FEIR 11-01 - City of Brea

FEIR 11-01 - City of Brea

TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ........................................ 3 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ...

5MB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views

Recommend Documents

City of Brea
more than 100,000 people each day to work, shop, and be entertained. ... Manhattan Beach. LAX ... Located in Northern Or

3. housing constraints - City of Brea
South Brea Lofts: 47 live/work townhomes, 10 moderate .... housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes, emergency .....

Bronze Division Schedule - City of Brea
9/19/2017 6:00 Wrecking Ball vs. DIGGIN' IT. 11/7/2017 6:00 Hit Happens vs. Aces Are Wild. 7:00 Righteous Kill vs. Side

BREA Minutes
Oct 11, 2011 - Wardenclyffe Laboratory” by Christopher Wesselborg, Tesla Science ... time, Shoreham was known as Warde

Brea - CBJonline.com
Jan 30, 2017 - for web hosting services, DreamHost; the renovation of the popular, highly trafficked. Brea Plaza retail

Brea Mall
This exhibit is provided for illustrative purposes only, and shall not be deemed to be a warranty, representation or agr

la brea affordable housing - Cumincad
He is also the author of the American House, Design for 1991; Ricardo. Legorreta Architects 1997; and The New Architectu

HRT 1101 - Service - Xoro
Samsung Galaxy Note, Note2, Note3. •. Samsung Galaxy Nexus, SII, SIII. •. Google NEXUS 7. •. Xoro Pad 717/718/720/

position comp group & range police officer 1101 - City of Madison
COMP GROUP & RANGE. POLICE OFFICER. 1101. DETECTIVE 1. 1102. INVESTIGATOR. 1102. POLICE INVESTIGATOR. 1102. DETECTIVE SE

1101 Pacific Building
Although information has been obtained from sources deemed reliable, Owner, Jones Lang LaSalle, and/or their representat

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ........................................ 3

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ............................................................ 5

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ........................................................................... 14

2|Page

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS CENTRAL PARK VILLAGE BREA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL EIR (SCH 2008121065) BACKGROUND The Central Park Village Brea General Plan Amendment project (the “Project”) is a mixed-use development on the former Brea Hospital site, which is located south of Central Avenue and Site Drive in the Northwest Neighborhoods Focus Area. The Final EIR for the Project identified one potential unavoidable adverse environmental impact that may result from the implementation of the Project, as explained below. Implementation of the mitigation measures required in the Mitigation Monitoring Program will avoid, or substantially reduce all but one of the significant impacts identified in the Central Park Village Brea General Plan Amendment Final EIR (SCH 2008121065). The Project may contribute to a significant cumulative adverse traffic impact at the SR-57 freeway ramps at Lambert Road if ramp improvement construction do not occur concurrent with or in advance of Project occupancy. As mitigation for the Project’s impacts to traffic at the SR-57 ramps, the applicant will be required to pay its fair share of ramp improvement costs to either the City of Brea Nexus Program or to the Capital Improvement Program. Depending on the implementation agreement with the California Department of Transportation-District 12 (“Caltrans”), the completion of the required ramp improvements may or may not coincide with construction and occupancy of the early phases of the Project. If the required SR-57 freeway ramp improvements at Lambert Road occur before or concurrently with Project occupancy, no unavoidable adverse impact will occur. However, if the SR-57 freeway ramp improvements are not completed prior to Project occupancy, an unavoidable adverse impact will occur. Therefore, the Final EIR states that the Project may have a significant and unavoidable traffic impact. California CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 states: (a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered 'acceptable.' (b) Where the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency must state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. The Statement of Overriding Considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a Statement of Overriding Considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. Therefore, when a public agency approves a project that will result in significant impacts that cannot be

3|Page

avoided or substantially reduced, as identified in the Final EIR, the agency must state in writing specific reasons supporting its decision. (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093 (b).) The Planning Commission of the City of Brea hereby adopts the following Statement of Overriding Considerations. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The Planning Commission of the City of Brea has balanced the economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits of the Project against the Project’s unavoidable, but significant environmental impacts. Based on substantial evidence in the whole of the administrative record, the Planning Commission hereby determines that the unavoidable impacts of the Project are acceptable in light of the following specific economic, legal, social, technological or other Project benefits. Each benefit set forth below constitutes an overriding consideration independent of the other benefits, despite any potential unavoidable impact. 1.

The Project will provide affordable housing units that assist the City in meeting the goals of the City’s Housing Element. Specifically, the Project will provide 45 multi-family affordable rental units to moderate income households for 55 years. If converted to for-sale condominiums, the 45 units must be sold to moderate income buyers (with first option to the existing tenants) with a new 45year “ownership” covenant. The Project also adds a total of 452 dwelling units to the City’s housing stock, which will aid the City in meeting its total housing development goals.

2.

The Project will participate in a Community Facilities District, thereby contributing funding to support the City’s public services.

3.

The Project will result in new commercial and medical office services in the Northwest Neighborhoods Focus Study Area.

4.

The Project will result in reuse of an underutilized site. The existing medical offices on the Project site are less than 50 percent occupied and the remaining hospital foundation pad and adjacent parking areas have been undeveloped since the hospital closure in 2005.

5.

The Project will fund circulation improvements at the Site Drive and Central Avenue intersection, at Lambert Road and State College Boulevard, and at the SR-57 ramps at Lambert Road.

6.

The Project will fund its fair share of sewer capacity upgrades downstream from the Project site.

7.

The Project will provide Sustainable Design Strategy elements that will contribute toward energy conservation and reduced water usage.

8.

The Project will provide a mixture of housing types and sizes in a mixed-use development with onsite recreational amenities near onsite commercial and medical office uses.

9.

The Project will provide public access to the onsite private park, onsite shared bicycle route, onsite walkability paths, and periodic community events. The park will be privately-owned and maintained in perpetuity by the applicant or its various owners’ association.

10.

The Project will provide recreational and social opportunities for onsite residents and residents of the Northwest Neighborhoods.

As described above, the Planning Commission finds that there are economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits resulting from the Project that serve to override and outweigh the Project's unavoidable significant environmental impact, and thus, the adverse environmental effects of the Project are considered acceptable.

4|Page

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Central Park Village Brea General Plan Amendment (SCH 2008121065) Mitigation Measures and Timing 1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit additional plans for physical features, future uses, and community efforts that promote an active street environment along the West Central Avenue frontage and the internal street environment surrounding the Central Park, and plans to promote activity centers for seniors (e.g. rental of the clubhouse or pool/spa quarterly to community groups). The rental plans shall be developed in conjunction with the Community Services Department. These requirements shall be incorporated into the Joint Owners and Tenants Association regulations. The rental plans shall be complete prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Building 2. Community Development (Planning Division) and the Community Services Department shall ensure compliance. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit for Building 2, the applicant shall pay their fair share (10 percent) to restripe the southbound lanes from dual southbound left, two southbound through lanes to allow dual left-turn lanes, shared left/through lane, and shared through/right-turn lane at the Lambert Road and State College intersection. The fair share shall be paid through the City’s Nexus Program. Public Works (Traffic Division) shall monitor compliance. 3. The project has a significant impact at the SR-57/Lambert Road interchange in 2017 and 2025. The City has an approved Project Study Report for the SR-57 at Lambert Road interchange. The Department of Transportation, District 12 is the responsible agency for funding and implementation. The project’s contribution to a significant cumulative impact at this interchange will be made by its

5|Page

Implementing Agency LAND USE City of Brea

Reporting Division Planning Division and Community Services Department

TRAFFIC/PARKING City of Brea

California Department Transportation – District 12

Public Works/Traffic Division

of

Public Works/Engineering Division

payment into the City of Brea Nexus Program or the Capital Improvement Program. The Nexus Program fees must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. Ramp projects are implemented when included in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) or implemented by local funds (e.g., Measure M). 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for Building 1, the applicant shall submit engineering plans for review and approval, fund the reconstruction of the lengthened leftturn pocket westbound on Central Avenue at the project entrance, reconstruct the existing raised median, and modify the existing traffic signal to include east-west left-turn phasing and a video detection system. All improvements shall be consistent with Figure 5-3 in Appendix C and consistent with the final improvement plans received and approved by Public Works (Engineering Division). Public Works (Engineering Division) shall ensure compliance.

City of Brea

Public Works/Engineering Division.

AIR QUALITY 5. The applicant and their contractors shall comply with all feasible Best Available Control Measures (BACM) included in Rule 403 included in Table 1: Best Available Control Measures Applicable to All Construction Activity Sources. In addition, the project shall comply with at least one of the following Track-Out Control Options: (a) Install a pad consisting of washed gravel (minimum-size: one inch) maintained in a clean condition to a depth of at least six inches and extending at least 20 feet wide and 50 feet long, (b) Pave the surface extending at least 100 feet and a width of at least 20 feet wide, (c) Utilize a wheel shaker/wheel spreading device consisting of raised dividers (rails, pipe, or grates) at least 24 feet long and 10 feet wide to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle under carriages before vehicles exit the site, (d) Install and utilize a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the site, (e) Any other control measures approved by

6|Page

City of Brea

Public Works/Engineering Division

the Executive Officer and the U.S. EPA as equivalent to the methods specified items (a) through (d) above. Grading onsite is limited to a maximum of 5,000 cubic yards per day. Individual BACM in Table 1 that are not applicable to the project or infeasible, based on additional new project information, may be omitted only if Public Works (Engineering Division) specifies in a written agreement with the applicant that specific BACM measures may be omitted. Any clarifications, additions, selection of alternative measures, or specificity requires to implement the required BACM to the project shall be included in the written agreement. The written agreement shall be completed prior to issuance of a demolition and/or grading permit for the project. Public Works (Engineering Division) shall include the written agreement within the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project and ensure compliance. 6. To reduce VOC emissions, the applicant shall use paint with low ROG emissions (VOC/ROG emission rate of less than 0.80 pounds per gallon), limit painting to eight hours per day, use paint thickness of 0.75 millimeters or less, use water-based and low-VOC coatings with ROG emissions of less than 8.0 pounds per 1,000 square feet of painted surface, and use high-volume, low pressure sprayers. Community Development (Building Division) shall ensure compliance. 7. The applicant shall implement all aspects for landscaping, structure, site, building performance, systems, finishes and furnishings, included in the Final Sustainable Design Strategies as approved by Community Development (Planning and Building Divisions), to reduce energy use, air pollutant emissions and the generation of project greenhouse gas emissions The applicant shall also implement the eleven measures listed below to reduce the project’s contribution to cumulative GHG emissions. The measures, which are identified by the Code in Appendix A4 for

7|Page

City of Brea

Building Division

CLIMATE CHANGE City of Brea

Building Division

Residential Uses and Appendix A5 for Non-residential uses are listed in the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code: Residential (Appendix 4A) 1. Turf areas onsite shall be limited to less than 25 percent (A4.106.3). 2. Not less than 20 percent of the total parking, walking or patio surfaces shall be permeable. This requirement does not include parking garages (A4.106.4). 3. Roof covering shall have a minimum 3-year aged solar reflectance and thermal emittance or minimum reflectance index (SRI) greater than or equal to the values specified in Table A4.106.5 (A4.106.5). 4. Duct leakage testing shall be performed to verify a total leakage rate of less than 6 percent of total fan flow (A4.207.8). 5. The Energy Factor (EF) for gas fired tankless water heaters shall be 0.80 or higher (A4.208.2). 6. The maximum flow rate at kitchen sink faucets shall not be greater than 1.5 gpm at 60 psi (A4.303.1). 7. Construction waste generated at the site diverted to recycle or salvage shall be at least a 65 percent reduction in waste flows (A4.408.1). Non-Residential (Appendix 4B) 1. Each appliance provided by builder/lessee shall meet the Energy Star rating if an Energy Star designation is applicable to that appliance (A5.204.1). 2. Plumbing fittings and fixtures shall provide an overall potable water use savings of 30 percent (A5.303.2.31). 3. Resilient flooring systems (80% of floor area) shall comply with VOC emitting limits defined in 2009 CHPS criteria (A5.504.4.7).

8|Page

4. Insulation, acoustical ceiling and wall panels shall comply with VOC emitting limits defined in 2009 CHPS criteria (A5.504.4.8, an A5.504.4.9). Community Development (Building Division) shall ensure compliance through third party contract or inhouse inspection. NOISE 8. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a comprehensive building attenuation study, based on architectural plans and the final grading plan for each building, shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical professional and submitted by the applicant to Community Development (Building Division). Existing noise conditions shall be monitored for a minimum of 24 hours. Each building attenuation study shall meet the standards in the Mixed-Use Zoning District (MU-II) and specify the noise reduction measures required so that all dwelling units onsite will meet the 45 CNEL interior standard for all dwelling units locations for a timeframe ten years beyond the date of building permit submittal. All retail commercial buildings must meet the 55 CNEL interior standards and offices a 50 CNEL interior standard. Community Development (Planning Division and Building Division) shall ensure compliance. 9. The applicant shall submit a Material Reuse Plan to identify any equipment used to grind or crush existing roadway and surface parking materials and concrete for reuse onsite. The plan shall identify equipment used, proposed location and timeframes for the operations. The applicant shall implement all requirements specified by Community Development to reduce noise and air quality impacts on adjacent offsite and onsite land uses. Community Development (Planning and Building Divisions) shall ensure compliance. 10. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of Phase 3 and Phase 4, the applicant shall submit an acoustical study prepared by a qualified professional assessing

9|Page

City of Brea

Planning Division

Division

City of Brea

Planning Division and Works/Engineering Division

City of Brea

Planning Division

Division

and

and

Building

Public

Building

the type of noise barrier required along the southern project perimeter to comply with the exterior daytime and nighttime noise standards of Section 8.20.050 of the Noise Ordinance. Existing noise conditions shall be monitored for a minimum of 24 hours. The exact barrier location, height, material and noise attenuation characteristics of the barrier shall be based on the final grading plan and detailed architectural plans. The barrier study must be approved by Community Development (Building Division) prior to issuance of a building permit. Community Development (Planning and Building Divisions) shall ensure compliance. HAZARDS 11. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for the existing five medical buildings onsite, the applicant shall submit a sampling report(s) for asbestos contaminated building materials (ACBM). The applicant shall implement all recommendations consistent with OSHA and SCAQMD regulations included in the approved final report. Community Development (Building Division) shall ensure compliance. 12. Construction contracts shall require construction contractors to dispose of all hazardous or solid waste and debris encountered or generated onsite during site cleanup, demolition and construction in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. The applicant shall submit evidence of same to Public Works (Engineering Division) and Community Development (Building Division) prior to issuance of a demolition or grading permit. 13. The applicant shall submit a Hazardous Materials Contingency Plan addressing the potential for discovery of unidentified USTs, hazardous materials, petroleum hydrocarbons, or hazardous or solid waste encountered during construction. The Contingency Plan shall address UST decommissioning, field screening and materials testing methods, mitigation and contamination management requirements and

10 | P a g e

City of Brea

Building Division

City of Brea

Public Works/Engineering Building Division

City of Brea

Fire Services Department and Public Works/Engineering Division

and

health and safety requirements. The Plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Services Department and Public Works (Engineering Division) prior to issuance of a grading permit. The Fire Services Department and Public Works (Engineering Division) shall ensure compliance. 14. The applicant shall submit all available information to the Fire Services Department regarding the former 500-gallon UST located on the west side of the hospital that was removed in 1994. If the applicant cannot provide any documentation of the UST closure with agency oversight and associated subsurface testing in accordance with current standards and regulations (including sampling for MTBE), the applicant shall submit a proposal to the Fire Services Department to locate the UST or UST excavation using geophysical methods. The Orange County Health Agency (OCHA) shall independently review the applicant’s proposed sampling and testing program prior to initiation. If based on the results of the geophysical survey, the UST is still present it shall be closed under the oversight of the OCHA. If soil or contamination is found onsite, the applicant shall prepare and submit its findings to OCHA. OCHA will likely request a Work Plan for additional assessment or remediation. All requirements of a OCHA approved Work Plan shall be implemented and evidence of same submitted to the Fire Services Department. If the UST was removed, soil in the vicinity of the UST backfill shall be assessed under the oversight of OCHA and case closure obtained. All sampling, testing and approval of procedures and reports shall be completed by the applicant prior to issuance of a grading permit. The Fire Services Department shall ensure implementation of this measure. 15. The applicant shall install a potable water use system onsite for irrigation purposes with dual main supply valves to the water supply system; one valve for potable water

11 | P a g e

Orange County Health Care Agency and City of Brea

WATER SUPPLY City of Brea

Orange County Health Care Agency and the Brea Fire Services Department

Building and Public Engineering Divisions

Works/

and a second alternative valve for non-potable water if and when it becomes available in the future. Public Works (Engineering Division) shall specify the location for the valves and Community Development (Building Division) shall specify the requirements for the internal irrigation system. Irrigation plans shall be submitted with each building permit application. Public Works (Engineering Division) and Community Development (Building Division) shall ensure compliance. 16. The applicant shall fund its fair share of $46,704 for the design, construction and administration of replacing 74-feet of the linear reach of the 12-inch diameter wastewater line located across West Lambert Road, 194-feet of the linear reach of the 15-inch diameter wastewater line located west of Brea Canyon Channel and just south of west Lambert Road, and 381-feet of the linear reach of the 15-inch diameter wastewater line located west of Brea Canyon Channel and just north of Imperial Highway. The applicant shall also prepare the improvement plans and the cost estimate for approval by the City Engineer. The plans and cost estimate shall be submitted prior to issuance of a Building Permit for Phase 2 Construction. Construction of the required improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Phase 3 or when Public Works (Engineering Division) specifies that flow monitoring indicates the improvements are required. The applicant shall provide the improvement bond for fair share funding and the two studies listed above, acceptable to the Engineering Division, prior to recordation of the Subdivision Map. Public Works (Engineering Division) shall ensure compliance.

17. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall agree to the formation of a Communities Facilities District (CFD) for the project, and the CFD shall be in

12 | P a g e

SEWER CAPACITY City of Brea

PUBLIC SERVICES City of Brea

Public Works/Engineering Division

Administrative Services, Public Works, Community Development, Fire Services and Community Services Departments

place or to an alternate funding mechanism acceptable to the City. Any CFD shall meet all City and State requirements for CFDs and have the approval of the Administrative Services, Public Works, Community Development, Fire Services and Community Services Departments. Public Works (Engineering Division) and Community Development (Planning Division) shall ensure compliance. City of Brea, Planning Division, April 2012

13 | P a g e

Response to Comments

14 | P a g e

State Clearinghouse Number 2008121065

CENTRAL PARK VILLAGE BREA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Final Project EIR NO. 11-01 Volume 3 of 3

RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS CITY OF BREA Community Development Department Planning Division Brea, California SID LINDMARK, AICP Planning . Environmental . Policy March 1, 2012 Page | 1

FINAL PROJECT EIR NO. 11-01 VOLUME 3 of 3: RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS

CENTRAL PARK VILLAGE BREA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT SCH 2008121065 March 1, 2012 Prepared for: CITY OF BREA Community Development Department Planning Division 1 Civic Center Circle Brea, California 92821 Contact Person: Adrienne Gladson, AICP, Senior Planner (714) 990-7674 Prepared by:

SID LINDMARK, AICP Planning . Environmental . Policy Laguna Hills, California 92653-7401 (949) 855-0416

2|Page

Section 10.0: Response to Public Comments Section 10.1: Public Notices The Central Park Village Brea General Plan Amendment Draft EIR (SCH 2008121065) was circulated for local public review from June 1, 2011 to July 15, 2011. The Notice of Completion of an Environmental Impact Report and Public Hearing (“Notice of Completion”) was filed with the State Clearinghouse and posted on the City’s website. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research correspondence of July 15, 2011 indicates the City has complied with the State Clearinghouse’s CEQA review requirements. Copies of the Notice of Availability were forwarded to over forty local agencies and citizens and to the City of Brea Public Library. The Notice of Availability was published in the Brea Star Progress and Proof of Publication for the notice is included herein. The Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR was posted at City Hall, at the project site, and on the City’s website, www.cityofbrea.net. Copies of Draft EIR No. 11-01 on CD-R disks were available at the Planning Division, on the City’s website and at the local library.

Section 10.2: Public Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses by the City of Brea (e.g. Lead Agency Comments on the Draft EIR were received from four public agencies and five other parties (residents or companies). Two public notices and the comment letters received on the Draft EIR are included below, along with the City’s response to the public comments. City responses to environmental issues raised in the correspondence are included below and were addressed consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088, 15132, and 15204. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

California Department of Transportation, District 12, June 24, 2011 – Page 4 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, July 15, 2011 – Page 9 City of La Habra, June 23, 2011– Page 10 Inoka Khalid, 824 Atkins Lane, Brea, California, July 6, 2011 – Page 13 Jeffrey R. Maisch, Jr., Aera Energy LLC, July 8, 2011 – Page 14 Jeffrey R. Maisch, Project Manager, Aera Energy LLC, July 15, 2011 – Page 14 Sheila and Art Groscost, 352 Trabuco Canyon Way, Brea, CA, July 13, 2011 – Page 16 Peggy Llewellyn, 370 Trabuco Canyon Way, Brea, CA, July 15, 2011 - Page 17 Sapetto Group Inc., 231 E. Memory Lane, Santa Ana, CA (July 15, 2011) - Page 18 - 25 Native American Heritage Commission (June 14, 2011) - Page 26 Orange County Sanitation District (July 14, 2011) - Page 27 Orange County Public Works (July 18, 2011) - Page 29 Notice of Completion of a Draft EIR, May 26, 2011- Page 32 Notice of Availability and Proof of Publication: Brea Star Progress, May 26, 2011 - Page 34

3|Page

1.

California Department of Transportation, District 12 (June 24, 2011).

1-1

The introductory paragraph summarizes the project and no response is required. Comments 1, 3 – 6 in the correspondence are informational and so noted. No new environmental issues are raised by these comments. An HCM analysis for the freeway intersections was included in Appendix D: HCM Calculations in the current traffic study. The project will not impact the SR-57 mainline, as stated in Comment 1. The traffic study provided a freeway mainline analysis in Table 4-6, p. 4-12, and concluded the project had a Less than Significant Impact on the mainline freeway. Austin-Foust Associates has provided responses to all other Caltrans comments in the enclosed memorandum dated September 16, 2011 (AFA01 – AFA06).

CALTRANS01

4|Page

AFA01

CALTRANS02

5|Page

CALTRANS03 AFA02

6|Page

AFA03

AFA04

7|Page

AFA05

AFA06

8|Page

2.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (July 15, 2011).

2-1

The OPR correspondence acknowledges that the City has complied with the State Clearinghouse CEQA review requirements and that the state public review period closed on July 14, 2011. (The local review period also closed on July 15). Since the OPR comments do not raise any new environmental issues, no further response is necessary. Two state agencies, the California Department of Transportation-District 12 (see Letter No. 1) and the Native American Heritage Commission (see Letter No. 10) submitted comments.

OPR01

9|Page

OPR2

OPR3/NAHC1

10 | P a g e

3.

City of La Habra (June 23, 2011).

3-1

Comments related to the traffic study are noted. The traffic study (p. 5-10) acknowledges that any ICU increase at intersections operating at LOS E and F within the City of La Habra and would be subject to the City of La Habra’s Citywide Fee and Phasing Ordinance. Fair share contributions are required even if the project impacts are less than significant (.010). The intersection of Palm Street at Lambert Road meets the criterion and the fair share percentage was calculated in Table 5-4 in Appendix C. Since the project has a Less than Significant Impact at this location, mitigation is not required. However, the City of La Habra’s concerns are being addressed by a required Condition of Approval for the project: 1.

3-2

Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Brea Building Division that project fees required in the City of La Habra Citywide Fee and Phasing Ordinance have been paid. The Building Division shall ensure compliance.

The Draft EIR discusses the removal of the 500-gallon UST removed in 1994 on page 127 and states “there is no current evidence that the case was closed with the appropriate regulatory agency, the Orange County Health Agency.” Mitigation Measure 4 on page 128 of the Draft EIR requires the additional sampling, test and documentation to ensure the case is properly closed. No additional requirements are needed.

LAHABRA01

11 | P a g e

LAHABRA02

12 | P a g e

4.

Inoka Khalid, 824 Atkins Lane, Brea, California 92821 (July 6, 2011) The concerns regarding traffic, congestion, noise and air pollution related to the project are noted. Section 5 of the DEIR includes analysis of five project alternatives, including a single-family and business park alternative and three mixeduse projects with fewer units than the proposed project (Table 5.0-1, p. 182). The recommendation for an all medical office alternative is noted. Please note that medical offices only, assuming an FAR of 0.25 on 15.4 acres and a trip rate of 36.13 per thousand square feet (Table 3.2-3), would generate 6,089 ADT, which is 6 percent greater than the proposed project, which generates 5,725 ADT. The project has minimal impact on the local circulation system, and circulation improvements are required to reduce the cumulative project impact in 2025 at the State College Boulevard and Lambert Road intersection (see p. 63 of the DEIR). The comments on allergies are noted. Allergies are a regional issue related to plant materials and wind patterns, and are not directly related to vehicular air pollutants. The project will have minimal impact on offsite allergy impacts but will expose new residents to existing allergy causing materials.

KHALID01

13 | P a g e

5.

Jeffrey Maisch, Jr., Aera ([email protected]) (July 8, 2011)

Energy

The comment requested a copy of Appendix C: Traffic Study. The study was forwarded to Mr. Maisch by e-mail as an attachment by Adrienne Gladson on July 11, 2011.

6.

Jeffrey R. Maisch, Project Manager, Aera Energy LLC. (July 15, 2011) For informational purposes and geographical orientation, Aera Energy LLC originally filed a project application (Project 02109) with the County of Los Angeles Regional Planning Department for 3,600 dwelling units and 300,000 gsf of mixed use commercial and office use on 2,935 acres north of the City of Brea. Aera later withdrew the initial application and resubmitted the project to the City of Diamond Bar with a request for annexation. The City of Diamond Bar issued a Notice of Preparation for the Aera Master Plan on May 2, 2007. A preannexation agreement with the City of Diamond Bar may result in 2/3 of the project (1,940 acres) being annexed to the City of Diamond Bar. It is the City of Brea’s understanding that the Aera Energy application has been withdrawn. The NOP described a project of 2,800 dwelling units, 200,000 square feet of commercial space, parks and open space. The original project included most of the unincorporated Orange County land north of the City of Brea west of SR-57. The original project proposed direct access to Harbor Boulevard in Rowland Heights and Brea Canyon Road. The proposed mixed-use planning area was located adjacent to Tonner Canyon Road and Brea Canyon Boulevard. No Draft EIR has

AERA01

14 | P a g e

been circulated to date. Given the unknowns surrounding the proposal, it is too speculative to include the Aera project in this environmental analysis at this time. Austin-Foust Associates has provided a direct response to the Aera Energy LLC comments in the prior memorandum dated September 16, 2011 (AFA05), which is repeated below and in Stantec01 to 06 in Section 10.4 (pp. 38-42). Item 2 was previously addressed in Response 3-1.

AFA04

AERA02

15 | P a g e

7.

Sheila and Art Groscost, 352 Trabuco Canyon Way, Brea, CA (July 13, 2011) The concerns related to the magnitude of the proposed project and recommendation for less than 452 dwelling units are noted. Your concerns for the project and cumulative impacts of current and future projects in the City related to air quality, traffic congestion, noise levels and overload on schools are also noted. These project and cumulative environmental issues are addressed in the Final EIR. All potential project impacts, other than the project cumulative impacts on the SR57 ramps at Lambert Road, are mitigated to Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The impact of the project on local schools is mitigated by school impact fees. The concern related to rental properties onsite is noted. Please note that only the multifamily apartments are being processed as rental units, with the option to convert to condominiums later. The proposed townhomes are singlefamily attached units are for sale units and are not proposed as rental townhomes.

GROSCOST01

16 | P a g e

8.

Peggy Llewellyn, 370 Trabuco Canyon Way, Brea, CA (July 15, 2011) The concerns regarding the numerous townhomes and rental apartments planned for the project site, increased traffic and pollution are noted. All potential project impacts, other than the project cumulative impacts on the SR-57 ramps at Lambert Road, are mitigated to Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.

LLEWELLYN01

17 | P a g e

9.

Sapetto Group Inc., 231 E. Memory Lane, Santa Ana, CA (July 15, 2011)

1.

The issues identified to be resolved in the Draft EIR were identified from the project application, the Scoping Session, the Initial Study, discussions with City staff and in review of the technical studies for the project.

2.

The comments regarding Caltrans agreements and the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) are noted. Discussions with the applicant regarding payment for ramp impacts have been on-going since receiving Caltran’s comments. The City is updating its Traffic Impact Nexus Fee Program to include ramp improvements and this update is anticipated to be approved by the City Council prior to action on the Central Park Village project. Absent his update, payment of impact fees related to future ramp improvements will be via a Condition of Approval and separate agreement. Payment of fees for SR-57 ramp improvements for mitigation on cumulative project impacts would result in a Less than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.

3.

A video detection system controls signal operation based on vehicle location and number near a signalized intersection. An approximate cost is $25,000 but the final cost cannot be specified until a contract is issued. The maximum 5,000 cubic yards per day criteria is recommended to reduce particulate impacts upon the adjacent multifamily properties located east of the project.

4.

Yes, the California Green Building Standards Code (CGBS) has been adopted. The word, Draft, does not appear as cited in the comment in the Draft EIR. SAPETTO01

18 | P a g e

5.

Yes, both a building attenuation study and an acoustical study are required. An attenuation study projects the interior noise level of building units for compliance with State noise interior standards. The acoustical study measures existing noise levels onsite from existing offsite sources for onsite uses and makes recommendations of the height and materials for a sound barrier onsite along the southern property boundary.

6.

The comments regarded phasing of the project are noted. The mitigation requirement applies to all phases of the project, whether non-potable water is or is not available at the time of phase submittals. An irrigation system that will accommodate non-potable water is required for each phase. The fair share methodology used is included in Table 4 of Appendix G.

7.

The concerns regarding the financial viability of the project if a Community Facilities District (CFD) is required are noted. The City has initiated a CFD study for the project and the projected costs will be known prior to issuance of a building permit.

8.

The description of trees on page 23 of the Draft EIR is consistent with the Landscape Plan submitted with the project application. The comments regarding changes in the species included in the final Landscape Plan submittal are noted.

9.

The comments indicating the projected population projection of 1,307 persons is high are noted. City staff projected the project population based on bedroom counts, and not on building units. The persons per dwelling unit factors ranges from 1.5 to 3.5 for the apartment units and 3.0 to 4.5 for townhomes. The resulting average persons/dwelling unit for

SAPETTO2

19 | P a g e

the apartments was 2.67 persons per dwelling unit and the average persons per dwelling unit for the townhomes was 3.89 persons per dwelling unit. Sixty-three of the 83 townhomes have three or four bedrooms per unit. More generalized population factors are used to calculate the project’s park fees. 10.

The project has the potential for indirect minor land use impacts on adjacent properties (e.g. noise and air quality). These issues are considered in the traffic, air quality and noise sections of the document and are not addressed on page 48 of the Draft EIR.

11.

The comments regarding affordable housing are noted. The housing costs, apartment rents, and affordable guidelines were consistent with the available information at the time the Draft EIR was written. The City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance is applicable to the project and an affordable housing agreement will be finalized or conditioned prior to Council action on the project.

12.

The attachment is included below as SAPETTO07. The LOS is hereby revised in the FEIR. As stated on page 56, the traffic study was completed in April 2011.

13.

The comment regarding when a significant project impact occurs is noted. The quoted text on page 58 is hereby revised in the Final EIR as follows: A significant project impacts occurs in the City of Brea when a project contributes 0.01 or more to an ICU when the performance standard of LOS D is

SAPETTO3

20 | P a g e

exceeded. Please note that this threshold does not apply to the SR-57 Ramps. A V/C contribution of 0.01 or more is the significance threshold when a ramp is deficient (V/C > 1.00). The conservative approach (per Caltrans) is that when a ramp is deficient, adding any additional traffic causes a significant impact. 14.

No attached errata mark up is included with the comments.

15.

The comment regarding the need for a discussion of the jobs/housing balance in the text is noted. This information is included in Table 5.0-1: Project Alternative Comparison Matrix on page 182 of the Draft EIR. The Industrial alternative would have a jobs/housing ratio of 500/0, the proposed project of 202/452.

16.

The comments regarding the need for a discussion of the jobs/housing balance, AB32 and SB375 are noted. The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32) is discussed on page 84 of the Draft EIR and the Draft EIR discusses the greenhouse gases related to the project on pages 92-93. The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB375) is discussed on page 95 of the Draft EIR. No specific sub-regional emission thresholds have been adopted to implement SB375 to date. However, as noted on page 95, SCAG has adopted greenhouse reduction targets for the region for 2020 and 2035.

17.

Yes, the comments quoted apply to the current application.

SAPETTO4

21 | P a g e

18.

The comments regarding cumulative effects on public services and the projected population estimate are noted. The population estimate for the project was discussed above in Response 9. Although it contains useful information, the Natelson Dale FIR does not address the current application and is outdated. Support for the conclusion that the project has a significant contribution to cumulative public service impacts within the City is not confined to Table 3.9-1, but is also discussed in the following four sections for fire protection, public services, landscaping services and maintenance services on pages 163, 164 of the Draft EIR.

19.

Fire impact fees are used to fund the cost of building fire stations and to purchase new fire engines and equipment required to serve new development.

20.

The proposed park onsite is not a publicly owned park and the park does not include park service needs identified in the City’s Master Plan for Parks and Recreation. All projects are required to comply with City ordinances based on the Quimby Act.

21.

The comments are noted. Student generation factors are used to project enrollment and are not used to calculate school impact fees. The District levels a fixed fee for residential and commercial/industrial uses based on square footage. The current District fee is $2.97 per square foot for residential uses and $0.47 per square foot for commercial uses.

22.

The City has completed a Community Facilities District study for the project. The study is available for public review at the SAPETTO5

22 | P a g e

Planning Division and has been provided to the applicant. 23.

The comments are noted. A single project that constitutes 2.9 percent of the total current population of the City is a significant proportion. At buildout, the project is anticipated to include a population of 1,307 persons.

24.

The comments are noted. The discussion accurately portrays project costs based on the prior fiscal impact report. The per capita factors quoted may be regarded as minimum costs since the study was completed in 2008.

25.

Yes, fire impact fees are assessed currently. They are currently $1,029 per single family unit, $731 per multifamily unit, $191 per thousand square feet of commercial use and $267 per thousand square feet for office uses. The fees are periodically updated and these fees may be revised before future building permits are issued.

26.

The comments are noted. The population estimate was discussed in Response 9. More generalized population factors are used to calculate project park fees. The park credit agreement terms are included in the Development Agreement.

27.

The comments are noted. See Response 20 regarding the payment of park fees for the project.

28.

The comments are noted. Discussions with the applicant regarding payment for ramp impacts have been on-going since receiving Caltran’s comments. The City is updating its Traffic Impact Nexus Fee Program to include ramp improvements and this update is anticipated to be approved by the Council prior to action on the Central Park Village project. Absent this SAPETTO6

23 | P a g e

update, payment of impact fees related to future ramp improvements will be via a Condition of Approval and separate agreement. 29.

The May 2006 Gobar Report is available for review at the Planning Department.

30.

The comments are noted. No additions are recommended for the text since the no-build alternative includes no new uses.

31.

The comments are noted. The primary purpose of project alternatives in a Draft EIR is to identify other projects with less environmental impacts than the proposed project. The project alternative analysis is not a project feasibility analysis.

32.

The comments are noted. Project alternatives that include fewer residential units may result in greater open space, which could be used for a community park or community facility. The amount of park space or open space is not specified for Alternatives 3-6 in Table 5.0-1: Project Alternatives Comparison Matrix.

33.

The comments are noted. The fiscal impact report did not include the cost of mitigation measures or include Community Facilities District costs. A fiscal impact report discusses revenues and expenditures for the City only. Table 8: Calculation of Property Tax Base is included in the Fiscal Impact Report (February 4, 2008).

24 | P a g e

SAPETTO07

25 | P a g e

10.

Native American Heritage Commission (June 14, 2011)

The comments regarding consultation and CEQA requirements for cultural resources are noted. As noted, the Sacred Lands File search of the project location and Native American cultural resources were not identified by the USGS coordinates for the project.

NAHC01

26 | P a g e

11.

Orange County Sanitation District (July 14, 2011) The comments that the project will not pose an impact to the sewer system, the recommended flow factors, and the information that construction dewatering operations may require an OCSD permit are noted.

OCSD01

27 | P a g e

OCSD02

28 | P a g e

12.

Orange County Public Works (July 18, 2011) Environmental Resources

1.

The comments referring to page 29 and 166-168 are noted. The reference to San Gabriel Regional Water Quality Control Board is hereby changed to Santa Ana Regional Water Control Board on p. 167 in Section 3.10.4: Hydrology/Water Quality. The project will comply with BMPS consistent with the Model Water Quality Management Plan for Orange County approved by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board in 2011.

2.

The comments relative to the Total Maximum Daily Loads for Coyote Creek and the requirements that the project not create additional loading of these constituents with established wasteload allocations are noted. The requirements will be met with approval of the Water Quality Management Plan for the project prior to issuance of the final grading permit.

Flood Programs 1.

The Draft EIR adequately identifies regional and sub-regional drainage facilities owned and operated by Orange County Flood Control District and the County of Orange in the vicinity of the project area including Brea Canyon Channel (Facility No. A04) and Memory Garden Storm Channel (Facility No. A04S01). The relevant information on project impacts to these facilities are disclosed in Section 3.10.4 and in the Draft Water Quality Management Plan for Brea Central Tract No. 39-35 & 70-04, APN 296-241, 340-420 West Central Avenue, Brea, California (Saxon Engineering Service, January 27, 2009). The report is available upon request. To summarize, the project improves discharge conditions to these two facilities because at buildout the project considerably reduces the percentage of impervious areas on-site.

OCPW01

29 | P a g e

The existing impervious area of the site covers approximately 85-90 percent while the project improves conditions because it increases (down approximately 21 to 26 percent) the permeable (additional open space and use of new permeable areas) surfaces on-site. The City is not aware of existing deficiencies to convey 100-year discharges to either of the two identified storm water facilities plus we note due to project design and the use of structural BMPs future storm flows from the project will improve and are anticipated to be significantly less than the current storm flows. A hydrology study and hydraulic analysis is required to be submitted for Public Works review concurrently with the grading and drainage plan prior to permit issuance. The project is required to address any deficiencies identified in these studies as part of the final Public Works submittal.

2.

The comments regarding pre- and post-project discharges from the site are noted. The project is conditioned to perform proper engineering analysis to fully demonstrate and confirm that discharges on and off-site are essentially the same. The hydrology study is required to be submitted for Public Works review concurrently with the grading and drainage plan prior to permit issuance. See Response 1.

3.

The comments regarding the hydrological and hydraulic analyses requirement are noted.

4.

The comments regarding the Orange County Hydrology Manual and the Orange County Flood Control Design Manual are noted. A hydrology study is required as a Condition of Approval and is submitted concurrently with the preliminary grading and drainage plan.

OCPW02

30 | P a g e

5.

The need for an OPW encroachment permit for any improvements within Orange County Flood District (OCFD) right-of-way is noted.

OCPW03

31 | P a g e

13. Notice of Completion of a Draft EIR (May 26, 2011)

A copy of the NOC is provided herein as a matter of public record.

NOC01

32 | P a g e

NOC02

NOC03

33 | P a g e

14.

Proof of Publication: Brea Star Progress (May 26, 2011) Proof of publication is provided as a matter of public record only.

POP01

34 | P a g e

Section 10.3: Revisions to the Draft EIR 1.

In Table 3.2-14 in the Draft EIR and in Table 4-1 in Appendix C, the Level of Service designations for the State College & Lambert Road Existing-Plus-Project scenario are incorrect. The LOS for the am peak hour is C and the LOS for the pm peak hour is B. The revised information does not result in any new significant effect and does not alter the discussion in the text.

2.

The text on page 58 is hereby revised in the Final EIR as follows: A significant project impacts occurs in the City of Brea when a project contributes 0.02 or more to an ICU when the performance standard of LOS D is exceeded.

3.

The reference to San Gabriel Regional Water Quality Control Board on page 167, Section 3.10.4, is hereby changed to Santa Ana Regional Water Control Board.

4.

As stated in Austin-Foust Associates memorandum dated September 16, 2011, Response to Item 13 on page 3, the footnote in Table 3-1, on page 3-3 of the traffic study in Appendix C is revised to state: “a 40% retail pass-by reduction was used” instead of the stated “34%.retail pass-by reduction.” The same revision is required on page 61 in the Draft EIR for the footnotes for Table 3.2-3.

5.

The project site location and facilities meet the objectives of an Activity Node, as defined in the General Plan in the Community Development Element. Activity Nodes were discussed in the Draft EIR on page 39 and their objectives include being a major center of public life, including main street commercial or village concepts, including streetscape amenities and public places for pedestrians. Exhibit 3-4: Urban Design Map indicated the existing Activity Node in the Northwest Neighborhoods was located at West Central Avenue and Puente Street (page 40 of Draft EIR). The project site will become an Activity Node for the Northwest Neighborhood and if the project is approved, the Activity Node in the General Plan will be moved from its existing location to the project site. This requires a change in the Urban Design Map in the Community Development Element, deletion of the first paragraph of the Draft EIR on page 52 and a corresponding deletion in Exhibit 3-4 in the Draft EIR

6.

See the revised Central Park plan on page 37 which shows several modified physical features to the park including a splash pad, fountain plaza, outdoor art walk, shade pockets, children play area, walk path, and introspective garden. The revised plan includes open space amenities that are in response to Mitigation Measure 1.b in order to provide opportunities for park usage by all ages, not only for residents living within the project, but for those in Northwest Brea that reside nearby.

35 | P a g e

Section 10.4: New Material Added in the Final EIR The following materials clarify and provide further explanation of issues discussed and evaluated in the Draft EIR. The new material added to the Final EIR merely clarifies and amplifies the Draft EIR and does not constitute significant new information that would trigger recirculation under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5 The materials added to the Final EIR include: 1.

The Responses provided by Austin-Foust Associates (July 28, 2011) on traffic comments provided by Caltrans and Aera Energy (i. e. Comment Letters 1, 6 above) are hereby added to the Final EIR. The responses do not identify new significant project impacts.

2.

The applicant has submitted a revised plan for Central Park. The revisions primarily increase the number of park activities for children and provide two turf mound areas, more seating areas and more landscaping, as opposed to a single turf area in the initial plan. The revised park plan replaces Exhibit 2-7: Central Park on page 23 of the DEIR. No new significant environmental impacts result from the revised park plan.

3.

The project is required to provide 45 multi-family affordable rental units restricted to moderate income for 55 years. If converted to for-sale condos then 45 units must be sold to moderate income buyers (with first option to the existing tenants) with a new 45-year “ownership” covenant. This information is hereby added to the discussion of affordable housing in Section 3.1.2 on page 54 of the Draft EIR.

36 | P a g e

Revised Central Park Plan

37 | P a g e

4.

Several comments were raised during the Study Session before the Planning Commission on August 23, 2011:

Comment 4.1. Neither the traffic study nor the EIR section includes a discussion of Brea Canyon Road capacity or impacts of adding project traffic to that roadway. Response 4.1 by Austin-Foust Associates Response. Brea Canyon Road is not addressed in this traffic study because the proposed project will add 125 daily trips to this roadway, which is 0.625 percent of the total forecast volume (2025 volume is 20,000 ADT). The trip distribution of three percent is applied to the total project increment. The trip distribution is taken directly from the Brea Area Traffic Model (BATM), which is a subarea model based on the parent OCTAM model. As such, it uses the same distribution as used for all local and regional analyses in Orange County. Trips on this roadway are destined for LA County, which has few destination areas (e.g., employment) within close proximity, particularly given the large number of destinations in Brea and the surrounding part of Orange County. Comment 4.2. Is the Aera Energy project included in the traffic model? Response 4.2. See the enclosed Memorandum below addressed to David Crabtree from Cassandra Carlin of Austin-Foust Associates Inc. dated October 11, 2011.

38 | P a g e

AFA07

39 | P a g e

Table 1 NCSAM/BATM – LAND USE SUMMARY

Zone 200 201 202 203 Total

1 1 1 1

Land Use Type Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential

Units DU DU DU DU

Existing Amount 0 0 0 0

2025 Amount 36 10 72 50

Difference 36 10 72 50

1

Single Family Residential

DU

0

168

168

Table 2 NCSAM/BATM – LAND USE SUMMARY

Zone 988

Total

1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9

Land Use Type Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Population Employed Residents Retail Employment Service Employment Other Employment High School

Units DU DU Pop E-R Emp Emp Emp STU

Existing Amount 6,697 2,825 32,712 13,537 1,858 2,510 958 5,525

2025 Amount 8,144 5,064 38,235 15,208 1,877 2,941 812 6,225

Difference 1,447 2,239 5,523 1,671 19 431 -146 700

Total Residential Total Employment

DU Emp

9,522 5,326

13,208 5,630

3,686 304

AFA08

40 | P a g e

AFA09

41 | P a g e

AFA10

42 | P a g e

AFA11

43 | P a g e

Section 10.5: Additional Materials from Public Hearings None to date.

44 | P a g e