1 project information
TRANSCRIPT
CITY OF ANAHEIM Environmental Checklist Form
1 Project Information
PROJECT CASE AND NUMBERS:
Development Project - DEV2018-00059
Conditional Use Permit - CUP3516A
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS:
City of Anaheim
200 S Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER:
Andy Uk, Associate Planner
(714) 765-5238
PROJECT NAME:
Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
PROJECT APPLICANT:
NAME: Mark Glasmire
COMPANY: Extra Space Properties
ADDRESS: 2795 E Cottonwood Pkwy, #400
CITY/ST/ZIP: Salt Lake City, 84121
EMAIL: [email protected]
PHONE: 801-365-4542
AUTHORIZED AGENT:
NAME: Kevin Prociw
COMPANY: The Monolith Group
ADDRESS: 20645 N. Pima Rd, Suite #145
CITY/ST/ZIP: Scottsdale, AZ 85255
EMAIL: [email protected]
PHONE: 480-719-300
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SITE ADDRESS:
1705 S State College Blvd, Anaheim, CA 92806
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER:
082-250-84, 082-261-13
1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
1.1.1 Regional Setting
The project site is located in Orange County within the eastern portion of the City of
Anaheim (City). The City is located approximately seven (7) miles northwest from
Downtown Santa Ana and 23 miles southeast from Downtown Los Angeles. The cities of
Yorba Linda, Placentia, Fullerton, Buena Park, Cypress, Stanton, Garden Grove, and
Orange and unincorporated Orange County border the City of Anaheim. Interstate 5 (I -5)
and State Routes (SR) 39, 55, 57, 90, 91, and 241 provide regional access to the City of
Anaheim.
1.1.2 Local Setting
The Extra Space Storage Facility is located at 1705 South State College Boulevard, City
of Anaheim, Orange County, California. The 5.32-acre Project Site is located on the east
side of State College Boulevard (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APN]: 082-250-84, 082-261-
13), south of the AT&SF railroad. Major intersections are Cerritos Avenue to the North and
Katella Avenue to the south. The nearest freeways to the Project Site are Interstate (I) 5 to
the west and State Route 57 (SR-57) to the east. The Metrolink rail mainline (AT&SF
Railroad) abuts the project site to the north; industrial uses are located north of the railroad.
Residential and industrial land uses are located to the west, southwest and south,
respectively to the project site. State College Boulevard borders the project site to the east;
a commercial center with a hotel, church, offices, retail and restaurants are located further
east across State College Boulevard. The project site is in an urbanized area in the City.
Figure 1 - Project Site, shows the project site and its relative location.
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1.2.1 Existing Land Use
The project site is 5.32-acres, consisting of two (2) parcels (APN: 082-250-84, 082-261-
13). The existing use at the project site is an Extra Space Storage facility.
1.2.2 Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The General Plan designates the Project Site for Office-Low land use. The Project Site is
within the Industrial (I) Zone and the Office District of the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use
(PTMU) Overlay Zone.
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 1 – Project Site
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.3.1 Proposed City Approvals
Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
Approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to amend a previously approved CUP to
permit the expansion of the Extra Space Storage Facility with a 0.60 Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) (147,670 sq. ft.) in the Industrial (I) Zone, where the Anaheim Municipal Code
permits a maximum FAR of 0.50 (121,044 sq. ft.).
1.3.2 Description of the Project
The existing Extra Space Storage facility has five self-storage buildings, which contain 505
storage units and a main office, totaling 63,491 square-feet (sq. ft.) of building floor area.
The Applicant proposes to demolish two buildings and a portion of a third building at the
existing Extra Space Storage facility to construct five new self-storage buildings, including
one three-story, and four single-story buildings. The proposed project would increase the
total floor area to 147,670 sq. ft. and provide 1,278 storage units in eight buildings. The
proposed project would exceed the permitted FAR of 0.5 (121,044 sq. ft.), with a proposed
FAR of 0.6 (147,670 sq. ft.). The proposed project would provide forty-five parking spaces,
which includes three disabled parking spaces. Figure 2 – Site Plan, shows the building
footprint of the proposed project.
1.3.3 Project Phasing
The applicant anticipates starting construction in August 2020 and completing construction
in approximately nine months. Construction activities would include two weeks of
demolition, one week for site preparation, six weeks for excavation and grading, twenty-
four weeks of building construction, two weeks of paving and four weeks of architectural
coating. No import of soil would be required. Construction activities would require
construction equipment such as an excavator, graders, rough terrain forklifts, rollers, skid
steer loads, and generator sets. Construction would occur five-days a week. In accordance
with the Anaheim Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 6.70, construction crews would restrict
their activities to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays. The applicant anticipates
operation of the proposed project to commence in 2021.
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 2 – Site Plan
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
2 Environmental Checklist 2.1 Other Project Information
1. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The proposed
project requires a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permit and Construction General Permit.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD): Compliance with
Air Quality permits for demolition and construction.
2. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with
the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section
21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the
determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures
regarding confidentiality, etc.?
City staff contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission to request a
list of California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the
project area. The City has notified tribal groups who submitted a letter requesting
notification in compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and received a consultation
request from two tribes;
Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation.
Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation - Belardes.
As such, the City consulted with the applicable tribes. City staff and the applicable tribes
deemed consultations complete. Therefore, the City has complied with AB 52.
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
2.2 Environmental Determination
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture / Forestry Resources ☐ Air Quality
☐ Biological Resources ☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy
☐ Geology / Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Hazards / Hazardous Materials
☐ Hydrology / Water Quality ☐ Land Use / Planning ☐ Mineral Resources
☐ Noise ☐ Population / Housing ☐ Public Services
☐ Recreation ☐ Transportation ☐ Tribal Cultural Resources
☐ Utilities / Service Systems ☐ Wildlife ☐ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation:
☐ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☒ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed
in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because
all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
05/06/2020 Signature of City of Anaheim Representative Date
ANDY UK, ASSOCIATE PLANNER 714-765-5238
Printed Name / Title Phone Number
2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS EVALUATION
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as
onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as
well as operational impacts.
2) A list of “Supporting Information Sources” must be attached and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the Narrative Summary for each section.
3) Response Column Heading Definitions:
a) Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact”
entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant
Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact”. The mitigation measures must be
described, along with a brief explanation of how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level.
c) Less Than Significant Impact applies where the project creates no significant impacts,
only Less Than Significant impacts.
d) No Impact applies where a project does not create an impact in that category. A “No
Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that
the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one proposed (e.g., the project falls
outside of a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not
expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
4) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to a tiering, program EIR, Master EIR, or
other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration (Section 15062(c)(3)(D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the
following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated”, describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the
project.
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Incorporate into the checklist any references to information sources for potential impacts
(e.g., the General Plan, zoning ordinance). Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3 Environmental Checklist This section provides an evaluation of the impact categories and questions contained in the
checklist and identifies mitigation measures, if applicable.
3.1 Aesthetics
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, 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) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point). If the project
is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
a) No Impact. The proposed project is located in a relatively flat, built-out area of the City.
There are no scenic views on or near the project site. The City’s General Plan does not
identify any portions of the project site or surrounding areas as a scenic vista.1 Therefore,
development of this project will not affect a scenic vista. Therefore, no impacts would
occur and mitigation measures are required.
b) No Impact. The proposed project site is not located near a designated or eligible
California scenic highway and there are no rock outcroppings or historic buildings onsite.
The closest scenic highway to the site is SR-91, located almost six miles east of the project
site. The project would not affect any scenic resources.23 Therefore, no impacts would
occur and mitigation measures are required.
c) No Impact. The proposed project is within an urbanized area and as discussed in Section
3.11(b) Land Use and Planning; the proposed project would be consistent with applicable
1City of Anaheim, General Plan and Zoning Code Update Environmental Impact Report No. 330. May 25, 2004.
Accessible at http://www.anaheim.net/913/Environmental-Impact-Report, Accessed on April 6, 2020. 2 Ibid.
3California Department of Transportation (DOT). California Scenic Highway Mapping System, 2020. Accessible at
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm, Accessed April 6, 2020.
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
General Plan Land Use designation and zoning. The proposed project would not conflict
with the existing visual character of the area or with the Urban Design Element of the
City’s General Plan. Furthermore, the Anaheim Municipal Code (AMC) does not include
other regulations governing scenic quality. The proposed project would not conflict with
applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore, no impact
would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
d) Less-than-significant impact.
Construction light and glare
While construction would not occur during nighttime hours, the proposed project could
use construction-related nighttime lighting at the construction site for safety and security
purposes. However, all temporary construction lighting would be set up and removed upon
completion of construction. Additionally, the project site is an urbanized setting
characterized by a moderate amount of nighttime lighting, so project construction lighting
would not adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. Therefore, impacts
would be less-than-significant and no mitigation measures are required.
Operational light and glare
The project site is currently an existing Extra Space Storage facility. The proposed project
would demolish two buildings and a portion of a third building of the existing Extra Space
Storage facility and construct five new self-storage buildings, including one 3-story, and
four single-story buildings, at the Extra Space Storage facility. The proposed project would
not substantially alter the visual characteristic of the project site and the current use of the
site as a storage facility would not change. However, the improvements at the project site,
as result of the proposed project would include new lighting installed for parking spaces
and for exterior building illumination for nighttime purposes. However, these light sources
would not be significant and would comply with the City’s municipal code. Daytime glare
is most often associated with mid- to high-rise buildings with exterior façades comprised
largely or entirely of highly reflective glass or other reflective materials from which the
sun can reflect, particularly following sunrise and prior to sunset. The proposed project
includes a three-story building, which would be finished in neutral tone colors and would
include non-reflective glass on all sides of the structure. The proposed project would not
generate excessive lighting or glare that would adversely affect daytime views in the area.
Therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant and no mitigation measures are
required.
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact 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 the 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
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 of forest
land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a-e) No Impact. The Department of Conservation’s most recent Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program map for Orange County identifies the project site as “urban and built-
up land.”4 The project site and surrounding areas do not contain agricultural uses or related
operations, or forest land. Therefore, the project would not convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses. No
agricultural zoning is present in the surrounding area and no nearby lands are enrolled
under the Williamson Act.5 Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures
are required.
4California Department of Conservation (DOC) Agricultural Preserves 2004, Williamson Act Parcels, Orange
County, California. Accessible at ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/Orange_WA_03_04.pdf, Accessed on April 6,
2020. 5Ibid
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3.3 Air Quality
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district 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) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading
to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
The primary air pollutants of concern for which ambient air quality standards (AAQS)
have been established are ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), coarse inhalable particulate
matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), and lead (Pb). The federal and California Clean Air Act classifies areas as
either in attainment or nonattainment for each criteria pollutant based on whether the
AAQS have been achieved. The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which the South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) manages, is designated nonattainment for
O3, and PM2.5 under the California and National AAQS, nonattainment for PM10 under
the California AAQS, and nonattainment for lead (Los Angeles County only) under the
National AAQS. The applicable air quality plan is the SCAQMD 2016 Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP). The SCAQMD bases the AQMP on regional growth
population and employment projections provided in the Southern California Association
of Governments (SCAG) 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The 2016 AQMP provides policies and control
measures that will reduce emissions to attain both state and federal ambient air quality
standards by their applicable deadlines. Environmental review of individual projects
within the SCAB must demonstrate that the proposed project will not exceed daily
construction and operational emissions thresholds, as established by SCAQMD. The
environmental review must also demonstrate that individual projects would not increase
the number or severity of existing air quality violations. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality
Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency with the AQMP:
1. Whether the project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of
existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely
attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the
air quality plan; and
2. Whether the project would exceed the forecasted growth incorporated into the
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
AQMP via the RTP/SCS.
The SCAQMD has developed regionally specific air quality significance thresholds to
assess potential impacts that may result from construction and operation of projects. Daily
emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon
monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOX), and respirable particulate matter less than ten (10)
microns in diameter (PM10) and fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter
(PM2.5) should be quantified and assessed on both regional and localized scales, in
accordance with SCAQMD methodology.
The primary guidance is contained in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook.6
SCAQMD has established 500-meters or 1,640-feet, as the distance for assessing localized
air quality impacts. The following sensitive receptors are located within 500-meters of the
project site:
Residential
Residences (Jefferson Platinum Triangle Apartments) located adjacent to the
project site.
Residences (Park Viridian) located approximately 740-feet southwest of the project
site
Recreational/Open Space
Magnolia Park located approximately 450-feet southwest of the project site.
Localized Significance Threshold
The Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Methodology provides a look-up table for
construction and operational emissions. The LST Methodology bases the emissions on the
emission rate, location, and distance from receptors; and, provides a methodology for air
dispersion modeling to evaluate whether a construction or operation could cause an
exceedance of an ambient air quality standard. Staff analyzed the local air quality emissions
from construction using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Localized Significance Threshold
Look-Up Tables and the methodology described in Localized Significance Threshold
Methodology to determine if the daily emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5, from the
proposed project would result in a significant impact to local air quality.7
a) Less-than-significant impact.
6SCAQMD, Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook, Accessible at http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-
compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook, Accessed on April 22,2020. 7SCAQMD, Localized Significance Thresholds, Accessible at http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-
compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds, Accessed on April 22, 2020.
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Construction
Construction of the proposed project has the potential to create air quality impacts from
the use of heavy-duty construction equipment and through vehicle trips generated by
construction workers and haul trucks traveling to and from the project site. Fugitive dust
emissions would primarily result from site preparation (e.g., demolition and grading)
activities. NOX emissions would predominantly result from the use of construction
equipment and haul truck trips. The assessment of construction air quality impacts
considers all of these emissions sources. Construction emissions can vary from day-to-
day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation; and, for dust,
prevailing weather conditions.
It is mandatory for all construction projects in the SCAB to comply with SCAQMD Rule
403 for Fugitive Dust. Rule 403 control requirements include measures to prevent the
generation of visible dust plumes. Measures include, but are not limited to, applying soil
binders to uncovered areas, re-establishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing
a wheel washing system or other control measures to remove bulk material from tires and
vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the project site, and maintaining effective cover
over exposed areas. Compliance with Rule 403 would reduce regional PM2.5 and PM10
emissions associated with construction activities by approximately 61 percent.
The air quality analysis that staff conducted for the proposed project is consistent with the
methods described in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993 edition), as well
as the updates to the CEQA Air Quality Handbook provided on the SCAQMD website.
The SCAQMD recommends the use of the California Emissions Estimator Model
(CalEEMod, version 2016.3.2) as a tool for quantifying emissions of air pollutants
generated by constructing and operating development projects. The applicant provided
Project-specific information describing the schedule of construction activities and the
equipment inventory required.
The applicant expects construction to begin in August 2020 and take approximately nine
months. Construction activities would include two weeks of demolition, one week for site
preparation, six weeks for excavation and grading, twenty-four weeks of building
construction, two weeks of paving and four weeks of architectural coating. No import of
soil would be required. Construction activities would require construction equipment such
as an excavator, graders, rough terrain forklifts, rollers, skid steer loads, and generator
sets. Maximum daily emissions for each construction activity were estimated based on
heavy-duty equipment use and fugitive dust (on-site) and vehicular travel to and from the
project site (off-site).
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
TABLE 1 – REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction Activity
pounds per day (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Demolition (2020) 0.6 5.6 5.9 >0.1 2.5 0.6
Site Preparation (2020) 0.2 2.4 3.4 >0.1 0.1 0.1
Grading (2020) 1.0 10.8 7.7 >0.1 1.0 0.5
Building Construction (2020) 1.5 13.4 12.3 >0.1 1.4 0.8
Building Construction (2021) 1.4 12.3 14.9 >0.1 1.4 0.8
Paving (2021) 0.5 4.0 4.7 >0.1 0.4 0.2
Architectural Coating (2021) 55.5 4.1 5.2 >0.1 0.4 0.3
Maximum Emission 55.5 13.4 14.9 >0.1 2.5 0.8
Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No Staff adjusted CalEEMod emissions for fugitive dust to account for a 61 percent control efficiency associated with SCAQMD Rule 403.
CalEEMod emissions modeling files can be found in Appendix A
Table 1 (above) shows the maximum unmitigated daily regional emissions for activity.
Maximum daily emissions of all air pollutants would remain below all applicable regional
SCAQMD thresholds. In addition to maximum daily regional emissions, staff quantified
maximum localized (on-site) emissions for each construction activity.
Table 2 presents the results of emissions modeling from on-site construction sources. The
LSTs selected for comparison values are for a five-acre construction site, in Sensitive
Receptor Area (SRA) 17 with a sensitive receptor within 25-meters.8 Maximum on-site
emissions during project construction would not exceed the applicable LST values. The
proposed project would not exceed applicable SCAQMD thresholds during construction
activities. Construction activities would not produce a concentration of emissions that
would cause harmful effects to the health and well-being to the sensitive receptors
identified within 500-meters of the project site. Therefore, impacts would be less-than-
significant and no mitigation measures are required.
8Ibid
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Operation
The proposed project would generate regional operational emissions from vehicle trips,
area sources, and energy use. The proposed land uses would generate 127 daily trips. It is
likely that the proposed project would include forklifts powered with natural gas or
electricity; and therefore, emissions would be negligible. The CalEEMod program
generates estimates of emissions from energy use based on the land use type and size of
the project. Table 3 presents the CalEEMod results for operation of the proposed project.
Operational activities would not produce a concentration of emissions that would cause
harmful effects to the health and well-being to the sensitive receptors identified within
500-meters of the project site. Future occupation of the proposed project would not result
in daily emissions that exceed any applicable SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, impacts
would be less-than-significant and no mitigation measures are required.
TABLE 2 - LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction Activity
pounds per day (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Demolition (2020) 5.6 5.9 2.5 0.6
Site Preparation (2020) 2.4 3.4 0.1 0.1
Grading (2020) 10.8 7.7 1.0 0.5
Building Construction (2020) 13.4 12.3 1.4 0.8
Building Construction (2021) 12.3 14.9 1.4 0.8
Paving (2021) 4.0 4.7 0.4 0.2
Architectural Coating (2021) 4.1 5.2 0.4 0.3
Maximum Emission 13.4 14.9 2.5 0.8
Significance Threshold 183 1,253 13 7.0
Exceed Threshold? No No No No Staff adjusted CalEEMod emissions for fugitive dust to account for a 61 percent control efficiency associated with
SCAQMD Rule 403.
LST values based for a five (5)-acre site in SRA 17.
CalEEMod Emissions modeling files can be found in Appendix A
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
TABLE 3 - DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Operational Emissions Source
pounds per day (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources 0.6 >0.1 >0.1 >0.1 >0.1 >0.1
Energy Sources >0.1 0.2 0.1 >0.1 >0.1 >0.1
Mobile Sources >0.1 0.3 0.7 >0.1 0.2 >0.1
Total Daily Operational Emission 0.6 0.5 0.8 >0.1 0.2 >0.1
Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No CalEEMod emissions modeling files can be found in Appendix A
The second consistency criterion requires that the proposed project not exceed the
assumptions in the AQMP. The applicant anticipates that the proposed project would have
three employees during operation of the facility. The proposed small-scale infill
development of this size has no potential to interfere with growth projections and would
have no potential to result in growth that would exceed the projections incorporated in the
AQMP. Therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant and no mitigation measures are
required.
b) Less-than-significant impact. The SCAQMD designates SCAB as nonattainment of the
California Ambient Air Quality Standards and National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for O3, PM10, and PM2.5. There is an ongoing regional cumulative impact associated with
these air pollutants. The SCAQMD guidance on cumulative impacts allows an individual
project to emit allowable quantities of these pollutants on a regional scale without
significantly contributing to the cumulative impacts. Because no single project by itself
would result in nonattainment of regional air quality standards, and that all past, present
and future development projects need to be cumulatively considerable. As discussed
above, air pollutant emissions associated with construction of the proposed project would
not exceed any applicable SCAQMD air quality thresholds of significance. The SCAQMD
does not consider individual project emissions of lesser magnitude than the mass daily
thresholds to be cumulatively considerable. The proposed project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of nonattainment pollutants. Therefore, impacts
would be less-than-significant and no mitigation measures would be required.
c) Less-than-significant impact. A significant impact may occur when a project would
generate pollutant concentrations to a degree that would significantly affect sensitive
receptors, which include populations that are more susceptible to the effects of air
pollution than the population at large. The analysis below addresses exposure of sensitive
receptors for the following situations: Carbon Monoxide (CO) hotspots; localized
emissions concentrations, toxic air contaminants (TACs, specifically diesel PM) from on-
site construction; and asbestos during demolition.
CO Hot Spots. An analysis of CO “hot spots” is needed to determine whether the change
in the level of service (LOS) of an intersection due to the proposed project would have the
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
potential to result in exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS. CO exceedances are caused
by vehicular emissions, primarily when vehicles are idling at intersections. Vehicle
emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, the
CO standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams per mile for passenger cars
(requirements for certain vehicles are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles,
introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial
facilities, CO concentrations have steadily declined. Accordingly, with the steadily
decreasing CO emissions from vehicles, even very busy intersections do not result in
exceedances of the CO standard.
The SCAQMD re-designated the SCAB as in attainment in 2007 for CO; and therefore,
the SCAQMD’s AQMP no longer addresses CO. The 2003 AQMP is the most recent
version that addresses CO concentrations. As part of the SCAQMD CO Hotspot Analysis,
the SCAQMD modeled the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection, one of the
most congested intersections in Southern California with an average daily traffic (ADT)
volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles, for CO concentrations. This modeling effort
identified a CO concentration high of 4.6 ppm, which is well below the 35-ppm federal
standard. The proposed project considered herein would not produce the volume of traffic
required to generate a CO hot spot in the context of SCAQMD’s CO Hotspot Analysis.
The findings of the trip generation analysis (Appendix F) anticipates that the proposed
project will produce approximately 127 daily trips. Based on this volume of trips the CO
hotspots and localized air quality impacts related to mobile‐source emissions would not
occur at any intersections in the project vicinity resulting from the proposed project.
Therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant and no mitigation measures are
required.
Toxic Air Contaminants. Construction would result in the generation of diesel particulate
matter (diesel PM) emissions from the use of off-road diesel equipment required for
grading and excavation, paving, and other construction activities. The amount to which
the receptors are exposed (a function of concentration and duration of exposure) is the
primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e., potential exposure to toxic air
contaminant emission levels that exceed applicable standards). The California Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) developed a cancer risk factor and
noncancer chronic reference exposure level for Dielsel PM and the links health-related
risks associated with diesel-exhaust emissions to long-term exposure and the associated
risk of contracting cancer.9 The use of diesel-powered construction equipment would be
temporary and episodic. The duration of exposure would be short, exhaust from
construction equipment is highly dispersive, and the concentration of diesel PM dissipates
rapidly. Current models and methodologies for conducting health risk assessments are
associated with longer-term exposure periods of 9, 30, and 70 years, which do not correlate
well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. Project
construction involves phased activities in several areas across the site and the proposed
project would not require the extensive use of heavy-duty construction equipment or diesel
trucks in any one location over the duration of development, which would limit the
9California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Air Toxics Hotspots Program. February 2015.
Accessible at https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, Accessed on April 8, 2020.
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
exposure of any proximate individual sensitive receptor to TACs. Construction of the
proposed project would be approximately nine months and over the course of construction
activities, average diesel PM emissions would be approximately 0.6 pounds per day. It is
unlikely that diesel PM concentrations would be of any public health concern during the
nine month construction period, and diesel PM emissions would cease upon completion
of construction activities. Therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant and mitigation
measures are not required.
Localized Significance Threshold. As discussed in Section 3.3(a) Air Quality, construction
and operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD LSTs. The proposed project would
not result in significant localized construction or operational emissions. Therefore,
impacts would be less-than-significant and no mitigation measures are required.
d) Less-than-significant impact. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies
certain land uses as sources of odors. These land uses include agriculture, wastewater
treatment plant, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills,
dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed project does not propose to include any
odor-inducing uses on the project site. During construction-related activities, the proposed
project may produce some odors (not substantial pollutant concentrations) typical of
construction vehicles (e.g., diesel exhaust from grading and construction equipment).
These odors are a temporary short-term impact typical of construction projects that would
disperse rapidly. During operations, the proposed project, would comply with SCAQMD
Rule 402, which would prohibit any air quality discharge that would be a nuisance or pose
any harm to individuals of the public. On-site trash receptacles would have the potential
to create adverse odors. The facility would mitigate associated trash odors by properly
storing and disposing of trash in compliance with the City’s municipal code. The proposed
project would not include any of the land uses identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources.
Therefore, impacts would be-less-than significant and no mitigation measures are
required.
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3.4 Biological Resources
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact 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
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a-f) No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area developed with residential,
commercial, and industrial uses. The project site has been previously disturbed and there
is no natural habitat for special status species. There are no known candidates, sensitive or
special status species within the vicinity of the project site. The project site does not
contain and is not adjacent to any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community.
There are no wetlands on or near the project site. The project site is surrounded by urban
development. A private rail right-of-way is adjacent northeast of the project site, there are
various arterial streets to the north, east, south and west of the project site and further west
is Interstate 5 (I-5) freeway. These transportation corridors do not provide opportunities
to any habitat linkage. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with the
movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. The proposed project
does not conflict with ordinances protecting biological resources and no impact would
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
occur in this regard. Lastly, the project site is not located in the Orange County Central
and Coastal Natural Community Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat
Conservation Plan area.10 Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures
are required.
3.5 Cultural Resources
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Would the project
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§ 15064.5? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
a-b) Less-than-significant impact with mitigation. According to CEQA Guidelines, Section
15064.5, and Public Resources Code Section 21083.1, the proposed project would be
considered to have a significant impact if it would cause a substantial adverse change in a
significance of a unique archaeological resource (i.e., an artifact, object, or site) about
which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of
knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains information needed to answer
important scientific research questions, has a special and particular quality, such as being
the oldest or best available example of its type, or is directly associated with scientifically
recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person. According to the City's
General Plan EIR, archaeological sites within the City are often located along creek areas,
ridgelines, and vistas. Many of these types of landforms are located within the Hill and
Canyon Area of the City, and the City only has one major cultural resource site (CA-Ora-
303) that it has identified and registered. This site is adjacent to State Route 91 (SR-91).
The project site is not located near this registered site.
Prior to the release of this initial study, the City solicited a tribal consultation per AB 52.
The City communicated with interested tribes via email and via certified mailed letters, to
inform them of the proposed project. On April 20, 2020 the City, sent consultation notices
and the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation and Juaneno Band of Mission
Indians, Acjachemen Nation- Belardes have indicated that the proposed project is within
their Ancestral Tribal Territory. Thus, the City consulted with the two tribes to ensure
proper mitigations measures are set forth. Comments of the consultation letters are
included as Appendix B.
10City of Anaheim, General Plan and Zoning Code Update Environmental Impact Report No. 330. May 25, 2004.
Accessible at http://www.anaheim.net/913/Environmental-Impact-Report, Accessed on April 8, 2020.
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Implementation of the proposed project would require grading, excavation and trenching
on the site. The site is highly disturbed and, as such, it is unlikely any significant
archaeological resources would be uncovered. As conditions of approval, the applicant
would implement Mitigation Measure MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2 in the event of the
inadvertent discovery of historic or archaeological resources and with the implementation
of Mitigation Measure MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2, impacts would be less-than-
significant.
Mitigation Measure:
MM CUL-l In the event a potentially significant cultural resource is encountered during
subsurface earthwork activities, all construction activities within a 100-foot radius of the
find shall cease and workers should avoid altering the materials until an archaeologist who
meets the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology has
evaluated the situation. The applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause
in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Potentially
significant cultural resources consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, glass, ceramics,
fossils, wood, or shell artifacts, or features including hearths, structural remains, or historic
dumpsites. The archaeologist shall make recommendations concerning appropriate
measures that the project applicant will implement to protect the resource, including but
not limited to excavation and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5
of the CEQA Guidelines. The project applicant shall submit a final report to the City
Engineer detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens of any previously
undiscovered resources found during construction within the project site. Upon completion
of the grading, the archaeologist shall notify the City of Anaheim as to when the project
applicant will submit the final report.
MM CUL-2 In the event that fossils or fossil-bearing deposits are discovered during construction
activities, excavations within a 100-foot radius of the find shall be temporarily halted or
diverted. The applicant shall notify a qualified paleontologist who shall examine the
discovery. The applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every
construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. The paleontologist shall
document the discovery as needed in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
standards and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to
determine procedures that the project applicant shall follow before the City allows
construction activities to resume at the location of the find. If the applicant determines that
avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating
the effect of construction activities on the discovery. The applicant shall submit the plan to
the City of Anaheim for review and approval prior to implementation, and the applicant
shall adhere to the recommendations in the plan
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2 will ensure that the
potential impacts due to accidental discovery of significant archaeological resources are
reduced to a less-than-significant level by requiring that if a find is made, activity is
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
stopped, and appropriate measures are taken.
c) Less-than-significant impact with mitigation. Staff is not aware of any human remains
or cemeteries that exist within or near the project area. However, there is always the
possibility that subsurface construction activities associated with the proposed project,
such as trenching and grading, could potentially damage or destroy previously
undiscovered human remains. Accordingly, this is a potentially significant impact. In the
event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5; Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5; California Public Resources
Code (PRC) Section 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 must be followed. In the unlikely event
that there is a discovery of human remains, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM
CUL-3 would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure:
MM CUL-3 In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5; Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5; PRC Section 5097.94
and Section 5097.98 shall be followed. If during the course of project development there
is accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall also
be taken:
1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance within 100 feet of the remains
until the County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are Native American and
if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains
to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours, and the
NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendant
(MLD) of the deceased Native American. The MLD may make recommendations to the
landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work within 48 hours, for means of
treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated
grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98.
2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his or her authorized
representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave
goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the most
likely descendant or on the project site in a location not subject to further subsurface
disturbance:
The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely
descendent failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified
by the NAHC.
The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation.
The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the
descendant, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to
the landowner.
Additionally, PRC Section 15064.5 requires the following relative to Native American
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Remains:
When an Initial Study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of,
Native American Remains within a project, a lead agency shall work with the
appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC as provided in PRC
5097.98. The Project Applicant may develop a plan for treating or disposing of,
with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native
American Burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the
NAHC.
3.6 Energy
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Would the project
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
a) Less-than-significant impact.
Regulatory Framework
California State Building Regulation
California Building Code: Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Energy
conservation standards for new residential and non-residential buildings were adopted by
the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the
CEC) in June 1977 and most recently revised in 2016 (Title 24, Part 6, of the California
Code of Regulations [CCR]). Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building
components to conserve energy. The CEC updates these standards periodically to allow
for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and
methods. On June 10, 2015, the CEC adopted the 2016 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards, which went into effect on January 1, 2017. The 2016 Standards continues to
improve upon the previous 2013 Standards for new construction of, and additions and
alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings. Under the 2016 Standards,
residential and nonresidential buildings are 28 and 5 percent more energy efficient than
the 2013 Standards, respectively. Buildings that are constructed in accordance with the
2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are 25 percent (residential) to 30 percent
(nonresidential) more energy efficient than the prior 2008 standards as a result of better
windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features. While the 2016
standards do not achieve zero net energy, they do get very close to the state’s goal and
make important steps toward changing residential building practices in California. The
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
2019 standards is the final step to achieve zero net energy for newly constructed residential
buildings throughout California. The 2019 standards move towards cutting energy use in
new homes by more than 50 percent and requires installation of solar photovoltaic systems
for single-family homes and multi-family buildings of three stories and less. Four key
areas the 2019 standards focuses on include 1) smart residential photovoltaic systems; 2)
updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to exterior
and vice versa); 3) residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements; 4) and
nonresidential lighting requirements. Under the 2019 standards, nonresidential buildings
are 30 percent more energy efficient compared to the 2016 standards while single-family
homes are 7 percent more energy efficient. When accounting for the electricity generated
by the solar photovoltaic system, single-family homes use 53 percent less energy
compared to homes built to the 2016 standards.
California Building Code: CALGreen. On July 17, 2008, the California Building
Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California
Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11, known as “CALGreen”) was adopted
as part of the California Building Standards Code. CALGreen established planning and
design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the
California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and
internal air contaminants.12 The mandatory provisions of CALGreen became effective
January 1, 2011, and were last updated in 2019. The 2019 CALGreen became effective on
January 1, 2020.
Senate Bill 350. Senate Bill 350 (de Leon), was signed into law in September 2015. SB
350 establishes tiered increases to the RPS of 40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and
50 percent by 2030. SB 350 also set a new goal to double the energy efficiency savings in
electricity and natural gas through energy efficiency and conservation measures.
SB 100. On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown signed SB 100, which replaces the SB
350 requirement of 45 percent renewable energy by 2027 with the requirement of 50
percent by 2026. The bill also raises California’s RPS requirements for 2050 from 50
percent to 60 percent. SB 100 also establishes RPS requirements for publicly owned
utilities that consist of 44 percent renewable energy by 2024, 52 percent by 2027, and 60
percent by 2030. Furthermore, the bill also establishes an overall state policy that eligible
renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail
sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured
to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045. Under the bill, the state cannot increase
carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the
100 percent carbon-free electricity target.
Local Regulation
The City’s Green Element outlines goals and policies conserve energy during the
construction and operation of buildings.11 Key goals and policies from the Green Element
11City of Anaheim, General Plan: Green Element, revised June 2018, available at
http://www.anaheim.net/712/General-Plan , Accessed on April 22, 2020.
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
regarding new construction are:
Goal 15.2: Continue to encourage site design practices that reduce and conserve
energy.
o Policy 15.2(1): Encourage increased use of passive and active solar design
in existing and new development (e.g., orienting buildings to maximize
exposure to cooling effects of prevailing winds and locating landscaping
and landscape structures to shade buildings).
o Policy 15.2(2): Encourage energy-efficient retrofitting of existing buildings
throughout the City.
Goal 17.1: Encourage building and site design standards that reduce energy costs.
o Policy 17.1(1): Encourage designs that incorporate solar and wind exposure
features such as daylighting design, natural ventilation, space planning and
thermal massing.
Construction Energy Consumption
The main forms of available energy supply are electricity, natural gas, and oil. During
construction of the proposed project, the consumption of energy would be in the form of
electricity associated with the conveyance of water used for dust control, powering lights,
electronic equipment, or other construction activities that require electrical power.
Construction activities typically do not involve the consumption of natural gas. However,
construction activities would also consume energy in the form of petroleum-based fuels
associated with the use of off- road construction vehicles and equipment, round-trip
construction worker travel to the project site, and delivery and haul truck trips.
Construction activities would comply with CARB’s “In-Use Off- Road Diesel Fueled
Fleets Regulation”, which limits engine idling times to reduce harmful emissions and
reduce wasteful consumption of petroleum-based fuel. Additionally, the proposed project
would comply the California Renewable Portfolio Standard, the Clean Energy and
Pollution reduction Act of 2015 (Senate Bill (SB) 350). Compliance with local, state, and
federal regulations would reduce short-term energy demand during the proposed project’s
construction to the extent feasible, and proposed project construction would not result in a
wasteful or inefficient use of energy. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur
and no mitigation measures are required.
Operational Energy Consumption
During operations of the proposed project, Anaheim Public Utilities (APUD) would
provide electricity and APUD obtains its power supply from a range of non-renewable and
renewable sources. Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas) would provide natural
gas to the project site. Energy use associated with operation of the proposed project would
be typical of commercial uses, requiring electricity and natural gas for interior and exterior
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
building lighting, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, electronic equipment,
machinery, refrigeration, appliances, security systems, and more. Maintenance activities
during operations, such as landscape maintenance, would involve the use of electric or gas-
powered equipment. In addition to on-site energy use, the proposed project would result in
transportation energy use associated with vehicle trips generated by the proposed
commercial development. However, the proposed project does not involve any
characteristics or processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more
energy intensive than the amount used for comparable activities or involve the use of
equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards and related fuel
efficiencies. The proposed project will be subject to the California Green Building
Standards Code, which requires new buildings to reduce water consumption, employ
building commissioning to increase building system efficiencies for large buildings, divert
construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant-emitting finish materials. The
proposed project does not include any feature (i.e., substantially alter energy demands) that
will interfere with implementation of these state and City codes and plans. Therefore, a
less-than-significant impact would occur and no mitigation measure would be required.
b) Less-than-significant impact. The City of Anaheim General Plan Green Element
contains energy goals and policies applicable to the proposed project, including Green
Element Goal 15.2; (Policies 1 and 2 encouraging site design practices to reduce and
conserve energy), and Green Element Goal 17.1, (Policy 1 encouraging building and site
design standards that reduce energy costs.). Project design and operation would comply
with the most current State Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24), appliance
efficiency regulations, and green building standards. Compliance with Title 24 standards
and CALGreen standards would ensure the proposed project incorporates energy-efficient
features. The proposed project would support the City’s goals by complying with Title 24
energy and efficiency standards and green building standards as amended by the AMC
section 15.03. Additionally, the City would review building plans and construction plans
prior to the approval of the Proposed Project. This review would further ensure that the
proposed project would comply with local and state regulations. The 2019 CALGreen
standards require the recycling and/or salvaging of a minimum of 65 percent of
nonhazardous construction and demolition waste. Adherence to the California Public
Utilities Commission’s energy requirements, as well as the most current Title 24 and
CALGreen standards would ensure conformance with the City of Anaheim General Plan
Green Element goals and policies, as well as the State’s goal of promoting energy
efficiency and renewable energy. The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct
a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, would be less-
than-significant and no mitigation is required.
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3.7 Geology and Soils
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Would the project
a) Directly or indirectly cause 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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 direct or indirect risks to life
or property?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
This section utilizes the following technical studies in its analysis:
Geotechnical Engineering Report, Terracon Consultants, Inc. April 24, 2018
(Appendix C)
a.i) Less-than-significant impact. There are no known active earthquake faults, or Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, that traverse the City12. While no active or potentially
active faults traverse the City, the entire Southern California region is seismically active.
12City of Anaheim, General Plan and Zoning Code Update Environmental Impact Report No. 330. May 25, 2004.
Accessible at: http://www.anaheim.net/913/Environmental-Impact-Report, Accessed on April 20, 2020.
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The City is located between two major active fault zones: the Newport-Inglewood fault
zone and the Whittier-Elsinore fault zone.13 The Newport-Inglewood fault passes within
seven (7)-miles of the western limits of the City. The Whittier-Elsinore fault passes within
one (1)-mile of the northeastern end of the City. The proposed project will not expose
people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving the rupture of a
known earthquake fault. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur and no
mitigation measures are required.
a.ii) Less-than-significant impact. As discussed above, the project site is not located within
an established Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. However, like all areas in southern
California, movement associated with the active faults could cause strong ground motion
at the project site. The degree of ground shaking and earthquake-induced damage is
dependent on multiple factors such as distances to causative faults, earthquake
magnitudes, and expected ground accelerations. Therefore, all construction is required to
occur in compliance with the most current California Building Code (CBC) requirements.
Additionally, compliance with existing local City building standards and other applicable
seismic related design requirements would further reduce the potential for damage to occur
as the result of rupture of known earthquake faults in the region. Potential for this type of
activity is similar throughout Southern California and the proposed project does not pose
a unique or unusual risk. Therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant and no
mitigations measures are required.
a.iii, iv) No Impact. Liquefaction is a mode of ground failure that results from the generation
of high pore water pressures during earthquake ground shaking, causing loss of shear
strength. Liquefaction is typically a hazard where loose sandy soils exist below
groundwater. The California Geologic Survey (CGS) has designated certain areas within
Southern California as potential liquefaction hazard zones. These are areas considered at
a risk of liquefaction-related ground failure during a seismic event, based upon mapped
surficial deposits and the presence of a relatively shallow water table. The project site is
not located within a liquefaction hazard zone as designated by the CGS. Based on the CGS
hazard maps and the subsurface conditions encountered at the project site, the potential
for liquefaction at the site is low. Other geologic hazards related to liquefaction, such as
lateral spreading, are therefore also low. The project site does not lie in an officially
designated liquefaction hazard zone nor a landslide potential.1415 Construction would be
required to comply with Chapter 15.03 of the AMC, which requires compliance with the
CBC and therefore accepted statewide regulations for seismic safety. Therefore, no
impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
b) Less-than-significant impact. During ground disturbing activities, such as grading and
excavation, the project site could potentially be subject to soil erosion or loss of topsoil.
Construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with local and state
13Ibid. 14California Geological Survey, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation - Anaheim Quadrangle, 1998,
https://gmw.conservation.ca.gov/SHP/EZRIM/Maps/ANAHEIM_EZRIM.pdf. 15City of Anaheim, General Plan and Zoning Code Update Environmental Impact Report No. 330. May 25, 2004.
Available at http://www.anaheim.net/913/Environmental-Impact-Report, Accessed on April 20,2020.
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
codes regulating construction activities and soil erosion. Locally, the proposed project
would be required to comply with the AMC Chapter 17.04, Grading, Excavations, Fills,
Watercourses, which is in place to ensure that excavation and fills that may affect drainage
and watercourses are in accordance with good engineering practice. The proposed project
would also be required to comply with AMC Section 10.09.030, Control of Urban Runoff,
which requires that new development develop a water quality management plan (WQMP).
State regulations, would require the project applicant to obtain a Construction General
Permit (CGP) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The CGP is
in place to minimize water pollution from construction activities, including erosion. The
proposed improvements at the project site would be subject to the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting regulations, including the
development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP),
discussed in Section 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality. The proposed project’s
construction contractor would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP and
associated best management practices (BMPs) in compliance with the CGP during grading
and construction. Adherence with existing state and local laws regulating construction
activities would minimize soil erosion from project-related construction activities.
Therefore, soil erosion impacts due to project construction would be less-than-significant
and no mitigation measures are required.
c) No Impact. As discussed in Section 3.7 (a.iii, iv) Geology and Soils, the project site does
not lie within a liquefaction hazard zone. Since the project site is not within a liquefaction
hazard zone; there would be no potential for lateral spreading because lateral spreading is
a type of liquefaction‐induced ground failure associated with the lateral displacement of
surficial blocks of sediment resulting from liquefaction in a subsurface layer. There are no
known, ongoing or planned extractions of groundwater, gas, oil, or geothermal energy that
will cause subsidence at the project site. Construction would be required to comply with
Chapter 15.03 of the AMC, which requires compliance with the CBC and therefore
accepted statewide regulations for seismic safety. Therefore, no impacts would occur and
no mitigation measures are required.
d) No Impact. Expansive soils are those that undergo volume changes as moisture content
fluctuates, swelling substantially when wet or shrinking when dry. Soil expansion can
cause damage to building foundations, roads and other structures. Because the proposed
project would involve grading and construction activities that would occur on flat ground,
substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil would not occur. All construction and grading
activity would comply with the City’s existing ordinances and policies, including those
aimed at erosion control such as Code Title 17, Land Development and Resources and the
current version of the Uniform Building Code. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no
mitigation measures are required.
e) No Impact. The proposed project would not include the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems. The project site is in an urbanized area of the City, and the
proposed project would connect to the City’s wastewater system. Therefore, no impacts
would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
f) Less-than-significant impact with mitigation. Surficial sediments at the project site area
consist of younger terrestrial Quaternary Alluvium, with older terrestrial Quaternary
sediments occurring at various depths, as part of the floodplain deposits from the Santa
Ana River. These deposits typically do not contain significant vertebrate fossils, at least in
the uppermost layers. Surface grading or very shallow excavations in the uppermost few
feet of the younger Quaternary Alluvium at the project site are unlikely to uncover
significant fossil vertebrate remains. Deeper excavations may encounter significant
vertebrate fossils in older Quaternary deposits. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation
Measure MM GEO-1 would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to a
less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure:
MM GEO-1 During rough grading activities, which are defined as any grading activity occurring
at depths below four feet from the existing surface, close monitoring should occur to
quickly and professionally collect any specimens without impeding development and
sediment samples should be collected and processed by a qualified professional to
determine the small fossil potential. In the event that paleontological resources are
inadvertently unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development
project, the paleontologist or contractor shall temporarily cease all earth-disturbing
activities within a 100-foot radius of the area of discovery. The qualified professional shall
evaluate the significance of the finding and determine the appropriate course of action. If
avoidance of the resource(s) is not feasible, the applicant shall follow salvage operation
requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. After the
proposed project has appropriately avoided or mitigated the find, work in the area may
resume. Nothing in this mitigation measure precludes the retention of a single cross-trained
observer who is qualified to monitor for both archaeological and paleontological resources.
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
The “greenhouse effect” is the natural process that retains heat in the troposphere, the
bottom layer of the atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, thermal energy would
“leak” into space resulting in a much colder and inhospitable planet. With the greenhouse
effect, the global average temperature is approximately 61 ̊F (16 ̊C). Greenhouse gases
(GHGs) are the components of the atmosphere responsible for the greenhouse effect. The
amount of heat retained is proportional to the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere.
As more GHGs release into the atmosphere, GHG concentrations increase and the
atmosphere retains more heat, increasing the effects of climate change. The Kyoto
Protocol for emission reduction targets identified six gases: carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC),
and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). When accounting for GHGs, all types of GHG emissions
are expressed in terms of CO2 equivalents (CO2e) and are typically quantified in metric
tons (MT) or million metric tons (MMT).
CO2, CH4, and N2O contribute to approximately 80 percent of the total heat stored in the
atmosphere. Both human activities and natural sources emit these three gases. Each of the
GHGs affect climate change at different rates and persist in the atmosphere for varying
lengths of time. Global Warming Potential (GWP) is the relative measure of the potential
for a GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere. The GWP allows comparisons of the global
warming impacts of different gases. Specifically, it is a measure of how much energy the
emissions of one ton of a gas will absorb over a given period, relative to the emissions of
one ton of CO2. The larger the GWP, the more that a given gas warms the Earth compared
to CO2 over that period. GWPs provide a common unit of measure, which allows analysts
to add up emissions estimates of different gases (e.g., to compile a national GHG
inventory), and allows policymakers to compare emissions reduction opportunities across
sectors and gases.
GHGs, primarily CO2, CH4, and N2O, are emitted as a result of stationary source
combustion of natural gas in equipment such as water heaters, boilers, process heaters, and
furnaces. GHGs are also emitted from mobile sources such as on-road vehicles and off-
road construction equipment burning fuels such as gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, propane, or
natural gas (compressed or liquefied). Indirect GHG emissions result from electric power
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
generated elsewhere (i.e., power plants) used to operate process equipment, lighting, and
utilities at a facility. Included in GHG quantification is electric power, which is used to
pump the water supply (e.g., aqueducts, wells, pipelines) and disposal and decomposition
of municipal waste in landfills.
Regulations and Significance Criteria.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-3-05 in June 2005,
which established the following GHG emission reduction targets: (a) by 2010: Reduce
GHG emissions to 2000 levels; (b) by 2020: Reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and,
(c) by 2050: Reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels, which is the level
estimated to stabilize climate temperatures to a 2 degree increase and avoid further
escalation of environmental impacts from global warming to agricultural resources,
diseases, water supply, sea-level rise, and other harmful impacts.
AB 32. AB 32 Statutes of 2006, Health and Safety Code Section 38500 et seq. require that
CARB determine what the Statewide GHG emissions level was in 1990 and approve a
Statewide GHG emissions limit that is equivalent to that level, to be achieved by 2020.
CARB approved a 2020 emissions limit of 427 million metric tons of CO2equivalent
(MTCO2e). Additionally, issued in April 2015, Executive Order (EO) EO-15 requires
Statewide GHG emissions to be reduced 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
EOB-30-15, which Governor Brown issued in April 2015, requires statewide GHG
emissions to be reduced 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. SB 32, signed into law in
September 2016, codifies the 2030 GHG reduction target in EO B-30-15. SB 32 authorizes
CARB to adopt an interim GHG emissions level target for the State to achieve by 2030
and to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum,
technologically feasible, and cost-effective GHG reductions. With SB 32, the California
Legislature passed companion legislation AB 197, which provided additional direction for
developing an updated Scoping Plan. CARB released the second update to the Scoping
Plan to reflect the 2030 target set by EO B-30-15 and codified by SB 32 in November
2017.
SB 375. In 2008, SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, was
adopted to connect the GHG emissions reductions targets established in the 2008 Scoping
Plan for the transportation sector to local land use decisions that affect travel behavior. Its
intent is to reduce GHG emissions from light-duty trucks and automobiles (excludes
emissions associated with goods movement) by aligning regional long-range
transportation plans, investments, and housing allocations to local land use planning to
reduce VMT and vehicle trips. Specifically, SB 375 required CARB to establish GHG
emissions reduction targets for each of the 18 metropolitan planning organizations
(MPOs). SCAG is the MPO for the Southern California region, which includes the
counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial.
Pursuant to the recommendations of the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee,
CARB adopted per capita reduction targets for each of the MPOs rather than a total
magnitude reduction target. SCAG’s targets are an eight (8) percent per capita reduction
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
from 2005 GHG emission levels by 2020 and a 13 percent per capita reduction from 2005
GHG emission levels by 2035. The 2020 targets are smaller than the 2035 targets because
a significant portion of the built environment in 2020 has been defined by decisions that
have already been made. In general, the 2020 scenarios reflect that more time is needed
for large land use and transportation infrastructure changes. Most of the reductions in the
interim will come from improving the efficiency of the region’s transportation network.
The targets would result in 3 MMTCO2e of reductions by 2020 and 15 MMTCO2e of
reductions by 2035. Based on these reductions, the State would meet the passenger vehicle
target in CARB’s Scoping Plan (for AB 32).
SB 100. On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown signed SB 100, which replaces the SB
350 requirement of 45 percent renewable energy by 2027 with the requirement of 50
percent by 2026 and also raises California’s RPS requirements for 2050 from 50 percent
to 60 percent. SB 100 also establishes RPS requirements for publicly owned utilities that
consist of 44 percent renewable energy by 2024, 52 percent by 2027, and 60 percent by
2030. Furthermore, the bill also establishes an overall state policy that eligible renewable
energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of
electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve
all state agencies by December 31, 2045. Under the bill, the state cannot increase carbon
emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100
percent carbon-free electricity target.
Senate Bill 350. Senate Bill 350 (de Leon) was signed into law in September 2015. SB
350 establishes tiered increases to the RPS of 40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and
50 percent by 2030. SB 350 also set a new goal to double the energy efficiency savings in
electricity and natural gas through energy efficiency and conservation measures.
Assembly Bill 1493. AB 1493 (Pavley I) enacted California vehicle GHG emission
standards. Pavley I is a clean-car standard that reduces GHG emissions from new
passenger vehicles (light-duty auto to medium-duty vehicles) from 2009 through 2016 and
was anticipated to reduce GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles by 30 percent in
2016. California implements the Pavley I standards through a waiver granted to California
by the EPA. In 2012, the EPA issued a Final Rulemaking that sets even more stringent
fuel economy and GHG emissions standards for model year 2017 through 2025 light-duty
vehicles (see also the discussion on the update to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy
standards under Federal Laws, above). In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced
Clean Cars program (formerly known as Pavley II) for model years 2017 through 2025.
The program combines the control of smog, soot, and global warming gases and
requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles into a single package of
standards. Under California’s Advanced Clean Car program, by 2025, new automobiles
will emit 34 percent fewer global warming gases and 75 percent fewer smog-forming
emissions.
California Building Code: Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Energy
conservation standards for new residential and non-residential buildings were adopted by
the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
CEC) in June 1977 and most recently revised in 2016 (Title 24, Part 6, of the California
Code of Regulations [CCR]). Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building
components to conserve energy. The CEC updates these standards periodically to allow
for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and
methods. On June 10, 2015, the CEC adopted the 2016 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards, which went into effect on January 1, 2017. The 2016 Standards continues to
improve upon the previous 2013 Standards for new construction of, and additions and
alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings. Under the 2016 Standards,
residential and nonresidential buildings are 28 and 5 percent more energy efficient than
the 2013 Standards, respectively. Buildings that are constructed in accordance with the
2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are 25 percent (residential) to 30 percent
(nonresidential) more energy efficient than the prior 2008 standards as a result of better
windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features. While the 2016
standards do not achieve zero net energy, they do get very close to the state’s goal and
make important steps toward changing residential building practices in California. The
2019 standards is the final step to achieve zero net energy for newly constructed residential
buildings throughout California. The 2019 standards move towards cutting energy use in
new homes by more than 50 percent and requires installation of solar photovoltaic systems
for single-family homes and multi-family buildings of three stories and less. Four key
areas the 2019 standards focuses on include 1) smart residential photovoltaic systems; 2)
updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to exterior
and vice versa); 3) residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements; 4) and
nonresidential lighting requirements. Under the 2019 standards, nonresidential buildings
are 30 percent more energy efficient compared to the 2016 standards while single-family
homes are 7 percent more energy efficient. When accounting for the electricity generated
by the solar photovoltaic system, single-family homes use 53 percent less energy
compared to homes built to the 2016 standards.
California Building Code: CALGreen. On July 17, 2008, the California Building
Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The
Commission adopted the California Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11,
known as “CALGreen”) as part of the California Building Standards Code. CALGreen
established planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy
efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation,
material conservation, and internal air contaminants. The mandatory provisions of
CALGreen became effective January 1, 2011, and were last updated in 2019. The 2019
CALGreen became effective on January 1, 2020.
Greenhouse Gas Guidelines
The CEQA Guidelines require lead agencies to adopt GHG thresholds of significance.
When adopting these thresholds, the amended Guidelines allows lead agencies to consider
thresholds of significance adopted or recommended by other public agencies, or
recommended by experts, provided that the thresholds are supported by substantial
evidence, and/or to develop their own significance threshold. Neither the City nor
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SCAQMD has officially adopted a quantitative threshold value for determining the
significance of GHG emissions that projects will generate under CEQA.
SCAQMD published the Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas
(GHG) Significance Threshold in October 2008.16 SCAQMD convened a GHG CEQA
Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group beginning in April of 2008 to
examine alternatives for establishing quantitative GHG thresholds within the district’s
jurisdiction. The Working Group proposed a tiered screening methodology for assessing
the potential significance of GHG emissions generated by CEQA projects. The tiered
screening methodology was in the minutes of the final Working Group meeting on
September 28, 2010.17
The City has not adopted GHG significance thresholds but may set a project-specific
threshold based on the context of a particular project, including the proposed project. Thus,
the analysis uses the SCAQMD Working Group expert recommendation because: (1) it is
in the same air quality basin that the experts analyzed. (2) It is a storage facility that is
within an industrial zone, but its emissions characteristics closely resembles commercial
uses. (3) This information appears to corroborate the SCAQMD staff’s finding that the
policy objective of capturing 90 percent of all GHG emissions for this region can be
achieved with a screening level of 3000 MTCO2eq/yr. Therefore, staff is recommending
that lead agencies use this value for residential and commercial developments, including
industrial parks, warehouses, etc. For the proposed project, SCAQMD’s proposed 3,000
MTCO2e/yr non-industrial screening threshold is used as the significance threshold in
addition to the qualitative thresholds of significance set forth in Section VIII of State
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. The 3,000 MTCO2e/yr screening threshold represents a
90 percent capture rate (i.e., this threshold captures projects with approximately 90 percent
of GHG emissions from new sources). Staff estimated GHG emissions that the proposed
project would generate using CalEEMod, as recommended by the SCAQMD. CalEEMod
quantifies GHG emissions from construction activities and future operation of projects.
Sources of GHG emissions during project construction will include heavy-duty off-road
diesel equipment and vehicular travel to and from the project site. Sources of GHG
emissions during project operation will include employee, customer and delivery vehicular
travel, energy demand, water use, and waste generation. In accordance with SCAQMD
methodology, staff amortized the total amount of GHG emissions that construction of the
proposed project would generate over a 30-year operational period to represent long-term
impacts.
a) Less-than-significant impact. Global climate change is not confined to a particular
project area and is generally accepted as the consequence of global industrialization over
the last 200 years. A typical project, even a very large one, does not generate enough GHG
16SCAQMD, Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold, October
2008. 17SCAQMD, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15, September 28,
2010, Accessible at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-
significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf?sfvrsn=2, Accessed April 22,
2020.
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
emissions on its own to influence global climate change significantly; hence, the issue of
global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental impact.
Table 4 presents the estimated GHG emissions that the proposed project would release to
the atmosphere on an annual basis. Construction of the proposed project would produce
approximately 158 MTCO2e, or 5.3 MTCO2e annually over a 30-year period. The total
annual operating emissions would be approximately 1,353 MTCO2e per year after
accounting for amortized construction emissions. This mass rate is substantially below the
most applicable quantitative draft interim threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year
recommended by SCAQMD to capture 90 percent of CEQA projects within its
jurisdiction. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact
related to GHG emissions.
TABLE 4 - ESTIMATED ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Scenario and Source Annual GHG Emissions (MTCO2e per Year)
Construction Emissions Amortized (Direct)/a/ 5.3
Area Source Emissions (Direct) >0.1
Energy Source Emissions (Indirect) 762
Mobile Source Emissions 236
Waste Disposal Emissions (Indirect) 92
Water Distribution Emissions (Indirect) 258
Total Emissions 1,353
Significance Threshold 3000
Exceed Threshold? No /a/ Based on SCAQMD guidance, emissions summary including 30-year amortization with construction.
Overall, development and operation of the proposed project would not generate net annual
emissions that exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore,
impacts would be less-than-significant and no mitigation measures are required.
b) Less-than-significant impact. Applicable plans adopted for reducing GHG emissions
include the CARB Scoping Plan and SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). Below is a consistency analysis between the proposed
project and these plans.
CARB’s Scoping Plan is California’s GHG reduction strategy to achieve the state’s GHG
emissions reduction target established by AB 32, which is to return to 1990 emission levels
by year 2020. The CARB Scoping Plan is applicable to state agencies and is not directly
applicable to cities/counties and individual projects. Nonetheless, the Scoping Plan has
been the primary tool used to develop performance-based and efficiency-based CEQA
criteria and GHG reduction targets for climate action planning. Since adoption of the 2008
Scoping Plan, state agencies have adopted programs in the plan, and the legislature has
passed additional legislation to achieve the GHG reduction targets. Statewide strategies to
reduce GHG emissions include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), California
Appliance Energy Efficiency regulations, California Renewable Energy Portfolio
standard, changes in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, and other
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
early action measures as necessary to ensure the state is on target to achieve the GHG
emissions reduction goals of AB 32. In addition, new buildings are required to comply
with the latest applicable Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen Code. On
December 24, 2017, CARB adopted the Final 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update
to address the new 2030 interim target to achieve a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels
by 2030, established by SB 32. While measures in the Scoping Plan would generally apply
to state agencies and not the proposed project, compliance with these statewide measures
adopted since AB 32 and SB 32 would reduce the proposed project’s GHG emissions. The
proposed project would not obstruct implementation of the CARB Scoping Plan.
Therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant and no mitigation measures are
required.
With regards to local climate planning initiatives, SCAG adopted the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS
to balance future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental and public
health goals. RTP/SCS states that lead agencies such as local jurisdictions have the sole
discretion in determining a local project’s consistency with the plan. The RTP/SCS
focuses the majority of new job growth in high-quality transit areas and other opportunity
areas on existing main streets, in downtowns, and commercial corridors, resulting in an
improved jobs-housing balance and more opportunity for transit-oriented development.
The RTP/SCS also includes programs, policies and measures to address air quality
emissions and reduce GHG emissions that are consistent with the provisions of Section
15091 of the CEQA Guidelines, including but not limited to reducing emissions resulting
from a project through implementation of project features, project design, or other
measures; incorporating design measures to reduce energy consumption and increase use
of renewable energy, and using the minimum feasible amount of GHG emitting
construction materials. The proposed project would be consistent with the RTP/SCS by
complying with CalGreen. CalGreen lays out minimum requirements for newly
constructed buildings in California, which will reduce GHG emissions through improved
efficiency and process improvements. It requires builders to install plumbing that cuts
indoor water use by as much as 20 percent, to divert 50 percent of construction waste from
landfills to recycling, and to use low-pollutant paints, carpets, and floors. By complying
with Title 24, the proposed project would be consistent with RTP/SCS. OCTA bus stations
near the project site connect the site to the surrounding City and Southern California
region. The proposed project would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to implement the
regional strategies outlined in the RTP/SCS. Therefore, impacts would be less-than-
significant and no mitigation measures are required.
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact 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 § 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 a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a,b) Less-than-significant impact. Exposure of the public or the environment to hazardous
materials can occur through transportation accidents; environmentally unsound disposal
methods; improper handling of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes (particularly by
untrained personnel); and/or emergencies, such as explosions or fires. The severity of these
potential effects varies by type of activity, concentration and/or type of hazardous
materials or wastes, and proximity to sensitive receptors. The applicant does not anticipate
that construction of the proposed project would involve the transport, use, creation or
disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed project would use small quantities of
potentially hazardous substances such as gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricants for machines, and
other petroleum-based products would be used on the project site. Should any unknown
contaminated soils or other hazardous materials be discovered and be removed from the
project site, the soils/material can be transported only by a licensed hazardous waste hauler
in covered containment devices in compliance with all applicable County, State, and
federal requirements. During grading and construction activities, the contractor would be
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
required to comply applicable City zoning code requirements, including prohibition of the
active or passive discharge or disposal of soil or construction debris into the storm drain.
Additionally, the owner/contractor is required to comply with the current version of the
State’s GCP, which requires the development and implementation of a SWPPP. SWPPPs
address the prevention or elimination of potential pollutants associated with all applicable
types of construction related materials and wastes onsite. During the operational phase of
the project, treatment control BMPs would remove pollutants generated to the maximum
extent practicable as defined in the County’s Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP).
The type and amount of hazardous materials on site would be typical of those used for a
typical commercial business. This analysis assumes that all potentially hazardous
materials would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturer’s
instructions and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations.
Therefore, less-than-significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are
required.
c) No Impact. There are no schools located within one (1/4)-quarter mile of the project site.
Neither construction nor operation of the proposed project would generate acutely
hazardous materials or wastes, and the limited use of any hazardous materials would be
contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturer's guidelines as well as
according to all applicable federal, state, and local standards and regulations regarding
hazardous materials. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are
required.
d) No Impact. The project site is not on the Envirostor database, maintained by the California
Department of Toxic Substances.18 Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation
measures are required.
e) No Impact. Fullerton Municipal Airport is approximately 8.4-miles north of the project
site and Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve is located approximately 10.1 miles west of
the project site. The project site does not fall within an airport land use planning area. The
proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people at the project site.
Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation is required.
f) Less-than-significant impact. The City approved its Emergency Operations Plan (EOP)
in June 2017. The EOP provides comprehensive policy and guidance for emergency and
response operations, and details the responsibilities of residents, organizations, and City-
departments. The City uses Anaheim Alert to contact residents during emergencies to
provide information regarding evacuations. The project site is developed, and proposed
project implementation would not significantly increase traffic or the need for services.
No road closures would occur on State College Boulevard, during construction. Therefore,
less-than-significant impacts would occur and no mitigation is required.
g) No Impact. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has
18California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Cortese List. Accessible at
https://calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/, accessed on April 23,2020
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
mapped fire threat potential throughout California. The project site is not within an
identified State or Local fire hazard area. The proposed project would not expose people
or structures to a risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. The project site is
in a developed urban area and it is not adjacent to or near any wildland areas. See Section
3.20, Wildfire, for more discussion on this topic. Therefore, no impact would occur and
no mitigation is required.
3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Would the project
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water
quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
i) result in a substantial erosion or siltation on-
or off-site; ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite; ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii) 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; or
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
This section utilizes the following technical studies in its analysis:
Preliminary Drainage Study, Blue Peak Engineering, Inc. May 24, 2018
(Appendix D)
County of Orange/Santa Ana Region Priority Project Preliminary Water Quality
Management Plan (PWQMP) Blue Peak Engineering, Inc. August 6, 2019.
(Appendix E)
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Geotechnical Engineering Report, Terracon Consultants, Inc. April 24, 2018
(Appendix C)
a) Less-than-significant impact.
Urban runoff, during both dry and wet weather conditions, discharges into storm drains,
and in most cases, flows directly to creeks, rivers, lakes, and the ocean. Polluted runoff
can have harmful effects on drinking water, recreational water, and wildlife. The proposed
project would pipe runoff from the project site to the front of the site along State College
Boulevard where the project would pump the runoff to grade and discharge it into the curb
and gutter in State College Boulevard. Runoff is captured in a public catch basin
downstream of the property. Runoff is piped downstream to the East Garden Grove
Wintersburg Channel. The project site runoff would flow to Drainage Basin 26. Drainage
Basin 26 has a tributary drainage area of approximately 800 acres. The City of Anaheim
Master Plan of Storm Drainage does not note any deficiencies for East Garden Grove
Wintersburg Channel Tributary Area.19
Construction Impact
During construction, there is the potential for short-term surface water quality impacts.
Such impacts include runoff of loose soils and/or a variety of construction wastes and fuels
that the surface runoff would carry off-site into local storm drains and streets that drain
eventually into water resources. The proposed project would be required to obtain a
NPDES GCP from the SWRCB and prepare a SWPPP. The SWPPP includes BMPs to
reduce water quality impacts, including various measures to control on-site erosion, reduce
sediment flows into storm water and wind erosion; reduce tracking of soil and debris into
adjacent roadways and off-site areas; and manage wastes, materials, wastewater, liquids,
hazardous materials, stockpiles, equipment, and other site conditions to prevent pollutants
from entering the storm drain system. Implementation of the provisions of the NPDES
permit and compliance with City grading requirements would minimize construction
impacts through BMPs that reduce construction-related pollutants. Therefore, impacts
would be less-than-significant and no mitigation measures are required.
Operational Impact
Stormwater runoff from the proposed project has the potential to introduce small amounts
of pollutants into the stormwater system. The project site is 100 percent impervious; the
post development condition would be approximately 97 percent impervious. Runoff from
the existing site flows to curb and gutter or v-gutters from the west side of the site to the
east side of the site. The gutters convey the runoff to a series of inlets along the southern
property line. From these inlets, runoff is piped to the front of the site along State College
Blvd where it is pumped to grade and discharges into the curb and gutter in State College
Blvd. With the proposed project, the drainage pattern will remain the same except for
19City of Anaheim, Master Plan of Storm Drainage for East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel Tributary Area,
January 2006. Accessible at http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/9163/East-GG-Wintersburg?bidId=,
Accessed on April 21, 2020.
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
mitigated treatment runoff volume that the proposed project will divert to an underground
system to infiltrate into the soil. The infiltration storage capacity volume would be
approximately 3,337 cubic feet and this infiltration system would be considered an
infiltration BMP. Runoff from the new buildings will discharge at grade; v-gutters will
convey the runoff along the fronts of the building, maintaining the existing drainage paths.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed project, the project applicant
would have to comply with all applicable regulations and obtain a NPDES stormwater
permit to indicate that the project features BMPs. As such, the proposed project would not
violate water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, or stormwater NPDES
standards, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Therefore, impacts would be
less-than-significant an no mitigation measures are required.
b) Less-than-significant impact. The City receives approximately 75 percent of its water
supply from groundwater from Orange County Basin (OC Basin) and 25 percent from
imported water. The OC Basin, managed by Orange County Water District (OCWD). It
underlies the northerly half of Orange County beneath broad lowlands and covers
approximately 350 square miles, bordered by the Coyote and Chino Hills to the north, the
Santa Ana Mountains to the northeast, and the Pacific Ocean to the southwest. The City
owns and operates a network of groundwater wells to supply potable water to their users.
The City is currently using a small amount of recycled water and is planning to increase
its water use in the future.
As discussed in the Geotechnical Engineering Report (Appendix C) prepared for the
proposed project, the subsurface investigation did not encounter groundwater. The project
site is not a groundwater recharge area, and the proposed project would not interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge. Therefore, impacts would be less-than-
significant and no mitigation measures are required.
c.i-iii) Less-than-significant impact. As discussed in Section 3.10 (a) Hydrology and Water
Quality, The applicant would be required to implement a SWPPP and monitoring plan,
which include BMPs. Development of these BMPs would ensure the proposed project
does not result in substantial on-site or off-site erosion or siltation. The proposed project
would not result in a significant change to the drainage pattern of the project site. The
proposed project would not involve the alteration of the course of a stream or river. As
previously addressed, the proposed project would follow a similar drainage pattern
compared to existing conditions. Additionally, the Preliminary Drainage Study
(Appendix D) concludes that runoff from the proposed project’s storm water
infrastructure would be decreased, from existing conditions. The proposed project would
not create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff. Therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant and no mitigation measures are
required.
c.iv) Less-than-significant impact. The proposed project is not within a flood zone. With the
incorporation of the proposed project’s storm water infrastructure, the proposed project
would not impede or redirect flood flows. Furthermore, as discussed above, the proposed
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
project would be required to implement a SWPPP and monitoring plan, which includes
BMPs. Therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant and no mitigation measures are
required.
d) No Impact. The project site is not located within a tsunami, flood hazard, seiche zone.
Therefore, the proposed project would not be at risk of pollutant release due to project
inundation. Therefore, no impact s would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
e) Less-than-significant impact. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board (RWQCB)
and its Basin Plan regulate water quality in the City. The Basin Plan contains water quality
goals and policies and identifies beneficial uses for receiving waters, along with water
quality criteria and standards consistent with federal and state water quality laws. The
proposed project would be required to comply with the NPDES CGP and SWPPP
requirements and implement BMPs. Thus, the proposed project would not violate any
water quality standards and would not obstruct the implementation of the Basin Plan. The
OCWD manages groundwater in the Orange County Basin. As discussed in Sections
3.10(a) and 3.10(b) Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project would not violate
any water quality standards and would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge. Therefore, impacts would be less-than-
significant and no mitigation measures are required.
3.11 Land Use and Planning
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Would the project
a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to
a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
a) No Impact. The proposed project would demolish two buildings and a portion of a third
building of an existing Extra Space Storage facility and construct five (5) new self-storage
buildings, including one 3-story, and four (4) single-story buildings, at the Extra Space
Storage facility. The proposed project would not displace any residences and does not
proposed any new roads. The proposed project would not divide nearby residential
communities located north, south, or west of the project site. Therefore, no impacts would
occur and no mitigation is required.
b) Less-than-significant impact.
The proposed project requires the following discretionary actions:
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
Approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to amend a previously approved CUP to
permit the expansion of the Extra Space Storage facility with a 0.60 Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) (147,670 sq. ft.) in the Industrial (I) Zone, where the Anaheim Municipal Code
permits a maximum FAR of 0.50 (121,044 sq. ft.).
The General Plan designates the Project Site for Office-Low land use. The Project Site is
within the Industrial (I) Zone and the Office District of the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use
(PTMU) Overlay Zone. The property owner has the option to develop the property in
compliance with either the I Zone or the PTMU Overlay Zone. The applicant has elected
to develop in conformance with the I Zone. The proposed project is consistent with the
General Plan and the I Zone. The I Zone has a maximum permitted floor area ratio (FAR)
of .50 FAR. As discussed above, the proposed project would demolish two buildings and
a portion of a third building of an existing Extra Space Storage facility and construct five
new self-storage buildings, including one three-story, and four single-story buildings, at
the Extra Space Storage facility. The proposed project would increase the total floor area
to 147,670 sq. ft. (0.6 FAR). The proposed project would exceed the maximum allowable
0.50 FAR (121,044 sq. ft). However, the AMC permits an increase in the maximum FAR
with the approval of a CUP.
In addition, Council Policy 7.2 provides guidance on the location of self storage facilities.
The policy states that:
Self-storage facilities may continue to be permitted in the C-G (Commercial
General), and I (Industrial) Zones subject to the approval of a conditional use
permit. The unique and opportune design features of self-storage facilities are most
appropriate for irregularly-shaped properties which may further be constrained
by accessibility or visibility and which may not be suitable for conventional types
of development. A limited number of these types of properties are found in
commercial and industrial zones. Provided there does not appear to be other
viable or strategic uses of the property, the architecture of the facility is of high
quality, the use is appropriate and compatible with its surrounding land uses, and
the facility is in compliance with all Zoning Code Development Standards
(including setbacks where possible, signage and landscaping), self-storage
facilities may be conditionally permitted in the C-G, or I Zones.
General Plan, Zoning and Council Policy Consistency
The General Plan Land Use Element guides development throughout the City and defines
development amount, type, density, etc. The General Plan designates the Project Site for
Office-Low land use. The Office-Low land use designation allows for a variety of small-
scale office uses, including local branches of financial institutions, legal services,
insurance services, real estate, and medical or dental offices and support services. The
Office-Low designation is intended to facilitate office development of up to three stories
in height. Areas designated as Office-Low can develop as stand-alone projects or within a
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
business park setting. Staff considers the expansion of the existing self-storage facility as
The applicant would develop the proposed project pursuant to the I Zone. The intent of
the “I” Industrial Zone is to provide for and encourage the development of industrial uses
and their related facilities, recognize the unique and valuable existing industrial land
resources, and encourage industrial employment opportunities within the City. Targeted
industries include research and development, repair services, wholesale activities,
distribution centers, and manufacturing and fabrication. In some situations, other types of
uses are allowed with a minor conditional use permit or conditional use permit. The City
previously permitted the existing Extra Space Storage facility through the approval of a
CUP. The applicant proposes to amend the CUP to permit the expansion of the facility
with a 0.60 FAR in the I Zone, where the Anaheim Municipal Code permits a maximum
FAR of 0.50.
Pursuant to Council Policy 7.2, the existing and expansion of the Extra Space Storage
facility is located on a narrow irregularly shaped property, adjacent to a railroad, within
the I Zone. The proposed design of the expansion would be compatible with the existing
facility and surrounding land use. Therefore, the proposed project meets the criteria of
Council Policy 7.2.
The proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan, the I Zone and Council
Policy 7.2. With the Planning Commission’s approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program; and, the approval of a CUP to amend a
previously approved CUP to permit the expansion of the facility with a 0.60 FAR in the I
Zone, where the Anaheim Municipal Code permits a maximum FAR of 0.50. The proposed
project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation. Therefore, a less-than-significant impacts would occur and
no mitigation measures are required.
3.12 Mineral Resource
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Would the project
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be a 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a,b) No Impact. There are no significant mineral resources that exist on or in the immediate
vicinity of the project site.20 Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation
20City of Anaheim, General Plan and Zoning Code Update Environmental Impact Report No. 330 Chapter 5.9
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
measures are required.
Mineral Resources. May 25, 2004. Accessible at http://www.anaheim.net/913/Environmental-Impact-Report,
Accessed on April 14, 2020.
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3.13 Noise
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Would the project
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a) Less-than-significant impact. Existing codes and regulations typically describe sound in
terms of the loudness (amplitude) and frequency (pitch). The standard unit of measurement
for sound is the decibel (dB). The human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all
frequencies. The A-weighted scale, abbreviated dBA, reflects the normal hearing
sensitivity range of the human ear. Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Since
the human ear is not equally sensitive to a given sound level at all frequencies, a special
frequency-dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity.
The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) provides this compensation by discriminating against
frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Sensitivity to
noise increases during the evening and at night because excessive noise interferes with the
ability to sleep.
Regulatory Framework
California State Noise Regulation
The State of California regulates freeway noise, sets standards for sound transmission,
provides occupational noise control criteria, identifies noise standards, and provides
guidance for local land use compatibility. State law requires that each county and city
adopt a general plan that includes a noise element which is to be prepared according to
guidelines adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. The purpose of
the noise element is to “limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels.”
California Code of Regulations, Title 24. The California Code of Regulations, Title 24:
Part 1, Building Standards Administrative Code, and Part 2, California Building Code
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
codifies the State’s noise insulation standards. These noise standards apply to new
construction in California for the purpose of interior noise compatibility from exterior
noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when
noise-sensitive structures, such as residential buildings, schools, or hospitals, are located
near major transportation noise sources, and where such noise sources create an exterior
noise level of 65 dBA (Community Noise Equivalent Level) CNEL or higher. Acoustical
studies that accompany building plans must demonstrate that the design of the structure
will limit interior noise in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. For new residential
buildings, schools, and hospitals, the acceptable interior noise limit for new construction
is 45dBA CNEL.
City of Anaheim
City of Anaheim General Plan. The Noise Element of the City’s General Plan contains
noise and land use compatibility standards for various land uses throughout the City.21 The
City uses these standards and criteria in the land use planning process to reduce future
noise and land use incompatibilities. The standards shown in the table are the primary tool
that allows the City to ensure integrated planning for compatibility between land uses and
outdoor noise.
City of Anaheim Noise Ordinance AMC Chapter 6.70. The City has the authority to set
land use noise standards and place restrictions on private activities that generate excessive
or intrusive noise. The AMC specifies applicable standards for these activities. The AMC
limits sound levels for stationary sources of noise radiated for extended periods from any
premises in excess of 60 decibels at the property line. Sound created by construction or
building repair of any premises within the City is also exempt from the applications of the
AMC during the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
AMC Section 18.040.090.060. The Planning Commission may grant a deviation from the
requirements pertaining to exterior noise levels, given that all of the following conditions
exist:
The deviation does not exceed 5 dB above the prescribed levels for exterior noise;
and
Measures to attenuate noise to the prescribed levels would compromise or conflict
with the aesthetic value of the project.
Construction Noise
Construction of the proposed project would last for approximately nine months and
include various heavy construction equipment including excavators, backhoes, and
graders. The City exempts construction or building repair of any premises within the City
during the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7 p.m. The construction of the proposed project
21City of Anaheim, General Plan: Noise Element, Figure N-2: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise
Exposure (Exterior), May 2004. Accessible at http://www.anaheim.net/712/General-Plan, Accessed on April 14,
2020.
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
would take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7 p.m. and would comply with State
and Local regulation and ordinances. Therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant
and no mitigation measures are required.
Operational Noise
The proposed project would increase the total floor area to 147,670 sq. ft. and provide
1,278 storage units in eight buildings. The main source of noise would be vehicle noise
from traffic trips of the employees and customers, which would result in approximately
127 daily vehicle trips as shown in Appendix F. The number of trips is a small percentage
of the daily traffic on the surrounding roadways and would not constitute a significant
increase in noise. Therefore, less-than-significant impacts would occur and no mitigation
measures are required.
b) Less-than-significant impact.
Construction Vibration
Construction can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the
construction procedures and equipment. Operation of construction equipment generates
vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish with distance from the source. The
effect on buildings near the construction site varies depending on soil type, ground strata,
and receptor-building construction. The effects from vibration can range from no
perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible
vibrations at moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest levels. Vibration
from construction activities rarely reaches the levels that can damage structure. The
proposed project’s construction phase and associated construction equipment could
produce vibration from vehicle travel as well as demolition, grading and building
construction activities. The City has no vibration standards; however, as suggested in the
General Plan EIR, activities such as blasting, or the use of pile drivers during construction
typically cause excessive groundbourne vibration.22 This analysis assumes, as a reasonable
worst-case scenario, an impact pile driver, which would generate greater vibrations.
Caltrans sets the criterion level for pile driving at between 0.2 and 2 inches per second. A
reasonable worst-case scenario assumes the use of the 0.2 inch per second criterion.
Caltrans presents the vibration produced by a 50,000 foot-pound force with distance for
both clayey and sandy/silt soils as a function of distance. Caltrans indicates that the
distance to the 0.2 inch per second minimum criterion falls at a distance of approximately
50 feet. The proposed project would not involve pile driving or blasting activities, during
construction, thus the vibration impacts would be reasonably low. Therefore, less-than-
significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
Operation Vibration
22City of Anaheim, General Plan and Zoning Code Update Environmental Impact Report No. 330. May 25, 2004.
Accessible at http://www.anaheim.net/913/Environmental-Impact-Report, Accessed on April 16 2020.
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The operation of the proposed project would not include any substantial long-term
vibration sources and no significant vibration effects from operation of the proposed
project would occur. Therefore, less-than-significant impacts would occur and no
mitigation measures are required.
c) No Impact. The nearest public airport is Fullerton Municipal Airport, approximately 8.4
miles north of the project site, and the nearest private air strip is the Los Alamitos Army
Airfield, approximately 10.1 miles to the west of the project site. Therefore, no impact
would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
3.14 Population and Housing
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Would the project
a) Induce substantial unplanned 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 people
or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a,b) No Impact. No housing exists on the site and the proposed project does not include any
housing units. As such, no replacement housing would be necessary and no increase
housing units or population would occur. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no
mitigation measures are required.
3.15 Public Services
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii.Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
iii.Schools? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iv.Parks? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
v.Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a.i) Less-than-significant impact. The Anaheim Fire & Rescue (AF&R) provides fire
protection services in the City. The AF&R operates twelve fire stations comprised of ten
engine companies and five truck companies, and employs approximately 209 sworn fire
personnel. the AF&R staffs twelve engine companies, ten of which are designated
paramedic companies; five truck companies; one contract paramedic company; one
hazardous materials unit; one technical rescue unit; and two Battalions, housed in Fire
Station 6 (Euclid Fire Station) and Station 8 (Riverdale Station). The AF&R maintains a
response time goal that requires the first engine company to respond within 5 minutes to
90 percent of all incidents and 8 minutes to the remaining 10 percent of incidents. The
AF&R also requires a maximum of 10 minutes for the first truck company to respond to
100 percent of all incidents AF&R is responsible for all fire, rescue and medical aid calls
in the City. The AF&R maintains a response time goal that requires the first engine
company to respond within five minutes to 90 percent of all incidents and eight minutes
to the remaining ten percent of incidents. The AF&R also requires a maximum of ten
minutes for the first truck company to respond to 100 percent of all incidents.
The construction of the proposed project would incrementally increase demands for fire
protection services. However, such increases are minimal and the City would meet the
demand for fire service with existing firefighting resources. Therefore, less-than-
significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
a.ii) Less Than Significant Impact. Law enforcement and crime prevention services are
provided by the Anaheim Police Department (APD). Police services provided include
patrol, investigations, traffic enforcement, traffic control, vice and narcotics enforcement,
airborne patrol, crime suppression, community policing, tourist-oriented policing, and
detention facilities. The APD headquarters is at 425 South Harbor Boulevard,
approximately 3.4 miles northwest of the project site. The APD employs 408 sworn
officers. The ratio of sworn police officers is approximately 1.14 officers per 1,000
population. APD has four districts: West, Central, South, and East. The approximate
average response time of patrol units to Priority 1 emergency calls throughout the
jurisdiction is 6 minutes and 55 seconds.
The construction of the proposed project would incrementally increase demands for police
protection services. However, such increases are minimal and the City would meet the
demand for fire service with existing Police resources. Therefore, less-than-significant
impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
a.iii-v) No Impact. The proposed project would not include the construction of housing and
would not generate additional population, including students. Therefore, no impacts would
occur and no mitigation measures are required.
3.16 Recreation
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Would the project
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a,b) No Impact. The proposed project would not increase the use of existing parks or facilities
and would not include the construction or expansion of any recreational facilities, neither
in the short or long-term. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are
required.
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3.17 Transportation
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Would the project
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
This section utilizes the following technical studies in its analysis:
Anaheim Extra Space Storage Trip Generation Analysis, TJW Engineering, Inc.
October 10, 2019 (Appendix F)
Traffic Guidelines
The City’s Traffic Study Guidelines state that a traffic study is required for a project that
meets the following criteria:
a) When the AM or PM peak hour trip generation is expected to exceed 100 vehicle
trips from the proposed development.
b) Projects on the Congestion Management Program (CMP) Highway System which
generate 1,600 Average Daily Trips (ADT) or adjacent to CMP Highway System
which generate 2,400 ADT
c) Projects that will add 51 or more trips during either AM or PM peak hours to any
monitored CMP intersection.
d) Any project where variations from the City of Anaheim Traffic Study Guidelines
are being proposed.
Site Access State Route 91 (SR-91) to the north, Interstate 5 (I-5) to the west, and State Route 57(SR-
57) to the east provide regional access to the project site. Cerritos Avenue, State College
Boulevard, and Katella Avenue provide local access. The site has one existing driveway,
from State College Boulevard.
Cerritos Avenue. Is an east-west, four-lane divided roadway and forms the northern
boundary of the project site. Cerritos Avenue has two travel lanes in each direction, and
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
center two-way left-turn lane. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph). The City
of Anaheim General Plan classifies Cerritos Avenue as Primary Arterial.23 Cerritos
Avenue is approximately 1,670-feet north of the project site.
State College Boulevard. Is a north-south, six-lane divided roadway and forms the eastern
boundary of the project site. State College Boulevard has three travel lanes in each
direction, and median crossover left-turn lane. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. The
General Plan classifies State College Boulevard as a Major Arterial. Access to the project
site would be accessible via a driveway, from State College Boulevard.
Katella Avenue. Is an east-west, six-lane divided roadway and forms the southern
boundary of the project site. Katella Avenue has three travel lanes in each direction, and
median crossover left-turn lane. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. The General Plan
classifies Katella Avenue as a Major Arterial. Katella Avenue is approximately 880-feet
south of the project site.
Transit Service
The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) provides public transit service in
the project vicinity. One southbound bus stop is approximately 280-feet north of the
project along State College Boulevard. One northbound bus stop is approximately 330-
feet north of the project site along State College
Project Trip Generation
Trip generation estimates for the existing uses and the proposed project are based on the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition) trip
rates. Based on the proposed project’s existing and proposed land use the trip generation
was determined using the Mini‐Warehouse Land Use Code (151). As presented in Table
5. The proposed project is projected to generate a net total of eight (8) AM Peak Hour
trips, 14 PM Peak Hour trips and 127 daily trips.
23City of Anaheim, General Plan: Circulation Element, Revised June 2018. Accessible at
http://www.anaheim.net/712/General-Plan, Accessed on April 23, 2020.
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
TABLE 5 - PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Land Use
Qty
Units/a/
Daily Trips
(ADTs)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate In:Out
Split
Volume Rate In:Out
Split
Volume
Rate Volume In Out Total In Out Total
EXISTING
Mini-
Warehouse
63.5 TSF 1.51 96 0.10 60:40 4 3 7 0.17 47:53 5 6 11
DEMOLITION
Mini-
Warehouse
23.6 TSF 1.51 36 0.10 60:40 2 1 3 0.17 47:53 2 3 5
CONSTRUCTION
Mini-
Warehouse
107.8 TSF 1.51 163 0.10 60:40 7 4 11 0.17 47:53 9 10 19
Net new
total
84.2 TSF 127 5 3 8 7 7 14
/a/TSF = Thousand Square Feet
Table information can be obtained in Appendix F
a) Less-than-significant impact. The volume of automobile and truck traffic associated with
project-related construction activities would vary throughout the construction phases, as
different activities occur. However, project-related construction traffic would be
temporary in nature and cease to exist upon project completion. As shown in Table 5, the
proposed project would generate 127 daily trips with eight (8) AM peak hour and 14 PM
peak hour trips. The proposed project would not exceed 100 vehicle trips during AM/PM
Peak Hour. The proposed project would not generate 1,600 ADT or more on a CMP
Highway system. The proposed project would not add 51 or more trips during AM/PM
Peak Hour to any monitored CMP Highway. The proposed project does not have unusual
variations from the City of Anaheim Traffic Study Guidelines. OCTA will continue to
provide public transit bus service with two bus stops near the project site. The proximity
of these bus stops would provide near access to transit service. The proposed project would
not modify the existing pedestrian sidewalks along State College Boulevard, adjacent to
and providing access to the project site. The nearest bicycle facilities are located on
Cerritos Avenue, approximately 1,700 feet north of the project site. The proposed project
would not affect pedestrian or bicycle facilities. The proposed project would not conflict
with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system. Therefore,
impacts would be less-than-significant and no mitigations measures are required.
b) No Impact. On December 28, 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency adopted
revised State CEQA Guidelines. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 codifies the
removal of vehicle delay and level of service (LOS) from consideration for transportation
impacts under CEQA. With the adopted CEQA Guidelines, Lead Agencies are required to
evaluate transportation impacts based on a project’s effect on vehicle miles traveled
(VMT). State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 requires Lead Agencies to analyze
projects using VMT starting July 1, 2020. The City is in the process of updating its
transportation impact criteria to be consistent with the CEQA revisions. As a result, the
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City has not adopted guidelines as of the date of this document, and analysis of vehicle
levels of service remains the appropriate method for determining a project’s transportation
impact per the City’s General Plan.
In late 2019, State courts stated that under Section 21099, subdivision (b)(2), existing law
is that “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of
vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the
environment” under CEQA, except for roadway capacity projects. While this project does
not create a significant impact through level of service or delay, for the purposes of this
recent court decision, the analysis of this project included VMT screening analysis. For
the VMT screening analysis, the proposed project was analyzed using the example
screening criteria identified in the “Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation
Impacts in CEQA”, dated December 2018 from the Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research (OPR). Projects located in areas with low VMT is one of the screening thresholds
that could be used for determining if a VMT analysis is required. The OPR Technical
Advisory suggests that projects that match the adjacent land uses already located within
an efficient VMT area (low VMT-generating zone) have a less than significant
transportation impact. To determine whether this assumption should apply to the proposed
project, staff used the Orange County Traffic Analysis Model (OCTAM) to measure VMT
performance for each traffic analysis zone (TAZ) throughout the region. A TAZ has
similar boundaries to the census tracts. The project site is located within a TAZ below the
County average of VMT per capita. Therefore, the OPR Technical Advisory, staff could
screen the proposed project from a VMT analysis, and could presume a less than
significant impact on VMT. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict or be
inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). Therefore, no impact would
occur and no mitigation measures are required.
c) No Impact. The proposed project does not include the use of any incompatible vehicles
or equipment on the project site, such as farm equipment. The proposed project would
not provide any off-site roadway improvements that could substantially increase hazards
due to a design feature. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding land
uses and zoning. The applicant would construct all on-site and site-adjacent
improvements, including traffic signing/striping and project driveways, as approved by
the City of Anaheim Public Works Department. Sight distance at project access points
would comply with applicable City/California Department of Transportation sight
distance standards. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures are
required.
d) No Impact. The proposed project would provide access to the self-storage facility from
State College Boulevard, via a driveway. The proposed project would be compliant with
the City’s AF&R requirements; the proposed project would include minimum roadway
width, fire apparatus access roads, fire lanes, signage, access devices and gates, and
access walkways, among other requirements, which would ensure emergency access to
the project site. The proposed project would not require the complete closure of any
public or private streets or roadways during construction. Temporary construction
activities would not impede use of the road for emergencies or access for emergency
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
response vehicles. Following compliance with AF&R access requirements, the proposed
project would provide adequate emergency access to the project site. Therefore, less-
than-significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Would the project
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code §
21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in
terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native American
tribe.
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
a.i, ii) Less-than-significant impact with mitigation. There are no known tribal cultural
resources within the boundaries of the project site. The project site has been previously
developed and disturbed, and does not meet any of the historical resources criteria outlined
in the PRC 2024.1. In considering the significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe, the City contacted the NAHC for the listing of tribes with traditional lands
or cultural places located within the boundaries of the project site and to search the Sacred
Lands File (SLF). The SLF search result was negative. The City contacted the tribes per
the NAHC listing, and two tribal representatives responded. The tribe’s main concerns
include potential discoveries that may occur during grading activities. The following tribal
members who contact the City regarding the proposed project:
Andrew Salas of Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation. The
Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation.
Joyce Perry of the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation-
Belardes.
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
For this reason, they recommended a tribal monitor(s) be present during ground-disturbing
activities, to ensure that the project applicant would ensure proper documentation, salvaging, and
protection of any inadvertent discovery of tribal cultural resources encountered during ground-
disturbing activities. Upon discovery, if the finds are determined to be Native American human
remains, the coroner will notify the NAHC as mandated by state law who will then appoint a Most
Likely Descendent. Because there is a possibility that grading and excavation activities during
construction of the proposed project could affect previously undisturbed tribal cultural resources,
staff has included Mitigation Measure MM TCR-1 to reduce potential impacts to less than
significant.
MM TCR-1 Prior to the commencement of any grading and/or construction activity, the project
applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor and a copy of the executed contract shall
be submitted to the City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department. The Tribal
monitor will only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground-
disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities are defined by the applicable tribes as
activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing or auguring,
grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the
project area. The Tribal Monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide
descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and
any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when the Project Site
grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and
monitor have indicated that the Project Site has a low potential for impacting Tribal
Cultural Resources. Upon discovery of any archaeological resources, construction
activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All
archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by
the qualified archaeologist and Tribal monitor approved by the applicable tribes. If the
resources are Native American in origin, the applicable tribe shall coordinate with the
project applicant regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe
will request reburial or preservation for educational purposes. Work may continue on other
parts of the Project Site while evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation takes place (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5[f]). If a resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist
to constitute a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource,” time allotment
and funding sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures, or appropriate
mitigation, must be available. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in
accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and PRC
Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Preservation in place (i.e.,
avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible,
treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to
remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. Any
historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a
public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural
History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution
agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall
be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Would the project
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Result in a determination by the waste water
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
a) Less-than-significant impact.
Water and Wastewater. The Anaheim Public Works Department would serve the proposed
project for wastewater (sanitary sewer) collection service. The Orange County Sanitation
District (OCSD) treats wastewater generated in the City. The project is located within a
developed area with an existing public wastewater main in South State College Blvd,
adjacent to the site that currently serves the property. The latest Central Anaheim Master
Plan of Sanitary Sewers does not identify existing wastewater facilities in South State
College Blvd as deficient in either the “Existing” or “Build-out” conditions.24 Due to the
small amounts of wastewater produced by the proposed project there would not be
significant impacts to the current sewer system. Therefore, impacts would be less-than-
significant and no mitigation measures are required.
Stormwater. On-site grading and drainage improvements proposed in conjunction with the
proposed site work would be required to meet the City’s and Orange County Flood Control
24City of Anaheim, Central Anaheim Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers. December 2017. Accessible at
https://www.anaheim.net/583/Storm-Drainage-Sanitary-Sewer-Master-Pla, Accessed on April 15, 2020.
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
District’s (OCFCD) flood control criteria including design discharges, design/construction
standards and maintenance features. As discussed in Section 3.10(a) Hydrology and Water
Quality, the proposed project’s drainage pattern will remain the same except for the
mitigated treatment runoff volume that the proposed project will divert to an underground
system to infiltrate into the soil. Runoff from the new buildings will discharge at grade;
new v-gutters will convey the runoff along the fronts of the building, maintaining the
existing drainage paths. The proposed project would not alter any drainage pattern in a
manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite. There are no
streams or rivers on the site that the proposed project would alter. Erosion and siltation
impacts potentially resulting from the proposed project would, for the most part, occur
during the project’s site preparation and grading phase. Implementation of the NPDES
permit requirements, SWPPP and BMPs as they apply to the site, would reduce potential
erosion, siltation, and water quality impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less-than-
significant and no mitigation measures are required.
Electrical Power, Natural Gas, Telecommunications. The project site is in a developed,
urbanized portion of the City that and is served by existing electrical power, natural gas,
and telecommunications services. The proposed project is an existing commercial storage
facility that would develop new buildings. The project site is adjacent to other existing
commercial operations and uses. New electricity, gas, and telecommunications
connections would be established for the project; however, no substantial electrical, gas,
or telecommunications infrastructure is present on or adjacent to the project site that would
need to be relocated to accommodate the project. Therefore, impacts would be less-than-
significant and no mitigation measures are required.
b) Less-than-significant impact. APUD, Water Services Division, operates the City’s water
production and distribution system. The City of Anaheim 2015 Urban Water Management
Plan (UWMP) was prepared in compliance with the requirements of the Urban Water
Management Planning Act (UWMPA). The UWMPA requires every urban water supplier
providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more
than 3,000 AF of water annually to prepare, adopt, and file a UWMP with the California
Department of Water Resources (DWR) every five years in the years ending in zero and
five. The2015 UWMP provides water supply planning for a 25-year planning period in
five (5)-year increments and identifies water supplies needed to meet existing and future
demands. The demand analysis must identify supply reliability under three hydrologic
conditions: a normal year, a single-year, and multiple dry years. The City’s service area is
approximately 49.63 square miles and includes approximately 63,800 municipal
connections. The City relies on a combination of approximately 70 percent local
groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin (OC Basin) and 30 percent
imported water from the Colorado River and State Water Project supplies provided by the
Municipal Water District (MWD). The current water system includes eight (8) import
connections to MWD, 18 active wells, 14 water reservoirs, and approximately 752 miles
of water mains. The City also maintains 14 interconnections with neighboring cities and
districts to supply water during emergencies. In 2015, the City supplied a volume of
approximately 62,053 AF of water to municipal customers. In its most recent UWMP, the
City determined that it would have reliable supplies to meet single-and multiple dry-year
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
demands from 2020 through 2040, even with a six percent increase from 2015 demand
totals. The City expects total demand to increase from 62,050 AF in 2020 to 67,143 AF in
2040. The City would meet this demand through diversified supply and water conservation
measures. The UWMP also includes a Water Shortage Contingency Plan that describes
policies that MWD and the City have in place to respond to catastrophic interruption and
reduction in water supply. The proposed project would result in 147,670 sq. ft. of building
floor area and proposes no water-intensive activities or uses in or around the facility. The
proposed project would not exceed water supplies or result in a significant increase in
water demand. Therefore, less-than-significant impacts would occur and no mitigation
measures are required.
c) Less-than-significant impact. As discussed in section 3.19(a) Utilities and Service
Systems, the City’s sanitary sewer collection service would serve the proposed project .
OCSD treats wastewater generated in the City. The project is located within a developed
area with an existing public wastewater main in South State College Boulevard, adjacent
to the site that currently serves the property. The the latest Central Anaheim Master Plan
of Sanitary Sewers does not identify existing wastewater facilities in South State College
Boulevard as deficient in either the “Existing” or “Build-out” conditions. There would be
small amounts of wastewater produced by the proposed project. Therefore, less-than-
significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
d) Less-than-significant impact. Republic Services, a private recycling and non-hazardous
solid waste hauler, provide solid waste services in the City. Republic Services is
responsible for all residential, commercial, and industrial waste and recycling services.
Solid waste is disposed of in Orange County Waste and Recycling Landfills. Currently,
there are three active landfills in the County: Olinda Alpha, Frank R. Bowerman, and
Prima Deshecha. The landfills are among the largest statewide and receive more than four
million tons of waste annually. Olinda-Alpha Landfill in the City of Brea accepts up to
8,000 tons per day (tpd) and has a remaining capacity of 34,200,000 cubic yards (cy).
Frank R. Bowerman Landfill in the City of Irvine accepts up to 11,500 tpd and has a
remaining capacity of 205,000,000 cy. Prima Deshecha Landfill in San Juan Capistrano
accepts up to 4,000 tpd and has a remaining capacity of 134,300,000 cy. The proposed
project would include the demolition of the existing paved surfaces on site, which would
require the project applicant to remove debris from the project site. In compliance with the
State of California Waste Management Act (AB 939) and California Green Building
Codes, the City requires applicants to deposit 65 percent or more of demolition debris
generated at a project site from landfills. Existing landfills have sufficient capacity to serve
the proposed project. Compliance with all applicable regulations and laws regarding solid
waste would further reduce impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and
no mitigation is required.
e) Less-than-significant impact. As discussed above, solid waste would be disposed of at
existing Orange County Waste and Recycling landfills. Disposal of solid waste would
comply with all federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste. The
proposed project would include receptacles for recyclables and garbage. Therefore,
impacts would be less-than-significant and no mitigation measures are required.
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3.20 Wildfire
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Would the project
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power
lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a-c) No Impact. According to the CAL FIRE Hazard Severity Zone Map for the City of
Anaheim, the project site is not within a State Responsibility Area.25 The project site is in
a Non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) zone within a local responsibility
area. The project site is flat and does not have a slope or other features that could
exacerbate wildfire risks. The proposed project would tie into existing infrastructure that
currently serves the project area. Project implementation would not result in the new
construction, installation, or maintenance of new infrastructure that would exacerbate fire
risk. The proposed project construction would not require the complete closure of any
public or private streets or roadways during construction. Temporary construction
activities would not impede use of the road for emergencies or access for emergency
response vehicles. The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access.
Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
d) No Impact. The proposed project is located in a developed, urbanized area, and
surrounded primarily by commercial and residential uses. There are no slopes or hills near
the project site. Absent these conditions, the proposed project would not have the potential
to expose people or structures to significant risks due to runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are
required,
25CalFire, Anaheim Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Accessible at
https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/5085/Very-High-Fire-Hazard-Severity-Zones-in-LRA?bidId=,
Accessed April 23, 2020.
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially 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, substantially
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 the potential to achieve
short-term environmental goals to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental
goals?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) 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.)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
a) Less-than-significant impact. The project site does not contain any special status or
sensitive biological resources. The proposed project would not 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 sensitive plant or animal community, or
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal.
The proposed project would involve earthmoving activities that could potentially unearth
or disturb prehistoric archaeological resources. Such actions could unearth, expose, or
disturb subsurface paleontological, archaeological, historical, or Native American
resources that were not observable on the surface. However, with the incorporation of
mitigation measures, potential affects to paleontological or cultural resources that
represent major periods of California history or prehistory would be less than significant.
b) Less-than-significant impact. As discussed through this Initial Study, the proposed
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
project would not have short-term and/or long-term environmental impacts with
implementation of mitigation measures related to air quality, cultural resources, geology
and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, transportation, and tribal cultural resources.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in failure to achieve short-term nor long-
term environmental goals. Impacts would be less than significant, and no additional
mitigation measures are required.
c) Less-than-significant impact. As discussed throughout this Initial Study, the proposed
project would have no impact and/or less than significant impacts with and without
mitigation measures. Therefore, all impacts are individually limited and do not result in
any cumulatively significant impacts. No additional mitigation measures are required.
d) No Impact. All potential impacts of the proposed project have been identified, and
mitigation measures have been prescribed, where applicable, to reduce all potential
impacts to less-than-significant levels. Upon implementation of mitigation measures
included in this Initial Study and compliance with existing regulations, the proposed
project would not have the potential to result in substantial adverse impacts on human
beings either directly or indirectly. Therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant and
no mitigation measures are required.
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
REFERENCES
Anaheim Fire and Rescue. 2017. Standards of Cover 2017-2022.
http://local.anaheim.net/docs_agend/questys_pub/13316/13346/13347/13355/13358/2.%20Stand
ards%20of%20Cover13358.pdf
Arcadis, City of Anaheim 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2016
http://anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/11777/Anaheim-UWMP-2016?bidId=
Blue Peak Engineering, Inc. County of Orange/Santa Ana Region Priority Project Preliminary
Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) Blue August 6, 2019.
Blue Peak Engineering, Inc. Preliminary Drainage Study, May 24, 2018
CalFire, Anaheim Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA.
https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/5085/Very-High-Fire-Hazard-Severity-Zones-
in-LRA?bidId=,
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2017. California Emissions
Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Version 2016.3.2.
California Air Resources Board (CARB), Area Designations Maps/State and National,
http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/desig.htm
California Air Resources Board (CARB), Final Proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant
Reduction Strategy, March 2017. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/shortlived.htm.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017a, March 14. Final Proposed Short-Lived Climate
Pollutant Reduction Strategy. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/shortlived.htm.
California Department of Conservation (DOC) Agricultural Preserves 2004, Williamson Act
Parcels, Orange County, California. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/Orange_WA_03_04.pdf,
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Cortese List.
https://calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/
California Department of Transportation (DOT). California Scenic Highway Mapping System,
2020. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2019a. Building Energy Efficiency Standards – Title 24.
Website: https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-
standards
California Geological Survey, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation - Anaheim
Quadrangle, 1998.
California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Air Toxics Hotspots Program.
February 2015. Accessible at
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, Accessed on April 8,
2020.
City of Anaheim, Central Anaheim Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers. December
2017.https://www.anaheim.net/583/Storm-Drainage-Sanitary-Sewer-Master-Pla
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Anaheim, City of Anaheim List of Historic Structures, June 14, 2016.
https://anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/1486/Contributors-and-Citywide-Historic-
Structures?bidId=
City of Anaheim, General Plan and Zoning Code Update Environmental Impact Report No. 330.
May 25, 2004. http://www.anaheim.net/913/Environmental-Impact-Report,
City of Anaheim, General Plan and Zoning Code Update Environmental Impact Report No. 330
Chapter 5.9 Mineral Resources. May 25, 2004. http://www.anaheim.net/913/Environmental-
Impact-Report
City of Anaheim, General Plan: Circulation Element, Revised June 2018.
http://www.anaheim.net/712/General-Plan
City of Anaheim, General Plan: Green Element, revised June 2018,
http://www.anaheim.net/712/General-Plan
City of Anaheim, General Plan: Noise Element, Figure N-2: Land Use Compatibility for
Community Noise Exposure (Exterior), May 2004.http://www.anaheim.net/712/General-Plan
City of Anaheim, Master Plan of Storm Drainage for East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel
Tributary Area, January 2006. http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/9163/East-GG-
Wintersburg?bidId=
City of Anaheim, Municipal Code. http://www.anaheim.net/2904/Municipal-Code
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing
Climate Change through CEQA Review. Technical Advisory, June 2008
http://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/pdfs/june08-ceqa.pdf.
https://gmw.conservation.ca.gov/SHP/EZRIM/Maps/ANAHEIM_EZRIM.pdf.
SCAQMD, Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-
compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook
SCAQMD, Localized Significance Thresholds, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-
compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008, July. Final Localized
Significance Threshold Methodology. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lst -methodology-document.pdf
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016, April 7. Final 2016-2040
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS): A Plan for
Mobility, Accessibility, Sustainability, and a High Quality of Life.
http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/FINAL2016RTPSCS.aspx
Terracon Consultants, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Report, April 24, 2018
TJW Engineering, Inc. Anaheim Extra Space Storage Trip Generation Analysis, October 10,
2019
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Appendix A
Air Quality Calculations
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Appendix B
Tribal Consultation
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Appendix C
Geotechnical Engineering Report
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Appendix D
Preliminary Drainage Study
City of Anaheim Extra Space Storage Facility Expansion
DEV2018-00059 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Appendix E
Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
(PWQMP)