FINAL
THE PLATINUM
TRIANGLE
SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
SCH # 2004121045
VOLUME III
RESPONSE TO
COMMENTS
prepared for:
CITY OF ANAHEIM
Contact: Linda Johnson,
Principal Planner
prepared by:
THE PLANNING
CENTER
Contact: William
Halligan, Esq.
Director of Environmental
Services
AUGUST 2005
FINAL
THE PLATINUM
TRIANGLE
SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
SCH # 2004121045
VOLUME III
RESPONSE TO
COMMENTS
prepared for:
CITY OF ANAHEIM
City of Anaheim
Planning Department
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92805
Contact: Linda Johnson,
Principal Planner
prepared by:
THE PLANNING
CENTER
1580 Metro Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Tel: 714.966.9220 • Fax: 714.966.9221
E-mail: costamesa@planningcenter.com
Website: www.planningcenter.com
Contact: William
Halligan, Esq.
Director of Environmental
Services
COA-23.0E
AUGUST 2005
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1
CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ....................... 1-1
2.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS.............................................................................................. 2-1
3.
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ........................................................................................ 3-1
APPENDICES
A.
Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A, dated August 2005
B.
Additional Air Quality Modeling Output Sheets
C.
Aerial Views of The Platinum Triangle Depicting the Ultimate Public Right-of-Way as Set Forth in
the Adopted City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element
The Platinum Triangle Draft Subsequent EIR
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
City of Anaheim • Page i
Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank.
Page ii • The Planning Center
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
August 2005
1.
1.
Introduction
INTRODUCTION
Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires the Lead Agency
(City of Anaheim) to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from public agencies and
interested parties who reviewed the Draft SEIR and prepare written responses.
This document contains responses to comments received on The Platinum Triangle Draft Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) No. 332, State Clearinghouse Number 2004121045, during the
public review period, which commenced on June 1, 2005 and closed on July 15, 2005. This document
has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and represents the independent
judgment of the Lead Agency. This Response to Comments volume, together with the Draft SEIR,
technical appendices, and other written documentation prepared during the EIR process, as those
documents may be modified by the City Council at the time of certification, will constitute the Final SEIR,
as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132, and the City of Anaheim’s environmental
document reporting procedures.
This Response to Comments package is organized as follows: Section 1 provides a brief introduction to
this report. Section 2 provides a list of agencies and interested persons commenting on the Draft SEIR.
This section also contains individual comments followed thereafter by responses. To facilitate review of
the responses, an index number (e.g., 1-1, 1-2, 2-1) has been assigned to each comment and to its
corresponding responses. Section 3 contains revisions to the Draft SEIR as a result of the comments by
agencies and interested persons as described in Section 3. Appendix A includes the Updated and
Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A which has been prepared for The Platinum Triangle
and which has been further updated to include revisions to the mitigation measures described in this
Response to Comments document (see a list of those changes in Section 3). Appendix B includes the
Air Quality Output Air Quality Modeling Output for Construction Emissions. Appendix C includes aerial
photographs which depict the adopted ultimate public rights-of-way of the arterial roadways within The
Platinum Triangle as set forth in the adopted City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element. These
aerials do not reflect the proposed amendments to the Circulation Element for Gene Autry Way and
Cerritos Avenue as described in General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00420 (see a description of said
Amendment in Section 3.3.2 of the DSEIR No. 332).
The responses to comments contained in this package contain material and revisions which will be
added or made to the text of the Final SEIR. City staff has reviewed this material and determined that
none of this material constitutes the type of significant new information that requires a second
recirculation period for further public comment under CEQA Guideline Section 15088.5. None of this
new material indicates that the project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously
disclosed in the Draft SEIR. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial
increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that
there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5.
1.1
CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (a) outlines parameters for submitting comments, and reminds persons
and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of Draft SEIRs should be, “on the sufficiency
of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which
significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated.” Comments are most helpful when they
suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or
mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the
adequacy of an SEIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible….CEQA does not require a
lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or
demanded by those submitting comments. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only
The Platinum Triangle Draft Subsequent EIR
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
City of Anaheim • Page 1-1
1.
Introduction
respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by
reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the SEIR.”
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (c) further advises, “Reviewers should explain the basis for their
comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts,
or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect
shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Section 15204 (d) also
states, “Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental
information germane to that agency’s statutory responsibility.” Section 15204 (e) states, “This section
shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document
or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section.”
Page 1-2 • The Planning Center
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
August 2005
2.
2.
Response to Comments
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
This section includes all written responses received on the DSEIR and the City’s responses to each
comment.
Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and numbers for reference purposes. Where
sections of the Draft SEIR are excerpted in this document, the sections are shown indented. Changes to
the DSEIR text are shown in bold and double underline for additions and strikeout for deletions.
The following is a list of agencies and persons that submitted comments on the Draft SEIR during the
public review period:
Number
Reference
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Commenting Person/Agency
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
Southern California Association of Governments
Department of Toxic Substances Control
California Department of Health Services
County of Orange Health Care Agency
County of Orange Resources & Development
Management Department
California Department of Transportation
South Coast Air Quality Management District
The Platinum Triangle Draft Subsequent EIR
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
Date of Comment
July 14, 2005
July 12, 2005
July 8, 2005
July 1, 2005
June 14, 2005
July 14, 2005
Page No.
2-3
2-29
2-79
2-83
2-87
2-91
July 14, 2005
July 22, 2005
2-102
2-110
City of Anaheim • Page 2-1
2.
Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank
Page 2-2 • The Planning Center
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
August 2005
2.
Response to Comments
LETTER 1 – State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit (2 pages)
1-1
The Platinum Triangle Draft Subsequent EIR
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
City of Anaheim • Page 2-3
2.
Page 2-4 • The Planning Center
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
Response to Comments
August 2005
2.
1.
Response to Comments
Response to Comments From Terry Roberts, Director, State Clearinghouse, Governor’s
Office of Planning and Research, Dated July 14, 2005
1-1
This letter acknowledges that the City of Anaheim has complied with the State
Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act. No response is necessary.
The Platinum Triangle Draft Subsequent EIR
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
City of Anaheim • Page 2-27
2.
Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank
Page 2-28 • The Planning Center
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
August 2005
2.
Response to Comments
LETTER 2 – SCAG (1 page)
2-1
The Platinum Triangle Draft Subsequent EIR
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
City of Anaheim • Page 2-29
2.
Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 2-30 • The Planning Center
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
August 2005
2.
2.
Response to Comments
Response to Comments From Brian Wallace, Associate Regional Planner, Southern
California Association of Governments, Dated July 12, 2005
2-1
This comment acknowledges that the DSEIR has adequately addressed SCAG’s
comments outlined per their January 20, 2005 letter and have no further comments.
Comment is hereby noted, included in the official environmental record of the
proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decisionmakers for their review and consideration.
The Platinum Triangle Draft Subsequent EIR
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
City of Anaheim • Page 2-77
2.
Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank
Page 2-78 • The Planning Center
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
August 2005
2.
Response to Comments
Letter 3 – Department of Toxic Substances Control (2 pages)
3-1
The Platinum Triangle Draft Subsequent EIR
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
City of Anaheim • Page 2-79
2.
Page 2-80 • The Planning Center
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
Response to Comments
August 2005
2.
3.
Response to Comments
Response to Comments From Greg Holmes, Unit Chief, Department of Toxic Substances
Control Dated July 8, 2005
3-1
This comment acknowledges that DSEIR has adequately addressed DTSC’s
comments outlined in their January 20, 2005 letter. Comment is hereby noted,
included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be
forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision-makers for their review and
consideration.
The Platinum Triangle Draft Subsequent EIR
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
City of Anaheim • Page 2-81
2.
Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank
Page 2-82 • The Planning Center
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
August 2005
2.
Response to Comments
Letter 4 – Department of Health Services (1 page)
4-1
The Platinum Triangle Draft Subsequent EIR
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
City of Anaheim • Page 2-83
2.
Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 2-84 • The Planning Center
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
August 2005
2.
4.
Response to Comments
Response to Comments From Veronica L. Malloy, California Department of Health
Services, Environmental Review Unit, Dated July 1, 2005
4-1
As indicated in this comment, Mitigation Measure 5.11-4 states that the property
owner/developer shall comply with Rule 15D of the Water Utilities Rates, Rules and
Regulations, which is to be amended to include the construction of a new well with a
minimum 1500 gpm capacity. The specific location of the well has still yet to be
determined. The City of Anaheim acknowledges that an application to amend the
water supply permit will need to be filed prior to drilling the new well, along with any
additional environmental documents necessary to accompany the application.
Comment is hereby noted, included in the official environmental record of the
proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decisionmakers for their review and consideration.
The Platinum Triangle Draft Subsequent EIR
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
City of Anaheim • Page 2-85
2.
Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank
Page 2-86 • The Planning Center
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
August 2005
2.
Response to Comments
Letter 5 – County of Orange Health Care Agency (1 page)
5-1
The Platinum Triangle Draft Subsequent EIR
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
City of Anaheim • Page 2-87
2.
Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 2-88 • The Planning Center
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
August 2005
2.
5.
Response to Comments
Response to Comments From Patricia Henshaw, REHS, MPH, Supervising Hazardous
Waste Specialist, Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency, County of Orange Health Care
Agency, Dated June 14, 2005
5-1
The sites listed in the comment are shown on Figure 5.4-1 of the DSEIR and addressed
in Section 5.4, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. No response is necessary. However,
your comment is hereby noted, included in the official environmental record of the
proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decisionmakers for their review and consideration.
The Platinum Triangle Draft Subsequent EIR
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
City of Anaheim • Page 2-89
2.
Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 2-90 • The Planning Center
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
August 2005
2.
Response to Comments
Letter 6 – County of Orange (6 pages)
6-1
6-1a
The Platinum Triangle Draft Subsequent EIR
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
City of Anaheim • Page 2-91
2.
Response to Comments
6-1a
cont.
6-1b
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
Page 2-92 • The Planning Center
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
August 2005
2.
Response to Comments
6-5
cont.
6-6
6-7
The Platinum Triangle Draft Subsequent EIR
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
City of Anaheim • Page 2-93
2.
Response to Comments
6-7
cont.
6-8a
Page 2-94 • The Planning Center
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
August 2005
2.
Response to Comments
6-9a
6-9a
6-10
6-11
The Platinum Triangle Draft Subsequent EIR
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
City of Anaheim • Page 2-95
2.
Response to Comments
6-11
cont.
6-12
Page 2-96 • The Planning Center
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
August 2005
2.
Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
The Platinum Triangle Draft Subsequent EIR
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
City of Anaheim • Page 2-97
2.
6.
Response to Comments
Response to Comments From Ronald L. Tippets, Chief, Environmental Planning, County of
Orange, Dated July 14, 2005
6-1a
This comment is hereby noted, included in the official environmental record of the
proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decisionmakers for their review and consideration. Pursuant to your request, the statement from
the General Plan and Zoning Code Update FEIR at page 5-109 has been added to the
DSEIR. This change would not alter the conclusion of the impact analysis. Therefore,
page 5-92 of the DSEIR has been modified as follows:
Impact Analysis: The Project Area is located within a Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance study area
within Zone A99 and X designation. The majority of the Project Area is
located in Zone X which lies in a 100-Year to 500-Year Flood Zone with
flooding below one foot (see previous Figure 5.5-1). According to the
Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD), the Southeast Anaheim
Channel and the Spinnaker Storm Drain have been determined to be
deficient to convey discharges associated with 100-year storm event. It
is the goal of the County of Orange and the Orange County Flood
Control District (OCFCD) to provide 100-year flood protection for all
buildings. To provide for this goal, OCFCD attempts to design
facilities to convey 100-year flows where feasible. Several OCFCD’s
facilities are a mixture of segments built at different times.
Improvements of deficient OCFCD facilities are programmed in
OCFCD’s Seven-Year Flood Control Projects Plan subject to annual
review and revision based on Countywide prioritization.
Regarding the County’s recommendation that Cities condition developments located
adjacent to flood control channels to participate in funding to implement improvements
to OCFCD’s deficient flood control channels so that the needed protection for the
proposed developments may be provided, it should be noted that property
owners/developers are required by the City to participate in funding local drainage
improvements. There is no fee program in place to fund OCFCD’s facilities.
6-1b
Pursuant to your request, Mitigation Measure 5.7-1 from the General Plan and Zoning
Code Update FEIR has been added to the DSEIR (this measure has been clarified to
indicate that for City-owned and maintained facilities, that future storm flows will need to
meet City requirements). Therefore, page 5.5-101 of the DSEIR has been modified as
follows.
5.5-4
The City shall work with the OCFCD to ensure that flood control facilities
are well maintained and plan facilities capable of accommodating, at a
minimum, future storm flows meeting City requirements for City owned and
maintained facilities, and 100-year storm flows for County facilities. Where
improvements to local drainage facilities have the potential to increase
discharges to County facilities, the City shall analyze potential impacts to
County facilities in consultation with the Manager, County of Orange Flood
Control Division. Encroachment Permits shall be obtained from the
County’s Public Property Permits Section for any activity performed within
OCFCD’s right of way.
Page 2-98 • The Planning Center
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
August 2005
2.
6-2
Response to Comments
Pursuant to your request, page 5-74 of the DSEIR has been modified as follows:
On-site Conditions
The central portion of the Project Area drains into the Southeast Anaheim Channel (E12),
which generally parallels State College Boulevard. The County of Orange maintains this
channel. The channel was constructed in 1967 and is 9-foot by 9-foot reinforced
concrete box that discharges into the Santa Ana River north of Chapman Avenue. The
drainage channel collects urban run-off from approximately 1,541 acres through various
tributary drains in southeast Anaheim. The Orange County Flood Control District’s
Southeast Anaheim Channel (E12) is deficient and its capacity needs to be increased
currently operating at or near capacity, and would require requiring a large parallel
system to adequately protect additional development during a 100-year storm event.
6-3
Comment is hereby noted. The DSEIR acknowledges that OCFCD’s Southeast Anaheim
Channel (E12) and Spinnaker Storm Drain (C05P2I) are deficient (see new Mitigation
Measure 5.5-2 in Response 6-1b). In addition, as identified in Mitigation Measure 5.5-2,
an encroachment permit from the County would be required for all work within, over
and/or under OCFCD and County of Orange right-of-way. Therefore, no additional
revisions to the DSEIR are necessary.
6-4
Please refer to Response 6-3 above.
6-5
During the design of the parallel storm drain facilities, alignments would be identified to
avoid conflicts with existing facilities. Comment is hereby noted, included in the official
environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate
City of Anaheim decision-makers for their review and consideration.
6-6
Comment noted. Mitigation Measure 5.5-2 requires that future development projects in
excess of one acre prepare a Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The DSEIR has described commitments for
the installation and maintenance of site design, source control and treatment control
BMPs consistent with the DAMP New Development and Significant Redevelopment
Program. Section 5.5, Hydrology and Water Quality Pages 5-80 through 5-82 of the
DSEIR describe the Proposed Project’s relationship with the DAMP and lists some of the
Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be used. Considering the programmatic nature
of the DSEIR, the multiple property owners within The Platinum Triangle, and the lack of
specific development proposals, it is not possible to prepare a SWPPP or WQMP for the
entire area at this time. As a result, Mitigation Measure 5.5-2 more appropriately requires
preparation of SWPPP and WQMP at the time individual parcels develop.
6-7
As discussed in Response 6-6, considering the programmatic nature of the DSEIR, the
multiple property owners within The Platinum Triangle, and the lack of specific
development proposals, it is not possible to prepare a SWPPP or WQMP for the entire
area at this time. As a result, Mitigation Measure 5.5-2 more appropriately requires
preparation of SWPPP and WQMP at the time individual parcels develop. In addition, as
discussed on Page 5-78 and 5-80 of the DSEIR the City of Anaheim requires applicants
to submit a SWPPP which complies with the County DAMP and the State General
Construction Permit.
The Platinum Triangle Draft Subsequent EIR
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
City of Anaheim • Page 2-99
2.
6-8
Response to Comments
Pursuant to your request, page 5-175 of the DSEIR has been modified as follows:
Additional Recreation Opportunities
Regional Parks – There are a number of regional parks, operated by the County of
Orange, located in or adjacent to Anaheim. Regional Park facilities located in or adjacent
to Anaheim include:
•
•
•
•
6-9a
Yorba Regional Park – A 166 175-acre park in East Anaheim, located along the north
side of the Santa Ana River.
Featherly Regional Park – A 795-acre park, 66-acres which are developed, 150acre park located outside the City, north of the SR-91 Freeway, with camping, an
amphitheatre and nature trails.
Weir Canyon Regional Park – A proposed park of 2,100 1414 acres near the
southerly extension of Weir Canyon Road in the City of Orange’s Sphere-ofInfluence, in addition to acreage located within the City of Anaheim.
Santiago Oaks Regional Park – A 135 350-acre park located along Santiago Creek
in the City of Orange.
Pursuant to your request, page 5-175 of the DSEIR has been modified as follows:
Santa Ana River Regional Riding and Hiking Trail – A National recreation trail that,
when completed, would incorporate 110 miles of trail system from San Bernardino
County in the north to Orange County in the south. This trail is owned and operated by
the County of Orange. The trail is used by hiker, mountain biker, and equestrian user
groups per the County’s Master Plan of Regional Riding and Hiking Trails
Component of the Orange County Recreation Element. A portion of the trail is
aligned along the eastern edge of The Platinum Triangle along the western bank of
the Santa Ana River.
6-9b
The Santa Ana River and associated Santa Ana River Regional Riding and Hiking Trail
are located outside of the project area and would not be impacted by any construction
activity on individual development sites within The Platinum Triangle. In addition,
construction traffic would utilize roadways located adjacent to future development sites,
and could not utilize the Santa Ana River Trail due to elevation differentials between the
trail and adjacent development sites. As a result, no changes to the DSEIR are
necessary.
6-10
Figure 5.9-4 depicts the “Location of Parks within the City of Anaheim.” It is not intended
to show bike trails located throughout the City. As a result, no changes to the figure are
necessary.
6-11
Please refer to Response 6-9b.
6-12
The comment is hereby noted, included in the official environmental record of the
proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decisionmakers for their review and consideration. The Santa Ana River and associated Santa
Ana River Regional Riding and Hiking Trail are located outside of the project area.
Further, development in the PTMU Overlay Zone, Stadium District, where the Angel
Stadium of Anaheim is located, is subject to existing lease agreements on the property
and previously approved entitlements pursuant to Area Development Plan No. 120 (see
Page 2-100 • The Planning Center
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
August 2005
2.
Response to Comments
Section 3.3.1 of the SDEIR, which describes the Area Development Plan and how it is
incorporated into the previously approved Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan).
The City of Anaheim General Plan does not call for a regional trail and bikeway staging
facility at the Angel Stadium of Anaheim; therefore, no condition of approval or mitigation
measure regarding such a facility is required. City Public Works and Community
Services staff have met with Jeff Dickman, as requested in the letter, and will continue to
work with Jeff to identify potential opportunities to locate a trail and bikeway staging area
in the vicinity of The Platinum Triangle.
The Platinum Triangle Draft Subsequent EIR
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
City of Anaheim • Page 2-101
2.
Response to Comments
Letter 7 – Caltrans (3 pages)
7-1
7-2
Page 2-102 • The Planning Center
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
August 2005
2.
Response to Comments
7-3
7-4
7-5
7-6
7-7
7-8
The Platinum Triangle Draft Subsequent EIR
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
City of Anaheim • Page 2-103
2.
Page 2-104 • The Planning Center
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
Response to Comments
August 2005
2.
Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
The Platinum Triangle Draft Subsequent EIR
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
City of Anaheim • Page 2-105
2.
7.
Response to Comments
Response to Comments From Robert F. Joseph, Chief, IGR/Community Planning Branch,
California Department of Transportation, Dated July 14, 2005
7-1
The City of Anaheim approved its comprehensive General Plan Update and certified EIR
No. 330 in May 2004. As part of that effort, the City’s Circulation Element was adopted
by the Anaheim City Council. California Planning Law mandates that Circulation
Element address circulation impacts associated with buildout of the adopted Land Use
Element. Implementation of the adopted Master Land Use Plan for The Platinum
Triangle is included in the Land Use Element and the buildout projections were
incorporated into the future baseline analysis for the General Plan EIR No. 330. The
Platinum Triangle mixed use development project is consistent with the General Plan trip
generation forecasts. The General Plan did forecast freeway traffic volumes: adjacent
segments of SR57 and I-5 are each expected to serve approximately 200,000 ADT. The
Platinum Triangle is intended to reduce traffic impacts on the freeway system by
reducing work trip lengths and promoting internal capture among residential, office and
retail development. As such, the project impact analysis as provided in Section 5.10 of
the DSEIR compared the future traffic forecasts for the Proposed Project with the LOS
results from the general plan traffic analysis in EIR No. 330. With planned circulation
improvements as indicated in the City’s Circulation Element, all but one
(Santiago/Rampart) study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better
during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours. No new impacts on state facilities have been
identified as a result of the Proposed Project; therefore, no additional discussion or
mitigation measures to the regional transportation system in detail were either warranted
or necessary.
The traffic analysis has identified the project impacts and corresponding mitigation
measures for the potential area of impact by the project. The intensity of the proposed
project is consistent with the level of development planned by the City’s General Plan. It
is assumed that regional facilities are planned to provide adequate capacity to
accommodate the level of development anticipated by local agency General Plans.
Since the proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, the proposed
project is expected to consistent with Caltrans’ long-range projections for the SR-57 and
I-5 Freeways.
7-2
The Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM) reflects trips generated by the City’s Land
Use Plan as well as regional and sub-regional traffic growth. ATAM was approved in
conformance with Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM2) by OCTA.
The City of Anaheim does not require Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) analysis. The
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology has been the long-standing
approach for traffic impact studies by cities in Orange County, as stipulated by our
Orange County Congestion Management Program adopted by OCTA. In fact, the CMP
evaluations conducted by OCTA (including Caltrans major interchange locations) use
ICU methodology.
7-3
The Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM) reflects trips generated by the City’s Land
Use Plan as well as regional and sub-regional traffic growth. ATAM was approved in
conformance with Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM2) by OCTA.
The City of Anaheim does not require Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) analysis. The
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology has been the long-standing
approach for traffic impact studies by cities in Orange County. See response 7-1 for
additional information.
Page 2-106 • The Planning Center
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
August 2005
2.
7-4
Response to Comments
The City of Anaheim approved its comprehensive General Plan Update and certified EIR
No. 330 in May 2004. As part of that effort, the City’s Circulation Element was adopted
by the Council. California Planning Law mandates that Circulation Element address
circulation impacts associated with buildout of the adopted Land Use Element.
Implementation of the adopted Master Land Use Plan for The Platinum Triangle is
included in the Land Use Element and the buildout projections were incorporated into
the future baseline analysis for the General Plan EIR No. 330.
The City’s Circulation Element included Planned Roadway Network Map that identified
those roadways that are planned to accommodate future growth established by the
Land Use Element. In addition to the roadways identified on the Planned Roadway
Network Map, there were additional necessary improvements to maintain acceptable
levels of service within the anticipated theoretical buildout identified in the General Plan.
Mitigation Measure 5.15-3 of the EIR No. 330 (Mitigation Monitoring Program 122) states
the following to fund the necessary improvements:
“The City shall pursue all available funding, including Measure M funding, necessary to
implement the circulation improvements identified in the City’s Circulation Element and
Mitigation Measure 5.15-2. Implementation of transportation improvements identified in
the City’s Circulation Element and Mitigation Measure 5.15-2 shall be conducted in
coordination with Caltrans, the County of Orange, the Orange County Transportation
Authority (OCTA), and surrounding jurisdictions. To qualify for Measure M funds, the City
of Anaheim must comply with the Countywide Growth Management Program component
requirements and have an established policy framework for the required Growth
Management Program through the adoption of a Growth Management Element. The
updated Growth Management Element will maintain provisions of the existing Growth
Management element which 1) establishes policy statements that identify acceptable
traffic levels of service; 2) commits the City to implement a development mitigation
program; and 3) commits the City to implement a development phasing and monitoring
program.”
No new impacts on state facilities have been identified as a result of Project
implementation. Al project related traffic impacts have been adequately mitigated
through Mitigation Measures 5.10-1 through 6 which identifies the timing, responsible
party and funding source for the improvements. No further mitigation measures are
necessary.
7-5
The City concurs with the comment. If any project work occurs in the vicinity of the
Caltrans’ Right-of-Way, an encroachment permit would be filed and environmental
concerns will be addressed as appropriate.
7-6
Project generated impacts to water quality has been addressed in Section 5.5 Hydrology
and Water Quality of the DSEIR. Mitigation Measure 5.5-2 states the following:
“At least 90 days prior to the initiation of grading activities, for projects greater than one
acre, an NOI shall be filed with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) by the
property owner/developer pursuant to State and Federal National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. As part of the NOI, a Surface Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared. The property owner/developer shall also
prepare and submit to RWQCB, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) in
accordance with the City's municipal NPDES requirements and the Orange County
The Platinum Triangle Draft Subsequent EIR
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
City of Anaheim • Page 2-107
2.
Response to Comments
Drainage Area Management Plan. The SWPPP, in conjunction with the WQMP, will
describe the structural and nonstructural BMPs that will be implemented during
construction (short-term) within the Project Area as well as BMPs for long-term operation
of the Project Area. Long-term measures could include, but may not be limited to, street
sweeping, trash collection, proper materials storage, designated wash areas connected
to sanitary sewers, filter and grease traps, and clarifiers for surface parking areas. The
BMPs selected shall be consistent with the Water Quality Technical Report prepared for
the Proposed Project (Appendix G) of SEIR No. 332.”
With regards to runoff draining into Caltrans’ Right-Of-Way, the comment is hereby
noted, included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be
forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision-makers for their review and
consideration.
7-7
Comment is hereby noted, included in the official environmental record of the proposed
project, and a written response has been provided.
7-8
Comment is hereby noted, included in the official environmental record of the proposed
project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision-makers for
their review and consideration.
Page 2-108 • The Planning Center
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
August 2005
2.
Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
The Platinum Triangle Draft Subsequent EIR
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
City of Anaheim • Page 2-109
2.
Response to Comments
Letter 8 – South Coast Air Quality Management District (2 pages)
Page 2-110 • The Planning Center
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
August 2005
2.
Response to Comments
8-1
8-2
8-3
8-4
The Platinum Triangle Draft Subsequent EIR
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
City of Anaheim • Page 2-111
2.
Response to Comments
8-5
Page 2-112 • The Planning Center
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
August 2005
2.
Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
The Platinum Triangle Draft Subsequent EIR
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
City of Anaheim • Page 2-113
2.
8.
Response to Comments
Response to Comments From Susan Nakamura, South Coast Air Quality Management
District, Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources, Dated July 22, 2005
8-1
Per your request, construction emissions model runs are included in Appendix B of this
document, and made part of the official record.
8-2
Per your request, Table 5.2-7 on pg 5-35 of the DSEIR has been updated for operational
emissions estimates consistent with model runs in the DSEIR, Appendix B, as follows
(also see Response 8-4):
Table 5.2-7
Project Related Operational Phase Emissions
(In Pounds Per Day)
Emissions
CO
ROG
NOx
Summer Emissions
Stationary Sources (electricity/natural gas consumption,
landscaping)
Mobile Sources
TOTAL
SCAQMD Standard
Difference
SIGNIFICANT?
Winter Emissions
Stationary Sources (electricity/natural gas consumption,
landscaping)
Mobile Sources
TOTAL
SCAQMD Standard
Difference
SIGNIFICANT?
SO2
PM10
66
663
114
0
<1
4,127
4,193
550
3,643
Yes
402
1,065
55
1,010
Yes
358
472
55
417
Yes
9
9
50
-141
No
1,569
1,569
150
1,419
Yes
66
663
114
0
<1
3,870
3,936
550
3,386
Yes
356
1,019
55
964
Yes
511
625
55
570
Yes
9
9
150
-141
No
1,569
1,569
150
1,419
Yes
Source: The Planning Center using the URBEMIS2002 version 8.7 emissions inventory model, August 2004.
8-3
The Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglass, Inc. Traffic Analysis (dated April 5, 2005)
based traffic generation on Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ), and was not directly applicable
for air quality estimation. Therefore, the DSEIR air quality analysis based emissions
assumptions on data obtained from Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglass on March
21, 2005, which based trip generation by land use. This data is shown below in the
Table entitled, “Platinum Triangle Trip Generation By Land Use”. Projected traffic
volumes were obtained for the purposes of the air quality analysis are consistent with the
traffic analysis total trip generation for the Proposed Master Land Use Plan (MLUP) area
(existing plus future trips) of 269,878 vehicle trips.
Page 2-114 • The Planning Center
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
August 2005
2.
Response to Comments
Platinum Triangle Trip Generation By Land Use
Category
Units
Daily
trips
per
unit
Existing
Amt.
Trips
Amt.
Approved Plan
Trips after
Mixed
Use
Trips
Reduction
Residential
Mixed Use
DU
7.008
0
0
9,175
64,298
Office Mixed
Use
1000 s.f.
17.920
173
3,100
3,265
58,509
Commercial
Mixed Use
1000 s.f.
54.095
30
1,623
2044
110,570
Regional
Commercial
1000 s.f.
54.095
0
0
80
4,328
Professional
Office
1000 s.f.
17.920
1,558
27,919
1,857
33,277
General
Industrial
1000 s.f.
12.978
3,827
49,668
1,011
13,121
Tourism/Enterta
inment
1000 s.f.
12.995
647
8,408
135
1,754
Open Space
acre
0.000
4
0
14
0
Arrowhead
Pond
acre
65.489
39
2,554
32
2,096
Angel Stadium
acre
40.167
32
1,285
72
2,892
General
Institutional
1000 s.f.
12.995
36
468
307
3,989
TOTAL
95,025
294,835
Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, Platinum Triangle Trip Generation By Land Use. March 21, 2005.
Proposed Master Land Use Plan
Amt.
Trips
Trips after
Mixed Use
Reduction
54,686
9500
66,576
56,174
49,762
3265
58,509
49,367
94,040
2254
121,930
102,879
4,328
80
4,328
4,328
33,277
1857
33,277
33,277
13,121
1011
13,121
13,121
1,754
0
135
14
1,754
0
1,754
0
2,096
2,892
32
72
2,096
2,892
2,096
2,892
3,989
259,946
307
3,989
308,472
3,989
269,878
As shown on Table 5.10-10 of the DSEIR, the proposed Master Land Use Plan for The
Platinum Triangle will generate a total of 269,878 trips per day at buildout. However, it
should be noted that this figure includes existing and future traffic. As shown on Table
5.10-3, a total of 95,025 trips per day are generated within The Platinum Triangle. As a
result, a total of 174,853 additional trips will be generated at buildout. Since the
URBEMIS2002 model assumed a total of 208,420 additional trips, the emissions
estimates contained in Table 5.2-7 on the DSEIR are significantly higher that what will
actually occur.
8-4
Pursuant to your request, additional CO modeling was conducted using the formula
stated in your comment. The CO modeling output sheets are contained in Appendix B.
As shown, none of the CO concentrations exceeded those shown in Table 5.2-8 of the
DSEIR, and had a maximum variation of 0.1 ppm. As a result, no changes to the DSEIR
are necessary.
8-5
Pursuant to your request, Mitigation Measure 5.2-1 on pg-40 of the DSEIR has been
modified as follows:
5.2-1
On-going during grading and construction, the property owner/developer shall
be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to
reduce construction-related emissions; however, the resultant value is expected
to remain significant.
The Platinum Triangle Draft Subsequent EIR
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
City of Anaheim • Page 2-115
2.
Response to Comments
a) The contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly
serviced and maintained to reduce operational emissions.
b) Where feasible, the contractor shall use low emission mobile construction
alternative clean fuels such as electric- or compressed natural, gas-powered
construction equipment with oxidation catalysts instead of gasoline- or
diesel-powered engines. However, where diesel equipment has to be used
because there are no practical alternatives, the construction contractor
should use emulsified diesel or low sulfur diesel, as defined in SCAQMD
Rule 431.2., i.e., diesel with less than 15-ppm sulfur content.
c) The contractor shall utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or
clean-fuel generators rather than temporary power generators where
feasible.
Pursuant to your request, Mitigation Measure 5.2-2 on pg 40 of the DSEIR, 10th bullet has
been modified as follows:
5.2-2
On-going during grading and construction, the property
owner/developer shall implement the following measures in order to
reduce PM10 emissions:
a) The property owner/developer shall implement standard mitigation
measures in accordance with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, to control
fugitive dust emissions and ensure that nuisance dust conditions do not
occur during construction.
b) In addition to the standard measures, the property owner/developer
shall implement supplemental measures as feasible to reduce fugitive
dust emissions to the extent feasible during construction operations. To
assure compliance, the City shall verify compliance that these measures
have been implemented during normal construction site inspections.
The measures to be implemented are listed below:
o
Re-establish ground cover on the construction site through seeding
and watering.
o
Pave on-site haul roads.
o
Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion
over extended periods of time.
o
Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated
soil during and after the end of work periods.
o
Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local
ordinances and use sound engineering practices.
o
Restore landscaping and irrigation that are removed during
construction in coordination with local public agencies.
Page 2-116 • The Planning Center
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
August 2005
2.
Response to Comments
o
Sweep streets on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent
public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling.
o
Suspend grading operations during high winds in accordance with
Rule 403 requirements.
o
Wash off trucks leaving site.
o
Maintain a minimum 12-inch 24-inch freeboard ratio on haul trucks.
o
Cover payloads on trucks hauling soil using tarps or other suitable
means.
Pursuant to your request, Mitigation Measure 5.2-4 on pg 41 of the DSEIR has been
modified:
5.2-4
Prior to approval of each building permit, the property owner/developer
shall submit evidence that high-solids or water-based low emissions
paints and coatings are utilized in the design and construction of
buildings, in compliance with SCAQMD regulations. To ensure that
volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions from architectural coatings
do not exceed AQMD’s significance thresholds for architectural
coatings, the number of gallons of coatings shall be restricted, to the
maximum extent feasible, to the maximum daily coating usage shown in
Table 5.2-9 of the SEIR. This information shall be denoted on the project
plans and specifications. Additionally, the property owner/developer
shall specify the use of high volume/low pressure spray equipment or
hand application. Air atomized spray techniques shall not be permitted.
Where feasible, the paint contractor shall use hand applications as well.
Table 5.2-9
Maximum Daily Architectural Coating Usage
Grams of VOC/Liter
lbs/gallon
SCAQMD VOC
Construction
Threshold
Daily (lbs)
100
150
250
0.83
1.25
2.08
75
75
75
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Content
Limits
Coating Type
Flat Coatings
Non-flat Coatings
Non-flat Gloss Coatings
Maximum Daily
Coating Usage
(gallons)
90
60
36
Source: Name, Date.
Notes: VOC content limits from the California Resources Board Resolution 00-23.
Larger quantities of architectural coatings may be used if low or zero VOC content coatings are used.
The Maximum Daily Coating Usage represents the maximum in each coating category that can be used if only that one category of coatings is used. A
combination of coatings will likely be used, as such, the total weight of VOC from this combination of coatings must not exceed the daily and quarterly
SCAQMD VOC Emissions Threshold.
The Platinum Triangle Draft Subsequent EIR
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
City of Anaheim • Page 2-117
3.
3.
Revisions to the Draft EIR
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
This Revisions to the Draft EIR section identifies any changes needed in the DSEIR to correct or clarify
the information contained in the document. Changes made to the DSEIR are identified here in strikeout
text to indicate deletions and in bold and double underline to signify additions.
1.
Page 5-35, Table 5.2-7 of the DSEIR, Air Quality is hereby modified as
follows:
Table 5.2-7
Project Related Operational Phase Emissions
(In Pounds Per Day)
Emissions
CO
ROG
NOx
Summer Emissions
Stationary Sources (electricity/natural gas consumption,
landscaping)
Mobile Sources
TOTAL
SCAQMD Standard
Difference
SIGNIFICANT?
Winter Emissions
Stationary Sources (electricity/natural gas consumption,
landscaping)
Mobile Sources
TOTAL
SCAQMD Standard
Difference
SIGNIFICANT?
SO2
PM10
66
663
114
0
<1
4,127
4,193
550
3,643
Yes
402
1,065
55
1,010
Yes
358
472
55
417
Yes
9
9
50
-141
No
1,569
1,569
150
1,419
Yes
66
663
114
0
<1
3,870
3,936
550
3,386
Yes
356
1,019
55
964
Yes
511
625
55
570
Yes
9
9
150
-141
No
1,569
1,569
150
1,419
Yes
Source: The Planning Center using the URBEMIS2002 version 8.7 emissions inventory model, August 2004.
2.
Mitigation Measure 5.2-1 on pg.5-40 of the DSEIR has been modified as
follows:
5.2-1
On-going during grading and construction, the property owner/developer shall be
responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to reduce
construction-related emissions; however, the resultant value is expected to remain
significant.
a) The contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly
serviced and maintained to reduce operational emissions.
b) Where feasible, the contractor shall use low emission mobile construction alternative
clean fuels such as electric- or compressed natural, gas-powered construction
equipment with oxidation catalysts instead of gasoline- or diesel-powered engines.
However, where diesel equipment has to be used because there are no practical
alternatives, the construction contractor should use emulsified diesel or low sulfur
diesel, as defined in SCAQMD Rule 431.2., i.e., diesel with less than 15 ppm sulfur
content.
The Platinum Triangle Subsequent EIR
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
City of Anaheim • Page 3-1
3.
Revisions to the Draft EIR
c) The contractor shall utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean-fuel
generators rather than temporary power generators where feasible.
3.
Mitigation Measure 5.2-2 on pg 40 of the DSEIR, 10th bullet has been
modified as follows:
5.2-2
On-going during grading and construction, the property owner/developer shall
implement the following measures in order to reduce PM10 emissions:
a)
The property owner/developer shall implement standard mitigation measures in
accordance with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, to control fugitive dust emissions
and ensure that nuisance dust conditions do not occur during construction.
b)
In addition to the standard measures, the property owner/developer shall
implement supplemental measures as feasible to reduce fugitive dust emissions
to the extent feasible during construction operations. To assure compliance, the
City shall verify compliance that these measures have been implemented during
normal construction site inspections. The measures to be implemented are
listed below:
o
Re-establish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and
watering.
o
Pave on-site haul roads.
o
Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over
extended periods of time.
o
Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil
during and after the end of work periods.
o
Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances
and use sound engineering practices.
o
Restore landscaping and irrigation that are removed during construction in
coordination with local public agencies.
o
Sweep streets on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent public
thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling.
o
Suspend grading operations during high winds in accordance with Rule 403
requirements.
o
Wash off trucks leaving site.
o
Maintain a minimum 12-inch 24-inch freeboard ratio on haul trucks.
o
Cover payloads on trucks hauling soil using tarps or other suitable means.
Page 3-2 • The Planning Center
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
August 2005
3.
4.
Revisions to the Draft EIR
Mitigation Measure 5.2-4 on pg 41 of the DSEIR has been modified:
5.2-4
Prior to approval of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit
evidence that high-solids or water-based low emissions paints and coatings are
utilized in the design and construction of buildings, in compliance with SCAQMD
regulations. To ensure that volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions from
architectural coatings do not exceed AQMD’s significance thresholds for
architectural coatings, the number of gallons of coatings shall be restricted, to the
maximum extent feasible, to the maximum daily coating usage shown in Table 5.2-9
of the SEIR. This information shall be denoted on the project plans and
specifications. Additionally, the property owner/developer shall specify the use of
high volume/low pressure spray equipment or hand application. Air atomized spray
techniques shall not be permitted. Where feasible, the paint contractor shall use
hand applications as well.
Table 5.2-9
Maximum Daily Architectural Coating Usage
Grams of VOC/Liter
lbs/gallon
SCAQMD VOC
Construction
Threshold
Daily (lbs)
100
150
250
0.83
1.25
2.08
75
75
75
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Content
Limits
Coating Type
Flat Coatings
Non-flat Coatings
Non-flat Gloss Coatings
Maximum Daily
Coating Usage
(gallons)
90
60
36
Source: Name, Date.
Notes: VOC content limits from the California Resources Board Resolution 00-23.
Larger quantities of architectural coatings may be used if low or zero VOC content coatings are used.
The Maximum Daily Coating Usage represents the maximum in each coating category that can be used if only that one category of coatings is used. A
combination of coatings will likely be used, as such, the total weight of VOC from this combination of coatings must not exceed the daily and quarterly
SCAQMD VOC Emissions Threshold.
5.
Page 5-92, Section 5.5 of the DSEIR, Hydrology and Water Quality is hereby
modified as follows:
The Project Area is located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance
study area within Zone A99 and X designation. The majority of the Project Area is located in Zone X
which lies in a 100-Year to 500-Year Flood Zone with flooding below one foot (see previous Figure 5.5-1).
According to the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD), the Southeast Anaheim Channel and
the Spinnaker Storm Drain have been determined to be deficient to convey discharges associated with
100-year storm event. In addition to the widening of the Santa Ana River within the project vicinity,
improvements completed under the Santa Ana River Mainstem Project include construction of Seven
Oaks Dam and improvements to Prado Dam and downstream channel facilities. Flooding levels are
expected to occur at one foot. It is the goal of the County of Orange and the Orange County Flood
Control District (OFCD) to provide 100-year flood protection for all buildings. To provide for this
goal, OCFCD attempts to design facilities to convey 100-year flows where feasible. Several
OCFCD’s facilities are a mixture of segments built at different times. Improvements of deficient
OCFCD facilities are programmed in OCFCD’s Seven-Year Flood Control Projects Plan subject to
annual review and revision based on County-wide prioritization.
The Platinum Triangle Subsequent EIR
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
City of Anaheim • Page 3-3
3.
Revisions to the Draft EIR
In accordance with the City of Anaheim’s Flood Hazard Reduction Ordinance, detailed designs for future
habitable structures associated with the project implementation would be constructed above the lands at
which a 100-year flood would occur on-site. All future projects within The Platinum Triangle must comply
with all Federal and local regulatory requirements associated with Flood Hazard areas. In addition,
mitigation measure 5.5-1 has been identified to reduce impacts to the Proposed Project.
6.
Page 5.5-101 of the DSEIR, Hydrology and Water Quality, 5.5.7 Mitigation
Measures, Applicable Measures from MMP 106 is hereby modified as
follows:
5.5-4
The City shall work with the OCFCD to ensure that flood control facilities are well
maintained and plan facilities capable of accommodating, at a minimum, future storm flows
meeting city requirements for City owned and maintained facilities, and 100-year storm
flows for County facilities. Where improvements to local drainage facilities have the
potential to increase discharges to County facilities, the City shall analyze potential
impacts to County facilities in consultation with the Manager, County of Orange Flood
Control Division. Encroachment Permits shall be obtained from the County’s Public
Property Permits Section for any activity performed within OCFCD’s right of way.
7.
Page 5-74 of the DSEIR, Section 5.5.1, Hydrology and Water Quality,
Existing Conditions, 1st paragraph of On-site Conditions is hereby modified
as follows:
On-site Conditions
The central portion of the Project Area drains into the Southeast Anaheim Channel (E12), which generally
parallels State College Boulevard. The County of Orange maintains this channel. The channel was
constructed in 1967 and is 9-foot by 9-foot reinforced concrete box that discharges into the Santa Ana
River north of Chapman Avenue. The drainage channel collects urban run-off from approximately 1,541
acres through various tributary drains in southeast Anaheim. The Orange County Flood Control
District’s Southeast Anaheim Channel (E12) is deficient and its capacity needs to be increased
currently operating at or near capacity, and would require requiring a large parallel system to
adequately protect additional development during a 100-year storm event.
8.
Page 5-175 of the DSEIR, Section 5.9.5, Parks, 5.9.5.1, Environmental
Setting, Bullets Under Additional Recreational Opportunities, Regional
Parks are hereby modified as follows:
•
Yorba Regional Park – A 166-175-acre park in East Anaheim, located along the north
side of the Santa Ana River.
•
Featherly Regional Park – A 150 795-acre park, 66 acres which are developed, located
outside the City, north of the SR-91 Freeway, with camping, an amphitheatre and nature
trails.
•
Weir Canyon Regional Park – A proposed park of 2,100 1414 acres near the southerly
extension of Weir Canyon Road in the City of Orange’s Sphere-of-Influence, in addition
to acreage located within the City of Anaheim.
Page 3-4 • The Planning Center
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
August 2005
3.
•
9.
Revisions to the Draft EIR
Santiago Oaks Regional Park – A 135 350-acres park located along Santiago Creek in
the City of Orange.
Page 5-175 of the DSEIR, Section 5.9.5, Parks, 5.9.5.1, Environmental
Setting, Bullets Under Additional Recreational Opportunities, Recreational
Trails are hereby modified as follows:
Santa Ana River Regional Riding and Hiking Trail – A National recreation trail that, when completed,
would incorporate 110 miles of trail system from San Bernardino County in the north to Orange County
in the south. This trail is owned and operated by the County of Orange. The trail is used by hiker,
mountain biker, and equestrian user groups per the County’s Master Plan of Regional Riding and
Hiking Trails Component of the Orange County Recreation Element. A portion of the trail is
aligned along the eastern edge of the Platinum Triangle along the western bank of the Santa Ana
River channel.
10.
Following are some refinements to the mitigation measures set forth in the
Table 1-3, Section 5.0 of the DSEIR, and Updated and Modified Mitigation
Monitoring Program No. 106A:
Deleted Measure:
The following mitigation measure has been deleted based upon discussions with OCSD staff since the
release of the DSEIR No. 332. OCSD staff has indicated that payment of fees at an earlier point than
typically collected (Mitigation Measure 5.11-6 requires fees to be paid within 90 days of the effective date
of project Development Agreements) is not needed. Fees will continue to be collected in an amount and
in accordance with the timeframe set forth by OCSD. Deletion of this measure only pertains to the timing
for collection of the fees and does not result in any additional project impacts.
5.11-6
Within 90 days following the effective date of each Development Agreement for The Platinum
Triangle mixed-use area entered into between the City of Anaheim and the property
owner/developer, the property owner/developer shall submit proof to the Planning Services
Division of the Planning Department that the County Sanitation District of Orange County
(OCSD) fees due for the project have been paid. Further, this requirement shall be added to
the Project requirements set forth in Exhibit “C” (Conditions of Approval) of the Development
Agreement.
Editorial Refinements:
5.3-5
Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection, for any proposed hotel uses, including
condominium hotels, the property owner/developer shall submit an earthquake emergency
response plan to the Planning Department, Building Division, for review and approval. The plan
shall require posted notices in all hotel rooms and earthquake safety procedures and
incorporate on-going earthquake training for hotel staff.
5.3-6
On-going during grading operations, the property owner/developer shall implement standard
practices relating to grading from City Ordinance (Title 17) and policies to the satisfaction of the
Public Works Department, Field Engineering Division.
5.4-3
Prior to issuance of the first residential building permit for each final site plan incorporating
residential units, the property owner/developer for future residential projects shall send a
Notification Letter to businesses in proximity to the project to inform them of the presence of the
The Platinum Triangle Subsequent EIR
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
City of Anaheim • Page 3-5
3.
Revisions to the Draft EIR
sensitive use (i.e., residential land uses). The letter shall request that the mixed-use project
property owner/residents be notified of any accident at the nearby businesses that may involve
the release of hazardous substances. The Good Neighbor Program shall also require that the
project property owner/developer prepare a Safety Plan, which shall be implemented and ongoing during project operation, that includes staff training, emergency tools, and first aid
provisions, supervision of children or other individuals in an emergency situation, and a shelterin-place program for instances when evacuation is not appropriate or practicable.
5.4-4
Prior to the first final Building and Zoning inspections for each final site plan incorporating
residential units, the property owner/developer for future residential projects shall prepare and
submit to the Planning Department, Building Division, a Safety Plan, which shall be implemented
on-going during project operation that includes staff training, emergency tools, and first aid
provisions, supervision of children or other individuals in an emergency situation, and a shelterin-place program for instances when evacuation is not appropriate or practicable.
Page 3-6 • The Planning Center
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
August 2005
Appendices
Appendix A
Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No.
106A dated August 2005
The Platinum Triangle Subsequent EIR
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
The Planning Center
Appendices
This page intentionally left blank
The Planning Center
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
August 2005
Appendices
Appendix B
Additional Air Quality Modeling Output Sheets
The Platinum Triangle Subsequent EIR
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
The Planning Center
Appendices
This page intentionally left blank
The Planning Center
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
August 2005
Appendices
Appendix C
Aerial Views of The Platinum Triangle Depicting the
Ultimate Public Right-of-Way as Set Forth in the Adopted
City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element
The Platinum Triangle Subsequent EIR
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
The Planning Center
Appendices
This page intentionally left blank
The Planning Center
P:\COA-23\EIR\Final EIR\Final EIR Response to Comments.doc
August 2005