County of Orange Cerritos Avenue Residential Project Anaheim, California

Project Number: PA140071

CEQA Initial Study Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration

Prepared by: OC Public Works/Development Services/Planning 300 N. Flower Street Santa Ana, California 92702

And:

July 2016 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

Table of Contents Page

Project Location ...... 1 Existing Setting ...... 1 Project Description ...... 4 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ...... 11 Environmental Analysis ...... 21 Determination: ...... 81 References ...... 82

Figures FIGURE 1 Regional Location ...... 2 FIGURE 2 Project Location ...... 3 FIGURE 3 Conceptual Site Plan ...... 6 FIGURE 4a Plan 1 Elevations ...... 7 FIGURE 4b Plan 1 with Option Elevations ...... 7 FIGURE 4c Plan 2 Elevations ...... 8 FIGURE 5 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 17813 ...... 9 FIGURE 6 Conceptual Landscape Plan ...... 10

Tables TABLE 1 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status ...... 25 TABLE 2 Proposed Project Regional Construction Emissions* ...... 27 TABLE 3 Proposed project Operational Emissions* ...... 28 TABLE 4 Proposed Project Unmitigated Localized daily Construction Emissions* ...... 30 TABLE 5 Estimated Construction and Operations-Related GHG Emissions* ...... 41 TABLE 6 Recommended Actions of climate change scoping plan ...... 42 TABLE 7 Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment ...... 57 TABLE 8 Construction Equipment Noise Levels* ...... 58 TABLE 9 Existing Noise Conditions ...... 60 TABLE 10 Existing With Project Noise Conditions* ...... 60 TABLE 11 Opening Year Without Project Conditions Noise Contours* ...... 61 TABLE 12 Opening Year With Project Conditions Noise Contours* ...... 61 TABLE 13 Year 2035 Without Project Conditions Noise Contours* ...... 62 TABLE 14 Year 2035 With Project Conditions Noise Contours* ...... 62 TABLE 15 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ...... 64 TABLE 16 Estimated student generation ...... 68 TABLE 17 Study area Intersections Existing Conditions ...... 71 TABLE 18 Project Trip Generation ...... 72 TABLE 19 Existing plus project Conditions* ...... 72 TABLE 20 Opening Year Without Project Conditions* ...... 73 TABLE 21 Opening Year With Project Conditions* ...... 73 TABLE 22 Year 2035 Without Project Conditions* ...... 74 TABLE 23 Year 2035 With Project Conditions* ...... 74

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration i Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

Appendices Appendix A: Air Quality Impact Analysis Appendix B: Biological Constraints Analysis Appendix C: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Appendix D: Greenhouse Analysis Appendix E: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report and Limited Phase II Environmental Investigation Appendix F: Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan Appendix G: Preliminary Hydrology Analysis Appendix H: Noise Impact Analysis Appendix I: Focused Traffic Analysis

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ii Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

Project Location

The project site is located in the central portion of Orange County in an unincorporated county island area that is west of the City of Anaheim’s jurisdictional limits. The site is approximately three miles west of the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5), approximately three miles south of the Riverside Freeway (SR-91), and approximately three miles north of the Garden Grove Freeway (SR-22). Regional access to the project site is generally provided by I‐5 and SR‐22 via Brookhurst Street. Specifically, the site is located along the north side of Cerritos Avenue, between Gilbert Street on the west and Brookhurst Street on the east. The site address is 9611, 9641, and 9671 West Cerritos Avenue, Anaheim (See Figures 1 and 2).

Existing Setting The project area is completely developed with urban uses that include primarily residential dwellings, with some commercial and preschool facilities. The proposed project site consists of three parcels, which total 3.17 acres of land and are described below:

 9611 West Cerritos Avenue: is improved with one, two-story residence, and one two-story garage with an office in the second story. Several portable sheds and a storage unit are also located on the property. The parcel is accessed by a gravel driveway, and the front yard contains irrigated fruit trees.

 9641 West Cerritos Avenue: is improved with two, one-story buildings that were used as a preschool identified as Big Adventure Child Care. In addition to the structures, there is a playground and two small children’s pools on-site. The site also contains parking and several fruit trees. Although the preschool vacated the site in June, 2015, the improvements remain on site.

 9671 West Cerritos Avenue: is improved with a one-story, approximately 1,300 square foot residence and numerous small structures and sheds that are used for storage. In addition, there are areas that contain animals such as dogs, cats, a pig, goats, and birds.

The parcels adjacent to the project site are developed primarily with one-story single family detached dwellings. There are a few two-story single family detached dwellings that immediately abut the project site on its northerly and westerly boundaries. The residential dwellings range in size from approximately 1,300 square feet to 2,000 square feet. A multi-family residential project (apartments) are located approximately 500 feet westerly of the project site, at the northeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Gilbert Street identified as Capstone Apartment Homes.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

FIGURE 1 Regional Location

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

FIGURE 2 Project Location

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

Project Description The project would change the current Zoning District designation from R1 “Single-Family Residence” District to R2D-(3,000) PD (3,200) “Two-Family Residence” District using “Planned Development” District standards. The proposed change in the Zoning District is consistent with the existing County General Plan Land Use Element designation of 1B “Suburban Residential” which allows a density of up to 18 dwelling units per acre. Adoption of the Zone Change would result in modifying the current required minimum building site area of 7,200 square feet (minimum lot size) to allow for individual lot sizes at a 3,000 square foot minimum, with a project average of 3,200 square feet. The addition of the PD Zoning District designation provides for other development standards (e.g. building setbacks, lot coverage, etc.) to be adopted subject to Conditional Use Permit approval in conjunction with a Site Plan. The Zone Change would also provide changes to the permitted uses allowing development of duplex dwelling units; and adds to the types of uses subject to Use Permit approval to include residential condominium, stock cooperative, and community apartment projects (2 units on a lot),

Subject to the proposed Zone Change approval, the project also proposes to subdivide a 3.17 gross acre-site into 28 numbered and 12 lettered lots in order to construct 28 single-family detached dwelling units served by a private (i.e., non-dedicated) street system (see Figures 3 and 5). Development of the site with 40 dwelling units was originally proposed by the project proponent and subsequently reduced to 36 units and then ultimately to 28 units. Two floor plans, including options to add a third floor on Plan 1, are proposed and will be finished on the exterior in earthen colors applied to a modern interpretation of a Craftsman architectural style (see Figures 4a through 4c). Specifically, the floor plans and elevations indicate:

 Plan 1 units are 1,851 square foot, two-story homes that would be approximately 25-feet 10-inches high. The first floor would include a two car garage, kitchen, dining room, great room, bathroom, and entry way with a storage closet. The second floor would include one master bedroom and bathroom, and two bedrooms with one full bathroom. A walk-in closet would be accessible from the master bathroom. A laundry room would also be located upstairs.

o Plan 1 would be available with an optional third floor that would increase the residence size to 2,395 square feet and provide a fourth bedroom. The three story option would be approximately 32-feet 5-inches high, which is approximately 7-feet 5-inches higher than the Plan 1 two-story option.

 Plan 2 units are 2,394 square foot, three-story homes that would be approximately 34 feet high. The first floor would include a two car garage, entry way, bedroom and bathroom. The second floor would include a kitchen, dining room, great room, powder room and deck. The third floor would include the master bedroom and bathroom with a walk-in closet; and two more bedrooms, one bathroom, and a laundry room.

Grading of the project site is proposed to be balanced onsite. The project would also include a 0.46-acre dedication to Cerritos Avenue expanding the north side of the street to the full right-of-way along the project site’s southerly boundary providing new paved street surface, sidewalk, parkway, curbing and gutter to County standards. Two private streets are proposed to intersect with Cerritos Avenue, connecting in a “horseshoe” configuration to serve as access to the 28 individual lots and their driveways. The private street system within the subdivision will require approval of minor deviations from the County’s private street standards of design as part of the Tentative Map review and consideration by the County’s Subdivision Committee (see Figure 5); however, the project does not require any relief from providing the number of required parking spaces to serve each dwelling unit (two-car garages with full depth individual driveways), including the provision for guest parking. The private streets, sidewalks and parking areas will be owned and maintained by a Homeowners’ Association. Supporting improvements for the residential subdivision include the construction of several

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071 private fences, walls to delineate individual private yard areas, and a subdivision perimeter wall up to a maximum of 6 feet. The portion of the wall facing Cerritos Avenue is proposed to have landscaping bordering the public sidewalk in planters of five to eight feet in depth. The project includes the installation of approximately 90+ trees of 24-inch box (London Plane, Magnolia, Camphor and Carrotwood) and 15-gallon (Melaleuca and Brisbane Box) size. A variety of shrubs, vines and groundcover will also be installed along the Cerritos Avenue frontage and the front yards of the individual lots. All landscaping and irrigation is subject to compliance with the State and Country Water Efficiency Standards (see Figure 6). Discretionary and Other Implementing Approvals

The proposed project described above includes a request for the approval of the following:

 Zone Change from R1 “Single-Family Residence” District to R2D-(3,000) PD (3,200) “Two-Family Residence” District using “Planned Development” District standards by the County Board of Supervisors, upon recommendation from the County Planning Commission.

 Conditional Use Permit approval of building setbacks under the PD “Planned Development” District by the County Planning Commission contingent upon an approval action by the County Board of Supervisors on the Zone Change request.

 Vesting Tentative Tract Map approval by the County Subdivision Committee contingent upon both the approval actions for the Zone Change and Conditional Use Permit.

 Demolition Permit for removal of the septic system and leach field.

 Encroachment Permit for work in the Cerritos Avenue right-of-way (if required).

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 5 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

FIGURE 3 Conceptual Site Plan

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 6 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

FIGURE 4a Plan 1 Elevations

FIGURE 4b Plan 1 with Option Elevations

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 7 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

FIGURE 4c Plan 2 Elevations

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 8 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

FIGURE 5 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 17813

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 9 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

FIGURE 6 Conceptual Landscape Plan

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 10

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration PA140071 Cerritos Avenue Residential Development

Potential Less than Less than ISSUES AND SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES: Significant Significant Significant No Impact Impact Impact/MM Impact

1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:

a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic

vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 2. AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,

or a Williamson Act contract? c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 12

Potential Less than Less than ISSUES AND SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES: Significant Significant Significant No Impact Impact Impact/MM Impact rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of

forest land to non-forest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion forest land to non-forest use? 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be

relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the

applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c. 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)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial

pollutant concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a

substantial number of people? 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 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

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 13

Potential Less than Less than ISSUES AND SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES: Significant Significant Significant No Impact Impact Impact/MM Impact Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited

to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those

interred outside of formal cemeteries? 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 14

Potential Less than Less than ISSUES AND SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES: Significant Significant Significant No Impact Impact Impact/MM Impact iii. Seismic-related ground failure,

including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of

topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste

water disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: 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? 8. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the

project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or

waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 15

Potential Less than Less than ISSUES AND SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES: Significant Significant Significant No Impact Impact Impact/MM Impact airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, would the project result in a safety

hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 9. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste

discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of the pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or

substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned

stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard

Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 16

Potential Less than Less than ISSUES AND SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES: Significant Significant Significant No Impact Impact Impact/MM Impact h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,

including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 10. LAND USE & PLANNING. Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the

general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation

plan or natural community conservation plan? 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site

delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the

local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such 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?

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 17

Potential Less than Less than ISSUES AND SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES: Significant Significant Significant No Impact Impact Impact/MM Impact f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people

residing or working the project area to excessive noise levels? 13. POPULATION & HOUSING. Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 14. 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: i. Fire protection? ii. Police protection? iii. Schools? iv. Parks? v. Other public facilities? 15. RECREATION. a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of

recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system,

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 18

Potential Less than Less than ISSUES AND SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES: Significant Significant Significant No Impact Impact Impact/MM Impact taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standard and travel demand

measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a

change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous

intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian

facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 17. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of

existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and

resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 19

Potential Less than Less than ISSUES AND SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES: Significant Significant Significant No Impact Impact Impact/MM Impact f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and

regulations related to solid waste? 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c. Does project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

NOTE: All referenced and/or incorporated documents may be reviewed by appointment only, at the County of Orange Public Works Department, 300 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, California, unless otherwise specified. An appointment can be made by contacting the CEQA Contact Person identified above.

CUD: Revised 01/2014

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 20 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

Environmental Analysis 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect a scenic vista? No impact. The project site and surrounding areas are urbanized and do not contain any sensitive scenic vistas. The existing visual character of the project site is defined by two existing single-family residential buildings, numerous storage sheds, and a preschool with a pool area. The existing visual character of the surrounding area is defined by the residential uses surrounding the project site. There are no General Plan-identified scenic vistas/views located in the project area. Because there are no scenic vistas in the project area, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.

b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

No impact. There are no officially designated state scenic highways in the vicinity of the proposed project (Caltrans, 2014). The only officially designated scenic highway within Orange County is a portion of State Route-91 (SR-91). Eligible State Scenic Highways within the County include: SR‐1, SR‐74, portions of SR‐91, and a portion of SR‐57, none of which are in the vicinity of the project site. The project site is not within a Landscape of Viewshed Corridor as shown on the Orange County Scenic Plan Map (2014). Additionally, as described under impact 5.a) below, there are no recorded historical resources located either on or near the project site. Further, the proposed project site is relatively flat and surrounded by an urban built environment, and there are no other scenic resources, including trees and rock outcroppings, within or adjacent to the project area. Therefore, impacts related to scenic resources within a state scenic highway would not occur.

c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

Less than significant impact. The project site is located in a fully developed residential area with one- and two-story detached single-family structures. The project involves the construction of 28 detached two and three story single-family homes in place of two single-family residential structures, numerous storage sheds, and a preschool with a pool area. The project area does not exhibit distinct architectural character and there is no uniformity of architectural styles. No unique or scenic visual resources exist on the project site or in its surroundings. The existing single-family residences nearby the project site are one and two-story structures that vary in architectural style and also vary in size from approximately 1,300 square feet to 2,000 square feet.

The visual changes from the existing development to the proposed 28 unit detached residential project would include an increase in the density of residential uses when compared to the existing residential density on the project site and in the immediate project area. Although redevelopment of the site as proposed would create a more homogeneous and uniform architectural character and landscaping when compared to the existing site development, the potential introduction of three-story residential structures would change the visual character of the predominantly one- and two-story residential neighborhood. The proposed project has been designed to integrate the residences, internal roadways, landscaping, and open space areas into the fabric of the existing neighborhood as described below.

The three-story height of the proposed Plan 2 units would be approximately nine-feet, eight-inches higher than the proposed two-story Plan 1 units and similarly higher than the two-story residences that are adjacent to the project site. The proposed homes include craftsman style architectural treatments on the residential structures, and block screen walls, pilasters, and ornamental landscaping around the

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 21 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

perimeter of the site that would reduce the effect of the vertical elements and visible hardscape associated with the project. Thus, the visual difference in height between the existing and proposed two- and three-story residences would not be substantial, nor would it result in a significant visual degradation of the residential character of the area. In addition, views of the site from Cerritos Avenue would include new open space areas consisting of a landscape buffer that varies between five to eight feet in depth adjacent to the public sidewalk, softening the view of the subdivision’s perimeter block wall. Additionally, each of the individual lots that are served by the internal roadway system will have front yard area landscaping installed by the project proponent to be maintained by individual homeowners that are intended to frame and enhance the craftsman style architecture of the proposed homes. Proposed residential structures would not interfere with existing lines of sight along nearby streets.

In terms of visual quality, the craftsman style architecture of the proposed project would include articulation of the residential aspects of the new structures by utilizing various materials, such as stone, cement, and wood. In addition, the project proposes numerous architectural elements including: pitched roofs, overhanging eves, stone veneer covered foundation walls, porch columns supported by low pedestals made of stone, brick, wood or stucco, and wood or stone siding such as horizontal wood slats and wood shingles (as shown in Figures 4a through 4c), in order create a development that is compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood and to enhance the visual from views within the development.

Although implementation of the proposed project would result in a noticeable visual contrast compared to the existing conditions of the project site, it would not significantly degrade the aesthetic character or quality of the site because the entire site would be developed. As indicated above, the project has been designed to be compatible with the existing residential character of the area. As a result, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings, and impacts would be less than significant.

d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Less than significant impact. There are two primary sources of light in urban areas, including light emanating from building interiors that pass through windows and light from exterior sources (e.g., street lighting, landscape lighting, security lighting, and lighting associated with parking lots). Depending upon the location of the light source and its proximity to adjacent light-sensitive uses, light introduction can be a nuisance, affecting adjacent areas and diminishing the view of the clear night sky. Light spillage is typically defined as unwanted illumination from light fixtures on adjacent properties.

As described above in the Existing Setting section, the project area is completely developed with urban uses that include mostly residential, with some commercial and preschool facilities. Existing sources of light in the vicinity of the project site include interior lighting from the existing residential uses in the project area and street lighting that exists along Cerritos Avenue.

The proposed project consists of replacing two single-family homes and related ancillary structures and a preschool with 28 detached single-family homes. The proposed development would create new sources of light due to light emanating from building interiors and light from exterior sources (e.g., vehicles, building illumination, security lighting, and landscape lighting). However, all lighting would comply with the County of Orange Municipal Code Section 7-955.8 - Site Development Standards (f) Lights. Lighting that would be generated from the project would be similar to, and blend into, the

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 22 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

existing lighting in the project vicinity. As a result, impacts related to lighting would be less than significant.

The proposed project would not introduce a substantial source of glare to the project site that would affect views in the area because the proposed 28 residential dwelling units incorporate typical building materials (i.e., stucco siding, tile roofs, etc.) in their design, which would not create substantial daytime glare. Sources of daytime glare could also include sunlight glare from car windshields that could be substantial if multiple cars are close together within the project site. However, the project would not include large areas of vehicular parking. Parking for the proposed residences would be provided by two covered (garage) parking spots that would be provided for each residential unit, which would be shaded from sunlight and cars parked in these areas would not generate glare from windshields. In addition, each residence would have a driveway that would park two cars, and three guest spaces would be provided for each of the three private streets proposed for the project. Because the driveway and guest parking locations allow for a maximum of two or three vehicles to be parked next to each other, and are located throughout the project site with areas of non-reflective materials in between, large areas of vehicular parking in which sunlight on windshields would reflect to produce glare would not occur. Overall, the project would not result in a substantial number of cars parked adjacent to one another in a sunlight area that could create a substantial source of glare. As a result, impacts related to glare would be less than significant.

2. AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY RESOURCES. Would the project:

a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

No impact. The proposed project area is developed and currently used for residential and commercial uses. The project vicinity is also devoid of any agricultural uses. The California Department of Conservation Important Farmland Map for Orange County identified the project site as “Urban and Built Up Land (CDC, 2010). No areas of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance would be affected by the project or converted to a non-agricultural use. Thus, no impact would occur.

b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

No impact. As stated above, the project area is devoid of any agricultural uses. The project is zoned as single-family residential. No agricultural zoning is located adjacent to the site or within the project area, and no parcels within the project vicinity have Williamson Act contracts (DLRP, 2004). Therefore, implementation of the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and no impacts would result.

c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)?

No impact. As stated above under impact 2.a), the existing project site is zoned as single-family residential and is surrounded by urban uses. No zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production would be affected by the project, and no impact would result.

d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 23 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

No impact. As described above under impact 2.a), the project site is developed and utilized for residential uses. The site does not contain, nor is it surrounded by forest land. The project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impacts would occur.

e. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?

No impact. Refer to Responses 4.2(a) through 4.2(c). No other changes to the existing environment would occur from implementation of the proposed project that could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or forest land to non-forest use. Thus, no impact would occur.

3. AIR QUALITY.

Air Quality Impact Analysis was prepared for the proposed project and is included as Appendix A (Urban Crossroads, 2014 and 2015). Since preparation of the analysis, the number of proposed residential units has been reduced from a total of 40 single-family units to 36 single-family units and ultimately to 28 single- family units. Urban Crossroads reviewed the Air Quality Impact Analysis and concluded that the continued refinement of the project reducing the number of units would not require revision because no new impacts were identified and no mitigation would be required. Based on this formal review, the subsequent reduction from 36 single-family units and ultimately to 28 single-family units would likewise not create new impacts to air quality or require mitigation. Because the project would develop fewer single-family residences (28 units total), the numeric analysis provided in the tables below (that was modeled based on 40 single-family residences) provides a conservative estimate that overstates (rather than understates) potential impacts.

The project site is located in an unincorporated area of Orange County adjacent to Anaheim and is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAB is a 6,600-square-mile coastal plain bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The SCAB includes the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and all of Orange County.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) currently focus on the following air pollutants as indicators of ambient air quality: ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10), fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5), and lead. The pollutants are referred to as “criteria air pollutants” since they are the most prevalent air pollutants known to be harmful to human health and extensive health-effects criteria documents are available about their effects on human health and welfare. Standards have been established for each criteria pollutant to meet specific public health and welfare criteria set forth in the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). California has adopted more stringent ambient air quality standards for the criteria air pollutants (referred to as State Ambient Air Quality Standards, or state standards) and has adopted air quality standards for some pollutants for which there is no corresponding national standard, such as sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles.

Both CARB and USEPA use monitored air quality data to designate areas according to their attainment status for criteria air pollutants. The purpose of these designations is to identify the areas with air quality problems and thereby initiate planning efforts for improvement. The three basic designation categories are nonattainment, attainment, and unclassified. Unclassified is used in an area that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the standards. In addition, the California designations include a subcategory of nonattainment-transitional, which is given to nonattainment areas

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 24 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

that are progressing and nearing attainment. The current attainment status for the SCAB is provided in Table 1.

TABLE 1 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN ATTAINMENT STATUS

Attainment Status

Pollutant California Standards Federal Standards

Ozone Nonattainment Nonattainment CO Attainment Unclassified/ Attainment

NO2 Attainment Unclassified/ Attainment

SO2 Attainment Attainment

PM10 Nonattainment Attainment

PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment Lead Attainment Nonattainment

SOURCE: CARB, 2013; USEPA, 2013.

Would the project:

a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

Less than significant impact. A significant air quality impact may occur if a project is not consistent with the applicable air quality plan or would, in some way, obstruct the implementation of the policies or obtainment of the goals of that plan. The CAA requires each state to prepare an air quality control plan, referred to as a state implementation plan (SIP). The CAA Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is modified periodically to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins, as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. USEPA is responsible for reviewing all SIPs to determine whether they conform to the mandates of the CAA and its amendments, and to determine whether implementing the SIPs will achieve air quality goals.

The SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are responsible for preparing an air quality management plan (AQMP) that addresses these federal and state CAA requirements. This plan is the SCAB’s portion of the SIP. The AQMP analyzes air quality on a regional level and identifies region-wide attenuation methods to achieve the air quality standards. These region- wide attenuation methods include regulations for stationary-source polluters; facilitation of new transportation technologies, such as low-emission vehicles; and capital improvements, such as park-and- ride facilities and public transit improvements. The most recent 2012 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on December 12, 2012. Because the proposed project is in the SCAB, the 2012 AQMP is the applicable air quality plan for the project.

Generally, projects that are consistent with the regional population, housing, and employment forecasts identified by SCAG are considered to be consistent with the AQMP growth projections, since the forecast assumptions by SCAG forms the basis of the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP. Additionally, because SCAG’s regional growth forecasts are based upon, among other things,

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 25 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

land uses designated in general plans, a project that is consistent with the land use designated in a general plan would also be consistent with the SCAG’s regional forecast projections, and thus also with the AQMP growth projections.

The project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of Suburban Residential 1B (0.5-18 du/ac). The proposed project proposes the development of 36 residential units within the 3.17-acre site, which would result in 8.83 units per acre and would not exceed the General Plan Land Use designation criterion of 18 dwelling units per acre, and would be consistent with the growth projections in the General Plan Land Use Element. In addition, The County’s Housing Element identifies the maximum density of parcels within the proposed Two-Family Residence” District (R2D) zone as 12.1 dwelling units per acre; thus, the proposed project’s development of 8.83 dwelling units per acre is consistent with the development intensity identified in the General Plan Housing Element. As such, residential growth resulting from the proposed project would be consistent with SCAG’s regional forecast projections and, in turn, would also be consistent with the growth projections accounted for in SCAQMD’s AQMP.

Additional consistency with the AQMP is achieved if the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of an existing air quality violation or cause or contribute to a new violation, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP. As detailed under impact 3.b) below, the proposed project would not result in new or increased air quality violations. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with, or obstruct, implementation of the AQMP and impacts would be less than significant.

b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

Less than significant impact. A project may have a significant impact where project-related emissions would exceed federal, state, or regional standards or thresholds, or where project-related emissions would substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation.

Construction The proposed project would involve the demolition of the existing onsite buildings and the construction of 28 detached single-family residential units on an approximately 3.17-acre site. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would generate pollutant emissions from the following construction activities: (1) demolition, site preparation, grading and excavation; (2) construction workers traveling to and from project site; (3) delivery and hauling of construction supplies to, and debris from, the project site; (4) fuel combustion by onsite construction equipment; (5) building construction; application of architectural coatings; and paving. These construction activities would temporarily create emissions of dust, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants. The amount of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary, depending on the intensity and types of construction activities occurring simultaneously at the time.

A detailed description of the project’s anticipated construction schedule is provided in the project specific Air Quality Analysis in Appendix A (Urban Crossroads, 2014). Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to occur over 12 months, with construction activity limited to eight hour days, five days per week. During the demolition phase, a maximum of 81 haul truck trips would occur in one day. Heavy equipment, such as excavators, forklifts, dozers, cement trucks, and haul trucks, would be used throughout the first half of construction and then would slowly transition to smaller vehicles.

It is mandatory for all construction projects in the SCAB to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 for controlling fugitive dust. Incorporating Rule 403 into the proposed project would reduce regional PM10 and PM2.5

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 26 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

emissions from construction activities. Specific Rule 403 control 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 freeboard height of 12-inches, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. Compliance with Rule 403 was accounted for in the construction emissions modeling.

The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was used to determine whether short-term construction-related emissions of criteria air pollutants associated with the proposed project would exceed SCAQMD’s applicable regional thresholds and if mitigation would be required.

Table 2 summarizes the modeled peak maximum day emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors and provides a “worst-case” construction scenario. As shown, the maximum daily construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD’s daily significance thresholds during any of the construction activities. As emissions of all the pollutants would be below SCAQMD’s applicable thresholds, the regional construction air quality impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

TABLE 2 PROPOSED PROJECT REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS*

Construction Activities Estimated Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)

ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5

Maximum Day Emissions 49.79 82.75 44.73 0.07 5.45 3.68 Regional Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact? No No No No No No

*Based on 40 Single-Family Units; showing a conservative estimate of emissions from the proposed 28 Single-Family Unit project. NOTE: Construction emissions would be slightly different during the summer and winter seasons. Maximum daily emissions of ROG and NOX would generally be higher during the winter while emissions of CO and SO2 would generally be higher in the summer. The maximum emissions for each pollutant over the course of the summer and winter seasons are shown in this table.

Operations

The operation of the proposed project would result in long-term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with area sources, such as natural gas consumption, landscaping, applications of architectural coatings, and consumer products, in addition to operational mobile emissions. Operations emissions associated with the single-family dwelling units were modeled using CalEEMod, and are provided in Table 3. As described above, because the project would develop fewer single-family residences (28 units total), than were estimated in the Air Quality Impact Analysis the emissions listed in Table 3 provide a conservative estimate and actual emissions are likely to be less.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 27 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

TABLE 3 PROPOSED PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS*

Estimated Emissions (lbs/day)

Emissions Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Proposed Project Area Sources 2.40 0.04 3.36 1.70e-4 0.07 0.07 Energy Sources 0.03 0.28 0.12 1.77e-3 0.02 0.02 Mobile Sources 1.39 3.42 15.63 0.04 2.91 0.81 Total Operational Emissions 3.82 3.74 19.11 0.04 3.00 0.90 Regional Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact? No No No No No No

*Based on 40 Single-Family Units; showing a conservative estimate of emissions from the 36 proposed Single-Family Unit project.

As shown in Table 3, the operational long-term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors that are below SCAQMD’s applicable thresholds. Therefore, operational emissions from the proposed 36 single-family residences would not result in or substantially contribute to emissions concentrations because project-related emissions do not exceed SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.

c. 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)?

Less than significant impact. The project site is located within the SCAB, which is considered the cumulative study area for air quality. The SCAB is designated a non-attainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, and is currently designated an attainment area for the remaining criteria pollutants, which include CO, NO2, and SO2. Because the SCAB is currently classified as a nonattainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, cumulative development consisting of the proposed project along with other reasonably foreseeable future projects in the SCAB as a whole could violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. SCAQMD recommends that if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants (ROG, CO, NOx, SOx, 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 these criteria pollutants for which the proposed project region is in non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

As shown in Table 2, emissions of ozone precursors (NOx and ROG), PM10 and PM2.5 from the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD’s daily thresholds during construction. Thus, because the proposed project’s construction-period impact would be less than significant, the proposed project would not result in a significant cumulative impact, when considered with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects.

In addition, the operational emissions associated with the proposed project not exceed the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance for any of the criteria pollutants (see Table 3). Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with SCAQMD’s air quality planning efforts for nonattainment pollutants and would not lead to a cumulatively considerable net increase in nonattainment pollutants during operations. Overall, the proposed project’s construction and operational emissions contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 28 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Less than significant impact. Sensitive receptors are populations that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than are the population at large. The SCAQMD identifies the following as sensitive receptors: long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes, residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, and athletic facilities. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the residential land uses immediately adjacent to the project site along the northern, eastern and western boundaries.

Localized Air Quality Impacts – Criteria Air Pollutants With respect to potential localized air quality impacts on nearby sensitive receptors resulting from implementation of the proposed project, the highest concentrations of pollutant emissions would be generated during the project’s construction activities at the site. As such, the project’s emissions from construction activities may have the potential to generate localized emissions that could expose sensitive receptors to harmful pollutant concentrations. The SCAQMD has developed localized significance thresholds (LSTs) that are based on the amount of pounds of emissions per day that can be generated by a project that would not cause or contribute to adverse localized air quality impacts. These localized thresholds, which are found in the mass rate look-up tables in SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology document, apply to projects that are less than or equal to five acres in size and are only applicable to a project’s onsite emissions for the following criteria pollutants: NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. LSTs 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 are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area (SRA) within the SCAB. The project site, an approximately 3.17-acre site, is located in unincorporated Orange County near the City of Anaheim, and is located in SRA 17 (Central Orange County).

The LSTs developed by SCAQMD are provided for the following distances from the source of emissions: 25 meters (82 feet), 50 meters (164 feet), 100 meters (328 feet), 200 meters (656 feet), and 500 meters (1,640). Additionally, the LSTs at these distances also vary based on the size of the project site. The SCAQMD has provided LSTs for sites that are one acre, two acres, and five acres in size. As the project site has is 3.17-acres, the LSTs for a two-acre site was used for this analysis.

As described above, the nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the residences directly adjacent to the property boundaries, located approximately less than 25 feet away from the site boundaries. Given the proximity of these sensitive uses to the project site, the LSTs for a two-acre site with receptors located within 25 meters (82 feet) are used to address the potential localized air quality impacts associated with the proposed project’s construction-related NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions. Table 4 identifies the daily unmitigated, localized onsite emissions that are estimated to occur during the worst-case construction scenario. As shown, this construction scenario would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs for a two-acre site. Thus, the localized construction air quality impacts associated with these pollutants (i.e., NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5) would be less than significant.

Furthermore, during project operations, the daily amount of localized pollutant emissions generated onsite would not be substantial. The proposed project involves the construction and operation of 28 single family detached units. According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs apply to the operational phase of a proposed project, if the project includes stationary sources, or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). The proposed project does not include such uses, and thus, due to the lack of stationary source emissions, no long-term localized significance threshold analysis is required.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 29 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

TABLE 4 PROPOSED PROJECT UNMITIGATED LOCALIZED DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS*

Estimated Maximum Daily On-Site Emissions (lbs/day)

a a Construction Phase NOX CO PM10 PM2.5

Maximum Daily Emissions 79.39 41.16 4.96 3.39 Localized Significance Thresholdb 115 715 6 4 Significant Impact? No No No No

a Emissions account for implementation of dust control measures as required by SCAQMD Rule 403—Fugitive Dust. b LSTs for a two-acre site in SRA 17 at a receptor distance of 25 meters (82 feet).

Localized Construction Air Quality Impacts – Toxic Air Contaminants

A substance is considered toxic if it has the potential to cause adverse health effects in humans. A toxic substance released into the air is considered a toxic air contaminant (TAC). TACs are identified by state and federal agencies based on a review of available scientific evidence. In the State of California, TACs are identified through a two-step process that was established in 1983 under the Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act. This two-step process of risk identification and risk management was designed to protect residents from the health effects of toxic substances in the air.

Project construction would result in short-term emissions of diesel PM, a TAC. Diesel PM poses a carcinogenic health risk that is measured using an exposure period of 70 years. The exhaust of off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment would emit diesel PM during demolition, site preparation (e.g., clearing); site grading and excavation; paving; installation of utilities, materials transport and handling; building construction; and other miscellaneous activities. SCAQMD has not adopted a methodology for analyzing such impacts and has not recommended that health risk assessments be completed for construction- related emissions of TACs.

The construction period for the proposed project would be 12 months, much less than the 70-year period used for risk determination. Because off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment would be used only for short time periods, project construction would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial emissions of TACs. This impact would be less than significant.

Project Operations – Toxic Air Contaminants Typical sources of acutely and chronically hazardous TACs include industrial manufacturing processes, automotive repair facilities, and dry cleaning facilities. The proposed project would not include any of these potential sources, although minimal emissions may result from the use of consumer products. As such, typical operations at the project site would not expose surrounding sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant or TAC emissions.

With regard to on‐site sensitive receptors, the proposed project would not place the new residences near sources of TACs. The project site is located over 2.43 miles west of the Interstate 5 (I-5) freeway. Since freeways and high‐traffic roads are considered sources of TAC emissions, CARB recommends siting sensitive land uses at least 500 feet from such sources. As the proposed project is located more than 500 feet from the I‐5 freeway, on‐site sensitive receptors would be exposed to less than significant concentrations of TACs. Additionally, the project site is not located within 1,000 feet of any SCAQMD permitted sources. Therefore, new onsite sensitive receptors will not be exposed to existing TAC sources.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 30 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

CO Hotspots CO concentration is a direct function of motor vehicle activity (e.g., idling time and traffic flow conditions), particularly during peak commute hours and certain meteorological conditions. Under specific meteorological conditions (e.g., stable conditions that result in poor dispersion), CO concentrations may reach unhealthy levels with respect to local sensitive land uses such as residential areas, schools, and hospitals.

A CO “hot spot” analysis was conducted in 2003 for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods to establish a more accurate record of baseline CO concentrations in the Basin. This hot spot analysis did not predict any violation of CO standards. It can therefore be reasonably concluded that projects (such as the proposed project) that are not subject to the extreme vehicle volumes and congestion evidenced in the 2003 Los Angeles hot spot analysis would similarly not create CO hot spots. In other air districts, evaluation of potential CO impacts is given similar considerations. For example, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) concludes that under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a given project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour (or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix) in order to generate a significant CO impact. It should be noted that CO concentrations have declined dramatically in California due to existing controls and programs and most areas of the state, including the region in which the proposed project is located, have no problem meeting the state and federal CO standards. CO measurements and modeling were important in the early 1980s when CO levels were regularly exceeded throughout California. In more recent years, CO measurements and modeling have not been a priority in most California air districts due to the retirement of older polluting vehicles, fewer emissions from new vehicles and improvements in fuels.

Based on the Traffic Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, it was determined that implementation of a 28-unit single-family residential development would result in approximately 343 vehicles per day to and from the project site. Of these trips, 27 would occur in the am peak hour and 36 would occur in the pm peak hour (Urban Crossroads, 2015). As Cerritos Avenue would continue to have acceptable levels of service (LOS A through C) in the future (2035) with the project, the addition of either 27 trips in the am peak hour or 36 trips in the pm peak hour would not result in vehicle volumes near levels that could create a CO hotspot under worst case conditions. Therefore, impacts associated with CO hotspots as a result of the proposed project would be less than significant.

e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

Less than significant impact. The SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook identifies the following uses as having a potential odor issues: wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, agricultural uses, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass moldings. The proposed project would implement residential development within the project area. These land uses do not involve the types of uses that would emit objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. In addition, odors generated by new and existing non-residential land uses are required to be in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent odor nuisances on sensitive land uses. SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, states:

A person 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 any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 31 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

During construction, emissions from construction equipment, such as diesel exhaust, and volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings and paving activities may generate odors. However, these odors would be temporary and are not expected to affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, impacts relating to both operational and construction activity odors would be less than significant.

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

A Biological Constraints Analysis for the project site was prepared to evaluate biological resources within the project site and surrounding vicinity, and provide biological recommendations based on literature reviews, and the survey of the site (PCR, 2014). The letter report is provided in Appendix B.

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 Services?

No impact. The project site is developed with single-family residences and a preschool. Vegetation within the project site consists of ornamental landscaping, including Peruvian peppertree (Schinus molle), Brazilian peppertree (Schinus terebinthifolius), bamboo (Bambusa sp.), bougainvillea (Bougainvillea sp.), magnolia tree (Magnolia grandiflora), gum tree (Eucalyptus sp.), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), nettle-leaved goosefoot (Chenopodium murale), and bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). The ornamental landscaping also includes grape (Vitis spp.) vines, a variety of fruit trees (orange, Fuji apple, avocado, grapefruit, fig, and pomegranate), and vegetable gardens (zucchini, tomato, and pepper).

A number of native species exist on the project site, including coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), Fremont’s cottonwood (Populus fremontii), digger pine (Pinus sabiniana), and California blackberry (Rubus ursinus). However, these do not comprise a native plant community and are part of the landscaping installed with the residence.

Wildlife species observed onsite include house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), and western scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica). Other animals are currently kept for domestic purposes on the project site, which include: dogs, a cat, chickens, rabbits, goats, pigeons, and a potbelly pig.

No sensitive plant communities are located on the project site. The project site is located within an urban and developed area, and does not lie within critical habitat for any special-status plant or wildlife species. In addition, no endangered, rare, threatened or special status plant species (or associated habitats) or wildlife species designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), or California Native Plant Society (CNPS) are known to occur on or adjacent to the site. Project implementation would not result in a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any sensitive species, and impacts would not occur.

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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services?

No 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

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 32 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

corridors. As described above under impact 4.a), the project site is developed and does not contain any natural habitats, including riparian. Additionally, the project site is located within an urban area that is bound on all sides by development. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities occur adjacent to the project area. The project area is not included in any local or regional plans, policies, and regulations that identify riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. Therefore, no impact would occur.

c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

No 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 indicated in above, the project site and surrounding area are developed and do not contain naturally-occurring wetlands. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts to wetlands.

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?

Less than significant. The project site and surrounding areas are completely developed and/or disturbed. The project site is surrounded by urban uses on all four sides and no wildlife corridor connecting native habitats and/or open space exist in the project area; therefore, the site does not function as a wildlife movement corridor. The County does not have a tree preservation ordinance for this area. Project implementation 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. However, the project contains trees and shrubs that could be used for avian nesting activity. Nesting activities typically occurs from February 15 to August 31 (January 15 to August 31 for raptors). Disturbing or destroying active nests is a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.) In addition, avian nests and eggs are protected under Fish and Game Code Section 3503. Although ornamental landscaping would be removed, such as trees, the removal of any existing onsite trees would be subject to the provisions of the MBTA, which prohibits disturbing or destroying active nests. In addition, nests and eggs are protected under Fish and Game Code Section 3503. Implementation of the project must be accomplished in a manner that avoids impacts to active nests during the breeding season. Compliance with the MBTA can be accomplished through a variety of means, including restricting brush and tree removal to periods outside the avian nesting season (August 1 to January 15) or through performance of nesting bird surveys prior to clearing when clearing occurs during the nesting season. Through compliance with the MBTA, potential impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant.

e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

No impact. As described above, the project site is developed for residential uses and includes ornamental landscaping that includes some native species that were planted as part of the landscaping installed with the residence. The project site does not include any sensitive biological resources, and none of the existing trees are regulated by an existing tree preservation policy. Therefore, the project

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 33 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and impacts would not occur.

f. Conflict with provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

No impact. The project site is located within an urban area, and is developed and used for residential and preschool uses. The project site does not contain any natural lands that are subject to the Orange County Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The Orange County Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan vegetation mapping identifies the site vicinity as Developed. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts to biological habitat plans.

5. CULTURAL/SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES. Would the project:

a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?

No impact. The County of Orange’s historic and cultural resources are shown on Figure VI-11 of the County of Orange General Plan Resources Element. The project site is not identified as a historically/culturally significant resource. Based on historical research, 9641 West Cerritos Avenue was developed as early as the 1930s with one residence and outlying buildings. However, the site is currently developed with a preschool that consists of two, one-story buildings, a playground, two small children’s pools and parking facilities. The site has been improved for the current uses and does not retain any historic architecture, and does not embody any original distinctive characteristic of a type, period, or method of construction that would be considered a historic resource. The other two project parcels are developed with residences that were constructed in the late-1950s/early-1960s and have been expanded and improved numerous times, including a garage that was built in 2004. The improvements on the site are of historic age, categorized as structures exceeding 50 years in age.

However, the criteria for evaluating historic value includes the following:

• It is associated with the events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;

• It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or natural history;

• It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic value; and/or,

• It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. Therefore, although the structures are of historic age they do not meet the criteria for historic value and the project implementation would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource, and no impact would occur.

b. Cause a substantial adverse changed in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

Less than significant impact. Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), which became effective in January 2016 as Public Resource Code Section 21080.3.1, established a new requirement under CEQA to consider “tribal

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 34 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

cultural values, as well as scientific and archaeological values when determining impacts and mitigation.” Tribal Cultural Resources are defined as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe” that are either included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or local registers of historical resources. In addition, AB 52 implemented a new consultation process, in which lead agencies are required to offer Native American tribes that have submitted written requests to participate in consultations to protect tribal cultural resources and that Native American tribes have the opportunity to consult on CEQA documents prior to submitting an IS/MND or Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Pursuant to AB 52, lead agencies are required to provide formal notice to the tribes requesting to participate within 14-days of the lead agency’s determination that an application package is complete. Tribes have 30-days to respond to request consultation on the project. Tribal notification letters were sent April 25, 2016. The County did not receive any request for consultation from any of the tribes.

The project site exists within a highly developed area and the project location has been disturbed and graded and is developed with several structures. In addition, there are (or have been) several substructures in the project site including an underground storage tank (UST) that was removed in August 2014, a septic system, water well, and other underground utilities. Due to the location of the project site within a developed, urban area that has been subject to previous surface and subsurface disturbance related to urban development, the potential for discovery of archaeological resources is low. In addition, Exhibit VI-10 of the County’s General Plan Resources Element and the City of Anaheim General Plan EIR do not identify the site as being within an area of prehistoric archaeology sensitivity. Therefore, impacts related to archaeological resources would be less than significant.

c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

Less than significant impact. The project site is underlain by Quaternary fan and alluvial deposits that generally consist of layered sandy silts, sand, and silty sand with stiff clays (LCG, 2015). These soils are not sensitive for paleontological resources, per County of Orange paleontological guidelines. However, this formation can act as a veneer atop older alluvium deposits with low to moderate sensitivity for paleontological resources. Based on Exhibit IV-9 of the County of Orange General Plan Resources Element, the project site is not located within an area of high paleontological sensitivity. Additionally, there is no evidence of unique geologic features on the project site. Given the highly disturbed condition of the site, and that extensive excavation of the site has previously occurred with previous development of the project site that included: installation of the Underground Storage Tank (UST) believed by the site occupants to have been used for fuel storage, septic system, water well, and other underground utilities; and the removal of the UST in August 2014, the potential for project implementation to impact an unidentified paleontological resource is considered remote. Therefore, impacts related to paleontological resources would be less than significant.

d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

No Impact. There are no known human remains in the project area. The project area is not part of a formal cemetery and is not known to have been used for disposal of human remains (Arcadis, 2014). In addition, the ground has been previously disturbed by construction of existing land uses and removal of an Underground Storage Tank (UST) in August 2014, believed by the site occupants to have been used for fuel storage. Thus, human remains are not expected to be encountered during construction of the proposed project. However, in the unlikely event that human remains are encountered during ground- disturbing activities, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that there shall be no further excavation until the coroner has been notified and has made recommendations concerning the

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 35 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

treatment and disposition of the human remains to the person responsible. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. Implementation of the proposed project would comply with the mandatory provisions of state law regarding discovery of human remains, and impacts relating to the disturbance of human remains would not occur.

6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:

A Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation (LCG, 2014) (included as Appendix C) was prepared for the proposed project to evaluate potential impacts related to implementation of the proposed project and potential geologic, seismic, and soils hazards. The geotechnical evaluation included both review of existing reports and mapping and onsite subsurface testing of soils.

a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

No impact. Seismically induced ground rupture is defined as the physical displacement of surface deposits in response to an earthquake’s seismic waves. Ground rupture is most likely along active faults, and typically occurs during earthquakes of magnitude five or higher. Ground rupture only affects the area immediately adjacent to a fault.

The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. The Act’s main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones, known as “Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault Zones,” around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. If an active fault is found, a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back from the fault (typically 50 feet). The project site does not contain and is not in the vicinity of an earthquake fault, is not affected by a state-designated AP Earthquake Fault Zone, and no faults were identified during the onsite preliminary geotechnical evaluation (LCG, 2014). Therefore, project implementation would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault.

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?

Less than significant impact. There are several known active faults in the region, including the Elsinore Fault Zone and the Newport Inglewood Fault Zone. A major earthquake along any the region’s major active faults could cause seismic ground shaking in unincorporated Orange County. Structures built in the County are required to be built in compliance with the California Building Code (CBC [California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2]), which has been included in the County’s Municipal Code as Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 2, Article II (Building and Structures) and contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, the types of soils onsite, and the probable strength of ground motion. Mandatory compliance with these construction and building safety design standards would be required prior to building permit

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 36 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

approval, which would reduce potential impacts associated with ground shaking at the project site to a less than significant level.

iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

No impact. Liquefaction can occur as a secondary effect of seismic shaking in areas of saturated, loose, fine-to-medium grained soils where the water table is 50 feet or less below the ground surface. Seismic shaking temporarily eliminates the grain-to-grain support normally provided by the sediment grains. The waters between the grains assume the weight of the overlying material and the sudden increase in pore water pressure results in the soil losing its friction properties. The saturated material (with the frictionless properties of a liquid) will fail to support overlying structures. Liquefaction-related effects include loss of bearing strength, ground oscillations, lateral spreading, and slumping.

The project site is located on the Anaheim Quadrangle. The California Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Zones map (1998) indicates that the project site does not lie in an area known to be susceptible to liquefaction. As stated in the geotechnical evaluation, site soils are also generally not considered susceptible to liquefaction due to the dense to very dense nature of the sandy soils encountered (LCG, 2014). Therefore, the potential for liquefaction is considered very low (LCG, 2014), and impacts to seismic-related ground failure would not be expected to occur.

iv. Landslides?

No impact. Landslides are mass movements of the ground that include rock falls, relatively shallow slumping and sliding of soil, and deeper rotational or transitional movement of soil or rock. The project site is not located on a hill or adjacent to a hillside. Since the site is located in a relatively flat area, it is determined that there is no impact from landslides or other forms of natural slop instability to represent a hazard to the project. In addition, according to the California Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Zones Map (2001), the project site is not within an area susceptible to earthquake-induced landslides. There would be no impact related to landslides.

b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Less than significant impact. Soil exposed by construction activities during demolition and redevelopment of the proposed project could be subject to erosion if exposed to heavy rain, winds, or other storm events. As part of development of the proposed project, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared in compliance with the Construction General Permit. The SWPPP will identify erosion control and sediment control best management practices (BMPs) that would be implemented on the project site during construction prevent erosion and sedimentation from occurring onsite. Impacts regarding erosion and topsoil loss during construction would be less than significant.

During operation, the proposed project site would be mostly paved. Per Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) (Hunsaker, 2016), BMP requirements include landscaping, which would cover 25 percent of the site and would be interspersed between impervious areas like sidewalks and parking areas. Xeriscaping (or drought-tolerant landscaping) would be utilized and would help stabilize soils onsite through vegetation coverage. Trees would be planted within the Cerritos Avenue setback areas to intercept rainfall and provide some volume reduction benefits for the project. Surface flows would be controlled onsite; runoff from would be conveyed as surface flow and gutter flow per one project’s four north-south traversing streets to Cerritos Avenue. Runoff generated in excess of pre-project levels for the 100-year storm event would be diverted to subsurface detention vaults and conveyed to a drywell

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 37 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

for infiltration. As a result, potential long-term operational erosion impacts would be less than significant.

c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

No impact. As described above under impact 6.a.iv.), the project site is located in a flat, level area that is not within a liquefaction or earthquake-induced landslide area, and due to the flat topography and lack of liquefaction potential, the risk of lateral spreading is also considered very low (LCG, 2014). Furthermore, the project area is not identified as being located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of development activities (LCG, 2014).

The proposed project would be required to adhere to all County building requirements, and the County’s standard approval requirements ensure that all construction complies with the California Building Code and the City’s building regulations related to soil stability. Continued adherence to applicable building codes through the County’s building permit process would result in less than significant impacts involving unstable geologic units or soils.

d. Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1- of the California Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property?

No impact. The project site is not located on expansive soils. The laboratory testing of the onsite soils that was performed as part of the Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation determined that soils have a “Low” to “Very Low” expansion potential (LCG, 2014). Construction of the single-family residential units would comply with any further instruction from the County engineer to ensure adherence to current code requirements, such as CBC Section 1808 related to soils and foundations. The project would not be located on expansive soils, and impacts would not occur.

e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

No impact. The project area is served by a sewer system; septic tanks would not be utilized by the proposed project. All development associated with the proposed project would connect to and be served by the existing public sewer system for wastewater discharge and treatment. No impacts related to septic systems would occur as a result of the proposed project.

7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:

A Greenhouse Analysis (Urban Crossroads, 2014) was prepared for the project and is included as Appendix D. As described above in the air quality section, since preparation of the Greenhouse Analysis, the number of proposed residential units has been reduced from a total of 40 single-family units to 36 single-family units and ultimately to 28 single-family units. Urban Crossroads reviewed the Greenhouse Gas Analysis and concluded that the continued refinement of the project reducing the number of units would not require revision because no new impacts were identified and no mitigation would be required. Based on this formal review, the subsequent reduction from 36 single-family units and ultimately to 28 single-family units would likewise not create additional greenhouse gas emissions that could result in new impacts or require mitigation. Because the project would develop fewer single- family residences (28 units total), the numeric analysis provided in the tables below (that was modeled

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 38 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

based on 40 single-family residences) provides a conservative estimate that overstates (rather than understates) potential impacts.

Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gases (GHGs) because they capture heat radiated from the sun as it is reflected back into the atmosphere, much like a greenhouse does. The accumulation of GHGs has been implicated as a driving force for global climate change. Definitions of climate change vary between and across regulatory authorities and the scientific community, but in general can be described as the changing of the earth’s climate caused by natural fluctuations and anthropogenic activities, which alter the composition of the global atmosphere.

Prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Carbon dioxide is the “reference gas” for climate change, meaning that emissions of GHGs are typically reported in “carbon dioxide-equivalent” (CO2e) measures. As such, CO2e is a measurement used to account for the fact that different GHGs have different potential to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. Expressing emissions in CO2e takes the contributions to the greenhouse effect of all GHG emissions and converts them to the equivalent effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted. This measurement, known as the global warming potential of a GHG, is dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere.

There is international scientific consensus that human-caused increases in GHGs have and will continue to contribute to global warming, although there is uncertainty concerning the magnitude and rate of the warming. Potential global warming impacts in California may include, but are not limited to, loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, larger forest fires, and more drought years. Secondary effects are likely to include global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity.

In 2005, in recognition of California’s vulnerability to the effects of climate change, Governor Schwarzenegger established Executive Order S-3-05, which sets forth a series of target dates by which statewide emission of GHG would be progressively reduced, as follows:

 By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;  By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and  By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

In 2006, California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill No. 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500, et seq., or AB 32), which requires CARB to design and implement emission limits, regulations, and other measures, such that feasible and cost- effective statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 1990 levels by 2020.

On March 18, 2010, the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) submitted amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for GHG emissions, as required by Public Resources Code section 21083.05 (Senate Bill 97) became effective. These CEQA Guideline amendments provide guidance to public agencies regarding the analysis and mitigation of the effects of GHG emissions in draft CEQA documents. The amendments are relatively modest changes to various portions of the existing CEQA Guidelines.

Then on April 29, 2015, Governor Jerry Brown issued an executive order that identified an interim GHG reduction target in support of targets previously identified under S-3-05 and AB 32. Executive Order B- 30-15 set an interim target goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 as

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 39 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

one way to keep California on a trajectory toward meeting or exceeding the long-term goal of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 as set forth in Executive Order S-3-05, which was established by Governor Schwarzenegger in June 2005. To facilitate achievement of this goal, B-30- 15 calls for an update to CARB’s Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. The Executive Order also calls for state agencies to continue to develop and implement GHG emission reduction programs in support of the reduction targets. Sector-specific agencies in transportation, energy, water and forestry will be required to prepare GHG reduction plans that will commence in June 2016.

Executive Order B-30-15 establishes a policy goal and is disclosed herein for informational purposes. It does not require local agencies to take any action to meet the new interim GHG reduction threshold, and it is not an official GHG reduction target of the State of California. The Executive Order itself states it is “not intended to create, and does not, create any rights or benefits, whether substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the State of California, its agencies, departments, entities, officers employees, or any other person.”

a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

Less than significant impact. The proposed project would generate GHG emissions, primarily CO2, during construction and operation of the new residential development. GHG emissions would be generated by the on-road and off-road equipment used during construction of the proposed project. Once fully operational, the project’s operations would generate GHG emissions from both area sources and mobile sources. Indirect source emissions generated by the project would include electrical consumption, water and wastewater usage (transportation), and solid waste disposal. Mobile (direct) sources of air pollutants associated with the project would consist of motor vehicles trips generated by residents. GHG impacts are considered to be exclusively cumulative impacts (CAPCOA, 2008); there are no non-cumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective. Thus, the purpose of this GHG analysis is to determine whether the contribution of GHG emissions by the proposed project would be cumulatively considerable.

Currently, Orange County does not have adopted significance criteria for GHG analysis. In addition, SCAQMD has not formally adopted a significance threshold for GHG emissions generated by a proposed project (for which SCAQMD is not the lead agency), or a uniform methodology for analyzing impacts related to GHG emissions. However, the SCAQMD has proposed a screening level of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for residential and commercial projects in its 2008 Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold document, and SCAQMD estimates that this screening threshold would capture 90 percent of the GHG emissions from new residential or commercial projects in the SCAB. Thus, the annual threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e proposed by the SCAQMD was utilized as a screening level for determining the significance of the proposed project’s GHG emissions.

The construction and operational GHG emissions related to development and operation of the project were estimated using CalEEMod, which is recommended by SCAQMD for land use projects. Based on SCAQMD’s 2008 Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold document, SCAQMD recommends that for construction of a project, the GHG emissions be amortized over a 30- year period and added to its operational emission estimates (SCAQMD, 2008). The estimated total unmitigated construction and operational GHG emissions for the project is shown in Table 5.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 40 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

TABLE 5 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS-RELATED GHG EMISSIONS*

Estimated Emissions CO2e Emission Source (MT/yr)

Construction Annual Construction (Amortized over 30 years) 11.49 Project Operations Mobile Sources 527.29 Energy Consumptiona 133.19 Water Consumption 15.92 Solid Waste 21.26 Area Sourceb 10.35 Total Operational Emissions 708.01 Total Net Increase in Emissions 719.50

Greater than 3,000 MTCO2e per year? No

*Based on 40 Single-Family Units; showing a conservative estimate of emissions from the 36 proposed Single- Family Unit project. NOTES: CO2e= carbon dioxide equivalent; MT/yr = metric tons per year; % = percent.

a The energy-related GHG emissions, as estimated by CalEEMod, use 2008 Title 24 energy usage rates. However, according to the California Energy Commission, residential buildings that are constructed in accordance with the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards would be 36.4% more efficient for electricity and 6.5% more efficient for natural gas than the 2008 Standards. As such, this additional reduction in energy consumption was accounted for in the project’s estimated GHG emissions associated with energy consumption. b Includes emissions from landscape maintenance equipment and architectural coating emissions.

During project operations, GHG emissions would primarily result from electricity and natural gas consumption, water transport (the energy used to pump water to and from the project site), and solid waste generation. GHG emissions from electricity consumed on the project site would be generated offsite by fuel combustion at the electricity provider. GHG emissions from water transport are also indirect emissions resulting from the energy required to transport water from its source. In addition, the new residences at the project site would generate mobile source emissions from motor vehicle trips generated by residents. The estimated operational GHG emissions resulting from project implementation are also shown in Table 5.

Additionally, in accordance with SCAQMD’s recommendation, the project’s amortized construction- related GHG emissions are added to the operational emissions estimate in order to determine the project’s total annual GHG emissions. The total estimated unmitigated GHG emissions for construction of the project site would be approximately 344.64 MTCO2e. As shown in Table 5, this would equal to approximately 11.49 MTCO2e per year after amortization over 30 years per SCAQMD methodology.

Overall, the total net annual GHG emissions would be approximately 720 metric tons of CO2e (MTCO2e) per year, which would not exceed SCAQMD’s proposed screening level of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for residential projects. Therefore, the increase in GHG emissions resulting from project implementation would be less than significant.

b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 41 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

Less than significant impact. In December 2008, CARB approved the AB 32 Scoping Plan outlining the state’s strategy to achieve the 2020 GHG emissions limit. This Scoping Plan, developed by CARB in coordination with the Climate Action Team (CAT), proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in California, improve the environment, reduce dependence on oil, diversify California’s energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health. It was adopted by CARB at its meeting in December 2008. Table 6 shows the Recommended Actions contained in Appendices C and E of CARB’s Scoping Plan.

TABLE 6 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE SCOPING PLAN

ID # Sector Strategy Name

T-1 Transportation Pavley I and II – Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Standards T-2 Transportation Low Carbon Fuel Standard (Discrete Earl Action) T-3 Transportation Regional Transportation-Related GHG Targets T-4 Transportation Vehicle Efficiency Measures T-5 Transportation Ship Electrification at Ports (Discrete Early Action) T-6 Transportation Goods-movement Efficiency Measures T-7 Transportation Heavy Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Measure – Aerodynamic Efficiency (Discrete Early Action) T-8 Transportation Medium and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Hybridization T-9 Transportation High Speed Rail E-1 Electricity and Natural Gas Increased Utility Energy efficiency programs; More stringent Building and Appliance Standards E-2 Electricity and Natural Gas Increase Combined Heat and Power Use by 30,000 GWh E-3 Electricity and Natural Gas Renewables Portfolio Standard E-4 Electricity and Natural Gas Million Solar Roofs CR-1 Electricity and Natural Gas Energy Efficiency CR-2 Electricity and Natural Gas Solar Water Heating GB-1 Green Buildings Green Buildings W-1 Water Water Use Efficiency W-2 Water Water Recycling W-3 Water Water System Energy Efficiency W-4 Water Reuse Urban Runoff W-5 Water Increase Renewable Energy Production W-6 Water Public Goods Charge (Water) I-1 Industry Energy Efficiency and Co-Benefits Audits for Large Industrial Sources I-2 Industry Oil and Gas Extraction GHG Emission Reduction I-3 Industry GHG Leak Reduction from Oil and Gas Transmission I-4 Industry Refinery Flare Recovery Process Improvements I-5 Industry Removal of Methane Exemption from Existing Refinery Regulations RW-1 Recycling and Waste Management Landfill Methane Control (Discrete Early Action) RW-2 Recycling and Waste Management Additional Reductions in Landfill Methane – Capture Improvements RW-3 Recycling and Waste Management High Recycling/Zero Waste F-1 Forestry Sustainable Forest Target H-1 High Global Warming Potential Gases Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems (Discrete Early Action)

H-2 High Global Warming Potential Gases SF6 Limits in Non-Utility and Non-Semiconductor Applications (Discrete Early Action) H-3 High Global Warming Potential Gases Reduction in Perfluorocarbons in Semiconductor Manufacturing (Discrete Early Action) H-4 High Global Warming Potential Gases Limit High GWP Use in Consumer Products (Discrete Early Action, Adopted June

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 42 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

ID # Sector Strategy Name

2008) H-5 High Global Warming Potential Gases High GWP Reductions from Mobile Sources H-6 High Global Warming Potential Gases High GWP Reductions from Stationary Sources H-7a High Global Warming Potential Gases Mitigation Fee on High GWP Gases A-1 Agriculture Methane Capture at Large Dairies

a This original measure in the 2008 Scoping Plan was subsequently excluded by CARB in the Final Supplement to the Scoping Plan Functional Equivalent Document in 2011, as CARB staff concluded that implementation of this measure would not be feasible.

SOURCE: CARB, 2009.

The actions contained in CARB’s Scoping Plan that are most applicable to the proposed project would be Actions E-1, CR-1, GB-1, and W-1. CARB Scoping Plan Action E-1, together with Actions CR-1 and GB-1, aims to reduce electricity demand by increased efficiency of Utility Energy Programs and adoption of more stringent building and appliance standards, while Action W-1 aims to promote water use efficiency. The proposed project would be required to include all mandatory green building measures for new residential developments under the most current 2013 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), which became effective on January 1, 2014. General compliance with the CALGreen Code would require new buildings to reduce water consumption, employ building commissioning to increase building system efficiencies, divert construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant emitting finish materials. CALGreen’s mandatory measures establish a minimum for green construction practices, and incorporate environmentally responsible buildings into California cities. The mandatory provisions of the 2013 CALGreen Code are anticipated to reduce 3 million metric tons (MMT) of GHG emissions by 2020, reduce water use by 20 percent or more, and divert 50 percent of construction waste from landfills.

The proposed project, which would be subject to the building requirements of the CALGreen Code, would support the County’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, as implementation of the proposed project would not hinder or adversely affect the statewide attainment of GHG emission reduction goals of AB 32, and impacts would be less than significant.

8. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report and a Limited Phase II Environmental Investigation (Arcadis, 2014) were prepared for the project and are included as Appendix E.

a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

Less than significant impact. A hazardous material is defined as any material that, due to its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or environment. Hazardous materials include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, and any material that a business or the local implementing agency has a reasonable basis for believing would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment.

The proposed construction activities would involve transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, oils, grease, and caulking. In addition, hazardous materials may be needed for fueling and servicing construction equipment on the site. These types of materials are not acutely

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 43 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

hazardous, and all storage, handling, use, and disposal of these materials are regulated by Orange County regulations, which the project construction activities are required to strictly adhere to. As a result, hazardous material impacts related to construction activities would be less than significant.

Operation of the proposed project includes activities related to residential development, which generally would use hazardous materials including solvents, cleaning agents, paints, pesticides, batteries, and aerosol cans. Although residents of the project would utilize common types of hazardous materials generally classified as household hazardous waste, normal routine use of these products would not result in a significant hazard to residents or workers in the vicinity of the project. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste during operation of the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant.

b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

Less than significant impact. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report and a Limited Phase II Environmental Investigation (Arcadis, 2014) describe the previous presence of an undocumented UST at 9641 W. Cerritos Avenue believed by the site occupants have been used for fuel storage. Additionally, the long-term historic use of the project site for agriculture indicates the potential for persistent pesticides to be present in shallow soil. Based on the date of construction (pre-1980) of the onsite buildings, there is a potential for the presence of asbestos-containing materials (Arcadis, 2014).

The removal and disposal of the asbestos containing materials (ACM) would be required to be conducted in accordance with SCAQMD requirements. Furthermore, the contractor performing the asbestos removal and/or demolition is required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 1403 (dust control) to prevent asbestos emissions from emanating during building renovation and demolition activities, and submit an Asbestos-Demolition Notification Form to the SCAQMD at least 14 days prior to asbestos related activities. Removal and disposal of the ACM in compliance with SCAQMD regulations would reduce hazards related to the release of asbestos a less than significant impact.

A Phase II ESI was prepared to obtain a screening level understanding of environmental conditions on the project site. The Phase II ESI conducted an evaluation of subsurface conditions for significant issues that may impact or delay development or reuse of the site. The investigation program included a geophysical survey and the collection and analysis of soil samples from areas where environmental releases may have occurred. The geophysical investigation identified a UST, which was removed on August 27, 2014. Based on the results of the geophysical investigation, the soils surrounding the UST were removed on November 18, 2014 and the excavation area was backfilled with imported soils. All of the activities were completed in compliance with the County of Orange Heath Care Agency (OCHCA) procedures (OC Heath Care, 2015), which requires clean soil (no contaminant detections) within five feet below ground level for residential development. The OCHCA has determined that there is no significant soil contamination at the site pertaining to the UST that was removed (OC Heath Care, 2015). All of the remediation activities were completed under direction and reporting to the County. As a result, project impacts anticipated to occur as a result of reasonably foreseeable accident conditions related to hazardous materials would be less than significant.

c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 44 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

Less than significant impact. The closest existing school to the project site is the Jonas E. Salk Elementary School, which is located approximately 0.20-mile west from the project site at 1411 Gilbert Street in Anaheim. Thus, the project site is within one-quarter mile of an existing school. However, as described above in response 8.a), the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the environment through the routine use of hazardous materials that would be used for construction and operation of the proposed residential uses. In addition, as described under impact 8.b) a UST believed by the site occupants have been used for fuel storage and contaminated soils were removed from the project site. Thus, the project is not anticipated to emit or handle hazardous materials and substances typically associated with industrial manufacturing, and impacts related to a potential release of unknown contaminates near the school facility to a less than significant level.

d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No

No impact. The Phase I study that was prepared for the project site describes the existing site condition, past activities on the site, and includes a record search of government databases including the California Department of Toxic Substances Control list, most commonly known as a Cortese List, of known sites containing hazardous materials. The project site was not identified during the records search, and is not listed as a known site containing hazardous materials. Thus, no impact would occur.

e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

No impact. The nearest airport to the project site is the Fullerton Municipal Airport, located approximately four miles northwest of the project site. Therefore, because the project site not located within airport influence area, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working within two miles of an airport. No impact would occur.

f. For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

No impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, project implementation would not result in an airstrip-related safety hazard for people residing or working at the proposed residential development.

g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

No impact. The project would redevelop an existing residential area with higher intensity development that would provide site access, circulation, and parking. The project must comply with the requirements of the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and Orange County Sheriff Department (OCSD) to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided. Furthermore, existing County development standards require that the project is designed so as not to interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 45 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

No impact. The project site is located within an urban area and not adjacent to wildlands and is not located within an identified wildland fire hazard area, as identified by the Orange County General Plan Figure IX-1Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Implementation of the proposed project would also be required to adhere to the County of Orange Fire Code related to fire prevention and is subject to review by the OCFA, which would review the project plans to ensure that it meets the fire protection requirements. Although the proposed project will result in an increase in the intensity of development when compared to that existing on the site, it would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death from wildfires. Therefore, project implementation would not expose people or structures to a significant risk involving wildland fires.

9. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY. Would the project:

A Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) (Hunsaker, 2016) and a Preliminary Hydrology Analysis (Hunsaker, 2016a) were prepared for the project and are included as Appendix F and Appendix G, respectivrly.

a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

Less than significant impact. The proposed project is located in the Westminster Watershed. The project site’s receiving waters include Anaheim-Barber City Channel, Bolsa Chica Channel, Anaheim Bay, and the Pacific Ocean. The 2010 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List includes water quality impairments for all state waters. Bolsa Chica Channel is listed as impaired for ammonia, indicator bacteria, and pH; Anaheim Bay is listed as impaired for sediment toxicity, polychlorinated biphenyls, nickel and dieldrin. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for the project’s receiving waters are currently under development.

Although the project site is relatively flat, construction activities such as grading and excavation have the potential to result in top soil loss and soil erosion by exposing bare soil to wind and rain. Further, construction would involve the use of heavy equipment and related chemicals, such as fuels, oils, grease, solvents and paints that would be stored in limited quantities onsite. Materials that could potentially contaminate the construction area from a spill or leak include diesel fuel, gasoline, lubrication oil, hydraulic fluid, antifreeze, transmission fluid, lubricating grease, concrete, and other fluids. In the absence of proper controls, these construction activities could result in the transport of loosened sediment and/or harmful materials that could wash into and pollute and/or worsen water quality impairments in receiving waters.

Because project construction would disturb more than one acre of soil, the project operator would be required to comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit. In compliance with this permit, a SWPPP would be prepared and implemented, which would require erosion control, sediment control, non-stormwater and waste and material management BMPs that would prevent construction-related loose sediment and chemicals onsite from washing into receiving waters. With the implementation of the BMPs prescribed in the SWPPP, construction-related water quality impacts would be less than significant.

A conceptual water quality management plan (WQMP) has been developed for the project and is included as Appendix C. The conceptual WQMP must comply with the County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) requirements, which represent the County’s form of compliance with the NPDES Santa Ana Region Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit (MS4) requirements. The purpose of the WQMP is to identify pollutants of concern recommend operational BMPs to prevent water quality impacts. During operation, the project’s residential uses result in primary pollutants of concern that include nutrients, heavy metals, pathogens, pesticides, toxic organic compounds,

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 46 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

suspended solids/sediment, oil and grease and trash and debris. No hydrologic conditions of concern resulting from hydromodification were determined to exist for the proposed project.

Runoff generated by the project would be conveyed to one of the project’s interior north-south streets, and captured by catch basins and culvert inlets that would be located at the downstream end of the project site, which is adjacent to Cerritos Avenue. Runoff would then be conveyed to a retention vault that will treat the water and discharge it into a dry-well for ground infiltration (Hunsaker, 2016a). Surface runoff above a 100-year peak flow would be discharged from the site to Cerritos Avenue and conveyed westerly approximately one-tenth of mile to an existing catch basin and storm drain system at Gilbert Road (County facility No. CO3P08) (Hunsaker, 2016a). Runoff would then be conveyed to the Anaheim-Barber City Channel (County facility No. C03) and southwesterly to the Bolsa Chica Channel (County facility No. C02) prior to discharging into the Anaheim Bay-Huntington Harbor complex and then the Pacific Ocean. As recommended by the WQMP for County Low Impact Development (LID) and storm water treatment requirement satisfaction, the project would detain the difference between pre-project and post-project runoff for the 100-year storm event at the terminus of each project street at Cerritos Avenue; flows in excess of the pre-project amount would be diverted to a subsurface detention vault and conveyed to a drywell for infiltration.

The WQMP recommends several types of structural and non-structural BMPs for onsite implementation. Subcategories of structural BMPs would include site design, hydrologic source control, and infiltration BMPs. Site design BMPs would include the maximization of the natural infiltration capacity by installing landscaping on 25 percent of the project site surface; disconnection of impervious areas by locating of landscaping adjacent to walkways; and the use of xeriscaping (or drought-tolerant landscaping). Hydrologic source control BMPs would include installation of trees in the Cerritos Avenue set back area to intercept rainfall. Infiltration BMPs would include infiltration trenches and drywells. Nonstructural BMPs would include property owner and tenant education, activity restrictions, BMP maintenance, litter control, and street sweeping (Hunsaker, 2016). With implementation of BMPs per WQMP recommendations, impact to water quality during operation of the project would be less than significant.

b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of the pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

Less than significant impact. Water for construction uses would be supplied by an existing City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department water service line located in Cerritos Avenue. During operation, the project site would receive water from the same City water service line. Therefore, the project would not depend on groundwater supplies during for water demand during construction and operation and would therefore not deplete groundwater supplies.

On the existing project site, there are 1.84 acres (58%) of impervious surfaces and 1.33 acres (42%) of pervious surfaces. Implementation of the proposed project would increase impervious surfaces on the project site to 2.38 acres (75%)and decrease pervious surfaces to 0.79 acres (25%). The increase in impervious surface would slightly reduce natural surface water infiltration onsite. However, surface flows that do not infiltrate into pervious areas onsite would be diverted to a subsurface detention vault and conveyed to a drywell for infiltration that would be installed as part of the proposed project’s infrastructure. The sizing of the detention vault and drywell would be designed to accommodate runoff from the project site, as determined by the Preliminary Hydrology Analysis (included as Appendix E), and would be confirmed by the County Building and Safety Division during the plan check and permit

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 47 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

approval process. As a result, the project would not result in a substantial change in the amount of groundwater infiltrated onsite, and impacts related to groundwater recharge and the groundwater table would be less than significant.

c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

Less than significant impact. No streams or rivers exist on the project site. During construction, an SWPPP would be as required, and would ensure that excavation and construction activities do not alter the drainage pattern of the site. The SWPPP would require erosion control, sediment control, non- stormwater and waste and material management BMPs that would prevent construction-related loose sediment and chemicals onsite from washing into receiving waters. With the implementation of the BMPs prescribed in the SWPPP, construction of the project would not alter an existing drainage or result in substantial erosion or siltation. Therefore, construction related impacts would be less than significant.

Under existing conditions, runoff from the project site is conveyed as sheet flow southerly to Cerritos Avenue and then conveyed as gutter flow westerly for discharge to an existing catch basin and existing storm drain system located in Gilbert Road. Runoff is then conveyed southerly to the Anaheim-Barber City Channel and southwesterly to the Bolsa Chica Channel prior to discharging to the Anaheim Bay- Huntington Harbor complex and then the Pacific Ocean.

During operation, the proposed drainage pattern would be consistent with the general existing drainage pattern in that all flows conveyed south to Cerritos Avenue and then following the same path of discharge to the Pacific Ocean. The expected increase in post-development flows would be retained by a detention vault and infiltrated via drywell to match existing conditions, as determined by the Preliminary Hydrology Analysis (Appendix E) (Hunsaker, 2016a). Therefore, the drainage pattern would not be altered such that erosion or siltation would occur on or offsite as a result of the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant.

d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

Less than significant impact. As stated above under 9.c), the drainage pattern of the proposed project would be consistent with the site’s current drainage pattern and no streams or rivers exist on the site. All surface flows would be conveyed south to Cerritos Avenue, and the increased flow volume resulting from project implementation would be retained and infiltrated to maintain conditions comparable to the existing onsite drainage. Impacts regarding flood on or offsite as a result of drainage pattern alteration would be less than significant.

e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

Less than significant impact. As stated above under 9.a and 9.c), runoff generated by the project would be conveyed to one of the project’s interior north-south streets, and captured by catch basins and culvert inlets that would be located downstream adjacent to Cerritos Avenue. Runoff would then be conveyed to a retention vault that will treat the water and discharge it into a dry-well for ground infiltration (Hunsaker, 2016a). Project design BMPs include maximizing natural infiltration by installing landscaping on 25 percent of the project site and the use of xeriscaping (or drought-tolerant

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 48 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

landscaping). Hydrologic source control BMPs would include implementation of trees in the Cerritos Avenue set back area to intercept rainfall. Infiltration BMPs would include infiltration trenches and dry- wells, which are designed to catch the entire post development flow from the site (Hunsaker, 2016a). In addition, flows in excess of the pre-project amount would be diverted to a subsurface detention vault and conveyed to a dry-well for infiltration (Hunsaker, 2016a). Therefore, the project would maintain current drainage patterns and the existing stormwater drainage system capacity would not be exceeded. As detailed under 9.a), pollutants would be controlled onsite and prevented from contact with runoff during construction per implementation of a SWPPP BMPs and during operation per WQMP BMPs. Impacts relating to excess runoff water and/or polluted runoff sources would be less than significant.

f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

Less than significant impact. The project has the potential to affect water quality during construction; however, BMPs would be implemented per a project-specific SWPPP that would help prevent impacts to water quality from construction activities. As previously indicated, these measures include erosion control, sediment control, non-stormwater and waste and material management BMPs that would prevent construction-related loose sediment and chemicals onsite from washing into receiving waters. During project operation, the project would comply with WQMP requirements, including the implementation of structural BMPs designed to convey, capture and infiltrate runoff so to prevent polluted runoff from leaving the project site and degrading receiving water quality. Non-structural BMPs, such as, property owner and tenant education, activity restrictions, BMP maintenance, litter control, and street sweeping would be provided onsite to prevent the introduction of pollutants into runoff. The project would maintain existing drainage patterns by directing runoff generated on-site to Cerritos Avenue; any runoff generated in excess of existing surface flows would be captured by a detainment basin and conveyed to a dry-well for infiltration. Therefore, no siltation or flooding, which has the potential to degrade water quality, would occur onsite or offsite. The project would connect to existing sewer lines for treatment of wastewater generated onsite at Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) treatment facilities. Thus, the project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Impacts would be less than significant.

g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

No impact. The project would include the development of housing; however, the project site is not located within a flood zone pursuant to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 0137J, Map No. 06059C0137J. As such, impacts there would be no impact related to a 100-year flood hazard.

h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows?

No impact. As described under 9.g), the project site is not located within a flood zone as defined by FEMA and delineated on the FIRM for the project area. As such, impacts in related to a 100-year flood hazard would not occur.

i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

No impact. The project site is not located within a dam flood inundation area (City of Anaheim, 2004). As described under impact 9.g), the project site is not located within a FEMA flood zone. As such, the

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 49 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

proposed project would not result in any impacts related to exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. No impact would occur.

j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

No impact. A seiche is the sloshing of a closed body of water from earthquake shaking (USGS, 2012a). Seiches are of concern relative to water storage facilities because inundation from a seiche can occur if the wave overflows a containment wall, such as the wall of a reservoir, water storage tank, dam, or other artificial body of water. There are no inland water bodies near enough to the project area to pose a flood hazard to the site resulting from a seiche. Therefore, no seiche impacts would occur.

A tsunami is a sea wave of local or distant origin that results from large-scale seafloor displacements associated with earthquakes, major submarine slides or exploding volcanic islands (USGS, 2012b). An event such as an earthquake creates a large displacement of water resulting in a rise or mounding at the ocean surface that moves away from this center as a sea wave. Tsunamis generally affect coastal communities and low-lying (low-elevation) river valleys in the vicinity of the coast. The project site is over 10 miles from the Pacific Ocean and outside of the Tsunami Hazard Zone identified by the California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA, 2009). Therefore, impacts related to tsunamis would not occur.

A mudflow is an earthflow consisting of material that is wet enough to flow rapidly and typically occurs in small, steep stream channels (USGS, 2004). The project area is flat and does not contain any small, steep stream channels. Thus, no mudflow impacts would occur.

10. LAND USE & PLANNING. Would the project:

a. Physically divide an established community?

No impact. The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a linear feature, such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks, or removal of a means of access, such as a local road or bridge that would impact mobility within an existing community or between a community and outlying area. The proposed project area is urban and completely developed. The project site currently consists of three parcels that provide low density residential uses and a preschool (commercial use), and is surrounded by various residential land uses. The project proposes demolition of the existing structures and construction of a new residential subdivision served by a private street system, along with construction of perimeter tract boundary walls that would not impede or divide the immediately surrounding residential communities, as the current improvements at the project site include perimeter fencing at property line boundaries. The existing public right-of-way (Cerritos Avenue) would be improved with the proposed project, a project feature, that will enhance the established community. Therefore, the project does not physically divide the community and there is no impact.

b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

Less than significant impact.

The immediately abutting residential uses surrounding the project are Zoned R-1 “Single-Family Residence” District and were developed at a density of approximately 6 dwelling units per acre. A higher

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 50 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

density multi-family residential use, zoned R2 “Multifamily Dwelling” District and is located approximately 500 feet west of the project site at the corner of Cerritos Avenue and Gilbert Street, and was developed at a density of approximately 34 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project would change zoning of the project site to R2D-(3,000) PD (3,200) “Two-Family Residence” District using “Planned Development” District standards and subdivide the 3.17 gross acre site into 28 individual residential lots resulting in a density of 8.83 dwelling units per acre. While this new zoning would be different from the zoning of the immediately abutting zoned parcels, the entirety of the project includes a physical development proposal that provides characteristically similar residential development (e.g. single family detached homes with private yards, garages and full driveway depths). Although the new Zoning District classification would allow “two-on-a-lot” (duplex) development, the new classification includes minimum lot size suffixes and a PD “Planned Development” designation which, in effect, places certain limitations to development of the project site with the subdivision as proposed by the project proponent, or limits any future development to a Conditional Use Permit approval by the Planning Commission for setbacks. This ensures that the impacts from changing the zone are minimized because the new Zoning District designation is very specific; controlling the density range of any possible development of the site under the new Zoning District to a compatible one.

The project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of Suburban Residential 1B, which allows up to 18 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project proposes the development of 28 residential units within the 3.17 -acre site, which would result in 8.83 units per acre and would not exceed the General Plan Land Use designation criterion of 18 dwelling units per acre, and would be consistent with the growth projections in the General Plan Land Use Element. Further, the proposed Zone Change is consistent with the existing General Plan Suburban Residential land use designation which allows up to 18 dwelling units per acre; and therefore would not conflict with the General Plan. The project provides detached homes under a comprehensive set of site development standards that include setbacks, building height, building separations; structure coverage limits on the individual building sites and overall site coverage that would be approved as part of the proposed Conditional Use Permit. With adoption of the proposed Zone Change and Conditional Use Permit, the project would not conflict with any land use policy or plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Furthermore, the proposed project would not be inconsistent with any of the relevant General Plan Policies, as listed below

Goals, Objectives and Policies Project Consistency Land Use Element Policy 1 Balanced Land Use. To plan urban land uses with Consistent. The project would introduce up to 28 single- a balance of residential, industrial, commercial, and public family in an area surrounded by residential land uses. land uses. Policy 2 Phased Development. To phase development Consistent. The project would develop onsite consistent with the adequacy of public services and infrastructure to ensure the adequacy of services. In facilities within the capacity defined by the General Plan. addition, the project would pay development fees and future homeowners would pay taxes which would be utilized by affected government services and facilities to offset the incremental increase in service demands created by the project. Policy 3 Housing Densities. To provide a variety of Consistent. The project would introduce up to 28 single- residential densities which permit a mix of housing family homes in a under developed area, which would opportunities affordable to the County’s labor force. contribute to the ability of the County to meet demands for housing, particularly single-family homes.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 51 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

Goals, Objectives and Policies Project Consistency Policy 6 New Development Compatibility. To require new Consistent. The single-family residential project would be development to be compatible with adjacent areas. designed to complement and blend with the character of existing single-family residential environment adjacent to the project site. Goal 11 Ensure urban /storm water runoff and water Consistent. Stormwater runoff would be collected quality protection principles are properly considered in retained, filtered, and infiltrated to decrease pollutants the land sue decision making process. in the runoff. In addition, a WQMP would be implemented to ensure that water quality protection principles are properly implemented. Policy 11.2 Minimize changes in hydrology and pollutant Consistent. As described above, the project designed to loading; require incorporation of controls, including maintain existing natural drainage patterns to the extent structural and non-structural BMP’s, to mitigate the feasible, and incorporate drainage facilities to retain, projected increases in pollutant loads and flows; ensure filter and infiltrate, stormwater flows so that flows to the that post-development runoff rates and velocities from a downstream facilities would remain at pre-project site have no significant adverse impact on downstream conditions. erosion and stream habitat; minimize the quantity of storm water directed to impermeable surfaces and the MS4s (storm drain system); and maximize the percentage of permeable surfaces to allow more percolation of storm water into the ground. Policy 11.5 Provide for appropriate permanent measures Consistent. Refer to the responses above in Policies 11.1 to reduce storm water pollutant loads in storm water and 11.2. from the development site. Policy 13 Urban and Storm Runoff Regulations. The Consistent. A Conceptual WQMP has been prepared for following policies establish a framework for the reduction the proposed project. The Final WQMP would be of water pollution. The policies described updated reviewed and approved by the County prior to issuance objectives for responding to current water pollution of a grading permit for the project. The Final WQMP regulations referenced on page VI-56 of the Resources would implement BMPs to comply with applicable Element. existing regulations for eliminating or minimizing Establish a Condition of Approval to ensure that pollutants in storm water runoff during construction and permanent water quality treatment BMPs are adequately operation of the project. constructed, operated and maintained throughout the life of the project. Resources Element Policy 5 Water Quality. To protect water quality through Consistent. A Conceptual WQMP has been prepared for management and enforcement efforts. the proposed project, and the Final WQMP would be reviewed and approved by the County prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project. The Final WQMP would implement BMPs to comply with applicable existing regulations for eliminating or minimizing pollutants in storm water runoff during construction and operation of the project. The Final WQMP and BMPs would constitute management and enforcement efforts consistent with this policy. Policy 3 Energy Conservation. To encourage and actively Consistent. The project would include the following support the utilization of energy conservation measures in energy conserving features in compliance with Title 24: all new and existing structures in the County.  Builder-installed indoor appliances, including

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 52 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

Goals, Objectives and Policies Project Consistency dishwashers, showers and toilets, would be low- water use.  Drought-tolerant, native landscaping would be used.  Smart Controller irrigation systems would be installed public and common area landscaping. Transportation Element Policy 3.2 Ensure that all intersections within the Consistent. The proposed project would not result in unincorporated portion of Orange County maintain a peak roadways or intersections operating at a LOS “D” or hour level of service “D”, according to the County Growth worse. Management Plan Transportation Implementation Manual. Policy 5.1 Establish “traffic impact fees” for application to Consistent. The project would pay all applicable traffic County development projects with measureable traffic impact fees as defined in the Growth Management impacts, as defined in the Growth Management Element Element of the General Plan as required by the County of of the General Plan. These fees may serve as local Orange. matching funds for Orange County Measure “M” state and federal highway funding programs. Noise Element Policy 4.1 To enforce the County’s Noise Ordinance to Consistent. The project would comply with the County’s prohibit or mitigate harmful and unnecessary noise within Noise Ordinance during both construction and operation. the County. Potential operational noise impacts would be mitigated with implementation of construction related mitigation measures. While construction noise may temporarily exceed levels permitted by the County of Orange Noise Ordinance, such noise is treated as being in compliance if it occurs during the designated construction hours prescribed by the Noise Ordinance. As the project’s construction activities would occur during the designated construction hours, the project would comply with the Noise Ordinance. The project’s operational noise from the residential land uses would not exceed the County’s exterior or interior noise standards. Goal 5 To fully integrate noise considerations in land use Consistent. The project’s proposed single-family land planning to prevent new noise/land use conflicts. uses would not result in noise in excess of the County’s exterior or interior noise standards. I Policy 5.1 To utilize the criteria of acceptable noise levels Consistent. The project’s proposed residential uses for various types of land uses as depicted in Table VIII-2 would be within the acceptable noise levels as depicted (in the County of Orange General Plan Noise Element) in in Table VIII-2 of the County’s General Plan. In addition, the review of development proposals. and as described above, project design features and would be implemented to ensure that nearby noise would be minimized. Goal 6 To identify and employ mitigation measures in Consistent. The project would comply with the County of order to reduce the impact of noise levels and attain the Orange Noise Ordinance. Additionally, the project would standards established by the Noise Element, for both implement Project Description Features and mitigation interior areas and outdoor living areas for noise sensitive measures to minimize noise to the extent feasible.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 53 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

Goals, Objectives and Policies Project Consistency land uses. During project operation, project residents and surrounding noise sensitive receptors would not be exposed to noise levels that would exceed the standards established by the Noise Element. Policy 6.2 Continue enforcement of Chapter 35 of the Consistent. All new residential units developed as part of Uniform Building Code, currently adopted edition, and the the project would be constructed in accordance with the California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 25 California applicable provisions of Chapter 35 of the Uniform Administrative Code). Building Code and the California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 25 California Administrative Code). Policy 6.3 To require that all new residential units have an Consistent. The project would develop all residential interior noise level in living areas that is not greater than units developed in accordance with the County adopted 45 decibels CNEL with it being understood that standard noise standards. In addition, as described above, the new construction practices reduce the noise level by 12 residential units would be constructed in accordance decibels CNEL with the windows open and 20 decibels with the applicable provisions of Chapter 35 of the CNEL with the windows closed. Higher attenuation than Uniform Building Code and the California Noise listed above may be claimed if adequate field monitoring Insulation Standards (Title 25 California Administrative or acoustical studies are provided to and approved by the Code). County. Policy 6.5 All outdoor living areas associated with new Consistent. The project includes project design features residential uses shall be attenuated to less than 65 to ensure that residential uses would be in accordance decibels CNEL. with the County adopted noise standards. Policy 6.7 To apply noise standards as defined in the Consistent. The proposed residential uses would be Noise Element for noise-sensitive land uses. developed and operated consistent with the Noise Element standards for noise-sensitive land uses. As described above, Project Description Features and EIR prescribed mitigation measures would be implemented, which would apply the noise standards within the Noise Element. Housing Element Strategy 5a Encourage the use of energy conservation Consistent. Residential development as part of the features in residential construction, remodeling and project would conform to Title 24 energy requirements. existing homes. Other energy conserving features incorporated as part of the project include:  Builder-installed indoor appliances, including dishwashers, showers and toilets, would be low- water use.  Drought-tolerant, native landscaping would be used.  Smart Controller irrigation systems would be installed.

c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

No impact. The project site is developed and used for residential uses, and does not contain any natural lands that are subject the Orange County Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The Orange County Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan vegetation mapping identifies the site vicinity

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 54 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

as Developed. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts to habitat or natural community conservation plans.

11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

No impact. According to the County of Orange General Plan Resources Element, the project site is not located within a state-designated Mineral Resource Zone. The project area is developed with residential uses and has no history of mining. Implementation of the project would not cause the loss of availability of mineral resources valuable to the region or state, and no impact would occur.

b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

No impact. The project area and the surrounding vicinity are highly urbanized, and they are not in or near a mining site identified by the County of Orange General Plan. The proposed project would not cause a loss of availability of mining sites or gas fields, and no impact would occur.

12. NOISE.

The project site is located within an urban and developed area where existing noise sources consist of roadway noise and noise from nearby residential and commercial land uses. A Noise Impact Analysis was prepared based on the development and operation of 36 single-family residential units and is included as Appendix H (Urban Crossroads, 2015). The existing sensitive receptors near the project site are the adjacent residential land uses. Subsequent to the preparation of the Noise Impact Analysis the number of single- family residential units was reduced to 28 units. Based on this, the numeric analysis provided below (that was modeled based on 36 single-family residences) provides a conservative estimate that overstates (rather than understates) potential noise impacts. The closest existing residential lot is located approximately 10 feet north of the project site. The Noise Impact Analysis identified 11 sensitive receptors, which are listed below:

R1: The existing residential use located at the cul-de-sac of Larry Drive is located approximately 31 feet from the northwest corner of the project site.

R2: The existing residential use located 12 feet north of the project site at the cul-de-sac of Larry Drive.

R3: The existing residential use located at the cul-de-sac of Amies Road, approximately 10 feet north of the project site.

R4: The existing residential use located at the cul-de-sac of Amies Road, approximately 11 feet north of the project site.

R5: The existing residential use located at Hedlund Drive, approximately 48 feet from the northeast corner of the project site.

R6: The existing residential use located west of Hedlund Drive, approximately 37 feet from the project site.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 55 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

R7: The existing residential use located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Cerritos Avenue and Hedlund Drive, approximately 31 feet east of the project site.

R8: The existing residential use located approximately 99 feet south of the project site across Cerritos Avenue.

R9: The existing residential use located approximately 108 feet south of the project site across Cerritos Avenue.

R10: The existing residential use located approximately 106 feet south of the project site across Cerritos Avenue.

R11: The existing residential use located approximately 20 feet west of the project site on Spain Street.

In regards to land use planning, the County of Orange General Plan Noise Element states that 65 dBA CNEL is the critical sound-level criterion in guiding planning decisions for sensitive land uses, and the General Plan Noise Element Tables VIII-2 and VIII-3, which shows the acceptable levels of noise in affected areas, states that noise levels that are less than 65 dBA are compatible with outdoor living areas.

In order to control unnecessary, excessive and annoying generation of noise, the County of Orange Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code Division 6 Section 4) states that the following exterior noise standards apply to the generation of noise from all residential property when measured on any other residential property:

 Maximum noise level of 55 dBA between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.  Maximum noise level of 50 dBA between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

In addition, the County Noise Ordinance Section 4-6-6 provides the following interior noise standards that apply to all residential property:

 Maximum noise level of 55 dBA between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.  Maximum noise level of 45 dBA between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Noise Ordinance Section 4-6-7. Special Provision, states that noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property, provided said activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a Federal holiday are exempted from the noise level provisions.

Noise impacts evaluated within this IS/MND are considered significant if they are not consistent with the County’s Noise Ordinance regulations or are unlawful pursuant to the noise standards listed above.

Traffic noise impacts, which are not regulated in the County’s Noise Ordinance, would occur if the project traffic generates a noise level increase of 3.0 dBA or greater and would exceed the County’s exterior noise level standard of 65 dBA CNEL.

Would the project result in:

a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 56 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

Construction

Less than significant impact with Mitigation. The proposed project would involve the removal of existing structures and infrastructure and development of 28 single-family residences at the project site. Construction of the proposed project would require the use of heavy equipment during the grading and excavation activities at the project site, installation of new utilities, paving, and building fabrication for the proposed residential buildings. Development activities would also involve the use of smaller power tools, generators, and other sources of noise. During each stage of development, there would be a different mix of equipment. As such, construction activity noise levels at and near the project site would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of use of the various pieces of construction equipment.

The FTA has compiled data for outdoor noise levels for typical construction equipment, which is provided in Table 7. These noise levels would diminish rapidly with distance from the construction site at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. For example, a noise level of 84 dBA Leq measured at 50 feet from the noise source to the receptor would reduce to 78 dBA Leq at 100 feet from the source to the receptor, and reduce by another 6 dBA Leq to 72 dBA Leq at 200 feet from the source to the receptor.

TABLE 7 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT

Construction Equipment Noise Level (dBA, Leq at 50 feet)

Air Compressor 81 Backhoe 80 Compactor 82 Concrete Mixer 85 Concrete Pump 82 Crane (Mobile) 83 Dozer 85 Generator 81 Grader 85 Jack Hammer 88 Loader 85 Paver 89 Pile –Driver (Impact) 101 Pile-Driver (Sonic) 96 Roller 74 Saw 76 Scraper 89 Truck 88

SOURCE: FTA, 2006.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 57 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

During project construction, two basic types of activities would be expected to occur and generate noise at the project site. One of these activities would involve demolition, grading, and excavation at the project site to accommodate the foundation for the proposed residential uses. The second type of construction activity that would generate noise would involve the physical construction of the proposed residential units. Due to the use of construction equipment, the proposed project would expose these surrounding offsite sensitive receptors to increased episodic exterior noise levels at the noise-sensitive receptors surrounding the project site.

Table 8 lists the peak short-term composite noise levels from construction equipment for each stage of project construction at the 11 sensitive receiver locations that surround the project site. As shown, the peak construction noise levels are expected to range from 82.6 to 98.1 dBA Leq at the existing sensitive receptors. Therefore, construction noise would result in a temporary/periodic increase above the existing ambient noise at the nearby residential land uses. However, pursuant to Section 4-6-7 (Special Provision) of the County’s Municipal Code, noise sources associated with construction activities are exempt from the County’s noise standards provided that these activities do not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, on Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 that requires the Municipal Code allowable construction timelines to be included on project plans would ensure that construction activities associated with the proposed project would comply with these hours of operation, and therefore would be exempted from the noise standards established in the County Municipal Code. Thus, a conflict with noise of standards would not occur and impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1.

In addition, to reduce the construction related temporary/periodic increase in noise, noise reduction mitigation measures would be implemented. A specific evaluation of both construction and operational temporary/periodic increase in noise is provided below in response 12.d, along with necessary mitigation measures.

TABLE 8 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS*

Construction Phase Hourly Noise Level (dBA Lmax) Noise Feet to Property Receiver Line Arch Demo Site Prep Grading Paving Building Const Coatings Peak R1 31 76.0 73.0 88.2 75.7 88.3 84.0 88.3 R2 12 84.2 81.2 96.5 84.0 96.5 92.2 96.5 R3 10 85.8 82.8 98.0 85.6 98.1 93.8 98.1 R4 11 84.3 81.3 96.5 84.0 96.6 92.3 96.6 R5 48 71.8 68.8 84.0 71.5 84.1 79.8 84.1 R6 37 74.0 71.0 86.3 73.8 86.3 82.0 86.3 R7 31 75.6 72.6 87.8 75.3 87.9 83.6 87.9 R8 99 71.1 68.1 83.3 70.9 83.4 79.1 83.4 R9 108 70.3 67.3 82.6 70.1 82.6 78.3 82.6 R10 106 70.5 67.5 82.7 70.3 82.8 78.5 82.8 R11 20 79.9 76.9 92.1 79.7 92.2 87.9 92.2

Source: Cerritos Avenue Noise Impact Analysis

*Based on 36 Single-Family Units.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 58 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

Mitigation Measures

NOI-1: Prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permit, the County’s Building and/or Grading Plan Check Section shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that noise- generating project construction activities shall only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, including Saturdays, with no activity on Sundays or federal holidays. The project construction supervisor shall ensure compliance with the note and the County shall conduct periodic inspection at its discretion.

Operation – Off-Site Traffic Noise Impacts

Less than significant impact. To assess the potential off-site transportation noise impacts associated with development of the proposed project, noise contours were developed based on the Cerritos Avenue Traffic Impact Analysis (included as Appendix F). Noise contour boundaries represent the equal levels of noise exposure and are measured in CNEL from the center of the roadway. Noise contours were developed for the following traffic scenarios:

 Existing Without / With Project: This scenario refers to the existing present-day noise conditions, without the project and with the construction of the proposed project.

 Opening Year Without / With Project: This scenario refers to the estimated background noise conditions at the Opening Year with and without the proposed project. This scenario corresponds to Opening Year conditions, and includes all cumulative projects identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis.

 Year 2035 Without / With Project: This scenario refers to the background noise conditions at future Year 2035 with and without the proposed project. This scenario corresponds to 2035 conditions, and includes all cumulative projects identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis.

To quantify the project's traffic noise impacts on the surrounding areas, the changes in traffic noise levels on eight roadway segments surrounding the project were calculated based on the changes in the average daily traffic volumes. The noise contours were used to assess the project's incremental traffic- related cumulative noise impacts at land uses adjacent to roadways conveying project traffic. Tables 9 through 14 provides the unmitigated exterior traffic noise levels for the eight study area roadway segments that were analyzed to assess the without project and with project noise levels in the Existing, Opening Year, and Year 2035 conditions.

Tables 9 and 10 provide the existing noise levels without and with 28 single-family residential units at eight roadway segments. As shown, existing exterior noise levels range from 65.0 to 69.9 dBA CNEL, and implementation of the project is anticipated to generate an unmitigated exterior noise level increase of up to 0.1 dBA CNEL, which is less than the 3.0 dBA increase threshold. Thus, the increase in off-site traffic noise from the proposed project would be less than significant.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 59 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

TABLE 9 EXISTING NOISE CONDITIONS

Distance to Centerline (Feet) CNEL at Nearest 70 65 60 Adjacent dBA dBA dBA Road Segment Adjacent Land Use Land Use (dBA) CNEL CNEL CNEL Gilbert Street n/o Chanticleer Road Suburban Residential 67.5 RW 59 127 Gilbert Street s/o Chanticleer Road Suburban Residential 66.8 RW 53 113 Brookhurst Street n/o Cerritos Avenue Low Density Residential 67.4 RW 86 186 Brookhurst Street s/o Cerritos Avenue Low Density Residential 67.1 RW 83 178 Ball Road w/o Gilbert Street Corridor Residential 69.9 RW 106 228 Cerritos Avenue e/o Gilbert Street Suburban Residential 65.0 RW 40 86 Cerritos Avenue e/o Driveway 1 Suburban Residential 65.0 RW 40 86 Cerritos Avenue w/o Brookhurst Street Suburban Residential 65.0 RW 40 86

Source: Cerritos Avenue Noise Impact Analysis RW = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road.

TABLE 10 EXISTING WITH PROJECT NOISE CONDITIONS*

Distance to Centerline (Feet) CNEL at Nearest 70 65 60 Adjacent dBA dBA dBA Road Segment Adjacent Land Use Land Use (dBA) CNEL CNEL CNEL Gilbert Street n/o Chanticleer Road Suburban Residential 67.5 RW 59 128 Gilbert Street s/o Chanticleer Road Suburban Residential 66.8 RW 53 114 Brookhurst Street n/o Cerritos Avenue Low Density Residential 67.4 RW 87 187 Brookhurst Street s/o Cerritos Avenue Low Density Residential 67.1 RW 83 179 Ball Road w/o Gilbert Street Corridor Residential 69.9 RW 106 229 Cerritos Avenue e/o Gilbert Street Suburban Residential 65.1 RW 41 87 Cerritos Avenue e/o Driveway 1 Suburban Residential 65.0 RW 40 87 Cerritos Avenue w/o Brookhurst Street Suburban Residential 65.1 RW 41 87

Source: Cerritos Avenue Noise Impact Analysis RW = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road.

*Based on 36 Single-Family Units.

Tables 11 and 12 provide the estimated Opening Year noise condition without and with 28 single-family residential units at eight roadway segments. As shown, the Opening Year off-site traffic noise levels without the project would range from 65.2 to 70.1 dBA CNEL, and would increase 65.3 to 70.1 dBA CNEL with 28 single-family residential units, which would generate an unmitigated exterior noise level increase of up to 0.1 dBA CNEL, which is less than the 3.0 dBA increase threshold. Therefore, off-site traffic noise levels in the Opening Year with the proposed project would be less than significant.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 60 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

TABLE 11 OPENING YEAR WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS NOISE CONTOURS*

Distance to Centerline (Feet) CNEL at Nearest 70 65 60 Adjacent dBA dBA dBA Road Segment Adjacent Land Use Land Use (dBA) CNEL CNEL CNEL Gilbert Street n/o Chanticleer Road Suburban Residential 67.7 RW 61 131 Gilbert Street s/o Chanticleer Road Suburban Residential 67.0 RW 54 116 Brookhurst Street n/o Cerritos Avenue Low Density Residential 67.7 RW 90 194 Brookhurst Street s/o Cerritos Avenue Low Density Residential 67.3 RW 86 185 Ball Road w/o Gilbert Street Corridor Residential 70.1 51 109 235 Cerritos Avenue e/o Gilbert Street Suburban Residential 65.2 RW 41 89 Cerritos Avenue e/o Driveway 1 Suburban Residential 65.2 RW 41 89 Cerritos Avenue w/o Brookhurst Street Suburban Residential 65.2 RW 41 89

Source: Cerritos Avenue Noise Impact Analysis RW = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road.

*Based on 36 Single-Family Units.

TABLE 12 OPENING YEAR WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS NOISE CONTOURS*

Distance to Centerline (Feet) CNEL at Nearest 70 65 60 Adjacent dBA dBA dBA Road Segment Adjacent Land Use Land Use (dBA) CNEL CNEL CNEL Gilbert Street n/o Chanticleer Road Suburban Residential 67.7 RW 61 131 Gilbert Street s/o Chanticleer Road Suburban Residential 67.0 RW 54 117 Brookhurst Street n/o Cerritos Avenue Low Density Residential 67.7 RW 90 195 Brookhurst Street s/o Cerritos Avenue Low Density Residential 67.3 RW 86 185 Ball Road w/o Gilbert Street Corridor Residential 70.1 51 109 235 Cerritos Avenue e/o Gilbert Street Suburban Residential 65.3 RW 42 90 Cerritos Avenue e/o Driveway 1 Suburban Residential 65.3 RW 42 90 Cerritos Avenue w/o Brookhurst Street Suburban Residential 65.3 RW 42 90

Source: Cerritos Avenue Noise Impact Analysis RW = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. *Based on 36 Single-Family Units.

Tables 13 and 14 provide the year 2035 noise condition without and with 28 single-family residential units at eight roadway segments. As shown, 2035 off-site traffic noise levels are expected to range from 67.2 to 70.3 dBA CNEL and would increase to 67.2 to 70.4 dBA CNEL with 28 single-family residential units in 2035, which would generate an unmitigated exterior noise level increase of up to 0.1 dBA CNEL, which is less than the 3.0 dBA increase threshold. Therefore, the increase in off-site traffic noise levels in 2035 by implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 61 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

TABLE 13 YEAR 2035 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS NOISE CONTOURS*

Distance to Centerline (Feet) CNEL at Nearest 70 65 60 Adjacent dBA dBA dBA Road Segment Adjacent Land Use Land Use (dBA) CNEL CNEL CNEL Gilbert Street n/o Chanticleer Road Suburban Residential 68.0 RW 63 136 Gilbert Street s/o Chanticleer Road Suburban Residential 67.2 RW 56 121 Brookhurst Street n/o Cerritos Avenue Low Density Residential 70.3 63 136 293 Brookhurst Street s/o Cerritos Avenue Low Density Residential 69.6 RW 122 264 Ball Road w/o Gilbert Street Corridor Residential 70.3 52 113 243 Cerritos Avenue e/o Gilbert Street Suburban Residential 67.4 RW 58 125 Cerritos Avenue e/o Driveway 1 Suburban Residential 67.4 RW 58 125 Cerritos Avenue w/o Brookhurst Street Suburban Residential 67.4 RW 58 125

Source: Cerritos Avenue Noise Impact Analysis RW = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. *Based on 36 Single-Family Units.

TABLE 14 YEAR 2035 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS NOISE CONTOURS*

Distance to Centerline (Feet) CNEL at Nearest 70 65 60 Adjacent dBA dBA dBA Road Segment Adjacent Land Use Land Use (dBA) CNEL CNEL CNEL Gilbert Street n/o Chanticleer Road Suburban Residential 68.0 RW 63 136 Gilbert Street s/o Chanticleer Road Suburban Residential 67.2 RW 56 121 Brookhurst Street n/o Cerritos Avenue Low Density Residential 70.4 63 136 294 Brookhurst Street s/o Cerritos Avenue Low Density Residential 69.7 RW 123 264 Ball Road w/o Gilbert Street Corridor Residential 70.3 53 113 244 Cerritos Avenue e/o Gilbert Street Suburban Residential 67.5 RW 59 127 Cerritos Avenue e/o Driveway 1 Suburban Residential 67.5 RW 59 127 Cerritos Avenue w/o Brookhurst Street Suburban Residential 67.5 RW 59 127

Source: Cerritos Avenue Noise Impact Analysis RW = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. *Based on 36 Single-Family Units.

Operation – Onsite Exterior Noise Impacts

Less than significant impact. The primary source of ambient noise in the project vicinity is traffic noise along Cerritos Avenue. The proposed project would also experience some background traffic noise impacts from the project’s internal streets, however, due to the low traffic volume/speed; traffic noise from internal roadways would not make a significant contribution to the noise environment.

However, as shown on Table 14 that exterior noise levels from Cerritos Avenue would be above the County of Orange 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standard for single-family residential development in the proposed onsite outdoor living areas (backyards) in the lots adjacent to Cerritos Avenue. Because of this condition that would occur in 2035 without the project, the proposed project includes noise barriers that would be a minimum height of 5-foot high, for lots adjacent to Cerritos Avenue. Noise barriers that are a minimum of 5-feet high would reduce noise from traffic on Cerritos Avenue in 2035 to 64.1 dBA CNEL, which is below the County’s exterior noise level standard for outdoor living areas. With inclusion

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 62 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

of the planned noise barriers, noise impacts to onsite residents from roadway noise would be less then significant.

The project site is located in the vicinity of Disneyland, which operates a firework show on a nightly basis on Fridays through Sundays, beginning at approximately 9:15 p.m. and lasts 10-12 minutes, which is outside of the noise sensitive nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The fireworks show occur approximately 13,716 feet (2.60 miles) east of the project site. Given the attenuation provided by the site’s distance to the noise source, noise levels from the firework activities are 61.2 dBA on site, which is less than the exterior noise level standard for single-family residential development. Therefore, impacts to onsite residents from this existing activity would be less than significant.

Other typical noise sources associated with operation of the proposed project would be from heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and exhaust fans that would be installed on the buildings. Although the operation of project-related HVAC equipment would generate noise levels, these noise levels would not be of a magnitude that would disturb the existing offsite sensitive receptors. As described above, Section 4-6-5 of the County Municipal Code states that the County’s exterior noise standards for residential properties are 55 dBA during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 50 dBA during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Therefore, impacts related to the proposed HVAC systems would be less than significant.

Operation – Onsite Interior Noise Impacts

Less than significant impact. As described above, the County’s Noise Ordinance provides an interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL. The Cerritos Avenue Traffic Impact Analysis (included as Appendix F), calculated future noise levels at the proposed first and second floor building facades. The project includes several features that would reduce interior noise levels in residential units, which include: the minimum 5 foot noise barriers along Cerritos Avenue, windows with a minimum sound transmission class rating of 27, doors that are well weather-stripped solid core assemblies of at least one and three- fourths-inch thick, well-constructed and insulated roofs and ceilings, non-opening windows fronting Cerritos Avenue, and forced air circulation systems would reduce the anticipated exterior noise levels to below the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level standard for residential development. Therefore, impacts related to onsite interior noise levels would be less than significant.

b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?

Less than significant impact. Project construction activities would include grading and excavation, which would have the potential to generate low levels of groundborne vibration. As such, the existing residential uses located in the immediate vicinity of the project site could be exposed to the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels related to construction activities. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to structural damage at the highest levels. Site ground vibrations from construction activities very rarely reach the levels that can damage structures, but they may be perceived in buildings very close to a construction site. As part of the project, no pile driving activities would be required.

The various PPV and RMS velocity (in VdB) levels for the types of construction equipment that generate substantial vibration and would be used for construction of the proposed project are identified in Table 15. Based on the information presented in Table15, vibration velocities could reach as high as approximately 0.031 inch-per-second PPV at 50 feet from the source activity, depending on the type of

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 63 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

construction equipment in use. This corresponds to a RMS velocity level (in VdB) of 78 VdB at 50 feet from the source activity. The FTA’s vibration threshold for residences or places where people reside is 80 VdB. None of the nearby residential structures would be exposed to vibration levels that would exceed the FTA’s vibration threshold. Therefore, impacts related to temporary construction-related vibration would be less than significant.

TABLE 15 VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT

Approximate PPV (in/sec) Approximate RMS (VdB)

Equipment 25 Feet 50 Feet 60 Feet 75 Feet 100 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet 60 Feet 75 Feet 100 Feet

Excavator 0.089 0.031 0.024 0.017 0.011 87 78 76 73 69 Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 0.024 0.017 0.011 87 78 76 73 69 Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.027 0.020 0.015 0.010 86 77 75 72 68 Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.009 0.007 0.004 79 70 68 65 61 Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.0008 0.0006 0.0004 58 49 47 44 40

SOURCE: FTA, 2006.

Operation of the proposed residential uses would not include stationary equipment that would result in high vibration levels, which are more typical for large industrial projects. While groundborne vibration within and surrounding the project site may result from heavy-duty vehicular travel (e.g., refuse trucks and delivery trucks) on the nearby local roadways, this would not result in significant vibration impacts to the proposed project. As such, vibration impacts associated with operation of the proposed project would be less than significant.

c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

Less than significant impact. The increase in traffic resulting from implementation of the proposed project would increase the ambient noise levels at sensitive uses located in proximity to the proposed project area. The Traffic Study prepared for the proposed project was used by the Noise Impact Analysis to anticipate increases in roadway noise levels to determine if the proposed project’s vehicular traffic would result in a significant impact at noise-sensitive receptor locations in proximity to the proposed project area. As described above in response 12.a), development of 28 single-family residential units would generate less than a 1.5 dBA noise increase in the existing condition, opening year condition, and 2035 condition, which is a less than significant impact.

Also as described above, the onsite vehicular noise and HVAC equipment installed on the proposed single-family residential units at the project site would not generate noise levels that would be of a magnitude that would disturb the existing off-site sensitive receptors. Thus, the vehicular and HVAC- related noise levels generated by the proposed project would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels at the nearby offsite sensitive receptors above existing levels without the project. As a result, this impact would be less than significant.

d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 64 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

Less than significant impact with Mitigation. As described under Impact 12.a) the highest construction noise levels would occur during grading activities at the edge of the project site. As shown on Table 8, the peak construction noise levels are expected to range from 82.6 to 98.1 dBA at existing sensitive receptors. Therefore, construction noise would result in a temporary/periodic increase above the existing ambient noise at the nearby residential uses. The increase in noise levels at the offsite locations during construction would be temporary in nature, and would not generate continuously high noise levels. As described above, Section 4-6-7 (Special Provision) of the County’s Municipal Code exempts construction noise provided that construction does not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, on Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 (listed above) that requires Municipal Code allowable construction timelines to be included on the project plan, would ensure that the proposed project would comply with these hours. In addition, to reduce the temporary and periodic increase in ambient noise that would result from construction of the proposed project Mitigation Measures NOI-2 through NOI-4 would be implemented, which would reduce construction related noise by ensuring properly operating equipment, locating equipment staging away from the adjacent off-site residential units, and limiting the hours of haul truck deliveries. With implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-4, construction related temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

NOI-2: Prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permit, the County’s Building and/or Grading Plan Check Section shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that during all project construction activities, the construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturer standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receivers nearest the project site.

NOI-3: Prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permit, the County’s Building and/or Grading Plan Check Section shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that the construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise sensitive receivers nearest the project site (i.e., at the center) during all project construction activities.

NOI-4: Prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permit, the County’s Building and/or Grading Plan Check Section shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that the construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction activity (between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, including Saturdays, with no activity on Sundays or federal holidays).

e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a private or public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

No impact. The nearest airport to the project site is the Fullerton Municipal Airport, located approximately four miles northwest of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in exposure of persons to airport or air flight related noises. No impact would occur.

f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working the project area to excessive noise levels?

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 65 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

No impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, project implementation would not expose people to airstrip or aircraft noises.

13. POPULATION & HOUSING. Would the project:

a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

Less than significant impact. Based on the average household size of 3.2 persons per household for unincorporated Orange County areas (2010 Census), the proposed 28 residential unit project would result in approximately 90 residents at full occupancy. The project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of Suburban Residential 1B, which allows a maximum of 18 dwelling units per acre that (based on 3.2 persons per household) would result in approximately 57 residents per acre. On a 3.17- acre site this would total approximately 180 residents. However, the proposed project would develop 28 residential units, which would result in 8.83 units per acre and approximately 90 residents, which would not exceed the General Plan Land Use designation maximum of 18 dwelling units per acre that could result in 180 residents. Therefore, the population generated by the proposed project would be within the maximum population anticipated for the site within the County’s General Plan, and would be consistent with residential land uses in the County of Orange Housing Element. As such, the project would not directly induce substantial population growth in the project area, and the project would result in less than significant impacts.

In addition, the project would develop infrastructure within the boundaries of the project site (water, sewer, and roadways) to serve the proposed 28 residential units, and would connect to the existing public systems within Cerritos Avenue. The project does not involve the extension of off-site roadways or infrastructure, and would not otherwise create capacity that could indirectly induce substantial population and growth in the area. Therefore, indirect impacts related to population and growth would not occur.

b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No impact. The project site includes of two single-family residential structures and one preschool. The proposed project would remove the existing residences and would provide 28 new detached single- family residential units within the area. Development of the project would result in a greater number of residential units to house residents of the area. Therefore, impacts related to substantial displacement of housing or persons that would require replacement housing elsewhere would not occur.

c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No impact. As described above, the proposed project would remove the two existing residences and provide 28 new residential units to house residents of the area. Based on the average of 3.2 persons per household, the elimination of two existing dwelling units would result in the displacement of slightly less than seven persons. Project implementation would not displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, impacts related to necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere would not occur.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 66 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:

a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

i. Fire protection?

Less than significant impact. Fire protection and emergency medical services in the vicinity of the project area are provided by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). The closest OCFA stations to the project site are:

 Fire Station 46 located 1.7 miles from the project site at 7871 Pacific Street, Stanton  Fire Station 63 located 3.3 miles from the project site at 9120 Holder Street, Buena Park

The proposed project would develop 28 single-family homes and would result in a new resident population of approximately 90 persons on the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would be required to adhere to the County of Orange Fire Code related to fire prevention and is subject to review by the OCFA, which would review the project plans to ensure that it meets the fire protection requirements. The project would result in an incrementally increased demand for fire protection and emergency medical services; however, the increase in population is limited and within an area already served by the OCFA, and would not increase demands such that provision of new or physically altered fire station would be required. Therefore, impacts related to fire protection services would be less than significant.

ii. Police protection?

Less than significant impact. The Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department (OCSD) provides police services to the project area. The North Operations, based at Sheriff’s Headquarters in Santa Ana, is responsible for patrol in the north Orange County unincorporated areas, which includes the project site. The closest OCSD station is located in Stanton at 11100 Cedar Street, which is 1.8 miles southwest of the project site. As discussed in impact 14.a), project implementation would result in a residential population of approximately 90 persons on the project site. This would incrementally increase the demand for police protection services. However, the increase in population is limited and within an area already served by the OCSD, and would not increase demand such that provision of new or physically altered sheriff facilities would be required. Therefore, impacts related to police protection services would be less than significant.

iii. Schools?

Less than significant impact. The project site is located within the Magnolia School District, which operates nine elementary schools (K-6 grades) within the City of Anaheim and one within the City of Stanton. The nearest elementary school is the Jonas E. Salk Elementary School located less than a quarter-mile east. In addition, the project site is located within the Anaheim Union High School District (7-12 grades). The nearest middle school is the Dale Junior High School located approximately one-mile northwest of the project site. The nearest high school within the district boundary is Magnolia High School.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 67 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

The Magnolia School District anticipates that single-family residential units have a generation rate of 0.406 elementary school (K-6) students, and the Anaheim Union High School District has a generation rate of 0.26 per unit for grades 7-12 (Anaheim UHSD, 2015). Thus, the project would generate a maximum of 18 students, which would be 20 percent of the 90 resident onsite population.

TABLE 16 ESTIMATED STUDENT GENERATION

School Level Generation Rate Total Students

Elementary School (grades k-6) 0.406 11 Grades 7-12 0.26 7

Total 18

Sources: Anaheim Union High School District Developer Fee Impact Analysis and School Planning Services Incorporated, 2015.

While project implementation would result in an incremental increase in the demand for school facilities resulting from the maximum 18 students that would reside on the project site, the project would be required to pay development fees that would offset the need for educational facilities. Overall, the addition of 18 school-age children is not anticipated to result in the need for new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. In addition, payment of the appropriate school fees would be required in accordance with Senate Bill 50 (SB 50). Pursuant to SB 50, payment of the school development fees is considered full mitigation. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts to school facilities.

iv. Parks?

Less than significant impact. There are several parks within the vicinity of the project site. The closest parks to the project site include:

 Modjeska Park: 23.5-acres, located at 1331 South Nutwood Street, approximately 1.1 miles from the project;

 Willow Park: located at 1625 W Crone Avenue, approximately 1.6 miles from the project;

 Maxwell Park: 22-acres, located at 2655 W Orange Avenue, approximately 1.7 miles from the project;

 Barton Park: 4.8- acres and located at 1926 W Clearbrook Lane, approximately 1.7 miles from the project;

 Palm Lane Park: 7-acres and located at 595 W Palais Road, approximately 1.8 miles from the project;

 Energy Field Park: 2.6-acres and located at 1625 S 9th Street, approximately 2.0 miles from the project;

 Chaparral Park: 10-acres and located at 1770 W Broadway, approximately 2.5 miles from the project;

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 68 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

 Schweitzer Park: 11.5 acres and located at 238 S Belair Street, approximately 2.6 miles from the project;

 Stoddard Park: 9.4-acres and located at 1901 S 9th Street, approximately 2.6 miles from the project;

 Twila Reid Park: 27.2-acres and located at 3100 W Orange Avenue, approximately 2.9 miles from the project;

The proposed project would generate approximately 90 new residents on the project site that may utilize recreational facilities. The County of Orange General Plan Recreation Element includes a goal to provide 2.5 acres of local parkland per 1,000 residents, and also allows for the payment of in-lieu fees, which are included in the County’s Municipal Code Sections 7-9-502 through 7-9-524. Thus, the applicant would be required to pay the appropriate park fees prior to the issuance of building permits in order to offset the increase in demand and use of recreational facilities. Furthermore, the increase in population as a result of the project is nominal in relation to the number of existing parks and parkland acreage in the area; and the project is within the General Plan anticipated build out; therefore, the proposed project would not significantly impact existing recreational facilities. Overall, there are various existing park facilities, and the 28 residential units and 90 residents that would be generated from the proposed project would not result in the need for new or physically altered park facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, impacts associated with park services and facilities would be less than significant.

v. Other public facilities?

Less than significant impact. The Orange County Library includes 33 branches and an online catalog. The closest branch to the project site is approximately 2.4 miles from the site, located at 7850 Katella Avenue in the City of Stanton. In addition, the Garden Grove branch is approximately 3.8 miles from the project site. The Orange County Library has adopted a service ratio of 0.2 square feet of library facility floor area per capita (e.g., 10,000 square feet per 50,000 residents) and 1.3 book volumes per capita. Based on these service ratios, the project would generate a need for 18 additional square feet of library space and approximately 36 additional book volumes. Due to the proximity of the project site to the Stanton and Garden Grove County library facilities and the County’s online catalog that provides countywide services, the effect of any one library would be nominal and distributed over the local vicinity. As such, the project would not result in a substantial adverse impact on the ability to provide library services. Furthermore, the applicant would be required to pay development impact fees (pursuant to the County’s Municipal Code Section 7-9- 700 through 7-9-713), which would off-set the increase in demand for library facilities. Overall, the project would result in an incrementally higher demand for such services; however, these increases would be met by existing library facilities and payment of development fees. Potential impacts would be less than significant because the project would not result in the need for new or physically altered library facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts.

15. RECREATION. Would the project:

a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 69 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

Less than significant impact. As described above in response to 14.a.iv, there are various existing park and recreation facilities in the vicinity of the project site and the residents generated by the proposed project would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks in the area. The applicant would be accessed an in-lieu park fees, pursuant to County Municipal Code Section 7-9-523, that would help offset any effects due to the project’s contribution to an increase in population and a subsequent increase in park and recreation facility usage. As described above, the increase in population as a result of the project is nominal, within the General Plan anticipated build out, and would not significantly impact existing recreational facilities Therefore, impacts related to the substantial physical deterioration of recreation facilities would be less than significant.

b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Less than significant impact. The proposed project does not include any recreation facilities and would not require the expansion of any existing recreational facilities. As described above in response to 14.a.iv and 15.a, the increase in population as a result of the project is nominal, within the General Plan anticipated build out, and would not significantly impact existing recreational facilities. The project would contribute in-lieu park fees towards the future expansion or maintenance parks and recreational facilities, these fees are standard with every residential development, and the proposed project would not require the construction or expansion of other recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. As a result, impacts related to recreation are less than significant.

16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:

A Focused Traffic Analysis was prepared by Urban Crossroads and is included as Appendix I. The Focused Traffic Analysis was originally based on the development and operation of 40 single-family residential units that was subsequently revised based on the reduction in units to the proposed development of 36 single- family residential units. Subsequent to the preparation of the revised analysis, the number of proposed residential units has been further reduced to 28 single-family units. The intersection analysis includes eight intersections (three of which are proposed project site driveways) that are listed In Table 17, which were chosen because they are closest to the project site, would receive the most of the project generated trips, and were selected in coordination with the County of Orange transportation staff (Urban Crossroads. 2015). The reduction of single-family residential units also resulted in a revised site plan that reduced the number of proposed driveways from Cerritos Avenue from three to two. To identify the existing conditions, manual weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour turning movement counts were conducted in January 2015, and are summarized in Table 17, which shows that the study area intersections are operating at LOS A in the a.m. and p.m. peak hour, except for the intersection of Gilbert Street and Ball Road, which operates at LOS B in the p.m. peak hour. The reduction from 36 single-family units to 28 single-family units would not create new impacts to air quality or require mitigation.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 70 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

TABLE 17 STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS EXISTING CONDITIONS

ICU Delay ICU Delay LOS LOS Intersection Location Jurisdiction AM PM AM PM

1 Gibert Street / Ball Road County of Orange/City of Anaheim 0.581 0.656 A B 2 Gibert Street / Chanticleer Road County of Orange/City of Anaheim 0.256 0.262 A A 3 Gibert Street / Cerritos Avenue County of Orange/City of Anaheim 0.473 0.488 A A 4 Gibert Street / Katella Avenue County of Orange/City of Anaheim 0.543 0.553 A A 5 Driveway 1 / Cerritos Avenue County of Orange To be developed with project 6 Driveway 2 / Cerritos Avenue County of Orange To be developed with project 7 Brookhurst Street / Cerritos Avenue County of Orange/City of Anaheim 0.377 0.436 A A 8 Driveway 3 / Cerritos Avenue County of Orange To be developed with project

Source: Cerritos Avenue Focused Traffic Analysis

County of Orange has identified Level of Service (LOS) D as the minimum traffic level to be considered acceptable for County maintained intersections. In addition, the County of Orange Growth Management Program (GMP) guidelines state that project traffic volumes resulting in a 1 percent increase in the Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratio of a deficient intersection (LOS E or F) as compared to the No Project condition is considered significantly impacted and mitigation measures are required to reduce the project’s impact to a level of insignificance.

For the purposes of this traffic study, potential impacts to traffic and circulation from 36 single-family units have been assessed for each of the following conditions:

 Existing Conditions (Baseline)  Existing Plus Project Conditions  Opening Year Without Project Conditions  Opening Year With Project Conditions  2035 Without Project Conditions  2035 With Project Conditions

The trip generation rates utilized by the Focused Traffic Analysis are based upon the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rate for single-family detached residential (ITE Land Use Code 210) in the Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012. As shown on Table 18, 36 single-family residential units are anticipated to generate a total of 343 trip‐ends per day with 27 vehicles per hour during the am peak hour and 36 vehicles per hour during the pm peak hour.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 71 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

TABLE 18 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ITE Land Use Code In Out Total In Out Total Daily

36 Single-Family Detached Units 210 7 20 27 23 13 36 343

Source: Cerritos Avenue Focused Traffic Analysis

a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

Less than significant impact. As shown on Table 18, 36 single-family residential units is estimated to generate a total of 343 trip‐ends per day with 27 vehicles per hour during the a.m. peak hour and 28 vehicles per hour during the p.m. peak hour. With the addition of project trips to both the existing condition and the opening year condition, the study area intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at LOS A and B, which is an acceptable level of service with and without the addition of project- related traffic (shown in Tables 19 through 21).

TABLE 19 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS*

LOS LOS Intersection Location ICU Delay AM ICU Delay PM AM PM

1 Gibert Street / Ball Road 0.584 0.659 A B 2 Gibert Street / Chanticleer Road 0.258 0.264 A A 3 Gibert Street / Cerritos Avenue 0.475 0.491 A A 4 Gibert Street / Katella Avenue 0.544 0.563 A A 5 Driveway 1 / Cerritos Avenue 11.4 11.5 B B 6 Driveway 2 / Cerritos Avenue 11.4 11.5 B B 7 Brookhurst Street / Cerritos Avenue 0.381 0.444 A A 8 Driveway 3 / Cerritos Avenue 11.4 11.5 B B

Source: Cerritos Avenue Focused Traffic Analysis *Based on 36 Single-Family Units.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 72 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

TABLE 20 OPENING YEAR WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS*

ICU ICU LOS LOS Delay Delay AM PM Intersection Location AM PM

1 Gibert Street / Ball Road 0.602 0.681 B B 2 Gibert Street / Chanticleer Road 0.266 0.272 A A 3 Gibert Street / Cerritos Avenue 0.491 0.505 A A 4 Gibert Street / Katella Avenue 0.563 0.583 A A 5 Driveway 1 / Cerritos Avenue To be developed with project 6 Driveway 2 / Cerritos Avenue To be developed with project 7 Brookhurst Street / Cerritos Avenue 0.398 0.456 A A 8 Driveway 3 / Cerritos Avenue To be developed with project

Source: Cerritos Avenue Focused Traffic Analysis *Based on 36 Single-Family Units.

TABLE 21 OPENING YEAR WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS*

LOS LOS Intersection Location ICU Delay AM ICU Delay PM AM PM

1 Gibert Street / Ball Road 0.605 0.684 B B 2 Gibert Street / Chanticleer Road 0.267 0.273 A A 3 Gibert Street / Cerritos Avenue 0.493 0.508 A A 4 Gibert Street / Katella Avenue 0.563 0.584 A A 5 Driveway 1 / Cerritos Avenue 11.6 11.7 B B 6 Driveway 2 / Cerritos Avenue 11.6 11.7 B B 7 Brookhurst Street / Cerritos Avenue 0.402 0.463 A A 8 Driveway 3 / Cerritos Avenue 11.6 11.7 B B

Source: Cerritos Avenue Focused Traffic Analysis *Based on 36 Single-Family Units.

In 2035 the study area intersections without the project would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (shown in Table 22). With operation of the proposed project, the only change in LOS would occur at one intersection (Gibert Street / Cerritos Avenue), which would drop from LOS A to LOS B in the p.m. peak hour as shown in Table 23. LOS B is an acceptable level of service; therefore, with the addition of project trips to the LOS anticipated in 2035, the study area intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service. As a result, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant traffic impacts related to an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 73 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

TABLE 22 YEAR 2035 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS*

ICU Delay ICU Delay LOS LOS Intersection Location AM PM AM PM

1 Gibert Street / Ball Road 0.648 0.759 B C 2 Gibert Street / Chanticleer Road 0.278 0.284 A A 3 Gibert Street / Cerritos Avenue 0.608 0.598 B A 4 Gibert Street / Katella Avenue 0.693 0.707 B C 5 Driveway 1 / Cerritos Avenue To be developed with project 6 Driveway 2 / Cerritos Avenue To be developed with project 7 Brookhurst Street / Cerritos Avenue 0.625 0.702 B C 8 Driveway 3 / Cerritos Avenue To be developed with project

Source: Cerritos Avenue Focused Traffic Analysis *Based on 36 Single-Family Units.

TABLE 23 YEAR 2035 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS*

LOS LOS Intersection Location ICU Delay AM ICU Delay PM AM PM

1 Gibert Street / Ball Road 0.651 0.762 B C 2 Gibert Street / Chanticleer Road 0.279 0.285 A A 3 Gibert Street / Cerritos Avenue 0.610 0.607 B B 4 Gibert Street / Katella Avenue 0.693 0.708 B C 5 Driveway 1 / Cerritos Avenue 13.2 13.7 B B 6 Driveway 2 / Cerritos Avenue 13.2 13.7 B B 7 Brookhurst Street / Cerritos Avenue 0.629 0.705 B C 8 Driveway 3 / Cerritos Avenue 13.2 13.7 B B

Source: Cerritos Avenue Focused Traffic Analysis *Based on 36 Single-Family Units.

b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

Less than significant impact. The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) is the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) responsible for the creation and implementation of the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP), which was last updated in 2013. The Program establishes a Highway System, which includes a series of intersections and highways throughout Orange County, also known as OCTA’s Smart Street network, and establishes minimum performance thresholds for these CMP facilities. Projects must demonstrate consistency with the OCTA’s performance thresholds on the Highway System if the project is estimated to either generate 2,400 or more Average Daily Trips (ADT) or contribute 1,600 or more ADT directly onto the highway system. As described above, the project would result in a total of 343 trip‐ends per day with 27 vehicles per hour during the a.m. peak hour and 36 vehicles per hour during the p.m. peak hour. Therefore, the traffic generated by the proposed project

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 74 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

would be less than the OCTA’s performance thresholds, and impacts related to the applicable CMP would be less than significant.

c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

No impact. The nearest airport to the project site is the Fullerton Municipal Airport, located approximately four miles northwest of the project site. The proposed residential uses would not result in changes to air traffic patterns or a change in air traffic locations. Therefore, there would be no impact.

d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

Less than significant impact. The project proposes only residential uses and related amenities, such as parking and landscaping. The project does not involve any uses that are incompatible with single-family residential units. Thus, the project would not result in hazards impacts related to incompatible uses.

The evaluation of potential increases in hazards because of a design feature typically involves determining if any project‐related features would result in changes to the circulation system that could result in physical impacts to automobile traffic or pedestrians. Some examples include poor sight‐ distance at intersections, sharp roadway curves, and placing a driveway/site‐access along a high‐speed roadway.

The proposed project would implement an onsite circulation system to provide access via two driveways from Cerritos Avenue to the residences. Access from Cerritos Avenue would be provided by two intersecting private streets connected by another internal private street in a “horse-shoe” configuration, accessible to all 28 units. Stop signs would be installed at each exiting street locations at Cerritos Avenue, and the private streets would be designed to provide safe and adequate ingress and egress from the project site. In addition, parking for each of the proposed residences would occur within the project boundaries. As part of the project permitting process, the site plan for the proposed project would be reviewed by the County Public Works Traffic Division to ensure adequate site distance at each project driveway, such that no traffic safety hazards would be created by the proposed project. As a result, the project would not result in a substantial increase in traffic hazards from a design feature, and impacts would be less than significant.

e. Result in inadequate emergency access?

No impact. Access to the project site would be provided along Cerritos Avenue, which is adjacent to the project site’s southern boundary. Construction activities would occur within the project site and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the project site or adjacent areas. In addition, travel along surrounding roadways would remain open and project-related construction activities and project operations would not interfere with emergency access to the site vicinity. The project is required to design and construct internal access, and size and location of fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and sprinklers) to conform to OCFA standards. The OCFA would review the development plans prior to approval to ensure adequate emergency access. The project would be required to meet fire access requirements in Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9). Also, as described above, the site plan would be reviewed by the County Public Works Traffic Division as part of the permitting process, who would ensure that final design details do not hinder emergency access. As such, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access, and impacts would not occur.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 75 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

No impact. The Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) provides transit services and bus stops within the immediate vicinity of the project site. There is an existing bus stop in front on the corner of Cerritos Avenue and Brookhurst Street and bus routes currently run along Brookhurst Street, Ball Road, Magnolia Street and Katella Avenue (OCTA Bus Routes: 33, 35, 46, and 50, respectively). In addition, a Class II bike lane exists along Brookhurst Street.

The proposed project would not alter or conflict with existing bus stops and schedules; nor would the project involve any off-site improvements that would change or otherwise impact bicycle routes or pedestrian facilities (including sidewalks). In addition, the project would not otherwise result in impediments to alternative transportation or conflict with programs regarding alternative transportation. The proposed project is not anticipated to result in a significant addition of bicycle and pedestrian trips. According to the 2014 American Community Survey, in Orange County, approximately 2.3 percent of commute trips are made by public transportation, 1.9 percent by walking, and 0.9 percent by biking. For the proposed project, the result would be approximately 6 public transportation trips, 1 walking trip, and less than 1 biking trip per day, which will not exceed the capacity of the existing public transportation, bicycle, or pedestrian network. Thus, the proposed project would not result in conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs, regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance of such facilities, and impacts would not occur.

17. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:

a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

Less than significant impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the generation of wastewater from the new residential units. The existing Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) wastewater facilities that serve the project site would continue to treat wastewater from the proposed uses in accordance with the wastewater treatment requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. The proposed residential uses would generate typical domestic sewage, which does not require pretreatment. The proposed land uses would not (1) process any industrial wastewater; (2) involve dewatering or groundwater cleanup; (3) directly discharge sewage effluent; or (4) engage in other activities that would generate wastewater requiring treatment beyond what is provided at OCSD’s treatment facilities. Thus, the addition of residential-related wastewater generated by the proposed project would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the OCSD facilities. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable RWQCB.

b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts?

Less than significant impact. The project area receives water services from the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department, which provides water services to approximately 468 acres that are outside of the city limits, such as the proposed project site. The project would connect to existing water service lines located in Cerritos Avenue. Water service for both construction and operation of the proposed project would be provided via this connection. The City of Anaheim assumes a residential water demand of 105 gallons per day (gpd) per unit (Anaheim, 2010). As described above, the project site is currently occupied by two single-family residences and a preschool, which have an estimated water demand of 315 gpd. Based on this, the proposed project would result in an increased water demand of approximately 2,625

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 76 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

gpd. This limited increase in water demand would not require the construction of new water facilities; and thus, is less than significant.

The wastewater in the project vicinity is transported by the Garden Grove Sanitary District sewer system to the OCSD Plant 1 located in the City of Fountain Valley and/or Plant 2 located in the City of Huntington Beach. Plant 1 and Plant 2 provide primary and secondary treatment for an average dry weather flow of 123 and 65 million gallons of wastewater per day (mgd), respectively. Plant 1 has a design capacity of 204 mgd advanced primary and 182 mgd for secondary treatment, while Plant 2 has a design capacity of 168 mgd advanced primary and 150 mgd for secondary treatment. Both wastewater treatment plants have design capacities that exceed their current utilization, with Plant 1 presently having a 59 mgd secondary treatment surplus capacity and Plant 2 having a 85 mgd secondary treatment surplus capacity. Combined, both Plant 1 and Plant 2 currently have a 144 mgd combined surplus capacity (OCSD, 2015.).

Based upon OCSD’s wastewater generation flow factor of 1,488 gallons per day per acre for low density residential, the project site currently generates a need for 4,717 gallons. The proposed project would include uses that would increase the amount of sewage effluent requiring wastewater treatment. Based upon OCSD’s wastewater generation flow factor of 3,451 gallons per day per acre for medium residential (8-16 units per acre), the proposed project, which is 3.17 gross acres at a density of 8.83 dwelling units per acre, would generate a demand of approximately 10,940 gpd of wastewater, which would be an increase of 6,223 gpd. As the wastewater treatment facilities currently have 144 mgd combined surplus capacity, the increase generated by the proposed project would be a nominal increase that could be treated at the existing wastewater treatment facilities, which have adequate treatment capacity and what would not require the construction of new or the expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, impacts associated with wastewater treatment facilities would be less than significant.

c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects?

Less than significant impact. Under existing conditions, runoff from the project site is conveyed as sheet flow southerly to Cerritos Avenue and then conveyed as gutter flow westerly for discharge to an existing catch basin and existing storm drain system located in Gilbert Road. Runoff is then conveyed southerly to the Anaheim-Barber City Channel and southwesterly to the Bolsa Chica Channel prior to discharging to Anaheim Bay-Huntington Harbor complex and then the Pacific Ocean.

During operation, the proposed drainage pattern would be consistent with the existing drainage pattern, with onsite stormwater flows draining toward Cerritos Avenue. As detailed previously in Section 9. Hydrology, runoff generated by the project would be captured by catch basins and culvert inlets then be conveyed to a retention vault that will treat the water and discharge it into a dry-well for ground infiltration (Hunsaker, 2016a). The drainage and water quality features of the project would provide that implementation of the project would not generate an increase in runoff or otherwise require the construction of new storm water drainage facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.

d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

Less than significant impact. The project area receives water services from the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department. The City utilizes two primary sources of water supply: groundwater produced from City of Anaheim-owned wells (approximately 75 percent) and the remainder is imported water from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD). As described above, the proposed project would result in an

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 77 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

increased water demand of approximately 2,625 gpd. The City of Anaheim’s Urban Water Management Plan states that the Utilities Department is capable of meeting the water demands of its customers in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years between 2015 and 2035. Section 10608.42 of the Water Code requires that the population projections included in Urban Water Management Plans be based on state and regional population estimates, which are based on General Plan Land Use designations. As described above, build out of the proposed project is within the maximum allowable density of the existing land use designation; thus, the projected water demand in the Urban Water Management Plan includes the amount needed to serve the proposed project in addition to the City’s existing water customers. As a result, the project would not require new or expanded water entitlements, and impacts would be less than significant.

e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

Less than significant impact. The wastewater generated in the project vicinity is transported by sewer lines to the OCSD, and the proposed project would include uses that would generate effluent requiring wastewater treatment. As described above, the proposed project would create an increase in demand of approximately 6,223 gpd of wastewater, which would be nominal increase in wastewater treatment that could be treated at the existing wastewater treatment facilities and would not result in capacity impacts related to wastewater treatment facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

Less than significant impact. Orange County owns and operates three active landfills: Olinda Alpha Landfill at 1942 North Valencia Avenue in Brea; Frank R. Bowerman Landfill at 11002 Bee Canyon Access Road in Irvine; and Prima Deshecha Landfill at 32250 La Pata Avenue in San Juan Capistrano. Based on the California Integrated Waste Management Board’s Jurisdiction Profile for 2013, over 86 percent of the waste generated in the Anaheim area is taken to the Olinda Alpha Landfill. The Olinda Alpha Landfill is the closest facility to the project and would likely be the solid waste facility most often receiving waste from the project site. This landfill has a daily tonnage maximum of no more than 8,000 per day and a permitted life to 2021, but it has remaining capacity through 2030 (SWANA, 2014). Once the Olinda Alpha Landfill reaches capacity and is closed, solid was would be disposed of at the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill in Irvine or the Prima Deshecha Landfill located in San Jan Capistrano. The anticipated close dates for these two landfills are 2053 and 2067, respectively

As described above, the population generated by the proposed project would be within the population anticipated by the County’s General Plan. Based on the generation factor of 105 to 110 pounds of solid waste per household per week1, the proposed project would generate approximately a maximum of 3,080 pounds of solid waste per week or 440 pounds per day. As the Olinda Alpha Landfill is permitted to receive up to 8,000 tons per day and in 2013 received a daily average of 5,322 tons per day (SWANA, 2014), the solid waste from the project of approximately 440 pounds per day would be accommodated by the Olinda Alpha Landfill or elsewhere within the County’s landfill system upon closure of this landfill. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

g. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

1 The Waste Management of Orange County solid waste generation rate data is from the Saddle Crest Homes Draft EIR, County of Orange April 2012 and the Cielo Vista Project Draft EIR, County of Orange November 2013.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 78 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

No impact. Construction of the project would generate demolition and construction material waste, some of which would consist of recyclable materials such as wood, plastic and metals. Sections 41821, 41850 and 42912 to the California Public Resources

Code requires that 50 to 75 percent of construction and demolition waste materials are diverted from landfills. In compliance with these existing regulations, the proposed project would minimize additional solid waste generation during construction by reusing excavated soils and recycling all possible construction and demolition debris. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would be in compliance with additional federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste disposal during construction activities.

The proposed project is a residential use. Solid waste generated by operation of the project would consist primarily of the standard organic and inorganic waste normally associated with residential uses. Substantial hazardous wastes are not anticipated. To the extent feasible, the project would provide facilities for solid waste recycling. As noted above, the site would be adequately served by local landfills. The project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste handling, transport, and disposal during both construction and long-term operation. These regulations include the AB 939, the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989, which require measures to enhance recycling and source reduction. Thus, the project would comply with AB 939 requirements and related regulations related to solid waste reduction; no impacts would occur.

18. MANDATORY FINDINGS

a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

Less than significant impact. As described above under impact 4.a), no sensitive plant communities are located on the project site. The project site is located within an urban and developed area, and does not lie within a designated critical habitat area for any special-status plant or wildlife species. In addition, 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. Project implementation would not result in degradation of the environment or have any impacts to plant or animal communities, and impacts would not occur.

As described under impacts 5.a) through 5.c) above, the project site has been developed and does not retain any historic architecture, and does not embody any original distinctive characteristic of a type, period, or method of construction that would be considered a historic resource. In addition, the project site has been previously excavated and was highly disturbed for the installation of the previous UST, existing septic system, and other underground utilities. As a result, the potential for the site to contain unknown archaeological and paleontological resources is low, and impacts related to important examples of history or prehistory would be less than significant.

b. Does the project have possible environmental effects, which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 79 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The project consists of redevelopment and infill of an existing developed parcel within an urban and developed area. The proposed project would provide additional residential units within the residential area. As described above, all of the potential impacts related to implementation of the project would be less than significant or reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation measures related to construction noise. Per the County of Orange and City of Anaheim (Urban Crossroads, 2015), there are no new, proposed, or foreseeable developments within the traffic study area that are anticipated to generate new traffic by the opening of the proposed project. Thus, impacts related to the project, such as traffic and construction noise, would not combine with impacts from related projects to result in a cumulatively considerable impact. Furthermore, the proposed residential project would be consistent with the surrounding residential uses, and the project would not result in impacts that would be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.

c. Does project have environmental effects which will substantial adverse cause effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Less than significant impact. As discussed throughout this Initial Study/MND, all environmental impacts associated with construction and/or operation of the proposed 28-unit residential project would be less than significant or would be mitigated to a less than significant level, and therefore would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly, on human beings.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 80

Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

References Anaheim Union High School Developer Fee Justification and Impact Analysis, May 2015. Accessed as part of the Agenda for the School District Board of trustees meeting of July 16, 2015.

Arcadis. 2014. 9671, 9641, and 9611 West Cerritos Avenue Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report.

Arcadis. 2014. 9671, 9641, and 9611 West Cerritos Avenue Report of Limited Phase II Environmental Investigation Activities.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2008. CEQA & Climate Change, Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. January.

CARB. 2009. Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. May 11.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2013. Area Designation Maps/State and National. Available: . Accessed August 7, 2014.

California Department of Public Health, 2014. CEHTP Traffic Linkage Service Demonstration. http://www.ehib.org/traffic_tool.jsp. Accessed November 25th.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual, June 2004.

California Emergency Management Agency, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Newport Beach Quadrangle, http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/Inundation_Maps/Orange/Documents/T sunami_Inundation_NewportBeach_Quad_Orange.pdf, 2009.

CalRecycle, Facility/Site Summary Details: Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill (30-AB-0035), http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/30-AB-0035/Detail/, accessed November 2014.

Census.gov. Corrected 2010 Census Total Population, Household Population, Group Quarters Population, Total Housing Unit, Occupied Housing Unit, and Vacant Housing Unit Counts. Available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/notes/cqr-CA-tb.pdf

City of Anaheim. 2004. General Plan. May 25, 2004.

City of Anaheim. 2004. City of Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR. May 2004. http://www.anaheim.net/generalplan/EIR/eir.htm, 2004.

City of Anaheim, The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339, August 2010.

City of Anaheim, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, http://www.anaheim.net/utilities/waterservices/10_UWMP.pdf, June 2011

Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 82 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

Hunsaker & Associates, Inc. 2016. Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 17813. January 11, 2016.

Hunsaker & Associates, Inc. 2016a. Preliminary Hydrology Analysis. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 17813. March 2016.

LGC Geotechnical, Inc. 2014. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation for Tentative Tract Map No. 17813.

Orange County, Community Development Department, General Plan 2005, official website, http://ocplanning.net/planning/generalplan2005, 2005.

Orange County, General Plan Noise Element, official website, http://ocplanning.net/planning/generalplan2005, 2005.

Orange County Sanitary District, 2016. Kevin Hadden, [email protected]. 714 593-7462

School Planning Services Incorporated, Brenda Curtis, 2015.

Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. October.

State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State — January 1, 2011- 2015. Sacramento, California, May 2015. Available at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-5/2011-20/view.php. Accessed February 2016.

SWANA 2014 Landfill Management Excellence Award Olinda Alpha Landfill. Available at https://swana.org/portals/0/awards/2014/Landfill%20Management/Orange%20County%20LandfillManag ement.pdf.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2013. The Greenbook Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. Available: . Accessed August 7, 2014.

USEPA, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home appliances, 1971.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2012b. “Earthquake Glossary – seiche.” Last updated July 24, 2012. Accessed at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/glossary/?term=seiche on November 26, 2014.

Urban Crossroads. 2014. 9671, 9641, and 9611 Cerritos Avenue Air Quality Impact Analysis County of Orange.

Urban Crossroads. 2015. 9671, 9641, and 9611 Cerritos Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memorandum.

Urban Crossroads. 2014. 9671, 9641, and 9611 Cerritos Avenue Greenhouse Gas Analysis County of Orange.

Urban Crossroads. 2015. 9671, 9641, and 9611 Cerritos Avenue Noise Impact Analysis County of Orange.

Urban Crossroads. 2015. 9671, 9641, and 9611 Cerritos Avenue Focused Traffic Analysis County of Orange.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2012b. “Earthquake Glossary – tsunami.” Last updated July 24, 2012. Accessed at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/glossary/?term=tsunami on November 26, 2014.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 83 Cerritos Avenue Residential Project PA140071

USGS. 2004. Landslide Types and Processes. Fact Sheet. July 2004. Accessed at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2004/3072/fs-2004-3072.html on November 26, 2014.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 84