, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ontario (CAN), Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Source Numbers
209, 218, 219, 247, 255, 277, 314, 402, 414, 419, 432, 437, 505, 512, 533, 535, 536, 537, 538, 544, 545, 577, 578, 579, 580, 584, 585, 587, 603, 604, 610, 611, 617, 620, 631

98 Parking Generation Manual, 6th Edition
Multifamily Housing - 2+ BR (Low-Rise)
Not Close to Rail Transit (220)
Peak Period Parking Demand vs: Dwelling Units
On a: Weekday (Monday - Friday)
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 143
Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 154
Peak Period Parking Demand per Dwelling Unit
Average Rate Range of Rates 33rd / 85th Percentile 95% Confidence Interval
Standard Deviation
(Coeff. of Variation)

1.27 0.58 - 3.16 1.07 / 1.59 1.22 - 1.32 0.29 ( 23% )
Data Plot and Equation
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0
1000
2000
Study Site Fitted Curve Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(P) = 0.99 Ln(X) + 0.26 R²= 0.95 X = Number of Dwelling Units
P = Parked Vehicles

99 Multifamily Housing - 2+ BR (Low-Rise)
Not Close to Rail Transit (220)
Peak Period Parking Demand vs: Dwelling Units
On a: Saturday
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 15
Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 169
Peak Period Parking Demand per Dwelling Unit
Average Rate Range of Rates 33rd / 85th Percentile 95% Confidence Interval
Standard Deviation
(Coeff. of Variation)

1.18 0.84 - 1.48 1.07 / 1.44 *** 0.19 ( 16% )
Data Plot and Equation
0 100 200 300 400 0
100
200
300
400
500
Study Site Fitted Curve Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: P = 1.15(X) + 5.12 R²= 0.93
X = Number of Dwelling Units
P = Parked Vehicles

100 Parking Generation Manual, 6th Edition
Multifamily Housing - 2+ BR (Low-Rise)
Not Close to Rail Transit (220)
Peak Period Parking Demand vs: Dwelling Units
On a: Sunday
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 3
Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 245
Peak Period Parking Demand per Dwelling Unit
Average Rate Range of Rates 33rd / 85th Percentile 95% Confidence Interval
Standard Deviation
(Coeff. of Variation)

1.16 0.67 - 2.05 0.71 / 2.05 *** 0.77 ( 66% )
Data Plot and Equation
0 100 200 300 400 0
200
400
600
Study Site Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: *** R²= ***
X = Number of Dwelling Units
P = Parked Vehicles

101
Multifamily Housing - 2+ BR (Low-Rise)
Not Close to Rail Transit (220)
Peak Period Parking Demand vs: Bedrooms
On a: Weekday (Monday - Friday)
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 97
Avg. Num. of Bedrooms: 192
Peak Period Parking Demand per Bedroom
Average Rate Range of Rates 33rd / 85th Percentile 95% Confidence Interval
Standard Deviation
(Coeff. of Variation)

0.68 0.36 - 2.09 0.61 / 0.86 0.65 - 0.71 0.16 ( 24% )
Data Plot and Equation
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0
200
400
600
800
Study Site Fitted Curve Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(P) = 0.99 Ln(X) - 0.37 R²= 0.95 X = Number of Bedrooms
P = Parked Vehicles

102 Parking Generation Manual, 6th Edition
Multifamily Housing - 2+ BR (Low-Rise)
Not Close to Rail Transit (220)
Peak Period Parking Demand vs: Bedrooms
On a: Saturday
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 5
Avg. Num. of Bedrooms: 356
Peak Period Parking Demand per Bedroom
Average Rate Range of Rates 33rd / 85th Percentile 95% Confidence Interval
Standard Deviation
(Coeff. of Variation)

0.80 0.70 - 0.88 0.82 / 0.88 *** 0.08 ( 10% )
Data Plot and Equation
0 200 400 600 0
100
200
300
400
500
Study Site Fitted Curve Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(P) = 0.91 Ln(X) + 0.31 R²= 0.97 X = Number of Bedrooms
P = Parked Vehicles

103
Multifamily Housing - 2+ BR (Low-Rise)
Not Close to Rail Transit (220)
Peak Period Parking Demand vs: Bedrooms
On a: Sunday
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 2
Avg. Num. of Bedrooms: 270
Peak Period Parking Demand per Bedroom
Average Rate Range of Rates 33rd / 85th Percentile 95% Confidence Interval
Standard Deviation
(Coeff. of Variation)

0.65 0.61 - 0.73 *** / *** *** *** ( *** )
Data Plot and Equation Caution – Small Sample Size
0 100 200 300 400 0
100
200
300
Study Site Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: *** R²= ***
X = Number of Bedrooms
P = Parked Vehicles

104 Parking Generation Manual, 6th Edition
Multifamily Housing - 2+ BR (Low-Rise)
Not Close to Rail Transit (220)
Peak Period Parking Demand vs: Dwelling Units
On a: Weekday (Monday - Friday)
Setting/Location: Dense Multi-Use Urban
Number of Studies: 39
Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 46
Peak Period Parking Demand per Dwelling Unit
Average Rate Range of Rates 33rd / 85th Percentile 95% Confidence Interval
Standard Deviation
(Coeff. of Variation)

1.10 0.50 - 2.80 0.95 / 1.66 0.99 - 1.21 0.35 ( 32% )
Data Plot and Equation
0 100 200 300 400 0
100
200
300
400
Study Site Fitted Curve Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: P = 1.06(X) + 1.93 R²= 0.93
X = Number of Dwelling Units
P = Parked Vehicles

105
Multifamily Housing - 2+ BR (Low-Rise)
Not Close to Rail Transit (220)
Peak Period Parking Demand vs: Dwelling Units
On a: Saturday
Setting/Location: Dense Multi-Use Urban
Number of Studies: 4
Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 51
Peak Period Parking Demand per Dwelling Unit
Average Rate Range of Rates 33rd / 85th Percentile 95% Confidence Interval
Standard Deviation
(Coeff. of Variation)

0.85 0.67 - 1.05 0.70 / 1.05 *** 0.09 ( 11% )
Data Plot and Equation
0 100 200 0
100
200
Study Site Fitted Curve Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: P = 0.85(X) + 0.10 R²= 1.00
X = Number of Dwelling Units
P = Parked Vehicles

106 Parking Generation Manual, 6th Edition
Multifamily Housing - 2+ BR (Low-Rise)
Not Close to Rail Transit (220)
Peak Period Parking Demand vs: Bedrooms
On a: Weekday (Monday - Friday)
Setting/Location: Dense Multi-Use Urban
Number of Studies: 33
Avg. Num. of Bedrooms: 78
Peak Period Parking Demand per Bedroom
Average Rate Range of Rates 33rd / 85th Percentile 95% Confidence Interval
Standard Deviation
(Coeff. of Variation)

0.70 0.25 - 1.19 0.55 / 1.00 0.62 - 0.78 0.22 ( 31% )
Data Plot and Equation
0 200 400 600 0
100
200
300
400
Study Site Fitted Curve Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: P = 0.69(X) + 0.41 R²= 0.91
X = Number of Bedrooms
P = Parked Vehicles

107
Multifamily Housing - 2+ BR (Low-Rise)
Close to Rail Transit (220)
Peak Period Parking Demand vs: Dwelling Units
On a: Weekday (Monday - Friday)
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 31
Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 272
Peak Period Parking Demand per Dwelling Unit
Average Rate Range of Rates 33rd / 85th Percentile 95% Confidence Interval
Standard Deviation
(Coeff. of Variation)

1.13 0.45 - 1.41 0.86 / 1.28 1.05 - 1.21 0.22 ( 19% )
Data Plot and Equation
0 1000 2000 3000 0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Study Site Fitted Curve Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: P = 1.30(X) - 46.37 R²= 0.99
X = Number of Dwelling Units
P = Parked Vehicles

108 Parking Generation Manual, 6th Edition
Multifamily Housing - 2+ BR (Low-Rise)
Close to Rail Transit (220)
Peak Period Parking Demand vs: Dwelling Units
On a: Saturday
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 1
Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 438
Peak Period Parking Demand per Dwelling Unit
Average Rate Range of Rates 33rd / 85th Percentile 95% Confidence Interval
Standard Deviation
(Coeff. of Variation)

1.03 1.03 - 1.03 *** / *** *** *** ( *** )
Data Plot and Equation Caution – Small Sample Size
0 100 200 300 400 500 0
100
200
300
400
500
Study Site Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: *** R²= ***
X = Number of Dwelling Units
P = Parked Vehicles

109
Multifamily Housing - 2+ BR (Low-Rise)
Close to Rail Transit (220)
Peak Period Parking Demand vs: Dwelling Units
On a: Sunday
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 1
Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 438
Peak Period Parking Demand per Dwelling Unit
Average Rate Range of Rates 33rd / 85th Percentile 95% Confidence Interval
Standard Deviation
(Coeff. of Variation)

1.00 1.00 - 1.00 *** / *** *** *** ( *** )
Data Plot and Equation Caution – Small Sample Size
0 100 200 300 400 500 0
100
200
300
400
500
Study Site Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: *** R²= ***
X = Number of Dwelling Units
P = Parked Vehicles

110 Parking Generation Manual, 6th Edition
Multifamily Housing - 2+ BR (Low-Rise)
Close to Rail Transit (220)
Peak Period Parking Demand vs: Bedrooms
On a: Weekday (Monday - Friday)
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 13
Avg. Num. of Bedrooms: 243
Peak Period Parking Demand per Bedroom
Average Rate Range of Rates 33rd / 85th Percentile 95% Confidence Interval
Standard Deviation
(Coeff. of Variation)

0.57 0.23 - 0.80 0.44 / 0.72 *** 0.14 ( 25% )
Data Plot and Equation
0 200 400 600 800 0
100
200
300
400
500
Study Site Fitted Curve Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: P = 0.66(X) - 20.67 R²= 0.95
X = Number of Bedrooms
P = Parked Vehicles

111
Multifamily Housing - 2+ BR (Low-Rise)
Close to Rail Transit (220)
Peak Period Parking Demand vs: Bedrooms
On a: Saturday
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 1
Avg. Num. of Bedrooms: 647
Peak Period Parking Demand per Bedroom
Average Rate Range of Rates 33rd / 85th Percentile 95% Confidence Interval
Standard Deviation
(Coeff. of Variation)

0.69 0.69 - 0.69 *** / *** *** *** ( *** )
Data Plot and Equation Caution – Small Sample Size
0 200 400 600 800 0
100
200
300
400
500
Study Site Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: *** R²= ***
X = Number of Bedrooms
P = Parked Vehicles

112 Parking Generation Manual, 6th Edition
Multifamily Housing - 2+ BR (Low-Rise)
Close to Rail Transit (220)
Peak Period Parking Demand vs: Bedrooms
On a: Sunday
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 1
Avg. Num. of Bedrooms: 647
Peak Period Parking Demand per Bedroom
Average Rate Range of Rates 33rd / 85th Percentile 95% Confidence Interval
Standard Deviation
(Coeff. of Variation)

0.68 0.68 - 0.68 *** / *** *** *** ( *** )
Data Plot and Equation Caution – Small Sample Size
0 200 400 600 800 0
100
200
300
400
500
Study Site Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: *** R²= ***
X = Number of Bedrooms
P = Parked Vehicles

113
Multifamily Housing - 2+ BR (Low-Rise)
Close to Rail Transit (220)
Peak Period Parking Demand vs: Dwelling Units
On a: Weekday (Monday - Friday)
Setting/Location: Dense Multi-Use Urban
Number of Studies: 21
Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 59
Peak Period Parking Demand per Dwelling Unit
Average Rate Range of Rates 33rd / 85th Percentile 95% Confidence Interval
Standard Deviation
(Coeff. of Variation)

0.90 0.39 - 1.50 0.65 / 1.16 0.74 - 1.06 0.38 ( 42% )
Data Plot and Equation
0 100 200 300 0
100
200
300
400
Study Site Fitted Curve Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: P = 1.00(X) - 5.91 R²= 0.78
X = Number of Dwelling Units
P = Parked Vehicles

114 Parking Generation Manual, 6th Edition
Multifamily Housing - 2+ BR (Low-Rise)
Close to Rail Transit (220)
Peak Period Parking Demand vs: Bedrooms
On a: Weekday (Monday - Friday)
Setting/Location: Dense Multi-Use Urban
Number of Studies: 19
Avg. Num. of Bedrooms: 94
Peak Period Parking Demand per Bedroom
Average Rate Range of Rates 33rd / 85th Percentile 95% Confidence Interval
Standard Deviation
(Coeff. of Variation)

0.59 0.22 - 0.96 0.38 / 0.80 *** 0.25 ( 42% )
Data Plot and Equation
0 100 200 300 400 0
100
200
300
400
Study Site Fitted Curve Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: P = 0.68(X) - 8.93 R²= 0.78
X = Number of Bedrooms
P = Parked Vehicles

This technical memorandum evaluates the proposed Project located at 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard in the City of Yorba Linda and includes Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 323-081-35. The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) would be required for the Project to assess level of service (LOS). This memo will evaluate the Project using the City of Yorba Linda Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (May 2020).

Project Description
The proposed Project would construct 62 attached, three-story townhome residential units on the 2.6-acre site, which would result in a density of 23 du/ac. The units would include three (3) floor plans throughout twelve (12) buildings of which eight (8) would be four-plex buildings, three (3) would be seven-plex buildings, and one (1) would be a nine-plex building. The residential units would have three or four bedrooms and three or four bathrooms and would range from 1,363 to 1,639 net square feet (SF).

The proposed Project site plan is shown in Figure 1, Project Site Plan.

Project Trip Generation
A trip generation analysis was prepared to determine the estimated change in site trip generation that would result from the proposed Project. The analysis used trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. The proposed 62 dwelling units (DU) were analyzed using ITE Land use code 220 Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise).

As shown in Table 1, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate 418 daily trips, with 25 trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 32 trips occurring during the PM peak hour.

Table 1: Project Trip Generation
To: City of Yorba Linda
From: Jordan Mower, Maryam Javanmardi, Chad Karns, EPD Solutions, Inc.

Date: 5/27/2025
Site: 19081 Yorba Linda Blvd, Yorba Linda, CA 92886
Subject: Level of Service (LOS) Screening Analysis
Yorba Linda Housing Element – EPD Project No. 25-062

Yorba Linda Housing Element
2 LOS Screening Analysis
Level of Service Screening
Based on the City’s guidelines outlined in page 11, an LOS analysis is required when the project generates more than 50 total peak hour vehicle trips during either the AM or PM peak hour. As shown in Table 1, the proposed Project would be expected to generate 25 AM peak hour trips and 32 PM peak hour trips. In conformance with the City’s TIA Guidelines, a full LOS analysis is not required for the proposed Project.

Summary
The proposed Project was evaluated according to the City’s TIA guidelines to determine if the Project would require a LOS analysis. The proposed Project is anticipated to generate 25 AM peak hour trips and 32 PM peak hour trips, which is below the 50 peak hour trips threshold provided in the City’s TIA guidelines.

Therefore, a LOS analysis would not be required for the proposed Project.

If you have any questions about this analysis, please contact us at (949) 796-1180 or [email protected].

Yorba Linda Housing Element
3 LOS Screening Analysis
Figure 1: Project Site Plan

Lead Agency:

City of Yorba Linda
4845 Casa Loma Avenue
Yorba Linda, CA 92886
Project Applicant:

Yorba Linda 3 INV LLC
3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 150
Irvine, CA 92612
CEQA Consultant:
3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92612
September 2025
19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard
Residential Project
CEQA Consistency Analysis

This page intentionally left blank.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
i
Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1. PURPOSE........................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ..................................................................................... 1

1.3. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION................................................................................ 2

1.4. EXISTING PLANS, PROGRAMS, OR POLICIES (PPPS) .......................................................................... 3

2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING........................................................................................................... 4

2.1. PROJECT LOCATION................................................................................................................................... 4

2.2. EXISTING LAND USE.................................................................................................................................... 4

2.3. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS............................................ 4

2.4. SURROUNDING LAND USES ..................................................................................................................... 4

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................................23

3.1. PROJECT OVERVIEW............................................................................................................................... 23

3.2. PROJECT FEATURES.................................................................................................................................. 23

3.3. PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES.................................................................................................................. 25

3.4. CONSTRUCTION....................................................................................................................................... 25

3.5. PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT(S) FOR ANALYZING STATE CEQA GUIDELINES § 15162 25 3.6. DISCRETIONARY ACTION CHECKLIST .................................................................................................. 25

4. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FACTORS.....................................................................................35

4.1. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED..................................................................... 35

4.2. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS THAT DO NOT REQUIRE FURTHER ANALYSIS................................ 35

4.3. DETERMINATION....................................................................................................................................... 41

5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................43

5.1. AIR QUALITY .............................................................................................................................................. 43

5.2. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES....................................................................................................................... 53

5.3. ENERGY....................................................................................................................................................... 60

5.4. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS............................................................................................................ 65

5.5. LAND USE AND PLANNING.................................................................................................................... 72

5.6. NOISE .......................................................................................................................................................... 74

5.7. PUBLIC SERVICES ...................................................................................................................................... 86

5.8. RECREATION.............................................................................................................................................. 90

5.9. TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................................................................... 93

5.10. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................................. 97

5.11. WILDFIRE...................................................................................................................................................100

6. CLASS 32 DETERMINATION.......................................................................................................104

6.1. CLASS 32 INFILL EXEMPTION...............................................................................................................104

6.2. EXEMPTION EXCEPTIONS .....................................................................................................................106

7. REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................108 Figures
FIGURE 2-1: REGIONAL LOCATION........................................................................................................................................ 7 FIGURE 2-2: LOCAL VICINITY................................................................................................................................................. 9 FIGURE 2-3: AERIAL VIEW................................................................................................................................................... 11

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
ii
FIGURE 2-4A: EXISTING SITE PHOTOS ................................................................................................................................ 13 FIGURE 2-4B: EXISTING SITE PHOTOS................................................................................................................................. 15 FIGURE 2-4C: EXISTING SITE PHOTOS ................................................................................................................................ 17 FIGURE 2-5: EXISTING LAND USE........................................................................................................................................ 19 FIGURE 2-6: EXISTING ZONING.......................................................................................................................................... 21 FIGURE 3-1: CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN................................................................................................................................. 27 FIGURE 3-2: ELEVATIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 29 FIGURE 3-3: CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN..................................................................................................................... 31 FIGURE 3-4: WALL AND FENCE PLAN................................................................................................................................. 33 FIGURE 5-1: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS ................................................................................................................ 77 Tables
TABLE 2-1: SURROUNDING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS ......................................................... 5 TABLE 3-1: RESIDENTIAL UNIT SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 23 TABLE AQ-1: SCAQMD REGIONAL DAILY EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS ................................................................................ 46 TABLE AQ-2: REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES........................................................................................ 47 TABLE AQ-3: MITIGATED REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ..................................................................... 47 TABLE AQ-4: REGIONAL OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES........................................................................................... 47 TABLE AQ-5: LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS ....................................................................................................... 48 TABLE E-1: ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION FUEL USAGE ......................................................................................................... 62 TABLE E-2: ANNUAL PROJECT OPERATIONAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION.............................................................................. 62 TABLE GHG-1: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS............................................................................................ 67 TABLE GHG-2: PROJECT TOTAL GHG EMISSIONS............................................................................................................ 67 TABLE GHG-3: PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS PER CAPITA ................................................................................................... 68 TABLE GHG-4: PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH CARB 2022 SCOPING PLAN .................................................................. 69 TABLE N-1: AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS ........................................................................................................... 75 TABLE N-2: POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS AT NEAREST RECEPTORS............................................................... 78 TABLE N-3: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL INCREASES AT NEAREST RECEPTORS ................................................................. 79 TABLE N-4: EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS...................................................................................................................... 80 TABLE N-5: EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL................................................................................................ 81 TABLE N-6: OPERATIONAL EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL AT NEAREST RECEPTORS ...................................................................... 81 TABLE N-7: OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES AT NEARBY RECEPTORS ..................................................................... 82 TABLE N-8: CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION REFERENCE LEVELS............................................................................................... 82 TABLE N-9: POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION IMPACT AT NEAREST RECEPTORS ...................................................... 83 TABLE PS-1: OCFA STATION LOCATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 87 TABLE PS-2: ESTIMATED NUMBER OF STUDENTS GENERATED BY THE PROJECT .................................................................. 88 TABLE 6-1: PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH ZONING STANDARDS.....................................................................................104 Appendices

APPENDIX A GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

APPENDIX B PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX C PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX D PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT

APPENDIX E PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX F AIR QUALITY, ENERGY, AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ANALYSIS

APPENDIX G BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX H NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ANALYSIS

APPENDIX I VEHICLE MILED TRAVELED (VMT) SCREENING ANALYSIS

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
iii
This page intentionally left blank.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
1 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. PURPOSE
This CEQA Streamlining analysis evaluates whether the potential environmental impacts of the proposed 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project (“Project,” or “proposed Project”) are addressed in the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) prepared for the certified City of Yorba Linda 2021-2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs (HEIP) Project (State Clearinghouse [SCH] #2022040574) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162, Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, In-Fill Development Projects. The Lead Agency (City of Yorba Linda) will utilize this document as evidence that the proposed Project is within the scope of the project covered by the HEIP PEIR and subject to streamlined CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15168,15162, and 15332 as detailed below.

1.2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 and 15162
CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 provides that programmatic EIRs may be used to review later activities that are within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR. Whether a later activity is within the scope of a program EIR is a factual question that the lead agency determines based on substantial evidence in the record, including consistency with allowable land uses, overall planned density/intensity, geographic area, and covered infrastructure.

The Project is within the scope of the HEIP PEIR because the site is included as part of Housing Opportunity Site S4-204B and identified in the Housing Element Implementation Programs, which assumed a total new development capacity of 2,410 units. Of the units analyzed in the HEIP PEIR, up to 53 units are within the Project site. CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 directs cities to use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of a project to determine whether the environmental effects of the project were within the scope of the program EIR.

As set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162:
• When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
2 b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. • If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subdivision (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation.
• Once a project has been approved, the lead agency's role in project approval is completed, unless further discretionary approval on that project is required. Information appearing after an approval does not require reopening of that approval. If after the project is approved, any of the conditions described in subdivision (a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall only be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project, if any. In this situation no other responsible agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted.
• A subsequent EIR or subsequent negative declaration shall be given the same notice and public review as required under Section 15087 or Section 15072. A subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall state where the previous document is available and can be reviewed. (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15162)
CEQA Guidelines Section 15332
Article 19 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines includes, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21084, a list of classes of projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment. This document demonstrates that the proposed Project qualifies for a CEQA Exemption as an Infill Development Project (Class 32 Exemption), consistent with the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15332 and 15300.2 and provides information for City decision-makers to find that the proposed project is exempt under CEQA.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, the Project qualifies for a Class 32 Exemption because it is: (1) consistent with the General Plan designation and policies and zoning regulations; (2) is located within the City limits, surrounded by urban uses and is less than 5 acres in size; (3) has no value for endangered, rare or threatened species; (4) would not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality; and (5) can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Additionally, this document demonstrates that the Project and its circumstances would not result in any exceptions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

1.3. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
On June 20, 2024, the City of Yorba Linda (City) certified the City of Yorba Linda 2021-2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs Project and related Program Environmental Impact Report (HEIP PEIR). The HEIP PEIR evaluated the potential environmental effects of the implementing actions associated with the City’s adopted and certified 2021-2029 Housing Element for the 6th cycle planning period. The HEIP PEIR analyzed a total development capacity of 2,410 units on 27 housing opportunity sites, including the Project site.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
3 The 2021–2029 Housing Element identified 27 housing opportunity sites in the City that have sufficient capacity to meet the City’s RHNA for the 6th cycle. The proposed Project site is identified as Housing Opportunity Site S4-204B, which encompasses 3.9 acres across two parcels (APNs 323-081-35 and 323- 081-36). As part of the HEIP, the site’s zoning designation was changed from Residential Estate (RE) (up to

1.8 units per acre) to Residential Multiple-Family (RM-20) (up to 20 units per acre). Therefore, based on the site’s RM-20 zoning designation, the HEIP PEIR assumed up to 78 units could occur on Housing Opportunity site S4-204B. The proposed Project only includes APN 323-081-35 which encompasses 2.64 acres.

Therefore, up to 53 units were assumed to occur on the Project site.

The HEIP PEIR identified no impacts or less than significant impacts related to the following topic areas:
aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, transportation, and utilities and service systems. The HEIP PEIR identified mitigation measures that would reduce impacts to less than significant for the following topic areas: air quality, biological resources, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. The HEIP PEIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality, GHG emissions, and noise (construction noise).

1.4. EXISTING PLANS, PROGRAMS, OR POLICIES (PPPS)
Throughout the analysis of this document, reference is made to requirements that are applied to all development on the basis of federal, State, or local law. Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies are collectively identified in this document as PPPs. Where applicable, PPPs are listed to show their effect in reducing potential environmental impacts. Additionally, applicable Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions from the HEIP PEIR are included herein and will be incorporated into the Project. As shown throughout the analysis, the Project does not result in any new or more severe impacts beyond what was identified in the HEIP PEIR and no additional mitigation measures are required.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
4 2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

2.1. PROJECT LOCATION
The Project site is located at 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard in the central portion of the City of Yorba Linda within Orange County. Specifically, the site is located in Section 23, Township 3 South, Range 9 West in the Yorba Linda (7.5-minute) Quadrangle. The approximate 2.64-acre Project site consists of one parcel identified as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 323-081-35. The Project site is bound by single family residential homes to the north, Jessamyn West Park to the east, a single-family residential home to the southeast, Yorba Linda Boulevard to the south, and a synagogue with a learning center to the west. Regional access to the site is provided via State Route 90 (known locally as Imperial Highway), State Route 91 (known locally as Riverside Freeway), and State Route 57 (known locally as Orange Freeway). Local access to the site is provided via Yorba Linda Boulevard. The Project site and the surrounding area are shown in Figure 2-1, Regional Location, and Figure 2-2, Local Vicinity.

2.2. EXISTING LAND USE
The Project site is currently developed with a single-family residence consisting of three buildings, various ancillary structures such as garages, storage sheds and share structures, as well as a small orchard with additional ornamental landscaping including trees and shrubs. The site also contains an existing asphalt and concrete driveway off Yorba Linda Boulevard that extends along the eastern side of the site. The site is relatively level and sits at an elevation of approximately 451 feet above mean sea level (amsl). Existing conditions of the Project site and adjacent uses are shown in Figure 2-3, Aerial View, and Figures 2-4a-c, Existing Site Photos.

2.3. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS The Project sites has a General Plan land use designation of Residential High (R-H) and a zoning designation of Residential Multiple-Family 20 (RM-20). The R-H General Plan land use designation is intended for residential development with a density of 4-30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The RM-20 zoning district is intended to promote the development of multi-family rental as well as ownership dwelling units up to 20 units per acre. Refer to Figure 2-5, Existing Land Use and Figure 2-6, Existing Zoning.

2.4. SURROUNDING LAND USES
The surrounding land uses are shown on Figure 2-3, Aerial View, and described below. Table 2-1 lists the General Plan land use designations and zoning designations of the surrounding land uses. • North: Single family residential homes and a vacant residential lot. • West: North County Chabad Center including Aleph Preschool and Discovery of Learning (a homeschool learning center).
• South: Yorba Linda Boulevard followed by single family residential homes. • East: A single-family residential home and Jessamyn West Park.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
5 Table 2-1: Surrounding General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations Direction General Plan Land Use Zoning
North Residential Medium-Low (RML) Residential Estate (RE), West Residential Medium-Low (RML) Residential Estate (RE), South Residential Medium-Low (RML) Residential Estate (RE), East
Residential Medium-Low (RML), Open Space (OSGeneral)
Residential Multiple-Family 20
(R-M-20), Public and SemiPublic (PS)
Source: General Plan Land Use Map (City of Yorba Linda, 2016a) and Zoning Map (City of Yorba Linda, 2019)

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
6 This page intentionally left blank.

Regional Location
19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Figure 2-1
City of Yorba Linda
Valley
View
Ave
Bastanchury Rd
Brooklyn Ave
Saga Dr
Highland Ave
Briarhill Dr
Lakeview Ave
Orchard Dr
El Cajon Ave
Eureka Ave
N Jef ferson St
Santa Fe S t
Citrus
Richfield Rd
mperial Hwy
Imperial Hwy
Friends Chrstn
Middle School
Rose Campus
Yorba Linda
Huckleberry
Pond
S Van Buren St
E Miraloma Ave
E Orangethorpe Ave
Richfield Rd
Diemer Trl
Telegraph Canyon Rd
S Ridge Rd Black Gold Golf
Course
Lakeview Ave
Lakeview
Ave
Bastanchury Rd
Fairmo
nt
Blvd
Oriente Dr
Buena Vista Ave
Plumosa Dr
Ohio S t
Avocado Ave
C hianti Ct
Palm Ave
Crestkn oll Dr
Yorba Linda Blvd
Fairmont Blvd
Kellogg Dr
Imperial
Hwy
Kingsbriar Park
Yorba Linda
Lakebed Park
Santa Ana River
E Camino Manzano
Fairmont Blvd
N Lakeview Ave
E La Palma Ave
E Orangethorpe Ave
Yorba Linda
Country Club
Esperanza High
School
Anaheim
Brea
Placentia
Unincorporated
Unincorporated
Unincorporated
Yorba Linda
Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
0 0.5 1
Miles
±
Legend
Project Boundary
Anaheim
Brea
Placentia
Unincorporated
Yorba Linda

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
8 This page intentionally left blank.

Local Vicinity
19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Figure 2-2
City of Yorba Linda
4912
4932
4972
18960
18950
18950
18955 18995
19081
4862 4884
4888
19045 4942
18998
18998
18980 18990
4765
4757
4831
19022
19000
19032 19052 19062
19030
19010
4872
19042
19005
19002
19015
19001
19016
19005 19021 19002
19111
4779
19225
19215
19220 19230
19072 4771
19025
4777 4773
19180
19190
19200 19210
19205 19195
19175
19040
5001
5005
5012
5061
5061
5081
5032
5042
5062
5062
5091
5031
5020
5021 19031
19026
5010
5011
Ohio Street
De Anda Lane
os Palominos Drive
Suncrest Drive
Lamplight Lane
Lynn Lane
Sunrise Place
da Boulevard
Palm Vista
Sycamore Circle
Jessamyn West
Park
C
lub Terrace Drive
Fairway View Driv
Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, Microsoft, Facebook, e Google, Esri Community Maps contributors, Map layer by Esri 0 200 400
US Feet
±
Legend
Project Boundary
Yorba Linda Boulevard
Palm Vista
Lynn Lane
Ohio Street
Ohio Street

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
10 This page intentionally left blank.

Aerial View
19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Figure 2-3
City of Yorba Linda
0 100 200
US Feet
±
Legend
Project Boundary
Yorba Linda Boulevard
Created with Nearmap US Vertical Imagery © [2025 Nearmap US, Inc.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
12 This page intentionally left blank.

County of Los
Angeles, Bureau
of Land
Existing Site Photos
19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Figure 2-4a
City of Yorba Linda
Key
Viewpoint location
Direction of sight
View of Project site from driveway facing north.

County of Los
Angeles, Bureau
of Land
Key
Viewpoint location
Direction of sight
View of existing buildings onsite facing east.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
14 This page intentionally left blank.

County of Los
Angeles, Bureau
of Land
Existing Site Photos
19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Figure 2-4b
City of Yorba Linda
Key
Viewpoint location
Direction of sight
View of Project site from top of driveway facing south.

County of Los
Angeles, Bureau
of Land
Key
Viewpoint location
Direction of sight
View of Project site from northeast corner
of project facing south.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
16 This page intentionally left blank.

County of Los
Angeles, Bureau
of Land
Existing Site Photos
19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Figure 2-4c
City of Yorba Linda
Key
Viewpoint location
Direction of sight
View of edge of Project site adjacent to neighboring
home facing east.

County of Los
Angeles, Bureau
of Land
Key
Viewpoint location
Direction of sight
View of Project site facing south.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
18 This page intentionally left blank.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard
City of Yorba Linda
)LJXUH
City BoundarySphere of Influence
Area Plans
Area Plan
Commercial
C-CommercialC-NeighborhoodC-Office
Residential
R-LowR-Medium LowR-MediumR-Medium High
R-High
Open Space
OS-GeneralWater/Lake
Industrial
I-Manufacturing
Existing Land Use
Project Boundary

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
20 This page intentionally left blank.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard
City of Yorba Linda
Figure
-
7(')25'
0$-25&
680$& 5,'*(
/25&$
)5('5,&.
0,&.(/
,'*(
6721(&$1<21
/<11
2+,2
$92&$'2
6<&$025(
%(1/2021'
0$1259,(:
%2(,1*
17:$7(5
&$6,$12
0217($12

6.<9,(:.12//
/$&$6,7$
252 9(5'(
&$67(/$1$
(8&$/<37
<25%$/,1'$
6&+22/
9,$(1&$172
0(/2'<
6800,7
0$5,12
125&5,6
72:1&(17(5
+,'($:$<
'28*/$6
5$3$//2
2+,2
&/8% 7(55$&(
6815,6( )$,5:$<9,(:
(9(5*5((1
=(//$
6,/9(563856
$7,(032
$/758'<
25,(17(
$/0$5$
$92/,1'$
&$0(/$
/$.(9,(:
'($1'$
9,$6(5(12
$92/,1'$
0217($12
/$35$'(5$
/2*$1$
%(1,&,$
)$,5:$<9,(:
:(67.12//
7,))$1<
$92/,1'$
9$//(&,72
5,2'(252
129$
6+$'<.1/
5, ' *(
'(/&$%$//2
3$/0
:$*21 :+((/ '25$/
$552<2
25,(17(
2/$1$
$92/,1'$
6&+22/
6 /20
'((
0$56$/$
9 $' , (/$&,(/2
9,//$7(55$&(
+$&,(1'$
6(*29,$
3,3(5
&('$5
:,//2:%522.
6&+22/
0(5,'$ '(9,//(
.(//2**
3$/0 9,67$
5<1(//
3,3(5
3$/20$
9,$'(/&$%$//2
3$5.5,'*(
<25%$ 9,67$
25/$1'2
)$,50217
/263$/20,126 $/,$12($6<
&$5021,7$
3,3(5
<25%$ /,1'$
2$.75((
&28175<:22'
9(521$
+800,1*%,5'
5,2'(3/$7$
,03(5,$/
1')25'
*25'21
&$5'(1$
%8&.6.,1
'$1,7$
9$/(1&,$
9$/(1&,$
:(1'29(5
681&5(67
(
&,75,2'25$ 9(1(&,$ /$03/,*+7/1
9$/(1&,$
6(55(17(
'5< &5((.
&$09(5'(
0$,1
/26$/726
6$1'632,17
5$9(
7,.,725&+
&25'2%$
681'2:1
+$9(1
/25&$
<25%$
(6&$/21$
6+$'2: +,//
:,1'<.12//
9$//(&,72
9,67$5($
36 58
5(
50 5$
7&63
50 36
36 &2
36 &*
81&
56 50
5(
58 56
56 56
3'
5/'
5$
6+
6+
6+
6+
[\
[\
[\
45&
Existing Zoning
Project Boundary
5HVLGHQWLDO
5$ 5HVLGHQWLDO$JULFXOWXUH5/' 5HVLGHQWLDO/RZ'HQVLW\5( 5HVLGHQWLDO(VWDWH56 5HVLGHQWLDO6XEXUEDQ58 5HVLGHQWLDO8UEDQ50 5HVLGHQWLDO0XOWLSOH50 5HVLGHQWLDO0XOWLSOH)DPLO\ &RPPHUFLDO
&2 &RPPHUFLDO2IILFH&1 &RPPHUFLDO1HLJKERUKRRG&* &RPPHUFLDO*HQHUDO ,QGXVWULDO
0 /LJKW0DQXIDFWXULQJ
6SHFLDO3XUSRVH
0+3 0RELOH+RPH3DUN3' 3ODQQHG'HYHORSPHQW36 3XEOLFDQG6HPL3XEOLF3/ 3UHVLGHQWLDO/LEUDU\26 2SHQ6SDFH265 2SHQ6SDFH5DQFKHWWH 6SHFLILF3ODQV
7&63 7RZQ&HQWHU6SHFLILF3ODQ
&RPELQLQJ=RQHV
, ,PSHULDO+LJKZD\2 2LO3URGXFWLRQ6+ 6SHFLDO+RXVLQJ
3ODQQHG'HYHORSPHQW%RXQGDULHV&LW\%RXQGDU\6SKHUH%RXQGDU\&RXQW\%RXQGDU\&RXQW\3DUFHOV%16)5DLOURDG

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
22 This page intentionally left blank.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
23 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1. PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Project Applicant proposes to demolish the three existing residential buildings and ancillary structures and redevelop the 2.64-acre site with 62 attached, townhome residential units. Additionally, the proposed Project includes landscaping, parking, private roadways, open and private space amenities, and utility and stormwater improvements. Figure 3-1, Conceptual Site Plan, illustrates the Project as proposed. The Project requires approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM), Density Bonus, and Design Review (DR) from the City of Yorba Linda.

3.2. PROJECT FEATURES
Development Summary
The proposed Project would construct 62 attached, townhome residential units on the 2.64-acre site, which would result in a density of 23 du/ac. The Project proposes to set aside three of the 62 proposed units, or five percent of the total units, for very-low income households. As set forth in Yorba Linda Municipal Code (YLMC) Section 18.19.040, restricting 5 percent of the proposed units for very-low income households would afford the Project a 20 percent density bonus.

The units would be spread throughout 12 buildings and provide three separate floor plans. The floor plans would provide options for three to four bedrooms, three to four bathrooms, and would range from 1,363 to 1,639 square feet (SF). Table 3-1 provides a summary of the proposed units.

Table 3-1: Residential Unit Summary
Unit Plan Unit Square Footage Bedrooms Bathrooms No. of Units Plan 1 1,363 3 3 29
Plan 1 Alternative 1,363 3 3 4
Plan 2 1,639 4 4 29
The proposed buildings would be three stories with a maximum height of 35 feet, measured from finish grade to top of roof. The residences would have a variety of architectural elements including articulated massing and finish material palates and have design characteristics consistent with Spanish styles. Building materials include stucco, ‘S’ roof tiles, decorative metal window grille, stone veneer, decorative window shutters, metal and wood railing, fiberglass entry door, stucco or foam trim, sill, and header, wood barge board, sectional metal garage door, and gable end faux vent recess. Conceptual elevations of the proposed residential structures are provided in Figure 3-2, Elevations.

Circulation and Parking
Access to the Project site would be provided via one 24-foot-wide driveway proposed on Yorba Linda Boulevard. Internal circulation would be provided via 24-foot-wide drive aisles that double as a fire access lanes.

Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (DBL), the Applicant is requesting a parking waiver to reduce parking requirements. Per DBL, maximum parking requirements for three- and four-bedroom units is 1.5 spaces per unit and 2.5 spaces per unit, respectively. Thus, the Project must provide a minimum of 123 parking spaces.

The Project would include a total of 137 parking spaces (approximately 2.2 spaces per dwelling unit). All

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
24 units would include a two-car garage for a total of 124 garage spaces. All garages would be pre-wired for electric vehicle (EV) chargers. Additionally, the Project would provide a total of 13 guest spaces, including 10 uncovered head-in spaces, one of which would be an ADA space, and three uncovered parallel spaces along the main internal drive aisle.

Landscaping and Fencing
The Project proposed 9,900 SF (approximately 160 SF per unit) of common open space including an open lawn with a shade structure, BBQ, and tables for resident use. Additionally, the Project would provide 12,378 SF of private open space through ground floor patios, equating to approximately 200 SF per unit, and 3,998 SF of private upper floor decks, equating to approximately 75 SF per unit.

The Project would install new landscaping, the majority of which would be designated as low water use (approximately 67 percent of landscaping SF), the remaining landscaping would be medium water use (approximately 29 percent of landscaping SF) and only the common space open lawn would be high water use (approximately three percent of landscaping SF). Landscaping would include specimen and accent canopy trees; and a variety of shrubs, vines, and ground cover. Trees would be installed along the northern, eastern, and western perimeters of the site as well as along pedestrian sidewalks throughout the site. In addition, accent vines would also be installed along the northern, eastern, and southeastern perimeter masonry wall. Figure 3-3, Conceptual Landscape Plan, illustrates the site’s landscaping as proposed.

The Project would include a tan 6-foot-tall split-face masonry wall with a precision accent band around the perimeter of the site, excluding the southwestern boundary where the driveway would be located.

Additionally, each townhome unit would have a private patio enclosed with a 3-foot-tall steel fence with a steel gate with a minimum width of 48 inches. Proposed fencing and walls are shown in Figure 3-4, Wall and Fence Plan.

Infrastructure Improvements
Gas and Electric
No natural gas use is proposed for the Project. The Project would be serviced by Southern California Edison (SCE) for electricity. There is an existing overhead electrical line that extends halfway over the eastern portion of the Project site and connects to an existing power pole located within the central area of the eastern half of the site. Both the existing overhead line and power pole would be removed. The Project would install underground electric lines that would connect to existing SCE infrastructure in adjacent roadways.

Water and Sewer
The Project would be serviced by Yorba Linda Water District for water and sewer services. The Project would install new 8-inch private water lines on-site which would connect to the existing 8-inch domestic water main in Yorba Linda Boulevard. Additionally, the Project would install new 8-inch private sewer lines on-site which would connect to the existing 8-inch sanitary sewer within the Yorba Linda Boulevard median.

Drainage
The Project’s proposed drainage system would be divided into two drainage areas, one to convey on-site flows and the other to convey existing off-site flows. On-site stormwater would be collected and conveyed by a series of area drains and street surface flow towards curb opening biofiltration system and grated inlets. Runoff that enters the grated inlets would be routed to a proposed biofiltration system located beneath the main drive aisle for water quality treatment. The biofiltration system would be equipped with an internal bypass so that when the water quality treatment flow rate is exceeded, runoff would bypass treatment and

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
25 be routed into a proposed underground storm drain system and detention pipe. The detention pipe would feed runoff into a proposed storm water sump pump that would discharge at pre-development flow rates into a parkway drain and into the public right-of-way of Yorba Linda Boulevard. When the detention pipe is at capacity or if the storm drain system becomes inoperable, runoff would overflow within the catch basin at the Project entrance and would enter the right-of-way of Yorba Linda Boulevard over the proposed driveway apron.

Off-site runoff would be conveyed through wall knockouts into a proposed U-channel along the western property line. Off-site flows would be kept separate from on-site flows generated from the proposed Project. Runoff would continue in the U-channel until it reaches the southern property line where it would be discharged into the public right-of-way of Yorba Linda Boulevard via a parkway drain.

Street Improvements
The proposed Project would remove and replace the existing sidewalk along the Project frontage on Yorba Linda Boulevard with a new 6-inch curb, 2-foot gutter, and 4.5-foot sidewalk.

3.3. PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES
The following Project Design Features (PDFs) are incorporated into the proposed Project’s design. For tracking purposes, the PDFs will be included in the Project’s environmental monitoring and reporting program as part of the construction requirements package, as listed below.

PDF BIO-1: In order to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the Project Applicant/Contractor would conduct pre-construction nesting bird surveys three days prior to vegetation removal during the nesting bird season (generally February 1 through September 15).

3.4. CONSTRUCTION
Construction activities for the Project would occur over approximately 12 months, beginning September 2026 and ending September 2027. Construction would occur in the following stages: (1) demolition; (2) site preparation and grading; (3) building construction; (4) paving; and (5) architectural coating. Construction activities would be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and prohibited on Sundays and Federal holidays pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code Section 8.32.080.

The grading activities for development of the proposed Project include an approximate cut of 12,880 cubic yards (CY) of soil and a fill of 2,702 CY of soil totaling a net export of 10,178 CY of soil.

3.5. PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT(S) FOR ANALYZING STATE CEQA GUIDELINES § 15162
Program Environmental Impact Report for The City of Yorba Linda General Plan Housing Implementation Program, certified 2022. State Clearinghouse Number 2022040574.

3.6. DISCRETIONARY ACTION CHECKLIST
The following discretionary approvals from the City, as Lead Agency, are anticipated to be necessary for implementation of the proposed Project:
• Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 19389
• Approval of Density Bonus

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
26 • Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-10
• Approval of Design Review No. 2025-02
• Approvals and permits necessary to execute the proposed Project, including but not limited to, grading permit, building permits, etc.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard
City of Yorba Linda
Figure 
Conceptual Site Plan
P1
P1 P1
P1 P1
P1 P1
P1
UP
15R
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
BLDG 1
B400
BLDG 2
B400
BLDG 3
B400
BLDG 4
B400
BLDG 5
B400
BLDG 6
B400
BLDG 7
B400
BLDG 8
B400
BLDG 9
B900
BLDG 10
B700 B700 B700
24'-0"
DRIVE
AISLE
24'-0"
DRIVE
AISLE
25'-2" 25'-2" 30'-1"
HC
BLDG 12 BLDG 11 30'-1"

PROJECTENTRY
20'-0" MIN.

REAR

YARD SETBACK
25'-0"

EQUESTRIAN

TRAIL SETBACK
5'-0" MIN.

INTERIOR SIDE YARD

SETBACK
5'-0" MIN.

INTERIOR SETBACK
4'-11"
20'-0" MIN.

FRONT YARD

SETBACK

TRANSFORMER

TRASH ENCLOSURE
5'-0" MIN.

INTERIOR SIDE YARD

SETBACK
5'-0" MIN.

INTERIOR SIDEYARD

SETBACK
8'-6"
24'-0"
DRIVE
AISLE
24'-0"
DRIVE
AISLE
24'-0"
DRIVE
AISLE
24'-0"
DRIVE
AISLE
24'-0" 8'-0"
24'-0"
DRIVE
AISLE
24'-0"
DRIVE
AISLE
29'-0"
28'-1"
29'-0"
23'-2"
29'-0"
23'-2"
29'-0"
29'-0"
28'-1"
29'-0"
5'-0" 8'-11"

TRASH ENCLOSURE

TRANSFORMER

UNIT ENTRY
LEGEND
PLAN 1
PLAN 2
PLAN 1 ALT

ACCESSIBLE
UNIT

TRANSFORMER

PRIVATE OPEN
SPACE

COMMON OPEN
SPACE
No.
888.456.5849 | ktgy.com
20241152

CITY VENTURES

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
28 This page intentionally left blank.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard
City of Yorba Linda
Figure 
Project Elevations
No.
888.456.5849 | ktgy.com
20241152

CITY VENTURES
2-LEFT ELEVATION
4-RIGHT ELEVATION
1-FRONT ELEVATION
3-REAR ELEVATION

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
30 This page intentionally left blank.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard
City of Yorba Linda
Figure 
Conceptual Landscape Plans
YORBA LINDA BLVD 1 2
2 2
3 3
3 3
4 5 5
6 6
6 6
7 7 8 8
LEGEND
Project Entry with Enhanced PavingPedestrian Sidewalk with Shade TreesPrivate Patio Fence and GateCommon Open Space w/Shade Structure, BBQ, Tables, and Open Lawn 1234
5678
Mailbox ClusterPerimeter Masonry WallTransformerTrash Enclosure Collaborative

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
32 This page intentionally left blank.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard
City of Yorba Linda
Figure 
Wall and Fence Plans

YORBA LINDA BLVD
LEGEND
Patio Fence- Steel Fence(Color to match Architecture)Patio Gate- Steel gate (Color to match Architecture)Perimeter Wall- Masonry Wall Steel Patio Gate-36” Ht. x 48”W. opening min.-Color to Match Architecture Steel Patio Fence
-36” Ht.-Color to Match Architecture
Perimeter Masonry Wall
-6’-0” Ht.-Masonry Wall: Tan color with Split-Face finish with Precision Accent Band Collaborative

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
34 This page intentionally left blank.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
35 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FACTORS

4.1. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The subject areas checked below were determined to be new significant environmental effects or to be previously identified effects that have a substantial increase in severity either due to a change in project, change in circumstances or new information of substantial importance, as indicated by the checklist and discussion on the following pages.

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
Aesthetics Agriculture/Forestry Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards/Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire None

4.2. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS THAT DO NOT REQUIRE FURTHER ANALYSIS The subject areas listed below were determined to have no potentially significant impact following mandatory compliance with regulatory requirements in the certified HEIP PEIR. Mitigation measures were not listed for these impact categories in the certified HEIP PEIR. No substantial changes are proposed in the project and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previously certified HEIP PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Also, there is no "new information of substantial importance" as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, the previously certified HEIP PEIR adequately discusses the potential impacts of the project without modification. Therefore, the following subject areas require no further CEQA analysis:

Aesthetics
The HEIP PEIR determined future development would be subject to Design Review, the goals and policies in the City’s General Plan and would be required to comply with the provisions of the YLMC. The Project would comply with applicable rules, regulations, goals and policies which would ensure potential impacts to scenic vistas are less than significant. Additionally, compliance with the site development standards listed in the Zoning Code would ensure that the Project would not conflict with existing zoning and regulations governing scenic quality.

There are no State, County, or locally designated scenic highways in the City; therefore, consistent with the HEIP PEIR, the Project would not result in an impact related to damaging scenic resources within a State scenic highway. Additionally, development of the Project would comply with the existing lighting and glare requirements contained in YLMC Chapter 18.10.110; therefore, impacts related to light and glare would

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
36 be less than significant. Overall, no new or more severe impacts related to aesthetics would occur as a result of the proposed Project when compared to the HEIP PEIR.

Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The HEIP PEIR determined none of the housing opportunity sites contain any lands designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Thus, the Project would not convert mapped farmland to nonagricultural use and no impact would occur. Additionally, there are no Williamson Act contracts in the City. The City also does not have any land zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning or cause the rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production and no impact would occur. Overall, no new or more severe impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources would occur as a result of the proposed Project when compared to the HEIP PEIR.

Cultural Resources
The HEIP PEIR determined that there are no properties listed or eligible for listing in National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) included within the housing opportunity sites. Further, none of the housing opportunity sites appear eligible for the City’s Local Historical Register. The proposed Project site is currently developed with a single-family residence that was constructed in 1952. However, the Historic Survey prepared as part of the HEIP PEIR determined the buildings on the site are not eligible for listing in the NRHP or the Local Historical Register (City of Yorba Linda, 2016b, Table 5.5-1). Therefore, impacts related to historic resources would be less than significant.

The HEIP PEIR determined that archaeological resources could be present in soils that have been previously disturbed. However, compliance with policies from the City’s General Plan such as Policies HR-2.5 and OR6.1 through OR-6.5 which require avoidance, protection and implementation of effective mitigation measures where development may affect historical, archaeological or paleontological resources would ensure impacts are less than significant. Additionally, future projects, including the proposed Project, are required to comply with City Standard Condition Planning No. 06, which requires that unknown resources be adequately addressed and would include measures to preserve cultural resources upon discovery (City of Yorba Linda, 2022). Therefore, compliance with General Plan policies and City Standard Condition Planning No. 06 would ensure potential impacts to such resources would be less than significant.

Mandatory compliance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 would ensure any potential impacts related to the discovery of human remains would be less than significant. Overall, no new or more severe impacts related to cultural resources would occur as a result of the proposed Project when compared to the HEIP PEIR.

Geology and Soils
The HEIP PEIR concluded that compliance with State laws and local ordinances as well as the policies of the General Plan would ensure that adverse effects caused by seismic and geologic hazards (such as strong seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides) are identified and mitigated, as needed, to protect public health and safety from substantial risks through appropriate engineering practices.

One Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone, Whitter-Elsinore Fault Zone, passes through the City. However, the proposed Project site is located approximately 0.42 miles southwest of the Fault Zone and is not within the Fault Zone (California Department of Conservation, 2024). Consistent with the analysis in the HEIP PEIR, the proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable Building and Safety division requirements and the City’s Building Code (YLMC Title 15) which requires future development to submit an engineering geology report and soils engineering report to identify and mitigate potential geology conditions and hazards. A Project-specific Geotechnical Investigation was prepared and is included as Appendix A. The

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
37 results of the Geotechnical Investigation determined development of the site is feasible from a geotechnical perspective and provided recommendations to be incorporated into the site development and construction plans such as removal and recompaction of the upper three to five feet of soils to provide suitable support for the proposed buildings. Additionally, mandatory compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) and the City’s Building Code would ensure impacts related to geologic hazards would be less than significant.

Consistent with the analysis in the HEIP PEIR, development within the proposed Project site would be required to comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit by preparing and implementing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) specifying best management practices (BMPs) for minimizing pollution of stormwater with soil and sediment during Project construction. Adherence to the BMPs in the SWPPP would reduce, prevent, or minimize soil erosion from Project-related grading and construction activities. Therefore, impacts related to substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

Projects developed in accordance with the HEIP would include sewer laterals and would not rely on septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact related to septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems would occur.

As described above, compliance with City Standard Condition Planning No. 06 and compliance with General Plan Policies HR-2.5, and OR-6.1 through OR-6.5 would ensure potential impacts related to unknown paleontological resources that could be unearthed through Project construction activities would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Overall, no new or more severe impacts related to geology and soils would occur as a result of the proposed Project when compared to the HEIP PEIR.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Consistent with the analysis in the HEIP PEIR, the use, storage, transport, and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials and waste would be required to conform to existing laws and regulations. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts to occur. Furthermore, strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set forth by the City of Yorba Linda and Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) would be required through the duration of the Project construction. Operation of the proposed residential units would involve the use of small quantities of hazardous materials for cleaning and maintenance purposes, such as paints, household cleaners, fertilizers, and pesticides. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous and would only be used and stored in limited quantities. The normal routine use of these hazardous materials products pursuant to existing regulations would not result in a significant hazard to people or the environment in the vicinity of the Project. Therefore, hazards to the public or the environment arising from the routine use of hazardous materials and potential accidents involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment during Project construction and operation would be less than significant.

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the proposed Project (included as Appendix B) for the purpose of determining the presence or absence of hazardous materials pertaining to the release of hazardous materials into the soil, surface water, and/or groundwater by identifying recognized environmental conditions (RECs), including historical recognized environmental conditions (HRECs), and controlled recognized environmental conditions (CRECs) that may exist at the property. The results of the Phase I ESA identified that the Project site contained a former 500-gallon underground storage tank (UST), which was removed on April 27, 2020. During the UST removal, soil samples were collected from 5 feet below ground surface (bgs) on both ends of the tank excavation and showed only minor detections of gasoline, xylenes, and toluene. Based on this data, the Orange County Health Care Agency provided a case closure letter dated June 2, 2020, for the former UST. However, because soil vapor sampling was not

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
38 conducted at the time, the Phase I ESA considered this a potential REC and recommended that a Phase II ESA be conducted to evaluate soil vapor conditions in the vicinity of the former UST (Appendix B).

The second REC identified with the Project site is related to the site’s current and former agricultural use. The Project site has been in agricultural use since at least the 1930s; therefore, the Phase I ESA recommended performing a shallow soil investigation on the site to sample and analyze soil for the presence of pesticides and the heavy metals that typically accompany herbicide application (i.e., arsenic and lead) (Appendix B).

To investigate the RECs identified during the Phase I ESA, a Phase II ESA (included as Appendix C) was completed at the Project site on June 24 and 27, 2022, which included soil testing and laboratory testing.

Ten soil samples were collected to test for the present of contaminants. Only one of the ten soil samples had minor detections of pesticides (4,4’-DDE and 4,4’-DDT); however, the concentrations were well below their respective residential screening levels. No other organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) were reported above the laboratory reporting limits in any of the other soil samples collected and submitted for analysis. Lead was reported in all ten soil samples at concentrations below the residential screening level of 80 milligrams per kilogram. There were no detections of arsenic or total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) reported in any soil samples analyzed. Therefore, the historical agricultural use of the Project site was determined not to represent a REC and no further assessment or action was recommended.

In relation to the former UST, there were no detections of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons – Gasoline Range Organics (TPH-GRO) or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) above their corresponding laboratory reporting limits, with the exception of two minor detections of chloroform in two of the samples. The Phase II ESA determined that based on the results of the soil vapor assessment, the former UST does not represent a REC or vapor intrusion concern and no further assessment or action is needed. Therefore, it was determined that the agricultural use and the former UST do not represent an REC to the Project site, and there are no other RECs associated with the Project site. The Phase II ESA concluded no further action or investigation regarding the environmental condition of the Project site is needed (Appendix C).

Fairmont Elementary School is located approximately 0.5 miles east of the Project site. As described previously, construction and operation of the Project would involve the use, storage, and disposal of small amounts of hazardous materials on the Project site. These hazardous materials would be limited and used and disposed of in compliance with federal, State, and local regulations, which would reduce the potential for accidental release into the environment near a school. Thus, the Project would not emit hazardous or handle acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of a school, and impacts would be less than significant.

The HEIP PEIR determined none of the housing opportunity sites are identified on any hazardous materials databases compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5; therefore, the Project will not create a hazard to the public in this manner.

The nearest public-use airport to the City is the Fullerton Municipal Airport approximately 10 miles to the west. No portion of the City is within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport. Thus, consistent with the HEIP PEIR, implementation of the Project would not result in safety hazards related to aircraft operations and no impact would occur.

Overall, no new or more severe impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would occur as a result of the proposed Project when compared to the HEIP PEIR.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Construction of future projects under the HEIP would be subject to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges associated with the Construction General Permit. Compliance with the

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
39 Construction General Permit requires completing a construction site risk assessment to determine appropriate coverage level, filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the SWRCB, and preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Mandatory adherence to the Construction General Permit and implementation of measures outlined in the SWPPP would ensure that the Project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities. Therefore, water quality impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant.

To address post-development water quality impacts, the City requires new development and significant redevelopment projects within the City to address storm water quality impacts through incorporation of permanent (post-construction) Best Management Practices (BMPs) in project design. The City requires the Project applicant to submit a project WQMP at the project processing and permitting stages. A Preliminary WQMP was prepared for the proposed Project and is included as Appendix E. Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with the YLMC Section 16.04 (Water Quality Control). Therefore, compliance with local standards would ensure potential water quality impacts associated with operation would be less than significant.

Consistent with the analysis of the HEIP PEIR, the proposed Project does not involve the use of any wells or other groundwater extraction activities. Therefore, the Project would not substantially deplete or decrease groundwater supplies and impacts would be less than significant.

The HEIP PEIR determined development associated with the housing opportunity sites would mostly occur on previously developed sites and would not alter the existing course of a stream or river. Additionally, implementation of a WQMP would reduce potential impacts related to operation water quality impact such as runoff control. Additionally, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map 06059C0068J, the Project site is not within a flood hazard zone (FEMA, 2009).

Therefore, with compliance with Federal and local regulatory requirements, impacts related to impeding or redirecting flood flows would be less than significant.

The HEIP PEIR determined compliance with Federal and local regulatory requirements related to flood hazard risks would reduce potential impacts related to risk of pollutant release during flooding to less than significant. Additionally, HEIP PEIR determined that none of the housing opportunity sites are located near a closed body of water which could be subject to seiche and none of the housing opportunity sites are located within a dam inundation area. Therefore, impacts related to risk of pollutant release due to inundation from a seiche would not occur. The City is approximately 19 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and is outside of the tsunami hazard zone identified by the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. Thus, no impacts related to tsunami would occur with implementation of the HEIP or the proposed Project.

The HEIP PEIR describes that the City is in the Orange County Basin and the Basin has a Groundwater Basin Master Plan. Future projects under the HEIP would be required to comply with the NPDES standards and the City’s Water Quality Control regulations to ensure pollutant loads are minimized for downstream receiving waters. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARQWCB) would also require a WQMP to be prepared and implement BMPs for site-specific runoff controls and treatments. Conformance would be ensured during the permitting process with the City’s Community Development Department. Therefore, the HEIP PEIR determined implementation of the project would not obstruct implementation of applicable water quality control plans, and impacts would be less than significant. Overall, no new or more severe impacts related to hydrology and water quality would occur as a result of the proposed Project when compared to the HEIP PEIR.

Mineral Resources
The HEIP PEIR describes that mineral resources present in the City are petroleum and aggregate materials and that three housing opportunity sites are located within the City’s Oil Production Zones (S3-201; S3-210; and S3-203). However, all oils wells on these sites are plugged and sealed and have since been developed

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
40 over. The proposed Project site is not located in an Oil Production Zone and implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of availability of mineral resources valuable to the region or state. Additionally, the HEIP PEIR determined existing oil reserves would continue to be protected based on the land use designations on these areas and no significant impacts are anticipated. Consistent with the analysis in the HEIP PEIR, no impact related to mineral resources would occur with implementation of the proposed Project.

Overall, no new or more severe impacts related to mineral resources would occur as a result of the proposed Project when compared to the HEIP PEIR.

Population and Housing
The HEIP PEIR determined construction of future projects under the HEIP would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth in the city because construction workers are anticipated to come from within the existing labor force in the region and would not require relocation. The HEIP PEIR also determined buildout of the General Plan would result in a total population of 78,119 persons which would exceed the Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG’s) 2045 population growth estimates for the city.

The HEIP PEIR determined buildout of the HEIP would result in a total of 74,845 residents. However, this would not result in substantial unplanned growth in the area because SCAG assigns Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligations and would update its Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy (RTP/SCS) to reflect planned growth consistent with the City’s adopted Housing Element.

Additionally, the HEIP was prepared as a response to an existing unmet need and the housing opportunity sites are infill development with adequate nearby infrastructure. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial unplanned population growth. Impacts would be less than significant.

The HEIP PEIR determined buildout of the HEIP is not expected to displace a substantial amount of existing housing units or people; it would increase the number of dwelling units and population by allowing higher intensity residential uses. The proposed Project site is currently developed with a single-family residence which is currently vacant. Therefore, impacts would be consistent with the HEIP PEIR and less than significant.

Overall, no new or more severe impacts related to population and housing would occur as a result of the proposed Project when compared to the HEIP PEIR.

Utilities and Service Systems
The HEIP PEIR determined the project would not 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. The HEIP PEIR determined no housing opportunity sites are constrained by infrastructure availability.

As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project would connect to existing water, stormwater, sewer, and electric facilities adjacent to the site. The construction activities related to the on-site utility infrastructure that would be needed to serve the proposed Project is included as part of the Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this document. For example, analysis of construction emissions from excavation and installation of the utility infrastructure is included in Sections 5.1, Air Quality, and 5.4, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Therefore, consistent with the HEIP PEIR, the proposed Project would not result in the construction of new utility facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant.

The HEIP PEIR determined the Yorba Linda Water District (YLWD) would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. Therefore, impacts related to water supply would be less than significant. Additionally, the wastewater generated by buildout of the Project would not exceed the capacity of the YLWD or Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). Therefore, impacts related to wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
41 The HEIP PEIR also determined buildout of the HEIP’s 2,410 new residential units would represent approximately less than one percent of the remaining daily capacity at the Olinda Alpha Landfill, which serves the project area. Therefore, there would be adequate capacity in the landfill to serve buildout of the project and impacts would be less than significant. Further, future implementing projects would be required to adhere to all applicable solid waste statutes and regulations, such as AB 939, SB 2202, SB 1016, and the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991. Therefore, the project would comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste and impacts would be less than significant. Overall, no new or more severe impacts related to utilities and service systems would occur as a result of the proposed Project when compared to the HEIP PEIR.

4.3. DETERMINATION
☒ No substantial changes are proposed in the project and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous approved ND or MND or certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Also, there is no "new information of substantial importance" as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, the previously adopted ND or MND or previously certified EIR adequately discusses the potential impacts of the project without modification.
☐ No substantial changes are proposed in the project and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous approved ND or MND or certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Also, there is no "new information of substantial importance" as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, the previously adopted ND, MND or previously certified EIR adequately discusses the potential impacts of the project; however, minor changes require the preparation of an ADDENDUM.
☐ Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous ND, MND or EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is "new information of substantial importance," as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). However, all new potentially significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects are clearly reduced to below a level of significance through the incorporation of mitigation measures agreed to by the project applicant.

Therefore, a SUBSEQUENT MND is required.
☐ Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous environmental document due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is "new information of substantial importance," as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). However, only minor changes or additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project in the changed situation. Therefore, a SUPPLEMENTAL EIR is required.
☐ Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous environmental document due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is "new information of substantial importance," as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3) such as one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR. Therefore, a SUBSEQUENT EIR is required.
___________________________ _________________________
Signature Date

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
42 ___________________________ _________________________ Printed Name For

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
43 5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section provides evidence to substantiate the conclusions in the environmental checklist.

5.1. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district
may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:

Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non- attainment under an
applicable federal or State ambient air
quality standard)?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the HEIP PEIR
The HEIP PEIR discussed impacts related to air quality under Section 4.1. The HEIP PEIR describes that the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is the applicable AQMP for the project area. In determining consistency with the AQMP, the HEIP PEIR determined that future project construction-source and operational-source air emissions have the potential to exceed the applicable regional significance thresholds for criteria pollutants. Therefore, the project would have the potential to result in or cause violations of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Additionally, the HEIP PEIR determined that buildout of the project could exceed the growth projections from the AQMP. Therefore, the HEIP PEIR determined the project would be inconsistent with the AQMP and impacts would be significant. The project would implement development-specific air quality Mitigation Measures (MM 4.1-1 and 4.1-2), to reduce the project’s construction-source and operational-source air pollutant emissions. Additionally, compliance with SCAQMD emissions reductions and control requirements would reduce project air pollutant emissions. However, it cannot be definitively stated that all future development projects would not exceed the applicable thresholds.

Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
44 The HEIR PEIR determined buildout of the project has a potential to result in a significant impact with respect to construction activity associated with future development. Additionally, the PEIR determined estimated operational-source emissions for the proposed project will exceed the applicable SCAQMD thresholds for VOC and NOx. Future projects would be required to implement Mitigation Measure MM 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 which would reduce emissions to the extent feasible. However, it cannot be definitively stated that all future development projects would not exceed the applicable thresholds. As such, the project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact for construction and operational air emissions.

Future projects would be required to prepare, site-specific localized emissions analysis (LST) to address potential impacts from construction and operational activity, pursuant to Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-4 and MM 4.1-2. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-1 and MM 4.1-2 cannot guarantee that future development projects would reduce all LST impacts to less than significant level. Additionally, construction activity would have the potential to result in carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic emissions associated with diesel exhaust from construction equipment. Therefore, impacts related to exposing sensitive receptors to a substantial pollutant increase would remain significant and unavoidable.

The HEIP PEIR determined buildout of the project would not include long-term sources of odors or other emissions (such as those leading to odors). Additionally, standard construction requirements, such as SCAQMD Rule 402, would minimize potential odor impacts from construction. Therefore, impacts related to odors were determined to be less than significant.

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
The following report was used to prepare this section:
• Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis for the 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project.

Prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc. on August 4, 2025. (Appendix F). a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No New Impact.

The Project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) and is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD.

The SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are responsible for preparing the AQMP, which addresses federal and State Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. The AQMP details goals, policies, and programs for improving air quality in the Basin. The HEIP PEIR analyzed project consistent with the 2016 AQMP which was adopted at the time the HEIP PEIR was written. However, the current AQMP is the 2022 AQMP, adopted in December 2022. For purposes of analyzing consistency with the AQMP, if a proposed project would result in growth that is substantially greater than what was anticipated, then the proposed project would conflict with the AQMP. On the other hand, if a project’s resulting growth is within the anticipated growth of a jurisdiction, its emissions would be consistent with the assumptions in the AQMP, and the project would not conflict with SCAQMD’s attainment plans (Consistency Criterion No. 1). In addition, the SCAQMD considers a project consistent with the AQMP if the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause a new violation (Consistency Criterion No. 2).

The SCAB is in a non-attainment status for federal ozone standards, federal carbon monoxide standards, and State and federal particulate matter standards. Any development in the SCAB, including the proposed Project, could cumulatively contribute to these pollutant violations. Should construction or operation of the proposed Project exceed these thresholds a significant impact could occur; however, if estimated emissions are less than the thresholds, impacts would be considered less than significant.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
45 The HEIP PEIR assumed an average household size of 2.94 residents per unit and determined implementation of the additional dwelling units under the HEIP would result in a total population growth of approximately 7,085 residents. Using this household size figure, the Project would result in approximately 182 new residents.

As described in the HEIP PEIR, growth projections from local general plans adopted by cities in the district are provided to the SCAG, which develops regional growth forecasts, which are then used to develop future air quality forecasts for the AQMP. Thus, projects that are consistent with the growth projections in City of Yorba Linda General Plan are considered to be consistent with the AQMP. The Project site is zoned RM-20 which allows up to 20 du/ac. The Project proposes 62 units on the 2.64 acre site which would result in a density of 23 du/ac. However, the Project would restrict four units to very low income households, thus pursuant to State Density Bonus Law, the Project would quality for a 22.5 percent density bonus. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the zoning for the site.

Furthermore, State law requires that the City accommodate their RHNA “fair share” of the region’s housing needs, which cannot be achieved without future residential development. Therefore, consistent with the analysis in the HEIP PEIR, since the purpose of the Project is to accommodate planned regional housing growth included in the SCAG RHNA, the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the City. As such, the proposed Project would be consistent with Consistency Criterion No. 1.

As discussed below, the emissions generated by the construction and operation of the proposed Project would not exceed thresholds, and the Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause a new violation. As such, the proposed Project would be consistent with Consistency Criterion No. 2. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with implementation of an AQMP.

Therefore no new or more severe impacts related to conflict with implementation of an AQMP would occur compared to the findings of the HEIP PEIR.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? No New Impact.

The SCAB is in non-attainment status for federal ozone standards, and State and federal particulate matter standards. The SCAB is designated as a maintenance area for federal PM10 standards. Any development in the SCAB, including the proposed Project could cumulatively contribute to these pollutant violations.

Evaluation of the cumulative air quality impacts of the proposed Project has been completed pursuant to SCAQMD’s cumulative air quality impact methodology. SCAQMD states that if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants (ROG, CO, NOx, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts, then it would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of the criteria pollutant(s) for which the Project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. SCAQMD has established daily mass thresholds for regional pollutant emissions, which are shown in Table AQ-1.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
46 Table AQ-1: SCAQMD Regional Daily Emissions Thresholds Air Pollutant
Maximum Daily Emissions
(pounds/day)
Construction Operation
NOx 100 55
ROG 75 55
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
SO2 150 150
CO 550 550
Lead 3 3
Notes: NOx = nitrogen oxides, ROG = reactive organic gases, PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter, PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter, SO2 = sulfur dioxide, CO = carbon monoxide Source: Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis (Appendix F).

Construction
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would generate pollutant emissions from the following: (1) demolition, (2) site preparation, (3) grading, (4) building construction, (5) paving, and (6) architectural coating. The amount of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary, depending on the intensity and types of construction activities occurring.

It is mandatory for all construction projects to comply with several SCAQMD Rules, including Rule 403 for controlling fugitive dust, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities. Rule 403 requirements include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the Project site, covering all trucks hauling soil with a fabric cover and maintaining a minimum freeboard height of 12 inches, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas.

Compliance with Rule 403 was accounted for in the construction emissions modeling. In addition, implementation of SCAQMD Rule 1113, which governs the volatile organic compound (VOC) content in architectural coating, paint, thinners, and solvents was accounted for in construction emissions modeling. As shown in Table AQ-2, the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) results indicate maximum daily ROG emissions during construction would be 106.5 pounds/day, which exceeds the SCAQMD regional construction threshold of 75 pounds/day. However, the Project would be required to implement HEIP PEIR Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 which requires the use of low VOC paints which contain no more than 10 grams per liter of VOC. Table AQ-3 below shoes the results of construction emission with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-1. As show, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-1, ROG emissions would be reduced to 22.5 pounds per day, which would be below the SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, construction activities would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, no new impact related to construction emissions would occur.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
47 Table AQ-2: Regional Construction Emission Estimates Construction Year Maximum Daily Regional Emissions (pounds/day) ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Year 1 (2026) 2.0 33.8 23.8 0.1 7.1 3.0
Year 2 (2027) 106.5 10.4 14.7 0.0 1.0 0.5
Maximum Daily Emissions (2026-2027) 106.5 33.8 23.8 0.1 7.1 3.0 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? Yes No No No No No
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis (Appendix F).

Table AQ-3: Mitigated Regional Construction Emission Estimates Construction Year Maximum Daily Regional Emissions (pounds/day) ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Year 1 (2026) 2.0 33.8 23.8 0.1 7.1 3.0
Year 2 (2027) 22.5 10.4 14.7 0.0 1.0 0.5
Maximum Daily Emissions (2026-2027) 22.5 33.8 23.8 0.1 7.1 3.0 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis (Appendix F).

Operation
Occupancy of the 62 residential units would result in long-term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with area sources, such as landscaping, applications of architectural coatings, and consumer products. However, operational vehicular emissions would generate a majority of the emissions generated from the Project.

Operational emissions associated with the proposed Project and the existing use were modeled using the CalEEMod Version 2022.1 land use emission model and compared to the SCAQMD operational emissions thresholds. Emissions associated with the operation of the proposed Project compared to the existing use are presented in Table AQ-4. As shown, operational emissions would be below SCAQMD’s thresholds. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to operational air quality emissions. As such, the proposed Project would result in no new impact or in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant.

Table AQ-4: Regional Operational Emission Estimates
Operational Activity Maximum Daily Regional Emissions1 (pounds/day) ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 0.9 0.7 7.8 <0.1 2.0 0.5
Area 4.2 <0.1 3.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Total Operational Emissions 5.1 0.8 11.3 <0.1 2.0 0.5
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
1The emissions provided account for the increased residential density at 23 du/ac.

Source: Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis (Appendix F).

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
48 c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No New Impact.

The SCAQMD’s 2008 Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology recommends the evaluation of localized NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 construction-related impacts to sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Such an evaluation is referred to as a LST analysis. According to the SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, off-site mobile emissions from the Project should not be included in the emissions compared to the LSTs. SCAQMD has developed LSTs that represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards, and thus would not cause or contribute to localized air quality impacts. LSTs are developed based on the ambient concentrations of NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 pollutants for each of the 38 source receptor areas (SRAs) in the Basin. The City of Yorba Linda is located within SRA 16 (North Orange County).

The localized thresholds for development projects were derived using the SCAQMD Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Threshold and Appendix C of the SCAQMD 2008 Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. The thresholds from SCAQMD are for 1-, 2-, or 5-acre sites, and distances of sensitive receptors for 25 to 500 meters (82 feet to 1,640 feet). Sensitive receptors can include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site consist of existing residential units approximately 4.5 meters (15 feet) north of the Project boundary. Additionally, Jessamyn West Park is located approximately 15 feet east of the Project boundary.

Therefore, the distance for sensitive receptors in the assessment was set at the lowest distance of 25 meters (82 feet). The construction phase with the most ground disturbance would be the site preparation phase, with 2 acres per day of grading, thus the SCAQMD thresholds for 2 acres were used.

Construction
Construction of the proposed Project may expose nearby sensitive receptors to airborne particulates as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment).

However, construction contractors would be required to implement measures to reduce or eliminate emissions by following SCAQMD’s standard construction practices. Rule 402 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off site. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. As shown in Table AQ-5, Project construction-source emissions would not exceed SCAQMD LSTs and impacts would be less than significant.

Table AQ-5: Localized Construction Emissions
Construction Year
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Year 1 (2026) 15.8 15.6 3.0 1.7
Year 2 (2027) 5.7 8.2 0.2 0.2
Maximum Daily Emissions (2026-2027) 15.8 15.6 3.0 1.7
SCAQMD LST Screening Thresholds 170 883 7 4
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis (Appendix F).

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
49 Operation
According to the SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs apply to project-related stationary mobile sources.

Projects that involve mobile sources that spend long periods queuing and idling at a site, such as transfer facilities or warehousing and distribution buildings, have the potential to exceed the operational LSTs. The Project would operate as a residential development which does not typically involve diesel vehicles regularly idling or queueing for long periods. Therefore, due to the lack of significant stationary source emissions or idling diesel-powered vehicles, impacts related to operational LSTs are presumed to be less than significant. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
No New Impact.

The proposed Project would not generate other emissions, not described previously. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor issues include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting activities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding operations. The proposed Project would develop and operate a residential uses with a small portion of recreational space, which would not involve the types of uses that lead to odors.

Potential odor sources associated with the proposed Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed Project’s operational uses. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of construction.

The proposed Project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisance odors. Therefore, other emissions (such as those leading to odors) that could adversely affect a substantial number of people would not occur from the proposed Project. No new impact would occur.

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding air quality. There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the HEIP PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the HEIP PEIR was adopted as completed.

Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts, the Project is consistent with the HEIP PEIR.

Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)
PPP AQ-1: Rule 402. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 402. The Project shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
50 any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

PPP AQ-2: Rule 403. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, which includes the following:
• All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions. • The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the Project are watered, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, at least 3 times daily during dry weather; preferably in the mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. • The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and Project site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less.

PPP AQ-3: Rule 1113. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule (SCAQMD) Rule 1113. Only “Low-Volatile Organic Compounds” paints (no more than 50 gram/liter of VOC) and/or High Pressure Low Volume (HPLV) applications shall be used.

PPP AQ-4: Rule 445—Wood-Burning Devices. This rule prohibits permanently installed wood burning devices in any new development. A wood burning device means any fireplace, wood burning heater, or pellet-fueled wood heater, or any similarly enclosed, permanently installed, indoor or outdoor device burning any solid fuel for aesthetic or space-heating purposes, which has a heat input of less than one million British thermal units per hour.

HEIP PEIR Mitigation Measures
MM 4.1-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts (regional and localized) to the City for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD’s adopted thresholds of significance, the City shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate all feasible mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions below the significant threshold during construction activities. These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City. Mitigation measures to reduce construction-related emissions could include, but are not limited to:
• Require construction equipment that meets or exceeds CARB Certified Tier 3 or Tier 4 engine standards.
• Limit the idling time of diesel off-road construction equipment to no more than five (5) minutes.
• Require the use of “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints which have been reformulated to exceed the regulatory VOC limits put forth by South Coast AQMD’s Rule 1113. SuperCompliant low VOC paints shall be no more than 10g/L of VOC. Alternatively, projects may utilize building materials that do not require the use of architectural coatings. • The Construction Contractor shall require by contract specifications that construction operations rely on the electricity infrastructure surrounding the construction site, if available rather than electrical generators powered by internal combustion engines. • The Construction Contractor shall require the use of alternative fueled, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products (e.g., diesel oxidation catalysts, diesel particulate

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
51 filters), and/or other options as they become available, including all off-road and portable diesel-powered equipment.
• The Construction Contractor shall require that construction equipment be maintained in good operation condition to reduce emissions. The Construction Contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per the manufacturer’s specification. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification.

Proposed Project Applicability: MM 4.1-1 has been partially satisfied by the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed Project and included as Appendix F. This mitigation measure will be incorporated into the MMRP.

MM 4.1-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation air quality impacts (regional and localized) to the City for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD’s adopted thresholds of significance, the City shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate all feasible mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions below significance thresholds during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval.

Possible mitigation measures to reduce operational emissions could include, but are not limited to the following:
• Increase in insulation such that heat transfer and thermal bridging is minimized; • Limit air leakage through the structure and/or within the heating and cooling distribution system;
• Use of energy-efficient space heating and cooling equipment; • Installation of electrical hook-ups at loading dock areas; • Installation of dual-paned or other energy efficient windows; • Use of interior and exterior energy efficient lighting that exceeds then incumbent California Title 24 Energy Efficiency performance standards; • Installation of automatic devices to turn off lights where they are not needed; • Application of a paint and surface color palette that emphasizes light and off-white colors that reflect heat away from buildings;
• Design of buildings with “cool roofs” using products certified by the Cool Roof Rating Council, and/or exposed roof surfaces using light and off-white colors; • Design of buildings to accommodate photo-voltaic solar electricity systems or the installation of photo-voltaic solar electricity systems; • Installation of ENERGY STAR-qualified energy-efficient appliances, heating and cooling systems, office equipment, and/or lighting products.
• Landscaping palette emphasizing drought tolerant plants; • Use of water-efficient irrigation techniques;
• U.S. EPA Certified WaterSense labeled or equivalent faucets, high-efficiency toilets (HETs), and water-conserving shower heads.
• Applicants for residential within 1,000 feet of a major sources of TACs (e.g., warehouses, industrial areas, freeways, roadways, and rail lines with traffic volumes over 10,000 vehicle per day), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the source/edge of the nearest travel lane, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Yorba Linda prior to future discretionary Project approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
52 CEQA and the South Coast AQMD. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds ten in one million (10E-06), PM10 concentrations exceed 2.5 microgram per cubic meter (μg/m3), PM2.5 concentrations exceed 2.5 μg/m3, or the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that mitigation measures are capable of reducing potential cancer and non-cancer risks to an acceptable level (i.e., below ten in one million or a hazard index of 1.0), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. Measures to reduce risk may include but are not limited to:
• Air intakes located away from high volume roadways and/or truck loading zones. • Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems of the buildings provided with appropriately sized maximum efficiency rating value (MERV) filters (e.g., MERV 13 or better)
Proposed Project Applicability: MM 4.1-2 has been partially satisfied by the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed Project and included as Appendix F. This mitigation measure will be incorporated into the MMRP.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
53 5.2. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or State habitat conservation plan?

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
54 Summary of Impacts Identified in the HEIP PEIR
The HEIP PEIR discussed impacts related to biological resources under Section 4.2. The HEIP PEIR determined that there are two housing opportunity sites (Site S5-008 and Site S7-005) that are located within a natural habitat area. Therefore, future development on these two sites could result in impacts to sensitive or protected biological resources. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-1 through MM 4.2-4 would ensure the project’s potential impacts to sensitive or protected biological resources be mitigated through biological surveys and impact assessments by a qualified biologist. With implementation of the required mitigation and General Plan goals and policies, the project’s potential impacts to sensitive or protected biological resources would be reduced to less than significant.

There is a forested/shrub riparian habitat within housing opportunity Site S3-203. Additionally, there are four areas of wetlands within the housing opportunity sites (Freshwater pond and riverine habitat on Site S7-005; Riverine habitat on Site S5-008; Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland and Riverine habitat on Site S4-053; and Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland and Riverine habitat on Site S3-203). Future projects on these sites would be required to implement MM 4.2-1 through MM 4.2-4. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-5 would ensure the project’s potential impacts to riparian habitats and wetlands be mitigated through obtaining appropriate permit authorization(s). With implementation of the required mitigation and General Plan goals and policies, the project’s potential impacts to riparian habitats and wetlands would be reduced to less than significant.

The HEIP PEIR determined existing development in the City limits regional connectivity to other habitat areas; therefore, future developments undertaken in accordance with the project would not impact wildlife movement corridors. Additionally, future developments would be required to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), which would ensure impacts to migratory birds would not occur. Therefore, the Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites, and impacts would be less than significant.

Trees in the City of Yorba Linda are protected under YLMC Chapter 16.08 (Tree Preservation), which regulates the planting, maintenance, and removal of trees in the City. Future development would be required to comply with provisions of the City’s Municipal Code, and impacts would be less than significant.

None of the housing opportunity sites are located within the boundaries of a Natural Community Conversation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP). Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the provisions of approved local, or State habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan and no impact would occur.

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section was prepared using the following report:
• Biological Resources Assessment for the Proposed Project Located at 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard in the City of Yorba Linda, Orange County, California. Prepared by ELMT Consulting, June 27, 2025. (Appendix G).
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No New Impact.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
55 A Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) was prepared for the proposed Project, which included a field survey conducted on May 21, 2025 (Appendix G). The BRA described that the Project site consists of two land cover types: agricultural/ornamental and developed. The literature search identified eight (8) specialstatus plant species, forty-three (43) special-status wildlife species, and three (3) special-status plant communities as having potential to occur within the vicinity of the Project site. These include those species listed or candidates for listing by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and California Native Plant Society (CNPS). During the field survey, all habitats with the potential to be used by sensitive species were evaluated during the field survey for their presence or potential presence.

Special-Status Plant Species and Communities
None of the eight special-status plant species or any of the three special-status plant communities that have potential to occur in the region were identified on the Project site during the field survey. The BRA determined that due to historic and existing land uses, no native habitat that could support special status plant species or plant communities are present within or adjacent to the project site. Thus, based on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability and quality of on-site habitats, it was determined no special-status plant species would be impacted by implementation of the proposed Project (Appendix G).

Special-Status Animal Species
None of the 43 special-status animal species that have potential to occur in the region were identified on the site during the field survey. Past development and anthropogenic disturbances on the Project site have eliminated the natural plant communities that once occurred on-site which have greatly reduced potential foraging opportunities for wildlife species. However, based on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability and suitable habitats, the BRA determined that the Project site has a high potential to support Cooper’s hawk and sharp-shinned hawk. Consistent with the analysis in the HEIP PEIR, the Project would require compliance with the MBTA, which prohibits the take of nesting birds and recommends preconstruction nesting bird surveys to be conducted if construction occurs during the nesting bird season between February through August. In order to comply with the MBTA, the Project Applicant/Contractor would conduct preconstruction nesting bird surveys three days prior to vegetation removal during the nesting bird season (generally February 1 through September 15 (PDF BIO-1). Therefore, with adherence to the provisions of the MBTA, potential impacts related to nesting birds, including Cooper’s hawk and sharp-shinned hawk, would be less than significant.

The Project site is located within an urbanized area. Consistent with the findings of the HEIP PEIR, no endangered, rare, threatened, or special status plant species (or associated habitats) or wildlife species designated by the USFWS, CDFW, or CNPS are known to occur on or adjacent to the site. As such, no new or more sever impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species would occur as a result of the proposed Project.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No New Impact.

Riparian habitats are those occurring along the banks of rivers and streams. Sensitive natural communities are natural communities that are considered rare in the region by regulatory agencies, known to provide habitat for sensitive animal or plant species, or known to be important wildlife corridors. As described above, the Project site has been heavily disturbed through past development and land uses. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community exists on the site (Appendix G). The HEIP PEIR also confirms that the Project site (Housing Opportunity Site S4-204B) does not contain a sensitive natural community or riparian habitat

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
56 (City of Yorba Linda, 2022). Therefore, no new or more severe impact related to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities as identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS would occur.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No New Impact.

Wetlands are defined under the federal Clean Water Act as land that is flooded or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that normally does support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted to life in saturated soils. Wetlands include areas such as swamps, marshes, and bogs. As described above, the Project site has been heavily disturbed through past development and land uses. No wetlands exist on site (Appendix G). The HEIP PEIR also confirms that the Project site does not contain any wetlands (City of Yorba Linda, 2022). Further, the Project site does not contain any jurisdictional areas that would be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and the proposed Project does not involve any hydrological interruption on any existing water resources. Therefore, the redevelopment of the Project site would not result in impacts to wetlands. No new or more severe impact would occur. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No New Impact.

Wildlife corridors are linear features that connect areas of open space and provide avenues for the migration of animals and access to additional areas of foraging. The Project site does not contain, and is not adjacent to, any wildlife corridors. The Project site is surrounded by roadways and developed areas.

Development of the site would not result in impacts related to established native resident or migratory wildlife corridor and no new impact would occur.

The Project site contains ornamental trees that would be removed during redevelopment of the site. Although the trees are mainly ornamental and nonnative, they may provide suitable habitat, including nesting habitat, for migratory birds protected under the MBTA. In order to comply with the MBTA, the Project Applicant/Contractor would conduct pre-construction nesting bird surveys three days prior to vegetation removal during the nesting bird season (generally February 1 through September 15 (PDF BIO-1). Therefore, with adherence to the provisions of the MBTA, potential impacts related to nesting birds would be less than significant. With adherence to the MBTA and PDF BIO-1, the proposed Project would result in less-thansignificant impact related to nesting birds. No new or more severe impact would occur. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources? No New Impact.

As part of Project implementation, the existing ornamental landscaping on the Project site would be removed and new landscaping would be planted. Trees in the City of Yorba Linda are protected under the YLMC Chapter 16.08 (Tree Preservation), which regulates the planting, maintenance, and removal of trees in the City. The Project would not involve the removal of trees in City right-of-way. Therefore, impacts related to the removal and planting of trees on the Project site would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and impacts would be less than significant. No new or more severe impact would occur.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
57 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? No New Impact.

The City Yorba Linda is a participating jurisdiction to the Orange County Central‐Coastal NCCP/HCP (City of Yorba Linda, 2022). However, the housing opportunity sites, including the proposed Project site, are not located within the boundaries of the NCCP/HCP. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the provisions of approved local, or State habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No new or more severe impact would occur.

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding biological resources. There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the HEIP PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the HEIP PEIR was adopted as completed.

Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts, the Project is consistent with the HEIP PEIR.

Project Design Features
PDF BIO-1: In order to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the Project Applicant/Contractor would conduct pre-construction nesting bird surveys three days prior to vegetation removal during the nesting bird season (generally February 1 through September 15).

HEIP PEIR Mitigation Measures
MM 4.2-1 The City of Yorba Linda shall require applicants of future development projects on housing opportunity sites S5-008, S7-005, S3-203, and S4-053 to prepare a biological resources survey. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and shall be a reconnaissance level field survey of the sites for the presence and quality of biological resources potentially affected by project development. These resources include, but are not limited to, special status species or their habitat, sensitive habitats such as wetlands or riparian areas, and jurisdictional waters. If sensitive or protected biological resources are absent from the sites and adjacent lands potentially affected by the future development, the biologist shall submit a written report substantiating such to the City of Yorba Linda before issuance of a grading permit by the City, and the project may proceed without any further biological investigation.

If sensitive or protected biological resources are present on the project site or may be potentially affected by the project, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-2 shall be required.

Proposed Project Applicability: The Project site is not included on housing opportunity sites S5-008, S7-005, S3-203, and S4-053. However, a Biological Resources Assessment was prepared for the site (included as Appendix G) which determined there are no sensitive species or habitats on the Project site.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
58 MM 4.2-2 A qualified biologist shall evaluate impacts to sensitive or protected biological resources from development. The impact assessment may require focused surveys that determine absence or presence and distribution of biological resources on the site. These surveys may include, but are not limited to: 1) focused special status animal surveys if suitable habitat is present; 2) appropriately timed focused special status plant surveys that will maximize detection and accurate identification of target plant species; and 3) a delineation of jurisdictional boundaries around potential wetlands, riparian habitat, and waters of the United States or State.

Proposed Project Applicability: MM 4.2-2 is not applicable to the proposed Project because the Project site does not contain native biological resources (Appendix G).

MM 4.2-3 The results of these surveys will assess project impacts and develop site specific mitigation measures to avoid impacts to sensitive or protected biological resources. Depending on the resources potentially present on the project site, avoidance may include: 1) establishing appropriate no-disturbance buffers around onsite or adjacent resources, and/or 2) initiating construction at a time when special status or protected animal species will not be vulnerable to project-related mortality (e.g., outside the avian nesting season or bat maternal or wintering roosting season). Consultation with relevant regulatory agencies may be required in order to establish suitable buffer areas. The qualified biologist shall substantiate the impact evaluation or the assumed presence of special-status species in all suitable habitats onsite in a written report submitted to the City of Yorba Linda before issuance of a grading permit by the City. If the project avoids all sensitive or protected biological resources, no further action is required. If avoidance of all significant impacts to sensitive or protected biological resources is not feasible, the project shall implement Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-

4. Proposed Project Applicability: MM 4.2-3 is not applicable to the proposed Project because the Project site does not contain native biological resources (Appendix G).

MM 4.2-4 The City of Yorba Linda shall require applicants to design development projects to minimize potential impacts to sensitive or protected biological resources to the greatest extent feasible, in consultation with a qualified biologist and/or appropriate regulatory agency staff. Minimization measures may include 1) exclusion and/or silt fencing, 2) relocation of impacted resources, 3) construction monitoring by a qualified biologist, and 4) an informative training program conducted by a qualified biologist for construction personnel on sensitive biological resources that may be impacted by project construction. If minimization of all significant impacts to sensitive or protected biological resources is infeasible, the project shall implement Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-5.

Proposed Project Applicability: MM 4.2-4 is not applicable to the proposed Project because the Project site does not contain native biological resources (Appendix G).

MM 4.2-5 A qualified biologist will develop appropriate mitigations that will reduce project impacts to sensitive or protected biological resources to a less than significant level. The type and amount of mitigation will depend on the resources impacted, the extent of the impacts, and the quality of habitats to be impacted. Mitigations may include, but are not limited to: 1) compensation for lost habitat or waters in the form of preservation or creation of in-kind habitat or waters, either onsite or offsite, protected by conservation easement; 2) purchase of appropriate credits from an approved mitigation bank servicing the Yorba Linda area; and 3) payment of in-lieu fees. Furthermore, project applicants shall obtain appropriate permit authorization(s) for impacts to jurisdictional waters, wetlands, and/or riparian

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
59 habitats. The types of permits potentially required for impacts to jurisdictional waters are a Clean Water Act (Section 404) permit issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers, a California Water Certificate or Waste Discharge Order issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and a Stream Alteration Agreement issued by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Proposed Project Applicability: MM 4.2-5 is not applicable to the proposed Project because the Project site does not contain native biological resources (Appendix G).

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
60 5.3. ENERGY
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the HEIP PEIR
The HEIP PEIR discussed impacts related to energy under Section 4.3. The HEIP PEIR describes that future development of the 27 Housing Opportunity Sites would energy during construction and operation. However, the amount of energy to be consumed during construction will be limited to the construction period and would be supplied to the site by existing infrastructure. Additionally, future development would be required to comply with best management practices for construction activity, and would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during construction. Therefore, impacts to energy during construction would be less than significant.

Energy consumption in support of or related to project operations would include transportation energy demands (energy consumed by passenger car and truck vehicles accessing the project site) and facilities energy demands (energy consumed by building operations and site maintenance activities). The HEIP PEIR estimates the project will result in 63,832,385 annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and an estimated annual fuel consumption of 2,680,177 gallons of fuel. Project facility operational energy demands are estimated at 8,834,660 thousand British Thermal Units per year (kBTU/year) of natural gas and 26,767,491 kilowatthours per year (kWh/year) of electricity. The HEIP PEIR describes that the project would allow for conventional residential uses which would use comparable amounts of energy to other residential uses of similar scale and configuration. Therefore, operational energy use was determined to be less than significant.

Additionally, the HEIP PEIR describes that future projects would be required to comply with existing energy standards such as the California Title 24 energy standards and the 2022 CALGreen building code.

Compliance with State and local energy efficiency standards would ensure that the project meets all applicable energy conservation policies and regulations. Therefore, impacts related to conflict with plans for energy efficiency were determined to be less than significant.

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
The following report was used to prepare this section:

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
61 • Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis for the 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project.

Prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc. on July 11, 2025. (Appendix F). a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? No New Impact.

Construction activities related to the proposed residences and the associated infrastructure are not expected to result in demand for fuel greater on a per-development basis than other development projects in Southern California. Due to the Project size and the fact that construction is temporary, the electricity used during construction of the proposed Project would be substantially less than that required for Project operation and would have a negligible contribution to the Project’s overall energy consumption. The electric power used would be for as-necessary lighting and electronic equipment such as computers inside temporary construction trailers and electrical powered equipment. Natural gas is not anticipated to be needed for construction activities. Any consumption of natural gas would be minor and negligible in comparison to the usage during the operation of the proposed Project. Since operation of the Project would result in a nominal increase of Countywide electricity and natural gas consumption, as described below, construction energy consumption would be less than significant.

The equipment associated with construction activities (off-road/heavy duty vehicles) would rely on diesel fuel as would vendor and haul trucks involved in delivering building materials and removing soil material from the Project site. Construction workers would travel to and from the Project site throughout the duration of construction, and for a conservative analysis, it is assumed that construction workers would travel in gasoline-powered passenger vehicles. It should be noted that total fuel consumption is a conservative analysis and would likely overstate the amount of fuel usage, as specific construction equipment is not expected to operate during the entire duration of the construction activity (i.e., crane). The trips included worker vehicles, vendor vehicles, and haul vehicles. Table E-1, shows the overall fuel consumption for Project construction, obtained from the CARB OffRoad 2021 emission model and the CARB EMFAC2021 model.

As shown in Table E-1, the Project is estimated to consume a total of approximately 34,310 gallons of diesel fuel and approximately 15,835 gallons of gasoline fuel during construction. According to the projected 2026 fuel consumption data obtained from EMFAC2021 for Orange County, on-road vehicles would consume approximately 227,267,688 gallons of diesel fuel and 447,487,235 gallons of gasoline. On-road construction vehicles from the proposed Project would account for 0.2 percent of diesel fuel consumption and

0.01 percent gasoline fuel consumption within Orange County in 2026. Off-road consumption within Orange County in 2026 would total approximately 14,157,699 gallons of diesel fuel and 977,564 gallons of gasoline fuel. Off-road construction equipment from the proposed Project would account for 1.6 percent of diesel consumption within Orange County in 2026. As such, Project construction would have a negligible effect on energy supplies within Orange County. Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with regulations implemented to reduce emissions from construction, such as CARB Rule 2485 as set forth in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 13, Section 2485, which limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than 5 minutes (PPP E-1). Thus, the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy and impacts related to construction energy usage would be less than significant.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
62 Table E-1: Estimated Construction Fuel Usage
Source Diesel Fuel (Gallons) Gasoline Fuel (Gallons)
Proposed Project On-Road Construction Vehicles 13,392 15,835 Proposed Project Off-Road Construction Equipment 20,919 - Proposed Project Total Consumption 34,310 15,835
Orange County On-Road Vehicles 227,267,688 447,487,235
Orange County Off-Road Construction Equipment 14,157,699 977,564 On-Road Project Percentage (%) 0.2 0.01
Off-Road Project Percentage (%) 1.6 -
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis (Appendix F).

Once operational, the Project would generate demand for electricity and gasoline for fuel tanks.

Operational use of energy includes the heating, cooling, and lighting of the residences, water heating, operation of electrical systems and plug-in appliances, parking lot and outdoor lighting, and the transport of electricity and water to the areas where they would be consumed. This use of energy is typical for urban development, and no operational activities or land uses would occur that would result in extraordinary energy consumption. As detailed in Table E-2, operation of the proposed Project would use approximately 1,839,497 kWh/year of electricity and approximately 261,151 gallons of gasoline annually. Table E-2 also lists the most recent data available for electricity usage in Orange County (2023) from the California Energy Commission. When compared to overall electricity usage in the County, the proposed Project would result in a 0.001 percent increase in residential electricity consumption. Gasoline consumption in Orange County in 2026 is estimated at 1,114,083,928 gallons. Therefore, the proposed Project would account for

0.01 percent of gasoline fuel consumption in Orange County. Thus, the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy and operational energy impacts would be less than significant.

Table E-2: Annual Project Operational Energy Consumption Electricity (Kilowatt-Hours)
Proposed Project 1,839,497
Orange County (2023) 18,759,000,000
Project Percent Increase (%) 0.001
Petroleum (Gasoline) Consumption (Gallons)
Proposed Project 261,151
Orange County (2026) 1,114,083,928
Project Percent Increase (%) 0.01
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis (Appendix F).

Further, the State of California provides a minimum standard for building design and construction standards through Title 24 of the CCR. Compliance with Title 24 is mandatory at the time new building permits are issued by the City (PPP E-2). The City’s administration of the Title 24 requirements includes review of design components and energy conservation measures that occurs during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met. In complying with the Title 24 standards, Project impacts related to peak energy usage periods would be minimized and impacts on statewide and regional energy needs would be reduced.

Typical Title 24 measures include insulation; use of energy-efficient heating, ventilation and air conditioning

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
63 equipment (HVAC); energy-efficient indoor and outdoor lighting systems; and requirements to install solar and be electric storage system (ESS) ready, etc. Regarding solar power, building roofs would include solar panels, consistent with the requirements of Title 24 standards. The exact size of the photovoltaic system will be based on the available roof area and the condition floor area per Title 24 standards. Thus, operation of the Project would not use large amounts of energy or fuel in a wasteful manner, and no new or more severe energy impacts would occur.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No New Impact.

The California Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen standards are designed to ensure new and existing buildings achieve energy efficiency and preserve outdoor and indoor environmental quality. These measures (Title 24, Part 6 and Part 11) are listed in the CCR and are incorporated into the Project via PPP E-2. The California Energy Commission (CEC) is responsible for adopting, implementing and updating building energy efficiency. Local city and county enforcement agencies have the authority to verify compliance with applicable building codes, including energy efficiency. YLMC Chapter 15.10, Green Building Standards Code, adopted the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. All development in the City, including the proposed Project, is required to comply with the adopted Title 24 requirements, which is ensured through the City’s development permitting process.

The CEC’s Integrated Energy Policy Report provides the results of the CEC’s assessments of a variety of energy issues facing California. The expected energy consumption during construction and operation of the proposed Project would be consistent with typical usage rates for industrial uses. Because California’s energy conservation planning actions are conducted at a regional level, and because the proposed Project’s total consumption of regional energy supplies would be minor, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct California’s energy conservation plans as described in the CEC’s Integrated Energy Policy Report.

The California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program (RPS) requires California's energy providers to provide 60 percent renewable energy by 2030 and 100 percent by 2045 (SB 100). The statewide RPS requirements do not directly apply to individual development projects, but to utilities and energy providers such as SCE, whose compliance with RPS requirements would contribute to the State of California objective of transitioning to renewable energy. However, the Project would utilize electricity provided by SCE.

Therefore, the Project’s electricity usage would not conflict with the RPS Program. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and no new or more severe impact would occur.

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding energy. There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the HEIP PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the HEIP PEIR was adopted as completed.

Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts, the Project is consistent with the HEIP PEIR.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
64 Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)
PPP E-1: California Air Resources Board (CARB) Rule 2485. As set forth in Title 13. CCR, Section 2485, Project construction shall comply with CARB Rule 2485, which minimizes truck engine idling to 5 minutes and requires 2008 and newer model year heavy-duty diesel engines to be fitted with automatic engine shutdown systems or to meet other specified idling emission standards.

PPP E-2: Title 24 Standards. The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 6). These standards are updated, nominally every three years, to incorporate improved energy efficiency technologies and methods.

HEIP PEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to energy are included in the HEIP PEIR. Project impacts would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation measures related to energy are required.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
65 5.4. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the HEIP PEIR
The HEIP PEIR discussed impacts related to greenhouse gases (GHGs) under Section 4.4. The HEIP PEIR determined construction and operation of the 2,410 dwelling units proposed under the plan would result in a population growth of approximately 7,085 residents. The HEIP PEIR modeled estimated construction and operational GHG emission from buildout of the project and determined the project would generate a total of approximately 2.93 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per service population (SP) per year. This would exceed the screening threshold of 1.44 MTCO2e/SP per year which was calculated for the project’s buildout year of 2045 by linear interpolation between SCAQMD’s 2020 target of 4.8 MTCO2e/yr and the 2050 target of 0.96 MTCO2e/yr. Thus, project-related emissions would have a potentially significant GHG impact. Future projects would be required to implement Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-1 and MM 4.1- 2 which require the preparation of project-specific construction and operational air quality analysis and incorporation of mitigation if emissions levels are shown to be above SCAQMD recommended thresholds of significance. However, it cannot be definitively known or stated at this time what level of emissions reductions future development projects occurring under implementation of the project would achieve through implementation of these mitigation measures. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

The HEIP PEIR described that the project would not conflict the with any of the provisions of CARBs 2017 Scoping Plan and in fact supports seven of the action categories. However, since the project would exceed the efficiency based GHG emissions target, the Project has the potential to conflict with the 2017 Scoping Plan. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable despite the implementation of applicable regulatory requirements and policies that have been incorporated with the intent of reducing GHG emissions and the incorporation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-1 and MM 4.1-2.

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
The following report was used to prepare this section:

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
66 • Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis for the 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project.

Prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc. on July 11, 2025. (Appendix F). a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
No New Impact
GHG Thresholds
The SCAQMD convened a GHG Emissions CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group to help lead agencies determine significance thresholds for GHG emissions when the SCAQMD is not the lead agency.

The last working group was held in September 2010 (Meeting No. 15) and proposed a tiered approach (Tier I to Tier V), equivalent to the existing consistency determination requirements in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3) or 15125(d) (SCAQMD, 2010). The applicable screening threshold tiers are described in further detail below.

Tier III – Numerical Screening Thresholds
The SCAQMD’s draft threshold uses the Executive Order S-3-05 goal as the basis for the Tier III screening level. Tier III consists of screening values which the lead agency can choose from, but it must be consistent with all projects within its jurisdiction. A project’s construction emissions are averaged over 30 years and are added to the project’s operational emissions. If a project’s emissions are below one of the following screening thresholds, then the project-level and cumulative-level impacts would be less than significant:

A. Option 1, all land use types: 3,000 MTCO2e per year
B. Option 2, based on land use type:
• Residential: 3,500 MTCO2e per year
• Commercial: 1,400 MTCO2e per year
• Mixed-use: 3,000 MTCO2e per year
Tier IV – Performance Standards (Sector-based Standard) For development projects that do not meet the Tier 3 screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year, the SCAQMD has developed Tier 4 thresholds for more detailed evaluation. These thresholds utilize an efficiency metric to analyze GHG emissions, based on GHG emitted per capita. The SCAQMD has adopted efficiencybased thresholds for two target dates: 2020 and 2035. Relative to the 2020 target date, SCAQMD has adopted a project-level Tier 4 threshold of 4.8 MTCO2e per service population (SP). Relative to the 2035 target date, SCAQMD has adopted a project-level Tier 4 threshold of 3.0 MTCO2e per SP.

Due to the large scale of the project, the HEIP PEIR evaluates impacts using the Tier IV, service population threshold. However, the HEIP PEIR calculated an interpolated threshold since its project horizon year (2045) is beyond the SCAQMD threshold of 3.0 MTCO2e per year per SP for a target year of 2035. First, the 2050 reduction target was determined by calculating the reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, which equates to 0.96 MTCO2e per SP per year. Then, the service population threshold was interpolated for the Housing Element project’s target year of 2045, which equates to 1.44 MTCO2e per SP per year. Therefore, analysis of the proposed Project will discuss both the Tier III (3,000 MTCO2e per year) and IV (1.44 MTCO2e per SP per year) thresholds.

Construction
Global climate change is not confined to a particular project area. A typical project does not generate enough GHG emissions on its own to influence global climate change significantly; hence, the issue of global

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
67 climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental impact. GHGs are produced by both direct and indirect emissions sources. Direct emissions include consumption of natural gas, heating and cooling of buildings, landscaping activities and other equipment used directly by land uses. Indirect emissions include the consumption of fossil fuels for vehicle trips, electricity generation, water usage, and solid waste disposal.

As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, construction of the proposed Project is anticipated to occur over approximately 12 months. Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources, such as site excavation, grading, utility engines, heavy-duty construction vehicles on-site, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, asphalt paving, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change.

As discussed above, the SCAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction related GHG emissions. However, lead agencies are required to quantify and disclose GHG emissions that would occur during construction. Total estimated GHG emissions from construction of the proposed Project were amortized over 30 years per SCAQMD methodology. As shown in Table GHG-1, it is estimated that the proposed Project would generate a total of approximately 439 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) during construction. When amortized over the 30-year life of the proposed Project, annual emissions would be 13 MTCO2e.

Table GHG-1: Project Construction GHG Emissions
Construction Year Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Year 1 (2026) 167
Year 2 (2027) 238
Total Emissions 405
Total Emissions Amortized Over 30 Years 13
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis (Appendix F).

Operation
During operations, the proposed Project would generate long-term GHG emissions from mobile sources (e.g., vehicle trips), area sources (e.g., maintenance activities and landscaping), indirect emissions from sources associated with energy consumption, waste sources (land filling and waste disposal), and water sources (water supply and conveyance, treatment, and distribution).

The estimated operational GHG emissions that would be generated from implementation of the proposed Project are shown in Table GHG-2. As shown in Table GHG-2, the Project’s construction and operation GHG emissions would total 382 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, the Project would not exceed SCAQMD’s Tier III screening threshold.

Table GHG-2: Project Total GHG Emissions
Activity Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Mobile 310
Area 1
Energy 37
Water 6
Waste 14

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
68 Activity Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Refrigeration <0.1
Gross Project Operation Emissions 368
Project Construction Emissions 13
Total Project Emissions 382
Tier III Significance Threshold 3,000
Threshold Exceeded? No
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis (Appendix F).

SCAQMD’s Tier III threshold is a screening metric to determine a project’s GHG impacts. Further evaluation using the Tier IV threshold is only necessary if a project does not meet the Tier III screening threshold.

However, since the HEIP PEIR evaluates impacts based on the Tier IV threshold, the Project’s GHG emissions per capita is provided below.

As previously stated, based on the average household size of 2.94 persons per household used in the HEIP PEIR, the Project would result in approximately 182 persons. Thus, as shown in Table GHG-3, the proposed Project would result in 2.10 MTCO2e per capita, which exceeds the interpolated 2045 Target threshold of

1.44 MTCO2e per capita. Therefore, consistent with the HEIP PEIR, GHG emissions would be potentially significant.

Table GHG-3: Project GHG Emissions Per Capita
Activity Annual GHG Emissions (MTCO2e)
Total Project Emissions 382
Service Population 182
Project-Generated GHG per Service Population 2.10
Interpolated 2045 Significance Threshold 1.44
Tier IV Threshold Exceeded? Yes
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis (Appendix F).

The proposed Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 4.1-2 from the 2022 Certified PEIR MMRP to reduce operational GHG emissions to the extent feasible. Consistent with MM 4.1-2, the Project Applicant would implement the following measures: (1) limiting air leakage through HVAC systems, (2) installing energy efficient windows, (3) meeting Title 24 lighting standards, (4) implementing cool roofs, (5) installing of photo-voltaic solar energy systems, (6) installing ENERGY STAR-qualified appliances, (7) using drought tolerant plants, (8) using water-efficient irrigation techniques, and (9) providing the option for automatic lighting. However, despite the GHG reductions that would result from implementation of MM 4.1- 2, approximately 84 percent of the Project’s operational GHG emissions are from mobile source emissions, such as residential vehicles traveling to and from the Project site. While there are some GHG reductions in mobile source emissions due to the increased residential density, there are no feasible mitigation measures available to further reduce the Project’s emissions. Therefore, the Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts to GHG emissions, consistent with the findings of the HEIP PEIR. No new or more severe impact would occur.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
69 b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No New Impact
In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires CARB to adopt rules and regulations that would achieve GHG emissions equivalent to statewide levels in 1990 by 2020 through an enforceable statewide emission cap, which was phased in starting in 2012. In 2022, CARB updated their Scoping Plan to reflect a State GHG reduction target for 2045 at 85 percent below 1990 levels. Table GHG-4 below shows the Project’s consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan. As described above, the Project meets the Tier III GHG threshold established by SCAQMD, but exceeds the Tier IV threshold used in the HEIP PEIR. Thus, consistent with the HEIP PEIR, while the Project would not conflict with the provisions of the Scoping Plan, since the Project would exceed the efficiency based GHG emissions target, the Project has the potential to conflict with the Scoping Plan. Therefore, no new or more severe impact would occur with implementation of the Project.

Table GHG-4: Project Consistency with CARB 2022 Scoping Plan Action Consistency
GHG Emissions Reductions Relative to the SB 32 Target
40% Below 1990 levels by 2030. Consistent. The Project would comply with Title 24 Part 6 building energy requirements along with other local and State initiatives that aim to achieve the 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 goal.

Smart Growth/Vehicle Miles Traveled VMT
VMT per capita reduced 25% below 2019 levels by
2030, and 30% below 2019 levels by 2045.

Consistent. The Project proposes the development of highdensity residentials which would include 4 units designated for very-low-income households. This reservation for
affordable units qualifies the Project for a 22.5 percent density bonus. As previously discussed in the air quality section, the Project would be consistent with the growth assumptions in the 2020 Connect SoCal, so the Project
would not interfere with the analysis completed for the Connect SoCal report outlining VMT reduction targets and measures.

Light-Duty Vehicle (LDV) Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEVs)
100% of LDV sales are ZEV by 2035. Consistent. The proposed Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with Title 24 Part 6 and Part 11 requirements, which includes constructing homes to allow for electric vehicle charging.

New Residential and Commercial Buildings
All electric appliances beginning 2026 (residential)
and 2029 (commercial), contributing to 6 million heat
pumps installed statewide by 2030.

Consistent. The Project would comply with Title 24 Part 6 building energy requirements, which would require all inunit appliances for residential projects to be all-electric and Energy Star certified.

Construction Equipment
25% of energy demand electrified by 2030 and 75%
electrified by 2045.

Consistent. The proposed Project would be required to use construction equipment that is registered by CARB and meet CARB’s standards. CARB sets its standards to be in line with the goal of reducing energy demand by 25% in 2030 and
75% in 2045.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
70 Action Consistency
Transportation Electrification
Create a jurisdiction-specific ZEV ecosystem to support deployment of ZEVs statewide (such as permit
streamlining, infrastructure siting, consumer education, or preferential parking policies).

Consistent. The proposed Project would be designed and
constructed in accordance with Title 24 Part 6 and Part 11 requirements, which includes constructing homes to allow for electric vehicle charging. Therefore, the proposed Project would not interfere with the implementation of a ZEV
ecosystem within the City.

Local Action Policies - VMT Reduction
Adopt and implement Complete Streets policies and
investments, consistent with general plan circulation
element requirements.

Consistent. The Project proposes the replacement of the sidewalk along the Project frontage. The existing sidewalk condition would be improved and the Project would not
interfere with the implementation of Complete Streets in the City.

Increase public access to shared clean mobility options (such as planning for and investing in electric shuttles, bike share, car share, transit).

Consistent. The Project site is located in a developed urban area with sidewalks available along all nearby roadways.

The proposed on-site roadway system includes walkways
throughout the Project site that would connect to the off-site sidewalks. In addition, the proposed residential units would allow for charging of electric vehicles. The nearest bus stop from the existing Project driveway is the Lakeview-Yorba Linda stop, located approximately 0.7 miles west.

Amend zoning or development codes to enable mixeduse, walkable, and compact infill development (such as increasing allowable density of the neighborhood).

Consistent. While the Project does not require a zoning amendment, it would develop a high density residential
community. The Project proposes to allot 4 units, or 6
percent of the base density, for very-low-income
households.

Local Action Policies - Building Decarbonization
Adopt all-electric new construction reach codes. Consistent. The proposed Project would comply with Title 24 Parts 6 and 11, which includes electric heat pumps
installed during construction and electric hookups for all appliances.

Adopt policies and incentive programs to reduce
electrical loads from equipment plugged into outlets
(such as purchasing Energy Star equipment for
municipal buildings, occupancy sensors, smart power
strips, equipment controllers, etc.).

Consistent. The proposed Project would be constructed in accordance with Title 24 CALGreen requirements, which
includes installation of Energy Star equipment and
appliances in new buildings.

Facilitate deployment of renewable energy
production and distribution and energy storage.

Consistent. The proposed Project would be constructed in accordance with the California Energy Code (Title 24 Part 6) to meet all requirements related to solar energy
production and the CALGreen Building Energy Efficiency
Standards (Title 24 Part 11) to meet efficiency standards.

Source: Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis (Appendix F).

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding GHGs. There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
71 a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the HEIP PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the HEIP PEIR was adopted as completed.

Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts, the Project is consistent with the HEIP PEIR.

HEIP PEIR Mitigation Measures
MM 4.1-1 As listed previously in Section 5.1, Air Quality.

Proposed Project Applicability: MM 4.1-1 has been partially satisfied by the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed Project and included as Appendix F. This mitigation measure will be incorporated into the MMRP.

MM 4.1-2 As listed previously in Section 5.1, Air Quality.

Proposed Project Applicability: MM 4.1-2 has been partially satisfied by the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed Project and included as Appendix F. This mitigation measure will be incorporated into the MMRP.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
72 5.5. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due
to conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the HEIP PEIR
The HEIP PEIR discussed impacts related to land use and planning under Section 4.5. The HEIP PEIR determined development under the HEIP would occur within existing urban areas and infill sites, and is not expected to divide an established community. Therefore, the implementation of the project is not anticipated to physically divide an established community and impacts would be less than significant.

The HEIP PEIR concluded that the project would not conflict with key relevant General Plan policies, YLMC requirements, or SCAG’s Connect SoCal. Therefore, the HEIP PEIR determined that impacts related to conflicts with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect would be less than significant.

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Physically divide an established community?
No New Impact.

The Project site is currently developed with an existing residential use and is surrounded by existing roadways and other existing residential and institutional uses. The proposed Project would be consistent with the land use and zoning designations for the site. In addition, the proposed Project does not involve development of roadways or other infrastructure that could divide a community. Access to the site would be provided by proposed driveways off Yorba Linda Boulevard. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not physically divide an established community, and the proposed Project would result in no new impact related to dividing an established community. The Project would be consistent with the findings of the HEIP PEIR and no new or more severe impact would occur.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
73 b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No New Impact.

The HEIP PEIR includes an analysis of the HEIP’s consistency with the City of Yorba Linda General Plan and Zoning Code, and SCAG’s Connect SoCal. The proposed Project is consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation of Residential High (R-H) and zoning designation of Residential Multiple-Family 20 (RM-20). As demonstrated throughout this document, the Project is consistent with the HEIP PEIR. Thus, consistent with the findings of the HEIP PEIR, the proposed Project would not conflict with any of the applicable General Plan goals and policies nor would it conflict with the Zoning Code. The Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to a conflict with the City of Yorba Linda General Plan and Zoning Code.

Similarly, the HEIP PEIR determined the project would not result in an inconsistency with the adopted Connect SoCal, which includes long-range regional transportation plans, regional transportation improvement programs, regional housing needs allocations, and other plans for the region. Connect SoCal policies focus largely on regional transportation and the efficiency of transportation, which are implemented by counties and cities within the SCAG region, as part of the overall planning and maintenance of the regional transportation system. However, these strategies are also intended to reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles. As an individual development, the policies are not directly applicable to the Project. However, consistent with the analysis presented in the HEIP PEIR, the proposed Project would not interfere with the implementation of these policies. Therefore, consistent with the HEIP PEIR, the proposed Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the findings of the HEIP PEIR and no new or more severe impact would occur.

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding land use and planning. There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the HEIP PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the HEIP PEIR was adopted as completed.

Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts, the Project is consistent with the HEIP PEIR.

HEIP PEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to land use and planning are included in the HEIP PEIR. Project impacts would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation measures related to land use and planning are required.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
74 5.6. NOISE
Would the project result in: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the HEIP PEIR
The HEIP PEIR discussed impacts related to noise under Section 4.6. The HEIP PEIR determined future development would likely occur in close proximity to noise sensitive receptors and elevate the ambient noise environment. Therefore, construction noise impacts would be potentially significant. Future projects would be required to implement Mitigation Measures MM 4.6-1 through MM 4.6-3, which require construction contractors to implement noise best practices, and would contribute in minimizing construction-related noise.

However, due to the unknown number of construction activities that could occur at one time, proximity of construction activities to sensitive receptors, and other factors that cannot be quantified at this time, such as the longevity of activities, construction-related noise impacts may not be reduced to less than significant levels for some future development. Therefore, construction-related noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The HEIP PEIR determined the project would not result in a significant impact from operational off-site traffic increases. However, future development could result in a significant impact from operation stationary source activities. Future projects would be required to adhere to Goal N-4 of the City of Yorba Linda General Plan Noise Element, requiring future projects to mitigate potential noise impacts.

Additionally, future projects would be required to comply with the exterior noise level limits outlined in the City of Yorba Linda Municipal Code Section 8.32.060. Further, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM

4.6-5, which requires future project applicants to prepare a noise study evaluating stationary noise impacts

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
75 and identifying mitigation measures if necessary, would reduce potential project stationary source impacts would to a less than significant level.

The HEIP PEIR determined the project’s construction activities would potentially result in a perceptible groundborne vibration or noise. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.6-4 which requires future project applicants to prepare a study to evaluate potential construction-related vibration impacts and provide measures to reduce vibration levels below thresholds, would reduce construction-related vibration impacts to acceptable levels and ensure that construction would not exceed the maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold for fragile buildings of 0.10 PPV (in/sec). Therefore, construction vibration impacts would be reduced to less than significant. The project’s residential development is not anticipated to result in stationary vibration sources; therefore the project would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels during operation and impacts would be less than significant The HEIP PEIR determined the project site is not located within two miles of a public airport of within an airport land use plan. Therefore, the project would not be exposed to excessive noise levels from airport operations and impacts would be less than significant.

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section was prepared using the following report:
• 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis. Prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc., August 2025. (Appendix H).

Existing Noise Levels
As detailed in the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix H), to identify the existing ambient noise level environment, four short-term noise level measurements were taken at locations near the Project site.

Figure 5-1 shows the location of each noise measurement. Table N-1 presents a summary of the measured hourly noise levels and calculated community noise equivalent level (CNEL) from the long-term noise level measurements. As shown in Table N-1, the average daily noise levels around the Project site range from

47.2 dBA to 69.9 dBA.

Table N-1: Ambient Noise Level Measurements
Location Description Leq
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA)
Lmin
(dBA)
NM-1 In front of 19111 Yorba Linda Boulevard 69.1 84.1 46.3 NM-2 Southwest corner of 19045 Yorba Linda Boulevard 69.9 85.4 44.9 NM-3 Northeast of 19185 Palm Vista 50.1 67.2 36.0
NM-4 In front of 19020 Lynn Lane 47.2 66.1 37.3
Notes: dBA=A-weighted decibels; Leq=Equivalent Sound Level; Lmin=Minimum Sound Level; Lmax=Maximum Sound Level Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix H)

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
76 This page intentionally left blank.

1 2
3 4
Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Sources: Esri, Maxar, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland, FEMA, Intermap, and the GIS user community
0 180 360
Feet
Legend
Project Boundary
Noise Monitoring Location
Yorba Linda Boulevard
Palm Vista
Lynn Lane
1RLVH0HDVXUHPHQW/RFDWLRQV
19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Figure 
City of Yorba Linda Page 636 of 2028
19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
78 a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
No New Impact.

Construction
Noise generated by construction equipment would include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels. Construction is expected to occur in the following stages: demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving. The Project construction noise would be temporary in nature as the operation of each piece of construction equipment would not be constant throughout the construction day, and equipment would be turned off when not in use. For the purposes of the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, nearest noise sensitive receptor to Project construction is a single-family residence located adjacent to the south of the Project site.

Table N-2 shows the nearest noise sensitive uses to the Project site, their distance from the center of construction activities, as recommended by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidance, and composite noise levels expected during construction. As shown, it is expected that composite noise levels during construction at the nearest off-site residential use to the south could reach 86.5 dBA Leq during the demolition phase. However, as required by HEIP PEIR Mitigation Measure MM 4.6-1, all construction equipment used for the Project would be equipped with mufflers consistent with standard industry practices. Therefore, although the exact specifications of the mufflers are currently unknown, a conservative noise reduction of 9 dBA has been assumed to account for their use. In addition, existing walls located between the construction area and the sensitive receptors to the north, northeast, and south would provide further noise attenuation.

Therefore, an additional reduction of 5 dBA has been applied to the noise levels estimated for those respective receptors. Thus, with implementation of MM 4.6-1, the highest construction noise levels at the nearest sensitive uses surrounding the Project would be 72.5 dBA. Thus, construction noise would not exceed the 80 dBA construction noise level criteria for daytime construction noise level criteria as established by the FTA for residential land uses. Therefore, impacts related to construction noise would be less than significant and no new or more severe impact would occur.

Table N-2: Potential Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Receptors Sensitive Receptors
Distance
Between
Geographic
Center of
Project Site
(feet)
Noise Level (dBA)1
Demolition Site
Preparation Grading Building Construction Paving Architectural Coating Residential to the
North 280 72.4 71.8 70.5 72.2 70.8 58.7
Residential to the
Northeast 250 73.4 72.8 71.5 73.2 71.8 59.7
Residential to the
South 55 86.5 86.0 84.7 86.4 84.9 72.9
Institutional to the
West 200 75.3 74.7 73.4 72.2 73.7 61.6

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
79 Sensitive Receptors
Distance
Between
Geographic
Center of
Project Site
(feet)
Noise Level (dBA)1
Demolition Site
Preparation Grading Building Construction Paving Architectural Coating Highest Noise Level 86.5 86.0 84.7 86.4 84.9 72.9
Highest Noise Level with Mitigation
Measures2 72.5 72.0 70.7 72.4 70.9 58.9
Threshold 80
Exceed the threshold? No No No No No No

1. The noise level is estimated based on the equipment list provided in Table 6-1 of Appendix H and distance to the sensitive receptors from the geographic center of the Project site.

2. As required by Yorba Linda Housing Element Implementation Program Mitigation Measure 4.6-1, all construction equipment used for the Project would be equipped with mufflers consistent with standard industry practices. Although the exact specifications of the mufflers are currently unknown, a conservative noise reduction of 9 dBA has been assumed to account for their use. In addition, existing walls located between the construction area and the sensitive receptors to the north, northeast, and south would provide further noise attenuation. Therefore, an additional reduction of 5 dBA has been applied to the noise levels estimated for those respective receptors.

Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix H) Additionally, YLMC Section 8.32.090 states that construction shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, including Saturdays, and is prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays (PPP N1). The Project would comply with the City’s construction hours regulations, which would be ensured through the City’s development permitting process.

Temporary Increases in Ambient Noise from Project Construction According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (2020a), if construction generates a temporary noise level increase of 12 dBA Leq or more above the existing ambient noise level, a potentially significant impact would occur. To identify the temporary Project construction noise level contributions to the existing ambient noise environment, the Project construction noise levels were combined with the existing ambient noise level measurements listed in Table N-1. The difference between the combined Project-construction and ambient noise levels is used to describe the construction noise level contributions. As shown in Table N-3, the highest temporary construction ambient noise increase would be

11.2 dBA at the closest residence to the north, which is less than the temporary ambient noise increase threshold of 12 dBA. Thus, temporary construction noise level increases from Project construction would be less than significant.

Table N-3: Construction Noise Level Increases at Nearest Receptors Sensitive Receptors
Noise Level (dBA) Exceed the
Highest Noise Thresholds?
Level1
Ambient
Noise Level
Construction
Increase Threshold
Residential to the North 58.4 47.2 11.2
12 No
Residential to the Northeast 59.4 50.1 9.3 No
Residential to the South 72.5 69.1 3.4 No
Institutional to the West 66.3 69.9 NA No
1 The highest noise level to the sensitive receptors in Table 6-2 with the installation of the mufflers and existing walls.

Note: when the noise increase is negative, a “NA” would be applied in the table. “NA” means “Not Applicable”.

Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix H)

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
80 Off-Site Construction Noise
During construction, short-term noise impacts could occur as a result of construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the site. However, construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the site would have a small effect on longer-term ambient noise levels when compared to the existing average daily traffic (ADT) volume on Yorba Linda Boulevard. According to the HEIP PEIR’s Traffic Impact Analysis (citation), the approximate average daily traffic (ADT) on Yorba Linda Boulevard between Palm Avenue and Ohio Street is 11,642 trips. According to the CalEEMod, which is used to predict the number of construction-related automotive trips, the maximum number of Project construction trips traveling to and from the Project site during a single construction phase would not be expected to exceed 210 daily trips in total. Therefore, the Project’s 210 construction trips would not result in a doubling of traffic on the local transportation network. Additionally, the Project’s 2019 construction trips would equate to a noise level increase of approximately 0.08 dBA, which would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment. According to the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) (1992), when the ambient noise level is larger than 65 dBA, an increase of 1.5 dB or more would be considered potentially significant. As shown in Table N-1, the ambient noise level along Yorba Linda Boulevard ranges from 69.1 dBA to 69.9 dBA. As such, the Project would not introduce more than a

1.5 dBA increase. Additionally, construction is temporary, and construction trips would cease upon completion of the Project. Furthermore, the Project would be required to comply with HEIP PEIR MM 4.6-3 to minimize the exposure of sensitive land uses to delivery truck noise. Overall, potential impacts related to construction traffic noise would be less than significant.

Operation
Long-term operational noise would be generated by the Project through mobile sources (automobiles traveling to and from the site) and stationary sources (HVAC noise, parking lot noise, and trash unloading).

Implementation of the Project has the potential to increase off-site traffic volumes on surrounding roadways.

Roadway segment noise levels for the “Existing” and “Existing with Project” scenarios were compared to evaluate Project-related operational noise impacts. As shown in Table N-4, noise level under the “Existing” scenario, noise levels at a distance of 100 feet from the roadway centerline would be 53.8 dBA. According to the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis prepared for the Project (Appendix I), the Project is expected to result in 418 ADT, thus the existing plus Project traffic on the segment of Yorba Linda Boulevard fronting the Project site would be 12,060 ADT. As shown in Table N-5, the existing plus Project traffic noise level would be 53.9 dBA. Thus, the overall noise increase on Yorba Linda Boulevard due to the Project traffic would be 0.1 dBA. As such, the increase would not exceed 1.5 dB threshold. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Table N-4: Existing Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment ADT1
dBA @ 100
feet from
Roadway
Centerline
Centerline
to 70 dBA
CNEL
(feet)
Centerline
to 65 dBA
CNEL
(feet)
Centerline
to 60 dBA
CNEL
(feet)
Yorba Linda Boulevard Between Palm Avenue
and Ohio Street 11,642 53.8 - - 83
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix H)

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
81 Table N-5: Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Level Roadway Segment ADT1
dBA @ 100
feet from
Roadway
Centerline
Centerline
to 70 dBA
CNEL
(feet)
Centerline
to 65 dBA
CNEL
(feet)
Centerline
to 60 dBA
CNEL
(feet)
Increase over
Existing
Scenario
(dBA)
Yorba Linda Boulevard Between
Palm Avenue and Ohio Street 12,060 53.9 - - 85 0.1
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix H) Stationary Noise
During Project operation, adjacent off-site land uses would be potentially exposed to stationary-source noise levels from heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. The Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis assumed all HVAC units would operate simultaneously for 585 minutes during daytime hours and 252 minutes during nighttime hours. Table N-6 shows the noise levels that nearby sensitive receptors would be exposed to as a result of Project HVAC units. As shown, the Project would generate operational noise levels of approximately 51.2 dBA during the daytime and 49.4 during the nighttime at the nearest sensitive receptors, which is below the City’s Municipal Code noise requirements of 55 dBA in the daytime and 50 dBA in the nighttime. Therefore, operational noise impacts would be less than significant.

Table N-6: Operational Exterior Noise Level at Nearest Receptors Sensitive Receptors Daytime (dBA) Nighttime (dBA)
Residential to the north 46.5 43.5
Residential uses to the northeast 48.6 46.7
Residential to the south 51.2 49.4
Institutional uses to the west 50.6 48.7
Maximum Noise Level 51.2 49.4
Exterior Thresholds 55 50
Exceed thresholds? No No
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix H) Increases in Ambient Noise from Project Operation
To identify Project operational ambient noise level increases, the Project operational noise levels are combined with the existing ambient noise levels measurements. As shown in Table N-7, operation of the Project would generate daytime noise level increases ranging from 0.1 to 3.2 dBA Leq and nighttime noise level increases ranging from <0.01 to 2.2 dBA Leq at the closest receiver locations, which would not exceed the threshold of 5 dBA for ambient noise level less than 60 dBA and 1.5 dBA for ambient noise level over 60 dBA. Therefore, the incremental Project operational noise level increase is considered less than significant at all receiver locations. Therefore, no new or more severe impact would occur with Project operation.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
82 Table N-7: Operational Noise Level Increases at Nearby Receptors Sensitive
Receptors
HVAC and Truck
Noise Parking
Lot
Noise
Ambient
Noise
Level
Operational Noise
Level Overall Increase
Threshold Exceed
Daytime Threshold?
(dBA)
Nighttime
(dBA)
Daytime
(dBA)
Nighttime
(dBA)
Daytime
(dBA)
Nighttime
(dBA)
Residential
to the
north

46.5 43.5 41.1 47.2 50.4 49.4 3.2 2.2 5 No
Residential
uses to the
northeast

48.6 46.7 41.1 50.1 52.7 52.1 2.6 2.0 5 No
Residential
to the
south

51.2 49.4 41.1 69.1 69.2 69.2 0.1 0.1 1.5 No
Institutional
uses to the
west

50.6 48.7 41.1 69.9 70.0 69.9 0.1 <0.01 1.5 No
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix H) b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No New Impact.

Construction
Construction activity can cause varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, the distance to receptors, and soil type. Construction vibrations are intermittent, localized intrusions. The use of heavy construction equipment, particularly large bulldozers, and large loaded trucks hauling materials to or from the site generate construction-period vibration impacts. Table N-8, presents typical vibration levels associated with construction equipment.

Table N-8: Construction Vibration Reference Levels
Equipment Reference Vibration Level at 25 Feet (PPV [inches/second]) Small Bulldozer 0.003
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix H) The Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix H) uses vibration standards from Caltrans (2020) to analyze vibration impacts to existing structures near the Project. The analysis assesses the potential for building damages using vibration levels in PPV (peak particle velocity) (in/sec). Caltrans indicates that for older residential buildings, the construction vibration damage criterion is 0.3 in/sec in PPV. The nearest sensitive receptor to the south is located as close 15 feet from the Project site’s boundaries. As shown in Table N-9, vibration levels during construction would range from 0.006 PPV (in/sec) to 0.191 PPV (in/sec), which would not exceed the vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec) for older residential structures.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
83 Table N-9: Potential Construction Vibration Impact at Nearest Receptors Sensitive Receptors
Distance Between
Construction Vibration to
the Nearest Structures (feet)
Vibration Level in PPV (inch/sec)
Small Bulldozer Loaded Trucks Large Bulldozer
Residential to the North 35 0.002 0.046 0.054
Residential to the Northeast 70 0.001 0.016 0.019
Residential to the South 15 0.006 0.164 0.191
Institutional to the West 55 0.001 0.023 0.027
Highest Vibration Level 0.006 0.164 0.191
Thresholds 0.3
Exceed the threshold? No No No
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix H) As such, construction related vibration would remain below thresholds and impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, as described above, the Project would adhere to the construction hours permitted by YLMC Section 8.32.090, which states that construction shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, including Saturdays, and is prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays (PPP N-1).

Thus, construction related vibration would not occur during sensitive evening hours. Overall, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to construction vibration. No new impact would occur.

Operation
Once operational, the Project would not be a significant source of ground-borne vibration. Ground-borne vibration surrounding the Project currently results from traffic on Yorba Linda Boulevard. Operations of the Project would include passenger cars traveling to and from the residences. Vibration levels generated from Project-related traffic on the adjacent roadways are unusual for on-road vehicles because the rubber tires and suspension systems of on-road vehicles provide vibration isolation. Based on a reference vibration level of 0.076 in/sec PPV, structures greater than 20 feet from the roadways that contain Project trips would experience vibration levels below the standard of 0.2 PPV in/sec (Appendix H). Therefore, vibration levels generated from Project-related traffic on the adjacent roadways would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No New Impact.

As described in the HEIP PEIR, there are no airports within two miles of the housing opportunity sites. The nearest airport to the Project site is Fullerton Municipal Airport, approximately 10.5 miles to the west of the Project site. The Project site is not located within the area designated under the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Fullerton Municipal Airport (Airport Land Use Commission, 2019). Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels from airports.

Impacts would be less than significant. No new impact or more severe impact would occur.

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding noise. There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
84 substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the HEIP PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the HEIP PEIR was adopted as completed.

Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts, the Project is consistent with the HEIP PEIR.

Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)
PPP N-1: Construction Noise. The Project would be required to adhere to the construction noise hours provided in Yorba Linda Municipal Code (YLMC) Section 8.32.090 (Noise Control – Exemptions) which limits noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, and prohibits constriction at any time on Sunday or a Federal holiday.

HEIP PEIR Mitigation Measures
MM 4.6-1 Construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards, and all stationary construction equipment shall be placed so that emitted noise is directed away from the noisesensitive use nearest the construction activity.

Proposed Project Applicability: MM 4.6-1 is applicable to the Project and will be incorporated into the MMRP.

MM 4.6-2 The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receiver nearest to the construction activity.

Proposed Project Applicability: MM 4.6-2 is applicable to the Project and will be incorporated into the MMRP.

MM 4.6-3 The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment Section 8.32.090[D] of the City of Yorba Linda Municipal Code. The contractor shall design delivery routes to minimize the exposure of sensitive land uses to delivery truck noise.

Proposed Project Applicability: MM 4.6-3 is applicable to the Project and will be incorporated into the MMRP.

MM 4.6-4 Prior to issuance of any construction permits, applicants for individual projects that involve vibration-intensive construction activities, such as pile drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers, within 25 feet of sensitive receptors (e.g., residences and fragile structures), shall prepare and submit to the City of Yorba Linda Planning Department a study to evaluate potential construction-related vibration impacts. The vibration assessment shall be prepared by an acoustical engineer and be based on recognized vibration-induced architectural damage criterion. If the study determines a potential exceedance of the thresholds, measures shall be identified that ensure vibration levels are reduced to below the thresholds. Identified measures shall be included on all construction and building documents and submitted for verification to the City of Yorba Linda Planning Department.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
85 Proposed Project Applicability: MM 4.6-4 has been satisfied through the preparation of the Project-specific Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix H) which determined vibration impacts related to Project construction and operation would be less than significant.

MM 4.6-5 Prior to issuance of any construction permits, applicants for individual projects that are within 50 feet of a sensitive receptor, shall prepare and submit to the City of Yorba Linda Planning Department a study to evaluate potential operational-related stationary source noise impacts.

The noise report shall be prepared by an acoustical engineer using the ISO 9613-2 protocol in the CadnaA (Computer Aided Noise Abatement) computer program. If the study determines a potential exceedance of the City’s thresholds (55 dBA Leq daytime, or 50 dBA Leq nighttime), measures shall be identified that ensure noise levels are reduced to below the thresholds.

Identified measures shall be included on all construction and building documents and submitted for verification to the City of Yorba Linda Planning Department.

Proposed Project Applicability: MM 4.6-4 has been satisfied through the preparation of the Project-specific Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix H) which determined operational-related stationary source noise impacts related would be less than significant.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
86 5.7. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the
public services:

Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other Public Facilities?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the HEIP PEIR
The HEIP PEIR discussed impacts related to public services under Section 4.7. The HEIP PEIR determined implementation of the Project would result in an increased requirement for public services. However, considering the existing resources available, the project is not expected to result in the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impact.

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for:
i. Fire Protection and Emergency Services
No New Impact.

Fire protection services for the City of Yorba Linda is currently provided by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). Table PS-1 lists the three OCFA stations that serve the City. The nearest fire station to the Project site is OCFA Station 10, located at 18422 Lemon Drive, approximately 0.9 miles west of the Project site.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
City of Yorba Linda Environmental Consistency Analysis
87 Table PS-1: OCFA Station Locations
Location Apparatus Daily Staffing Distance to Project Site Station 10
18422 Lemon Drive
Yorba Linda, CA 92886
Battalion 2, Medic Engine
10, Patrol
101, Water Tender 10
1 Battalion Chief, 1 Fire
Captain, 1 Fire
Apparatus Engineer, 2
Firefighters

0.9 roadway miles
Total Station Staffing: 15
Firefighters
Station 32
20990 Yorba Linda
Boulevard
Yorba Linda, CA 92886
Medic Engine 32, Truck
32, Engine
132, Swift Water 32
2 Fire Captains, 2 Fire
Apparatus Engineers, 4
Firefighters

2.2 roadway miles
Total Station Staffing: 24
Firefighters
Station 53
25415 La Palma Avenue
Yorba Linda, CA 92887
Medic Engine 53, Engine
3531
1 Fire Captain, 1 Fire
Apparatus Engineer, 2
Firefighter
6 roadway miles
Total Station Staffing: 12
Firefighters
1 Cross staffed by on duty personnel
Source: City of Yorba Linda, 2022; Google Maps, 2025
Implementation of the Project would be required to adhere to the California Fire Code, as included in the YLMC Chapter 15.08. Compliance with these requirements would be verified by the OCFA as part of the City’s permitting process to ensure that the Project plans meet the fire protection requirements.

The proposed Project includes the development of 62 residential units, which would result in an increase in demand for fire protection and emergency medical services. As described in previously, the Project is anticipated to result in up to 182 new residents, which is within the population increase identified by the HEIP PEIR. Due to the increase in residents that would occur from implementation of the Project, an incremental increase in demand for fire protection and emergency medical services would occur.

However, consistent with the findings of the HEIP PEIR, because the Project site is located within two miles of two existing fire stations and is within a residential area that is already served by the OCFA, the Project would not require expansion of the existing fire station or construction of a new fire station.

Therefore, impacts related to fire protection services from the proposed Project would be less than significant. Therefore, no new impact related to fire protection services would occur. ii. Police Protection
No New Impact.

The City of Yorba Linda currently contracts with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD) for police protection services. The HEIP PEIR describes daily staffing at the Yorba Linda Police Services is 25 officers with a total staffing of 41 officers, which includes two patrol shifts, and administrative and investigative staff (City of Yorba Linda, 2022). OCSD has a response time goal of 5 minutes or less for Priority 1 calls (emergency calls) and 12 minutes or less for Priority 2 calls (non-emergency calls) (City of Yorba Linda, 2022).

The proposed Project includes the development of 62 residential units, which would result in an increase in demand for police protection services. However, the increase would not be significant when compared to the current demand levels. The HEIP PEIR describes that increase in demands on existing police services from implementation of the HEIP would not adversely impact OCSD’s existing resources as there are no